By Ben Malor
NEW YORK, Sep 30 2025 – DANGER – WARNING – ALARM: Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Maria Ressa is warning that lies are being weaponized deliberately to manipulate people around the world. Big, profit-oriented, and technology-enabled companies are now disregarding or trampling over the sanctity and veracity of facts and information to speed up disinformation, (using AI) in ways that quickly erase truth and leave people manipulated.

Even democratic elections are getting manipulated to the extent that some 72 per cent of the world is now living under illiberal or authoritarian regimes that have been “democratically” elected. Journalism, fact-checking, and public trust are under attack from this deliberate subversion of information integrity.

Enjoy this interview I conducted with Ms Ressa, (produced, directed and edited by my UN News and Media colleagues, Paulina Kubiak and Alban Mendes De Leon).

Ben Malor is the Chief Editor, UN Dailies, at UN News.

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 Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 30 2025 – Is the unpredictable Trump administration toying with the idea of resuming nuclear tests?

The New York times reported April 10 that some of Trump’s senior advisers had proposed the resumption of “test denotations for the sake of national security”. The last such US explosion took place in 1992.

But former US Representative Brandon Williams, (Republican-New York), the new administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which plays an integral role in the nation’s $1.7 trillion nuclear weapons modernization effort, testified last April before the Senate Armed Services Committee he would not recommend the re-start of nuclear weapons testing.

The last confirmed full-scale nuclear explosive test was conducted by North Korea in September 2017—with perhaps more to come.

Speaking at a meeting, September 26, on “the international day for the total elimination of nuclear weapons,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned “nuclear testing threats are returning, while nuclear saber rattling is louder than in past decades.”

Hard-won progress – reductions in arsenals, the cessation of testing – these are being undone before our eyes. We are sleepwalking into a new nuclear arms race, Guterres warned,

“I call on every State to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, ending once and for all and for all the dark legacy of nuclear tests.

And every State must support the victims of nuclear use and testing – and confront the enduring harm: poisoned lands, chronic illness, and lasting trauma” declared Guterres.

Meanwhile, the devastating after-effects of past nuclear tests from a bygone era are still lingering.

During the British nuclear weapons tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963, Indigenous voices were systematically ignored, resulting in severe health and cultural devastation, according to a published report.

Through decades of relentless campaigning, survivors and their descendants have forced a belated official acknowledgement of the harm caused. However, the fight for full justice continues to this day, with the voices of many still unheard.

For years, both governments dismissed or covered up the health dangers associated with the tests, despite Aboriginal communities reporting severe health issues like rashes, blindness, and cancers. A 1956 letter from an Australian government scientist mocked a patrol officer for prioritizing the safety of a “handful of natives” over the British Commonwealth.

Despite state-sanctioned ignorance, Aboriginal survivors and their advocates refused to be silenced, ensuring their experiences were recognized.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director pro-tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS a resumption of nuclear weapon testing by the United States will most likely lead other countries like Russia, China, India, and North Korea to test their nuclear weapons.

In turn, this will increase the likelihood of an accelerated nuclear arms race, and a greater likelihood of nuclear weapons being used somewhere in the world with catastrophic consequences.

But even without nuclear war, the people who live close to these test sites, which in many cases have included indigenous communities, will suffer from exposure to radioactive contamination and other environmental effects.

The only countervailing force that one can place some hope on under these circumstances is the peace and disarmament movement, that might be able to catalyze public opposition to testing, declared Dr Ramana.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS: It is somewhat reassuring that the new head of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, Brandon Williams, during his confirmation hearings said he would advise against resuming explosive nuclear tests.

“However, the second Trump regime’s likely nuclear policy is spelled out in a manifesto by Project 2025, which proposes that a second Trump administration prioritize nuclear weapons programs over other security programs, accelerate the development and production of all nuclear weapons programs, increase funding for the development and production of new and modernized nuclear warheads, and prepare to test new nuclear weapons,” she pointed out.

Separately, Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security advisor during his first term, wrote in Foreign Affairs, that in order to counter China and Russia’s continued investments in their nuclear arsenals, the U.S. should resume nuclear testing.

