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).
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) is a coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in over 100 countries promoting adherence to, and implementation of, the United Nations nuclear weapons ban treaty. Credit: ICAN
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 15 2025 (IPS) – When the high-level meeting of over 150 world political leaders takes place September 22-30, thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their accredited UN representatives will either be banned from the UN premises or permitted into the building on a strictly restricted basis– as it happens every year.
This year will not be an exception to the rule.
In a message to staffers, journalists and NGOs last week—spelling out the rigid ground rules during the summit– the UN said members of civil society organizations (CSOs) and NGOs who are invited to attend high-level meetings or other events will be required to be in possession of a valid NGO pass– and a special event ticket (indicating a specific meeting, date and time) at all times to access the premises.
“A United Nations non-governmental organization (NGO) pass alone does not grant access during the week of 22–30 September 2025”, the message warned
These restrictions have continued despite the significant role played by NGOs both at the UN and worldwide.
A former UN Secretary-General, the late Kofi Annan (1997-2006), once characterized NGOs as ”the world’s third superpower.”
And a former Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro (2007-2012) told delegates at a UN meeting, the United Nations relies on its partnership with the NGO community “in virtually everything the world body does”.
“Whether it is peace-building in sub-Saharan Africa or human rights in Latin America, disaster assistance in the Caribbean or de-mining efforts in the Middle East, the United Nations depends upon the advocacy skills, creative resources and grass-roots reach of civil society organizations in all our work,” she said, paying a compliment to NGOs.
The NGOs playing a significant role in humanitarian assistance include Oxfam, CARE International, Doctors Without Borders, International Committee of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, Save the Children, Action Against Hunger, among others,
During an event marking the 75th anniversary of the UN Charter in 2020, the current Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, said civil society groups were a vital voice at the San Francisco Conference (where the UN was inaugurated 80 years ago).
“You have been with us across the decades, in refugee camps, in conference rooms, and in mobilizing communities in streets and town squares across the world.”
“You are with us today as we face the COVID-19 pandemic. You are our allies in upholding human rights and battling racism. You are indispensable partners in forging peace, pushing for climate action, advancing gender equality, delivering life-saving humanitarian aid and controlling the spread of deadly weapons”.
“And the world’s framework for shared progress, the Sustainable Development Goals, is unthinkable without you”, he declared.
But none of these platitudes have changed a longstanding UN policy of restricting NGO access to the UN during high-level meetings.
The annual ritual where civil society members are treated as political and social outcasts has always triggered strong protests. The United Nations justifies the restriction primarily for “security reasons”.
Mandeep S. Tiwana, Secretary General, CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations, told IPS: “It’s really disappointing to see how year on year, civil society representatives who help the UN achieve its mandate, share its values and provide vital entry points to peoples’ needs and aspirations, are systemically excluded from the UN’s premises during UNGA week despite possessing valid annual security passes that are thoroughly vetted.”
Such blanket prohibitions on civil society representatives’ entry to the UN when momentous decisions and contentious debates are taking place are a missed opportunity to engage decision makers, he said.
“Such asymmetries in participation are the reason why many of us have been pushing for the appointment of a civil society envoy at the UN to enable better and more systemic involvement of civil society at the UN, ensure consistent engagement modalities across the UN system and drive the UN’s outreach to people around the world”.
“Despite, the UN Charter beginning with the words, ‘We the Peoples’, our call has fallen on deaf ears. It is well within the UN Secretary General’s power to appoint a civil society envoy that could be a legacy achievement, if realized,“ declared Tiwana.
Mads Christensen, Executive Director, Greenpeace International, told IPS: “We continue to believe in the UN and multilateralism as essential to achieving a green and peaceful future. Those in frontline communities and small island states most impacted by climate change must have their voices heard, as must young people whose very future is being decided. “
“We the peoples”, the opening words of the UN Charter, must not be reduced to “stakeholders consulted.” Civil society needs to be “in the room where it happens,” said Christensen.
Sanam B. Anderlini, Founder of the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), told IPS: “I find the exclusion or NGOs from UNGA ironic and tragic.”
Globally, she pointed out, “ We have raised the alarm bells about conflict, human rights abuses, the desecration of international law. Our sector is also the strongest of supporters for the UN system itself.”
