The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 17 2026 (IPS) - The global struggle for equality for women and girls has been ongoing for centuries, with no single country having achieved full equality. In many countries, women and girls continue to face discrimination, harassment, unequal treatment, injustice, domestic violence, and a lack of security and safety.
One of the primary goals of this struggle is to dismantle systemic discrimination and secure basic human rights for women and girls. These rights include economic freedom, social independence, voting power, and bodily autonomy.
Discrimination, harassment, lack of rights, limited healthcare, unequal access to resources, education and political power, high rates of violence, forced marriages, and cultural preferences for male children all contribute to the unequal treatment of girls and women
While some progress has been made, the current global situation regarding women’s equality remains concerning. Many women and girls still struggle for their lives, their rights and their dignity.
It wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th century that countries began passing legislation to ensure women the right to vote and stand for election. The first country to permit women to vote was New Zealand in 1893. Approximately a decade later, Australia, Finland, Denmark and Iceland followed suit.
By the middle of the 20th century, more than half of all countries had granted women the right to vote and today, none of the world’s nearly 200 countries bar women from voting. However, some countries effectively or practically deny women this right through the absence of elections or restrictive regimes.
National surveys across different regions of the world find large majorities of the public supporting women’s equality and saying it is very important for women in their country to have the same rights as men. The majority of the public supporting women’s equality varies from highs of 90 percent or more in countries such as Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom to lows of approximately 55 percent in Kenya, Russia and South Korea.
In contrast, a minority of misogynists consider women inferior to men. This minority often treats women as their personal property, denying them control over their lives and bodies. They restrict women’s political, social and economic rights, and frequently ridicule, intimidate and physically abuse them.
Various indexes and metrics have been used to measure the extent and progress of women’s equality among countries. For example, the Women, Peace and Security Index, based on thirteen indicators of women’s status in 181 countries, focuses on inclusion, justice, rights, security, and safety.
The top five countries that rank high on the Women, Peace and Security Index are Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Together, these five countries account for approximately 0.3% of the world’s female population. European countries hold nine of the top ten rankings on the index, with the Nordic countries consistently ranking in the top ten for many years.
In contrast, the five bottom countries that rank low on this index are Afghanistan, Yemen, Central African Republic, Syria, and Sudan. Among the ten lowest ranked countries on the index, only one country, Haiti, is not in Africa or Asia (Table 1).
Source: Women, Peace and Security Index.
It is noteworthy that the ten countries with the largest economies are not among the top ranked countries on the index. Among these ten countries, Canada and Germany have the highest rankings of 16 and 21, respectively. In contrast, China and India, which each have about 17% of the world’s female population, are ranked significantly lower on this index, with scores of 89 and 131, respectively.
Another metric used to assess countries’ progress in achieving women’s equality is the United Nations Gender Inequality Index (GII). The GII is a composite metric that measures maternal mortality, teen births, secondary education attainment, share of parliamentary seats, and labor market participation.
No single country has achieved full equality, with women still facing the threat of discrimination, harassment, and gender-based violence. In many developing countries, women and girls continue to experience serious injustices, including forced marriage, and high levels of domestic and sexual violence.
According to the GII, the five countries with the highest ranking in terms of women’s equality are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Conversely, the five countries with the lowest ranking on the GII are Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Chad and Afghanistan. Other rankings, such as the Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum and the Best Countries of U.S. News, also produced similar rankings of countries with the highest and lowest levels of women’s equality.
Various factors contribute to the lack of women’s equality and discrimination against women and girls. Notable among these factors are restrictive laws, discriminatory norms, cultural stereotypes, violence risks, and unequal education that value men and boys over women and girls. These misogynistic barriers are reinforced by unconscious bias, weak policy enforcement, economic disparities, and structural disadvantages (Table 2).
Source: Amnesty International.
Men and boys are often given more education, power, resources and opportunities than women and girls. Additionally, traditional or religious norms typically depict males as dominant and females as subordinate. While these norms generally affirm the spiritual equality of men and women, they often perpetuate social and institutional inequality on Earth due to traditional interpretations of sacred religious texts.
Discrimination, harassment, lack of rights, limited healthcare, unequal access to resources, education and political power, high rates of violence, forced marriages, and cultural preferences for male children all contribute to the unequal treatment of girls and women.
