Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur for the rights to freedom of assembly and of association.
Credit: UN Web TV
BOGOTA, Colombia, Oct 9 2025 (IPS) – The collapse of aid architecture is one of the greatest dangers for civic space. This shift is not accidental but systemic, reflecting deliberate policy choices – not only by the US but accelerated by its decisions- that prioritize security agendas over human rights and solidarity.
Aid cuts, securitization, and geopolitical rivalries have led to the defunding of grassroots organizations, especially those led by women, LGBTQI groups, and marginalized communities. As a result, associations that once filled critical gaps are disappearing. These dynamics as existential because without resources, protections, and solidarity, civil society cannot survive—let alone flourish.
This is the center of my more recent report, that will be presented at the UN General Assembly on October 16th.
Civil society’s weakening has direct consequences for human rights protection and democratic participation. Without independent associations, accountability mechanisms collapse, and corruption flourishes. The report highlights that marginalized groups are disproportionately affected, as grassroots organizations are often their only safety net. The dismantling of solidarity also jeopardizes progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
For example, women’s organizations that once advanced gender equality and access to reproductive health are closing. LGBTQI associations providing health services face funding cuts. Environmental defenders, crucial in climate justice, are left exposed.
Thus, the report warns that the rollback of aid and civic freedoms undermines not only democracy but also global commitments to equality and sustainability.
The report makes a call for urgent action to rebuild international solidarity and redesign the architecture of aid in ways that strengthen rather than weaken civic space. The vision is for a people-centered, rights-based, and sustainable system of cooperation. Key elements include:
Guaranteeing equitable access to resources: ensuring groups with high vulnerabilities, have direct and fair access to funding. Includes aid models that channels resources to local civil society, avoiding intermediaries, and simplified bureaucratic procedures.
Repealing restrictive laws and counter-terrorism measures: ending the misuse of security frameworks—such as counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering— and repealing laws that stigmatize NGOs as “foreign agents” or limit their ability to operate freely.
Ensuring meaningful participation of civil society: in multilateral decision-making, as equal partners shaping priorities, including global financing mechanisms and SDG implementation frameworks.
Aligning aid with human rights and civic space protection: Condition aid and credits on compliance with obligations to protect freedoms and rights and promote long-term, flexible funding instead of short-term project-based support.
Protecting digital freedoms and resisting securitization: Safeguarding the use of technologies, including spyware and facial recognition technologies, for association and assembly while preventing its misuse for surveillance and repression.
Reimagining solidarity: Shifting from a charity-based approach to one of global justice and shared responsibility; supporting civil society is not an act of benevolence but a legal and moral obligation under international human rights law.
Maung Sawyeddollah, Founder of the Rohingya Students Network, addresses the high-level conference of the General Assembly on the situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 1 2025 (IPS) – The international community convened for a high-level meeting at UN Headquarters, this time to mobilize political support for the ongoing issue of the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar.
On Tuesday September 30, representatives from Rohingya advocacy groups, the UN system and member states convened at the General Assembly to address the ongoing challenges facing Rohingya Muslims and the broader context of the political and humanitarian situation in Myanmar.
UN President of the General Assembly Annalena Baerbock remarked that the conference was an opportunity to listen to stakeholders, notably civil society representatives with experience on the ground.
“Rohingya need the support of the international community, not just in words but in action,” she said.
Baerbock added there was an “urgent need for strengthened international solidarity and increased support,” and to make efforts to reach a political solution with unequivocal participation from the Rohingyas.
“The violence, the extreme deprivation and the massive violations of human rights have fueled a crisis of grave international concern. The international community must honor its responsibilities and act. We stand in solidarity with the Rohingya and all the people of Myanmar in their hour of greatest need,” said UN Human Rights Commissioner Volker Türk.
In the eight years since over 750,000 Rohingyas fled persecution and crossed the border into Bangladesh, the international community has had to deal with one of the most intense refugee situations in living memory. Attendees at the conference spoke on addressing the root causes that led to this protracted crisis—systematic oppression and persecution at the hands of Myanmar’s authorities and unrest in Rakhine State.
Muhammad Yunus, Chief Adviser of the interim Government of Bangladesh, addresses the high-level conference on the situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elias
The military junta’s ascension in 2021 has only led to further unrest and instability in Myanmar and has made the likelihood of safe and sustained return far more precarious. Their persecution has only intensified as the Rohingya communities still residing in Rakhine find themselves caught in the middle of conflicts between the junta and other militant groups, including the Arakan Army.
