Migrant Smuggling: Europe Must Make a U-Turn

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Europe, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Picture Alliance / Pacific Press | Geovien So

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Apr 11 2025 (IPS) – Europe must understand that the only reasonable and humane way to tackle migrant smuggling is to open regular routes for people to reach Europe in safety and dignity.

Europe’s approach to migrant ‘smuggling’ is harmful and absurd.

Instead of tackling the lack of regular pathways, thereby forcing people to embark in dangerous migration journeys, European countries are targeting migrants, human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers and ordinary citizens — all while injecting billions into the border surveillance industry.

People rely on smuggling because there are no better ways to get to Europe. But cracking down on alleged ‘smugglers’ – often migrants themselves – does not create better options. On the contrary, it pushes more people onto ever more dangerous routes, while threatening those who help them — and the EU’s new Facilitation Directive is likely to make things worse.

Criminalising solidarity

Proposed by the European Commission at the end of 2023, this Directive is meant to update previous rules to counter migrant smuggling (the 2002 Facilitators Package). However, in reality, it follows the same old broken pattern.

The current text, largely validated by the EU Council last December, expands the definition of what can be considered ‘migrant smuggling’ and ups prison sentences across the board.

The European Parliament is set to start debating its own position on the Directive this month, with a final vote expected in the summer, before entering final negotiations with the Commission and Council towards the end of the year.

What’s more, the text fails to clearly protect solidarity with people in an irregular situation from criminalisation. There is no ‘humanitarian clause’ included among the legally binding provisions; member states are simply invited not to criminalise acts of solidarity.

This generates significant legal uncertainty, as recognised by a recent study requested by the European Commission itself. With far-right and other anti-immigration forces in power in several member states and leading in polls in others, it’s easy to see how such a failure leaves the door wide open to the criminalisation and harassment of family members, NGOs, human rights defenders and ordinary citizens who are helping people in need.

This is not a fantasy scenario. At PICUM we have been documenting a steady increase in the criminalisation of solidarity with migrants in recent years. Between January 2021 and March 2022, at least 89 people were criminalised, in 2022 at least 102 and in 2023 at least 117.

Migrants themselves are also increasingly being prosecuted for simply helping fellow travellers through routes made irregular and dangerous by repressive policies.

These figures are most likely an undercount. Statistical and official data on those accused, charged or convicted of smuggling and related offences are often lacking. Many cases go unreported by the media or because people, especially migrants themselves, fear retaliation.

Behind these numbers are people who have saved lives at sea, given a lift or provided shelter, food, water or clothes. In Latvia, two citizens were charged with facilitating irregular entry simply for giving food and water to migrants stranded at the border with Belarus.

In Poland, five people are facing up to five years in prison for providing humanitarian aid to people stranded at the border with Belarus.

Just a few weeks ago, Italian judges in Crotone acquitted Maysoon Majidi, a Kurdish-Iranian activist and filmmaker, who was arrested in 2023 on human trafficking charges following a landing of migrants in Calabria. Majidi faced a sentence of two years and four months in prison.

The prosecutor in Crotone had accused her of being ‘the captain’s assistant’ because, based on the unverified testimonies of two people on board, she distributed water and food on the vessel. The ‘witnesses’ later retracted their statements, but Majidi still spent 300 days in pre-trial detention.

In Greece, an Egyptian fisherman and his 15-year-old child were charged with smuggling, simply because the father reluctantly agreed to pilot their boat in order to afford the journey. The father was placed in pre-trial detention and sentenced to 280 years in prison. Not only has the child been separated from his father, but he is now facing the same charges in a juvenile court.

Who benefits?

Counter-smuggling policies clearly fail to make migration safer. As migration expert Hein De Haas has written: ‘It is the border controls that have forced migrants to take more dangerous routes and that have made them more and more dependent on smugglers to cross borders.

Smuggling is a reaction to border controls rather than a cause of migration in itself.’ So, who actually benefits from these policies — besides politicians chasing short-term electoral gains?

Between 2021 and 2027, the EU’s budget dedicated to the management of borders, visa and customs controls increased by 135 per cent compared to the previous programming period, from €2.8 billion to €6.5 billion.

