Parenthood, Surrogacy and the Labor of Childbirth

In early October 2025, Reem Alsalem, a United Nations special rapporteur, submitted a report calling for a ban on surrogacy, and describing it as a  “system of exploitation and violence”. Alsalem went further to liken the system of surrogacy to the system of prostitution, saying she found a lot of similarities between the two in terms of how they exploited women. 

She isn’t the only international figure to take such a strong stance against surrogacy. Pope Francis, who passed in 2025, had also called for a worldwide ban on the practice which he believed was exploiting the women who became surrogates. 

This call – which has seen equally heated criticism and support – comes at a time where more and more celebrities have been posting about their surrogacy journeys. The latest was actress Lily Collins earlier that year, who faced a slew of backlash to her announcement about welcoming her baby via surrogacy, including from many people who blamed the rich for exploiting women for their own desires to have children. While some celebrities like Kim Kardashian have been open about their reasons for using surrogates, others like Collins and Priyanka Chopra haven’t shared why they chose this particular path. 

But as stories where parents welcome babies via surrogacy become more and more commonly shared publicly, the harms and complications of surrogacy have also been coming to light. More than the stories themselves it’s the fact that so many of these cases are now becoming public knowledge that is allowing people to look deeper into the impact of surrogacy and explore it from different perspectives. Treating surrogacy as inherently exploitative isn’t a recent phenomenon – in fact countries such as France, UAE, Saudi Arabia and even India have long banned the practice, regardless of whether or not the surrogacy is commercial or not. Other countries like the UK and Canada allow altruistic surrogacy but have banned it commercially – which means that surrogates cannot be paid, except beyond reasonable expenses in certain cases. On the other hand, most states in the US do allow gestational surrogacy commercially, although compensation and protections around this vary by state. Across the world, experiences around surrogacy can vary significantly, as governments, families, and agencies work within (or sometimes around) the law to match the desires of would-be parents in wealthy countries while respecting what exists of local law for the birth family and the child. This is much like how experiences have played out with international adoption, where the lure of a payday can complicate and confound the process.  

“It would be incorrect to say surrogacy is always exploitation and incorrect to say surrogacy is never exploitation. That’s why it is so important to have proper legal protections, for the parents but also for the surrogate,” says Janene Oleaga, a family formation attorney and reproductive rights advocate, who works closely both with surrogates and intended parents. But for many others, like advocates working with Stop Surrogacy Now, who see it as categorically harmful, or intended parents who see it as the best decision they’ve ever made, the situation isn’t as nuanced. Which brings about the question of who is surrogacy really for? Who benefits from the system and what can be done to protect those most vulnerable? 

International Approaches, Varied Responses

With so many emotional, financial and physical considerations coming into play with any decision around surrogacy, reactions to both bans or a lack of them can get quite heated, especially as different groups are affected in very different ways. India’s legislative ban on commercial surrogacy was advanced in 2019 and adopted in 2020, after many critics called international surrogacy an India a system that exploited poor women, but the ban is also seen as discriminatory against LGBTQ couples as altruistic surrogacy is now only allowed for heterosexual couples who’ve been married for 5 years. Italy’s ban on surrogacy has also been criticised for similar reasons. But for anti-surrogacy campaigners, their stance against surrogacy is not discriminatory, simply protective of the women they are hoping to release from this system. 

Lexi Ellingsworth the founder of Stop Surrogacy Now UK says that the “euphemistic language disguises the brutal reality. Surrogacy exploits women for their reproduction ability, their fertility and denies newborns their mothers from birth,” she says adding, “Exploitation, human trafficking, obstetric violence, and coercion is rife. And the numbers are increasing. As we are against surrogacy as a whole, we do not discriminate. We reject the practice regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, income, marital status and circumstance.” 

A recent case where a stillbirth in a surrogacy case turned into a legal battle is just one of many examples that campaigners like Ellingsworth point towards to showcase just how easy it is to harm surrogate mothers within this process. 

Ellingsworth also points out that support for surrogate mothers who may feel exploited or harmed in the process is rare, and it’s not just the mothers campaigners like Ellingsworth are concerned about. Olivia Maurel, a spokesperson for the Casablanca Declaration also shares Ellingsworth’s views regarding the importance of protecting both surrogate mother and child. For Maurel, the issue is also deeply personal. 

“My activism began with a double awareness, that of a child and that of a mother. As a child born through surrogacy, I quickly realised that this practice tramples on the most fundamental rights of the child: the right to know and be raised by the woman who carried and gave birth to them, and the right to an identity that isn’t fractured by contract,” shares Maurel, further adding, “Behind the glossy marketing lies a global market going to be worth 200 billion dollars by 2032, one that operates with virtually no oversight. Reem Alsalem’s report calls this what it is: a form of gender-based violence and reproductive exploitation. She urges states to recognize that consent obtained under structural inequality is not true consent.” 

