Johannesburg, South Africa – As BRICS leaders gather in Brazil, African civil society voices—led by Greenpeace Africa—are urging the bloc to move beyond symbolism and deliver bold, people-centered action for climate justice, ecological protection, and equitable development. In a world marked by growing inequality and climate instability, BRICS must become a genuine platform for Global South leadership that places African priorities and civil society demands at its core.
Africa’s Urgent Call: from symbolism to action
The summit comes in the wake of yet another disappointing outcome at the Bonn Climate Conference, where wealthy nations once again failed to meet the urgency of the moment. With COP30 on the horizon and climate impacts accelerating across the African continent, civil society is calling on BRICS to use this pivotal moment to help shift global power structures and address the systems that continue to marginalize African communities and ecosystems.
Fred Njehu, Global Political Lead, Fair Share Campaign, Greenpeace Africa, said:
“African civil society is not giving up on our demands for real change. We’re demanding that BRICS leaders step up and deliver real change for the planet and people. South Africa, as both a BRICS founding member and G20 host, has a moral and political obligation to push for equity and accountability. That starts with leading efforts on reforming the global financial architecture, tax rules and leading a pan African push for ambitious, people-first 2035 climate actions. We need action that puts African lives and livelihoods before billionaires’ greed and profits. Frontline communities across this continent are already paying the price for climate inaction. It’s time for BRICS to prioritize climate finance that reaches grassroots solutions, not just boardrooms.”
Civil Society priorities for BRICS action
African civil society is united in calling for:
A just energy transition that centers workers, youth, women, and communities—not fossil fuel interests.
Climate finance justice, with transparent, accessible funding for community-led adaptation and resilience.
Full ratification of the High Seas Treaty, to protect African marine ecosystems from exploitation.
Protection of the Congo Basin forest and Indigenous people’s rights, including meaningful participation in global forest initiatives.
A Global Plastics Treaty that cuts production at the source and stops the waste colonialism harming African communities.
Koaile Monaheng, Pan-African Political Strategist, Greenpeace Africa, added:
“In a year as the G20 host, South Africa also needs to live up to its global responsibilities and a good place to start is ratifying the global oceans treaty and pushing other BRICS members to do the same. But responsible leadership also starts at home and South Africa must push ahead with an ambitious 2035 climate action plan to set the scene for climate finance talks at COP30.”
A moment to demonstrate Global South leadership
The BRICS Summit offers a critical opportunity to demonstrate the rising influence of the Global South in shaping a more just and sustainable global order. With Brazil hosting COP30 next year, the bloc is uniquely positioned to send a clear and united message: BRICS nations are ready to lead with purpose on the most urgent environmental challenges of our time.
From intensified droughts and flooding to threats to food and water security, climate impacts are already being felt deeply across the Global South. BRICS countries—many of them directly affected—can help craft practical, cooperative solutions that reflect both the urgency and diversity of local contexts.
Climate Action, Forest Protection, and the Plastics Treaty
As discussions progress, there is a clear opportunity for BRICS to advance bold 2035 climate action plans that support an inclusive energy transition. These plans must be anchored in national realities but also promote cross-regional solidarity and resilience.
Initiatives like Brazil’s Tropical Forests Forever Facility could serve as important models—if they prioritize participation, transparency, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities who are already at the forefront of forest protection across the Amazon, Congo Basin, and Southeast Asia.
On plastics, BRICS leaders have the opportunity to influence the upcoming Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in Geneva by pushing for a treaty that addresses production at the source, promotes a just transition for waste workers, and ensures Global South realities are embedded in the solutions.
Protecting the Ocean Commons
Momentum is also building around the High Seas Treaty, a landmark effort to protect ocean biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. BRICS countries have contributed to its progress, and continued leadership will be vital to uphold multilateralism, science-based decision-making, and long-term ocean stewardship.
Charting a path forward
Greenpeace Africa believes that BRICS has a vital role to play in strengthening environmental and climate governance, both regionally and globally. Rooted in the shared principles of equity, development, and cooperation, the bloc has the potential to help reshape how the world responds to the intersecting crises of climate, nature, and inequality.
The world is watching with anticipation. The decisions made in Rio can lay the foundation for a renewed collective ambition at COP30 and beyond—showing that a more inclusive, justice-centered form of leadership is not only necessary, but already within reach.
Responding to the Advisory Opinion, Ana Piquer, Regional Director for the Americas at Amnesty International, stated: “Each day of inaction means more suffering for the people and communities who have contributed the least to the climate crisis. Today, therefore, marks a moment of hope for millions of people in the Americas whose human rights are being devastated by this crisis. States now have clear guidance and can no longer claim ignorance of their human rights obligations. The roadmap is set — now is the time for immediate, concrete, and positive action to urgently tackle the climate crisis.”
Each day of inaction means more suffering for the people and communities who have contributed the least to the climate crisis. Today, therefore, marks a moment of hope for millions of people in the Americas whose human rights are being devastated by this crisis.
Ana Piquer, Regional Director for the Americas at Amnesty International
The Court emphasized that the climate crisis does not affect all people equally. In the Americas and globally, Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, rural and fishing populations, women, children, older persons, and socioeconomically marginalized groups face disproportionate impacts. The Court ruled on the specific duties of states to prevent harm and ensure protection for these groups, affirming that climate action is a human rights obligation — not a political choice.
In this context, Mandi Mudarikwa, Head of Strategic Litigation at Amnesty International, emphasized: “Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis. Crucially, the Court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment. The Court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation.”
Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis.
Mandi Mudarikwa, Head of Strategic Litigation at Amnesty International
This Advisory Opinion is a significant contribution to the ongoing development and clarification of states’ human rights obligations in the face of climate change. Amnesty International looks forward with great interest to future decisions resulting from advisory opinions to be issued by the International Court of Justice later this year, as well as from other regional courts, domestic courts, and quasi-judicial bodies.
Palembang – July 4, 2025 – In a deeply disappointing decision, the Palembang District Court in Sumatra has rejected a lawsuit filed by dozens of smoke haze victims and a supporting intervention by Greenpeace Indonesia against three pulpwood plantation companies – PT Bumi Mekar Hijau, PT Bumi Andalas Permai, and PT Sebangun Bumi Andalas Wood Industries. The ruling is a setback in the fight for public health and a clean environment in South Sumatra.
The court’s decision to reject the lawsuit – apparently by finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue – disregards the community’s fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment. It also severely curtails the public’s ability to seek justice.[1] The lawsuit, brought by the victims, was a legitimate exercise of their constitutional and legal rights, aiming to achieve accountability for their suffering from the recurring forest and land fires enabled by peatland drainage carried out by the plantation companies.”
The plaintiffs are members of the community who are clearly and directly impacted by the smoke haze resulting from peatland fires within the defendants’ concessions. They have endured both material and immaterial losses, and now they face this heartbreaking news,” said Belgis Habiba, Forest Campaigner for Greenpeace Indonesia. “Furthermore, the intervening plaintiff, Greenpeace Indonesia, also has the established right to demand the restoration of the environment damaged by the defendants’ peatland drying activities. The court appears to have ignored witness and expert testimonies, previous cases on environmental standing to sue, as well as the undeniable fact that the dangers of peatland fires and smoke haze continue to loom over South Sumatra.”
This ruling comes at a time of escalating peatland fire risks, with the South Sumatra Provincial Government having just declared an “Emergency Haze Alert” status. By dismissing this lawsuit, the panel of judges has ironically weakened the nation’s commitment to mitigating and tackling the annual fire and haze crisis.
The plaintiffs’ legal team has announced they will thoroughly review the full ruling, which has yet to be published, and are considering an appeal. “We believe that the people of South Sumatra have an undeniable right to clean and healthy air, and this must be tirelessly fought for,” said Ipan Widodo, representing the plaintiffs’ legal team. “If the panel of judges allows plantation companies responsible for producing haze to escape accountability, then the devastating impact of smoke haze will continue to haunt the residents of South Sumatra.”
In a display of disappointment, victims of the smoke haze and community members in South Sumatra held a flower-scattering protest in front of the Palembang District Court. Messages of “Justice for Haze Victims,” “Deepest Condolences for the Demise of Justice at Palembang District Court,” and “Palembang District Court Makes It Even Harder to Breathe” adorned the court building’s front fence. Dressed entirely in black, the protestors symbolized the denial of justice for the haze victims.
“Amidst the South Sumatra Provincial Government’s declaration of an emergency haze alert, this decision seems to contradict the commitment of law enforcement and the government in combating forest and peatland fires and smoke haze,” said Muhkamat Arif, one of the eleven plaintiffs. “Naturally, the judges’ decision is incredibly disappointing, but it will not diminish our spirit to keep fighting until we win.”
Referring to Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 1 of 2017, the panel of judges should have upheld a crucial principle of the judicial system: that substantive justice – which relates to the essence and purpose of law in realizing true justice for society – must take precedence over formal justice, which only adheres to procedural or technical rules in court proceedings. This case dismissal signals a crisis of judicial partiality regarding the right to a healthy environment in the midst of a climate emergency. Therefore, the South Sumatra Smoke Suit Initiative (Inisiasi Sumatera Selatan Penggugat Asap – ISSPA) urges the Supreme Court Supervisory Body and the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia to evaluate the handling of this lawsuit and increase scrutiny of similar rulings that could exacerbate the national ecological crisis.
Notes to editor [1] The full text of the judgement has not yet been released by the court, but the respondent companies’ argument that the community lacked standing was apparently accepted, according to the brief note uploaded to the court website.
[2] PT Bumi Mekar Hijau, PT Bumi Andalas Permai, and PT Sebangun Bumi Andalas Wood Industries are listed as part of the APP Business Group in documents submitted during the company’s application to re-associate with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
Media Contacts Belgis Habiba, Greenpeace Indonesia, +62 897 0005 629 Yolanda Pradinata, LBH Palembang, +62 821 7764 1251 Igor O’Neill, Greenpeace Indonesia – [email protected], +61 414 288 424
South Sumatra Smoke Suit Initiative (Inisiasi Sumatera Selatan Penggugat Asap – ISSPA): Greenpeace Indonesia, Pantau Gambut, Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia (YLBHI), YLBHI-LBH Palembang, Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law (ICEL), Public Interest Lawyer Network (PIL-Net) Indonesia, Spora Institute, Perkumpulan Rawang, Perkumpulan Tanah Air, Dewan Pimpinan Wilayah Serikat Petani Indonesia Sumatera Selatan, Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria (KPA) Wilayah Sumatera Selatan, Solidaritas Perempuan Palembang, Sarekat Hijau Indonesia Sumatera Selatan, Spektakel Klab, Kontra Visual, Diskomik, Himpunan Mahasiswa Pertanian Universitas Sriwijaya (Himasperta UNSRI), Aksi Kamisan Sriwijaya, Badan Eksekutif Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum Universitas Sriwijaya (BEM FH UNSRI), Badan Eksekutif Mahasiswa Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Sriwijaya (BEM FE UNSRI), Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Fatah (PMII UIN Raden Fatah).
Amsterdam, Netherlands – The Inter-American Court of Human Rights just delivered a landmark decision on the obligations of States in the face of the climate emergency.[1] The Court established that governments must take “urgent and effective actions” to safeguard the right to a healthy climate, and that companies have obligations with regard to climate change and its impacts on human rights. This decision unequivocally puts the rights of people and nature above the interests of polluters.
In an unprecedented move, the Court also recognised the right to nature and ecosystems to maintain their essential ecological processes, as a crucial part in the effort to address the triple planetary crisis [2] and to achieve a truly sustainable development model that respects planetary boundaries and guarantees the rights of present and future generations.
