By Farai Shawn Matiashe
MUTARE, Zimbabwe, Jul 16 2025 – It is a cold morning in eastern Zimbabwe as Lieutenant Colonel Reverend Doctor Samba Mosweu celebrates a glorious moment he has been waiting for all his life.

His family has accompanied Lieutenant Colonel Mosweu from the Botswana Defence Forces to this monumental occasion, which marks the culmination of years of hard work and dedication for not only him but also for hundreds of other graduates.

He is part of the 10 military chaplains from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region who have just been conferred with their doctoral degrees in ministry from Africa University, a United Methodist Church-related institution.

This is the first of its kind in Africa.

“I enrolled in this programme as a way to equip, to empower and to strengthen myself in the line of my duty,” Mosweu tells this publication at AU just outside Zimbabwe’s third largest city of Mutare.

Doctor of Ministry Military Chaplaincy recipient, Lieutenant Colonel Reverend Doctor Samba Mosweu of Botswana Defence Forces at Africa University in Mutare. Credit: Farai Shawn
Matiashe/IPS

“However, I can attest that from what I have learnt, perceived and even interacted with other colleagues from different countries, I have learnt a lot.”

Over the years, the African military turned to pastors from churches around the continent to join the army and provide spiritual, counselling and moral support to service members and their families.

Those military chaplains had to enrol in schools abroad, like the United States (US), to learn programmes aligned to the military and not general theology programmes offered by the majority of African universities.

This programme can be traced back to 2017 when Colonel Dr David Wesley Lile (Retired) from the US Army engaged the US Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Brian A. Nichols, about the possibility of establishing such a programme in the country.

Robert Mugabe was still President and relations between him and the US were frosty; hence, Nichols advised Lile to look for a neutral institution that had nothing to do with the military.

This is how the programme came to Africa University.

Doctor of Ministry Military Chaplaincy recipient, Brigadier General Reverend Doctor Shadreck Mwale of the Zambian Army at Africa University. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

But it took a long time for the Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education (ZIMCHE), a parastatal responsible for the accreditation of higher learning institutions in the country, to approve the course.

So, the 10 students studied for their doctoral degrees through a partnership with Wesley Theological Seminary, based in Washington.

Lile, who was studying for a similar Doctoral ministry chaplain programme at Wesley Theological Seminary, says they developed the programme at AU using what he was studying.

“If you are going to have a chaplain school that trains, you need the professors to train. You have 10 chaplains now who have doctorates. That is not anywhere in Africa,” says Lile, who was a US Army Africa chaplain based in Italy in 2017.

“That is the uniqueness of the programme; they focused on the context, the violence, and the trauma that is endured on the continent.”

He says in 2017 he had a two-week training programme for combat and deployment psycho support with military chaplains from Africa, and a general encouraged him to develop an African-centric military chaplain school and not workshops where they get only certificates.

Africa has experienced numerous wars and conflicts, including both civil wars and interstate conflicts.

Doctor of Ministry Military Chaplaincy recipients seated in the graduation arena at Africa University. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

Various insurgencies, including Boko Haram in Nigeria, M23 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ansar al-Sunna in Mozambique, Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan and al-Shabaab in Somalia.

These have caused not only displacements of millions of people, long-term instability and loss of life but also serious issues like trauma and mental health challenges for the soldiers fighting these wars.

Lile, from Kentucky, says Africa has at least five of the most dangerous places in the world.

“Those are places we sent United Nations peacekeepers. And most of the people we worked with as the US Army in Africa, we would come down to help train those chaplains to go with those troops deployed in those areas,” he says, adding that he trained a group that had six people die in combat in the DRC.

The UN has 11 missions, and five of those are in Africa, namely MINUSCA in the Central African Republic, MONUSCO in the DRC, UNISFA in Abyei, UNMISS in South Sudan, and MINURSO in Western Sahara.

There are 105,000 peacekeepers around the world, and close to 85,000, mostly from the continent, are in Africa.

“Africa has high standards for who can lead the training. So, to develop leadership models, they needed a programme. That is the base level,” says Lile.

“But they do not have military training for chaplains. People get killed. Who is taking care of the families, and do they have skill sets for trauma and kids? There are suicides.”

The 10 graduates were affected by COVID-19 but were able to continue and finish the programme.

Lieutenant Colonel Mosweu says people who have been deployed come from an operation as different people who desperately need his services.

“If you take the one who has been trained and put them behind the enemy lines within the operational areas, lives are lost. People get killed and injured. When they come to me, I do pastoral psychotherapy, which I use to engage, strengthen and give them that spiritual resilience. So that they become better individuals,” he says.