Moreover, women also perform a disproportionate amount of unpaid labor, hindering their ability to build assets or advance careers. They face lower pay for equal work and are often concentrated in lower-paying occupations. In many countries, women also have restricted access to land ownership, credit, financial services, and unequal legal protection.
Humanitarian crises, climate change, and pandemics have a tendency to disproportionately affect women, exacerbating existing inequalities. Fragile states and those experiencing conflict also tend to rank poorly in terms of women’s equality.
Women’s inequality also varies within countries. For example, while women make up 50% of the U.S. population, women ‘s inequality persists across social, economic, and political sectors. According to 17 various key indicators of women’s equality in the U.S., one study found that the top five states are Hawaii, Nevada, Maryland, Maine, and Oregon, while the bottom five states are Utah, Texas, Idaho, Arkansas, and Louisiana (Table 3).
Source: WalletHub.
There are only about five years left for the world to fulfill the promises made to girls and women for gender equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Realizing gender equality is not only the right thing to do, but it is vital for sustainable development.
Women’s equality is a fundamental human right and a foundation for a peaceful and sustainable world. Progress has been achieved over the last several decades. However, the world is not on track to achieve gender equality by 2030.
During the remaining years, eleven of the biggest challenges have been identified and need to be addressed in order to advance women’s equality. These challenges include discrimination, inequalities, inadequate access to education and healthcare, lack of women in political leadership, violence against women and girls, poverty, and lack of economic opportunities (Table 4).
Source: UN Women.
Women and girls face discrimination that hinders their access to education, employment, healthcare, and legal protections. Treating women unfairly and depriving them of their basic human rights leads to the creation of unjust societies.
Approximately 1 in 3 women – estimated at 840 million globally – have experienced partner or sexual violence in their lifetime. In the last 12 months alone, 316 million women –which is 11% of those aged 15 or older – were subjected to physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner.
Major factors contributing to the lack of women’s equality include restrictive laws, discriminatory norms, cultural stereotypes, violence and safety risks, weak enforcement policies, unequal education, economic disparities, inadequate healthcare, lack of political representation, employment segregation, pay gap, unpaid care burden, and unequal household responsibilities.
Achieving women’s equality requires a multi-faceted approach. This includes ensuring their basic human rights, enforcing legal protections against discrimination and violence, ensuring equal pay, education access, economic empowerment, and opportunities, promoting women in leadership roles, dismantling misogynistic stereotypes, advancing inclusive policies, supporting women-led institutions, and encouraging shared domestic responsibility.
Additionally, this multi-faceted approach involves promoting proactive efforts by governments, non-governmental institutions, businesses, schools, community organizations, families, and individuals to ensure equal opportunities, freedom from violence, and fundamental human rights for women and girls.
Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer and former director of the United Nations Population Division.
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 17 2026 (IPS) - As the campaign for the next Secretary-General gathers momentum – at a relatively slow pace – there is widespread speculation that any candidate running for the post of UN chief will have to abide by the dictates of a politically hostile White House or face a veto in the Security Council.
So far, there are only two declared candidates: former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi from Argentina—with more candidates expected to join the race.
The winning candidate, who will take office in January 2027, will be elected by the 15-member Security Council and subsequently ratified by the 193-member General Assembly (UNGA).
Annalena Baerbock, the president of UNGA, said the selection process is already underway, and the interactive dialogues with candidates have been scheduled for the week of 20 April, where they will present their “vision statements”.
Meanwhile, the US has publicly declared its opposition to some of the basic goals in the UN’s socio-economic agenda, including gender empowerment and policies relating to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), while dismissing climate change as “a hoax” and a “giant scam.”
The Trump administration has also downplayed human rights and adherence to international laws—two concepts ingrained in the UN system.
In an interview with the New York Times last January, President Trump said he does not “need international law” to guide his actions, arguing that only his own “morality” and “mind” will constrain his global powers.
So, what would be the fate of any candidate— male or female—who advocates these UN goals? Will there be a battle of the vetoes – as it happened in a bygone era?
Richard Gowan, Program Director, Global Issues and Institutions, International Crisis Group (ICG), who oversees ICG’s work on geopolitics, global trends in conflict and multilateralism, told IPS nobody knows how this race will end.
Obviously UN-watchers will be tracking the initial candidates’ vision statements and public appearances over the coming months, he pointed out.
