Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

By Sania Farooqui
BENGALURU, India, Mar 4 2026 (IPS)

The ordinary sounds of Nahid Ali’s home in Khartoum were completely drowned out by the sound of war which began on April 15 2023. Her baby was just 21 days old. The morning started as any typical day for a mother who had just given birth to her baby and needed to nurse her newborn while she took care of her other children. The gunfire began to erupt. The fighting began when two groups started to battle each other in the streets. The fighting which began in her area developed into a destructive countrywide war in Sudan which spread to her street within moments.

Credit: Nahid Ali, Communications Manager, Plan International

Nahid states “I remember the sound of the war replacing the sound of my home.” Her children were shaking. It was the first time she had found herself at the center of live clashes. There was no time to gather documents, clothes, or memories. She grabbed her children and ran. Everything else was left behind. In that instant, Nahid stopped being only a humanitarian worker responding to crisis, she became one of its victims. Nahid Ali works as a Communications Manager at Plan International, where she helps women and children across Sudan through her work. Overnight, she joined the millions she had long served. She was now an internally displaced person who required home protection and humanitarian assistance. “It was confusing,” she says. “I needed to support my own family while also thinking about other families in need.”

As a mother, she could not protect her children from the sound of airstrikes or the fear of hunger. As a humanitarian, she felt the crisis in her bones. “I became one of the people I used to help,” she says. Now, when mothers describe fleeing under fire or struggling to feed their children, she does not simply empathize. She understands. The war which forced Nahid to leave her house has developed into one of worlds worst humanitarian crisis. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 30.4 million people which represents two-thirds of the global population now require humanitarian assistance, including 7 million internally displaced people. Cities have been shattered, communities have emptied, front lines shift, but civilians remain trapped in the wreakage created by this war.

Sudan’s health infrastructure has come crumbling down under the pressure of the conflict. Over 70 percent of the health facilities are not functioning. Hospitals have been bombed, looted, or occupied. Healthcare staff have either fled, not been paid, or have been killed. Disease is rampant in the crowded camps, and lack of medication is the new normal. What was once curable is now fatal.

The situation is being made worse by the effects of the climate change and the economic collapse. The purchasing power has been eroded by the high rates of inflation. The prices of food have skyrocketed. Water is now a luxury. People are not eating for days. The situation is affecting the women, children, elderly, and the displaced the most.

The situation has now spread beyond the borders of Sudan. The conflict has displaced over 2.9 million people into Chad, the Central African Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, and South Sudan. These nations are already dealing with health challenges of their own.

The conflict started in April 2023, as tension between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces transformed into an armed conflict in Khartoum. The conflict has since spread across the Darfur region. What started as a political power struggle has now resulted in the displacement of populations, starvation, and genocide.

In a report released by the United Nations, an Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for the Sudan established that the “evidence establishes the existence of at least three underlying acts of genocide in Darfur. These are the killing of members of the protected ethnic group, the causing of serious bodily and mental harm, and the deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part.”

The report is based on the situation in El Fasher, the capital of the state of North Darfur, a town besieged for 18 months before the main attack. The report established the “scale, coordination, and public endorsement of the operation by senior RSF leadership demonstrate that the crimes committed in and around El Fasher were not random excesses of war,” said Mohamed Chande Othman, chair of the mission. “They formed part of a planned and organized operation that bears the defining characteristics of genocide.”

Children are at the eye of this storm.

According to UNICEF, there are an estimated 1.3 million children in areas where famine is already taking place. Over 770,000 children are expected to face severe acute malnutrition this year. Many of them will not survive. In the final six months of 2024 alone, there were over 900 grave violations against children reported, eighty percent of them were killings, mainly in Darfur, Khartoum, and Gezira Province. These are just a few of the reported cases, which humanitarian agencies say is just a small fraction of the true extent of the crisis.

The Integrated Food Security Phase classification (IPC) said the thresholds for acute malnutrition were surpassed in two new areas of North Darfur, Um Baru and Kernoi, following the fall of the regional capital, El Fasher, in October 2025 and a massive exodus. December assessments found acute malnutrition levels among children of 52.9 per cent in Um Baru, nearly twice the famine threshold and about 34 per cent in Kernoi.

It is a challenging job to deliver aid to the war-torn areas. The roads are either unsafe or impassable, bureaucratic delays are common too and the armed groups attack aid convoys as well. “Sometimes the assistance cannot even arrive,” Nahid says.

In these places of displacement, Nahid witnesses the toll taken on the human body by the numbers.

“Sexual violence is a tool of war. Many of the women we meet were attacked as they fled their homes. Some were forced to watch as their friends were attacked in front of family members. Some are pregnant, waiting for services that might never materialize.” The trauma these women face is compounded by shame and a total lack of services.

In some communities, the shame of rape leads to the forced marriage of the raped women to the rapist. This provides a context for the child born of rape, it’s a way to give the family a sense of honour. But the damage done by this violence cannot be overstated. The girls who were raped have yet to open up about the violence they experienced, psychosocial services for these women are scarce, safe havens are hard to find and their needs are overwhelming. Children come to the camps alone, separated, orphaned, lost. Some saw their families die. Some crossed through combat zones to escape.

Nahid recalls a six-year-old girl who is always scared, she describes how in Sudan, women wear a traditional attire called the tobe. Whenever the girl sees a woman wearing a tobe, she runs towards her crying, “My mother, my mother.” She hopes against all hopes that this woman is her real mom, Nahid says.

