2026 International Patriotic Pact Organization Forum (Autumn) - Morning Session

Founder of IPO. Cheers. Experts. Good morning. In this month of peace and hope, we meeting beautiful Nairobi. To jointly open the 2026 IPO. Autumn Forum. First, on behalf of the organizers, I warmly welcome all IPU co-initiators and friends from around the world. Welcome. I also thank relevant UN bodies, representatives of Member States and international civil society groups for supporting this forum. Today, we jointly gather here to continue the successful dialogue that began in Geneva this spring. Today is the International Day of Peace. We will discuss the topic that is core to all human race. the International Patriotic Pact, and every nation's right to develop. We will discuss a new international order for peace. The world is going through major changes. Peace and development face serious threats. Unilateralism, hegemonic practices, extraterritorial measures are all making international relations less democratic. They're also harming the right to development for developing countries and peoples. In this context, the International Patriotic Pact and its principles are especially important. Its core principle is love your country without harming others. The pact unites civil society around justice. It also gives us a legal basis to oppose hegemony and build fairer international relations. Every nation is sovereign and independent. Therefore, every nation has the right to develop. Without national development, there cannot be human rights or lasting peace. This forum aims to create a civil society review mechanism for every nation for every nation's right to development. This mechanism will not interfere in domestic affairs. It will provide fair oversight by civil society. It will help all countries, especially the Global South, to choose their own development paths and achieve sustainable prosperity. We believe firmly one country's prosperity should not depend on another country's poverty. The international community must oppose any hegemonic act that harms any other nation's right to develop. We lead grassroots civil society groups. and our respective sectors, we have a duty to act. The world is increasingly unstable. We cannot remain passive or let others decide our nation's future. Governments should not shape the world alone. Grassroots civil society must also have a voice and take responsibility on this global, on this blue planet. We come from many countries and different sectors. We work closely with the local community every day. We feel people's hopes and hardships in different seasons. We are a group that's closest to the people. We understand what our countries and our communities need and what our people needs. Therefore, we must act with strong will and unite together. We need to build a global platform for civil society to take part in global governance. Together, we can contribute to peace and our communities, our common future, by contributing our wisdom. Our platform is new, and its structures are not yet complete, but if we stay committed, It can become an important part of global governance as long as we persevere. Fellow IPO co initiators. NGO representatives. Friends. Ladies and gentlemen. Tensha, Dutton or harmony for all. Is a core ideal of Chinese civilization. Today. responsible civil society leaders also need to seek governance in which everyone can take part. Let us work together through IPO and this forum. Let civil society help build a new international order for peace and shared prosperity. We're able to contribute wisdom and power through this civil society organization. Lastly, I wish the forum every success. Next, let's watch a special video, a video remark. IPPO, forum's chair, who is a co-initiator, Dr. Hans, due to his scheduling conflicts, cannot be here in person. And in Vienna, even though he's in Vienna, he's still very much related and connected with this forum. Dr. Hans is in his 80s, he's one of the initiators of IPO. This organization that was established in 1972 has already gained a consultative status in the 1970s from economic and social forum. And it was one of the early organizations that joined. It's inside. is a foundation of half a century of wisdom from international civil organizations. Please join us in watching this video from the elders of this organization.

Distinguished Mr. Gwade Kuy, dear participants and colleagues from the United Nations Office at Nairobi, dear guests, I speak to you today from the head office of the International Progress Organization in Vienna. As co-founder of the IPPO, I sincerely regret that logistical circumstances have made it impossible for me to travel to Nairobi and to chair the forum here at the African headquarters of the United Nations. After our previous successful events at the United Nations in New York and Geneva, this year's Autumn Forum comes at a particularly crucial time of geopolitical tension and turbulence. The ongoing conflicts and confrontations directly and massively impact the people's right to development everywhere. The illegal use of armed force in blatant violation of the United Nations Charter against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries in different regions and continents has not only profoundly destabilized global order, but continues to cause serious and increasing economic hardship all around the world. It is thus of special importance that we, members and supporters of the International Patriotic Pact Organization, further elaborate and insist on the international dimension of patriotism. so that the peoples of the United Nations are prepared to face the major challenges resulting from great power unilateralism, indeed, I would say, adventurism, and hegemonic interference, particularly in the global south. Also, the aggressive research of self-declared spheres of interest as seen presently in the North Atlantic region, must be universally rejected. The peoples of the world must not tolerate attempts by a major global player to impose a kind of neo-colonial order in West Asia and Latin America in particular. and it must never accept a relapse into an age of anarchy due to unrestrained use of military power. As I said in this year's Spring Forum in Geneva, war is incompatible with the people's right to development. It makes it meaningless. Dear colleagues, The International Patriotic Pact launched by the IPPO has been a major and innovative step to give meaning to the United Nations Charter's promises and pledges in the name of we, the peoples of the United Nations, as solemnly expressed in the preamble, but not fully implemented yet. As initiative of global civil society, we must directly address the ongoing injustices and mobilize international public opinion. The proposed IPPO review mechanism regarding the right to development with its non-confrontational approach is a constructive step in that direction. As stated in draft article 2.1, it favors, "dialogue rather than conducting political trials or imposing penalties." We must raise awareness and a sense of obligation on the part of decision makers in all countries that the national interests of any country, whether large or small, weak or powerful, needs to be pursued with due regard for the rights of all countries, of all other members of the international community. No country has the right to impose its agenda on the rest of the world. And no country is entitled to proclaim itself as the indispensable nation. Too often in history, practices of colonial domination and exploitation have been hidden under the pretext of exceptionalism. We must, therefore, clarify our counter position in clear and unambiguous terms. True patriotism makes only sense and deserves only moral support if it is rooted in the principle of mutuality. That means partnership among all nations as equals. As organization in consultative status with the United Nations, the International Progress Organization joined the initiative of the IPPO at the very beginning. We wish today's forum, for the first time held on the African continent, full success. May the meeting contribute to an effective reform of the relations between states of the international system, and first and foremost, the United Nations with its universal membership, according to the principle of sovereign equality of all nations, which is a core requirement of human rights. This alone, in my opinion, will ensure a sustainable order of justice and peace that the peoples of the world have been denied for too long. Peace means patriotic solidarity among sovereign nations. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Dr. Hans, for his sharing across time. Peace means patriotic relationship between sovereign nations, and this is important foundation. From 1977, when IPO became a consultative party Today, IPPO is promoting this mechanism to be adopted. The oversight of civil society has always been a new important force behind international orders. Next, we will begin item one, organizational procedural matters. First, we'd like to invite Professor Qin Qiang, an IPO review expert, vice president of the Shanxi Patriotic Volunteer Association and researcher at Shandong University's Human Rights Research Center. Through video, he will explain the concept and legal foundation of the nation's rights to develop by video.

Good day, distinguished IPO co-initiators and independent experts. My name is Qing Qiang. I'm an IPO expert on the right of states to develop and a research fellow from Shandong University. Due to work, regrettably, I cannot join you.

Due to work commitment, I regret being unable to attend in-person exchanges. I will deliver this report via video, focusing on our understanding of NDR. NDR is an international law jurisprudential concept featuring both theoretical innovation and practical value. It expands the subjects and dimensions of the right to development under the traditional human rights system and serves as an important jurisprudential tool for states to pursue international fairness and justice. This concept was systematically elaborated by Mr. Cui Guowei after he put forward the vision of the international patriotic pact. We have conducted dedicated research to deepen and refine it. Its core is to establish states as independent holders of the rights and the primary bearers of the obligations. for the right to development and to align moral initiatives with international law principles for theoretical consistency and practical applicability. Today, my report covers four main aspects. First, the core definition of NDR. NDR is a comprehensive collective right As an independent subject of the international community, states may independently choose their economic, social, cultural, and political development path for the survival and development of their people and demand the establishment of a just and reasonable new international political and economic order. This right is jurisprudentially grounded on the sovereign equality of states and national self-determination. It incorporates the international law obligation that development shall not impair the legitimate development interests of other countries. It stresses that while enjoying autonomy in development, states shall exercise self-restraint and engage in international cooperation so as not to pursue their own development at the expense of other nations' right to development. Second, the theoretical connotation of NDR. We interpret its theoretical connotation from three perspectives. First, theoretically, it represents a shift from regarding development as a primary human right to recognizing the state-centered dimension of the right to development. NDR does not negate the primacy of the individual right to development. Instead, it highlights that the realization of the right to development at a state level presupposes state sovereignty and a fair international order. It expands subjects and dimensions for the right to development within the traditional human rights system. It situates the proposition that development is a primary human right precisely within the international law framework. Rather than putting NDR against individual rights to development, it regards the former as a structural guarantee for the realization of the latter. Second, in terms of theoretical transcendence, it marks a shift from.

