Indigenous people play a vital role in ocean protection due to their deep-rooted connection to the marine environment and their traditional knowledge of sustainable resource management. They often possess centuries-old practices and stewardship ethics that prioritize ecological balance and community well-being. Recognizing and supporting indigenous leadership in ocean conservation is crucial for building a more […]

By Joyce Chimbi
BUSAN, Korea, Apr 30 2025 – Participants from over 100 countries will leave the 10th Our Ocean Conference in Busan, the Republic of Korea, with stark reminders that with sea levels rising dangerously, coastal regions and low-lying areas globally, particularly densely populated areas, are threatened.

Asia, Africa, island nations, as well as the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts are increasingly on the frontlines of the coastal climatic carnage. Countries and regions at high risk include Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, and Pacific Island nations like Tuvalu and Fiji. In 2024, floods caused the highest number of fatalities in Africa in countries such as Cameroon and Nigeria.

“We started this conference with the understanding that the ocean is under threat. A third of the world’s fisheries are overfished. Illegal and destructive fishing is damaging the ecosystems. It hurts the coastal communities that depend on it and undermines global economies. So, to risk the ocean risks the future security of all of our countries and the planet,” said Tony Long, CEO, Global Fishing Watch.

The Our Ocean Conference gathered approximately 1,000 global leaders from various sectors, including heads of state and high-level government officials from over 100 countries, and representatives from more than 400 international and non-profit organizations. Together, they discussed diverse and concrete actions for a sustainable ocean.

Today, experts highlighted the intersection of the ocean, climate, and biodiversity in finding solutions that transform science into political action. While the ocean is on the frontlines of the climate crisis, it is also a significant source of sustainable solutions because it absorbs nearly 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions and 90 percent of the heat resulting from these emissions.

The 30×30 campaign supports the national and global movements to protect at least 30 percent of the blue planet’s land, waters, and ocean by 2030. While moderating a session on the importance of 30×30 and progress in national waters, Melissa Wright, a senior member of the environment team at Bloomberg Philanthropies, where she leads the Bloomberg Ocean Initiative, spoke about ongoing support for the global ambition.

“We’re supporting global ambition to achieve 30×30 in the ocean through equitable and inclusive partnerships and initiatives with civil society, governments, indigenous and community groups, and local leaders. Since 2014, the Blue Water Ocean Initiative has invested more than USD366 million to advance ocean conservation,” she said.

The initiative works in tandem with governments, NGOs, and local leaders to accelerate the designation and enforcement of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Most recently, the initiative has pushed for the rapid ratification of the High Seas Treaty and ensured the creation of MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

“We do not have much time left until 2030 to achieve the 30×30. As such, we are presented with a unique and challenging opportunity for ambitious, robust enhancement to our national and global capacities for the protection, conservation, and sustainability of our oceans,” said Noralene Uy, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects, Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Noralene Uy speaking to participants about the Philippines’ efforts and challenges towards achieving the 30×30 targets. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

The Philippines is one of the 17 megadiverse countries in the world, meaning it possesses a high level of biodiversity and a large number of endemic species. The country is home to a significant portion of the world’s plant and animal species, including many unique and endemic species.

Within this context, she said an undue burden weighs on the Philippines given limited resources and other priority development objectives. Nonetheless, the country has turned to science and is making progress. The country has established marine scientific research stations strategically located in the major marine biogeographic regions of the country to provide insights and knowledge into their ocean.

They have also formulated the national ocean environment policy, stressing that as science and policy evolve according to the priorities of our country, organizational structures and knowledge systems must change as well.

To achieve the highest ambition in marine protection, the Philippines and coastal communities around the globe now have an ever-greater need for financing and technical resources. Brian O’Donnell, Director, Campaign for Nature, explained that the only available assessment of the cost of 30×30 on a global scale is now five years old.

“According to the assessment, it would cost about USD 100 billion a year to implement 30×30 both on land and in the sea and at the time of the assessment, only about USD 20 billion was being spent, leaving an USD 80 billion annual shortfall,” he explained.

“Not only do we need to ensure we get more money into this space, but that money is delivered efficiently and effectively to the people, communities, and countries where biodiversity is and those who are safeguarding it.”

O’Donnell said that, despite ongoing challenges in mobilizing financial resources, there is some notable progress. He spoke about the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, which includes a target for wealthy nations to provide at least USD 20 billion annually in international biodiversity finance to developing countries by 2025, increasing to USD 30 billion by 2030.

This target aims to help developing countries implement their biodiversity strategies and action plans, particularly those in Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. But O’Donnell said there is a need to change how things are done, as, unfortunately, much of the financing to developing countries is coming in the form of loans and short-term financing.

In all, he encouraged partnerships and collaboration in raising much-needed resources, such as the Oceans 5, which is dedicated to protecting the world’s five oceans. Oceans 5 is an international funders’ collaborative dedicated to stopping overfishing, establishing marine protected areas, and constraining offshore oil and gas development, three of the highest priorities identified by marine scientists around the world. Bloomberg Philanthropies is a founding partner of Oceans 5.

Looking ahead, there is optimism that by the time delegates settle down for the 11th Our Ocean Conference in 2026 in Kenya, the global community will have moved the needle in their efforts across finance, policy, capacity building, and research towards marine protected areas, sustainable blue economy, climate change, maritime security, sustainable fisheries, and reduction of marine pollution.

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 Zikora Ibeh
LAGOS, Nigeria, Apr 30 2025 – Half a century after ECOWAS promised peace and prosperity, three breakaway states are testing West African solidarity, sparking a potential trade war.

Unless last-minute diplomatic efforts can save the day, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) looks set to mark its 50th anniversary next month not only three member states short but also facing the onset of a trade war that threatens to undo its decades-long efforts at achieving regional integration and free trade.

Since July 2023, the 15-member regional bloc founded in 1975 has been gripped by a crisis of legitimacy over its stance on the wave of military coups in the region. Between 2020 and 2023, Mali (2020 and 2021), Burkina Faso (2022) and most recently Niger (2023) experienced a series of coups that saw the overthrow of democratically elected governments and the seizure of power by juntas.

