The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Feb 13 2026 (IPS) - The latest World Economic Forum made clear the current crisis of multilateralism. Over 60 heads of state and 800 corporate executives assembled in Davos under a ‘Spirit of Dialogue’ theme aimed at strengthening global cooperation, but it was preceded by a series of events pointing to a further unravelling of the international system.
On 3 January, Donald Trump launched an illegal military strike on Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro, which was widely condemned as a violation of international law. On 7 January, he signed an executive order withdrawing the USA from 66 international bodies and processes, including 31 UN entities, such as the UN Democracy Fund, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and UN Women. Then came the launch of Trump’s Board of Peace, evidently an attempt to supplant the UN Security Council. The country that helped build the multilateral system is walking away from the parts it doesn’t like and seeking to reshape the rest in its interests.
Trump’s approach to multilateralism is nakedly transactional. His administration engages with international processes only when they advance immediate US interests and withdraws from those that impose obligations. This disassociates multilateralism from its core principles: accountability over shared standards, equality among nations and universality. It encourages other states to follow suit.
This approach brings devastating financial impacts. US threats to defund international bodies have left institutions scrambling. UN development, human rights and peacekeeping programmes all depended heavily on US financial contributions. The World Health Organization faces shortfalls that threaten its ability to respond to health emergencies because the US government quit without paying its overdue contributions.
The USA’s closest allies aren’t safe. Trump threatened NATO member Denmark with 25 per cent tariffs unless it agreed to the USA’s purchase of Greenland, and suggested he might seize the territory by force. NATO’s Article 5 on collective defence – invoked only once, by the USA after 9/11 – lies in doubt. European states are reacting by seeking strategic autonomy, slashing development aid and reducing UN contributions while finding extra billions for military spending.
Problematic alternatives are looking to capitalise on crisis. At Davos, China positioned itself as the grown-up alternative to Trump, promoting its Friends of Global Governance initiative, a group of 43 mostly authoritarian states including Belarus, Nicaragua and North Korea.
The queue of heads of government meeting China’s leader Xi Jinping shows many states are pivoting this way. But it comes at a cost: in China’s vision of international cooperation, state sovereignty is paramount and there’s no room for international scrutiny of human rights or cooperation to promote democratic freedoms.
It’s the same story with the new Board of Peace. The body originated in a controversial November 2025 Security Council resolution establishing external governance for Gaza, but Trump clearly envisions a permanent, wider role for it. He chairs it in a personal capacity, with full power to veto decisions, set agendas and invite or dismiss members. Permanent membership costs US$1 billion, with the money’s destination unclear.
The Board’s draft charter makes no mention of human rights protections, contains no provisions for civil society participation and establishes no accountability mechanisms. Most members so far are autocratic states such as Belarus, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Its credibility is further undermined by the fact that Israel has just joined, despite having made a mockery of international humanitarian law. More democratic states have declined invitations, mostly due to concerns about the body’s unclear relationship with the UN. Trump’s response was to threaten increased tariffs against France and withdraw Canada’s invitation. He has made clear he considers himself above international law, casting himself as a de facto world president able to resolve conflicts through personal power and pressure.
As the old order dissolves, civil society must play a critical role in defining what comes next. While the UN – particularly its Security Council, hamstrung by the use of veto powers by China, Russia and the USA – needs reform, it remains the only global framework built on formal equality and universal human rights. As the UN faces assault from those abandoning it or seeking to dilute its human rights mandate, civil society must mobilise to keep it anchored to its founding principles and challenge the hierarchies that exclude global south voices.
It falls on civil society to organise across borders to uphold international law, document violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and demand accountability. Not for the first time, civil society needs to win the argument that might doesn’t make right.
Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.
For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 13 2026 (IPS) - Although global rates of child labour have declined since 2020, the practice remains a serious and persistent violation of children’s rights, undermining their safety, social development, and long-term economic stability. These risks are intensified by structural pressures— poverty, climate shocks, protracted conflict, and unsafe migration— that continue to push vulnerable children into crisis, and in some cases, trafficking and exploitation. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) warns that African countries remain among the most affected regions, underscoring the urgent need for coordinated policy action, cross-border cooperation, and sustained investment to protect children on the move and those at risk of labour exploitation.
Roughly 137.6 million children across the world are engaged in child labour, representing 7.8 percent of all children globally. Of this number, approximately 54 million children are engaged in particularly hazardous work—such as mining and construction, or work performed for over 43 hours per week.