The state as a core subject to the state as a dual status subject.

States assume dual subject status in the system of right to development.

On the one hand, the states are right holders.

They may choose development path independently. exercise control over natural resources, and participate in international decision-making.

On the other hand, states are obligation bearers.

They shall formulate domestic development policies, safeguard individual rights to development, and fulfill obligations for international development cooperation. Clarifying this dual subjectivity acknowledges the innovation of a state as right holders, while preventing the absolutization of state rights consistent with the basic international law principle of the unity of rights and obligations. Third, for theoretical innovation, it shifts focus from rights remedy mechanism to rights of claim and procedural safeguards under international law. Under current international law, there is no dedicated judicial remedy mechanism for NDR.

Hence, remedy in this concept.

Should be accurately understood as a procedural entitlements and moral claims for states to assert their development interests on the international stage.

It means states may.

Through multilateral forums such as the UNGA, Human Rights Council, International Development Cooperation Forum, and forums such as IPO, allege infringements upon their right to development, demand the international community.

To honor its cooperation obligations, and oppose unilateral sanctions, long-arm jurisdiction, and other development undermining practices.

Through.

Though such rights of claim carry no judicial enforceability, they constitute political and moral remedies under international law and serve as a vital instrument for states striving for international fairness and justice in development.

Third, the international law basis and the jurisprudential positioning of NDR.

NDR is not groundless. Its core elements are deeply embedded in existing sources of international law and key UN documents. At present, it mainly functions as a soft law principle and opinio juris, providing important evidence for the formation of customary international law. For instance, Article 1, 55, and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations set the purpose of promoting international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character. This furnishes the fundamental treaty law basis for calls for international cooperation and a just international economic order. The UN Declaration on the Right to Development, Article 1, clarifies that the holders of the right to development include every human person and all peoples. Article 2, paragraph 3 of the same declaration establishes the dual legal status of states, both as holders and bearers of the obligations for the right to development. Article 3, paragraph 1 and 4 offer direct normative grounds for states to invoke international cooperation obligations. The Vienna Declaration and Program of Action reaffirms that the right to development is universal and inalienable and forms part of a fundamental human right, firmly embedding NDR within the international human rights law system. Key international law principles also underpin this concept. The right to national self-determination supports development autonomy. The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources safeguards states' autonomy over domestic development resources. The no-harm principle translates the moral precept, paternalism shall not harm other states' interests into an actionable international obligation. Fourth, the theoretical value and practical significance of NDR. Theoretically, this concept inherits the institutional innovation of states as right holders and prevents overgeneralization through jurisprudential calibration. It incorporates the core basis that development is a primary human right and places it accurately within the international law framework. It responds to moral aspirations and achieves organic integration between moral initiatives and legal rights. Practically, at the international political level, it provides a powerful jurisprudential tool for states to pursue international fairness and justice for their development. At the international law level, it offers solid theoretical support for improving international development cooperation mechanisms and advancing implementation of the International Patriotic Pact. At the domestic governance level, it supplies guiding principles for states to formulate development policies and balance domestic development against international responsibilities. It can be said that the concept of NDR transcends traditional human rights theory and complements international development cooperation mechanism. Its core message is, as subjects of international law, states shall enjoy development autonomy while assuming the international obligation not to impair other states' development interests. NDR and individual rights to development are not antagonistic. They form an independent mutually reinforcing organic whole and jointly constitute the full spectrum of the right to development system. The above represents our understanding and research on NDR. Please feel free to point out any imperfections. Thank you.

Thank you, Professor Qin Qiang, for your excellent video presentation. This comprehensive report systematically clarifies the core definition, theoretical connotation, and the normative foundations of the NDR from the perspective of international jurisprudence. It consolidates the legal basis for loving one's country shall not harm other nations' interests and furnishes solid academic support for our continued advancement of the review mechanism for the NDR. Next. I will interpret the review mechanism for the NDR. It is neither a declaration nor a proposal. It is an oversight tool for civil society monitoring of national development practices worldwide, voluntarily formulated and mandated by global civil society itself. Dear co-initiators, representatives of states and international organizations, independent experts on the NDR, ladies and gentlemen, this mechanism was initiated by our Shaanxi Patriotic Volunteer Association, drafted by the International Law Commission of the International Patriotic Pact Organization and sits within the framework of the global civil society constituent organizations. Born for world peace and solidarity, it embodies the collective will and aspiration of global civil society organizations. It keeps a watchful eye on the nationwide development policies of every state, in particular practices whether major powers constraining the development of a small and weak nations the mechanism comprises five components first general provisions including purposes objectives and core principles second organizational structure including review committee secretariat and expert think-tank third the review procedures, including four stages from a proposal to global publication. Four, outcome, application, and oversight. There is no punitive principle, but it sustains a constructive pressure. And fifth, annexes. including proposal guideline and report templates. In short, the opening section addresses why, the middle section covers who acts and how to act, and the final section explains what happens afterwards. Chapter 1. Generalization, we solve the problem of why. Article 1, purposes and objectives. I will explain this article in four points. First, fundamental guiding norms. This mechanism operates within the IPU framework. It takes international law and the International Patriotic Pact as its supreme norms within the nation's rights, with the nation's right to development as its theoretical foundation. Second, Grassroots oversight. Through independent assessments led by global civil society, we monitor whether states violate the principle that loving one's country should not harm other nations' interests. This is not an empty slogan. It represents a verifiable, reviewable red line for state conduct. Third, the foundation for human rights. We uphold one core conviction that national development constitutes the cornerstone of human rights protection. Without national development, all human rights, including the right to subsistence, environmental rights, and cultural rights, lack any practical basis. Traditional global human rights governance has overlooked the right of states This civil society devised mechanism restores due attention to those rights. Fourth, building a new international order. Our approach is not confrontational. Instead, we promote policy corrections through constructive dialogue, advancing a more just, equitable, and balanced new international order for development cooperation. Article 2 of Chapter 1, core principles. It includes four bottom line principles. These four features constitute the soul and bottom line of this mechanism. First, it's non-confrontational. We promote corrections to state policies through public opinion guidance and constructive dialogue. rather than political trials or punitive sanctions. We are not a people's court. We function only as a policy correction instrument. Second, independence. This is our most essential principle. The mechanism operates independently. It is not beholden to any national government power, politics, or conventional international financial institutions. No source of funding can buy the pen wielded by civil society actors. Third, objectivity and impartiality. We ground our work in facts and data. while giving full consideration to the historical context and development stages of different countries. Small and poor countries cannot be judged solely against standards set by developed countries. Fourth, broad-based participation. Global civil society organizations, independent scholars, and the stakeholders must have access and opportunities to voice their views. This is not an elite club. It is a forum where global civil society organizations, especially institutions from the Global South, voluntarily participate in global governance and share their lived perspectives. Chapter 2 Organizational Structure It covers organizational structure, answering the question of who carries out what. Article 3, Review Committee for the NDR. The Review Committee for the NDR is the core executive and deliberative body of this mechanism. Two key points govern its composition. First, seven full-fledged committee members. All must hail from APR member organizations with expertise spanning international law, development, economics, and human rights. Second, regional rotation system. The Inaugural committee will be nominated by me, myself, initiators of IPPO for a four-year term, and subsequently, the members will be elected by representatives of member organizations. Two-seventh of the members will be rotated annually under a regional rotation scheme. Each term lasts four years with no more than two consecutive terms permitted. Why seven members? Why emphasize rotation? The purpose is to prevent northern countries from monopolizing interpretive authority and guarantee balanced, independent representation across six regions, including Asia, Africa, the Americas, Europe, and Oceania. This slide lays out the architecture of the Review Committee of the National Right to Development. Seven members are from IPU member organizations with a four-year term, maximum two consecutive terms, covering all six areas, Asia, Africa, the Americas, Europe, and Oceania. Two-sevenths of members rotated each year, strictly regional rotation system enforced. All committee members serve under the original rotational framework to ensure balanced and independent representation.

So it is our.

