Member States’ representatives (Coreper) endorsed the Council’s negotiating position on FDI screening revision. Source link
Home Blog
The world pledged to end child labour by 2025: So why are 138 million kids still working?
There are 10,000 children in Madagascar who, like Tenasoa, work in the largely unregulated mica industry. The silicate is used in paints, car parts, and cosmetics – to add a “shimmer” effect.
Alongside parents and grandparents, these children toil in dangerous conditions, inhaling harmful dust particles and entering structurally unsound tunnels. Many of them have dropped out of school – if they ever went at all.
“If we don’t work, we don’t eat,” Soja, Tenasoa’s grandfather, said. “It’s very simple. Men, women and children must all work to survive.”
In 2015, the United Nations set a goal to end child labour worldwide by 2025 but progress has been slow and halting, according to the Child Labour Report released on Wednesday by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
The report estimates that 138 million children – a 12 million decrease from 2020 – are still engaged in child labour, leading both ILO and UNICEF to call for the rapid acceleration of progress.
“The findings of our report offer hope and show that progress is possible … But we must not be blindsided by the fact that we still have a long way to go,” ILO Director-General Gilbert F. Houngbo said.
Hazardous work
Since 2000, the number of children in child labour has been reduced by over 100 million, a promising decrease which proves that the world has a “blueprint” to end child labour. Much work remains, however.
“Far too many children continue to toil in mines, factories or fields, often doing hazardous work to survive,” said Catherine Russell, Executive Director of UNICEF.
Child labour does not refer to all work done by children. Rather, it is work which deprives children of their childhood and is often dangerous to their health and development.
“It is important to understand that [child labour] is not household chores, it is not children helping their parents around the house…We are talking about work that is oftentimes hazardous,” Benajamin Smith, an ILO child labour expert told UN News.
Of the 138 million children in child labour, 54 million work in hazardous conditions, including mines.
Honorine, aged 13, is one of these children. She works from 10am to 5pm every day in a gravel quarry in Benin. Paid by the number of buckets of gravel she collects, she is saving her wages, hoping to train to be a hairdresser one day.
A young boy in Thailand takes a break while working in intense heat as a labourer.
Behind the statistics
The report notes that child labour is intergenerational. Children in child labour systems often struggle to access education, something which in turn compromises their future opportunities and creates a cycle of poverty and deprivation.
Federico Blanco, ILO expert and lead author of the Child Labour Report, noted that it is important to think of child labour as not just statistical.
“Behind every number, let’s remind ourselves that there is a child whose right to education, protection and decent future is being denied,” Mr Blanco said.
Nur, a 13-year-old Rohingya refugee in Bangladesh, was pulled out of school by his parents in order to help support his family financially. A case worker at a nearby UNICEF-funded centre identified Nur and convinced his family to put him back into school.
“I once dreamt of becoming a teacher. I thought I would never be able to become one. But now I feel that I can learn and become a teacher like I always wanted to,” Nur said.
‘A holistic approach’
In the report, UNICEF and ILO called for integrated policy solutions which work across governmental sectors, addressing the problem from an educational, economic and social perspective.
The report also highlighted that ending child labour cannot be accomplished without also thinking about the conditions that drive families to send their children to work – namely, poverty.
Upholding parents’ rights – including the right to collectively bargain, the right to safe work – is also key for ending child labour.
“The ILO looks at [child labour] in quite a holistic way because it is just as important [for] tackling child labour to make sure that the adults have good working conditions because poverty is really at the heart of child labour,” Mr Smith said.
Taking a country-driven approach is especially important due to regional disparities in child labour – the report noted that while all regions saw decreased numbers, Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for two-thirds of child labour worldwide.
Childhood dreams – underfunded and unfulfilled
Attempts to end child labour face significant headwinds as a result of funding shortages.
“Global funding cuts threaten to roll back hard-earned gains. We must recommit to ensuring that children are in classrooms and playgrounds, not at work,” Ms. Russell said.