Europe must understand that the only reasonable and humane way to tackle migrant smuggling is to open regular routes for people to reach Europe in safety and dignity.

Much of this budget increase is driven by private corporations, including major defence companies such as Airbus, Thales, Leonardo and Indra, which have a vested economic interest in border surveillance.

According to research by the foundation porCausa, the Spanish government awarded over €660 million for the control of Spain’s southern border between 2014 and 2019. Most of this money went to 10 large corporations, mainly for border surveillance (€551 million), detention and deportation (€97.8 millions).

In the negotiation phase of the Facilitation Directive, the Council has already adopted a position that would leave the door open to the criminalisation of migrants and the provision of humanitarian aid.

The European Parliament still has the opportunity to adopt an ambitious mandate. MEPs should understand what is at stake if a binding clause to protect migrants and solidarity from criminalisation is not introduced.

Beyond this Directive, Europe must understand that the only reasonable and humane way to tackle migrant smuggling is to open regular routes for people to reach Europe in safety and dignity.

Michele LeVoy is Director, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), a network of organizations working to ensure social justice and human rights for undocumented migrants.

Source: International Politics and Society (IPS), Brussels.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Civil Society’s Reform Vision Gains Urgency as the USA Abandons UN Institutions

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

LONDON, Apr 2 2025 (IPS) – Today’s multiple and connected crises – including conflicts, climate breakdown and democratic regression – are overwhelming the capabilities of the international institutions designed to address problems states can’t or won’t solve. Now US withdrawal from global bodies threatens to worsen a crisis in international cooperation.

The second Trump administration quickly announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO), terminated its cooperation with the UN Human Rights Council, walked out of negotiations on a global tax treaty and imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court officials.

Although the USA has sometimes been an obstructive force, including by repeatedly blocking Security Council resolutions on Israel, global institutions lose legitimacy when powerful states opt out. While all states are formally equal in the UN, the reality is that the USA’s decisions to participate or quit matter more than most because it’s a superpower whose actions have global implications. It’s also the biggest funder of UN institutions, even if it has a poor record in paying on time.

As it stands, the USA’s WHO withdrawal will take effect in January 2026, although the decision could face a legal challenge and Trump could rescind his decision if the WHO makes changes to his liking, since deal-making powered by threats and brinkmanship is how he does business. But if withdrawal happens, the WHO will be hard hit. The US government is the WHO’s biggest contributor, providing around 18 per cent of funding. That’s a huge gap to fill, and it’s likely the organisation will have to cut back its work. Progress towards a global pandemic treaty, under negotiation since 2021, may be hindered.

It’s possible philanthropic sources will step up their support, and other states may help fill the gap. The challenge comes if authoritarian states take advantage of the situation by increasing their contributions and expect greater influence in return. China, for example, may be poised to do so.

That’s what happened when the first Trump administration pulled out of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). China filled the vacuum by increasing its contributions to become UNESCO’s biggest annual funder. Presumably not coincidentally, a Chinese official became its deputy head, while China was able to block Taiwan’s attempts to join. It was out of concern about this growing influence that the Biden administration took the USA back into UNESCO in 2023; that decision could now be reversed, as Trump has claimed UNESCO is biased against the USA and ordered a review.

The Human Rights Council may be less immediately affected because the USA isn’t currently a member, its term having ended at the close of 2024. It rejoined in 2021 after Trump pulled out in 2018, and had already made the unusual decision not to seek a second term, likely because this would have provoked a backlash over its support for Israel. Apart from its relationship with Israel, however, during its term under the Biden administration the USA was largely recognised as playing a positive role in the Council’s business. If it refuses to cooperate, it deprives US citizens of a vital avenue of redress.

The USA’s actions may also inspire other states with extremist leaders to follow suit. Argentina’s President Milei, a keen Trump admirer, has imitated him by announcing his country’s departure from the WHO. Political leaders in Hungary and Italy have discussed doing the same. Israel followed the USA in declaring it wouldn’t engage with the Human Rights Council. For its own reasons, in February authoritarian Nicaragua also announced its withdrawal from the Council following a report critical of its appalling human rights record.

