By Mouin Rabbani
MONTREAL, Canada, Jul 18 2024 – Usama bin Laden once claimed that the seeds of 9/11 were planted in 1982 as he watched the scenes of mass slaughter emerging out of Beirut’s Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps, the bloody conclusion of that summer’s US-supported Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Either Bin Laden’s statement was accurate, or he recognized that appealing to the widespread outrage generated by Western support for Israel’s serial atrocities was the most effective way to generate popular and organizational support for his extremist project.

Bin Laden’s successors are no doubt doing everything they can to capture similar outrage throughout the region about Israel’s genocidal onslaught against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. But they will encounter significantly greater challenges deploying it for their own purposes.

The difference between 2024 and 1982 is the overwhelming evidence of popular Western rejection of the policies of their governments. In public opinion polls, in mass demonstrations easily rivalling those organised against the illegal 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, in the numerous campus encampments, and, as the recent Letter of Dissent shows, extending even to government bureaucracies and political appointees.

The distinction between ruler and ruled, government and governed, has rarely been more clearly exposed.

The Letter of Dissent makes indisputably clear that US policy towards the present crisis has been an absolute failure at virtually every level. Not only has it failed to achieve any of its objectives and further consolidate Western hegemony in the Middle East, but it has made the US government directly and actively complicit in the genocide currently before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

As the signatories note, the US is “wilfully” violating not only international laws that are binding upon Washington, but is similarly and knowingly violating US domestic law in its fanatic determination to see Israel’s mass atrocities through to the bitter end.

Tellingly, and quite accurately, they also point out that the Biden administration’s determination to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his ultra-rightist, annexationist government has led to the suppression of basic constitutional freedoms within the United States.

That campaign, which has involved Ivy League presidents being forced to resign, students and faculty punished for condemning a foreign state, journalists losing their jobs, and much else, has far exceeded anything observed during the US wars against Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Calling for the destruction of the United States is, it seems, constitutionally protected speech, but this right that does not extend to calling for the dismantling of a genocidal, supremacist regime located thousands of miles away.

Civil servants, even senior ones, generally have at best marginal influence on policy, particularly in a plutocracy like the United States. In the current context, where US Middle East policy is the personal preserve of Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, McGurk, and very few others, their influence is non-existent.

This explains why the signatories felt they were left with no option other than to resign. To have done otherwise would have made them complicit in their government’s policies, including its participation in Israeli crimes and ceaseless efforts to ensure Israeli impunity for atrocities against the Palestinian people.

The moral and political choice they have made, which must have been agonizingly difficult and exceptionally simple in equal proportion, is one to be admired.

Mouin Rabbani is Co-Editor of Jadaliyya, Non-Resident Fellow with the Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies (CHS), and Non-Resident Fellow at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN).

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 Tanka Dhakal
KATHMANDU, Jul 18 2024 – A group aligned with the mayor of Chhayanath Rara Municipality in the Mugu district of Nepal’s Karnali Province physically attacked Aishwarya Malla for simply asking for a budgetary review of the local government.

“As a deputy mayor, I have the right to know where the budget is allocated, but the mayor’s team attacked me,” Malla said. “They did it only because I’m a woman, but they forget I’m also an elected representative with a responsibility to serve people, especially women and marginalized sections of our society.”

Malla has had an upward battle trying to get her voice heard.

Earlier in May, she requested just a few minutes to lay out her area’s issues related to climate change. She was in the nation’s capital, Kathmandu, where the International Dialogue on Climate Change was happening.

“If you want to know the ground reality, you have to give time to speak,” she said in her loud, passionate voice, but she didn’t get the chance. “We represent the women and lower sections of society, and nobody listens or wants to give us space.”

Aishwarya Malla (left), Deputy Mayor of Chhayanath Rara Municipality, and Shanti Malla Bhandari (right), Vice President of Guthichaur Rural Municipality. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

In Nepal, local governments have the responsibility to be the first and most accessible authority to serve people, and elected representatives run their constituencies.

In leadership positions (mayor and their deputies or presidents and their vice presidents), women’s representation as candidates is mandatory for political parties. However, only 25 local governments have women serving as either mayors or presidents. Out of 753 local governments, 557 have women as deputy mayors or vice presidents.

Largely, women leaders are forced to remain second in line of power. But as Malla says, women leaders are the ones whom people in need reach out to, but they struggle to find their space within the male-dominant local political sphere.

“This is affecting our efforts to find solutions and adaptive measures to the climate change impact in our community and the same is true of other issues too,” Malla said, expressing her frustrations.

Local Struggle on National Platform

During the International Expert Dialogue on Mountains, People, and Climate, organized by the government of Nepal on May 22–23, experts discussed the importance of locally led adaptation to tackle the impacts of climate change in the community. However, there was no representation from the local community.