Adwara, aged 10, dreams of being in class. He attended school for a few years and tried to balance work and school but with eight siblings, helping support his family was non-negotiable. Eventually, his teacher told him not to return – he was missing too much school.
Now, he works in a gold mine in Ethiopia, earning approximately $35 per day: “I’d like to go to school,” he said. “I’d like to become someone.”
Myanmar on the ‘path to self-destruction’ if violence does not end
Since then, “there has been no end to the violence, even though thousands have been killed and thousands more injured,” said UN Special Envoy to Myanmar, Julie Bishop, on Tuesday, briefing the General Assembly.
“I have stressed consistently that without a ceasefire, a de-escalation of violence and a focus on the needs of the people, there can be no inclusive lasting peace,” she said.
Call for ceasefire
Having spoken with survivors among the rubble of homes, hospitals and schools, Ms. Bishop said they “wanted the fighting to end so they could live in peace,” as armed clashes continue to obstruct the aid and reconstruction effort.
Although some parties to the conflict have announced ceasefires, “they have largely not been observed,” she said.
Reiterating her call for an end to hostilities she said civilian protection “must be the priority and inclusive and sustainable peace a shared goal.”
Without and end to the violence she said Myanmar would continue on “the path to self-destruction.”
Contested elections
Ms. Bishop warned that unless there is an end to the violence and an inclusive and transparent electoral process, all that could result from any election – which the junta is planning to contest – would be “greater resistance and instability.”
“It is inconceivable how an election could be inclusive,” she said, with so many political leaders still being held by the regime.
Ms Bishop also reiterated the UN’s call for the release of all arbitrary prisoners, including democratically elected leaders Win Myint and Aung San Suu Kyi.
Rohingya’s plight
With up to 80 per cent living in poverty, the situation of the mostly Muslim Rohingya minority in both Myanmar and Bangladesh remains dire.
Caught in the crossfire between the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army, Rohingya civilians in their historic homeland of Rakhine State are being subjected to forced recruitment and other abuse.
As aid dwindles, Rohingyas living in Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar face real consequences, including cuts to food rations and education.
“A viable future for Myanmar must ensure safety, accountability, and opportunity for all its communities, including Rohingya, and must address the root causes of conflict, discrimination and disenfranchisement in all its forms,” said Ms. Bishop.
sustaining global cooperation in a fragmenting world
Speech by Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB, at the People’s Bank of China in Beijing
Beijing, 11 June 2025
It is a pleasure to be back here in Beijing.
Some years ago, I spoke about how a changing world was creating a new global map of economic relations.[1]
Maps have always reflected the society in which they are produced. But in rare instances, they can also capture historical moments when two societies meet at the crossroads.
This was evident in the late 1500s during the Ming Dynasty, when Matteo Ricci, a European Jesuit, travelled to China. There Ricci went on to work with Chinese scholars to create a hybrid map that integrated European geographical knowledge with Chinese cartographic tradition.[2]
The result of this cooperation – called the Kunyu Wanguo Quantu, or “Map of Ten Thousand Countries” – was historically unprecedented. And the encounter came to symbolise China’s openness to the world.
In the modern era, we saw a similar moment when China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. The country’s accession to the WTO signified its integration into the international economy and its openness to global trade.
China’s entry into the WTO went on to reshape the global map of economic relations at a time of rapid trade growth, bringing significant benefits to countries across the world – particularly here in China.
Since that time, the global economy has changed dramatically. In recent years, trade tensions have emerged and a geopolitically charged landscape is making international cooperation increasingly difficult.
Yet the emergence of tensions in the international economic system is a recurring pattern across modern economic history.
Over the last century, frictions have surfaced under a range of international configurations – from the inter-war gold exchange standard, to the post-war Bretton Woods system, to the subsequent era of floating exchange rates and free capital flows.
While each system was unique, two common lessons cut across this history.
