The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
KABUL, Nov 6 2026 (IPS) - In Afghanistan, the Taliban are detaining women, even when they are wearing a hijab. Activists suspect that the issue of attire is merely a pretext used by the Taliban to hunt down critics of the regime.
For women, Kabul is a city of fear. Whether they are heading to the doctor, the shops, or to visit relatives, reaching their destination is never certain.
They fear checkpoints, the Taliban’s “morality police,” and the risk of being detained for wearing the “wrong” clothing or for lacking a male escort.
These arrests are just a pretext. The Taliban are rooting out women who speak out against them. When they arrest women, they search their phones. If they find even the slightest hint of something suspicious, only God knows when that woman will be released
For many women, leaving the house is a difficult decision. They are forced to consider what might happen if they are detained: Will I be able to return home? And if I do, will I still hold the same position within my family or community?
According to Amu TV—an Afghan media outlet based in the United States—the Taliban’s morality police detained at least twenty women and girls in the Taimani neighborhood of Kabul in September.
Some of those detained reported that they were taken into custody despite wearing a hijab in compliance with the rules; they also described how the police tore at their clothing during the altercation. Following an overnight detention, they were released only after their families and local communities paid bail.
Ahmad (name changed) is a street vendor in Taimani. She describes the arrest:
“I really don’t understand what they were after. All the women were wearing hijabs, yet they forcefully grabbed people indiscriminately —including a pregnant woman. Despite pleas, she was forced into a police vehicle.”
“There were many other women present who were dressed exactly the same way as those who were taken, and it was unclear why some were seized while others were left behind. People were too afraid to ask. The Taliban beat the women before taking them away. Who knows what they might do to men?”
Even wearing a hijab may not prevent arrestMarzia (name changed) was detained on June 9 while on her way to a shop in the Pul-e-Surkh area. She was accused of being out illegally without a hijab.
“When they ordered me to get into their vehicle, I refused. They used derogatory language and threatened to force me inside if I didn’t agree to go voluntarily. Another woman was also forced into the vehicle, and we were taken to a police station.”
“They spoke to us abusively and said terrible things. Then, they told us to summon our male guardians. My father arrived, but no one listened to him. He brought other older men from our neighborhood to the scene. They promised to guarantee that I would not go out again without a hijab,” she recounts.
Marzia’s father had to pay a fine of 15,000 afghanis (approximately 200 euros) because she was not wearing a hijab. Only then was she allowed to return home.
Marzia stated that she was held for about six hours. The Taliban treated her as if she had committed a serious crime. “They treated me really badly. One of them said that it would be right to kill girls like me because we have turned against Islam. When they demanded my phone, I told them it contained personal photos. One of them replied: ‘You appear in public looking like that—why are you worried about the photos?'”
In Marzia’s view, there is nothing wrong with her attire. She was wearing a long, loose-fitting coat, a headscarf covering her hair, and a face mask. This was not enough for the Taliban. They claimed her hijab did not provide sufficient coverage and that she should be wearing a burqa.
Some women’s rights activists interpret the Taliban’s use of arrests not merely as a deterrent for those who defy dress codes, but also as a means to identify women who have criticized them.
Maryam, a female activist from Kabul, says that the Taliban are doing everything in their power to track down women who were activists under the previous government—or who remain so today.
“These arrests are just a pretext. The Taliban are rooting out women who speak out against them. When they arrest women, they search their phones. If they find even the slightest hint of something suspicious, only God knows when that woman will be released.”
Activists also note that fines are being used as a tool to curtail women’s freedom and confine them to their homes. At a time when many families struggle to secure even one nutritious meal a day, a sum of 15,000 afghanis to secure the release of a girl or woman is an enormous amount.
According to activists, the fear of arrest and the threat of financial penalties have led to stricter controls within families. Some families no longer allow women to leave their homes at all, while others inspect the women’s attire before permitting them to go out.
For many women, leaving the house is a difficult decision. Credit: Learning Together.
The Taliban have defended the arrests of women over their clothing. Saifuddin Khyber, a representative for the Taliban’s Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, confirmed to Amu TV that women have been detained in Kabul and Herat. He considers the refusal to wear a hijab a serious offense.
According to Khyber, the Taliban view the wearing of a hijab by women as both a religious and a legal obligation. Muslim women are required to cover themselves completely, from their hair down to their toenails.
Article 13 of a Taliban law published in 2024 mandates that women must fully cover their faces and bodies. The same article prohibits the wearing of clothing that is thin, short, or tight-fitting.
Article 24 of the law grants the Taliban’s morality police the authority to punish those who violate the law. Penalties may include formal guidance, stern reprimands, fines, detention for a few days, or other sanctions—all of which can be imposed without a court hearing.
The Taliban are actively seeking out women who speak out against themIn June, women were detained in several provinces, including Balkh, Herat, and Takhar. In October 2026, the UN mission in Afghanistan, UNAMA, reported that it had received information regarding the punishment of at least 52 women in Kabul and Herat between July and September.
