Democracy under Attack: Why the World Needs a New UN Special Rapporteur

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Trafficking, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Cover photo by OHCHR

BRUSSELS, Belgium / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jul 2 2025 (IPS) – When tanks rolled through Myanmar’s streets in 2021, civil society groups worldwide sounded the alarm. When Viktor Orbán systematically dismantled Hungary’s free press, democracy activists demanded international action. And as authoritarianism returns to Tanzania ahead of elections, it’s once again civil society calling for democratic freedoms to be respected.

Around the world, authoritarian populists have learned to maintain democratic language and rituals while gutting democracy’s substance. They hold fraudulent elections with no real opposition and crack down on civil society when it tries to uphold democratic freedoms. As a result, more than 70 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries where civic space is routinely repressed.

In response, over 175 civil society organisations and 500 activists have united behind a demand to help improve respect for democratic freedoms, calling on the UN to establish a Special Rapporteur on Democracy.

The proposal isn’t coming from diplomatic corridors or academia; it’s a grassroots call from the frontlines of a global democratic struggle. Democracy defenders who face harassment, imprisonment and violence have identified a gap in international oversight that emboldens authoritarians and lets down those fighting for democratic rights when they most need support.

Critical blind spots

While the UN investigates everything from torture to toxic waste through specialised rapporteurs, democracy – supposedly a core UN principle – receives no systematic international oversight. This is a blind spot civil society wants to change.

Today’s threats to democracy are often more subtle than outright coups and blatant election rigging. Repressive leaders have mastered the art of legal authoritarianism, using constitutional amendments to extend term limits, judicial re-engineering to capture courts and media laws to silence critics, all while maintaining a facade of democratic governance.

In countries from Belarus to Venezuela, elections have been turned into elaborate ceremonies emptied of competition. Even established democracies face growing challenges, with foreign influence and disinformation campaigns documented across dozens of recent elections, often amplified by AI that creates deepfakes faster than fact-checkers can debunk them.

The rise of right-wing populism across Europe and in the USA shows how easily democratic processes can elevate leaders who systematically undermine democratic institutions from within, weaponising the law to concentrate executive authority, criminalise opposition and restrict civic space.

These evolving threats expose fundamental gaps in how the international community monitors and responds to democratic regression. The proposed UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy would help fill this gap: unlike current mandates that focus on specific rights, this role would examine how democratic systems function as a whole.

Existing UN Special Rapporteurs have recognised the urgent need for dedicated democracy oversight, with the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, freedom of opinion and expression, and the independence of judges and lawyers highlighting how democratic backsliding undermines the rights they’re mandated to protect.

A democracy rapporteur could investigate the full spectrum of threats that escape international attention: how electoral systems become compromised through legal manipulation, how parliamentary oversight gets systematically weakened while maintaining constitutional appearances, how judicial independence is eroded through seemingly legitimate reforms, and how meaningful participation beyond elections gets stifled through bureaucratic restrictions.

Crucially, the mandate could document not just obvious authoritarian crackdowns but the subtler forms of democratic erosion that often escape international notice until democratic institutions are compromised, offering early warnings about gradual processes that transform vibrant democracies into hollow shells.

Legal foundations

The proposal builds on solid legal foundations. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that ‘public authority must derive from the will of the people’, while article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises every citizen’s right to participate in public affairs and vote in free, fair and clean periodic elections.

Regional mechanisms provide valuable precedents. The Inter-American Democratic Charter explicitly states that ‘the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it’. Building on this, Guatemala has recently requested an advisory opinion to clarify whether democracy constitutes a fundamental human right and what tangible obligations this imposes on states.

These foundations provide an actionable definition of democracy that respects diverse democratic models while upholding universal principles, sidestepping cultural relativist arguments that some authoritarian governments use to avoid accountability.

Momentum building

The proposal has generated remarkable momentum. On the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a broad coalition of civil society groups and think tanks published a joint statement calling for the appointment of a UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy.

Civil society leadership reflects widespread frustration among democracy activists who work under increasingly dangerous conditions and demand better institutional responses. Budget-conscious states should find this proposal attractive given the remarkable cost-effectiveness of the UN mandates system. Following standard UN practice, the new position would be unpaid, relying on voluntary funding from supportive states.