Structural safeguard against dominance. Fourth, Article 4 covers the secretariat and export pool. The committee has no bureaucracy above it and two professional teams below it. The permanent secretariat handles coordination, data, drafting and external relations, which is the hands and feet or legs of this whole organization. And then the expert pool provides technical, legal and field support. In short, the committee decides making the decisions. So the committee decides, the secretariat implements, and the experts provide depth. Now comes to the chapter 3, which is the review process. Chapter 3 explains how the mechanism works. Article 5 and 6 set out four stages of the review mechanism. Stage one is submission and admission. Who can make the submission? That is, Apple coordinators, contracting parties and civil society organizations, which may submit proposals to the secretariat. The submission must be made by the 1st of February each year. The secretariat screens the submissions and then forward it to the committee for approval. The stage two comes to the authorized investigation and assessment. The committee appoints independent experts to collect evidence lawfully. Please pay attention to this saying that is to have lawful collection of evidence. This means lawful inquiry, not covert smears or political witch hunts. Stage three, hearings and dialogue. During this stage, hearings may be private or public, involving IPO call initiators, relevant civil societies, including but not limited to the affected groups. We will also involve investigators. Where possible, we can also invite the states concerned. We hear from several sides or parties, not just one. Stage four, which is the Comprehensive assessment by IPO's expert pool. Every year, no more than five countries may be reviewed. We begin with a proposal, proceed through evidence, and then Only then we reach a conclusion. Chapter 3. Review process and then comes to the reports and publication. So experts must submit their report within 90 days of launch. Each report contains four parts. First. Findings of fact. Second. Compliance with the principle that patriotism must not harm other nations. Third, an assessment of harm. Fourth, constructive policy recommendations. Once approved, the report is published worldwide and submitted as a civil society stakeholder document to the UN Human Rights Council or even the generally the General Assembly. This takes civil society's findings directly to the UN. Now comes to chapter 4. which is the follow-up and monitoring. Chapter 4 asks what happens next. People would ask, we are being the civil society, what can we do next without the punishment and binding power? So, Articles 8 to 9 can answer this question. First, no punitive sanctions. We are neither the Security Council nor the WTO dispute system, and we impose no compulsory penalties. Second, constructive recommendations. We urge relevant states to change policies that harm others' development rights and use its network to support technology, funding and capacity building. Third, follow-up and feedback. The Secretariat may continue monitoring reviewed states, countries that act on recommendations may receive recognition as development rights friendly states. So this is a recognition from the civil society. Fourth, sustained public advocacy. If a state refuses to correct harmful policies, IPO may mobilize civil society to maintain public and moral pressure. We don't have sanctions, but the public remembers and reputation matters. Last but not least, chapter five. Final provisions. So the final chapter covers resources. Funding may come from proposal sponsors, that is whoever sponsor a proposal may provide the funding, and part of the funding also come from APO dues, and also voluntary civil society donations, and a future APO fund. The fund management. will be independent and transparent. If money can buy conclusions, the mechanism will lose its value. Article 11, amendment and interpretation. Amendments require a two-thirds vote of delegates at the April Autumn Forum. and final interpretation rest with IPO. This can protect the mechanism's core principle from being diluted by outside interest. Delegates, colleagues, One sentence captures our shared belief, our public standard, and the starting and ending point of our work, which is patriotism must not harm other nations. Apple does not oppose any country's legitimate development. We oppose development at the expense of other peoples, which is using patriotism as a cover for hegemony and using one nation's development rights to deprive another of life and opportunity. This draft review mechanism is civil society's public mandate to monitor national development policies. check on major powers and a guide for countries that need support. The mechanism has now been explained. Rights on paper gain weight when people sign. We actually have a QR code for you to scan so that you can witness the signature and make it into history. However, due to technical challenges, this electronic signature cannot be realized today. Please applause to this signature so that we can witness signing down this history. Let's give it a round of applause. We now move to item 2, that is, expert reports on nations' right to development. Under the review mechanism, I invite the Secretariat to report on behalf of the EPPO review working group.