“But diplomats in New York have a suspicion that the veto powers in the Security Council may suddenly announce support for a new candidate at the last minute to circumvent the entire public process. There is a strong sense that the U.S., China and Russia don’t want to be boxed in by the General Assembly.”
There is also a scenario, he said, where the veto powers cannot agree on a candidate, and the Council ends up grinding out discussions of a candidate right through to December.
“UN officials have even done some contingency planning for what happens if there is not an agreed candidate on 1 January 2027. It is possible that the Security Council might ask Guterres to hang on for a few months, although I don’t think either diplomats or Guterres want that outcome.”
There are definitely a few senior UN officials and ambassadors in New York who wonder if the Council could call on them at the very last minute, said Gowan.
Thomas G. Weiss, Presidential Professor Emeritus, Political Science, and Director Emeritus, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center, told IPS it is hard to imagine anyone running for UNSG who would not run into a veto from Washington in a candidacy necessarily addressing the values of cooperation (multilateralism of any shape) as well as honestly discussing such issues as climate, gender (male or female), nuclear proliferation, Palestine, and sovereignty—all “hoaxes” or “con jobs” according to DJT (President Trump) and his junta.
Both the 1996 and 1981 elections, he said, provide “models.”
“The Chinese vetoes probably are the most relevant precedent for Washington going to the mat indefinitely until an “acceptable” candidate emerges. Let’s hope that person is as competent as the compromise of 1996, Kofi Annan”, he declared.
In 1981, Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, was backed by the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement and China. But his bid was blocked by a US veto.
In 1996, a second five-year term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was vetoed by the US – even though he received the support of 14 of 15 members in the Security Council.
In 1981, China cast a record 16 vetoes against Kurt Waldheim to prevent a third term, leading to his withdrawal and the selection of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar.
Meanwhile, there has been an intense campaign for a female UN chief, the first in the 81-year history of the UN. But the US has remained tight-lipped on the widely supported proposal.
The last 9 secretaries-general, all males, include:
António Guterres (Portugal), who took office in January 2017;
Ban Ki-moon (Republic of Korea), from January 2007 to December 2016;
Kofi A. Annan (Ghana), January 1997 to December 2006;
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), January 1992 to December 1996;
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru), January 1982 to December 1991;
Kurt Waldheim (Austria), January 1972 to December 1981;
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), who served from November 1961, when he was appointed acting Secretary-General (he was formally appointed Secretary-General in November 1962), to December 1971;
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Africa in September 1961; and
Trygve Lie (Norway), who held office from February 1946 to his resignation in November 1952.
As for the U.S., said Gowan, “I don’t believe that Washington has settled on a candidate yet. But the Trump administration is definitely conscious that they have the power to reshape the political culture of the organization if they find someone who aligns with their views”.
He said U.S. diplomats have told other veto powers that they will hold back on various reform proposals and cuts until they have their own candidate as Secretary-General.
A lot of UN members assume that the U.S. won’t accept a female Secretary-General but I think that Washington could back a woman if she was a strong social conservative and willing to make large cuts to the UN system, he argued.
“Right now, there is not an obvious female candidate meeting those criteria, though. I think some candidates who could never align with the U.S. on things like development and diversity are already stepping out of the race.”
Meanwhile, there is a reason that Mia Mottley has gone from being the putative front runner to refocusing on domestic politics.
“I also think that all candidates recognize that they are going to have to talk a lot more about how they will advance the UN’s work on peace and security, which is a priority not only for the U.S. but a lot of member states.”
“That said, one senior UN diplomat recently told me that they cannot see Global South countries accepting another Western candidate after Guterres, regardless of gender. The non-Western members of the Security Council could create a blocking minority in the Security Council to keep candidates from U.S. allies out,” declared Gowan.
IPS UN Bureau Report
ROME & DELHI, Feb 17 2026 (IPS) - Governments convened in Rome on Monday (February 16) for a critical round of UN biodiversity negotiations, launching the world’s first global review of how countries are acting to protect nature.
The sixth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-6) of the Convention on Biological Diversity opened at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), drawing government negotiators, technical experts and civil society observers from around the world. It will continue until February 19.
Although considered a technical gathering, the four-day session is expected to play a decisive role in shaping how progress under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework will be assessed and whether political promises can be translated into measurable, on-the-ground action.