But Oleaga, who’s worked in cases where parents from various countries have come to the US for surrogacy still sees the positive in it, even as she agrees that safety and protections are crucial. “So I’ve had intended parents come from China and Europe to the US for surrogacy because it may be less expensive to go to other places but it’s oftentimes less legally secure. In the US it is a legally secure process,” she says adding that while the bad stories deserve to be reported on and exposed, “For every negative story you see in the news, there are hundreds if not thousands of opposite stories not just for the intended parents but surrogates as well. That’s why you see surrogates coming back” 

And while financial exploitation remains a major concern, Rachel Goldberg, a licensed marriage and family therapist finds more nuance in working around that and safeguarding clients than calling for an outright ban. “If someone is pursuing surrogacy out of financial desperation, it can feel like I’m preventing them from moving forward, but my role is to protect them as much as the intended parents. When someone is in a desperate situation, there is more room for exploitation,” she says, adding that she will also consider many other factors including stability in the home and emotional readiness before assessing whether a client is ready to take this step. 

In a 2023 paper, Dr Yingyi Luo argues for the application of labor law to bolster surrogate rights and protections while operating in a global market of cross-border surrogacy. Building on the example of Bulgarian labor law and safeguards for non-standard workers, Luo writes, “Surrogate mothers, even those who have not signed a surrogacy contract, do not need to validate their employment status. Once a surrogate mother becomes pregnant with the child of the intended parents, her status transitions to that of “employed.”” This labor-law forward approach could ensure accountability, financial and health protections, standards of care and due diligence, and compliance that can all be lost in the often informal or discreet nature of facilitating surrogacy.

An Inside Look At What Works, And What Doesn’t

For those who’ve worked in the surrogacy industry or been connected to it, the gaps are clear. Belal Breaga Bakht used to run a concierge service that provided on ground services between surrogacy companies based in the US and surrogates in India between 2007 and 2011. Bakht’s job became a way make sure the surrogates were cared for and looked after, both medically and financially and he shares that his position as an Indian who had been raised in the UK allowed him to connect well not just with the surrogacy company and intended parents, but also with the surrogates themselves. 

 “There are many working parts of this complex process, you’ve got marketing company and surrogacy company in US (or anywhere else), you’ve got the IVF side which is usually not linked surrogacy side – and they are the crucial part of this equation, if they are complicit in exploiting the women you can’t really stop it. So we took over that role slightly, even though we were not supposed to, and that’s because we had a very very strong Indian team,” Bakht shares. While Bakht was mindful of the gaps in the industry and where exploitation was possible he shared that would ideally like to see a regulated but legal surrogacy industry, where with the right care and protections both sides could benefit. 

Yessenia Lattore, a mother of three in the US, who is currently undergoing her second surrogacy journey shares her own experience of what it meant to be working in an industry that is largely self regulated. Despite the fact that she’s aware of bad actors, and has seen bad experiences, she chose to come back as a surrogate because of her own positive experience. 

“I don’t think surrogacy should be illegal, but in the US its not regulated and I personally think it should be regulated,” she says adding, “The first time I did it I was very naive, I kind of went with the first agency that responded to me – was communicative with me.” Still Lattore got lucky, both with the family she chose and her agency, although she chose to work with a new agency this time around. 

Focus on the birth mother and child - policy makers building laws and restrictions around surrogacy need to put the health and safety of the surrogate mother and baby first and foremost. This means safeguards that limit exploitation and restrictions where needed 

No Cookie Cutter Approach - communities and countries across the world will need localised policies, with countries with higher rates of exploitation of women needing stricter laws and maybe even bans where necessary. 

Labor Protections Protect Laboring - clear, transparent protections built not just on human rights but labor law frameworks could improve conditions, protections, and accountability while protecting against exploitation.

For Lattore, the decision to become a surrogate was motivated from her own experience with pregnancy loss, and when she was able to have healthy children after that she realised that she wanted to help other women have children too. She likes to joke that she can’t be doing it for the money because she receives “minimum wage” – if she looks at it compared to the hours being put in. But even for someone who’s had a positive experience, she knows the industry can do better in making sure it’s the same for everyone. “Surrogacy should be done ethically, so a surrogate isn’t left with 3 babies that aren’t her own. We have a psych evaluation, contracts, and  our own lawyer. I personally think it should be regulated because right now it is done in different ways,” she says.

Both Oleaga and Goldberg, who’ve worked with different actors within the industry, agree that self regulation is difficult, but question the extent to which regulations may be the answer, particularly under the current US administration. 

“I do think safeguards are important, but when they become overly restrictive, they can prevent families from growing. More regulation means more red tape, which is the challenge when involving politics. At the end of the day, even though it shouldn’t be this way and doesn’t feel fair, consumers still have to do their own homework to protect themselves from bad players,” Goldberg says. 

Oleaga also agrees that regulation is important and there needs to be more consistency, particularly in laws that offer protection to surrogates, intended parents and children. 