The latter, buoyed by a wave of anti-Western sentiment sweeping the region, moved to end decades-long military and economic alliances with former coloniser France as well as the US, Germany and the EU, in favour of relations with Russia and China.

But it was not until July 2023, when the Tchiani-led military junta seized power in Niger, that the simmering discontent in the regional bloc metastasised into a split and the confederation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), a defence pact comprising the breakaway states of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, was formed.

Towards a trade war?

Since its emergence on the West African landscape, the AES has quickly morphed into a substantive regional rival with an agenda for monetary, economic, trade and cultural integration. On 29 January, the AES countries formally withdrew from ECOWAS after observing the mandatory one-year notice period. The bloc now has its own flag and passport, as well as a central bank and currency.

Two weeks ago, the AES slapped a 0.5 per cent import duty on all goods from ECOWAS member states in a move that raises the prospect of a trade war. The tariff, which took effect immediately, applies to all goods, excluding humanitarian aid, entering the three countries.

This new policy runs counter to ECOWAS’ intention under the Trade Liberalization Scheme (ETLS) and investment policy to continue to ensure open borders and free movement of goods between its members and the AES countries despite their official exit from the bloc.

The new levy threatens to disrupt trade flows and drive up food prices across the region.

The AES has defended the levy as a means of raising revenue to finance its activities. Given that the AES countries are cash-strapped and currently have minimal administrative capacity to manage more complex policies, it is not surprising that they have resorted to this measure.

Import duties are a ‘stroke of the pen’ policy, providing a quicker way to raise revenue than long-term investment in expanding revenues through export markets and developing other areas of comparative advantage. At the same time, however, they can also serve as a shortcut over a cliff.

Depending on how ECOWAS states respond, AES import duties risk provoking countermeasures — something that would only make an already bad situation worse.

The new levy threatens to disrupt trade flows and drive up food prices across the region. But the impact could be far worse for the alliance, whose member states are among the world’s poorest countries. Being landlocked, the AES countries are heavily dependent on imports through ports via their southern ECOWAS neighbours, primarily Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Senegal and Benin.

So, adding this tariff will significantly increase the price of imports, including food, for citizens of AES member states. Nigeria, for instance, is Niger’s third-largest trading partner after France and Mali. And in recent months, Niger has suffered frequent power cuts and fuel shortages due to dwindling supply from neighbouring Nigeria.

The AES levy also adds to the growing structural, logistical and political challenges that continue to hinder the growth of intra-African trade and particularly the realisation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which came into effect in 2021. For a continent of 1.3 billion people, the AfCFTA is supposed to be the world’s largest operating free trade area.

Sadly, this is not yet the case. According to figures from Trade Data Monitor, the value of intra-African trade stood at $192.2 billion in 2023, representing just 14.9 per cent of total African trade. Over the same period, the global share of intra-African exports and imports also declined from 14.5 per cent in 2021 to 13.7 per cent in 2022.

Payback

Whether West Africa gets back on track with the AfCFTA will depend on the possibility of convincing the AES countries to rejoin ECOWAS by July 2025, when the grace period granted at the time of their exit in January ultimately expires.

The AES countries account for around 17 per cent of ECOWAS’ total population of 446 million, more than half of its total land area of over 5 million km2 and about 7.7 per cent of its total GDP. Their departure has thrown ECOWAS into its worst crisis in half a century.

The current trajectory of political polarisation and a potential tariff war will only lead to the common ruin of all.

Still, this was not an inevitable crisis. Rather, it was one that the regional bloc walked into with its eyes wide open. Because all things considered, the split can be seen as payback for ECOWAS’ drift away from its founding pan-Africanist ideals and the mistakes it made in its handling of the coup in Niger.

At its founding half a century ago, ECOWAS expounded a vision of solidarity, collective self-reliance, non-aggression, and the maintenance of regional peace and stability. Over the decades, however, not only had the union failed to stand true to these ideals, but its hollow defence of democracy while tolerating sit-tight despots such as Togo’s Faure Gnassingbé in its rank had produced a crisis of legitimacy that robbed the regional body of the moral authority to enforce discipline in times of turmoil.

This crisis of legitimacy is currently being reinforced as the AES continues to employ sovereign and anti-imperialist rhetoric to position itself as a worthy alternative. But the current trajectory of political polarisation and a potential tariff war will only lead to the common ruin of all. Hence the urgent need for ECOWAS to avoid giving in to provocation and instead employ diplomacy to resolve the challenges brought about by the imposition of import duties by the AES.

It was the failure to take the diplomatic route that led to the impasse in the first place. This is the lesson that ECOWAS must learn as it begins to reimagine its role as a regional bloc for the next half-century. Failing to do so could mean a further erosion of the bloc’s influence and relevance over the coming 50 years.

Zikora Ibeh is a researcher, columnist, podcaster and development advocate with a passion for social justice and gender equity. She works to make a difference in society through public policy advocacy, action research and media advocacy.

Source: International Politics & Society, Brussels

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 Timothy A. Wise
CAMBRIDGE, MA., Apr 30 2025 – On March 17, Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum signed into law a constitutional reform banning the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) corn. The action followed a December ruling by a trade tribunal, under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, in favor of a U.S. complaint that Mexico’s 2023 presidential decree, with broader restrictions on the consumption of GM corn, constituted an unfair trade practice by prohibiting the use of GM corn in tortillas.

The Mexican government publicly disagreed with the ruling, claiming that the three arbitrators had failed to consider the scientific evidence Mexico presented in the yearlong case. But the government chose to comply, rescinding the three specific parts of the decree deemed to limit future GM corn imports. Still, the government left intact the decree’s measures phasing out the use of the herbicide glyphosate, establishing a protocol for tracking GM corn imports into the country, and banning the cultivation of GM corn in the country.