“We need the world not to forget Sudan.” She says this is what she hopes for: more solidarity from the world community, more funding, more pressure on governments.

What keeps her going is the strength she sees all around her. She sees women organizing community kitchens from scratch. She sees families sharing the little food they have. She sees women organizing their own support groups. Sudanese women inspire her most. Many have lost homes, livelihoods, and loved ones, and yet, they still care for children, advocate for services, and hold communities together.

“They have lost so much,” Nahid says. “But they are still standing.”

Sania Farooqui is an independent journalist, host of The Peace Brief, a platform dedicated to amplifying women’s voices in peacebuilding and human rights. Sania has previously worked with CNN, Al Jazeera and TIME.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The photo shows an all-girls cricket team from Dir that made it to the finals of the inter-regional games, all without coaching, back in 2023. "Imagine what they can achieve with the right facilities and proper training," said Noorena Shams, also from Dir. Courtesy: Noorena Shams

By Zofeen Ebrahim
KARACHI, Pakistan, Mar 4 2026 (IPS)

“I was very happy to see the way Aina Wazir was playing cricket,” says 28-year-old Noorena Shams, a professional squash player, when she saw the seven-year-old’s video. The clip, which spread rapidly across social media, drew widespread praise for the young girl’s remarkable talent.

But the events that unfolded were like reliving her past.

“It was like watching my younger self,” said Shams, who belongs to Dir, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), bordering Afghanistan, close to where Aina lives in North Waziristan. Both are part of Pakistan’s tribal region.

“Aina, like me, does not have a father to fight the world for her,” she said quietly.

The video also caught the attention of Javed Afridi, CEO of Peshawar Zalmi, who expressed interest in inducting Aina into the upcoming Zalmi Women League. In a post on X, he requested her contact details, promising her cricket equipment and training facilities.

“We couldn’t have imagined the video would get so much attention,” said her cousin, requesting anonymity, speaking to IPS by phone from Shiga Zalwel Khel, a village along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in North Waziristan. “We were overjoyed; it meant new opportunities and a brighter future for her.”

But the joy was short-lived.

Caught Between Militancy and Military

The video caught the attention of local militants.

Angered by the public display of a girl playing sport, the militants abducted Zafran Wazir—a local teacher who had filmed and uploaded the video with the family’s consent—and forced him to issue a public apology for violating “Islamic values and Pashtun traditions”. It has been reported that he was tortured.

The militants have warned the family that Aina cannot leave the village and that the girl must not accept any offers from anyone. “They said she can play cricket,” said her cousin, “But there should be no videos.”

“Ordinary people in the region are caught between a rock and a hard place—trapped between militant groups and the Pakistan army’s ongoing armed operations,” said Razia Mehsood, 36, a journalist from South Waziristan. “The Taliban tolerate no dissent, and our once-peaceful region is now scarred by landmines on the ground and quadcopters and drones overhead. People are living under constant psychological strain,” she added.

Noorena Shams, a professional squash player, has shown her support for Aina Wazir. Courtesy: Noorena Shams

Defying the Odds

“I hope she [Aina] can leave the place,” said Maria Toorpakai, 35, the first tribal Pakistani woman who went to play in international squash tournaments, turning professional in 2007.

“Whenever there is a talented girl, every effort should be made to remove her from the toxic environment—even if it means a huge sacrifice from the family,” she said, who belongs to neighbouring South Waziristan but was speaking to IPS from Toronto, where she now resides.

Both Toorpakai and Shams had to leave their homes to escape relentless scrutiny. Belonging to a conservative and patriarchal region, they had to disguise themselves as boys to pursue sports.

Toorpakai cut her hair short, dressed like a boy, and renamed herself “Genghis Khan” to participate in competitive sports.

Shams, meanwhile, was hesitantly allowed to play badminton because it was deemed “more appropriate for young women”.

Despite her parents’ support, she watched boys playing in the only cricket club in Dir, founded by her father.

But theirs is not the only journey fraught with hurdles because of a patriarchal mindset and a rigid tribal background where women’s visibility itself is contested.

“The greatest tragedy is that women’s voices are silenced and excluded from representation, while traditions disguised as religion persist, tying honour and dishonour to women,” said Mehsood. Both Toorpakai and Shams know all this too well. Their families faced constant social rebuke and accusations for bringing dishonour to their villages and tribes, all for playing a sport.

They are not alone.

Athletes like Sadia Gul (former Pakistan No. 1 in squash), Tameen Khan (who in 2022 was Pakistan’s fastest female sprinter), and Salma Faiz (cricketer) relocated from districts including Bannu, D.I. Khan, and Karak to Peshawar, the provincial capital—not just for better opportunities but to escape constant scrutiny.

“If you’re lucky enough that your grandfather, father, or brother doesn’t put a stop to your dreams, then it will be your uncles,” said Salma Faiz, the only sister among six brothers. “And if not them, the neighbours will start counting the minutes you take to get home. They’ll question why you train under male coaches, who watches your matches, and even what you wear beneath your chador. And if it’s still not them, then the villagers will whisper behind your back or land at your doorstep, convincing your parents that girls shouldn’t play sports at all.”

Faiz endured opposition from her elder brother but never gave up cricket. She eventually got selected for the national women’s cricket team.

“Aina is fortunate to receive such overwhelming applause,” said Faiz, now 40, living in Peshawar and working as a lecturer in health and physical education at Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University.

“I urge her parents not to surrender to social pressure; they should stand by her and encourage her. She has extraordinary talent—I’ve seen the way she plays,” Faiz pointed out.