During its recent 58th session, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, conferring multilateral legitimacy on governments that want to support stronger democracy oversight. The window for action is open, but it won’t stay open indefinitely.

A test for international institutions

No single initiative will reverse global democratic decline. But this new role would enable systematic documentation, trend spotting and the sustained international attention democracy defenders desperately need. The rapporteur could investigate not just obvious authoritarian crackdowns but early signs of subtler democratic erosion, while highlighting innovations and good practices that others could adapt.

The debate over a UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy offers a test of whether international institutions can adapt to contemporary challenges or will remain trapped in outdated approaches while democracy crumbles. Creating this mandate would communicate that the international community takes democratic governance seriously enough to monitor it systematically – a signal that matters to democracy activists who need international support and serves as a warning to authoritarian leaders who thrive when nobody is watching.

With hundreds of civil society groups leading this charge from the frontlines of democratic struggle, the question isn’t whether this oversight is needed, but whether the UN will act before it’s too late.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, writer at CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

  Source

Poland’s Democratic Deadlock

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Europe, Featured, Gender, Headlines, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Kacper Pempel/Reuters via Gallo Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jun 25 2025 (IPS) – Poland’s embattled Prime Minister Donald Tusk emerged bruised but still standing after his government survived a parliamentary vote of confidence on 11 June. He’d called the vote, which he won by 243 to 210, just days after the presidential candidate of his Civic Platform (PO) party suffered an unexpected defeat.

Karol Nawrocki, an independent nationalist conservative backed by the former ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) defeated liberal pro-European Union (EU) Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski in a nail-biting presidential runoff. The result offers a broader test of Poland’s democratic resilience that could have implications across the EU.

The electoral blow

Nawrocki’s path to victory was anything but predictable. The 42-year-old former president of Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance had never held elected office before emerging as PiS’s chosen candidate. Yet his populist message resonated with frustrated voters.

Economic grievances provided fertile ground for nationalist appeals. Despite Poland’s relatively low unemployment, youth unemployment of over 10 per cent is an understandable source of anxiety for younger voters. Increasingly, they’re reacting by rejecting mainstream political offerings.

This helped cause the fragmented results of the 18 May first round. Trzaskowski won only 31.36 per cent of the vote and Nawrocki took 29.54 per cent. The combined vote share of right-wing candidates – Nawrocki and far-right politicians Grzegorz Braun and Sławomir Mentzen – exceeded polling expectations. Braun and Mentzen took over 21 per cent between them, thanks to the support of many young voters.

The 1 June runoff saw Nawrocki win 50.89 per cent to Trzaskowski’s 49.11 per cent, a margin of under two percentage points. Nawrocki took 64 per cent of the rural vote while Trzaskowski commanded 67 per cent in urban centres – an established geographic divide that reflects an enduring ideological division between a conservative, nationalist Poland and its liberal, cosmopolitan counterpart.

Election interference

Disinformation is helping fuel polarisation. The election campaign unfolded against a backdrop of foreign interference concerns that echoed troubling developments across the region – particularly in Romania, where the Supreme Court cancelled the 2024 presidential election due to evidence of Russian interference.

Just days before the first round, Poland’s Research and Academic Computer Network discovered evidence of potentially foreign-funded Facebook ads targeting all major candidates. According to an investigation by fact-checking organisation Demagog, TikTok was flooded with disinformation, particularly but not exclusively against Trzaskowski. The platform’s algorithm displayed far-right content twice as often as centrist or left-wing content to new users, with pro-Nawrocki videos appearing four times more frequently than pro-Trzaskowski content. Over 1,200 fake accounts systematically attacked Trzaskowski, while another 1,200 promoted Nawrocki.

The influence operation extended beyond individual character assassination to sowing distrust in the democratic process and sharing broader far-right narratives. Fake accounts systematically promoted anti-Ukrainian sentiment and anti-immigration conspiracy theories.

Donald Trump also gave Nawrocki an unprecedented level of support: he received him at the White House just before the election and sent his Homeland Security Secretary to campaign for him in Poland as she attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This year, CPAC, a US conservative platform, held two international events, in Hungary and Poland. The Polish one, timed to coincide with the runoff, offered a clear indication of how the nationalist far right has become internationalised.

