António Guterres said the world, particularly developing countries, is facing “a perfect storm”, with growing inequalities, climate chaos, conflicts and hunger. Meanwhile, fiscal space is tightening for many, with crushing debt burdens and skyrocketing prices.
“This is a recipe for global instability and suffering,” he said, speaking from Santiago, Chile.
Support for SDG Stimulus
The UN chief called for G20 members to help lead the way in financial justice and commended their support for his $500 billion annual stimulus plan to accelerate achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Mr. Guterres said he will establish a Leaders Group to monitor the implementation of the SDG Stimulus to enable $500 billion in additional long-term development finance.
Reform ‘unfair’ financial systems
He underscored the need to work to reform the current global financial architecture, describing it as “outdated, dysfunctional and unfair”, and commended the bloc’s action to reform multilateral development banks, as well as Brazil’s focus on global governance during its presidency of the forum.
However, “practical solutions must be tabled” at the Summit of the Future next September, he stressed, referring to the UN conference to reaffirm commitment to sustainable development.
Deliver on climate promises
Mr. Guterres is in Chile and will travel to Antarctica before heading to the UN climate conference COP28 which opens next week in Dubai.
He urged the G20 to deliver “an ambitious, credible and just outcome” to keep the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celcius above pre-industrial levels, as outlined in the Paris Agreement on climate change.
“This means getting the loss and damage fund up-and-running with early pledges, delivering all promised financial support, tripling renewables capacity, doubling energy efficiency, and bringing clean power to all by 2030,” he said.
“It also means phasing-out fossil fuels, with a clear timeframe aligned to the 1.5-degree limit.”
Israel-Hamas agreement
Mr. Guterres began his remarks by welcoming the agreement reached by Israel and Hamas on a humanitarian pause in Gaza and the release of hostages.
Christine Nalienya, a farmer in western Kenya, winnowing beans outside her home. Bean farmers confront various challenges, yet as smallholder farmers, they receive little support. Credit: Robert Kibet/IPS
by Robert Kibet
Inter Press Service
Nov 22 (IPS) – In a groundbreaking development, indigenous farmer communities are poised to bring the spotlight onto food systems at the upcoming UN Climate Conference (COP28) in Dubai.
Recent research revealing that food systems contribute to roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions has spurred a compelling call to action.
Furthermore, as one-third of the world’s food goes to waste, an alarming over 700 million people grapple with hunger. At the same time, a staggering 3 billion individuals cannot access a nutritious diet. This issue is poised to worsen due to the adverse effects of extreme weather events and biodiversity loss on global agriculture.
After years of relative neglect in global climate negotiations, food systems have finally taken center stage at COP28.
Estrella Penunia, the Secretary General of the Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA), said at a conference held ahead of World Food Day that while approximately 4 percent of climate financing is allocated to agriculture, a mere 1.7 percent reaches family farmers.
“We want to play the role of climate stewards in our farms, fisheries, and forests because we know the solutions on how to transition to sustainable, inclusive, just, and healthy food systems to regenerative and agricultural approaches,” Penunia told the virtual press conference.
What’s more, the COP28 event will set a precedent by dedicating a thematic day to food systems on December 10. Expectations run high for farmers, businesses, civil society, and other stakeholders to deliver ambitious announcements and rallying calls to further advance the significance of food systems in the current year.
According to Penunia, governments, development partners, the private sector, and civil society organizations must unite to support indigenous farmers. She emphasized the need for favorable policies and programs to expand and enhance their work and for sufficient financing to be directed toward agriculture.
“Direct financing for small-scale family farmers is key to empowering their organizations and cooperatives as effective change agents. The aim is to enable millions of family farmers to directly contribute solutions,” said Penunia.
Stakeholders are concerned that the food systems agenda has been inadequately represented in global climate discussions, but there is now a growing recognition of the substantial impact of agricultural emissions, including methane and carbon dioxide, on the climate.
David Nabarro, the strategic director at the 4 SD Foundation, emphasized that while the contribution of agriculture and food to greenhouse gas emissions has been known for some time, there is now widespread recognition that it warrants serious attention. Moreover, climate change challenges have intensified over the past few years, with increasing reports from farmers about the near impossibility of dealing with its effects.
Nabarro, also a senior advisor to the COP28 Food Systems team, underscored the significance of the upcoming COP28 in Dubai. “It places the issue squarely on the table despite the difficulties involved and brings together various groups. World leaders understand the imperative of addressing all sources of emissions and working with diverse companies and countries to effect meaningful change.”
Gonzalo Munoz, a former high-level champion for COP25 and lead on the COP28 Non-State Actors Agenda for Food Systems on behalf of the UN Climate Champions, stressed the need to demonstrate a sense of urgency and the imperative of scaling up action.
“This call to action endorses the Emirates Declaration and backs its implementation, developed in consultation with non-state actors. Consequently, at COP28, there will be a launch of a non-state actor call to action aimed at transforming food systems for the benefit of people, nature, and climate,” said Gonzalo.
This initiative also underscores the critical need to respect and value the traditional knowledge held by indigenous people and the local knowledge possessed by farmers, fishers, and other food producers.
