The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
WASHINGTON DC, Dec 23 2025 (IPS) - We live in a galaxy of data. From satellites and smartwatches to social media and swipes at a register, we have ways to measure the economy to an extent that would have seemed like science fiction just a generation ago. New data sources and techniques are challenging not only how we see the economy, but how we make sense of it.
The data deluge raises important questions: How can we distinguish meaningful signals of economic activity from noise in the age of artificial intelligence, and how should we use them to inform policy decisions? To what extent can new sources of data complement or even replace official statistics?
And, at a more fundamental level, are we even measuring the metrics that matter most in today’s increasingly digital economy? Or are we simply tracking what we looked at in the past? This issue of Finance & Development explores these questions.
Author Kenneth Cukier suggests that harnessing alternative data requires a new mindset. He likens today’s economists to radiologists who once resisted having clearer MRI scans because they were trained to read fuzzier ones. Are we clinging to outdated metrics even as new data offers faster, granular, and sharper insights into economic reality and a better reflection of “ground truth”?
More data doesn’t automatically mean better insights or decisions. New or alternative data is often a by-product of private business activity, with all the biases of that environment. It may lack the long continuity and robust methods that underpin official economic indicators.
That’s why official statistics remain essential.
Claudia Sahm shows how central banks are tapping new sources of data to fill gaps—including falling response rates to national surveys—but always in tandem with trusted official sources. To improve data quality, she calls for strong ties between statistical agencies, private providers, government officials, and academics.
Relying on data sources not available to the public erodes transparency, which is critical to central bank accountability, she cautions.
For the IMF’s Bert Kroese, reliance on private data must not diminish resources available for official number crunching. Without strong, independent national statistical agencies, the integrity of economic data, and the policies built on it, could falter.
That’s not to say government agencies always get it right. Rebecca Riley argues that core economic metrics like GDP and productivity are increasingly misaligned with a rewired, data-driven economy. She calls for a modernization of measurement systems to better reflect the growth of intangible assets such as digital services, and the evolving structure of global production.
Better data collection serves the public good only if the data is widely available. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger warns that the concentration of data collection among a handful of Big Tech companies threatens competition and innovation.
He makes the case for policies that mandate broader data sharing. Thijs Van de Graaf adds a geopolitical lens, revealing the material demands behind AI’s data hunger, from energy and chips to minerals and water, and how these pressures are reshaping global power dynamics.
Elsewhere, Laura Veldkamp discusses the value of data, raising questions about how we price, use, and share information, and proposes novel approaches to turn intangible data into something we can count. Jeff Kearns shows how innovative approaches like nowcasting are helping developing economies close information gaps.
And the head of India’s statistical agency, Saurabh Garg, explains in an interview how he is tackling challenges of scale as public demand for real-time data grows.
This issue serves as a reminder that better measurement is not just about more data—it’s about using it wisely. In an era where AI amplifies both possibilities and noise, that challenge becomes even more urgent. To serve the public good, data must help us see the world more clearly, respond intelligently to complexity, and make better decisions. Data, after all, is a means not an end.
I hope the insights in this issue help you better understand the profound forces at play in our data-driven world.
Gita Bhatt is the Head of Policy Communications and Editor-In-Chief of Finance & Development magazine. She has a multifaceted communications background, with more than 20 years of professional experience, including in media and public affairs.
During 2009-11, she worked at the Reserve Bank of India as Adviser to the Governor. She has an MSc from the London School of Economics, and a Bachelors in Economics and Philosophy from George Washington University.
Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF)
IPS UN Bureau
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 23 2025 (IPS) - Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, once made a highly-debatable distinction between “friendly” right-wing “authoritarian” regimes (which were mostly U.S. and Western allies) and “unfriendly” left-wing “totalitarian” dictatorships (which the U.S. abhorred).
Around the same time, successive U.S. administrations were cozying up to a rash of authoritarian regimes, mostly in the Middle East, widely accused of instituting emergency laws, detaining dissidents, cracking down on the press, torturing political prisoners and rigorously imposing death penalties.
Kirkpatrick’s distinction between user-friendly right-wing regimes and unfriendly left-wing dictators prompted a sarcastic response from her ideological foe at that time, former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who shot back: “It seems to me that if you’re on the rack (and being tortured), it doesn’t make any difference if your torturer is right-handed or left-handed.”
Last month, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Alice Jill Edwards, warned that rigorous oversight of security and policing trade fairs is necessary to prevent prohibited and inherently abusive law enforcement equipment hitting the market after such items were found on display at Milipol 2025, an arms and security trade fair held in Paris from 18 to 21 November.
