By Zofeen Ebrahim
Sep 29 2025 – As the COP30 approaches amid darkening geopolitical clouds—marked by  rising rightwing extremism, corporate backtracking and rising militarism—Ali T. Sheikh, Pakistan’s leading expert on sustainable development and climate change, views the world’s largest diplomatic gathering with a mix of apprehension and caution.

Against this complex backdrop, understanding how COPs function—and who gets a seat at the table—becomes even more critical.

COPs (Conferences of the Parties) are decision-making bodies of international agreements, where UN agencies, intergovernmental, and non-governmental organizations participate as accredited observers. The private sector often joins government delegations but holds no official observer status.

In this fragile context, rising global military expenditure adds yet another layer of uncertainty to already strained climate finance commitments.

This increase in military expenditure, said Sheikh, will have far-reaching consequences. In July this year, the NATO countries agreed to increase their defense expenditure by 5 percent of their gross domestic product. “The axe will fall on climate finance,” feared Sheikh. “It will bring the world upside down and undo 30 years of climate cooperation since the first COP.”

After three consecutive years of oil-producing autocratic states hosting the event, it will be a notable shift to hold climate discussions in Brazil, a country where indigenous rights, forest and biodiversity conservation are tradionally stronger. “Pakistan has much to learn,” said Sheikh, a fiercely independent voice, despite serving on several present and past government task forces on climate change.

But President Donald Trump’s recent 56-minute speech at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, where he called climate change the “greatest con job ever,” renewable energy a “joke” and “too expensive,” and carbon footprint a “hoax made up by people with evil intentions,” has only worsened matters for countries like Pakistan, which ranks first among the top ten countries on GermanWatch’s  Climate Risk Index 2025 mainly because of “exceptionally high relative economic losses.”

“From the perspective of a developing country like Pakistan, statements that dismiss climate change as a ‘con job’ are not just politically charged—they are a profound denial of the lived reality of the people,” said Sheikh

“We are already on the frontline, experiencing its devastating impacts. The catastrophic floods of 2022 and 2025 that submerged one-third of our country and displaced millions are a stark reminder that climate change is not a future threat—it is an immediate and existential one.”

The economic and human cost, he added, is immense. The 2022 flood caused over USD 30 billion in damages and “set Pakistan back by years.”

Commenting on Trump’s dismissal of green energy, Sheikh said that demonizing green energy is to fundamentally misunderstand the situation for countries like Pakistan.

Men from their flooded village in Matiari, in the Sindh province of Pakistan, following the 2022 floods. Ali T. Sheikh says the climate crisis and the transition to cleaner energy are matters of national survival and economic stability. Credit: UNICEF/Asad Zaidi

A house repaired with the help of the Sindh Flood Emergency Housing Reconstruction Project. Credit: SPHFHANDS

“For us, a transition to cleaner energy and greater climate resilience is not a political choice—it is a matter of national survival and economic stability,” he explained. “It is about protecting our agricultural backbone, which feeds millions from unpredictable monsoon seasons and droughts. It is about safeguarding our urban centers and rural communities from floods and heatwaves.”

While strongly criticizing Trump’s remarks, Sheikh stressed that Pakistan’s response must move beyond protest and toward forward-looking engagement.

He said, when Pakistan goes to Brazil, it should not go there “to ask, instead offer a partnership.”

“We have a lot to offer and several successful projects to showcase, one of them being the Sindh province’s housing project for the flood affected. Even in the current floods, we were able to evacuate over 3 million people, not a mean feat.”

At the same time, he emphasized that Pakistan must clearly articulate its priorities to secure timely support from the global platform. Among them should be improved construction standards for resilient housing and infrastructure—leveraging AI.

Alongside setting clear priorities, he also urged the official delegation to adopt a more strategic approach.

“Our pavilions at COPs are often set up in a way that we end up speaking only to ourselves,” he noted. “Instead, look for opportunities to present Pakistan’s case at other countries’ or organizations’ pavilions—where the audiences are broader, more diverse, and more influential.”

He also noted that Brazil’s hosting of COP30 presented a valuable opportunity to advance regional climate cooperation—something Pakistan should actively pursue.

“All of Pakistan’s climate challenges are regional, whether it’s heatwaves, glacial lake outburst floods in the Himalayas, cloudbursts, or tropical storms in the Arabian Sea,” he said, adding that India and Pakistan must find a way to talk. “Even a modest conversation between the two neighbours could mark a critical first step.”

