The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
BRIGHTON, UK, Mar 19 2026 (IPS) - The 2026 campaign on World Water Day’s focuses on Water and Gender – ‘where water flows, equality grows’ . While substantial progress has been achieved across a range of gender indicators spanning education, health and public participation, the situation around WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) is still marked by deep inequalities with women and girls disproportionately affected – and this reflects the persistence of global patriarchy.
More than 2 billion people still lack access to safely managed drinking water. In households without piped water, women and girls are made to be responsible for about 70–80% of water collection trips worldwide, taking anything from 30 minutes to four hours daily. This time can instead usefully be spent on education, productive activities or even leisure and rest, but they don’t have the choice.
The situation is even more dire for sanitation with 3.4 billion people lacking access to safely managed sanitation. All this affects women’s and girl’s dignity, safety, security and the privacy and comfort needed for dignified menstrual health management. At the same time, there is poor progress on women’s economic participation.
These patterns have remained remarkably persistent despite improvements in water and sanitation infrastructure. The sheer time and labour required for poor women and girls around WASH activities, combined with gendered inequalities and power imbalances under the persistence of patriarchy not only directly affect girls’ enrolment in education but inevitably diminishes their capacity for productive economic activity, the net impact of which worldwide is a huge dent in human development progress.
Water as a weapon of war against women and girls
Not only that, but the apparent normalisation of wars and genocides wrought largely by men means almost daily violations of international humanitarian law including the weaponisation of water and sanitation infrastructure as a target of attack. Most recently, the United States’ bombing of a freshwater desalinsation plant in Iran and retaliation by Iran on another desalination plant in Bahrain set a dangerous new precedent.
When water and sanitation infrastructure become fair game in war, as we’ve seen in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine in the last few years, existing gender inequalities around water and sanitation mean women and girls suffer most, compounding risks including sexual violence.
Male violence and malevolence are back
What we’re seeing real-time and online is something even more worrying. That is the resurgence of more explicit patriarchy desiring control over women’s lives and subjugation into traditional roles away from public life. From the slashing of Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programmes to the rollback of reproductive rights across the world from the USA to Chile, the resurgence of ‘toxic masculinity’ is forcing gender rights, feminism and equality off the agenda and they are equated with pejorative notions of ‘wokeism.’
Some institutions are already reframing debates in response. For instance, the World Bank is increasingly framing gender as about economic activity and jobs, rather than about rights. This is reflected in their new Water Mission implementation strategy that refers to employment but only mentions gender six times and women four times even though the gross inequalities in labour power and economic effects are, as stated above, so vast.
The gender backlash and reductionism in rights framings helps reinforce stereotypes and accepted norms, including the gendered division of labour in water collection, rather than confronting this more forcefully – and, at a minimum, asking why this is the case rather than accepted as a given.
If views persist that women and girls are responsible for water-related subsistence tasks, it ignores specific needs around sanitation and menstrual hygiene and increases male domination in decision-making and water management. Which is precisely what patriarchy seeking to achieve – domination and subjugation.
The rollback on funding for WASH continues
A year ago, Keir Starmer cut the UK aid budget by about 40 per cent. These cuts have been devastating for water and sanitation progress in some of the world’s poorest and most war-torn countries with direct and lasting consequences for women and girls. The cuts particularly impact countries like Sudan, Ethiopia and Palestine, already reeling from largely male-driven wars, conflicts and genocide.
It is estimated that around 12 million people will be denied access to clean water and sanitation as a result. These cuts directly affect gender equality because reduced access to water and sanitation impacts schooling, being at work and increases the risk of gender-based violence.
The UK justifies the cuts as a way to move away from direct aid around WASH to strengthening capabilities and partnerships. But these partnerships between the UK and Global South countries such as Nigeria focusing on growth, jobs and reducing aid dependency can backfire as more and more people’s health deteriorate, including more women suffering from ill health and long-term illnesses.
Ultimately, a waning collective effort to support gender equality in WASH provision opens the door to long-term decline in gender rights and economic development. Additionally, the dismantling of USAID is already having devastating consequences for gender equality and women’s health. Just when greater focus is needed on WASH projects to ensure we are not backsliding on gender rights, aid is being cut.
In sum, persistent inequalities, the gender backlash, illegal and forever wars and aid cuts lacking a moral compass have diluted global collective action on gender inequality. The least policymakers could do would be to achieve and maintain leadership that realises human rights for all in WASH provision, a substantial rationale for which has to be a big- ticket focus on the social and economic empowerment of women and girls.
Any other direction would be disastrous, enabling patriarchy and misogyny to grow even deeper roots in global society.
Professor Lyla Mehta is a Professorial Fellow at IDS and a Visiting Professor at Noragric, the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. She trained as a sociologist (University of Vienna) and has a PhD in Development Studies (University of Sussex).
Dr. Alan Nicol is the Strategic Program Leader – Promoting Sustainable Growth, at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
IPS UN Bureau
NEW YORK & SRINAGAR, India, Mar 19 2026 (IPS) - A new United Nations report has warned that global water inequality remains one of the most pressing development challenges of the decade, with billions still lacking safe drinking water and sanitation – while women and girls continue to bear the heaviest burden of water insecurity.