The constitutional amendment enshrines that last measure in a more permanent manner. While GM corn has faced planting restrictions for more than a decade, the constitutional ban represents an important act of resistance and sovereignty, particularly in light of the flawed decision by the tribunal.

Trade panel fails to consider evidence

Corn is central to Mexico’s agriculture, cuisine, nutrition, and culture. Mexico is the center of origin for corn, where the crop was domesticated thousands of years ago. It remains at the core of the country’s farming, diet, and culture. As President Sheinbaum acknowledged in approving the constitutional ban on GM corn cultivation, “Sin maiz no hay pais” – without corn there is no country.

In defense of Mexico’s 2023 decree, the panel acknowledged that the government presented scientific evidence from qualified and reputable sources of “risks to human health arising from the direct consumption of GM corn grain in Mexico, and risks to native corn of transgenic contamination arising from the unintentional, unauthorized, and uncontrolled spread of GM corn in Mexico.” (That evidence is summarized in an extensive publication from Mexico’s national science agency.)

The trade tribunal dismissed concerns about such risks in its ruling, essentially giving itself a pass on reviewing the scientific evidence of human-health risks by arguing that Mexico had not conducted an approved risk assessment “based on relevant scientific principles,” a reference to prevailing international codes for such processes.

The panel also failed to evaluate the risks to native corn. Mexico presented strong evidence that GM corn has cross-pollinated native corn varieties, gene flow that threatens to undermine the genetic integrity of the country’s 64 “landraces” and more than 22,000 varieties adapted by farmers over millennia to different soils, altitudes, climates, foods, and customs.

The tribunal argued that no special protection from GM corn was needed because gene flow already takes place from non-GM hybrid varieties of corn, and GM contamination is no different from non-GM gene flow. “Mexico has not demonstrated how the threat to the traditions and livelihoods of indigenous and farming communities from GM corn is greater than the threat posed by non-native, non-GM corn,” the panel wrote. Cross-pollination from hybrid corn “could equally threaten the genetic integrity of native corn.”

Equating contamination from GM corn with that of hybrid corn is a serious misreading of the science and of Mexico’s culture. GMOs by definition – and by explicit definitions in the constitutional amendment – involve crossing species boundaries, introducing, for example, a gene from a bacterium into a corn plant to repel insects. In contrast, hybrid corn is produced by cross-breeding different corn varieties, the resulting offspring remaining pure corn, with no non-corn genes in its DNA.

Mexican farmers have a long history of developing some of their own cross-pollinated varieties, intentionally combining a native variety with a hybrid that has properties the farmer desires. Such cross-pollination has nothing in common with unwanted contamination from GM corn, imposed on farmers without their informed consent. They call it “genetic pollution.”

It can pose a long-term risk to native varieties. Transgenic traits do not always reveal themselves after contamination. That means farmers can unknowingly spread such contamination from their pollen year after year to other corn plants. Mexican researchers discovered such contamination in their 2013 survey of native corn varieties. Biotechnologist Antonio Serratos reported that some of the native varieties he found even within Mexico City had transgenic traits in their DNA.

“In Mexican fields, transgenic native maize is being created,” he told me at the time. ”If [GM] maize seeds are sold or exchanged, the contamination will grow exponentially. That is the point of no return.”

Seed-sharing under threat

The tribunal’s alternative recommendation for controlling unwanted gene flow suggested that “the informal seed exchange practices of indigenous and farming communities” was one of the “underlying issues” Mexico should address to prevent contamination instead of restricting imports.

Limiting seed-sharing is entirely at odds with the science of seed diversity and evolution, says researcher Erica Hagman, who helped prepare Mexico’s defense in the USMCA dispute. Mexico’s rich corn diversity is the direct result of millennia of adaptive practices by farmers in their fields. The tribunal’s suggestion that Mexico should limit such seed-sharing to prevent GM corn contamination runs counter to the practices of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity.

Mexico’s constitutional ban on GM corn cultivation ensures that such misguided reasoning will not guide public policy. The amendment was strengthened by proposals from civil society that extended the ban to new genetically engineered seeds by banning any crops “produced with techniques that overcome the natural barriers of reproduction or recombination, such as transgenics.” This limits some of the new generations of genetically engineered crops.

While the constitutional reform does not include some of the original language restricting GM corn consumption, no doubt in deference to the trade ruling, the final version shows a clear preference for non-GM crops, leaving the door open to tighter regulation.

Tania Monserrat Téllez from the Sin Maíz No Hay País coalition called the reform “a major step forward for the defense of native corn varieties, the health of the Mexican population, and the protection of Mexico’s biocultural heritage associated with corn.”

Timothy A. Wise is the author of Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food (New Press 2019) and a researcher at Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute.

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 Retno Marsudi and Musonda Mumba
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 29 2025 – Water emergencies are deeply personal to us. Coming from Southeast Asia and southern Africa—two regions that struggle with water challenges—we have witnessed firsthand how water defines the fate of communities and nations.

In many areas of the world, floods have become a persistent risk, displacing millions and causing severe economic losses. Extreme rainfall has led to destroyed homes, infrastructure, and livelihoods. In 2022 alone, floods affected more than 90 million people globally, with damages surpassing $120 billion.

Yet in others, prolonged droughts have had devastating consequences. In southern Africa, rivers are drying up, crippling agriculture and energy production. The severe droughts of recent years have left millions without reliable access to water, and created cascading economic and social challenges.

The extremes of too much or too little water are connected by a simple truth: we cannot solve our water challenges without protecting the ecosystems that regulate them.

Water is running out where we need it most and arriving in excess where we don’t. One in four people lacks access to safe water. Droughts and floods are intensifying, putting not just people, but entire economies at risk.

But the global response remains reactive rather than preventative—billions are spent on disaster relief, yet the fundamental role of nature in water resilience remains overlooked.