It could be argued that institutions like the Human Rights Council and UNESCO, having survived one Trump withdrawal, can endure a second. But these shocks come at a different time, when the UN system is already more fragile and damaged. Now the very idea of multilateralism and a rules-based international order is under attack, with transactional politics and hard-nosed national power calculations on the rise. Backroom deals resulting from power games are replacing processes with a degree of transparency aimed at achieving consensus. The space for civil society engagement and opportunities for leverage are in danger of shrinking accordingly.

Real reform needed

Revitalising the UN may seem a tall order when it’s under attack, but as CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report outlines, civil society has ideas about how to save the UN by putting people at its heart. The UNMute Civil Society initiative, backed by over 300 organisations and numerous states, makes five calls to improve civil society’s involvement: using digital technologies to broaden participation, bridging digital divides by focusing on connectivity for the most excluded, changing procedures and practices to ensure effective and meaningful participation, creating an annual civil society action day as an opportunity to assess progress on civil society participation and appointing a UN civil society envoy.

Each of these ideas is practical and could open up space for greater reforms. A UN civil society envoy could, for example, promote best practices in civil society participation across the UN and ensure a diverse range of civil society is involved in the UN’s work.

Civil society is also calling for competitive Human Rights Council elections, with a civil society role in scrutinising candidates, and limits on Security Council veto powers. And as time approaches to pick a new UN Secretary-General, civil society is mobilising the 1 for 8 billion campaign, pushing for an open, transparent, inclusive and merit-based selection process. The office has always been held by a man, and the call is for the UN to make history by appointing a feminist woman leader.

These would all offer small steps towards making the UN system more open, democratic and accountable. There’s nothing impossible or unimaginable about these ideas, and times of crisis create opportunities to experiment. States that want to reverse the tide of attacks on international cooperation and revitalise the UN should work with civil society to take them forward.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

  Source

The Impact of US Funding Freeze on Civil Society Around the World

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of assembly and of association

Gina Romero

BOGOTA, Colombia, Feb 27 2025 (IPS) – The U.S. administration has the prerogative to review and adjust public expenditure policies, including foreign aid. However, this power must be exercised responsibly, adhering to national and international legal frameworks, including the principles of human rights law.

The recent decisions by the Trump administration to freeze federal grants and loans, including foreign aid, have raised serious concerns about the implications for local, national and international associations.

These measures, which followed executive orders aimed at “reevaluating” U.S. foreign assistance and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, risk undermining the freedoms that are vital to democratic societies.

In a letter sent to the USG, 35 UN experts indicate that the freeze on funding and stop work orders has been described as a drastic measure that could have a far-reaching impact on the ability of individuals and organizations to advocate for and protect human rights.

The decision to stop work on federal projects, including critical programs funded through foreign aid, is having an immediate effect on vulnerable communities and human rights defenders worldwide. The ripple effects are particularly severe for marginalized groups who depend on these resources for essential services like healthcare, education, access to food and housing.

These measures also disproportionately affect organizations working on gender equality, LGBTIQ issues, reproductive rights, and poverty alleviation, which are already underfunded and face significant challenges in the global South.

The implications of these measures affect different type of associations, including small and medium-sized businesses, not-for-profit entities, civil society organizations, universities, faith-based groups, and even scientific research institutions that rely on U.S. funding to carry out their work.

The speed and scale of the funding freeze have left these entities unable to fulfil their missions. Some have already been forced to lay off staff, suspend vital programs, and even close their doors, leading to the shrinking of civic space in countries where they have long been key players in advocating for democracy, human rights, and sustainable development.

The Need for Proportionality, Transparency, and Legal Compliance

While the goal of effective public expenditure is commendable, its success depends on a transparent and inclusive process that is in line with legal standards, including international human rights law. These measures, which were implemented with little consultation or clear communication, have not adhered to the principle of proportionality, which is enshrined in both domestic and international law.

The absence of transparent guidelines, accountability mechanisms, respect for due process, and avenues for appeal is troubling, especially when the measures have such wide-reaching consequences.

International human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is a signatory, guarantees the right to freedom of association. This right not only protects the ability to form associations but also to carry out the activities for which those associations were established.