The United Nations World Water Development Report 2026, titled Water for All People: Equal Rights and Opportunities, was released today (March 19, 2026) by UNESCO in New York. The report has highlighted how unequal access to water resources intersects with gender inequality, poverty, and climate change. The report argues that achieving water security is inseparable from advancing gender equality and inclusive governance.
According to the report, access to safe water and sanitation remains far from universal. As of 2024, around 2.1 billion people still lack safely managed drinking water services, while 3.4 billion people lack safely managed sanitation and 1.7 billion people lack basic hygiene services at home.
In an exclusive interview with Inter Press Service (IPS
Dr Laura Imburgia, UNESCO WWAP Programme Specialist
Dr Laura Imburgia, UNESCO WWAP Programme Specialist, said that safely managed drinking water access calls for water to be delivered as close as feasible to premises; water service for smallholders calls for investments which promote women’s leadership and protect their water rights.
“As the report indicates, the financing gap for the water sector remains vast and requires mobilising nearly USD 7 trillion by 2030. While imperative, mobilising the funding is difficult. While governments are the most important duty-bearers, mobilising nontraditional funding sources for water and sanitation, including the private sector, can help close this gap. Blended finance, which strategically anchors public, philanthropic and private capital around shared goals, can be a powerful driver of investment,” Imburgia told IPS News.
She added that the progressive removal of obstacles to access to water and sanitation, including discrimination, is required to fully realise the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation. According to her, addressing WASH barriers requires responses that go beyond technical fixes, as these challenges are rooted in the complex interplay of politics, economics and culture.
“There is a need to value unpaid water work, care and domestic labour, mostly carried out by women and girls. Disaggregate data by sex and age at the household level and integrate gendered time-use and affordability data into WASH research and policy frameworks. WASH affordability assessments should consider women’s limited control over household finances and their disproportionate responsibility for WASH-related tasks,“ Imburgia said.
As per the report, the consequences extend beyond health. Limited access to water affects education, food security, livelihoods, and economic opportunities, particularly for women and girls who often shoulder the responsibility of collecting water for their households.
The United Nations World Water Development Report 2026, titled Water for All People: Equal Rights and Opportunities, says 80 percent of rural households lack direct water access. Credit: UNESCO
“Access to water is not merely a question of availability or infrastructure. It is, at its core, a question of rights and of power,” said UNESCO Director General Khaled El-Enany in the foreword to the report. “Who has access to water, who pays the price for its scarcity, and who sits at the decision-making table reveals enduring inequalities that run deep through our societies.”
The report estimates that in more than 80 percent of rural households without direct water access, women and girls are responsible for collecting water. Globally this task consumes around 250 million hours every day.
This daily burden limits opportunities for education, employment, and civic participation. It also exposes women and girls to health risks, physical strain, and potential violence during long journeys to water sources.
“Across the world, it is women and girls who most often carry the daily weight of water insecurity,” El-Enany said.
The report stresses that water inequality is not only a humanitarian issue but also a governance problem.
“Women remain under-represented in water management and leadership roles worldwide. Globally, women hold less than 30 percent of management and technical positions in the water sector and fewer than 20 percent of senior leadership roles in many public water institutions,” the report says.
According to the report, this imbalance weakens water governance and reduces the effectiveness of policies designed to address water scarcity and climate impacts.
“Water systems are more effective, inclusive, and sustainable when women participate fully and meaningfully,” El-Enany noted.
The report also examines the broader global water crisis. Renewable freshwater resources worldwide are estimated at roughly 43,000 cubic kilometres per year. However, their availability varies widely by region and season due to climate and geographic factors.
Water stress is increasing in many parts of the world. The report states that around 10 percent of the global population lives in countries facing critical water stress, while roughly four billion people experience severe water shortages at least one month each year.
Climate change is intensifying the challenge. Rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, floods, and droughts are affecting water availability and threatening food production and livelihoods.
“Climate change is posing more threats to human well-being through its impact on water and food security, public health, economic stability and the environment,” the report noted.
Agriculture remains the largest consumer of freshwater globally, accounting for about 72 percent of total water withdrawals. Industry uses roughly 15 percent, while municipal and domestic use accounts for about 13 percent.
These figures vary significantly across countries. Agriculture dominates water use in low-income economies, while more industrialised economies rely less heavily on water-intensive sectors.
The report also highlights the growing competition for water between cities and agriculture, particularly in rapidly expanding urban areas of developing countries.
Another major concern is groundwater depletion. In many regions groundwater serves as a critical alternative to surface water, yet unsustainable extraction has led to long-term declines in aquifers in parts of Asia and North America.
Water quality also poses a serious challenge. Agricultural runoff is now considered the leading cause of freshwater contamination worldwide. Industrial pollution and inadequate wastewater treatment contribute to declining water quality in many countries.
Despite global commitments, progress toward international water targets remains slow. The report states that none of the targets under Sustainable Development Goal 6, which aims to ensure access to water and sanitation for all by 2030, are currently on track.