Pablo Ramírez, Climate Campaigner, Greenpeace Mexico, said: “This is a life-changing decision for thousands of communities that are impacted by climate change on our continent. The highest court in the Americas is providing us with a pathway to climate justice, obliging States to guarantee human rights, address climate impacts and force polluting industries to repair the damage they have caused.”
The Court’s decision puts powerful legal tools to secure climate accountability and justice in the hands of more than 300 million people in 20 states that are party to the American Convention on Human Rights, including Indigenous Peoples, civil society organisations and individuals.
The advisory opinion was requested in January 2023 by the governments of Chile and Colombia. [3] It was followed by the most participatory process in the history of the Court, with 150 oral interventions from States, international organisations, Indigenous Peoples, and civil society, as well as 265 written submissions, including from Greenpeace International.
Latin America and the Caribbean are highly affected by air pollution,[4] rising sea levels and extreme weather events,[5] fuelled by emissions from oil and gas corporations and other polluting industries.[6]
The Court’s decision is grounded in clear scientific evidence that attributes large emissions from corporations to impacts such as loss of life and livelihoods from climate disasters. This Court decision will directly assist individuals and communities in pushing back against corporate polluters and corporate violations of human rights.
Maria Alejandra Serra, Legal Counsel, Greenpeace International, said: “For too long, politicians and corporations have gotten away with profiting from the destruction of our environment and from harming the lives of ordinary people. This decision marks the beginning of the era of corporate accountability and a big step towards dismantling the colonial legacy of systemic impunity in our region.”
The decision builds on the growing global momentum in courts tasked with interpreting international law facing the climate crisis.[7] It is expected to be used by governments to present more ambitious climate action plans and shape future decisions by other international human rights courts, setting the stage for a forthcoming historic advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice – the world’s highest court – on the responsibilities of States to mitigate climate impacts.
ENDS
Notes:
Photos and videos of Greenpeace International and its allies in the process at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Greenpeace Media Library.
[1] The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, one of three regional human rights courts in the world, has the role to interpret and clarify the obligations of States. Its decisions inform national governments and courts. Read the full decision in Spanish here.
[2] As established by the United Nations, “[t]he triple planetary crisis refers to the interconnected challenges of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss”. See here
[4] A review on the impact of climate change and air pollution in the region, particularly in the Caribbean, is detailed in a Columbia University publication authored by Muge Akpinar-Elci and Olaniyi Olayinka.
[5] As recently as 2024, the Americas region faced devastating effects from multiple extreme weather events, which continued to impact lives, livelihoods, and food supply chains long after the events had passed, according to a publication by the World Meteorological Organization.
[6] Written observation on the request for an advisory opinion on the climate emergency and human rights by Greenpeace International, the Center for International Environmental Law, the NYU Climate Law Accelerator, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Open Society Justice Initiative.
Evidence suggests the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was designed to deflect international pressure while serving as another tool in Israel’s campaign of genocide
Testimonies from healthcare workers and displaced people reveal a horrifying picture of acute starvation and desperation in Gaza
‘With no aid getting in, you feel like as a hospital you only patch up the wound but eventually it will burst again’ – Dr. Maarouf in Gaza
‘Not only has the international community failed to stop this genocide, but it has also allowed Israel to constantly reinvent new ways to destroy Palestinian lives in Gaza and trample on their human dignity’ – Agnès Callamard
Evidence gathered by Amnesty International shows that, more than a month after introducing its militarised aid distribution system, Israel continues to use the starvation of civilians as a weapon of war against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip – deliberately imposing conditions intended to destroy Palestinian life, as part of its ongoing genocide.
Testimonies from medical staff, parents of malnourished children, and displacedPalestinians struggling to survive reveal a horrifying picture of acute starvation and desperation in Gaza.Their accounts provide further evidence of the catastrophicimpact of Israel’s ongoing restrictions on life-saving aid, its deadly militarised aid system, mass forced displacement, relentless bombardment, and the systematic destruction of essential infrastructure.
By continuing to prevent the UN and other key humanitarian organisations from distributing certain essential items including food parcels, fuel and shelter within Gaza and by maintaining a deadly, dehumanising and ineffective militarised ‘aid’ scheme, Israeli authorities have turned aid-seeking into a booby trap for desperate starved Palestinians. They have also deliberately fueled chaos and compounded suffering instead of alleviating it. The aid delivered is also way below the humanitarian needs of a population that has been experiencing almost daily bombings for nearly two years.
Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, said:
“Israel’s genocide has continued unabated in Gaza including creating a deadly mix of hunger and disease pushing the population past breaking point.
“In the month following Israel’s imposition of a militarised ‘aid’ scheme run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, hundreds of Palestinians have been killed and thousands injured either near militarised distribution sites or en route to humanitarian aid convoys.
“As the occupying power, Israel has a legal obligation to ensure Palestinians in Gaza have access to food, medicine and other supplies essential for their survival. Instead, Israel has continued to restrict the entry of aid and impose its suffocating cruel blockade and even a full siege lasting nearly 80 days. This must end now. Israel must lift all restrictions and allow unfettered, safe, and dignified access to humanitarian aid throughout Gaza immediately.”
Amnesty interviewed 17 internally displaced people (10 women and seven men) as well as the parents of four children hospitalised for severe malnutrition, and four healthcare workers, across three hospitals in Gaza City and Khan Younis in May and June.
Devastating impact on children
Even before the imposition of a total siege on 2 March, slightly but insufficiently eased 78 days later, Israel’s deliberate and calculated decision to destroy Palestinians had a particularly devastating impact on young children and pregnant and breastfeeding women.
Since October 2023 at least 66 children have died as a direct result of malnutrition-related conditions. This figure does not include the many more children who have died as a result of preventable diseases exacerbated by malnutrition.
The victims include a four-month-old baby, Jinan Iskafi, who tragically died on 3 May due to severe malnutrition. According to her medical report, which was reviewed by Amnesty, Jinan was admitted to the Rantissi pediatric hospital due to severe dehydration and recurrent infections. She was diagnosed with Marasmus, a severe form of protein-energy malnutrition, chronic diarrhoea, and a suspected case of immunodeficiency. The pediatrician treating her told Amnesty that she required a specific lactose-free formula, which was not available due to the blockade.
Gaza’s decimated health sector, already overwhelmed with the volume of injuries, is struggling to deal with the influx of infants and children hospitalised for malnutrition. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, as of 15 June, a total of 18,741 children were hospitalised for acute malnutrition since the beginning of the year.
The vast majority of children suffering from malnutrition, however, cannot reach any hospital due to displacement orders and heavy bombardment and ongoing military operations.
Numbers barely scratch the surface of the suffering in Gaza
Accounts from healthcare workers and displaced people paint an even more harrowing picture. Susan Maarouf, a nutritional expert at the Nutrition unit in the Patient Friend Benevolent Society hospital in Gaza City, supported by the organization MedGlobal, said that in June 2024 the hospital opened a dedicated department for children aged six months to five years to manage cases of severe malnutrition.
Maarouf said:
“Back then, Gaza City and the North Gaza governorate were hit by malnutrition [as a result of the tight blockade]. But this year for us, the situation began to drastically get worse again in April. Since then, out of approximately 200-250 children we have screened daily for malnutrition, nearly 15% showed signs associated with severe or moderate malnutrition.”
In the worst cases visible signs include pale skin, hair and nail loss, and alarming weight loss. She expressed the profound helplessness of offering nutritional advice amid severe shortages of food, with fruit, vegetables and eggs only available at exorbitant prices, if at all:
“In an ideal world, I would recommend the parents to provide the child with nutritious food, rich with protein. I would advise that they maintain a hygienic environment for their children; I would stress the importance of clean water… In our situation… any recommendation you give … sometimes you feel like you are rubbing salt into these parents’ wounds.”
Dr. Maarouf described the relentless cycle of malnutrition stating that in some cases children were re-hospitalised after being discharged:
“We treated one little girl, aged six, for nutritional oedema, she had severe protein deficiency when she came in early May; with the treatment we gave her she showed signs of improvement, including gaining weight, becoming livelier… unfortunately she was recently admitted again because her condition relapsed. Like most families in Gaza, her family is displaced, they live in a tent, they have to rely on the lentils or rice they get from the community kitchen. It’s a cycle. With no aid getting in, you feel like, as a hospital, you only patch up the wound but eventually it will burst again.”
Doctors have also warned that the lives of newborn babies are at risk amid acute shortages of baby formula milk, especially for children with lactose-intolerance or other allergies.
One doctor said:
“There is a milk crisis in Gaza overall. Also, we notice that new mothers, because they themselves are not eating properly or because of the panic, trauma and anxiety, are unable to breastfeed. So, to secure baby formula at all is a struggle. But if your child has allergies, it’s almost impossible to find special formula in any of Gaza’s hospitals and for infants the failure to secure special baby formula can be a death sentence.”
At Nasser hospital in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, Dr. Wafaa Abu Nimer confirmed the dire situation, reporting that by 30 June, nine children were still being treated for malnutrition-related complications at her facility alone. She described the scenes they have witnessed over the past two months as “really unprecedented” with severe cases of nutritional oedema or marasmus, muscle wasting. She also said that some are additionally suffering from injuries due to explosions from which they haven’t recovered.
Dr. Abu Nimer said that since Israel’s new aid distribution scheme began there has been no signs of improvement in the situation with hundreds of children screened for malnutrition on a daily basis in their pediatric emergency room. Mass displacement orders issued to the Khan Younis governorate in May made Nasser hospital out of reach for thousands of displaced families.
Dr. Abu Nimer described to Amnesty how the impact on children extends beyond the physical:
“One girl whose hair fell out almost completely as a result of nutritional oedema, kept asking me ‘doctor, will my hair grow again? Am I [still] beautiful?’. Even if these children recover completely, the scars will always remain with them. Medically we know that malnutrition amongst infants and small children may have long-term cognitive and developmental effects, but I don’t think enough attention is being given to the mental health and psychological impact [of starvation and war] on children and parents.”
She also conveyed the exhaustion felt by medical staff:
“We as doctors are also exhausted, we are malnourished ourselves, most of us are also displaced and live in tents, yet we do our best to offer medical care, provide nutrient supplements and as much support as we can. We try to save lives, we try to alleviate the suffering, but there is very little we can do after discharge.”
Weaponised aid
While Israeli authorities continue to impose their unlawful blockade on the entry of aid and commercial supplies into the occupied Gaza Strip, hundreds of aid trucks remain stuck outside Gaza, waiting for an Israeli permit to enter.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that as of 16 June, 852 trucks for UN and international humanitarian organisations – the majority of which carry food supplies – remain stuck in Al-Arish in Egypt, yet to receive a permit from the Israeli authorities to enter Gaza. The partial easing of the total siege on 19 May did not include easing restrictions on certain critical supplies, such as fuel and cooking gas, which have not been allowed into Gaza since 2 March. Without fuel, there’s no electricity so vital life-saving medical equipment cannot function.
Only a trickle of the extremely limited aid allowed by Israel into Gaza reaches those in need. It is either distributed through the inhumane and deadly militarised scheme run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, or it is offloaded by desperate starved civilians, and in some cases, organised gangs. This grim reality is compounded by Israel’s deliberate destruction or denial of access to life-sustaining infrastructure, including some of Gaza’s most fertile agricultural land and food production sources, like greenhouses and poultry farms.
The World Food Programme and local organisations were for the first time permitted to distribute flour in Gaza City on 26 June. The relatively smooth distribution that took place with thousands waiting their turn and no reported injuries is a damning indictmentof Israel’s militarisedGaza Humanitarian Foundationscheme. All the evidence gathered, including testimonies which Amnesty is receiving from victims and witnesses, suggest that theGaza Humanitarian Foundationwas designed to placate international concerns while constituting another tool of Israel’s genocide.