In a newly-released data brief analyzing child labour trends across Eastern and Southern Africa, UNICEF found approximately 41 million children—nearly one third of the global total—are engaged in child labour as of 2024, accounting for roughly one in five children in the region. While this represents progress from the 49 million children recorded in 2020, UNICEF warns that these gains remain fragile and could be reversed without strengthened policies and adequate financing.
“Children belong in classrooms, not workplaces,” said Etleva Kadilli, UNICEF Regional Director for Eastern and Southern Africa. She emphasized that ending child labour requires an inclusive approach that aims to revitalize education systems and strengthen protection measures for children worldwide.
“Supporting parents with decent work is essential so children can go to school, learn, play, and build a brighter future,” Kadilli added, urging governments, the private sector, civil society, and communities to work together to build a coordinated response aligned with “national and continental commitments” to put a definitive end to child labour.
The report highlights the severity of the crisis: 13.4 million children in Eastern and Southern Africa are engaged in hazardous work. It is only second to West and Central Africa when it comes to the prevalence of child labour globally. Education disparities are particularly pronounced, with six in ten adolescents engaged in child labour out of school, compared with just two in ten of their non-working peers.
According to the report, Eastern and Southern Africa has a disproportionately high share of young children engaged in child labour compared to other regions. Roughly 65 percent of children in child labour in the region are between the ages of 5 and 11, which greatly contrasts with other parts of the world where older adolescents make up a larger share. Although notable progress has been made in reducing child labour across all age groups, the decline has been slowest among the youngest children.
UNICEF notes that child labour in Eastern and Southern Africa is heavily concentrated in agriculture, which accounts for approximately 78 percent of all cases among children aged 5 to 17. This is even more pronounced among younger children, with more than 80 percent of those aged 5 to 11 working in agricultural fields. However, hazardous work is disproportionately concentrated in other sectors, with 55 percent of child labor in industry and 56 percent in services being classified as hazardous, compared to the 26 percent found in agriculture.
On February 11, during the Sixth Global Conference on the Elimination of Child Labour in Marrakesh, Morocco, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) called on governments to strengthen protection measures, enhance international cooperation, and improve monitoring systems to ensure that migration and trafficking are central to efforts to end child labour. The agency emphasized that unsafe migration is a key driver of child labour, as displaced communities often resort to it in the absence of access to basic services, stable livelihoods, and social protection.
“If we are serious about ending child labour, we must face a reality that is still too often overlooked: migration,” said Amy Pope, IOM Director-General. “Today, millions of children are on the move, they’re forced by conflict, they’re pulled by poverty, they’re displaced by the impact of climate shocks. And they’re searching for opportunity and for safety. Evidence shows that migrant children are often the most exposed to child labour. They work longer hours, they earn less, they are less likely to attend school, and they face higher risks of injury, exploitation, and death.”
According to the latest figures from IOM, approximately 30,000 child victims of trafficking have been identified globally, though the true number is likely far higher due to widespread underreporting and gaps in detection. Children account for nearly one in four detected trafficking victims worldwide, with roughly 20 percent aged between 9 and 17 years of age.
Among all identified victims, 61 percent face sexual exploitation, with girls being disproportionately affected. Recruitment into armed groups is common among boys. Traffickers commonly exert control through psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as threats against victims or their families and restrictions on finances, medical care, essential services, and freedom of movement.
Pope underscored the urgency of closing systemic gaps in labour governance and protection systems that leave migrant children vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation. “These children are often missing from child labour policies, overlooked in protection systems, and invisible in the data that guides decisions,” she said. “Along migration routes, children are exploited in agriculture, domestic work, hospitality, and construction — and these abuses follow them across borders wherever protection fails. Protection must move with the child: prevention must reflect real labour and mobility realities, and systems must work together across sectors and borders.”
UNICEF is calling on the international community to address both the root causes and consequences of child labour. The plan includes expanding social protection programs for vulnerable families, promoting universal access to quality education, strengthening monitoring efforts to identify at-risk children, ensuring decent work opportunities for youth and adults, and enforcing stronger labour laws to enhance corporate accountability and eliminate exploitation across supply chains. Together, these efforts aim to ensure that families are not forced to rely on their children for survival—and that children are free to learn, grow, and simply be children.
IPS UN Bureau Report
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 13 2026 (IPS) - United Nations member countries will select a new UN secretary-general this year to succeed António Guterres in January 2027. The change in leadership comes at a time when human rights and democracy, as well as the international organizations created to uphold those principles and provide lifesaving assistance, are under unprecedented attack.
