Tag: United Nations

  • FG to partner UN to lift Nigerians out of poverty

    FG to partner UN to lift Nigerians out of poverty

    The Federal Government has reaffirmed its commitment to partner with the United Nations (UN) to provide long-lasting solutions to help lift millions of Nigerians out of poverty.

    Prof. Nantawe Yilwatda, Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, disclosed this on Friday while fielding questions from newsmen in Abuja.

    He disclosed it shortly after his meeting with Amina Mohammed, the Deputy UN Secretary-General.

    Yilwatda said that the UN had been a longstanding ally of the ministry and had helped government in actualising some of its social intervention programmes.

    The minister said that the partnership became necessary to drive the Federal Government’s Renewed Hope Agenda in addressing youth unemployment, poverty reduction, and support to victims of conflict and climate change.

    “We have the opportunity to partner with the UN to ensure that the people affected by insurgency, climate change and other armed conflicts across the country are supported.

    “Especially, those that are affected by the impact of economic reforms that we are making to ensure that we give human face to every aspect of the reforms.

    “This partnership is going to ensure that we give durable solutions to the plight of our people.

    “It will ensure that we lift as many people as possible out of poverty, reduce youth unemployment and ensure that our communities are safe,” he said.

    Yilwatda noted that the ministry would soon release its 2025 Humanitarian Response Plan to provide Nigerians with a guide to government’s drive towards addressing poverty in the country.

    “We are going to unveil our Humanitarian Response Plan in weeks to come, specifically on Dec. 23, which will be the need assessment of all the humanitarian problems and challenges across the country.

    “Together with the UN, we will work around the world globally to raise funds for the country using that Humanitarian Response Plan.

    “Also, within the first quarter of the year the Durable Solution Plan and programme that we are doing will also come to effect.

    “I am sure Mr President who is willing to ensure poverty reduction has provided a lot of funding for the safety net, especially, if you check the proposed 2025 Budget, you’ll discover that there are a lot of funding provided for safety nets.

    “These are also verifiable plans by the government to ensure that they participate along with the UN in reducing poverty and providing a safety net for the poorest of the poor,” he said.

    Yilwatda said that the ministry had a target to create at least two million jobs before the end of the year 2025.

    In her response, the UN Deputy Secretary-General assured the federal government of its readiness to partner in addressing the multi-dimensional poverty in the country.

    Mohammed said that the ministry was critical to UN’s mission to ensure that people and communities are safe and lifted out of the poverty line.

    “People are on the move today, different crisis, it’s climate, it’s conflict, it’s internal displacement through different hardships.

    “So that makes this ministry a focal place for providing prevention and dealing with the solutions to humanitarian crises. The indices of poverty in the country are high.

    “So, when host communities come in, you have to accommodate them as well so that you don’t have the burden of those coming in and creating social tensions,” she said.

    Mohammed emphasised the need for more investment in social intervention to address the growing humanitarian needs in the country.

    “Huge investment is needed in the country, so that we can have those transitions that will make us more resilient,” she said.

  • UN: No fewer than 20 children killed in Pakistan airstrikes

    UN: No fewer than 20 children killed in Pakistan airstrikes

    The United Nations in Afghanistan on Thursday confirmed  that it received credible reports that dozens of civilians, including women and children, were killed in Pakistani airstrikes on Afghanistan’s Paktika province.

    The UN statement said Tuesday’s airstrikes were a violation of international law and called for an investigation.

    “International law obliges military forces to take necessary precautions to prevent civilian harm, including distinguishing between civilians and combatants in operations,” the UN statement added.

    The UN Children’s Agency (UNICEF) said that at least 20 children were killed in the attack.

    “Children are not and must never be a target,” UNICEF South Asia Director Sanjay Wijesekera said on X.

    Afghan authorities reported that at least 46 civilians were killed in the airstrikes. The victims were said to be refugees from the Waziristan region in Pakistan. Afghanistan had summoned Pakistan’s top diplomat in Kabul to protest the attack.

    The Pakistani diplomat was handed a “serious protest note” informing Pakistan that the protection of Afghanistan’s territory is “a red line” and that such “irresponsible actions” will have consequences, the Afghan foreign ministry said.

    Pakistan claims that the airstrikes targeted suspected Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militant hideouts. The TTP is a militant group that has been responsible for numerous attacks in Pakistan. Islamabad claims that the TTP is hiding on Afghan soil, a claim that Kabul denies.

  • UN General Assembly adopts milestone cybercrime treaty

    UN General Assembly adopts milestone cybercrime treaty

    The General Assembly on Tuesday adopted the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, a landmark global treaty aimed at strengthening international cooperation to combat cybercrime and protecting societies from digital threats.

