Another of Trump’s Quixotic Imperial Designs

Posted on January 26, 2026 by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Another of Trump’s Quixotic Imperial Designs

Credit: White House

Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” built around heads of state, including Russia, is structurally ill-suited to end the Israel–Hamas war and to govern postwar Gaza in any sustainable way.

NEW YORK, Jan 26 2026 (IPS) – At a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Trump unveiled his newly formed Board of Peace to end the Israel-Hamas war. During a press conference in the White House, he explained that he created the board because “The UN should have settled every one of the wars that I settled. I never went to them. I never even thought to go to them.”

He claimed that the Board of Peace will be dealing with ending the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. He invited many heads of state to join the Board and threatened to impose heavy tariffs on the countries of those who refused. Paradoxically, he also invited Russian President Putin to join the pack.

Even a cursory review of the Board’s structure—its executive make-up, role, and responsibilities—makes it glaringly clear that he placed himself at the forefront of everything, from operations to ultimate decision-making. He basically codified US dominance, as long as he ran it.

He granted himself the authority to veto any decision he did not like, to invite or remove any board member, to approve the agenda, to designate his successor, and even dissolve the board entirely. Furthermore, he reserved a central role for himself even after leaving the presidency.

Shortcomings of the Board and its Structure

In more than one way, the creation of this board dissolves the American-built post-war international system and builds a new one with himself at the center. And while Trump is striving to consolidate authoritarian power domestically, he now wants to project himself on the international stage as if he were an Emperor, presiding over a board composed largely of heads of state. Although board members can have their say, they are nevertheless structurally subordinated to him.

No Seat for the Primary Stakeholders

The Board of Peace and the parallel Gaza Executive Board are designed to sit above a technocratic Palestinian committee, with no Palestinian political representative given a seat at the top table, despite their being primary stakeholders. Hamas is required to disarm, without specifying how, and to withdraw from administrative governance.

The Palestinian Authority is relegated to an “apolitical” managerial role, which in effect reproduces the long-standing problem of trying to impose solutions over Palestinians instead of negotiating with them. This has repeatedly undermined past peace frameworks and offers no pathway towards sustainable regional or world peace.

Conflict of Interests

The board is chaired by Trump himself, with membership effectively bought via a $1 billion “permanent seat” fee, creating apparent conflicts between profit, prestige, and peacemaking. Russia, Israel, Gulf monarchies, and others who have direct stakes in arms sales, regional influence, and energy routes, are not neutral guarantors but interested parties likely to instrumentalize Gaza for their own strategic agendas.

Colonial-Style Trusteeship

The architecture explicitly envisions international figures and heads of state supervising Gaza’s reconstruction, security, and governance, effectively turning Gaza into a protectorate administered by external powers.

Human rights advocates and regional observers are already criticizing this as a colonial-style trusteeship that denies genuine sovereignty, which is already generating local resistance, delegitimizing the arrangement, and providing ideological fuel for militant spoilers.

Israeli and Regional Objections

Israel’s leadership has publicly objected to the composition and design of the Gaza bodies. It is enraged over the role of Turkey and Qatar, forcing Netanyahu to distance himself from aspects of the plan even while joining the board under pressure from Trump.

Nevertheless, the Israeli government views key members of the Board and mechanisms as hostile or at odds with its security principles. Israel will either hinder implementation or hollow it out in practice, turning the board into an arena for intra-allied conflict rather than conflict resolution.

Great Power Rivalry Inside the Board

Ironically, the board anticipates concurrent participation by rivals such as Russia, the EU, and US-aligned states, while at the same time, Moscow is resisting US-backed peace terms in Ukraine and leveraging Middle East crises to weaken Western influence. This arrangement invites the board to become another theater of great power competition, where Russia, Hungary, Belarus, and others can obstruct or dilute measures that do not serve their broader geopolitical interests.

This is not to speak, of course, about the widespread concerns and suspicions among European leaders about Putin’s adversarial relations at the table, which is a recipe for discord and prevents concrete action.