The freedom to access resources is a critical component of this right, as it enables organizations to seek, receive, and use resources from a variety of sources, both domestic and international. When funding is denied, it effectively denies organizations the means to operate, undermining their ability to fulfil their missions.

The freeze on U.S. funding, without due process or clear guidelines, is in direct conflict with these principles. The lack of clarity on how decisions are made or how organizations can challenge them undermines the rights of associations.

Furthermore, the failure to involve stakeholders—including U.S. civil society organizations—in the decision-making process is a violation of the principles of democratic governance and transparency.

The Global Impact of U.S. Funding Decisions

The far-reaching consequences of the funding freeze are most acutely felt in countries where U.S. aid supports critical initiatives in areas such as healthcare, education, peacebuilding, and human rights protection.

For example, programs addressing sexual and reproductive health are at immediate risk of cessation. Similarly, efforts to combat gender-based violence, support displaced communities, and provide education to marginalized groups are being disrupted.

In addition to these humanitarian concerns, the freeze also threatens to derail long-standing initiatives aimed at promoting democracy, good governance, and the rule of law. U.S. foreign aid has long been a pillar of support for civil society organizations that monitor elections, promote anti-corruption efforts, and advocate for human rights protections, among others.

The suspension of funding to these programs undermines not only the work of these organizations but also the broader goal of promoting democratic values worldwide.

The U.S. government’s decision to cut funding to programs that address discrimination—particularly those related to DEI initiatives—has sparked additional controversy. These measures have the potential to undermine efforts to protect individuals from workplace discrimination and ensure equal access to opportunities.

By targeting DEI programs, the administration is signalling a shift away from policies designed to address structural inequalities, which could have long-term negative effects on social justice worlwide.

The Stigmatization of Civil Society Organizations

Another concerning consequence of these decisions is the stigmatization of associations managing and receiving U.S. funding. The administration’s rhetoric has painted many civil society organizations as threats to national security.

This kind of stigmatization is dangerous because its fosters hostility toward groups that are engaged in legitimate advocacy for development, human rights and democratic governance.

Also, it places these organizations—and their staff—at risk of harassment, intimidation, and even physical violence, particularly in countries where civil society organizations are already under threat. Stigmatization is the entry door for repression and violence.

This pattern of vilification has serious consequences. As I noted in my more recent report to the UN General Assembly, negative narratives about civil society organizations and other associations deepen the stigmatization of activists and organizations, leading to increased repression, physical attacks, and online harassment.

These dynamics create an environment in which activists and civil society organizations are seen not as contributors to public good but as enemies.

The Path Forward: Upholding Human Rights and Civil Society

The decision to freeze funding may have been motivated by a desire to ensure more effective public spending, but it risks doing lasting damage to civil society. The lack of transparency, failure to follow due process, and disregard for international human rights law make these measures problematic.

To ensure that the U.S. upholds its commitment to human rights and the freedom of association, it is imperative that the U.S. government must urgently comply with the recent court orders, pay invoices, reconsider the impact of its freeze on foreign aid and federal grants and to compensate for the damage done. Besides, future decisions regarding foreign aid and public funding be made with greater clarity, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.

The U.S. must also recognize that associations in general and civil society organizations in particular are critical to the realization of human rights. These organizations play an essential role in advocating for the protection of fundamental freedoms, including the rights to health, education, and social justice.

Freezing funding and issuing stop work orders without clear and transparent procedures not only undermines these organizations but also threatens to dismantle vital systems of support for marginalized communities.

It is crucial that the U.S. government ensures that future funding decisions are made with respect for international human rights standards, that organizations are able to access the resources they need to carry out their work, and that the right to freedom of association is upheld.

In conclusion, the freeze on U.S. funding represents a significant threat to the functioning of civil society organizations and to the protection of human rights globally. While the government’s decision to review public expenditure is within its rights, the approach taken thus far raises serious concerns about transparency, proportionality, and adherence to international human rights law.