At the opening of the conference, Rohingya refugee activists remarked that the systemic oppression predates the current crisis. “This is a historic occasion for Myanmar. But it is long overdue. Our people have suffered enough. For ethnic minorities—from Kachin to Rohingya—the suffering has spanned decades,” said Wai Wai Nu, founder and executive director of the Women’s Peace Network.
“It has already been more than eight years since the Rohingya Genocide was exposed. Where is the justice for the Rohingyas?” asked Maung Sawyeddollah, founder of the Rohingya Student Network.
For the United Nations, the Rohingya refugee crisis represents the dramatic impact of funding shortfalls on their humanitarian operations. UN Secretary-General António Guterres once said during his visit to the refugee camps in Bangladesh back in April that “Cox’s Bazar is Ground Zero for the impact of budget cuts”.
Funding cuts to agencies like UNICEF and the World Food Programme (WFP) have undermined their capacity to reach people in need. WFP has warned that their food assistance in the refugee camps will run out in two months unless they receive more funding. Yet as of now, the 2025 Rohingya Refugee Response Plan of USD 934.5 million is only funded at 38 percent.
Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, addresses the high-level conference of the General Assembly on the situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elias
“The humanitarian response in Bangladesh remains chronically underfunded, including in key areas like food and cooking fuel. The prospects for funding next year are grim. Unless further resources are forthcoming, despite the needs, we will be forced to make more cuts while striving to minimize the risk of losing lives: children dying of malnutrition or people dying at sea as more refugees embark on dangerous boat journeys,” said Filippo Grandi, UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
As the host country of over 1 million refugees since 2017, Bangladesh has borne the brunt of the situation. Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus said that the country faces its own development challenges and systemic issues with crime, poverty and unemployment, and has struggled to support the refugee population even with the help of aid organizations. He made a call to pursue repatriations, the strategy to ensure the safe return of Rohingyas to Rakhine.
“As funding declines, the only peaceful option is to begin their repatriation. This will entail far fewer resources than continuing their international protection. The Rohingya have consistently pronounced their desire to go back home,” said Yunus. “The world cannot keep the Rohingya waiting any longer from returning home.”
Along with the UN, Myanmar and Bangladesh, neighboring and host countries also have a role to play. Regional blocs like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are also crucial in supporting the Rohingya population as well as leading dialogues with other stakeholders across the region.
“In my engagements with Myanmar stakeholders, I have emphasized that peace in Myanmar will remain elusive until inclusive dialogue between all Myanmar stakeholders takes place,” said Othman Hashim, the special envoy of the ASEAN Chair on Myanmar. “For actions within Myanmar, the crucial first step is stopping the hostilities and violence. Prolonged violence will only exacerbate the misery of the people of Myanmar, Rohingya and other minorities included.”
“Countries hosting refugees need sustained support. Cooperation with UNODC [UN Office of Drugs and Crime], UNHCR, and IOM [International Organization for Migration] must be deepened,” said Sugiono, Indonesia’s foreign minister.
Supporting the Rohingya beyond emergency and humanitarian needs would also require investing resources in education and employment opportunities. Involved parties were encouraged to support resettlement policies that would help communities secure livelihoods in the long-term, or to extend opportunities for longterm work, like in Thailand where they recently granted long-staying refugees the right to work legally in the country.
“Any initiative for the Rohingya without Rohingya in the camp, from decision making to nation-building is unsustainable and unjust. The UN must mobilize resources to empower Rohingya. We are not only victims; we have the potential to make a difference,” said Sawyeddollah.
As one of the few Rohingya representatives present that had previous lived in the camps in Cox’s Bazaar, Sawyeddollah described the challenges he faced in pursuing higher education when he applied to over 150 universities worldwide but did not get into any of them. He got into New York University with a scholarship, the first Rohingya refugee to attend. He reiterated that universities had the capacity to offer scholarships to Rohingya students, citing the example of the Asian University of Women (AUW) in Chittagong, Bangladesh, where it has been offering scholarships to Rohingya girls since at least 2018.
The conference called for actionable measures that would address several key areas in the Rohingya refugee situation. This includes scaling up funding for humanitarian aid in Bangladesh and Myanmar, and notably, pursuing justice and accountability under international law. Türk and other UN officials reiterated that resolving the instability and political tensions in Myanmar is crucial to resolving the refugee crisis.