Across our regions, we have seen how wetland ecosystems sustain life. Rice paddies in Southeast Asia sustain food production while also acting as natural reservoirs, capturing and regulating seasonal water flows. Mangrove forests along coastlines protect from storm surges while helping to stabilize freshwater supplies.

In southern Africa, wetlands help sustain livestock and agriculture, with floodplains and seasonal wetlands providing grazing land and water storage during dry periods. The Okavango Delta in Botswana, a Ramsar-listed Wetland of International Importance, is just one example—critical for regional water resilience, supporting biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods in one of Africa’s driest regions.

Cracked earth, from lack of water and baked from the heat of the sun, forms a pattern in the Nature Reserve of Popenguine, Senegal. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

Wetland ecosystems are nature’s most effective water managers, yet they are disappearing three times faster than forests. The destruction of wetlands in urban areas has increased the severity of floods, while the degradation of inland wetlands has led to worsening desertification.

Retno Marsudi
UN Secretary-General Special Envoy on Water

We tend to focus on large-scale water infrastructure projects—dams, pipelines, and desalination plants—to address water shortages. While these projects play an important role, they cannot fully replace the natural functions of wetlands. Wetlands naturally store water, filter pollutants, and regulate floods and droughts, yet their conservation and restoration remain underfunded.

Every wetland lost further weakens our ability to manage water sustainably.

The global water financing gap is estimated at $1 trillion annually, but only a fraction of this goes toward nature-based solutions. Restoring wetlands is often a cost-effective complement to traditional infrastructure, reducing the need for costly flood defences and water treatment facilities. So why does it continue to be undervalued in water governance?

The international community has already taken some important steps in the right direction. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation, depend on addressing wetland loss.

Musonda Mumba
Secretary General, Convention on Wetlands

Wetland conservation and restoration are essential to building climate resilience and can no longer be sidelined in global funding mechanisms. Governments must integrate wetland protection into national water policies, and the private sector must step up with investment in ecosystem-based water management.

One truth is undeniable: We must rethink water governance. As co-authors of this piece, we know that solving global water issues requires integrated solutions. The Triple A approach presented at the One Water Summit—Advocate, Align, Accelerate—provides a framework for putting wetlands at the centre of water strategies through collaboration.

The upcoming COP15 of the Convention on Wetlands, hosted in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, in July 2025, presents an opportunity to reinforce commitments to wetland restoration as a solution for water resilience.

Delaying action only deepens losses, as floods and droughts continue to wreak havoc on both people and the planet. Investing in wetlands now prevents far greater costs in the future. Each restored wetland means cleaner water, fewer disasters, and a stronger foundation for resilience.

If we want reliable water both now and for future generations, we must protect the ecosystems that sustain it. Keeping wetlands intact means keeping water flowing—clean, available, and accessible to all.

Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations

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 Kizito Makoye
DAR ES SALAAM, Apr 29 2025 – Under the scorching Tanzanian sun, Neema Mushi wipes sweat from her dust-covered face and swings her pickaxe into the earth. The impact sends dust swirling into the air, coating her tattered clothes. She barely notices. For the past eight years, this has been her life—digging, sifting, sieving, and hoping to strike gold in the male-dominated pits of Geita. It is a grueling task riddled with obstacles.

“I want to own a mining pit myself,” she says. “But in this industry, women are always ignored when it comes to land ownership issues.”

Despite years of hard work, women like Mushi remain on the wobbly edge of survival.

One evening, after hours of rock crushing, she spots a tiny twinkle of gold. Before she can pocket it, a male miner comes close to  her.

“This is my spot,” he growls, snatching the gold from her hands. Mushi clenches her fists, knowing she can’t fight back—not in a system that was never built for her.

She once tried to register a mining plot in her name. At the local office, the clerk barely looked up.

“You need your husband’s permission,” he muttered, shuffling papers on his desk. Mushi hesitated—she had no husband, only three children to feed. The clerk shrugged. “Then find a male partner,” he said, waving her away.

Before joining Umoja wa Wanawake Wachimbaji, a cooperative for women miners, Mushi struggled to pay her children’s school fees. Now, she watches them walk to school in clean uniforms, their laughter filling the air. She has struck more than gold—she has found hope.

A group of women miners formed Umoja wa Wanawake Wachimbaji, pooling resources and fighting for a mining license of their own. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

Crushing Male Chauvinism

Tanzania is Africa’s fourth-largest gold producer, with mining contributing nearly 10 percent of the country’s GDP. An estimated one to two million people work in artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM), and nearly a third of them are women. Yet, despite their numbers, female miners struggle for recognition, battling land ownership restrictions, lack of financing, and discrimination in a sector where men hold the power.

For years, Mushi worked informally at the edges of licensed mines, sifting through gold-bearing rocks discarded by male miners. Without a mining license or land of her own, she relied on middlemen who bought her finds at exploitative prices.

“If you don’t have your own claim, you are at their mercy,” she says. “They can chase you away at any time.”

Tanzania’s mining laws technically allow women to own licenses, but in practice, few manage to acquire them. The bureaucratic process is complex, and costs are prohibitive.

“Most mining land is allocated to men or big companies,” says Alpha Ntayomba, a mining activist and Executive Director of the Population Development Initiative. “Women often end up working on borrowed land or as laborers on someone else’s claim.”

Beyond land rights, financial barriers loom large. Mining requires investment—equipment, processing facilities, and sometimes heavy machinery. But banks see women miners as too risky, denying them loans and locking them into a cycle of dangerous, low-paying work.

As a light rain drizzles, a dozen women trudge through dust-choked paths, carrying heavy sacks of ore on their heads. Many are single mothers, struggling to survive in an industry where they are often underpaid, exploited, and subjected to harassment.

“Women in artisanal mining are at the bottom of the chain,” says Ntayomba. “They do the hardest jobs—crushing rocks, washing ore in mercury-contaminated water—yet they earn the least and are most vulnerable to abuse.”

Sexual Exploitation and Harassment

For many female miners, exploitation is a daily reality. Reports of sexual harassment and coercion in exchange for job opportunities are widespread. Women working in gold-processing areas often depend on male pit owners or brokers to access ore, making them vulnerable to abuse.