To avoid further harm, the U.S. must prioritize the protection of civil society, uphold the right to freedom of association, and ensure that any policy changes are made in a manner that respects the fundamental freedoms on which democracy depends.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Trump’s War on Global Governance: Lessons from the Past on How to Fight Back

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Daniel D. Bradlow is Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

In a powerful appeal to the world’s largest economies during the G20 Summit, November 2024, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for urgent climate action and reform of international institutions, warning that current systems are failing to meet global challenges. Credit: UN Photo/Gustavo Stephan

PRETORIA, South Africa, Feb 19 2025 (IPS) – US president Donald Trump’s recent actions seem designed to reassert American power and demonstrate that it is still the dominant global power and is capable of bullying weaker nations into following America’s lead.

He has shown contempt for international collaboration by withdrawing from the UN climate negotiations and the World Health Organization. His officials have also indicated that they will not participate in upcoming G20 meetings because he does not like the policies of South Africa, the G20 president for 2025.

In addition, he’s shown a lack of concern for international solidarity by halting US aid programmes and by undermining efforts to keep businesses honest. He has demonstrated his contempt for allies by imposing tariffs on their exports.

These actions demand a response from the rest of the international community that mitigates the risk to the well-being of people and planet and the effective management of global affairs.
My research on global economic governance suggests that history can offer some guidance on how to shape an effective response.

Such a response should be based on a realistic assessment of the configuration of global forces. It should seek to build tactical coalitions between state and non-state actors in both the global south and the global north who can agree on clear and limited objectives.

The following three historical lessons help explain this point.

Cautionary lessons

The first lesson is about the dangers of being overoptimistic in assessing the potential for change. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the US was confronting defeat in the war in Vietnam, high inflation and domestic unrest, including the assassination of leading politicians and the murder of protesting students.

The US was also losing confidence in its ability to sustain the international monetary order it had established at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.

In addition, the countries of the global south were calling for a new international economic order that was more responsive to their needs. Given the concerns about the political and economic situation in the US and the relative strength of the Soviet bloc at the time, this seemed a realistic demand.

In August 1971, President Richard Nixon, without any international consultations, launched what became known as the Nixon Shock. He broke the link between gold and the US dollar, thereby ending the international monetary system established in 1944. He also imposed a 10% surcharge on all imports into the US.

When America’s European allies protested and sought to create a reformed version of the old monetary order, US treasury secretary John Connolly informed them that the dollar was our currency but your problem.

Over the course of the 1970s, US allies in western Europe, Asia and all countries that participated in the old Bretton Woods system were forced to accept what the US preferred: a market-based international monetary system in which the US dollar became the dominant currency.

The US, along with its allies in the global north, also defeated the calls for a new international economic order and imposed their neo-liberal economic order on the world.

The second cautionary lesson highlights the importance of building robust tactical coalitions. In 1969, the International Monetary Fund member states agreed to authorise the IMF to create special drawing rights, the IMF’s unique reserve asset.

At the time, many IMF developing country member states advocated establishing a link between development and the special drawing rights. This would enable those countries most in need of additional resources to access more than their proportionate share of special drawing rights to fund their development.

All developing countries supported this demand. But they couldn’t agree on how to do it. The rich countries were able to exploit these differences and defeat the proposed link between the special drawing rights and development.

As a result, the special drawing rights are now distributed to all IMF member states according to their quotas in the IMF. This means that most allocations go to the rich countries who do not need them and have no obligation to share them with developing countries.

A third lesson arises from the successful Jubilee 2000 campaign to forgive the debts of low-income developing countries experiencing debt crises. This campaign, supported by a secretariat in the United Kingdom, eventually involved: civil society organisations and activists in 40 countries a petition signed by 21 million people and governments in both creditor and debtor countries.

These efforts resulted in the cancellation of the debts of 35 developing countries. These debts, totalling about US$100 billion, were owed primarily to bilateral and multilateral official creditors.

They were also a demonstration of the political power that can be generated by the combined actions of civil society organisations and governments in both rich and poor countries.

They can force the most powerful and wealthy institutions and individuals in the world to accept actions that, while requiring them to make affordable sacrifices, benefit low-income countries and potentially poor communities within those states.

What conclusions should be drawn?

We shouldn’t under-estimate the power of the US or the determination of the MAGA movement to use that power. However, their power is not absolute. It is constrained by the relative decline in US power as countries such as China and India gain economic and political strength.

In addition, there are now mechanisms for international cooperation, such as the G20, where states can coordinate their actions and gain tactical victories that are meaningful to people and planet.