Referring to the Indus Waters Treaty, which India has held in abeyance since the Pahalgam attack in Indian-administered Kashmir this April, he said the shrinking space for bilateral dialogue demanded finding alternative diplomatic pathways. In this context, an international platform like COP could serve as a neutral space to initiate cooperation on transboundary water management—beginning, at the very least, with the timely and transparent exchange of monsoon rainfall data.

Shifting from diplomacy to the broader challenge of climate finance, he emphasized the need for a change in perspective.

“Rather than viewing climate investment as a burden,” he said to him, it was an “essential investment in the future, specially for countries like mine, which are striving to implement adaptation and mitigation strategies despite their limited resources”.

But the absence of major players like the US in this COP raises questions about global commitment. “It [US] wasn’t there in Azerbaijan either,” Sheikh added, referring to COP29. “That didn’t stop it from influencing and affecting negotiations behind the scenes — through its alliances and financial commitments.

The largest tropical forest in the world, which stores vast amounts of planet-warming greenhouse gases, gives the COP “a chance to redeem its past glory,” he said. At the same time, he acknowledged the growing criticism that such events have increasingly become “all about empty promises and inaction,” with the last three conferences even accused of being tainted by oil money. ‘It’s Time to Shake Things Up’—Ali T. Sheikh on the upcoming COP30

But when 50,000 or so visitors (including 150 heads of state) arrive at the gateway to the Amazon River, between November 10-21, instead of the rainforest, they will be greeted with an impoverished, crime-riddled port city of 2.5 million, where most live in informal settlements. “It may lead to diverting the global conversation not on criticizing the deniers but, instead, on a crisis of justice for the nations most impacted by a problem they did not create,” hoped Sheikh.

Admitting that there was a need to “shake things up a bit” and inject more energy, Sheikh, pointed out that COP30 faced a much higher bar.

Countries will be submitting their updated nationally determined contributions to reduce emissions while developing nations will expect stronger action on adaptation, loss and damage and mitigation and access to climate finance — issues that are most difficult to negotiate. Being held in Belem, people are expecting Brazil to show leadership on issues like deforestation, biodiversity, indigenous rights and climate justice.

Yet, delivering on these expectations may prove challenging.

With deforestation and new oil drilling happening in the country, it may be difficult for Brazil to meet that high bar. Along with geopolitical tensions, Sheikh said the finance architecture continues to remain a bottleneck. “We still have to sort out who pays, who delivers and how quickly.”

Even so, dismissing COPs as ineffective would be short-sighted.

“To say that nothing ever happens and it’s a waste of everyone’s time is a simplistic view,” says Sheikh, who has attended numerous COPs—both officially as part of Pakistan’s delegation and independently—“starting the day without breakfast, speaking or rushing to attend countless events, going from one hall to the other, standing in long queues for coffee and returning to the hotel exhausted and hungry.”

While all eyes will be focused on the host country’s role in leading negotiations, building consensus and securing climate finance commitments, Sheikh said much of the real action happens outside the plenary halls.

He was referring to the behind-the-scenes deal-making between sessions, informal pledges, the role of private sector actors and how like-minded nations and interest groups quietly build coalitions.

According to Sheikh, this off-stage diplomacy is often more dynamic and arguably more consequential than what unfolds on the official record—and far more compelling to observe from the gallery.

This interview is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

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’);  

Excerpt:

In an exclusive interview, Pakistan’s leading climate expert Ali T. Sheikh talks about the geopolitical undercurrents shaping COP30, why climate finance is under threat, and how Pakistan can reclaim its voice on the global stage.

By CIVICUS
Sep 29 2025 –  
CIVICUS discusses North Korea’s closed civic space with Hanna Song, Executive Director of the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB). Based in Seoul, South Korea, NKDB documents systematic human rights violations in North Korea through testimonies from escapees, and has built the world’s largest private database of such abuses.

Hanna Song

North Korea’s complete isolation and denial of access to independent monitors makes civil society documentation efforts the sole source of credible information on human rights abuses. However, recent funding cuts threaten to dismantle decades of work to preserve survivor testimonies and hold the regime accountable.

What North Korean human rights violations has NKDB documented?

When NKDB first began documenting violations in 2003, testimonies focused overwhelmingly on survival during the ‘Arduous March’ of the 1990s, a period of severe famine that killed hundreds of thousands of North Koreans. People described the collapse of the food distribution system, with families torn apart and entire communities struggling with famine. At the time, violations were framed through the lens of survival – the right to food and life – revealing the state’s neglect of basic needs.