Apsara Lamsal Lamichhane, vice president of Helambu Rural Municipality, Sindhupalchowk district, stood up and expressed her frustrations when the floor was opened for questions.

“We are the ones who are suffering from the dire impacts of climate change, and we are trying to find a way to adapt,” Lamichhane angrily said as her microphone was about to be cut off. “But the central government doesn’t even listen to us, and we don’t get a chance to present our ground reality on platforms like this.”

Apsara Lamsal Lamichhane, Vice President of Helambu Rural Municipality, Sindhupalchowk, during the International Expert Dialogue on Mountains, People, and Climate. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

She comes from one of the most vulnerable areas, where locals are facing the direct impacts of disasters exacerbated by climate change.

Lamichhane, Malla and other women in deputy mayor or vice president posts share the same complaint: that the provincial and central governments don’t listen to their concerns, including the losses caused by climate change.

“At the local level, the Mayor or President tries to silence us. In national discussions like this, we are invited but not allowed to speak. It’s our reality,” says Shanti Kumari Malla Bhandari, vice president of Guthicahur Rural Municipality in Jumla.

The Same Story on the International Stage

Just as there are internal obstacles to getting even a few minutes to present the issues local communities on the frontlines are dealing with, experts and leaders at the national level complain that in international climate forums, their voices are suppressed, and they don’t get enough space to present the reality of the climate plight.

Former Foreign Minister Dr. Bimala Rai Paudyal acknowledges that there is much to do to foster smooth discussion internally and to create a listening environment.

“We are working in isolation; there is an inter-ministerial communication gap, and yes, local representatives have to struggle much to make their voices heard,” Paudyal, who advocates for women’s representation in climate change discussions, says.

“Women are not only frontline victims of the climate crisis but also the first responders. We need to give them space, and then we can make our case in international forums. But there is a long way to go.”

To have better negotiation power in global forums, internal discussions need to prioritize local voices, she says. If we listen to each other here, then we can raise our collective voice with much conviction in international forums like the Conference of the Parties (COP) and climate finance committees.

According to Raju Pandit Chhetri, who works on climate finance negotiation, for countries like Nepal that are dependent on donor countries and agencies, negotiating on the global stage is not easy.

“There is already a giver-receiver relationship, and our psyche may be hesitant to negotiate strongly on climate finance issues. I think that kind of mentality may also exist at the national level too,” climate finance expert Chhetri said. “We have to break that wall of hesitation both internally and on the global stage.”

Note: This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

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

By Busani Bafana
ADDIS ABABA, Jul 18 2024 – Scientific research has led to social and economic gains worldwide, but the scientists who make it happen face significant challenges.

Science propels development, yet scientists need the freedom to research and advance technology and innovation. Is scientific freedom a cornerstone of development for African countries to remain globally competitive?”

Constraining Science

Growing societal polarization, erosion of democratic processes, and a rise in populism, misinformation, and disinformation are some of the factors curtailing scientific freedom in Africa, a new report by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has found.

In a study, African Perspectives on Scientific Freedom, launched at the Sixth Science, Technology, and Innovation Forum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in April 2024, UNESCO, highlights worrying trends that have increased pressure on the freedom and safety of scientists.

“When the voices of scientists are silenced, or societies’ ability to produce relevant and unbiased knowledge, to think critically, and to distinguish truth from falsehood is undermined. Without the freedom and safety of scientists, the trust in science and culture of science-driven decision-making are eroded,” said Gabriel Ramos, UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Social and Human  Sciences, in a foreword to the study.

UNESCO developed a Recommendation for Science and Scientific Researchers, which noted that for science to reach its full potential, it is crucial that scientists “work in a spirit of intellectual freedom to seek, explain and defend scientific truth as they perceive it and enjoy the protection of their autonomous judgment against undue influence.”

This followed findings that scientific freedom is being constrained by among other factors, declining civic discourse and armed conflicts. As a result of these constraints, UNESCO launched a new programme on the promotion of scientific freedom and the safety of scientists in 2023 to collect data to inform decision-making.

Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts the rights of all individuals to “share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” While the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights calls for the protection of the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its application. The Convention explicitly refers to scientific freedom in requiring member states to undertake to respect the ‘freedom indispensable to scientific research’.

There is a caveat. UNESCO says scientific freedom must be exercised alongside responsibility, which is the duty of scientists to conduct and apply science with integrity, in the interest of humanity, in a spirit of stewardship for the environment, and with respect for human rights.

Science ecosystems in Africa are operating in a challenging environment, underscoring the need to restore trust in science and the recognition of scientists in advancing human development, UNESCO says.

Highlighting the restrictions of research freedom, Acting Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town, Daya Reddy, who reviewed the African Perspectives on Scientific Freedom report, noted the need for increased collaboration between scientists and policymakers to foster science, technology, and innovation.