“Some women are forced into exploitative relationships just to get access to the gold they help extract,” says Ntayomba. “Sexual favors become a hidden cost of doing business for many women in this sector.”

Many hesitate to report harassment for fear of retaliation or job loss. Others lack the legal knowledge or support networks needed to seek justice.

“I know women who were kicked out of their jobs after rejecting advances from male mine owners,” Ntayomba says. “The system is rigged against them, and the lack of strong legal protections worsens it.”

Health Risks and Mercury Exposure

Beyond exploitation, women in artisanal mining also face severe health risks. Many spend hours washing gold with mercury—a toxic metal that can cause neurological damage and birth defects—without any protective equipment.

“Most women don’t know how dangerous mercury is,” says Ntayomba. “They mix it with their bare hands and inhale toxic fumes, exposing themselves and their children to long-term health problems.”

Activists like Ntayomba are pushing for change through advocacy and training programs. His organization has been lobbying for stricter regulations to protect women’s rights, provide safer mining practices, and ensure equal access to economic opportunities.

“We need the government to recognize women miners as key players in the sector,” he says. “That means formalizing their work, providing safety training, and ensuring they have legal rights to mining claims.”

But progress is slow.

“Women in artisanal mining deserve dignity, fair pay, and protection from exploitation,” Ntayomba emphasizes. “The industry cannot continue to thrive on their suffering.”

Breaking Rocks, Breaking Barriers

Determined to change their fortunes, Mushi and a group of women miners formed Umoja wa Wanawake Wachimbaji, pooling resources and fighting for a mining license of their own—in line with Sustainable Development Goal 8, which focuses on “Decent Work and Economic Growth, a crucial building block for achieving gender equity and women empowerment.

With support from the Tanzania Women Miners Association (TAWOMA) and government programs for female entrepreneurs, they secured a small mining plot and invested in better equipment.

“We had to prove that we belong here,” says Anna Mbwambo, a founding member of the cooperative. “For too long, women have been treated like helpers, not miners.”

For Mushi, the cooperative has changed everything. “Before, I could barely afford school fees for my children,” she says. “Now, I can save, and I dream of expanding.”

Despite persistent challenges, change is underway. Organizations like STAMICO, Tanzania’s State Mining Corporation, are training small-scale miners in safer, more efficient techniques. The government has also established gold-buying centers to ensure fairer prices, reducing women’s dependence on exploitative middlemen.

Internationally, calls for gender inclusivity in mining are growing. The World Bank has pushed for reforms to make the industry more accessible to women, while the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) is advocating for policies that empower female miners.

TAWOMA, which has fought for women’s rights in mining since 1997, continues to push for a future where women are not just included but leading.

“We want to see women owning mines, running businesses, and making decisions,” says its chairwoman.

Carving a New Future

Standing at the edge of her mine, Mushi watches her fellow miners work the land they now own. It is a small plot, overshadowed by larger male-run operations, but to her, it represents something bigger—hope.

“I want my daughters to see that a woman can do anything,” she says. “She can work, she can own it, and she can succeed.”

She grips her pickaxe and swings again, sending another spray of dust into the air. Each strike brings her closer to a future where women miners are not just surviving but thriving.

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’);  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, SDGs for All

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Apr 28 2025 – They found shoes, hundreds of them, scattered across the dirt floor of an extermination camp in Jalisco state. These abandoned shoes, once belonging to someone’s child, parent or spouse, stand as silent witnesses to Mexico’s deepest national trauma. Alongside charred human remains and makeshift crematoria meant to erase all evidence of humanity, they tell the story of a crisis that has reached industrial-scale proportions.

In March, volunteer search groups uncovered this sprawling death camp operated by the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in Teuchitlán. The discovery wasn’t made by sophisticated government intelligence operations but by mothers, sisters and wives who’ve transformed their personal grief into relentless collective action. For them, the alternative to searching is unthinkable.

Mexico is experiencing a humanitarian catastrophe of staggering proportions. Over 121,000 people have disappeared over the past decades, with 90 per cent of cases occurring since 2006, when then President Felipe Calderón militarised the fight against drug cartels. Add to this the estimated 52,000 unidentified human remains held in morgues across the country and the true scale of this national tragedy begins to unfold.

A web of complicity

What makes Mexico’s crisis particularly sinister is the systematic collusion between arms of the state and organised crime. The Jalisco camp’s proximity to federal security installations raises troubling questions about official complicity and active participation in a system that treats some populations as expendable.

The crisis follows a well-established pattern. In states such as Jalisco and Tamaulipas, criminal organisations collaborate with local authorities to enforce territorial control. They use violence to recruit forced labour, eliminate opposition and instil terror in communities that might otherwise resist. Security forces are often implicated, as seen in the 2014 disappearance of 43 students from the Ayotzinapa Rural Teachers’ College, where investigations revealed that military personnel witnessed the attack perpetrated by a criminal organisation but failed to intervene.

Young people and women from poorer backgrounds bear the brunt of this horror. In Jalisco, a third of missing people are between 15 and 29 years old. Women and girls are systematically targeted, with disappearances often linked to human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Ciudad Juárez has become notorious for femicides, with over 2,500 women and girls disappeared and murdered since the 1990s. Migrants transiting through Mexico are vulnerable to abduction for extortion or forced recruitment, as seen in the 2010 San Fernando massacre, when 72 migrants were executed for refusing to work for a criminal group.

Mothers turned activists

Faced with government inaction or complicity, civil society has stepped in. Human rights organisations document disappearances, support victims’ families and demand accountability, including by organising public demonstrations, collaborating with international bodies and bringing cases before international courts. But the most remarkable response comes from grassroots collectives formed by families of the disappeared. Throughout Mexico, hundreds of groups such as Guerreras Buscadoras, predominantly led by women – mothers, wives and sisters of the disappeared – conduct search operations, comb remote areas for clandestine graves, perform exhumations and maintain secure databases to document findings.

