By Carolina Vega and Chibuzor Nwabueze
Apr 7 2025 –  
In an increasingly digital world, democratic practices are evolving to encompass new forms of participation. Digital democracy – the use of technology to enhance civic action, movement building and access to information – has become a crucial force in shaping local and global political landscapes.

As digital spaces become central to public discourse, civil society’s work is crucial to ensure these spaces remain accessible, open, participatory and resistant to disinformation, censorship and repression.

RightsCon 2025, recently held in Taiwan, offered an opportunity to discuss the current challenges and opportunities at the intersection of tech and human rights.

The digital democracy dilemma

Internet access has expanded among excluded communities, providing new opportunities for civic action and organising for historically excluded communities. But at the same time there’s increasing use of digital surveillance, censorship and algorithmic manipulation by governments and companies with the aim of suppressing dissent and controlling public discourse.

In 2023, the last year for which full data is available, internet penetration in low-income countries grew by three per cent, but this came alongside a record decline in global electoral integrity, with state-backed disinformation campaigns influencing elections in at least 30 countries. This means there’s an urgent need for policies that both enhance digital inclusion and safeguard civic freedoms from technological threats, particularly given that AI use is growing.

Civil society is calling for a global regulatory framework that ensures tech is beneficial for all, while facing the challenge of tech-facilitated attacks on civic freedoms. At the same time, civil society resourcing is shrinking and stigmatising narratives from authoritarian governments spread by tech are on the rise. Meanwhile – as CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report outlines – big-tech corporations focus on protecting their political and profit agendas. This makes spaces for convening and deliberation like RightsCon more vital than ever.

What next?

A global framework is crucial to ensure technology serves the public good and contributes to a more inclusive and equitable society. As digital technologies become deeply embedded in every aspect of governance and civic space, as well as cultural and belief systems, the risks of fragmented digital policies and regulations grow, leading to inconsistent mechanisms for protection and unequal access across regions. This fragmentation can significantly increase exposure to disinformation, exploitation and surveillance, particularly for traditionally excluded and vulnerable groups.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) agreed at last year’s UN Summit of the Future represents the kind of comprehensive, multilateral framework civil society should advocate for. By fostering global cooperation, the GDC aims to establish shared principles for digital governance that prioritise human rights, democratic values and inclusive access to digital tools.

Through international bodies and cross-sector collaborations – such as those held at RightsCon – civil society can contribute towards shaping this framework, ensuring that civil society, governments and the private sector, including tech companies, work together to create a cohesive and accountable approach to digital governance.

Challenges and opportunities

Follow-up to the GDC must address a wide range of challenges, including digital access and inclusion. The existing digital ecosystem hinders equitable participation in democratic processes and efforts to realise human rights. There’s a need to close digital divides through targeted investments in education, digital skills and infrastructure, ensuring that everyone, regardless of geography or socioeconomic status, can access the tools needed to participate fully in shaping society. Civil society’s work here must be locally led, putting communities’ needs at the heart of advocacy and focusing on curating spaces for consultation and participation.

Another critical challenge is the intersection of government digitalisation and civic engagement. E-governance and online public services offer the potential for greater transparency, efficiency and participation, but they also introduce risks for privacy and security, reinforcing longstanding structural injustices such as racism and gender discrimination. Guidelines are needed to ensure transparency and accountability in digital governance while protecting the right to privacy. Polices need to enable the use of digital tools to fight and prevent corruption and ensure governments are held accountable.

And then there are the complex issues of AI governance. As AI technologies rapidly evolve, there come growing threats of algorithmic biases, a lack of transparency and the manipulation of public discourse and information ecosystems. Robust ethical standards for AI are needed that prioritise human rights and democratic values.

From the manipulation of public opinion, efforts to distort electoral outcomes and the generation of false narratives that can incite violence and social unrest, disinformation has many negative impacts on democracy. Evidence has repeatedly shown that in countries where politicians intensively use disinformation tactics, people’s trust in public institutions and democratic processes wanes and civic participation, a critical ingredient for democratic progress, falls. Conversations during RightsCon 2025 emphasised that civil society must engage with governments and regional and global institutions to help develop policies that regulate how information is managed in the digital age while working to improve media literacy and fact-checking initiatives.