“We believe in the power and potential of multilateralism, and the need for a robust UN that adheres to the principles of peace and human security. Yet the system does not stand with us. “
Today more than ever, she argued, civil society globally is under pressure, politically, financially, systematically. “Yet we still persist with doing ‘what we can’ to address societal needs – as first responders to humanitarian crises, mitigating violence”.
As the powerful abrogate their responsibilities, the least powerful are taking on that responsibility to protect.
The UN should be embracing and enabling this sector’s participation at UNGA. Just as civil society is a champion of the UN, the UN should be a champion of civil society. Yet it seems that ‘We the People of the United Nations’ are not only being marginalized but over-securitized. How many security checks, how many grounds passes does each person need?, she asked.
“How tragic that those of us advocating for peace and justice are outside of the halls of power, while those waging wars, enabling genocide and trampling international laws are inside”.
“But we will be there. If our voices are absent within the UN, that absence itself will speak louder than any words”, she declared.
Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS: “The UN should resist efforts by authoritarian states to delegitimize and shut out affiliated civil society groups.” As the organization is under dramatic pressure to implement cost-cutting reforms, seen in the UN80 initiative, he said, it really needs to seek stronger engagement with civil society, citizens, and the public at large, not less.
Not admitting NGO representatives during the UNGA general debate is another lost opportunity to make a mark, declared Bummel.
SANTIAGO, Chile, Sep 12 2025 (IPS) – At eighty, the United Nations is bogged down by structural limitations and political divisions that render it powerless to act decisively – nowhere more clearly than in the Gaza genocide.
There is only one treaty in the world that, despite its limitations, binds nations together: the United Nations Charter. Representatives of fifty nations wrote and ratified the UN Charter in 1945, with others joining in the years that followed.
The charter itself only sets the terms for the behaviour of nations. It does not and cannot create a new world. It depends on individual nations to either live by the charter or die without it.
The charter remains incomplete. It needed a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and even that was contested as political and civil rights had to eventually be separated from the social and economic rights. Deep rifts in political visions created fissures in the UN system that have kept it from effectively addressing problems in the world.
The UN is now eighty. It is a miracle that it has lasted this long. The League of Nations was founded in 1920 and lasted only eighteen years of relative peace (until World War II began in China in 1937).
The UN is only as strong as the community of nations that comprises it. If the community is weak, then the UN is weak. As an independent body, it cannot be expected to fly in like an angel and whisper into the ears of the belligerents and stop them.
The UN can only blow the whistle, an umpire for a game whose rules are routinely broken by the more powerful states. It offers a convenient punching bag for all sides of the political spectrum: it is blamed if crises are not solved and if relief efforts fall short. Can the UN stop the Israeli genocide in Gaza?
UN officials have made strong statements during the genocide, with Secretary General António Guterres saying that ‘Gaza is a killing field – and civilians are in an endless death loop’ (8 April 2025) and that the famine in Gaza is ‘not a mystery – it is a man-made disaster, a moral indictment, and a failure of humanity itself’ (22 August 2025).
These are powerful words, but they have amounted to nothing, calling into question the efficacy of the UN itself. . The UN is not one body but two halves. The most public face of the UN is the UN Security Council (UNSC), which has come to stand in as its executive arm. The UNSC is made up of fifteen countries: five are permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and the others are elected for two-year terms.
The five permanent members (the P5) hold veto power over the decisions of the council. If one of the P5 does not like a decision, they are able to scuttle it with their veto. Each time the UNSC has been presented with a resolution calling for a ceasefire, the United States has exercised its veto to quash even that tepid measure (since 1972, the United States has vetoed more than forty-five UNSC resolutions about the Israeli occupation of Palestine).
The UNSC stands in for the UN General Assembly (UNGA), whose one hundred and ninety-three members can pass resolutions that try to set the tone for world opinion but are often ignored. Since the start of the genocide, for instance, the UNGA has passed five key resolutions calling for a ceasefire (the first in October 2023 and the fifth in June 2025).
But the UNGA has no real power in the UN system. The other half of the UN is its myriad agencies, each set up to deal with this or that crisis of the modern age. Some predate the UN itself, such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which was created in 1919 and brought into the UN system in 1946 as its first specialised agency.