“And we must keep in mind that Russell Vought, one of the architects and co-authors of Project 2025, is now the Director of the powerful Office of Management and Budget,” said Cabasso.

Since 1945, she said, there have been 2,056 nuclear weapons tests by at least eight countries. Most of these tests have been conducted on the lands of indigenous and colonized people.

The United States conducted 1,030 of those tests in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground, while the USSR carried out 715 nuclear test detonations.

“Not only did these nuclear test explosions fuel the development and spread of nuclear weapons, but hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered—and continue to suffer—from illnesses directly related to the radioactive fallout from nuclear detonations in the United States, islands in the Pacific, in Australia, China, Algeria, across Russia, in Kazakhstan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and elsewhere,” said Cabasso.

According to an AI extract: Some of the major nuclear test sites include:

• Nevada Test Site, USA: A primary location for U.S. atmospheric and underground testing for over 40 years. Fallout from atmospheric tests was carried by wind over vast downwind areas.

• Pacific Proving Grounds: A U.S. site in the Marshall Islands where numerous high-yield tests, including the 1954 Castle Bravo shot, caused extensive radioactive contamination.

• Semipalatinsk Test Site, Kazakhstan: A major Soviet test site where 456 tests exposed as many as one million people to radiation, leading to high rates of cancer and birth defects.

• Novaya Zemlya, Russia: The Soviet Union’s test site for the largest nuclear explosion in history, the Tsar Bomba, in 1961.

• Lop Nor, China: The location for all of China’s nuclear tests.

• Reggane and Ekker, Algeria; Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls, French Polynesia: French nuclear test sites.

• Maralinga, Emu Field, and Montebello, Australia: British test sites.

Environmental and health effects include:

• Global radioactive fallout: Atmospheric testing spread radioactive particles, such as iodine-131, cesium-137, and strontium-90, globally. This significantly increased atmospheric radioactivity, which peaked in 1963.

• Increased cancer rates: Long-term exposure to radioactive fallout has been linked to increased rates of various cancers, including thyroid cancer, leukemia, and other solid tumors. The highest risks are often seen in communities living downwind of test sites and in those exposed during childhood.

• Acute radiation sickness: Individuals near test sites who were exposed to high levels of radiation suffered from immediate symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and hair loss.

• Soil and water contamination: Radioactive particles can contaminate soil, water, and air for decades, entering the food chain and posing long-term risks.

• Disruption of ecosystems: Radioactive fallout can cause genetic mutations and death in animal populations, leading to wider ecological disruption.

• Psychological impact: Survivors and affected communities have also experienced profound psychological trauma, anxiety, and fear.

• Downwinder compensation: In the U.S., the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was established in 1990 to provide compensation to “Downwinders” who contracted specific cancers and diseases from fallout exposure from the Nevada Test Site.

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 Jesselina Rana
NEW YORK, Sep 30 2025 – Last week, the United Nations (UN) marked its 80th anniversary against the backdrop of an unprecedented global crisis. With the highest number of active conflicts since 1946, trust in multilateralism is faltering.

Yet the UN’s founding vision, rooted in the principle of ‘We the Peoples,’ remains as urgent as ever; affirming that peace, human rights, and development cannot be achieved by governments alone. From the very beginning, civil society has been integral to this vision, a role formally recognised in Article 71 of the UN Charter, which underscores the value of NGOs in shaping international agendas.

“Article71: The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organisations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international organisations and, where appropriate, with national organisations after consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned.”

Yet despite this important provision, multilateral processes have increasingly become state-centric, turning global governance into a top-down exercise detached from the people it is meant to serve.

Excluding civil society and global citizens from policy-making not only produces laws and policies out of touch with local needs but also undermines community-driven practices that are often best placed to identify challenges and craft solutions.

At worst, silencing those who hold governments accountable empowers authoritarian regimes to flout international law, restrict human rights, and erode the rules-based international order. While the UN may recognise the role of civil society in principle, why does practice remain so distant from this commitment?