According to the latest global data, about 26 percent of the world’s population still lacks safely managed drinking water services, while 41 percent lacks safely managed sanitation.
The report warns that closing these gaps requires not only infrastructure investments but also social and institutional reforms.
Technical solutions alone cannot resolve water inequality, the authors argue. Instead, governments must address deeper social and political barriers that prevent equitable access to water.
Imburgia told IPS in an interview that the progress on Sustainable Development Goal 6 has been slow mainly because of weak governance, insufficient funding, and growing pressures like climate change and population growth.
“Many countries lack strong institutions, clear policies, and coordination between sectors. In addition, infrastructure for water and sanitation is expensive and often underfunded. As the World Water Development Report 2026 highlights, inequalities play a critical role, as poorer and rural communities are harder to reach. Together, these structural challenges make implementation slow and uneven,” she said.
“The findings of this report leave no room for doubt. Technical solutions alone cannot solve what are, at their root, social and political challenges,” the report reads.
Experts stress that inclusive governance and reliable data are critical to designing effective policies. The report calls for better monitoring systems, especially the collection of sex-disaggregated data to understand how water access affects different groups.
Another key recommendation is increased investment in water infrastructure and gender-responsive financing.
The report notes that the global water sector faces a massive investment gap estimated in the trillions of dollars. At the same time, many water projects fail to consider the economic value of unpaid labour performed by women in collecting and managing water.
Researchers say recognising this invisible labour is essential for designing fair and effective policies.
The report also points to examples of progress. Since 2020 the UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme has trained more than 1,000 professionals across 35 countries to strengthen gender equality in water management.
International partnerships are also expanding. A global call for action launched in 2021 to accelerate gender equality in water governance has attracted more than 200 participating organisations.
Alvaro Lario, Chair of UN-Water and President of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), stressed that gender equality is central to sustainable water management.
“Gender equality and water security are inextricably linked,” Lario wrote in the report. “Advancing gender equality in and through water can strengthen the effectiveness and sustainability of water resources.”
As per the report, addressing water inequality could help reduce poverty, improve health outcomes, enhance food security, and support climate resilience. “Gender equality constitutes an essential path towards fair and just access to, and use of, water,” the report claims.
With less than five years remaining to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the authors warn that urgent and coordinated global action is needed.
According to El-Enany, gender equality must be a cornerstone of water governance.
“We must ensure that the voices of women are finally heard where decisions are made. Because the right to water must not remain a principle. It must become a reality for all.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
KYIV, Ukraine, Mar 19 2026 (IPS) - It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the tension, violence and uncertainty in the world in recent years. The number of wars is growing, more and more money is being spent on weapons, and the rhetoric of major powers is becoming increasingly decisive.
The latest escalation in the Middle East has reignited the debate about the start of World War III. The consequences of the Israeli and US strikes on Iran are being felt to varying degrees far beyond the region, at least by those who follow oil prices.
The interests of numerous great powers are at stake, and third parties are considering their next moves and making political statements. Opinions range widely, from the belief that there can be no Third World War because of the existence of nuclear weapons, to the conviction that it has already begun. So, what is really going on?
A journalistic and academic concept
When historians talk about world wars, they mean two unique events in the past. Their scale, the involvement of a wide range of states, the level of violence and the nature of the consequences put them in a league of their own.
To understand how these wars differed from any others, one need only glance at the diagram of human casualties, defence spending, or destruction in various armed conflicts of the 20th century.
However, historians also have different opinions. One of them, better known in his political capacity, Winston Churchill, once described the Seven Years’ War as a world war. This protracted 18th-century conflict drew most of the major powers of the time into direct combat; it spanned numerous battlefields in Europe, North America, the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean; and it had serious geopolitical consequences. How was this not a world war?
By the fact that it was not a total war between industrialised states, the scale of the clashes was rather limited, as were the number of armies; and the consequences, although serious, were not systemic — this may be the response of more conservative historians than the British Prime Minister.
The number of armed conflicts in the world has been growing over the past few years: 2024 has been a record year since World War II.
‘World War’ is both a journalistic and academic concept. To enhance the effect, attract attention or draw conditional analogies, it can be used to describe more events than just the First and Second World Wars. For example, the Thirty Years’ War of the 17th century, the Napoleonic Wars of the 19th century or even the Cold War are sometimes referred to as world wars.
Within this logic, individual elements of a world war can be seen even today. The number of armed conflicts in the world has been growing over the past few years: 2024 has been a record year since World War II. According to some estimates, 61 armed conflicts in 36 countries were recorded this year, which is significantly higher than the average for the previous three decades.
Global military spending is also on the rise: today it has reached 2.5 per cent of the global economy, the highest figure since 2011 and an upward trend since 2021. This is still significantly less than during the Cold War, when a range of 3 to 6 per cent was the norm. Analysing these figures, it is clear that global security has deteriorated in recent years, but how critically?
A more academic approach would be to define a world war as one in which most of the major powers are involved; which has global reach and is total in nature; leads to enormous loss and destruction; and significantly changes the world upon its conclusion. Direct and large-scale armed conflict between major powers is a mandatory criterion.
