By Shreya Komar
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 14 2025 – More than four years since Covid-19 upended the world, the question of how it began remains unanswered. Did SARS-CoV-2 originate from animals to humans naturally, or did it accidentally escape from a laboratory? The World Health Organization’s latest report offers little new clarity and raises serious concerns about international cooperation and scientific transparency. On June 27, 2025, the WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) released its second report examining how the virus emerged. Despite years of work and renewed international focus, the findings have been widely criticized for failing to break new ground. Much of the blame lies in what wasn’t included. Critical data requested from China was never provided, leaving glaring holes in the investigation.

“The report adds almost nothing to what a few talented independent investigators found several years ago,” said Viscount Ridley, co-author of Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.

“That it has taken five years and 23 people to produce this ‘all but useless’ addition to the literature on the origin of Covid-19 is frankly a disgrace.”

The search for COVID-19’s origin is not simply an academic exercise. Understanding how this virus entered the human population is crucial for preventing the next pandemic. Scientists agree that future coronavirus outbreaks are not only possible but also likely. Knowing whether SARS-CoV-2 came from a wildlife market or a laboratory accident informs how humanity prepares for the next spillover.

While the SAGO report acknowledges both the zoonotic spillover and lab-leak theories as plausible, it stresses the need for further evidence. That evidence remains frustratingly out of reach.

“If China had been transparent all along, we would have been able to pinpoint what happened,” said Dr. Deborah Birx, who served as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator from 2020 to 2021.

Most virologists continue to believe that the virus has a natural origin, a view reinforced in a new documentary titled “Unmasking COVID-19’s True Origins” released by Real Stories on July 15. “The vast majority of virologists understand the virus had a natural origin,” one expert says in the film. Still, without access to early samples and full records, both theories remain scientifically viable, and political tensions continue to cloud the inquiry.

This latest WHO report comes just weeks after a major development in global health policy. On May 20, 2025, the World Health Assembly adopted the long-anticipated WHO Pandemic Agreement, a legally binding treaty intended to strengthen preparedness for future outbreaks. The agreement aims to fix the deep weaknesses revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic: sluggish coordination, delayed data sharing, and unequal access to vaccines and treatments.

The treaty commits countries to share information on emerging pathogens faster, to improve cooperation on disease surveillance, and to distribute medical tools like vaccines more equitably. It also respects national sovereignty, meaning that countries will not be forced to relinquish control of their public health decisions. Still, some provisions, particularly those concerning the sharing of pathogen samples and related benefits, remain under negotiation and are expected to be finalized in 2026.

The WHO’s first SAGO report, released on June 9, 2022, also found that both leading origin theories were possible and called for further data from Chinese authorities. The absence of transparency since then has only hardened frustration among scientists. The call for cooperation is not just about this virus but about preparing for what comes next.

Meanwhile, research vital to fighting COVID-19 and future respiratory diseases has quietly stalled. In 2024, Ohio State University was awarded USD 15 million to study new treatments for SARS-CoV-2 and long COVID. One promising clinical trial focused on a drug to treat hypoxemic respiratory failure, a leading cause of death among hospitalized patients. But halfway through, the National Institutes of Health abruptly terminated the funding.

The cancellation saved USD 500,000 but came after USD 1.5 million had already been spent. As a result, researchers were forced to abandon the trial entirely, delaying possible treatments that could have helped the nearly one million people hospitalized annually for respiratory failure caused by COVID, flu, and other infections. “This is a disaster for all of us,” said a veteran scientist at Ohio State.

“We’re all depressed and living on a knife-edge, because we know we could lose the rest of our grants any day. These people really hate us, yet all we’ve done is work hard to make people’s health better. A flu pandemic is coming for us; what’s happening in cattle is truly scary and all we have is oxygen and hope for people.”

Scientific leaders argue that the world must do the opposite of what is currently happening: invest more, not less, in pandemic-related science. Research that has languished or been underfunded must be revived and expanded. More international partnerships are needed, especially with researchers in hotspot regions such as China, to ensure the global community is better equipped to face the next threat.

As the WHO itself notes, “The work to understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2 remains unfinished.”

But without transparency, funding, and political will, it may remain that way for years to come. And if that happens, the world could be left just as vulnerable when the next pandemic emerges.
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 Catherine Wilson
SYDNEY, Aug 14 2025 – Fiji, a nation located west of Tonga in the central Pacific, is renowned for its natural beauty and beach resorts. But for 38 years it has endured a political rollercoaster of instability with four armed coups that overturned democratically elected governments and eroded human rights.

