By Gina Romero
BOGOTA, Colombia, Feb 27 2025 – The U.S. administration has the prerogative to review and adjust public expenditure policies, including foreign aid. However, this power must be exercised responsibly, adhering to national and international legal frameworks, including the principles of human rights law.

The recent decisions by the Trump administration to freeze federal grants and loans, including foreign aid, have raised serious concerns about the implications for local, national and international associations.

These measures, which followed executive orders aimed at “reevaluating” U.S. foreign assistance and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, risk undermining the freedoms that are vital to democratic societies.

In a letter sent to the USG, 35 UN experts indicate that the freeze on funding and stop work orders has been described as a drastic measure that could have a far-reaching impact on the ability of individuals and organizations to advocate for and protect human rights.

The decision to stop work on federal projects, including critical programs funded through foreign aid, is having an immediate effect on vulnerable communities and human rights defenders worldwide. The ripple effects are particularly severe for marginalized groups who depend on these resources for essential services like healthcare, education, access to food and housing.

These measures also disproportionately affect organizations working on gender equality, LGBTIQ issues, reproductive rights, and poverty alleviation, which are already underfunded and face significant challenges in the global South.

The implications of these measures affect different type of associations, including small and medium-sized businesses, not-for-profit entities, civil society organizations, universities, faith-based groups, and even scientific research institutions that rely on U.S. funding to carry out their work.

The speed and scale of the funding freeze have left these entities unable to fulfil their missions. Some have already been forced to lay off staff, suspend vital programs, and even close their doors, leading to the shrinking of civic space in countries where they have long been key players in advocating for democracy, human rights, and sustainable development.

The Need for Proportionality, Transparency, and Legal Compliance

While the goal of effective public expenditure is commendable, its success depends on a transparent and inclusive process that is in line with legal standards, including international human rights law. These measures, which were implemented with little consultation or clear communication, have not adhered to the principle of proportionality, which is enshrined in both domestic and international law.

The absence of transparent guidelines, accountability mechanisms, respect for due process, and avenues for appeal is troubling, especially when the measures have such wide-reaching consequences.

International human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is a signatory, guarantees the right to freedom of association. This right not only protects the ability to form associations but also to carry out the activities for which those associations were established.

The freedom to access resources is a critical component of this right, as it enables organizations to seek, receive, and use resources from a variety of sources, both domestic and international. When funding is denied, it effectively denies organizations the means to operate, undermining their ability to fulfil their missions.

The freeze on U.S. funding, without due process or clear guidelines, is in direct conflict with these principles. The lack of clarity on how decisions are made or how organizations can challenge them undermines the rights of associations.

Furthermore, the failure to involve stakeholders—including U.S. civil society organizations—in the decision-making process is a violation of the principles of democratic governance and transparency.

The Global Impact of U.S. Funding Decisions

The far-reaching consequences of the funding freeze are most acutely felt in countries where U.S. aid supports critical initiatives in areas such as healthcare, education, peacebuilding, and human rights protection.

For example, programs addressing sexual and reproductive health are at immediate risk of cessation. Similarly, efforts to combat gender-based violence, support displaced communities, and provide education to marginalized groups are being disrupted.

In addition to these humanitarian concerns, the freeze also threatens to derail long-standing initiatives aimed at promoting democracy, good governance, and the rule of law. U.S. foreign aid has long been a pillar of support for civil society organizations that monitor elections, promote anti-corruption efforts, and advocate for human rights protections, among others.

The suspension of funding to these programs undermines not only the work of these organizations but also the broader goal of promoting democratic values worldwide.

The U.S. government’s decision to cut funding to programs that address discrimination—particularly those related to DEI initiatives—has sparked additional controversy. These measures have the potential to undermine efforts to protect individuals from workplace discrimination and ensure equal access to opportunities.

By targeting DEI programs, the administration is signalling a shift away from policies designed to address structural inequalities, which could have long-term negative effects on social justice worlwide.

The Stigmatization of Civil Society Organizations

Another concerning consequence of these decisions is the stigmatization of associations managing and receiving U.S. funding. The administration’s rhetoric has painted many civil society organizations as threats to national security.

This kind of stigmatization is dangerous because its fosters hostility toward groups that are engaged in legitimate advocacy for development, human rights and democratic governance.

Also, it places these organizations—and their staff—at risk of harassment, intimidation, and even physical violence, particularly in countries where civil society organizations are already under threat. Stigmatization is the entry door for repression and violence.