In the local context, respecting and valuing the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local farmers, fishers, ranchers, and pastoralists is vital. it is equally important to engage women and youth in climate negotiations and other processes at all levels, as Rebecca Brooks, a high-level climate champion, emphasized.
“Strengthening the capacity of organizations representing these groups and providing appropriate resources, incentives, and technical support is essential,” Brooks, also the pillar lead for the non-state actors pillar of the COP28 Food Systems and Agriculture Agenda, told the press conference.
Dr Tim Benton, the Research Director of the Environment and Society Program at Chatham House, emphasized the pivotal role of transforming the food system in addressing the climate crisis, biodiversity loss, pollution, human health, and well-being.
He raised the question of how to make it profitable for farmers to adopt more sustainable, resilient practices without the pressures often stemming from globalized systems to maximize yield at any cost.
Benton also acknowledged the substantial challenges facing smallholder farmers in many parts of the global south, particularly in the middle latitudes.
“The challenges for smallholder farmers in many parts of the global south, and particularly the middle latitudes of the world, are huge,” he reiterated.
Regarding potential trade-offs, Benton recognized that there are real trade-offs, such as balancing biodiversity conservation, nutrition, farmer livelihoods, and greenhouse gas emissions. The complex task is to find solutions that address these trade-offs effectively.
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Nov 21 (IPS) – Ukraine, the Caucasus and the Middle East. The latest eruptions of violence mark the end of Pax Americana. The rise of new powers is shifting the global balance of power. Whether tomorrow’s world will be bipolar or multipolar still remains to be seen.
If the Sino-American system rivalry escalates into a new Cold War, we could see a bipolar order of competing blocs becoming reality once again. Should the remaining centres of power manage to retain their strategic autonomy, however, tomorrow’s world is likely to remain a multipolar one.
This global development has fundamental consequences for the world order. Will the erosion of the hegemony of Western liberal democracies mean an end to the liberal world order? Can the multilateral institutions co-founded by the United States, along with their normative foundations, survive if the ‘world’s policeman’ no longer has either the power or the will to guarantee them?
Will universal institutions that are open to all states and whose norms are binding for everyone still be around in the future? To put it even more pointedly, can the universal nature of human rights survive in a multipolar world where civilisations with different values compete against one another?
Marc SaxerThe rise of illiberal particularism
Let us take a look at the ideological dimension of the struggle for tomorrow’s world order. The liberal order is being challenged both domestically and globally by competing concepts of order. In the West, liberal universalism is coming under pressure from different forms of illiberal particularism.
The far right is dismantling the rule of law and transforming liberal republics with strong minority rights into illiberal majority democracies. Their aim is to limit democratic participation and the blessings of the welfare state to a nativist majority. As the ‘America First’ and the Brexit campaigns show, right-wing populists try to break free from the chains of international law which impede their goal of illiberal transformation of the state and society.
Yet, the identitarian left is no stranger to particularistic tribalism either. The incitement of people with different skin colors, origins, religions or sexual identities against one another undermines the egalitarian ethos of the republic. Attempts to limit dissenters’ freedom of speech, to culturally relativize infringements of the law or to bypass the parliamentary system by means of political commissars arise from an illiberal spirit. At the end of the day, selective condemnation of human rights violations makes a mockery of the universalist ideas of equal rights for all.
If these forms of particularism are allowed to affect state policy, the West’s commitment to universal norms is undermined. It is true that China and Russia instrumentalize the Global South’s criticism of the West’s double standards for their own ends. But it was the West itself that damaged its own moral authority by breaching international law in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
This loss of legitimacy and relative loss of power weakens the West’s ability to assert itself. Wherever isolationist or nationalist forces come to power, there is also a lack of political will to advocate for international law and human rights around the world. This is not a good omen for the future of the liberal world order and its universal fundamental values.
Russia and China
The Global South’s criticism of the neo-conservative spread of democracy by force of arms points out that there have always been proponents of an American Empire in Washington, and indeed there still are to this day. In Russia and China, in particular, defensive and offensive varieties of neo-imperial concepts of order are gaining attention.
On the defensive side, Russia and China are calling for the non-intervention of the liberal West in their civilizations’ internal matters. On the offensive side, with recourse to their imperial history, they are laying claim to a position as an independent power center in a hierarchically organized world order.
Russia has ideologically disguised its attempt to use armed force to create an exclusive sphere of influence by drawing a distinction between a vital Eurasian and decadent Western civilization. Ironically, these neo-imperial fantasies are especially popular in nationalist circles in the ‘decadent West’. Perhaps the renewed popularity of the Huntington thesis of a ‘clash of civilizations’ stems from the particularistic yearning to sort a chaotic world into tribes made up of ‘people who are like us’ and ‘people who are not’.
China, on the other hand, promotes, with reference to its millennia-old high culture, the idea that civilizations can live in harmony if their own cultures and traditions are respected. Instead of the universality of human rights, Beijing’s ‘Global Civilization Initiative’ talks about ‘common values of humanity’, which every culture must interpret with respect for their ‘own conditions and unique features’.