Their courage comes at a terrible price. In May 2024, Teresa Magueyal was assassinated by armed men on motorcycles in Guanajuato state after spending three years searching for her son José Luis. She was the sixth mother of a disappeared person to be murdered in Guanajuato within a few months. Another mother, Norma Andrade, has survived two murder attempts. Despite knowing the risks, she and countless others continue their quest for truth and justice.

Years of pressure from civil society culminated in the 2017 General Law on Forced Disappearance, which formally recognised enforced disappearance in national legislation and established a National Search Commission. While a significant achievement, implementation has proven problematic, with inconsistent application across Mexico’s federal system, inadequate information systems, insufficient forensic capacity and minimal penalties for perpetrators.

Time for change

The discovery of the Jalisco extermination camp has generated unprecedented public outrage, sparking nationwide protests. President Claudia Sheinbaum has declared combating disappearances a national priority and announced several initiatives: strengthening the National Search Commission, reforming identity documentation, creating integrated forensic databases, implementing immediate search protocols, standardising criminal penalties, publishing transparent investigation statistics and enhancing victim support services.

For meaningful progress, Mexico must undertake comprehensive reforms that address the structural underpinnings of the crisis. Critical measures include demilitarising public security, strengthening independent prosecutors and forensic institutions, guaranteeing transparent investigations free from political interference and providing sustained support for victims’ families.

The UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances has announced the opening of an urgent procedure examining Mexico’s disappearance crisis – a step that could elevate these cases to the scrutiny of the UN General Assembly. International oversight is needed to ensure state compliance with human rights obligations.

This moment – with public outrage at its peak, presidential commitments on the table and international scrutiny intensifying – creates a potential inflection point for addressing this national trauma. If there was ever a time when conditions favoured substantive action, it’s now.

But whatever happens at the official level, one thing remains certain: Mexico’s mothers of the disappeared will continue their quest. They’ll keep searching abandoned buildings, digging in remote fields and marching in the streets carrying photos of their missing loved ones. They search not because they have hope, but because they have no choice. They search because the alternative is surrender to a system that would prefer they kept silent.

And so they continue, carrying their message to the disappeared and to a state that has failed them: ‘Until we find you, until we find the truth’.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact [email protected]

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, Apr 28 2025 – The Trump administration’s hostile attitude towards Western Europe—and the threat to pullout of the 32-member military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – signifies the danger of losing the longstanding protection of the US nuclear umbrella over Europe.

Jana Puglierin, director of the German office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, was quoted as saying: “Trump may, or may not, want to leave NATO officially, but he has every means to undermine NATO”.

Trump’s antagonism towards NATO also extends to the 27-member European Union (EU), which he said, was created, “to screw the US.”

The widespread speculation, in the current political climate, is whether the UK and France could provide nuclear protection to Western Europe—or will countries like Germany, Poland and the Nordics be forced to go nuclear?

The New York Times said last month that Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland , with its long history of Russian occupation, might eventually develop its own nuclear weapon.

Of the world’s approximately 12,331 nuclear warheads, roughly 9,604 are in the military stockpiles for use by missiles, aircraft, ships and submarines. The remaining warheads have been retired but are still relatively intact and are awaiting dismantlement, according to FAS.

The world’s nine nuclear-armed states are the UK, US, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

Both UK and France have only 515 warheads compared to about 3,700 in the American arsenal, with an additional 1,300 waiting to be de-activated.

Tariq Rauf (former Head of Verification and Security Policy, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS “for some time now, I have believed that NATO’s European members have failed to integrate Russia into a common European security architecture”.

It is a concerning reality that some of the new members of NATO, former East bloc countries, have endeavoured to get some form of revenge for the wrongs inflicted upon them by the USSR, and have found ways to provoke Russia which in turn has led to bad behaviour by Russia.

“Now the proverbial chickens have come home to roost and a shooting war has been going on for three years. US pull back from Europe has long been on the books, President Trump is the latest US leader who seems to let the Europeans fend for themselves. Eighty years after the end of WW2, EU economies are thriving but their foreign policy remains confused and now there are concerns about “friendly proliferation”.

The Polish president, Rauf pointed out, has openly voiced interest in developing own nuclear weapons if the US does not station nuclear weapons in his country. Interestingly, this did not elicit any concerns from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other countries as Poland is a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Both France and the UK still labour under delusions of being global powers and have pretensions of providing “extended deterrence” to their European friends as the US distances itself.

In the UK, Prime Minister Starmer is cutting support to pensioners and other social programmes, as well as overseas development assistance, to fund new nuclear-missile submarines and maintaining an arsenal of about 260 operational nuclear weapons.

In France, President Macron is reversing President de Gaulle’s policy and is openly offering to bring in EU countries under a French nuclear “umbrella”, even as the economy declines and social problems increase.

While France has about 300 operational nuclear warheads, it has permanently closed and dismantled it nuclear weapon test sites and facilities to make nuclear material for nuclear weapons.

Germany has reversed policy as well and will again host US medium-range nuclear-armed ballistic missiles; as will the UK which will bring back US nuclear-armed bombers.

The 55-year old NPT system is on the verge of collapse and it that happens the result will be a cascade of nuclear proliferation in Europe and the Asia-Pacific, warned Rauf.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS talk of a potential “Eurobomb” goes back decades, but it has escalated sharply since the Trump administration’s antipathy towards its NATO allies has caused some of them to question the reliability of the U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the 1949 NATO treaty.

Article 5, at the heart of the treaty, commits NATO states to help out any member that comes under armed attack, with the response they deem appropriate, including military responses, widely understood to include the U.S. ‘nuclear umbrella’.

In 2020, French President Macron called for a ‘strategic dialogue’ on ‘the role of France’s nuclear deterrent in [Europe’s] collective security.’ In an attempt to open discussions on this issue with Germany, France repeated the offer in 2022, but there were no takers.