Brigadier General Reverend Doctor Shadreck Mwale of the Zambian Army, who has been a chaplain for the past 24 years, says this programme has uplifted his spirit as a chaplain.

“Education is important. AU came in at the right time when they provided training to chaplains. We had a break for almost a year and a half because of COVID-19,” says Mwale, who is the Director General of Religious and Moral Services in the Zambian Army.

“I learnt more about moral injury and issues of stress among soldiers. If there is one thing that troubles soldiers, it is stress. Everything is stressful and extreme. Therefore, it is important to have a chaplain who is extremely equipped in these matters.”

James H. Salley, president and chief executive officer of Africa University (Tennessee) Inc.—a charitable organisation that disburses resources to Africa University Zimbabwe—says the chaplains programme has now been accredited by ZIMCHE and is continuing.

“We will have not only the doctor in the ministry of military chaplains or chaplains for all of these entities. We now have four additional doctors with ministry degrees in chaplaincy,” says Dr Salley.

“These are senior officials and officers in their respective areas who now marry the practical with the theory. And sometimes in the classroom, you only get theory. But it is a good thing to have practical experience.”

Mosweu is now back in his home country, Botswana, offering counselling and moral support to service members.

“I want to assure you that this programme is going to aid my delivery to both my colleagues and those people I offer ministry to, soldiers and their dependents. I encourage others to attend, too,” he says.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By CIVICUS
Jul 16 2025 –  
CIVICUS speaks with Claude Iguma, a mining governance expert with a PhD in Social Sciences, who is based in Bukavu, South Kivu province, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

On 27 June, the DRC signed a peace agreement with Rwanda. This agreement forms part of a wider deal with the Trump administration promising US access to Congolese coltan in exchange for assistance in quelling armed rebellions and stabilising the region. Coltan is a crucial mineral for the global electronics industry, but its extraction fuels conflicts, insecurity and human rights violations.

Claude Iguma

What is coltan, and how does it affect the DRC?

Coltan, or columbite-tantalite, is primarily mined in eastern DRC, particularly in Kivu and Tanganyika provinces. Its unique chemical properties, particularly its resistance to extreme temperatures, make it an indispensable component of the modern electronics industry.

This global demand has transformed the region in three fundamental ways. First, it has established the DRC as one of the world’s leading coltan suppliers. The Rubaya mine, located in the Masisi territory of North Kivu, is a prime example of this: it produces more than half of the DRC’s coltan, making it a popular destination for international buyers and smelters.

Second, this mineral wealth has fuelled violence. Coltan mining has become inextricably linked to violence perpetrated by armed groups. The Rubaya mine is regularly the scene of tensions between ethnic armed groups and illegal coltan traders. Global Witness has documented this situation in a report that clearly establishes the link between international demand for coltan and the violence ravaging eastern DRC.

Third, the global energy transition has intensified the appetite of western powers for this mineral. A controversial agreement signed in February 2024 between the European Union (EU) and Rwanda regarding strategic minerals is proof of this: the EU is sourcing coltan from a country with little to no coltan reserves. This also explains why the USA is so invested in the minerals-security agreement between the DRC and Rwanda.

What are the human rights and security impacts of mining?

Artisanal coltan mining takes place in a context of widespread illegality that systematically violates human rights. Armed groups have established a sophisticated system of extortion, imposing forced labour, levying illegal taxes and controlling access to mines by erecting barriers on access roads. These same groups also regularly rob miners, creating a climate of permanent terror.

However, responsibility does not lie solely with armed groups. The military is also present at mining sites, where they extort money from miners. The miners work in extreme physical conditions without any protection, digging deep pits where fatal accidents are commonplace. An accident at the Rubaya mine on 19 June claimed 45 lives.

The exploitation of vulnerable people is another shocking aspect of this industry. Despite legal prohibitions, pregnant women and children continue to work in the mines, driven by poverty and the ineffective enforcement of regulations.

This situation perpetuates a vicious cycle of insecurity. Mining areas have become the scene of constant clashes between rival militias fighting for control of these lucrative resources. In the Numbi region of South Kivu, for example, fighting between Nyatura militias and local Mai-Mai groups has become a regular occurrence. These rivalries extend beyond mere territorial control and are deeply rooted in tensions between ethnic groups these militias claim to represent.

The consequences are disastrous: the mass displacement of people, the establishment of military regimes at extraction sites and the complete collapse of state authority in these areas. The absence of state structures creates a legal vacuum where militarisation and arms trafficking flourish.

What does the agreement between the DRC and the USA mean?

Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi’s offer to grant the USA privileged access to Congolese minerals is part of a strategy to secure the territory. The aim is to neutralise the rebellion by M23 – an armed group on the offensive in recent years – exchange for US commitment to regional security. At the same time, the agreement aims to stop Rwanda’s systematic looting of Congolese minerals, as evidenced by the peace agreement signed on 27 June.