Agnès Callamard added:
“Not only has the international community failed to stop this genocide, but it has also allowed Israel to constantly reinvent new ways to destroy Palestinian lives in Gaza and trample on their human dignity.
“States must cease their inertia and live up to their legal obligations. They must exercise all necessary pressure to ensure Israel lifts immediately and unconditionally its awful blockade and ends the genocide in Gaza. They must end any form of contribution to Israel’s unlawful conduct or risk complicity in atrocity crimes. This requires immediately suspending all military support to Israel, banning trade and investment that contribute to Israel’s genocide or other grave violations of international law.
“States should also adopt targeted sanctions, through international and regional mechanisms, against those Israeli officials most implicated in international crimes and cooperate with the International Criminal Court, including by implementing its arrest warrants.”
The Togolese authorities must put an end to unnecessary and excessive use of force against protesters, said Amnesty International, amid the latest violent crackdown on protests in the capital, Lomé, since 26 June.
The organization spoke with 18 victims and witnesses. Thirteen described a pattern of unlawful use of force and mistreatment by police and security forces against protesters and passers-by.
These cases must be independently and transparently investigated as a matter of urgency.
Marceau Sivieude, Amnesty International’s interim Regional Director for West and Central Africa
These protests, considered illegal by the authorities, are the latest in a series of demonstrations since the beginning of June against the repression of dissent, the high cost of living and changes to the constitution. Last month, Amnesty International documented allegations that protesters had been tortured or subjected to ill-treatment.
“In recent days, we have interviewed people who have alleged that men identified as security forces carried out unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detentions, acts of torture and other ill-treatment, and several cases of abduction. These cases must be independently and transparently investigated as a matter of urgency,” said Marceau Sivieude, Amnesty International’s interim Regional Director for West and Central Africa.
Pride Month event discusses disinformation, democracy and minority rights News release krousseau.drupal
The event discussed online harms faced by LGBTIQ+ communities and what they mean for democracies worldwide.
Chatham House’s EDI Working Group arranged a public panel at Chatham House on 26 June 2025 to map the state of LGBTIQ+ rights online and explore where better policies are possible.
Chaired by Isabella Wilkinson (Research Fellow, Digital Society Programme and LGBTIQ+ Co-Chair, EDI Working Group), the event spotlighted global trends in disinformation messaging, targeting and impacts, painting a sobering picture of democratic backsliding and barriers to public participation.
Speaking at the event were Peter Tatchell, a renowned human rights activist; Lucy Middleton, the Thomson Reuters Foundation’s LGBTQ+ correspondent; and Francesca Gentile, an open-source researcher from the Centre for Information Resilience.
Drawing on speakers’ expertise, the conversation also highlighted how online threats have offline consequences, with disproportionate harms faced by parts of the LGBTIQ+ communities, such as trans people.
Rheea Saggar, Marketing and Communications Manager and LGBTIQ+ Co-Chair, EDI Working Group, said:
‘The event highlighted why protecting minority rights online is a matter of democratic resilience and demands intersectional approaches: there is no one-size-fits-all solution.’
Joseph Osayande, Deputy Head of Individual Memberships and chair of Chatham House’s EDI Working Group, said:
‘We are grateful to our speakers and lively audience and look forward to hosting other timely discussions on issues of EDI in international affairs.’
Chatham House’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Working Group coordinates, consults on and supports the delivery of EDI-related events and activities across the institute. If you are interested in getting involved, please contact us.
Oxfam has joined the new care initiative launched today by the governments of Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia and others, at the Fourth Financing for Development Conference in Seville. The coalition will push for increased investment in care, with the goal of reducing inequalities. Oxfam Mexico Executive Director Alexandra Haas said:
“This initiative seeks to close the gap that for centuries has been disadvantaging women around the world. Women take on 76% of unpaid care work globally and are the most affected by cuts to public services. This unequal distribution of care is rooted in the gendered division of labor and in the colonial power imbalances between Global North and South, and in an economic structure that puts the interests of the super-rich at the expense of everyone else.
“This agenda is not advancing at the speed we’d like, because it requires funding. But if governments don’t invest, care work will fall once more on the shoulders of women, particularly low-income and racialised women. It’s time for states to take on responsibility through the provision of high-quality, sufficient and well-funded public services.
“We’re concerned about the role of the private sector in the provision of universal public services. Let’s be cautious. Progress will come from collaboration between governments, institutions and civil society. Services like healthcare are a human right and a public good, not a commodity. We hope the role of the private sector is through their paying their fair share of taxes, that can be used to fund and sustain public services.
“Seville is just a starting point, not the destination. This initiative can pave a route for more global coalitions that put care and the fight against inequalities at the center, from the FFD to COP30 and G20.”
Oxfam’s media briefing note, “From Private Profit to Public Power: Financing Development, Not Oligarchy” can be downloadedhere.
The CareSPA initiative is led by UN Women together with Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, with the support of the Global Care Alliance and the backing of Spain, Uruguay, Nepal, Canada, Norway and Germany. Institutional partners include the ILO (International Labour Organization), CAF (Development Bank of Latin America), ECLAC, UNDP, UNFPA and IDRC, together with civil society organisations such as GIESCR, Coordinadora de Organizaciones para el Desarrollo and Equimundo.
The Platform will discuss in the coming months the potential implementation of a set of specific actions to drive systemic change. Among them:
- Promoting gender-responsive budgeting and strengthening public financing capacity for care systems.
– Improving the generation and use of care-related data to inform evidence-based policy-making and investment planning.
– Scale up care services and systems through a sustainable and equity-driven approach, promoting shared gender and social responsibility.
– Foster international cooperation, capacity development and knowledge sharing to support the transformation of care systems.
The statistic on 76% of care work comes from a2024 WHO report.
In response to the conclusion of the Fourth Financing for Development Conference in Seville, Spain, FFD Global Policy Lead Hernan Saenz said:
“Seville was a key moment in an ongoing journey to fight inequality, achieve gender justice and reform the international debt architecture under the UN.The conference showed that considerable challenges remain to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals. But it also paved the way for governments tobuild more coalitions to tax the super-rich and finance care, and put equality, democracy and sustainability at the core of their efforts. In a context of geopolitical uncertainty, multilateralism is the way ahead.”
“Despite the lacklustre ambition of theCompromiso de Sevillawhererich countries shirked their responsibility to act on the debt crisis and continued to embrace the private finance first approach to development, this conference also showed what international cooperation can achieve when there is political will for it.Our new research found that the new wealth of the top 1% surged by over 33.9$ trillion since 2015. This is enough to end annual poverty 22 times over, yet over three billion people still live in countries that spend more on debt repayments than on education or health. Therefore, we welcome the new alliance to tax the super-rich launched by Spain and Brazil, with the support of South Africa and Chile.
“We also welcome the new care financing initiative by Brazil, Mexico and Colombia. These coalitions provide much needed political ambition and have the potential to deliver vital funding towards the Sustainable Development Goals and fight extreme inequality, which disproportionately impacts women and girls.
“We are very concerned by the limitations placed on civil society over the course of the conference to do what we came here to do: tell truth to power. Civil society organizations are the backbone of democracy. The UN was built to defend human rights – if it cedes to the global trend of shrinking civic space, it will undermine its legitimacy.”
Sevilla, Spain – A growing coalition of countries have pledged to take action on taxing the super-rich and polluting companies at the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development conference.[1][2] But governments have failed to support bold measures to address the debt crisis that massively undermines Global South capacities to deal with social and environmental challenges and risks fuelling destructive extractive activities.
Fred Njehu, Global Political Lead at Greenpeace Africa, said: “Sevilla was a crucial moment for multilateralism, yet rich and powerful governments failed to match the urgency of the debt crisis hitting Global South countries, undermining wellbeing and climate action. A glimmer of hope is the new coalitions of countries that have pledged bold action to tax the super-rich and polluting corporations. These alliances are important for building momentum to unlock vital public finance beyond debt repayments.
“Now, world leaders must heed public anger over billionaire and fossil fuel greed. They must back transformative tax justice at the UN Tax Convention and COP30 to make super-rich individuals and powerful companies pay their fair share. They must listen to countries on the frontline, experts, and civil society activists throughout this conference calling for climate and tax justice.”
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s keynote address at the Nobel Peace Prize Forum 2024.
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
Nairobi, Kenya, 26 June — Greenpeace Africa acknowledges President William Ruto’s decision to decline assenting to the Finance Bill 2024 in response to the widespread outcry from Kenyans.
We extend our deepest condolences to the families and communities who mourn their loved ones. The protection of human life and the right to peaceful protest are paramount.
Greenpeace Africa strongly advocates for an alternative approach to future Finance Bills, based on the principles of fair taxation. Instead of imposing burdensome taxes on the struggling populace, we propose a tax policy targeting polluters’ profits. Corporations, oil and gas industries that contribute significantly to environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and climate crisis should bear financial responsibility for their actions.
Taxing the super-rich and polluters rather than the poor aligns with the principles of environmental justice and ensures that those responsible for environmental damage, losses and damages contributing to the rising costs of climate adaptation, mitigation and resilience bear the greatest responsibility. We welcome the president’s call to engage the youth and encourage the government to work closely with all stakeholders to develop progressive socio-economic policies that promote environmental sustainability, social equity, economic resilience, and prioritize the well-being of the people.
Greenpeace Africa remains committed to advocating for a just, equitable, and sustainable society. We support constructive dialogue between the government, the youth, and all concerned parties in Kenya.
Reacting to reports of mass detentions, torture and other ill-treatment of dozens of members of the Azerbaijani diaspora in Russia and Russian nationals in Azerbaijan, which led to the deaths of two ethnic Azeris in Russia’s Yekaterinburg, Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, said:
“The authorities in both Russia and Azerbaijan have shown complete disregard for human dignity and open contempt for their human rights obligations. Torture and other ill-treatment are absolutely prohibited under international law and there is no justification for it. This appears to be nothing more than tit for tat policing operations targeting people based on their ethnicity and nationality.”
“Due process and respect for human rights of people in detention must prevail over political tensions between states. Russian and Azerbaijani authorities must promptly, thoroughly, independently and impartially investigate allegations of unlawful killings and torture and other ill-treatment and bring those responsible to justice.”
The authorities in both Russia and Azerbaijan have shown complete disregard for human dignity and open contempt for their human rights obligations
Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Background
On 27 June, Russian law enforcement carried out mass detentions of around 50 ethnic Azeris in Yekaterinburg, among them Russian and Azerbaijani nationals, reportedly in connection with an investigation into a killing committed in 2001 and other past crimes. Six individuals were charged and placed in pre-trial detention, while others were released after questioning.
According to one of the survivors, all those detained were beaten: slammed to the floor, hit with chairs and tortured with electric shocks for about an hour. Several people were hospitalized and two individuals, brothers Ziyaddin and Guseyn Safarov, died in custody. Azerbaijani authorities claim that the brothers, who both held Russian passports, died from torture and multiple injuries caused while in Russian custody. The Russian authorities have cited heart failure as the cause of death of one of the brothers and stated that they are clarifying the other’s cause of death. Heart failure is often given by authorities as the cause of death in Russian custody in cases where torture and other ill-treatment has been alleged.