Over time, as more escapees shared their experiences, it became clear these violations weren’t limited to famine periods but were part of a systematic pattern of abuse. The landmark 2014 United Nations (UN) Commission of Inquiry report solidified this understanding. It documented widespread violations, from political prison camps to enforced disappearances, persecution on political and religious grounds and torture, and concluded that crimes against humanity were – and continue to be – perpetrated by the North Korean state.

There has been little improvement in the years since. The government has tightened information restrictions, further isolating people from the outside world. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this isolation, closing borders, worsening economic hardship and reducing the already small number of defections, making testimony collection harder. Most recently, the regime’s decision to dispatch young soldiers to Russia has raised additional alarm, as it has exposed minors and young adults to forced labour and potential involvement in armed conflict.

Despite evolving circumstances, the underlying reality remains unchanged: North Korea continues to operate a system of control that denies people the most basic rights and freedoms.

How does NKDB monitor human rights violations?

North Korea permits no independent human rights monitoring or reporting within its borders. Even the UN has never been granted investigative access despite repeated requests. This complete isolation means monitoring organisations must rely on escapee accounts, making testimonies from defectors and refugees indispensable windows into a society the regime keeps hidden.

NKDB conducts secure and confidential interviews with escapees after they have resettled in South Korea. There are around 34,000 people. We document experiences ranging from arbitrary detention and torture to forced labour and religious persecution. Although the sharp decline in recent defections has reduced new testimonies, the information we collect remains critical. When combined with satellite imagery, open-source intelligence and other remote monitoring tools, these first-hand accounts allow us to identify patterns of repression and preserve survivor voices for history and accountability.

Through this work, we’ve built the largest private database on North Korean human rights abuses, containing over 88,000 documented cases based on interviews with more than 20,000 people. This database forms the foundation for UN reports, government policy and international advocacy, and lays the groundwork for future transitional justice processes.

But we don’t stop at documentation. We have in-house counsellors and social welfare workers who provide psychosocial support to escapees after they share their testimonies. For many, recounting traumatic experiences is retraumatising. We don’t abandon them after the interview process, but provide them ongoing counselling and practical support to help them process their experiences, heal and rebuild their lives. In this way we have preserved critical evidence while preserving the dignity and wellbeing of those who entrust us with their stories.

How has civil society documentation influenced policy and international awareness?

Civil society documentation has profoundly influenced international attention and responses to North Korea’s human rights situation. For instance, NKDB’s research on overseas workers has highlighted the critical intersection between security and human rights. While the focus is often on sanctions or weapons proliferation, our work ensures North Korean people’s rights aren’t forgotten, even amid emerging Russia-North Korea ties.

By documenting how North Korean workers are exploited abroad – through wage confiscation, movement restrictions and state surveillance – we provide evidence for human rights-based policy approaches. In a context as closed as North Korea, civil society testimonies and evidence form the foundation for major human rights reports by governments, UN special rapporteurs and international bodies. Without this documentation, there would simply be no reliable record of the scale, scope or persistence of human rights abuses in North Korea. Our work preserves truth, amplifies the voices of survivors and keeps the international community accountable to its responsibility to act.

What has been the impact of recent US funding cuts?

US withdrawal has caused a huge crisis. For two decades, the USA played a unique role in sustaining the global movement for truth, justice and accountability for the people of North Korea. It was the only government that provided consistent and large-scale support for documenting human rights abuses in North Korea. In the absence of alternative funding, this support enabled much of the North Korean human rights movement to exist. Now that movement is facing its greatest crisis since it began in the 1990s.

For escapees who depend on civil society organisations (CSOs) for therapy, counselling and reintegration support, this freeze has meant a loss of essential services. It has also weakened the ability of survivor empowerment groups and information dissemination organisations to train defectors as advocates, challenge the regime’s information blockade and bring credible evidence to the international community. In our case, the suspension of funding threatens the infrastructure we have built since 2003.

The impact is also symbolic: it sends North Korean escapees and victims who have risked everything to tell their stories the chilling message that their voices don’t matter.

Impacts go far beyond civil society. Human rights documentation challenges the secrecy, denial and impunity on which authoritarian regimes thrive. It provides credible evidence that informs international pressure, prevents the regime rewriting history and generates the intelligence needed to understand the regime’s inner dynamics in the absence of conventional diplomacy. All that infrastructure –databases, testimonies, training programmes and survivor networks — is at risk of being dismantled.

How are you adapting and finding alternative resources?