While Oleago and may seem like they’re miles apart from what Ellingsworth or Maurel are saying – and in some ways of course they are – what all of them are asking for and working towards are protections for the women and children often left most vulnerable in the world. And that should be the main goal for the industry, regardless of what side of the argument you lie on. 

Anmol Irfan is a Muslim-Pakistani freelance journalist and editor. Her work aims at exploring marginalized narratives in the Global South with a key focus on gender, climate and tech. She tweets @anmolirfan22


How a $500 USAID grant saved my future

Fatima Rezaie is an education activist who uses her platforms (instagram and Facebook) to share educational opportunities for Afghan youths, especially women, inside and outside Afghanistan.

When you grow up and study in a community with little to no resources, dreaming big can feel like a luxury. Opportunities don’t knock often, and when they do, they’re easy to miss. Sometimes, all it takes is one “yes,” one act of belief, from a single source of hope to push you one step closer. What does it take for a girl in rural Afghanistan to break through? A strong will? The right timing? Or just one small chance in the right moment?

I am writing here today because a modest investment in me by USAID changed the entire trajectory of my life. While this will always be my story to tell, I am sharing it now because the very concept of foreign aid is under attack, and the agency that provided this aid to myself and so many others is shuttered. That money, distributed through USAID, had a profound impact on countless lives, including mine.

In 2016, when I was in Grade 10 at a small-town school in Herat, Afghanistan, a new subject was added to our curriculum called “Royesh,” with the goal of empowering young women by teaching us how to start a business. It was part of the USAID Promote Women Leadership Program that encouraged women’s full participation in community by building their confidence and equipping them with the skills they need to succeed in the public and private sector. As someone always eager to try new things, I was super excited to see what it had to offer.

The international community must take unified and assertive action to pressure the Taliban to lift the ban on girls’ and women’s education in Afghanistan.

Humanitarian grants and international scholarship programs should be expanded to provide Afghan women and girls access to safe, quality education.

Individuals can make a powerful impact by volunteering, mentoring, or donating to organizations that support Afghan girls’ education.

For this new subject, we had two trainers who taught us how to plan, market, and operate a business. We engaged in activities that put us in the shoes of customers and business owners. The class was fun, and the topics were exciting, a completely new experience I had never had before.

Towards the end of the school year, the program provided funds for girls to complete secondary school education. The funds weren’t for every single Royesh trained student, but for those who can successfully get to the final round after submitting their application. In my school, only around 600 students above grade 10 were part of this program. And that’s not even counting the thousands of  students  receiving the same training in Kabul, Balkh, Kandahar, Nangarhar, and other public schools in Herat. I was terrified to apply as my chances felt like anything below zero, but something inside me whispered, why not? Just submit your application. At the end of the day, it’s better to try and fail than to give up and live with regret. Failure may be temporary, but regret can last forever. One day before the deadline, after going back and forth with myself, I submitted my application. With no experience writing essays or telling my story, I was beyond relieved when my application was accepted. According to the USAID’s report on Women’s Leadership Development Program, a total of 6,436 applications had been received under needbased scholarships; 5,012 had been reviewed by the selection committee, and 2,735 had been selected as final candidates. And I was among the 2,735 people. The scholarship award totaled 35,000 Afghani (about $500), enough to cover two years of high school, school supplies, and university entrance exam (Konkor) preparation courses.

This fund gave me the freedom to stop feeling ashamed of asking my parents for money, or worse, giving in to marriage just to secure financial support. Would I have been lucky enough to marry someone supportive? Only God knows. Though my parents never pressured me to marry, I never wanted to be a burden to them, especially since they had three younger children to care for. But I’m grateful that this fund gave me the support I needed to complete my secondary education and work hard for my future. 

Turning Determination into Results

With that scholarship, I invested every penny back into my studies. In Afghanistan, medical school is considered a pathway to lifelong stability, and as a top student, the social pressure to pursue medicine was intense. I enrolled in rigorous Konkor preparation courses, bought essential textbooks, and took weekly practice exams to test my knowledge. I began these courses at the start of grade 11, while many aspiring medical students start as early as grade 9 or 10. I simply couldn’t afford them earlier. That small but crucial amount of funding came as a huge relief and enabled me to catch up and continue chasing my goals.

By the end of Grade 12, while preparing for medical school in Afghanistan, I also began exploring opportunities to study abroad. One of the programs I applied to was the Education for Leadership in Crisis program, offered by the U.S. Embassy in partnership with the American University of Beirut. I found out about it through my cousin, who saw an advertisement on TV while visiting his in-laws. He took a photo and sent it to me on Telegram.

A TV ad, a golden opportunity, and a fearful me, who didn’t even feel qualified enough to apply. There were only 15 seats for girls across all of Afghanistan. Could I really be one of them? Impossible, I thought. But thanks to my cousin’s encouragement, I submitted the application anyway, and the rest was history.