On paper, the strategy seems coherent. In practice, however, the challenges are considerable. The porous nature of the DRC’s borders could allow illegal supply networks for coltan and other minerals to keep operating in neighbouring countries. More problematic still is the fact that the M23 is only one of many armed groups present in eastern DRC. Neutralising it, even if successful, will not automatically solve the problem posed by the other militias. Specific dismantling strategies that go beyond the scope of this bilateral agreement will need to be developed.

From an economic perspective, the agreement presents significant opportunities. Investment of billions of dollars in the DRC’s mining sector could generate significant employment and boost an economy already heavily dependent on minerals. These investments should also improve infrastructure, particularly access to mines via the road network and evacuation routes to export ports.

However, three major risks threaten this strategy. First, capital influx could exacerbate corruption among the Congolese political elite. Second, as has happened in the past, minerals may be exported without being processed locally, which would perpetuate the DRC’s dependence on unprocessed raw materials. Third, the intensification of mining could exacerbate the problem of excessive dependence on mining to the detriment of other vital economic sectors, such as agriculture.

What is civil society doing to improve the situation?

Congolese civil society is taking a multifaceted approach to humanise mining. Its intervention is structured around three main areas.

Advocacy is the first part of this action. Many organisations are campaigning with state authorities to improve the living conditions of artisanal miners and clean up supply chains. They systematically denounce irregularities observed at every stage of these chains, creating constant pressure on institutions.

The second pillar is training and support. Civil society organisations are investing heavily in training mining operators, particularly in relation to the mining code and setting up mining cooperatives. Implemented directly on mining sites, these programmes aim to professionalise artisanal mining. Projects such as Madini Kwa Amani na Maendeleo and Minerals for Peace and Development, which are being implemented in Ituri and South Kivu by a consortium of organisations including International Alert, International Peace Information Service, Justice Plus and Observatoire Gouvernance et Paix, illustrate this collaborative approach.

The third component of this initiative is the assessment of mining sites. Civil society organisations actively participate in assessment missions that determine the risks associated with each site in terms of exploitation, security, respect for human rights and environmental impact. This technical expertise helps steer public policy and private investment towards more responsible practices.

GET IN TOUCH
Facebook

SEE ALSO
Human rights under fire in DRC conflict CIVICUS Lens 24.Mar.2025
Deadly conflict in eastern DRC culls human rights and civic freedoms CIVICUS Monitor 10.Mar. 2025
DRC: ‘Rwandan support for M23 threatens to turn conflict into a regional crisis’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Steward Muhindo 04.Feb.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Christelle Kalhoule and Sarah Strack
NEW YORK, Jul 16 2025 – As delegates gather in New York over the coming weeks for the 2025 High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), we see this moment as a test. A test of whether world leaders are serious about rescuing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – or content to let the promises of Agenda 2030 drift quietly into irrelevance.

For ten years, governments have pledged to “leave no one behind.” But that promise rings hollow when those at the center of sustainable development—civil society and communities—are excluded from decision-making, denied funding, and sidelined in monitoring processes. The credibility of the SDG agenda now hinges on one urgent question: will the world get serious about #UNMuting civil society and enabling it to fully play its role at all levels?

The evidence is stark. In 2024, Official Development Assistance (ODA) fell by 7.1% (16 billion USD approximately. Projections for 2025 suggest additional drops of up to 17% (38 billion USD approximately). Civil society organisations in many countries recently surveyed report funding cuts. At the same time, an enabling environment continues to shrink, especially in fragile or repressive contexts, limiting civil society’s ability to operate as showcased in most recent EU SEE alerts. And while global declarations reaffirm the importance of partnerships, local organisations—particularly feminist, youth-led, and community-based groups—continue to operate at the margins of power and resources.

From visibility to power

This year’s High-Level Political Forum focuses on the review of SDGs 3 -health, 5 – gender equality, 8 – decent work, 14 – life below water and 17 – partnerships for the Goals. But these Goals are not abstract targets—they are linked to everyday realities that communities and civil society across the globe confront and act upon for a better future.

In communities across the globe, civil society is not waiting for permission to lead. We are co-creators of solutions, watchdogs of accountability, and stewards of public interest. In Vanuatu, Fale mobilised rapidly after the 2024 earthquake, coordinating shelter, food and psychological support where institutional response lagged. In Mexico, local networks spotlighted how legal barriers and discrimination exclude indigenous and migrant communities from accessing public services. In Nepal, young activists from the NGO Federation of Nepal are working to make health, education and employment policies more inclusive of persons living with disabilities. These are not just stories of service delivery- they are blueprints for equity, agency and justice from the ground up.