First, one-sided adjustments to resolve global frictions have often fallen short, regardless of whether deficit or surplus countries carry the burden. In fact, they can bring with them either unpredictable or costly consequences.
Such adjustments can be especially problematic when trade policies are used as a substitute for macroeconomic policies in addressing the root causes.
And second, in the event that tensions do emerge, durable strategic and economic alliances have proven critical in preventing tail risks from materialising.
In contrast to eras when ties of cooperation were weak, alliances have ultimately helped to prevent a broader surge in protectionism or a systemic fragmentation of trade.
These two lessons have implications for today. Frictions are increasingly emerging between regions whose geopolitical interests may not be fully aligned. At the same time, however, these regions are more deeply economically integrated than ever before.
The upshot is that while the incentive to cooperate is reduced, the costs of not doing so are now amplified.
So the stakes are high.
If we are to avoid inferior outcomes, we all must work towards sustaining global cooperation in a fragmenting world.
Tensions across history
If we look at the history of the international economic system over the past century, we can broadly divide it into three periods.
In the first period, the inter-war years, major economies were tied together by the gold exchange standard – a regime of fixed exchange rates, with currencies linked to gold either directly or indirectly.
But unlike the pre-war era, when the United Kingdom played a dominant global role[3], there was no global hegemon. Nor were there impactful international organisations to enforce rules or coordinate policies.
The system’s flaws quickly became apparent.[4] Exchange rate misalignments caused persistent tensions between surplus and deficit countries. Yet the burden of adjustment fell overwhelmingly on the deficit side.
Facing outflows of gold, deficit countries were forced into harsh deflation. Meanwhile, surplus countries faced little pressure to reflate. By 1932, two surplus countries accounted for over 60% of the world share of gold reserves.[5]
One-sided adjustments failed to resolve the underlying problems. And without strong alliances to contain tail risks, tensions escalated. Countries turned to trade measures in an attempt to reduce imbalances in the system – but protectionism offered no sustainable solution.
In fact, if current account positions narrowed at all, it was only because of the fall-off in world trade and output. The volume of global trade fell by around one-quarter between 1929 and 1933[6], with one study attributing nearly half of this fall to higher trade barriers.[7] World output declined by almost 30% in this period.[8]
During the Second World War, leaders took the lessons to heart. They laid the groundwork for what became the Bretton Woods system in the early post-war era: a framework of fixed exchange rates and capital controls.
This marked the beginning of the second period.
The new regime was anchored by the US dollar’s convertibility into gold, with the International Monetary Fund acting as a referee. Trade flourished during this era. Between 1950 and 1973[9], world trade expanded at an average rate of over 8% per year.[10]
But again, frictions emerged.
In particular, the United States had shifted from initially running balance of payments surpluses to persistent deficits. At the heart of this shift was the role of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and source of liquidity for global trade.
While US deficits provided the world with vital dollar liquidity, those very same deficits strained the dollar’s gold convertibility at USD 35 per ounce, threatening confidence in the system.
By the late 1960s, foreign holdings of US dollars – amounting to almost USD 50 billion – were roughly five times the size of US gold reserves.[11]
Ultimately, these tensions proved unsustainable as the United States was unwilling to sacrifice domestic policy goals – which generated fiscal deficits – for its external commitments.
The Bretton Woods system ended abruptly in 1971, when President Nixon unilaterally suspended the US dollar’s convertibility into gold and imposed a 10% surcharge on imports.
The goal behind the surcharge was to force US trading partners to revalue their currencies against the dollar, which was perceived as being overvalued.[12] As in earlier periods, this was a one-sided adjustment – though now aimed at shifting the burden onto surplus countries.
Crucially, however, the downfall of Bretton Woods unfolded within the context of the Cold War. Countries operating under the system were not just trading partners – they were allies.