Within the United Nations framework, China advocates its own interpretation, which places the right to economic and social development above political and civil rights. Philosopher Zhao Tingyang re-introduces the ancient Tianxia system (‘all under heaven’) as a normative superstructure for a world order with Chinese characteristics. Critics worry that all these rediscoveries of concepts from China’s imperial history conceal an attempt to justify the hegemony of the old and new Middle Kingdom in Asia.
China’s attempts to undermine the equality, sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors elicit just as much outrage as the West’s humanitarian interventions, which critics castigate as cynical ploys to use universal rights as a pretext to interfere in a country’s domestic affairs. In the Global South, the Westphalian principles enshrined in the UN Charter are positioned against the encroachment by imperial and liberal ideas of order.
Instead of a hierarchical order, in which the vassal states group around imperial poles, they insist that all sovereign nation-states are equal under international law in spite of asymmetries of size and power. The principle of territorial integrity aims to put a stop to violent attacks from the imperial centers.
On the other hand, the principle of non-interference is upheld against the humanitarian interventions of the liberal internationalists and the structural adjustment programmes of global governance institutions. This resentment against external interference is the reason why the Western narrative of systemic rivalry between democracy and autocracy finds so little resonance in the Global South.
Finding consensus in a multipolar world
Since its foundation in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the international system of states has been designed without central authority. The US hegemon selectively performing the role of the ‘world’s policeman’ after the end of the Cold War was always only a poor substitute.
In the future, Washington is unlikely to have either the will or power to sanction violations of universal norms. The crucial question is therefore whether, in a multipolar and thus normatively pluralistic world, in which civilizations with different values and historical experiences, a unilateralist minimum consensus can be formed based purely on voluntarism.
Which concept of order eventually prevails will depend on the balance of power in the struggle for tomorrow’s world order. If the West wants to maintain a liberal order, it will have to refrain from the intrusions of humanitarian interventionism, which are perceived as imperialist, and double standards with regard to the application of universal norms.
This does not mean abandoning the fundamental values of democracy and human rights, but it does mean refraining from disseminating those values by means of armed force and economic coercion. Whether or not the West can bring itself to implement this change, of course, will depend in particular on the outcome of the internal conflict between the illiberal particularists and liberal universalists.
From a progressive point of view, the universalist commitment to equal rights for all is the most effective antidote to the endless zero-sum games between identitarian tribes, which are causing society as a whole to stagnate.
To prevent a global clash of civilizations, where every culture relativises the rules of coexistence, we need to stand by universalist norms. If the norms currently underpinning the world order, with its Christian and natural law connotations, are no longer acceptable for everyone, an equal dialogue between the civilizations is required to work out which universal principles can be agreed on instead.
The concern is, however, that a reasoned debate about the West’s enlightened self-interest in the preservation of an international order rooted in universally applicable norms is in danger of being drowned out by the din of morally charged culture wars.
Advocates of a concert of the great powers remind us that respect of the superpowers’ exclusive zones of influence prevented the Cold War from escalating into a hot war (for instance during the Cuban Missile Crisis). The price of this relative stability in the imperial centers is, however, never-ending proxy wars on the periphery. The rejection of neo-imperialist concepts of order also feeds off the reluctance of the overwhelming majority of states to kowtow to the dominance of one pole.
Large parts of the Global South – including important voices in China and Eastern Europe – advocate for the renaissance of a Westphalian order of equal and sovereign states. If the West lacks the political will and the power to preserve the liberal order, maintaining peaceful coexistence based on the UN Charter’s principles of equality, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, may just be the best of all worse worlds.
Marc Saxer coordinates the regional work of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in the Asia Pacific. Previously, he led the FES offices in India and Thailand and headed the FES Asia Pacific department.
Source: International Politics and Society (IPS)-Journal published by the International Political Analysis Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin
RUSEAU, Nov 21 (IPS) – Roosevelt Skerrit is Prime Minister of DominicaIn Dominica, we are privileged to have over 50 Sperm Whale families living in the calm waters off our western coast as fellow citizens. Living in matrilineal societies led by grandmothers and mothers, these enormous creatures spend time in our waters diving deep for squid, giving birth and raising their young.
Unfortunately, from the busy US West Coast to a remote island in Western Australia, the world’s largest mammals are showing signs of distress. Mass die-offs, mysterious illnesses, ship strikes and puzzling changes in behavior make it clear that whales need a lifeline.
As a small developing state we are proud of our resident sperm whale population and inspired to put nature first in all that we do – as frontiers of the global impacts of climate change brought on from extra-regional activities that threaten the natural environment on an international scale.
In recent years, however, our resident sperm whales haven’t been treated with the respect they deserve. With increasing maritime activities they are often hit by ships, tangled in plastic garbage and imperiled by other human threats that negatively impact their habitat.