    The agreement on the legally binding treaty marked the culmination of a five-year effort by UN Member States, with inputs from civil society, information security experts, academia and the private sector.

    UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, welcomed the adoption of the Convention – the first international criminal justice treaty to have been negotiated in over 20 years.

    “This treaty is a demonstration of multilateralism succeeding during difficult times and reflects the collective will of Member States to promote international cooperation to prevent and combat cybercrime,” his spokesperson said in a statement.

    The statement added that the Convention “creates an unprecedented platform for collaboration” in the exchange of evidence, protection for victims and prevention, while safeguarding human rights online.

    “The secretary-general trusts that the new treaty will promote a safe cyberspace and calls on all States to join the Convention and to implement it in cooperation with relevant stakeholders.”

    Philémon Yang, President of the General Assembly, highlighted the importance of the new Convention.

    “We live in a digital world, one where information and communications technologies have enormous potential for the development of societies, but also increases the potential threat of cybercrime,” he said.

    “With the adoption of this Convention, Member States have at hand the tools and means to strengthen international cooperation in preventing and combating cybercrime, protecting people and their rights online.”

    The resolution containing the Convention was adopted without a vote by the 193-member General Assembly.

    Ghada Waly, Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) also described the adoption of the treaty as a “major victory” for multilateralism.

    “It is a crucial step forward in our efforts to address crimes like online child sexual abuse, sophisticated online scams and money laundering,” she said.

    Waly reiterated the UN agency’s commitment to support all nations in signing, ratifying and implementing the new treaty, as well as providing them with the tools and support they need to protect their economies and safeguard the digital sphere from cybercrime.

    The Convention against Cybercrime acknowledges the significant risks posed by the misuse of information and communications technologies (ICT), which enable criminal activities on an unprecedented scale, speed, and scope.

    It highlights the adverse impacts such crimes can have on States, enterprises, and the well-being of individuals and society, and focuses on protecting them from offenses such as terrorism, human trafficking, drug smuggling and online financial crimes.

    It also recognises the growing impact of cybercrime on victims and prioritises justice, especially for vulnerable groups. It further underscores the need for technical assistance, capacity-building and collaboration among States and other stakeholders.

    The Convention against Cybercrime will open for signature at a formal ceremony to be hosted in Hanoi, Vietnam, in 2025. It will enter into force 90 days after being ratified by the 40th signatory.

  • 14,500 youngsters killed in Gaza

    14,500 youngsters killed in Gaza

    No fewer than 14,500 youngsters have been killed in Gaza in the past 14 months, as humanitarians condemned new deadly airstrikes across the war-torn Strip, including on a UN school-turned-shelter.

    Many thousands more are believed buried under the rubble, according to UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) while no fewer than 45,000 people have been killed in the enclave.

    Images taken at the school in Khan Younis showed the apparent impact point of one shell in a concrete upper floor where people had been living at the time of the attack late Sunday night.

    Meanwhile, famine “continues to loom in the north” and humanitarian access remains “severely restricted”, UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell, said in a post on social media.

    “Virtually all 1.1 million children in Gaza are in urgent need of protection and mental health support,” she added, amid media reports that Israeli military activity in the last 24 hours has left at least 69 Palestinians dead, from Beit Lahia in the north to Rafah in the south.

    Echoing those concerns, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) warned that Gazans were now desperately worried about not getting enough to eat.

    In the absence of a ceasefire, “we need to find a way of getting all the food that we have outside Gaza in”, WFP’s Head of Emergency Communications, Jonathan Dumont, said.

    “The devastation is absolutely staggering,” he continued, in an online message from Gaza.

    “There’s no electricity or running water or sewage (treatment). Almost everyone has lost their home. A lot of people are living in tents.

    “We have hot meals, distributions…People come and they get really desperate. You can see it in their faces and you can see it in their eyes. To prevent famine we need to find a way to get a consistent flow of food in.”

    According to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, 13 people died and 48 were injured during the Sunday’s night strike.

    “It’s been another very deadly night here in the Gaza Strip, we are waking up every single day to a new horror,” UNRWA Senior Emergency Officer, Louise Wateridge, told UN News on Monday

    “I have been to Nasser Hospital this morning. One of the children I spoke to, her name was Mona, 17 years old.

    “She has very severe injuries to her leg – she had very severe shrapnel wounds – and she was in the hospital with her sister…their mother was crushed to death under the rubble.”

    Another victim, two-year old Julia, suffered severe head trauma and lost her sight in one eye; her five-year-old brother also had a serious head injury.