This pattern of vilification has serious consequences. As I noted in my more recent report to the UN General Assembly, negative narratives about civil society organizations and other associations deepen the stigmatization of activists and organizations, leading to increased repression, physical attacks, and online harassment.

These dynamics create an environment in which activists and civil society organizations are seen not as contributors to public good but as enemies.

The Path Forward: Upholding Human Rights and Civil Society

The decision to freeze funding may have been motivated by a desire to ensure more effective public spending, but it risks doing lasting damage to civil society. The lack of transparency, failure to follow due process, and disregard for international human rights law make these measures problematic.

To ensure that the U.S. upholds its commitment to human rights and the freedom of association, it is imperative that the U.S. government must urgently comply with the recent court orders, pay invoices, reconsider the impact of its freeze on foreign aid and federal grants and to compensate for the damage done. Besides, future decisions regarding foreign aid and public funding be made with greater clarity, accountability, and respect for the rule of law.

The U.S. must also recognize that associations in general and civil society organizations in particular are critical to the realization of human rights. These organizations play an essential role in advocating for the protection of fundamental freedoms, including the rights to health, education, and social justice.

Freezing funding and issuing stop work orders without clear and transparent procedures not only undermines these organizations but also threatens to dismantle vital systems of support for marginalized communities.

It is crucial that the U.S. government ensures that future funding decisions are made with respect for international human rights standards, that organizations are able to access the resources they need to carry out their work, and that the right to freedom of association is upheld.

In conclusion, the freeze on U.S. funding represents a significant threat to the functioning of civil society organizations and to the protection of human rights globally. While the government’s decision to review public expenditure is within its rights, the approach taken thus far raises serious concerns about transparency, proportionality, and adherence to international human rights law.

To avoid further harm, the U.S. must prioritize the protection of civil society, uphold the right to freedom of association, and ensure that any policy changes are made in a manner that respects the fundamental freedoms on which democracy depends.

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’);  

Excerpt:

Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of assembly and of association

By Isaiah Esipisu
ADDIS ABABA, Feb 27 2025 – Renewable energy and climate change activists have challenged African heads of state to take a united stance to safeguard essential mineral resources, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and other parts of the continent, which are selfishly exploited by foreign miners with disregard for poverty-stricken local communities.

“We call upon the Africa Union Commission (AUC) to convene a special summit on the DRC and come up with resolutions on how African countries, particularly the DRC, should determine the value of their essential minerals, how they should engage foreign miners, and how to protect fundamental human rights of communities living in the mining areas,” said Dr. Augustine Njamnshi, the Director, Africa Coalition on Sustainable Energy Access (ACSEA), at an event ahead of the election of the new AUC Chairperson in Addis Ababa.

So far, the DRC is the world’s largest producer of cobalt and the third largest producer of copper, among other essential minerals that are used to manufacture state-of-the-art electric cars and buses, golf carts, pumps, and electric motorbikes, among other non-emitting but expensive gadgets like smart phones, tablets, laptops, drones, smart watches, and electric scooters, among other items.

As a result, the value and the growing demand of cobalt and other such essential minerals have led to a scramble for these rare metals, particularly by foreign miners.

Even as the activists make an appeal, the mineral wealth has become a pawn in the DRC’s war with Rwandan-backed M23.

According to Congolese president Felix Tseisekedi’s spokesperson, Tina Salama, on X, the United States was warned not to buy minerals from Rwanda, as this was tantamount to buying stolen goods. She said the proposal to buy directly from the DRC was also open to the European Union, with a warning that “receiving stolen goods will become increasingly complicated.”

“President Tshisekedi invites the USA, whose companies source strategic raw materials from Rwanda, materials that are looted from the DRC and smuggled to Rwanda while our populations are massacred, to purchase them directly from us, the rightful owners,” Salama said on X.

Appolinaire Zagabe, a Congolese human rights activist and the Director for the DRC Climate Change Network (Reseau Sur le Changement Climatique RDC), told IPS in an interview that the mineral exploitation was mired in corruption.

“The foreign miners sign contracts with the government to legalize their activities, and since they make so much money, they always bribe government officials and top-ranking police officers to protect them as they illegally expand their mining areas by forcefully evicting communities from their ancestral land,” Zagabe said.

“The current system of mineral exploitation activities in the DRC has almost no positive impact on the local communities. Community rights are not respected and the population is a victim of companies’ pollution,” Zagabe told IPS. “There are no community programs undertaken, no durable infrastructure is put in place, no health facilities, no schools, no roads. Hence, people in those areas remain the poorest in the world.”