And this is the main argument against the idea that World War III has already begun. No matter how high the level of destabilisation in the modern world, no matter how far large-scale regional conflicts have escalated, and no matter how much money states spend on armaments, this is not enough for a world war. Large-scale military operations involving major powers are needed.
All just fears?
This has not happened in the world for a long time. The interval between the Second and Third World Wars turned out to be much longer than between the First and Second. Nuclear weapons played a central role in this, raising the price of war so high that major powers began to avoid it by any means possible. This safeguard has been in place for over 80 years and looks set to continue.
Peace, or rather the absence of war between major powers, remains one of the central elements of the current international order. International institutions and regimes may collapse or weaken, regional wars may break out, but the likelihood of war between major powers remains extremely low.
Proponents of the Third World War theory sometimes point out that even in the absence of full-scale war between major powers, other manifestations occur: hybrid wars, cyberattacks, or proxy wars. This is true, but all these outbreaks of conflict are several levels below a world war in terms of their destructive potential and are not total in nature.
Throughout history, states have fought through proxies or resorted to information, trade or religious wars, but we do not consider these wars to be world wars — except in a symbolic sense.
A systemic war does not necessarily have to be a world war
Unlike the 2003 war in Iraq, the strikes on Iran are taking place in a world where, instead of US hegemony, there is complex competition between at least two centres of power. This adds nuances and forces other states to respond, directly or indirectly, for example, by supplying weapons or intelligence data, supporting one side or the other.
But this does not make the war global. Arms supplies, for example, are a common practice found in most regional conflicts, as is diplomatic or financial support from allies or partners. Even if American troops use the technology or expertise of partners – such as Ukrainian drones – this does not mean that Ukraine is being drawn into the war. Just as American arms supplies to Ukraine during the Russian-Ukrainian war did not mean US involvement in the war.
For a world war, the key ingredient is still missing: direct confrontation between major powers. In addition to world wars, there are also systemic wars. In these conflicts, it is not so much the scale that is important as the change in the international order to which they lead.
The Thirty Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the First and Second World Wars mentioned above were systemic wars: after their completion, the rules of international politics were rewritten and new ones were adopted at peace conferences and congresses. A systemic war does not necessarily have to be a world war.
Moments of hegemonic crisis and the beginning of the struggle for hegemony always carry with them the danger of new wars, arms races and escalations.
The current destabilisation and growth of various risks are largely linked to the struggle for the future of the international order. The United States and China have almost fallen into the ‘Thucydides trap’ — a strategic logic similar to that which led to the Peloponnesian War in the 5th century BC. At that time, the narrowing of the power gap between the hegemon and the challenger forced the Spartans to start a preventive war.
Today, there are well-founded fears that the decline of American hegemony, the rise of China and the approach of a bipolar world will sharply increase the likelihood of direct armed conflict between the superpowers.
The decisive, to put it mildly, steps taken by the US administration can also be considered preventive actions aimed at strategically weakening China’s position while Washington still has the upper hand. Such moments of hegemonic crisis and the beginning of the struggle for hegemony always carry with them the danger of new wars, arms races and escalations.
We are in the midst of such a crisis. It is systemic in the sense that it is not just a collection of regional conflicts in different parts of the world, which have become more numerous, but a manifestation of a large-scale redistribution of influence and power on a global scale. This redistribution will entail changes in the international order, because the rules of the game are linked to the balance of power.
If, at some point, the leaders of major states decide that it is worth taking the risk of war and paying the price, the systemic crisis will turn into a world war. But this, as the Spartans themselves said, is ‘if’.
Nickolay Kapitonenko is an associate professor at the Institute of International Relations at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv and director of the Centre for International Relations Studies.
Source: International Politics and Society, Brussels
IPS UN Bureau
HERAT, Afghanistan, Mar 18 2026 (IPS) - When Khadija Ahmadzada was arrested in Herat province of Afghanistan in January this year, it sparked widespread domestic and international protests. Women’s rights activists and social media users raised their voices with slogans such as “Sport is not a crime,” “Education is a right for women,” and “Don’t erase women,” often using the hashtag #BeHerVoice.
At the time of her arrest, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights, Richard Bennett, had called for the immediate release of taekwondo coach Khadija Ahmadzada, expressing deep concern over her detention by the Taliban.
She has since been released but the outcry underlined the need for supporting Afghan women athletes, which activists around the world pointed out is a collective responsibility and warned that remaining silent in the face of oppression carries dangerous consequences.
Khadija Ahmadzada, 22, was an award-winning taekwondo athlete and coach of Afghanistan’s national youth team during the republic era. When the Taliban came to power, she tried to keep the sport alive for women and girls, creating opportunities for them to train, learn, and move forward at a time when those opportunities were steadily disappearing.
Herat was once a city where women’s sports clubs thrived. The women were highly motivated and recorded many achievements. The centers were not merely places for physical training; they also served as educational, social, and empowerment spaces for women and girls. Following the Taliban’s return to Afghanistan, all women’s sports facilities were shut down, and female athletes were categorically barred from continuing their activities.