Kyaw Moe Tun, Permanent Representative of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar to the UN, blamed the military junta for the country’s current state and called for member states to refuse supporting the junta politically or financially. “We can yield results only by acting together to end the military dictatorship, its unlawful coup, and its culture of impunity. At a time when human rights, justice and humanity are under critical attack, please help in our genuine endeavour to build a federal democratic union that rooted in these very principles.” IPS UN Bureau Report
NEW YORK, Sep 30 2025 (IPS) – Last week, the United Nations (UN) marked its 80th anniversary against the backdrop of an unprecedented global crisis. With the highest number of active conflicts since 1946, trust in multilateralism is faltering.
Yet the UN’s founding vision, rooted in the principle of ‘We the Peoples,’ remains as urgent as ever; affirming that peace, human rights, and development cannot be achieved by governments alone. From the very beginning, civil society has been integral to this vision, a role formally recognised in Article 71 of the UN Charter, which underscores the value of NGOs in shaping international agendas.
“Article71: The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organisations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international organisations and, where appropriate, with national organisations after consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned.”
Yet despite this important provision, multilateral processes have increasingly become state-centric, turning global governance into a top-down exercise detached from the people it is meant to serve.
Excluding civil society and global citizens from policy-making not only produces laws and policies out of touch with local needs but also undermines community-driven practices that are often best placed to identify challenges and craft solutions.
At worst, silencing those who hold governments accountable empowers authoritarian regimes to flout international law, restrict human rights, and erode the rules-based international order. While the UN may recognise the role of civil society in principle, why does practice remain so distant from this commitment?
One area for reflection is the extent to which international spaces mirror national realities. Many see the multilateral system as an all-powerful body safeguarding humanity from the scourge of war. In reality it is a regrouping of national actors, the same ones responsible for shrinking civic space at home.
According to the CIVICUS Monitor, more than 70 percent of the global population lives in countries where freedoms of expression, association, and assembly are severely restricted. For many human rights defenders (HRDs), even raising their voices at the UN has led to reprisals at home, including surveillance and imprisonment.
By privileging repressive states and sidelining accountability actors, multilateral institutions replicate domestic restrictions globally, leaving abuses unchecked and defenders excluded.
A second challenge is how money dictates priorities. The collapse of the global aid sector has forced many to confront this reality again. The UN is funded largely by member states through mandatory and voluntary contributions. Over time, earmarking of funds and shifting UN priorities have led to chronic underinvestment in human rights.
Today, the human rights pillar receives just five percent of the UN’s regular budget, and with the upcoming UN80 budget cuts, this already underfunded area faces further risk. When human rights are deprioritised through budget cuts and underfunding, the message to member states is clear- resources and political will are better placed elsewhere. This dynamic discourages collaboration with civil society and reinforces their marginalisation.
A third challenge is the unequal access granted to civil society at UN headquarters. Negotiation rooms are closed to most organisations, and draft resolutions are often circulated only among those with close ties to diplomats, leaving others without privileged access unable to provide timely input. Meaningful participation is impossible without timely information.
During high-level weeks in New York, even side event spaces can only be booked through a member state, effectively controlling who speaks and what is discussed. Major processes such as the Summit of the Future or Financing for Development rarely engage civil society at the national level in time to influence outcomes.
Even when hundreds of civil society organisations submit feedback on policy documents, there is little transparency on how their contributions are used. These opaque practices erode trust and leave committed groups questioning whether investing their scarce time and resources in multilateral spaces is worthwhile.
Despite these glaring challenges, which have turned the system into “we the member states,” the UN is not without tools to ensure it is inclusive of the people it was created to serve. First, existing tools such as the UN Guidance Note on the Promotion and Protection of Civic Space provide a clear framework for action through the “three P’s”: participation, protection, and promotion. To move this document beyond paper, the task force assigned to implement it must act urgently.
Accreditation processes may get civil society past the security desk after years of hurdles, but it does not guarantee meaningful engagement. What matters in the long run is meaningful participation across the UN system, not just at headquarters, in order to achieve political and practical impact.