But gaining such victories will require the following:

Firstly, the formation of tactical coalitions that include states from both the global south and the global north. If these states cooperate around limited and shared objectives they can counter the vested interests around the world that support Trump’s objectives.

Secondly, a special kind of public-private partnership in which states and non-state actors set aside their differences and agree to cooperate to achieve limited shared objectives. Neither states alone nor civil society groups alone were able to defeat the vested interests that opposed debt relief in the late 1990s. Working together they were able to defeat powerful creditor interests and gain debt relief for the poorest states.

Thirdly, this special partnership will only be possible if there’s general agreement on both the diagnosis of the problem and on the general contours of the solution. This was the case with the debt issue in the 1990s.

There are good candidates for such collaborative actions. For example, many states and non-state actors agree that international financial institutions need to be reformed and made more responsive to the needs of those member states that actually use their services but lack voice and vote in their governance.

The institutions also need to be more accountable to those affected by their policies and practices. They also agree that large corporations and financial institutions should pay their fair share of taxes and should be environmentally and socially responsible.

The urgency of the challenges facing the global community demands that the world begin countering Trump as soon as possible. South Africa as the current chair of the G20 has a special responsibility to ensure that this year the G20, together with its engagement groups, acts creatively and responsibly in relation to people and planet.

Source: Conversation Africa

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

The “Fierce Urgency of Now”– to Reverse Course in Haiti

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Haiti’s destiny ‘bright’ despite terrifying escalation of violence. Credit: UNOCHA/Giles Clarke
 
Young Haitians are calling for peace and stability in the troubled Caribbean nation.

NEW YORK, Jan 27 2025 (IPS) – As we commemorated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Day on January 20, 2025—a day that also marked America welcoming its newly elected president—we honor the legacy of this civil rights leader by reflecting on his powerful words: “We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now.”

These words resonate deeply as we grapple with the ongoing struggle to sustain hope in Haiti and reclaim our pride as the first Black republic to achieve freedom, won through the sacrifice and blood of our ancestors in their fight against colonialism.

How ironic it is that today, we—descendants of those who fought for liberty—are mocked in a land that proclaims itself the “Land of the Free.” We live in fear of deportation, our only crime being forced out of our homeland by unbearable circumstances. These circumstances have been shaped, in large part, by decades of misguided foreign interventions and interference.

Since the much-acclaimed U.S. military intervention in 1994, which was intended to uphold democracy, we have instead seen the dismantling of Haiti’s military and a reversal of order in our country. For the past 30 years, we have endured chaos and anarchy fueled by ineffective Haitian leadership, propped up under American tutelage.

Unless Haiti is allowed to chart its own course, the much-touted “assistance” provided in the name of empathy will only perpetuate the root causes of our problems, dooming yet another generation of young Haitians.

Recent statements by Senator Rubio, during his confirmation hearing as Secretary of State, praising the increased deployment of troops from Kenya and El Salvador, do not inspire hope for meaningful change. These actions appear to perpetuate the same failed policies that prioritize foreign-led solutions over empowering Haitians to reclaim control of their future.

Despite this, we take a moment to extend our prayers and best wishes to Mr. Trump as he assumes the role of leader of the free world. While his previous rhetoric may have reflected misgivings about us, we remain hopeful that he will prioritize the shared interests of our two nations.

We fervently wish that his administration will support The Future We Want embodied in the Ayiti 2030 Agenda Initiative as a path toward immediate order and stability in our country.

A Call to Action

We urge all members of the Haitian community and their friends to contact their elected representatives and advocate for support of The Future We Want: The Ayiti 2030 Agenda Initiative.

The Future We Want:

    1. A United Haiti – Achieved through a transitional government authority that unites all factions and the nation without foreign interference.
    2. A Country of Institutions – Guided by a transitional government committed to electoral reforms, ensuring that future elections reflect the true will of the people and inspire confidence among all stakeholders, rather than devolving into superficial popularity contests.
    3. A Country of Jobs – Spearheaded by a transitional government that mobilizes resources from Haitians abroad to launch a massive, community-led relief effort focused on humanitarian intervention—not foreign armed intervention—paving the way for dynamic economic innovation.