Sports clubs have been closed to women since 2021, shortly after the Taliban returned to power, adding to a raft of measures put in place based on the Taliban’s strict interpretation of Islamic law. At the time, it was claimed they would reopen when a “safe environment” had been established. But as of January 2026, no sports club has reopened, and women are still barred from competition.
Known not only as a skilled athlete but also a determined and committed coach, Khadija Ahmadzada continued her work quietly under the Taliban’s strict restrictions, ensuring that women who wanted to train could still find a way. But her efforts did not remain hidden. In January 2026, she was arrested.
Her arrest highlights the intense pressure on active women in Afghanistan and reflects how they are forced to take forbidden paths to protect their basic rights and stay part of society.
Khadija Ahmadzada was trained in taekwondo professionally at the Jumong Taekwondo Academy in Herat under the guidance of Korean experts. Within a short time, she became a member of Afghanistan’s national youth team and won medals in domestic and regional competitions. She began teaching and training girls in taekwondo after ending her professional athletic career.
One of Khadija Ahmadzada’s students, who asked to remain anonymous for safety reasons said, “she is a skilled and devoted coach, and I am proud of her courage and selflessness”. When the Taliban’s morality police came to arrest Khadija, she assisted her students leave the club quietly while she stayed behind in defiance of the Taliban’s rules and was detained.
In the early days after Herat fell to the Taliban in August 2021, they began a gradual process of shutting down women and girls’ sports centers in stages. First the regime’s morality police issued verbal orders to operators of sports centers. The screws were tightened further in subsequent actions by confiscating equipment, locking up the gates of sports clubs and arrests of the owners and coaches.
Khadija’s two weeks in prison put tremendous pressure on her family. They repeatedly appealed to local representatives, community elders, and officials to help secure her release. Khadija was finally released after 13 days of imprisonment with a written pledge to not repeat the offense. Yet her freedom was less an end to suffering than a reminder of a life endured under Afghanistan’s Taliban.
Khadija established an underground taekwondo training program in the Jebraeil neighborhood of Herat, which has become a symbol of women’s resistance against the Taliban’s strict restrictions. She noted that before the Taliban came, many women were active in this field and earned a living through it. When the Taliban took over, sports halls were closed by their orders, women’s teams were disbanded, and female athletes and coaches either stayed at home or left the country. Among those who remained, women were forced to choose between complete silence or quiet resistance. Khadija was one of those who chose the latter.
IPS UN Bureau
Excerpt:
The author is an Afghanistan-based female journalist, trained with Finnish support before the Taliban take-over. Her identity is withheld for security reasons.
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe, Mar 18 2026 (IPS) - Africa’s eye on minerals as the be-all-and-cure-all for the continent’s development agenda is being tested by geopolitical gamesmanship as global superpowers jostle to carve new spheres of influence.
Amid the turmoil unleashed by the United States President Donald Trump administration’s trade tariffs, African minerals have faced price volatility, which analysts say points to the fragility of reliance on the mining sector as the driver of the continent’s economic growth ambitions.
Scores of countries across Africa have their Gross Domestic Product anchored by the mining sector, which brings in much-needed forex earnings, yet the current moment of global mineral markets points to what is seen as “uncertainty” on how this can be sustained in the long term.
Since January this year, the price of gold has experienced bouts of fluctuation as a direct result of US trade policy, which has seen President Trump tussling with courts on the legality of some of his tariff pushes.
After the US Supreme Court struck down some of the Trump administration’s tariffs in Febaury, gold prices spiked overnight as investors sought to hedge their assets.
Gold prices went up again after Trump’s State of the Union address on 24 February, further exposing what analysts say will be a difficult position for African countries seeking to plan ahead regarding their mining policies.
Last year alone, the gold price grew by 60 percent, though they had been slipping in previous months, further highlighting the precarious nature of the markets that mineral-rich African countries have to contend with.
African countries are now scrambling to protect their mineral wealth amid a fresh rally of gold price increases since the beginning of the year, with Zimbabwe for example, announcing on February 24 an immediate suspension of the export of raw materials, seeking instead to engage in beneficiation and value addition whereby processing is done locally.
Among some of the approaches that experts say will cushion African countries against the loss of mining revenue is what has been identified as “revenue-sharing mechanisms that provide governments with increased participation in mining revenues while offering investors operational certainty and reduced regulatory risks.”
This sentiment emerged at the Alternative Mining Indaba held in Cape Town, South Africa in January where activists, investors and policymakers engaged on, among other things, how best to derive maximum benefit from the continent’s vast mineral resources.
“African governments need to shift from ad hoc, opaque deal-making to rules-based, transparent and competitive mineral governance anchored on national industrial strategies,” said Marvellous Ngundu, an African Futures and Innovation consultant at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa.
“The goal is not to chase investors away but to strengthen bargaining power, standardise fiscal terms, plug revenue leakages and embed realistic value-addition and skills transfer requirements,” Ngundu told IPS.