According to the UN, the arrests were prompted by the wearing of colorful headscarves or makeup, appearing in public with hair uncovered or without a concealing chador, or the absence of a male escort.
The Taliban restrict access to statistical data, making it difficult to obtain precise figures on the number of women who have been detained.
Fear among women in Kabul persists, even as some of those who were detained are released. Every time a woman steps outside, she must be prepared for the possibility that anything could happen.
Excerpt:
The author is an Afghanistan-based female journalist, trained with Finnish support before the Taliban take-over. Her identity is withheld for security reasons
BANGKOK, Thailand, Nov 6 2026 (IPS) - For years, global discussions of disaster risk in the Pacific have been dominated by climate change. Rising seas, intensifying cyclones and coastal erosion have rightly captured international attention. This focus, while warranted, should be complemented by greater recognition of geohazards, which are just as consequential and in many cases, more immediately devastating. Addressing this gap requires a more coordinated approach, supported by sustained investment and stronger partnerships, to foster cooperation and strengthen resilience across the Pacific.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and landslides remain a constant threat across the Pacific. While less frequent than climate-related hazards, their impacts are often sudden, severe and far-reaching. Geophysical hazards account for a significant share of disaster-related deaths and economic losses. ESCAP analysis indicates that approximately 73% of the population and 65% of economic assets in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in the Pacific are exposed to seismic hazards, which are the second most costly and deadly disaster types in the Asia-Pacific region.
This high level of exposure is fundamentally shaped by geography. The Pacific Islands lie along the Pacific Ring of Fire, a vast zone of tectonic activity encircling the Pacific Ocean, stretching from New Zealand and Indonesia through Japan and the Aleutian Islands to the west coasts of North and South America. The Pacific Ring of Fire accounts for approximately 90% of the world’s earthquakes and about 75% of its active volcanoes. These hazards rarely occur in isolation. An earthquake can trigger a tsunami within minutes; volcanic activity can destabilize slopes and lead to landslides; a single event can cascade across systems and across borders.
Recent disasters highlight both the scale and persistence of this risk across the Pacific. In 2024, an earthquake in Vanuatu left over 80,000 people in need of assistance and damaging critical health, shipping and aviation infrastructure in the capital, Port Vila. The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai eruption and tsunami in Tonga in 2022 affected around 84% of the country’s population and caused disaster losses of about US$90.4 million, with the most significant impacts concentrated in infrastructure and the agricultural sector. Overall, landslides were a key contributing factor to fatalities and to the severe isolation and disruption of infrastructure in affected communities. Taken together, these cases highlight a critical point: geophysical hazards have the potential to cause catastrophic, destructive and widespread cascading disruption across Asia-Pacific.
The case for regional geohazard coordination
Despite their undeniable impacts, investment in geohazard systems across the Pacific has not kept pace with the scale of the risk. Efforts to strengthen monitoring, observatories and early warning systems have often been delivered through short-term, project-based initiatives rather than sustained institutional support. As a result, many countries continue to operate with limited technical capacity, incomplete monitoring coverage and systems that are not fully integrated. Momentum is now growing toward a more coordinated approach to geohazards.
At the 2023 UNESCO Regional Geohazards Meeting, experts emphasized that earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and landslides are interconnected hazards that require a unified regional strategy. This was followed by an agreement among Pacific Member States in 2025 to establish a regional body dedicated to geohazards, signaling a clear commitment to strengthening coordination and aligning existing mechanisms.
A key opportunity to operationalize this emerging regional vision lies in the complementary roles of the ESCAP Trust Fund for Tsunami, Disaster and Climate Preparedness and the Pacific Community (SPC). The Trust Fund provides a catalytic financing mechanism to support regional cooperation and strengthen disaster preparedness, aligning well with the aspirations of a regional geohazard coordination mechanism. At the same time, SPC, through its role as the convener of Pacific Disaster Risk Management Ministers, provides an important platform for collective action, enabling geohazard-exposed countries to coordinate priorities, share experience and expertise as well as advancing coherent national and regional approaches.
Together, these complementary roles offer a pathway for translating regional momentum into concrete action by mobilizing and pooling resources, strengthening governance structures, coordination arrangements and sustaining regional cooperation that is responsive to the priorities and needs of countries and territories in the Pacific.
The challenge, therefore, is not a lack of knowledge or political commitment, but the need to translate existing momentum into sustained investment and institutional action. A more balanced approach, one that systematically integrates geohazards into regional resilience efforts, is both necessary and achievable. By strengthening geohazard systems, investing in national and regional capabilities and deepening regional cooperation, the Pacific can move towards a more comprehensive model of disaster resilience, protecting communities not only from rising seas, but also from the powerful forces beneath them.