“Direct-contact electric shock devices, multiple kinetic impact projectiles and multi-barrel launchers cause unnecessary suffering and ought to be banned,” Edwards said. “Their trade and promotion should be prohibited across all 27 EU Member States and globally.”
Under the EU Anti-Torture Regulation – first introduced in 2006 and strengthened in 2019 – companies are banned from promoting, displaying or trading certain equipment that can be used for torture or ill-treatment. In 2025, the EU further expanded the list of prohibited and controlled law enforcement items, according to a UN press release.
Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture (CVT), the largest international organization that treats survivors and advocates for an end to torture worldwide, told IPS as the largest torture rehabilitation organization in the world, the Center for Victims of Torture supports the Special Rapporteur and the campaign to stop companies marketing, promoting and selling goods that are designed solely to inflict human suffering.
Torture is a crime under international law and is illegal everywhere and at all times. Companies should not be able to market and trade goods that are routinely abused by security forces to commit human rights violations, or have no purpose other than to inflict torture, he said.
“At CVT we work with traumatized survivors of torture every day. Many are refugees who have come from countries where security forces use the sort of devices that were on sale at the fair. The European Union has been a key partner in the campaign to establish torture-free trade.”
“It is unconscionable that companies are allowed to promote these products inside the EU. It is grotesque that such products even exist. This trade in human cruelty should be completely banned,” declared Dr Adams.
A wide range of equipment previously identified by the UN Special Rapporteur as “inherently abusive” were on display at the fair. Offending equipment found on display or being promoted included direct-contact electric shock weapons (batons, gloves and stun guns), spiked anti-riot shields, ammunition with multiple kinetic impact projectiles, and multi-barrel launchers, according to the UN.
These products were marketed by Brazilian, Chinese, Czech, French, Indian, Israeli, Italian, Kazakh, North Macedonian, South Korean, Turkish and US companies.
Among the new banned items under EU law are aerial systems that deliver “injurious quantities of riot control agents,” yet companies were promoting drones fitted with multi-barrel launchers capable of dispersing large quantities of chemical irritants.
After Milipol organisers were notified of the items, swift action was taken, demanding companies remove catalogue pages and items. Edwards said one state-owned company refused to comply and its stall was shut down.
“The continued promotion of inherently abusive weapons underscores the urgent need for States to adopt my 2023 report recommendations,” the expert said.
While welcoming recent EU steps to strengthen controls, Edwards stressed that regional action alone is insufficient.
“The discoveries made at Milipol show why a global, legally binding Torture-Free Trade Treaty is essential,” the UN Special Rapporteur said. “Without coordinated international regulation, abusive equipment will simply find new markets, new routes and new victims.”
She urged all organisers of security, defence and policing exhibitions worldwide to establish robust monitoring, enforce bans consistently, and cooperate fully with independent investigators.
“Milipol’s response was swift and responsible,” the expert said. “But the fact that banned items were exhibited at all shows that constant vigilance is essential.”
Edwards had raised these issues on previous occasions and will continue to monitor relevant developments.
Alice Jill Edwards is the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
IPS UN Bureau Report
GENEVA, Dec 23 2025 (IPS) - In my more than 30 years with the United Nations, I’ve seen enormous change, collaboration and progress towards improving human development. But I’ve also seen how history has a way of repeating itself to entrench some of the most intractable global challenges.
In no area is this more evident than in the fight against malnutrition. Early in my career with Unicef, I learned to appreciate how crucial nutrition is to a child’s future, and the cascade of problems that follow when nutrition falters. The effects ripple through learning outcomes, health, economic opportunity, and long-term stability.
The 2008–09 food price crisis brought the issue of malnutrition sharply into focus. When nutritious diets suddenly became unaffordable for many millions, global leaders recognised the need for a different approach, inspiring the creation of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement.
Fifteen years on, we stand at a crossroads on nutrition. 2025 has seen a dramatic fall in overseas development assistance (ODA), especially for nutrition, which even in good years is below 1% of total ODA. And, there is no end in sight to humanitarian crises. The United Nations has appealed for US$23 billion to save the lives of 87 million people facing acute crisis, while more than 135 million people worldwide now require humanitarian assistance. In an increasingly constrained aid environment, the UN is forced into triage, deciding not where needs are greatest, but where limited resources can stretch the furthest. Beyond emergencies, a global cost-of-living crisis is pushing healthy diets further out of reach for millions more. Taken together, these pressures make one outcome tragically predictable: without urgent action, malnutrition will rise.
In Nigeria, hospital admissions of severely malnourished children have surged by 200 per cent in some states, and hundreds of children have already died from malnutrition, just in the first half of this year. In Sudan, the destruction of food factories and aid disruption amid a years-long civil war has left millions of people trapped in a never-ending, ever-worsening nutrition emergency.