Safe Spaces for Women Athletes

Each of these women is now creating ways for their younger counterpart to access the opportunity they lacked.

Faiz has opened her home to girls from tribal regions pursuing sport. When space runs out, she arranges hostel accommodation to ensure they get a shot at opportunities that would likely never reach their village.

Toorpakai, through the Maria Toorpakai Foundation, has, over the years, built a strong network, providing safe spaces for young sportswomen from her region.

But now she wants to go beyond providing temporary support. Her vision to build a state-of-the-art Toorpakai Sports School—a residential facility where girls like Aina Wazir can train seriously, study properly, and live without fear—remains a dream.

“All I want from the state is six acres of land near Islamabad,” she said. “Far enough from tribal hostility but accessible to girls from across Pakistan and international coaches I intend to rope in. I can manage the rest. I can raise funds.”

For over two years, her proposal has been stalled by bureaucratic red tape. “It tells you everything,” she said. “The state simply isn’t interested.”

Shams, too, like Toorpakai, runs the Noorena Shams Foundation, currently supporting four women athletes by giving them a monthly stipend for their training, transport and rent. But if anyone else needs equipment, tuition fees, or house rent, her foundation is able to furnish those needs. She even helped construct two cricket pitches for Faiz’s university.

As the first female athlete elected to the executive committees of the Provincial Squash Association, the Sports Management Committee, the Olympic Association, and the Pakistan Cycling Federation, she has championed young athletes—especially sportswomen— ensuring their concerns are heard.

“I continue to bring to the table issues of athletes’ mental and physical health, the need for international-level coaching, the safety and harassment women face, and the importance of integrating competitive sports into school curricula.”

Using Religion to Quash Dreams

Social media may have provided Aina Wazir with a platform to showcase her talent, but it has also exposed her to hostility.

“We are not against a child playing cricket,” said 27-year-old Mufti Ijaz Ahmed, a religious scholar from South Waziristan. “But she must stop once she becomes a woman. It is against our traditions for women to run around in pants and shirts in public. It is vulgar. If Aina is allowed to do this, every girl will want to follow—and we cannot accept that.”

“The mera jism, meri marzi (my body, my choice) slogan will not work here,” Ahmed went on, referring to a popular slogan that has been chanted since March 8, 2018, and which came under heavy criticism for being a rebellion against the cultural values and Islam.

“Who is he to declare that Aina can’t play?” retorted an incensed Maria Toorpakai, who also serves on the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Women in Sport Commission. “Whenever a girl picks up a bat or a ball, Islam is said to be endangered,” she added.

“I would respect them if they confronted and condemned the real ills in my region—drug abuse, child marriage, bacha bazi (the exploitation of adolescent boys coerced into cross-dressing, dancing, and sexual abuse), and the spread of HIV and AIDS. Instead, they obsess over distorted ideas of honour and dishonour. They neither understand the world we live in nor the true essence of Islam. Moreover, they have done nothing for our people.”

National responsibility

Ultimately, she argued, the responsibility lies with the state. It cannot afford to look away while intimidation silences young girls with talent and ambition. It is not only a personal tragedy but also a national loss when talent in remote villages is stifled before it can surface.

“It is the government’s duty to deal firmly with such elements,” she said. “And if it cannot protect its daughters, then it must ask itself why it is in power at all.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Lors de son discours prononcé le 2 février 2026, le président de la République française, Emmanuel Macron, a annoncé une évolution de la doctrine française sur la dissuasion nucléaire, tout en évoquant l’instauration d’une « dissuasion avancée ». Qu’entend-on par « dissuasion avancée » ? Pourquoi ce discours doit-il être interprété comme une évolution logique de la doctrine française plutôt que comme une révolution ? Ce discours est-il par ailleurs annonciateur d’une souveraineté plus importante de la France sur l’arme nucléaire ? Le point avec Jean-Pierre Maulny, directeur adjoint de l’IRIS.

La dissuasion avancée exposée par Emmanuel Macron signifie-t-elle que la France a perdu sa souveraineté sur l’usage de l’arme nucléaire ?

Des commentateurs ou personnalités politiques se sont inquiétés avant le discours du président de la République sur le risque que la France apporte la garantie de sécurité nucléaire à nos partenaires européens, en partageant la décision d’emploi de cette arme. Il n’en a rien été et la surprise vient davantage du fait que ce risque ait été évoqué. Une telle évolution était inenvisageable et ce pour deux raisons :

• En premier lieu le rappel de l’unicité de décision d’emploi de l’arme nucléaire figurait dans la Revue nationale stratégique publiée en juillet 2025 : on voit mal pourquoi le président de la République serait revenu sur un principe qu’il avait approuvé neuf mois plus tôt ;
• Le principe de l’unicité d’emploi dépend de l’arme en elle-même qui est, du fait de sa puissance exceptionnelle, radicalement différente de toute arme conventionnelle. On ne peut partager la décision ultime d’employer une telle arme et tous les dirigeants des pays qui possèdent l’arme nucléaire appliquent le même raisonnement. C’est donc un principe intangible. Il n’y a aucun risque que ce principe soit abandonné un jour et cela est vrai pour toutes les puissances nucléaires.