Daisuke Maruichi, Economic Affairs Officer, ICT and Disaster Risk Reduction Division, ESCAP
Litea Biukoto, Deputy Director, Disaster and Water Resilience Programme, GEM Division, Pacific Community (SPC)
Emilia Gaspoz, Consultant, ICT and Disaster Risk Reduction Division, ESCAP
Temily Baker, Programme Management Officer, UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
IPS UN Bureau
GENEVA, Nov 6 2026 (IPS) - A right under pressure
No one disputes freedom of association. It is in the Constitutions of almost every country, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 22 of the ICCPR, and in regional Articles in Europe, America, and Africa. What it has never had, at the universal level, is sincere implementation by governments.
Regional organisations and courts have filled that space in limited ways. Courts and human rights commissions have issued decisions that have not always been followed. States are left to interpret these obligations themselves for citizens and non-citizens in their jurisdiction.
Violations of the right to free association have risen 50% in two years, according to CIVICUS Monitor. The rise is not only a matter of scale. Governments are no longer relying mainly on administrative interference or political pressure to constrain civil society. They devise restrictive laws governing who can organise, on what terms, and access to resources. Restricting international funding for civil society, particularly through foreign agents’ laws, is now a global trend and poses unprecedented significant challenges. In 2025, restrictive laws affecting civic freedoms were recorded in at least 66 countries, the ninth most prevalent civic space violation worldwide.
Sigrid Lipott
Rights and recognition for everyone
Article 22 clearly says everyone has the right to come together, but it does not specify who counts. On protest rights, General Comment No. 37 says all citizens and non-citizens hold the right, including migrants , asylum seekers, refugees and stateless people. Article 22 should follow the precedent.
Most of the world’s organising happens in grassroots movements, digital networks, and fluid conflict and humanitarian contexts, not with registered organisations. Restrictions fall hardest on those already excluded from decision-making and resources.
The article defines qualifications on national security, public order, and safeguards and rights of others. Without clarity, they have remained fluid since 1966. The Committee needs to clarify the scope.
States cannot be left to interpret the article. Amid rising authoritarianism and divisive politics impacting civic life and participatory governance, minorities and excluded people need strong freedom of association protection to defend their rights.
Registration is among the worst restrictions because authorities treat it as routine paperwork rather than a decision about whether a group may exist at all. The Committee should state plainly that registration means notifying the authorities, not asking permission, and that any procedure must be simple, quick, and free of official discretion. Organisations should not be required to comply with “national interest ” or meet disproportionate reporting demands. Penalties for administrative slip-ups should fit the offence, and only a court should be able to shut an organisation down, as a last resort.
Funding is critical for survival
Foreign agents’ laws have spread from a handful of states to dozens, with vague definitions of “foreign influence” and “political activity” that let officials choose their targets. These come with heavy reporting duties, frequent audits, and penalties ranging from fines to licence withdrawal and prison.
Other measures achieve the same effect without the label: prior approval for foreign grants, punitive taxes, or rules forcing funds through state-controlled accounts. Where foreign support is the only resource available, organisations will struggle to survive.
Funding is critical to securing freedom. The Committee should recognise the right to seek, receive and use resources from domestic, foreign and international sources, whether or not a group is registered.
Online and across borders
Groups now recruit, debate and organise online, so internet shutdowns and surveillance strike directly at freedom of association. Governments imposed a record 313 shutdowns in 2025, up from 304 the year before, according to Access Now, and people in 100 countries have lived through one since tracking began. Blanket shutdowns are disproportionate, even in conflict zones.
Governments increasingly pursue critics abroad through surveillance, harassment of relatives back home, misuse of Interpol and stripping of nationality, cutting exiles off from organisations at home. This transnational repression is also a restriction on association and should be named.
No justification without limits
In dozens of countries, counter-terrorism laws criminalise people for exercising basic freedoms. A government’s own definition of “security” cannot override its treaty obligations, and none of these grounds justifies criminalising organisations for lawful work. Emergency powers follow the same pattern.
At least 50 states restricted freedom of association during the pandemic, and many of those measures outlasted the crisis, as independent UN human rights experts warned they might. The Committee should set out categories of emergency and the limits each can justify, matching the real scale of the threat.
Enabling environment without
Governments must also create the conditions for civil society to thrive, including laws that meet international standards, access to information, a real say in decisions and lasting access to resources. A good law achieves little if officials publicly smear the groups it protects.
That means protecting people from intimidation, arbitrary arrest, smear campaigns, travel bans and reprisals for cooperating with the UN. Freedom of association cannot be separated from freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, just 7% of the world’s population lives in countries where these civic freedoms are broadly respected.
Building on regional courts
The European Court of Human Rights has built a rich body of case law treating freedom of association as essential to a pluralist democracy. In 2020, the EU’s Court of Justice struck down Hungary’s 2017 law on foreign-funded organisations as incompatible with freedom of association. The African and Inter-American human rights commissions have also set progressive standards.
But these rulings apply only within their regions, and even there, groups defending minority rights or exposing sensitive issues still come under attack. A universal standard would give everyone, everywhere, something to invoke.