With rising ocean temperatures within the region, the increased intensity and the incidence of potential catastrophic climate-induced events can further reduce their numbers or result in their migration to the cooler ocean up in the North. It must be noted therefore that since 2008, our sperm whale families have been declining steadily
It is for this reason that I present on behalf of the Government and the People of the Commonwealth of Dominica this declaration of our firm commitment to the establishment of a sanctuary for the protection of our resident sperm whale population. This Sperm Whale Reserve shall become the first marine protected area designed specifically to preserve the whales’ marine habitat critical for them to thrive in this pristine environment along the west coast of Dominica and is consistent with our commitment under the Sustainable Development Goals to increase the total marine protected area within our exclusive economic zone.
By creating a safe haven for our whale families, we are not only helping them and the ocean. We are contributing directly to improving and sustaining life below water and protecting the economy–benefits that extend to our local fishers, tour operators and the people around the world–while building resilience to the impacts of climate change.
Marine scientists have shared a surprising yet little known fact that whales are incredibly efficient at sequestering climate pollution. After diving deep in the ocean to hunt for squid found in the deep marine waters of Waitukubuli, they rise to the surface to breathe, rest and defecate. Their defecation infuses the water with minerals from the deep, nitrogen and iron that enable tiny organisms, phytoplankton to grow and, in turn absorb carbon.
As a result of this “whale pump” system, our efforts at protecting Dominica’s whales are equivalent to taking 5,000 cars off the road every year. Simply by hunting, eating and defecating, these whales can help keep climate change at bay–at no cost to us all with great potential to generate new sources of income.
The whale reserve shall bolster one of our most important industries–ecotourism–with Dominica being one of the few places in the world where sperm whales can be reliably spotted on whale-watching or swimming-with-whales adventures tours.
Developing Dominica as a safe haven for sperm whales will enable us to keep our tourism industry buoyant without putting our natural environment or our fisheries at risk.
It is our hope that through the Sperm Whale Reserve we are creating a new model that benefits a wide range of stakeholders particularly in the tourism and fisheries sectors. We recognize that, as a small developing island state with limited resources, we have the opportunity through this humble act of protecting the whales who call Dominica home, to have a profound impact in the region and worldwide, and to be viewed as a large ocean state.
As we launch this programme for the establishment of the first Sperm Whale Reserve in the World, we encourage all nations, everywhere that have the honor and privilege to include whales as bonafide citizens, to join us in our commitment to protect our living marine resources–before it’s too late.
President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (left), alongside Carlos Tibúrcio and Fernando Morais, Chair of the IPS Board of Directors (right). Credit: Planalto.
brasilia
Inter Press Service
BRASILIA, Nov 21 (IPS) – Elected by the agency’s global board of directors on November 14th, journalist and writer Fernando Morais assumed the mission of elevating IPS – Inter Press Service – to face the current challenges and perspectives in which the BRICS expand, the Global South emerges and the Internet revolutionizes communication around the worldDuring an official audience at the Planalto Palace, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met on Monday 20 November with writer and journalist Fernando Morais, the first Brazilian to assume the role of Chair at IPS Inter Press Service, one of the international news agencies most committed to democratic communication with developing countries and with civil society at a global level.
IPS was established in 1964, in Rome, coinciding with the emergence of the G77 and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
When greeting Morais, President Lula recalled that Brazil, during his first term in office, was the first country in the global south to be part of the IPS core group of supporter countries.
“I am very happy to see my friend and biographer at the head of an international news agency of this relevance. The challenges are certainly enormous, but Fernando and his team will not lack political and professional capacity to overcome them.” At that time, the person representing Brazil on the agency’s international board was journalist Carlos Tiburcio, former coordinator of President Lula’s Speech Team, who participated in the hearing as a board member of IPS Latin America and Special Advisor to Fernando Morais in the Agency’s Presidency.
The new chair of IPS was born in Mariana, state of Minas Gerais, worked in the main press organizations in Brazil, received the Esso award three times, and the Abril award for journalism four times, and in 2001, the Jabuti award for the book Deaf hearts. He was a state representative and secretary of Culture and Education of the State of San Pablo. With books published in 38 countries, Morais is the author, among others, of “The Island”, “One Hundred Kilos of Gold”, “Olga”, “The Last Soldiers of the Cold War”, “Chatô” and “Lula, volume 1.”
Morais sees this as a new era for IPS, which was built to increasingly democratize information at an international level and give a voice to those who have no voice.
– I am committed to maintaining the mission and integrity of the Agency’s values, its multicultural character and its diversity, revitalizing its role in a world in marked transformation, in which the BRICS are expanding, the Global South is emerging and the fight against inequalities are worsening at all levels, he says.
Opinion by Carel du Marchie Sarvaas (brussels, belgium)
Inter Press Service
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Nov 21 (IPS) – The recent downturn in sales of alternative meat products is only the latest evidence that the world is unlikely to give up animal protein completely in the long run.
In fact, all forecasts suggest global consumption of meat, milk, fish and eggs will continue to rise, with some parts of the world relying on animal agriculture to make up dire protein deficiencies and meet nutrition needs.
With production expected to grow, governments and global bodies must support livestock sector efforts to become increasingly sustainable and keep climate action on track.
Achieving net zero emissions while allowing for an upward trend in meat production and consumption relies on making wholesale efficiency gains, and this starts with the net positive step of improving animal health.