    Originally from Gaza City, the youngsters and their family “have been forcibly displaced seven or eight times,”Wateridge said.

    “They ended up in the [UNRWA] school, and they’ve been there for the last seven months, and now this – it just feels very hopeless.”

  • Israel officially informs UN of end of agreement with UNRWA

    Israel officially informs UN of end of agreement with UNRWA

    Israel has officially informed the United Nations of the termination of a cooperation agreement with the main UN agency helping Palestinians in the Middle East, including in war-torn Gaza.

    Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon said in a post on social media platform X that his country officially notified UN Secretary General António Guterres “of the termination of cooperation” with the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

    “In spite of the overwhelming evidence we submitted to the UN that substantiate Hamas’ infiltration of UNRWA, the UN did nothing to rectify the situation,” Danon said in a post which also carried the letter, dated Sunday, sent by the Israeli Foreign Ministry to Guterres.

    “The State of Israel will continue to cooperate with humanitarian organisations but not with organisations that promote terrorism against us.”

    On Oct. 28, the Israeli parliament voted to ban UNRWA, the main humanitarian aid provider in the Gaza Strip.

    The letter read: “the legislation will enter into effect following a three-month period.

    “During this time, and thereafter, Israel will continue to work with international partners, including other United Nations agencies, to ensure the facilitation of humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza in a way that does not undermine Israel’s security.”

    Israel accuses the agency of having been infiltrated by the Palestinian militant organisation Hamas and says several UNRWA employees were involved in the attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, which triggered the conflict in Gaza.

    “The State of Israel will continue to cooperate with humanitarian organisations but not with organisations that promote terrorism against us,” Danon said.

    The UN Security Council had previously issued a unanimous statement declaring that any interruption or suspension of UNRWA’s work would have serious humanitarian consequences for millions of Palestinian refugees.

    “The allegations against UNRWA staff earlier this year were fully investigated,” UK Ambassador to the UN Barbara Woodward said.

    “There is no justification for cutting off ties with UNRWA. Israel must abide by its obligations and ensure UNRWA can continue its lifesaving work,” she said.

    The Israeli parliament approved controversial bills restricting UNRWA operations on Israeli territory.

    The move risks preventing the agency from working in the Palestinian Territories too, as Israel controls the border crossings.

    The move caused international concern for the already-dire humanitarian situation of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The UN Security Council had called on Israel to reverse its decision.

  • Scrap the veto and democratise the Security Council – By Owei Lakemfa

    Scrap the veto and democratise the Security Council – By Owei Lakemfa

    UNITED Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, as usual, told us what we already know. On Wednesday, September 25, 2024, he announced that: “Hell is breaking loose in Lebanon”. But, sadly, he is behind the news because hell is not breaking, it has already broken loose in the Palestine, especially in the Gaza Strip, and has merely expanded its occupation into Lebanon.

    Guterres should know this because 220 UN staff in Gaza along with 174 of my colleagues in the journalism profession, have already been despatched from the hell that is Gaza.

    Then he made a Freudian slip. As part of his suggestion to stop the war, he declared that the Lebanese state “must have full control of its weapons” throughout the country. He added: “We support all efforts to strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces.”

    What the UN chief is saying is that Hezbollah, the Lebanese party Israel claims it is fighting, should be disarmed. So, in whose interest will this be? In that of the Lebanese people who are being subjected to the type of genocide going on in the Palestine, or Israel which, without Hezbollah, would annex Lebanon as it did to East Jerusalem, or occupy it as it is occupying the Palestine and the Syrian Golan Heights?

    This is not a theoretical conception as it has occurred twice. Israel had in 1982 invaded Lebanon in the name of cross-border pursuit of Palestinian fighters. This, in 1985, became a full-blown war in which it seized many parts of Lebanon, including its capital, Beirut. Although Israel later withdrew, but for 15 years, it continued to occupy parts of Lebanon which it called its “security zone”. It was forced to leave on May 24, 2000.

    Then, six years later, it again invaded Lebanon, this time from July 12, 2006 to August 14, 2006. However, it could not continue its occupation due to the armed resistance of Hezbollah which had come to replace the collapsed Lebanese military. In other words, but for Hezbollah, Lebanon would have been another Gaza or West Bank under Israeli occupation with settlers from Europe building illegal settlements.

    Gueterres is supposed to be a peace maker. But the mind-set of a peace maker should be to work for an immediate ceasefire, not advocate the disarming of one side of the conflict.

    The Gueterres position of disarming Hezbollah does not tally with that of Lebanon which sees the Israeli attacks as a blatant violation of its sovereignty and human rights.