“This is a moment to move from commitments to delivery,” said Clarissa Souza Della Nina of Brazil, Chair of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. “The task before us is to help countries accelerate action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.”
Clarissa Souza Della Nina of Brazil, Chair of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. Credit: Mike Muzurakis | IISD/ENB
A Global Stocktake for Nature
The Rome talks come two years after countries completed the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement, which confirmed the world remains far off track on climate goals.
Now, a parallel exercise begins for biodiversity.
Under the CBD, governments will undertake the first global review of progress in implementing the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), adopted in 2022. The framework includes 23 targets spanning conservation, finance, equity and economic transformation, with the overarching objective of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.
Biodiversity tracking is more complex than emissions accounting, but, according to CBD leadership, it is urgently needed.
“The time has come to make peace with nature… the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement in a synergistic fashion will make peace with nature within reach,” said Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Why Rome Matters
SBI-6 plays a central role in preparing for the upcoming global biodiversity review by examining implementation progress, highlighting gaps, and proposing ways to accelerate action. Negotiators will submit the outcomes directly to COP17 in Yerevan, Armenia, later this year.
“One year after COP16 concluded here in Rome, we must ensure these meetings deliver real progress. Submitting national reports on time is essential for a strong and credible global review in the race to 2030,” Schomaker said.
A major focus of SBI-6 is the Secretariat’s analysis of national biodiversity strategies and action plans submitted since 2022. But despite growing momentum, significant gaps persist. Many strategies still do not adequately integrate Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, youth, or the private sector. Crucial targets relating to economic and social transformation — including sustainable consumption, equity and benefit sharing — remain underemphasised.
Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), underscored the stakes at the launch of the State of Finance for Nature 2026 report:
“Whether investments flow into nature’s destruction or into its protection will determine if we live in climate-vulnerable concrete jungles or in climate-resilient green cities,” she warned, stressing that financial and policy decisions made today will shape countries’ ability to meet biodiversity goals.
An indigenous woman and biodiversity defender from the Amazon is pictured holding a forest coconut. Women are asking for better implementation of article 23 of the KMGBF. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS
Gender, Finance and Capacity Challenges
Delegates are also reviewing progress under the CBD Gender Plan of Action (2023–2030). Early assessments show that only a quarter of countries involved women’s groups in shaping biodiversity strategies, and just 12 percent plan to do so in the future.
“Ensuring the full, effective and meaningful participation of women and other rights holders is fundamental to accountability, inclusivity and the effectiveness of biodiversity action, and to achieving the full ambition of the global framework,” the CBD Women’s Caucus stated in its official submission.
Finance remains another major point of discussion. While major funding decisions are expected later this year, Rome’s deliberations draw heavily on new research on biodiversity finance, sovereign debt, and the connections between climate and nature funding.
“If we want to mobilise the finance and resources that nature critically needs, business, finance and governments must confront the reality that persistent gaps in reliable data, incentives and institutional capacity are holding back meaningful action — and unless these barriers are addressed, many countries and sectors will continue to struggle to turn agreed goals into results,” said Matt Jones, Co-Chair of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment 2026.
Countdown to National Reports
The Rome meeting comes just weeks before countries must submit their Seventh National Reports under the CBD, due on 28 February 2026.
These national publications will serve as a principal source of information for the global biodiversity review, alongside national strategies and targets.
However, many countries remain unprepared to submit on time. On day one, Brazil, one of the most influential players in global biodiversity policy, stressed the need for flexibility.
“Ensuring the quality, consistency and internal validation of data and indicators requires additional time. In this context, Brazil suggests that SBI recommendations prioritise technical guidance, operational flexibility and targeted capacity-building support to enable high-quality reporting, rather than focusing solely on reinforcing deadlines,” the country’s delegate said.
A Test of Accountability
While SBI-6 is unlikely to produce headline-grabbing announcements, it will shape how global biodiversity action is evaluated over the next decade.
For Indigenous Peoples and local communities—who steward a significant share of the world’s remaining biodiversity—the meeting represents a critical test of whether rights, participation and lived realities will be meaningfully reflected in the global assessment process.
“This process must lead to accountability, not just documentation,” emphasised Pirawan Wongnithisathaporn, the Environment Program Officer at the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), calling for tangible action rather than reporting alone.