In what appears to be retaliatory action, the Azerbaijani authorities detained at least eight Russian nationals in Baku between 30 June and 1 July, under accusations ranging from espionage to drug trafficking to computer hacking. These include two journalists – Igor Kartavykh and Evgeny Belousov – detained during a raid on the office of Sputnik Azerbaijan, a state-run Russian media outlet which the Azerbaijani authorities had earlier deprived of accreditation. Others included IT specialists who had left Russia after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and at least one person who was reportedly visiting Azerbaijan as a tourist. Videos and photos of the arrests distributed by Azerbaijani law enforcement channels and photos taken in court during the remand hearing show Russian detainees with visible facial bruising and head injuries.
Evidence gathered by Amnesty International demonstrates how over a month since the introduction of its militarized aid distribution system, Israel has continued to use starvation of civilians as a weapon of war against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip and to deliberately impose conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as part of its ongoing genocide.
Heartbreaking testimonies gathered from medical staff, parents of children hospitalized for malnutrition and displaced Palestinians struggling to survive paint a horrifying picture of acute levels of starvation and desperation in Gaza. Their accounts provide further evidence of the catastrophic suffering caused by Israel’s ongoing restrictions on life-saving aid and its deadly militarized aid scheme coupled with mass forced displacement, relentless bombardment and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure.
“While the eyes of the world were diverted to the recent hostilities between Israel and Iran, Israel’s genocide has continued unabated in Gaza, including through the infliction of conditions of life that have created a deadly mix of hunger and disease pushing the population past breaking point,” said Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.
In the month following Israel’s imposition of a militarized “‘aid” scheme run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), hundreds of Palestinians have been killed and thousands injured either near militarized distribution sites or en route to humanitarian aid convoys.
This devastating daily loss of life as desperate Palestinians try to collect aid is the consequence of their deliberate targeting by Israeli forces and the foreseeable consequence of irresponsible and lethal methods of distribution.
Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.
“This devastating daily loss of life as desperate Palestinians try to collect aid is the consequence of their deliberate targeting by Israeli forces and the foreseeable consequence of irresponsible and lethal methods of distribution,” said Agnès Callamard.
By continuing to prevent UN and other key humanitarian organizations from distributing certain essential items, like food parcels, fuel and shelter, within Gaza and by maintaining a deadly, dehumanizing and ineffective militarized ‘aid’ scheme, Israeli authorities have turned aid-seeking into a booby trap for desperate starved Palestinians. They have also deliberately fueled chaos and compounded suffering instead of alleviating it. The aid delivered is also way below the humanitarian needs of a population that has been experiencing almost daily bombings for the last 20 months.
Israel has continued to restrict the entry of aid and impose its suffocating cruel blockade and even a full siege lasting nearly eighty days.
Agnès Callamard.
“As the occupying power, Israel has a legal obligation to ensure Palestinians in Gaza have access to food, medicine and other supplies essential for their survival. Instead, it has brazenly defied binding orders issued by the International Court of Justice in January, March and May 2024, to allow the unimpeded flow of aid to Gaza. Israel has continued to restrict the entry of aid and impose its suffocating cruel blockade and even a full siege lasting nearly eighty days,” said Agnès Callamard.
This must end now. Israel must lift all restrictions and allow unfettered, safe, and dignified access to humanitarian aid throughout Gaza immediately.”
Amnesty International interviewed 17 internally displaced people (10 women and seven men) as well as the parents of four children hospitalized for severe malnutrition, and four healthcare workers, across three hospitals in Gaza City and Khan Younis in May and June 2025.
Devastating impact on children
Even before the imposition of a total siege on 2 March 2025, slightly but insufficiently eased some 78 days later, Israel’s deliberate imposition of conditions of life calculated to destroy Palestinians had had a particularly devastating impact on young children and pregnant and breastfeeding women.
Since October 2023 at least 66 children have died as a direct result of malnutrition-related conditions. This figure does not include the many more children who have died as a result of preventable diseases exacerbated by malnutrition.
The victims include four-month-old baby, Jinan Iskafi, who tragically died on 3 May 2025 due to severe malnutrition. According to her medical report, which was reviewed by Amnesty International, Jinan was admitted to the Rantissi pediatric hospital due to severe dehydration and recurrent infections. She was diagnosed with Marasmus, a severe form of protein-energy malnutrition, chronic diarrhea, and a suspected case of immunodeficiency. The pediatrician treating her told Amnesty International that she required a specific lactose-free formula, which was not available due to the blockade.
Gaza’s decimated health sector, already overwhelmed with the volume of injuries, is struggling to deal with the influx of infants and children hospitalized for malnutrition. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), as of 15 June 2025, a total of 18,741, children were hospitalized for acute malnutrition since the beginning of the year.
The vast majority of children suffering from malnutrition, however, cannot reach any hospital due to access challenges posed by displacement orders and heavy bombardment and ongoing military operations.
Numbers barely scratch the surface of the suffering in Gaza
Accounts from healthcare workers and displaced individuals paint an even more harrowing picture.
Susan Maarouf, a nutritional expert at the Nutrition unit in the Patient Friend Benevolent Society hospital in Gaza City, supported by the organizations Medical Aid for Palestinians and MedGlobal, said that in June 2024 the hospital opened a dedicated department for children aged six months to and five years to manage cases of severe malnutrition.
“Back then, Gaza City and the North Gaza governorate were hit by malnutrition [as a result of the tight blockade]. But this year for us the situation began to drastically get worse again in April. Since then, out of approximately 200-250 children we have screened daily for malnutrition. Nearly 15% showed signs associated with severe or moderate malnutrition,” she said.
In the worst cases visible signs include pale skin, falling hair and nails, and alarming weight loss. She expressed the profound helplessness of offering nutritional advice amid severe shortages of food, with fruit, vegetables and eggs only available at exorbitant prices, if at all: “In an ideal world, I would recommend the parents to provide the child with nutritious food, rich with protein. I would advise that they maintain a hygienic environment for their children; I would stress the importance of clean water… In our situation… any recommendation you give … sometimes you feel like you are rubbing salt into these parents’ wounds.”
Dr. Maarouf described the relentless cycle of malnutrition stating that in some cases children were re-hospitalized after being discharged:
“We treated one little girl, aged six, for nutritional edema, she had severe protein deficiency when she came in early May; with the treatment we gave her she showed signs of improvement, including gaining weight, becoming livelier… unfortunately she was recently admitted again because her condition relapsed. Like most families in Gaza, her family is displaced; they live in a tent; they have to rely on the lentil or rice they get from the community kitchen. It’s a cycle. With no aid getting in, you feel like as a hospital you only patch up the wound but eventually it will burst again.”
Doctors have also warned that the lives of newborn babies are at risk amid acute shortages of baby formula milk, especially for children with lactose-intolerance or other allergies.
One doctor said: “There is a milk crisis in Gaza overall. Also, we notice that new mothers, because they themselves are not eating properly or because of the panic, trauma and anxiety, are unable to breastfeed. So, to secure baby formula at all is a struggle. But if your child has allergies, it’s almost impossible to find special formula in any of Gaza’s hospitals for infants the failure to secure special baby formula can be a death sentence.”
At Nasser hospital in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, Dr. Wafaa Abu Nimer confirmed the dire situation, reporting that by 30 June 2025, 9 children were still being treated for malnutrition-related complications at her facility alone. She described the scenes they have witnessed over the past two months as “really unprecedented” with severe cases of nutritional edema or marasmus, muscle wasting. She also said that some are additionally suffering from injuries due to explosions from which they have not recovered.
Dr. Abu Nimer said that since Israel’s new aid distribution scheme began there has been no signs of improvement in the situation with hundreds of children screened for malnutrition on a daily basis in their pediatric emergency room. Mass displacement orders issued to the Khan Younis governorate in May made Nasser hospital out of reach for thousands of displaced families.
Dr. Abu Nimer described to Amnesty how the impact on children extends beyond the physical. “One girl whose hair fell out almost completely as a result of nutritional edema, kept asking me ‘doctor, will my hair grow again? Am I [still] beautiful?’ Abu Nimer said. “Even if these children recover completely, the scars will always remain with them. Medically we know that malnutrition amongst infants and small children may have long-term cognitive and developmental effects, but I don’t think enough attention is being given to the mental health and psychological impact [of starvation and war] on children and parents.”
She also conveyed the exhaustion felt by medical staff: “We as doctors are also exhausted, we are malnourished ourselves, most of us are also displaced and live in tents, yet we do our best to offer medical care, provide nutrient supplements and as much support as we can. We try to save lives, we try to alleviate the suffering, but there is very little we can do after discharge.”
Weaponized aid
While Israeli authorities continue to impose their unlawful blockade on the entry of aid and commercial supplies into the occupied Gaza Strip, hundreds of aid trucks remain stuck outside Gaza, waiting for an Israeli permit to enter.
OCHA reported that as of 16 June 2025, 852 trucks for UN and international humanitarian organizations, the majority of which carry food supplies, remain stuck in Al-Arish in Egypt, yet to receive a permit from the Israeli authorities to enter Gaza. Moreover, the partial easing of the total siege on 19 May did not include easing restrictions on certain critical supplies, such as fuel and cooking gas, which have not been allowed into Gaza since 2 March. Without fuel, electricity cannot be produced to allow, for example, life-saving medical devices to function.
Only a trickle of the extremely limited aid allowed by Israel into Gaza reaches those in need. It is either distributed through the inhumane and deadly militarized scheme run by the GHF, or is offloaded by desperate starved civilians, and in some cases, organized gangs. This grim reality is compounded by Israel’s deliberate destruction of or denial of access to life-sustaining infrastructure, including some of Gaza’s most fertile agricultural land and food production sources, like greenhouses and poultry farms.
The World Food Programme and local organizations were for the first time permitted to distribute flour in Gaza City on 26 June 2025. The relatively smooth distribution that took place with thousands waiting their turn and no reported injuries is a damning indictment of Israel’s militarized GHF scheme. All the evidence gathered, including testimonies which Amnesty International is receiving from victims and witnesses, suggest that the GHF was designed so as to placate international concerns while constituting another tool of Israel’s genocide.
“Not only has the international community failed to stop this genocide, but it has also allowed Israel to constantly reinvent new ways to destroy Palestinian lives in Gaza and trample on their human dignity,” said Agnès Callamard.
“States must cease their inertia and live up to their legal obligations. They must exercise all necessary pressure to ensure Israel lifts immediately and unconditionally its awful blockade and ends the genocide in Gaza. They must end any form of contribution to Israel’s unlawful conduct or risk complicity in atrocity crimes. This requires immediately suspending all military support to Israel, banning trade and investment that contribute to Israel’s genocide or other grave violations of international law.
“States should also adopt targeted sanctions, through international and regional mechanisms, against those Israeli officials most implicated in international crimes and cooperate with the International Criminal Court, including by implementing its arrest warrants.”
Background
According to figures obtained from the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the under-five mortality rate for 2024 in Gaza was recorded at 32.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, representing a sharp increase compared to the 13.6 rate reported in 2022. Maternal mortality has also more than doubled from an estimated 19 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2022 to 43 deaths per 100,000 in 2024.
Civil society groups concerned about politicised policing launch nationwide billboard campaign to stand up for right to protest
New research by Greenpeace indicates that the Metropolitan Police have regularly arrested protesters when there is an extremely low chance of them ever being charged. Officers made more than 600 arrests in London over the last six years for conspiracy to cause public nuisance but only 18 of them (2.8%) resulted in charges. The research also showed an almost tenfold rise in the number of arrests in the capital since 2019, when environmental protests became widespread.
These numbers support the belief, widespread amongst activists and protesters, that the police are abusing this offence and other anti-protest laws to remove and intimidate peaceful protesters.
Greenpeace used Freedom of Information requests to find out how many people were arrested between 2012 and March 2025 on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance – an offence under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that is frequently used by the police to clear protesters from the streets.