    Mohammad Najib Azmi Mikati, President of Lebanon’s Council of Ministers, said Lebanon is the “victim of an electronic cyber aggression and of an air and maritime aggression that can turn into a ground aggression and can become an all-out regional war”.

    US President Joe Biden, French President Emmanuel Macron along with Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates issued a joint statement saying: “We call for an immediate 21-day ceasefire across the Lebanon-Israel border to provide space for diplomacy towards the conclusion of a diplomatic settlement.”

    It seems to me a matter of common sense that since the Israeli War in Palestine is linked with that in Lebanon, a ceasefire on all fronts is what is required. The question is: what happened to the UN Security Council, UNSC, June 2024 ceasefire resolution on the war in Gaza? Fourteen of the 15-Member UNSC had passed that resolution which the USA guaranteed Israel would obey, but the latter said the USA was talking nonsense.

    So, the issue is not a ceasefire; the fact is that Israel operates outside international laws, resolutions and conventions because it has the solid backing of the USA. It gets away with whatever actions it carries out, including genocide. All attempts over the decades to make Israel obey international court rulings and UN resolutions have been foiled by the USA. The latter has used its Veto in the UN 85 times, 47 of them were to shield Israel from international resolutions, charges of crimes against humanity and genocide.

    Coincidentally, the renewed war in Lebanon is coming when the world is discussing the expansion of the UNSC to accommodate more permanent members. The USA, claiming to love Africa, is campaigning that two of those seats should go the continent because as its Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said: “It’s what our African partners seek, and it’s what we believe is just.” But, trust the American establishment, there is a caveat: provided the new members would not have the Veto! It is like saying a person should be allowed to own a cannon provided he will not have balls. The magnanimous USA would tolerate Africans at the UNSC Permanent Security court provided they are eunuchs: castrated men.

    The Veto power derives from Article 27 of the UN Charter which provides that: “Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote; Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members (and) Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members…”

    In other words, the power of the UN permanent members is principally based on their power to veto any issue in the organisation. To have the veto is to have the power to override any decision of the UN even if backed by the 192 other member countries.

    Incredibly, some are debating whether this should be accepted or not since half bread is better than none; supposing the half-bread is poisoned?

    The Veto in practice is used as a personal weapon by the permanent members which include three European countries: France, United Kingdom and Russia; one Asian, China and, one North American, USA. Shut out of this exclusive club are regions like Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific, the Middle East and Latin America.

    The Veto, itself, is a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter which states that: “The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”

    The most fundamental reform that can be carried out in the UN is to scrap the Veto power. The UNSC should, of course, continue its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, provided it is democratised with no permanent seats.

    The proposed reforms of the UN system are part of the “Pact for the Future” resolution passed on Sunday, September 22, 2024. The five planks of the Pact are international peace and security; sustainable development; youth and future generations; science and technology; and transforming global governance.

    For the Pact to truly impact on humanity, the UN must be reformed and reoriented based on equality for all and social justice.

  • Ceding our sovereignty to the UN and WHO – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Ceding our sovereignty to the UN and WHO – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Formally founded on April 7, 1948, under the United Nations to promote international healthcare and improve access to essential medicines and health products worldwide, the World Health Organization (WHO) has enjoyed decades of success and global recognition. As an arm of the United Nations, the WHO is tasked with educating, advising, and establishing health and disease prevention programs worldwide.

    Unfortunately, the WHO has faced criticism for being influenced by a narrow Western ideological perspective, prioritizing the funding and promotion of controversial issues such as vaccines causing infertility, LGBT rights, abortion, population control, teen sexual rights, teen masturbation, and transgender rights in Nigeria and other African countries. To achieve these objectives, the WHO receives significant funding from pro-LGBT and pro-abortion organizations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, Marie Stopes International, Rutgers, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. These organizations provide the WHO with specific funding, directing its work toward their intended purposes. Consequently, the views of the vast majority of countries have very little impact on the actual operations of the WHO, leading to a clear erosion of national sovereignty.

    Shockingly, the WHO has funded the Federal Ministry of Health in Abuja, Nigeria, to issue and enforce the Guidelines on Self-Care for Sexual Reproductive and Maternal Health 2020 and the National Guidelines on Safe Termination of Pregnancy, in violation of sections 17(3)(f)(g), 21(a), 23, 33(1), 37, 38, and 45(1) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution; Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 17, 18, 28, and 29 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification Enforcement) Act, CAP 10; the Preamble to the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (ratified and adopted by Nigeria); sections 228, 229, 230, 297, 309, and 328 of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38 (and their equivalent provisions in the Penal Code); and sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 17 of the Child Rights Act 2003 (as amended). It beats the imagination that the WHO could conspire with the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja to violate Nigerian laws?. What this has shown is that the WHO and most of these foreign NGOs and organizations working in Nigeria care no hoot about respecting our laws. What many of them are after is to conspire with some Nigerians to decapitate our human capital.