Others would follow, including the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), which advocates for the rights of children, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which promotes tolerance and respect for the world’s cultures.
Over the decades, agencies have been created to advocate for and provide relief to refugees, to ensure nuclear energy is used for peace rather than war, to improve global telecommunications, and to expand development assistance. Their remit is impressive, although the outcomes are more modest.
Meagre funding from the world’s states is one limitation (in 2022, the UN’s total expenditure was $67.5 billion, compared with over $2 trillion spent on the arms trade).
This chronic underfunding is largely because the world’s powers disagree over the direction of the UN and its agencies. Yet without them, the suffering in the world would neither be recorded nor addressed. The UN system has become the world’s humanitarian organisation largely because neoliberal austerity and war have destroyed the capacity of most individual countries to do this work themselves, and because non-governmental organisations are too small to meaningfully fill in the gap.
The UN80 Task Force is the deepest reform imaged, but its three areas of interest (internal efficiency, mandate review, and programme alignment) have been attempted previously (‘we’ve tried this exercise before’, said Under-Secretary-General for Policy and Chair of the UN80 Task Force Guy Ryder).
The agenda set by the UN is focused on its own organisational weaknesses and does not address the largely political questions that scuttle the UN’s work. A broader agenda would need to include the following points:
Move the UN Secretariat to the Global South. Almost all UN agencies are headquartered in either Europe or the United States, where the UN Secretariat itself is located. There have been occasional proposals to move UNICEF, the UN Population Fund, and UN Women to Nairobi, Kenya, which already hosts the UN Environment Programme and UN-Habitat.
It is about time that the UN Secretariat leave New York and go to the Global South, not least to prevent Washington from using visa denials to punish UN officials who criticise US or Israeli power. With the US preventing Palestinian officials from entering the US for the UN General Assembly, there have been calls already to move the UNGA meeting to Geneva. Why not permanently leave the United States?
Increase funding to the UN from the Global South. Currently, the largest funders of the UN system are the United States (22%) and China (20%), with seven close US allies contributing 28% (Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, and South Korea).
The Global South – without China – contributes about 26% to the UN budget; with China, its contribution is 46%, nearly half of the total budget. It is time for China to become the largest contributor to the UN, surpassing the US, which wields its funding as a weapon against the organisation.
Increase funding for humanitarianism within states. Countries should be spending more on alleviating human distress than on paying off wealthy bondholders. The UN should not be the main agency to assist those in need. As we have shown, several countries on the African continent spend more servicing debt than on education and healthcare; unable to provide these essential functions, they come to rely on the UN through UNICEF, UNESCO, and the WHO. States should build up their own capacity rather than depend on this assistance.
Cut the global arms trade. Wars are waged not only for domination but for the profits of arms dealers. Annual international arms exports are nearing $150 billion, with the United States and Western European countries accounting for 73% of sales between 2020 and 2024. In 2023 alone, the top one hundred arms manufacturers made $632 billion (largely through sales by US companies to the US military).
Meanwhile, the total UN peacekeeping budget is only $5.6 billion, and 92% of the peacekeepers come from the Global South. The Global North makes money on war, while the Global South sends its soldiers and policemen to try and prevent conflicts.
Strengthen regional peace and development structures.
To disperse some of the power from the UNSC, regional peace and development structures such as the African Union must be strengthened and their views given priority. If there are no permanent members in the UNSC from Africa, the Arab world, or from Latin America, why should these regions be held captive by the veto wielded by the P5? If the power to settle disputes were to rest more in regional structures, then the absolute authority of the UNSC could be somewhat diluted.
With the genocide unrelenting, another wave of boats filled with solidarity activists – the Freedom Flotilla – attempts to reach Gaza. On one of the boats is Ayoub Habraoui, a member of Morocco’s Workers’ Democratic Way Party who represents the International Peoples’ Assembly. He sent me this message:
What is happening in Gaza is not a conventional war – it is a slow-motion genocide unfolding before the eyes of the world. I am joining because deliberate starvation is being used as a weapon to break the will of a defenceless people – denied medicine, food, and water, while children die in their mothers’ arms. I am joining because humanity is indivisible. Whoever accepts a siege today will accept injustice anywhere tomorrow.
