Written by Marc Jütten and Kadri Paris.
Leaders met in Rio de Janeiro on 18-19 November 2024 for the 19th summit of the G20, hosted by the Brazilian G20 presidency. The meeting was overshadowed by events that are further increasing divisions among the world’s leading and emerging economies: Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which entered its 1 000th day, the escalating conflict in the Middle East, and the election to a second term of President Donald Trump, whose ‘America First’ approach to foreign policy includes threats to impose tariffs on imports. The G20 leaders adopted a declaration addressing pressing global issues, including combating hunger, reforming international institutions, and climate change.
BackgroundThe G20 is an intergovernmental forum for international economic cooperation between the world’s leading economies. It consists of 19 countries, the African Union and the EU. The G20 countries together account for more than 80 % of the world’s GDP, 75 % of global trade and two thirds of the world’s population. The G20 Summit represents the conclusion of the work carried out by the country holding the group’s rotating presidency, with a leaders’ declaration adopted at the end of the summit. In 2023, the G20 decided to grant permanent member status to the African Union.
Brazil’s G20 presidencyBrazil took over the annual G20 presidency from India on 1 December 2023. After years of ‘quasi-isolationism’ under President Lula’s predecessor Jair Bolsonaro, the presidency provided an opportunity to show to the world that Brazil is back on the international stage as a promoter of the Global South to tackle global challenges. Under the theme ‘Building a Just World and a Sustainable Planet’, the Brazilian government established the following three G20 priorities:
These priorities provide a certain continuity with the topics chosen by the Indian G20 presidency (green development, inclusive growth, progress on the UN SDGs, technological transformation, multilateral institutions for the 21st century, and women-led development). President Lula emphasised that the Brazilian G20 presidency places the poor, and ‘those who have always been invisible’, at the centre of the international agenda. This stance is symbolised by the initiatives for a two per cent tax on the world’s billionaires for climate action and poverty relief, and the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty.
Key takeaways from the summit: The G20 Rio de Janeiro Leaders’ DeclarationAs in previous years, the G20 leaders committed to a series of actions and goals in a wide-ranging 85‑paragraph-long leaders’ declaration. Some of the key takeaways are:
Ukraine: Against the background of President Biden’s authorisation to allow Ukraine to use long-range US missiles (ATACMS) and the fact that Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine entered its 1 000th day during the summit, the media focused on the question of how the G20 leaders would address the issue. Compared to previous declarations, in particular the G20 Bali leaders’ declaration, the declaration issued on 19 November refers to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine in the weakest possible terms. In fact, the document does not even mention Russia, but highlights the human suffering and negative added impacts of the war with regard to global food and energy security, supply chains, macro-financial stability, inflation and growth. Moreover, leaders welcomed all relevant and constructive initiatives that support a comprehensive, just, and durable peace. Russian President Vladimir Putin did not attend the summit, and was represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was not invited to attend the meeting.
Middle East: On the other key geopolitical issue, the escalating conflict in the Middle East, G20 leaders expressed their deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the escalation in Lebanon. Moreover, leaders called for a comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza. However, the declaration does not contain a condemnation of Hamas nor a call for the release of all hostages. Leaders affirmed the Palestinian right to self-determination and reiterated their commitment to the vision of the two-state solution.
Climate:The G20 summit took place while the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) was being held in Baku, Azerbaijan (from 11 to 22 November 2024). Hopes were high that G20 leaders would give a strong impetus to the difficult UN climate talks. However, the declaration does not go beyond the G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration. In particular, it remains unclear from which sources the scaling-up of climate finance from billions to trillions should come. The reference of ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’, to which all nations agreed last year at COP28 in Dubai, did not find its way into the text.
Hunger:Probably the most concrete result of the Brazilian G20 presidency was the launch of the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty. The alliance was created with 148 founding members, among them 82 countries, the African Union, the EU and international organisations. The alliance pursues the goal of reaching 500 million people with cash transfer programmes in low- and lower-middle-income countries by 2030.
Tax on the super-rich: Regarding the Brazilian presidency’s initiative for a two per cent tax on the world’s billionaires, leaders agreed for the first time to engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed.
