Latest news with #UnitedNations.The
India Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Financial issues among top barriers to reproductive freedom in India: UN report
Reproductive freedom is more important than studying overpopulation or underpopulation in fertility crisis, highlights a new landmark report released by United United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has released The State of World Population (SOWP) 2025 report, titled "The Real Fertility Crisis", asking policymakers to focus not on numbers, but on enabling reproductive freedom: the ability of individuals to make free and informed choices about sex, contraception, and family on a survey from 14 countries, including inputs from India, the report dispels simplistic narratives of 'population explosion' or 'population collapse'. Instead, it points to a more nuanced and pressing issue: millions of individuals globally, including in India, are unable to realise their desired fertility outcomes due to a complex web of structural, social, and economic is the real crisis, not underpopulation or RATES HIDE INEQUALITYIndia, the report notes, has achieved replacement-level fertility, defined as 2.1 births per woman, with the national figure now standing at achievement has been credited to advances in education, improved access to reproductive healthcare, and a robust family planning framework.'India has made significant progress in lowering fertility rates, from nearly five children per woman in 1970 to about two today, thanks to improved education and access to reproductive healthcare. This has led to major reductions in maternal mortality, meaning a million more mothers are alive today, raising children and building communities," said Andrea M. Wojnar, UNFPA India India may have reached replacement-level fertility of 2.0, many people, especially women, still face barriers to making free and informed decisions about their reproductive report also highlights gaps across regions and barriers create what the report identifies as India's 'high fertility and low fertility duality.'States such as Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh continue to report higher fertility rates, while southern and urbanised regions like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Delhi have sustained below-replacement duality, the UN researchers say, reflects enduring disparities in economic development, access to quality healthcare and education, and the persistence of patriarchal social to the survey findings, one of the biggest barriers to reproductive freedom is financial 40% of respondents said they are unable to have the number of children they desire due to economic cited factors include:Housing constraints (22%)Job insecurity (21%)Lack of affordable childcare (18%)Poor general health (15%)Infertility (13%)Limited access to pregnancy-related care (14%)Besides this, emotional and societal pressures are shaping reproductive 19% of the respondents said they experienced partner or family pressure to have fewer children than they personally concerns over climate change, political instability, and an increasingly uncertain future were also reported as deterrents to report highlights that modern fertility decisions are not merely medical or biological choices, they are shaped by the complex realities of contemporary life."The real demographic dividend comes when everyone has the freedom and means to make informed reproductive choices. India has a unique opportunity to show how reproductive rights and economic prosperity can advance together," Wojnar CHALLENGESBeyond traditional barriers, the report draws attention to emerging social realities such as the rise in loneliness, shifting relationship dynamics, and the difficulty many face in finding supportive social stigma around reproductive choices, especially among unmarried individuals, LGBTQIA+ persons, and those choosing non-traditional family paths, continues to hinder reproductive concern is the rising expectation of "intensive parenting", a phenomenon placing disproportionate pressure on women and reinforcing unequal caregiving roles and influencing decisions about if and when to have expectations, the report argues, not only discourage parenthood but also limit the personal and professional agency of response to these challenges, the UNFPA has proposed a five-pronged framework to guide India toward demographic resilience,advertisementUniversal access to sexual and reproductive health services: Including contraception, safe abortion, maternal healthcare, and infertility structural barriers: Through investments in childcare, education, housing, and workplace inclusivity: By extending healthcare and reproductive services to unmarried individuals, LGBTQIA+ communities, and marginalised data and accountability: Going beyond fertility statistics to track unmet needs and bodily social transformation: Via community-led campaigns that challenge stigma and improve reproductive health literacy.'The real fertility crisis is not how many children people are having, but that so many are unable to have the children they want, if and when they want them," the report concludes.
Arab News
18-04-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Cash crunch leaves Syrians queueing for hours to collect salaries
DAMASCUS: Seated on the pavement outside a bank in central Damascus, Abu Fares's face is worn with exhaustion as he waits to collect a small portion of his pension.'I've been here for four hours and I haven't so much as touched my pension,' said the 77-year-old, who did not wish to give his full name.'The cash dispensers are under-stocked and the queues are long,' he the overthrow of president Bashar Assad last December, Syria has been struggling to emerge from the wake of nearly 14 years of civil war, and its banking sector is no of punishing sanctions imposed on the Assad dynasty – which the new authorities are seeking to have lifted – have left about 90 percent of Syrians under the poverty line, according to the United liquidity crisis has forced authorities to drastically limit cash withdrawals, leaving much of the population struggling to make ends to his ousting, Assad's key ally Russia held a monopoly on printing banknotes. The new authorities have only announced once that they have received a shipment of banknotes from Moscow since Assad's a country with about 1.25 million public sector employees, civil servants must queue at one of two state banks or affiliated ATMs to make withdrawals, capped at about 200,000 Syrian pounds, the equivalent on the black market of $20 per some cases, they have to take a day off just to wait for the cash.'There are sick people, elderly... we can't continue like this,' said Abu Fares.'There is a clear lack of cash, and for that reason we deactivate the ATMs at the end of the workday,' an employee at a private bank said, preferring not to give her name.A haphazard queue of about 300 people stretches outside the Commercial Bank of Syria. Some are sitting on the Jumaa, a civil servant, said she spends most of the money she withdraws on the travel fare to get to and from the bank.'The conditions are difficult and we need to withdraw our salaries as quickly as possible,' said the 43-year-old.'It's not acceptable that we have to spend days to withdraw meagre sums.'The local currency has plunged in value since the civil war erupted in 2011, prior to which the dollar was valued at 50 Georges Khouzam explained that foreign exchange vendors – whose work was outlawed under Assad – 'deliberately reduced cash flows in Syrian pounds to provoke rapid fluctuations in the market and turn a profit.'Muntaha Abbas, a 37-year-old civil servant, had to return three times to withdraw her entire salary of 500,000 pounds.'There are a lot of ATMs in Damascus, but very few of them work,' she a five-hour wait, she was finally able to withdraw 200,000 pounds.'Queues and more queues... our lives have become a series of queues,' she lamented.