Unclear Legal Basis

Another big hole in Trump’s Board is its framing as an alternative to, and possible replacement for, the United Nations, without any legal foundation, universal membership, or binding authority under international law.

A self-selected club by Trump of mostly invited heads of state, tied to a particular US administration and anchored in significant financial contributions, lacks the procedural legitimacy to impose security arrangements, adjudicate disputes, or credibly guarantee Palestinian rights over the long term, to which Trump pays no heed at all.

Overambitious, Under-Specified Mandate

The board’s responsibilities have already expanded from supervising a Gaza ceasefire to a broad charter “promoting stability” and “resolving global conflict,” which is ostentatious and will never come to fruition, while indicating mission creep before it even begins.

Such a variable mandate, with multiple overlapping structures (Board of Peace, Gaza Executive Board, Founding Executive Board), is almost guaranteed to generate bureaucratic turf wars, paralysis, and incoherence—particularly once crises beyond Gaza compete for attention and resources.

To be sure, this is just another of Trump’s stunts, always pretending that he is the only one who can come up with out-of-the-box ideas. Like many of his initiatives, this so-called Board of Peace one falls into the same category—transactional and reversible.

It is a grandiose idea that cannot be sustained structurally, has no enforcement capability, and relies on a contradictory algorithm to allow it to fulfill its mission, which, in any case, remains open-ended and unrealistic.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Source

Is the US Board of Peace Aimed at Undermining the UN?

Posted on January 26, 2026 by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Htet Myat Phone Naing. Credit: Elizabeth Haines/IPS

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 26 2026 (IPS) – Judging by the mixed signals coming out of the White House, is the Board of Peace, a creation of President Donald Trump, eventually aimed at replacing the UN Security Council or the United Nations itself?

At a ceremony in Davos, Switzerland last week, Trump formally ratified the Charter of the Board — establishing it as “an official international organization”.

Trump, who will be serving as the Board’s Chairman, was joined by Founding Members* “representing countries around the world who have committed to building a secure and prosperous future for Gaza that delivers lasting peace, stability, and opportunity for its people.”

Norman Solomon, executive director, Institute for Public Accuracy and national director, RootsAction.org, told IPS President Trump’s “Board of Peace” is being designed as a kind of global alliance akin to the “coalition of the willing” that fraudulently tried to give legitimacy to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Trump, he said, is recruiting submissive governments to fall in line with his leadership for pushing the planet ever more in the direction of war for domination and plunder.

The price that members of the Orwellian-named “Board of Peace” will pay is much more than the sought amount upwards of $1 billion each. In a global gangster mode, Trump is making plans and putting up structures on imperial whim, he pointed out.

“At the same time, the methods to his madness are transparent as he seeks to create new mechanisms for U.S. domination of as much of the world as possible”.

Trump continues to push the boundaries of doublespeak that cloaks U.S. agendas for gaining economic and military leverage over other countries. The gist of the message on behalf of Uncle Sam is: “no more Mr. Nice Guy.”

Whereas Trump’s predecessors in the White House have often relied on mere doubletalk and lofty rhetoric to obscure their actual priorities and agendas, Trump has dispensed with euphemisms enough to make crystal clear that he believes the U.S. government is the light of the world that all others should fall in line behind, said Solomon, author of “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine”

Asked about the Board of Peace, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters last week: “Let’s be clear. We are committed to doing whatever we can to ensure the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 2803, which as you will recall, welcomed the creation of the Board of Peace for Gaza”.

And as you know, he said, part of that resolution and the plan put forward by President Trump talked about the UN leading on humanitarian aid delivery.

“I think we have delivered a massive amount of humanitarian aid in Gaza, as much as we’ve been able to allow. And we’ve talked about the restrictions, but you know how much more we’ve been able to do since the ceasefire. As part of that, we’ve worked very well with the US authorities, and we will continue to do so.”

The UN, Dujarric reaffirmed, remains the only international organization with universal membership. “We’ve obviously saw the announcements made in Davos. The Secretary-General’s work continues with determination to implement the mandates given to us, all underpinned by international law, by the charter of the UN. I mean, our work continues.”

