By Isaiah Esipisu
CHONGWE, Zambia, Jan 23 2026 – In a quiet village known as Nkhondola, in Chongwe District, Eastern Zambia, Royd Michelo and his wife, Adasila Kanyanga, have transformed their five-acre piece of land into a self-sustaining agroecological landscape. With healthy soils built over time, the farm teems with diverse food crops, fruit trees, livestock and birds, nourishing their family and the surrounding community.

“On this farm, we are not concerned about soil fertility and food security,” said Michelo as he fed his flock of diverse birds, which included free-range chickens, ducks, guinea fowl, and hundreds of pigeons.

“We are deliberately nurturing healthy soils and food sovereignty, making sure that we control what we grow, how we grow it, and ultimately, what we eat,” he told IPS.

The animals and birds feed on crop residues and thriving insects and worms on the farm, and the dung and droppings are converted into nutrient-rich manure that builds soil organic matter and microbes, creating healthy soils that support the growth of stronger crops that in turn feed the livestock, birds and humans.

“On a daily basis, we collect at least two trays of guinea fowl eggs and another two of free-range indigenous chicken, and the farm is abundant with different types of vegetables and fruits, while our cattle and goats give us milk for the family nutrition and daily income,” said Michelo.

The self-sustaining farming system, also known as agroecology, is now gaining popularity as the most sustainable and climate-resilient farming system, particularly for smallholders across the world.

The Conference of Parties (COP 30) in Belem, Brazil, highlighted the potential of agroecology in ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and food systems, thereby introducing the ecological farming technique to the global climate dialogue for the first time in 30 years.

The final report from the conference launched under the COP 30 Climate Action Agenda axis 3 sets out a coordinated global pathway to scale agroecology and agroforestry as solutions to the climate crisis, biodiversity loss and food insecurity.

“Apart from increased food productivity and income for farmers, agroecology provides resilience to crises related to food, climate, biodiversity, soil and even social crises,” said Dr. Million Belay, the General Coordinator at the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA).

Belay argues that since science has proven that agroecology addresses nearly all the looming crises, it is important for it to be central to frameworks such as the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), as well as to all policies produced by the regional economic commissions.

However, despite the CAADP’s Kampala Declaration not expressly mentioning agroecology, regional commissions are steadfastly advancing it as a relevant pathway for climate resilience. The Kampala Declaration is the continent’s latest 10-year roadmap (2026-2035) for transforming African food systems into resilient, sustainable, and inclusive agri-food systems.

The Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa (CCARDESA) is working with various research institutions and universities in southern Africa on a project called Research on Agroecology Network for Southern Africa (RAENS), which aims to create a strong and innovative network for agroecology research and knowledge sharing in the region.

CCARDESA is a sub-regional research organization established by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) member states to coordinate agricultural research and development in the Southern Africa region.

The main goal of the RAENS research project is to improve current agroecology efforts, like those of Michelo and his wife in Zambia; to demonstrate how effective and scalable agroecology can be; to encourage changes in agricultural training and research toward agroecological food systems; and to guide policy, creating a supportive environment for adopting agroecology, research, and training.

“One of the components of the RAENS project is to equip scholars and practitioners with skills, knowledge and tools through developing new or enhancing existing agroecology modules and curricula for university students and extension agents, and through cross-learning between institutions through co-teaching/guest lecturing and co-supervision of postgraduate students,” said Dr. Jerome Queste, the Resource Mobilization Specialist at CCARDESA in Gaborone, Botswana.

He noted that the project will also provide new leadership on agroecology through postgraduate students and postdoctoral fellows in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, and beyond, undertaking research on priority topics.

“This is a step in the right direction,” said Bright Phiri of the Civil Society Agrarian Partnership (CSAP). “With agroecology having been recognized at the UNFCCC climate negotiation level, learning institutions will be crucial for training the next generation of experts, researchers, and practitioners for a smooth transition.”

In the same vein, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) is in the process of revising its Regional Agriculture food system and Investment Plan (RAIP), and according to the secretariat, there is a deliberate intent to include a section that will directly address agroecology.

“We are already in discussion with different partners, including the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD), because we also intend to embed agroecology in our standards and trade frameworks so that we focus on issues that affect it in terms of trade,” said Providence Mavubi, the Director for the Industry and Agriculture Division at COMESA.