Reddy said the study focus area was for Africa to develop guidelines and recommendations on scientific freedom after gaining a better understanding of the state of scientific freedom in six African countries profiled under the pilot study. The study assessed scientific freedom in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. It found that scientific freedom was not uniformly understood and appreciated in different national contexts, which necessitated the creation of a robust framework of laws and policies to promote research and publication.

A lack of resources and a critical mass were identified as some factors impinging on scientific freedom which did not have an explicit profile or presence in policies and legal frameworks in the six countries. This is despite the fact that most national constitutions protected a range of human rights and freedoms, such as the freedom of expression, opinion, and information, but were silent on scientific freedom. The Democratic Republic of Congo is an exception and asserts in its constitution, the freedom of access to research results, while protecting the interests of its authors.

Despite representing 12.5 percent of the global population, Africa was contributing less than one percent to global research output and the continent was spending even less on Research and Development. In 2006, African Heads of State and government agreed to commit one percent of the national GDP to research and development to boost scientific innovation. However, none of the African countries have met this threshold, pointing to pervasive low spending on scientific research in Africa.

Building a culture of science

We need to build a culture of science to accelerate sustainable development in Africa, says Lidia Brito, UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Natural Sciences. She argues that scientists play a crucial role in promoting the well-being of society and for science to deliver its full potential, scientists must be able to work freely, without any restrictions.

“Science needs space to develop. There is also the need to interact with society to understand their needs and then through scientific endeavors to come up with solutions but in a co-designer, co-participating mode, Brito told IPS, emphasizing that guaranteeing that scientists have the freedom in terms of finance and infrastructure, and the space to develop their scientific programmes is key.

“We want science and scientists to be these heroes who come up with solutions to the pressing challenges we are facing globally,” Brito said.

But how do we promote the culture of science given that in Africa there is poor investment in research and development?

The UNESCO report, African Perspectives on Scientific Freedoms, calls for more investment in science, in scientific organizations, and the training of more researchers in Africa. This will be possible through an enabling environment that fosters the growth of science and scientists to operate.

“It is also about protecting the profession of scientists and about creating a conducive environment to retain the scientists in the scientific career, which is particularly important for women scientists, Brito said, adding that many times women start their careers in science but then leave because the work environment is not conducive for them.

The study noted the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, and research in Africa as an issue that needed to be addressed. Fewer than 31 percent of scientists in Sub-Saharan Africa are women, according to UNESCO.

Plugging the brain drain

Besides, Africa is experiencing a brain drain of its scientists, attracted by better conditions in other countries, especially the global North. The World Economic Forum (WEF) found that Africa has fewer than 100 scientists per million inhabitants and will need to increase this to the global average of 800 by training millions of scientists, technicians, and engineers to post-graduate levels over the next few years.

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
Jul 18 2024 –  
CIVICUS discusses abortion rights in Brazil with Guacira Oliveira, director of the Feminist Centre for Studies and Advice (CFEMEA). CFEMEA is an anti-racist feminist organisation that defends women’s rights, collective care and self-care and monitors developments in Brazil’s National Congress.

In June, thousands of women took to the streets of São Paulo and other cities to protest against a bill that would classify abortion after 22 weeks as homicide, punishable by six to 20 years in prison. Protests began when the lower house of Congress fast-tracked the bill, limiting debate. Abortion is currently legal in Brazil only in cases of rape, foetal malformation or danger to the life of a pregnant person. The proposed bill, promoted by evangelical representatives, would criminalise people who have abortions more severely than rapists. Public reaction has slowed down the bill’s progress and its future is now uncertain.

How would this new anti-abortion law, if passed, affect women?

Currently, abortion is legal in Brazil only in cases of rape, danger to a pregnant person’s life and severe foetal malformation. However, current legislation doesn’t set a maximum gestational age for access to legal abortion. The proposed bill would equate abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy with homicide, punishing the person seeking the abortion and the health professionals who perform it.

This would particularly affect girls, as over 60 per cent of rape victims are children under the age of 13. In more than 64 per cent of these cases, the rapist is someone close to the girl’s family, making it difficult to identify the rape and the resulting pregnancy.

Another perverse aspect of the problem is racial inequality. Forty per cent of rape victims are Black children and adolescents, and of those under 13, more than 56 per cent are Black girls. Of 20,000 girls under the age of 14 who give birth each year, 74 per cent are Black. In addition, Black women are 46 per cent more likely to have an abortion than white women. The passage of this bill would make Black women and girls even more vulnerable than they already are. The law should protect these women and girls, not criminalise them.

How has civil society mobilised against the bill?