Against a bleak backdrop of humanitarian crises at country levels, global trends project that more than half of the global population will be overweight by 2035 — the outcome of a food environment where convenient, low cost foods high in transfats, sodium and sugar are more affordable than nutritious foods.
And yet, now — just as renewed commitments to the principles that inspired SUN’s creation seem most crucial — high-income nations are reducing their spend on overseas development assistance (ODA) while SUN countries struggle with dwindling resources, regardless of their commitments to improving nutrition.
The world cannot afford to forget nutrition. To do so would invite a future marked by widespread chronic disease, overstretched health systems, lost educational and economic potential, and diminished quality of life for millions.
Meeting today’s reality demands a fundamental shift in how we plan and invest to solve the problem. We must move beyond short-term thinking, break down divides between humanitarian and development work, and coordinate efforts across food, health, education, climate, and social policy.
Only by building long-term resilience across governments, economies and communities can we hope to reverse current trends and safeguard the next generation against the nutritional challenges of the future.
This is the thinking behind the SUN Movement’s renewed approach — a joined-up, global effort built around three simple ideas: build resilience against shocks, work across sectors, and diversification of finance for sustainability. ODA alone cannot fuel progress against the World Health Assembly malnutrition targets.
First, resilience. The past few years showed that conflicts, climate disasters, and economic emergencies can quickly wipe out national nutrition gains. Resilience to such shocks is necessary to avoid human capital loss leading to longer term national decline. SUN will focus on helping countries build food and healthcare systems to withstand shocks and prevent emergencies turning into disasters.
Second, sustainable financing. Today, the world faces a $10.8 billion annual nutrition funding gap. Until we close it, countries will continue to face the same cycle of progress followed by setbacks. Countries need to be able to draw on more than one pot of money, and SUN will help them to diversify across national budgets, responsible business, philanthropies, development banks, and climate funds.
Third, addressing the changing face of malnutrition. Overweight and obesity now affect almost 400 million children, a tenfold increase since 1975. What is more, 70 per cent live in low- and middle-income countries, where populations are growing fastest. SUN’s renewed approach has put obesity prevention and healthy food environments alongside its long-standing focus on undernutrition.
Finally, integration. Malnutrition does not exist in isolation, so neither can our response. Policies across health, agriculture, education, social protection, climate adaptation, and humanitarian response matter. The Global Compact for Nutrition Integration — already supported by over 80 countries and organisations — is showing what true collaboration can look like. The Compact brings together governments, funds, development banks, UN agencies, civil society and business around a shared goal: aligning support with countries’ needs and providing a common framework to ensure nutrition objectives are embedded in policies, programmes and financing across all relevant sectors.
My career has taught me that global progress is never guaranteed. Moreover, I have learned that the gains we fight hardest for are often the most fragile and must be cultivated, invested in, and protected.
Two things are clear: no country is immune from the malnutrition crisis, and if we continue to rely on fragmented, short-term responses, this crisis will only deepen.
SUN is on a journey to help the world chart a different course. As I step back from this work, my hope is that global resolve only grows stronger, and in fifteen years time, we will have found new solutions for seemingly intractable problems.
Afshan Khan is UN Assistant Secretary-General and coordinator of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement
IPS UN Bureau
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Dec 23 2025 (IPS) - Opinions have been divided over the annual UN climate conferences. While some see COP30 in Belém, Brazil, as confirming their irrelevance, others see it as a turning point in the struggle for climate justice.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram
Negotiations continued there as the 1.5°C target slipped beyond reach.
As the world accelerates toward catastrophic warming, ecological systems are collapsing, and millions across the Global South face increasingly life-threatening situations.
Rising sea levels, extreme heat, droughts and flooding are undermining food security, displacing communities, and exacerbating inequality and living conditions.
The economic costs of climate disasters are accelerating. Social and human costs continue to rise, with lives, livelihoods and ecosystems destroyed.
Fiscal austerity and indebtedness are making things worse. Instead, governments increase military spending and subsidise fossil fuels, accelerating planetary warming.
Business interest in ‘green transitions’ focuses on new profit-making opportunities. As renewable energy grows, energy supplies increase as fossil fuels are slowly replaced.
COP of Truth?
In his opening speech to the thirtieth Conference of Parties (COP30) in Belém, host President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva promised it would be the ‘COP of Truth’.
K Kuhaneetha Bai
Although not officially present, the US continued to frustrate the climate talks by urging petrostates to resist efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
The COP30 Climate Change Performance Index exposed governments’ weak commitments to combating planetary warming over the past 21 years.
Its report analysed the policies of 63 countries responsible for 90% of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The top three spots were kept empty to emphasise that no country has shown sufficient ambition to do so.