SBI-6 will conclude on Thursday, February 19. Negotiations will continue at SBI-7 in August 2026 as governments move steadily toward the first global biodiversity review at COP17.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Feb 16 2026 (IPS) -
CIVICUS discusses the recent protests in Iran with Sohrab Razaghi, executive director of Volunteer Activists, a Netherlands-based diaspora organisation empowering Iranian civil society.
Sohrab Razaghi
What sparked the protests, and in what ways were they different from previous ones?
Rising prices and the collapse of the national currency initially sparked the protests, but these quickly expanded beyond economic grievances. At least in part, this is because the economy is no longer seen as a purely technical issue but as a measure of the state’s ability to govern. A central question among social groups now is whether the government can manage crises and provide sustainable solutions.
Anger has built up, reflecting broken promises and lost futures. Over the past three decades, four major protest waves – in 2009, 2017, 2019 and 2022 – were met with repression, denial or superficial reforms. This pattern has produced a strong sense of humiliation and political voicelessness.
But perhaps the most decisive factor in the latest wave of protests has been the role of Generation Z, a generation that did not experience the 1979 revolution or the war with Iraq and does not have the ideological attachments of earlier generations. The dividing line is not just age but also expectations, lifestyles and values. While previous generations used to hope for gradual reform within the system, now many young people see no viable future within the current framework. For them, the most rational responses to what they perceive as a structural dead end are disengagement, migration or radical protest.
Recent protests, particularly those of 8 and 9 January, also reflected shifts in protest dynamics, with higher levels of violence visible in both rhetoric and practice. This escalation likely reflects accumulated frustration and political deadlock, but doesn’t necessarily indicate that the state has weakened. Security forces so far appear cohesive and operationally effective, and there are no clear signs of fragmentation inside the coercive apparatus.
But the rise in violence is troubling for democratic forces and civil society. When violent tactics become prominent, organised civic initiatives are marginalised and security-driven narratives prevail, weakening sustained civic action.
Additionally, Israeli and US statements expressing support for protesters and threatening military action had contradictory and largely negative effects.
While such rhetoric initially generated hope among some protesters, the lack of follow-up produced disillusionment and scepticism. Most importantly, statements by foreign governments, including Israel and the USA, strengthened the regime’s narrative. They enabled the authorities to frame protests as the products of foreign interference and protesters as instruments of external powers, including claims of involvement by Mossad agents. This narrative was very useful to justify securitisation and repression.
How have civil society and the media documented human rights violations amid internet shutdowns?
During near-total internet blackouts, local and community-based groups played crucial roles. They recorded the time and location of incidents, collected testimonies from multiple sources and preserved legal, medical and visual documentation while observing basic digital security principles.
When limited internet access became available, information was shared securely with international partners and diaspora networks. These networks helped archive data, liaise with human rights organisations and media and reduce pressure on activists operating inside Iran. International human rights organisations then cross-checked and verified reports before incorporating them into official documentation. Because communication shutdowns, security risks and restricted access to evidence prevented full documentation, they typically presented casualty figures and details of repression conservatively. At the same time, fake news and baseless casualty figures are also prevalent in diaspora and international media reports. It is essential to interrogate such reporting to preserve the credibility of fact-checked, evidence-based reports.
Under severe restrictions, independent and evidence-based documentation has been essential to preserve truth, counter denial and lay the groundwork for future accountability.
What’s limiting sustained pressure for change?
Recent protests have not expanded into broader forms of social organisation. Participation by labour unions, local networks and professional associations has been limited, restricting the potential for sustained institutionalised pressure. Without stronger organisational structures, documentation of abuses won’t necessarily translate into coordinated civic action. Social media-based coordination and mobilisation are effective for the start and first phase of protests, but on-the-ground leadership, networks and organising capacity are instrumental for sustaining protests and increasing pressure for change.
At the discursive level, significant attention has focused on appeals for foreign pressure rather than on building internal coalitions among social groups. In some cases, rhetoric has centred on state collapse rather than democratic transition, a framework that risks instability and further social fragmentation. The use of profanity and violent language – both inside Iran and among the diaspora community – has also alienated families and moderate groups, narrowing rather than broadening support.
Ultimately, for protests to evolve into movements capable of exerting sustained pressure for change, what’s needed is inclusive organisation, coalition-building and a unifying narrative.
What should the international community do to strengthen Iranian civil society?