Sixty years, one opportunity
Article 22 has waited, and the wait has had consequences. Restrictive laws survive because the standard is vague enough to accommodate them: a registration regime is presented as administration, a funding restriction as transparency, a ban as security. At the global level, nothing has tested those claims.
General Comment No. 38 can change that. It can give parliaments, courts and governments the detail they need to draft laws, interpret them and respect the limits of their power, at a moment when restrictions are spreading faster than the standards meant to contain them.
Freedom of association is a right that makes other freedoms enforceable. The Covenants turn sixty this year. At this critical juncture, the Committee must give it the clarity it deserves.
Sigrid Lipott is an international treaties specialist and the UN adviser at CIVICUS. Based in Geneva, Switzerland, she leads CIVICUS’s engagement with UN human rights mechanisms. CIVICUS is a global alliance of more than 17,000 civil society organisations and activists from 175 countries working to strengthen citizen action and defend civic freedoms worldwide.
IPS UN Bureau
Excerpt:
The UN Human Rights Committee (the Committee) will adopt its first interpretation of Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It has a unique opportunity to set what the right to freedom of association requires of States. Sixty years after the UN General Assembly adopted it, that provision remains without an authoritative interpretation, while restrictive legislation tests its limits worldwide.
NAIROBI, Nov 6 2026 (IPS) - As the world prepares for the 31st United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP31) in Antalya, Türkiye, Kenya’s priorities for the negotiations are being shaped by lived experiences of communities who are on the frontline of the climate crisis.
At the recently concluded annual Tharaka Biocultural Festival in Tharaka-Nithi County, farmers gathered to showcase, exchange and celebrate traditional seeds, some which were already on the verge of extinction, and traditional foods that were celebrated by their ancestors over generations.
“This is a semi-arid region, and there were those seeds that our ancestors used to plant, which could easily survive such tough climatic conditions without fail,” said Simon Mitambo, the Chief Executive Officer at the Society for Alternative Learning and Transformation (SALT), the convener of the annual festivals.
“We have been convening these festivals every year for the past 10 years, and as a result we have been able to revive some of the most important seeds, such as the canton melon, which many young people think is a new crop because they had never seen it, yet it was one of the most important fruits in Tharaka, used to prepare Kathongo, the main staple food that fed our forefathers for generations before maize came in to interrupt those diets,” he said.
The community has also been able to revive the communal grazing system to enhance biodiversity recovery, support natural vegetation cover, and aid climate adaptation. They have also managed to recover traditional millet varieties such as Mugeeta (white millet) and pearl millet, multiple indigenous varieties of sorghum, including Mukuumbu, and local, climate-adapted cowpea varieties.
And now, civil society organisations from Kenya, through a workshop that brought Kenyan negotiators along, want such indigenous grassroots adaptation measures to be presented on the climate negotiations table in Antalya.
“Such community-led actions provide a practical pathway to climate adaptation, restoring locally adapted crops that can withstand prevailing environmental conditions and give farming communities renewed hope for reliable harvests,” said Anym Khan, the Acting Chair of the Kenya Climate Change Working Group (KCCWG) during the Pre-COP workshop.
Apart from such lived experiences, the workshop condemned the emerging new narrative observed during the Pre-COP conference in Nadi, Fiji, and the recent IPCC meeting in Addis Ababa, that due to limited resources, the available finance should focus on Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
“This is a dangerous narrative for our country because communities living on border lines share climatic conditions naturally, and using the borderline to determine who receives climate finance and who doesn’t is discriminative,” said Lydia Kimani, the Executive Director, Agribusiness for Africa Markets.
For example, in Busia, which is on the border of Uganda and Kenya, people living in Busia, Uganda, will be favoured because Uganda is categorised as an LDC, while those in Busia, Kenya, will miss out on such funding because Kenya is a Lower Medium Income Country (LMIC). Yet the impacts of climate change within the Busia community are exactly the same in both countries.
“We are calling on our negotiators to be so vigilant to avoid that kind of narrative in the negotiations,” said Kimani. “Let the funding continue targeting developing countries, or if the language has to change, then it should be LDC, SIDS and Africa,” she said.
Another concern is the proposal listed by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice as agenda item 15, “Promoting sustainable dietary practices, reducing animal-based diets and transitioning to plant-based diets.”
“We will need to argue against that agenda item because Article 2.1b of the Paris Agreement clearly states that adaptation should happen without threatening food security,” said Michael Okumu, one of the country’s lead negotiators.
The article on adaptation and resilience states that “enhancing adaptive capacity, fostering resilience, and promoting low-emission development without threatening food production.”
According to Kimani, livestock in Kenya and the entire continent go beyond animal-based diets. “It is from our livestock that we get organic manure, which has kept our soils healthy and productive for generations,” she said.
In Tharaka, livestock, particularly goats, are considered to be very important domestic animals that support culture in terms of performance of sacred rituals; they are used during bridal ceremonies, they provide milk and meat, they are a source of income, particularly for smallholder farmers, and most importantly, they are resilient to tough climatic conditions.