And so, everyone had a strong geopolitical incentive to pick up the pieces and forge new cooperative agreements that could facilitate trade relationships, even in moments of pronounced volatility.
We saw this several months after the “Nixon Shock”, when Western countries negotiated the Smithsonian Agreement.
This agreement was a temporary fix to maintain an international system of fixed exchange rates. It devalued the US dollar by over 12% against the currencies of its major trading partners and removed President Nixon’s surcharge.[13]
And we saw a strong geopolitical incentive at work again with the Plaza Accord in the 1980s – an era of floating exchange rates and free capital flows – when deficit and surplus countries in the Group of Five[14] sat down to try and resolve tensions.
Of course, neither agreement ultimately succeeded in addressing the root causes of tensions. But critically, the risk of a broader turn toward protectionism – which was rising at several points[15] – never materialised.
The contrast is telling.
Both the inter-war and post-war eras revealed that one-sided adjustments cannot sustainably resolve economic frictions – whether on the deficit or surplus side.
Yet the post-war system proved far more resilient, because the countries within it had deeper strategic reasons to cooperate.
Frictions threatening global trade today
In recent decades, we have been moving into a third period.
Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen the rapid expansion of truly global trade.
Trade in goods and services has risen roughly fivefold to over USD 30 trillion.[16] Trade as a share of global GDP has increased from around 38% to nearly 60%.[17] And countries have become much more integrated through global supply chains. At the end of the Cold War, these chains accounted for around two-fifths of global trade.[18] Today, they account for over two-thirds.[19]
Yet this globalisation has unfolded in a world where – increasingly – not all nations are bound by the same security guarantees or strategic alliances. In 1985 just 90 countries were party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Today, its successor – the WTO – counts 166 members, representing 98% of global trade.[20]
There is no doubt that this new era has amplified the benefits of trade.
Some originally lower-income countries have experienced remarkable gains – none more so than China.
Since joining the WTO, China’s GDP per capita has increased roughly twelvefold.[21] The welfare impact has been equally profound: almost 800 million people in China have been lifted out of poverty, accounting for nearly three-quarters of global poverty reduction in recent decades.[22]
Advanced economies, too, have benefited, albeit unevenly. While some industries and jobs have faced pressure from heightened import competition[23], consumers have enjoyed lower prices and greater choice. And for firms able to climb the value chain, the rewards have been substantial – especially in Europe.
Today, EU exports to the rest of the world generate more than €2.5 trillion in value added – nearly one-fifth of the EU’s total – and support over 31 million jobs.[24]
But the weakening alignment between trade relationships and security alliances has left the global system more exposed – a vulnerability now playing out in real time.
According to the International Monetary Fund, trade restrictions across goods, services and investments have tripled since 2019 alone.[25] And in recent months, we have seen tariff levels imposed that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago.
This fragmentation is being driven by two forces.
The first is geopolitical realignment. As I have outlined in recent years, geopolitical tensions are playing an increasingly decisive role in reshaping the global economy.[26] Countries are reconfiguring trade relationships and supply chains to reflect national security priorities, rather than economic efficiency alone.
The second force is the growing perception of unfair trade – often linked to widening current account positions.
Current account surpluses and deficits are not inherently problematic, particularly when they reflect structural factors such as comparative advantage or demographic trends.
But these imbalances become more contentious when they do not resolve over time and create the perception that they are being sustained by policy choices – whether through the blocking of macroeconomic adjustment mechanisms or a lack of respect for global rules.
Indeed, while in recent decades the persistence of current account positions has remained fairly constant, the dispersion of those positions – that is, how widely surpluses and deficits are spread across countries – has shifted significantly.
In the mid-1990s current account deficits and surpluses were similarly dispersed within their respective groups: both were relatively evenly distributed among several countries.[27]
Today, that balance has changed. Deficits have become far more concentrated, with just a few countries accounting for the bulk of global deficits. In contrast, surpluses have become somewhat more dispersed, spread across a wider range of countries.
These developments have recently led to coercive trade policies and risk fragmenting global supply chains.
Making global trade sustainable
Given national security considerations and the experience during the pandemic, a certain degree of de-risking is here to stay. Few countries are willing to remain dependent on others for strategic industries.
But it does not follow that we must forfeit the broader benefits of trade – so long as we are willing to absorb the lessons of history. Let me draw two conclusions for the current situation.
First, coercive trade policies are not a sustainable solution to today’s trade tensions.
To the extent that protectionism addresses imbalances, it is not by resolving their root causes, but by eroding the foundations of global prosperity.
And with countries now deeply integrated through global supply chains – yet no longer as geopolitically aligned as in the past – this risk is greater than ever. Coercive trade policies are far more likely to provoke retaliation and lead to outcomes that are mutually damaging.
The shared risks we face are underscored by ECB analysis. Our staff find that if global trade were to fragment into competing blocs, world trade would contract significantly, with every major economy worse off.[28]
This leads me to the second conclusion: if we are serious about preserving our prosperity, we must pursue cooperative solutions – even in the face of geopolitical differences. And that means both surplus and deficit countries must take responsibility and play their part.
All countries should examine how their structural and fiscal policies can be adjusted to reduce their own role in fuelling trade tensions.
Indeed, both supply-side and demand-side dynamics have contributed to dispersion of current accounts positions we see today.
On the supply side, we have witnessed a sharp rise in the use of industrial policies aimed at boosting domestic capacity. Since 2014, subsidy-related interventions that distort global trade have more than tripled globally. [29]
Notably, this trend is now being driven as much by emerging markets as by advanced economies. In 2021, domestic subsidies accounted for two-thirds of all trade-related policies in the average G20 emerging market, consistently outpacing the share seen in advanced G20 economies.[30]
On the demand side, global demand generation has become more concentrated, especially in the United States. A decade ago, the United States accounted for less than 30% of demand generated by G20 countries. Today, that share has risen to nearly 35%.
This increasing imbalance in demand reflects not only excess saving in some parts of the world, but also excess dissaving in others, especially by the public sector.
Of course, none of us can determine the actions of others. But we can control our own contribution.
Doing so would not only serve the collective interest – by helping to ease pressure on the global system – but also the domestic interest, by setting our own economies on a more sustainable path.
We can also lead by example by continuing to respect global rules – or even improving on them. This helps build trust and creates the foundation for reciprocal actions.
That means upholding the multilateral framework which has so greatly benefited our economies. And it means working with like-minded partners to forge bilateral and regional agreements rooted in mutual benefit and full WTO compatibility.[31]
Central banks, in line with their respective mandates, can also play a role.
We can stand firm as pillars of international cooperation in an era when such cooperation is hard to come by. And we can continue to deliver stability-oriented policies in a world marked by rising volatility and instability.
Conclusion
Let me conclude.
In a fragmenting world, regions need to work together to sustain global trade – which has delivered prosperity in recent decades.
Of course, given the geopolitical landscape, that will be a harder challenge today than it has been in the past. But as Confucius once observed, “Virtue is not left to stand alone. He who practices it will have neighbours”.
Today, to make history, we must learn from history. We must absorb the lessons of the past – and act on them – to prevent a mutually damaging escalation of tensions.
In doing so, we all can draw a new map for global cooperation.
We have done it before. And we can do it again.
Thank you.
Ukraine/Russia: press remarks by High Representative/Vice-President Kaja Kallas at the joint press conference on the 18th package of sanctions against Russia
Ukraine/Russia: press remarks by High Representative/Vice-President Kaja Kallas at the joint press conference on the 18th package of sanctions against Russia
Israeli attacks on Gaza schools could be crimes against humanity: UN probe
The UN Human Rights Council-mandated Independent International Commission of Inquiry (COI) report found that Israeli forces have used airstrikes, shelling, burning, and controlled demolitions to damage or destroy more than 90 per cent of schools and university buildings across Gaza.