So far member countries have formally nominated only two candidates: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi from Argentina.
The threats to the global human rights system demand a courageous leader at the UN who will put human rights at the heart of its agenda. Yet the selection process gives veto power over any candidate to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States.
But human rights are clearly not a priority for China, Russia, or the United States.
Human Rights Watch and others have long documented attempts by China and Russia to defund and undermine the UN’s human rights pillar. More recently, the United States, which played a key role in creating the UN and its human rights architecture in 1945, has rejected and defunded dozens of UN programs promoting rights and humanitarian assistance.
The Trump administration has also withheld billions of dollars in UN dues, which has been a major factor in the organization’s crippling financial crisis. While Washington recently announced an initial payment toward its arrears, its actions have nonetheless seriously affected the UN’s ability to do its work.
US President Donald Trump has also been trying to sideline the UN by establishing a “Board of Peace,” modeled after the Security Council, with himself as chairman for life. Invited leaders include serial rights abusers from China, Belarus, Hungary, and Saudi Arabia, along with two men—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin—facing International Criminal Court warrants.
The UN needs a leader willing to stand up to major powers and abusive governments to defend victims of abuses and marginalized communities, and aggressively support accountability for serious crimes.
As member states nominate additional candidates, they should put forward a diverse pool, especially women and others with proven track records on human rights, and ensure a competitive and transparent process that places an exceptional individual committed to human rights atop the UN.
Widad Franco is UN Advocate, Human Rights Watch
IPS UN Bureau
ROME, Feb 12 2026 (IPS) - Glaciers – the world’s hidden water banks – are a source of life for billions. The seasonal melt from mountains and glaciers sustains some of the world’s most important rivers, such as the Indus, the Nile, the Ganges and the Colorado. Those and other mountain-fed rivers irrigate crops, provide drinking water for nearly two billion people, and power electricity generation.
But, as glaciers shrink and vanish, changes in water flows pose a growing risk to the water, food and livelihood security of billions of people.
In the short term, accelerated melting can trigger environmental hazards: flash floods, glacial lake outburst floods, avalanches and landslides.
In the long term, the glaciers as water sources will simply disappear.
By century’s end, most glaciers will contribute far less water than they do today, undermining agriculture in both mountain villages and sprawling lowland breadbaskets downstream.
We need policies and collaboration that address glacier-fed water systems, cross-border cooperation, and risk-sharing and early warning mechanisms – especially as rivers fed by glaciers often span multiple countries
Mountains cover more than a quarter of the world’s land and are home to 1.2 billion people, but these regions are heating up more rapidly than the global average. Mountain communities are especially vulnerable to increasing climate variability and decreasing seasonal water availability for agriculture and irrigation. With often no viable alternative water supply, the loss of agricultural production can lead to climate displacement and greater instability.
Five of the past six years have seen the most rapid glacier retreat on record, and the impacts are already being felt.
Communities from the Andes to the Himalayas are experiencing shorter snow seasons, erratic runoff, and the loss of reliable water. In Peru, dwindling glaciers have slashed crop yields. In Pakistan, reduced snowmelt threatens seasonal planting cycles. Many glaciers have already reached or are expected to reach “peak water” – the point at which meltwater runoff is at its maximum, after which flows will gradually decline – in the coming two or three decades. This means everyone who depends on glacier-fed rivers faces increasing scarcity when population growth will push water demand even higher.
Beyond science and survival, the disappearance of glaciers erases something less tangible but equally profound. For Indigenous Peoples and mountain communities across Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Pacific, glaciers are sacred. Their melting erodes traditions, rituals, identity and cultural heritage bound to mountain landscapes for centuries.
While there is still time to act, global responses remain fragmented and inadequate. That’s why the United Nations declared 2025 the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation – a clear reminder that preserving these frozen ecosystems means protecting our future.
To ensure food and water security from the peaks to the plains, a bold shift in policy, investment and governance is urgently needed.
Broadly speaking, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, improving water management, and strengthening early warning systems, adaptative agriculture and sustainable agrifood systems are necessary.
We need to turn the challenges posed by melting glaciers into opportunities to the benefit of all.
Agriculture, both a major water user and a key sector for adaptation, can itself be a solution when developed sustainably. Techniques like terrace farming, agroecology, agroforestry and crop diversification – practiced by mountain communities for centuries – help preserve soil and water, reduce disaster risk and support livelihoods. Such adaptation efforts should be inclusive, drawing on Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and addressing root vulnerabilities like poverty and gender inequality.