Yet such models remain largely invisible in global discussions-not because they lack impact, but because they lack recognition, access and resourcing. Civil society’s role is routinely framed as consultative or complementary. It’s time to move beyond visibility and tokenism. Recognition must translate into resourcing, influence, and leadership.

As Silla Ristimäki, Adviser on Global Justice at Finnish Development NGOs (Fingo), puts it: “Concerning global trends of closing civic space must be countered at all levels. A free, diverse and independent civil society lays the foundation for lasting peace, stable societies and sustainable development.”

Localisation is more than a buzzword: it’s the only way forward

Communities, civil society, and their partners are advancing SDGs from the ground up. Forus’ newly released report, Unlocking the Power of Localisation and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships, reveals that over 65% of SDG targets rely on local delivery. Yet most global financing, planning, and monitoring systems remain top-down and disconnected from the realities of local actors.

The report highlights over 15 case studies—from Fiji to Morocco, Zambia to Argentina—where CSOs are driving Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs), engaging in budget advocacy and developing citizen monitoring tools that track public services. But without long-term, flexible financing and stronger multilevel governance, these efforts risk disappearing.

Centering local feminist leadership for systemic change

Despite being at the forefront of local action and deeply embedded in communities, civil society organisations -especially feminist and youth led groups – continue to operate at the margins of power and financing. The “March With Us” campaign, launched by Forus in 2021, has amplified powerful voices over the years such as Hala al Karib in Sudan, Dianah Kamande in Kenya and many more- women and civil society organisations who are peace builders and system changers.

If governments and multilateral institutions are serious about accelerating SDG progress, , then gender must be seen not as a standalone goal, but as a lens across all policies-especially financing. It must be mainstreamed across all SDG implementation and financing strategies—from public development banks to national budgets.

That is why Forus, on the occasion of the fourth international conference on financing for development (FfD4) in Seville, called for a re-imagination of financial architecture – one that recognises the legitimacy of civil society as both actor and agenda setter for transformative change.

Building trust through investing in civil society

Civil society is doing more than delivering services, it is building trust. At Forus, we are investing in storytelling, civic diplomacy, and digital governance to counter disinformation and revitalize democratic participation. Our Local Power Working Group and We Are Leaving No One Behind campaign uplift lived experiences that show not just what’s wrong with current systems—but what’s possible.

These are not “human interest” stories. They are powerful contributions to shaping policies for just and sustainable development.

What needs to change—Now

As the world moves into the final five years before 2030, the window for course correction is rapidly closing. At the 2025 High-Level Political Forum Forus urges governments, donors and international institutions to;

· Fund civil society through long-term, flexible, and core support—not project crumbs.
· Recognise community-led monitoring and data as legitimate contributions to SDG review and accountability.
· Invest in localization, not just through technical support but through the transfer of power and resources
· Embed civil society in financing and planning systems for development processes – including financing for development and public development bank strategies, and not as observers but architects of change.
· Shift power—not just through consultation, but through redistribution of voice, visibility, and resources.

In a world of growing polycrisis and democratic erosion, civil society is not optional. We are an essential part of the ecosystem for social justice, resilience and transformation. If the SDGs are to be saved, it won’t be through declarations-but through redistribution. Of resources. Of voice. Of power.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Excerpt:

Christelle Kalhoule, Forus Chair and Sarah Strack, Forus Director

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 16 2025 – The US is apparently contemplating the possible creation—either a formal or an informal– security alliance in the Asia-Pacific region on the lines of the longstanding collective defense pact, the 32-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

If the proposal materializes, the new alliance is expected to include Japan, South Korea, Australia, plus, the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), comprising Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, among others.

The New York Times last month quoted US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as saying: ”No one should doubt America’s commitment to our Indo-Pacific allies and partners. We will continue to wrap our arms around our friends and find new ways to work together”.

He said Indo-Pacific is a “region where the United States favours continuity in security alliances more than disruption”.

Ely Ratner, a former US assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security issues, has suggested. in an article in Foreign Affairs, that the US and its allies in Asia should form a collective defense pact, similar to NATO.

The proposed new alliance is primarily meant to be a protective shield against the two nuclear armed countries in the region: China and North Korea.

Of the world’s nine nuclear powers, the only region with four nuclear-armed countries is Asia: India, China, Pakistan and North Korea—the others outside Asia include the US, UK, France, Russia and Israel.

Meanwhile, AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership linking Australia, the UK and the United States, is aimed at “promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and stable”

Hegseth’s visit to the region was followed by a visit from another senior US official, Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Addressing a press conference in Kuala Lumpur on July 10, Rubio said: “You know my very first meeting – I don’t know if you know this, but when I was sworn-in. I went to the State Department, I gave a speech on the steps, and then my first meeting right out of the box was with Japan, South Korea, and India”.

