By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 12 2025 – The US took another step backward –to break ranks with the United Nations– when it voted against a draft resolution calling for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The negative vote followed an announcement by President Trump last month that the US plans to resume nuclear testing after a 33-year hiatus. The US stood alone on the UN vote, which was supported by almost all member States in the General Assembly’s First Committee.

The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority: with 168 votes in favor, with one against (United States) and 3 abstentions (India, Mauritius, Syria).

During Trump’s first term, the US abstained on the vote. And in other years they had been voting in favour.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, which monitors and analyzes U.S. nuclear weapons programs and policies, told IPS the chaos and uncertainty arose from Trump’s factually-challenged social media post that “because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”

The U.S. government’s first ever “No” vote, on the annual UN resolution in support of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), raises further troubling questions about U.S. intentions.

Trump did not specify whether he meant explosive nuclear testing, missile tests, or something else. Russia and China are not conducting explosive nuclear tests, so the U.S. has no basis to respond in kind. They are conducting missile tests, but so is the United States, Cabasso pointed out.

In fact, she said, the U.S. conducted a “routine” test of an unarmed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile on November 5. The Department of Defense (now, Department of War) is responsible for missile tests, but it is the Department of Energy that is responsible for preparation for explosive nuclear testing.

Trump’s announcement was followed by mixed signals.

On November 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright sought to explain Trump’s post when he told Fox News “I think the tests we’re talking about right now are system tests. These are not nuclear explosions. These are what we call non-critical explosions.”

The headline in a New York Times article was dead on target: Trump pushes Tests with a Nuclear Bang: A Top Aide Says Non-nuclear”.

The waters were further muddied, said Cabasso, by Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations in an interview with 60 Minutes (recorded October 31 but aired November 2) that Russia and China have been secretly conducting explosive nuclear tests deep underground.

In a written statement explaining its General Assembly vote, the U.S. – the only country to cast a No vote – stated, “The United States voted No…. because several paragraphs are inconsistent with U.S. policy or are undergoing policy review…. The United States is not currently pursuing CTBT ratification and therefore cannot support calls for ratification and entry into force.”

Of the other nuclear-armed states, the Russian Federation, China, France, United Kingdom, Israel, and Pakistan voted Yes. India abstained, and North Korea did not vote. Thus, the United States distinguished itself as a “rogue” nuclear armed State.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute, told IPS “calling the statement dumb and dumber does not further the argument that such a resumption of nuclear weapons testing would be contrary to promises made to induce indefinite extension of the NPT, justify further more sophisticated weapons developments in violation of the good faith duties to pursue disarmament under the NPT, end the US advantage of knowing more because it has tested more, upgrade the salience of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons as legitimate tools of communication amongst nations, lead to increased spending on developing weapons which destroy the user as well as adversaries if used, and stimulate greater international fear and instability.“

“We critically need to develop trust and cooperation to, inter alia, protect the oceans and the climate, end the scourge of corruption stealing between two and four trillion from the world’s productive economies, stop the creation and production of new and even more dangerous weapons as we amplify adversity, ignore preparation for the inevitable next pandemic, eliminate poverty and generally pursue the sanity of human security rather than perpetual instability and the dangerous belief that by madness, mistakes by machines or humans, or design we will not lead ourselves into destroying civilization through the use of these horrific devices,” he said.

Elaborating further, Cabasso pointed out that under the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when it has signed the treaty.

The United States, Russia and China have all signed but not ratified the CTBT. Russia withdrew its ratification in 2023 to maintain parity with the U.S. The three countries moratoria on nuclear explosive testing until now are consistent with the intent of the CTBT, but Trump’s statements and the U.S. vote in the General Assembly call this commitment into question.

Indicating just how dangerous and uncertain this situation is, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in response, has ordered officials to draft proposals for a possible test of nuclear weapons.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov was quoted in TASS, saying “In order to come to a conclusion about the advisability of beginning preparations for such tests, it will take exactly as much time as it takes for us to fully understand the intentions of the United States of America.”

“As we continue to advocate for nuclear risk reduction and the global elimination of nuclear weapons”, said Cabasso, “we must remain vigilant that the option of explosive nuclear weapons testing remains off the table”.

The United States should reverse course, commit to a permanent cessation of explosive nuclear weapons testing, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and invite other nuclear armed states to follow suit. This would be a huge contribution to long term prospects for international peace and security, she declared.

