By Annika Otterstedt and Luca De Fraia
STOCKHOLM Sweden / MILAN, Italy, Feb 14 2025 – When world leaders gather in Seville for the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in June, they will be meeting at a pivotal moment: one defined by mounting systemic risks, a multiplication of crises, and proliferation and fragmentation of development co-operation actors and funds.

International development co-operation is also threatened by the ongoing erosion of funding, including through unilateral decisions of unparalleled magnitude. While momentum for reform and transformative change to the financial and development architecture is growing, it is crucial not to lose sight of the fundamentals.

To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), increases in the quantity of development financing, be it official development assistance (ODA), private finance, or South-South co-operation, must be complemented with boosting the quality of all types of financing so that they are delivered and used in the most effective way.

Credit: Nuthawut Somsuk

Efforts to increase the quality of financing are embodied by the development effectiveness agenda and its internationally agreed principles: country ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and mutual accountability. The principles are tried and tested, and more relevant than ever.

They build on and reflect decades of global experience and are increasingly crucial for addressing the challenges that characterize today’s development co-operation landscape, such as fragmentation and misalignment with country priorities. They are also key for mobilising different types of finance from a growing array of development partners and partnerships.

Yet, as the development landscape has increased in complexity in the years after the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the systematic focus on development effectiveness at country level has not been adequately integrated into country ecosystems and ambitions. For instance, Integrated National Finance Framework (INFF) processes could be better utilized as opportunities to talk about development effectiveness.

As Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, we believe that development effectiveness is essential to mobilising financing for sustainable development, across all types of international co-operation for development. The FfD4 Outcome Document must clearly stress this point.

A stronger, more systematic focus on the benefits of development effectiveness – and on addressing the bottlenecks and trade-offs that hinder progress on the 2030 Agenda and SDGs – is essential to reinstate trust, increase financing for development, and achieve long-term positive impacts.

The four principles of effective development co-operation remain the core enablers of development effectiveness. We welcome the focus of the recently released FfD4 Zero Draft Outcome Document on country leadership, coherence, and mutual accountability, but reiterate the need to uphold past commitments originating from the long-lasting aid effectiveness and development effectiveness processes.

It is important for the Outcome Document to stress the continued validity and intertwined nature of the four effectiveness principles, including the role of inclusive partnerships and of civil society organizations in particular.

The involvement of all stakeholders – partner countries, development partners, the private sector, civil society, parliamentarians, philanthropies, and trade unions – remains central to the effectiveness agenda. It is also important to focus on the effectiveness of partnerships with the private sector, in particular by creating enabling environments for a local private sector to thrive, an area monitored by the Global Partnership through the Kampala Principles Assessment.

Effective private sector partnerships are key for ensuring transparency and accountability and for combatting corruption. A whole-of-society approach is key to achieving true country ownership, which has emerged as a central theme in the FfD4 negotiations.

How can the Global Partnership and development effectiveness contribute to FfD4 and its follow-up?

First, the Global Partnership Monitoring Exercise provides evidence to inform how development actors can improve their policies, practices and partnerships, insights into progress in implementing the agreed effectiveness commitments, as well as opportunities for learning, dialogue and sharing of experiences on emerging effectiveness challenges.

The monitoring is a partner-country led tool holding development stakeholders to account for their implementation of the commitments, and a starting point for concrete action and behaviour change. Since 2011, 103 partner countries have led the monitoring exercise one or more times in collaboration with over 100 development partners and other actors. The ongoing global monitoring round will bring new evidence into the discussions on effectiveness, including in the lead-up and follow-up to FfD4.

(Read preliminary observations from the first 11 countries to complete data collection: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nepal, the Philippines, Uganda, Yemen and Zambia).

The fresh insights from the monitoring round are one important source of evidence which will feed into country-led multi-stakeholder action for how to enhance effectiveness.

Second, the Global Partnership’s 4th High-Level Meeting (HLM4) in 2026, where the monitoring results will be presented, is the next crucial moment after FfD4 to take stock of development effectiveness, accelerate progress, drive accountability, and inform policy dialogue on international development co-operation trends.

We invite all development stakeholders to contribute to HLM4, and to act on the dilemmas, tensions and trade-offs we are all facing to expedite delivery of the 2030 Agenda. Strengthening and streamlining the development co-operation architecture must be a collaborative, inclusive process.

The Global Partnership offers a proven, multi-stakeholder platform to ensure that all voices are heard in shaping the future of development co-operation.

We invite you to join forces with us: raise the profile of development effectiveness in the lead-up and follow-up to FfD4, and use the monitoring findings for learning, dialogue and action at country level.

Recognizing that development effectiveness is a key enabler for sustainable development by 2030 (and beyond) and fully embracing and recognizing the effectiveness principles in their integrity, is a prerequisite for an impactful and action-oriented outcome at FfD4.

Annika Otterstedt is Assistant Director General, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and Luca De Fraia is Co-Chair, CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness.

Annika Otterstedt and Luca De Fraia are also Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation.