One area for reflection is the extent to which international spaces mirror national realities. Many see the multilateral system as an all-powerful body safeguarding humanity from the scourge of war. In reality it is a regrouping of national actors, the same ones responsible for shrinking civic space at home.

According to the CIVICUS Monitor, more than 70 percent of the global population lives in countries where freedoms of expression, association, and assembly are severely restricted. For many human rights defenders (HRDs), even raising their voices at the UN has led to reprisals at home, including surveillance and imprisonment.

By privileging repressive states and sidelining accountability actors, multilateral institutions replicate domestic restrictions globally, leaving abuses unchecked and defenders excluded.

A second challenge is how money dictates priorities. The collapse of the global aid sector has forced many to confront this reality again. The UN is funded largely by member states through mandatory and voluntary contributions. Over time, earmarking of funds and shifting UN priorities have led to chronic underinvestment in human rights.

Today, the human rights pillar receives just five percent of the UN’s regular budget, and with the upcoming UN80 budget cuts, this already underfunded area faces further risk. When human rights are deprioritised through budget cuts and underfunding, the message to member states is clear- resources and political will are better placed elsewhere. This dynamic discourages collaboration with civil society and reinforces their marginalisation.

A third challenge is the unequal access granted to civil society at UN headquarters. Negotiation rooms are closed to most organisations, and draft resolutions are often circulated only among those with close ties to diplomats, leaving others without privileged access unable to provide timely input. Meaningful participation is impossible without timely information.

During high-level weeks in New York, even side event spaces can only be booked through a member state, effectively controlling who speaks and what is discussed. Major processes such as the Summit of the Future or Financing for Development rarely engage civil society at the national level in time to influence outcomes.

Even when hundreds of civil society organisations submit feedback on policy documents, there is little transparency on how their contributions are used. These opaque practices erode trust and leave committed groups questioning whether investing their scarce time and resources in multilateral spaces is worthwhile.

Despite these glaring challenges, which have turned the system into “we the member states,” the UN is not without tools to ensure it is inclusive of the people it was created to serve. First, existing tools such as the UN Guidance Note on the Promotion and Protection of Civic Space provide a clear framework for action through the “three P’s”: participation, protection, and promotion. To move this document beyond paper, the task force assigned to implement it must act urgently.

Accreditation processes may get civil society past the security desk after years of hurdles, but it does not guarantee meaningful engagement. What matters in the long run is meaningful participation across the UN system, not just at headquarters, in order to achieve political and practical impact.

Second, a focus on accountable leadership. When funding is slashed and political will abandoned, the UN inadvertently strengthens authoritarian regimes, enabling them to silence voices, restrict rights, and openly flout international law. This erosion of support for human rights contributes to shrinking civic freedoms worldwide and leaves many losing trust in the multilateral system.

In this context, civil society engagement is not optional, it is key to steering the UN’s future leadership toward defending human rights and global freedoms.

With conversations on the next Secretary-General already gaining momentum, civil society’s role must be a central test for every candidate. Town halls with nominees should be used to demand clear commitments to meaningful participation of civil society, as well as sustained funding and protection for human rights programmes.

This is not about tokenistic symbolism; meaningful civil society engagement is a fundamental condition for development progress, the protection of human rights, and the survival of a rules-based international order- including multilateral organisations like the UN.

As the UN enters its ninth decade, its relevance depends on accountability to the people, not just the states. Civil society must be recognized as independent partners, with their constructive input embedded across decision-making, financing, and oversight. Only by centering people and their rights can the UN restore trust, strengthen multilateralism, and truly fulfill its founding promise: a world grounded in peace, development, and human rights.

Jesselina Rana, a human rights lawyer, is the UN Advisor at CIVICUS’ New York Hub.

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’);  

By Orlando Milesi
SAN ANTONIO, Chile, Sep 30 2025 – The port of San Antonio, Chile’s main port, is promoting a historic and sustainable expansion with its own investment and that of international consortiums, aiming to improve its current ninth place among the largest and busiest ports in Latin America.