Pastoral communities in the country, such as the Maasai, Borana, Rendile and Kenyan Somalis, depend on livestock entirely for their livelihoods, making it one of the most important sectors in the country and across Africa.
The team also pointed out that transition to low-emission development must address inequality, protect livelihoods and ensure that affected communities participate meaningfully in decisions.
“Energy transitions and critical-mineral extraction must not transfer environmental and social costs to local communities, while agriculture and food systems must be recognised as integral to a just transition,” observed Jacqueline Kimeu, the Senior Climate and Energy Advisor at Christian Aid.
According to the United Nations University, COP 31 must show whether political commitments can translate into more predictable, accessible and effective financial support, particularly for adaptation and countries facing the greatest climate risks.
IPS UN Bureau Report
GENEVA, Nov 5 2026 (IPS) - Following my first article with a similar title, I must note that many actors have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the world’s current appalling state and the calamities that may await future generations. When historical injustices committed by colonial powers and their ramifications are ignored; when the drums of war sound in many corners of the world; when international institutions remain powerless; when vulgarity permeates politics and diplomacy; and when heads of state in rich and “poor” countries, along with the leadership of the United Nations (UN), are unable or unwilling to address issues affecting humanity’s destiny, I also declare:
Saber Azam
At the national level, leaders are elected, selected, or imposed with firm claims that they will lead their nations toward a more secure, peaceful, and prosperous future and serve their people with dedication, honesty, and vision. I do not argue here about their accession to power, but rather about their “obligation” to protect their nations’ interests without prejudice toward any constituent group and in concert with other nations, all naturally pursuing similar objectives. Yet bigotry has become a preferred tool and strategy for many leaders seeking to gain or retain power, even in societies considered “democratic.” Moreover, the wealth of a few too often determines the destiny of the many.
Most leaders of countries commonly referred to as “poor or developing” have failed their people. Mired in incompetence, many neglect their duties, serve other interests, and misuse national treasuries to amass personal wealth and property. At the same time, despite possessing enormous natural resources, their populations still lack access to basic social services, their infrastructure lies in ruins, and their economies remain in disarray, requiring support from foreign countries or financial institutions at high interest rates. In contrast, powerful countries appear entrenched in strategies of lip service. The clearest example is so-called “development aid,” often used as a guise to pressure “the needy to submit to the will of the rich.” Like multilateral development initiatives, bilateral aid has produced limited tangible results despite decades of existence and trillions of US dollars spent.
As a standard operating procedure, some states use proxy groups to sow insecurity and to circumvent international law. In both technologically advanced and less developed countries, politics often seems driven by short-term personal or party interests.
International cooperation has lost much of its meaning and substance, becoming “international competition.” While powerful countries may have the military and economic might to pursue this political philosophy, it harms the welfare of less powerful or technologically disadvantaged nations. Honest and sincere cooperation therefore remains elusive. The mighty seek to impose their vision of the world, bullying the less powerful, who often lack the courage to free themselves from dependency and compromise. Many leaders in both groups of countries therefore bear responsibility for the world’s lack of equitable peace, stability, and progress.
I Accuse the UN Leadership
Article 97 of the UN Charter establishes the Secretariat, comprising the Secretary-General and such staff as the Organization may require. Article 99 provides that the “Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” Article 100 further states that “in the performance of their duties, the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position ….” Article 101 emphasizes that “the paramount consideration in the employment [recruitment] of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity.”
When judging the performance of UN Secretaries-General, their senior management teams, and the heads of UN agencies, few have truly met the required standards. This is also a major reason the Organization has failed to fulfill its duties and obligations. Many factors have contributed to UN leadership’s shortcomings in serving humanity. Political and funding pressure from powerful countries seeking to impose their views and preferred candidates—mostly former politicians, ministers, or other prominent figures—for senior UN positions has been a significant obstacle. Such individuals have often proved more loyal to their countries’ policies or political alliances than to the “world-loving” spirit and the principles of impartiality and fairness outlined in the UN Charter. Furthermore, the desire to secure a second term, remain in senior roles for as long as possible, or work in prestigious headquarters such as New York, Geneva, Paris, or Vienna—where political prominence and financial remuneration are most attractive—has left parts of the Organization’s leadership willing to compromise on key principles. As a result, powerful member states have turned such positions into “bargaining chips.” The willingness of some of the most senior UN leaders to yield to external pressure has seriously damaged the Organization’s efficiency and reputation.
The Secretary-General, senior Secretariat officials, and agency heads are expected to uphold international morality and law. They must unequivocally denounce violations of human rights and lawlessness by any state, organization, business, or individual and take decisive action. Leaders who resist political pressure to fulfill their duties have been pushed out. Inefficiency and a lack of accountability are other trademarks of some senior UN managers. In the worst cases, behind-the-scenes deals appear to be the preferred solution because “scandals tarnish the image of the organization.” The internal justice system frequently appears to protect senior managers while being applied more readily to junior staff.