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, Feb 14 2025 – When some of the world’s “authoritarian and repressive regimes” were elected as members of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) –including Cuba, China, Russia, Kazakhstan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) — a US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher infamously remarked: “The inmates have taken over the asylum, I don’t plan to give the lunatics any more American tax dollars to play with.”

That remark brought back memories of a 1975 award-winning Hollywood classic “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, with Jack Nicholson as a rebellious patient causing havoc at a US mental institution while leading a group of protesting inmates.

And last week, the US decided, metaphorically speaking, to fly over the cuckoo’s nest—and withdraw from the Geneva-based 47-member Human Rights Council.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115782

Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, told IPS the Human Rights Council and all United Nations bodies are better and stronger with the United States being actively engaged.

“Any state withdrawing from the HRC only encourages the dictators, torturers, and human rights abusers of the world. At this moment in history, with creeping authoritarianism and human rights under attack in so many parts of the world, the Human Rights Council remains indispensable,” he added.

UN Human Rights Council in session in Geneva. Credit: UN Photo/Elma Okic

Ambassador A.L.A. Azeez, a foreign policy commentator, who previously served as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, told IPS the United States’ withdrawal from the UNHRC is a counterproductive move that harms both US interests and the global cause of human rights.

This departure from a critical multilateral institution is unlikely to achieve transformative change within the council. It never happened with its previous withdrawals, nor may it happen now, with the current one, he pointed out.

What does it achieve then?

“It removes the US’s opportunity to engage constructively with members and stakeholders, contributing to the strengthening of human rights multilateralism. By exiting, the US forfeits its ability to shape the narrative, push for necessary reforms, and advocate for its values”.

Human rights multilateralism, he argued, depends on the engagement and collaboration of diverse nations. Not one state or a small group of states alone however influential they are!”

This withdrawal amounts to an abdication of shared responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights. It risks signaling a diminished US commitment to human rights, potentially eroding the international human rights system and damaging whatever credibility and moral authority the US has on the world stage, said Ambassador Azeez.

Periodic withdrawals from international bodies like the UNHRC severely damage the US’s image as a steadfast defender of human rights and multilateralism. The US cannot afford to project an image of selective engagement, perceived as contingent on the council’s alignment with US views.

This erosion of credibility hinders the US’s ability to lead by example and effectively champion human rights.

The primary motivation for the withdrawal seems to be concerns about bias against a close US ally in the Middle East. While such concerns are often expressed, is exiting the council the best solution? A more constructive approach would be to remain engaged and work to address perceived concerns from within.

While strategic calculations may drive the idea of disengagement from multilateral bodies, the era of unipolarity is over. Multilateralism must reassert itself, acting as a mediating force among competing geopolitical interests. The importance of remaining engaged in multilateral human rights efforts and driving meaningful change from within cannot be overstated, declared Ambassador Azeez.

Responding to a question at the UN press briefing February 4, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said: “It doesn’t alter our position on the importance of the Human Rights Council as part of the overall human rights architecture within the United Nations,” he said.

“And on UNRWA, I’m not sure that’s something that’s very new. I mean, and again, it doesn’t alter our commitment to supporting UNRWA in its work, and in its work of delivering critical services to Palestinians under its mandate,” said Dujarric.

Amanda Klasing, National Director, Government Relations & Advocacy with Amnesty International USA, said announcing that the United States is withdrawing from the Human Rights Council when it is not even a sitting member, is just the latest move by President Trump to demonstrate to the world his complete and blatant disregard for human rights and international cooperation — even if it weakens U.S. interests.

“Our world needs multilateral cooperation around shared interests, especially the protection of human rights. International institutions will continue to function, either with the U.S. or without it, but it seems that President Trump is uninterested in having a seat at that table to shape the norms and policies of the future, or even to protect the human rights of people in the United States”.

The HRC provides a global forum for governments to discuss human rights concerns, can authorize investigations that bring to light human rights violations, and, while not perfect, is a tool to hold governments accountable in fulfilling their human rights obligations, including to their own population.

President Trump’s performative decision to pull the U.S. out of the HRC, Klasing pointed out, signals to the rest of the world that the U.S. is happy to completely cede important decisions about human rights violations happening across the globe to other countries.

“This isn’t about President Trump thumbing his nose at the institution, instead he’s just demonstrating he’d rather make a callous show of rejecting human rights than do the work needed to protect and promote human rights for people everywhere, including in the U.S.”

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/u-s-withdrawal-from-un-human-rights-council-is-performative-disregard-for-human-rights/

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 IPS Correspondent
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 14 2025 – A new report from the UN Human Rights Office confirms that Bangladesh’s former government coordinated and committed human rights violations against its civilians to suppress the protest movement in July last year, with the high commissioner calling for justice and serious reform to end the cycle of violence and retribution.

On 12 February, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a long-awaited report on the human rights violations and abuses that took place during and following the anti-government protests in Bangladesh from 1 July to 15 August, 2024. This report is the outcome of a fact-finding mission conducted in September at the invitation of the interim government and its Chief Advisor, Dr. Muhammad Yunus.