    The WHO in particular has shown itself to be a big nuisance on Nigerian soil. It is on record that the WHO’s vaccination in Nigeria is unsafe and deadly. A couple of months ago, the Global Prolife Alliance (GPA) petitioned the Senate President, Dr. Godswill Akpabio, concerning the recent introduction by WHO of routine malaria vaccination in Nigeria and other African countries. The group noted that the WHO endorsed the first vaccine based on the initial two years of a four-year pilot study, raising concerns about the transparency of the WHO regarding the vaccine’s safety. According to the group, “recent data from clinical trials associated the vaccine with increased risks, including an elevated risk of clinical malaria after four years, a tenfold increased risk of cerebral meningitis, an increased risk of cerebral malaria, and a higher risk of death, especially among female children.” Consequently, the group warns that a precautionary approach should be taken to ensure safety and the strict observance of ethical standards related to parental informed consent in accordance with the 2014 WHO Policy Document.

    It should be recalled that at the height of the ravaging COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO endorsed policies such as lockdowns that had been previously acknowledged by the WHO itself to cause significant collateral harm, disproportionately affecting low-income populations and countries in Africa. The lockdown regulations were a class-based and unscientific instrument, disproportionately harmful to lower-income people and useless for crowded informal settings, such as in urban parts of Africa. At the same time, African governments were subjected to intense pressure to merely adhere to protocols formulated outside the continent, disregarding their demographic, economic, and climatic contexts. This rendered them powerless on public health matters in their own jurisdictions, which was tantamount to eroding their health sovereignty with predictable and harmful consequences. The same WHO discouraged the use of affordable repurposed drugs while promoting new drugs under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The WHO also promoted mass and often mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 for African populations, known to be at very low risk due to their young age and existing immunity, thereby diverting resources from malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and other urgent health problems on the continent, and violating the right to informed consent.

    The WHO funds the radical sexualization of Nigerian school pupils. For example, in 2016, the WHO’s European office issued standards for Comprehensive Sexuality Education that deemed “the right to explore gender identities” appropriate for children aged 0-4 years and the right of children to have sex. School pupils in open classrooms are required to touch each other’s genitals, saying, “I like you.” The pupils are also expected to touch each other’s private parts and find out the differences in their respective private parts. Under the Youth Peer Sexuality Education Training Guide/Toolkit, funded by the WHO and used in many public secondary schools in Nigeria, the students are told to share with other students with whom they feel more comfortable things like: “Your sexual fantasies (fantasies),” “Your feelings about oral sex (oral),” “Whether you enjoy erotic material (X),” “Whether you have fantasized about a homosexual relationship (gay-fan),” “Whether you have had a homosexual relationship (gay-exp).”

    But the most feared and worrisome issue is the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. At the moment, widespread opposition is being fueled by growing suspicion that the proposed Pandemic Treaty and the modification of International Health Regulations, which would be deliberated on at the ongoing 79th United Nations General Assembly  would give the WHO unnecessary powers to dictate and impose obnoxious health policies on nations. Under the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, the WHO would be empowered to tell countries to lock down and close businesses, schools, pubs, churches, and mosques. We would be forced to take injections, whether we want to or not. We would be forced to wear masks again. We would be forced to do whatever the WHO tells us to do, including restricting our personal liberties. This is why some countries opposed to the proposed Pandemic Treaty are rebelling at the moment. For example, massive rallies are occurring in Japan, with tens of thousands of citizens taking to the streets protesting Japanese ratification of the upcoming WHO’s Pandemic Agreement and the proposed modifications to International Health Regulations.

    It is gladdening that Africa is opposed to the proposed Pandemic Treaty. For example, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group, a network of senior African academics from a variety of disciplines committed to advocating for sound public health policies at the national, regional, and global levels, has recently alerted the African Union to table a motion to postpone the votes for the draft WHO Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). According to this group, these instruments are designed to provide the WHO with new and greater powers. More specifically, they would give the WHO Director-General the authority to personally declare a public health emergency of international concern and thereafter exercise unprecedented sweeping powers over all state parties to the proposed instruments. The Pandemic amendment will pave the way for the WHO to take over jurisdiction of everything in the world under the pretext that climate change, animals, plants, water systems, and ecosystems are all central to health. In addition to that, it will remove human rights protections, enforce censorship and digital passports, require governments to push a single ‘official’ narrative, and enable the WHO to declare ‘pandemics’ on its whims and caprices.