Now, following a peaceful transition of power at the last 2022 election, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and his coalition government want to deal with the past with a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to pave the way for a more peaceful and resilient future.

The commission will “facilitate open and free engagement in truth-telling regarding the political upheavals during the coup periods and promote closure and healing for the survivors,” Rabuka, who led the first coup, told parliament before supporting legislation that was passed in December last year. Now he has pledged to oversee the country’s reconciliation and return to democratic norms.

The TRC is tasked with investigating what happened during the coups d’état of 1987, 2000 and 2006, related human rights abuses and the grievances that have driven the relentless struggle for power between Fiji’s indigenous and Indo-Fijian communities. Its focus is on truth-telling and preventing a repetition of conflict; it will not prosecute perpetrators of abuses or provide reparations to victims.

“This commission aims to serve the people of Fiji to come to terms with your own history… the purpose is not to put blame and to deepen the trauma and the difficulties, but to help the people of Fiji to move on for a better future for everyone,” Dr. Marcus Brand, the TRC chairman, who has extensive experience with transitional justice initiatives and held senior roles in the United Nations and European Union, said in January.

He is joined by four Fijian commissioners, namely former High Court Judge Sekove Naqiolevu, former TV journalist Rachna Nath, former Fiji Airways Captain Rajendra Dass, and leadership expert Ana Laqeretabua.

The Fiji Parliament, Suva, Fiji. Credit: Josuamudreilagi

Florence Swamy, Executive Director of the Pacific Centre for Peacebuilding, a non-governmental organization based in the capital, Suva, told IPS that the TRC is important to building trust in the country, where many people still experience fear and anxiety about the violence they witnessed.

“As a first step, it is creating a safe space for people to talk about what happened to them,” she emphasized.

Fiji’s political turmoil has roots in the past. British colonization in the nineteenth century was accompanied by policies that were intended to strengthen indigenous land rights and prevent dispossession, rights that were reinforced in Fiji’s first constitution at Independence in 1970.

But, at the same time, Fijian society was irrevocably changed by the organized immigration of Indians to work on sugar plantations and boost development of the colony. By the mid-twentieth century, the Indo-Fijian population was larger than the indigenous community and their demands for equal rights increased.

“Fijian Indians were brought to the country, in many cases, under the false pretense of better work and wage opportunities, to develop the economy of Fiji…while indigenous Fijians were hardly consulted about such a momentous decision,” Dr. Shailendra Singh, Head of Journalism at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, told IPS.

Soon the country’s politics were mired in a fierce contest for power. And in 1987, Rabuka, then an officer in the Fiji military, led the overthrow of the first elected Indo-Fijian government under Prime Minister Timoci Bavadra.

Rabuka then became Prime Minister from 1992 to 1999 before another Indo-Fijian government, led by Mahendra Chaudhry, was voted in. This triggered a second coup instigated by nationalist George Speight in 2000 in which the government was held hostage in the nation’s parliament for weeks. Then, in 2006, Frank Bainimarama, head of the armed forces, orchestrated the third coup, which he claimed was necessary to eliminate corruption and divisive policies in the government of the day presided over by Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase. For the next eight years he oversaw an authoritarian military government until democratic elections were held again in 2014.

Fiji’s capital city Suva. Credit: Maksym Kozlenko

The coups inflicted a significant human cost. Lawlessness, inter-community violence, military and police brutality, and arrests and torture of people critical of the regime occurred increasingly after 2006.

Three years later, Amnesty International called for “an immediate halt to all human rights violations by members of the security forces and government officials, including the arbitrary arrests, intimidation and threats, and assaults and detentions of journalists, government critics and others.” It also called for the repeal of the Public Emergency Regulations imposed by the government in 2009 that led to impunity for state officials involved in abuses.

Today, the demographic balance has shifted again in the wake of an outward exodus of Indo-Fijians, who now comprise about 33 percent of Fiji’s population of about 900,000, while Melanesians constitute about 56 percent. But societal divisions remain entrenched and the past has not been forgotten.

The commission is now preparing to hold hearings over the next 18 months. And Rabuka has promised to be one of the first to testify of his involvement in the political upheavals.

I will swear to say everything, the truth… I want to continue to live with a clear conscience. I want people to know that at least they understand my reasons for doing it,” he told the media in January. But the TRC also promises to place victims and survivors at the center of its mission, claiming that “their lived experiences are vital to fostering accountability, encouraging healing and building a more united and compassionate society.”