For 2025, Saudi Arabia took last place, with the US, Russia and Iran not far behind. Trump’s latest policies have set the US further back.
Meanwhile, the White House threatened sanctions and tariffs against governments that support a global tax on GHG emissions by international shipping.
Just transition?
COP30 in Belém continued to fail to achieve what is urgently needed: binding GHG emission cuts, phasing out fossil fuels, meaningfully compensating for past losses and damages, or better financing for climate adaptation.
COP30 adopted the Belém Mechanism for Just Global Transition – a new UNFCCC arrangement to overcome the fragmentation and inadequacy of such efforts worldwide.
However, the mechanism lacks both finances and plans to protect those harmed by decarbonisation initiatives. Nor are there resources for ‘green industrialisation’.
Climate justice is still misrepresented as threatening livelihoods rather than as key to survival. The climate justice movement must convince the public that it is key to social progress.
Climate finance setback
Lula appealed again for increased climate financing for the Global South following the dismal record since the 2009 Copenhagen COP.
Brazil also launched the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF) to incentivise countries conserving their forests. Although it failed to raise its target of $25 billion, 53 countries endorsed the TFFF, with pledges in Belém totalling $6.6 billion.
Belém also offered new suggestions for climate finance, in its ‘Baku to Belém (B2B) Roadmap to 1.3T’ (USD1.3 trillion), and the report of the COP30 Circle of Finance Ministers (CoFM).
The CoFM involved 35 finance ministers representing three-fifths of the world’s population and its GHG emissions.
The COP30 promise to “at least triple” finance for developing countries’ climate adaptation by 2035 was again blocked by the Global North. LDC requests for grant financing were also ignored yet again.
Promoting voluntarism
Brazilian COP30 chair Corrêa do Lago proposed various compromises to encourage those disappointed by UN processes to take climate action.
His proposed ‘voluntary roadmap’ to transition from fossil fuels will be discussed at the Colombia/Netherlands-led ‘coalition of the willing’ conference in April 2026.
The chair’s other voluntary roadmap for forest conservation followed the COP30 agreement’s failure to condemn deforestation with stronger language.
The adoption of the 59 compromise indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation was delayed by poorer African countries’ inability to afford immediate implementation. The compromise was a two-year delay, referred to as the ‘Belém-Addis vision’.
Belém as turning point
For the first time, the US was officially absent from the Belém COP. With over 56,000 delegates registered, attendance was second only to Dubai, with more than 1,600 business lobbyists present.
COPs make slow progress by painstakingly extending the consensus for climate action. Belém may shift the COPs’ focus from negotiations to initiatives, a precedent which can be abused or advanced.
Belém’s Mutirão Decision (Action Agenda) focuses on delivery, drawing from the ‘whole of society’. Its 30 measurable Key Objectives were based on the 2023 Global Stocktake.
While Belém’s outcomes fell short of most expectations, many acknowledge Brazil did its best under trying circumstances. Nonetheless, climate justice is being denied by the continuing procrastination of powerful vested interests.
Although not quite the ‘COP of Truth’, inclusion and implementation that Lula promised, Belém reversed the backward slide of recent COPs, which the Global South must build upon before it is too late.
IPS UN Bureau
ROME, Dec 22 2025 (IPS) - Bangladesh in recent years started drawing global attention for its success in emerging out of poverty through economic growth and agricultural development. From early 2000 until 2023, while population growth continued to decline from 1.2 in 2013 to 1.03 in 2023, this growth has been the powerful driver of poverty reduction since 2000. Indeed, agriculture accounted for 90 percent of the reduction in poverty between 2005 and 2010 (World Bank).
Saifullah Syed
Along with agricultural development, buoyed by booming export, (led by the garment sector) and remittances, foreign reserves went past $30 billion.
With resources in hand and confidence to move forward the country launched mega infrastructure projects, such as huge bridges, deep sea port, urban metro transit, highways and modernization of airports; mega power projects including a nuclear power plant.
And then came the ‘deluge’ of corruption and the ‘rot’ of the basic moral fabric of the government, led by Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of the “Father of the Nation” and head of the Awami League (AL), the party that brought us independence. While the AL led government publicly started publicizing its achievements and successes, it was simultaneously systematically looting the country through corrupt practices, crony capitalism and outright theft through the banking system by forcefully appointing their henchmen onto the board of directors. Sheikh Hasina’s government further alienated the youth ‘by limiting access to government jobs to the supporters of her party by implementing a quota system.
Consequently, the students rebelled and overthrew her government and installed an Interim government with Nobel Laureate Professor Mohammed Yunus at its head. Everyone heaved a sigh of relief and hoped for a better future for the country guided by the most distinguished Nobel laureate, son of the soil.