After successfully passing the first round of exam, I had to take the TOEFL test. TOEFL, or “Test of English as a Foreign Language,” is a test I would need to pass to enroll in an English-speaking university.  I was thrilled for making to this point, but when I read the line: “You are responsible for the TOEFL test fee”, my excitement quickly turned into anxiety.

At the time, the cost was $215, which was equal to two months of my mom’s salary. Her income supported a household of six, so it was impossible to ask her for help. I rushed to check the small stash of money left from USAID fund I had hidden in my closet, and to my surprise, exactly $200 remained. It felt like a miracle. The remaining amount was kindly covered by Women for Afghan Women, an NGO in Kabul that had partnered with the U.S. Embassy to support applicants through the admission process. I will always be grateful to them for stepping in at that critical moment.

I took the exam, scored well, advanced through multiple rounds, and ultimately won the scholarship.

From Lebanon to United States of America 

Over the course of my undergraduate studies in Lebanon, I graduated with high distinction, represented Afghanistan at international conferences in South Korea and France, learned Arabic, and even explored Lebanon more than I ever had in my own country. I went on to pursue a master’s degree at an Ivy League university, launched my social initiative Educate2Empower on social media – where I’ve inspired thousands of Afghan youth to chase their dreams despite fear and uncertainty – and ultimately secured my U.S. Green Card.

Was I extraordinary? Perhaps. But the truth is, my story isn’t the exception, it’s the proof. That initial $500 from USAID started a chain reaction of opportunity.

Thanks to those funds, I:

  1. Took the TOEFL.
  2. Studied abroad.
  3. Founded an educational initiative.
  4. Became a U.S. green-card holder
  5. prepared for medical school

That small amount wasn’t a drop in the bucket, it was the first stone cast in a ripple of lifelong change.

Why This Matters

In Afghanistan, where educational access, especially for young women, is inconsistent and now, with the Taliban being in power, non-existent, programs like this break cycles of disadvantage. The establishment of American University of Afghanistan in 2005 with the support of USAID empowered hundreds of Afghan youth, especially Afghan women. After the Taliban takeover, the university continued its operations online and at its new campus in Qatar, despite funding challenges, and kept alive the last hope for a brighter future for its female students. 

Prestige Series at New York - USA, by Shamsia Hassani (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Afghan women have played a key role in the development of the country across different sectors, and their continued presence is crucial for rebuilding a nation that has gone through decades of turmoil. After the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 and before their rise in 2021, educational opportunities expanded at all levels. The infant mortality rate was cut in half, and the gross national income per capita nearly tripled in real terms, from US$810 in 2001 to $2,590 in 2020 (adjusted for purchasing power). Afghan women played a key role in livestock and dairy production, crop processing, and producing export goods like carpets, hides, karakul skins, and wool. In the 20 years before the fall of the republic, they launched around 57,000 small and medium-sized businesses with donor support.

The 2021 education ban stripped Afghan women of their fundamental right to education and has had widespread negative effects on their lives. Aid groups warn that, with growing hardship and no access to school, more girls are at risk of child labor and early marriage. According to the U.N., Afghan girls without secondary education are more likely to have children young, miss out on child immunization, and marry off their daughters before 18, making lack of education a key driver of deprivation. More importantly, the education ban has taken a severe psychological toll, with Afghan women and girls reporting anxiety, depression, PTSD, and suicidal thoughts. That’s why urgent action and sustained humanitarian funding are more critical than ever.

This ban on education hasn’t only silenced classrooms, it has triggered a chain reaction of deeper crises. Violence against women has sharply increased. The legal assistance programs and special courts that once protected women and girls have been dismantled. With no systems of support in place, many now suffer in silence. At the same time, forced and early marriages have surged across Afghanistan, as desperate families marry off their teenage daughters, often to prevent them from being taken by Taliban fighters. That’s why restoring access to education is not just a policy issue, it’s a lifeline. Without it, every other intervention will be incomplete.

Such investments:

  1. Keep girls in school.
  2. Encourage them to dream beyond traditional roles.
  3. Build local ecosystems of ambition and action.

Every dollar invested yielded returns in the form of thousands of empowered students who will pave the way for further improvement. In order to save the current and future generations, the necessary actions must be taken. Foreign aid can be a lifeline for others like myself.

The first and most vital step is addressing the elephant in the room: allowing women and girls to return to school. Regional and international actors, including both Muslim and non-Muslim countries, organizations like the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, must take stronger, unified action. It has been almost four years since the Taliban stripped Afghan women of their basic right to education, robbing the country of talent, potential, and a future that those young women could have helped build.