CFEMEA has been monitoring threats to legal abortion for decades and is part of the National Front Against the Criminalisation of Women and for the Legalisation of Abortion. Threats increased with the rise of the far right to the presidency in 2018, and feminist movements mobilised over cases of girls who were victims of sexual violence and faced institutional barriers to accessing legal abortion.

In 2023, in response to regressive legislation, they launched the ‘A child is not a mother‘ platform, recently reactivated as the new anti-abortion bill was submitted as a matter of urgency. More than 345,000 people signed up to the campaign and sent messages to parliamentarians. They also applied pressure on social media through posts and hashtags such as #criançanémãe (#ChildNotMother), #PLdagravidezinfantil (#CongressForChildPregnancy) and #PLdoestupro (#CongressForRape).

We also campaigned through face-to-face actions and other collectively defined strategies, led mainly by state-level alliances against the criminalisation of women and for the legalisation of abortion. In May, we laid a symbolic wreath in front of the Federal Council of Medicine, which in April had published a resolution banning foetal asystole, a procedure recommended by the World Health Organization for legal abortions after 22 weeks. By doing so we symbolised our grief for all the women and girls whose lives are cut short due to lack of access to a legal abortion. We reenacted this outside the official residence of the President of the Chamber of Deputies, just before the fast-track request for the anti-abortion bill was approved, on the evening of 12 June.

The following day, the first public protests took place in several Brazilian state capitals. These continued over subsequent days, culminating in a nationwide action on 27 June. The issue is still on the agenda in July and demonstrations are still going strong.

Why is Brazil moving against the regional trend towards legalisation?

Brazil has seen advances by the religious fundamentalist far right since 2016, when President Dilma Rousseff was removed from office through a legal-parliamentary manoeuvre that amounted to a political coup. The violent ethnocentric, LGBTQI+-phobic, neopatriarchal and racist reaction intensified in 2018 with the victory of Jair Bolsonaro in an election marred by disinformation.

Conservatives view the rights to diverse and plural ways of life as a threat to their existence. In this sense, their regressive proposals are a direct response to women’s struggles against patriarchy and all forms of women’s oppression.

Even after its defeat in the 2022 presidential election, the far right has become stronger in the National Congress, where extremists have obtained majorities in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. This has led to the revival of a bill known as the ‘Statute of the Unborn Child’, aimed at granting ‘personhood’ to the foetus in order to criminalise abortion.

Many factors explain the conservative reaction in Brazil and around the world. For fascists in power and in society, violence is justified against groups considered to be ‘enemies of the people’, which can include any dissenting voices – those of women, Black people, Indigenous peoples and LGBTQI+ people. In the case of women, they are trying to re-domesticate us, to send us back home, subservient to the command and judgement of patriarchs. Control over reproduction and our bodies is a crucial part of this strategy.

What are the forces for and against sexual and reproductive rights in Brazil?

The main force against sexual and reproductive rights is religious fundamentalism, which positions itself as a harbinger of control over women’s bodies and gender dissidents and is strongly represented in the National Congress. The defence of these rights lies in the progressive camp, represented by the political left and the feminist, women’s and LGBTQI+ movements.

But it’s worth noting that even with a Congress besieged by anti-rights groups, most people have a less punitive and more empathetic understanding of feminist struggles and women’s rights. A survey we carried out in 2023, in collaboration with the Observatory of Sex and Politics and the Centre for Studies and Public Opinion of the State University of Campinas, showed that 59 per cent were against the criminalisation and possible imprisonment of women who have abortions.

What are the main demands of the Brazilian feminist movement?

The feminist movement is plural and diverse, but what it has in common is the fight to end all forms of violence against women. CFEMEA seeks to transform the world through anti-racist feminism and by taking a stand against all gender inequalities and oppression. This is our position when we enter dialogue with society and make demands of governments. We demand public policies that reduce inequalities between men, women and people with other gender identities, considered in their intersectional dimensions of age, creed, ethnicity, nationality, physical abilities and race, among others.

A fundamental issue is the sexual and racial division of labour, a powerful structure that maintains and exacerbates the inequalities experienced by women. After all, the care work they do, despite being rendered invisible and devalued by patriarchal capitalism, is an indispensable condition for human life and the construction of collective good living. The manifesto of the Anti-Racist Feminist Forum for a National Care Policy, signed by dozens of movements and organisations, affirms the need for social reproduction activities to be recognised and shared by the state. This means that care work, which is currently unpaid and done at the family and community levels almost exclusively by women, must be effectively taken over by the state, because care is a human need.

We demand that governments allocate public investment to combat gender inequalities in areas as diverse as care, culture, education, the environment, health, justice, labour, leisure and wellbeing. It is the state, not the market, that can and must combat such inequalities.

Civic space in Brazil is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with CFEMEA via its website or its Facebook or Instagram page, and follow @cfemea on Twitter.

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’);