Institutional paralysis

The viability of Tusk’s ideologically diverse coalition and his own political future have been called into question by the result. With critics in the Civic Coalition blaming the election defeat on the government’s communication failures and Tusk’s personal unpopularity, the confidence vote became a key test.

But even though Tusk has survived the confidence vote, it will be a tall order to implement the reforms needed to restore the democratic institutions that came under strain during the PiS administration. In eight years in power, PiS dismantled judicial independence, made public media its propaganda mouthpiece and undermined women’s rights by introducing one of Europe’s harshest anti-abortion laws. The new government’s attempts to reckon with this legacy had already been hampered by outgoing President Andrzej Duda, who used his veto power to block key reforms. Nawrocki will continue that, leaving Tusk unable to realise his promises to Polish voters and the EU.

The European Commission had counted on Tusk completing promised judicial reforms as it unlocked billions in pandemic recovery funds frozen over rule-of-law concerns during PiS rule. With progress now unlikely, the Commission faces the difficult decision of whether to maintain its funding even if the government’s unable to deliver promised changes.

Beyond the EU, Nawrocki’s foreign policy positions threaten to complicate Poland’s previously staunch backing of Ukraine. Although supportive of continued aid, Nawrocki has pledged to block any prospects of Ukraine joining NATO and prioritise Polish interests over refugee support.

High stakes

The razor-thin margin of victory in the presidential election, combined with record turnout of 72.8 per cent, tells a complex story of a divided society. While high participation suggests robust civic engagement, the deep polarisation reflected in the results reveals faultlines that extend far beyond conventional political disagreements.

The outcome offers further evidence that, when economic grievances aren’t addressed, institutional trust is allowed to erode and information environments are left vulnerable to manipulation, opportunistic politicians will exploit social divisions and anti-establishment anger.

For Poland, the coming years will test whether democratic institutions can withstand the pressures of sustained political deadlock. Poland faces potential institutional paralysis that could further erode public trust in democratic governance. Poland’s institutions will need to try to demonstrate their continuing effectiveness, and civil society and independent media will need to maintain their credibility, to help protect and nurture democratic values.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

  Source

A Step Closer to Justice For Slain Journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia

Posted on by admin

Editors’ Choice, Europe, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Press Freedom

Protestors march down Valletta's Republic Street on the first anniversary of Daphne's assassination. Credit: Miguela Xuereb/Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation

Protestors march down Valletta’s Republic Street on the first anniversary of Daphne’s assassination. Credit: Miguela Xuereb/Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation

BRATISLAVA, Jun 16 2025 (IPS) – “We didn’t want revenge. We want justice—justice for Daphne and for the [crimes exposed in] her stories.”

Corinne Vella, sister of murdered Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, is speaking to IPS soon after the sentencing of two men to life imprisonment for their involvement in the killing.

She explains that while the long sentences are an important step forward in her family’s pursuit of justice for her sister, they have wider ramifications for press freedom too.

“These sentences are a step towards that justice, but also a step towards making a safer world for journalists,” she says.

Caruana Galizia, Malta’s most prominent investigative journalist, was killed by a car bomb in October 2017 outside her home in the village of Bidnija.

Her murder made headlines around the world, focusing attention on the rule of law in Malta, as well as highlighting the murky links between Maltese politicians and big business—her investigations had exposed high-level government corruption linked to companies.

It also highlighted issues around the safety of journalists. A public inquiry held in the wake of the killing delivered a damning verdict of the state’s role in her murder and pointed to institutional failures to protect Caruana Galizia.

The inquiry’s findings, released in a 457-page report in 2021, were that her death had been preventable and that responsibility lay with the state for creating “an atmosphere of impunity… which led to the collapse of the rule of law.”

The report said, “…acts, certainly illicit if not illegal, were committed by persons within State entities that created an environment that facilitated the assassination. This even by failing to do their duty to act promptly and effectively to give proper protection to the journalist.”