Chair of the forum, co-founders of the IPPO and representatives of states and international organizations, I am Xu Mengyuan, project director of secretariat. Upon the recommendation of the secretariat, I will report on the review work to this forum on behalf of the review team. Since 2025, the Secretariat has not received any new review proposals. In accordance with the IPPO review mechanism, the working group will continue its follow-up review of the nation's rights to development of the United States. I now present the report as follows. Distinguished delegates, this is an independent review report representing global civil society organizations. It is non-punitive and constructive, and is submitted in a spirit of dialogue rather than confrontation. Our guiding principle is simple, loving one's own country without harming other nations' interests. First, please allow me to explain the nature of this review. This review involves direct participation by stakeholders from global civil society organizations and is free from the independence, objectivity, and impartiality and broad participation. Its aim is to promote policy correction through constructive dialogue. This report is issued pursuant to Article 7 of the Review Mechanism of the Nations' Rights to Development Draft and its accompanying standard template. It is an independent civil society review document led by IPPO and contains no punitive sanction measures. Upon deliberation and adoption by the committee, the report will be submitted to relevant bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council, as a civil society stakeholder document. The legal basis for this review consists of three parts. First, the core principles set forth in Article 2 of the International Patriotic Pact, loving one's own country without harming other nations' interests. Second, the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and peaceful settlement of disputes enshrined in Charter of the United Nations; and third, the relevant international covenants on economic, social, and cultural rights, and the norms concerning the nation's rights to development; with reference to international documents such as the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States and the Declaration on the Right to Development. Let me now turn to the basic information of this review. The report number is IPPONI.DRC.2026USA.007. The state under review is the United States of America. The proposing party is the IPPU Civil Society Joint Proposing Group, with members from Asia, Africa and South America. Three authorized independent experts are involved and their full authorization details are provided in the basic information table of the report. This review was accepted on February 1st, 2026, formally commenced on March 15th, 2026, and the report was submitted on June 13th, 2026. Review funding is provided by matching funds from the proposing party and the IPPO special fund and is managed independently and transparently. This review focuses on the cross-border substantive harm caused by the state and the review to all nations' rights to development during its process of national development through means such as unilateral coercive measures, secondary sanction, long-arm jurisdiction, export controls, and technological blockades. The scope of this review includes, but is not limited to, unilateral economic sanctions and their secondary transmission, the mandatory and exclusive use of U.S. dollar clearing system, extraterritorial control over key technologies and supply chains, politicized conditions attached to foreign development aid, and the impact of the voting weights, the structure of international financial institutions on the allocation of development resources. Investigating experts collected evidence through legitimate means, such as civil society networks, public databases, artificial intelligence analysis, and field visits. Specific sources include public records of the UN General Assembly and Security Council, sanctions lists of the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, US Department of Commerce Export Control Regulations, World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Mechanism reports, reports of UN Special Rapporteurs, official statistics of affected countries' governments, and public data of international financial institutions. This review fully considers the state and the reviews, stage of development, historical background, and legitimate security concerns. For disputed data, different source standards are presented simultaneously to avoid sweeping generalizations. One important procedural matter should be noted here. The IPPO secretariat is still in its initial startup phase and has not yet established official communication channels with sovereign states. It didn't issue a review notification to the state under review in accordance with procedures or invited to attend the hearing. The US side didn't send representative to the hearing, but submitted its views in written form. The Secretariat has committed to transmitting this report to the US Permanent Mission to the United Nations. In summary, this review is a unilateral civil social-led review. IPPO is improving its communication mechanisms and optimizing subsequent review procedures. Let me turn to the core conclusions and quantitative indicators of this review. First, systematic sanctions, the long-standing and systematic abuse of unilateral sanctions, sanctuary sanctions, and law and jurisdiction disrupts the trade, infrastructure, and financial stability of affected countries. Second, excessive expansion of extra-territorial domestic laws are applied to third country subjects, constituting external interference in other national economic sovereignty. Third, cross-border harm. This caused widespread, substantive, and systematic cross-border damage to other nations' economic development and the well-being of their people. From the data, approximately 40 economies are affected by unilateral sanctions, including country-wide sanctions. A fact especially designated the nation national entries are projected to reach 17,000 by 2026, reflecting continuous expansion. And in 2024, 2025, more than 300 Russia related sanctions entities were newly listed. Sanctions have also produced severe humanitarian impact on civilians. In the case of Iran, relevant sanctions have caused serious shortages of medicine, food, and essential supplies. Now, let me turn to the core fund fundings. First, extraterritoriality, domestic law is used to replace international law. Long arm jurisdiction is implemented through hub nodes such as financial clearing, technology exports, and maritime insurance. Third country entities are first to comply. This constitutes external inference in other nations, economic sovereignty. Second, civilian harm. Continuous sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries severely restrict medicine, food, financial settlements, and energy exports. This causes observable collateral damage to the public's basic living conditions and to their rights to medical care and education. Third, technology blockades, export controls, and the small yard high fence strategy restricts the flow of advanced semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and other technologies to specific countries. This hinders affected nations' industrialization and technological upgrading, and exacerbates the development gap. Fourth, Third party coercion. Secondary sanctions threaten third parties by cutting off the US dollar system and seizing assets. This forces sovereign nations to pick sides between China and the United States, eroding their right to independently choosing partners and development paths. Let us now look at a set of typical facts. This table summarizes six groups of unilateral restrictive measures. First, comprehensive sanction on Iran has been ongoing and escalating since 1995, covering oil, medicine, and finance. The evidence comes from UN special rapporteur reports and Iran Central Bank statistics. Second, sanctions on Venezuela began in 2017, involving oil assets and public services based on UN independent expert reports. Third, since 2022, secondary sanctions on Russia have been intensified, restricting US dollar clearing and CSDs with information from a fact list, the EU and multinational corporate notices. Fourth, from 2022 to 2025, semiconductor export controls have been escalated in multiple layers, restricting advanced chips, equipment, and EDA software based on U.S. Department of Commerce BIS regulations. Fifth, the CHIPS Act of 2022 introduced local content and guardrail clauses with the tax from the US Congress. Sixth, the trade and financial embargo on Cuba has been in place since 1962, and relevant resolutions can be found in annual UN General Assembly resolutions. figure uh this figure shows the expansion trend of the effects especially designated National list from 2018 to 2026 this figure reflects the scope of unilateral coercive measures the data are annual snapshot estimates of the public list the trend is continuous expansion by 2024 the list reached approximately 12,000 entries by 2026. It is projected to reach 17,000 entries. This is an annual snapshot estimate of the public list. Some figures are estimates, not official financial effects statistics. Difference in methodology and explained in annex 1. Key finding one is excessive expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The state under review asserted jurisdiction over third country subjects based on domestic laws such as Helms-Burton, the Dole-Mato Kennedy, and a series of executive orders and imposed secondary sanctions under the pretext of minimum contact. This practice lacks a basis of universal jurisdiction under international law. In essence, it substitutes economic coercion for diplomatic and legal channels, constituting external interference in other nations' economic sovereignty. Key finding two is the weaponization of financial infrastructure, leveraging the dominating position of the US dollars in international settlements, the state and review experts pressure by cutting off sweat access, freezing foreign exchange reserves, and saving sovereign assets. These measures are systematical and difficult to circumvent. They often exceed the necessary limits of legitimate security concerns and cause cascading shocks to the overall economics of affected countries. At the same time, this report does not deny the state and the review's legitimate right to safeguard national security, nor does it deny certain responsibility it bears in the international affairs. The core criterion of this review is whether the relevant measures exceed necessary limits, whether they possess extraterritorial coerciveness, or whether they cause disproportionate collateral damage to other nations' rights to development. Parts involving the state and the review's reasonable security concerns have been distinguished and considered in the compliance analysis. The assessment uses a three-dimensional framework, scope, intensity, attributability on a five-point scale. On the economic dimension, the score is 4.3 out of 5. It is high, unilateral and secondary. Sanctions have caused systematic shocks to trade, infrastructure, and financial stability. Iran's oil exports dropped by more than 70% at the peak of the sanctions. Venezuela's oil output and export revenue shrink sharply. Many countries are forced to bypass US dollar settlements at high cost. Export controls have also delayed technological upgrading in semiconductors and artificial intelligence. On the social and human rights dimension, the core score is 4.5 out of 5. It is high. Overcompliance causes severe collateral damage, blocked medicine and equipment, food shortage and price rises, and restricted academic and technology exchange. UN special rapporteurs have warned that sanctions widely affecting civilians without clearly humanization exemptions may violate the right to health, the right to development, and the right to an adequate standard of living. On the compliance dimension, the score is 4.6 out of 5. Severe deviation when measures lack UN Security Council authorization, exceed necessary limits, and cause severe cross-border civilian harm. The assessment finds that compliance cannot be established. The report identifies deviation on four factors. harming other nations' interests, ignoring their sovereign rights to choose development paths, lacking UNSC authorization, and failing the necessity and proportionality test. The Committee held a public hearing. The State under review was not able to participate in the public hearing. It subsequently submitted a written statement. The proposing party and victim groups emphasized civilian suffering. medicine shortages, rising food price, and frozen overseas assets. They called for an end to broad sanctions on civilians, the return of frozen assets, and a compensation mechanism. Independent scholars noted that unilateral measures without UNSC authorization may violate international human rights obligations. They recommended humanitarian exemptions and a return to multilateral dialogue. The state and the review states that sanctions are an exercise of sovereign rights aimed at security, counterterrorism, and non-proliferation with licensing and humanitarian exemptions. It expresses a preference for bilateral dialogue over public review. Third, country enterprises noted that secondary sanctions place enterprises in a difficult position, compelling a choice between major markets and sanctioned countries, raising compliance costs and disrupting supply chains. They called for a safe harbor rule. There was broad convergence among participants that security concerns are legitimate. This dispute forces on means and limits, multilateral authorization, humanization exemptions, and avoiding extraterritorial coercion. On policy adjustment, first, gradually cancel or adjust unilateral coercive measures, prioritizing countries' wide sanctions that affect medicine, food, and basic supplies, and establishing clear humanitarian exemptions. Second, refrain from extraterritorial applications of long-term jurisdiction and cease complaining third country compliance through US dollar clearing cuts off or asset seizures. Third, apply export controls prudently with licensing Green channels for medical, agricultural, and clean energy technologies. Force return to the multilateral framework and seek UNSC authorization for large-scale sanctions and asset freezes. On international assistance, use the IPPO platform to provide technology, funding, and capacity building. Support alternative settlement and trade financing, create capacity funds for medicine, agricultural and renewable energy, and set up nations rise to development relief fund. on compensation, establishing bilateral or multilateral compensation mechanism, exploring assets on freezing development cooperation effects of sets and relief for victim groups. The report also recommends more balanced voting weights in international financial institutions. Follow up will include annual data upgrades, civil society peer review, and ongoing consultation through IPPO platform. This is an independent civil Society revealed by IPPO, it is non-punitive and constructive. It will be submitted to the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly as a civil society stakeholder document. It takes into account the state and the reviews legitimate security concerns. Our guiding principle is loving one's own country without harming other nations' interest. Thank you.

Thank you.

Secretariat. Thank you. The follow-up report of the United States showed how major power policies, when they depart from fairness and justice, can deeply erode on other countries' development rights. It also strengthens our resolve to implement the review mechanism. Now, this report, backed by 306 organizations in 68 countries, now enters global civil society review. Technology doesn't support QR code signature. Now, I'm inviting all of you, IPO initiators, international affairs experts, and civil society representatives to applaud as a way to sign this resolution. We want to draw a public red line. Major power development policies must not harm other countries. Let us turn this report into practical support for fairness and for accountability to fight against hegemonism. Thank you for signing with your applause. Today, we completed the landmark civil society action. They are more than our will. They are a collective endorsement of the principle that patriotism must not harm other nations. It is a shared rejection of hegemonic logic. This shared responsibility means we will not sit and watch greater power to distort others. This report that has all of consensus will bring our memories to become a solid step to help move the review mechanism from principle to practice. Next, we'd like to welcome founder of Serbia Media Education Center, IPO co-initiator, and 2025 IPO chair, who will be addressing us by video. Minister Rajek Vick will be speaking from video.