The student-led movement began as a protest against the country’s high court’s decision to reinstate an unpopular quota system for civil service jobs. The movement spread across the country and garnered national attention when senior officials of the Awami League, the former ruling party, decried the students’ requests. As the students faced escalating retaliation from the Awami League and security forces, protestors shifted their demands towards wider government reform and the resignation of former prime minister Sheikh Hasina. She fled to India on August 5, 2024, marking an end to her regime.

The report found that Hasina’s government and the security and intelligence teams systematically engaged in serious human rights violations. These included hundreds of extrajudicial killings, use of force on protestors, including children, and arbitrary detention and torture. OHCHR states that these human rights violations were conducted with the full knowledge and at the direction of the political leaders and security personnel, with the intent to suppress the protests.

“The brutal response was a calculated and well-coordinated strategy by the former government to hold onto power in the face of mass opposition,” said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk.

The OHCHR investigation found that senior Awami League officials mobilized their supporters and the Chhtra League, the party’s student wing, to carry out armed attacks on student protestors to dissuade dissent. When the protestors held their ground, police forces were instructed to take more forceful measures, and the government prepared to deploy paramilitary forces armed with military rifles.

The report confirmed the presence and use of metal pellets, rubber bullets, and tear gas on protestors, who were often unarmed. Excessive force was used against protestors by police and military personnel, notably the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a paramilitary group that have been criticized by human rights groups for their excessive use of violence and intimidation. An examination from Dhaka Medical College of 130 deaths from that period revealed that 80 percent were caused by firearms. Bangladesh’s Ministry of Health recorded over 13,000 injuries, many of which are long-term damage to the eyes and torso.

Women that participated in the protests faced verbal abuse and physical assaults from the police and Awami League supporters. Female students were also threatened with sexual violence to dissuade them from joining the protests. OHCHR references at least two accounts of women who were physically assaulted and groped by Chhatra League members before being turned over to the police. They remark in the report that it was possible that many more such cases might have occurred but were unreported.

OHCHR estimates that as many as 1,400 deaths occurred relating to the protests, with children accounting for approximately 12 percent of those deaths. These deaths occurred among underage students who participated in the protests or children who were bystanders and were fatally shot by stray bullets.

The report also notes the state’s efforts to suppress information and conceal the extent of the unrest. Journalists faced intimidation from security forces; by the end of the protests, at least 200 journalists were injured and six were confirmed dead. Meanwhile, the former government’s intelligence and telecommunications agencies implemented internet and telecom shutdowns without providing legal justification. This was to prevent the organization of protests through social media and prevented journalists, activists and the general public from sharing or accessing information about the protests and the government’s retaliation.

In the immediate aftermath of Hasina’s departure, the violence did not end. Instead, there were reported cases of revenge violence targeting the police, Awami League supporters, or those perceived to be supporting them. Reports also emerged of attacks on indigenous communities from the Chittagong Hill Tracts and the minority Hindu communities. Although 100 arrests relating to these attacks were reportedly made, many of the perpetrators still faced impunity.

OHCHR remarks that the former government’s crackdown on the protest movement constituted violations of international law. It is emblematic of a deeper trend towards employing intimidation and even lethal force to clamp down on civic and political activity.

The report concludes with a series of recommendations for sweeping reforms across the justice and security sectors and to implement broader changes to the political system.

Since the report’s release, the interim government has indicated they welcome its findings and will take steps to implement the recommendations. “I, along with everyone else working in the interim government and millions of other Bangladeshis, am committed to transforming Bangladesh into a country in which all its people can live in security and dignity,” Yunus said on Wednesday. Noting the report’s reference to structural issues within the law enforcement sectors, Yunus called on the people in those sectors to “side with justice, the law, and the people of Bangladesh in holding to account their own peers and others who have broken the law and violated the human and civil rights of their fellow citizens.”

Türk expressed that his office would be ready to support Bangladesh in the process of national accountability reform. “The best way forward for Bangladesh is to face the horrific wrongs committed during this period through a comprehensive process of truth-telling, healing and accountability and to redress the legacy of serious human rights violations and ensure they can never happen again.”

The interim government’s acknowledgement of the human rights report is to be welcomed. In the past, it was common for previous governments to dismiss any such reports. Healing and retribution must be owed to the lives lost during the protests. At the same time, this government and the people they represent must also recognize that in their efforts to seek justice and accountability, they should not fall into the trap of mob violence or a total otherizing of former leaders, even as the ousted regime carries out a campaign against the interim government and last year’s protests.

Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, warns that the government “should not repeat the mistakes of the past” and instead ensure the proper procedures for impartial rule of law. “Bangladeshis are angry over the repression by the Hasina administration and they deserve justice and accountability, but it has to be in a rights-respecting manner,” she said. “All crimes, including mob violence, should be punished, but when authority figures characterize opponents as the ‘devil,’ it can fuel abuses by security forces that have never faced accountability.”

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’);