According to the Washington-based Arms Control Association (ACA), if the United States resumes its nuclear testing, other countries, such as Russia, North Korea, and perhaps China, will likely follow suit, escalating the nuclear arms race, and increasing global tensions.

In response to Trump’s rhetoric, Representative. Dina Titus (Democrat-Nevada.) has introduced the Renewing Efforts to Suspend Testing and Reinforce Arms Control Initiatives Now (RESTRAIN) Act (H.R. 5894) which creates “a prohibition of explosive nuclear testing while simultaneously preventing any funding from going toward the Trump Administration’s effort to conduct explosive nuclear tests.”

And Senator Ed Markey (Democrat-Massachusetts) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate as the No Nuclear Testing Act (S. 3090) to block renewed testing and has called on the Senate to approve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In its appeal, ACA says: “We encourage you to reach out to your Member of Congress this week and tell them to block the resumption of nuclear explosive testing including by co-sponsoring the “RESTRAIN Act” and “No Nuclear Testing Act.”

ACA has been at the forefront of the effort to halt nuclear weapons testing for decades.

“Since Trump’s call for renewed nuclear testing, we have flown into action to get our message out, to rally Congressional opposition, to organize with other civil society organizations, and mobilize international opposition to the resumption of nuclear testing by any nation.”

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 Ian Gary
WASHINGTON DC, Nov 12 2025 – The climate crisis is getting worse and requires fundamental changes to societies, economies, and our global financial architecture in response. While extreme economic inequality is on the rise – the world’s billionaires now hold more wealth in the world than every country except the U.S. and China – the impacts of climate change are also unequally felt, with the poor in the Global South and North most at risk.

This month there will be two important UN events focused on addressing the climate crisis and global financial architecture. One event – the 30th UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP30) – will overwhelm the Brazilian city of Belém and attract the media spotlight.

On another continent, in Nairobi, a UN event starting on the same day will get far less attention but is designed to advance an issue which must be central to the climate crisis response – global tax justice.

Starting November 10th, negotiators from member states, along with civil society organizations have sought to influence the process, are holding a formal negotiation session for a planned UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation.

There is a strange irony in the fact that two major UN meetings on climate and tax are happening at the same time, thousands of miles away. On the road to Belém, many stories will be written about how Global North countries are failing to meet their commitments to provide billions of dollars in “climate finance” to help Global South countries invest in projects – such as flood defense – to adapt to the realities of climate change.

Rarely mentioned, though, is the need to look beyond aid to the system of global tax rules which starve Global South countries of the resources they need. A report last week from the UN Environment Program (UNEP) said that developed nations provided only $26 billion in “international adaptation finance” to developing countries, far short of the $40 billion a year committed at the Glasgow COP in 2021. Meanwhile, the same report pegs adaptation costs at $310 billion-$365 billion per year by the mid-2030s. Strangely, the UNEP report is completely silent on the need to reform global tax rules to increase the fiscal space to make realizing climate finance commitments possible.

Global tax justice must be advanced to fill the “yawning gap” highlighted by the UNEP between what has been committed and what is needed to deal with the climate crisis. The OECD has said that countries suffer $100-240 billion in lost revenue annually from profit shifting by multinational corporations.

A significant portion of that is lost by Global South countries. If these “lost” funds were recovered through changes in global tax rules, the resources could dwarf the paltry sums being provided by the Global North.

Given that major Global North donors are slashing their aid budgets or closing their aid programs entirely (see the shuttering of USAID), we must now approach the climate finance debate with a “post-aid” lens. The ritualistic annual highlighting of the failure of Global North countries to meet the climate finance commitments must be supplemented by growing demands for global tax justice, ensuring global tax systems enable countries to tax economic activity where it takes place.

Fair and progressive taxation must be part of the post-aid landscape, particularly to support the ability of Global South countries to respond to the climate crisis with their own financial resources.

While thousands of activists descending on Belém, a hardy band of a few dozen civil society groups, organized by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, will be engaging the UN tax negotiation process in Nairobi. New and effective rules to ensure that multinational companies pay their fair share – including those companies most directly driving the climate crisis – are desperately needed.

Beyond closing tax loopholes, countries need to remove the tax subsidies that incentivize fossil fuel production. In the US, recent research by the FACT Coalition found that American taxpayers are effectively subsidizing oil drilling abroad.