    As the 79th United Nations General Assembly trudges on at the United Nations Headquarters in New York,  we urge Nigeria and other African countries to ensure that they do not by any stretch of imagination cede their sovereignty to the United Nations and the WHO. They should desist from assenting to the proposed WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. African countries must not sell their sovereignties to the globalists who are bent on erecting a global one-world government which should be controlling all the countries in the world. Before the leaders begin addressing the General Assembly on Tuesday next week, a two-day Summit of the Future will be held this weekend, that is, from  September. 22-23. Already, the  U.N. member states are currently negotiating three documents they hope to adopt on September 22 – a pact for the future, a declaration on future generations and a global digital compact. The U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said it was “absolutely essential” to ambitiously use the summit to come up with “adequate governance for the world of today.”

    What sort of “governance” was Guterres alluding to? A “one-world governance”, of course. Therefore Nigeria and other African countries must ensure that the rights of African countries are affirmed and respected so that African countries will freely participate at the General Assembly without any subtle coercion to compromise their identity and cultural heritage.  Certainly, the sexualization of school pupils is antithetical to African cultural heritage and philosophical convictions. LGBT is illegal in Nigeria and many African countries. LGBT has no respect for the religious and philosophical convictions of the African people and therefore cannot be imported into Africa. Laws are made in consonance with the values of a people. Every country is interested in protecting what it holds dear or its cherished values. LGBT is a complete break with African civilization.

    African leaders  should table a motion at the General Assembly to halt the process of enacting the draft Pandemic Treaty and the Amendments to the International Health Regulations by the WHO. African leaders should  facilitate a transparent and accountable review of the role of Western-based international governmental and non-governmental health entities in the WHO’s operations and policies. Such a review must ensure the full participation of African countries. The WHO, which is heavily-funded  and masterminded by organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Marie Stopes International, Rutgers, and International Planned Parenthood Federation,  boasts that it would dismantle all legal, religious and cultural and philosophical principles in Nigeria to pave way for its totalitarian onslaught in Nigeria.

    It is obvious  that the  WHO Pandemic Agreement and Amendments to the IHR, if signed in their current form by the requisite  WHO member states will pave the way for the withdrawal of health sovereignty and economic sovereignty from African state

    This is completely unacceptable. Nigeria is a sovereign country. So, we have a right as a sovereign nation to decide for ourselves what is good for us.  We have  a right to reject anything which compromises our territorial sovereignty. Neither the UN nor WHO  has a right to interfere in the way we run our country or enact our laws.  Only our National Assembly is empowered by virtue of section 4(1) (2) of the 1999 Constitution to make laws that conform to the aspiration of the Nigerian people.

    Certainly the UN or WHO lacks the locus standi to dictate to Nigeria and other African countries the way and manner they should run their countries. A people without identity are a people without existence. We have our identity. The UN and WHO cannot redefine who we are as a people. We cannot be copying hook line and sinker abrasive foreign lifestyles and imposing them on our people. To hell with a “one-world government” concocted by the United Nations and the WHO that would result in annulling the territorial sovereignty of independent countries especially Nigeria and other African countries.

  • Picking pieces of peace as the UN turns 79 – By Owei Lakemfa

    Picking pieces of peace as the UN turns 79 – By Owei Lakemfa

    THE addresses by world leaders speaking for eight  billion human begins, began flowing at the United Nations headquarters in New York, on Tuesday, September 10, 2024. The focus is on peace; how to save humanity from itself.

    That same day, a debate raged in the host country between its two leading presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Inevitably, they had to address the issue of peace, especially in the Palestine which houses symbolic cities of peace like Bethlehem and Jerusalem. It is a Holy Land where the blood of the innocent waters its fields, mountains and valleys.

    Harris advocated a ceasefire-for-hostage deal. She condemned the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on southern Israel but added that “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed” by Israel.

    To all Harris talked about peace in the Palestine, Trump, the former Twitter-in-Chief, chirruped: “She hates Israel!” “She hates Israel!” “She hates Israel!” Then, he switched to: “She also hates the Arab population!”

    Trump’s singsong about Harris hating Israel and the Palestinians while not clearly stating his own position, is not the product of a confused mind. Rather, it portrays America’s duplicitous position; a peace maker who favours one side. Expecting the US to broker peace in the Palestine, is like Waiting for Godot.

    The League of Nations was moulded from the furnace of the First World War with a primary purpose to end wars and create peace. That failed and, a bloodier World War Two erupted. The creation of the UN 79 years ago was again, to ensure universal peace.