Four years on from the publication of that report, Caruana Galizia’s family believes that the life sentences handed down on June 10 to local crime gang members Robert Agius and Jamie Vella, who were found guilty of complicity in the murder by supplying the bomb that killed her, have sent a powerful message.

“We believe the sentences will have a deterrent effect, telling potential killers that there are serious consequences when a journalist is murdered. The sentences have sent out shockwaves already. People literally thought they could get away with murder, and this has shown that they can’t,” Corinne Vella says.

She points out that the significance of the sentences for press freedom reaches well beyond just Malta.

Since the death of Caruana Galizia, other journalists investigating alleged corruption linked to high-level political figures have been killed in Europe, and press freedom groups have said it is imperative state institutions, including the judiciary, are seen as being able to not just protect journalists but bring to justice those behind killings to show they cannot act with impunity.

“The fight against impunity for the murder of journalists in Europe and around the world is fundamental to the wider climate for the safety of journalists,” Jamie Wiseman, Europe Advocacy Officer at the United International Press Institute (IPI), told IPS.

“Convictions like these send an important signal that those who carry out such assassinations will not escape accountability. So these sentences are another big step forward in the push towards full justice and emblematic of media freedom in Europe more widely,” he added.

However, despite the sentences, both Corinne Vella and press freedom groups remain concerned that the failings they say led to Caruana Galizia’s death have not been dealt with.

“Daphne’s murder did not take place in a vacuum. The murder of a journalist for their work happens because of failures in the system that happen before that person has been murdered. And the circumstances that led to Daphne’s murder have not been addressed. The whole post-inquiry history has been one of a lack of urgency and reluctance to respond to the problems identified in that inquiry,” said Corinne Vella.

Media freedom organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said the convictions of Agius and Vella mark progress in the quest for justice for Caruana Galizia.

But they pointed out the alleged mastermind behind the killing has yet to be brought to trial, and the majority of recommendations on journalist safety and press freedom that emerged from the public inquiry—including, among others, detailed legal and procedural proposals to bolster protection of journalists and journalism’s role in protecting democracy and helping ensure the rule of law—have yet to be implemented.

RSF says it is now essential that Maltese authorities ramp up efforts to do both.

Pavol Szalai, Head of the European Union-Balkans Desk at RSF, told IPS the sentences of Agius and Vella would act as a deterrent to other potential journalist killers but that “the biggest deterrent would be a timely conviction and long sentence for the mastermind of the killings.”

“Globally there is a clear pattern of the masterminds of such killings escaping justice while the middleman and hitmen are convicted. So it’s vital that we keep pushing and ensure the mastermind behind Daphne’s assassination is put behind bars. The Maltese government must also fully implement the recommendations of the Public Inquiry into Daphne’s murder, which would help tackle the culture of impunity in Malta that created an environment in which a leading journalist could be murdered in an EU member state,” added Wiseman.

Meanwhile, Caruana Galizia’s family continues to pursue justice for her.

Prior to the convictions of Agius and Vella, three other men were already serving sentences for installing and detonating the bomb in Caruana Galizia’s vehicle: brothers Alfred and George Degiorgio, sentenced to 40 years in prison, and Vincent Muscat, who negotiated a reduced sentence of 15 years in exchange for testimony, which was seen as key in the trial of Agius and Vella.

Another man, Melvin Theuma, the middleman in the murder, was granted a pardon in exchange for information on the suspected mastermind, businessman Yorgen Fenech.

Fenech, who was charged with complicity in Caruana Galizia’s murder in 2019 but released on bail in February this year, is awaiting trial.

“The convictions and sentencing [of Agius and Vella] are a step closer to justice for Daphne. But it’s not over yet,” said Vella.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

‘Trump Is Advancing a 21st-century US Variant of Fascism, Backed by a White Nationalist Ideology’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Featured, Gender Identity, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, North America, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

May 7 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS speaks about democratic decline in the USA with humanitarian and civil society activist Samuel Worthington, former president of the US civil society alliance InterAction and author of a new book, Prisoners of Hope: Global Action and the Evolving Roles of US NGOs.