Second, a focus on accountable leadership. When funding is slashed and political will abandoned, the UN inadvertently strengthens authoritarian regimes, enabling them to silence voices, restrict rights, and openly flout international law. This erosion of support for human rights contributes to shrinking civic freedoms worldwide and leaves many losing trust in the multilateral system.
In this context, civil society engagement is not optional, it is key to steering the UN’s future leadership toward defending human rights and global freedoms.
With conversations on the next Secretary-General already gaining momentum, civil society’s role must be a central test for every candidate. Town halls with nominees should be used to demand clear commitments to meaningful participation of civil society, as well as sustained funding and protection for human rights programmes.
This is not about tokenistic symbolism; meaningful civil society engagement is a fundamental condition for development progress, the protection of human rights, and the survival of a rules-based international order- including multilateral organisations like the UN.
As the UN enters its ninth decade, its relevance depends on accountability to the people, not just the states. Civil society must be recognized as independent partners, with their constructive input embedded across decision-making, financing, and oversight. Only by centering people and their rights can the UN restore trust, strengthen multilateralism, and truly fulfill its founding promise: a world grounded in peace, development, and human rights.
Jesselina Rana, a human rights lawyer, is the UN Advisor at CIVICUS’ New York Hub.
NEW YORK, Sep 23 2025 (IPS) – No leader responsible for mass atrocities enjoys greater impunity on the international stage than Benjamin Netanyahu. This is due to the strange stranglehold of the pro-Israel lobby on the two major political parties in the United States.
Unsurprisingly, the assertion by New York City mayoral candidate and front runner Zohran Mamdani on September 13 that he would order the arrest of Netanyahu if he ever came there, has attracted blowback from within the mainstream political establishments of both the Democratic and Republic parties, as well from extremist right-wing circles.
Legal experts have gone into a tizzy whether a future mayor of New York can arrest the leader of a foreign government. The unjustified blowback apparently in support of Israel’s televised genocide of the Palestinian people flies in the face of facts, basic principles of humanity and the shifting sands of public opinion in the United States.
A high- powered UN Commission of Inquiry led by a judge who investigated the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has recently concluded that Israel has committed genocide – the worst crime under international law – in Gaza.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has a standing arrest warrant against Netanyahu and his former defence minister for using starvation as a weapon of war and for deliberately killing thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. But bizarrely, it’s not Israel’s leaders but ICC judges and prosecutors who are being targeted through sanctions by the Trump administration.
Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s cruel war on Gaza is rapidly eroding American public support for Israel. According to the Pew Research Center’s latest findings more than half of American adults now possess an unfavourable opinion of Israel. Just 32 percent have confidence in Netanyahu himself.
However, the negative impacts of the damage done to American democracy by Netanyahu and his hardline supporters will linger on. Under the pretext of containing anti-Israeli sentiment, the Trump administration has attacked universities that were the site of sustained pro-Palestinian protests including Columbia and Harvard.
Academic freedom is a cherished American ideal but that hasn’t prevented the administration from threatening colleges and universities with federal funding cuts and placing restrictions on foreign students if they don’t toe the government’s line. Sadly, several pro-Palestinian student protest leaders have been arbitrarily detained in direct repudiation of constitutional protections on the freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest drawing criticism from UN experts.
Many of us in civil society have been pointing out for some time that the leaders of the two major political parties in the United States are so beholden to the moneyed interests of their donors that they have become out of touch with the needs and aspirations of the American people.
Indeed, Israel’s belligerence in continuing atrocities on the civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of Gaza and the West Bank has been sharply rebuked by progressive groups like Jewish Voices for Peace and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice who support a new wave of politicians such as Mahmud Mamdani who are willing to stand up for human rights.
A generation of politicians who represent a more forward looking and inclusive vision for the United States and who enjoy widespread support in New York and beyond such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have rallied to Mamdani’s side.
Mamdani’s win in the Democratic primaries for the New York mayoral election was powered by a diverse coalition of supporters in America’s most diverse and vibrant city. He continues to be the front runner for the mayoral election slated on November 4.
So far, his focus has been on the issues that matter to most of the people of New York, such as the high cost of living and the ever- widening gap between millionaires and the rest of the country fueled by pro-big business policies and tax cuts.
Funnily, in blatant negation of diplomatic protocol, Netanyahu has jumped into the political fray by dubbing Mamdani’s proposals for New York City’s mayoral elections as ‘nonsense’.