“We are also going to put agroecology as part of our value chain development programs and include it in our climate and green finance mobilization drive because we believe that this is an area that has been left behind,” she told IPS during an interview in Lusaka.

According to Phiri, efforts by CCARDESA and COMESA mirror the role of other initiatives like the Knowledge Hub in Eastern Africa (KHEA) and the Knowledge Centre for Organic Agriculture & Agroecology in Africa (KCOA), which are pivotal in disseminating agroecological knowledge and capacity building.

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 Angela Umoru-David
ABUJA, Nigeria, Jan 23 2026 – For the last decade, many in the foreign aid sector have emphasised the need for localisation, and in the last 5 years, the calls have been louder than ever. I am one of such voices.

I believe that power should shift to local actors, who have a better understanding of local needs and culturally sensitive approaches to working in various communities. Late last year, while co-speaking on a panel about the future of the humanitarian sector, I heard a radical idea from international development professional Themrise Khan. She argued for the need to completely dismantle the humanitarian sector as it currently operates (note, the formal sector, and not humanitarianism itself).

This idea was reinforced when I read an opinion about how the ‘shifting of power’ we might see in the coming months/years, will be another form of neocolonialism as funds go directly to local entities… but with a caveat on what the funds should be used for, under the guise of the Global Goals or ‘allowable costs’.

This would restart a vicious cycle of political quid pro quo. Some people might argue that it is human nature for an entity to desire to influence how the funds they give are used. However, this negates the altruism that we all claim we subscribe to in the humanitarian world.

The idea of ‘shifting power’ only works if local professionals, in tandem with the communities they serve, also determine where the fund should go and what it should fund. Funding local actors directly while still dictating the purpose of the funds is simply a redesign of a system that has failed

My two cents? The idea of ‘shifting power’ only works if local professionals, in tandem with the communities they serve, also determine where the fund should go and what it should fund. Funding local actors directly while still dictating the purpose of the funds is simply a redesign of a system that has failed.

Communities should have the freedom to interpret the Global Goals within their local contexts, as some of their needs are not fully captured in the way the Global Goals are articulated. That is true power. Besides, many communities already have ancestral practices and traditional approaches to solving some of their needs. What they may lack is structure, access to the corridors of power, sufficient funding or contemporary systems for measuring success.

This brings me to another issue: redefining what success is.

The fact is that radical change is incremental. It is never the work of a sole organisation, and it definitely does not happen within a 12-month cycle.

When engaging with communities, we ought to recognise that even a shift in understanding is itself a significant change. While intangible, such changes are the bedrock of long-term impact. So, yes, we may have engaged 1000 people, but we cannot expect that harmful traditions that have endured for ages will suddenly end because of a few awareness sessions.

Our Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) metrics should focus on incremental change, such as increased understanding. This may be measured through shifts in language (how issues are described and understood) or in the adoption of new practices, even where harmful practices have not yet been fully phased out.

When success is viewed through such lenses, the pressure to provide a perfect scorecard eases; projects become more human-centred and make room for the complexity of human attitudes and decision-making. This is why we must invest in learning varied qualitative evaluation methods. Our current systems are skewed towards numbers alone, missing nuance and the real process of changemaking.

This shift also creates the proper canvas for storytelling as a tool for communicating impact. Stories show change over time in a way that remains with the audience.

This is not to say that numbers cannot achieve a similar result. Neither am I saying we should expunge numbers from MEL. Rather, stories capture our shared humanness.

They help people on opposite ends of the world see themselves in one another, and can be the reason someone chooses to click the donate button, gain a deeper understanding of an issue, or become an advocate for a cause far removed from their lived experience. While numbers show correlation, stories establish connection. This is why they are most powerful when used together.

In all of this- from project design to execution- humanitarian and development professionals need to adopt the role of facilitators.

For too long, we have spoken on behalf of communities, defining their needs and how they must be solved. While some of us have worked closely with these communities long enough to understand their realities, we must still create space for them to speak for themselves and self-advocate. The concept of localisation is not limited to foreign relations.

It also applies to us, the local actors. We must get as local as ‘local’ can get, and pass the microphone to the people who are most affected by the issues. Am I saying we cannot be advocates or design interventions based on past project performance? No. I am arguing that we become co-advocates.