The USA has been added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist due to rising concerns about civic freedoms under Donald Trump’s second administration. Since January 2025, executive orders have driven sweeping personnel changes across federal agencies, particularly in the Justice Department. USAID has undergone dramatic restructuring, with funding cuts severely impacting on civil society organisations (CSOs) that support excluded groups across the world. Protests – particularly those addressing immigration and Israel’s war on Gaza – face heightened scrutiny and restrictions. Against this backdrop, civil society is mobilising to preserve democratic principles and civic engagement.

Samuel Worthington

How would you characterise the current state of US democracy?

The USA is experiencing what can only be described as a technocratic coup, rooted in far-right authoritarian ideology. The Trump administration is using every tool at its disposal, even if that means ignoring and breaking laws. The goal is speed: to use technology, claims of waste and abuse, combined with actions that dismantle institutions and attack individuals and organisations.

The Trump administration has adopted a typical authoritarian playbook, similar to that used by leaders such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, but at a much greater scale and speed that has taken many by surprise. A prime example is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which uses computer systems to cripple organisations, create lists of ‘illegal’ individuals for targeting and dismantle protections for civic freedoms. Trump is attempting to centralise power in a 21st-century US variant of fascism, backed by a white nationalist ideology and largely based on Project 2025.

Civil society and institutions were not prepared for this level of attack. Many assumed democracy was more resilient and norms would hold. Instead, we are now witnessing core democratic institutions under assault. For the first time, we are seeing explicit federal government-driven censorship, with official lists of banned words. The administration is systematically attacking diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and withholding funds to punish noncompliant universities and institutions.

Trump is weaponising public money as leverage – even blackmail – to force organisations and US states to comply with his ideology. While pushback from the courts is increasing, this resistance has led to Trump’s attacks on the judiciary. The administration is also limiting media access to outlets that don’t align with its ideology.

As with all forms of fascism, there must be a scapegoat, and here, it’s migrants and transgender people. The Trump administration labels migrants as ‘illegals’ and mass deportations target anyone who doesn’t fit its narrow definition of who is an American. Changes to the constitution are being proposed to strip citizenship rights from US-born children of undocumented parents. Random arrests, disappearances and militarised threats against migrants are becoming increasingly common.

All of this has transpired in just the first hundred days. Democracy’s core institutions — civil society, media, Congress, the judiciary — and the rule of law itself are under enormous stress. The USA is in the midst of a profound constitutional crisis.

How has USAID’s restructuring impacted on civil society?

USAID served as the administration’s test case for destroying a government agency. DOGE destroyed USAID by disabling its computer systems, stopping funding and cancelling contracts. Under the constitution, only Congress has the authority to control appropriations or close government agencies. Even when courts ruled against the administration and ordered programmes to restart, the damage was irreversible: USAID’s systems had already been dismantled by DOGE and could not be easily rebuilt.

Many CSOs that relied heavily on USAID funding lost between 30 and 80 per cent of their resources, leading to mass layoffs, office closures and collapsed partnerships. Fortunately, the USA has a strong tradition of private philanthropy amounting to around US$450 billion a year, with over US$20 billion directed internationally. This private funding is helping some organisations survive. Many are now reorganising around private donors and preparing for the possibility that foundations themselves could become targets of future attacks.

Some CSOs are considering transforming into businesses to protect themselves. Others are fighting back through lawsuits. Some are trying to stay quiet in the hope of being overlooked — not a healthy strategy, but an understandable one. For most, simply trying to survive has become the primary focus.

What global implications are resulting from these domestic developments?

Global civil society has long been critical of the USA, but there was still an assumption that it remained committed to the values of democracy, freedom and global cooperation. This assumption has now been shattered.

The US government is no longer promoting democracy abroad. Instead, it is openly supporting authoritarian regimes and undermining civil society efforts worldwide. Both domestically and internationally, it is actively restricting independent civic action.

The dismantling of USAID alone will cost millions of lives. The USA once provided around half of global humanitarian resources. With this pullback, we’re already witnessing mass deaths and growing risks of famine. Essential supplies of medicines, including HIV/AIDS treatments, are being cut, putting millions more lives at risk.

As the USA disengages and retreats from its global leadership role, it leaves a vacuum, likely to be filled by authoritarian powers such as China and Russia. They will try to reshape the global system in ways that threaten human rights and democratic values.