The added value of civil society lies in its ability to act as a convener, broker and watchdog, and an advocate with and for traditionally excluded voices. Civil society is key in pushing for the inclusion of strong data protection laws, digital rights protections and regulations that curb the unchecked power of tech companies, where many grey areas for accountability remain underexplored. Working alongside governments and the private sector, civil society can lead the way in developing policies that safeguard democratic values, enhance accountability and ensure technology remains a tool for positive societal change. Through collective advocacy and partnership, civil society can drive a vision of a truly inclusive and ethical digital future.

Digital democracy and the challenges it faces aren’t national issues but global ones. Disinformation, cyberattacks and the erosion of digital rights transcend borders. More grounded international solidarity and cooperation is needed to create and enforce standards that protect online civic space and rights. The GDC must be supported and made more robust as a global framework for digital governance that upholds human rights, promotes transparency and ensures accountability.

Initiatives like the Digital Democracy Initiative should be championed in recognition of the unique role society plays in monitoring, analysing and challenging threats to digital democracy. It’s never been more crucial to enable and amplify civil society action in the face of global democratic decline amid an increasingly digital age.

Carolina Vega is Innovation Quality Management Lead at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. Chibuzor Nwabueze is Programme and Network Coordinator for CIVICUS’s Digital Democracy Initiative.

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 Harpinder Collacott
NEW YORK, Apr 7 2025 – Watching on our screens the devastation wrought by the earthquake which struck South-East Asia last week has brought a stark reminder of our shared vulnerability in this interconnected world. It has exposed again, too, the weak beams of traditional funding models that struggle to ensure a timely response to disasters.

Too often, when the emergency call goes out, the full extent of the response needed is held back with the message “please wait while we fundraise.”

Other global threats stalk us all too. Amongst the most worrying is that, while resources for disease prevention shrink, there’s a mounting worldwide risk that infectious diseases could resurge, threatening public health for everyone, everywhere.

At a time when the old systems have fallen down, it’s easy to succumb to the belief that we can only endure crises, not prevent or surmount them. But this fatalism is misplaced. Vulnerability is universal—but so too can be hope.

Harpinder Collacott

Yes, profound changes in the last few years have brought great pain, and no, we can’t undo the past. But we still have the collective power to shape a better future. We can overcome the challenges we face and seize new opportunities, but only if we approach them in new ways—and work together.

The solution to addressing shared global challenges is global public investment, a framework that will ensure support is readily available during emergencies and enable swift action against threats like infectious diseases. No country can face these alone, and no few countries should monopolize the response.

Working together is the way we can tackle shared risks and maximize shared rewards. This is not charity—it is collective self-interest. Everyone plays their part in meeting a common need from which everyone gains, and everyone steers those efforts together. In other words: all benefit, all contribute, and all decide.

But can we afford these investments?

Collectively, of course we can. In fact, we can’t afford not to make them. These investments will ultimately save money. And, it should be noted, countries are already putting resources into disaster preparedness and research for medicines, but too often, they operate in isolation or even competition with one another. With global challenges, cooperation is always a more effective strategy.

An old and patronising assumption in the Global North has been that low- and middle-income countries will never be able to contribute anything towards shared global challenges. In contrast, however, low- and middle-income countries themselves, during the height of the COVID crisis, pointed out their readiness to be involved in shared investment in global public goods.

These nations called for collaboration in research, shared access to medicines, and mutual protection—and warned how dangerous it would be if parts of the world were left to be treated only as an afterthought. High-income countries’ response? They promised to donate leftover vaccines once their own needs were met.

The results of the Global North’s refusal to work with the Global South as equals were, predictably, disastrous: millions more died, the pandemic lasted far longer, and even high-income countries suffered much higher economic costs than they would have faced had they worked in global partnership.

The lesson is clear: we need shared investment, with shared power, to secure our shared future.

Of course, not all countries would pay the same amount. Just as within a country we all contribute through taxes to shared services from which we all benefit, international contributions would be scaled to each country’s means. From this pooling of resources, everyone wins out.

Soo too, sharing decision-making power isn’t a loss; it enhances everyone’s collective capacity to tackle problems too large for any single country to manage alone.

Global challenges are complex, and no single measure will suffice. Alongside global public investment in shared challenges and opportunities, we also need to take other urgent steps, including addressing the global debt crisis and stepping up international cooperation to prevent tax avoidance. This era of “polycrisis” can only be resolved through “poly-action.”

Countries in the Global South are at the forefront of advocating for global public investment. Colombia, for example, is championing reforms to make the international financial system more equitable and inclusive approach and has declared itself “very much aligned with the global public investment approach.”