This destruction in the wake of the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led terror attacks on Israel has made education impossible for over 658,000 children, many of whom have been out of school for nearly two years.
“We are seeing more and more indications that Israel is carrying out a concerted campaign to obliterate Palestinian life in Gaza,” said Navi Pillay, Chair of the Commission.
“Israel’s targeting of the educational, cultural and religious life of the Palestinian people will harm the present generations and generations to come, hindering their right to self-determination.”
Classroom-turned military base
The COI documented cases where Israeli forces seized and used educational institutions as military bases, including the conversion of part of Al-Azhar University’s Al-Mughraqa campus into a synagogue for troops.
The report also noted one instance where Hamas militants used a school for military purposes. Such conduct is a breach of international humanitarian law, which mandates the distinction between civilian objects and military targets.
Targeting of religious sites
More than half of Gaza’s religious and cultural sites have been damaged or destroyed, including places serving as refuges for civilians – killing hundreds, including women and children.
The Commission stated that Israeli forces knew or should have known the cultural significance of these sites and failed to prevent harm.
In the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli authorities appropriated, developed and profited from cultural heritage sites representing Palestinian, Jewish and other cultures, while displaced Palestinian residents.
They have also blocked or severely restricted Palestinians from accessing the sites.
“Attacks on cultural and religious sites have deeply impacted intangible culture, such as religious and cultural practices, memories and history,” said Ms. Pillay.
“The targeting and destruction of heritage sites, the limiting of access to those sites in the West Bank and the erasure of their heterogenic history erode Palestinians’ historical ties to the land and weaken their collective identity.”
Recommendations
The Commission called on Israel to immediately cease attacks on cultural, religious, and educational institutions and to end the seizure and military use of such facilities. It urged Israel to end its occupation and settlement activities, especially near religious and cultural sites, and to comply fully with International Court of Justice (ICJ) orders.
Investigators also urged Palestinian authorities to protect and preserve cultural heritage sites, including those of diverse origins, calling on de facto authorities in Gaza to stop using civilian objects for military purposes.
Humanitarian crisis spiralling
UN agencies continue to warn of a worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) highlighted the case of a five-year-old malnourished child whose recovery depends on adequate food and sustained care.
“Aid at scale must be allowed into Gaza for children’s health and survival,” the agency urged.
‘Another day of death traps’
Philippe Lazzarini, head of the UN agency assisting Palestine refugees, expressed deep concern over delays and obstacles in aid delivery, urging Israel to allow the UN safe and unhindered access to bring in supplies and distribute it safely.
“This is the only way to avert mass starvation including among one million children,” he said.
Mr. Lazzarini warned that casualties and injuries continue to be reported daily at US-backed distribution points managed by Israeli and private security forces – creating in effect, daily death traps.
He described the system as humiliating, forcing thousands of hungry and desperate people to walk tens of miles, while excluding the most vulnerable and those living too far from aid centres.
Food aid disrupted
The UN World Food Programme (WFP) reported that 59 trucks carrying essential wheat flour to northern Gaza were intercepted and offloaded by starving civilians desperate to feed their families.
A second convoy of 21 trucks bound for southern Gaza faced a 36-hour delay awaiting clearances.
As of 10 June – nearly three weeks after the limited resumption of aid – WFP transported over 700 trucks to the Kerem Shalom crossing, compared to 600-700 trucks of aid transported per day during the ceasefire earlier this year.
“To stave off starvation, stabilize markets and calm desperation, we need to consistently support the entire population with basic food requirements every month,” WFP said.
Insecurity and lawlessness in Gaza have also led to trucks being looted, injuring drivers and damaging trucks.
WFP called for faster approvals, safe routes and open crossings, as well as an urgent ceasefire, to allow it to reach those in need.
“The food aid brought into Gaza during the ceasefire helped to push back the tide of hunger. We can do this again.”