Other research has found that tax and other subsidies may make some future oil and gas projects appear economically viable when, without these breaks, they aren’t.

Fortunately, some conversations are starting to bridge the climate and tax divide, with campaigners in both camps increasingly understanding that the global climate movement needs tax justice to win. Last month, academics and activists convened in Brazil for a policy research conference, with organizers stating that the “convergence of climate justice and tax reform is an ethical, political, and economic imperative.”

Foreign aid won’t come to the rescue, and the private sector won’t invest in climate adaptation at scale because of mismatched incentives. After the dust settles in Belém and Nairobi, governments, international organizations, and activists must find new ways to bring the climate and tax conversations together to tackle global inequality and the climate crisis. It will be a win for people and the planet.

Ian Gary is the Executive Director of the Financial Accountability & Corporate Transparency (FACT) Coalition

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 Isabel Ortiz
DOHA, Nov 12 2025 – Qatar hosted the Second World Summit for Social Development from 4–6 November. According to the United Nations, more than 40 Heads of State and Government, 230 ministers and senior officials, and nearly 14,000 attendees took part. Beyond plenaries and roundtables, more than 250 “solution sessions” identified practical ways to advance universal rights to food, housing, decent work, social protection or social security, education, health, care systems and other public services, international labor standards, and the fight against poverty and inequality.

In these difficult times for multilateralism, the summit delivered a global agreement, the Doha Political Declaration, that many feared would not materialize. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the text a “booster shot for development,” urging leaders to deliver a “people’s plan” that tackles inequality, creates decent work and rebuilds social trust.

Isabel Ortiz

The summit inevitably invited comparison with the 1995 World Social Summit in Copenhagen, a genuinely visionary summit that set the bar high with 117 Heads of State and Government. Thirty years on, the Doha Declaration is largely a recommitment to earlier agreements. Its first drafts lacked vision and, while significantly improved, the text remains uninspiring. The drop in top-level attendance—from 117 to just over 40—was widely noted in the corridors of the Doha Convention Center. This absence, especially from high-income countries, raises questions about shared responsibility for the Doha consensus and for the universal Sustainable Development Goals.

Even so, veteran voices urged pragmatism. Both the Copenhagen Declaration and Doha’s recommitment are workable texts to advance social justice. While not the ideal many hoped for, the Doha outcome addresses the key issues—and, above all, constitutes an international consensus adopted by all countries amid a crisis of multilateralism.

Juan Somavía, former UN-Under Secretary General and a driving force behind the 1995 Summit, welcomed the Doha’s Declaration as a meaningful foundation to move the agenda forward. Roberto Bissio, coordinator of Social Watch and a lead participant in Copenhagen, added “Let’s revive hope in these turbulent times… Now in Doha our governments are renewing their pledges of three decades ago, and adding new commitments that we welcome, to reduce inequalities, to promote care and to ensure universal social protection, which is a Human Right.”

However, Somavia, Bissio and many UN and civil society leaders in Doha, also stressed the distance between pledges and delivery. The pressure mounted through the week. At the closing, UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed said that the message from unions, civil society and youth was unequivocal: people expect results, not rhetoric. “The outcomes of this Summit provide a strong foundation,” she said. “What matters most now is implementation.”

The test now is whether governments will translate the Doha declaration into action: budgets, laws and programs that reach people. Magdalena Sepulveda, Director of UNRISD, called for bold political action: “What we need now is that states are going to take the political will to implement the Doha Declaration in a swift manner with bold measures.”

The trend, however, is moving the other way, as many governments adopt austerity cuts and have limited funding for social development. More than 6.7 billion people or 85% of the world’s population suffer austerity, and 84% of countries have cut investment in education, health and social protection, fueling protests and social conflict. “The concept of the welfare state is being eroded before our eyes in the face of an ideological commitment to austerity and a shrinking state” said Amitabh Behar, Executive Director of Oxfam International. “A wave of youth-led Gen Z protests is sweeping the world. A recurring slogan during the recent protests in Morocco was ‘We want hospitals, not stadiums’… Public services are being dismantled while wealth is hoarded at the top. The social contract will not survive this neglect.”