Our data-gathering processes must be inclusive, and where we are working with evidence from past interventions, we must be humble enough to ask if the data is still valid: how much has changed? What should we do differently? How can we involve the community even more? Thus, in closing out a project, we must always leave a window open for continuous data collection.

Ultimately, true localisation means centring the voices, agency, and aspirations of communities themselves. This is a lesson to both local and international development and humanitarian practitioners.

As the world order shifts, there is an opportunity for the Global Majority to achieve lasting impact. We must commit and take actionable steps to ensure that communities are architects of their own development journeys. We have a great opportunity now. Let’s seize it!

By UN Staff Union Standing Committee on the Security and Independence of the International Civil Service
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 23 2026 – At least 21 United Nations personnel — 12 peacekeeping personnel and nine civilians — were killed in deliberate attacks in 2025, according to the United Nations Staff Union Standing Committee on the Security and Independence of the International Civil Service.

By nationality, the personnel killed in 2025 were from Bangladesh (6), the Sudan (5), South Africa (2), South Sudan (1), Uruguay (1), Tunisia (1), Ukraine (1), Bulgaria (1), State of Palestine (1), Kenya (1) and Zambia (1).

This does not include the personnel of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) who died in the war in Gaza, since they were not deliberately targeted. However, at least 119 UNRWA personnel were recorded as killed in 2025 (UNRWA Situation Report #201, 26 December 2025).

“While we remember with sorrow the many who have fallen in the line of duty, we call upon leaders and the public to confront the normalization of attacks on civilians, including humanitarian workers, and the impunity that undermines international humanitarian law,” said Nathalie Meynet, Chairperson of the Global Staff Council and President of the Coordinating Committee for International Staff Unions and Associations.

“There is an urgent need for public support to pressure parties in conflicts and world leaders to protect civilians. We need stronger protection for our colleagues who are staying and delivering in the most dangerous places in the world, as well as accountability for attacks on humanitarian workers.”

“We pay special tribute to our Palestinian colleagues in Gaza, where more than 300 United Nations staff have been killed since October 2023, the highest toll in United Nations history. They continue to serve under unimaginable conditions, often while enduring the same loss, hunger and insecurity as the communities they assist.”

The United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) was again the deadliest mission for peacekeepers, with six fatalities, followed by the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) and the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA), with three fatalities each.

In 2024, at least five United Nations personnel (four peacekeepers and one civilian) were killed in malicious attacks, and in 2023 at least 11 (seven peacekeepers and four civilians).

Deliberate attacks

Following is a non-exhaustive list of deliberate attacks in 2025 that resulted in the death or injury of United Nations and associated personnel, compiled by the United Nations Staff Union Standing Committee.

On 24 January, Mokote Joseph Mobe and Andries Tshidiso Mabele, two peacekeepers from South Africa serving with MONUSCO, were killed in clashes with M23 combatants in Sake.

On 25 January, Rodolfo Cipriano Álvarez Suarez, a peacekeeper from Uruguay serving with MONUSCO, was killed in Sake when the armoured personnel carrier he was traveling in was hit by an artillery weapon. Four other Uruguayan peacekeepers were injured.

On 12 February, Seifeddine Hamrita, a peacekeeper from Tunisia serving with MINUSCA, was killed near the village of Zobassinda, in Bamingui-Bangoran prefecture, Central African Republic, when his patrol, seeking to protect civilians, came under attack by an unidentified armed group.

On 7 March, Sergii Prykhodko, a Ukrainian member of a United Nations helicopter crew conducting an evacuation in Nasir, Upper Nile State, South Sudan, was killed when the helicopter came under fire. Two other crew members were seriously injured.

The evacuation was part of efforts by the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) to help prevent violence and de-escalate political tensions in Nasir. Mr. Pyrkhodko had volunteered for the mission because of his flight experience.

On 19 March, Marin Valev Marinov, a staff member from Bulgaria with the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) was killed in an explosion at two United Nations guesthouses in Deir al Balah, central Gaza Strip. At least six others — from France, Moldova, North Macedonia, Palestine and the United Kingdom — suffered severe injuries.