ECB appoints Thomas Vlassopoulos as Director General Market Infrastructure and Payments
Home Media Explainers Research & Publications Statistics Monetary Policy The €uro Payments & Markets Careers Source link
Global action needed as progress stalls on disability-inclusive development goals
“The message is stark: persons with disabilities face higher poverty, greater unemployment, deeper food and health insecurity and more limited access to education, jobs, and digital technologies,” said Amina Mohammed.
But action is underway.
The 18th Session of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (COSP18) will focus on enhancing public awareness of the rights and contributions of persons with disabilities for social development.
Progressive roots
Chair of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Kim Mi-Yeon, underscored the importance of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, now 20 years old, even amid growing global challenges.
“The CRPD is the most progressive human rights treaty of the 21st century…It marked a decisive shift – from medical and charity models to a rights-based approach – and affirms the duty to dismantle structural and gender-based discrimination,” said Mr. Kim.
Even with the ongoing UN liquidity crisis, he highlighted the momentum across the world for bolstering rights, including the International Forum on Disability Employment in Korea.
Gaining momentum
The social development agenda aims to continue building momentum for disability rights and social development ahead of two major upcoming events: the Second World Summit for Social Development in November and the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development later this month, FFD4, taking place in the Spanish city of Sevilla.
This week’s agenda
From Tuesday to Thursday, the conference will feature speeches by UN and civil society leaders, a public debate on the rights and contributions of persons with disabilities and three roundtables.
The roundtables will explore financing for disability-inclusive development, harnessing artificial intelligence for inclusion and advancing the rights of Indigenous persons with disabilities
Government officials, civil society representatives, UN agencies, and experts will share strategies and best practices throughout the event.
USCIRF A Beacon of Bipartisanship in the Global Fight for Religious Freedom
In today’s deeply polarized political climate, where partisan divides often seem insurmountable, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) stands out as a rare and vital example of sustained bipartisan cooperation. Established by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, USCIRF is an independent, nonpartisan federal commission tasked with monitoring religious freedom violations around the world and advising the U.S. government on how to respond.
Despite representing different political ideologies and appointed by leaders across the executive and legislative branches, the commissioners are united by one core principle: the belief that religious freedom is a universal human right — not just a domestic concern or a partisan issue, but a moral imperative with global consequences.
Religious freedom lies at the intersection of faith, politics, and international diplomacy. It affects everything from refugee crises and humanitarian aid to trade agreements and diplomatic relations. When religious minorities are persecuted, societies destabilize. When individuals are punished for what they believe — or don’t believe — entire regions become breeding grounds for extremism, displacement, and conflict.
That’s where USCIRF comes in.
The commission plays a critical role in shaping U.S. foreign policy by identifying countries where religious freedom is under threat, recommending sanctions or diplomatic actions, and advocating for persecuted communities worldwide. Each year, USCIRF releases a comprehensive Annual Report , highlighting the most urgent cases of religious persecution and naming nations that should be designated as Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs) by the U.S. Department of State.
What makes USCIRF particularly unique is not just its mission — but how it operates. Unlike many government bodies that reflect the ideology of the current administration, USCIRF is structured to ensure ideological balance . Its nine commissioners are appointed by both major political parties across the White House and Congress, ensuring continuity and legitimacy regardless of which party holds power.
This structure allows USCIRF to maintain consistency in its recommendations and credibility across administrations. Whether it’s condemning the repression of Uyghur Muslims in China, calling attention to the persecution of Christians in North Korea, or advocating for Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan, the commission speaks with a unified voice — even when its members come from different backgrounds and beliefs.
In this article, we take a closer look at the current commissioners of USCIRF — their appointments, professional experiences, and some of the statements made in public forums, statements, and official documents. While their perspectives may differ, their commitment to defending religious freedom remains unwavering.