Asked about the similarities between the UN logo and the logo of the Board of Peace, he said he saw no copyright or trademark infringements.

In a statement released last week, Louis Charbonneau, UN Director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the United States played a leading role in establishing the UN. Now, US President Donald Trump is undermining and defunding large parts of it.

For the past year, he said, the US government has taken a sledgehammer to UN programs and agencies because the Trump administration believes the institution is “anti-American” and has a “hostile agenda.”

In UN negotiations, US officials have tried to purge words like “gender,” “climate,” and “diversity” from resolutions and statements. Diplomats have described to Human Rights Watch how US officials aggressively oppose human rights language they see as “woke” or politically correct, he said.

In an apparent attempt to sideline the UN Security Council, Trump has proposed a so-called Board of Peace that he personally would preside over. Trump has reportedly offered seats on his board to leaders of abusive governments, including Belarus, China, Hungary, Israel, Russia, and Vietnam, Charbonneau pointed out.

Originally the Board of Peace was meant to oversee the administration of Gaza following over two years of onslaught and destruction by Israeli forces, with which the United States was complicit. But the board’s charter doesn’t even mention Gaza, suggesting that Trump’s ambitions for this body have expanded enormously since first conceived.

The board’s proposed charter doesn’t mention human rights. And it makes clear that Trump, as board chairman, would have supreme authority “to adopt resolutions or other directives” as he sees fit.

A seat on the Board of Peace doesn’t come cheap: there’s a US$1 billion membership fee. Some, like French President Emmanuel Macron, already turned down an offer to join. Trump responded with a threat to significantly increase tariffs on French wine and champagne.

“The UN system has its problems, but it’s better than a global Politburo. Rather than paying billions to join Trump’s board, governments should focus on strengthening the UN’s ability to uphold human rights,” he declared.

Elaborating further, Solomon said the entire “Board of Peace” project is a dangerous farce that seeks to reconstitute a unipolar world that has already largely fallen apart during this century in economic terms.

The criminality of Trump’s approach, supported by the Republican majority in Congress, is backed up by the nation’s military might. More than ever, U.S. foreign policy has very little to offer the world other than gangsterism, extortion and blackmail – along with threats of massive violence that sometimes turn into military attacks that shred all semblance of international law.

Every U.S. president in this century, as before, has disregarded actual international law and substituted the preferences of its military-industrial complex for foreign policy. Trump has taken that policy to an unabashed extreme, shamelessly adhering to George Orwell’s dystopian credo of “War Is Peace” while pushing to wreck what’s left of a constructive international order.

Incidentally, when Indonesia’s mercurial leader Sukarno decided to quit the UN and form the Conference of the New Emerging Forces (CONEFO) as an alternative, it did not last very long, as Sukarno’s successor, Suharto “resumed” Indonesia’s participation in the UN.

No lasting harm was done to the UN. And all was forgotten and forgiven.

In a further clarification, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters the Board of Peace has been authorized by the Security Council for its work on Gaza – strictly for that. “

“We’re not talking about the wider operations or any of the aspects that have been in the media for the last several days. What we’re talking about is the work on Gaza”.

“As you know, we have welcomed the ceasefire in Gaza and measures to support it, including the Board of Peace, and we’ll continue to work with all parties on the ground to make sure that the ceasefire is upheld. That is about Gaza.”

The larger aspects, he said, are things for anyone wanting to participate in this grouping to consider. Obviously, the UN has its own Charter, its own rules, and you can do your own compare and contrast between the respective organizations.

“As you’re well aware, he pointed out, the UN has coexisted alongside any number of organizations. There are regional organizations, subregional organizations, various defence alliances around the world. Some of them, we have relationship agreements with. Some of them, we don’t.

“We would have to see in terms of details what the Board of Peace becomes as it actually is established to know what sort of relationship we would have with it,” declared Haq.