The explosion was apparently caused by an Israeli tank. UNOPS chief Jorge Moreira da Silva said that those premises were well known to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and were “deconflicted”. The Secretary-General added that “the location of this United Nations compound was well known to the parties.” The IDF subsequently expressed its regret for the incident.

On 23 March, Kamal Shahtout, a United Nations field security officer from the State of Palestine serving in Rafah and a UNRWA staff member, was killed by Israeli forces, along with eight Palestinian medics and six civil defence first responders, in an attack in southern Gaza. The clearly identified humanitarian workers from the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the Palestinian Civil Defence and the United Nations had been dispatched to collect injured people in the Rafah area when they came under fire from advancing Israeli forces.

Five ambulances, a fire truck and a clearly marked United Nations vehicle that arrived following the initial assault were all hit by Israeli fire, after which contact with them was lost. For days, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) sought to reach the site, but access was granted only on 30 March.

When aid workers reached the site, they discovered that the ambulances, the United Nations vehicle and the fire truck had been crushed and partially buried. According to news reports, Israeli forces said that the emergency responders had been fired upon after their vehicles “advanced suspiciously,” adding that a Hamas operative had been killed along with “eight other terrorists.”

On 28 March, Paul Ndung’u Njoroge, a peacekeeper from Kenya serving with MINUSCA, was killed when a group of around 50-to-70-armed elements ambushed his unit that was on a long-range patrol near the village of Tabane, Haut-Mbomou prefecture, Central African Republic.

On 2 June, five contractors from Sudan working for the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) were killed and several others injured in an attack on a 15-truck aid convoy carrying assistance for the famine-affected area of North Darfur, Sudan. The convoy had travelled over 1,800 kilometres from the city of Port Sudan.

All parties on the ground had been notified about the convoy and its movements. “They were 80 kilometres from El Fasher, parked on the side of the road, waiting for clearance, and they were attacked,” said United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric. This would have been the first convoy to reach El Fasher in over a year.

On 20 June, Stephen Muloke Sakachoma, a peacekeeper from Zambia serving with MINUSCA, was killed and another was wounded in an ambush by unidentified armed elements in Am-Sissia, Vakanga prefecture, Central African Republic, while conducting a patrol to protect civilians.

On 13 December, six peacekeepers from Bangladesh serving in the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) — Muhammed Masud Rana, Muhammed Sobuj Mia, Muhammed Jahangir Alam, Santo Mondol, Shamin Reza and Muhammed Mominul Islam — were killed in drone attacks targeting the United Nations logistics base in Kadugli, Sudan. Eight other Bangladeshi peacekeepers were injured. The attacks were reportedly carried out by a separatist armed group.

On 15 December, Bol Roch Mayol Kuot, a national staff member serving with the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), was abducted from an UNMISS vehicle by security actors while he was on duty and subsequently killed.

On 26 December, a United Nations peacekeeper was injured in southern Lebanon after a grenade exploded and heavy machine-gun fire from IDF positions south of the Blue Line hit close to a patrol of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The incident occurred as the patrol inspected a roadblock in the village of Bastarra.

Violations of the independence of the international civil service

On 2 June, as the month marked one year since the arbitrary detention of dozens of personnel from the United Nations, non-governmental organizations and diplomatic missions by the Houthi de facto authorities in Yemen, the Secretary-General called again for their release, urging that they be freed “immediately and unconditionally”. The Secretary-General also condemned the death in detention of Ahmed, a Yemeni WFP staff member, on 10 February.

On 21 July, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported attacks by the Israeli military on a building housing WHO staff in Deir al Balah, Gaza. The WHO staff residence was attacked three times and the main warehouse was destroyed. The Israeli military entered the premises, forcing women and children to evacuate on foot toward Al-Mawasi amid active conflict. Male staff and family members were handcuffed, stripped, interrogated and screened at gunpoint. Two WHO staff members were detained.

On 31 August, the Secretary-General condemned the arbitrary detention of at least 11 staff members in Yemen by the Houthis. He said that the Houthis had entered the premises of WFP in the capital, Sana’a, and seized United Nations property. On 19 December, the Secretary-General condemned the arbitrary detention of 10 more United Nations personnel. The latest incident, which occurred on 18 December, brought the number of staff being held to 69, some of them detained since 2021.