Because in a world where belief can still be dangerous, having a bipartisan body dedicated to protecting the right to believe — or not believe — freely, is more important than ever.
Commissioners at a Glance
| Commissioner | Party Affiliation | Appointed By | Term Expires |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stephen Schneck | D | President Joe Biden | May 2026 |
| Meir Soloveichik | R | Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell | May 2026 |
| Ariela Dubler | D | Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer | May 2026 |
| Mohamed Elsanousi | D | President Joe Biden | May 2026 |
| Maureen Ferguson | R | House Speaker Mike Johnson | May 2026 |
| Vicky Hartzler (Chair) | R | House Speaker Mike Johnson | May 2026 |
| Asif Mahmood (Vice Chair) | D | House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries | May 2026 |
Profiles with Quotes
Dr. Stephen Schneck
Appointed by then President Joe Biden (D)
Term: May 2023–May 2026
A scholar of politics and religion, Dr. Stephen Schneck has long focused on the moral dimensions of public life. He previously served as a commissioner under President Obama and returned under President Biden.
“Religious freedom is not only a core U.S. foreign policy objective but also a fundamental human right that must be protected universally.”
— USCIRF 2024 Annual Report – Executive Summary
Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik
Appointed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Term: May 2023–May 2026
A leading voice in Jewish thought, Rabbi Soloveichik is director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University and rabbi of Congregation Shearith Israel in New York City.
“When any faith community is silenced, all of us lose something essential to the human spirit.”
— Remarks at USCIRF Roundtable on Middle East Persecution, January 30, 2024
Ariela Dubler
Appointed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Term: May 2023–May 2026
An expert in constitutional law, Dubler teaches at the University of Virginia School of Law. Her appointment brings legal analysis to the commission’s work.
Dr. Mohamed Elsanousi
Appointed by then President Joe Biden (D)
Term: May 2023–May 2026
A specialist in interfaith conflict resolution, Elsanousi has worked extensively with international peacebuilding organizations and focuses on communities affected by violence and persecution.
“Peace cannot exist where belief is punished. Religious freedom is the foundation of sustainable peace.”
— Keynote Address at Interfaith Peacebuilders Summit, October 19, 2023
Maureen Ferguson
Appointed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA)
Term: May 2023–May 2026
Ferguson is a senior policy analyst at the Catholic Association and has been active in domestic religious liberty issues.
“Persecution abroad and pressure on faith at home are two sides of the same coin — both demand our vigilance.”
— Panel Discussion at Heritage Foundation, November 15, 2023
Vicky Hartzler (Chair)
Appointed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA)
Term: May 2023–May 2026
Former U.S. Representative Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) brings legislative experience and a strong record on defense and religious liberty to her leadership role.
“As Chair of USCIRF, I will not stop sounding the alarm until persecuted communities know they are not forgotten.”
— Press Release, USCIRF, February 28, 2024
Asif Mahmood (Vice Chair)
Appointed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
Term: May 2023–May 2026
Mahmood is a corporate attorney and advocate for interfaith engagement. He has worked with Muslim-American communities and promotes inclusion in policymaking.
“Religious freedom means protecting not just what you believe, but who you are allowed to be.”
— Speech at Islamic Society of North America Conference, August 2, 2024
Conclusion: Unity Through Principle
Despite differing perspectives and political affiliations, the current members of USCIRF share a common conviction: that religious freedom is a cornerstone of human dignity. Their collective efforts reinforce the idea that this right must be defended across borders, ideologies, and faith traditions.
In a world where repression of belief continues to rise, USCIRF serves not only as a watchdog but also as a reminder that consensus on core values is still possible — even in divided times.
#USCIRF, #ReligiousFreedom, #Bipartisanship, #HumanRights, #InternationalPolicy
ECB appoints Thomas Vlassopoulos as Director General Market Infrastructure and Payments
Home
Media
Explainers
Research & Publications
Statistics
Monetary Policy
The €uro
Payments & Markets
Careers