The port, located in the Valparaíso region, 110 kilometers north of Santiago and in the municipality of the same name, San Antonio, is state-owned and currently operates with five concessions granted to private operators, receiving container ships carrying millions of products.

In 2024, it handled 23 million tons of import and export goods worth US$42.766 billion. It received 1,024 ships and 1.8 million TEUs, the unit of cargo in maritime transport equivalent to the capacity of a standard 20-foot container.“The most important thing is for the project to be inaugurated when demand requires it. We trust that, regardless of the government that comes in from next March, this project will follow the desired schedule. We are working as quickly as possible”–Juan Carlos Muñoz

For several years now, San Antonio’s cargo movement has tripled that of the historic port of Valparaiso, located 100 kilometers to the north, and serves an area stretching from the regions of Coquimbo, north of Valparaiso, to Maule, south of the Santiago metropolitan region.

This is a strip of land where 63% of Chile’s 19.7 million people live and where 59% of the gross domestic product (GDP) of this long South American country, which narrows between the Andes mountain range and the Pacific Ocean, is produced.

Chile has free trade agreements with 34 countries or trading blocs, representing 88% of global GDP. In 2024, its exports reached a record US$100.163 billion, and imports amounted to US$84.155 billion.

The San Antonio Outer Port project, which represents a major expansion of the current port, is key to strengthening international openness and solidifying connections with the main routes to and from Asia, the Americas, and Europe.

Copper, fruits, wine, salmon, fruit pulp, and other products are shipped out through San Antonio, while grains, vehicles, machinery, technological equipment, and chemicals are brought in.

“When you project Chile’s cargo movement, especially in the central macro-zone, you realize that by the years 2035-2036, the installed capacity in San Antonio and Valparaiso will be exceeded. Therefore, we must work on a port expansion because otherwise, we will have significant congestion of trucks and ships,” explained the Minister of Transport and Telecommunications, Juan Carlos Muñoz, to IPS.

Such congestion, he added, “is an inefficiency we cannot afford because it would significantly affect the country’s competitiveness.”

The Outer Port is a strategic and emblematic project for Chile’s development, according to Muñoz.

The major expansion includes two new semi-automated terminals, 1,730 meters long and 450 meters wide, with eight berthing fronts.

By 2036, when the expansion is fully operational, eight state-of-the-art 400-meter-long container ships will be able to dock simultaneously, and move six million containers annually. This capacity will double the current one.

San Antonio was chosen as the most suitable location for this unprecedented port expansion.

Currently, the project is progressing through environmental approval and a bidding process for the breakwater, along with updates to the infrastructure for protecting its docks from winds and waves—a fundamental aspect for the installation of concessionaires for the next 30 years.

Regarding the potential impact of the November presidential elections, Muñoz reminded IPS that “in this project, we are taking the baton from those who came before. And we plan to hand it over improved and advanced to those who come next, regardless of political color.”

“The most important thing is for the project to be inaugurated when demand requires it. We trust that, regardless of the government that comes, this project will follow the desired schedule. We are working as quickly as possible,” he explained.

Map showing the projected location of the Outer Port of the port of San Antonio, the main port in Chile, on the central coast of the Pacific Ocean. The expansion will almost triple its current capacity and will be fully operational in 2036. Credit: Courtesy of the San Antonio port

Key Definitions

The Exterior Port includes the construction of an L-shaped breakwater nearly four kilometers long. Two kilometers will extend out to sea, and the other two will follow the coastline.

The total investment will be US$4.45 billion, of which $1.95 billion will be contributed by the state-owned San Antonio Port Company and US$2.5 billion by the private sector.

The transfer capacity will be expanded to six million TEUs per year.

In March, the project obtained a US$150 million credit from the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean, CAF, to finance enabling works such as the construction of the breakwater and to implement environmental compensation measures.

On Wednesday, September 24, Eduardo Abedrapo, president of the San Antonio port, confirmed during a visit to the port facilities by international journalists, including IPS, that two other consortia were prequalified, raising the number of bids for the initial works to five.