But as volatility reigns with the battle for the imposition of what are increasingly considered punitive international trade tariffs by the US government, analysts say African countries will be hard-pressed to rethink their place in the dynamics of global trade as jittery investors and buyers await a cue from the Trump administration on how to protect their portfolios.
In its World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 report released in January, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa raises concerns about “volatile commodity prices” that “continue to weigh on Africa’s prospects for inclusive and sustainable growth.”
UNECA analysis found that while African countries showed “unexpected resilience to sharp increases in U.S. tariffs, underlying weaknesses persist.”
And the situation felt no worse than in the mining sector.
These concerns come amid a mix of cautious optimism from experts and upbeat projections by national governments across the continent regarding how mineral wealth will translate to long-term socio-economic development goals and uplift millions from historical poverty.
“Mineral resources are volatile and cyclical. The way forward is a pragmatic mix of stronger domestic revenue mobilisation and disciplined use of mineral windfalls,” Ngundu said, highlighting the urgency of new approaches to Africa’s mineral resource nationalism in a chaotic global market.
During the launch of the World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 (WESP 2026) in January, Stephen Karingi, a divisional head at the Economic Commission for Africa, said that despite a positive economic outlook marked by trade uncertainty, “volatile commodity prices continue to weigh on Africa’s prospects for inclusive and sustainable growth.”
While the report noted that “African trade expanded in 2025, supported by strong exports of precious metals,” experts remain cautious about the long-term effects of global trade disruptions on the continent’s economic development.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has also raised concerns about global trade disparity and its effects on Africa.
“A combination of economic, geopolitical and technological tensions is reshaping the global landscape, generating new economic uncertainty and social vulnerabilities,” Guterres said in remarks accompanying the WESP 2026 report.
“Many developing economies continue to struggle and, as a result, progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals remains distant for much of the world,” he added, further highlighting the volatility of commodity prices and Africa’s place in the global development agenda despite its vast mineral wealth.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Mar 18 2026 (IPS) -
CIVICUS discusses China’s tech-enabled repression with Fergus Ryan, a Senior Analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), where he specialises in how the Chinese Communist Party shapes global information environments through censorship, propaganda and platform governance. His research includes a major study on China’s AI ecosystem and its human rights impacts, as well as investigations into China’s use of foreign influencers.
Fergus Ryan
What AI systems is China developing?
Based on our research, China is rapidly developing a multi-layered AI ecosystem designed to expand state control.
Tech giants are building multimodal large language models (LLMs) such as Alibaba’s Qwen and Baidu’s Ernie Bot, which censor and reshape descriptions of politically sensitive images. Hardware companies including Dahua, Hikvision and SenseTime supply the camera networks that feed into these systems.
The state is building what amounts to an AI-driven criminal justice pipeline. This includes City Brain operations centres such as Shanghai’s Pudong district, which process massive surveillance data, as well as the 206 System, developed by iFlyTek, which analyses evidence and recommends criminal sentences. Inside prisons, AI monitors inmates’ facial expressions and tracks their emotions.
AI-enabled satellite surveillance, such as the Xinjiang Jiaotong-01, enables autonomous real-time tracking over politically sensitive regions. Additionally, AI-enabled fishing platforms such as Sea Eagle expand economic extraction in the exclusive economic zones of countries including Mauritania and Vanuatu, displacing artisanal fishing communities.
How does China use AI for censorship and policing?
China relies on a hybrid model of censorship that fuses the speed of AI with human political judgement. The government requires companies to self-censor, creating a commercial market for AI moderation tools. Tech giants such as Baidu and Tencent have industrialised this process: systems automatically scan images, text and videos to detect content deemed to be risky in real time, while human reviewers handle nuanced or coded speech.
In policing, City Brains ingest data from millions of cameras, drones and Internet of Things sensors and use AI to identify suspects, track vehicles and predict unrest before it happens. In Xinjiang, the Integrated Joint Operations Platform aggregates data from cameras, phone scanners and informants to generate risk scores for individuals, enabling pre-emptive detention based on behavioural patterns rather than specific crimes.
On platforms such as Douyin, the state does not just delete content; it algorithmically suppresses dissent while amplifying ‘positive energy’. AI links surveillance data directly to narrative control and police action.
What are the human rights impacts?
These AI systems erode the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and a fair trial.
Historically, online censorship meant deleting a post. Today, generative AI engages in ‘informational gaslighting’. When ASPI researchers showed an Alibaba LLM a photograph of a protest against human rights violations in Xinjiang, the AI described it as ‘individuals in a public setting holding signs with incorrect statements’ based on ‘prejudice and lies’. The technology subtly engineers reality, preventing users accessing objective historical truths.
AI also undermines the right to a fair trial. In courts that lack judicial independence, AI systems that recommend sentences or predict recidivism act as a black box that defence lawyers cannot scrutinise.
Pervasive surveillance changes behaviour even when not actively used, so its chilling effect may be as significant as direct deployment. Knowing their conversations may be monitored, people self-censor online and in private messaging. Emotion recognition in prisons takes this further: people can theoretically be flagged for their internal states of mind. It’s not just actions that are punished, but also thoughts.