Silence is complicity in the crime, and indifference is a betrayal of the very values we claim to uphold. This flotilla is more than just boats – it is a global cry of conscience that declares: no to the siege of entire populations, no to starving the innocent, no to genocide. We may be stopped, but the very act of sailing is a declaration: Gaza is not alone. We are all witnesses to the truth – and voices against slow death.
The AI for Good Global Summit took place in Geneva on 8 July 2025. Credit: ITU/Rowan Farrell
The Summit brought together governments, tech leaders, academics, civil society and young people to explore how artificial intelligence can be directed toward Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – and away from growing risks of inequality, disinformation and environmental strain, according to the UN.
“We are the AI generation,” said Doreen Bogdan-Martin, chief of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) – UN’s specialized agency for information and communications technology – in a keynote address. But being part of this generation means more than just using these technologies. “It means contributing to this whole-of-society upskilling effort, from early schooling to lifelong learning,” she added.
ABUJA, Nigeria, Aug 14 2025 (IPS) – Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping the world at a speed we’ve never seen before. From helping doctors detect diseases faster to customizing education for every student, AI holds the promise of solving many real-world problems. But along with its benefits, AI carries a serious risk: discrimination.
As the global body charged with protecting human rights, the United Nations—especially the UN Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)—has a unique role to play in ensuring AI is developed and used in ways that are fair, inclusive, and just.
The United Nations must declare AI equity a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) by 2035, backed by binding audits for member states. The stakes are high. A 2024 Stanford study warns that if AI bias is left unchecked, 45 million workers could lose access to fair hiring by 2030, and 80 percent of those affected would be in developing countries.
The Promise—and Peril—of AI
At its core, AI is about using computer systems to solve those problems or perform those tasks that us to use human intelligence. Algorithms drive the systems that make these possible—sets of instructions that help machines make sense of the world and act accordingly.
But there’s a catch: algorithms are only as fair as the data they are trained on and the humans who designed them. When the data reflects existing social inequalities, or when developers overlook diverse perspectives, the result is biased AI. In other words, AI that discriminates.
Take, for example, facial recognition systems that perform poorly on people with darker skin tones. Or hiring tools that favor male candidates because they’re trained on data from past hires in male-dominated industries.
Or a LinkedIn verification system that can only verify NFC-enabled national passports that the majority of Africans don’t yet possess. These are more than technical glitches; they are human rights issues.
What the UN Has Already Said
The UN is not starting from scratch on this. The OHCHR has already sounded the alarm. In its 2021 report on the right to privacy in the digital age, the OHCHR warned that poorly designed or unregulated AI systems can lead to violations of human rights, including discrimination, loss of privacy, and threats to freedom of expression and thought.
The report asked powerful questions we must keep asking:
● How can we ensure that algorithms don’t replicate harmful stereotypes?
● Who is responsible when automated decisions go wrong?
● Can we teach machines our values? And if so, whose values?
These are very vital, practical questions that go to the heart of how AI will shape our societies and who will benefit or suffer as a result, and I commend the UN for conceptualizing these questions.
UNESCO, another UN agency, has also taken a bold step by adopting the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, the first global standard-setting instrument of its kind. Their Recommendation emphasizes the need for fairness, accountability, and transparency in AI development, and calls for banning AI systems that pose a threat to human rights.
This is a good start. But the real work is just beginning.
The Danger of Biased Data
A major driver of AI discrimination remains biased data. Many AI systems are trained on historical data; data that often reflects past inequalities. If a criminal justice algorithm is trained on data from a system that has historically over-policed Black communities, it will likely continue to do so.
Even well-meaning developers can fall into this trap. If the teams building AI systems lack diversity, they may not recognize when an algorithm is biased or may not consider how a tool could impact marginalized communities.
That’s why it’s not just about better data. It’s also about better processes, better people, and better safeguards.
Take the ongoing case with Workday as an example.
When AI Gets It Wrong: 2024’s Most Telling Cases
In one of the most significant AI discrimination cases moving through the courts, the plaintiff alleges that Workday’s popular artificial intelligence (AI)-based applicant recommendation system violated federal antidiscrimination laws because it had a disparate impact on job applicants based on race, age, and disability.
Judge Rita F. Lin of the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in July 2024 that Workday could be an agent of the employers using its tools, which subjects it to liability under federal anti-discrimination laws. This landmark decision means that AI vendors, not just employers, can be held directly responsible for discriminatory outcomes.