Almost all development agencies, especially the UN Development Program, have failed to meet expectations despite decades of operation and trillions of US dollars spent. Many agencies have overlapping mandates, prompting competition for relevance and funding and leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. No Secretary-General has dared to suggest shutting down some of these agencies, or at least replacing them with more effective bodies and streamlining their mandates. Likewise, reform efforts have amounted to little more than superficial fixes, allowing senior managers to remain in place and the status quo to persist. Therefore, since its inception more than eighty years ago, UN leadership has also played a significant role in the world’s deplorable situation by remaining silent, yielding to external pressure, and accepting unacceptable compromises on crucial issues of peace, security, human rights, and development.
[To be continued]
Saber Azam is a former United Nations official who served at UNHCR and UN-DPKO. He is the author of Soraya: The Other Princess and Hell’s Mouth: A Journey to the Heart of West African Jungles. His third book, Nowhere to Go, will be published soon.
IPS UN Bureau
Excerpt:
This is the second article in a four-part series. The remaining two will follow. I wish to warn distinguished readers that a distorted and unauthorized version of my first article, 'I Accuse', has been posted on the [https://www.thenewyorkernews.com] site.The original version, published by IPS, is available at [https://www.ipsnews.net/2026/11/i-accuse/].
PORTLAND, USA, Nov 5 2026 (IPS) - Approximately 110 countries, including the United States, have fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman.
In 2025, the U.S. fertility rate fell to a historic low of approximately 1.6 births per woman, extending a long-term downward trend that began in 2007 when the rate was still well above the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman (Figure 1).
Source: U.S. National Vital Statistics Report.
The decline in U.S. fertility to well below the replacement level has raised serious concerns among government officials, economic advisors, and business leaders. It has prompted two key questions: What is causing the low fertility rate in the United States, and what can be done to increase fertility?
As is the case in many other countries, the low fertility rate in the United States reflects a combination of economic, social, and cultural factors. These include rising living costs, financial uncertainty, declining marriage rates, greater control over pregnancy, a shortage of suitable partners for starting families, delayed childbearing, increasing childlessness, and fewer teenage pregnancies.
The historic low fertility rate in the United States of approximately 1.6 births per woman is unlikely to return to the replacement level of about 2.1 births per woman any time soon. As deaths are expected to outnumber births around 2040, immigration will play an increasingly important role in shaping the country’s demographic future. Without immigration, the U.S. population could experience a substantial decline by the end of the century
Given the strength and complexity of these factors, the U.S. fertility rate is unlikely to return to the replacement level of about 2.1 births per woman anytime soon.
Another contributing factor to the low fertility level is the high cost and limited availability of child care, which often makes it difficult for many parents to balance work and family responsibilities. In 2023, two-thirds of U.S. parents with young children spent at least 20% of their household income on child care.
The decline in teenage childbearing has also contributed to lower fertility. Since 1991, the teenage fertility rate has declined by 81 percent, reflecting factors that include improved access to long-acting, reversible contraception and expanded public health education. Whereas in 1991 teenage childbearing accounted for 13% of U.S. births, by 2025 the proportion had declined to approximately 3%.
Another possible factor is the widening educational and social gap between young U.S. men and women. Boys are falling behind girls in educational achievement and some measures of the transition to adulthood. For example, approximately 47% of U.S. women ages 25 to 34 have a bachelor’s degree, compared with 37% of U.S. men. These differences may affect relationship formation, making it more difficult for some women to find compatible partners and potentially delaying marriage and childbearing.
As young women surpass men in educational attainment in the U.S., some report difficulty finding partners with similar educational backgrounds and values. Other concerns include emotional compatibility, a limited pool of similarly educated men, and a dating culture that places less emphasis on long-term commitment.
Greater financial independence has also given women more freedom to decide whether and when to marry and have children. At the same time, some men struggle to establish careers and achieve financial stability, potentially creating mismatched expectations among prospective partners. Many women are also prioritizing education and careers and are less willing to enter relationships they do not consider suitable for long-term partnership and parenthood.
Women in the United States are also having children later in life. In 2023, the average age at which women had their first child reached a record high of nearly 28 years, reflecting a steady multi-decade climb from 22 years in 1960.
This shift reflects several factors, including higher educational attainment, career development, and greater access to contraception. First births among women aged 35 and older have increased, while births to women under 25 have declined, reflecting a growing tendency to delay motherhood.
Childlessness among U.S. women has increased across nearly all reproductive age groups, particularly among women in their 20s and early 30s. Approximately 40% of 30-year-old women in the United States are now childless, compared with around 18% in 1976 (Figure 2).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
The current U.S. administration’s efforts to raise the country’s low fertility rate are unlikely to reverse the downward trend. Relatively small financial incentives alone are unlikely to overcome the broader economic, social, and personal factors influencing decisions about childbearing.