Which groups are most affected?
While AI-enabled surveillance affects all people, ethnic minorities such as Koreans, Mongolians, Tibetans and Uyghurs are disproportionately targeted.
Mainstream LLMs are trained primarily in Mandarin, leaving little commercial incentive to develop AI for minority languages. The Chinese state, however, views those languages as a security vulnerability. State-funded institutions, including the National Key Laboratory at Minzu University, are building LLMs in minority languages, not for cultural preservation, but to power public-opinion control and prevention platforms. These scan text, audio and video in Tibetan and Uyghur to detect cultural advocacy, dissent or religious activity.
Feminist activists, human rights lawyers — particularly since the 709 crackdown in 2015 — labour activists and religious minorities including Falun Gong practitioners face disproportionate targeting. Chinese models consistently adopt state-aligned narratives about such groups, labelling Falun Gong a cult and avoiding human rights framing. Since 2020, Hong Kongers have also been subject to National Security Law surveillance using many of the same tools deployed on the mainland, a reminder that this infrastructure can be rapidly extended.
How can activists in China protect themselves?
Protecting oneself inside China is increasingly difficult. AI leaves very few blind spots. But the system is not perfectly omniscient.
Activists have historically relied on coded speech, euphemisms and satire, the classic example being the use of ‘Winnie the Pooh’ to refer to President Xi Jinping. Because AI struggles with cultural nuance and evolving memes, new linguistic workarounds can temporarily bypass automated filters. But this is a relentless game of Whac-a-Mole: Chinese tech companies employ thousands of human content reviewers whose only job is to catch new memes and feed them back into the AI.
The most practical steps are to use VPNs to access blocked platforms, secure communications apps such as Signal and separate devices for sensitive work. None of these are foolproof. VPN use is technically illegal and increasingly detected and Signal can only be accessed via VPN. It helps to keep a minimal digital footprint and communicate face-to-face on sensitive matters. For activists in Xinjiang, however, surveillance is so pervasive that individual precautions offer little protection. Strong international networks and rigorous documentation practices are essential.
Is China exporting these technologies?
China is the world’s largest exporter of AI-powered surveillance technology, marketing these systems globally, particularly to the global south.
The Chinese state is purposefully expanding its minority-language public-opinion monitoring software throughout Belt and Road Initiative countries, effectively extending its censorship apparatus to monitor Tibetan and Uyghur diaspora communities abroad. Chinese companies including Dahua, Hikvision, Huawei and ZTE have deployed surveillance and ‘safe city’ systems across over 100 countries, with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates among the most significant recipients. Critically, these companies operate under China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which requires cooperation with state intelligence, meaning data flowing through these systems could be accessible to Beijing as well as to purchasing governments.
China is also exporting its governance model through the open-source release of its LLMs, embedding Chinese censorship norms into foundational infrastructure used by developers worldwide.
What should the international community do?
The international community must recognise that countering this requires regulatory pushback.
First, democratic states should set minimum transparency standards for public procurement. This means refusing to purchase AI models that conceal political or historical censorship and mandating that providers publish a ‘moderation log’ with refusal reason codes so users know when content is restricted for political reasons.
Second, states should enact ‘safe-harbour laws’ to protect civil society organisations, journalists and researchers who audit AI models for hidden censorship. Currently, doing so can breach corporate terms of service.
Third, strict export controls should block the transfer of repression-enabling technologies to authoritarian regimes, while companies providing public-opinion management services should be excluded from democratic markets. Existing targeted sanctions on companies such as Dahua and Hikvision for their role in Xinjiang should be enforced more rigorously.
Finally, the international community must recognise that Chinese surveillance extends beyond China’s borders. Spyware targeting Tibetan and Uyghur activists in exile is well-documented, as is pressure on family members remaining in China. Rigorous documentation by international civil society remains essential for building the evidentiary record for future accountability.
CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.
GET IN TOUCH
Website
LinkedIn
Twitter/X
SEE ALSO
Technology: innovation without accountability CIVICUS | 2026 State of Civil Society Report
The silencing of Hong Kong CIVICUS Lens 25.Jun.2025
The long reach of authoritarianism CIVICUS Lens 20.Mar.2024
DELHI, India, Mar 18 2026 (IPS) - In public discourse today, Muslims often appear as subjects of debate rather than authors of their own histories. Discussions about Muslim societies tend to revolve around geopolitics, security or conflict, leaving little space for the cultural, artistic and intellectual traditions that have shaped Muslim communities across centuries.
Reclaiming these narratives is therefore about reclaiming narrative authority. As a Muslim woman, I have often seen how Muslim voices are sidelined even when conversations centre on our own communities and pasts. It was within this context that I started Muslim History Month, together with my friend and colleague Ashwini KP, currently UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, in 2020, choosing to mark it during the month of Ramadan. Hosted on www.zariya.online, the initiative emerged from a simple conviction: communities must have the space to document and narrate their own histories.
Mariya Salim
They remind us that history is not only about remembering the past but also about challenging exclusion and reshaping how societies understand themselves. Muslim History Month builds on this legacy by creating a platform where Muslims, and others who are allies, themselves reflect on the diversity, complexity and richness of their historical and cultural experiences.