The participants* at the signing event in Geneva last week included:

A long list of countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy and other European nations, were absent from the signing, and some have specifically rejected the invitation.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Source

‘Freedom Always Returns – but Only If We Hold Fast to Our Values and Sustain the Struggle’

Posted on January 23, 2026 by admin

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Europe, Featured, Gender Violence, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Jan 23 2026 (IPS) –
CIVICUS speaks with Belarusian activist, blogger and journalist Mikola Dziadok about his experiences as a two-time political prisoner and the repression of dissent in Belarus. Mikola was jailed following mass protests in 2020.

Mikola Dziadok

Amid continued repression, Belarus experienced two limited waves of political prisoner releases in 2025. In September, authorities freed around 50 detainees following diplomatic engagement, and in December they pardoned and released over 120, including Nobel laureate Ales Bialiatski and opposition figure Maria Kolesnikova. Many were forced into exile. Human rights groups stress that releases appear driven by geopolitical bargaining rather than systemic reform, with over 1,200 political prisoners believed to remain behind bars.

Why were you arrested following protests in 2020?

I was arrested because I was not silent and I was visible. During the 2020 uprising, I ran Telegram and YouTube channels where I shared political analysis, explained what was happening and gave people advice on how to resist repression. I talked about strategies to protect ourselves, counter state violence and survive under authoritarian pressure. The regime viewed this as extremely threatening.

By that time, I had around 17 years of experience in the anarchist movement, which is a part of a broader democratic movement in Belarus. But most people who joined the protests weren’t political at all: they’d never protested before, never faced repression, never dealt with police violence. They were desperate for guidance, particularly as there was an information war between regime propaganda, pro-Kremlin narratives and independent voices.

Authorities made a clear distinction between ‘ordinary people’ who apologised and promised never to protest again, who were released, and activists, organisers and others who spoke publicly, who were treated as enemies. I was imprisoned because I belonged to the second category.

What sparked the 2020 uprising?

By 2020, Belarus had already lived through five fraudulent elections. We only had one election the international community recognised as legitimate, held in 1994. After that, President Alexander Lukashenko changed the constitution so he could rule indefinitely.

For many years, people believed there was nothing they could do to make change happen. But in 2020, several things came together. The COVID-19 pandemic left the state’s complete failure exposed. As authorities did nothing to protect people, civil society stepped in. Grassroots initiatives provided information and medical help. People suddenly saw they could do what the state couldn’t. From the regime’s perspective, this was a very dangerous realisation.

But what truly ignited mass mobilisation was violence. In the first two days after the 9 August presidential election, over 7,000 protesters were detained. Thousands were beaten, humiliated, sexually abused and tortured. When they were released and showed their injuries, the images spread through social media and Telegram, and people were shocked. This brought hundreds of thousands onto the streets, protesting against both election fraud and violence against protesters.

What’s the situation of political prisoners?

Since 2020, over 50,000 people have spent time in detention, in a country of only nine million. There have been almost 4,000 officially recognised political prisoners, and there are now around 1,200, although the real number is higher. Many prisoners ask not to be named publicly because they fear retaliation against themselves or their families.

Repression has never subsided. Civil society organisations, human rights groups and independent media have been destroyed or forced into exile. Belarussians live under constant pressure, not a temporary crackdown.

Political prisoners are treated much worse than regular prisoners. I spent 10 years as a political prisoner: five years between 2010 and 2015, and another five years after 2020. During my second sentence, I spent two and a half years in solitary confinement. This is deliberate torture designed to break people physically and psychologically.

How did your release happen?

My release was a political transaction. Lukashenko has always used political prisoners as bargaining chips. He arrests people, waits for international pressure to reach its peak and then offers releases in exchange for concessions. This time, international negotiations, unexpectedly involving the USA, triggered a limited release.

The process itself was terrifying. I was taken suddenly from prison, handcuffed, hooded and transferred to the KGB prison in the centre of Minsk. I was placed in an isolation cell and not told what would happen. It was only when I saw other well-known political prisoners being brought into the same space that I realised we were going to be freed, most likely by forced expulsion.

No formal conditions were announced, but our passports were confiscated and we were forced into exile. We were transported under armed guard and handed over at the Lithuanian border. Many deportees still fear for relatives who remain in the country, because repression often continues through family members. That’s why I asked my wife to leave Belarus as quickly as possible.