Faced with declining funding and challenging conditions, NKDB and other CSOs have adopted multiple adaptation strategies. Collaboration is central: by working together with other CSOs, academic institutions and advocacy groups, we pool expertise, share methodologies and sustain initiatives despite disruptions.

We’ve also actively engaged with the public to build grassroots support. Our public exhibition in Seoul makes North Korean escapee stories tangible for residents and international tourists. By translating statistics into human-centred experiences, the exhibition reminds visitors of the issue’s urgency while encouraging broader community engagement and cultivating supporters who can advocate and contribute in the long term.

What urgent actions should the international community take?

Given these critical realities, the international community must prioritise restoration and expansion of funding for advocacy, documentation and research. Adequate support ensures CSOs maintain capacity, pursue high-impact initiatives and respond to emerging crises like young soldiers’ deployment to Russia.

Beyond funding, capacity development support is crucial, including training in digital security and evidence verification. The international community must facilitate access to decision-making forums where civil society findings directly inform policymaking through UN bodies and diplomatic engagements.

Critically, human rights and security are deeply intertwined. Documentation provides real-time intelligence on North Korea’s internal dynamics, essential for informed diplomacy. The international community should ensure human rights remain central in broader diplomatic efforts.

Finally, cross-border collaboration among CSOs, governments and academic institutions must be strengthened. This amplifies credible evidence while sustaining networks capable of long-term monitoring. It ensures the human rights ecosystem survives political uncertainty and funding disruptions. To prevent years of progress unravelling, the international community must act decisively, strategically and urgently.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Instagram

SEE ALSO
North Korea: ‘Since Kim Jong-un came to power, the surveillance and security system has increased dramatically’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Bada Nam 18.Oct.2023
North Korea: ‘It is time for the international community to adopt a ‘human rights up front’ approach’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Greg Scarlatoiu 06.Oct.2023
North Korea: ‘Many women escape to experience the freedoms they are denied’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Kyeong Min Shin 07.Nov.2022

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 Shihana Mohamed
NEW YORK, Sep 29 2025 – In her opening statement, Annalena Baerbock (Germany), President of the 80th UN General Assembly, only the fifth female to hold this position over 80 years, stated, “Our future as an institution will also be shaped by the selection of the next Secretary-General. And here we must pause and reflect. In nearly eighty years, this Organization has never chosen a woman for that role. One might wonder how out of four billion potential candidates, there could not be found a single one. … Like 80 years ago, we are standing at a crossroads.”

As the United Nations approaches its next appointment of a Secretary-General in 2026, the world is rallying behind a long-overdue milestone: the possibility of a woman leading the UN for the first time in its 80-year history. The momentum is undeniable.

Civil society campaigns like “1 for 8 Billion” are gaining traction, and 92 Member States have expressed strong support for a woman Secretary-General, with 28 of them formally called for female candidates. This is more than a symbolic gesture—it is a chance to reshape global leadership.

This moment is not just politically significant — it is foundational. The UN Charter, adopted in 1945, enshrines gender equality at its core, pledging “faith in fundamental human rights… and the equal rights of men and women.” That promise must now be fulfilled not only in principle but in practice.

But as the spotlight intensifies on the quest for a female Secretary-General, another critical issue risks fading into the shadows: the dilution of the UN Women mandate. This paradox must be addressed head-on. Because, while breaking the glass ceiling at the top is vital, it means little if the institution responsible for advancing women’s rights across the globe is quietly losing its power.

Empowering Women globally: UN Women’s Unique Mandate

The creation of UN Women was the culmination of years of negotiations among Member States and advocacy by the global women’s movement. In July 2010, the UN General Assembly unanimously voted to establish a new, dynamic UN Entity – UN Women – to strengthen, accelerate, and elevate the UN’s efforts in promoting women’s empowerment and gender equality. Then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the decision, calling it “a truly watershed day”.

UN Women was formed by consolidating four UN entities dedicated to gender equality: the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues (OSAGI), and the UN International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (UN-INSTRAW).

UN Women was designed to be a force multiplier—mainstreaming women’s rights across peace building, development, and human rights.

Over 15 years, UN Women has brought unmatched expertise and coordination to the global stage—supporting inclusive policies, empowering grassroots movements, and embedding gender equality across UN initiatives. From ending gender-based violence to advancing women’s leadership, it has become a driving force for transformative change.

Yet today, it faces chronic underfunding, limited political influence, and a shrinking mandate. In many cases, it is treated as a symbolic entity rather than a strategic one.