Position of the EUCharles Michel, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the G20 summit. In his speech, Charles Michel stressed that the world needs a robust and effective multilateral system more than ever. With a view to the agenda of the Brazilian G20 presidency, he recalled that trade was a powerful tool to fight poverty and called for reform of the World Trade Organization (WTO), including the dispute resolution mechanism. Von der Leyen stressed, among other things, that the EU fully supports the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty and that the EU is committed to making the fight against poverty a priority for ‘domestic policies’.
Some observers saw the opportunity for the EU and Mercosur to advance talks on the EU-Mercosur trade agreement on the margins of the G20 summit, as key leaders from both sides were participating. However, it seems that, instead, resistance might grow, with French President Emmanuel Macron reiterating that France would not sign the agreement as it stands. Following his bilateral meeting with Argentine President Javier Milei, Macron reported that Milei was not satisfied with the deal either.
The tenth G20 Parliamentary Speakers Summit took place on 7-8 November in Brasilia, on the topic of ‘Parliaments for a just world and a sustainable planet’. It concluded with the adoption of a joint statement. A parliamentary forum on gender equality and women’s empowerment preceded the summit.
OutlookOn 1 December 2024, South Africa, another key state from the Global South and the third BRICS country in a row, takes over the G20 baton. The three consecutive G20 presidencies by countries from the Global South present an opportunity to push for the interests of developing and emerging countries on the world stage. It will also be the first time that the African continent hosts the G20. The theme for South Africa’s G20 presidency will be ‘Fostering Solidarity, Equality, and Sustainable Development’ and will address critical global challenges, with a strong focus on Africa’s development in alignment with the African Union’s Agenda 2063.
Looking further into the future of the G20, some experts such as Markus Engels from the Global Solutions Initiative (GSI) are of the opinion that the forum could take the lead in driving multilateralism forward. However, for this to happen the G20 system would need to be strengthened in three areas: the G20 needs to become a decision-making body rather than just an advisory one; the G20’s representativeness needs to be further improved; and the G20 organisation needs to be consolidated and professionalised, including having a permanent secretariat.
Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘The 2024 G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
The AKASA safe house is seen in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. August 2023. Credit: UN Women/Ravindra Rohana
By Shihana Mohamed
NEW YORK, Nov 25 2024 (IPS)
A woman’s right to live free from violence is upheld by international agreements like the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women.
The International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, observed on November 25th, 2024, serves as a significant platform to raise awareness about gender-based violence. Globally, one in three women experiences physical or sexual violence, mostly by an intimate partner.
In his message for the 2024 International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated, “The epidemic of violence against women and girls shames humanity. Every day, on average, 140 women and girls are killed by someone in their own family.
Around one in three women still experience physical or sexual violence. Almost 30 years since the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action promised to prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls — it’s beyond time to deliver”.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health and human rights concern and affects millions of women worldwide, often remaining underreported and behind closed doors. IPV is particularly acute in South Asia where 35% of ever-partnered women reported experiencing IPV in their lifetime, compared to 20% in Western Europe and 21% in high-income Asia Pacific.
The reasons are complex and include a combination of socio-economic structures, patriarchal attitudes, and prevalent social norms that define gender roles. IPV remains a largely hidden and stigmatized issue, with many women suffering in silence in South Asia.
IPV in Sri Lanka is a significant and pervasive issue. An estimated 40% of women aged 15 years or older reported experiencing physical, sexual, emotional, and/or economic violence or controlling behaviors by a partner in their lifetime. Disturbingly, 21% of the population, or about 4.6 million women, are affected by IPV, given that women constitute 52% of Sri Lanka’s 23.1 million population.
These figures reflect reported cases, but IPV is significantly underreported due to fear of stigma, lack of awareness about available support services, and reluctance to involve authorities in family matters. Many women fear retaliation from their abusers or social ostracism if they speak out.
The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), passed in 2005, provides legal protection for victims of domestic violence in Sri Lanka, allowing them to obtain protection orders against their abusers. The PDVA defines domestic violence as “physical or emotional harm done by a spouse, ex-spouse, or cohabiting partner.” However, its effectiveness has been criticized due to issues with enforcement and limited awareness among both victims and law enforcement.
Despite high levels of educational attainment, 73.5 per cent of Sri Lankan women of working age are out of the labor force, compared to just 26.5% of men. This is mainly due to their engagement in household duties, including care work. Aggravating this situation, women on average earn 27 per cent less than men for one hour of work.