Zagabe says that nearly all the hundreds of thousands of community members who suffer at the hands of foreign miners of cobalt and other essential minerals have never seen what an electric vehicle looks like, they have never owned a smart phone, and they don’t dream of using a tablet or even a computer in their lifetime, yet they interact on a daily basis with essential minerals that are at the center of manufacturing these items.

A report by Amnesty International in collaboration with the Initiative for Good Governance and Human Rights/Initiative pour la Bonne Gouvernance et les Droits Humains (IBGDH) paints a grim picture of what is happening in the DRC.

The minerals, which are apparently supposed to be a huge blessing, have turned out to be a curse for the communities.

“People are being forcibly evicted, or threatened or intimidated into leaving their homes, or misled into consenting to derisory settlements. Often there was no grievance mechanism, accountability, or access to justice,” said Donat Kambola, president of IBGDH, in a statement.

“It is total chaos,” said Zagabe. “Human rights activists are often harassed whenever they denounce violations of community rights in mining areas, and they risk being killed since most illegal mining companies have the backing of politicians or high-ranking soldiers,” he said.

The rush for essential minerals has also exposed artisanal/local miners to harsh working conditions where some of them have been buried alive within collapsed tunnels, children have been forced to child labor, and women, whose livelihoods have been taken away, have been forced to toil to extreme lengths to find minerals, which they sell to foreign mining companies for almost nothing.

According to a report by Friends of the Congo (FOTC), child labor is well documented in the cobalt supply chain, with children as young as seven (years old) working in mines under dangerous conditions, depriving them of education and a healthy childhood.

“Pit wall collapses are common when digging in larger open-air pits, with the result of all miners being buried alive; of the 10,000 to 15,000 tunnels dug by artisanal miners, none have supports, ventilation shafts, or other safety measures,” reads part of the report.

According to Njamnshi, whatever is happening in the DRC mining sector is replicated in nearly all other African countries. “The only difference is that in the DRC, the atrocities are on a large scale and therefore are more visible than what is happening, for example, in Kenya’s Nyatike goldmines in the western part of the country,” he said, noting that there is a need for a collective high-level resolution to protect all African countries from greedy foreign mineral-thirsty companies.

The alleged disrespect of human rights and signing of dubious contracts that oppress communities, denying them right to their resources, is not in line with the Dubai COP 28 resolution, which called for rapid decarbonization of the energy system to keep the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach.

The negotiators called for acceleration of the clean energy transition both from the demand and supply sides, but through a transformation that is orderly, just and equitable and also accounts for energy security.

“The world is changing very fast, and the geopolitical dynamics are becoming more unpredictable,” said Dr. Mithika Mwenda, the Executive Director at the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA).

“President Donald Trump’s executive orders should be a wake-up call for the continent, and likewise, African countries should find the power to dictate terms on their natural resources, including essential minerals,” he said during a PACJA event ahead of the 2025 AUC Summit in Addis Ababa.

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 Deborah Sy and Reina Roa Rodríguez
MANILA, Philippines / PANAMA CITY, Panama, Feb 27 2025 – The world took a historic step in the fight against tobacco when the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) came into force—the first legally binding global health treaty of its kind.

Two decades later, it stands as one of the most widely ratified international agreements, with 183 Parties bound by law to safeguard public health from the grip of the tobacco epidemic. The FCTC’s impact has been transformative. Seventy-five percent of its members have implemented at least some of its provisions, saving millions of lives.

Governments have raised tobacco taxes and are able to point to a benchmark rate, introduced graphic health warnings and can refer to a global database of warnings, banned all forms of cigarette advertising to the extent that major social media platforms have algorithms to avoid tobacco advertisements, and treated the FCTC as the minimum standard it was meant to be—for example, by passing laws that require cigarette packs to be simple and free of branding (plain packaging).

Once feared as a trigger for international trade wars, tobacco control measures have been upheld in the World Trade Organization (WTO). With the power of the FCTC, the tobacco transnational’s rights to its brand name and right to sue governments as foreign investors have been trumped in favor of public health.

Despite the FCTC’s near-universal adoption, less than half of the Parties have implemented Article 5.3 measures to prevent industry interference. Yet, where enforced, these safeguards have proven effective, blocking tobacco-funded COVID-19 vaccines from being promoted as corporate social responsibility(CSR).

The treaty also set a global precedent for rejecting tobacco industry partnerships, with the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) barring tobacco companies, the International Labor Organization (ILO) cutting industry funding, and UN agencies prohibiting tobacco-linked Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) collaborations.