The administration’s efforts are modest compared with the pronatalist programs adopted by many other low-fertility countries, which have had limited success in raising birth rates. Moreover, the underlying factors keeping U.S. fertility well below the replacement level are unlikely to be adequately addressed by the country’s current administration and will probably persist for years to come.
With fertility remaining low, deaths in the United States are projected to outnumber births around 2040, with the gap widening thereafter. By 2080, the Census Bureau projects that annual deaths will exceed births by approximately one million (Figure 3).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Immigration, however, is expected to sustain population growth, bringing the U.S. population to nearly 370 million by 2080. Without immigration, the Census Bureau projects that the country’s current population of 343 million would begin declining in about 15 years and fall to roughly 226 million by 2100.
In conclusion, the historic low fertility rate in the United States of approximately 1.6 births per woman is unlikely to return to the replacement level of about 2.1 births per woman any time soon. As deaths are expected to outnumber births around 2040, immigration will play an increasingly important role in shaping the country’s demographic future. Without immigration, the U.S. population could experience a substantial decline by the end of the century.
Joseph Chamie is a U.S. consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and the author of numerous publications on population issues.
NAIROBI & SRINAGAR, India, Nov 5 2026 (IPS) - The world’s wealthiest people are driving a disproportionate share of climate pollution while poorer communities bear the heaviest costs of floods, heatwaves, food insecurity and other climate disasters, according to a new report by Oxfam International.
The report, Disaster Divide: How Climate Chaos Deepens Inequality and Enriches the Few, published on October 27, 2026, argues that climate change is not simply an environmental crisis. It is also deepening existing economic and social inequalities, leaving people with the fewest resources struggling to survive and recover from increasingly destructive events.
The report highlights a widening divide between those who contribute most to global emissions and those who are most exposed to their consequences. Wealthy households can often afford safer homes, insurance, private transport and alternative accommodation when disasters strike. Poorer families, meanwhile, may lose their homes, livelihoods and savings, sometimes without the means to rebuild them.
“The richest 0.1% of people generate more consumption-based emissions than the poorest 3.5 billion combined,” says the report, highlighting the enormous gap between the environmental footprints of the wealthiest and the world’s poorest populations.
Oxfam argues that addressing the climate crisis requires more than cutting emissions. Governments must also confront the concentration of wealth, improve access to climate finance and ensure that disaster recovery policies protect vulnerable communities rather than disproportionately benefiting those who are already wealthy.
Mateo Adarve Zuluaga, Global Research and Advocacy Lead at Oxfam GB. Credit: Oxfam
In an exclusive interview with IPS, Mateo Adarve Zuluaga, Global Research and Advocacy Lead at Oxfam GB, said that the report shows that wealth can buy protection from the climate crisis. He said that the richest can purchase safer homes in better-protected communities and easily absorb rising food and water costs, while billionaires go as far as buying islands and building underground bunkers.
“California’s wildfires illustrate this starkly. Early warning systems alert wealthy residents, who hire private firefighters and evacuate by helicopter to five-star hotels, often with bills prepaid by their insurers. Those insurers charge up to six-figure annual premiums, and such policies are typically available only for properties valued above US$1 million.”
According to Zuluaga, poorer communities cannot cope in the same way, and in Altadena, a historically Black and brown middle-class community with a legacy of generational home ownership, many homeowners had no insurance or only partial cover.
He said that when the 2025 wildfires struck, countless families lost their homes, and with them, the main source of wealth built over decades. Desperate, many sold their ruined properties at discounted rates to predatory real estate companies, giving up both financial security and community ties.
“More broadly, for people already living in poverty, every flood, drought, wildfire or heatwave strips away scarce resources, destroying livelihoods and homes and pushing many into debt, displacement or homelessness. Hit by successive shocks, they struggle to recover and fall deeper into poverty. The report calls climate disasters “inequality machines”: a vicious cycle in which inequality creates the conditions for disaster, and disaster in turn deepens inequality. This is the disaster divide.”
When asked if the report estimates that the richest 1% have been responsible for around 20% of global warming since 1990 and that what policy measures should governments introduce to ensure that the wealthiest individuals and major polluters bear a fairer share of the costs of climate change? Zuluaga said that the emissions of the super-rich and major corporations are driving the climate crisis, and together with historically high-emitting rich countries, they carry a responsibility to cut emissions first and fastest.
He added that they must also help redress the damage they have caused, including its impact on low-income countries and people living in poverty.
According to Zuluaga, governments should begin by adopting ambitious national climate plans aligned with the Paris Agreement and the fair share principle, cutting emissions fast enough to keep warming to 1.5°C.
He said that under this principle, the richest countries and the richest individuals, whose emissions far exceed everyone else’s, must lead the way with rapid, deep reductions.