Consequently, many women economically depend on their partners, making it hard to leave abusive relationships. Especially in rural areas, they may lack financial resources or social support to escape violence. This financial vulnerability is a key barrier to addressing IPV in Sri Lanka. Empowering women economically and socially can reduce their dependency on abusive partners.
Among Sri Lankan faith-based communities such as Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and Christians, religious leaders are influential authorities on behavior and sources of guidance on proper conduct in relationships, including family and marriage. Therefore, they can play a crucial role in motivating men to cede power and reduce IPV.
This approach, guided more by principles of peace and social justice than by a rights agenda, cannot replace rights-based solutions to end IPV. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage and promote collaboration between faith-based and rights-based organizations to address and end violence against women and girls in Sri Lanka.
Various research shows that the ethnic dimensions of the civil war and the continuing ethnic tensions post-war have worsened the situation for Tamil and Muslim women in Sri Lanka, creating conditions that are likely to keep them entrapped in abusive relationships.
There are also strong associations between IPV and suicidal behavior in Sri Lanka, signaling the need to prioritize violence reduction both on its own and within national suicide prevention strategies.
Empowering women, educating communities, and involving men in the conversation are essential steps toward reducing IPV in Sri Lanka. NGOs like the Women’s Education and Research Centre and international organizations run awareness campaigns to educate people about IPV, its harmful effects, legal rights, and available support services.
These campaigns also engage men and boys in discussions about gender equality and the unacceptability of IPV. The goal is to change societal attitudes that contribute to IPV and make men active partners in promoting non-violent relationships.
In Sri Lanka, several support systems are in place for victims of IPV. Various community organizations and NGOs provide localized support, including shelters and legal aid. The Ministry of Women and Child Affairs operates a toll-free helpline (Dial 1938) that offers counselling and legal support to victims of violence.
Health-sector responses to support women experiencing IPV in Sri Lanka are evolving and currently include two models of integration: GBV desks with facility-level integration, and Mithuru Piyasa, a modified One-Stop Crisis Centre model with some system-wide integration. Additionally, the Ministry of Health has implemented training programs for public health midwives to improve their ability to identify and assist IPV victims.
IPV remains a critical issue in Sri Lanka, influenced by socio-cultural, economic, and legal factors. An effective coordination and information sharing mechanism among the ministries of Health, Women and Child Affairs, and Public Security, at both state and local levels is essential to provide immediate support and empower women experiencing IPV.
Traditional cultural norms in Sri Lanka often view gender roles as rigid, expecting women to be submissive and take on domestic responsibilities. These norms can contribute to the normalization of IPV and limit women’s ability to seek help.
IPV is often seen as a private matter, with victims frequently facing pressure to stay silent. By tackling the economic, political, social, cultural, and other systemic factors that enable IPV, we can create a safer and more equitable environment for all women in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lankan women deserve the fundamental right to a violence-free home life. Achieving this necessitates a unified approach to challenge and transform harmful social norms, enhance the availability and accessibility of support services, and rigorously enforce existing laws.
Only through these coordinated efforts can we create a safer and more equitable society for all women in Sri Lanka.
Shihana Mohamed, a Sri Lankan national, is a founding member and Coordinator of the United Nations Asia Network for Diversity and Inclusion (UN-ANDI) and a US Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project and Equality Now on Advancing the Rights of Women and Girls. She is a dedicated human rights activist and a strong advocate for gender equality and the advancement of women.
The author expresses her views in this article in an entirely unofficial, private, and personal capacity. These views do not reflect those of any organization.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Az amerikai ATACMS rakéták bevetése új fejezetet nyitott az orosz-ukrán háborúban. Moszkva hevesen tiltakozott az ellen, hogy Kijev amerikai támogatással orosz területet támadjon, miközben saját hadseregét észak-koreai erőkkel erősíti és iráni drónokkal ukrán civileket gyilkol.
A korábban ellenzett fegyverszállításra végül zöld utat kapott, miután Joe Biden elnök engedélyezte az ATACMS rakéták használatát. Az ukrán vezetés szerint ez kulcsfontosságú a szélesebb körű ellentámadáshoz, míg a Pentagon aggályait a korlátozott készletek és az eszkaláció veszélye miatt fogalmazta meg.