    However, some of the world leaders now taking their turn to address the UN General Assembly on peace, are the very practitioners of bloody strife in the world.

    Actually, calling for peace can be hazardous and can come at high cost. When Canadian legislator, Sarah Jama, advocated a ceasefire in the Israeli war in Gaza, she was accused of anti-Semitism and expelled from her Ontario New Democratic Party caucus.

    United Kingdom Member of Parliament, Paul Bristow was sacked as aide to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology for calling for a ceasefire in the Palestine.

    Andy McDonald, Labour MP for Middlesbrough was suspended from the party when he said at a demonstration: “We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians , between the river and the sea, can live in peace.”

    Jeremy Corbyn, British Labour Party leader for five years from 2015, was expelled for advocating a ceasefire in Gaza. The party termed his campaigns as anti-Semitism. He had to stand as an independent candidate to retain his Islington North seat. He was punished for desiring a British government that would on the world stage “search for peace, not war”.

    Sometimes, the cost for even suggesting peace, is capital punishment. Denys Kireyev, a 45-year-old Ukrainian banker on February 23, 2024 obtained information that Russia was going to attack Kiev the next day and that the Antonov Airport would be the centre of the attacks. His information was spot on and it enabled his country prepare for the attack.

    Five days later, he was part of the Ukrainian Negotiating Team that met with Russia in Gomel, Belarus. There, he toed a line for a ceasefire. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian government led by President Volodymyr  Zelensky was not interested in peace; it believed that Russia has to be militarily defeated.

    A week later, Kireyev was invited by the Security Service of Ukraine, SBU, accused of being treasonable at the peace talks and was summarily executed with a shot in the head.

    The government lied that Kireyev, who had honoured an invitation, was killed while trying to avoid detention. An uncoordinated government then made a second announcement that he had died while on a “special mission”. Finally Ukraine’s Defense Ministry announced that Kireyev had died “defending Ukraine and …Heroes don’t die!” The point had been made: talk peace and die.

    This Tuesday, the President of the UN General Assembly, Mr. Dennis Francis reported to the human race that while in the last one year, he visited 31 countries, “circumstances frustrated my desire to meet with Israelis and Palestinians on the ground”.

    That admission that he could not visit the epicentre of on-going conflicts in the world is like an admission that the UN is failing in its primary purpose of ensuring world peace.

    The Trinidadian diplomat noted with regret: “Peace holds the foremost position, not just as a guiding principle but as the very raison d’être, the alpha and omega, if you will, of the United Nations …This organization was forged in the fires of two cataclysmic wars, with the solemn vow of sparing future generations from the scourge of war.”

    There are no pretences that the major world leaders in Europe and North America do not want peace as evidenced by their insistence that even basic steps towards peace talks will not be taken in the bloody Russo-Ukrainian War.

    So, the fires of war are being deliberately stoked in many parts of the world. They include the European-North American War burning in Ukraine, the Middle East conflicts that have already sucked in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran. There are the virtually forgotten wars in Syria, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and, the low intensity combats in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Nigeria and Myanmar. The armed conflicts in Somalia have been on since 1981 with two short periods of lull in the fighting.

    Direct armed conflicts are not the only danger to world peace. There are issues like unilateral actions taken against countries on the basis that powerful nations do not like their politics.

    Former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has decided to mediate in one of them. In a September 3, 2024 letter to US President Joe Biden, he wrote: “It has been brought to my attention that Cuba is currently listed by the United States as one of the countries supporting or sponsoring terrorism globally. As my interaction and relationship with the government and people of Cuba is concerned, especially during and after the time of Fidel Castro, I want to appeal with you, President Biden, to reconsider Cuba’s inclusion on the list of countries supporting terrorism globally. I know and appreciate what contributions Cuba made to (the) final liquidation of colonialism and Apartheid in Africa.”

    Cuba made the US “terrorist” list for actions like fighting the Apartheid military in Africa and, supporting liberation fighters like Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Ruth First, Joe Slovo and Oliver Thambo. These were people the US and UK classified as “terrorists”.

    Today, peace is broken universally, the challenges are picking up its pieces and how the UN can piece them together again.

  • Maiduguri flood: UN reveals staggering human displacement

    Maiduguri flood: UN reveals staggering human displacement

    The United Nations (UN) says no fewer than 414,000 people have been displaced by the devastating flood in Maiduguri, the Borno State capital on Tuesday.

    Ms Ann Weru, Head of Public Information, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Abuja, stated this in a Media Advisory.

    Weru said that the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Nigeria, Mohamed Malick Fall, plans to address the media on the issue.

    She said that the data was collected by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) as of 11 September 2024.