La dissuasion avancée ce n’est pas la dissuasion élargie. Ce n’est pas une révolution, ce n’est qu’une évolution tendancielle qui a commencé dès les années 1990. Notre responsabilité mais aussi nos intérêts en matière de défense ne se limitent pas à la défense des frontières de la France : Emmanuel Macron l’a rappelé lors de son discours, François Mitterrand l’avait déjà dit de manière très imagée en citant une anecdote lors de son discours sur la dissuasion de 1994. Répondant en 1987 à une question de Margaret Thatcher sur l’utilisation de l’arme nucléaire française, il indiquait que « si les Russes étaient à Bonn la guerre était perdue », et précisait que la dissuasion nucléaire française devait jouer dès le stade de déclenchement d’un conflit avec l’URSS et non quand il était trop tard[1].  On peut ajouter que dès la déclaration de l’Organisation du traité de l’Atlantique Nord (OTAN) d’Ottawa en 1974, les pays membres de l’OTAN, dont la France, avaient souligné que les forces nucléaires du Royaume-Uni et de la France étaient « en mesure de jouer un rôle dissuasif propre contribuant au renforcement global de la dissuasion de l’Alliance ».

Alors qu’est-ce qui a changé en ce 2 mars 2026 ?

En premier lieu, il y a un contexte stratégique bien plus menaçant qu’il y a 30 ans avec un pays, la Russie, qui menace clairement l’Europe. Parallèlement les États-Unis souhaitent que les Européens fassent plus pour leur défense, ce qui est légitime, mais on se demande jour après jour si ce pays est toujours prêt à se mobiliser pour défendre l’Europe si nous sommes attaqués : l’effet Trump, avec sa relation au minimum ambigüe avec Vladimir Poutine est indéniable. Il y a donc une demande de la part de nos partenaires européens pour que la France s’engage plus dans la défense de l’Europe alors que la France de son côté souhaite que l’Europe de la défense devienne une réalité et que le rôle de Paris soit affirmé et reconnu dans cette défense de l’Europe. Il y avait donc un intérêt commun à agir afin de reconnaitre plus nettement le rôle de la dissuasion nucléaire française dans la défense de l’Europe, et ce sans que la souveraineté de la France sur sa force de dissuasion ne soit remise en cause par cet accord.

Qu’est-ce que la dissuasion avancée ?

En premier lieu, la dénomination de dissuasion avancée ne peut se comprendre que pour la distinguer de la dissuasion élargie des États-Unis dans le cadre de l’OTAN. C’est aussi un moyen d’éviter toute ambiguïté sur une éventuelle automaticité de l’emploi de notre force de dissuasion si l’un de nos partenaires européens était attaqué.

Il y a deux composantes dans la dissuasion avancée.

Le premier est celui d’exercice mettant en œuvre la dissuasion nucléaire en la couplant avec les forces conventionnelles des pays.  L’intérêt de ces exercices est de permettre à ces pays d’assimiler en quelque sorte la grammaire de la dissuasion nucléaire. Les exercices sont basés sur des scénarios, ce qui signifie qu’il y aura un apprentissage à la dissuasion nucléaire et donc une meilleure compréhension de celle-ci et notamment de son articulation avec les forces conventionnelles. Cela conduit également à mettre en place une forme de coopération renforcée dans le domaine de la défense avec les pays intégrant la dissuasion avancée avec « un travail commun sur la menace et le renseignement et des moyens de communication spécifiques ». Le mécanisme mis en place ressemble fortement à ce qui avait déjà été initié avec l’initiative européenne d’intervention (IEI) lancée en 2018 : c’est-à-dire créer une culture stratégique commune qui s’applique dans ce cas à la dissuasion nucléaire et non aux opérations extérieures : le Royaume-Uni qui n’est pas membre de l’Union européenne est d’ailleurs intégré dans la dissuasion nucléaire avancée comme il l’était dans l’initiative européenne d’intervention.

La deuxième composante est la possibilité de déployer des capacités nucléaires sur les pays ayant rejoint la dissuasion avancée. Mais il est précisé que ce sera « le déploiement de circonstances d’éléments de forces stratégiques chez nos alliés. », « les forces aériennes stratégiques pouvant se disséminer dans la profondeur du continent européen ». Comme dans tout discours sur la dissuasion, les mots ont été choisis soigneusement et cela signifie sans doute que ces déploiements ne seront pas permanents, à l’instar des armes nucléaires des États-Unis dans le cadre de l’OTAN, mais uniquement en cas de crise ou de menace faisant craindre une action militaire majeure et imminente de la Russie. On est bien dans une configuration complémentaire de la dissuasion qui est complémentaire de celle dans le cadre de l’OTAN avec les moyens nucléaires états-uniens.

Aspects conventionnels et relation avec les États-Unis : les autres points majeurs du discours du président

La dissuasion avancée implique aussi des initiatives relatives aux forces conventionnelles : c’est un des aspects novateurs de la proposition française.

Un des risques qui pèse en effet sur les Européens est celui du contournement par le bas de la dissuasion en raison de l’insuffisance des capacités conventionnelles. C’est d’ailleurs ce qui est demandé par les États-Unis et ce qu’a formalisé le sous-secrétaire d’État à la politique de défense du ministère de la Guerre des États-Unis Edridge Colby lors de la réunion ministérielle de l’OTAN le 9 février 2026. Emmanuel Macron cite trois domaines conventionnels prioritaires en lien avec la dissuasion qui doivent faire l’objet d’un effort particulier :  l’alerte avancée, la défense aérienne élargie et les protections antimissiles et antidrones ainsi que les capacités de frappe dans la profondeur. Il faut noter que le deuxième domaine, celui de la défense aérienne élargie, concerne les moyens que l’Allemagne avait décidé de développer dans le cadre de l’initiative European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI) lancée en octobre 2022. À cette époque la France avait critiqué l’initiative allemande pour trois raisons :

• Les Français n’avaient pas été associés à l’initiative ;
• Les équipements militaires proposés dans le cadre d’ESSI étaient principalement états-uniens et israéliens ;
• La France considérait qu’il était nécessaire d’inscrire une telle initiative dans un cadre doctrinal plus large ne se limitant pas à l’acquisition d’équipements et qu’il fallait notamment y inclure la dissuasion nucléaire. 