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK said: “The fact that police are routinely dragging protesters off the streets for a crime they almost always fail to charge them with amounts to an abuse of their powers and an assault on the right to protest. Arresting law-abiding people because they’re politically inconvenient is a frightening development in any democracy, and is a direct result of the government’s instinct to shut down free speech and prevent people standing up for issues they care deeply about.”
The findings come as four leading environmental and human rights groups – Amnesty International UK, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Liberty – launch a nationwide advertising campaign to stand up for the right to protest. The campaign features videos of real protesters on a range of issues holding placards that say ‘I’m protesting in here to avoid arrest out there’.
The protesters appear on digital billboards clustered in popular shopping areas in London, Birmingham and Manchester, given free to the campaign as the prize in Ocean Outdoor’s annual Digital Creative Competition. Digital special effects by creative agency ‘elvis’ make the protesters appear to be present on the street, like a virtual protest march. They each represent a different cause including disability rights, Gaza, climate change, anti-black racism, plastic pollution and the campaign to keep the NHS public.
Khalid Abdallah, an actor and protester for Palestinian rights from London who appears in the campaign, said: “I think a lot of people don’t realise that the crackdown on protest isn’t just about tougher laws on disruptive civil disobedience, it’s about creating a climate of intimidation. The right to speak out against the actions of the government is an important test of whether you live in a free, democratic country. I have lived in countries where rights we hold dear in Britain do not exist, and my family has paid the price for speaking out. So I did not expect Britain to be the country where I would first be investigated by police for my participation at a public protest. For six months I lived under the threat of being charged, until it was confirmed the police would not take further action. Clearly, these statistics show I’m not an isolated case.”
Ocean Outdoor / elvis
Researchers at Greenpeace asked the Metropolitan Police to provide data on arrests and charges for public nuisance offences between 2012 and March 2025. They found there had been 67 arrests and 8 charges for conspiring to cause a public nuisance between 2012 and the end of 2018, compared with 638 arrests and 18 charges since 2019, equating to an almost tenfold increase in arrests. The rate of arrests resulting in charges also dropped from around 12% to below 3%.
The sharp increase in 2019 happened around the same time that Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future brought thousands of people onto the streets of London to protest against the lack of action to tackle climate change. Since then, successive governments have passed additional anti-protest laws giving police officers a wider range of offences to choose from, many carrying lengthy custodial sentences, resulting in hundreds of protesters being arrested and some being handed record prison sentences of up to five years.
Greenpeace and the other groups are calling on the Home Secretary to restore people’s right to make their voices heard on issues they care about by reversing anti-protest measures in two key pieces of legislation passed since 2022. They are also asking ministers to strike out protest clauses in the Crime and Policing Bill currently making its way through parliament.
The full dataset on arrests and charges is available here
“Conspiracy to commit public nuisance is a serious offence under UK law that involves a group of people agreeing to cause harm, disruption, or obstruction to the public. Whether it’s blocking roads, interfering with emergency services, or creating safety risks, this offence can lead to severe legal consequences, even if the nuisance doesn’t actually happen.” https://www.moeenco.com/conspiracy-to-commit-public-nuisance
The campaign
The six protestors featured in the advertising campaign are:
Khalid Abdallah, an actor and protester for Palestinian rights from London
Dr Helen Salisbury, GP and protestor for Keep Our NHS Public from Oxfordshire
Andy Greene, a disability rights activist with Disabled People Against the Cuts from London
Andrew McParland, climate activist and Greenpeace UK board member from Birmingham
Jen Reid, author of ‘A Hero Like Me’ and Black Lives Matter activist from Bristol
Sahanika Ratnayake, an academic who protests on environmental issues from Manchester
The advertising campaign was awarded the Gold prize in the non-profit category of Ocean Outdoor’s annual Digital Creative Competition which seeks bold, original work that pushes the boundaries of ‘Digital Out of Home’ advertising. It launches on 3rd July across Ocean’s city centre Loop networks in Birmingham and Manchester, and in a high footfall area of Westfield Stratford City in London on billboards in close proximity to each other to replicate a real protest. The campaign was created and shot by elvis.
About elvis
elvis is an award-winning B-Corp certified creative agency that works with some of the world’s most ambitious brands. The agency’s mission is to use unexpected & unforgettable creativity to help people and brands grow in a better way. Not only is this based on the fundamental role that impact and salience play in the most powerful creative work, but also reflects the agency’s B Corp status. elvis won the non-profit category in the 2024 Ocean Outdoor Competition with their ‘Can’t arrest this billboard’ idea, in partnership with Greenpeace. elvislondon.com
About Ocean Outdoor
A partner company of Atairos, the independent strategic investment company, Ocean Outdoor is the leading operator of Digital Out of Home (DOOH) advertising across the UK and Europe. The Group’s network of 4,000+ screens covers seven countries, with its technological capabilities delivering impactful and measurable DOOH brand and advertising experiences. Ocean’s portfolio covers iconic locations including the Piccadilly Lights and the BFI IMAX, and the company works closely with high-profile landlords, as well as major city councils, on the development of its network. Since 2018, Ocean has expanded into the Netherlands and the Nordics. Ocean Germany launched in 2024.
The campaign organisations
Liberty challenges injustice, defends freedom and campaigns for everyone in the UK to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect. Since 1934 we’ve inspired and empowered people to defend their rights, and the rights of their family, friends and communities. Join us. Stand up to power.
Amnesty International is the world’s largest human rights organisation with over 10 million supporters, working to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. Amnesty International is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI) is the UK’s largest grassroots network. We’re part of a global environmental justice community dedicated to the protection of the natural world and the wellbeing of everyone in it. We bring together more than two million people in 70 countries, combining people power all over the world to transform local actions into global impact.
Greenpeace is a movement of people who are passionate about defending the natural world from destruction. Our vision is a greener, healthier and more peaceful planet, one that can sustain life for generations to come.
Civil society groups concerned about politicised policing launch nationwide billboard campaign to stand up for right to protest
New research by Greenpeace indicates that the Metropolitan Police have regularly arrested protesters when there is an extremely low chance of them ever being charged. Officers made more than 600 arrests in London over the last six years for conspiracy to cause public nuisance but only 18 of them (2.8%) resulted in charges. The research also showed an almost tenfold rise in the number of arrests in the capital since 2019, when environmental protests became widespread.
These numbers support the belief, widespread amongst activists and protesters, that the police are abusing this offence and other anti-protest laws to remove and intimidate peaceful protesters.
Greenpeace used Freedom of Information requests to find out how many people were arrested between 2012 and March 2025 on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance – an offence under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that is frequently used by the police to clear protesters from the streets.
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK said: “The fact that police are routinely dragging protesters off the streets for a crime they almost always fail to charge them with amounts to an abuse of their powers and an assault on the right to protest. Arresting law-abiding people because they’re politically inconvenient is a frightening development in any democracy, and is a direct result of the government’s instinct to shut down free speech and prevent people standing up for issues they care deeply about.”
The findings come as four leading environmental and human rights groups – Amnesty International UK, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Liberty – launch a nationwide advertising campaign to stand up for the right to protest. The campaign features videos of real protesters on a range of issues holding placards that say ‘I’m protesting in here to avoid arrest out there’.
The protesters appear on digital billboards clustered in popular shopping areas in London, Birmingham and Manchester, given free to the campaign as the prize in Ocean Outdoor’s annual Digital Creative Competition. Digital special effects by creative agency ‘elvis’ make the protesters appear to be present on the street, like a virtual protest march. They each represent a different cause including disability rights, Gaza, climate change, anti-black racism, plastic pollution and the campaign to keep the NHS public.
Khalid Abdallah, an actor and protester for Palestinian rights from London who appears in the campaign, said: “I think a lot of people don’t realise that the crackdown on protest isn’t just about tougher laws on disruptive civil disobedience, it’s about creating a climate of intimidation. The right to speak out against the actions of the government is an important test of whether you live in a free, democratic country. I have lived in countries where rights we hold dear in Britain do not exist, and my family has paid the price for speaking out. So I did not expect Britain to be the country where I would first be investigated by police for my participation at a public protest. For six months I lived under the threat of being charged, until it was confirmed the police would not take further action. Clearly, these statistics show I’m not an isolated case.”
Ocean Outdoor / elvis
Researchers at Greenpeace asked the Metropolitan Police to provide data on arrests and charges for public nuisance offences between 2012 and March 2025. They found there had been 67 arrests and 8 charges for conspiring to cause a public nuisance between 2012 and the end of 2018, compared with 638 arrests and 18 charges since 2019, equating to an almost tenfold increase in arrests. The rate of arrests resulting in charges also dropped from around 12% to below 3%.
The sharp increase in 2019 happened around the same time that Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future brought thousands of people onto the streets of London to protest against the lack of action to tackle climate change. Since then, successive governments have passed additional anti-protest laws giving police officers a wider range of offences to choose from, many carrying lengthy custodial sentences, resulting in hundreds of protesters being arrested and some being handed record prison sentences of up to five years.
Greenpeace and the other groups are calling on the Home Secretary to restore people’s right to make their voices heard on issues they care about by reversing anti-protest measures in two key pieces of legislation passed since 2022. They are also asking ministers to strike out protest clauses in the Crime and Policing Bill currently making its way through parliament.
The full dataset on arrests and charges is available here
“Conspiracy to commit public nuisance is a serious offence under UK law that involves a group of people agreeing to cause harm, disruption, or obstruction to the public. Whether it’s blocking roads, interfering with emergency services, or creating safety risks, this offence can lead to severe legal consequences, even if the nuisance doesn’t actually happen.” https://www.moeenco.com/conspiracy-to-commit-public-nuisance
The campaign
The six protestors featured in the advertising campaign are:
Khalid Abdallah, an actor and protester for Palestinian rights from London
Dr Helen Salisbury, GP and protestor for Keep Our NHS Public from Oxfordshire
Andy Greene, a disability rights activist with Disabled People Against the Cuts from London
Andrew McParland, climate activist and Greenpeace UK board member from Birmingham
Jen Reid, author of ‘A Hero Like Me’ and Black Lives Matter activist from Bristol
Sahanika Ratnayake, an academic who protests on environmental issues from Manchester
The advertising campaign was awarded the Gold prize in the non-profit category of Ocean Outdoor’s annual Digital Creative Competition which seeks bold, original work that pushes the boundaries of ‘Digital Out of Home’ advertising. It launches on 3rd July across Ocean’s city centre Loop networks in Birmingham and Manchester, and in a high footfall area of Westfield Stratford City in London on billboards in close proximity to each other to replicate a real protest. The campaign was created and shot by elvis.
About elvis
elvis is an award-winning B-Corp certified creative agency that works with some of the world’s most ambitious brands. The agency’s mission is to use unexpected & unforgettable creativity to help people and brands grow in a better way. Not only is this based on the fundamental role that impact and salience play in the most powerful creative work, but also reflects the agency’s B Corp status. elvis won the non-profit category in the 2024 Ocean Outdoor Competition with their ‘Can’t arrest this billboard’ idea, in partnership with Greenpeace. elvislondon.com
About Ocean Outdoor
A partner company of Atairos, the independent strategic investment company, Ocean Outdoor is the leading operator of Digital Out of Home (DOOH) advertising across the UK and Europe. The Group’s network of 4,000+ screens covers seven countries, with its technological capabilities delivering impactful and measurable DOOH brand and advertising experiences. Ocean’s portfolio covers iconic locations including the Piccadilly Lights and the BFI IMAX, and the company works closely with high-profile landlords, as well as major city councils, on the development of its network. Since 2018, Ocean has expanded into the Netherlands and the Nordics. Ocean Germany launched in 2024.
