Union européenne

A delegate casts his ballot at the Human Rights Council elections held during the 20th plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Inés M. Pousadela and Victoria Ubierna
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay / BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, Nov 2 2026 (IPS)

On 13 October, Burundi won a second consecutive term on the UN Human Rights Council, the UN’s main human rights body. The CIVICUS Monitor rates civic space in Burundi as closed, the worst category. Its government has spent years silencing civil society, critics and opposition parties, including through extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances and torture.

The Council was created 20 years ago to replace the Commission on Human Rights, which had lost credibility because states with poor rights records used their seats to shield themselves from scrutiny. Clearly, problems persist.

An election without choice

Burundi secured its seat because the vote was an election in name only. Each year, the UN General Assembly elects roughly a third of the Council’s 47 members, with seats allocated among five regional groups. The resolution that created the Council asks states to consider each candidate’s contribution to human rights and expects members to uphold the highest standards. But for the second year running, every regional group put forward exactly as many candidates as seats. All 15 candidates were elected, six for a second term. Burundi received 160 votes, the fewest of any candidate, a sign that some states withheld their support. With no other candidate standing, it made no difference.

This is a longstanding problem. The Council’s first election, in 2006, was the only one in which every regional group offered a choice. Of the 20 held since since, five, including the last two, featured uncompetitive slates in every group, and in most of the rest only one or two groups held a competitive vote. When there are no alternatives, even states with the worst records are guaranteed a seat.

Alongside Burundi, nine of this year’s 15 elected states have civic space rated as obstructed or repressed. In Jordan, Kuwait and Nigeria, people face serious risks when they speak out, organise or protest. Only six of the chosen states met most of the 17 criteria set out in the International Service for Human Rights’ scorecards, which include cooperating with UN experts and paying UN dues on time.

Selective scrutiny

The Council’s 63rd session, which ended on 7 October, showed what it can still do. Despite severe budget cuts, it renewed the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs on Afghanistan, Burundi and Russia, as well as the fact-finding missions on Sudan and Venezuela.

Many states, however, chose not to take sides, putting geopolitical calculations ahead of human rights principles. Three of the four country resolutions put to a vote saw high numbers of abstentions. On Sudan, the resolution stopped short of naming the foreign governments, notably the United Arab Emirates, that the UN’s fact-finding mission has identified as fuelling the war.

Other crises barely registered. In Bahrain, close to 300 people have been arrested for protests or social media posts since the start of the US–Israeli war on Iran, but the country received only a passing mention. Ecuador and India, which jail activists and attack journalists, received no attention, perhaps because both sit on the Council after being elected unopposed in 2025. Once again, the Council took no action on China, one of its members, four years after a UN report found that abuses against Uyghur people in Xinjiang may amount to crimes against humanity. Such silences reflect political choices by the Council’s members, many of which have little interest in strengthening scrutiny that could one day turn on them.

Reform deferred

The Council’s 20th anniversary offered a chance to fix some of these flaws, but states let it pass. In July, a long-awaited review kept the Council as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, rather than one with the same standing as the Security Council, and the next review is not due before 2035. Meanwhile, Israel, Nicaragua and the USA have said they will not cooperate with the Council, part of the wider crisis of multilateralism documented in CIVICUS’s 2026 State of Civil Society Report.

States’ failure to pay their dues has also pushed the UN into a liquidity crisis, and its response, the UN80 efficiency drive, has brought deep cuts, disproportionately affecting human rights functions. The UN Human Rights Office’s regular budget is 10 per cent smaller than last year’s, and it has shed over 110 posts. Support has been cut for around a quarter of thematic Special Procedures.

Civil society is paying the price too. Restrictions introduced as temporary, including a cut in the number of written statements accredited organisations can submit, remain in place. Meanwhile, people who share information with the UN or speak at the Council risk detention, smear campaigns, surveillance and travel bans, yet only 10 states raised concerns about reprisals. If engaging with the UN becomes too dangerous, the Council will lose the first-hand evidence it needs to respond to abuses.

A world where 73 per cent of people live in countries with repressed or closed civic space needs a Human Rights Council able to respond to grave violations and protect those who speak out. Competitive elections, adequate funding and stronger civil society participation are required to make the Council the body it needs to be.

Victoria Ubierna is Research Programme Officer at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

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

 

 

 

 

Land may be assessed primarily for its potential commercial or residential value, overlooking the food, livelihoods and environmental services it already provides. Credit: Jorge Luis Baños/IPS

By Zhimin Wu
ROME, Oct 30 2026 (IPS)

A field at the edge of a growing city may be worth far more than its market price suggests. It may produce vegetables sold in nearby markets, support local livelihoods and provide green space in an increasingly built-up environment. It can also help cities manage water, adapt to climate shocks and strengthen local food supplies. As municipal authorities decide where new homes and infrastructure should go, understanding what their land already contributes can help them plan for housing and food together.

This question lies at the heart of World Cities Day, which the United Nations will mark on 31 October under the theme “Regenerating the City: Adequate Housing for All.”

This does not mean protecting every agricultural plot from development. Cities urgently need more homes, and housing must remain a priority. The task is to make better-informed decisions about where development should proceed and where maintaining productive agricultural land can offer lasting benefits

According to the United Nations, cities are now home to 45 percent of the world’s population and are projected to account for two-thirds of global population growth between now and 2050.

Accommodating this expansion will require enormous investment in housing, infrastructure and public services. It also presents an opportunity to reconsider how food production and urban development can support one another.

Agriculture is already an integral part of the life and economy of many cities around the world. Within urban areas and along their expanding boundaries, farmers cultivate vegetables, fruits and other crops that supply local markets, generate employment and income, particularly for small-scale producers, and improve access to fresh and nutritious food.

Beyond food production, urban and peri-urban agriculture can also strengthen climate resilience, contribute to the restoration of urban ecosystems and support the development of greener, healthier and more sustainable cities.

The proximity of farms to consumers can be especially valuable for perishable produce. Proximity to markets can reduce transport distances and, when supported by adequate handling and storage, help limit losses of perishable produce. Urban and peri-urban agriculture can also diversify food supply chains, giving cities additional sources of food when longer distribution networks face disruptions.³

Yet the contribution of these farms is not always adequately recognized in urban development decisions. Land may be assessed primarily for its potential commercial or residential value, overlooking the food, livelihoods and environmental services it already provides.

As cities expand, these wider benefits deserve greater consideration. Agricultural land can help absorb rainfall, support biodiversity and contribute to urban green infrastructure. With appropriate safeguards, farming can also make use of suitably treated wastewater and safely processed organic resources. Once agricultural land is converted to other uses, such benefits can be difficult to recover.

This does not mean protecting every agricultural plot from development. Cities urgently need more homes, and housing must remain a priority. The task is to make better-informed decisions about where development should proceed and where maintaining productive agricultural land can offer lasting benefits.

Rosario, Argentina, illustrates how municipal policy can bring these objectives together. Following the country’s economic crisis in 2001, the city developed an urban agriculture programme that transformed vacant and underused land into productive spaces. It created opportunities for low-income households, supported fresh-food production and brought agriculture into municipal development planning.

Municipal authorities established arrangements to connect producers with available land, including public and private plots. Rosario subsequently incorporated agriculture into municipal planning and, in 2016, introduced a Green Belt Project to support agroecological production around the city.

Its experience demonstrates how local governments can integrate food production into wider efforts to improve urban livelihoods and the environment.

The lesson extends beyond Rosario. Urban agriculture cannot replace rural farming, which remains indispensable for feeding cities. Its particular contribution lies in complementing rural production, especially through fresh produce, diversified supply chains and stronger connections between urban markets and surrounding agricultural areas.

Realizing these benefits requires sound management. Producers need access to suitable land and safe water, alongside effective food-safety safeguards. Water-efficient irrigation, protected cultivation, improved logistics and the recovery of nutrients from organic waste can help cities use scarce resources more effectively. The most useful innovations are those that local farmers can afford, operate and sustain.

This broader approach is reflected in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ Green Cities Initiative, launched in 2020 with the ambition of improving health and well-being in 1,000 cities by 2030.

The Initiative connects urban and peri-urban agriculture with forestry, green infrastructure and sustainable natural-resource management. Through the Green Cities Network, municipalities can exchange experience, build partnerships and identify practical solutions suited to their circumstances.

World Cities Day offers an occasion for municipal authorities to act. Two measures would make a practical difference.

First, cities can integrate food and agriculture into urban and territorial planning. Mapping agricultural land, identifying its producers and understanding its connections to markets and surrounding rural areas can help governments make more informed decisions about housing, infrastructure and land use.

Second, municipalities can create conditions that encourage sustainable agricultural investment through appropriate zoning, secure access to land, improved market infrastructure and technical support. Rosario demonstrates how municipal policies can help make agriculture a lasting part of urban development.

The cities of tomorrow will need more homes, better infrastructure and thriving economies. They also stand to gain from the agriculture that sustains their populations. Recognizing its full value can help cities make better decisions about what to build, what to preserve and how to grow.

Zhimin Wu is Assistant Director-General and Director of the Forestry Division at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

The legendary lesbian South African runner Caster Semenya successfully contested regulations aimed at policing women’s bodies by World Athletics, ultimately winning her case at the European Court of Human Rights in 2025. Credit: Shutterstock

By External Source
DAKAR, Oct 30 2026 (IPS)

Senegal is welcoming athletes and visitors from across the globe as part of the 4th Summer Youth Olympic Games, the first-ever Olympics in Africa. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) African athletes, including from Senegal, have repeatedly participated in and won competitions–while advocating their rights to compete and speaking out against discrimination.

In 2024, Cindy Ngamba, an openly lesbian boxer born in Cameroon, made history at the Paris 2024 Olympics by winning the first medal for the Refugee Olympic Team.

The legendary lesbian South African runner Caster Semenya successfully contested regulations aimed at policing women’s bodies by World Athletics, ultimately winning her case at the European Court of Human Rights in 2025. Along the way, she won a total of six medals across the Olympics and World Athletics Championships and debunked arbitrary definitions of femininity and racial stereotypes faced by African athletes.

In 2020, Phuti Lekoloane founded the African Pride Games, creating a safe platform for competition regardless of one’s identity and demonstrating that sport “can drive equality, inclusion, and unity.” After coming out publicly in July 2015, he was one of Africa’s first openly gay male footballers.

The climate of hatred and persecution created by the new law puts LGBT people, including athletes, staff, and fans at the Dakar Youth Olympics, at risk of human rights abuses

Senegal’s hosting of the Youth Olympics, however, shows the need to keep fighting for the rights of LGBT people in Africa.

In March 2026, Senegal’s parliament amended its penal code, doubling to 10 years the maximum prison term for consensual same-sex conduct and criminalizing “promotion” of, or support to, LGBT people and organizations. Between February and July, hundreds of people were arrested in connection with the amendment of the penal code, according to the African Forum for the Defense of Human Rights (Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme, or RADDHO. Senegalese government officials have frequently used incendiary rhetoric against LGBT people.

The climate of hatred and persecution created by the new law puts LGBT people, including athletes, staff, and fans at the Dakar Youth Olympics, at risk of human rights abuses.

Senegal’s then Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko said in April 2026 that, “any athlete coming solely to practice their sport is welcome and can freely pursue their activity. However, if someone comes for reasons other than sport, the [anti-LGBT] law of the country will apply to them, as it applies to everyone.”

The Senegalese government’s hostility to LGBT rights runs contrary to the Olympic Charter, which prohibits discrimination of any kind, including based on sexual orientation. Olympic hosts are required by their contract with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to prevent, investigate, and remedy human rights abuses related to the Games, including by engaging with affected groups.

Senegalese authorities, through the Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee, have rolled out measures to promote human rights protections, which they described as a key indicator for the success of the competition. But these protections have so far excluded the rights of LGBT people.

Several athletes have already pushed back against Senegal’s draconian law. Jérémy Clamy-Edroux, an openly gay, former professional rugby player, and Brahim Naït-Balk, an openly gay football coach, were among 29 African leaders who signed a May 2026 letter calling for the Senegalese government to open renewed dialogue on the law.

In their letter, they raised concerns about abuses faced by LGBT people and asserted that Pan-Africanism, previously embraced by Senegal’s President Bassirou Diomaye Faye himself, should advance liberation for all Africans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Dakar Youth Olympics ends November 13. Before then, Senegal’s government should repeal its anti-LGBT laws and free anyone still detained under the prior amendments. Senegal should use the Youth Olympics to protect LGBT people and fully embrace Olympic values.

Vincent Sima Olé is a senior program and sport and human rights coordinator and Larissa Kojoué is an LGBT rights researcher, both at Human Rights Watch.

Diego Mesa, GEF CEO and chairperson, addresses media on the status of finance mobilisation at COP17. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
YEREVAN, Armenia, Oct 30 2026 (IPS)

The second week of COP17 was dominated by discussions on biodiversity finance, with new pledges announced and donor outreach intensifying. Yet as the summit approached its close, the financing gap for implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) remains largely unchanged.

Prior to COP17, the first global review of progress toward the KMGBF, often called the global biodiversity review, painted an alarming picture: the commitment to mobilise USD 200 billion annually for biodiversity was still far from being achieved. The conference therefore opened amid growing pressure on governments over missed targets, corporate responsibility and Indigenous rights.

Against that backdrop, finance has become one of the most closely watched issues in the negotiations.

“We started the replenishment cycle number 9, for 2026 to 2030, and the initial contributions were announced in June in the General Assembly of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) in Uzbekistan’s Samarkand. And those initial contributions came at USD 3.9 billion for the next four years,” said Diego Mesa, the recently appointed CEO and Chairperson of the Global Environment Facility, at a press conference.

New and Emerging Donors, Including Cities

Since the adoption of the KMGBF, a notable financing trend has emerged: cities and provinces have begun contributing directly to biodiversity finance mechanisms.

The trend started two years ago when Quebec, the Canadian province that hosted COP15 in 2022, independently donated USD 1.4 million to the GBFF.

At COP17, the trend continued. On Oct 26 – observed as Finance Day, the City of Berlin pledged EUR 50,000 (USD 56,000) to the GBFF, while Quebec announced a second contribution of CAD 1.5 million.

Collectively, national and sub-national governments pledged more than USD 60 million to the GBFF. According to GEF sources, this included contributions from Germany (EUR 50 million), Iceland (ISK 160 million) and Monaco (EUR 1.5 million).

While the expanding donor base is an encouraging sign, the world still needs an estimated USD 200 billion annually by 2030 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss under Target 19. The current pace of finance mobilisation, therefore, remains far slower than what is required.

Mesa acknowledged these concerns about the biodiversity finance gap but argued that GEF funding has a catalytic effect, attracting additional public and private investment. He noted that each dollar committed through the facility typically mobilises several more dollars from other sources, and many donor countries also provide biodiversity finance through bilateral programs outside the GEF system.

“We obviously, you know, are concerned. We’ve read the (global) review report. But what we also need to highlight is that, in addition to the funds that come through the GEF, we have to take into account what I mentioned about being able to mobilise additional funds, whether it’s, you know, a multiplier of 8 or 8.2, on average, if we take GEF 8 as a baseline or blended finance, which is about 18.5,” he said.

Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, stressed that progress remains insufficient despite some gains.

“We all know that a lot of commitments were made four years ago in Montreal (including) mobilising at least USD 200 billion a year for biodiversity from 2030, from all sources. Reduce harmful incentives by at least USD 500 billion a year and align public and private financial flows with a framework. We have seen biodiversity finance increase quite substantially, but also from very, very low levels. Some figures suggest that we would have achieved USD 19 billion in 2024. That would be close to the 2025 milestone of 20 billion. But we also know that aid budgets are a lot under pressure, so that progress is not yet secure, to say the least,” Schomaker said in an address to the delegates on the Finance Day.

“From the side of the Secretariat, we would point to three questions or priorities that we hope you can discuss at this COP and move forward on. First, bring national biodiversity strategies and action plans into national budgets. Second, reform harmful incentives. And third, make public and development finance go further,” Schomaker said.

New Coalition Targets Harmful Subsidies

While much of the discussion centred on mobilising new biodiversity finance, negotiators also stressed the need to curb environmentally harmful spending. In that context, momentum grew around efforts to reform harmful subsidies with the launch of a new coalition of countries committed to Target 18.

Known as the “Friends of Target 18”, the coalition focuses on the KMGBF target to reduce harmful incentives by at least USD 500 billion per year while scaling up positive incentives for biodiversity.

Led by Colombia and Finland, and supported by the CBD, the coalition also has backing from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Development Programme’s Biodiversity Finance Initiative (UNDP BIOFIN).

“Our work here in Yerevan can influence how natural resources are used, how goods are produced and consumed, and where public and private financial resources are directed,” said Hambardzum Matevosyan, Minister of Environment of the Republic of Armenia and COP17 President.

So far, only five countries have joined the initiative. However, Marina Von Weissenberg, Senior Ministerial Adviser of Finland and co-chair of the Friends of Target 18, expressed confidence that more countries would follow.

“We don’t need to spend more to close the biodiversity funding gap, we need to spend better. Governments have a real opportunity here to reshape public spending with future generations in mind, but they can’t do it alone. International coordination is key to giving governments the confidence to lead change,” she said.

Meanwhile, GEF continues to focus not only on raising new money but also on broadening the donor base.

“This is exactly what we were doing with this pledging session, with the USD 5 million going to the GEF Trust Fund, and with the 60 million going into the GBFF. But also expanding the donor base. And that’s why we were very pleased to announce that we have a total of nine new contributors to the GEF family of funds,” Mesa said to IPS.

GEF Keeps Pledging Window Open

In an effort to attract additional support, GEF has made a significant change to its replenishment process.

Traditionally, pledging windows close when a replenishment cycle ends. Under that system, pledges for the ninth replenishment cycle would have closed earlier in June, when GEF held its Assembly in Samarkand.

This year, however, the window remains open, allowing countries to make contributions throughout the year.

“This is the first time that we kept the window open for pledging. And this is to respond to requests to be more flexible from the donor side. So, we will have, hopefully, one additional pledging session in the UNFCCC COP (COP31) next month,” Mesa told IPS.

“But we also expect additional contributions to take place in the next calendar year. So, the window will remain open,” he added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

 

 

 

Related Articles

• COP17 Celebrates Indigenous Leaders Amid Demand for Greater Inclusion in Biodiversity Decisions
• What a Seawater Sample Can Tell Scientists About Ocean Health
• Farwiza Farhan’s Fight To Save Tropical Hotspot of Indonesia – the Leuser

Excerpt:

This first part of a two-part series on biodiversity finance at CBD COP17 examines the status of finance mobilisation and new funding commitments.

Lana Nusseibeh from United Arab Emirates, candidate for the position of the next Secretary-General, briefs reporters after the informal dialogue held with the candidates for the position of the next Secretary-General. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 30 2026 (IPS)

As the race for the next UN Secretary-General moves forward, the campaign of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Assistant Minister for Political Affairs, Lana Nusseibeh, has faced significant pushback over the country’s involvement in the ongoing Sudanese Civil War.

Over the past three years, the conflict in Sudan has deteriorated into one of the world’s most dire humanitarian crises, marked by mass civilian displacement and casualties, rampant human rights abuses, and widespread hunger.

This month marks one year since the sharp escalation in hostilities in El Fasher following the siege by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), during which civilians were subjected to severe human rights violations and persistent obstructions to humanitarian aid, and entire communities were displaced.

Extensive data from the UN, human rights organizations, and U.S. intelligence show that the UAE has been a major supplier of weapons, vehicles, and logistical support to the RSF. In July, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN MENA) urged the UN General Assembly and member states to impose an immediate arms embargo on the UAE, citing grave acts of genocide targeting non-Arab communities in Darfur.

On October 21, the UAE announced that Nusseibeh would enter the race to become the next UN Secretary-General, seeking to succeed incumbent Secretary-General António Guterres following the completion of his second term on December 31. Nusseibeh has previously dismissed claims of Emirati involvement in RSF activities as “baseless,” describing them as disinformation to “deflect responsibility and undermine international efforts to address the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.”

On October 27, a press briefing brought together international policy experts, human rights advocates, and Sudanese survivors to discuss Nusseibeh’s campaign and its potential implications for the UN’s credibility and ability to protect civilians.

Speaking at the event, Ibrahim Alduma, a native of El Fasher and Chief Programs Officer at Sudan Action Hub, shared a personal account of the civilian toll the country experienced following last year’s escalation. Alduma recounted how his family was trapped in El Fasher when hostiltiies erupted, faced with persistent telecommunications disruptions, to the point where he didn’t know if they were still alive. He also shared that his childhood friend was killed during the escalation, only to find out two days after the fact.

Alduma highlighted the U.S. government’s determination in February 2025 that the RSF had committed genocide and the following sanctions that were imposed on seven comapnies affiliated with the RSF, all of which were either based in or directly linked to the UAE.

“(Nusseibeh) is the one who was lobbying to remove UAE from the resolution of the European Parliament, and now she is running for United Nations Secretary General. So, mainly when we talk about policy, I know that the world has known everything about what happened in El Fasher, but the question is not if they’re informed or not,” Alduma said.

Kenneth Roth, former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) and a speaker at the briefing, noted that while member states face growing pressure to elect a female Secretary-General, Nusseibeh’s late entry reflects a broader difficulty within the UN to reach a consensus. Roth described Nusseibeh’s candidacy as both “inappropriate” and “unsuitable.”

“At this stage, I think it’s really beyond dispute that the UAE was sending arms and mercenaries to the RSF. I think it’s fair to say the RSF would not have been able to be nearly as successful militarily as it was and has been without that support from the UAE,” said Roth. “After having basically put El Fasher under siege for some 500 days a year ago, it (the RSF) went in and just started slaughtering people. Another genocide, and the reason I think Lana Nusseibeh is an utterly inappropriate candidate for UN Secretary-General is that she denies this reality.”

Roth further noted that Nusseibeh’s repeated denial of the UAE’s involvement in RSF military activity is not based on factual findings, declaring that she will “destroy her credibility.” He compared her to former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, conversely describing Annan’s approach as firmly rooted in human rights and advocacy.

“We cannot afford to have the UN led by somebody who is a genocide denier, and indeed somebody who heads a government that has been aiding and abetting genocide, that is basically criminally complicit in that genocide, and she’s a lead person in covering that up,” said Roth.

Nathaniel Raymond, Executive Director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at the Yale School of Public Health, emphasized the role of Western intelligence in tracking the crisis. He highlighted that U.S. and British intelligence actively tracked and were aware of substantial levels of Emirati involvement, concluding that the UAE provided the RSF with the support needed to execute its human rights violations.

“For those of us who worked in El Fasher, we first warned El Fasher to the U.N. Security Council in a private briefing in July 2023 to see diplomats asking how we make sure this doesn’t happen again. It’s a slap in the face for the dead and for the survivors. Let’s be clear. It’s a second dehumanization of these people because it’s acting like somehow this is a murder mystery. That this is Colombo. This is murder,” said Raymond.

“The intelligence worked. The early warning worked. These people died for one reason, because their lives matter less than the diplomatic, economic, and security relationships between the U.S., the U.K., and the U.A.E. That’s it. If you think there’s somehow a bigger thing here, there isn’t. That’s why they died, because they were just less important.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

 

 

 

Key Takeaways (Executive Summary)

• UN Charter (October 24, 1945): Codified the prohibition of force (Article 2(4)) and institutionalized collective security alongside Great Power realpolitik via the Security Council (Chapter VII).

• Cuban Missile Crisis (October 16–29, 1962): Highlighted the operational risks of nuclear brinkmanship, leading to the creation of the Washington–Moscow Hotline and modern decision-making models.

• Operation Enduring Freedom (October 7, 2001): Triggered NATO’s Article 5 for the first time, introducing the „Afghan Model” of light-footprint precision warfare and long-term COIN challenges.

  1. Entry into Force of the United Nations Charter (October 24, 1945) 1.1 Structural Foundations and Legal Architecture

• The formal entry into force of the United Nations Charter on October 24, 1945, represented a decisive structural transformation in global security governance. Following the failure of the League of Nations to prevent systemic conflict in the 1930s, the Allied powers constructed a legally binding international architecture to enforce peace and regulate state behavior. Drafted at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, the Charter established a centralized institutional framework centered on maintaining international peace and security.

• The Charter’s core legal innovation lies in Article 2(4), which codified a comprehensive prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This norm replaced the classical jus ad bellum framework of Westphalian sovereignty with a restricted regime where armed force is legitimate under only two specific exceptions:

  1. Individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack (Article 51).

  2. Explicit authorization by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) under Chapter VII.

Chapter VII provides the UNSC with sweeping coercive powers. Under Article 39, the Security Council holds the sole authority to determine threats to peace, breaches of peace, or acts of aggression. Once identified, the Council can mandate non-military sanctions (Article 41) or authorize military force (Article 42) to restore international security.

1.2 Realpolitik and Security Council Veto Dynamics

While the Charter established normative principles of sovereign equality (Article 2(1)), its structural implementation acknowledged power politics. By granting permanent membership and veto power (the P5) in the Security Council to the primary victors of World War II—the United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France, and China—the Charter embedded a compromise between universal normative aspirations and Great Power realpolitik.

This design reflected the consensus that collective security could function only if Great Powers were legally shielded from enforcement actions against one another, thereby preventing direct military conflict between nuclear-capable states. However, this architectural constraint generated systemic vulnerabilities:

• Strategic Paralysis: During the Cold War, opposing superpowers frequently utilized the veto to block UN intervention in conflicts within their spheres of influence.

• Informal Adaptation: To bypass Security Council gridlock, the UN General Assembly adopted the Uniting for Peace resolution (Resolution 377A) in 1950, allowing recommendations for collective action when the Security Council stalled.

• Emergence of Peacekeeping: Because Chapter VII enforcement actions were frequently stymied, the UN developed traditional „Chapter VI and a Half” peacekeeping operations—deploying neutral military observers with host-state consent to maintain ceasefires.

1.3 Strategic Communication and Contemporary Relevance

From a strategic communication perspective, the UN Charter created a permanent platform for diplomatic signaling and crisis management. The Security Council serves as a critical forum for narrative warfare, normative framing, and public diplomacy. States routinely utilize UN debates to build international legitimacy, justify military interventions, or expose the legal vulnerabilities of strategic rivals.

In contemporary security policy, the UN Charter framework faces severe stress tests, including grey-zone aggression, cyber operations, proxy warfare, and direct breaches of territorial sovereignty by P5 members. Despite these strains, the legal principles established on October 24, 1945, remain the baseline benchmark for evaluating the legitimacy of military operations worldwide.

References & Key Literature

• Bowett, D. W. (2009). Self-defence in international law. Manchester University Press.

• Chesterman, S. (2001). Just war or just peace? Humanitarian intervention and international law. Oxford University Press.

• Garey, A. (2020). The United Nations and security sector reform: Policy and practice. Routledge.

• Kelsen, H. (2000). The law of the United Nations: A critical analysis of its fundamental problems. The Lawbook Exchange.

• Weiss, T. G., & Daws, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook on the United Nations (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

2. The Cuban Missile Crisis (October 16–29, 1962)

2.1 Escalation Dynamics and Nuclear Brinkmanship

The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 16–29, 1962, stands as the most acute nuclear confrontation in history, bringing the United States and the Soviet Union to the verge of thermonuclear exchange. The crisis began when U.S. U-2 reconnaissance aircraft confirmed the covert deployment of Soviet R-12 (SS-4) and R-14 (SS-5) medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba.

From Moscow’s perspective, Operation Anadyr served dual strategic objectives: rectifying the nuclear imbalance created by U.S. missile deployments in Turkey and Italy, and deterring an American invasion of Cuba following the 1961 Bay of Pigs expedition. For Washington, nuclear missiles 90 miles off Florida fundamentally reduced strategic warning time and represented an unacceptable shift in the regional balance of power.

U.S. President John F. Kennedy established the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (ExComm) to evaluate response options. Kennedy selected a naval „quarantine”—a blockade intended to halt offensive military shipments while leaving diplomatic space for de-escalation without provoking an immediate Soviet retaliation against West Berlin.

2.2 Crisis Communication and Decision-Making Models

The thirteen days demonstrated the friction inherent in nuclear brinkmanship. Operational escalation regularly threatened to outpace diplomatic command and control:

• Tactical Miscalculations: On October 27 („Black Saturday”), an American U-2 aircraft was shot down over Cuba without direct authorization from Moscow. Simultaneously, the isolated Soviet submarine B-59, subjected to non-lethal U.S. depth charges, nearly launched a nuclear-tipped torpedo due to lost communications.

• Back-Channel Diplomacy: Public posturing at the UN Security Council was matched by secret negotiations. Key channels included informal contacts between KGB agent Aleksandr Feklisov and journalist John Scali, alongside direct high-level meetings between Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin.

The resolution required a complex diplomatic compromise. Premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed to publicly dismantle and withdraw Soviet offensive missiles under UN verification. In return, President Kennedy pledged publicly that the U.S. would not invade Cuba, while privately agreeing to remove U.S. Jupiter missiles from Turkey.

Strategic Dimension American Positioning Soviet Positioning Public Stance Naval Quarantine; Demand for immediate missile removal Declaration of defensive aid; Resistance to U.S. piracy Operational Action DEFCON 2; Blockade; Preparation for air strikes Covert deployment; Air defense readiness in Cuba Secret Concession Removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey Agreement to UN inspection/verification frameworks 2.3 Theoretical and Strategic Aftermath

The crisis became the primary empirical foundation for modern strategic studies. Graham Allison demonstrated that state behavior during acute crises cannot be fully explained through a singular „Rational Actor” model (Model I), as decisions are heavily shaped by „Organizational Process” mechanics (Model II) and „Bureaucratic Politics” bargaining (Model III).

The realization that intelligence gaps and operational friction could trigger unintended nuclear war led directly to strategic adjustments:

1. Direct Communication Channels: In 1963, Washington and Moscow established the Washington–Moscow Direct Communications Link („Hotline”) to ensure rapid crisis communication.

2. Arms Control Regimes: The crisis catalyzed bilateral arms control, leading to the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) in 1963, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, and the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in the 1970s.

References & Key Literature

• Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (2nd ed.). Longman.

• Blight, J. G., & Welch, D. A. (1989). On the brink: Americans and Soviets reexamine the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hill and Wang.

• Dobbs, M. (2008). One minute to midnight: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Castro on the brink of nuclear war. Alfred A. Knopf.

• Gaddis, J. L. (2005). The Cold War: A new history. Penguin Press.

• Trachtenberg, M. (1991). History and strategy. Princeton University Press.

 

3. Launch of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (October 7, 2001) 3.1 Post-9/11 Security Paradigm and Alliance Mechanics

The initiation of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) on October 7, 2001, launched the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and redefined Western alliance structures. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda, the Bush administration defined the conflict as an armed attack triggering the right of national self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

On September 12, 2001, NATO allies invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first time, declaring the attacks against the U.S. to be an attack against all member states. However, the initial military campaign did not deploy under a formal NATO command structure. Seeking maximum operational autonomy, U.S. leadership adopted an „ad hoc coalition of the willing” approach, aligned with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s operational doctrine that „the mission determines the coalition.”

A Three October Turning Points in Modern Security Policy (1945, 1962, 2001) bejegyzés először Biztonságpolitika-én jelent meg.

Credit: UN Women/Samar Abu Elouf

By UN Women
NEW YORK, Oct 30 2026 (IPS)

More than 37,000 civilians were killed in conflict last year. Women and girls accounted for one in four of these deaths – double their proportion in 2021 – according to the 2026 UN Secretary-General’s report on Women, Peace, and Security, released today.

Approximately 750 million women and girls now live within 50 kilometers of an active conflict, 40 million more than in 2024, and more than at any time since 1990.

“More women and girls are trapped in wars than at any point in decades. Yet military spending keeps rising and development assistance keeps falling, even as investing in women’s leadership, conflict prevention, and peacebuilding has never been more urgent”, said UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous.

For women and girls caught in war, the threat goes beyond bombs. Cases of conflict-related sexual violence verified by the United Nations nearly quadrupled between 2022 and 2025. War also drives women deeper into poverty and increases their unpaid care work. Around 170 million women and girls live in both conflict zones and extreme poverty, surviving on less than USD 3 a day. They account for almost 40 per cent of all women and girls living in extreme poverty globally. In conflict-affected countries, women and girls spend five times as many hours on unpaid domestic and care work as men and boys, double the global average.

These impacts are compounded by changing warfare and declining respect for international law. The increasing use of drones and long-range weapons in populated areas, including deliberate attacks on schools, markets, and hospitals – central to women’s daily lives – raises further safety concerns. Emerging AI-enabled military technologies add to these risks, particularly for women and girls already facing violence, displacement, and insecurity.

Even amid these challenges, women are working to protect communities and build peace.

“Every day, women around the world are working to end wars and build peace – protecting survivors, keeping communities together, and stopping violence before it starts. Their work is one of the best investments the world can make in peace”, continued the UN Women Executive Director.

Despite these contributions, the report shows that in 2025, women made up only five per cent of negotiators across 57 peace processes worldwide, down from seven per cent the year before.

Women’s exclusion from peace negotiations is compounded by a lack of investment in their work. Global military expenditure hit a record USD 2.9 trillion in 2025. Meanwhile, 40 per cent of women’s organizations in crisis-affected settings expect to shut down temporarily or permanently within the next year because of severe funding shortfalls. Women’s organizations are the backbone of lasting peace. They mediate local tensions, shelter the displaced, support survivors, and hold communities together. Their survival is essential to sustaining that peace.

UN Women calls for the protection of all women and girls and their rights, their meaningful participation in peace and security, and sustained investment in women-led conflict prevention and peacebuilding. We call for international law to be upheld and for an end to impunity.

IPS UN Bureau

 

 

 

 

Excerpt:

At least 25 women and girls are killed every day as civilian deaths mount, sexual violence rises, and women remain largely excluded from peace negotiations.

By Shahiduzzaman
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Oct 29 2026 (IPS)

Dowry is still persisting in society in one form or another. This deeply entrenched social practice continues deepen household poverty and cause violence against women. The question is no longer whether Bangladesh has a law against dowry. It does. The more uncomfortable question is why the law has failed to make dowry socially unacceptable and practically difficult to demand. The Dowry Prohibition Act 2018 makes the demand for dowry a criminal offence. Direct or indirect demands can result in one to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 50,000, or both. Giving, taking or assisting in the giving or taking of dowry is also punishable. The law even makes dowry-related agreements void. Yet, the existence of legislation has not eliminated the practice. Instead, dowry has increasingly adapted itself to modern economic and social realities.

Shahiduzzaman

It may no longer always be described as “dowry”. A demand for a motorcycle, cash for a business, furniture, electronics, a car, money for migration, payment of a loan or financial assistance to the groom’s family can be presented as a “gift”, “help” or “family contribution”. In some cases, demands continue years after marriage. This makes dowry harder to identify, document and prosecute.

Research published in Development and Change in 2024 provides a disturbing illustration. In a study of 206 cases involving troubled marriages, 52 per cent involved complaints of continuing dowry demands. In 81 per cent of those cases, the demand was accompanied by violence against wives. The cases crossed economic classes, showing that dowry is not simply a problem of poor families.

The human rights consequences are profound. Dowry transforms marriage from a relationship between two individuals into an economic transaction in which a woman can be treated as a source of wealth. When the expected payment is not made, or when the husband or his family believes it is insufficient, the woman may face humiliation, threats, physical assault, psychological abuse, economic deprivation, abandonment or expulsion from the marital home.

The latest national evidence on violence against women makes the wider context impossible to ignore. The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and UNFPA’s 2024 Violence Against Women Survey found that 76 per cent of ever-married women had experienced at least one form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime under the broader Bangladesh-specific definition. Nearly half, 49 per cent, experienced such violence during the previous 12 months. The survey specifically identifies dowry practices among the factors associated with increased risk of intimate partner violence.

This is not merely a women’s issue. It is a human rights issue involving the rights to life, dignity, equality, security and freedom from violence. The most frightening consequence is death. According to figures cited by the European Union Agency for Asylum from Ain o Salish Kendra monitoring, Bangladesh recorded 77 reported incidents of dowry-related violence against women in 2024. Of these, 36 women died as a result of the violence, and another seven reportedly died by suicide. During January-June 2025, 45 incidents were recorded, with 23 women reportedly dying from the violence.

These figures should not be interpreted as the total number of dowry-related deaths in Bangladesh. They represent documented cases recorded by a human rights monitoring organisation, and many incidents may never reach police, courts or the media. Indeed, the national violence survey found that 62 per cent of survivors never disclosed the violence they experienced.

The causes of dowry-related deaths are also revealing. They can include severe beatings, burns, strangulation, poisoning, forced or coerced suicide, and other forms of physical violence. In some cases, what is presented as suicide may follow prolonged harassment, threats and economic coercion. This is why every suspicious death of a married woman following allegations of dowry demand deserves an impartial investigation rather than being dismissed as a “family matter”.

Dowry also makes poor families poorer. For a low-income household, arranging a daughter’s marriage can mean selling land, livestock or productive assets, taking loans, borrowing from relatives or using savings accumulated over years. The World Bank has documented the strong relationship between poverty and dowry in Bangladesh.

This creates a vicious cycle. Poverty encourages families to see marriage as a financial necessity; dowry drains household resources; debt weakens the family’s economic security; and economic dependence can make women less able to leave abusive marriages. Dowry can also contribute to child marriage. UNICEF research notes that despite the 2018 law, families continue to face social pressure surrounding dowry. Because dowry can increase as girls grow older, some families marry daughters earlier to reduce the expected financial burden.

Bangladesh is not facing this problem alone. India offers an important comparison. Indian law not only prohibits dowry but also has a specific legal category for “dowry death”. Under Section 304B, now carried forward as Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a woman’s unnatural death within seven years of marriage can be treated as dowry death when there is evidence of cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demands. The punishment is a minimum of seven years’ imprisonment and can extend to life imprisonment. But India’s experience also demonstrates that stronger legislation alone is not enough. Official Indian data recorded 6,156 dowry-death cases in 2023.

The lesson for Bangladesh is clear: criminalisation must be accompanied by effective enforcement, investigation, prosecution, survivor protection and social transformation. Bangladesh therefore needs to move beyond symbolic prohibition. First, police must treat dowry complaints as serious criminal allegations rather than private family disputes. Second, investigations into suspicious deaths of married women must examine previous dowry demands, financial transactions, messages, threats, medical records and testimony from neighbours and relatives. Third, victims need accessible legal aid, emergency shelter and economic support. A woman who has no income, no safe place to live and responsibility for children may remain with an abusive husband simply because leaving appears economically impossible.

The deeper problem is not the absence of law. It is the gap between law and social reality. A society cannot claim meaningful progress on women’s rights while a woman can be beaten because her family cannot provide money, forced to leave her marital home because a demand remains unpaid, or lose her life because marriage has been turned into a financial transaction.

The writer is the Editor and CEO of News Network

This story was originally published by The Daily Sun

IPS UN Bureau

 

 

 

 

Indigenous leaders from Brazil, DRC, Indonesia, Gambia, Peru and Thailand are named the Indigenous People’s Ambassadors for Primary Forests at COP17. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
YEREVAN, Armenia, Oct 29 2026 (IPS)

At the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17, the presence of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) is impossible to miss. Indigenous representatives speak at side events, participate in contact groups, advise negotiators and engage across multiple forums shaping the future of global biodiversity policy.

Yet amid this growing visibility, one message resonates throughout the conference halls: implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) will fall short unless Indigenous peoples are meaningfully involved at every stage, from decision-making and policy design to implementation and monitoring. 

Many Indigenous leaders attending COP17 say that reality remains far from that goal. While governments increasingly acknowledge the role of IPLCs in protecting nature, participation is often limited to consultation rather than genuine partnership, they argue. This is particularly concerning because many biodiversity policies directly affect Indigenous territories, traditional knowledge systems, food sovereignty and cultural practices.

For communities that have stewarded ecosystems for generations, the challenge is no longer visibility. It is influence.

Against this backdrop, COP17 offered a rare moment of celebration. Six Indigenous leaders from Brazil, Peru, Indonesia, Thailand, The Gambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo were named Indigenous Peoples Ambassadors for Primary Forests in recognition of their efforts to protect some of the world’s most ecologically important forests.

Leading the Good Fight for Nature

The awardees, Maimuna Jawara, Pirawan Wongnithisathaporn, Puyr dos Santos Tembé, Joseph Itongwa Miukumo, Julio Cusurichi Palacios and Herkulanus Sutomo Manna, share a common mission: protecting, restoring and stewarding forest ecosystems that sustain biodiversity, store vast amounts of carbon and support traditional ways of life.

The recognition came through the inaugural Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Award, a joint initiative of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF). The six winners were selected through an open nomination process that attracted 73 nominations from 27 countries.

Organisers said the award seeks to spotlight individuals whose leadership has helped safeguard primary forests while strengthening the rights and resilience of the communities that depend on them.

“Today we recognise six of these leaders, several of whom the GEF has had the privilege of working alongside in their territories. Their leadership offers important lessons, and we look forward to continuing to learn from it across all our work,” said Diego Mesa, Chief Executive Officer of the Global Environment Facility, during the award ceremony.

The recognition also reflects growing scientific evidence linking Indigenous stewardship with successful conservation outcomes.

“Evidence has shown that securing Indigenous Peoples’ land rights and recognising and respecting traditional knowledge are among the most effective ways to protect forests and biodiversity. Yet Indigenous-led conservation is about more than environmental results; it is about recognising rights, upholding dignity and delivering justice,” said Grethel Aguilar, Director General of IUCN.

Farming, Forests and Cultural Knowledge

For Maimuna Jawara of The Gambia, environmental stewardship begins with everyday life.

Jawara, one of the award recipients from Banjul, is the founder of 1802lab, a research and design laboratory exploring the connections between cultural identity, ecological knowledge and sustainable futures for African fashion. Yet the role she identifies with most deeply is that of a farmer and community agroecology educator.

Growing up in a farming family, Jawara learned to read the seasons, save seeds and care for the soil from an early age. Living close to nature, she came to see environmental stewardship not as a profession but as a way of life.

“As I got older, I realised that agroecology is just remembering how to live in harmony with nature,” Jawara said.

Earlier this year, she was named a Transformative Partnership Platform (TPP) Agroecology Ambassador.

Jawara’s recognition comes at a difficult moment for her country. The Gambia no longer has any primary forests. Studies have attributed their disappearance to fuelwood collection, land clearing for livestock, hunting and advancing desertification.

While the government has enacted laws promoting sustainable natural resource management, implementation remains challenging because of limited financial and human resources. Conservation regulations are also often poorly understood by rural communities.

Yet there are signs of hope. According to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) figures, forest cover in The Gambia has increased in recent years through plantations and community-led restoration efforts.

For Jawara, the award is both an honour and a responsibility.

“I hope to amplify voices from the ground and contribute to a transition that is not only ecological but also socially just, inclusive, and rooted in dignity,” she said.

Protecting Ancestral Forests

Another recipient, Herkulanus Sutomo Manna of West Kalimantan, Indonesia, represents the Dayak Iban Menua Sungai Utik Indigenous community, which has gained international recognition for protecting its ancestral forests.

For Herkulanus, protecting forests is inseparable from protecting Indigenous identity, culture and livelihoods.

The community’s struggle dates back to 1998, when it initiated participatory mapping efforts in response to increasing threats from illegal logging. Those efforts helped document customary lands and strengthened the community’s ability to defend its territory from encroachment.

Over time, the initiative became an important example of how Indigenous communities can use traditional knowledge, customary governance and local leadership to conserve forests while maintaining cultural continuity.

Receiving the award at COP17, Herkulanus emphasised that the recognition belonged not only to him but to the broader Indigenous movement. He urged Indigenous communities around the world to continue protecting and managing their ancestral territories, stressing that safeguarding forests today is essential for the survival and well-being of future generations.

Indigenous Voices Across Continents

Among the award recipients was Puyr dos Santos Tembé of Brazil, a leader from the Tembé People and the Alto Rio Guamá Indigenous Territory in the Brazilian Amazon.

Tembé’s work supports ecosystem restoration through native species, community seed collection, agroforestry initiatives and sustainable livelihoods connected to standing forests.

Unlike many Indigenous leaders, she has also developed a strong social media presence and uses digital communication platforms to raise awareness about Indigenous peoples, their cultures and their rights among broader audiences.

Pirawan Wongnithisathaporn is a Karen Indigenous leader who works through the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), a regional network representing Indigenous communities, including those displaced from their ancestral lands and living in exile.

She serves as a bridge between these communities and regional and global biodiversity and climate negotiations, advocating for Indigenous rights, community forestry, environmental governance and more.

Other recipients included Joseph Itongwa Miukumo of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a leading advocate for Indigenous and community-conserved territories, and Peru’s Julio Cusurichi Palacios, whose work has advanced forest protection and Indigenous participation in national decision-making.

Recognition Amid Continuing Frustrations

While the awards were welcomed as an important recognition of Indigenous leadership, they also highlighted a wider debate unfolding at COP17 over the place of Indigenous peoples within biodiversity governance.

Many Indigenous representatives attending the conference point out that, despite repeated commitments from governments and international institutions, Indigenous communities remain excluded from many key decisions affecting their territories and livelihoods.

That frustration has surfaced repeatedly during discussions around implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

At COP16 in Colombia, parties agreed to establish a permanent body for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to help ensure their effective inclusion across all aspects of the framework’s implementation. The decision was widely hailed as a breakthrough for Indigenous participation.

Two years later, however, many delegates argue that progress has been slow.

IPLC representatives say they continue to face exclusion from decision-making processes at local, sub-national and national levels. Concerns have also intensified around the implementation of the framework’s flagship 30×30 target, which seeks to conserve 30 percent of the world’s lands and waters by 2030.

Many Indigenous organisations argue that their rights over traditional territories are still not being adequately respected as governments pursue conservation commitments.

The debate raises a broader question: can recognition of individual Indigenous leaders help shift political realities on the ground?

For some participants, initiatives such as the Indigenous Peoples Ambassadors for Primary Forests programme could help bring greater visibility to Indigenous leadership and strengthen advocacy for rights-based conservation. Others caution that recognition alone will not address the structural barriers that continue to limit Indigenous participation in decision-making.

“Announcing the new cohort of Indigenous Peoples Ambassadors for Primary Forests is only the beginning. We will continue to partner with and elevate the ambassadors and their communities,” said Paula Prist, Senior Programme Coordinator at IUCN.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

 

 

 

Related Articles

• How Conflict Brings Biodiversity to the Brink
• Ahead of COP17, UN Biodiversity Chief Urges Urgent Realignment of Finance with Nature Goals

Arno Yafunga Botay a fui la RDC avec sa famille en 2017 et participera aux Jeux olympiques de la jeunesse de Dakar 2026 en tant que membre de l'équipe olympique des réfugiés.

By CIVICUS
Oct 29 2026 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses voter suppression ahead of the USA’s 2026 midterm elections with Aklima Khondoker, an Atlanta-based civil and voting rights attorney, civil society organisation executive and founder and principal of Atabey Strategies, a consultancy firm that advises civil society organisations on democracy and electoral participation.

Aklima Khondoker

On 14 September, the US Supreme Court maintained a freeze on the postal ballot provisions of Donald Trump’s March 2026 executive order, meaning they won’t apply in the November midterms. This was the latest setback to Trump’s efforts to manipulate the election. Since January 2025, Trump has pardoned around 1,500 people charged over the 2021 Capitol attack and placed 2020 election deniers in election security roles. The administration has ordered voters to show documentary proof of citizenship to register, and the Justice Department has sued 30 states for their voter rolls. Courts have blocked the citizenship requirement and dismissed most of these lawsuits.

How is the Trump administration changing the way elections are run?

President Trump has called for ‘nationalising’ elections, which means centralising election control within the federal government, giving his administration more control over who can vote, who receives a mail ballot and how election officials do their jobs. Trump is using the federal government to upend how elections are run. His March 2026 executive order required federal agencies to compile citizenship lists for states and instructed the Justice Department to prioritise investigations of election officials who issue ballots to people deemed ineligible. The order also directed the Postal Service to develop new mail ballot rules, including a federal enrolment system that could determine whether a voter’s postal ballot is delivered. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has demanded state voter data. The administration says these measures protect election integrity. Yet integrity requires accurate records and fair administration free of political pressure. Using disputed data to question eligible voters and threatening officials with investigation can undermine both and risk wrongful exclusion.

This creates serious constitutional tensions. The Constitution assigns states responsibility for running elections and gives Congress, not the president, the power to change the rules by law. The Supreme Court has allowed parts of the executive order to take effect on procedural grounds, without ruling on their legality. However, it has blocked the new postal ballot rules from applying in the midterms.

Democracy depends on people being able to register, get clear information and cast a ballot that will count. Rights can be hollowed out one procedure at a time, each change defended as technical or necessary, until they survive in name only. Erosion of this kind works like a slow boil, making each new restriction feel ordinary. A safeguard is weakened here, a group pushed to the margins there. The danger is that the rest of us grow accustomed to the heat and call it normal, while power moves further from the public it’s meant to serve.

What does the Supreme Court’s ruling on postal ballot deadlines mean for the midterms?

It means states can keep counting mail ballots that arrive after election day as long as they were posted on time. The case concerned Mississippi, one of several states that allow this, which gives ballots up to five business days to arrive. The Republican National Committee and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi argued that federal law requires ballots to be received by election day. Had the Supreme Court agreed, all these grace periods could have fallen, and the practical effect would have been to discard eligible voters’ ballots because of postal delays beyond their control. That’s voter suppression in practice.

But the ruling leaves states free to set their own rules and doesn’t require any state to offer a grace period, so voters face different deadlines depending on where they live. Someone can post a ballot on time and still be caught out by postal delays or other barriers. And voting by mail matters. The pandemic showed its value by letting people vote without in-person exposure, and many voters with disabilities still depend on it.

To be clear, postal voting is safe. For over two decades, Oregon has mailed ballots to active registered voters, who can return them by mail or drop box. From 2000 to 2019, around 61 million ballots were cast there and there were only 38 criminal convictions for voter fraud. In Georgia, amid the Trump campaign’s fraud claims after the 2020 election, a Republican-led audit of a random sample of 15,118 absentee ballot envelopes found no fraudulent ballots. Years of investigations have not substantiated claims of widespread or outcome-changing mail ballot fraud.

What pressure do election officials face from federal authorities?

They face federal demands, on tight deadlines and under threat of legal action, to withhold the ballots of voters whose citizenship is questioned. In California, the Justice Department gave officials 48 hours to review a list of voters on a password-protected drive, without disclosing how many people were on it. It demanded that ballots not yet sent to these voters be withheld until their citizenship was confirmed and that returned ballots be set aside if officials couldn’t verify it. It threatened emergency legal action if they didn’t comply.

The task involves far more than a database search. Officials must check whether records are accurate, coordinate across state and county offices and protect eligible voters’ ballots, all as the election approaches. California has 23.16 million registered voters. Los Angeles County alone had about 5.89 million in its June primary, in which over 80 per cent of ballots were cast by mail. Days after the vote, the county still had around 355,000 mail ballots to process. That’s the ordinary work. The 48-hour deadline lands on top of it.

Election workers also pay a personal price. After the 2020 election, some were falsely accused of fraud, treated as political enemies and subjected to racist threats.

Which voters are most likely to be shut out?

Those asked to spend the most time, money or effort proving they belong at the ballot box are the most likely to be excluded, including Black voters and those from other communities of colour, Native voters, people with disabilities, naturalised citizens caught in record mismatches and people with felony convictions. Exclusion doesn’t always arrive with a sign saying ‘you can’t vote’. It can come as an inaccessible polling place, an address that doesn’t match the one on an ID, a database error or a confusing deadline.

This kind of exclusion has a long history. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution promised Black men the vote. But after Reconstruction, the period following the Civil War, southern states used discriminatory laws, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation and violence to push newly enfranchised Black voters out of political life. While today’s barriers are not a replay of the Jim Crow era, that history shows how administrative rules can produce profoundly unequal consequences.

Eligible citizens whose records are incomplete or outdated, including naturalised citizens, risk being wrongly flagged as ineligible. If their citizenship can’t be confirmed quickly, their ballot may be withheld while they face a rushed demand to prove they belong. That can cost them their vote, and it can deter other eligible voters from taking part. The danger is real enough that on 9 October, a federal judge struck down as unlawful a Justice Department policy of cross-checking voter rolls against federal records, citing the risk that outdated federal records could mark eligible citizens as ineligible.

In 2024, an estimated four million Americans were barred from voting because of a felony conviction. Around 40 per cent had served their full sentences but still could not vote. This is ‘civil death’. People who live in a community, raise families and work alongside their neighbours have no say in the decisions that govern their lives.

Accessibility also determines whether voters with disabilities can participate independently and safely. In a national study of the 2020 election, 18 per cent of voters with disabilities who voted in person reported difficulty, compared with five per cent of those who voted by mail.

The representatives voters choose make decisions on the cost of living, education, healthcare and the future of democracy itself. When the people most affected by those decisions face the hardest path to the ballot, their interests become easier to ignore.

How is civil society protecting voting rights ahead of the midterms?

Civil society groups make a constitutional right reachable. They translate changing rules into clear guidance, connect voters with legal help, monitor the process, document problems and challenge unlawful barriers. Most voters will never read a court filing or an election observation report, but they may call a hotline because their name is not on the rolls, ask a volunteer what to do when a ballot is challenged or rely on a trained observer to document what happened at a polling place.

The Election Protection coalition brings together over 300 local, state-level and national organisations, and its trained volunteers help voters by phone or text. Observers witness and document the process so public confidence rests on evidence, not rumour.

Around the world, civil society groups are often among the first to document exclusion and defend civic space when governments restrict it. Contexts differ, but the lesson travels: participation does not protect itself. It takes organised people, acting together, to make sure that voters are heard.

What safeguards are needed to protect votes?

Safeguards begin with adequately funded election offices, clear rules announced well in advance, accessible ways to vote, and fair notice and time to fix registration problems. The right to vote means little if a voter can’t reach the polling place, understand the instructions, correct a registration error or get help without fear. Voter roll maintenance, which federal law requires to be uniform and non-discriminatory, should protect eligible voters from wrongful removal instead of leaving them scrambling to prove they belong.

Vote counting must also be transparent, with documented ballot handling, open audits and clear public explanations of the process. Voters, election workers and those who help people vote must be protected from intimidation and threats. The Voting Rights Act, the landmark law against racial discrimination in voting, must be strengthened and fully enforced. Its protections must cover every stage at which someone can be denied the vote or an equal voice, including registering, casting a ballot and having it counted. They must also guarantee language access and assistance for voters who need them. These safeguards are how we stop a slow erosion of rights from becoming a democratic rupture.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Aklima Khondoker/LinkedIn
Aklima Khondoker/Twitter

SEE ALSO
Democracy: an enduring aspiration CIVICUS | State of Civil Society Report 2026
US democracy under siege CIVICUS Lens 20.May.2026
USA: ‘The challenges have never been greater, but civil society’s capacity to respond has never been higher’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Lauren Prather 05.May.2026

 

 

 

 

Dans son discours lors de la 18ᵉ Conférence africaine sur la recherche en informatique et en mathématiques appliquées tenue à Cotonou du 21 au 24 novembre 2026, le ministre Janvier Yahouedeou a lors de son allocution, répondu sans ambages à la récurrente question que se posent plusieurs jeunes sur les réseaux sociaux : A quoi servent les mathématiques ?

Votre journal a dans sa récente publication, fait une large diffusion des propos du ministre. À présent, voici un cas pratique de l'utilisation des mathématiques en Intelligence Artificielle pour illustrer les propos du ministre.

Lors de la cérémonie d'ouverture du CARI 2026, le ministre a déclaré ce qui suit :
« Permettez-moi, à ce propos, de partager avec vous une petite expérience personnelle. Il y a quelques années, dans le cadre de la rédaction de l'un de mes ouvrages techniques, alors que je développais en langage C une application destinée à comparer des textes, j'ai été confronté à une question : comment une machine. peut-elle analyser et mesurer la ressemblance entre deux textes, deux documents ?