“And we’ve repeated that meeting numerous times since then with that group. We have a running internal joke with my counterpart from Japan: I have literally now seen him about 8 to 12 times, and our joke is that we see each other more than we see our own families,” he said.

Tammy Bruce State Department Spokesperson told reporters July 10 that Rubio was in Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN-related foreign ministers’ meetings and bilateral engagements, reaffirming the United States commitment – our enduring commitment, “If I may add – to a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific”.

Rubio participated in the ASEAN-U.S. Post-Ministerial Conference and held meetings with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar and counterparts from Malaysia, Russia, Japan, and the Philippines. The Indo-Pacific region accounts for two thirds of global growth and remains a central focus of U.S. foreign policy, he said.

Rubio also signed a nuclear cooperation Memorandum of Understanding with Malaysia, advancing civil nuclear energy collaboration under the highest standards of safety, security, and nonproliferation.

Negotiations towards a 123 Agreement are underway. And once finalized, it would permit the transfer of nuclear material and equipment for peaceful purposes, further deepening bilateral energy, security, and economic ties.

Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act generally requires the conclusion of a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement for significant transfers of nuclear material or equipment from the United States.

Moreover, such agreements, commonly referred to as “123 Agreements,” facilitate cooperation in other areas, such as technical exchanges, scientific research, and safeguards discussions, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA}

In conjunction with other nonproliferation tools, particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 123 Agreements help to advance U.S. nonproliferation principles. They establish the legal framework for significant nuclear cooperation with other countries.

In order for a partner to enter into a 123 Agreement with the United States, that partner must adhere to a set of strong nonproliferation requirements. The U.S. State Department is responsible for negotiating 123 Agreements, with the technical assistance and concurrence of DOE/NNSA and in consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

According to the US Department of Energy, about 25 countries currently have 123 agreements in force.

But there is also a more militaristic perspective to the proposed security alliance.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and Graduate Program Director, MPPGA at University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS if it is created, this new forum will add to the already growing trend of militarization, which will increase the risk of war, especially with China, and divert money from other urgent priorities such as dealing with climate change.

“And, should it be set up, the U.S. government will try to make its members buy more expensive and destructive weapons from U.S. arms manufacturers, which will strengthen their political power over policy making in the United States, and in turn will make the social landscape in the United States even worse,” said Dr Ramana.

Stressing the growing new relationships in the region, Rubio told reporters: “And so, these engagements are very important to us. And we’re going to continue to stay very committed, because this – as I said to all of our partners, this notion or idea that the United States would ever be distracted by the Indo-Pacific or even Southeast Asia is impossible.”

“You can’t be – maybe it doesn’t always – wars get more attention, but it’s impossible to not be focused. This is where much of the story of the 21st century is going to be written. This is where two thirds of economic growth is going to happen over the next 25 or 30 years.”

And many of the countries of Southeast Asia – not only are they some of the youngest countries in the world, but they’re about to see an enormous expansion of their labor markets, their labor pool, number of workers, he said.

“This is a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity not just for these countries to revolutionize themselves from an economic standpoint, but further strengthen our relationship. We have over 6,000 American companies that have invested heavily in these economies over the last 20 or 30 years. These are – we’re not abandoning those relationships. On the contrary, we want to strengthen and build upon them.”

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, and until recently, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to China, told IPS China is nuclear armed but has a no-first-use policy. Nuclear armed North Korea has a policy centred on deterring attacks. In the circumstances to promote a NATO type arrangement in East and South East Asia as a deterrent would seem excessive.

China, he pointed out, has only one base outside mainland China (in Djibouti). North Korea has none. China nor North Koea have no military personnel outside their own territories. The US has thousands of military personnel in bases surrounding China. The US pivot to Asia had China in its cross hairs.

The best way to reduce real and imaginary tensions (some stoked intentionally), he pointed out, would be to encourage parties to enter into dialogue with each other. The world needs peace, not conflict, for human progress.

“We require alliances that promote infrastructure development for developing countries, that address the threat of climate change, which strive to eliminate extreme poverty, and which will make the world a better place. In the past, US military incursions in the region did not produce peace.”

On the contrary, the progress of countries was dramatically curtailed, thousands of combatants and civilians died and millions were maimed, declared Dr Kohona.

Stressing the strong relationship between the US and Japan, Rubio said: “We obviously have very strong commitments and an alliance with Japan. We continue to cooperate very closely with them. As I speak to you now, there are active exercises going on between the United States and Japan.”

So. our relationship with them will continue to exist.