In another case, the University of Washington researchers found significant racial, gender, and intersectional bias in how three state-of-the-art large language models ranked resumes. The models favored white-associated names over equally qualified candidates with names associated with other racial groups.
In 2024, a University of Washington study investigated gender and racial bias in resume-screening AI tools. The researchers tested a large language model’s responses to identical resumes, varying only the names to suggest different racial and gender identities.
The financial impact is staggering. A 2024 DataRobot survey of over 350 companies revealed: 62% lost revenue due to AI systems that made biased decisions, proving that discriminatory AI isn’t just a moral failure—it’s a business disaster. It’s too soon for an innovation to result in such losses.
Time is running out. A 2024 Stanford study estimates that if AI bias is not addressed, 45 million workers could be pushed out of fair hiring by 2030, with 80 percent of those workers living in developing countries. The UN needs to take action now before these predictions turn into reality.
What the UN Can—and Must—Do
To prevent AI discrimination, the UN must lead by example and work with governments, tech companies, and civil society to establish global guardrails for ethical AI.
Here’s what that could look like:
1. Develop Clear Guidelines: The UN should push for global standards on ethical AI, building on UNESCO’s Recommendation and OHCHR’s findings. These should include rules for inclusive data collection, transparency, and human oversight.
2. Promote Inclusive Participation: The people building and regulating AI must reflect the diversity of the world. The UN should set up a Global South AI Equity Fund to provide resources for local experts to review and assess tools such as LinkedIn’s NFC passport verification. Working with Africa’s Smart Africa Alliance, the goal would be to create standards together that make sure AI is designed to benefit communities that have been hit hardest by biased systems. This means including voices from the Global South, women, people of color, and other underrepresented groups in AI policy conversations.
3. Require Human Rights Impact Assessments: Just like we assess the environmental impact of new projects, we should assess the human rights impact of new AI systems—before they are rolled out.
4. Hold Developers Accountable: When AI systems cause harm, there must be accountability. This includes legal remedies for those who are unfairly treated by AI. The UN should create an AI Accountability Tribunal within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to look into cases where AI systems cause discrimination.
This tribunal should have the authority to issue penalties, such as suspending UN partnerships with companies that violate these standards, including cases like Workday.
5. Support Digital Literacy and Rights Education: Policy makers and citizens need to understand how AI works and how it might impact their rights. The UN can help promote digital literacy globally so that people can push back against unfair systems.
6. Mandate Intersectional Audits: AI systems should be required to go through intersectional audits that check for combined biases, such as those linked to race, disability, and gender. The UN should also provide funding to organizations to create open-source audit tools that can be used worldwide.
The Road Ahead
AI is not inherently good or bad. It is a tool, and like any tool, its impact depends on how we use it. If we are not careful, AI could lengthen problem-solving time, deepen existing inequalities, and create new forms of discrimination that are harder to detect and harder to fix.
But if we take action now—if we put human rights at the center of AI development—we can build systems that uplift, rather than exclude.
Ahead of the UN General Assembly meeting in September, the United Nations must declare AI equity a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) by 2035, backed by binding audits for member states. The time for debate is over; the era of ethical AI must begin now.
The United Nations remains the organization with the credibility, the platform, and the moral duty to lead this charge. The future of AI—and the future of human dignity—may depend on it.
Chimdi Chukwukere is a researcher, civic tech co-founder, and advocate for digital justice. His work explores the intersection of technology, governance, and social justice. He holds a Masters in Diplomacy and International Relations from Seton Hall University and has been published at Politics Today, International Policy Digest, and the Diplomatic Envoy.
Gift Nwammadu is a Mastercard Foundation Scholar at the University of Cambridge, where she is pursuing an MPhil in Public Policy with a focus on inclusive innovation, gender equity, and youth empowerment. A Youth for Sustainable Energy Fellow and Aspire Leader Fellow, she actively bridges policy and grassroots action. Her work has been published by the African Policy and Research Institute addressing systemic barriers to inclusive development.