Merging at a Cost: Diluting UN Women’s Mandate

Now, a new proposal within the broader UN80 reform agenda threatens to further dilute the impact of UN Women: the potential merger of UN Women with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

While both agencies work on overlapping issues, particularly around reproductive health and women’s rights, their mandates are distinct. UN Women focuses on systemic change, policy advocacy, and institutional reform towards advancing the status of women and girls across the world. UNFPA, by contrast, centers on sexual and reproductive health and population dynamics.

A merger could offer some operational benefits such as streamlined programming, reduced administrative overhead, and stronger coordination in areas like gender-based violence. It might even amplify advocacy efforts where reproductive health and women’s rights intersect. But these gains come with serious risks and irreversible consequences.

This merger proposal has raised concerns among civil society groups and gender equality advocates like me, who fear that merging UN Women with a more service-oriented agency like UNFPA could dilute its policy leadership and weaken its systemic mandate.

If the merger is rushed or imposed from the top, decades of institutional knowledge, technical expertise, and trusted partnerships— built separately by UN Women and UNFPA—could be lost. It risks sidelining UN Women’s policy leadership, weakening its accountability role, and shifting resources from structural change to service delivery. In short, it could turn a transformative agenda into a technocratic one.

Consolidating mandates could increase political vulnerability, leaving contentious issues like abortion and comprehensive sexuality education more exposed to donor-driven political interference and budget cuts.

Women-led organizations, already under strain from funding challenges, could face further instability. Additionally, while aimed at improving efficiency, the merger risks increasing bureaucracy and coordination costs.

This is not just an internal UN issue — it is a global one. Women’s rights are foundational to solving the world’s most pressing challenges, from climate change to conflict resolution.

Championing a female Secretary-General while weakening UN Women sends a dangerous message: that representation at the top is enough, even when institutions lack the power to drive real change.

Beyond Rhetoric: Toward Real Change

At the opening of the 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women in March 2025, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres acknowledged the urgency of the moment, warning: “Women’s rights are under siege. The poison of patriarchy is back—and it is back with a vengeance.

Slamming the brakes on action; tearing-up progress; and mutating into new and dangerous forms. But there is an antidote. That antidote is action. Now is the time for those of us who care about equality for women and girls to stand up and to speak out.”

This call to action should not be ignored. The antidote is not only symbolic leadership—it is institutional strength. To ensure that the UN’s commitment to women’s rights is not reduced to symbolism, the following steps are essential:

Safeguard UN Women’s Autonomy

Any restructuring must preserve UN Women’s distinct mandate. Mergers that dilute its policy leadership or reduce its visibility must be rejected. Women’s empowerment is not a subset of health—it is a global priority.

Strengthen Funding and Influence: Member States must increase core funding for UN Women and support its integration across all UN agencies. Political backing must match rhetorical support.

Institutionalize Feminist Leadership: The next Secretary-General—especially if she is a woman, as we strongly hope—must champion feminist principles in practice. That means elevating UN Women, embedding gender analysis across UN operations, securing its resources, and holding the system accountable for tangible results.

Mobilize Civil Society: Feminist movements and grassroots organizations must remain vigilant to ensure that women’s empowerment is not reduced to optics or absorbed into narrower agendas. They are the watchdogs and visionaries of global gender justice. Their voices must shape reform—not be sidelined by it.

Demand Transparency in Reform: The UN80 Task Force and other reform bodies must engage openly with stakeholders. Decisions affecting UN Women’s future must be transparent, inclusive, and grounded in human rights—not just cost-efficiency.

The UN was founded on the promise of dignity and equality for all. That promise cannot be fulfilled by elevating one woman while sidelining the institution meant to empower millions.

The appointment of a female Secretary-General would be historic — but it must be matched by a commitment to strengthen UN Women. Its mandate must be protected, not merged, or diluted.

UN Women must lead. It must set the agenda, hold agencies accountable, and speak with authority and conviction for women and girls worldwide. The UN has a choice: treat women’s empowerment as transformative—or reduce it to a footnote.

Headlines make history visible. Institutions make it real. Now is the time to act. UN Women must be empowered.

Shihana Mohamed, a Sri Lankan national, is a founding member and Coordinator of the United Nations Asia Network for Diversity and Inclusion (UN-ANDI) and a US Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project and Equality Now on Advancing the Rights of Women and Girls. She is a dedicated human rights activist and a strong advocate for gender equality and the advancement of women.

The author expresses her views in this article in an entirely unofficial, private, and personal capacity. These views do not reflect those of any organization.

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’);