“The idea that somehow Japan would be able to develop domestic – their own capabilities for mutual self-defense is not only something that we find offensive, it’s something we’d be supportive of, obviously within the confines of their constitutional system. But they have some limitations on what they can do. But the idea that Japan’s military would become more capable is not something we would be offended by; it’s something we would actually be encouraged by”.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Maithreyi Kamalanathan
NEW YORK, Jul 16 2025 – Around a quarter of countries still have nationality laws that deny women the same rights as men to acquire, retain, or change their citizenship, or to pass citizenship onto their children or foreign spouses.

Catherine Harrington, Campaign Manager for the Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights. Credit: Ava McLaughlin Gagliardi

These legal inequalities expose women and their families to a wide range of harms. From forced family separation and statelessness to limiting access to education, healthcare, and employment, the consequences are severe and far-reaching.

While some countries have taken commendable steps to reform discriminatory nationality laws, many governments have yet to take meaningful action, leaving millions without equal rights to acquire or confer nationality. Beyond the profound impact on individuals, this discrimination carries deep social and economic costs.

When women are denied equal nationality rights, entire families are held back, restricting their ability to contribute fully to society and ultimately holding back national development.

Model guidelines for nationality laws

A new publication, “Proposed Select Draft Articles on Nationality Rights to Ensure Gender Equality,” by Equality Now and the Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights (GCENR), provides model guidelines for policymakers to reform and enact nationality laws that ensure all citizens, regardless of their gender, have access to equal citizenship rights.

GCENR, housed at Women’s Refugee Commission, is a coalition of independent activists, UN partner agencies, and national and international organisations working to end gender discrimination in nationality laws. Equality Now is a founding steering committee member of GCENR.

Catherine Harrington, Campaign Manager of GCENR, spoke to Equality Now about why gender-equal nationality laws are crucial to building an inclusive, thriving, and prosperous society for all.

What are the real-life consequences for women and girls when nationality laws are not gender equal?

Women’s unequal status in society is the root cause of gender-based violence. At a foundational level, discriminatory nationality laws create a conducive environment for gender-based violence. For example, a woman and her children’s nationality being dependent on an abusive spouse creates a higher barrier for them to leave a situation of domestic violence.

The inability to confer nationality on children and non-citizen spouses inhibits women’s power to choose their partners. It undermines equality in the family, affecting women’s autonomy and ability to form a family.

Statelessness also exacerbates certain risks. For example, a girl born to a Lebanese mother and a stateless Palestinian father in Lebanon would be rendered stateless. She can’t gain Lebanese citizenship through her mother, even if she lives there and cannot acquire another nationality. This puts her at an increased risk of human trafficking and child marriage because, unfortunately, some families see early and enforced marriage as a pathway to secure documentation or citizenship.

Risks extend to the world of work. Lack of formal employment pushes many affected women into informal work environments, making them more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, including sexual harassment and assault by employers. Due to their undocumented status, many don’t report or seek justice for the violence they face.

What’s the objective of the model guidelines published by GCENR and Equality Now, and how can policymakers use them?

Gender discrimination in nationality laws is the canary in the coal mine for gender equality. When nationality laws discriminate on the basis of gender, they implicitly ascribe women a second-class status. The guidelines examine different elements of nationality laws and propose how the law should look to uphold comprehensive gender equality.

It provides helpful context for policymakers, outlining countries’ existing obligations to uphold gender-equal nationality laws through a range of international human rights conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The good news is that reforming nationality laws is pretty straightforward. Countries must simply ensure that provisions related to acquiring, changing, retaining, or conferring nationality, whether to a child or a non-national spouse, uphold the rights of all citizens equally. They can achieve it through gender-neutral language, like referring to everyone as ‘citizens’ or using inclusive terms like ‘parent’ or ‘spouse.’ If gendered terms are used, ensure both terms, such as ‘mother and father’ or ‘wife and husband’, are included.

What are some of the barriers to adopting gender-equal nationality laws?

Xenophobia is one of the biggest challenges we face in most countries. Wherever I’ve visited, be it a rich or a poor country, I often hear the same argument from those opposed to reform.“Our situation is unique. And because of that, we must protect other people from getting our citizenship.”

Nepal, for example, shares open borders with two big countries, India and China. Some people there argue that “they’ll invade the country through the womb.” The economic argument of some countries is that citizenship comes with many benefits, and they don’t want to spend all those resources on outsiders.

Regardless of the desire not to allow others to come in, in most countries, if a man marries a woman from another country, he can confer nationality to his wife. His children automatically become citizens because it’s treated as a man’s natural right.

But when it comes to women, there is an intersection of xenophobia with deeply rooted patriarchal mindsets and sexism. The desire to make it harder for others to get citizenship is seen as more important than ensuring equal rights for women.