Chile, likewise, has called on the world “to be creative and ambitious. Crucial will be a significant increase in public money, that cannot be managed as we managed it in the last century. Governance in the 21st century needs to be representative and effective. Chile supports the development of global public investment.”

This call from the South is also winning support amongst forward-thinking countries in the North. “A new system geared toward solving truly common problems must be based on equitable relationships between countries,” says Norway’s Norad agency. “Global public investment is the closest thing to a shared vision for the transformation of international development.”

Experts, international organizations, and governments have been building plans for the global public investment approach for over a decade, and support and momentum have continued to grow.

This year, global public investment is rising up in international negotiations even faster: South Africa’s leadership of the G20’s Development Working Group has named “global public goods and global public investment” as its number one priority, “aimed at the construction of a new architecture of international cooperation, based on three precepts: all contribute according to their means, all benefit according to their needs, and all decide equitably”.

As these pioneering governments are demonstrating in advancing progress for global public investment, hope is not passive, hope is an active force we create together. It needs all of us. For the global challenges we face, building a new international architecture based around global public investment is necessary, urgent, feasible, and widely supported.

As more leaders commit to this cause, global public investment will not only change lives—it will illuminate the path forward in overcoming common challenges.

Harpinder Collacott is the Executive Director of the Global Public Investment Network

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 Stein Tønnesson
Apr 7 2025 –  
The armistice agreement that ended the Korean War in 1953 has been mentioned as a possible model for how to end the fighting in Ukraine. This makes sense. The Trump administration, however, seems to opt for a quick deal like the 1973 Paris agreement on Vietnam or the Minsk agreements of 2014–15, combining “ceasefires in place” with vain prospects of subsequently reaching a genuine peace agreement.

One lesson from the negotiations that led to the Korean armistice is that patient diplomacy is needed to end a stalemated war. When talks began in July 1951, the impatient Mao Zedong estimated that two weeks would be enough to conclude. The negotiations instead took two years. The result was a long text, detailing the exact border line and establish a demilitarized zone across the peninsula under UN supervision. The stated intention was to follow up with a peace agreement. This came to nothing. The conference established for the purpose in Geneva decided instead to reach an agreement on Indochina, dividing Vietnam for the next 21 years and replacing the French with American military forces.

The biggest difference between the Korea and Ukraine wars is that the Ukrainians are fighting alone, with only external military support, while the Korean War was primarily fought by American and Chinese forces on Korean soil. Back then, the armistice agreement was concluded by the commanders of the US-dominated UN forces, the Chinese “volunteers”, and the North Korean army, against the wish of Syngman Rhee’s government in Seoul. He wanted to continue the fight for national reunification. Only after being offered a defence pact with the US did he accept the negotiated outcome, yet did not sign the agreement. South Korea has never signed the armistice that has prevented new outbreaks of war.

The key similarity between the Korean and Ukrainian wars is the prominent role of the USA as a supporter of the governments in Seoul and Kyiv. In both cases a condition for ensuring that an armistice can hold is that the US take responsibility for any agreement and joins up with others in providing security guarantees. A key reason why war has not resumed in Korea for the last 72 years is the continued US presence in the south. American troops act as a “tripwire,” ensuring that any North Korean invasion would lead to a war it would surely lose. For the same reason, the US needs to have boots on the ground in Ukraine.

Another similarity is that any attempt to conclude a genuine peace agreement is futile. A genuine peace in Korea would require that North and South agree either on national reunification or on recognizing each other as independent states, just as East and West Germany did in 1973. A peace agreement was even more unthinkable for Syngman Rhee and Kim Il Sung in 1953–54 than it is for Seoul and Pyongyang today. It is just as inconceivable that President Vladimir Putin will withdraw voluntarily from Donbas and Krym as it is for President Volodymyr Zelensky to conclude a definitive peace agreement that does not recognize Ukrainian sovereignty to its entire territory. To maintain the principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, it is also crucial for Europe and the UN that Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty is not internationally recognized. Therefore, just as the two Koreas, Russia and Ukraine must settle for something less than a peace treaty, namely an armistice. This may end the fighting and could save hundreds of thousands of lives but will not establish peace.

An armistice is not a simple ceasefire, where military forces are supposed to remain where they happen to be situated when the agreement is made. For a Ukrainian armistice to be respected, the Russian and Ukrainian forces must withdraw to either side of a clearly delineated demilitarized zone. This is complicated by the fact that the front lines are so long. The easiest compromise would be for Ukraine to let Russia retain control over Krym, while Russia withdraws from Donbas. Third parties should put pressure on Moscow and Kyiv to accept that neat solution. To soften the pill, Ukraine could guarantee a high degree of local autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. International monitoring with the use of satellite surveillance along the entire border would be needed. If one or both parties were to mobilize combat forces, launch drone attacks, or place rocket launchers on alert, warning signals should be triggered and international security guarantees enforced by robust multi-national forces.