The Independent
05-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Donald Trump wants the US to ‘take over' Gaza and relocate millions of Palestinians. Is this legal?
US President Donald Trump has proposed that the United States 'take over' the Gaza Strip and permanently relocate the nearly two million Palestinians living in the war-torn territory to neighbouring countries. Trump has previously called on Egypt and Jordan to resettle Palestinians from Gaza – a proposal that both countries have firmly rejected. His latest astonishing proposal – and the possibility of a US takeover of a sovereign territory – have immediately been met with criticism and questions about the legality of such a move. When asked what authority would allow the US to 'take over' Gaza, Trump did not have an answer. He only said it would be a 'long-term ownership position'. He also did not rule out using US troops. So, what does international law say about this idea? The quick answer is no – Trump can't just take over someone else's territory. Since the end of the second world war in 1945, the use of force has been prohibited in international law. This is one of the foundations of international law since the creation of the United US could only take control of Gaza with the consent of the sovereign authority of the territory. Israel can't cede Gaza to the US. The International Court of Justice has ruled that Gaza is an occupied territory – and that this occupation is illegal under international law. For this to happen legally, Trump would require the consent of Palestine and the Palestinian people to take control of Gaza. One of the biggest obligations of an occupying power comes under Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions. This prohibits an occupying power from forcibly transferring or removing people from a territory. All other states also have an obligation not to assist an occupying power in violating international humanitarian law. So that means if the US wanted to move the population of Gaza by force, Israel could not assist in this action. And likewise, the US cannot assist Israel in violating the rules. Occupying powers are allowed to remove a population for the reason of safety. Trump and his Middle East envoy who visited Gaza last week have repeatedly referenced how dangerous it is. Trump questioned how people could 'want to stay' there, saying they have 'no alternative' but to removing people for this reason has to only be temporary. Once it's fine for someone to return, they must be a population has to be consensual. But in this specific case, it would mean the consent of all Palestinians in Gaza. The US could not force anyone to move who does not want to. Further to this, a government, such as the Palestinian Authority, cannot give this consent on behalf of a people. People have a right to self-determination – the right to determine their own future. A perfect example is migration – if a person migrates from one state to another, that is their right. It's not displacement. But forcefully displacing them is not permitted. And using what sounds like a threat would arguably not be consensual, either. This could be saying, for instance, 'If you stay, you'll die because there's only going to be more war. But if you leave, there's peace.' This is the threat of force. Ethnic cleansing has not been defined in any treaty or convention. However, most international law experts rely on the definition in the Commission of Experts report on the former state of Yugoslavia to the UN Security Council in 1994. It defined ethnic cleansing as:rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area. So, under that definition, what is being suggested by Trump could be classified as ethnic cleansing – removing the Palestinian people from a certain geographical area through force or intimidation. If Trump follows through with this plan, it would be a violation of what is known as jus cogens, or the paramount, foundational rules that underpin international law. And international law dictates that no country is allowed to cooperate with another in violating these rules and all countries must try to stop or prevent any potential violations. This could include placing sanctions on a country or not providing support to that country, for example, by selling it weapons. A perfect example of this is when Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, very few countries recognised the move. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was then followed by sanctions and the freezing of Russian assets, among other actions. If Trump pursued this course of action, he too could be personally liable under international criminal law if he's the one instigating the forcible transfer of a population. The International Criminal Court has already issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli defence minister and a Hamas commander in relation to the conflict. One of the dangers of this kind of rhetoric is the potential to dehumanise the enemy, or the other side. Trump does this through statements such as, 'You look over the decades, it's all death in Gaza', and resettling people in 'nice homes where they can be happy' instead of being 'knifed to death'. This language implies the situation in Gaza is due to the 'uncivilised' nature of the population. The risk at the moment, even if Trump doesn't do what he says, is that the mere vocalisation of his proposal is dehumanising to the Palestinian people. And this, in turn, could lead to more violations of the rules of war and international humanitarian nonchalant way Trump is discussing things such as taking over a territory and moving a population gives the impression these rules can easily be broken, even if he doesn't break them himself.