It is a great honor to address this forum as the founder of the International Patriotic Pact Organization and vice chair of this assembly. We meet today under the important topic, International Patriotic Pact and nations' rights to development. reshaping an international new peace order. From the standpoint of our mission, allow me to share a reflection on peace, national development rights, and the architecture of a new global peace. Today, more than ever, we must speak honestly about peace. Peace is not pausing. between conflicts. This is not the science or the weapons. This is the presence of condition that allows societies and sovereign nations to flourish. And the strongest tool we have to build those conditions is the United Nation rights to development, covering both individual human rights, and the rights of nation to pursue development. The right of development, adopted in 1986, was visionary. It affirms that every person and every nation has participated, contribute to, and benefit from development. the world of those times is not the world we have in 2026. Today, the development is shaped by digital disruption, climate instability, global misinformation, demographic shifts, and deep social fragmentation. Those courses do not simply challenge development, they challenge peace itself. This is why modernizing the right of development is not only necessary, it is a central condition for building a new peace order in our century. If we want peace, we must guarantee digital inclusion. Digital access, better education, employment, participation, and voice. Exclusion become instability. Digital divide become political divides. Digital inequality become a threat to peace. If we want peace, we must guarantee climate security. Climate shocks destroy livelihood, displace communities, and fuel conflict. No society can be stable when its environment is collapsing. Climate security is now a peace and security itself. If we want peace, we must guarantee information integrity, misinformation fractures society, erodes trust and destabilizes democracies. The truth becomes contested, peace becomes fragile. Information integrity is now a condition for social stability. If we want peace, we must guarantee social cohesion. Development cannot occur in divided communities where inequality, the pain, or where people feel excluded from national progress. Social cohesion is the glue that holds societies together. Above all, we want peace. We must guarantee a reconciliation process. Reconciliation is not symbolic. It is strategic. It is the hard work of rebuilding trust, healing division, and creating the condition in which development becomes possible. Without reconciliation between communities, between nations, I mean, between humanity and its shared future, peace cannot be sustained. These five pillars are not abstract human rights benchmarks. For IPPO, they are practical building blocks for realizing nations' right to development and reshaping a theory international peace order. They are the new foundation of peace, and they must be invaded in the modernized UN right to the development declaration. But recognizing these rights is not enough. The original Declaration did not establish a mechanism to review how nations uphold their responsibilities. Today, such a mechanism is essential. We need cooperative, transparent, not punitive review mechanism that helps states identify gaps, share good practice and strengthen capacities, evaluating digital inclusion, climate security, information integrity, social cohesion and reconciliation processes. This mechanism is not bureaucracy. It is the architecture of trust. Transforms the right to development from a principle into tool, the strongest tool we have to build peace. Excellencies, peace today requires more than goodwill. It requires a right that reflect the realities of our century. both the rights of individuals and the sovereign nations' rights to follow self-determined development. It requires mechanisms that support states in fulfilling those rights, and it requires a global commitment to reconciliation as the foundation of human dignity and state to state relations. As founder of IPPO and vice chair of this forum, I put forward a clear call aligned with our team. Let us modernize the right to development. Let us obey digital inclusion, climate security, information integrity, social cohesion and reconciliation into its core. Let us create a cooperative mechanism that guides nations toward inclusive, resilient, and peaceful development, so we can jointly reshape a just international new peace order. If we do this together, we will not only protect peace, we will rebuild it. We will make it real. And we will ensure that the right to development becomes the strongest tool for peace for every person, in every nation, in every generation to come. Unfortunately, I can't join you in person today. Through my physical presence is absent, my heart and mind stand firmly with all delegates and partners of this forum. I wish the forum every success. Thank you.

Thank you, Najat El Ait Saoud. Next, the 2018-2024 United Nations Promote Democracy, Fairness and International Order Expert, Uganda Human Rights Initiative Foundation Executive Chair, International Pact for Love Organization Co-Founder, Thanks a lot.

Now let's invite the Mr. Levenstone, the United Nations independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, executive order of FHRI, Uganda, co-initiator of IPO, and newly nominated vice chair to talk to us. He will provide his professional insights via video, even though he's not here, but his professional insights will be shared with us through video. Now let's watch his video.

Hello, everyone. I bring you warm greetings from the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative in Uganda. I am delighted to have been invited by the International Patriotic Pact Organization to participate in this historic forum. I want to extend special gratitude to the conveners and the UN office for hosting us today. I am Dr. Livingstone, executive director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, based in Kampala. I would have loved to be with you. However, due to reasons beyond my control, I'm unable to physically join you. But suffice to say that I'm with you both in spirit. And through this speech. I wish to express my admiration to Ippo for giving us this opportunity to engage in such a historic occasion. I come to you with experience as the immediate past UN independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. The Foundation for Human Rights Initiative is a human rights advocacy organization that seeks to promote respect and observance of international accepted human rights standards and practices through actions that include civic awareness, human rights monitoring, access to justice, alliance building, and treaty reporting. It is therefore indeed with great honor that we gather with you today to discuss such an important matter. The focus of my speech is global peace and security. Why multilateralism matters to the nation's right to development. In discussing this particular topic, I still feel honored to underscore why global cooperation should be seen as sine qua non for the realization of the nation's right to development. Assembling here in Nairobi, the hub of economic activity and social engineering in East Africa, and the birthplace of civil society activism in this region, on this International Day of Peace could never have been more timely and appropriate. We therefore seek to reaffirm at this forum that the need for states to cooperate in the spirit of renewed multilateralism in the search to end hunger, poverty, racial inequality, and attainment of just, peaceful, and inclusive societies has never been greater if national development is to become a reality. Suffice to mention that the historic proclamation of the African Charter on Human and People's Rights was undertaken here in Nairobi in 1981. Nairobi is more than a seat of great reckoning, but is also a place where great minds meet to adopt ideas that can reshape global thinking and innovative solutions on the African continent and beyond. Why take action? The world is faced with a global crisis, the threat of a nuclear war. Once thought as weapons that ensure nuclear deterrence, nuclear weapons constitute an inherent threat to global peace and security. The Israel, Gaza, Palestine conflict, The US, Israel, Iran conflict and Ukraine, Russia conflicts have had devastating impact on global peace and the economy and points the failure of states cooperate to address common challenges. From climate disasters, pandemics, conflicts to the current democracy decline across nations, the apparent unilateralism speaks volumes of how nation states approach emerging threats. Maintaining global peace and security is a precondition for the attainment of a democratic and equitable international order. States have a duty to cooperate in order to address the current threats, including climate disasters. Bilateralism, therefore, dialogue and negotiation should be embraced instead of unilateralism and the use of unilateral coercive measures. The lack of cooperation amongst states can be traced to the growing phenomena of nationalism and the geopolitical divide. This self-centered approach accounts for the growing hegemony among states. The root cause of this apparent disconnect amongst states can be traced to several factors, Among these is the non-adherence to international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The UN Charter requires member states to settle international disputes by peaceful means, to refrain from the use of force or threat of use of force, and to uphold the declaration on the right to peace. It is therefore incumbent upon states to ratify the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, reduce military spending, and reinvest in social and economic development. Second, the failure to implement sweeping reforms within the United Nations bodies, for example, the UN Security Council, should be more democratic, representative, transparent, and accountable. The use of veto powers by the permanent members of the Security Council negates the collective responsibility of member states to ensure peace and harmony within and among member states. Thirdly, the less representative nature of the international system limits participation of civil society. Considering that the UN Declaration on the Right to Development provides that every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural, and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized. It is imperative that states ensure active, free, and meaningful participation of all individuals and the entire population. Both the lack of international patriotism as opposed to nationalism accounts for the limited interest in peace and disarmament. For example, states have not taken keen interest in nuclear disarmament, arms control, and reduction in military expenditure. Our solutions. In order to improve global cooperation and ensure global peace and security, States should abide by the chart of the United Nations, including the UN declaration, the right to peace and other relevant United Nations resolutions. States should ratify the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and other disarmament related treaties and implement them faithfully. It is also recommended that the long overdue reforms of some key United Nations bodies among them the Security Council, should be undertaken urgently to make them more democratic, representative, effective, transparent and accountable. More importantly, the views of people throughout the world should be heard more clearly. Mechanisms to which civil society can participate and contribute more effectively in the activities of the United Nations should be created. Renewed multilateralism through which dialogue, diplomacy, negotiation, and inclusiveness based on collective responsibility and international patriotism provides the perfect solution to providing global cooperation and the nation's right to development. Introducing the spirit of the international patriotic pact. Whereas nations strive to promote patriotism among the population For the sake of loving one's own country, this should be done mindful of the interests of other nations. Whereas the UN Charter recognizes the principle of state sovereignty, it reaffirms also the equal rights of nations, large and small. The IPPO principle of loving one's own country without harming other nations augurs well with the right of nations to coexist, and cooperate in order to enhance a nation's development. Indeed, the duty of states to cooperate and share technological advancement is consistent with the principle of do no harm to others. I believe we need to endorse these principles in the International Patriot Pact as a guiding framework towards a nation's right to development. Proposing specific solutions. I propose that this IPPO forum endorses the idea of a global civil society review mechanism of a nation's right to development. Under this mechanism, national chapters will be established with a view of monitoring how the state protects its interests while cooperating with others. These IPPO chapters shall report annually and based on their reports, a global patriotism index will be generated. The index will show how states are cooperating in various areas without harming the interests of others. I therefore now call upon you and the others to embrace the idea of enforcement. Now that the IPPO pact is open for public signature, I urge all delegates present to sign up and actively promote the pact. Let us disseminate the pact to our respective communities and establish IPPO chapters. Let us say no to the infringement of other nations' rights in the name of development rights. I also call upon every organization and every individual present to be active participants and be implementers of this noble cause. In conclusion, today we make history. From Geneva to Nairobi, we proclaim a new beginning. We join hands to break barriers and build bridges. We proclaim a just, transparent, and people-centered new international order. I thank you all.