Prof. Yunus found a country politically broken, financially drained without foreign currency reserve and a banking sector with empty coffers due to politically motivated loans to the AL leaders and their cronies without any hope of ever recovering them.
Prof. Yunus brought in several advisers to run the administration and focused on (a) stabilizing the financial sector ; and (b) reforming the institutions and the constitutions, assuming that weak institutions and the existing constitution enabled the AL government to loot the country dry.
He appointed very competent, well known and experienced economists at the head of the central Bank and the Ministry of Finance and they very successfully stabilized the financial market.
However, his attempts to reform, as well as his lackluster performance as a leader to guide the country and the reform process are pushing the country further into turmoil and towards a downward spiral. The hope that a Nobel laureate will save the country is turning into a nightmare!
Personal leadership of the Interim Government ?
Though widely respected, as a leader of the Interim government Prof. Yunus has given no indication of what he stands for. The civil society and the general public are totally confused by his failure to stand up for basic mainstream Bengali values, including women’s right and freedom, organization of cultural and musical events, support for the minorities and ethnic communities. His administration did not support the “Women’s Commission Report” without ever giving any adequate justification.
None can really explain why he failed to stand up in public and as the head of the government for the basic values he fought for as a leader of Grameen bank and cherishes in private. May be one day his memoirs will explain that.
The Interim government also failed to address education and research. It allocated Tk 95,645 crore (approx. $900+ million USD) for education in FY2025-26, representing about 11% of the total budget and 1.69 % of GDP, well below UNESCO recommendations (4-6% GDP). It is one of the lowest in the history of the country. The whole country was expecting eagerly that he, being a professor and a Nobel laureate, would start reversing the trend of low allocation for education. Instead he lowered it even further than before.
In addition, the business community is exasperated by lack of participation in the interim government and its failure to address closure of factories of politically tainted people affecting export and increasing unemployment. There was also inadequate consultation before ratifying the ILO conventions on labour rights under international pressure.
Flawed reform and governance conundrum ?
While the interim Government is committing most of its time discussing reforms of the institutions and the constitution, hardly a day goes by without some report of illicit land grabbing, police harassment of ordinary people, bribery and extortion in every government office, streets and local markets and transport hubs. There are wide spread arsons and killings. The security and law and order situation in the country is worse than ever before.
Reform before governance’ emphasizes making systemic improvements (like updating laws, processes, structures) before fully implementing the laws and rules to ensure that the foundation is sound, fair, and efficient.
However, interim government’s decision to prioritize was not based on any analysis demonstrating that there were flaws in the constitution, or in the judiciary etc. that allowed the last government to rob the country. Besides, the agitation that drove Sheikh Hasina’s government from power was motivated by lack of access to jobs, corruption and extortion, land grabbing, police brutality and political oppression. All these issues are related to governance. Reform was not on their agenda.
Prof. Yunus and his interim government are to be commended for their good intentions in seeking to carry out reforms that would forestall a return to the bad old days of the last government that looted the country. But they should have understood that reform may have been necessary but not sufficient.
Poor governance and lack of capacity to govern by the established institutions of Bangladesh and its bureaucracy is clear to the entire nation and the international community. Just look at any public institutions (from the airport to embassies, union parishad to district administration, telecom and power) the situation is blatantly visible to all. No one can get anything done without going through harassment, hustles, often paying a bribe or showing authority or power. People want relief from such miserable governance and administration and not Reform.
Fixing of the financial sector was indeed one of Prof Yunus’s government’s big achievement. However, though people feared that the financial and the political crisis would derail agricultural growth and then the rest of the economy along with it, fortunately that did not happen. Overall agricultural growth of the country kept its pace and total food grain production did not decline. Overall growth of value added in agriculture remained at more than 3 percent (Bureau of Statistics, Bangladesh).
Continued and sustained agricultural growth provided the life line to industries and the garment sector in particular to withstand the financial crisis. Overall, Bangladesh’s total exports expanded 24.9 % YoY in Nov 2024, compared with an increase of 25.7 % YoY in the previous month. Garment exports surged 12% in first 7 months of FY24–25, (Export Promotion Bureau of Bangladesh).
Likewise fixing the financial sector did not fix the economy. Even with a stronger financial sector, poor governance and inadequate attention to the business community have affected the real economy. Poverty is on the rise, export and agricultural productivity are declining. The country is now staring at downhill spiral both economically and politically.
Consequences of the failures of the Interim Government to Govern ?
The most significant consequence is that by offering no alternative to better governance than the regime that was over thrown, the people are likely to turn towards the Islamic parties, which are, as of now not tainted by corruption in power and poor governance. There is a high probability that they may win. People are tending to believe that the Islamic parties will provide better governance and will be less corrupt.