The world must know that, as a people who have cherished freedom as deeply as Americans have, we are fully capable of rebuilding our nation without divisive foreign interference.

Haiti will rise again.

Haiti shall overcome!

Harvey Dupiton is Head of United Nations Association, Haiti, and Member of the NGO Community at the United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

UN Claims to Strengthen Battle Against Racism in Workplace—Amid Reservations

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

The UN reflects on its progress addressing racism within its Secretariat as it approaches its 80th anniversary, highlighting the impact of the Anti-Racism Office since its inception in 2023

UN Staff Honour Colleagues Fallen in Gaza. Credit: UN Photo

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 16 2025 (IPS) – As the United Nations plans to commemorate its 80th anniversary later this year, it is “reflecting on the steps taken to advance implementation of the Secretary-General’s Strategic Action Plan for addressing racism in the UN Secretariat.

The UN’s Anti-Racism Office, which was created in 2023, has hosted several online events that reached over 13,500 participants and generated 2,000 comments, and welcomed 2,700 visitors to its iSeek page (accessible only by staffers)—possibly a reflection of the rising complaints and concerns of UN staffers.

In a circular to staffers, the Office claims it has “collaborated closely with other UN entities and a growing global network of Anti-Racism Advocates, to foster a workplace that is safe, inclusive and equitable for all UN personnel, regardless of their race”

Together with the Office of Human Resources (OHR) and the Department of Operational Support (DOS), the Anti-Racism Office has been working on increasing fairness in recruitment processes through projects such as strengthening “blind hiring” practices and requiring diversity on hiring panels, which will be fully implemented in 2025.

Ian Richards, former President of the Coordination Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA), representing over 60,000 UN staffers, told IPS some of the practices being proposed, such as “blind hiring” and “mixed panels”, make sense. The unions have been requesting this for years. Although defining racial diversity in a legal manner may prove challenging.

At the same time, he pointed out, there are many competing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, (DEI) initiatives right now: Anti-racism, gender parity, disability inclusion, LGBTQIA, regional diversity, age diversity.

Each has their own office, coordinator, focal point network, action plan, policy, task force, ICSC agenda item, quota system or communication strategy. And each response to a legitimate grievance, said Richards, an economist specializing in digital business environments at the Geneva-based UNCTAD.

However, some of these conflict with each other, and HR officers and staff in general are finding it a bit hard to keep up.

“For any of this to be really effective, there needs to be some consolidation and prioritisation. Hopefully the SG can have a strategic think about this so we have the best outcome for all”, he declared.

A survey by the UN Staff Union in New York in 2021 was equally revealing.

According to the findings, 59% of the respondents said “they don’t feel the UN effectively addresses racial justice in the workplace, while every second respondent noted they don’t feel comfortable talking about racial discrimination at work”.

Meanwhile, the UN Secretariat in New York, faltered ingloriously, as it abruptly withdrew its own online survey on racism, in which it asked staffers to identify themselves either as “black, brown, white., mixed/multi-racial, and any other”.

But the most offensive of the categories listed in the survey was “yellow” – a longstanding Western racist description of Asians, including Japanese, Chinese and Koreans.

A non-apologetic message emailed to staffers read: “The United Nations Survey on Racism has been taken offline and will be revised and reissued, taking into account the legitimate concerns expressed by staff.”

Meanwhile the UN Special Adviser for Addressing Racism in the Workplace, Mojankunyane Gumbi of South Africa, has been “actively visiting different UN duty stations worldwide, holding town hall meetings with staff and leadership from various departments to discuss and address issues related to racism within the organization”.

The Special Adviser, who as appointed January 2023, has been providing “strategic advice to the Secretary-General on addressing racism and racial discrimination, as well as oversee the implementation of the long-term Strategic Action Plan adopted by the Organization in 2022 to address racism in the workplace.

Following the adoption of the Strategic Action Plan, every Secretariat entity was asked to develop and implement its own action plan, while an Implementation Steering Group under the leadership and stewardship of the Special Adviser will monitor and guide corporate-level actions to implement the Strategic Action Plan.

An Anti-Racism Team has been established to support the Special Adviser.