De ce fait le projet de dissuasion avancée semble, pour partie tout au moins, répondre aux attentes et critiques que la France avait formulées en 2022 en réintroduisant l’initiative allemande dans un cadre plus large. Mais il faut attendre bien entendu les développements à venir dans les semaines à venir pour savoir si Français et Allemands partagent maintenant une analyse commune ou tout au moins compatible sur ce sujet.

L’autre point concerne la relation avec les États-Unis et l’articulation de la dissuasion avancée avec la dissuasion élargie dans le cadre de l’OTAN. Emmanuel Macron a bien insisté sur le fait que la dissuasion nucléaire française était indépendante de celle de l’OTAN, que l’initiative était complémentaire de ce qui existait dans l’OTAN et que la démarche entamée s’était déroulée « en toute transparence avec les États-Unis ». La déclaration Macron-Merz publiée le même jour semble aller plus loin en parlant de « coordination avec les États-Unis ». Sur ce sujet quelques interrogations subsistent néanmoins. En premier lieu, si Edridge Colby lors de la réunion ministérielle de l’OTAN le 9 février 2026 avait indiqué que les Européens étaient en première ligne avec leurs moyens conventionnels pour défendre l’Europe au sein de l’OTAN c’était aussitôt pour rappeler que les États-Unis continueraient à fournir les moyens de la dissuasion nucléaire élargie. Une question va donc se poser nécessairement en cas de crise majeure : quelle coordination y aura-t-il entre la dissuasion avancée de la France, qui suppose le cas échéant le déploiement de Rafale équipés d’armes nucléaires dans les pays européens participants à la dissuasion avancée, et la dissuasion états-unienne élargie dans le cadre de l’OTAN avec les bombes B61 déployées en Italie, en Allemagne, aux Pays-Bas, en Belgique, et en Turquie. Il faudra nécessairement qu’une coordination existe entre les deux ou à défaut que soit la composante otanienne avec les moyens états-uniens s’efface, ce qui signifierait que la garantie de sécurité nucléaire états-unienne n’existe pas, soit la composante française s’efface ce qui signifierait que le déploiement des armes nucléaires françaises dans ces pays européens serait impossible. La dernière explication possible est une démarche délibérée des États-Unis et de la France pour rester dans l’ambiguïté afin de rendre le calcul de la Russie encore plus difficile face à ces deux dissuasions complémentaires. Comme on le voit, il reste beaucoup d’inconnus à lever à ce niveau.

[1] Intervention de M. François Mitterrand, président de la République, sur la politique de défense de la France et la dissuasion nucléaire, le 5 mai 1994 à Paris.

L’article Discours du président sur la dissuasion nucléaire : une évolution logique plus qu’une révolution est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

Dans une nouvelle publication réalisée avec l’Observatoire B2V des Mémoires et avec le soutien d’Eurogroup Consulting, la plateforme Choiseul Mémoire des entreprises s’intéresse à une dimension souvent invisible mais profondément structurante de la vie des organisations : l’empreinte laissée par leurs dirigeants. Diriger ne consiste pas seulement à prendre des décisions stratégiques ou à piloter […]

This contribution to the Korean Development Institute's Knowledge Brief series contextualises and analyses the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-Operation and Development's reform plan, as published in January 2026.

This contribution to the Korean Development Institute's Knowledge Brief series contextualises and analyses the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-Operation and Development's reform plan, as published in January 2026.

This contribution to the Korean Development Institute's Knowledge Brief series contextualises and analyses the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-Operation and Development's reform plan, as published in January 2026.

Tehran, the capital of Iran. Credit: Unsplash/Hosein Charbaghi. Source: UN News

By Jacqueline Cabasso and John Burroughs
OAKLAND, California, Mar 4 2026 (IPS)

Operation “Epic Fury” manifests an epic tantrum by President Donald Trump, supported by his sycophantic minions, with dire consequences for the people in the region, peace and security worldwide, the global economy, and the post-World War II international legal order.

The United States/Israeli bombing of Iran clearly violates fundamental rules of international law. It violates the sovereignty of Iran, contrary to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

There is no plausible case that the U.S. and Israel are acting in self-defense against an imminent attack. Nor is regime change an acceptable justification for use of force, as it runs directly counter to the injunction to respect the political independence of states.

Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, briefing reporters outside the Security Council, described the United States’ bombing in Iran as a “dangerous escalation.”
“I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today,” said the UN chief, reiterating that there is no military solution. “This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.”

It is striking that the Trump administration has made no real effort to use multilateral mechanisms or to invoke international law. Both by its action and by its contempt for international law, the administration is accelerating the erosion of basic rules relating to use of force that has been underway for nearly three decades following the end of the Cold War.

The erosion of the legal framework formally limiting the use of armed force has been a long process, punctuated in the 21st century by increasingly frequent shocks of large-scale wars launched by major powers with less and less regard for international law and institutions.