At this point in Afghanistan’s crisis, humanitarian grants are absolutely essential to support women and girls in continuing their education. For many, international scholarship programs offer a vital pathway to pursue their studies in safe, stable environments abroad. For example, through a new partnership, the EAA Foundation, supported by the Qatar Fund for Development (QFFD) and USAID, will mobilize US$50 million, equally contributed by both parties. This funding aims to enroll over 100,000 out-of-school children and provide nearly 2,000 post-secondary scholarships, helping thousands of Afghan students regain access to education and opportunity.

Equally powerful are the contributions of everyday individuals, especially those with time, knowledge, or resources. Volunteering with organizations that teach English to Afghan girls, or mentoring them through the process of applying for educational opportunities abroad, can be life-changing. You can’t imagine how powerful and meaningful it is for a girl in Afghanistan to have someone who believes in her, guides her, and helps her navigate a path she never knew existed. This August marks four years since the Taliban took power and stripped women of their right to education. Your support, no matter how small, can be part of the resistance to that injustice. You can find a non-exhaustive list of organizations helping Afghan women at the end of the article. 

In retrospect, that $500 investment did more than support one Afghan girl, it sent a message: your future matters. My life today stands on that moment, and on the confidence that someone believed in me far before I believed in myself. Humanitarian investment is a catalyst and Eight years later, its impact in my life is undeniable.

Below are a list of organizations, curated by Fatima, that support the education of Afghan women, which you can support through donations or volunteering:

Women Online University
SOLA
Code to Inspire
Education Bridge for Afghanistan
Right to Learn Afghanistan
AYLA
Learn
Alliance for the Education of Women in Afghanistan
Sahar Education
Afghan Girls Financial Assistance Fund

Cooled Prospects for Gender Justice from COP29

Anmol Irfan is a Muslim-Pakistani freelance journalist and editor. Her work aims at exploring marginalized narratives in the Global South with a key focus on gender, climate and tech. She tweets @anmolirfan22

For years, gender activists have been trying to draw attention to the disproportionate ways in which the climate crisis has been affecting women and girls. Studies show that by 2050, climate change may push 158 million more women and girls into poverty, which is 16 million more women and girls at risk than men and boys at the same level. For gender activists, there were small victories at this year’s United Nations COP29 climate change conference, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, but overall morale seems low as many find progress within this arena slow and tiring.

COP 29 participants described the  discussions as slow in many ways – and the intersection of gender and climate has been one of them. Following the conclusion of the conference, some of the victories recognized with the gender justice space have included the extension of the Enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender, for 10 years which will help hold governments accountable as they implement their climate policies. There was also an acknowledgement of gender within climate finance goals and an increase in participation of women at the conference, though it was late in the conference. With COP29 wrapped up in Baku this year, gender activists leave Azerbaijan fatigued and unsure about the future of their work. 

“I’ve been to so many COPs and this was one of the hardest ones” says Elise Buckle, founder of Climate Bridges and SHE builds bridges, when talking about what it was like to be in the room when gender just policies and solutions to climate change were being discussed and proposed at this years COP29 in Baku. “ We thought we wouldn’t have any texts, and then at the last minute we got it [extension of the Lima Work Programme ] so it gives me hope that this can be a floor not a ceiling”, she adds. 

Despite pushing for gender just solutions for decades, many have called this COP a “disappointment” and questions remain about whose responsibility it really is to accommodate the needs of women and girls within climate justice. 

What Went Wrong?

Lorena Aguilar, Executive Director at the Kaschak Institute for Social Justice for Women and Girls, describes the conversation around gender justice as constantly being in motion between success and failure. “When you talk about women rights and when you talk about gender equality , it’s like a pendulum, sometimes they [leaders] ignore, sometimes they accept and that’s what is happening with the UNFCCC,” she says. 

At Baku, it seems the pendulum swung the wrong way. As one of the nine stakeholder groups of the United Nations Framework Convention For Climate Change (UNFCCC) the Women and Gender Constituency was one of the main groups leading the call for more focus on gender-just initiatives during the conference. Environmental lawyer, researcher and activist Claudia Rubio Giraldo, who was one of the co-coordinators of the Gender Working Groups and the WGC’s representative in the room for many of the gender related negotiations, expected parties to move onto negotiations that built on red lines set by previous discussions.The Women and Gender Constituency typically divides areas around which red lines are often established into three groups: finance and implementation, language, and praxis. Rather than start from this point, Rubio says that backtracking on many previous discussions [by many countries who had an issue with the language around gender] made it tough to be in the room. She points out that despite parameters being set in forums before COP, many parties wanted to re-negotiate boundaries which meant actual action plans didn’t go forward till much later.

“There was a backtracking of previously agreed human rights language,” Rubio says. She’s talking about how the use of the term “women in all their diversity” became an issue at this year’s conference, as many other gender advocates also pointed out. 

Much of the contention came from conservative countries, led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia and the Vatican, who felt that the use of the word ‘diversity’ within gender related language meant supporting LGBTQ communities, which is a topic many of those governments still have issues with. But while it’s sometimes easier to pass the burden of this thinking onto more ‘conservative’ countries, Imali Ngusale, founder of the African Center for Health, Climate and Gender Justice Alliance, also adds that there had been speculation that the US was supporting Saudi Arabia, which many believe was for personal gain. 