Last month, Macron offered to ‘open the strategic debate’ with interested European countries to determine ‘if there are new co-operations that may emerge’.” Officials from Germany, Poland, Denmark, Lithuania, and Latvia have welcomed Macron’s call for a strategic dialogue, which would also aim to include nuclear-armed UK.

“Donald Trump’s wildly erratic pronouncements and behavior makes it impossible to predict how the U.S. will react. But clues might be found in Project 2025, widely seen as the playbook for the second Trump administration,” she said.

Project 2025 seeks to ‘Transform NATO so that U.S. allies are capable of fielding the great majority of the conventional forces required to deter Russia while relying on the United States primarily for our nuclear deterrent, and select other capabilities while reducing the U.S. force posture in Europe’.

While Trump threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO during his first term, the U.S. government as a whole is deeply committed to NATO, as is illustrated by the fact that in 2024 Congress passed, and President Biden signed, a law – supported by then Senator/now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, requiring that a withdrawal from NATO be approved by Congress.

“I think it’s unlikely, though not impossible, that the Trump administration will pull the U.S. out of NATO”, said Cabasso.

But, in light of the Russian Federation’s ongoing illegal war of aggression in Ukraine with its attendant drumbeat of nuclear threats, and a U.S. ally increasing seen as unreliable, a number of former and current European government officials and politicians have called for some form of an independent European nuclear force.

Such a development would violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other applicable laws. But more alarming is the growing normalization of nuclear threats and legitimization of nuclear proliferation suggested by its proponents.

At a time when all of the nuclear armed states are qualitatively and, in some cases, quantitatively upgrading their nuclear arsenals, a new multipolar arms race is underway, and the dangers of wars among nuclear armed states are growing. Adding more nuclear-armed actors to the world stage is a truly terrifying prospect.

Germany and other NATO members should rebuff any suggestion of acquiring nuclear weapons and take the lead in rejecting reliance on nuclear weapons, use every diplomatic means at their disposal to lower the temperature with Russia and bring the Ukraine war to an end, and promote negotiations among nuclear-armed states to begin the process of nuclear disarmament.

Instead of engaging in a strategic dialogue about a potential Eurobomb, European leaders should be engaging in a dialogue to commence negotiations on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Europe, ultimately to include Russia. It’s very difficult to imagine in these dark times, but as Albert Einstein said, ‘Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions’.

Elaborating further, Rauf also pointed out that the 1996 nuclear-test-ban treaty languishes and still is not in force, nuclear explosive testing moratoria seemingly are hanging by a thread. We are now in a much more precarious situation regarding accidental or deliberate nuclear war, than even in the worst times of the Cold War. Political leadership is absent – the challenges seem beyond the ken of today’s leaders who are desperately flailing for solutions.

It is well past time to dial back the confrontational rhetoric and heed the call of the UN Secretary-General addressing the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, “The nuclear option is not an option at all. It is a one-way road to annihilation. We need to avoid this dead-end at all costs. Humanity is counting on us to get this right. Let us keep working to deliver the safe, secure and peaceful world that every person needs and deserve.”

In an article published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) last January, Dr Wilfred Wan and Dr Gitte du Plessis, point out that in July 2024 Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace signed a contract with the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA) for the development of a next-generation ‘supersonic strike missile’, as part of a collaborative project between Norway and Germany first announced in November 2023. The plan is for the new manoeuvrable naval strike missile, dubbed the Tyrfing, to be operational in 2035.

This is just one of several recent high-profile efforts involving Nordic states that aim to enhance European conventional capabilities in order to deter aggression and maintain strategic stability.

Others include Finland’s announcement, in May 2024, that it is acquiring Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) weapons from the United States, which comes on top of its 2021 order of US F-35 combat aircraft. Around the same time, Sweden announced that it would provide Ukraine with early warning and control aircraft equipped with its Erieye radar system. This is expected to represent a ‘big force multiplier’ for Ukraine’s F-16 combat aircraft.

These moves in the Nordic region reflect broader European trends in the development and deployment of advanced conventional precision-strike capabilities. Investments in longer-range, manoeuvrable missiles and delivery systems—including the Tyrfing and the planned deployment on German soil of US hypersonic systems and ground-launched missiles that would have been prohibited under the now-defunct Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty)—contribute to the spectre of a ‘new missile crisis’ in Europe.

Planned upgrades to European global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) will further bolster the ability of these weapon systems to rapidly locate, target and ultimately destroy targets.

For the Nordic states, and especially for new NATO members Finland and Sweden, Russia’s war in Ukraine has provided clear justification for such developments. They are seeking both to demonstrate solidarity with other NATO members and to strengthen the alliance’s conventional capabilities in order to complement the extended US nuclear deterrent. But these decisions have many implications—and come with risks—that European policymakers may not have fully considered.

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’);  

“As the son of a haenyeo, a traditional Korean female diver, I grew up by the sea, often watching the ocean with my mother. Captivated by the beauty and majesty of the sea, I chose to study marine science and have devoted my entire career to the ocean,” said Do-hyung Kang, Minister of the Ministry […]

By Patrick Rosenow and Kirsten Hartmann
BERLIN, Germany, Apr 28 2025 – For the first time ever in its history, the United Nations Peacekeeping Ministerial (PKM) will take place in Berlin from 13 to 14 May. The aim of the meeting is to discuss the future of UN peace missions. These biennial meetings serve as a gauge of the continuing political support for such missions, which are, of course, just one of the tools in the UN’s comprehensive ‘toolkit’ for handling conflict — alongside general conflict prevention, mediation missions and peacebuilding measures.

But the need for reform is clear: the planning, execution and successful completion of peace missions are beset with challenges. The last major UN peacekeeping mission to be initiated was the MINUSCA in the Central African Republic in 2014.

Although existing missions are regularly extended, other players are increasingly gaining in importance, particularly regional and sub-regional organisations. The success of UN missions continues to be limited, while the number of conflicts worldwide is on the increase.