Thank you, Vice Chair. His global patriotism index and civil society review model offer a practical route for Apple. From UN oversight to Apple's principle that patriotism must not harm other nations. Civil society monitoring is becoming an important safeguard for development rights. Moving forward, please welcome Mr. Zita Abraham-Billa, Chair of Roja, new BF in Bukinifaso, and an Apple co-initiator approved by the committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guest, Dear engaged citizens of the free world, the dignity of peoples and the sovereignty of nations, dear members of the EPO, allow us first of all to address our sincere thanks to EPO for the initiative of this gathering and above all for having understood the historical urgency of our time to engage in global action in favor of the International Patriotic Pact. For today, a fundamental question arises for humanity: what world do we want to bequeath to future generations? Do we want to continue living in a world where power gives the right to decide for others? A world where certain peoples would be condemned to provide their resources while others reap the benefits? A world where the sovereignty of nations would be negotiable, where development would be reserved for a few, and where peace would sometimes be used as an instrument of domination. We say no. The time has come to profoundly rethink relations between nations. For several decades, the march of our world has forced us to pause, an interrogative pause. in retrospective pause, a moment of truth, we must have the courage to recognize that too often so-called powerful nations have imposed their will on so-called weak or developing nations. And yet, these same nations often possess immense natural wealth, fertile land, energy and mining resources, as well as a youth capable of building a better future. But what do we observe? Peoples rich in resources remain poor in development. Nations rich in their subsoil remain poor in their daily lives. Suffering countries see their wealth exploited without their populations being fully benefiting from the fruits of their own heritage. This reality can no longer be considered a Why the pact matters. It is precisely for this reason that the International Patriotic Pact finds its full meaning, its full relevance and its full strength. We want to make this pact an instrument for the gathering of peoples, a framework of solidarity between nations and a collective commitment to a new international order founded on justice, equity and mutual respect. We want to contribute to shaping a more just, more humane and more balanced world, a world where relations between states are based on mutually beneficial interests and not on domination. a world where no state can claim that its power gives it the right to dispose of the resources, territory, and/or future of another people. Force must never replace law, power must never replace justice, and the wealth of one nation must never become the pretext for the dispossession of another. Ladies and gentlemen, The international patriotic pact must also be a pact for the right to development. Every nation has the right to develop. Every people has the right to value its resources. Every youth has the right to dream, to hope, and to build its future on its own land. Development must not be a favor granted to some and refused to others. Development is a right. Sovereignty is a right. Dignity is a right. And peace is a universal right. In this regard, allow me to speak of my country, Burkina Faso, and of the patriotic and sovereignist dynamic engaged under the leadership of Comrade Ibrahim Traore. Burkina Faso is today engaged in a march that places at the heart of its action sovereignty, national dignity, the defense of the people's interests, and the will to build a future based on our own capacities. This dynamic goes in our eyes beyond the borders of Burkina Faso. It carries a message to all African youth. A people can decide to take its dignity into its own hands. It is also in this spirit that several countries in our area have chosen to strengthen their solidarity and their cooperation through the Alliance of Sahel States. This experience teaches us a simple but fundamental truth. When peoples are divided, they become vulnerable. When they unite around common interests, they become a force. That is why we deeply believe that solidarity between nations, South-South cooperation, and the pooling of capacities constitute essential paths toward the through sovereignty and sustainable development. And it is here that the International Patriotic Pact takes on a historical dimension. We must move from the unification to action, from dependence to cooperation, from division to unity, from recognition to responsibility. Our youth must be at the heart of this transformation. It must no longer be merely a spectator of history; it must become its actor. That is why Rojava's new vote intends to take full part in this dynamic and to contribute actively to the promotion of international patriotic pact among the youth and peoples of the world. We want to make our next World Youth Colloquium, which will be held in Ouagadougou next December, a great gathering for mobilization, reflection, and commitment around this vision. We invite here young people, civil society organizations, leaders, intellectuals, development actors, and all progressive forces of the world to join us. Our GA DOGO must be the place where generation sets clearly. We want a world founded on the dignity of peoples, the sovereignty of nations, the right to development and peace. Dear citizens of the world, dear leaders, dear development actors, dear members of the Apple. In considering interest in the leadership of the intellectual patriotic pack to comrade Abraham, we want beyond a person to highlight a dynamic that places youth, sovereignty and the dignity of peoples at the heart of international debates. But beyond men and leaders, this struggle must be that of peoples, for a true international pact can only be durably carried by a collective conscience. We must therefore work hand in hand beyond borders, continents and differences, so that every nation can access peace, development and benefit equitably from the wealth it possesses. We are not asking for a world without differences, we demand a world without dominance. We are not asking that all nations be identical. We want all nations to be respected. We are not claiming privileges. We are claiming justice, equity, and the right of every people to decide freely its destiny. Ladies and gentlemen, history is watching us, and history can judge our generation on a simple question. Have we accepted the world as it was, or have we had the courage to contribute to building the world as it should be? Our general world has made its choice. We choose sovereignty, we choose dignity, we choose solidarity between peoples, we choose the right to development, we choose peace. and we are determined to carry high and loud this irreversible, necessary, and historical march. Long live the international patriotic pact. Long live the sovereignty and dignity of peoples. Long live the engaged youth of the world, and may peace triumph among nations. I thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, please welcome Apple co-initiator, founder of the World Human Rights Council, Mr. Ravuri Bala Raju to address us.

Distinguished guests, co-initiator of the International Patriotic Park, and friends, from the United Nations Office at Nairobi. Hello, everyone. I am Dr. Ravuri Bala Raju from India, founder and national chairman, World Human Rights Council, and co-initiator, IPPPO, India. It's a great honor to gather here with you today. Standing on this incredible land of Nairobi, we cannot only feel the pulse of the African continent, but also hear the call for change from the Global South. Today, we are gathered here not to repeat old diplomatic rhetoric, but to respond to an urgent proposition of our times. When the traditional international order fails, how should We, civil society organization, fill the future of global governance. Currently, we are witnessing a global landscape where sanctions and winding development gaps are becoming all too common. We see where humanism directly infringing upon the development rights sovereign nations. This reality reveals a cruel fact. In the existing system, development rights are often used as political chips, while ordinary people and national interests become victims of geopolitical games. Why does this happen? Because there is a lack of effective supervisory mechanisms and the existing global governance system suffer from the high entry threshold, insufficient representation and control by the few hegemonic powers leading to the indicate participation from the civil society. We must recognize two fundamental truths. If the world lacks universally recognized international patriotism, war will never cases. If you global civil society does not set up to establish its own evaluation system, building a community with a shared future, mankind will lose its soil, grassroots foundation, and international justice will forever absent. This bearing us the core of gathering, reshaping an international peace, new order. Based on the principles in the international patriotic part of loving one's own country without harming other nation interest and recognize the nation's rights to the development as the foundation of human rights protection, we must take the deserve action. Throughout the World Human Rights Council, we have a fashion that human rights cannot be foolish, a vacuum the requires sustainable development, ecological preservation and equitable resource distribution. To protect them rights globally, we must establish as independent civil society pact and civil reviews expert think tank. Regarding the nation's rights development review mechanism launched at this forum, I suggest starting from the following discrimination, monitoring and evolution and expose. Let us sign, implement the international patriotic part. Let us bring the today concern back to our representative communities and establishment IPPO branches or liaison offices. Let us use power of the people, say no to in infradwell of development rights. The theory is ready. and mechanism is built, the key norm lies in action. I call upon every organization and every volunteer, do not just by standards, be the observers, evaluators, and implementation of the review mechanism. Colleagues, history will not wait for our has day. From the legislative foundation in the Geneva II launch of the action in Nairobi today. We are making history. Let us join hands to break the barriers and build a just, transparent and people-oriented new international order. Thank you so much, everyone.