On 11 September, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) called for the de facto Taliban authorities to lift restrictions barring women national staff from entering its premises. On 7 September, the de facto security forces prevented female Afghan staff members and contractors from entering United Nations compounds in the capital, Kabul.

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 Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 23 2026 – The two current ongoing conflicts, which have claimed the lives of hundreds and thousands of people, are between nuclear and non-nuclear states: Russia vs Ukraine and Israel vs Palestine, while some of the potential nuclear vs non-nuclear conflicts include China vs Taiwan, North Korea vs South Korea and the United States vs Iran (Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and Denmark).

The growing list now includes another potential conflict: nuclear China vs non-nuclear Japan is the world’s only country devastated by US atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 which killed over 150,000 to 246,000, mostly civilians.

A statement last month by Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi warned that her country could intervene militarily if China were to attack Taiwan—a statement that has the potential for a new conflict in Asia.

According to the New York Times, Beijing has “responded furiously,” asserting that self-governing Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory. The government has also urged millions of tourists to avoid Japan, has restricted seafood imports and increased military patrols.

Meanwhile, amidst rising military tension, the Japanese government has called for a snap general election on February 8, to seek a fresh public mandate for the new administration.

In an article titled “An Anxious Nation Restarts One of its Biggest Nuclear Plants,” the Times said on January 22 that “Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO)—the same utility that operated the Fukushima plant—has restarted the first reactor, Unit 6, at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa complex, one of the world’s largest nuclear facilities.”

Before 2011, nuclear power provided about 30 percent of Japan’s electricity, the Times pointed out.

According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, Japan’s military budget in 2024 had grown to the 10th largest in the world. China’s military budget has also been growing, in 2024 being second only to that of the United States.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, and North American Coordinator for “Mayors for Peace,” told IPS that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s recent statement that an armed attack on Taiwan by China could constitute an “existential threat” to Japan is very worrying indeed.

In 1967, she said, Japan’s then-Prime Minister Eisaku introduced the Three Non-Nuclear Principles of not possessing, not producing, and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons, and they were adopted by a formal resolution of the Diet in 1971.

“However, Japan’s commitment to these Principles has been called into question over the years, and it is widely believed that Japan has the capability to rapidly produce nuclear weapons, should the decision be made to do so.”

Beijing is ratcheting up the rhetorical heat. Whether true or not, a recent report by the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association and the Nuclear Strategic Planning Research Institute, a think tank affiliated with the China National Nuclear Corporation, alleges that Japan is engaged in a secret nuclear weapons program and poses a serious threat to world peace. Meanwhile, China is rapidly modernizing and increasing the size of its own nuclear arsenal, said Cabasso.

“Japan, as the only country in the world to have experienced the use of nuclear weapons in war, has the unique moral standing to be a champion for dialogue and diplomacy, peace, and nuclear disarmament.”

Japan and China’s leadership—and for that matter, all world leaders—should listen to the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who on January 20 issued a Joint Appeal on behalf of the 8,560 members of Mayors for Peace in 166 countries and territories, declaring, “We urge all policymakers to make every possible diplomatic effort to pursue the peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue and to take concrete steps toward the realization of a peaceful world free from nuclear weapons.”

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 even without nuclear weapons being utilized, the use of military force in Taiwan would be disastrous for global security, and especially for the people of Taiwan.

“Any resolution of the dispute over Taiwan should follow two fundamental principles: it should be settled through dialogue and discussion, and it should prioritize the wishes of the inhabitants of Taiwan. Finally, all parties should avoid provocative remarks,” he declared.

The new developing story also figured at a recent UN press briefing.

Question: We know that there is a long-standing policy of Japan, called the three non-nuclear principles, which basically says that Japan shall neither possess nor manufacture nuclear weapons nor shall it permit their introduction into Japanese territory. But currently, the Japanese Government is under a discussion of revision of some of those security documents, including this policy, which draws quite anger from people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and some of the Nobel Peace Prize winners. What’s the position of the UN?

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric: Look, I think the Secretary-General’s position on denuclearization has been clear and he has stated it a number of times. Obviously, Member States will set whatever policy they wish to set. What is important for us is that the current tensions between the People’s Republic of China and Japan be dealt through dialogue so as to lower the tensions that we’re currently seeing… I think the Secretary-General’s position on denuclearization and non-proliferation is well known and has been unchanged.