Changes in conflict dynamics, for example as a result of new threats such as disinformation, provide additional complications for their work. Nevertheless, UN peacekeeping missions are regarded as one of the most cost-efficient and effective instruments in international conflict management. They are proven to reduce direct violence against civilian populations and therefore continue to be irreplaceable.

In light of the increasing challenges, the upcoming PKM in Berlin will discuss new, more flexible models for future peacekeeping. In the Pact for the Future in September 2024, the UN Member States had already tasked Secretary-General António Guterres with developing suggestions to reform UN peacekeeping. Such missions are therefore currently a hot topic. And it is worth taking a look at Germany’s role in all this.

A crucial role

The first National Security Strategy (NSS), published in 2023, emphasised Germany’s wish to assume responsibility for international crisis management. In practice, however, its commitment continues to be limited, especially when it comes to personnel. Russia’s attack on Ukraine has shifted security policy priorities towards defending the country and the alliance.

The lack of a substantive German commitment to UN peacekeeping would, however, be fatal. The country’s participation is crucial for several reasons — not only because of the need for well-trained staff and for logistics, transport and high-value skills and competencies, but also for political credibility.

Those who want to influence and have a say in the future of peace missions also need to take responsibility on the ground. The Final Report by the Afghanistan Commission of Inquiry calls for the UN system to be strengthened by better crisis management, more financial resources and realistic, prioritised mandates.

This can only succeed if ‘peace missions receive relevant support from Germany, in terms of both materials and people’. To date, however, personnel on the ground has been in short supply.

Until its withdrawal in 2023, the UN mission in Mali was Germany’s last substantial – albeit selective – peacekeeping engagement. Currently, Germany’s contribution is largely limited to the maritime components of the UNIFIL Mission in Lebanon.

Although Germany is traditionally a reliable participant in the financing of UN deployments, its field presence was always limited — with its political influence suffering as a result. On many occasions, the participation of German troops has paradoxically even declined when Germany was represented for two years on the UN Security Council.

There has therefore been a gap between ambition and reality for a long time now. This contradiction is also evident in the National Security Strategy. On the one hand, it claims: ‘The army’s core mission is to defend the country and the alliance; all tasks are subordinate to this mission.’

On the other hand, it declares that ‘we will strive to ensure that United Nations peacekeeping missions are endowed with a clear political mandate and the necessary resources.’ As it is, the foreign policy message remains ambivalent — and points to a continuing need for clarification in the political decision-making process.

Three key challenges

Overall, three key challenges are hindering Germany’s commitment to the UN.

Firstly, the German public remains fundamentally sceptical about Germany playing a more significant role in international crisis operations. Despite the mantra-like declaration of wanting to take more responsibility, the new government needs to provide more convincing arguments to justify such deployments.

As so many of these missions take place far away from the reality of people’s lives at home, there is a real need for open, clear communication on the importance of multilateral action — without ignoring critical voices. At all times, German participation must, of course, be carefully assessed and the chances of success evaluated together with national and international partners.

Secondly, the army continues to be underfunded despite the so-called ‘Zeitenwende’ (or turning point) and constitutional change. Any sustainable improvement requires stable financing commitments and structural reforms — also when it comes to personnel. For this to happen, the defence budget needs to grow in the long term and structures need to be adapted — also in view of the suspension of compulsory military service.

The new government should therefore do one thing without abandoning the other: the defence of the country and of the alliance needs to be considered in tandem with deployments in trouble spots. Ultimately, the NSS emphasises that German security ‘[is] linked to the security and stability of other regions of the world’.

Thirdly, the civil sector lacks the political will and suitable structures to play a more forceful role. Although the 2021 Coalition treaty promised that crisis prevention and civil crisis management would be strengthened, this aspiration has, in practice, remained largely unfulfilled. For example, in March only 12 German police officers were deployed in UN peace missions — despite long-standing targets for growth in this area.

Alongside diverging interests between the federal and state governments, career incentives for international deployments are also in short supply. As a comparison, more than 280 German police officers are currently deployed with Frontex — a clear sign of the political priorities.

Given the global changes in UN peacekeeping, Germany should participate fully in the upcoming reform discussions, contribute its own ideas and, in particular, provide concrete resources. The Peacekeeping Ministerial in May offers an important opportunity to lend visibility to Germany’s political engagement, to help shape the future of UN peacekeeping and to pledge binding contributions.

Ultimately, Germany must prove that it is serious about UN peacekeeping if it is to again apply in 2026 for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2027/2028 — and emphasise strengthening UN peacekeeping in its candidacy.

Yet, sustainable support may not be limited to ministerial or Security Council meetings. Germany should systematically push ahead with its commitment to peace and security within the whole UN architecture, for example in its current role as chair of the Peacebuilding Commission or in the General Assembly, whose presidency the country will assume in September.

Germany should generally continue to drive forward the closer integration of peace consolidation and peacekeeping — politically, structurally and operationally. The ministries involved should therefore define the goals of Germany’s participation in UN-led peace operations — with binding schedules and personnel and financial commitments.

These goals should also be coordinated with NATO and EU strategic processes to ensure international coherence and division of labour. Such voluntary commitments can also be included in the revised crisis guidelines (originally from 2017).

The new government needs to act urgently — not only on account of crises in peace operations but also because of the increase in cross-border security threats. In a period of multiple crises, Germany cannot afford to take a backseat when it comes to security policy. The impact of the current conflicts will be felt here sooner or later.

Dr Patrick Rosenow is editor-in-chief of the magazine Vereinte Nationen, published by the United Nations Association of Germany (UNA-Germany, DGVN). His work focuses on the United Nations, multilateralism, and peace and international security.

Kirsten Hartmann is a policy officer in the Europe and International Politics programme at the Bundeskanzler-Helmut-Schmidt-Stiftung. She studied international relations and peace studies in Erfurt, Cali, Tübingen and Haifa.

Source: International Politics & Society (IPS), Brussels.

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’);