Finally, the administration’s rhetoric about annexing Canada and seizing Greenland is eroding the post-Second World War rules-based international order, which was established specifically to prevent territorial expansion. By undermining these norms, the USA is effectively encouraging other authoritarian-leaning states to expand through force.

How are people responding to these challenges?

As Trump’s authoritarianism intensifies, people are mobilising to defend democracy and resist repression. Three major protest movements have emerged: the broad-based ‘Hands Off’ movement against fascism and in defence of democracy, student protests focused on Gaza and Palestine and the growing resistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportations.

Protesting against ICE or in solidarity with Gaza has become increasingly dangerous. Citizens may face serious criminal charges simply for joining protests, and non-citizens risk prison and deportation. The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia illustrates this reality: after living in Maryland for 13 years and with legal protection, he was forcibly deported to El Salvador.

Despite these risks, as ICE steps up deportations, activists are taking steps to protect vulnerable people. In some cases, they form human chains to block ICE officers and help people reach their homes, where immigration agents cannot enter without legal permission.

People are fighting back both in the streets and in the courts, challenging these injustices, pushing back against escalating repression and defending fundamental rights.

Do you see any hope for US democracy?

I believe that ultimately, Trump’s attempt to break the US government and dismantle constitutional democracy will fail, for several reasons.

First, we are a country of independent states, and states like California, Illinois and Massachusetts are actively resisting, fighting in courts and passing their own laws to protect their residents. This resistance comes at a cost. The Trump administration has already threatened to cut all federal funding to Maine after its governor refused to follow the administration’s anti-diversity directives. So far, the courts have sided with Maine.

Trump has repeatedly bypassed Congress and violated the separation of powers. In response, CSOs, US states, unions, universities and citizens have already filed over 150 lawsuits against the federal government alleging breaches of the constitution. These lawsuits are steadily moving through the courts and so far, the rulings have overwhelmingly gone against the administration.

At the grassroots level, daily protests continue and constantly evolve. Instead of trying to bring millions to Washington DC, the strategy has shifted toward organising thousands of decentralised protests across the country. After national parks were shut down, for example, there were 433 protests across every single national park on the same day. Movements like ‘Hands Off’ have mobilised millions.

We are learning from struggles in Hungary, Turkey, Ukraine and elsewhere. We now know that democracy cannot be taken for granted; it must be defended every day. But we also know that our strength lies in solidarity. People are forming networks of resistance across the country. We have realised that if we stand alone, we may fail, but together, we can preserve our democracy.

GET IN TOUCH
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Trump and Musk take the chainsaw to global civil society CIVICUS Lens 07.Mar.2025
Tech leaders cosy up to Trump CIVICUS Lens 20.Feb.2025
US funding cuts: Philanthropy must step in to support locally led development CIVICUS 12.Feb.2025

  Source

‘The International Response Should Follow the Principle of ‘Nothing about Us, Without Us’’

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Europe, Featured, Gender, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Labour, Migration & Refugees, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

May 1 2025 (IPS) – CIVICUS speaks with Ukrainian gender rights activist Maryna Rudenko about the gendered impacts of the war in Ukraine and the importance of including women in peacebuilding efforts.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has profoundly impacted on women and girls. Many have been displaced and are struggling with poverty and unemployment. Those who’ve stayed endure daily missile attacks, damaged infrastructure, lack of basic services and sexual violence from Russian forces if they live in occupied territories. Women activists, caregivers and journalists are particularly vulnerable. The international community must increase support to ensure justice for victims and women’s inclusion in peace efforts.

Maryna Rudenko

What have been the impacts of the war in Ukraine, particularly on women and girls?

The war began in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, with Indigenous women, particularly Crimean Tatars, immediately and severely affected. They risked losing their property and livelihoods, and to continue working they were forced to change their citizenship. Pro-Ukraine activists had to flee and those who stayed faced arrest. This placed a heavier burden on many women who were left in charge of their families.

At the same time in 2014, Russia began supporting separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, leading to the occupation of territories such as Donetsk and Luhansk and the displacement of over a million people. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, many lost their homes again. Nearly seven million fled to European countries. This population loss poses a significant demographic challenge to Ukraine’s post-war development.