“In the past 2 weeks we saw how parties stepped forward to accommodate women “women in all their diversity”, and other countries opposed this. There’s significant language that remains bracketed around diversity. There’s a war around narratives and that’s how we’re coming to see how different countries and different parties receive lang around it,” says Natalie Sifuma, founder of Sisters in Climate.

Another barrier that gender justice groups faced was the lack of women within decision making and leadership positions.In terms of the lack of women representation at the highest level of leadership, that’s the same, that hasn’t improved. Only 8% women were represented in the world leaders summit,” Buckle says, adding “ So in a way Cop29 is a mirror of the world. And it’s true there is a backlash on women’s rights in many countries around the world, like the issue of abortion rights in the US, or the more serious situation in Afghanistan.” 

She connects the overall backlash against women’s rights in many places across the world – including the US, as many feel has been demonstrated by the recent election – to the backtracking of gender justice in the climate space. 

Ngusale also further points out that the lack of gender diversity in leadership is amplified by the fact that women are burdened with unpaid care work across the world, making it difficult for them to also take up leadership positions because they “ cannot be in two places at one time.”

Not A Monolith

But even as we talk about women’s rights across the globe, Aguilar points out that the “women of the world” as it’s often termed, are not all the same. “They try to put all women in the same bag, we need to understand the knots of gender inequality, which can be very different for different women, such as the way that our countries allow us to have control, or how we can have agency,” she says. 

This is also what makes it far more complicated for groups like the WGC to advocate for the different needs of women and girls across the world, because they already find themselves fighting for space in these discussions which can make advocating for all the diversity in a nuanced way very difficult.

One example is how cultural norms manifest into gender restrictions differently across the world in ways other cultures or countries may not understand. Mobility restrictions on women due to religious and cultural norms in Kyengeza, Uganda, mean that men are twice as likely as women to travel to purchase improved seeds or visit markets, both of which are crucial factors to agricultural productivity and climate adaptation. This means if the solution international platforms are implementing is something like drought-resilient seeds, women on ground are probably not benefiting from it even if documents say that they should be. 

With gender and climate often being an afterthought in policy drafts and papers, it doesn’t leave a lot of room to go into further “knots” around class, access, ethnicity and much more. Aguilar also shares one instance of how a group of low-income women on the coast of Honduras were affected by disaster. 

“There were women in Honduras who were told winds of 260 km comings but they didn’t know what that meant, whether that was fast or slow, and so they continued to be on the coast and one of them lost two of her kids,” she says adding that when an NGO came to help them rebuild their house which had also been destroyed, they asked them for land property rights papers which these women didn’t have. 

“That’s a group of women that need to be supported,” Aguilar says. 

Implementing the Policies

But agreeing that women should be supported is one thing and actually implementing policies that work in the aftermath of discussions at spaces like COP becomes a whole other hurdle. 

Some of the biggest barriers within implementation are a lack of accountability and climate financing. 

“We want funds that are more liberating. Most of the funds given are not even sufficient to reach the grassroots, so there needs to be a scaling up of global finance in climate action,” Ngusale says, adding that it is crucial that these funds are scaled up in a way that directly funds locally led grassroots level action so the most vulnerable groups of women and girls can be affected. 

Unfortunately a big area of contention at this year’s COP – and previous conferences – has been that receiving countries have thought the finance pledges were too low and givers thought it was too high. 

But what many activists like Aguilar and Sifuma point out in different ways is that until countries like the US, and international bodies that have undeniable influence over global action – and in this case are also being called to account with regards to climate financing – don’t design implementable policies that take gender into account, nothing will change on ground. 

Aguilar shares that many countries being called on for climate finance keep sidelining gender because “they have bigger fish to fry.” 

“To which I always ask which fish and how are you frying them,” she says. She adds “You can’t leave half of the population behind. Disregarding the potential of half the world’s population is not logical, it’s absurd.”

CIP Logo Wordless Transparent

Awarding Right Wing Nationalists Undermines Democracy

Rula Jebreal is an award-winning journalist, author, scholar, and foreign policy expert and is a board member of the Center for International Policy

Last Tuesday, the Atlantic Council gave its “Global Citizen” award to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. In her acceptance speech, Meloni stressed the importance of patriotism, Western Civilization and remembering one’s roots. Let’s be clear about this: Her conception of patriotism is ultra-nationalist. Last year, Meloni hailed Spain’s neo-fascist Vox Party as patriots when she endorsed them. This at least is consistent. Meloni hails from the tradition of the neo-fascist Movement and has tried to rehabilitate Italy’s fascist past – a bloody history she never totally disavowed. 