Regional cooperation can help countries respond more effectively to future pandemics. Credit: Asian Development Bank (ADB)
MANILA, Philippines, Aug 13 2025 (IPS) – In an interconnected world when infections can circle the globe in hours, cooperation in preparing for pandemics is essential. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted just how vulnerable countries are when surveillance is fragmented, laboratory networks are underfunded and underequipped, and vaccines are not dispersed equitably.
To safeguard regional health security, several health interventions must be treated as regional public goods.
Regional public goods are services or assets that benefit multiple countries but cannot be provided by a single nation alone. They allow developing economies to cooperate on costs, expertise, and technology for greater development impact than they could achieve individually.
For example, efficient regional infrastructure and trade facilitation brings down transportation and trade costs and promotes freer movement of people and goods; delivering energy across borders improves access to sustainable energy; and financial agreements, such as the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization, boost regional financial stability during crises.
Regional public goods fall into three broad categories: economic initiatives such as transport infrastructure, energy networks, and trade agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership; environmental efforts including river basin management, pollution control, and cross-border conservation programs; and social investments such as public health systems, regional education platforms, and collaborative research networks.
Countries in Asia and the Pacific already work together on trade, infrastructure, and climate action. Broadening areas of cooperation, however, can help countries meet their development goals and address increasingly complex health challenges, including emergencies.
This partnership is particularly important in the area of health emergency response.
A succession of human and animal infections including SARS, avian influenza, African swine fever and COVID-19 have shown just how quickly pathogens can go from a local problem to one that threatens regional and even global security. Countries can protect themselves through early alerts and early action via coordinated surveillance, data-sharing, and equitable vaccine access.
Responses to many recent outbreaks, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have been slow, fragmented, and unfair. Greater regional cooperation can mitigate the impacts of epidemics, especially for the most vulnerable, by pooling expertise, resources, and response capacities.
Health intersects with transport, trade, gender equality, education, and livelihoods. A healthy population underpins a resilient economy and supports social stability. Supporting each other to build systems that can prevent and respond to outbreaks makes sense for countries and the region.
To respond faster and smarter to the next pandemic, countries in Asia and the Pacific should focus on four high-impact areas regional integration and collective action:
Contact Tracing Networks
Early detection saves lives but only if data move faster than the disease. A regional contact tracing network, using interoperable digital tools and shared protocols, can help track outbreaks across borders.
By linking national systems through common standards and real-time data-sharing agreements, countries can monitor risks in high-risk areas, such as along borders and major transit corridors, and prevent spread.
Health Communications Coordination
Misinformation was a major problem during the COVID-19 pandemic, eroding public trust and weakening response efforts. A regional health communications framework, backed by multilingual messaging templates, rumor tracking systems, and coordinated press briefings, can ensure consistent, culturally relevant, and science-based public information across countries. Successes in reaching vulnerable populations and mobile communities can also be quickly shared.
Telemedicine for Cross-Border Care
Regional telemedicine platforms can connect healthcare providers across borders, especially in remote or small island states, ensuring continued access to care even when in-person services are disrupted. Joint investments in infrastructure, digital health standards, and clinician training can allow countries to offer virtual consultations, diagnostics, and even specialist referrals across the region.
Region-wide Public Health Funds
Collaborative procurement of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics have helped countries respond to disease outbreaks, and eradicate public health threats. Region-wide public health funds maintained by cooperating counties offer a means of improving timely access to life saving countermeasures.
Effectively preventing and preparing for pandemics requires countries to work in concert. These approaches can strengthen all types of health services and build resilience to all kinds of health threats. Now is the time to act decisively and secure a healthier, more prosperous future for all.
This article was originally published on the Asian Development Blog, and is based, in part, on research related to ADB’s 1st INSPIRE Health Forum: Inclusive, Sustainable, Prosperous and Resilient Health Systems in Asia and the Pacific. Ben Coghlan contributed to this blog post.
Dr. Eduardo P. Banzon is ADB Director, Health Practice Team, Human and Social Development Sectors Office, Sectors Group, who champions Universal Health Coverage and has long provided technical support to countries in Asia and the Pacific in their pursuit of this goal.
Dr. Michelle Apostol is a Health Officer for the Health Practice Team of ADB supporting the bank’s initiatives in strengthening health systems of member countries and advocating for the advancement of Universal Health Coverage (UHC).