However, there are voices of caution, too, warning of the risks of reviving memories of conflict and pain and the need to prevent this from inflaming divisions.

While experts in the country speak of the need to go beyond the TRC and tackle structural issues of inequality and disenfranchisement, which have driven community grievances, “to make everyone feel a sense of belonging and loyalty to the country of their birth,” Singh said.

In particular, “indigenous fears concerning political dominance in Fiji” and “Indo-Fijians’ feeling of being marginalized by the state and not treated as equal citizens” need to be addressed, she continued.

The Fijian armed forces, which played a decisive role in executing the coups, often justifying their actions in protecting Fiji’s internal order, are also critical to the success of the country’s return to democratic governance.

In 2023 an internal reconciliation process began, aimed at ending military intervention in the country’s politics and elections. In April, during an official meeting with the TRC, the military leadership pledged ‘to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated, and that its role as a guardian of Fiji’s constitutional order remains anchored in service to all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, background or political belief.’

After the commission has concluded its estimated two years of work, it will make recommendations in its final report for public measures and policy reforms to support the country’s social cohesion. Here Swamy emphasizes that it is crucial the recommendations do not remain on paper but are acted on.

“In terms of the recommendations, who will be responsible for them? Will they ensure that the recommendations are implemented? And what mechanisms will be put in place to make sure that institutions are held accountable?” she declared.

Looking into the future, Swamy said that she would like to see her country become one “where everyone feels safe, where there is equal opportunity… a country where everyone can realize their potential.”

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with 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({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 Chimdi Chukwukere and Gift A. Nwamadu
ABUJA, Nigeria, Aug 14 2025 – Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping the world at a speed we’ve never seen before. From helping doctors detect diseases faster to customizing education for every student, AI holds the promise of solving many real-world problems. But along with its benefits, AI carries a serious risk: discrimination.

As the global body charged with protecting human rights, the United Nations—especially the UN Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)—has a unique role to play in ensuring AI is developed and used in ways that are fair, inclusive, and just.

The United Nations must declare AI equity a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) by 2035, backed by binding audits for member states. The stakes are high. A 2024 Stanford study warns that if AI bias is left unchecked, 45 million workers could lose access to fair hiring by 2030, and 80 percent of those affected would be in developing countries.

The Promise—and Peril—of AI

At its core, AI is about using computer systems to solve those problems or perform those tasks that us to use human intelligence. Algorithms drive the systems that make these possible—sets of instructions that help machines make sense of the world and act accordingly.

But there’s a catch: algorithms are only as fair as the data they are trained on and the humans who designed them. When the data reflects existing social inequalities, or when developers overlook diverse perspectives, the result is biased AI. In other words, AI that discriminates.

Take, for example, facial recognition systems that perform poorly on people with darker skin tones. Or hiring tools that favor male candidates because they’re trained on data from past hires in male-dominated industries.

Or a LinkedIn verification system that can only verify NFC-enabled national passports that the majority of Africans don’t yet possess. These are more than technical glitches; they are human rights issues.

What the UN Has Already Said

The UN is not starting from scratch on this. The OHCHR has already sounded the alarm. In its 2021 report on the right to privacy in the digital age, the OHCHR warned that poorly designed or unregulated AI systems can lead to violations of human rights, including discrimination, loss of privacy, and threats to freedom of expression and thought.

The report asked powerful questions we must keep asking:

• ● How can we ensure that algorithms don’t replicate harmful stereotypes?
• ● Who is responsible when automated decisions go wrong?
• ● Can we teach machines our values? And if so, whose values?

These are very vital, practical questions that go to the heart of how AI will shape our societies and who will benefit or suffer as a result, and I commend the UN for conceptualizing these questions.

UNESCO, another UN agency, has also taken a bold step by adopting the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, the first global standard-setting instrument of its kind. Their Recommendation emphasizes the need for fairness, accountability, and transparency in AI development, and calls for banning AI systems that pose a threat to human rights.

This is a good start. But the real work is just beginning.

The Danger of Biased Data

A major driver of AI discrimination remains biased data. Many AI systems are trained on historical data; data that often reflects past inequalities. If a criminal justice algorithm is trained on data from a system that has historically over-policed Black communities, it will likely continue to do so.

Even well-meaning developers can fall into this trap. If the teams building AI systems lack diversity, they may not recognize when an algorithm is biased or may not consider how a tool could impact marginalized communities.

That’s why it’s not just about better data. It’s also about better processes, better people, and better safeguards.

Take the ongoing case with Workday as an example.