The campaign organisations
Liberty challenges injustice, defends freedom and campaigns for everyone in the UK to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect. Since 1934 we’ve inspired and empowered people to defend their rights, and the rights of their family, friends and communities. Join us. Stand up to power.
Amnesty International is the world’s largest human rights organisation with over 10 million supporters, working to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. Amnesty International is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI) is the UK’s largest grassroots network. We’re part of a global environmental justice community dedicated to the protection of the natural world and the wellbeing of everyone in it. We bring together more than two million people in 70 countries, combining people power all over the world to transform local actions into global impact.
Greenpeace is a movement of people who are passionate about defending the natural world from destruction. Our vision is a greener, healthier and more peaceful planet, one that can sustain life for generations to come.
Civil society groups concerned about politicised policing launch nationwide billboard campaign to stand up for right to protest
New research by Greenpeace indicates that the Metropolitan Police have regularly arrested protesters when there is an extremely low chance of them ever being charged. Officers made more than 600 arrests in London over the last six years for conspiracy to cause public nuisance but only 18 of them (2.8%) resulted in charges. The research also showed an almost tenfold rise in the number of arrests in the capital since 2019, when environmental protests became widespread.
These numbers support the belief, widespread amongst activists and protesters, that the police are abusing this offence and other anti-protest laws to remove and intimidate peaceful protesters.
Greenpeace used Freedom of Information requests to find out how many people were arrested between 2012 and March 2025 on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance – an offence under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that is frequently used by the police to clear protesters from the streets.
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK said: “The fact that police are routinely dragging protesters off the streets for a crime they almost always fail to charge them with amounts to an abuse of their powers and an assault on the right to protest. Arresting law-abiding people because they’re politically inconvenient is a frightening development in any democracy, and is a direct result of the government’s instinct to shut down free speech and prevent people standing up for issues they care deeply about.”
The findings come as four leading environmental and human rights groups – Amnesty International UK, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Liberty – launch a nationwide advertising campaign to stand up for the right to protest. The campaign features videos of real protesters on a range of issues holding placards that say ‘I’m protesting in here to avoid arrest out there’.
The protesters appear on digital billboards clustered in popular shopping areas in London, Birmingham and Manchester, given free to the campaign as the prize in Ocean Outdoor’s annual Digital Creative Competition. Digital special effects by creative agency ‘elvis’ make the protesters appear to be present on the street, like a virtual protest march. They each represent a different cause including disability rights, Gaza, climate change, anti-black racism, plastic pollution and the campaign to keep the NHS public.
Khalid Abdallah, an actor and protester for Palestinian rights from London who appears in the campaign, said: “I think a lot of people don’t realise that the crackdown on protest isn’t just about tougher laws on disruptive civil disobedience, it’s about creating a climate of intimidation. The right to speak out against the actions of the government is an important test of whether you live in a free, democratic country. I have lived in countries where rights we hold dear in Britain do not exist, and my family has paid the price for speaking out. So I did not expect Britain to be the country where I would first be investigated by police for my participation at a public protest. For six months I lived under the threat of being charged, until it was confirmed the police would not take further action. Clearly, these statistics show I’m not an isolated case.”
Ocean Outdoor / elvis
Researchers at Greenpeace asked the Metropolitan Police to provide data on arrests and charges for public nuisance offences between 2012 and March 2025. They found there had been 67 arrests and 8 charges for conspiring to cause a public nuisance between 2012 and the end of 2018, compared with 638 arrests and 18 charges since 2019, equating to an almost tenfold increase in arrests. The rate of arrests resulting in charges also dropped from around 12% to below 3%.
The sharp increase in 2019 happened around the same time that Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future brought thousands of people onto the streets of London to protest against the lack of action to tackle climate change. Since then, successive governments have passed additional anti-protest laws giving police officers a wider range of offences to choose from, many carrying lengthy custodial sentences, resulting in hundreds of protesters being arrested and some being handed record prison sentences of up to five years.
Greenpeace and the other groups are calling on the Home Secretary to restore people’s right to make their voices heard on issues they care about by reversing anti-protest measures in two key pieces of legislation passed since 2022. They are also asking ministers to strike out protest clauses in the Crime and Policing Bill currently making its way through parliament.
The full dataset on arrests and charges is available here
“Conspiracy to commit public nuisance is a serious offence under UK law that involves a group of people agreeing to cause harm, disruption, or obstruction to the public. Whether it’s blocking roads, interfering with emergency services, or creating safety risks, this offence can lead to severe legal consequences, even if the nuisance doesn’t actually happen.” https://www.moeenco.com/conspiracy-to-commit-public-nuisance
The campaign
The six protestors featured in the advertising campaign are:
Khalid Abdallah, an actor and protester for Palestinian rights from London
Dr Helen Salisbury, GP and protestor for Keep Our NHS Public from Oxfordshire
Andy Greene, a disability rights activist with Disabled People Against the Cuts from London
Andrew McParland, climate activist and Greenpeace UK board member from Birmingham
Jen Reid, author of ‘A Hero Like Me’ and Black Lives Matter activist from Bristol
Sahanika Ratnayake, an academic who protests on environmental issues from Manchester
The advertising campaign was awarded the Gold prize in the non-profit category of Ocean Outdoor’s annual Digital Creative Competition which seeks bold, original work that pushes the boundaries of ‘Digital Out of Home’ advertising. It launches on 3rd July across Ocean’s city centre Loop networks in Birmingham and Manchester, and in a high footfall area of Westfield Stratford City in London on billboards in close proximity to each other to replicate a real protest. The campaign was created and shot by elvis.
About elvis
elvis is an award-winning B-Corp certified creative agency that works with some of the world’s most ambitious brands. The agency’s mission is to use unexpected & unforgettable creativity to help people and brands grow in a better way. Not only is this based on the fundamental role that impact and salience play in the most powerful creative work, but also reflects the agency’s B Corp status. elvis won the non-profit category in the 2024 Ocean Outdoor Competition with their ‘Can’t arrest this billboard’ idea, in partnership with Greenpeace. elvislondon.com
About Ocean Outdoor
A partner company of Atairos, the independent strategic investment company, Ocean Outdoor is the leading operator of Digital Out of Home (DOOH) advertising across the UK and Europe. The Group’s network of 4,000+ screens covers seven countries, with its technological capabilities delivering impactful and measurable DOOH brand and advertising experiences. Ocean’s portfolio covers iconic locations including the Piccadilly Lights and the BFI IMAX, and the company works closely with high-profile landlords, as well as major city councils, on the development of its network. Since 2018, Ocean has expanded into the Netherlands and the Nordics. Ocean Germany launched in 2024.
The campaign organisations
Liberty challenges injustice, defends freedom and campaigns for everyone in the UK to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect. Since 1934 we’ve inspired and empowered people to defend their rights, and the rights of their family, friends and communities. Join us. Stand up to power.
Amnesty International is the world’s largest human rights organisation with over 10 million supporters, working to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. Amnesty International is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI) is the UK’s largest grassroots network. We’re part of a global environmental justice community dedicated to the protection of the natural world and the wellbeing of everyone in it. We bring together more than two million people in 70 countries, combining people power all over the world to transform local actions into global impact.
Greenpeace is a movement of people who are passionate about defending the natural world from destruction. Our vision is a greener, healthier and more peaceful planet, one that can sustain life for generations to come.
Civil society groups concerned about politicised policing launch nationwide billboard campaign to stand up for right to protest
New research by Greenpeace indicates that the Metropolitan Police have regularly arrested protesters when there is an extremely low chance of them ever being charged. Officers made more than 600 arrests in London over the last six years for conspiracy to cause public nuisance but only 18 of them (2.8%) resulted in charges. The research also showed an almost tenfold rise in the number of arrests in the capital since 2019, when environmental protests became widespread.
These numbers support the belief, widespread amongst activists and protesters, that the police are abusing this offence and other anti-protest laws to remove and intimidate peaceful protesters.
Greenpeace used Freedom of Information requests to find out how many people were arrested between 2012 and March 2025 on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance – an offence under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that is frequently used by the police to clear protesters from the streets.
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK said: “The fact that police are routinely dragging protesters off the streets for a crime they almost always fail to charge them with amounts to an abuse of their powers and an assault on the right to protest. Arresting law-abiding people because they’re politically inconvenient is a frightening development in any democracy, and is a direct result of the government’s instinct to shut down free speech and prevent people standing up for issues they care deeply about.”
The findings come as four leading environmental and human rights groups – Amnesty International UK, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Liberty – launch a nationwide advertising campaign to stand up for the right to protest. The campaign features videos of real protesters on a range of issues holding placards that say ‘I’m protesting in here to avoid arrest out there’.
The protesters appear on digital billboards clustered in popular shopping areas in London, Birmingham and Manchester, given free to the campaign as the prize in Ocean Outdoor’s annual Digital Creative Competition. Digital special effects by creative agency ‘elvis’ make the protesters appear to be present on the street, like a virtual protest march. They each represent a different cause including disability rights, Gaza, climate change, anti-black racism, plastic pollution and the campaign to keep the NHS public.
Khalid Abdallah, an actor and protester for Palestinian rights from London who appears in the campaign, said: “I think a lot of people don’t realise that the crackdown on protest isn’t just about tougher laws on disruptive civil disobedience, it’s about creating a climate of intimidation. The right to speak out against the actions of the government is an important test of whether you live in a free, democratic country. I have lived in countries where rights we hold dear in Britain do not exist, and my family has paid the price for speaking out. So I did not expect Britain to be the country where I would first be investigated by police for my participation at a public protest. For six months I lived under the threat of being charged, until it was confirmed the police would not take further action. Clearly, these statistics show I’m not an isolated case.”
Ocean Outdoor / elvis
Researchers at Greenpeace asked the Metropolitan Police to provide data on arrests and charges for public nuisance offences between 2012 and March 2025. They found there had been 67 arrests and 8 charges for conspiring to cause a public nuisance between 2012 and the end of 2018, compared with 638 arrests and 18 charges since 2019, equating to an almost tenfold increase in arrests. The rate of arrests resulting in charges also dropped from around 12% to below 3%.
The sharp increase in 2019 happened around the same time that Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future brought thousands of people onto the streets of London to protest against the lack of action to tackle climate change. Since then, successive governments have passed additional anti-protest laws giving police officers a wider range of offences to choose from, many carrying lengthy custodial sentences, resulting in hundreds of protesters being arrested and some being handed record prison sentences of up to five years.
Greenpeace and the other groups are calling on the Home Secretary to restore people’s right to make their voices heard on issues they care about by reversing anti-protest measures in two key pieces of legislation passed since 2022. They are also asking ministers to strike out protest clauses in the Crime and Policing Bill currently making its way through parliament.
The full dataset on arrests and charges is available here
“Conspiracy to commit public nuisance is a serious offence under UK law that involves a group of people agreeing to cause harm, disruption, or obstruction to the public. Whether it’s blocking roads, interfering with emergency services, or creating safety risks, this offence can lead to severe legal consequences, even if the nuisance doesn’t actually happen.” https://www.moeenco.com/conspiracy-to-commit-public-nuisance
The campaign
The six protestors featured in the advertising campaign are:
Khalid Abdallah, an actor and protester for Palestinian rights from London
Dr Helen Salisbury, GP and protestor for Keep Our NHS Public from Oxfordshire
Andy Greene, a disability rights activist with Disabled People Against the Cuts from London
Andrew McParland, climate activist and Greenpeace UK board member from Birmingham
Jen Reid, author of ‘A Hero Like Me’ and Black Lives Matter activist from Bristol
Sahanika Ratnayake, an academic who protests on environmental issues from Manchester
The advertising campaign was awarded the Gold prize in the non-profit category of Ocean Outdoor’s annual Digital Creative Competition which seeks bold, original work that pushes the boundaries of ‘Digital Out of Home’ advertising. It launches on 3rd July across Ocean’s city centre Loop networks in Birmingham and Manchester, and in a high footfall area of Westfield Stratford City in London on billboards in close proximity to each other to replicate a real protest. The campaign was created and shot by elvis.