What should the international community and civil society do now?

First, they should make sure Belarus continues receiving international attention. Lukashenko is afraid of isolation, sanctions and scrutiny. Any attempt to normalise relations with Belarus without real change will only strengthen repression and put remaining prisoners at greater risk.

Second, they should financially support independent Belarusian human rights organisations and media. Many are struggling to survive, particularly after recent funding cuts. Without them doing their job, abuses will remain hidden and prisoners will be forgotten.

Most importantly, activists should not lose hope. We are making history. Dictatorships fall and fear eventually breaks. Freedom always returns – but only if we hold fast to our values and sustain the struggle.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram

SEE ALSO
‘Belarus is closer than ever to totalitarianism, with closed civic space and repression a part of daily life’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Human Rights House 14.Oct.2025
Belarus: ‘The work of human rights defenders in exile is crucial in keeping the democratic movement alive’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Natallia Satsunkevich 15.Feb.2025
Belarus: a sham election that fools no one CIVICUS Lens 31.Jan.2025

Source

Steering Nepal’s Economy Amid Global Challenges

Posted on January 22, 2026 by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Featured, Global, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Steering Nepal 's Economy Amid Global Challenges

The country faces a challenging transition, but it can progress if the people work together.

WASHINGTON DC, Jan 22 2026 (IPS) – Nepal has a unique opportunity for transformation. The recent youth-led protests underscored aspirations for greater transparency, governance and a more equal distribution of economic opportunities and resources. This yearning resonated in Nepal and beyond.

Now, Nepal must find a balance in setting prudent political, economic and financial policies to steer a difficult transition in an orderly manner. Adding to the complex domestic situation is the lingering uncertainty in the global economy. The transition process in this challenging environment should ensure an inclusive future for Nepal’s people.

Economic challenges

History shows that more equal societies tend to be associated with greater economic stability and more sustained growth. This will be a helpful guiding strategy as Nepal charts its own path to change. Indeed, a solid strategy needs to be founded on two key pillars: economic stability and inclusive growth.

In 2022, stability was among the top priorities when the country’s leaders approached the IMF for support. The collapse of tourism in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic took a heavy toll on Nepal’s economy, including on its job market.

The IMF’s financing package assisted the authorities’ Covid-19 response in mitigating the pandemic’s impact on economic activity, protecting vulnerable groups and laying the groundwork for sustained growth. The program also supported reforms to foster durable growth and reduce poverty over the medium term, including by implementing cross-cutting institutional reforms to improve governance and reduce corruption vulnerability.

In October, Nepal completed the sixth of seven program reviews, showing tangible improvement in the economy. Indeed, Nepal has been seeing the green shoots of recovery with real GDP growth rising from a mere 2 percent in FY 2023, to 3.7 percent in FY 2024, to an estimated 4.3 percent in FY 2025—more than double the pace in just a few years.

In FY 2026, we still expect the country’s economic recovery to continue, though at a more moderate pace amid a complex domestic environment and global uncertainty.

Nepal has also been very successful in rebuilding policy buffers. Foreign exchange reserves have risen to nearly $20 billion, enough to cover almost a full year of imports. Fiscal discipline has helped stabilise public debt. Inflation remains well below the Nepal Rastra Bank’s target.

This hard-won economic stability should be safeguarded. At the same time, the economy hasn’t fully recovered. Domestic demand remains subdued, investor confidence is waning, and more efforts are needed to protect vulnerable people.

Nepal has achieved significant milestones on structural reforms, in part with support from the IMF capacity development. On the fiscal front, frameworks for increasing government revenue and fiscal transparency have improved with the publication of the domestic revenue mobilization strategy, fiscal risk statement and the tax expenditure report. The National Planning Commission has issued revised guidelines for the National Project Bank, which will strengthen capital project selection and execution.

Likewise, in the financial sector, bank supervision has improved through the Supervisory Information System. The Nepal Rastra Bank has also recently launched a loan portfolio review of 10 large commercial banks, which is expected to provide deep insights into the health of the banking sector.