When AI Gets It Wrong: 2024’s Most Telling Cases

In one of the most significant AI discrimination cases moving through the courts, the plaintiff alleges that Workday’s popular artificial intelligence (AI)-based applicant recommendation system violated federal antidiscrimination laws because it had a disparate impact on job applicants based on race, age, and disability.

Judge Rita F. Lin of the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in July 2024 that Workday could be an agent of the employers using its tools, which subjects it to liability under federal anti-discrimination laws. This landmark decision means that AI vendors, not just employers, can be held directly responsible for discriminatory outcomes.

In another case, the University of Washington researchers found significant racial, gender, and intersectional bias in how three state-of-the-art large language models ranked resumes. The models favored white-associated names over equally qualified candidates with names associated with other racial groups.

In 2024, a University of Washington study investigated gender and racial bias in resume-screening AI tools. The researchers tested a large language model’s responses to identical resumes, varying only the names to suggest different racial and gender identities.

The financial impact is staggering. A 2024 DataRobot survey of over 350 companies revealed: 62% lost revenue due to AI systems that made biased decisions, proving that discriminatory AI isn’t just a moral failure—it’s a business disaster. It’s too soon for an innovation to result in such losses.

Time is running out. A 2024 Stanford study estimates that if AI bias is not addressed, 45 million workers could be pushed out of fair hiring by 2030, with 80 percent of those workers living in developing countries. The UN needs to take action now before these predictions turn into reality.

What the UN Can—and Must—Do

To prevent AI discrimination, the UN must lead by example and work with governments, tech companies, and civil society to establish global guardrails for ethical AI.

Here’s what that could look like:

• 1. Develop Clear Guidelines: The UN should push for global standards on ethical AI, building on UNESCO’s Recommendation and OHCHR’s findings. These should include rules for inclusive data collection, transparency, and human oversight.
• 2. Promote Inclusive Participation: The people building and regulating AI must reflect the diversity of the world. The UN should set up a Global South AI Equity Fund to provide resources for local experts to review and assess tools such as LinkedIn’s NFC passport verification. Working with Africa’s Smart Africa Alliance, the goal would be to create standards together that make sure AI is designed to benefit communities that have been hit hardest by biased systems. This means including voices from the Global South, women, people of color, and other underrepresented groups in AI policy conversations.
• 3. Require Human Rights Impact Assessments: Just like we assess the environmental impact of new projects, we should assess the human rights impact of new AI systems—before they are rolled out.
• 4. Hold Developers Accountable: When AI systems cause harm, there must be accountability. This includes legal remedies for those who are unfairly treated by AI. The UN should create an AI Accountability Tribunal within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to look into cases where AI systems cause discrimination.
• This tribunal should have the authority to issue penalties, such as suspending UN partnerships with companies that violate these standards, including cases like Workday.
• 5. Support Digital Literacy and Rights Education: Policy makers and citizens need to understand how AI works and how it might impact their rights. The UN can help promote digital literacy globally so that people can push back against unfair systems.

6. Mandate Intersectional Audits: AI systems should be required to go through intersectional audits that check for combined biases, such as those linked to race, disability, and gender. The UN should also provide funding to organizations to create open-source audit tools that can be used worldwide.

The Road Ahead

AI is not inherently good or bad. It is a tool, and like any tool, its impact depends on how we use it. If we are not careful, AI could lengthen problem-solving time, deepen existing inequalities, and create new forms of discrimination that are harder to detect and harder to fix.

But if we take action now—if we put human rights at the center of AI development—we can build systems that uplift, rather than exclude.

Ahead of the UN General Assembly meeting in September, the United Nations must declare AI equity a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) by 2035, backed by binding audits for member states. The time for debate is over; the era of ethical AI must begin now.

The United Nations remains the organization with the credibility, the platform, and the moral duty to lead this charge. The future of AI—and the future of human dignity—may depend on it.

Chimdi Chukwukere is a researcher, civic tech co-founder, and advocate for digital justice. His work explores the intersection of technology, governance, and social justice. He holds a Masters in Diplomacy and International Relations from Seton Hall University and has been published at Politics Today, International Policy Digest, and the Diplomatic Envoy.

Gift Nwammadu is a Mastercard Foundation Scholar at the University of Cambridge, where she is pursuing an MPhil in Public Policy with a focus on inclusive innovation, gender equity, and youth empowerment. A Youth for Sustainable Energy Fellow and Aspire Leader Fellow, she actively bridges policy and grassroots action. Her work has been published by the African Policy and Research Institute addressing systemic barriers to inclusive development.

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’);