The only factor that may not bring them to power is the fear that some of their values related to women and culture do not correspond to mainstream Bengali values.
The main stream opposition party, Bangladesh National Party (BNP) is also hoping to win big as they see no clear opponent. This party, however, is also accused of committing crimes, extortion and corruption when it was in power. The founder of BNP is linked to the cruel murder of Sheikh Mujib and the members of his family, and the current leader of BNP is accused of masterminding the grenade attack aimed at killing Sheikh Hasina at an AL rally on 21st August 2004. Hasina survived the attack, but it killed 24 people and injured about 200. Though acquitted, under the Interim Government, the accusations and BNP’s corruption and extortion by its cadres are lingering in public minds.
In spite of these short comings and the relative strength of the Islamic parties, the BNP is very optimistic of winning. They believe that the minorities, the large section of the freedom fighters, the left leaning parties and the secular urban women will never vote for the Islamist parties, come what may. However, given the current volatile political climate anything is possible.
In a sense the interim Government of Prof. Yunus is making it inevitable for the people to choose between: “good governance” vs. “upholding socio cultural Bengali values”. Which one will win is yet to be seen. The future of the country now critically hinges on the forthcoming election in February 2026 and the kind of leadership it will produce. Either way the people will be the losers – either they will get BNP, a corrupt party very similar to the ousted party AL with a history of bad governance or the Islamists which may turn out to be a threat to main stream Bengali values.
The Author was a freedom fighter during the war of liberation of Bangladesh and Former Chief of Policy Assistance Branch for Asia and the Pacific of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
IPS UN Bureau
TOKYO, Japan, Dec 22 2025 (IPS) - Leaders of Japan and the five Central Asian states met in Tokyo on Dec. 20 and adopted the “Tokyo Declaration,” launching a new leaders-level format under the “Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue” (CA+JAD). The declaration places at the core of cooperation two priorities: strengthening supply-chain resilience for critical minerals, and supporting the Trans-Caspian Corridor (the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route), which links Central Asia with Europe without transiting Russia.
Chaired by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, the meeting reflected Central Asia’s strategic importance as a Eurasian crossroads and as a region with mineral resources essential to decarbonization and advanced industries. As major powers step up engagement across the region, Central Asia’s weight as a stage for diplomacy and trade has been growing.
“Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue” (CA+JAD). Credit: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan
The Japanese government emphasized a practical, implementation-oriented approach—translating cooperation into deliverable projects. For Central Asian countries, the Trans-Caspian Corridor is also a means to expand transport options and reduce dependence on any single transit route. It can help attract investment for modernizing ports, railways and customs systems, while increasing opportunities to capture transit and logistics revenues.
For Japan, corridor development and cooperation on minerals serve as a form of risk diversification in economic security. By diversifying both procurement sources and transport routes for critical minerals—such as rare earths and lithium—needed for batteries, renewable energy technologies and electronic devices, Japan aims to prepare for heightened geopolitical risk. There is also a clear intent to expand opportunities for Japanese companies to participate in infrastructure, logistics and digital sectors.
Japan–Kazakhstan Joint Statement as the Anchor
President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev(left) and Prime Minister Sane Takaichi (right) signing a joint statement. Credit: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan
On Dec. 18, Prime Minister Takaichi and President Tokayev held a summit meeting and issued a joint statement on a “future-oriented expanded strategic partnership.” The statement reaffirmed a rules-based international order grounded in the principles of the U.N. Charter, and the two leaders agreed to advance cooperation through concrete initiatives in areas including critical minerals, the energy transition, and transport and logistics connectivity.
On the Trans-Caspian Corridor, the joint statement specified practical measures aimed at easing customs and port bottlenecks—such as training for customs officials in cooperation with the World Customs Organization (WCO) and support for improving cargo inspection scanners (cargo inspection equipment) at Aktau Port in western Kazakhstan. The two leaders also welcomed plans to launch regular direct flights in 2026 and agreed to begin intergovernmental negotiations toward the conclusion of a bilateral air services agreement. In addition, the joint statement expressed an intent to exchange information and explore potential avenues of cooperation with the “UN Regional Centre for the SDGs for Central Asia and Afghanistan”, which was established in Almaty.
Middle Corridor. Photo credit: TITR
Tokayev Warns of Nuclear Risks in Tokyo
On the following day, Dec. 19, President Tokayev delivered a lecture at the United Nations University in Tokyo, warning that “nuclear risks are rising again.”
Kassym-Jomart Tokayev delivered a lecture at the United Nations University
He referred not only to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also to Kazakhstan’s Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, where the former Soviet Union conducted more than 450 nuclear tests, arguing that both Japan and Kazakhstan are countries that know the devastating consequences wrought by nuclear weapons. He said practical steps must be steadily accumulated to advance nuclear disarmament and reduce nuclear risks.
Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site/ Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri
Tokayev also cited Kazakhstan’s decision to relinquish the nuclear weapons left on its territory after the Soviet collapse, suggesting that security should not depend solely on nuclear deterrence.
Kazakhstan has, around Aug. 29—the date the Semipalatinsk test site was closed and also the U.N.-designated International Day against Nuclear Tests—hosted meetings in Astana that foreground the inhumane impacts of nuclear weapons and call for strengthening norms underpinning the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. These gatherings have included participation by civil society groups such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and Soka Gakkai International (SGI).
A Group photo of participants of the regional conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear-free-zone in Central Asia held on August 29, 2023. Credit: Jibek Joly TV Channel
Three Priority Areas: Resilience, Connectivity, Human Development
At the Dec. 20 summit, President Tokayev attended alongside the presidents of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Prime Minister Takaichi noted that Central Asia’s growing population and rapid economic expansion have raised the region’s international profile, and stressed the importance of regional cooperation and engagement with external partners.
Japan announced the “CA+JAD Tokyo Initiative,” setting out three priority areas for cooperation: (1) green and resilience (including the energy transition, disaster risk reduction and supply-chain resilience for critical minerals); (2) connectivity (including the Trans-Caspian Corridor and A.I. cooperation); and (3) human development (including scholarship programs and cooperation in health and medical fields).
The Tokyo Declaration also explicitly set out the launch of the “Japan–Central Asia Partnership for AI Cooperation,” with a view to applying A.I. to resource development and related areas. More than 150 documents were signed and announced by public and private stakeholders on the margins of the meeting, and a goal was presented to develop business projects totaling 3 trillion yen over the next five years.
Multipolar Engagement and Kazakhstan’s “Multi-Vector” Diplomacy
The Tokyo gathering also underscored the reality of accelerating summit diplomacy around Central Asia. China convened a leaders’ meeting with the five Central Asian states in Kazakhstan earlier this year, and the United States invited the same five leaders to Washington in November.
Credit: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan
For Japan, the new leaders-level format provides a means to deepen engagement with Central Asia by connecting resources, logistics and technology. For President Tokayev, the visit also served as a platform to argue that, as nuclear risks re-emerge at the forefront, Eurasia’s economic future cannot be separated from the security challenges that shape it.
INPS Japan
Related articles:
Kazakhstan Takes Lead in Global Push for Nuclear Disarmament Amid Heightened Tensions
Kazakhstan Committed to a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World
Kazakhstan’s leadership in multilateralism: A Beacon for global peace and stability
IPS UN Bureau
KAMVIVIRA, DRC, Dec 22 2025 (IPS) - Fulgence Ndayizeye, a Burundian bicycle taxi driver who used to cross the Congolese-Burundian border every day to support his family, wanted to return home.
He and more than 500 other Burundians, including women, men, and children, stranded in Uvira on the border between the DRC and Rwanda, were finally allowed to return to their country on Sunday, December 14, 2025, by M23-Congo River Alliance (AFC) rebels after being stuck in the DRC due to an M23 rebel offensive that had taken the town a few days earlier.
According to Human Rights Watch the M23 and Rwandan forces entered Uvira on December 9, 2025, after week-long fighting that pushed out Congolese and Burundian military forces and a coalition of militias known as the Wazalendo.
“We are going home to be reunited with our families. I haven’t eaten for several days because I’ve used up all my money. Being stuck in a country other than my own during a period of war is slowly killing me. I’m delighted to be going home,’’ said Ndayizeye.
This latest incursion contributed to the United Nations Security Council on Friday, December 19 unanimously extending the mandate of the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) despite two recent peace accords.
By occupying Uvira, the rebels had blocked all Burundian logistical and military support to the Congolese army. The rebels now control the DRC’s borders with Rwanda, Uganda, and now Burundi.
Since its conquest of Uvira, the armed group had been collecting weapons to prevent them from falling into the hands of militiamen, strengthening security in Uvira and its surrounding areas, and transferring Burundians back to their country of origin.
Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations at the United Nations, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, on December 12, expressed deep concern over the M23’s occupation of Uvira, which significantly increased the risk of regional conflagration.
He said the occupation undermined diplomatic efforts, including the Washington Accord signed on December 4 and the Doha Framework Agreement, where the DRC and the M23 (AFC) signed an agreement on October 14, 2025, to establish a joint ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism.
“The recent developments in South Kivu (Province) undeniably illustrate the gap existing between diplomatic efforts and the reality experienced by civilians affected by persistent hostilities,” he told a Security Council meeting on December 12.