Emissions from the livestock sector are divided between those generated directly through the digestive processes of animals, and those produced indirectly through the provision of feed, land, water, medicine, transportation, and processing. Healthier animals are associated with lower levels of both direct and indirect emissions.
Reducing the spread of animal disease, improving fertility and breeding, and optimising livestock feed are all proven ways to meet rising demand while supporting climate goals. It is why the UN has urged nations to make “improved animal health…one of the key action points to reduce GHG emissions.”
And with additional benefits for improved animal welfare and human health, veterinary interventions offer only positive returns as part of national climate strategies, regardless of the social, political and environmental context.
Mounting evidence demonstrates a strong correlation between livestock disease and emissions from animal agriculture. Diseases drive up emissions by undermining productivity, causing more wastage, and requiring more resources to maintain production levels.
When animals fall sick, they fail to reach target weights or reproduce, meaning farmers must invest in treating the animal while also making up for the shortfall in output. And diseases with high mortality levels, such as avian influenza, mean farmers need more animals to produce the same amount of meat, milk and eggs.
Recent modelling indicates that disease outbreaks in low-income countries that affect 20 per cent of cattle in a herd, for example, result in an estimated 60 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Conversely, vaccinating livestock against preventable diseases can both protect animals from infection and reduce the emissions attributed to each kilogram of meat or litre of milk. Reducing global disease levels by just 10 per cent through vaccination and other preventative health measures would bring down greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 800 million tonnes – equivalent to the annual emissions of close to 200 million people.
Expanding access to animal vaccines, especially in low-income countries, and endorsing livestock vaccination as part of public policy should therefore be on the agenda as a climate solution at the upcoming COP28 climate talks.
Similarly, improvements in livestock breeding can also reduce the environmental footprint of animal agriculture while increasing productivity.
Digital health monitoring innovations, such as smart tags, can make it easier for producers to accurately assess when cows are in heat and therefore more likely to successfully conceive. Not only does this minimise the resources and emissions involved in livestock breeding, but it also reduces the stress on the animal.
Meanwhile, genetic assessments found the “top” 25 per cent of cows produced 10 per cent fewer methane emissions and required five per cent less feed, while also producing 35 per cent more milk. Investing in more efficient livestock breeding programmes that harness the advantages of genetic testing would also support national climate plans without compromising food supplies.
Finally, optimising the quality and quantity of livestock feed has also been shown to reduce both direct and indirect emissions. Growing evidence indicates that dietary inhibitors and feed additives can effectively reduce the methane generated when cows and sheep digest food.
And the animal health sector has significantly advanced scientific understanding of the essential nutrition needed by livestock, which means farmers and veterinarians can create evidence-based feeding regimes that eliminate waste and overconsumption. This eases the burden on feed production, minimising emissions caused by sourcing and transporting animal feed, while ensuring the animals receive the nutrition they need to support healthy growth.
Improving the health, fertility and nutrition of farm animals has no downsides. And, as a cornerstone of the “One Health” concept of integrated planetary wellbeing, it is directly linked to the health of people and the environment.
For climate negotiators looking for practical, proven, and effective ways to curb emissions while meeting future food needs ahead of this year’s COP28, livestock health measures offer the elusive universal win-win.
Carel du Marchie Sarvaas is executive director of HealthforAnimals, the global animal health association
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 21 (IPS) – Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, once made the distinction between “friendly” right-wing authoritarian regimes (which were mostly U.S. and Western allies) and “unfriendly” left-wing totalitarian dictatorships (which the U.S. abhorred).
Among the “dictators” the U.S. shunned in the 1970s and 80s were Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Myanmar’s General Than Shwe, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Libya’s Mummar al-Qaddafi, Syria’s Hafez al-Assad and North Korea’s Kim IL-Sung.
At the same time, successive U.S. administrations cozied up to a rash of right-wing authoritarian regimes and family-run fiefdoms, mostly in South-East Asia, Latin America and particularly the Middle East.
These regimes were widely accused by human rights organizations of instituting emergency laws, detaining dissidents, cracking down on the press, torturing and executing political prisoners and rigging elections. (As a South-East Asian right-wing dictator once said: “I promised you I will give you the right to vote, but I did not say anything about counting those votes.”)
Kirkpatrick’s distinction between user-friendly right-wing regimes and unfriendly left-wing dictators prompted a response from former US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who shot back: “It seems to me that if you’re on the rack (and being tortured), it doesn’t make any difference if your torturer is right-handed or left-handed.”
But some of the Western nations have tried to politically separate “right-wing governments” from “left-wing governments” – the white-hatted good guys from the black-hatted bad guys, as in Hollywood movies of the wild West.
The strongest link between the United States and some of the oppressive Middle East regimes, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is primarily military.
And Israel’s right-wing government, accused by Amnesty International, of human rights abuses and torture, is a coalition of seven political parties.
The ongoing devastating and one-side battle between Israel, a strong US ally, and the militant group Hamas has underlined a longstanding double standard on torture and human rights abuses.