About elvis
elvis is an award-winning B-Corp certified creative agency that works with some of the world’s most ambitious brands. The agency’s mission is to use unexpected & unforgettable creativity to help people and brands grow in a better way. Not only is this based on the fundamental role that impact and salience play in the most powerful creative work, but also reflects the agency’s B Corp status. elvis won the non-profit category in the 2024 Ocean Outdoor Competition with their ‘Can’t arrest this billboard’ idea, in partnership with Greenpeace. elvislondon.com
About Ocean Outdoor
A partner company of Atairos, the independent strategic investment company, Ocean Outdoor is the leading operator of Digital Out of Home (DOOH) advertising across the UK and Europe. The Group’s network of 4,000+ screens covers seven countries, with its technological capabilities delivering impactful and measurable DOOH brand and advertising experiences. Ocean’s portfolio covers iconic locations including the Piccadilly Lights and the BFI IMAX, and the company works closely with high-profile landlords, as well as major city councils, on the development of its network. Since 2018, Ocean has expanded into the Netherlands and the Nordics. Ocean Germany launched in 2024.
The campaign organisations
Liberty challenges injustice, defends freedom and campaigns for everyone in the UK to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect. Since 1934 we’ve inspired and empowered people to defend their rights, and the rights of their family, friends and communities. Join us. Stand up to power.
Amnesty International is the world’s largest human rights organisation with over 10 million supporters, working to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. Amnesty International is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI) is the UK’s largest grassroots network. We’re part of a global environmental justice community dedicated to the protection of the natural world and the wellbeing of everyone in it. We bring together more than two million people in 70 countries, combining people power all over the world to transform local actions into global impact.
Greenpeace is a movement of people who are passionate about defending the natural world from destruction. Our vision is a greener, healthier and more peaceful planet, one that can sustain life for generations to come.
Civil society groups concerned about politicised policing launch nationwide billboard campaign to stand up for right to protest
New research by Greenpeace indicates that the Metropolitan Police have regularly arrested protesters when there is an extremely low chance of them ever being charged. Officers made more than 600 arrests in London over the last six years for conspiracy to cause public nuisance but only 18 of them (2.8%) resulted in charges. The research also showed an almost tenfold rise in the number of arrests in the capital since 2019, when environmental protests became widespread.
These numbers support the belief, widespread amongst activists and protesters, that the police are abusing this offence and other anti-protest laws to remove and intimidate peaceful protesters.
Greenpeace used Freedom of Information requests to find out how many people were arrested between 2012 and March 2025 on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance – an offence under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that is frequently used by the police to clear protesters from the streets.
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK said: “The fact that police are routinely dragging protesters off the streets for a crime they almost always fail to charge them with amounts to an abuse of their powers and an assault on the right to protest. Arresting law-abiding people because they’re politically inconvenient is a frightening development in any democracy, and is a direct result of the government’s instinct to shut down free speech and prevent people standing up for issues they care deeply about.”
The findings come as four leading environmental and human rights groups – Amnesty International UK, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Liberty – launch a nationwide advertising campaign to stand up for the right to protest. The campaign features videos of real protesters on a range of issues holding placards that say ‘I’m protesting in here to avoid arrest out there’.
The protesters appear on digital billboards clustered in popular shopping areas in London, Birmingham and Manchester, given free to the campaign as the prize in Ocean Outdoor’s annual Digital Creative Competition. Digital special effects by creative agency ‘elvis’ make the protesters appear to be present on the street, like a virtual protest march. They each represent a different cause including disability rights, Gaza, climate change, anti-black racism, plastic pollution and the campaign to keep the NHS public.
Khalid Abdallah, an actor and protester for Palestinian rights from London who appears in the campaign, said: “I think a lot of people don’t realise that the crackdown on protest isn’t just about tougher laws on disruptive civil disobedience, it’s about creating a climate of intimidation. The right to speak out against the actions of the government is an important test of whether you live in a free, democratic country. I have lived in countries where rights we hold dear in Britain do not exist, and my family has paid the price for speaking out. So I did not expect Britain to be the country where I would first be investigated by police for my participation at a public protest. For six months I lived under the threat of being charged, until it was confirmed the police would not take further action. Clearly, these statistics show I’m not an isolated case.”
Ocean Outdoor / elvis
Researchers at Greenpeace asked the Metropolitan Police to provide data on arrests and charges for public nuisance offences between 2012 and March 2025. They found there had been 67 arrests and 8 charges for conspiring to cause a public nuisance between 2012 and the end of 2018, compared with 638 arrests and 18 charges since 2019, equating to an almost tenfold increase in arrests. The rate of arrests resulting in charges also dropped from around 12% to below 3%.
The sharp increase in 2019 happened around the same time that Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future brought thousands of people onto the streets of London to protest against the lack of action to tackle climate change. Since then, successive governments have passed additional anti-protest laws giving police officers a wider range of offences to choose from, many carrying lengthy custodial sentences, resulting in hundreds of protesters being arrested and some being handed record prison sentences of up to five years.
Greenpeace and the other groups are calling on the Home Secretary to restore people’s right to make their voices heard on issues they care about by reversing anti-protest measures in two key pieces of legislation passed since 2022. They are also asking ministers to strike out protest clauses in the Crime and Policing Bill currently making its way through parliament.
The full dataset on arrests and charges is available here
“Conspiracy to commit public nuisance is a serious offence under UK law that involves a group of people agreeing to cause harm, disruption, or obstruction to the public. Whether it’s blocking roads, interfering with emergency services, or creating safety risks, this offence can lead to severe legal consequences, even if the nuisance doesn’t actually happen.” https://www.moeenco.com/conspiracy-to-commit-public-nuisance
The campaign
The six protestors featured in the advertising campaign are:
Khalid Abdallah, an actor and protester for Palestinian rights from London
Dr Helen Salisbury, GP and protestor for Keep Our NHS Public from Oxfordshire
Andy Greene, a disability rights activist with Disabled People Against the Cuts from London
Andrew McParland, climate activist and Greenpeace UK board member from Birmingham
Jen Reid, author of ‘A Hero Like Me’ and Black Lives Matter activist from Bristol
Sahanika Ratnayake, an academic who protests on environmental issues from Manchester
The advertising campaign was awarded the Gold prize in the non-profit category of Ocean Outdoor’s annual Digital Creative Competition which seeks bold, original work that pushes the boundaries of ‘Digital Out of Home’ advertising. It launches on 3rd July across Ocean’s city centre Loop networks in Birmingham and Manchester, and in a high footfall area of Westfield Stratford City in London on billboards in close proximity to each other to replicate a real protest. The campaign was created and shot by elvis.
About elvis
elvis is an award-winning B-Corp certified creative agency that works with some of the world’s most ambitious brands. The agency’s mission is to use unexpected & unforgettable creativity to help people and brands grow in a better way. Not only is this based on the fundamental role that impact and salience play in the most powerful creative work, but also reflects the agency’s B Corp status. elvis won the non-profit category in the 2024 Ocean Outdoor Competition with their ‘Can’t arrest this billboard’ idea, in partnership with Greenpeace. elvislondon.com
About Ocean Outdoor
A partner company of Atairos, the independent strategic investment company, Ocean Outdoor is the leading operator of Digital Out of Home (DOOH) advertising across the UK and Europe. The Group’s network of 4,000+ screens covers seven countries, with its technological capabilities delivering impactful and measurable DOOH brand and advertising experiences. Ocean’s portfolio covers iconic locations including the Piccadilly Lights and the BFI IMAX, and the company works closely with high-profile landlords, as well as major city councils, on the development of its network. Since 2018, Ocean has expanded into the Netherlands and the Nordics. Ocean Germany launched in 2024.
The campaign organisations
Liberty challenges injustice, defends freedom and campaigns for everyone in the UK to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect. Since 1934 we’ve inspired and empowered people to defend their rights, and the rights of their family, friends and communities. Join us. Stand up to power.
Amnesty International is the world’s largest human rights organisation with over 10 million supporters, working to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. Amnesty International is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI) is the UK’s largest grassroots network. We’re part of a global environmental justice community dedicated to the protection of the natural world and the wellbeing of everyone in it. We bring together more than two million people in 70 countries, combining people power all over the world to transform local actions into global impact.
Greenpeace is a movement of people who are passionate about defending the natural world from destruction. Our vision is a greener, healthier and more peaceful planet, one that can sustain life for generations to come.
“These reports highlight, yet again, the dangers of deep sea mining for marine life and the health of the ocean. The CSIRO reports show that there would be substantial impacts on the seafloor and that animals, like sharks, could be harmed by mining plans like those of The Metals Company. Deep sea mining poses issues far beyond what can be captured in the scope of environmental frameworks; there is no framework to measure cultural heritage or Pacific people’s cultural connection to the ocean. Deep sea mining could not only irreversibly harm the ocean and marine life in the Pacific, but deeply impact Pacific cultures and ways of life.
“The research was paid for by The Metals Company, which has a track record of using Pacific nations as platforms, not partners. With the International Seabed Authority due to meet this week, we are urging the council not to rush through the mining code, but to listen to indigenous and Pacific voices who are increasingly standing against deep sea mining.”
37 countries are against deep sea mining, either asking for a precautionary pause or a global moratorium, including the eight Pacific Island nations of Palau, Fiji, Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands. New Zealand has also backed a moratorium, but Australia has not.
—ENDS—
Notes:
– The CSIRO agreed to work with The Metals Company in 2022, tasked to develop a deep sea mining environmental management plan in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ), where The Metals Company is pushing to mine for polymetallic nodules.
– Last week, a scientific survey of two areas targeted for deep sea mining in the Pacific Ocean by The Metals Company found the presence of whales and dolphins, including vulnerable sperm whales.
“These reports highlight, yet again, the dangers of deep sea mining for marine life and the health of the ocean. The CSIRO reports show that there would be substantial impacts on the seafloor and that animals, like sharks, could be harmed by mining plans like those of The Metals Company. Deep sea mining poses issues far beyond what can be captured in the scope of environmental frameworks; there is no framework to measure cultural heritage or Pacific people’s cultural connection to the ocean. Deep sea mining could not only irreversibly harm the ocean and marine life in the Pacific, but deeply impact Pacific cultures and ways of life.
“The research was paid for by The Metals Company, which has a track record of using Pacific nations as platforms, not partners. With the International Seabed Authority due to meet this week, we are urging the council not to rush through the mining code, but to listen to indigenous and Pacific voices who are increasingly standing against deep sea mining.”
37 countries are against deep sea mining, either asking for a precautionary pause or a global moratorium, including the eight Pacific Island nations of Palau, Fiji, Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands. New Zealand has also backed a moratorium, but Australia has not.
—ENDS—
Notes:
– The CSIRO agreed to work with The Metals Company in 2022, tasked to develop a deep sea mining environmental management plan in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ), where The Metals Company is pushing to mine for polymetallic nodules.
– Last week, a scientific survey of two areas targeted for deep sea mining in the Pacific Ocean by The Metals Company found the presence of whales and dolphins, including vulnerable sperm whales.