We must also mobilize investments in water and agricultural infrastructure. This includes more climate finance to support vulnerable mountain communities that struggle to access training, funding and innovation.
In addition, governments need to align strategies, policies and plans to address this critical nexus between water, agriculture and climate resilience. Mountains are often absent from national climate policies and global adaptation frameworks. We need policies and collaboration that address glacier-fed water systems, cross-border cooperation, and risk-sharing and early warning mechanisms – especially as rivers fed by glaciers often span multiple countries. This also includes reviewing basin-wide water allocation strategies, plans and investment in infrastructure to improve water use efficiency, and step up glacier monitoring and research.
Preparing for a world with fewer glaciers and less of their precious water requires innovation and coordination. In Kyrgyzstan, FAO has been helping experts construct artificial glaciers – ice towers created by spraying mountain water and that gradually melt in summer. In the region of Batken alone, this initiative has helped store over 1.5 million cubic meters of ice, enough to irrigate up to 1,750 hectares.
In Ladakh, India, the social enterprise Acres of Ice has developed automated ice reservoirs to capture unused water in autumn and winter and freeze it until spring. In the Peruvian Andes, a community-based initiative is addressing the deterioration of water quality from minerals exposed by receding glaciers through a natural filtration system using native plants.
But far more needs to be done, together. Glaciers matter because water matters. To ignore their rapid retreat is to gamble with global food and water security.
—
FAO is mandated to lead the global observance of International Mountain Day, coordinated through the Mountain Partnership Secretariat, which is financially supported by the governments of Italy, Andorra and Switzerland. The Secretariat collaborated closely with UNESCO and the World Meteorological Organization, co-facilitators of the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation 2025.
Excerpt:
QU Dongyu is Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Feb 12 2026 (IPS) - The most recent agreement limiting U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals, New START, expired on February 5, and prospects for any kind of follow-on agreement are very uncertain.
Progress over several decades in halting the growth of nuclear arsenals and then in reducing them is in acute danger of being undone. That is despite the fact that the objective of “cessation of the nuclear arms race” is embedded in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a keystone multilateral global security agreement.
In a U.S. statement delivered February 6 in the Conference on Disarmament, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said that a “new architecture” is needed, one that takes “into account all Russian nuclear weapons, both novel and existing strategic systems, and address[es] the breakout growth of Chinese nuclear weapons stockpiles.”
That is a challenging project. An informal arrangement between the United States and Russia for transparently abiding by New START limits for at least a short period of time seems within the realm of possibility.
But obstacles to successful negotiation of a new treaty or treaties involving the United States, Russia, and China are major.
The Chinese have shown no interest in discussing limits on their arsenal, which remains much smaller than the U.S. and Russian arsenals. Russia wants negotiations to address U.S. missile defense plans and non-nuclear strategic strike capabilities.
The United States wants Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons and novel systems like a long-range nuclear-armed torpedo, both not limited by New START, to be addressed. More broadly, the ascendance of authoritarian nationalism and acute geopolitical tensions are not conducive to progress.
Nonetheless, especially with the next five-year Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference coming up this spring, it must be emphasized that the United States, Russia, and China are bound by the NPT Article VI obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations on “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date” and on nuclear disarmament.
When the negotiations on the NPT were completed in 1968, cessation of the nuclear arms race was understood to centrally involve a cap on strategic arsenals held by the U.S. and the Soviet Union, a ban on nuclear explosive testing, and a ban on producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
Ending nuclear arms racing was seen as setting the stage for negotiations on nuclear disarmament, meaning the elimination of nuclear arms.
After the NPT entered into force in 1970, the United States and Russia expeditiously moved to cut back on arms racing by negotiating bilateral treaties limiting delivery systems and missile defenses.
The size of the Soviet stockpile of nuclear warheads, however, continued to climb until the mid-1980s. Then a series of treaties, above all the 1991 START I agreement, dramatically reduced the two arsenals while still leaving in place civilization destroying numbers of warheads.
With the demise of New START, there is no treaty regulating the arsenals of the United States, Russia, China, and other nuclear-armed states. China is expanding its arsenal and the United States and Russia are poised to follow suit. The three countries also in differing ways are diversifying their arsenals and increasing the capabilities of delivery systems.
Increasing, diversifying, and modernizing nuclear arsenals as now underway or planned amounts to a repudiation of the NPT objective of cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and fails to meet the legal requirement of good faith in pursuing that objective.
The NPT Review Conference would be an appropriate setting for launching an initiative to reverse this dangerous and unlawful trend. It must also be stressed that arms control among the three powers does not and should not exclude multilateral negotiations for establishment of the “architecture” of a world free of nuclear weapons.
John Burroughs is Senior Analyst, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
IPS UN Bureau
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 12 2026 (IPS) - When the nuclear Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and Russia expired last week, it ended a historic era— but triggered widespread speculation about the future.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said “February 5 was a grave moment for international peace and security”.
For the first time in more than half a century, he pointed out, “we face a world without any binding limits on the strategic nuclear arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States of America – the two States that possess the overwhelming majority of the global stockpile of nuclear weapons.”
US President Donald Trump dismissed the termination of the treaty rather sarcastically when he told the New York Times last month: “if it expires, it expires”—and denounced the expiring treaty as “a badly negotiated deal”.
“We will do a better agreement”, he promised, adding that China, which has one of the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenals, “and other parties” should be part of any future treaty.
The Chinese, according to the Times, “have made clear they are not interested”.
Currently, the world’s nine nuclear powers are the US, UK, Russia, France and China—all permanent members of the Security Council—plus India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
Collectively, they possess an estimated 12,100 to 12,500 nuclear warheads, with Russia and the US owning nearly 90% of the total eve while all nine are actively modernizing their arsenals.
Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute told IPS the START Treaty should be extended at least a year by formal or informal means. Is that as good as obtaining a new treaty that would include China as the US administration wants? No.
“Is it as good as fulfilling legally required steps such as adherence to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) unanimous ruling to negotiate the universal elimination of nuclear weapons or the fulfillment of the promise of nuclear disarmament embodied in Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)? No”.
However, argued Granoff, doing nothing is asserting that a modest threat reducing easily obtained step now should not be taken because there are better ways forward. A modest positive step is no impediment to moving in other desired manners.
Fully terminating START communicates to the entire world that the US and Russia are so diplomatically inept that they cannot be trusted to continue to hold the entire world hostage to annihilation by holding thousands of first-use-ready nuclear weapons over everyone’s heads without adequate reasonable restraint, said Granoff.
The arguments being put forth as to why nothing can be done are inadequate.
First, the US argues that a new arrangement, a new treaty, is needed to bring China into the fold of restraint, he said.
“A modest step of extending START for a year by mutual presidential decrees while new negotiations take place does not negate creating a new treaty that would include China.”
Second, the arguments used to rationalize the new arms race fail to consider the folly of producing more accurate, usable, and powerful nuclear weapons”, declared Granoff.
Guterres pointed out the dissolution of decades of achievement could not come at a worse time – the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades.
“Yet even in this moment of uncertainty, we must search for hope. This is an opportunity to reset and create an arms control regime fit for a rapidly evolving context.”
“I welcome that the Presidents of both States have made clear that they appreciate the destabilizing impact of a nuclear arms race and the need to prevent the return to a world of unchecked nuclear proliferation.
“The world now looks to the Russian Federation and the United States to translate words into action. I urge both States to return to the negotiating table without delay and to agree upon a successor framework that restores verifiable limits, reduces risks, and strengthens our common security’, said Guterres.
In a statement released last week, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), a global network of legislators working to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world, said the importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate.
“As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.”
The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, PNND warned.
This was one of the key reasons that on January 27, 2026, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock to 85 Seconds to Midnight.
Last year, PNND Co-President Senator Markey introduced draft legislation into the US Senate urging the government to negotiate new post-START agreements with Russia and China. The legislation is supported by a number of other Senators and by a companion bill in the House of Representatives. But this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the Trump Administration.
Granoff, providing a deeper analysis, told IPS the scientific data makes clear that a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would annihilate humanity and that a limited nuclear exchange of less than 2% of the world’s arsenals would put around 5 million tons of soot into the stratosphere leading billions of deaths and the devastation of modern civilization everywhere.
“Realism reveals that the alleged need to duplicate the arsenals of adversary nations is not needed for deterrence. Realism also reveals that there is actually little to no meaningful difference between a nation having 600 (as China does now) or over 1400 deployed nuclear weapons, mirroring the US and Russia, or 30,000 nuclear weapons as Russia and the US each had at the height of the last arms race”.
“The reality is that devastation globally of a small portion of the world’s nuclear arsenals would be unambiguously unacceptable to any sane person. We could say that realism informs us that we have moved from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Self-Assured Destruction (SAD). The fact is that if any of the 9 states with the weapons were to use several hundred nuclear weapons that nation itself would also be devastated. MAD today reveals a new acronym, SAD.”