At a party leaders’ debate last November, Tetsuo Saito, representative of the New Komei Party, which was founded in 1964 by Dr. Daisaku Ikeda, leader of Japan’s Soka Gakkai Buddhist movement, questioned Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in the Diet about the government’s stance on the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and Japan’s security policy.

He criticized remarks by a senior government official suggesting Japan should possess nuclear weapons, calling them contrary to Japan’s post-war policy and damaging to diplomatic and security efforts.

He emphasized that the principles—not to possess, not to produce, and not to permit nuclear weapons on Japanese soil—and Japan’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are fundamental and must remain unassailable.

• Saito stated that the Takaichi administration’s position leaves room for ambiguity, especially when Takaichi’s replies were perceived as non-committal about maintaining the principles.
• He expressed concern that this ambiguity could open the door to future revision and said Komeito will continue to press the government to uphold the principles without qualification in future Diet sessions.
• In December 2025, Saito reiterated in public remarks that the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and Japan’s policy against nuclear weapons should be preserved.
• He has urged the government to reaffirm this commitment clearly to both domestic and international audiences and to listen to hibakusha (atomic-bomb survivors) and civil society voices advocating nuclear abolition.

Elaborating further, Cabasso said that given Japan’s brutal invasion of China during World War II and China’s growing threats to reclaim Taiwan, dangerous long-simmering tensions between the two countries have reemerged. In an increasingly unstable and unpredictable geopolitical world, Japan and China’s war of words is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Article 9 of Japan’s 1947 Peace Constitution, imposed on Japan by the United States in an act of victor’s justice, states, “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right and the threat of use of force as a means of settling disputes,” and armed forces “will never be maintained.”

However, these provisions have been eroding in the 21st century, with Japan in 2004 sending its Self-Defense Forces out of area – to Iraq – for the first time since World War II. And in 2014, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reinterpreted Article 9, allowing Japan to engage in military action if one of its allies were to be attacked.

The following year, she pointed out, the Japanese Diet enacted a series of laws allowing the Self-Defense Forces to provide material support to allies engaged in combat internationally in an “existential crisis situation” for Japan. The justification was that failing to defend or support an ally would weaken alliances and endanger Japan.

References

Japan Secretly Building Nukes, Could Go Nuclear Overnight Under Takaichi’s Policy Shift, Chinese Report Claims
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/japan-secretly-building-nukes-could-go-nuclear/

Mayors for Peace Joint Appeal, January 20, 2026
https://www.mayorsforpeace.org/en/

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 CIVICUS
Jan 23 2026 –  
CIVICUS speaks with Belarusian activist, blogger and journalist Mikola Dziadok about his experiences as a two-time political prisoner and the repression of dissent in Belarus. Mikola was jailed following mass protests in 2020.

Mikola Dziadok

Amid continued repression, Belarus experienced two limited waves of political prisoner releases in 2025. In September, authorities freed around 50 detainees following diplomatic engagement, and in December they pardoned and released over 120, including Nobel laureate Ales Bialiatski and opposition figure Maria Kolesnikova. Many were forced into exile. Human rights groups stress that releases appear driven by geopolitical bargaining rather than systemic reform, with over 1,200 political prisoners believed to remain behind bars.

Why were you arrested following protests in 2020?

I was arrested because I was not silent and I was visible. During the 2020 uprising, I ran Telegram and YouTube channels where I shared political analysis, explained what was happening and gave people advice on how to resist repression. I talked about strategies to protect ourselves, counter state violence and survive under authoritarian pressure. The regime viewed this as extremely threatening.

By that time, I had around 17 years of experience in the anarchist movement, which is a part of a broader democratic movement in Belarus. But most people who joined the protests weren’t political at all: they’d never protested before, never faced repression, never dealt with police violence. They were desperate for guidance, particularly as there was an information war between regime propaganda, pro-Kremlin narratives and independent voices.

Authorities made a clear distinction between ‘ordinary people’ who apologised and promised never to protest again, who were released, and activists, organisers and others who spoke publicly, who were treated as enemies. I was imprisoned because I belonged to the second category.

What sparked the 2020 uprising?

By 2020, Belarus had already lived through five fraudulent elections. We only had one election the international community recognised as legitimate, held in 1994. After that, President Alexander Lukashenko changed the constitution so he could rule indefinitely.