Measures have been taken to improve governance and transparency, including by improving the anti-money laundering framework, though further efforts are needed to enhance implementation.

As part of the program, four priority nonfinancial public enterprises had their financial statements audited. Work is underway to amend the Nepal Rastra Bank Act to strengthen its autonomy and governance.

Yet, unresolved structural issues and emerging headwinds are testing these gains. Policymakers must ensure that the fruits of macroeconomic stability and growth are broadly shared. Continued reforms will help. In the near term, this implies accelerating budget execution and improving project readiness—particularly in areas such as hydropower and trade-related infrastructure—and reducing logistics frictions, which will crowd-in private investment.

This will also lay the foundation for a more diversified, higher value-added growth model that creates more domestic jobs.

Unlocking private sector growth to deliver more jobs and better livelihoods is critical. This can only be accomplished when the basic building blocks of private enterprise are in place: Strong institutions, free and fair markets and a stable macroeconomic environment.

Over the medium term, strengthening governance and anti-corruption institutions, improving the investment climate, enhancing financial oversight, trade integration and expanding targeted social protection will be key to unlocking inclusive and sustainable growth.

Reason for hope

Let us conclude by expressing our deep sympathy for the profound loss during the recent social unrest. We are deeply saddened by the loss, but also heartened by the resilience of the Nepali people striving for a better future.

While global economic prospects remain dim amid uncertainty, Nepal gives reason for hope—a nation reimagined with greater equality and good governance. The country faces a challenging transition, but it can make the most progress if the people work together. For policymakers, this implies steering the economy on the course of continued reforms that safeguard macroeconomic and financial stability while laying strong foundations for durable and inclusive growth, coupled with good governance.

This is a unique moment in the country’s long history, and a time to set a new standard for the future. The IMF is ready to support Nepal in its journey.

Krishna Srinivasan is the head of the Asia and Pacific Department at the IMF. Sarwat Jahan is the mission chief for Nepal and a deputy division chief in the Asia and Pacific Department.

IPS UN Bureau

Source

World Enters ‘Era of Global Water Bankruptcy’

Posted on January 21, 2026 by admin

Civil Society, Development & Aid, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Water & Sanitation

Opinion

Lead author Prof. Kaveh Madani

Flagship report calls for fundamental reset of global water agenda as irreversible damage pushes many basins beyond recovery.

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 21 2026 (IPS) – The world is already in the state of “water bankruptcy”. In many basins and aquifers, long-term overuse and degradation mean that past hydrological and ecological baselines cannot realistically be restored.

While not every basin or country is water-bankrupt, enough critical systems around the world have crossed these thresholds, and are interconnected through trade, migration, climate feedbacks, and geopolitical dependencies, that the global risk landscape is now fundamentally altered.

The familiar language of “water stress” and “water crisis” is no longer adequate. Stress describes high pressure that is still reversible. Crisis describes acute, time-bound shocks. Water bankruptcy must be recognized as a distinct post-crisis state, where accumulated damage and overshoot have undermined the system’s capacity to recover.

A group of women fetching water from a dam in Taha, Northern Region of Ghana. Credit: Evans Ahorsu. Source: UN University’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health

Water bankruptcy management must address insolvency and irreversibility. Unlike financial bankruptcy management, which deals only with insolvency, managing water bankruptcy is concerned with rebalancing demand and supply under conditions where returning to baseline conditions is no longer possible.

Anthropogenic drought is central to the world’s new water reality. Drought and water shortage are increasingly driven by human activities, over-allocation, groundwater depletion, land and soil degradation, deforestation, pollution, and climate change, rather than natural variability alone. Water bankruptcy is the outcome of long-term anthropogenic drought, not just bad luck with hydrological anomalies.

Water bankruptcy is about both quantity and quality. Declining stocks, polluted rivers, and degrading aquifers, and salinized soils mean that the truly usable fraction of available water is shrinking, even where total volumes may appear stable.