“While recent diplomatic progress has generated genuine hope, persistent ceasefire violations and the resumption of hostilities pose a real risk of the collapse of ongoing diplomatic efforts. The growing gap between political commitments and their effective implementation on the ground undermines the credibility of peace processes, weakens trust among the parties and fuels the sense of abandonment felt by civilians without concrete and immediate measures to ensure compliance with agreed commitments.”
He warned that conflict dynamics may close the door to dialogue.
On Friday, December 19, Ambassador Jérôme Bonnafont, the penholder for Resolution 2808 (2025), which extends the MONUSCO’s mandate until December 2026, said, “In light of the gravity and the urgent nature of the situation, and following this resolution, France calls upon all parties to honor their commitments for the achievement of a lasting peace in the east of the DRC and in the Great Lakes region.”
The United States urged M23 supported by the “Rwanda Defense Forces,” to comply with the Doha framework and withdraw at least 75 km from Uvira.
Jennifer Locetta, Ambassador and Alternative Representative for Special Political Affairs representing the United States, said negotiations were “yet again disrupted” by M23 advances “supported by the Rwanda Defense Forces” and urged the group to comply with its commitments under the Doha framework.
“M23 must immediately withdraw at least 75km from Uvira and return to compliance with all of its obligations undertaken in the Framework Agreement.”
For the stranded Burundians, mostly laborers who survive on their daily wages and who regularly cross the border at Kamvivira between the DRC and Burundi to work in the DRC it was a relief to be able to return home.
Their situation took a worrying turn in early December 2025 when armed violence intensified in the Ruzizi plain in South Kivu following fighting between the Congolese army and the M23 on the one hand and between pro-Kinshasa militiamen and the Congolese army on the other.
The M23 rebels say they were responding to attacks by the Congolese army on their positions and densely populated areas, while the Congolese army accused the armed group of violating all peace agreements aimed at stopping the fighting in the east of the country.
“The Washington agreements do not concern us in any way. It is a matter between two states, the DRC and Rwanda. We, as the M23, are Congolese and we have legitimate demands that are being discussed in Doha, Qatar, with delegates from Kinshasa,” says Bertrand Bisimwa, political leader of the M23-AFC political-military coalition.
According to the UN, recent fighting has caused more than 84,000 people to flee to Burundi since the beginning of December. This brings the total number of Congolese refugees and asylum seekers in Burundi to more than 200,000.
“Local resources are overwhelmed. Transit centers and informal sites, where new arrivals are being received, have greatly exceeded their capacity, in some cases by nearly 200 percent, leaving hundreds of families in untenable conditions,” Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson of the UN said in a media briefing on December 19, 2025, in New York.
He stressed that UNHCR is seeking USD 47 million over the next four months to assist 500,000 internally displaced persons in the DRC and nearly 166,000 refugees in Burundi, Rwanda, and other neighboring countries where Congolese men, women, and children have sought refuge.
As the security situation worsened in the town of Uvira, in South Kivu province in eastern DRC, day workers found themselves trapped at the border between the DRC and Burundi.
The M23-AFC political-military group organized a repatriation operation for the civilians on Sunday, December 14, 2025, despite Burundi’s official closure of the border.
“At AFC-M23, we encourage the free movement of people and their property. This is one of our priority policies. We call on the Burundian government to open the border and allow people to move freely. We have no problem with the Burundian people,’’ claimed Lawrence Kanyuka, spokesperson for the M23-AFC military coalition, asserting that his group did not close the border. According to him, the closure of the border was the “unilateral” action of the Burundian government.
Impatient, the Burundians gathered near the border every day, under heavy security from the AFC-M23, in the ultimate hope of seeing the border opened so they could return to their country of origin.
Burundi is a key ally of the Congolese government in the fight against M23 fighters, who, according to several UN and US reports, are supported by Rwanda. Rwanda and the M23-AFC dismiss these accusations as unfounded.
For Rwanda and the M23, the crisis shaking the eastern part of the DRC is primarily between Congolese and therefore requires Congolese solutions.
In peacetime the town of Uvira survives thanks to economic exchanges with Gatumba, a Burundian town located about six kilometers away.
With the capture of Uvira, the Burundian government closed its border with the DRC for security reasons, while the rebels claim to have no “territorial claims” on Burundi, describing it as a “brother country” and “eternal neighbor” of the DRC.
“When the fighting broke out here, I tried to come to the border. I was told that the border was closed. I have been here at the border for four days waiting to cross into our country. My bosses have fled and I have no job. There is no reason for me to stay. I can’t wait to go home to Burundi,” said David Ntakarutimana, a Burundian mason working in the DRC told IPS. He was one of those who was finally allowed to return home.
IPS UN Bureau Report