Notably, Netanyahu is planning to come to New York to address the UN General Assembly on 26 September. When he speaks at the UN, it’s usually to disparage the institution, which will be marking 80 years of its founding from the ashes of war and the horrors of the holocaust.
Last year, a large number of delegates walked out of the UN hall when he came on stage. This year, Netanyahu emboldened by Trump’s support will try his best to repudiate the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on genocide in Gaza. Whether the delegates will pay attention is arguable.
However, one thing is certain. If Netanyahu attempts to go on to the streets of New York to campaign against Mamdani he will likely be met by mass protests.
Mandeep S. Tiwana is a human rights lawyer and Secretary General of global civil society alliance, CIVICUS. He is presently based in New York.
United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem recently released her report on violence against women and girls with a focus on surrogacy, one of the most controversial topics in the medical field.
United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 19 2025 (IPS) – A United Nations report calling for the global abolition of surrogacy has sparked intense debate among experts, with critics arguing that blanket bans could harm the very women the policy aims to protect.
Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, issued a report on violence against women and girls with a specific focus on surrogacy as a form of exploitation. The report, officially titled “The different manifestations of violence against women and girls in the context of surrogacy,” was published on July 14, 2025, and is slated for discussion at the upcoming UN General Assembly session in October.
The report calls surrogacy “direct and exploitative use of a woman’s bodily and reproductive functions for the benefit of others, often resulting in long-lasting harm and in exploitative circumstances.”
It further delves into the danger of surrogacy business models, in particular, which embrace the ambiguity of international law to churn a profit, often at the expense of both the surrogate and the prospective family. Alsalem recommends the abolition of surrogacy and asks member states to “work towards adopting an international legally binding instrument prohibiting all forms of surrogacy.”
One of the largest problems with surrogacy today, according to Senior Lecturer at Swinburne University Jutharat Attawet, is a lack of comprehensive education and legal standards around the practice. This results in social alienation and false conceptions, which worsen exploitation of people who participate in surrogacy—they are not provided adequate resources
Attawet, who specializes in surrogacy healthcare and domestic policy, considers surrogacy itself a beneficial tool for nontraditional family building. However, she acknowledges the steps it has to take to ensure autonomy and respect for surrogates.
Attawet’s research, cited in Alsalem’s report, shows that approximately 1 percent of babies born in Australia are from surrogates, so although the number has doubled over the past decade, doctors are not familiar with the process. Furthermore, legislation is primarily top-down rather than region- or area-specific. Since doctors in places like Australia are “intimidated by the language” surrounding surrogacy due to minimal education, they are less willing to openly engage with the procedures. This pushes families to seek surrogates elsewhere, where laws are less stringent and doctors more comfortable with the procedures.
Another incentive for overseas surrogacy, Attawet says, is lack of national support for surrogacy. Since it does not fulfill the criteria of most healthcare insurance plans, prospective parents often seek a more affordable surrogacy birth internationally. This further contributes to the exploitation both she and Alsalem note in their respective research—international surrogacy is much more difficult to regulate between different countries’ laws and often primarily harms the surrogate and the child, who is less likely to know their birth mother from an international surrogacy.
Alsalem criticized the practice of international surrogacy as an exploitative technique to perpetuate wealth inequality between different countries, but many experts argue that the job is one of the few accessible, well-paying jobs for child-bearing people who need to care for their family full-time. Polina Vlasenko, a researcher whose work was also cited in Alsalem’s report, explained to IPS that international surrogacy in Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia “is the type of job you can combine with having a kid and being a full-time caretaker of your kid… it still benefits women.”
Vlasenko elaborated, saying that most workers in the surrogacy industry, including intermediaries and clinicians, were women who had some sort of pre-existing connection to the process—often being former surrogates. To ban surrogacy entirely, Vlasenko argues, would merely harm women in all facets of the industry rather than resolving wealth gaps. She said, “this inequality is much deeper than services of surrogacy.”
Social worker and professor at Ohio State University Sharvari Karandikar similarly opposes the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation of abolition. In an interview with IPS, Karandikar explained that “in countries like India, it’s really hard to implement policies in a uniform way, and I think that one needs to have proper oversight of medical professionals and how they’re engaging in surrogate arrangements and medical tourism. Blanket bans do not work.”
She emphasized the dangers of surrogacy without regulation, saying it would only do more harm.