The irony is that discriminatory nationality laws inhibit sustainable development and exacerbate poverty. They undermine countries’ commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), especially SDG 5 on gender equality, SDG 10 on reducing inequalities, and target 16.9 on ensuring legal identity for all by 2030.

When statelessness gets passed down from parent to child, it creates multigenerational poverty. An entire population of children will grow up without equal access to education. In adulthood, they won’t have access to employment and membership in professional syndicates, required in some countries to practice certain professions such as law, engineering, architecture, or medicine. At a societal level, we’ll have all these talented individuals who genuinely want to contribute economically to the countries they call home, but are prevented from doing so.

What progress has there been in ending gender discrimination in nationality laws?

Since the launch of our global nationality campaign, we’ve seen progress in many countries. Recently, the national campaign of our coalition member Family Frontiers, led by impacted mothers, has had a remarkable influence in Malaysia. In 2024, both houses of Malaysia’s Parliament passed a constitutional amendment to uphold Malaysian women’s right to confer citizenship to their children born abroad on an equal basis with men, which will hopefully come into effect this year.

Madagascar, Sierra Leone, and Liberia have eliminated laws that denied women’s right to confer nationality on their children. While Lesotho, Benin, and Niger had already eliminated provisions preventing women from passing nationality to their children, they have now taken the final step to amend laws prohibiting women from conferring nationality on a spouse on an equal basis with men.

Eswatini is the only country in southern Africa where women still cannot pass citizenship to their children. During the UNHCR’s High-Level Segment on Statelessness, Eswatini’s government pledged to eliminate this discrimination by 2024. While that reform hasn’t happened yet, the pledge remains a significant step forward.

Today, 90% of countries uphold women’s right to pass citizenship to their children on an equal basis with men, and three-quarters have achieved comprehensive gender equality in their nationality laws. These governments amended their laws because they recognised it was the smart thing to do. Countries yet to enact reforms must learn from the good examples and understand that it’s not something to be feared but an opportunity to uphold equality and inclusive development for all citizens.

Equality Now is a worldwide human rights organisation dedicated to securing the legal and systemic change needed to end discrimination against all women and girls. Since its inception in 1992, it has played a role in reforming 120 discriminatory laws globally, positively impacting the lives of hundreds of millions of women and girls, their communities and nations, both now and for generations to come.

Working with partners at national, regional and global levels, Equality Now draws on deep legal expertise and a diverse range of social, political and cultural perspectives to continue to lead the way in steering, shaping and driving the change needed to achieve enduring gender equality, to the benefit of all.

For more details, go to www.equalitynow.org, Bluesky equalitynow.bsky.social, Facebook @equalitynoworg, Instagram @equalitynoworg, and LinkedIn Equality Now.

Proposed Select Draft Articles on Nationality Rights to Ensure Gender Equality.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Excerpt:

Maithreyi Kamalanathan is Global Media Coordinator, Equality Now

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jul 16 2025 – To be, or not to be, an undocumented migrant, that is the question for millions of men, women and children in many less developed countries. “Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them” for a better life as an undocumented migrant in a foreign land.

In many less developed countries, especially the least developed, millions of men, women and children live an onerous existence, enduring the pain and hardships of their daily lives.

Unfortunately, many people in these areas experience high levels of poverty, unemployment, low wages, violence, crime, persecution, political instability, armed conflict, lack of health care, limited education opportunities, and, increasingly, the effects of climate change.

The fundamental choice for many millions of men and women in less developed countries is between staying in their homelands and enduring a difficult life or migrating to become an undocumented migrant with a chance for a more promising future in a foreign land

Most of these individuals prefer to stay in their homelands with their families and friends, but they see little hope for personal improvement in their lifetimes.

Pessimistic views on social, economic and political progress in less developed countries are reinforced by the lack of advancement in development initiatives and cuts in foreign aid programs.

For instance, the international community adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 to bring about transformative change by 2030. Current reports indicate that most of the SDGs are off track with progress on many key indicators stalled or even reversed in recent years. Some major donor countries have also reduced or discontinued their development assistance programs and humanitarian aid.

In stark contrast to conditions in many less developed countries, people in more developed countries are seen as living in a comparative paradise. Men, women and children in these populations enjoy peace, security, political stability, wealth, employment, abundance, housing, educational opportunities, public services, health care, lower mortality rates and longer life spans.

Although in 2025, the populations of the least developed countries and the more developed countries are about the same size, 1.2 and 1.3 billion, respectively, their demographic circumstances differ considerably.