J'ai alors eu recours à une méthode mathématique appelée « similarité cosinus ». Son principe consiste à représenter chaque texte sous la forme d'un vecteur numérique, construit à partir des mots qui le composent, puis à calculer le cosinus de l'angle entre les deux vecteurs afin de mesurer leur degré de similarité.

"Associée à l'indice TF-IDF, cette méthode m'a permis ainsi d'évaluer la proximité lexicale entre deux textes et, dans certaines limites, de fournir des indications sur leur proximité sémantique."

Cette expérience m'a permis de mesurer concrètement une réalité fondamentale. Derrière les applications d'intelligence artificielle, aussi complexes soient-elles, se trouvent des modèles, des algorithmes et des outils mathématiques.

Elle m'amène également à partager une réflexion, particulièrement à l'adressedes jeunes.Il m'arrive de lire, notamment sur les réseaux sociaux, des commentaires de jeunes diplômés qui s'interrogent sur l'utilité des mathématiques qu'ils ont étudiées au secondaire ou à l'université. Certains vont jusqu'à affirmer que ces connaissances ne servent à rien dans la vie pratique. Je voudrais leur dire qu'ils se trompent.

Les mathématiques sont au cœur des grandes avancées scientifiques et technologiques contemporaines. L'intelligence artificielle repose notamment sur l'algèbre linéaire, les probabilités, les statistiques, l'optimisation et le calcul différentiel.

La navigation GPS repose sur des calculs géométriques, des mesures de temps et des modèles mathématiques.Derrière les télécommunications, l'imagerie médicale ou encore les prévisions météorologiques, il y a des modèles, des équations, des probabilités et des algorithmes mathématiques.
Ce que nous apprenons à l'école sous forme de théorèmes, de fonctions, de vecteurs, d'intégrales doubles et triples ou d'équations constitue souvent le fondement de technologies qui transforment aujourd'hui notre quotidien. Certes, chacun n'aura pas nécessairement à utiliser toutes ces notions dans
sa vie professionnelle. Mais cela ne signifie pas qu'elles sont inutiles.

Notre défi est donc double. Il s'agira d'aider les jeunes à mieux comprendre la valeur des mathématiques et faire en sorte que leur enseignement établissedavantage de liens avec les problèmes concrets de nos sociétés.

Car les mathématiques ne sont pas seulement une matière scolaire. Ellessont aussi un langage qui nous aide à comprendre le monde, à concevoir des solutions et à préparer l'avenir. ».

De manière pratique, Prenons cette solution

Pour les vecteurs de fréquences de mots, dont les composantes sont positives ou nulles :

• Similarité = 1 : les vecteurs ont exactement la même direction..

• Similarité proche de 1 : les textes présentent une forte proximité dans leur représentation lexicale.

• Similarité = 0 : les vecteurs sont orthogonaux, ce qui signifie ici qu'ils ne partagent aucun sens commun.

Exemple appliqué à deux textes

Supposons que nous comparions deux phrases :

Texte A : « Les mathématiques développent l'intelligence. »

Texte B : « L'intelligence utilise les mathématiques. »

Nous obtenons un Résultat : 0, soit environ 66,7 %.

Cela signifie que les deux textes présentent une similarité cosinus de 0,667.

Dans cette expérience de programmation IA, cette formule permet de transformer un problème de comparaison de textes en un calcul mathématique.

Cette articulation entre représentation numérique, produit scalaire et normes vectorielles illustre l'utilité pratique des mathématiques dans l'informatique et l'intelligence artificielle.

La compagnie nationale Air Algérie poursuit l’expansion de son réseau international avec le lancement de cinq nouvelles liaisons vers l’Afrique et l’Asie. Les premiers vols […]

L’article Air Algérie : 5 nouvelles destinations internationales dès le 25 octobre est apparu en premier sur .

Les éléments de la police de la daïra de Bouhmama, dans la wilaya de Khenchela, ont procédé à l’arrestation de quatre personnes soupçonnées d’être impliquées […]

L’article 4 personnes arrêtées pour le vol de chevaux, que sait-on de cette affaire ? est apparu en premier sur .

Malgré un ralentissement général de l’immobilier en Espagne, la province d’Alicante maintient son statut de pôle d’attraction majeur pour la clientèle internationale. Au cœur de […]

L’article Avec un budget moyen de 132 000 € : Les Algériens premiers acheteurs immobiliers dans cette ville espagnole est apparu en premier sur .

L'IA a mis au jour des failles de programmation longtemps restées cachées, déclenchant une réaction mondiale exceptionnelle en matière de cybersécurité.

Il y a exactement soixante-dix ans, le 22 octobre 1956, les autorités françaises détournèrent un avion marocain qui effectuait la liaison entre Palma de Majorque, en Espagne, et Tunis. Elles le forcèrent à atterrir à l'aéroport de Maison-Blanche, Alger alors sous domination coloniale française.

Ce commentaire semble viser Benjamin Netanyahu et Donald Trump, qui seront tous deux confrontés à des élections dans les semaines à venir.

La cour royale de Porto-Novo est en deuil. Sa Majesté Toffa IX Gbèzè Ayontinmè, souverain traditionnel de la ville capitale, est décédée dans la matinée de ce mercredi 21 octobre 2026, des suites d'une courte maladie.

Deuil à la cour royale de Porto-Novo. Le roi Toffa IX Gbèzè Ayontinmè n'est plus. Il a rejoint ses ancêtres dans la matinée de ce mercredi 21 octobre 2026.
Le regretté est une figure de la royauté traditionnelle au Bénin. Il laisse derrière lui un héritage associé à la mémoire historique de Porto-Novo, à ses valeurs ancestrales et à la continuité de ses traditions. Son décès remet en lumière la place qu'occupe la chefferie traditionnelle dans la préservation de l'identité culturelle et du patrimoine historique de la cité.

Le président de l'Assemblée nationale, Joseph Djogbenou, a ouvert ce mercredi 21 octobre 2026, les travaux de la deuxième session ordinaire de l'année 2026. Pour l'examen du budget de l'État gestion 2027, la sécurité routière, la protection des enfants et l'amélioration du fonctionnement de l'institution parlementaire sont les principaux sujets à l'ordre du jour de cette session.

La deuxième session ordinaire de l'année 2026 ouverte à Porto-Novo. Le président de l'Assemblée nationale, Joseph Djogbenou a lancé les travaux ce mercredi 21 octobre 2026. Plusieurs sujets seront examinés par la représentation nationale au cours de cette session.

Le Code de la route inscrit à l'ordre du jour
La sécurité figure parmi les priorités de cette session parlementaire. Dans son discours d'ouverture, le président de l'Assemblée nationale, Joseph Djogbénou, a évoqué les menaces pesant sur l'intégrité du territoire, l'insécurité intérieure ainsi que les risques liés à la circulation routière. Il a annoncé l'examen du projet de Code de la route par les députés. À cet effet, il a salué l'initiative des commissions parlementaires qui ont organisé un séminaire afin de permettre aux élus de mieux maîtriser les dispositions de ce texte. Cette démarche vise notamment à faciliter l'examen du projet de loi, dont l'application doit contribuer à renforcer la sécurité routière et à réduire les accidents de la circulation.
Les parlementaires examineront également une résolution portant sur le règlement intérieur de l'Assemblée nationale. Selon Joseph Djogbénou, cette réforme doit permettre de consolider le fonctionnement de l'institution et de l'adapter aux exigences du nouveau septennat.

Le budget 2027 au centre des travaux
L'examen du projet de loi de finances pour l'exercice 2027 constitue l'un des principaux enjeux de cette deuxième session ordinaire. Ouvrant les travaux, Joseph Djogbénou a invité les députés à exercer pleinement leurs responsabilités dans l'accompagnement de l'action gouvernementale. Il a appelé les élus à permettre à l'exécutif de disposer des moyens nécessaires à la mise en œuvre de ses politiques publiques, tout en veillant à la protection des citoyens, notamment des personnes les plus vulnérables.
La session sera également marquée par l'intervention du président de la République devant la représentation nationale, à l'occasion de son discours sur l'état de la nation.
Entre l'examen du budget 2027, les questions de sécurité et les réformes institutionnelles, cette session parlementaire s'inscrit dans la mise en œuvre des premières orientations du nouveau septennat.

F. A. A.