Since 2015, conflict-related sexual violence has been a major issue. Around 342 cases have been documented. The International Criminal Court recognised that conflict-related sexual violence has been committed in the temporarily occupied territories since 2014.

Ukraine also experienced the largest campaign of child abduction in recent history: Russia took close to 20,000 Ukrainian children from occupied territories and sent then to ‘camps’ in Crimea or Russia, where the authorities changed their names and nationalities and gave them to Russian families. Ukrainian children were forced to change their national identity. This is evidence of genocidal approach in Russia’s war activities.

The war has also devastated infrastructure and the economy. In my town, 30 km from Kyiv, the heating station was hit by 11 ballistic missiles, leaving us without electricity or water for a long time. It was very scary to stay at the apartment with my daughter and know that Russian ballistic missiles were flying over our house. Roughly 40 per cent of the economy was destroyed in 2022 alone, causing job losses at a time when the government spends over half its budget on the military. Civilians, including a record 70,000 women, have taken up arms.

Beyond the immediate human cost, the war is causing serious environmental damage, with weapons and missile debris polluting soil and water beyond national borders. Russia’s occupation of Zaporizhzhia, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, poses a very real risk of a nuclear disaster for Ukraine and Europe as a whole.

How have Ukrainian women’s organisations responded?

Starting in 2014, we focused on advocacy, championing United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1,325, which reaffirms the role of women in conflict prevention and resolution. The government adopted its National Action Plan on the implementation of the resolution in 2016. We formed local coalitions to implement this agenda, leading to reforms such as opening military roles to women, establishing policies to prevent sexual harassment, integrating gender equality in the training curriculum and gender mainstreaming as part of police reform.

Following the full-scale invasion, Ukrainian women’s civil society organisations (CSOs) shifted to providing immediate humanitarian relief, as survival became the top priority. Women’s CSOs began helping people, particularly those with disabilities, relocate to western Ukraine and providing direct aid to those who remained. As schools, hospitals and shelters for survivors of domestic violence were destroyed, women’s CSOs tried to fill the gap, providing food, hygiene packages and cash and improvising school lessons in metro tunnels.

People stood up and helped. In Kharkiv, which is located 30 km from the boarder with Russia, the local government created underground schools. It’s unbelievable that this happened in the 21st century and because of the aggression of a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Our children, women and men can’t sleep normally because every night there are missile and drone attacks.

In the second half of 2022, women’s CSOs and the government tried to refocus on long-term development. One of the first initiatives was to amend the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security to better address conflict-related sexual violence in both occupied and liberated areas. This was a much-needed response given the many reported cases of killing, rape and torture. This involved training law enforcement officers, prosecutors and other officials on how to document these crimes and properly communicate with survivors, who often blame themselves due to stigma surrounding the violence.

We have also reported Russia’s violations of the Geneva Conventions, particularly those concerning women, to UN human rights bodies.

Women’s groups are pushing for more donor support for psychological services to address trauma and helping plan for long-term recovery, aiming to rebuild damaged infrastructure and improve services to meet the needs of excluded groups. Some donors, like the Ukrainian Women’s Fund, have agreed to support the costs of mental recovery for women activists to help them restore their strength and support others.

How should women’s voices be integrated into recovery and peacebuilding efforts?

Women must have a real seat at the negotiation table. Genuine participation means not just counting the number of women involved but ensuring their voices are heard and their needs addressed. Unfortunately, the gender impacts of the war remain a secondary concern.

We have outlined at least 10 key areas where the gender impacts of the war should be discussed and prioritised in negotiations. However, it looks like these are being largely ignored in the current high-level negotiations between Russia and the USA. We heard that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy highlighted the importance of returning Ukrainian children when he met with Donald Trump. It’s highly important for the mothers and fathers of these children and for all Ukrainians.

Women’s CSOs are working to ensure all survivors can access justice and fair reparations, and that nobody forgets and excuses the war crimes committed. We urgently need accountability; peace cannot be achieved at the expense of truth. This is particularly important because the Council of Europe’s Register of Damage for Ukraine only accepts testimonies of war crimes that happened after the 2022 invasion, leaving out many survivors from crimes committed since 2014. We are working to amend this rule.