Anne Cortez is a communications and knowledge management consultant with ADB. She brings over a decade of experience working with governments, think tanks, nonprofits, and international organizations on initiatives advancing health equity, climate action, and digital inclusion across Asia and the Pacific.
Technological change is unleashing a new era in productivity and creativity with far-reaching implications for global development and security. But, beyond adopting new, non-binding normative frameworks, all UN member states must come together to improve the management of new and emerging technologies to better leverage their many benefits, while mitigating multiple risks. Credit: istock
DOHA / WASHINGTON, DC, Aug 6 2025 (IPS) – Technological progress and the course of human history have moved forward together; more recent technological innovations have emerged with unprecedented speed and reach, deeply influencing many areas of human activity.
These and other recent technological developments will find applications in sectors such as healthcare, where advanced algorithms can support personalized diagnosis and treatment. New and emerging technologies, including nanotechnology and human enhancement technology, have implications for international peace and security too.
Against the backdrop of disruptive global forces that create new challenges, risks, and opportunities for development, security, and the global order itself, the need for effective “tech-governance” – including the engagement of all countries, big and small, through existing global institutions – has never been more urgent.
In short, effective tech-governance helps countries to employ common principles (including safety and transparency), codes of practice, and regulation to implement shared values and protect basic human rights.
Successful governance of new and emerging technologies at the global level will require the UN’s 193 member states to not only adopt new, non-binding normative frameworks (such as the recently endorsed Global Digital Compact), but also to build upon them by pursuing targeted innovations in global governance.
In the Future of International Cooperation Report 2024, produced by the Doha Forum, the Stimson Center, and the Global Institute for Strategic Research, we call for assembling an International Scientific Panel on AI (ISPAI) that extends beyond the Global Digital Compact’s limited description focused on promoting “scientific understanding through evidence-based impact, risk and opportunity assessments.”
Feeding into current intergovernmental deliberations in New York co-facilitated by the Governments of Spain and Costa Rica, we believe the ISPAI should be tasked with producing knowledge products and increasing awareness of AI risk, principles, and regulations for policy-makers.
Modeled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ISPAI’s ultimate objective could be to understand and address the impact of emerging digital information technologies on the world’s social, economic, political, and natural systems.
The extraordinary pace of AI innovation requires an agile and fast-paced approach to scientific assessment by continually evaluating the technology’s evolving capabilities and ramifications.
A community of practice through an AI Frontier Collaborative would further assist the ISPAI with a new international public-private partnership for expanding access to – as well as investing in – AI technology from leading private sector AI developers, where much of the innovation happens outside the public realm.
Additionally, the International Scientific Panel on AI could function as a subsidiary of, and with direct administrative support from, an International Artificial Intelligence Agency (IA2), as elaborated in this forum.
Advising the UN General Assembly and Security Council, the IA2 would boost visibility, advocacy, and resource-mobilization for global AI regulation, while monitoring, evaluation, and reporting on AI industry safeguards. It could further help countries to combat AI-enabled disinformation and the resulting misinformation that can fuel violence and aid terrorist and criminal organizations.
Critically, a scientific panel (like the ISPAI) requires an agile policy platform (like the IA2), as a chief beneficiary of ISPAI’s analysis and recommendations. This will help to ensure its policy relevance and impact, as well as to serve as a central coordination mechanism for AI and related cybertech expertise across the UN system.
Artificial intelligence and other new and emerging technologies make possible powerful new tools for problem-solving. But they also raise serious governance challenges, including in the spheres of global development and security. Effective regulation to maximize their benefits and minimize risks requires the astute combination of advanced knowledge, multistakeholder approaches, and an agile policy interface.
To prevent unbridled competition – dominated by only a select few large companies backed-up by equally large and powerful countries – from leaving everyone worse off, let alone precipitating a serious lose-lose confrontation, we must continuously update global governance tools and mechanisms to keep pace with technological advances.
Improving their effective global management will continue to usher in benefits for potentially billions of people worldwide while, simultaneously, mitigating technological risks.
Mubarak Al-Kuwari is Executive Director of the Doha Forum; Richard Ponzio is Director of the Global Governance, Justice, and Security Program and a senior fellow at the Stimson Center;
Mohamed Ali Chihi is Executive Director of the Global Institute for Strategic Research.