“Taxation is the second key tool. Governments should impose permanent progressive taxes on the wealth and income of the richest 1% and introduce a permanent rich polluter tax on fossil fuel corporations so that profits above a low benchmark face a higher rate. Wealth and income from polluting investments should be taxed at additional higher rates, alongside windfall taxes on excess profits gained through market control. Punitive taxes on high-emitting luxury items and activities, such as private jets, would further discourage the most extreme emissions,” Zuluaga said, adding that finally, governments should regulate corporations and investors to cut emissions radically and fairly.
This means compelling them to disclose their Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions across operations and supply chains, report regularly on progress, and set ambitious science-based targets with clear pathways for reducing emissions across all scopes in line with the Paris Agreement.
When asked if the research done in the report highlights the role of billionaire investments in high-emission industries and that how governments can hold wealthy investors accountable for climate damage without allowing corporations to shift the costs onto workers and low-income consumers?
Zuluaga termed it part of the just transition dilemma, and it can be addressed by making the wealthiest and most polluting actors pay for their pollution.
“Governments should introduce a polluter profits tax on fossil fuel companies, ensuring renewables become more profitable than fossil fuels, with revenues funding climate action in the Global South. Since the richest 1% have seen their wealth surge by US$33.9 trillion since 2015 while billionaires pay only around 0.3% in real taxes, taxing the super-rich is both feasible and fair. Governments should also end tax abuse by multinationals through effective global tax reforms,” he said.
To protect workers and consumers, energy should be treated as a human right and public good, with public and community ownership, transparency and community oversight guarding against elite capture. Finally, governments should shift away from the “Wall Street Consensus”, which socialises risk and privatises profit, so costs do not fall on ordinary people.
Activists at COP30. Credit: Karelia Pallan/Oxfam America
Speaking about the safeguards governments should introduce to ensure that public disaster-relief funds reach vulnerable people rather than reinforcing existing inequalities,
Resilience, according to Zuluaga, should not be measured by how much hardship people can endure but by how well societies look after one another. For too long, he said, the burden has fallen on the poor while the wealthy escape responsibility. To change this, governments must curb corporate power and ensure that climate response serves human needs rather than shareholder profit.
“First, governments should regulate corporate conduct in emergencies through enforceable codes and standards. Profit ceilings or excess profits taxes can prevent firms from profiteering on emergency contracts, while permanent windfall taxes on crisis profiteers, including a polluter profit tax, can fund climate action and be reactivated whenever disaster strikes. Temporary caps on prices and margins for essential goods during declared disasters would protect people at their most vulnerable. Insurance markets also need oversight to prevent excessive premiums or withdrawal of coverage, supported by tools such as government-backed reinsurance, catastrophe pools and affordability programmes.”
Second, he said, food systems require particular attention, and that the governments should stop further market concentration in agricultural inputs and commodities through windfall taxes, ban or tightly regulate speculative trading in food during crises, and cap the prices of essential food and farming inputs in emergencies.
“Finally, the public sector must be strengthened to lead disaster response and recovery, reducing reliance on private contractors. Public finance should take priority over private finance and be delivered as grants rather than loans, so relief does not deepen the debt of affected communities.”
Pubudini Wickramaratne, Land Rights Policy Lead at Oxfam International. Credit: Oxfam
Pubudini Wickramaratne, Land Rights Policy Lead at Oxfam International, in an interview with IPS said that Nepal is a powerful example of one of the greatest injustices of the climate crisis: those who have done the least to cause it are often suffering its worst consequences.
She said that despite contributing less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, Nepal is experiencing increasingly severe climate impacts, from glacier melt and flooding to extreme heat and landslides.
“This reflects a much wider pattern across South Asia and the world. The people and countries most exposed to climate disasters are often those with the smallest carbon footprints. Meanwhile, a relatively small, wealthy segment of the global population is responsible for a disproportionate share of emissions. Our report sh
ows that the richest 1% account for around 17% of global emissions, while the richest 0.1% have contributed nearly 400 times more than the poorest half of humanity to the increased likelihood of the extreme heat events we are experiencing today,” Wickramaratne said.
Meanwhile, Oxfam argues that funding should prioritise vulnerable populations and not create additional debt burdens for countries already struggling with climate-related losses.
The report also challenges governments to examine the role of public policy in determining who benefits from economic growth and who bears its environmental costs.
Reducing emissions, it argues, must be accompanied by measures that make societies fairer and better prepared for climate shocks.
The report does not present climate disasters as isolated events that affect everyone equally. Instead, it describes a cycle in which inequality increases exposure to harm, disasters deepen poverty, and the resulting economic losses make future recovery more difficult.
It says that breaking that cycle will require both climate action and policies that address the distribution of wealth and resources.
With climate-related disasters becoming an increasingly pressing challenge for governments worldwide, Oxfam argues that the measure of an effective response should not be limited to the amount of money spent or infrastructure rebuilt.
It should, as per the report, also consider whether people who have contributed least to global warming can access the protection and support they need and whether they are able to recover without being pushed further into poverty.
IPS UN Bureau Report