The Atlantic Council presents itself as a champion of liberal values, freedom of expression, and the “rules-based international order”. It is putatively opposed to far-right extremism and authoritarianism abroad. Its decision to bestow an award, and its own imprimatur, on someone whose rule and associations are increasingly authoritarian is therefore baffling. 

Since she was elected two years ago, Meloni has been waging a war on journalists, historians and critics, weaponizing defamation lawsuits to intimidate and silence them. I was the first journalist to be sued over a tweet exposing Meloni’s espousal of the Great Replacement Theory, which casts migrants and asylum seekers as criminals and invaders. The Great Replacement Theory has become a staple of neo-fascist ideology, and has motivated racist violence from the Christchurch mosque massacre in New Zealand to theTree of Life synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh.

As if this was not enough, now Meloni’s pro-Putin deputy Matteo Salvini is also suing me for calling him an extremist. In 2018, Salvini’s own party pick as candidate, Luca Traini, was convicted for terrorism because of his attempt to murder six people of color. Traini was cited in the manifesto of Christchurch murderer, who was inspired by Traini’s terrorism. 

Venerating Meloni simply because she has taken the correct position on Ukraine is to miss the forest for the trees.

The environment of fear and persecution that Meloni is fostering in Italy goes beyond attacking professional critics. Meloni is also dismantling LGBTQ rights. Italy is removing gay mothers from children’s birth certificates, as part of the right-wing government’s crackdown on same-sex parenting.

In her award acceptance speech, Meloni defended her brand of nationalism and warned about the creeping infiltration of the West’s enemies, declaring “patriotism is the best response to declinism [sic].” Given her record, one wonders if she was referring to migrants and minorities or the opposition at home that she has often criminalized and incited against. 

Three years ago when Meloni participated in the congress of Spain’s neo-fascist Vox party, she emphasized their shared values: “no to the LGBT lobby, yes to the natural family, no to gender ideology, no to the violence of Islam, no to big international finance, no to the bureaucrats of Brussels.”Meloni’s affinity for Vox is understandable. The party’s charter violates Article 25 of Spain’s Constitution and includes a call to repeal democratic parties, oppose gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights and abortion.

Meloni also engaged in self-praise about her achievements in the field of anti-migrant dehumanization and brutalization, going so far as to present her bankrolling of brutal Arab dictators and warlords in Libya and Egypt (to block migration to Europe) as akin to the fight against slavery.

It’s clear that the Atlantic Council’s decision to give Meloni this award was driven by her support for Ukraine, for which the Council has been one of Washington’s most outspoken institutional advocates (It is also worth noting that, apparently at Meloni’s request, the award was given by right-wing oligarch Elon Musk, under whose control Twitter/X has become a sewer of conspiracy theories, misinformation, and harassment). The Center for International Policy, on whose board I serve, also supports the defense of Ukraine against Russia’s war of aggression. We believe fundamental principles of international law and democratic values are at stake there.

But venerating Meloni simply because she has taken the correct position on Ukraine is to miss the forest for the trees.  Legitimizing far-right leaders –who are actively undermining press freedom, inflaming hatred and xenophobia, weakening LGBTQ rights in their own countries in the mode of Vladimir Putin–  does not uphold democratic values, it betrays them.

CIP Logo Wordless Transparent

Q&A: How Would Harris Shape U.S.-Latin America Relations?

As Kamala Harris prepares to formally accept her party’s nomination at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, CIP senior non-resident fellow María José Espinosa Carillo discussed what a Harris presidency would mean for Latin America in a Q&A with Latin America Advisor (a daily publication of The Dialogue) explaining:

A Harris presidency could bring a renewed, forward-looking vision for U.S. relations with the Americas, focusing on contemporary issues critical to the region. Her track record as vice president, senator and California’s attorney general, particularly her commitment to justice and human rights, aligns closely with the challenges facing Latin America and the Caribbean—a region deeply intertwined with U.S. interests.

In migration policy, the focus will likely be on promoting regional cooperation, as demonstrated by the Biden-Harris administration through the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection. This framework has already facilitated regional collaboration on migration management. Given the strain on resources and infrastructure caused by unprecedented migration flows in the Americas, a Harris presidency will need to capitalize on and expand these efforts to strengthen stabilization and integration of migrants and asylum seekers across the continent.

Harris’ approach to U.S. leadership emphasizes close collaboration with allies and partners, actively listening to their needs and working together on solutions. This is evident in her unprecedented work with Caribbean nations, particularly on climate action. Her commitment to addressing the climate crisis aligns with the region’s pressing needs, where climate change threatens agriculture, infrastructure and coastal communities. Her leadership, including historic investments in climate initiatives, could drive collaboration on renewable energy, conservation and sustainable development, aligning U.S. policies with regional efforts.

As women’s rights become central to policy and female politicians break the mold in Latin America, a Harris presidency would continue to advocate for these rights, including access to abortion, health care, combating gender-based violence and promoting women’s economic empowerment.