Instead, Karandikar advocates for “the safety, the better communication, more education, more informed choice and decision, more safeguards, better treatment options, and long-term health coverage for women who engage in surrogacy” as “a wonderful way to speak about women’s choices, decisions and their health instead of penalizing anyone.”
However, in order for the global conversation surrounding surrogacy to center around female agency, experts like Vlasenko say the perception of surrogates needs to change. She said, “sex work is not seen as violence or exploitation when it’s done for free… it’s the same with childbirth… surrogate mothers are taking the only work that, in their situation, allows them to fulfill certain responsibilities like childcare and income generation. They think that they’re agents in this process, but society sees them as victims.”
Ultimately, the surrogacy debate reflects broader questions about women’s autonomy, economic inequality and reproductive rights. As Vlasenko noted, addressing the “much deeper inequality” that pushes women to surrogacy may prove more effective than focusing solely on limiting the practice itself.
NEW YORK, Sep 17 2025 (IPS) – The recent IPS article, “UNGA’s High-Level Meetings: NGOs Banned Again,” served as a stark and painful reminder of a long-standing paradox: the United Nations, an organization founded on the principle of “We the Peoples,” often closes its doors to the very communities it was created to serve.
Yet, after sharing this article with our members, we were reminded of a powerful truth: in spite of these physical barriers, the NGO community is “better together” and remains a potent force capable of shaping the decisions of governments.
The ban, far from silencing us, has only amplified our resolve. As we speak, hundreds of NGOs are organizing side events outside the UN, participating with willing governments and continuing our vital work.
We are often told that access is restricted “for security.” IPS quotes voices across civil society who have heard that refrain for years. But the net effect is to marginalize the very partners the UN relies upon when crises break, when schools need rebuilding, when refugees need housing, when women and youth need pathways into the formal economy.
If the room is too small for the people, you don’t shrink the people—you build a bigger room.
This ban also speaks to the very heart of why our NGO Committee is so deeply involved in the 2025 UNGA Week (September 22-30) of International Affairs initiative. We are committed to expanding UNGA beyond the walls of the UN and into the vibrant communities of the Tri-State area and beyond.
Our goal is to transform this week into an “Olympic-caliber” platform where diplomacy connects directly with culture, community, and commerce.
As a private-sector committee of NGOs, we recognize we are sometimes perceived as being “on the side of governments” because we emphasize jobs, investment, and a strong economy. That has spared us some of the blowback that human rights and relief NGOs bear every September.
But proximity to government doesn’t mean complacency. Where we part ways with business-as-usual—both in some capitals and within parts of the UN system—is on the scale of joblessness that goes uncounted.
Official series routinely understate the lived reality in many communities. In Haiti and across segments of the LDC bloc, our coalition’s fieldwork and partner surveys suggest joblessness well above headline rates—often exceeding 60% when you strip away precarious, informal survivalism. If you don’t count people’s reality, you can’t credibly fix it.
That is why our 2025 agenda is jobs-first by design. Our Global Jobs & Skills Compact is not just a proposal; it is a declaration of our commitment to a jobs-first agenda, aligning governments, investors, DFIs, and diaspora capital around a simple test: does the money create decent work at scale—and are we measuring it?
We are mobilizing financing tied to verifiable employment outcomes, building skills pipelines for the green and digital transitions, and hard-wiring accountability into the process so that “promises” translate into paychecks.
Accountability also needs daylight. During the General Debate we will run a Jobs-First Debate Watch—tracking job and skills commitments announced from the podium and inviting follow-through across the year.
The point is not to “catch out” governments but to help them succeed by making the public a partner. Anyone who has walked with a loved one through recovery knows the first step is honesty. Denial doesn’t heal; measurement does. That is as true for addiction as it is for unemployment.
IPS rightly reminds us that NGOs are indispensable to multilateralism even when we are asked to wait outside. We agree—and we’ll add this: if the UN is “We the Peoples,” then UNGA Week must be where the peoples are.
In 2025, that means inside the Hall and across the city—on campus quads and church aisles, in galleries and small businesses, at parks and public squares. We’ll keep inviting governments to walk that route with us, shoulder to shoulder.
Until every door is open, we will keep building bigger rooms. And we will keep filling them—with jobs, skills, investment, and the voices that make multilateralism real.
Harvey Dupiton is a former UN Press Correspondent and currently Chair of the NGO Committee on Private Sector Development (NGOCPSD).