The US rarely, if ever, is critical of Israel and exercises its political clout to veto any Security Council resolution condemning the Jewish state, as it did last week.
Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, told IPS: “Unfortunately, if history teaches us anything it is that most governments are capable of perpetrating torture, regardless of their political complexion.
Some democracies, he pointed out, try to justify torture in moments of extreme crisis, like the United States after 9/11, while dictatorships often commit torture as part of an industrial system of terror and control, like North Korea or the Assad regime in Syria.
“The sad, reality is that authoritarian governments that declare themselves as belonging to the far left or to the extreme right have often committed torture in the name of advancing their cause,” he noted.
“The more deluded a government is regarding the alleged purity of the ruling ideology, the more likely they are to perpetrate torture against dissidents and non-believers. What all authoritarian regimes have in common is disdain for universal human rights” declared Dr Adams.
Meanwhile, in a report released in early November, Amnesty International (AI), a leading human rights organization, says testimony from released detainees and human rights lawyers, as well as video footage and images illustrate some of the forms of torture and other ill-treatment prisoners have been subjected to by Israeli forces over the past four weeks.
These include severe beatings and humiliation of detainees, including by forcing them to keep their heads down, to kneel on the floor during inmate count, and to sing Israeli songs.
Heba Morayef, AI’s Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa says: “Over the last month we have witnessed a significant spike in Israel’s use of administrative detention — detention without charge or trial that can be renewed indefinitely — which was already at a 20-year high before the latest escalation in hostilities on 7 October.”
“Administrative detention is one of the key tools through which Israel has enforced its system of apartheid against Palestinians.
Testimonies and video evidence also point to numerous incidents of torture and other ill-treatment by Israeli forces including severe beatings and deliberate humiliation of Palestinians who are detained in dire conditions,” says Morayef.
The AI also says the summary killings and hostage-taking by Hamas and other armed groups on 7 October are war crimes and must be condemned as such, but Israeli authorities must not use these attacks to justify their own unlawful attacks and collective punishment of civilians in the besieged Gaza Strip and the use of torture, arbitrary detention and other violations of the rights of Palestinian prisoners.
“The prohibition against torture can never be suspended or derogated from, including – and especially — at times like these,” said AI.
Amnesty International says it has for decades documented widespread torture by Israeli authorities in places of detention across the West Bank.
However, over the past four weeks, videos and images have been shared widely online showing gruesome scenes of Israeli soldiers beating and humiliating Palestinians while detaining them blind-folded, stripped, with their hands tied, in a particularly chilling public display of torture and humiliation of Palestinian detainees.
In one image analyzed, by Amnesty International’s Crisis Evidence Lab, three Palestinian men,?blindfolded and stripped of their clothes can be seen beside a soldier, wearing a green olive uniform like those worn by the Israeli ground forces.
A Haaretz investigation published on 19 October found that the image was taken in Wadi al-Seeq, a village East of Ramallah, on 12 October. One of the three victims depicted in the photograph told Amnesty International that he had initially been held and beaten by settlers but two hours later an Israeli military jeep arrived:
“One of the Israeli officers who came, approached me and kicked me on my left side, then jumped on my head with his two legs pushing my face further into the dirt and then continued kicking me as I was head down, into the dirt, with my hands tied behind my back. He then got a knife and tore all of my clothes off except for my underwear and used part of my torn clothes to blindfold me”.
“The beating to the rest of my body did not stop, at one point he started jumping on my back – three or four times – while yelling ‘die, die you trash’ … in the end before this finally stopped, another officer urinated on my face and body while also yelling at us ‘to die’.”
Meanwhile, the UN Committee against Torture is currently holding its sessions, through November 24, during which it will examine Burundi, Costa Rica, Kiribati, Denmark, Egypt and Slovenia.
The warning comes as aid agencies scramble to respond to a fresh wave of displacement sparked by the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan, with reports of mass killings, rapes and widespread destruction.
The crisis is occurring amid the ongoing war between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) which erupted in April.
Millions going hungry
More than 2.3 million people in Chad, including 1.3 million children, were already going hungry due to climate impacts, rising food and fuel prices, declining agricultural production and intercommunal tensions.
The country is hosting more than a million refugees – among the largest and fastest-growing refugee populations in Africa.
“It is staggering but more Darfuris have fled to Chad in the last six months than in the preceding 20 years. We cannot let the world stand and allow our life-saving operations grind to a halt in Chad,” said Pierre Honnorat, WFP’s Country Director in Chad.
Aid suspension imminent
Mr. Honnorat appealed for greater support to help Sudanese refugees who “cross the border with nothing but harrowing tales of violence.”
“Cutting assistance paves the way for crises of nutrition, crises of instability, and crisis of displacement,” he warned.
WFP said it will be forced to suspend assistance to internally displaced people and refugees from Nigeria, Central African Republic and Cameroon starting in December.
The suspension will be extended in January to 1.4 million people across the country, including new arrivals from Sudan.
The UN agency is seeking $185 million to support its operations over the next six months.