The first of these was the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the stage set by the long, massive U.S. presence in and around Iraq in the 1990s and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001. Unlike the Trump administration, the George W. Bush administration at least gestured toward providing an international law rationale for the invasion—but built its justifications for war on a foundation of lies.

Then came the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which both lacked any serious international law justification. There have been other instances of aggression in this century, such as the recent U.S. invasion of Venezuela to abduct its president. But U.S. actions in relation to Iraq, those of Russia in Ukraine, and the U.S./Israel bombing of Iran stand out as major developments in the erosion of rules on use of force.

Concerning Iran’s nuclear program, prior to the bombing it was not at a stage of development that provided any basis for a claim of self-defense. In general, it has appeared for many years that Iran had a uranium enrichment capability, in part in order to preserve the option of acquiring nuclear weapons at some point in the future, but had not made the acquisition decision.

And it was the United States, during the first Trump administration, that unilaterally withdrew from the painstakingly negotiated 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an international agreement that placed effective and verifiable restraints on Iran’s nuclear program.

Discussions of Iran’s program generally do not address the fact that Israel has a robust nuclear arsenal. In the long run it is not practical to allow some states to have nuclear weapons and to deny them to others. The most straightforward way to deal with problems posed by the actual proliferation of nuclear weapons, as in the case of North Korea, or their potential proliferation, as in the case of Iran, is to move expeditiously toward the global abolition of nuclear arms.

Another at least partial way is to build new regional nuclear weapons free zones. That approach has indeed been tried in the case of the Middle East. Both in the context of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in the United Nations, there have been serious efforts to get negotiation of a Middle East zone underway, with Iran’s willing participation.

However, Israel and the United States have boycotted these efforts. This severely undercuts the legitimacy of their position as they claim to act to stop a menacing Iranian nuclear program.

What should be the response to these developments?

First, the invasion of Iran should be condemned as unlawful aggression, and the basic UN Charter rules should be defended, with the aim of at least preserving them for the future.

Second, it should be recognized that the world is undergoing a major transformation marked by the resurgence of authoritarian nationalism, with authoritarian ethno-nationalist factions in power or constituting significant political forces in many countries, including all of the nuclear-armed states.

There is a need for realism about the nature of the challenge, and for new thinking and innovative forms of advocacy and politics for a more fair, democratic, peaceful, and post-nationalist world.

Jacqueline Cabasso is the Executive Director of Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California; John Burroughs is a member of the organization’s Board of Directors.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Civil society organizations (CSOs) are non-state, not-for-profit, voluntary entities formed by people to address social, political, or environmental issues.

By Gina Romero
BOGOTA, Colombia, Mar 4 2026 (IPS)

A year has passed since a 90-day freeze on U.S. foreign assistance signaled the deepening of a structural dismantling of international solidarity. Today, the “existential threat” to the freedom of association I warned of in my report to last year’s General Assembly (A/80/219) is no longer a warning; it is a lived reality.

Thousands of civil society organizations (CSOs) worldwide have been reduced to their minimum or are completely vanishing, while others are forced into transformations that compromise their core missions. This is not only creating more victims of human rights violations but has also left prior victims alone.

For the freedom of association, the impact is devastating. The dismantling of USAID, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), and other dedicated funds from other countries has cut the lifelines for NGOs that served as democratic watchdogs worldwide (Refugees International).

Therefore, this is not merely a budgetary shift but a coordinated attack on the infrastructure of dissent. In the U.S., for example, foundations and nonprofits are facing “three overlapping crises” (Maecenata Stiftung, Refugees International, other):

• Policy Threats: Executive Orders targeting DEI and redefining “charitable” status to strip tax exemptions.

• Organizational Targeting: Explicit vilification of networks like the Open Society Foundations and investigative letters targeting major funders like the Gates and Ford Foundations.

• Mass Closings: Organizations are laying off up to 95% of staff, leading to a “generational funding collapse” of the humanitarian system.

In the meantime, worldwide we also see ultra-conservative anti-rights groups and autocratic regimes rushing to fill the vacuum left by established aid agencies. These groups are, among others, reshaping the global health landscape with actions that restrict reproductive rights and LGBTQI+ protections (The Guardian). In the Asia-Pacific region alone, 240 million young girls are facing a “coordinated global backlash” as programs focused on education and gender equality are the first to be cut (Women’s Agenda).

As I reported to the UN General Assembly last year, the right to association is an integral part of human nature. When states vilify aid as “criminal” or “corrupt,” they dismantle the lifelines that keep civic space alive (United Nations). We must restore a sustainable aid architecture that serves human dignity and the planet rather than private profit or political control.

But the impact on communities and individuals is far too grave. The data emerging in early 2026 is devastating. Since the 2025 freeze, researchers estimate the dismantling of U.S. foreign aid alone has already caused 750,000 deaths, over 60% of whom are children—a rate of 88 preventable deaths every hour (different sources).

Projections indicate that without restoration, 22.6 million people could die from preventable causes by 2030 (The Guardian).

The “hammer” thrown at the aid system has undone decades of progress:

• Access to justice: Deeply affected by terminated grants funding for community violence intervention programs, legal assistance for crime victims from underserved communities, court-appointed advocates for children in cases of abuse or neglect, services for victims of hate crimes, shutting down the safety net for domestic violence survivors and closing of shelters and hotlines, etc. (CIJ, LLF).

• Democracy and rule of law: Crisis in independent media and civil society reduces the critical voices that speak truth to the power and weakens checks and balances in democracies and hybrid regimes, while in authoritarian context the constraints of dissenting voices increases repression, especially against the most vulnerable groups (Global Democracy Coalition).