Sustainable change will depend on domestic organisational capacity, leadership and representation, not external force. So international leaders should avoid war rhetoric and avoid engaging in any form of military intervention. Historical experience suggests that even limited foreign military intervention is unlikely to weaken domestic repression. Instead, it may well increase regime cohesion, at least in the short term, intensify nationalist sentiment and raise the costs faced by civil society activists, who can be easily portrayed as collaborators and traitors.
When supporting Iranian civil society, international allies should prioritise independent, nonviolent civil society organisations rather than opposition groups advocating violence. Narratives of ‘collapse at any cost’ marginalise civic initiatives and undermine the prospects of democratisation.
Long-term investment in capacity strengthening is essential. This includes supporting civic organising skills, digital security, democratic advocacy, nonviolent action and secure communication tools. Over recent decades, resources and repertoires for change within civil society have been weakened. Sustained engagement is required to rebuild these capacities, with up-to-date resources, techniques and tools.
Monitoring, documentation and evidence-based reporting grounded in credible local sources are among the most effective forms of support. Accurate reporting strengthens prospects for accountability and limits the space for propaganda.
Ultimately, sustainable democratic change in Iran will depend on civil society acting independently, rooted in domestic capacities and supported by context-aware, non-interventionist international engagement.
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
LinkedIn
Sohrab Razzaghi/LinkedIn
SEE ALSO
‘The unprecedented level of violence points to a deep crisis of legitimacy’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Feminists for Freedom 09.Feb.2026
‘When international attention decreases, state violence often intensifies’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Hengaw Organization for Human Rights 27.Jan.2026
Israel vs Iran: new war begins while Gaza suffering continues CIVICUS Lens 19.Jun.2025
WELLINGTON, New Zealand, Feb 16 2026 (IPS) - 2026 has begun on a deeply troubling note. International law, long regarded as the backbone of global peace and security, is being challenged in ever more brazen ways. Core principles of sovereignty and restraint are being flagrantly breached.
I have recently returned from the World Economic Forum in Davos, where President Trump unveiled his new Board of Peace. The UN Security Council had originally endorsed such a board to oversee the administration of Gaza ad interim. There, despite the declared ceasefire, the humanitarian situation remains critical and Palestinian civilians are still being killed by the occupying military on a near-daily basis.
But what was unveiled at Davos suggests something more worrying. There is not a single mention of Gaza in the charter of the announced board. It appeared to be positioned as an alternative to the UN Security Council.
Among the invited members of the Board of Peace are two indicted by the International Criminal Court. There is a $1 billion price tag for permanent membership of the Board. This is not a proper way to run international affairs. A Board of Peace should remain wholly and urgently focused on the continued crisis in Gaza as provided for in the Security Council’s time-limited mandate.
The framing of the Board of Peace is just one more challenge to a multilateral system whose legitimacy was already being questioned for many reasons.
The UN Charter is in its 81st year. The structures it established, particularly the Security Council, still reflect the world of 1945 rather than that of 2026. The abuse of the veto by permanent members – particularly when this shields violations of international law – has also been profoundly damaging to its credibility.
This has been evident, for example, in repeated use of the veto by Russia to block resolutions on Ukraine and by the USA to block resolutions on Israel-Palestine. Reform of the Security Council is both necessary and overdue. It has been achieved before – with meaningful change in 1965, and it must be achieved again.
At the Munich Security Conference last week, we engaged with decision-makers on how best to navigate a changing world order. I agree with Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada that recent developments signal a serious rupture of the international order we have known. Countries of all sizes must act together to reject a world governed by raw power, and to safeguard a future grounded in international law.
The Elders will speak out against any attempt to override international law with a doctrine of “might is right”. We will reaffirm and defend an international order rooted in shared values and principles.
This is a moment of choice. Either the international community allows the values that have long underpinned global cooperation to erode through division and sabotage, or it comes together to defend and renew them.
Helen Clark is a New Zealand politician who served as the 37th prime minister of New Zealand from 1999 to 2008 and was the administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) from 2009 to 2017
Source: The Elders’ monthly newsletter.
The Elders is an international non-governmental organisation of public figures noted as senior statesmen, peace activists and human rights advocates, who were brought together by former president of South Africa Nelson Mandela in 2007.
IPS UN Bureau
BANGKOK, Thailand, Feb 16 2026 (IPS) - Trade in the Asia-Pacific region has moved into a new strategic reality. The latest Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Trends (APTIT) highlights that rapid technological change and a strategic reconfiguration of supply chains are reshaping how economies in the region trade and compete.