Managing water bankruptcy requires a shift from crisis management to bankruptcy management. The priority is no longer to “get back to normal”, but to prevent further irreversible damage, rebalance rights and claims within degraded carrying capacities, transform water-intensive sectors and development models, and support just transitions for those most affected.

Governance institutions must protect both water and its underlying natural capital. The existing institutions focus on protecting water as a good or service disregarding the natural capital that makes water available in the first place. Efforts to protect a product are ineffective when the processes that produce it are disrupted.

Recognizing water bankruptcy calls for developing legal and governance institutions that can effectively protect not only water but also the hydrological cycle and natural capital that make its production possible.

Water bankruptcy is a justice and security issue. The costs of overshoot and irreversibility fall disproportionately on smallholder farmers, rural and Indigenous communities, informal urban residents, women, youth, and downstream users, while benefits have often accrued to more powerful actors. How societies manage water bankruptcy will shape social cohesion, political stability, and peace.

Water bankruptcy management combines mitigation with adaptation. While water crisis management paradigms seek to return the system to normal conditions through mitigation efforts only, water bankruptcy management focuses on restoring what is possible and preventing further damages through mitigation combined with adaptation to new normals and constraints.

Water can serve as a bridge in a fragmented world. Water can align national priorities with international priorities and improve cooperation between and within nations. Roughly 70% of global freshwater withdrawals are used for agriculture, much of it by farmers in the Global South. Elevating water in global policy debates can help rebuild trust between South and North but also within nations, between rural and urban, left and right constituencies.

Water must be recognized as an upstream sector. Most national and international policy agendas treat water as a downstream impact sector where investments are focused on mitigating the imposed problems and externalities. The world must recognize water as an upstream opportunity sector where investments have long-term benefits for peace, stability, security, equity, economy, health, and the environment.

Water is an effective medium to fulfill the global environmental agenda. Investments in addressing water bankruptcy deliver major co-benefits for the global efforts to address its environmental problems while addressing the national security concerns of the UN member states.

Elevating water in the global policy agenda can renew international cooperation, increase the efficiency of environmental investments, and reaccelerate the halted progress of the three Rio Conventions to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and desertification.

A new global water agenda is urgently needed. Existing agendas and conventional water policies, focused mainly on WASH, incremental efficiency gains and generic IWRM guidelines, are not sufficient for the world’s current water reality. A fresh water agenda must be developed that takes Global Water Bankruptcy as a starting point and uses the 2026 and 2028 UN Water Conferences, the conclusion of the Water Action Decade in 2028, and the 2030 SDG 6 timeline as milestones for resetting how the world understands and governs water.

Global Water Bankruptcy: Living Beyond Our Hydrological Means in the Post-Crisis Era | UN University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) (20 January) (press release)

Support Paper
Madani K. (2026) Water Bankruptcy: The Formal Definition, Water Resources Management, 40 (78) doi: 10.1007/s11269-025-04484-0)

IPS UN Bureau

Source

Guinea’s Path to Electoral Autocracy

Posted on January 20, 2026 by admin

Active Citizens, Africa, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Luc Gnago/Reuters via Gallo Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jan 20 2026 (IPS) – In December, the dust settled on Guinea’s first presidential election since the military took control in a 2021 coup. General Mamady Doumbouya stayed in power after receiving 87 per cent of the vote. But the outcome was never in doubt: this was no a democratic milestone; it was the culmination of Guinea’s denied transition to civilian rule.

Doumbouya has successfully performed an act of political alchemy, turning a military autocracy into an electoral one. By systematically dismantling the opposition, silencing the press and rewriting laws to suit his ambitions, he has made sure to shield his grip on power with a thin veil of electoral legitimacy.

The architecture of autocracy

The path to this moment was paved with precision. In April 2025, Doumbouya announced a constitutional referendum, a move that may have looked like it would herald the beginning of the end of military rule. But it was something else entirely. By June, Doumbouya had further centralised control by creating a new General Directorate of Elections. This body, placed firmly under the thumb of the Ministry of Territorial Administration, reversed previous efforts to establish an independent electoral institution.