• Human rights: global and regional mechanisms of human rights protections have seen drastic cuts of funding, which jeopardize the human rights protections worldwide. The OHCHR received a 16% cut of its budget for 2026 and several Human Rights Council mandates are also being defunded, many tied to HHRR violations investigations in authoritarian states (ISHR).

• Global Health: Access to PrEP and life-saving HIV drugs has been halved for 80% of community organizations. Cholera deaths in the DRC alone surged by 361% in 2025 after essential water projects were halted (Oxfam).

• Education: The abrupt cancellation of nearly 400 USAID-funded education programs in 58 countries risks leaving millions of children—predominantly girls and refugees—without access to quality learning (ETF).

• Food Security: In West and Central Africa, 55 million people are expected to endure crisis levels of hunger, or worse by the end of the first semester of 2026, including over 13 million children are also expected to suffer from malnutrition during the year 2026 (WFP). In Afghanistan, monthly reach for emergency food aid plummeted from 5.6 million people to just 1 million (Refugees International).

Perhaps most alarming is the collapse of data collection systems. As USAID programs disappeared, so did the reporting requirements that tracked disease, death, and human rights violations (The Japan Times). We are entering a period where the true scale of suffering and needs may never be fully known (Refugees International).

Besides the cut of funding, the existential threat is also related to the reduction of possibilities of civil society organizations to collect new funding due to the increase of mis/disinformation about CSO work that lead to lack of trust in communities and therefore increases the shrinking civic space, already heavily affected by anti-NGO laws and persecution (Global aid freeze tracker).

We cannot allow a world without civil society. It is a world without hope, where the most vulnerable are left alone to face the most pressing human crises and wars. The international community must move beyond “business as usual” to restore a sustainable and just aid architecture that empowers civic engagement rather than advancing its suppression.

Gina Romero is UN Special Rapporteur, Freedom of Assembly and of Association.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

SOEP-Befragung zu sozialen Medien: Rund 90 Prozent sehen Risiken für Kinder und Jugendliche – Nutzungsverbot wird aber nur bis zwölf Jahre befürwortet, nicht bis 16 Jahre – Große Unterstützung für mehr Medienkompetenz, elterliche Begleitung und Plattformregulierung Eine große Mehrheit der ...

Trois mois après la fermeture du site, une mission d'évaluation de l'ONU dépêchée mardi 3 mars à Amee, territoire de Mahagi (Ituri) dresse un constat encourageant. Elle a constaté la consolidation de la cohabitation entre les communautés Alur et Lendu et la reprise de l'activité économique.

Revue de presse de ce mercredi 4 mars 2026

L’annonce de nouvelles sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda liées à la guerre dans l’Est de la RDC et les réactions qui s’en suivent en RDC font la Une des médias congolais ce mercredi 4 mars 2026.

L’Alliance des démocrates congolais (ADECO) estime que la Constitution actuelle est devenue obsolète et nécessite une révision approfondie.

Dans une déclaration faite le mardi 3 mars à Kinshasa, le président de ce parti politique, Alain Mbaya, a proposé la mise en place d’une commission de réflexion et de rédaction d’une nouvelle loi fondamentale, adaptée aux réalités sociopolitiques du moment.

Dans un communiqué officiel publié ce mardi 3 mars 2026 à Kinshasa, le ministre de la Justice et garde des sceaux, Guillaume Ngefa, a instruit les procureurs généraux de renforcer les poursuites judiciaires contre les abus constatés dans le cyberespace congolais. Le Gouvernement entend mettre fin à l'impunité sur des plateformes telles que TikTok, Facebook, X ou WhatsApp, tout en rappelant le caractère sacré de la liberté d’expression. 

The perils for the region—and the alliance.

Iran’s favorite proxy is down but not out.

And really compete with China.

Image: Hiroshi-Mori-Stock / shutterstock.com and 内閣広報室 / Cabinet Public Affairs Office / Wiki Commons

By Ria Shibata
Mar 3 2026 (IPS)

 
Sanae Takaichi’s electoral victory in February marks a historic turning point in Japanese politics. As Japan’s first female prime minister and the leader of a commanding parliamentary majority, she represents change in both symbolic and strategic terms. Conventional wisdom long held that younger Japanese voters leaned progressive, were sceptical of assertive security policies, and disengaged from ideological nationalism. Yet a segment of digitally active youth rallied behind a politician associated with constitutional revision, expanded defence capabilities, and a more unapologetic articulation of national identity. This shift cannot be reduced to a simple conservative swing. Rather, Takaichi’s rise reflects a deeper transformation in how democratic politics is constructed in the digital age: the growing power of imagery, digital mobilisation, and algorithm-driven branding in shaping political choice—particularly among younger voters.

Takaichi’s approval ratings among voters aged 18–29 approached 90 per cent in some surveys, far surpassing those of her predecessors. Youth turnout also rose, suggesting that Japanese youth are not politically apathetic. On the contrary, they are paying attention—but the nature of that engagement has changed. Viral images, short video clips, hashtags, and aesthetic cues travelled faster and farther than policy briefings. For many younger voters, engagement began—and sometimes ended—with the visual and emotional appeal of the candidate. This pattern is not uniquely Japanese. However, the scale of its impact in this election suggests that political communication has entered a new phase in which digital imagery can shape electoral outcomes as much as—or more than—substantive debate.