Meanwhile, a posting in the US State Department website reads:
Treaty Structure: The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, also known as the New START Treaty, enhances U.S. national security by placing verifiable limits on all Russian deployed intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. The United States and the Russian Federation had agreed to extend the treaty through February 4, 2026.
Strategic Offensive Limits: The New START Treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011. Under the treaty, the United States and the Russian Federation had seven years to meet the treaty’s central limits on strategic offensive arms (by February 5, 2018) and are then obligated to maintain those limits for as long as the treaty remains in force.
Aggregate Limits
Both the United States and the Russian Federation met the central limits of the New START Treaty by February 5, 2018, and have stayed at or below them ever since. Those limits are:
• 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;• 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments (each such heavy bomber is counted as one warhead toward this limit);
• 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
IPS UN Bureau Report
Feb 11 2026 (IPS) - Africa has never lacked agricultural strategies. Since the launch of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) in 2003, governments have pledged repeatedly to spend at least 10 per cent of public budgets on agriculture and to raise productivity through better investment and coordination. The African Union reaffirmed this target in subsequent declarations, such as Malabo in 2014 and the Kampala CAADP Strategy (2026-2035).
Yet, two decades on, one in five Africans still faces hunger, and few countries have met the budget commitment. With the upcoming African Union Summit around the corner, it is time to reflect on whether the continent’s food systems are finally on a path to lasting transformation. The lesson is clear: Africa’s challenge lies not in a lack of ambition, but in ensuring that governance and accountability mechanisms are strong enough to turn commitments into results.
The Kampala CorrectionAdopted in 2025, the Kampala Declaration and Action Plan signalled a quiet but significant shift in Africa’s food and agricultural governance — recognising that transformation depends as much on political accountability as on policy and investment.
With the upcoming African Union Summit around the corner, it is time to reflect on whether the continent's food systems are finally on a path to lasting transformation
For the first time, parliaments are at the centre of the CAADP process. Legislators are now tasked with aligning national laws to continental targets, ensuring that agriculture, nutrition, climate and trade policies work in concert, and subjecting executive commitments to real oversight.
This correction matters. The Kampala Declaration recognises that accountability must extend beyond governments alone. It calls for stronger legislative scrutiny, transparent budget processes, and active participation by civil society and local authorities to ensure commitments translate into results. Without such checks and coordination, implementation will continue to drift.
The African Food Systems Parliamentary Network (AFSPaN) has translated this broader governance mandate into a Ten-Year Parliamentary Call to Action (2026–2035). It urges legislatures to:
• Align and update laws governing food, trade, climate and health;
• Scrutinise agricultural budgets and track spending efficiency;
• Institutionalise partnerships with civil society and local authorities;
• Guarantee gender- and youth-responsive policies; and
• Build data and analytical capacity to support evidence-based debate.
This is also a question of priorities. In many countries across Africa, debt-service costs often exceed agricultural budget. The continent cannot rely indefinitely on external aid while under-investing domestically in food and nutrition security. Parliamentarians have the constitutional authority to decide how money is allocated and to hold governments accountable for how it is spent. They should use this authority to ensure that fiscal policy — including debt management and investment decisions — directly supports long-term food and nutrition security.
Strong oversight is not an obstacle to executive action; it is the precondition for efficiency. Countries that have embedded accountability — such as Rwanda, where performance contracts and results-based budgeting are standard — demonstrate that governance can accelerate progress more effectively than any single financing instrument.
Accountability as the Missing InfrastructureAs the heads of state gather at the AU summit, the Kampala Declaration offers a timely reminder that Africa’s food crisis is as much a governance challenge as a production one. Infrastructure, markets and agricultural inputs remain vital, but the missing infrastructure deficit is institutional. Without transparent laws, credible budgets and measurable outcomes, even a well financed investment cannot deliver a lasting transformation.
The next decade under CAADP must therefore prioritise governance. The Kampala Declaration makes clear that success will be determined by technical agencies and political institutions. Its real test will be whether parliaments exercise the courage to challenge under-performance and to legislate for long-term resilience.
Parliamentarians have finally been given the mandate to connect these dots. They must now use it.
Hon. Françoise Uwumukiza, Deputy Secretary-General, African Food Systems Parliamentary Network (AFSPaN)
Excerpt:
Hon. Françoise Uwumukiza is Deputy Secretary-General, African Food Systems Parliamentary Network (AFSPaN)