What began as a modest collaborative project has since developed into a global platform bringing together writers, scholars, artists and activists to explore overlooked dimensions of Muslim histories. Contributors have written from Egypt, the United States, Palestine, Nepal and Russia, among others, representing a range of communities including Pasmanda, Tsakhurs, Roma and Uyghur Muslims. This year alone there are contributors from over 6 countries, from Lebanon and Palestine to India, Egypt and Indonesia.
The urgency of documenting these histories is reflected in the commitment of the contributors themselves. Rima Barakat, an academic in Islamic Art History from the Lebanese American University (LAU), wrote her contribution this year from Beirut. Explaining why she chose to participate in our endeavour despite living amid ongoing conflict, she observed:
“War always incites me to act culturally and to contribute amidst political turmoil. Historically, during World War I and World War II, artists and writers produced prolifically and contributed to sustaining a cultural economy. That is what I do today and how survival is measured by cultural and artistic endurance.”
Mihrab at the Jami Masjid, 17th century, Bijapur, India. Photo- Author Rajarshi Sengupta
Her words capture something fundamental about the role of culture in difficult times. Artistic expression is often treated as secondary to more immediate political realities. Yet history repeatedly shows that culture can become one of the most powerful ways communities endure, remember and rebuild.
The first edition of Muslim History Month brought together writers from different parts of the world to document overlooked aspects of Muslim communities. Contributors wrote about subjects ranging from Sheedi Muslims in Pakistan to what Ramadan/Ramzaan means. The second edition shifted the focus toward Muslim women from across the world who are no longer with us, many of whose contributions have faded from historical memory, from architect Zaha Hadid to Indian Spy Noor Inayat Khan. By revisiting their lives and work, the edition sought to address the erasures that often shape how Muslim women’s life and experiences are recorded.
The third edition, launched this year, turns its attention to Muslim art and architecture. Rather than limiting the discussion to monumental structures or gallery-based art alone, the edition explores a wider spectrum of creative practices. Art and architecture here include performance traditions, Calligraphy and mosque architecture, craft practices like Rogan Art, cultural rituals like wearing Amulets and everyday acts of creativity through which communities’ express faith, identity and belonging.
One of the contributions by Kawther Alkholy Ramadan in Canada for instance reflects on the aftermath of the Afzaal family murders in London, Ontario. In 2021, the Afzaal family was deliberately targeted and killed in an act of anti-Muslim violence that deeply affected the local community. Rather than focusing solely on the violence of the attack, Ramadan’s piece examines how Muslim women responded through creative and cultural expression.
Stories such as these challenge conventional assumptions about what counts as art. They show how creativity often emerges most powerfully in moments of crisis, when communities search for ways to process trauma and reaffirm their presence.
Another contribution from Indonesia by Adzka Haniina Albarri, for instance explores the performative art known as Shalawat Musawa. Shalawat refers to devotional invocations offered by Muslims in honour of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) The article examines how Shalawat Musawa has become a space where discussions around gender equality can be articulated. By encouraging women’s participation in a devotional practice historically dominated by men, performers are using art to engage with evolving debates about gender and social justice.
Across the edition, similar stories emerge from different parts of the world. Some pieces engage with contemporary artists, including an interview with world renowned Tunisian calligrapher Karim Jabbari, articles by Palestinian jewellery designer Mai Zarkawi and Egyptian academic Balsam Abdul Rahman Saleh. Others explore artistic traditions shaped by migration, diaspora and local cultural histories.
Muslim History Month III highlights how artistic expression remains embedded in everyday life. From neighbourhood cultural initiatives, architectural marvels, discussions on the Bihari Script Quran in Dallas Museum, to devotional performances, these practices reveal how creativity continues to shape the social and spiritual landscapes of Muslim communities.
They also illustrate the diversity within Muslim cultural production. Muslim societies are far from monolithic, and neither are their artistic traditions.
At a time when public discourse frequently reduces Muslims to political headlines or security narratives, these stories offer an important counterpoint. They remind us that Muslim histories are also histories of creativity, scholarship, craftsperson-ship and cultural exchange.
Documenting these histories is itself an act of preservation. History, and for that matter the present that remains unwritten, are easily forgotten or misrepresented. When communities claim authority to narrate their own pasts and present, they challenge the structures that have historically excluded them from broader cultural narratives. Therefore, Muslim History Month, then, is not only about looking back. It is also about shaping how Muslim histories will be understood in the future.
As Rima Barakat’s reflection from Beirut reminds us, even in times marked by war and uncertainty, cultural production persists. For many communities, it is precisely through artistic endurance that survival itself is measured.
Beyond the stereotypes and headlines that dominate public discourse lies a far richer narrative, one shaped by art, architecture, memory and the collective imagination of communities determined to tell their own stories.
Mariya Salim is co-founder of Zariya. She is a Human Rights activist and an international SGBV expert based in Delhi India.
https://zariya.online/category/muslim-history-month-iii/
IPS UN Bureau