A New Phase of Digital Politics in Japan

In the months leading up to the election, Takaichi’s image proliferated across social media platforms. Supporters circulated clips highlighting her confident demeanour and historic candidacy. A cultural trend sometimes described as ‘sanakatsu’ or ‘sanae-mania’ framed political support as a form of fandom participation. Hashtags multiplied. ‘Mic-drop’ moments went viral. Even personal accessories—her handbags and ballpoint pens—became symbolic conversation pieces.

Political enthusiasm has always contained emotional and symbolic elements. What is new is the speed and scale at which digital platforms amplify them. Algorithms reward content that provokes reaction—admiration, anger, excitement. A charismatic clip often outperforms a detailed explanation of fiscal reform. For younger voters raised in scroll-based media environments, political information increasingly arrives as curated snippets. Policy complexity competes with—and often loses to—aesthetic immediacy.

Post-election surveys and interviews suggested that many first-time voters struggled to articulate specific policy distinctions between parties. Instead, they cited impressions—strength, change, decisiveness, novelty—suggesting that digital engagement does not automatically translate into policy literacy. Political identity can form through repeated exposure to imagery and narrative rather than sustained examination of legislative proposals. When campaigns are optimized for shareability, they are incentivized to simplify. Nuance compresses poorly into short-form video.

The Politics of Strength in an Age of Uncertainty

Japan’s younger generation has grown up amid prolonged economic stagnation, regional insecurity, and global volatility. China’s rise, tensions over Taiwan, North Korean missile launches, and persistent wage stagnation form the backdrop of their political participation. For many, the future feels uncertain and structurally constrained.

In such an environment, Takaichi’s assertive rhetoric carried emotional resonance. Her emphasis on strengthening national defence, revisiting aspects of the postwar settlement, and making Japan “strong and rich” projected clarity rather than ambiguity. Where institutional politics can appear technocratic or slow, decisive messaging offered the voters psychological reassurance.

At the core of her appeal is a narrative of restoring a ‘strong’ Japan. Calls for constitutional revision and expanded defence capabilities are framed as steps toward recovering national self-confidence. For younger Japanese fatigued by protracted historical disputes and what some perceive as externally imposed guilt, language emphasising pride and sovereignty resonates more readily than complex historical debates. This may not signal a rejection of peace. Rather, it may reflect a generational reframing of peace itself—understood not solely as pacifism, but as deterrence, defence capability, and strategic autonomy. Messages stressing ‘sovereignty’, ‘strength’, and ‘normal country’ can circulate more effectively in shareable digital formats than nuanced and complex historical analysis.

A Global Pattern: Virtual Branding, a Democratic Crossroads

Japan’s experience mirrors a broader transformation in democratic politics: the rise of virtual branding as the central organizing principle of electoral strategy. In earlier eras, campaigns revolved around party platforms and televised debates. Today, strategy increasingly begins with platform optimization. Campaigns are designed not only to persuade, but to perform within algorithmic systems. The guiding question is no longer only “What policies do we stand for?” but “What content travels?”

The election of Donald Trump in the United States illustrated how virtual media strategy can reshape political competition. Memorable slogans and emotionally charged posts dominated attention cycles, often eclipsing policy detail. Scholars have described this as “attention economics in action”: the candidate who captures digital attention shapes political reality before formal debate even begins. More recently, figures such as Zohran Mamdani have demonstrated how youth-centered digital branding can mobilize support with remarkable speed. Campaigns became participatory; supporters did not merely consume messaging but actively distributed political identity.

Takaichi’s recent victory reflects the evolving mechanics of digital democracy. Her leadership will ultimately be judged not by imagery but by governance — by whether her policies deliver economic stability, regional security, and social cohesion. The broader question, however, transcends any single administration. It means political decisions have migrated into digital environments optimised for speed and visual communication. In an age where images travel faster than ideas, democratic choice risks being guided more by what is seen than by what is discussed. In such an environment, political campaigns will be forced to adapt, and produce content that performs well within these algorithmic constraints. Over time, this may reshape voter expectations and politics will begin to resemble influencer culture. Campaigns that fail to master digital branding risk will appear outdated. Those that succeed can mobilize youth at scale.

Democracy has always balanced emotion and reason. The challenge today is ensuring that emotion does not eclipse reason entirely. The future of informed citizenship may depend on restoring that balance. This does not suggest that previous eras were immune to personality politics. What has changed is the proportion. The digital environment magnifies symbolic cues and compresses policy discussion. If democracies wish to maintain robust deliberation, they must consciously rebalance image and substance. This requires civic education focused on media literacy, virtual platform incentives that elevate substantive debate and political leadership willing to engage in depth, not just virality. And the responsibility is collective—voters, educators, media institutions, and candidates alike. The question facing democracies is whether this transformation can coexist with substantive deliberation or whether branding will increasingly overtake it.

Related articles:
Japan Stumbles: The Taiwan Fiasco
The New Takaichi Administration: Confronting Harsh Realities on the International Stage
Middle Powers After Davos

Ria Shibata is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the New Zealand Centre for Global Studies, and the Toda Peace Institute in Japan. She also serves as a Visiting Scholar at the University of Auckland. Her research focuses on identity-driven conflicts, reconciliation, nationalism and the role of historical memory in shaping interstate relations and regional stability in Northeast Asia.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Les commerçants et entrepreneurs de la ville de Kabinda, dans la province de Lomami, se disent prêts à s'acquitter de leurs obligations fiscales, mais exigent en contrepartie, une amélioration visible des services publics et des infrastructures de base.