The tender process will close the receipt of bids in January 2026 and will award the contracts two months later.

The first contracts are for building the breakwater, carrying out the dredging, and related works.

The preliminary works are new access roads and a railway station to transport project construction material. Next comes the construction of the breakwater and the deep dredging (18.5 meters) of the harbor basin.

The breakwater will be 1,230 meters facing the sea and 2,700 meters extending inland and requires 16 million cubic meters of rock.

The companies prequalified so far are Van Oord (Netherlands), Jan de Nul (Belgium), China Harbour Engineering Company CHEC (China), Acciona-Deme (Spain-Belgium), and Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. (South Korea).

The container ship Valentina, 366 meters long, docked at pier 1 of the Chilean port of San Antonio in the middle of loading operations. Less than 10 minutes pass from when the truck arrives alongside the ship until it leaves the port having delivered the container. Credit: Orlando Milesi / IPS

Environmental Sustainability

The project aims to ensure port operational quality through execution that is sustainable with the social and environmental surroundings.

“Chile has a very sophisticated and complex environmental assessment system. Obviously, these works have a set of impacts in their construction and operation phases,” Abedrapo told IPS.

He emphasized that “the port will be 100% electric. From the point of view of particulate matter pollution, it will be the opposite, as it will strongly contribute to decarbonization.”

However, he admitted that a port emits noise and has other impacts on the marine ecosystem or life in the surrounding areas.

He explained that as a result of meetings with the San Antonio municipality and social and environmental organizations, it was decided to protect two water bodies located in the new port facility by declaring them urban wetlands. They had emerged naturally 50 years after the original port was established in 1912.

“This is a demonstration of the company’s commitment to safeguarding biodiversity in the area and coastal land. It means that major infrastructure developments can be perfectly compatible and harmonized with the safeguarding and improvement of environmental conditions,” he asserted.

The removal of 16 million rocks to build the breakwater, for example, includes their reuse. Part of the environmental efficiency involves using the removed material to fill in other platforms.

Trucks move among dozens of already unloaded containers that are waiting for customs procedures before being sent to their destination. In 2024, 23 million tons of products passed through the Chilean port of San Antonio. Credit: Orlando Milesi / IPS

Progress of the Major Expansion

The environmental qualification resolution for the Outer Port is still being processed, awaiting technical reports from the involved public services and the conclusion of a citizen consultation.

Abedrapo believes that in October 2025 the environmental assessment service will issue a report that must be responded to by those responsible for the San Antonio port.

“The environmental assessment service could, towards the first half of next year, make a decision regarding the environmental qualification resolution for the project,” he estimated.

Abedrapo maintains that the Outer Port will ensure the sustainability and modernization of Chile’s public port infrastructure with high levels of efficiency and modern equipment.

He highlights direct benefits for Chilean foreign trade, lower-cost imported goods, and a competitive logistics chain.

Meanwhile, in the operation of the current port, the improvement of the breakwater, built last century, has been completed with the placement of 5,100 cubic meters of concrete and 3,400 cubic meters of prefabricated blocks. The parapet wall was raised from 10.6 to 11 meters.

Ten million dollars were invested to increase the safety of port operations relating the effects of climate change.

The work, which began last May, also included the installation of 2,300 cubic meters of large-tonnage rockfill.

The Chancay Port in Peru

Minister Muñoz dismissed any concerns about potential competition with the port of Chancay in Peru, funded by China in Chile’s northern neighbor and located near Lima.

“Rather than generating competition between different ports and countries, there is instead complementarity. It is good for us that Peru has ports of this level because there are ships that visit several ports to make a route along a certain coastline attractive,” he claimed.

He insisted that the demand projections in Chile require investing in a large-scale port that anticipates them.

He added that Chile can also attract cargo from other South American nations through the proposed bioceanic corridors.

“The existence of other ports of similar scale in other countries on the Pacific coast means that shipping lines visiting this part of the world can have more than one port of call. Ports like those being developed by our brother country Peru are an attractive complement to the project we are carrying out here, in San Antonio,” he concluded.