Read the original article here.

Lawmakers, Progressive Leaders Urge Reorientation of Foreign Policy as a 2024 Imperative

On February 6, Members of Congress and progressive movement leaders gathered at a conference hosted by the Center for International Policy (CIP), demanding changes to US foreign policy decisions as a necessity in a consequential year that will determine the trajectory of the US both at home and globally.

In a keynote address seen by over 60,000 people, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) argued that the concentration of wealth and power foments war, violence and mass insecurity for everyday people globally, benefiting billionaires at the expense of whole families, nations, peoples and regions and declared that, “For many decades we have seen a ‘bipartisan consensus’ on foreign policy—a consensus which, sadly, has almost always been wrong.”

Pointing to the distorting influence of moneyed forces ranging from AIPAC, super PACs, big defense contractors, fossil fuel companies, pharmaceutical companies, oligarchs supporting Putin, Trump and other autocrats, and other multi-billionaires and multinational corporations; as well as the growth of right-wing extremism, tax havens and economic inequality, Senator Sanders declared, “It’s hard to overstate just how fundamentally this broken global financial system undermines faith in democracy and saps our ability to deal with the pressing crises we face today.”

“​​We live in a world where a small number of multi-billionaires and multinational corporations exert enormous economic and political power over virtually every country on earth,” added Sanders. “That reality has a huge impact on all aspects of our foreign policy and whether or not we will be able to effectively address the major crises we face.”

In a “Congress and Progressive Foreign Policy” session, Members of Congress discussed their personal pathways to foreign policy and outlined key challenges and opportunities for a “people-centered national security” that delivers for people in the US and the Global South, recognizes the interdependence of domestic and foreign policy on issues like migration and climate change, and allows the outside world to interact with the US in positive ways like refugee resettlement rather than negative, militarized interactions.

“Nowadays, most people are interacting with the United States through drones, through weapons that are made in the US that are in the hands of dictators, police or their military, or they’re interacting with us in regards to sanctions that are making it hard for them to have necessary medication and food. And that creates a national security problem for us,” said Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

“We’ve spent more on border security since 2013 than was in the immigration reform bill of 2013. And we’ve seen no improvement in anything because we haven’t fundamentally shifted the system. So we have to think about, how do we invest in other countries? Our foreign policy is directly tied to this,” added Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).

“What I would like to see is a people-centered security, where the United States can actually engage with people of a nation, and help empower them, help them pursue freedom and dignity on their terms, not necessarily our terms,” concluded Representative Jason Crow (D-CO).

In “Prioritizing a Progressive Foreign Policy Agenda,” regional experts discussed strategies for the US to reorient its relations to better serve the people and address the realities and needs on the ground. Speaking to the pitfalls of Great Power Competition and the Cold War as frameworks for US-China relations, China expert Ali Wyne declared, “Diplomacy is not something that you do out of kindness to competitors. It’s something that you do to advance your own national interest.” “We can’t support a progressive movement in Ukraine if they’re dead,” emphasized Terrell Jermaine Starr. Speaking on Latin America, María José Espinosa Carillo stressed, “We have deep connections with the region, not only through our borders, but also through funding and economic ties. But what’s more important, there is a renewed vision of the region.”

In “The Political Necessity of a New Foreign Policy,” movement leaders from MoveOn, Center for American Progress, AFL-CIO and Win Without War explored the intersection of domestic and foreign affairs, offering their analysis of policy tradeoffs and highlighting how they see these issues moving the progressive base.

“That [progressive foreign policy] actually is not just a morally and ethical position, but it is an electorally salient one, one that is a winning position in elections,” declared MoveOn executive director Rahna Epting. “With Biden, he campaigned in 2020 promising to end endless wars, and that helped him win. That was one of the reasons I believe helped him win in that election cycle. And now we see Donald Trump poised to exploit the current situation in Israel Gaza and how that’s going to show up in November.” 

Center for American Progress president and CEO Patrick Gaspard described the threat of antidemocratic forces at home and abroad, and said, “We’re now in a place of the world where you win votes by arguing that you build a moat around yourselves and pull up the drawbridge, our progressive transnationalism, internationalism is not actually ascendant. We should recognize that and we should fight fiercely.”

This fight for democracy at home and abroad takes place not just at the ballot box but in workplaces too. Cathy Feingold, International Director for the AFL-CIO, argued we must recast our priorities in favor of “ worker-centered security,” explaining, “It sends a very specific message to people in this country and around the world who are working day in and day out and want to make sure that they can live with dignity. I have found that workers here and workers around the world are interconnected.”

Win Without War executive director Sara Haghdoosti added, “We talk about foreign policy like there are not people in this country who have family connections, and deep commitment to what happens around the world. And it’s just not okay. That’s not how people work.”

View all the key moments from the conference on YouTube here and read opening remarks from CIP president and CEO Nancy Okail here.