The good news is that governments do have ways to finance the Doha commitments. Austerity is not inevitable; there are alternatives. There are at least nine financing options for social development: raise progressive taxes (such as on corporate profits, finance, high wealth, property, and digital services); curb illicit financial flows; reduce or restructure debt; increase employers contributions to social security and formalize employment; reallocate spending away from high-cost, low-impact items such as defense; use fiscal and foreign-exchange reserves; increase aid and transfers; adopt more flexible macroeconomic frameworks; and approve new allocations of Special Drawing Rights. In a world awash with money yet marked by stark inequality, finding the funds is a matter of political will. In short: austerity is a choice, not a necessity.

History will not judge Doha by its communiqués but by whether the promises made—on rights, jobs and equity—reach people. Implementation is feasible, as there are financing options even in the poorest countries. If leaders go ahead, Doha will be remembered not as an echo of 1995, but as the moment words gave way to action.

Isabel Ortiz, Director, Global Social Justice, was Director at the International Labor Organization (ILO) and UNICEF, and a senior official at the UN and the Asian Development Bank.

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’);  

If I could meet the COP president, I would speak to him about the need to preserve the environment, to truly preserve it, alongside the Indigenous people. I would also speak about the need to put life above profit. —Jeane Carla, activist at COP30

By James Alix Michel
VICTORIA, Nov 12 2025 – COP30 Brazil, though shadowed by the absence of many world leaders, remains a pivotal milestone in the global fight against climate change, tasked with building on the Paris Agreement’s momentum. Yet the glaring lack of commitment, coupled with withdrawals from the accord, casts a grim shadow over the future. The planet continues to warm, and scientists warn that current targets may not prevent a catastrophic temperature spike. While the summit’s focus on implementation not just new promises—is a welcome shift, it’s clear: words alone won’t cool the Earth.

James Alix Michel

Brazil’s leadership in championing nature-based solutions, like safeguarding the Amazon rainforest, is a beacon of hope. The conference ignited critical discussions on climate finance, adaptation, and resilience for vulnerable nations. The Baku-to-Belem Roadmap’s goal of mobilizing $1.3 trillion annually for developing countries is ambitious but necessary. Yet challenges loom large: wealthy nations’ apathy, geopolitical fractures, and the lingering impact of the U.S. withdrawal from Paris. COP30’s success hinges on action.

The Stakes Are Dire

The IPCC warns: we’re on track for 2.5–3°C warming by 2100 if pledges are not met. This spells ruin: crippling droughts, unlivable cities, mass migration, and ecosystems collapsing. The Amazon, a vital carbon sink, is nearing a ‘tipping point’ of irreversible dieback. Island nations face existential threats. The climate crisis is not a distant threat—it’s here.

Why COP30 Matters

1. Implementation Over Pledges: Past summits yielded lofty goals, but delivery has lagged. COP30 must hold nations accountable. No more empty vows.

2. Climate Finance: Developing countries need predictable funding, not charity. The $100 billion/year promise remains unfulfilled. Wealthy nations must pay their share.

3. Adaptation and Resilience: Frontline communities in Africa, Small Island States, and the Global South can’t wait. Funding for early warnings, flood defenses, and drought-resistant crops isn’t a favor; it’s justice.

4. Global Unity: Geopolitics must not derail progress. The world needs cooperation, not competition.

The Human Cost:

Millions already suffer. Cyclones, wildfires, famine, mass migration, and sea-level rise. This isn’t ‘someday’; it’s now. Indigenous groups, youth activists, and scientists plead: stop debating. Act.

Yet amid the urgency, COP30 saw glimmers. Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pushed for Amazon protection. African nations demanded reparations for historical emissions. The Global South called for “Equity first.”

The Road Ahead: COP31 and Beyond.

Future summits must:

• • Enforce transparency: Track emissions cuts, not just promises.
  • Prioritize loss & damage: Compensate those already paying the price.
  • Work towards ending fossil fuels: No new coal projects.
  • Empower youth: Include communities, not just politicians.

A Call to Leaders: Pledges Aren’t Leadership

When leaders make commitments, they bind their nations to honor them. Empty promises are not leadership. The world isn’t a battleground for wars—it’s our only home. We’re all in this together. No more excuses. Action isn’t optional.

The clock ticks. The Amazon burns. The oceans rise. We need solutions. And we know what the solutions are. Now we need action.

Let’s choose life. For the planet and for ourselves.

James Alix Michel, Former President Republic of Seychelles, Member Club de Madrid, Founder James Michel Foundation.

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’);