NEW YORK, Nov 20 (IPS) – In the midst of the Israel-Hamas conflagration, a significant anniversary at the United Nations –October 24th was the 78th year since its founding–went unremarked by the larger world. But the work of–and significant problems with–the UN continues. Among the problems is embedded institutional racism. It’s time that it be deeply addressed–not just by lip service.
The UN was founded in the aftermath of World War II to prevent the recurrence of such catastrophic events, with a commitment to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, the dignity, and worth of the human person” and, proclaiming “the right of everyone to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.”
Marking International Day on Eliminating Racial Discrimination on March 21, 2023, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, “Racial discrimination is a deeply damaging and pervasive abuse of human rights and human dignity that affects every country. It is one of the most destructive forces dividing societies, responsible for death and suffering on a grotesque scale throughout history. Today, racial discrimination and the legacies of enslavement and colonialism continue to ruin lives, marginalize communities and limit opportunities, preventing billions of people from achieving their full potential.”
There are visible contradictions in how the UN addresses racism and racial discrimination that go against the stipulations of the UN Charter. Some of this is attributable to systemic issues that date back to the founding of the UN.
The UN was established in 1945 as a solution for countries of European descent as they looked for a stable new international (and European) order. At that time, most parts of the world remained under European colonial domination, so the creation of the UN was led by those colonial and former enslaving powers.
The wave of decolonization between 1945 and 1960 changed the face of the world order as well as the World Body. The membership of the UN grew from 51 founding members in 1945 to 127 by 1970, and currently there are 193 member states. This aspect contributed towards altering the balance of power within the UN. These new member states were not from Europe and not white.
These new members persuaded the UN to embrace the change in the world order and brought new ideas to the General Assembly, the main deliberative body of the UN, which now practices the noble principle of “One Nation One Vote” and with five Regional Groups of member states – Africa, Asia – Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Western Europe and Other Group (including North America).
However, a similar transformation did not take place within the staffing of the organizations of the UN system.
In UN organizations, the staff experience or witness workplace discrimination largely on the basis of national origin, race, or skin color, according to the findings of several recent surveys. Most mentioned their lack of trust and confidence in the system, including existing recourse mechanisms and believed that the organization would offer no recourse if they complained about the racism they experienced.
The JIU review on racism and racial discrimination confirms that racism and racial discrimination are widespread throughout the system and the magnitude is high, based on evidence of prevalence, form, and effects of racism and racial discrimination. It further revealed that the “likelihood of experiencing racism and racial discrimination is higher” among black/African descent, Indigenous, South Asian and Middle Eastern/North African respondents.
More than half of the staff in the Professional and higher categories in the UN organizations are from Western countries or European descent. Hence, there is disproportionate representation among the five regional groupings. This disparity, directly and indirectly, contributes to the current organizational culture that enables racism and racial discrimination.
All organizations in the UN system should implement measures to reduce the proportion of the most highly represented regional groups and to increase the proportion of less represented regional groups, thereby reducing the overall imbalance among regional groups and making the UN organizations more representative of the populations they serve, including at decision-making levels.
Tackling systemic racism and racial discrimination within the UN system is not only an ethical issue but also a business issue. Racism and racial discrimination cause significant financial losses for all parties. Staff members suffer from loss of income, health, morale, enthusiasm and job satisfaction during their career span, while organizations suffer in terms of loss of time, resources, talent, committed staff, quality of work, timely delivery, productivity and reputation, among others.
It is therefore important to assess the tangible impacts of racism, in monetary terms, on staff, organizations and their capacities for programme delivery, especially the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Such an exercise is critical if the UN organizations are genuinely committed to eliminating racism within.
The world urgently needs the UN leadership to fight systemic racism. Hence, the organizations of the UN system do not have time to spend another year on internal discussions and dialogues. Immediate implementation of the Secretary-General’s Strategic Action Plan on Addressing Racism and Promoting Dignity for All in the UN Secretariat would be a starting point, and similar action plans should follow urgently in all other UN organizations.
The time is now for the UN to act to fully eradicate racism and racial discrimination within its organizations.
Shihana Mohamed, a Sri Lankan national, is a founding member and one of the Coordinators of the United Nations Asia Network for Diversity and Inclusion (UN-ANDI) and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project and Equality Now.
UN-ANDI is a global network of like-minded Asians of the United Nations system who strive to promote a more diverse and inclusive culture and mindset within the UN system. UN-ANDI is the first-ever effort to bring together a diverse group of personnel (staff, retirees, consultants, interns, diplomats, and others) from Asia and the Pacific (nationality/origin/descent) in the UN system. Please contact via email at UnitedNationsA[email protected] to connect or/and collaborate with UN-ANDI.
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Nov 20 (IPS) – Australia had the chance to take a step forward in redressing the exclusion of its Indigenous people – and chose not to. In a referendum held in October, voters rejected a constitutional amendment to establish an institution for Indigenous people to have a say on matters that concern them.
On a 90 per cent turnout under mandatory voting, 60 per cent voted against. Supporters of the referendum were left pointing the finger at disinformation – and those who pushed it for political gain.