Az első támadásAz engedély megszerzése után Ukrajna hamarosan rakétákat lőtt ki egy oroszországi lőszerraktárra, ám a siker korlátozott volt. Az orosz légvédelem jelentős részét semlegesítette, és Moszkva szerint a találatok nem okoztak komoly károkat. A történtek azonban jelentős geopolitikai feszültséget szültek.
A tét: A háború kimeneteleAz ATACMS bevetése jelentős fordulat a háborúban. Ukrajna hosszú ideje lobbizott a fegyverekért, amelyekkel mélyebben behatolhat Oroszország területére. Az amerikai döntés erősítheti Kijev pozícióját a tárgyalóasztalnál, ugyanakkor növeli az eszkaláció kockázatát is.
Nukleáris fenyegetésAz orosz vezetés az eseményekre úgy reagált, hogy módosította a nukleáris doktrínát, ezzel is jelezve, hogy hajlandó extrém lépésekre szánta el magát, ha az orosz érdekeket sértik. A nyugati világban aggodalommal figyelik a fejleményeket, mivel a nukleáris fenyegetés árnyéka egyre inkább jelen van.
A háború súlyosbodásaAz orosz-ukrán konfliktus egyre inkább egy globális erődemonstrációvá válik, ahogyan a nagyhatalmak fegyverekkel és katonai tanácsadókkal támogatják a saját szövetségeseiket. A háború humanitárius következményei egyre súlyosbodnak, a civilek szenvednek a legjobban.
A jövőAz ATACMS rakéták bevetése új fejezetet nyitott az orosz-ukrán háborúban. A konfliktus kimenetele továbbra is bizonytalan, és a világ aggódva figyeli az eseményeket. A kérdés az, hogy a felek képesek lesznek-e megtalálni a békés megoldást, vagy a háború tovább eszkalálódik.
The post ATACMS: A Háború Új Fejezete appeared first on Biztonságpiac.
Ils sont 300 000 à s'être inscrits pour un séjour temporaire en Serbie. Bientôt trois ans après le début de la guerre en Ukraine, les Russes forment une communauté nombreuse et soudée à Belgrade. Leur arrivée bouleverse la ville et suscite la méfiance d'une partie des Serbes. Reportage.
- Articles / Une - Diaporama, Courrier des Balkans, Ukraine, Serbie, Populations, minorités et migrationsIls sont 300 000 à s'être inscrits pour un séjour temporaire en Serbie. Bientôt trois ans après le début de la guerre en Ukraine, les Russes forment une communauté nombreuse et soudée à Belgrade. Leur arrivée bouleverse la ville et suscite la méfiance d'une partie des Serbes. Reportage.
- Articles / Une - Diaporama, Courrier des Balkans, Ukraine, Serbie, Populations, minorités et migrationsIls sont 300 000 à s'être inscrits pour un séjour temporaire en Serbie. Bientôt trois ans après le début de la guerre en Ukraine, les Russes forment une communauté nombreuse et soudée à Belgrade. Leur arrivée bouleverse la ville et suscite la méfiance d'une partie des Serbes. Reportage.
- Articles / Une - Diaporama, Courrier des Balkans, Ukraine, Serbie, Populations, minorités et migrationsIls sont 300 000 à s'être inscrits pour un séjour temporaire en Serbie. Bientôt trois ans après le début de la guerre en Ukraine, les Russes forment une communauté nombreuse et soudée à Belgrade. Leur arrivée bouleverse la ville et suscite la méfiance d'une partie des Serbes. Reportage.
- Articles / Une - Diaporama, Courrier des Balkans, Ukraine, Serbie, Populations, minorités et migrationsBy Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Nov 25 2024 (IPS)
The 16 Days of Activism to end gender-based violence, started with seeking to eliminate violence against women (VAW). This year’s theme highlights the reality that violence against women and girls is of pandemic proportions. The figures are galling.
References cite how millions of women and girls suffer physical or sexual violence all over the world; 95% of people trafficked for sexual exploitation in Europe are female; every 10 minutes, partners and family members killed a woman intentionally in 2023; one in three women experience violence in their lifetime; 1 in 4 adolescent girls is abused by their partners.
And more. The 16 Days of Activism is an opportunity to revitalize commitments, call for accountability and actions by diverse decision-makers. 2025 will be the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 2025, described by UN Women as a “visionary blueprint for achieving gender equality and women’s and girls’ rights everywhere”.