    “NEMA’s records also show that 37 people died, and about 58 people sustained injuries,” she said.

    Access to hospitals, schools and markets, she added has been hampered.

    “Damage to infrastructure, including bridges, were recorded.  Evacuation of people in high-risk areas to safer ground is ongoing, amid concerns about the risk of disease outbreaks,” she said.

    She said that Mr Mohamed Fall, the United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Nigeria, will visit areas impacted by the flooding in Maiduguri and meet with affected people, local authorities and humanitarian partners.

    Government officials, humanitarian partners, representatives of UN agencies and donors, she said, will join Fall at a news conference later in the day.

  • World leaders must re-boot global cooperation for today and tomorrow – By Antonio Guterres

    World leaders must re-boot global cooperation for today and tomorrow – By Antonio Guterres

    By Antonio Guterres

    Final negotiations are underway in New York for this month’s Summit of the Future, where Heads of State will agree on reforms to the building blocks of global cooperation. The United Nations has convened this unique Summit because of a stark fact: global problems are moving faster than the institutions designed to solve them.

    We see this all around us. Ferocious conflicts and violence are inflicting terrible suffering; geopolitical divisions are rife; inequality and injustice are everywhere, corroding trust, compounding grievances, and feeding populism and extremism. The age-old challenges of poverty, hunger, discrimination, misogyny and racism are taking on new forms.

    Meanwhile, we face new and existential threats, from runaway climate chaos and environmental degradation to technologies like Artificial Intelligence developing in an ethical and legal vacuum. The Summit of the Future recognizes that the solutions to all these challenges are in our hands. But we need a systems update that only global leaders can deliver.

    International decision-making is stuck in a time warp. Many global institutions and tools are a product of the 1940s – an era before globalization, before decolonization, before widespread recognition of universal human rights and gender equality, before humanity travelled into space – never mind cyberspace.

    The victors of World War II still have pre-eminence in the UN Security Council while the entire continent of Africa lacks a permanent seat.  The global financial architecture is heavily weighted against developing countries and fails to provide a safety net when they face difficulties, leaving them drowning in debt, which drains money away from investments in their people.

    And global institutions offer limited space for many of the major players in today’s world – from civil society to the private sector. Young people who will inherit the future are almost invisible, while the interests of future generations go unrepresented.

    The message is clear: we cannot create a future fit for our grandchildren with a system built for our grandparents. The Summit of the Future will be an opportunity to re-boot multilateral collaboration fit for the 21st century.

    The solutions we have proposed include a New Agenda for Peace focused on updating international institutions and tools to prevent and end conflicts, including the UN Security Council.

    The New Agenda for Peace calls for a renewed push to rid our world of nuclear arms and other Weapons of Mass Destruction; and for broadening the definition of security to encompass gender-based violence and gang violence. It takes future security threats into account, recognizing the changing nature of warfare and the risks of weaponizing new technologies. For example, we need a global agreement to outlaw so-called Lethal Autonomous Weapons that can take life-or-death decisions without human input.

    Global financial institutions must reflect today’s world and be equipped to lead a more powerful response to today’s challenges – debt, sustainable development, climate action.  That means concrete steps to tackle debt distress, increase the lending capacity of multilateral development banks, and change their business model so that developing countries have far more access to private finance at affordable rates.

    Without that finance, developing countries will not be able to tackle our greatest future threat: the climate crisis. They urgently need resources to transition from planet-wrecking fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy.

    And as leaders highlighted last year, reforming the global financial architecture is also key to jump-starting desperately needed progress on the Sustainable Development Goals.

    The Summit will also focus on new technologies with a global impact, seeking ways to close the digital divide and establish shared principles for an open, free and secure digital future for all.

    Artificial Intelligence is a revolutionary technology with applications and risks we are only beginning to understand. We have put forward specific proposals for governments, together with tech companies, academia and civil society, to work on risk management frameworks for AI and on monitoring and mitigating its harms, as well as sharing its benefits. The governance of AI cannot be left to the rich; it requires that all countries participate, and the UN is ready to provide a platform to bring people together.

    Human rights and gender equality are a common thread linking all these proposals. Global decision-making cannot be reformed without respect for all human rights and for cultural diversity, ensuring the full participation and leadership of women and girls. We are demanding renewed efforts to remove the historic barriers – legal, social and economic – that exclude women from power.

    The peacebuilders of the 1940s created institutions that helped prevent World War III and ushered many countries from colonization to independence. But they would not recognize today’s global landscape.

    The Summit of the Future is a chance to build more effective and inclusive institutions and tools for global cooperation, tuned to the 21st century and our multipolar world.

    I urge leaders to seize it.