For example, the chance of dying during the first year of life in the least developed countries is ten times higher than in the more developed countries. In 2025, the infant mortality rate in the more developed countries is 4 deaths per 1,000 births, while in the least developed countries it is nearly 40, with the rate for the less developed countries excluding the least developed falling in between at 24 (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Life expectancy at birth is significantly higher in more developed countries than in the least developed countries, at 80 and 67 years, respectively. This life expectancy advantage in more developed countries continues into older age groups, reaching 20 and 15 years, respectively, at age 65 years (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

With deaths outnumbering births, the annual population growth rate of more developed countries in 2025 rises to about 0.1% due to international migration. Over the coming decades, the population of more developed countries is projected to decline slowly, falling by almost 100 million and ending up slightly below 1.2 billion by the close of the century.

This expected population decline of the more developed countries, however, assumes continuing international migration to those countries over the coming decades. With zero migration, the projected demographic decline of the more developed countries is considerably greater, with their population decreasing to about 830 million by 2100 (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

In stark contrast, the population of least developed countries is growing relatively rapidly, with an annual growth rate of 2.3%, which is about 30 times greater than the growth rate of more developed countries. Their current population of 1.2 billion is projected to double to 2.4 billion in approximately 40 years and reach 3.1 billion by the end of the 21st century, nearly a third of the world’s population.

The population of less developed countries excluding the least developed is projected to increase from its current level of 5.7 billion to a peak of 6.5 billion around midcentury. It is then expected to decline, reaching 6 billion in 2100, approximately 58 percent of the world’s population.

The population of more developed countries is substantially older than that of the least developed countries and other less developed countries. In 2025, about 20% of the population in more developed countries was aged 65 years or older, compared to 4% in the least developed countries.

This difference in age structures is expected to continue in the coming decades. By the close of the 21st century, nearly one-third of the population of more developed countries is projected to be aged 65 years or older, compared to about 15% for the least developed countries (Figure 3).

Source: United Nations.

In addition to the millions of men and women in less developed countries living under challenging social, economic and political conditions, by the end of 2024, approximately 123 million people worldwide had been forced to flee their homes due to persecution, conflict, human rights violations, and severe public disorder.

Among those displaced from their homes were about 43 million refugees and close to 5 million stateless people. These individuals have been denied nationality and lack access to employment, health care, education and freedom of movement.

The numbers of people displaced by climate change have also been increasing in recent years. It is estimated that more than 200 million people could be forcibly displaced by extreme weather and environmental disasters by 2050.

Given the challenging living conditions faced by many around the world, it is not surprising that approximately 16% of the world’s population, or 1.3 billion people, desire to leave their country.

These desires have become a reality for many men and women who have sought a better life as undocumented migrants in other countries. Of the approximately 305 million immigrants in the world in 2025, perhaps a quarter of them, about 75 million are estimated to be undocumented.

Millions of men and women desire to emigrate to another country, while many people living in wealthy destination countries believe fewer or no immigrants should be allowed in. For many countries, this sentiment towards immigrants is at odds with their historical heritage.

In the United States, for example, the anti-immigrant sentiment contradicts the words inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty. A well-known part of the inscription states, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

While attempting to limit immigration numbers, especially undocumented migrants, these countries are also facing population decline, labor force shortages, and demographic ageing.

In the recent past, many countries in various regions have addressed undocumented migrants living in their territory by providing legal status or granting amnesty to those who met certain requirements.

In 2024, Spain granted legal status to hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants. This amnesty was partly driven by Spain’s labor force shortages and the ageing of its population.

About a decade ago, Germany decided not to close its borders to refugees and accepted over 1.2 million refugees and asylum seekers, particularly those fleeing Syria’s civil war. Today, a significant proportion of those refugees and asylum seekers are employed in Germany’s workforce.

In 1986, the United States enacted an amnesty program that granted legal status to certain undocumented immigrants who had lived in the United States before January 1, 1982. This program legalized approximately 2.7 million immigrants, once again adding many workers to the country’s labor force.

In conclusion, the fundamental choice for many millions of men and women in less developed countries is between staying in their homelands and enduring a difficult life or migrating to become an undocumented migrant with a chance for a more promising future in a foreign land.

For those living comfortably in today’s wealthy developed countries, “Imagine that you see the wretched strangers, Their babies at their backs and poor luggage, Plodding to the ports and coasts for transportation, And that you sit as kings in your desires, Authority quite silent by your brawl, And you in ruff of your opinions clothed, How order should be quelled, As but to banish you, whither would you go? What country, by the nature of your error, should give you harbor?”.

Throughout much of human history, as documented and evident in countries worldwide, people have migrated to foreign lands in search of a better future. Today, many men, women and children are choosing, often reluctantly and with considerable trepidation and risks, to become undocumented migrants for this opportunity.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.