For many years, people believed there was nothing they could do to make change happen. But in 2020, several things came together. The COVID-19 pandemic left the state’s complete failure exposed. As authorities did nothing to protect people, civil society stepped in. Grassroots initiatives provided information and medical help. People suddenly saw they could do what the state couldn’t. From the regime’s perspective, this was a very dangerous realisation.

But what truly ignited mass mobilisation was violence. In the first two days after the 9 August presidential election, over 7,000 protesters were detained. Thousands were beaten, humiliated, sexually abused and tortured. When they were released and showed their injuries, the images spread through social media and Telegram, and people were shocked. This brought hundreds of thousands onto the streets, protesting against both election fraud and violence against protesters.

What’s the situation of political prisoners?

Since 2020, over 50,000 people have spent time in detention, in a country of only nine million. There have been almost 4,000 officially recognised political prisoners, and there are now around 1,200, although the real number is higher. Many prisoners ask not to be named publicly because they fear retaliation against themselves or their families.

Repression has never subsided. Civil society organisations, human rights groups and independent media have been destroyed or forced into exile. Belarussians live under constant pressure, not a temporary crackdown.

Political prisoners are treated much worse than regular prisoners. I spent 10 years as a political prisoner: five years between 2010 and 2015, and another five years after 2020. During my second sentence, I spent two and a half years in solitary confinement. This is deliberate torture designed to break people physically and psychologically.

How did your release happen?

My release was a political transaction. Lukashenko has always used political prisoners as bargaining chips. He arrests people, waits for international pressure to reach its peak and then offers releases in exchange for concessions. This time, international negotiations, unexpectedly involving the USA, triggered a limited release.

The process itself was terrifying. I was taken suddenly from prison, handcuffed, hooded and transferred to the KGB prison in the centre of Minsk. I was placed in an isolation cell and not told what would happen. It was only when I saw other well-known political prisoners being brought into the same space that I realised we were going to be freed, most likely by forced expulsion.

No formal conditions were announced, but our passports were confiscated and we were forced into exile. We were transported under armed guard and handed over at the Lithuanian border. Many deportees still fear for relatives who remain in the country, because repression often continues through family members. That’s why I asked my wife to leave Belarus as quickly as possible.

What should the international community and civil society do now?

First, they should make sure Belarus continues receiving international attention. Lukashenko is afraid of isolation, sanctions and scrutiny. Any attempt to normalise relations with Belarus without real change will only strengthen repression and put remaining prisoners at greater risk.

Second, they should financially support independent Belarusian human rights organisations and media. Many are struggling to survive, particularly after recent funding cuts. Without them doing their job, abuses will remain hidden and prisoners will be forgotten.

Most importantly, activists should not lose hope. We are making history. Dictatorships fall and fear eventually breaks. Freedom always returns – but only if we hold fast to our values and sustain the struggle.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram

SEE ALSO
‘Belarus is closer than ever to totalitarianism, with closed civic space and repression a part of daily life’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Human Rights House 14.Oct.2025
Belarus: ‘The work of human rights defenders in exile is crucial in keeping the democratic movement alive’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Natallia Satsunkevich 15.Feb.2025
Belarus: a sham election that fools no one CIVICUS Lens 31.Jan.2025

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

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 23 2026 – Nearly four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine faces another winter marked by widespread humanitarian suffering and continued indiscriminate attacks. The final months of 2025 were particularly volatile, characterized by routine bombardment of densely populated areas and repeated strikes on residential neighborhoods, critical civilian infrastructure, and humanitarian facilities. As hostilities expanded into new territories over the past year, humanitarian needs grew sharply, with many war-torn communities residing in uninhabitable areas.

According to figures from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), at least 55,600 civilians have been killed or injured since the wake of the full-scale invasion, with 157 civilians killed and 888 injured across Ukraine and Russian Federation-occupied areas in the final months of 2025 alone. Additionally, The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that over 3.7 million people have been internally displaced since the invasion.

Additional figures from OHCHR indicate that 2025 marked the deadliest year for civilians since the start of the full-scale invasion, with the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) reporting that 2,514 civilians were killed and 12,142 were injured as a direct result of conflict-related violence. This marks a 31 percent increase from 2024.