A history of exclusion
For a long time, Indigenous Australians – currently 3.8 per cent of the country’s population – lacked any recognition. European settlers didn’t see any need for a treaty with the people already there. Indigenous Australians only got the vote in 1962 and, following a referendum, were put on the census as late as 1972 – until then, they literally didn’t count. They remain unrecognised in the country’s constitution.
For most of the 20th century, assimilation laws saw Indigenous children forcibly taken from their families on a mass scale. It’s estimated that between 1910 and 1970 10 to 30 per cent of Indigenous children were handed to childless white couples to be raised as white. The horror of the ‘stolen generations’ only began to be acknowledged in the mid-1990s.
In 1997 the Australian Human Rights Commission issued a report with recommendations for healing and reconciliation. But a belated prime ministerial apology came only in 2008. That same year, the government issued a plan to reduce disadvantage among Indigenous people. After most of its targets expired unmet, a new approach was developed in partnership with an Indigenous coalition in 2020.
But little progress has been made in overcoming exclusion. On almost any indicator, Indigenous people remain two to three times worse off than non-Indigenous Australians. Being dramatically underrepresented in decision-making bodies, they also lack the tools to change it.
The Uluru Statement from the Heart
The road towards the referendum started more than a decade ago, when an expert panel found that constitutional recognition was the way to go. But the call for a referendum was delayed. In 2016, a Referendum Council again concluded that constitutional reform should proceed.
In 2017, the First Nations Dialogues issued the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which called for a Voice to Parliament for Indigenous people, a truth commission and a treaty. The Voice was viewed as the first step to open up a conversation and enable further progress.
Then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, of the centre-right Liberal Party, rejected the Uluru Statement. But in 2018 another committee was set up to investigate options for constitutional change – and again, it endorsed a constitutionally enshrined Voice. The Labor opposition promised to put the proposal to a referendum if it won the next election.
Political change: potential and limitations
The Liberal/National coalition lost the May 2022 election, and Labor’s incoming prime minister Anthony Albanese promised progress on long-stalled policies to address Indigenous rights.
The proposed constitutional amendment and text of the ballot question were made public in March 2023 and approved by parliament in June. The government endorsed a set of principles of representation, transparency and accountability that would be used to design the Voice. It was made clear that, as the name implied, this new body would give a voice to Indigenous people but not have decision-making authority or veto power. Any further decision on its composition, functions, powers and procedures would be in the hands of parliament.
Foreshadowing what was to come, the Liberal and National opposition parties submitted dissenting reports, and the Nationals rejected the proposal entirely. By siding with the No campaign, the opposition doomed the referendum. No referendum has ever been carried without bipartisan support.
For and against
Given the legal requirement to distribute an official pamphlet presenting the case for both sides, members of parliament who’d voted for and against the amendment bill drafted and approved a text containing their side’s arguments. This meant that disinformation was inserted into the process from the start: as an independent fact-checking initiative showed, several claims in the No pamphlet were false or misleading.
The Yes campaign focused its messaging on fairness, reconciliation and healing, seeking to sell the idea that Australia would be made better by the recognition of a space for Indigenous people to have a say in national politics.
Indigenous people overwhelmingly supported the proposal, although some opposed it – because they thought it didn’t go far enough, saw it as whitewash or hoped not to see relationships they’d painstakingly developed sidelined. The No campaign made a point of foregrounding contrarian Indigenous voices, disproportionately boosted by supportive media.
Different organisations in the No camp appealed to different groups. Advance, a conservative lobby group, went after young progressives with its ‘Not Enough’ campaign, suggesting that the Voice wasn’t what Indigenous Australians wanted and wouldn’t solve their problems. The Blak Sovereign Movement questioned the timing, arguing that a treaty should be negotiated first. Disinformation and racial abuse were rife.
Two much-repeated claims were that the Voice would divide Australians and enshrine privileges for Indigenous people. No campaigners peddled a zero-sum idea: that non-Indigenous people would lose if Indigenous people won. They falsely claimed that people would lose their farms or that Indigenous people would charge them to access beaches.
Another fear-stoking argument was that the Voice was only the beginning – after they secured this, Indigenous people would go for more, until they took everything from the rest. It could, for example, open up a conversation about land rights. That may have been a genuine fear for Australia’s powerful extractive industries, explaining why the right-wing think tanks that have consistently opposed climate action also lobbied against the Voice.
Having sowed disinformation and confusion, the No campaign told voters that, if in doubt, they should play it safe and vote no. It worked.
What next?
The result could bring even greater backlash. Emboldened, some opposition politicians have since withdrawn their previously stated support for a treaty and suggested rolling back practices they now present as inadmissible concessions to identity politics. This could be a harbinger for the opposition pinning its comeback hopes on a culture war strategy.
But while the referendum defeat has dealt a hard blow to hopes of challenging the exclusion of Indigenous Australians, it isn’t quite game over. A specific proposal has been defeated, but there’s plenty left to advocate for. Progress on the wider reconciliation agenda, including other forms of recognition and redress, could still be possible, particularly at state and local levels. The Uluru Statement from the Heart remains the compass, and civil society will keep urging politicians and the public to follow its path.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