A final similarity between Korea 1953 and Ukraine 2025 armistice is that both sides must abstain from any political interference at the other side of the agreed boundary. Russia and Ukraine must remain fully sovereign and independent states. Any rapprochement between the two Korean states continues to depend on Seoul’s ability to convince Pyongyang that it does not seek regime change in the north and on the willingness of Kim Jong Un to abstain from provocative missile tests and vocal threats. Putin apparently wants an agreement to include a provision for new elections in Ukraine, so he can interfere in Ukraine’s internal affairs and remove Zelensky from power. This is a destructive demand that should be consistently rejected by any mediating or facilitating party to talks. The Ukrainians must decide for themselves when to lift their state of emergency and hold democratic elections.

President Trump has put pressure on Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire and has conceded on Ukraine’s behalf that it cannot get back all its lost territory or obtain NATO membership. He should now concentrate his efforts on convincing both sides to engage in negotiations for a strongly guaranteed and highly monitored armistice rather than a quick and fragile ceasefire or a dodgy settlement allowing one side to interfere in the other.

Related articles:

Korea Will Soon Face a Security Dilemma Like Europe’s
First Vietnam, Then Afghanistan: Is Ukraine Next?
Is the Time Ripe for an End to the Ukraine War?

Stein Tønnesson is Senior Research Fellow (Peace and Security in Northeast Asia) at the Toda Peace Institute and Research Professor Emeritus, Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

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 IPS Correspondent
NAIROBI, Apr 7 2025 – CGIAR and the Kenyan Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) are bringing together the world’s leading scientists and decision-makers in agriculture, climate, and health for the first CGIAR Science Week. This gathering will be a key moment to advance research and innovation, inspire action, and establish critical partnerships that can secure investment in sustainable food systems for people and the planet.

IPS’ team of journalists, Busani Bafana, Joyce Chimbi, and Naureen Hossain, will bring you news and interviews throughout the week as the conference unfolds. This will include the launch of the CGIAR Research Portfolio 2025-2030 today (April 7, 2025).

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 Emilio Godoy
MEXICO, Apr 7 2025 – Retired blacksmith and mechanic José Hernández nostalgically recalls the passenger trains that once passed through his hometown of Huamantla in the state of Tlaxcala, southeastern Mexico.

“By the age of 15 or 16, I was already using the train. It was the railway that came from Veracruz, passed near Huamantla, and reached” the east of Mexico City, the 99-year-old local chronicler told IPS from his town of over 98,000 inhabitants, located some 160 kilometers from the capital.

The route belonged to the then-state-owned Ferrocarril Mexicano, inaugurated in the mid-19th century and operational until 1976, when passenger trains began to be abandoned in favor of private bus companies.

Freight trains still run through Huamantla, carrying timber, oil, and various goods in containers.”They are not profitable, but they are social projects. It is important to evaluate how they will be implemented to combine commercial and economic elements and thus reduce government subsidies.” —Jaime Paredes

Hernández, who served as Huamantla’s mayor from 1989 to 1991, used to travel to the nearby town of Apizaco, also in Tlaxcala, aboard coal-burning locomotives—a 30-minute journey where a ticket to Mexico City cost about three dollars in today’s money.

“We miss the passenger service; hopefully, it will return soon. Everything in Huamantla is abandoned now. The train used to stop here to load water from a deep well,” he lamented.

To Hernández’s delight, the government of Claudia Sheinbaum, in office since October, is promoting new railway projects to diversify passenger transport. However, the plan faces significant challenges, including profitability and environmental impact.

The first initiative is a 55-kilometer line between Mexico City and Pachuca in Hidalgo, built on an old railbed. Construction began on March 22 without environmental approval—a legal requirement—though the Environment Ministry granted the permit six days later.

The new passenger and freight line has an initial cost of US$2.44 billion, is expected to open in the first half of 2027, and will cross six municipalities in Hidalgo and four in the neighboring state of Mexico.

The second project is a 227-kilometer line between Mexico City and Querétaro, with a preliminary cost of about US$7 billion, passing through 22 municipalities in four states. Construction is set to begin this April.