“The 31 per cent increase in civilian casualties compared with 2024 represents a marked deterioration in the protection of civilians,” said Danielle Bell, head of HRMMU. “Our monitoring shows that this rise was driven not only by intensified hostilities along the frontline, but also by the expanded use of long-range weapons, which exposed civilians across the country to heightened risk.”

The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports that roughly 10.8 million people across Ukraine are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, with 3.6 million identified as particularly vulnerable and prioritized in relief operations. OCHA underscores the exacerbation of humanitarian conditions over the past few months, noting that front-line areas and northern border regions face higher rates of military shelling, destruction of civilian infrastructure, mass civilian displacement, and repeated disruptions to essential services.

Civilians residing in Russian Federation-occupied zones remain largely cut off from essential services and protection measures, facing heightened risks of serious human rights violations.

According to Matthias Schmale, The UN Human Coordinator for Ukraine, the nation is currently in the midst of a severe protection crisis, marked by rapid shrinking of humanitarian resources, consistent escalations of insecurity, and no signs that 2026 will be safer for civilians or humanitarian aid personnel. “The nature of warfare is evolving: more drone attacks and long-range strikes increase risks for civilians and humanitarians, while causing systematic damage to energy, water and other essential services,” said Schmale.

The first few weeks of 2026 saw a sharp escalation in targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure, particularly water and energy systems. According to figures from the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, between January 8 and 9, Russian authorities launched 242 drones and 36 missiles toward Ukraine. These attacks struck the port city of Odesa, disrupting electricity and water supplies there and in the cities of Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia. The strikes also crippled mobile communications and public transport, prompting the mayor of Dnipro to declare a state of emergency.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported that Russia had launched roughly 1,300 drones between January 11 and 18 alone. For the following two days, more than 300 drones struck the Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Sumy, Dnipro, Odesa, and Khmelnytskyi regions, killing two civilians and injuring dozens.

On January 19, the Russian Federation launched a series of attacks on energy facilities in Ukraine, shutting down heating and electricity in numerous major urban areas, including Odesa and Kyiv. The mayor of Kyiv informed reporters that approximately 5,635 multi-story residential buildings were left without heating the following morning, 80 percent of which had only gained back access to heating after prolonged outages caused by a similar attack on January 9.

“Civilians are bearing the brunt of these attacks. They can only be described as cruel. They must stop. Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure is a clear breach of the rules of warfare,” said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk. According to figures from OHCHR, hundreds of thousands of families across Ukraine lack access to heating—an especially dire development as freezing temperatures persist. Numerous communities in Kyiv also lack access to water, which has disastrous consequences for the most vulnerable, including children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.

“For people in Druzhkivka and in many communities along the front line, daily life is overshadowed by violence and attempts to survive. A strict curfew means they can only go outside for a few hours a day, timing their lives around shelling patterns and the increased risk of drone attacks. They face hard choices: to flee for safety, leaving their homes and lives behind, or remain under constant shelling,” Schmale added.

The UN’s Ukraine office underscored that the consequences for civilians will be long-lasting, even when they reach a definitive end to hostilities. They noted that the war’s impact will “long outlive the current emergency and humanitarian phase.” Psycho-social harm is widespread, with severe mental health needs reported among adults, children, former combatants, and their families- many of whom have endured displacement, the damaging or destruction of their homes, and repeated exposure to explosions and shelling.

The strain on Ukraine’s health and education systems compounds these effects, with UN Ukraine warning that “fractures in social cohesion” will shape the country for years to come.

In response, the UN and its partners launched the 2026 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan to provide life-saving support to affected communities, aiming to reach 4.1 million people in 2026. The plan includes operations to deliver food, healthcare, protection services, cash assistance, and other essential needs to besieged communities, calling for USD $2.3 billion.

“I urge all humanitarian, development and governmental partners to work together around our shared values and key identified strategic priorities, respecting the distinct role of principled humanitarian action and recognizing where others must lead,” said Schmale.

He added: “We ask our donors to sustain flexible, predictable funding so that we can respond rapidly to new shocks while maintaining essential services for those who cannot yet stand on their own feet. Only together we can ensure that the most vulnerable, like the family I met in Druzhkivka, receive timely assistance.”

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’);