FCTC governance has also shaped anti-smuggling efforts. The treaty and its Illicit Trade Protocol have reinforced a key principle: the tobacco industry must not be part of the solution. Governments rejected the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)’s application for Observer status due to tobacco funding, while the industry-backed track-and-trace system ‘Codentify’ was discredited due to conflicts of interest.

Rebranded Industry in the Age of ESG and Sustainability

The treaty helped delay the projection of 1 billion tobacco deaths in the 21st century—but new tobacco products are creating a fresh crisis.

Despite all these victories in public health, the tobacco industry has been persistently a cog in the machine and has been allowed to not just survive but even evolve. Tobacco giants have pivoted to a new strategy that allows them to hide behind environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives.

They invested in vaping, heated tobacco products (HTPs), and so-called “wellness” ventures, allowing them to create a “harm reduction” narrative while their products hook a whole new generation of youths, marketing themselves as public health allies while their products make people more vulnerable to chronic diseases.

Their CSR programs claim to support environmental sustainability—while they continue to sell the world’s largest source of plastic pollution: cigarette filters. Despite the fact that the UN Agency that shaped ESG trends has shunned tobacco as an ESG-compliant investment, national policies on ESG or CSR reporting are at risk of condoning this.

The COP and the “Dirty Ashtray” Delegations

With the introduction of novel products, tobacco companies gained a newfound sense of credibility and legitimacy, enabling them to influence national policies to exempt vaping from smoke-free laws and advertising ban, ultimately increasing youth exposure to and dependence on recreational addictive products.

The combination of the novel product with new narrative, CSR, direct lobbying, and revolving door appointments of senior government officials has allowed the industry’s influence to grow, even reaching the FCTC’s governing body, the Conference of the Parties (COP) — where tobacco industry arguments have successfully been used to weaken policy language and delay decision-making.

As a result, the FCTC COP failed to take a stronger stance on fully protecting the youth from recreational addictive devices, despite global youth-led coalitions demanding the same.

A Financial Solution: Making Big Tobacco Pay

To those gathering to mark the treaty’s 20th anniversary, a pressing question looms: Will the FCTC’s third decade be the one where Big Tobacco will stop causing harm?

The United States (U.S.) Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) forced the industry to pay $206 billion to U.S. states for healthcare costs. However, such rare legal victories have not succeeded in deterring misconduct. Even the recent Canadian lawsuit demonstrated how Big Tobacco can evade accountability through insolvency proceedings.

Governments need to go beyond litigation and adopt new financial mechanisms to hold the tobacco industry financially accountable: Tobacco companies should be forced to cover health and environmental costs through a polluter pays principle. Specialized tribunals could be designated to process claims without lengthy court battles.

A coordinated effort to harmonize sanctions and costs for harms can prevent Big Tobacco from exploiting regulatory loopholes across countries. Parties can consider establishing a Global Tobacco Control Fund modeled after vaccine injury or environmental compensation funds financed through mandatory industry contributions.

Towards Health Through Justice and Denormalization of the Tobacco Industry

The past decade has seen over 40 countries ban e-cigarettes and many exploring endgame strategies for a cigarette-free world. Belgium proposed a European Union (EU) – wide cigarette butt ban, and an immediate ban was backed by WHO in plastics treaty talks.

This decade also saw machine learning revolutionize real-time monitoring of tobacco industry interference and CSR strategies, curbing digital marketing, and tracking illicit trade. Meanwhile, youths are demanding financial accountability for generational harms.

In the coming decade, the $1.4 trillion annual global cost of smoking will grow to include lost opportunities, rehabilitation expenses for a generation of addicted youth, and the devastating environmental impact of the tobacco industry.

Governments must fully enforce the treaty—particularly Article 18 on environmental protection and Article 19 on liability—to hold tobacco companies financially accountable for the harm they cause, ensuring penalties that deter future misconduct. To stay relevant, the FCTC must continue expanding its influence beyond health, addressing policies on ESG, taxation, finance, and plastics regulation.

The world came together in 2005 to declare that tobacco must be controlled and reduced. In 2025, it must declare that Big Tobacco must be held accountable for 8 million lives lost each year. The merchants of death must not walk.

Atty. Deborah Sy, Head of Global Public Policy and Strategy at the Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC), is a legal expert in global health and tobacco control. She has played a key role in strengthening global policies on tobacco taxation, industry interference, liability, and environmental protection from tobacco.

Dr Reina Roa Rodríguez currently sits as the President of the Bureau of the FCTC COP and is a globally recognized leader in tobacco control. A technical-political expert at the Panamanian Ministry of Health and a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, she has played a pivotal role in advancing FCTC implementation at national, regional, and global levels.

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’);