Both projects are part of the National Railway Development Plan and the National Industrialization and Shared Prosperity Strategy (known as Plan México), launched in January by Sheinbaum as her flagship development program, which also includes investments in electricity, electric vehicle assembly, and microprocessors.

Sheinbaum’s administration is replicating the fast-track approach used for the Maya Train (TM), with the full weight of the state apparatus behind it.

Rail is less polluting than air, sea, or road transport, but the steel and cement required for its infrastructure limit its eco-friendly image.

The Mexican government is also preparing tenders for rail lines from Saltillo to Nuevo Laredo (crossing the Northern states of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas) and Querétaro to Irapuato (in the states of Querétaro and Guanajuato).

These new lines, expected to start operating between 2027 and 2028, will join seven existing passenger routes, including suburban and tourist railways—three of which are privately concessioned.

From January to October 2024, these railways carried 42.22 million passengers, an 11% increase from the same period in 2023. Most (90%) were suburban passengers, highlighting the need for intercity rail and the challenges of expansion.

A view of downtown Pachuca, the capital of Hidalgo in central Mexico. In March, the government began construction on a passenger and freight rail line between Mexico City and this city, set to begin operations in the first half of 2027. Image: Inafed

Environmental Paradoxes 

Jaime Paredes, an academic at the National Autonomous University of Mexico’s School of Engineering, stresses the need for clear definitions of efficiency, CO₂ emission reductions —the gas generated by human activities responsible for global warming—, and travel times.

“It’s a good tool, but we must evaluate noise pollution, impacts on aquifers, and economic factors. They are not profitable, but they are social projects. It is important to evaluate how they will be implemented to combine commercial and economic elements and thus reduce government subsidies,” he told IPS.

Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) submitted to the Environment Ministry suggest the Pachuca line will have fewer impacts than Querétaro’s.

The Pachuca line will cross seven areas of very low and seven of low ecosystem quality, due to agriculture and human communities, causing 11 negative and seven beneficial environmental impacts. Soil and water contamination are the main concerns, with six protected species identified in the area.

The Querétaro line, however, crosses 12 very low and 30 low ecosystem-quality zones, affecting seven protected natural areas, including Tula National Park in Hidalgo, wetlands in Querétaro, and Xochimilco, which provides ecological services like clean water and air to Mexico City.

Construction will clear vegetation across 90 hectares (five of forest, 0.62 of low jungle). The EIA found 63 threatened plant species and 136 fauna species. Risks include water source disruption, flooding in three sections, land subsidence, air pollution, and ecological fragmentation—though it also predicts socioeconomic benefits like job creation and a stronger economy.

In total, the Querétaro line will have 28 environmental impacts (21 negative, seven positive). The government assumes socioeconomic benefits will outweigh environmental costs, proposing prevention, mitigation, and compensation measures.

While the Pachuca trains will be electric, Querétaro’s will use both electricity and diesel. A key drawback is that Mexico’s electricity largely comes from fossil fuels (especially gas), limiting emissions reductions.

The Pachuca line’s CO₂ emissions are unestimated, while Querétaro’s will emit 37 tons monthly during construction.

Mexico has very few passenger rail routes, and the current government aims to expand this less polluting form of public transport compared to air, sea, and road travel. Image: ARTF

Precedents

Past passenger rail projects offer lessons.

The intercity train connecting western Mexico City with Toluca (known as El Insurgente), under construction since 2014 and partially operational since 2023, saw its budget balloon from US$2.86 billion to US$6.85 billion.

The Maya Train (TM), more tourist-oriented than for local passengers, has not displaced bus travel, according to 2024 reports.

The TM spans 1,500 km across five southern and southeastern states, with five of seven planned sections operational since 2023. The project has faced delays, cost overruns, and environmental violations.

Other indicators raise concerns. CO2 emissions from Mexico’s rail system (freight and passenger) are rising. Diesel consumption nearly tripled between 2021 and late 2023. Emissions from the Suburban Train (linking northern Mexico City and the state of Mexico) have increased since 2021, despite lower electricity use.

Rail expert Paredes recommends updating the 1995 Regulatory Law of Railway Service to “ensure concessionaires and assignees share responsibilities.”

“Users should be part of comprehensive reviews. Clear parameters and indicators are needed to assess environmental impact reduction. Transparency in results would provide certainty. Communities and municipalities must be integrated into plans,” he urged.

Meanwhile, chronicler Hernández hopes for a major push to revive trains across Mexico’s landscapes.

“A strong campaign is needed to attract people. Trains could be as popular as they once were,” he said.