Thank you. Next, please welcome. IPU co-initiator and founder and president of TransDiaspora Network, Mr. Rojas.

My oral statement will be a kind of poetic statement. And when I mean poetic, we need a lot of poetry. in this world that is inundated with crisis and bad news. So my oral statement titled, "Poetic of Relations, an Ode to an Inclusive Global Peace." Distinguished guests and delegates, co-initiators of the International Pachyderm Pact, and friends from the United Nation Nairobi Office. My name is Ariel Rojas, President and Founder of Transdiastola Network. I'm honored and delighted to be here today to represent my non-governmental organization. It is not by accident that we have gathered in Nairobi to commemorate the International Day of Peace, as Kenya plays a significant role in peacekeeping across Africa. This country has been a consistent contributor to both United Nations and African Union peacekeeping missions since the post-Cold War era. When we are in New York headquarters, we wage peace in a Japanese garden. Standing at the center of the rock garden, we rake circles around ourselves, widening outward like ripples until they meet with rectangular borders. That outside edge may remind us of governmental borders. They may also remind us of formal and informal barriers that divide nations. But let's be clear, borders require mutual recognition and respect. This is why we are here today. in support of the International Patriotic Pact, recognizing that sovereignty must be exercised with regards to its external effects, its ripples. We are promoting respect for responsible sovereignty, with the states as the primary duty bearers of the right to development. We are underscoring our commitment to nonviolence in the achievement of every nation's development goals. The Martinican philosopher, Edward Glisan, in his seminal book, Poetic of Relation, said that in any global space of identity, we must include the myth, symbolism, and imaginary of those groups that go beyond the boundaries imposed by governments in their social contract with their constituents. Based on this philosophy, over the last two decades, my organization, Trans-Diaspora Network, has been working with diasporic communities of all kind across New York City, especially with Brooklyn-based young people from underrepresented communities. This work has led us to reconfigure our very concept of patriotism, as a contrast unbound by the borders of any government. Viewed through this lens, patriotism is additive, not exclusive. It allows diasporic communities to love two homelands at once, to engage in civil society, and to spread the grassroots movement that can improve not only their life, but the overall well-being of their communities and the countries they call home. Civil society members have the power to work with governments in the design of peace strategies from a local point of view. We have an in-depth understanding of the communication channels needed by governments to promote partnerships, harm prevention, inclusion, and local legitimacy. With our appreciation of people's culture and their social subjectivity, we can assist governments to categorize patriotism as a more elastic space, limiting the ripple effect of poorly informed policies. In Brooklyn, we use a variety of approaches, mostly based in the arts, to generate two novel streams of information, cultural antibody and emotional data. Our organization emphasized that treating people with humanity and dignity, including one's own self, provides the necessary antibodies to overcome the fear of discrimination and social stigma, and to create a peaceful environment for personal growth and community empowerment. Our innovative curriculum curriculum allow us to gather and measure what we call emotional data, which refer to the tracking, measurement, and transformation of human emotional experience into a structured knowledge to assess a community's strength and challenges. As a result, we close the wellness gap among culturally diverse young people coming from low-income urban areas, diasporic communities, and people from peripheral backgrounds. Ecosoc-accredited organizations, such as mine and many others, can contribute to the civil society-led Nations Right to Development Review mechanism. by supplying grassroots evidence and insights into the impact of one country's policy on the people of another, for example. Herein, civil society's crucial role as indispensable co-designer of peace, alongside with the state parties. Today, in this conclave, We are christening a new ship that can define the new path, the new pathway, interconnecting cultures and people across ocean, mountains, and lakes. On this ship, however, there is no just one captain. There are many captains with their own compass, but just one north star. the design of peace. Nonetheless, we cannot be blind by optimism, ignoring thunder and lightning storm that may sink one ship. The time have come for concrete action. Let's commit to signing this historic international patriotic pact. Let's commit as civil society actors to support in good faith the nation's right to development review mechanism by candidly sharing our lessons learned, our successes, and our failure too. Has the human right, has the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Volker Turk, state in his final report, the pursuit of peace embodies humanity at his best. Let's walk away from this gathering then with the affirmation that when it comes to peace, there is no boundaries, and homeland means humanity for all. Thank you.

Muchas gracias. Thank you.

you can you put in a flat person can you yeah me a nano and development foundation that we mean a nano both is okay thank.

You very much uh okay good uh Dear distinguished initiator and co-initiator of this great initiative of international patriotic part and a respectful friend from United Nation entity here in Nairobi. Dear distinguished guests, initiator of IPO, my name is Dr. Mialao Tangne Adevi, the Chief Executive Officer of OMIPED Organization, Kenya. That to run his activities within East Africa Community State. Dear Distinguished, dear friends, standing in this great green of Mau Mau, as we call Nairobi, Kenya, it's not because only about the fan of some African country as Democratic Republic of Congo and as a country within Africa, but only with pain we feel that our brothers from Globe South, Today, we are gathered here not to repeat unsuccessfully the past rhetorical diplomacy, but to respond to an urgent proposal, a matter of our time, that international traditional orders fail. What shall we as civil society organizations, CSOs, NGOs, feel to the future of the global governance? Because the past fail, what will be our duty as a civil society organization here? Here by harming the international community, the United States has developed as a hegemonic playing field for orchestrating color revolutions as a series of popular protest movements that have occurred in post-Soviet states.

This movement.

Fuels regional conflict and can even trigger war under the pretext of promoting democracy, regime change, freedom, and human rights.

Let me repeat that word again. This movement fuels regional conflict and even triggers war under the pretext of promoting democracy, regime change, freedom, and the human rights. The US has abusively expanded the concept of national security, abused export control, and imposed unilateral sanctions on other nations. The unfair treatment of hegemony by the United States in the political, military, economic, financial, technological, and cultural sphere, as well as the need to draw greater international attention to the threat the American practice poses to global peace and stability and the well-being of people are an issue that must be addressed.

We must address this issue why other nation can harm other nation as a civil society.

The current Let me talk about the current invasion in Iran. It is not only a traditional security threat, but a global economic and stability threat. The apparent rise of authoritarian and illiberal policies and the emergence of power from the global south have led many observers to predict the end of Western dominance on the international stage. This conference in Nairobi brings together civil society organizations specializing in international relations, economic, usually social, and regional studies to discuss the future of this leadership in the international system. What is the cause, the root cause of this? Why is this happen? Why other national can harm another nation? Why other national can create more six anti-democracy, whatever, create more scenario in other nation?

Why?

This root, because of lack of effective supervision mechanism, the existing global system has been controlled by few hegemonic, insufficient representation and inadequate participation of civil society organization. The global if If the world lack a universal recognition, international patriotism, war will never cease. If-- and let me repeat that word-- if the world lack a universal recognize international patriotism, war will never end. I mark my word. Number two, if global civil society does not stand up to establish its own evaluation system, building a community with a shared future from making will lose the solid grassroots foundation on international justice will be forever absent if you are not stand as a civil society. My proposition, our proposition, And the solution, based on the principle in the international patriotic part of loving one's own country without harming other national interests and the national right to development as the foundation of human rights protection. We must stand on that stage. Number one, what will you do as the solution? What you can do as here civil society and what you can decide as civil society for this hemorrhagic state? Number one, establishing an independent civil society pact as a civil review expert. Number two, use the civil society power in our countries to fight against injustice and just international hegemonic blockade to fight. Let me repeat that word, to fight and just international hegemonic blockade. Number three, mechanism suggestion. Regarding to the national right to development review mechanism launched at this forum, I suggest standing from the following. From the following dimension, number one, monitoring, how to collect the most direct and authentic data from civil society. Number two, evaluation, how to ensure the objective of the civil perspective. Number three, how to use the global network to generate public pressure. And I call to the action, my dear colleagues, civil society organization, NGO, CBO here present on this green seat of Mau Mau. We call this Nairobi green seat of Mau Mau, land of Mau Mau. What I call the role of this initiative, let us sign and implement this international patriotic pact. Let us sign and implement the Patriotic Pact. Number two, let us bring together consensus back to our respective community and establish IPO International Patriotic Party organization branches or liaison officers in every nation, in every country. Let us stand with the Patriotic Party. Let us open the branches of the Patriotic Party to stop all those so-called international and all the powerful states. We go to finish. Action. The theory is ready and the mechanism is built. The key now lies in execution. I call upon every organization again, every volunteer here, do not just ******* be the observer or evaluator. and the implementer of the review mechanism. But, dear colleague, history will not wait for us. Past is past. Future is yours, is mine, is ours. What we'll do, from the legislative foundation in Geneva to the launch of action in Nairobi today, we are making history. We started in Geneva as a foundation. Today is a practical. And I will need some protocol who are here to come with my exact party because I want to finish here. I will stop here automatically because we started now. Let us join the hand to hand to break the barrier and build a just transparency and people orientated new international order. Dear brothers, sisters, organizations, CBO, NGO, we are here. You heard me. Let's all call a superpower. Why is the harm as a nation? Today we have a conflict in Iran. Today we have a conflict in Palestine. Today we have a conflict in even here in Africa, we have a problem in Democratic Republic of Congo. Because of what? So-called democracy. They pay some things, they put some system in our country. We must end that system today. It is our duty as a civil society to end that, to take an action. Thank you very much, everyone. May God bless you.