Apart from the pandemic scale of the violence against women we are living through – without it being properly declared as a pandemic by governmental authorities – and the horrific data which is on the increase, there are a few pieces of this VAW puzzle that bear stressing.
Lead Integrity’s founding Partner and international activist, Dr Fulata Moyo, who is credited with efforts to institutionalize the World Council of Church’s (WCC) Thursdays in Black campaign, and her successor at leading this and executing a Programme on Just Community of Women and Men, at the WCC – Reverend Nicole Ashwood – stress this centrality of unequal power relations.
Dr Moyo is a strong advocate of mentorship, and yet she reminds us that even this process can be misunderstood as a one-way benefit relationship. Instead, she constantly argues that both mentor and mentoree learn from one another. This insistence on awareness of the mutuality of benefit – and its responsibilities – is a means of righting power imbalances not only among individuals, but in families, societies and nations.
Another Lead integrity founding Partner, Grove Harris – also serving as the UN representative of the Temple of Understanding, and is a strong eco-feminist in her own right – argues cogently that the exploitative violence leveraged on our earth, is a reflection of the exploitative violence perpetuated against women. And vice versa.
In other words, we will need to face a reality that we cannot fight the violence against women and girls, without also struggling to eliminate violence against our planet. These are not separate struggles, but integrated ones.
Lead Integrity’s Senior Advisor and Gender expert, Ms. Gehan AbuZeid expounds further to note that VAW is about endemic structural violence which permeates all domains of life, including ecology, economy, politics, and of course, society.
Inbuilt power relations which prioritize the needs, views, and priorities of one set of humans at the expense of ‘others’ means all our institutions are predisposed to violence against those deemed as more vulnerable by the dominant groups.
Violence against women happens not only because of gendered dynamics per se, but because all of power dynamics around us, are inherently based on exploitative relationships.
This leads to another couple of critical observations – ones which are becoming more taboo to speak of, especially in the kinds of times we live in today. Since the root of VAW are exploitative relationships based on unequal power dynamics, then everyone, every institution and every nation, every initiative, is responsible for ending the structural, the social and the personal forms of these interrelated violent dynamics.
In other words, ending VAW is not, and should not, be left for women alone to end it (even when they may work miracles with male and myriad other allies), nor is it only a matter of legislation – as important as that is. And while we are recognizing the principle and reality of collective responsibility, let us also have the courage to acknowledge that women can be violent towards other women too, and some men are fairly vicious against each other which is statistically related to rising VAW, and as the countless wars around us attest to.
As we consider the collective responsibilities, we need to strengthen our multilateral institutions – not only secular ones, but also those which deliberately seek to partner with different civil society organizations, including those who work to mobilize multi faith and multi stakeholder collaborations.
An example of such a multi-stakeholder and global effort is the first Women, Faith and Climate Change Network, launched at the COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. The Network brings together faith-based and secular, women and male allies, working with governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental partner institutions, elevating the influence of female faith leaders (including Indigenous ones) to maximize knowledge and impact, to right the power imbalances in each of these diverse institutions, as they work together to eliminate the violence perpetrated against our planet.
We need to ask ourselves this: by continuing to work – and work hard – within our respective silos (secular, religious, feminist, peacemaking, human rights, business, institutional, individual, national, regional, global, etc.), have we not, inadvertently, failed to address the interrelated forms of violence?
And if so, can the recognition of this pandemic of VAW, push us to work better together at a time when we face much polarization and fear – or are we destined to repeat some of the Covid pandemic’s mistakes? If we do, we risk our peaceful co-existence, and – heaven forbid – we may well risk losing the ability to exist on this planet.
Dr Azza Karam is President and CEO of Lead Integrity, and affiliate Professor at Notre Dame University’s Ansari Center for Religion and Global Engagement.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Nationaliste et pro-Russe, le candidat indépendant Călin Georgescu domine le premier tour de la présidentielle avec près de 23 % des voix. Le Premier ministre social-démocrate Marcel Ciolacu et la libérale Elena Lasconi sont dans un mouchoir de poche pour la 2ème place.
- Le fil de l'Info / Politique, Courrier des Balkans, Roumanie vote, Extrême-droite Balkans, Roumanie, Une - Diaporama - En premier, Une - Diaporama