Rather than pursuing cost efficiency alone, firms and governments are increasingly prioritizing supply chain resilience, diversification and digital readiness. These forces are altering export performance, changing the geography of trade, and accelerating the rise of digitally driven goods and services across the region
Digital-led trade growth
Export performance reflected this adjustment. Regional export growth slowed sharply from 7.9% in 2024 to 3.3% in 2025 (Figure 1). Additionally, persistent price compression, driven by weak global demand, excess supply and falling commodity prices, pushed the region’s share of global exports down to 39%, extending a decline underway since 2021.
Across subregions, gaps widened. Growth is increasingly concentrated among economies able to capitalize on digital opportunities. South-East Asia and East and North-East Asia outperformed in merchandise trade, supported by their expanding roles in semiconductors, AI-related hardware and advanced digital equipment.
By contrast, exports contracted in South and South-West Asia, where traditional industries remain the backbone of export structures.
A similar pattern emerged in services. In 2025, services exports rose by 5.4%, led overwhelmingly by digitally deliverable services such as ICT, telecommunications, computer services, and business and financial services. These are the functions that enable multinode production, data flows and the coordination of increasingly complex supply networks.
Traditional services such as travel and transport continued to grow but at a slower pace. East and North-East Asia again led regional services’ export expansion.
A shifting geography of trade
The geography of trade is also evolving. For goods, geopolitical risk mitigation is playing a larger role in determining trade routes and partners. Intraregional merchandise trade remains significant with 53% exports and 56% imports, but its share edged down in 2025 as businesses diversified toward extra-regional markets.
Export shares to the European Union and the rest of the world increased, while the United States became a rising destination for most subregions, with the exception of those most directly affected by geopolitical tensions.
Services trade remains more global, with only about 21% of services exports occurring within the region. However, ESCAP analyses point to gradually strengthening intraregional linkages. South-East Asia, for instance, has been redirecting a growing share of its services exports toward East and North-East Asia, reflecting that intra-regional demand for digital coordination functions is increasing within the services trade networks.
Outlook for 2026: Slower growth, higher uncertainty
Looking ahead, the outlook for 2026 remains cautious. Merchandise export volume growth is projected at around 0.6%. Developed economies’ exports are expected to contract by about 1.5% due to their exposure to high-tech supply chains under geopolitical strain and weaker demand in major markets.
Developing Asian economies may show more resilience, but outcomes will hinge on China’s performance and the strength of global technological demand.
Services trade is expected to remain comparatively steady. Digitally deliverable services, especially ICT, computer and business services are likely to continue driving growth. Travel and transport may see gradual improvement, but several risk factors, including policy and regulatory uncertainty in digital trade, climate-related disruptions and increasing compliance burdens for MSMEs, cloud the outlook.
A structural shift, not a temporary distortion
Together, these developments point to a structural transformation in the region’s trade rather than a temporary cycle. On the goods side, firms are reengineering supply chains to build resilience by diversifying markets, relocating stages of production and increasing the share of intermediate goods destined for assembly closer to end markets in the European Union and the United States.
Yet this transition remains delicate: volumes have slowed, margins are compressed, and the region’s global export share continues to slip.
On the services side, digitalization is reshaping growth patterns. The strong growth of ICT, communications, computer and business services reflects the expanding role in supplying digital services, such as data management, logistics platforms and remote business services that keep modern supply chains running
For Asia and the Pacific, particularly its developing economies, future gains will depend on pairing digital transformation with practical resilience strategies. ESCAP’s analyses drawing on RDTII and RIVA point to areas that deserve policymakers’ attention: persistent digital trade regulatory complexity and increasingly dense value chain connections that allow disruptions to spread widely.
These trends underscore the importance of strengthening digital trade cooperation, as well as building resilient logistics and trade facilitation systems to keep intermediate goods moving reliably along supply chains. In this context, increasing participation by countries in the regional UN treaty on facilitation of cross-border paperless trade is a welcome development.
Witada Anukoonwattaka is Economic Affairs Officer, ESCAP; Yann Duval is Chief, Trade Policy and Facilitation Section, ESCAP, Nikita Shahu is Consultant, ESCAP, Niccolo Sainati is Intern, ESCAP.
IPS UN Bureau
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