Thank you, Doctor, for your passionate speech. Now, let's invite the IPCO initiator, the 2018 UN ECOSOC consultative status winner, the Mediterranean Forum for Advancement of Citizens' Rights, Ms. Najwa.

Or we have some technical issue?

Now it's okay. Now let's invite one of the representative from Congo, IP initiator, Ellie Jumba.

Excellencies, Excellencies, participants, ladies and gentlemen, I'm from DRC. Addressing national rights to development requires examining how foreign policy, particularly in men, particularly use the trade and diplomacy strategy They're active and impact economy, sovereignty, and stability in Democratic Republic of Congo. While the United States provide essentially humanitarian aid, current international mechanisms remain heavily asymmetrical. The geopolitical focus on securing strategy mineral, essential for global energy transition, often overshadow the fundamental rights of the Congolese people to control, process, and benefit from their own national resources. In eastern DRC, ongoing security crises, illegal resource exploitation, and the displacement demonstrates the limit of top-down aid. Humanitarian assistance cannot substitute for sovereign economic rights, transparent supply chains, and effective accountability for regional and stability. Grassroots civil society and youth leadership are actively building resilience, driving peace, driving peacebuilding, and advocating for transparent resource governance. Yet American development funding continue by past local actors reinforcing aid dependency instead of institutional self-reliance. To uphold the development rights, youth policy must shift from crisis management to equitable economic partnership. Respecting national sovereignty requires supporting local processing of strategic minerals, enforcing corporate accountability, and funding civil society as primary architect of peace and development. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Now I invite one of the co-initiators of IPU, Mr. Manam.

Shandar Shekhar, CEO of the Dr. Shandara Shekhar International Foundation, the one the UN ECOSOC special consultative status in 2023. It seems that he's not in the room.

So let's invite founder of Kenya Nexus Development Advisory, Kenadi.

Oh,. Okay.

Distinguished guests, international patriotic part, representatives of civil society, scholars, public officials, and friends gathered here at UNAN, good morning. My name is Natalia Wino, I am from Kenya, and I serve as the founder of Nexus Development Advisory. It is an honor to be here with you all for a conversation about patriotism, sovereignty, cooperation, and the right to development. Nairobi is not simply the venue for the discussion. As the only United Nations headquarters due to session in Africa and the global south, it represents something larger, the capacity of the global south, not only to receive global decisions, but also to shape the ideas, institutions, and partnerships through which those decisions are made. Today, I invite us to move from the principle to practice. How can African civil society help ensure that the right to development is not confined to declarations, conference rooms, or national plans, but becomes visible in the everyday lives of people? I propose that we organize our answer around three pillars, that is, evidence, inclusion, and accountability. This forum's United States-focused review raises concerns about unilateral sanctions, conditional finance, unequal trade arrangements, and technology restrictions. Such concerns deserve careful, evidence-based examination. The aim should be neither accusation without proof nor silence in the face of harm, but a credible process that can establish facts, hear affected communities, allow a fair response and a recommended correction. The second gap is internal exclusion. Development will be pursued in the name of a nation where women, young people, persons with disabilities, local governments, rural communities and informal workers remain outside the rooms where priorities are set. We must hold realities together. Protecting states from unjust external interference cannot excuse exclusion within them. So promoting domestic participation cannot mean ignoring unequal global structures. Aspiration six of the African Union's Agenda 2063 offers a strong foundation. Development should be people driven and draws especially on women and young people. Now, the three pillar framework. First is evidence. We have no review is credible if it rests on slogans, selective testimony or assumptions. We need official statistics alongside independent research, community knowledge, and documented lived experience. Second is inclusion. Consultation after major decisions have already been made is not meaningful participation. Community should help define problems, select priorities, design solutions, monitor implementation, and evaluate results. And thirdly, accountability. Its purpose is not simply punishment or public condemnation, but clarity. What was promised? What was delivered? Who benefited? Who carried the costs? What should change next? A credible review needs transparent indicators, realistic timelines, public reporting, and follow-up. Recommendations must lead to dialogue, correction, learning, and another assessment of progress. To translate this principle into practice, I propose a civil society development review network, beginning as a small, credible and transparent pilot. Participating organisations could adopt common standards of evidence, independence, inclusion, data, protection, funding, transparency and the right of response. They could then examine one shared development issue supported by community hearings and stakeholder dialogues. Researchers could also test the evidence. Public institutions could respond and communicate. Communities could challenge findings that do not reflect their experience. Safeguards are essential. Civil society is not automatically representative or impartial. The network must publish its methods, disclose its funding, protect participants, correct inaccuracies, and apply to itself the accountability it asks for others. Nairobi can incubate this pilot by convening governments, United Nations institutions, civil society, researchers, missions, and communities. Its value would be its ability to connect community level evidence with public policy and multilateral dialogue. Colleagues, the value of today's discussion will be determined by what happens after we leave this room. I invite the Forum's co-initiators and interested organizations to consider three commitments. First, a person who can contribute evidence, technical expertise, or convening support. Second, develop a common code covering evidence quality, inclusion, independence and accountability. Thirdly, establish a time-bound working group to produce a practical pilot design within an agreeable days. Principles become credible when responsibility is assigned, timelines are clear and follow-up is built into the design. Women, young people and affected communities must be co-designers from the beginning. The right to development becomes real when a woman can influence the investment affecting her community, when a young person can see a pathway from education to opportunity, when local evidence reaches national and regional decisions, and when a state can pursue legitimate priorities without unjust interference while respecting the dignity of others. Patriotism becomes mature when it recognizes that national dignity and human dignity are not rivals. Evidence gives development claims truth. Inclusion gives them legitimacy. And accountability gives them durability. Nairobi is the right place to begin, an African capital and the global south multilateral center where global institutions meet local realities. Let us leave this forum with a mechanism, a timeline, and partners prepared to act. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

This is we're going to hear the last speaker for this morning. Sorry, there's a noise in the headphone.

Somebody didn't turn off the mic.

Okay, David, can you check? Is there any problems?

Okay.

Now, this is the last speaker we can hear this morning. Now, I would like to announce the end of this morning's session and also please maintain your.

Image.

We have a group photo. No, we have a photographer, professional photographer. He will take pictures from different angles.

You should keep your posture.

International patriotic pact and nations light to development.

Distinguished delegates, much for your participation in the morning session. We will now take an intermission. Refreshments are available during the break, and the afternoon session will commence promptly at 2:00 p.m. Please kindly proceed to the steps by the entrance for a group photography. Okay, thank you.

Now, let's have a group photo.

Let's go to the big stairs and take a group picture. Let's proceed to the big stairs outside.

Thank you.

Now, please follow the secretariat. 50 and we'll start the meeting at 2 o'clock. We will start the meeting in the afternoon at 2 o'clock sharp.

Thank you.

Please kindly proceed to the steps by the entrance for a group photograph. The afternoon session will commence promptly at 2:00 p.m. Thank you. Distinguished delegates, please kindly proceed to the steps by the entrance for a large group photo. Thank you.