The constitution was drafted in the shadows by the National Council of the Transition, the junta-appointed legislative body. While early drafts reportedly contained safeguards against lifetime presidencies, these were stripped away before the final text reached the public. The result was a document that removed a ban on junta members running for office, extended presidential terms from five to seven years and granted the president the power to appoint a third of the newly created Senate.

When the referendum was held on 21 September, it rubber-stamped de facto rule. Official figures claimed 89 per cent support with an 86 per cent turnout, numbers that defied the reality of a widespread opposition boycott and a palpable lack of public enthusiasm.

A climate of fear

With a blanket ban on protests in effect since May 2022, those who’ve dared challenge the junta’s controlled transition have been met with security force violence. On 6 January 2025, security forces killed at least three people, including two children, during demonstrations called by the opposition coalition Forces Vives de Guinée.

The political landscape was further cleared through administrative and judicial means. In October 2024, the government dissolved over 50 political parties. By August 2025, major opposition groups such as the Rally of the People of Guinea had been suspended. Key challengers, including former Prime Minister Cellou Dalein Diallo, remain in exile, while others, among them Aliou Bah, have been sentenced to prison – in Bah’s case, for allegedly insulting Doumbouya.

The atmosphere of fear has been reinforced by a brutal crackdown on the media. Guinea plummeted 25 places in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, the year’s largest fall. Independent outlets have had their licences revoked and journalists have been detained. Those still working have learned to practise strict self-censorship to avoid becoming the next target. This meant that as voters went to the polls, there was nobody to provide diverse perspectives, scrutinise the process, investigate irregularities or hold authorities accountable.

Coup contagion

Guinea is no outlier. Since 2020, a coup contagion has swept through Africa, with military takeovers in Burkina Faso, Chad, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mali, Niger and Sudan. In each instance, the script has been similar: military leaders seize power promising to ‘correct’ the failures of the previous regime, only to break their promises of a return to civilian rule.

Guinea is now the third country among this recent wave to move from a military dictatorship to an electoral autocracy. It follows in the footsteps of Chad, where Mahamat Idriss Déby secured victory in May 2024 after the suspicious killing of his main opponent, and Gabon, where General Brice Oligui Nguema won a 2025 election with a reported 90 per cent of the vote.

The international community does little. Doumbouya routinely ignored deadlines and sanctions from the Economic Community of West African States, which once prided itself on a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy for coups, and no consequences ensued. The African Union and the United Nations offered rhetorical concern, but their warnings were not accompanied by tangible diplomatic or economic repercussions.

The world’s willingness to maintain business as usual while Doumbouya steered through a fake transition sends a dangerous message to other aspiring autocrats, in the region and beyond.

Democracy denied

When Doumbouya seized power in 2021, he was greeted with a degree of cautious optimism. His predecessor, Alpha Condé, had controversially amended the constitution to secure a third term amid violent protests and corruption and fraud allegations. Doumbouya promised to fix things, but instead became a mirror image of the man he ousted, using the same tactics of constitutional revision and repression to secure his power.

The statistics of the December election – an 87 per cent victory on a claimed 80 per cent turnout – do not reflect a genuine mandate but rather a vacuum: with no independent media to scrutinise the process and no viable opposition allowed to run, the election was a technicality.

The prospects for real democracy in Guinea appear remote. Doumbouya has secured a seven-year mandate through an election that eliminated the essential infrastructure needed for democracy. In the absence of stronger international pressure and tangible support for Guinean civil society, Guinea faces prolonged authoritarian rule behind a democratic facade, with dismal human rights prospects.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

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

Source

Malawi Diaspora

Posts Tagged: IPS UN Bureau

Another of Trump’s Quixotic Imperial Designs

Is the US Board of Peace Aimed at Undermining the UN?

‘Freedom Always Returns – but Only If We Hold Fast to Our Values and Sustain the Struggle’

Steering Nepal’s Economy Amid Global Challenges

World Enters ‘Era of Global Water Bankruptcy’

Guinea’s Path to Electoral Autocracy