Journal of Human Rights 123 work of the last century (including in response to the AIDS crisis), in which “the diversity of a national culture is reduced to a stylized individual; and ‘objectification,’ in which cultural difference is commodified, [… paradoxically] emphasizing difference and creating fetishistic images of nationalism, crass racial stereotypes and images of otherness which are fragmented and objectified” (Back & Quaade, 1993, p. 68). Bearing this in mind, and expanding such concerns to IBelong and UNHCR’s wider work on statelessness, it appears that the campaign has largely imposed a global framing of statelessness experiences, with only limited efforts made to ensure grassroots traction in some regions of the world. For the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, it is notable that, besides one extended report specific to statelessness in the region (UNHCR, 2016), most of UNHCR’s materials on statelessness that have appeared in Arabic are literal translations of global tools and reports, and do not consider the ground realities and context-specificity of MENA settings. Conclusion: Looking beyond IBelong This article has considered the implications of “eradication” framing within global statelessness work, primarily focusing on UNHCR’s IBelong campaign to “End Statelessness” within a decade (2014-2024). Specifically, it has raised the question of whether alternative approaches could bring greater value to statelessness work. Drawing on experiences of other similarly-framed initiatives (namely Make Poverty History and Ending Aids), I have argued that it should not be assumed that an eradication framing always serves the best interests of people affected by the issue of statelessness. This may be the case from both the perspective of i) advocacy efficacy given how the campaign so spectacularly failed to achieve its stated goal and ii) the discursive implications for those with lived experience of statelessness, who may feel that their very stateless identity is being threatened by eradication ambitions. In going forward, I argue that such considerations should be taken into account alongside the more programmatic findings within existing evaluations of the IBelong campaign. I recognize that eradication framing may have certain advantages such as opportunities for awareness raising, captivating imagination and mobilizing decisive action. Furthermore, such framing highlights that statelessness can theoretically be fully eliminated (assuming political will is in place). However, I also note that where the very raison d’être of a particular campaign is to bring about an end to the topic in which the campaign organizers specialize, there may be a conflict of interest, or even an outright disincentive, to actually draw that work to an end. At the same time, working on a seemingly indefinite basis to end a particular issue can lead to interest fatigue among the general public, practitioners and those affected directly by the issue. As a lesson from the IBelong campaign, it appears that alongside more sensitive use of visuals and messaging that could be piloted with, if not developed by, stateless people themselves,5 it is important that the diversity of opinion of stateless people on eradication approaches is considered when framing statelessness interventions. The tradeoffs around whether or not to design a campaign through an eradication paradigm should be openly discussed. Having reached the 2024 end point of the IBelong campaign, and with plans already underway for the next phase in the “Ending Statelessness” enterprise, it is timely to take stock of such developments. The dominant “Ending Statelessness” frame has been clearly maintained in UNHCR’s new Global Alliance to End Statelessness, while the parallel Global Movement Against Statelessness also describes itself as being “dedicated to the eradication of statelessness and the achievement of equal nationality rights for all and the human rights of all stateless people” (Global Movement Against Statelessness, n.d). Here, it is perhaps somewhat ironic that UNHCR’s present venture in statelessness “eradication” – the Global Alliance to End Statelessness – sounds remarkably similar to the ambition it articulated at the very launch of the IBelong campaign, with an associated UNHCR publication (2014) stating that “[a]lthough there is already a community of UN, NGO and local actors working to resolve statelessness, a key component of UNHCR’s Campaign to End Statelessness is to foster greater partnership between the agency,