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, told IPS the Secretary-General’s Strategic Action Plan is a welcome initiative.

The UN has always prided itself of its inclusive approach to hiring but, in reality, many staff harbour, often publicly unexpressed but privately discussed, reservations that race and gender influence hiring and promotions, he said.

“Unfortunately, it is widely felt that political considerations influence recruitment and promotions. Some countries have made lobbying a fine art, said Dr Kohona a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN, and until recently Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China

Some of those who were responsible for staff management, he pointed out, tended to be influenced by considerations that were not necessarily consistent with the clearly stated principles of the United Nations, especially in sensitive areas, often conceding to external pressures.

“While equitable geographical distribution must be a guiding principle, staff recruitment, promotions and placements must be done transparently and with due emphasis on merit. Today, this is not too difficult a goal to achieve given the ready availability of talent from most countries of the world. In fact, the steady flow of talent from developing countries to the developed world is an acknowledged reality.”

The goals of the Organisation will be best served if recruitment, placements and promotions occur transparently and relevant information is disseminated as widely as possible through the media, in particular, the social media, he pointed out.

Vacancies, he said, should be advertised in the languages widely used/accessed by applicants around the world. The offices processing applications should also be constituted by geagraphically representative officers.

“The UN must also proactively address the concern that the recruitment of General Staff tends to be biased in favour of certain nationalities,” he declared.

Speaking strictly off-the-record, a senior UN staffer told IPS the official statement outlines the Anti-Racism Office’s efforts within the UN Secretariat, but it lacks a critical examination of the concrete impact of these initiatives.

While the creation of the office and its collaboration with other UN entities is a positive step, there is limited transparency regarding the actual outcomes of these actions. The implementation of “blind hiring” and diversity on hiring panels are mentioned as key initiatives, however, the statement does not provide any data, including status quo, or specific examples showing how these changes have improved or will improve fairness or representation within the Secretariat, he said.

“To effectively evaluate progress, it is essential to highlight measurable results and ongoing challenges in these areas together with the baseline data.

Additionally, while the Special Adviser’s visits and town halls with staff are commendable, the statement fails to address whether the concerns raised during these engagements by staff have led to substantive changes or policy adjustments”.

The numbers of participants and visitors to online events and iSeek are notable, but without demonstrating how these interactions have directly influenced policy changes, decision-making or led to tangible outcomes, the impact remains unclear, he noted.

“It would be more effective to provide specific examples of changes that have resulted from the efforts by the Anti-Racism Office such as improve hiring diversity, more inclusive workplace policies, or shifts in organizational culture, in particular, how the mandate of the Anti-Racism Office has impacted in addressing racism and racial discrimination within the UN”.

To truly advance its mission of fostering an inclusive and equitable workplace, he said, the Anti-Racism Office must go beyond activity metrics such as the number of participants to its virtual events, but focus on outcomes in order to achieve the goals and objectives set in the Secretary-General’s Strategic Action Plan, that was launched four years ago in 2021.

In a circular to UN staffers, Catherine Pollard Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance Chair of the Task Force on Addressing Racism and Promoting Dignity for All in the United Nations Secretariat, said “the Secretary-General has called upon us to condemn racism wherever we see it, without reservation, hesitation or qualification”.

“This includes looking into our own hearts and minds. The global outcry in 2020 caused us all to look inward and recognize that, in order to fight racism, we have to be proactively anti-racist.”

“As an organization, we were founded on the principles of the dignity and worth of the human person, proclaiming the right of everyone to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms, without distinctions of race, colour or national origin. We have always recognized the prevalence of racism and racial discrimination in society and played a key role in supporting Member States in the development of legal instruments to address this scourge”.

“I want to urge all personnel, of every race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, to come together in the spirit of human decency and collegiality to educate ourselves on how racism may operate in society and in the workplaces of the Organization. I encourage all of you to participate in the ongoing dialogue and awareness campaigns to gain insight into how racism manifests at the workplace and how we can prevent it and support those who experience such behaviour.”

Ultimately, progress in addressing racism and racial discrimination will require unwavering commitment from senior leaders and the full participation of United Nations personnel to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in the work of the Organization and is treated with respect and dignity. Let us stand in solidarity against racism, she declared.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source