The international response should follow the principle of ‘nothing about us, without us’. International partners should collaborate directly with women-led CSOs, using trauma-informed approaches. For women affected by combat, loss or abduction, recovery must start with psychological support, and civil society can play a vital role in this process.

The effective implementation of Resolution 1,325 also requires reconstruction funds that incorporate a gender perspective throughout. Ukrainian women’s CSOs prepared a statement to highlight the importance of analysing the war’s impact on the implementation of the UN’s Beijing Platform for Action on gender equality and we used this as common message during the recent meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Additionally, we believe it’s time to consider the successes and failures in implementation of Resolution 1,325 and its sister resolutions, because it’s 25 years since its adoption and the world is not safer.

We appreciate any platforms where we can speak about the experience of Ukraine and call for action to support Ukraine to help make a just and sustain peace in Europe and the world.

GET IN TOUCH
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Ukraine: ‘Civil society remains resilient and responsive, but financial constraints now hamper its efforts’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Mykhailo Savva 25.Feb.2025
Russia: Further tightening of restrictions on ‘undesirable’ organisations CIVICUS Monitor 30.Jul.2024
Russia and Ukraine: a tale of two civil societies CIVICUS Lens 24.Feb.2024

  Source

Trump’s First 100 Days Portend Long-Lasting Damage to Press Freedom

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

NEW YORK, May 1 2025 (IPS) – Press freedom is no longer a given in the United States 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term as journalists and newsrooms face mounting pressures that threaten their ability to report freely and the public’s right to know.

A new report released April 30 by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)– “Alarm bells: Trump’s first 100 days ramp up fear for the press, democracy,” noted that the administration has scaled up its rhetorical attacks and launched a startling number of actions using regulatory bodies and powerful allies that, taken together, may cause irreparable harm to press freedom in the U.S. and will likely take decades to repair.

The level of trepidation among U.S. journalists is such that CPJ has provided more security training since the November election than at any other period.

“This is a definitive moment for U.S. media and the public’s right to be informed. CPJ is providing journalists with resources at record rates so they can report safely and without fear or favor, but we need everyone to understand that protecting the First Amendment is not a choice, it’s a necessity. All our freedoms depend on it,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg.

Emerging challenges to a free press in the United States fall under three main categories:
1) The restriction of access for some news organizations; 2) The increasing use of government and regulatory bodies against news organizations; and 3) Targeted attacks against journalists and newsrooms.

While The Associated Press (AP), a global newswire agency serving thousands of newsrooms in the U.S. and across the world, has faced retaliation for not adhering to state-mandated language, the Federal Communications Commission is mounting investigations against three major broadcasters – CBS, ABC, and NBC – along with the country’s two public broadcasters – NPR and PBS – in moves widely viewed as politically motivated.

“The rising tide of threats facing U.S. journalists and newsrooms are a direct threat to the American public,” said Ginsberg. “Whether at the federal or state level, the investigations, hearings, and verbal attacks amount to an environment where the media’s ability to bear witness to government action is already curtailed.”

Journalists who reached out to CPJ in recent months are worried about online harassment and digital and physical safety. Newsrooms have also shared with us worries about the possibility of punitive regulatory actions.

Since the presidential election last November until March 7 of this year, CPJ has provided safety consultations to more than 530 journalists working in the country. This figure was only 20 in all of 2022, marking an exponential increase in the need for safety information.

Globally, the gutting of the U.S. Agency for Global Media resulted in the effective termination of thousands of journalist positions, and the elimination of USAID independent media support impoverished the news landscape in many regions across the globe where the news ecosystem is underdeveloped or information is severely restricted.

As the executive branch of the U.S. government is taking unprecedented steps to permanently undermine press freedom, CPJ is calling on the public, news organizations, civil society, and all branches, levels, and institutions of government – from municipalities to the U.S. Supreme Court – to safeguard press freedom to help secure the future of American democracy.

In particular, Congress must prioritize passage of the PRESS Act and The Free Speech Protection Act, both bipartisan bills that can strengthen and protect press freedom throughout the United States.

The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source