“These reports highlight, yet again, the dangers of deep sea mining for marine life and the health of the ocean. The CSIRO reports show that there would be substantial impacts on the seafloor and that animals, like sharks, could be harmed by mining plans like those of The Metals Company. Deep sea mining poses issues far beyond what can be captured in the scope of environmental frameworks; there is no framework to measure cultural heritage or Pacific people’s cultural connection to the ocean. Deep sea mining could not only irreversibly harm the ocean and marine life in the Pacific, but deeply impact Pacific cultures and ways of life.
“The research was paid for by The Metals Company, which has a track record of using Pacific nations as platforms, not partners. With the International Seabed Authority due to meet this week, we are urging the council not to rush through the mining code, but to listen to indigenous and Pacific voices who are increasingly standing against deep sea mining.”
37 countries are against deep sea mining, either asking for a precautionary pause or a global moratorium, including the eight Pacific Island nations of Palau, Fiji, Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands. New Zealand has also backed a moratorium, but Australia has not.
—ENDS—
Notes:
– The CSIRO agreed to work with The Metals Company in 2022, tasked to develop a deep sea mining environmental management plan in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ), where The Metals Company is pushing to mine for polymetallic nodules.
– Last week, a scientific survey of two areas targeted for deep sea mining in the Pacific Ocean by The Metals Company found the presence of whales and dolphins, including vulnerable sperm whales.
“These reports highlight, yet again, the dangers of deep sea mining for marine life and the health of the ocean. The CSIRO reports show that there would be substantial impacts on the seafloor and that animals, like sharks, could be harmed by mining plans like those of The Metals Company. Deep sea mining poses issues far beyond what can be captured in the scope of environmental frameworks; there is no framework to measure cultural heritage or Pacific people’s cultural connection to the ocean. Deep sea mining could not only irreversibly harm the ocean and marine life in the Pacific, but deeply impact Pacific cultures and ways of life.
“The research was paid for by The Metals Company, which has a track record of using Pacific nations as platforms, not partners. With the International Seabed Authority due to meet this week, we are urging the council not to rush through the mining code, but to listen to indigenous and Pacific voices who are increasingly standing against deep sea mining.”
37 countries are against deep sea mining, either asking for a precautionary pause or a global moratorium, including the eight Pacific Island nations of Palau, Fiji, Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands. New Zealand has also backed a moratorium, but Australia has not.
—ENDS—
Notes:
– The CSIRO agreed to work with The Metals Company in 2022, tasked to develop a deep sea mining environmental management plan in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ), where The Metals Company is pushing to mine for polymetallic nodules.
– Last week, a scientific survey of two areas targeted for deep sea mining in the Pacific Ocean by The Metals Company found the presence of whales and dolphins, including vulnerable sperm whales.
“These reports highlight, yet again, the dangers of deep sea mining for marine life and the health of the ocean. The CSIRO reports show that there would be substantial impacts on the seafloor and that animals, like sharks, could be harmed by mining plans like those of The Metals Company. Deep sea mining poses issues far beyond what can be captured in the scope of environmental frameworks; there is no framework to measure cultural heritage or Pacific people’s cultural connection to the ocean. Deep sea mining could not only irreversibly harm the ocean and marine life in the Pacific, but deeply impact Pacific cultures and ways of life.
“The research was paid for by The Metals Company, which has a track record of using Pacific nations as platforms, not partners. With the International Seabed Authority due to meet this week, we are urging the council not to rush through the mining code, but to listen to indigenous and Pacific voices who are increasingly standing against deep sea mining.”
37 countries are against deep sea mining, either asking for a precautionary pause or a global moratorium, including the eight Pacific Island nations of Palau, Fiji, Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands. New Zealand has also backed a moratorium, but Australia has not.
—ENDS—
Notes:
– The CSIRO agreed to work with The Metals Company in 2022, tasked to develop a deep sea mining environmental management plan in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ), where The Metals Company is pushing to mine for polymetallic nodules.
– Last week, a scientific survey of two areas targeted for deep sea mining in the Pacific Ocean by The Metals Company found the presence of whales and dolphins, including vulnerable sperm whales.
Responding to the arrest and detention of Faith Zaba, editor of the weekly Zimbabwe Independent, on allegations of undermining the authority of or insulting the country’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa, Khanyo Farisè, Amnesty International’s Senior Researcher in East and Southern Africa, said:
“Amnesty International strongly condemns the arrest and detention of Faith Zaba for exercising her constitutionally guaranteed rights as a journalist. This is an assault on the right to freedom of expression and press freedom.
“Zimbabwean authorities must immediately release Faith Zaba and drop all charges against her as she is detained simply for doing her job. Journalism is not a crime. Authorities must allow journalists to carry out their work freely, safely and without fear of harassment, intimidation or reprisals.
“The arrest of journalists such as Zaba, and her colleague Blessed Mhlanga who was arbitrarily detained earlier this year simply for doing their job, are part of an ongoing pattern in which the criminal justice system is being misused to target independent media voices to instill fear and curb press freedom.
Zimbabwean authorities must immediately release Faith Zaba and drop all charges against her as she is detained simply for doing her job. Journalism is not a crime. Authorities must allow journalists to carry out their work freely, safely and without fear of harassment, intimidation or reprisals.
Khanyo Farisè, Amnesty International’s Senior Researcher in East and Southern Africa
“These tactics pose a significant threat to a free media in Zimbabwe and the public’s right to information. Authorities must end the growing restriction on civic space in the country and allow everyone to freely exercise their human rights.”
The arrest of journalists such as Zaba, and her colleague Blessed Mhlanga who was arbitrarily detained earlier this year simply for doing their job, are part of an ongoing pattern in which the criminal justice system is being misused to target independent media voices to instill fear and curb press freedom.
Khanyo Farisè,
Background
Faith Zaba was arrested on 1 July and detained in Harare on allegations of undermining the authority of or insulting the President. According to her lawyer, Chris Mhike, the charge relates to a satirical article published in the weekly’s Muckraker column last Friday. Her bail application has been postponed to 3 July, pending a review of her medical record due to her ill health. Zaba’s arrest comes after the recent arrest and lengthy detention of another journalist from the same outlet, Alpha Media House’s head of news at HSTV, Blessed Mhlanga, who spent 72 days in pretrial detention.
The House of Commons has voted to proscribe direct action group Palestine Action.
‘Instead of taking draconian measures to [proscribe Palestine Action], the Government should be taking immediate and unequivocal action to put a stop to Israel’s genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it’ – Sacha Deshmukh
Responding to news that the House of Commons has voted in support of the Government’s decision to ban Palestine Action as a “terrorist organisation”, Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s Chief Executive, said:
“Amnesty International condemns the Government’s decision to ban Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, as an unprecedented legal overreach.
“The UK has a deeply flawed and overly broad definition of terrorism which human rights monitors including Amnesty International have been warning about for years. This latest disturbing move only serves to highlight that those warnings were justified.
“Terrorism legislation hands the authorities massive powers to arrest and detain people, suppress speech and reporting, conduct surveillance and take other measures that would never be permitted in other circumstances. Using them against a direct-action protest group is an egregious abuse of what they were created for.
“Whatever MPs may think about whether Palestine Action’s tactics are appropriate or not, existing criminal laws, accompanied by human rights protections, were more than capable of responding to them. Instead of taking draconian measures to shut down direct action protesters and criminalise anyone who expresses support for their actions, the Government should be taking immediate and unequivocal action to put a stop to Israel’s genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.”
Proscribing Palestine Action: An abuse of counter-terrorism powers
Today (Wednesday 2 July), Westminster MPs voted 385 – 26 in support of a Government motion to proscribe Palestine Action under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, on the basis that it is ‘an organisation concerned with terrorism’. The House of Lords will vote on the same motion tomorrow. If that vote goes through, the ban is expected to come into force on Saturday (5 July).
Counter-terrorism laws must always be treated with the highest degree of caution and restraint, as they exist to authorise interference with due process and other fundamental human rights protections.
However, the Terrorism Act 2000 contains a deeply flawed definition of terrorism, which has been criticised by domestic and international human rights monitors for many years. These criticisms are based on the breadth of its wording, which goes well beyond international comparators and recognised best practice and potentially permits disproportionate and unnecessary terrorism designations.
Today’s step closer to the proscription of Palestine Action is a clear example of that concern coming to fruition.
There is already ample existing criminal law capable of responding to a direct-action protest networks like Palestine Action.
A terrorism designation is a major escalation beyond mere criminalisation of direct-action protest activity. Proscription will have major adverse consequences for the freedom of expression rights of others, with implications for respect for the rule of law. As such, the proscription of Palestine Action would breach the UK’s international human rights obligations to use its counter-terrorism powers in a proportionate way and only when strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.
Banning Palestine Action not only makes membership of the organisation a criminal offence – through broadly worded speech offences such as ‘expression of support’ and ‘glorification’ – it also puts at risk the free speech rights of many other activists who are deeply concerned about the plight of Palestinians in the context of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.
In response to the Government’s welfare bill passing its second reading in Parliament tonight, Jen Clark, Amnesty International UK’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Lead, said
“The legislative process surrounding this welfare bill has been incredibly harmful to disabled people who depend on social security. It is disappointing that the bill advanced despite the dedicated efforts of campaigners and supportive MPs to abolish it. The rushed timeline restricts proper scrutiny of its remaining elements, particularly those that discriminate against individuals with fluctuating conditions, falling short of international standards.
“While we are cautiously relieved that some of the most harmful aspects of the bill, specifically the changes to PIP, have been paused, the overwhelming lack of public support for these changes is undeniable. Recent polling by Savanta, commissioned by Amnesty, shows that 75% of respondents believe that removing PIP from people in need is cruel. Although the Government’s concession on this issue is welcome, serious questions still need to be addressed.
“We are waiting for key details about the Timms review, which must not serve as a smokescreen to evade accountability or scrutiny through statutory consultation. This review presents a vital opportunity to realign social security with its fundamental purpose: ensuring that no one has to live in poverty
“Amnesty International calls on the UK government to establish a Social Security Commission with statutory powers, drawing inspiration from the Beveridge Report and past Royal Commissions. This Commission should carry out an independent inquiry into the UK social security system, driving comprehensive reform to ensure that all individuals have an adequate standard of living grounded in dignity and human rights.”
Rick Burgess Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People added, “Kier Starmer has marked his first year in parliament by betraying disabled people. Our lives have been traded through a shambolic, farcical parliamentary process. They have won a small battle but we’ll keep fighting. There’s no peace because there’s no justice.”
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
The IAEA conducted its first INEAS university mission in April in Ust Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan, a country that is looking to restart its nuclear power programme. The mission — which engaged more than 90 participants from academia, government and industry — laid the ground for the development of a new bachelor’s degree programme in the ‘Operation of Nuclear Power Plants’ at the D. Serikbayev East Kazakhstan Technical University. It included curriculum workshops, technical visits and stakeholder consultations.
The IAEA also participated in an international forum with 14 expert presentations from Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia, highlighting international best practices in nuclear education. Key outcomes included recommendations for planning national human resources development, curriculum enhancement, and expansion of cooperation through IAEA technical projects and STAR-NET, a regional network that promotes education and training in nuclear technologies.
“We are grateful to the IAEA for sending experts to our university to support the development of nuclear energy infrastructure. Their assistance also proved very helpful in designing the educational programme,” said Aizhan Baidildina, an associate professor at the the D. Serikbayev East Kazakhstan Technical University.
Kazakhstan, which is working with the IAEA to develop the infrastructure to reintroduce nuclear power, aims to complete its first nuclear power reactor in the next eight years. Its construction is expected to provide clean, reliable energy to the Central Asian country of 19 million people. Scientific and technical personnel are also being trained to operate the plant. Kazakhstan has the second largest uranium reserves in the world, accounting for 14 per cent of the global total. The country currently operates research reactors as well as several other nuclear installations related to the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle.