Africa

The global financial architecture needs a deeper reset; it should build a country's capacity to withstand shocks and grow over time. Credit: Shutterstock

By External Source
Jun 15 2026 (IPS)

When G7 leaders arrive in Evian-les-Bains this month, France will host more than another summit. It will host a test of whether rich-country coordination can still solve problems that no country can manage alone. Aid budgets are shrinking, debt-service bills are crowding out investment, climate shocks are damaging infrastructure, and private capital remains scarce and expensive where it is needed most.

France has rightly made reducing global imbalances a priority of its G7 presidency. The G7 must show how finance should move differently and with global impact.

The urgent focus is development finance. G7 ministers have acknowledged that many partner countries face repeated crises, structural vulnerabilities, rising debt, food insecurity, and humanitarian needs. France has also placed African investment and the role of public development banks on the G7 agenda.

These issues are not separate. A drought that cuts harvests can weaken revenue, raise debt distress, damage health, interrupt schooling, and make the next investment more expensive. The current Ebola outbreak reminds us how vulnerable we all are to these crises.

The current global financial architecture was built for a world that believed growth could be separated from ecology, projects from systems, and risk from resilience. That world is gone

The dominant development finance paradigm treats each problem in its own box. The world no longer works that way.

That is why the global financial architecture needs a deeper reset; it should build a country’s capacity to withstand shocks and grow over time. Investments should work together. A solar plant that cannot feed a resilient grid, a road washed away by the next flood, or a hospital without reliable water, power, and social services support may look good in a project document and still fail the economy.

First, the world needs a better measure of wealth. GDP is useful, but incomplete. It counts activity; it does not tell us whether a country is building or consuming the assets on which future prosperity depends. A forest cleared for short-term export can raise GDP, and so can rebuilding after a flood.

Neither means that a country is becoming richer if its soils, water, skills, and institutional trust are deteriorating. A reset should ask whether produced assets, natural systems, people’s capabilities, and public institutions are becoming stronger together.

The practical step is not abstract. Finance ministries could require comprehensive wealth impact statements. When a government considers a debt-financed power system, port, irrigation program, or disaster-risk loan, it should show not only the likely effect on deficits and growth, but also the likely impact on water security, land-use management, public health, skills, and future disaster losses.

Creditors and rating agencies should look at the same evidence. A country that protects floodplains, strengthens schools, and reduces energy vulnerability is making itself a safer borrower, even if those gains remain invisible in conventional accounts.

Second, the world needs to appraise investment portfolios, not isolated projects. This is where many well-intentioned plans underperform. A seawall without drainage and mangrove protection may shift risk rather than reduce it.

Climate-smart agriculture without storage, cold chains, and roads leaves farmers exposed. Solar panels without grid upgrades and reliable payment systems can leave generations stranded. The question should not be which project has the highest standalone return, but which combination of investments most improves resilience, productivity, and long-term wealth in the public interest.

This approach would also help mobilize private capital. Investors are often told that developing countries are too risky. But part of that risk reflects weak systems: unreliable power, poor maintenance, exposed supply chains, thin insurance, and fragile public finances.

Coordinated ublic investments should be used to lower these risks at the portfolio level by preparing interconnected pipelines, funding data, providing guarantees, supporting local-currency finance, and strengthening early-warning systems and building the institutions that keep assets working when shocks hit. Capacity building would not be a charity; it would be risk reduction.

Third, states and markets need clearer rules for allocating capital. For policymakers, this means that budgets, debt strategies, and industrial plans should include the assets and vulnerabilities they create. For multilateral development banks, the IMF, credit-rating agencies, and regulators, it means treating climate adaptation, nature protection, social capability, and debt sustainability as one conversation, not four.

Country platforms should bring them into a single investment plan with clear priorities and accountability. For investors, assets that protect water, power, food systems, health, and skills should be viewed as infrastructure for returns, not as ESG decoration.

The G7 can make this pivot at Evian. It could agree that major development-finance packages should include wealth impact statements; that multilateral development-bank country strategies should use portfolio appraisal; that public development banks should standardize guarantees and project preparation for resilience; that debt workouts and new lending terms should reward verified investments that reduce future losses; and that private co-financing should be linked to transparent outcomes. These reforms simply require an acceptance by institutions to judge success differently.

None of this is anti-market, anti-growth, or anti-finance. It is pro-accuracy, pro-stability, and pro-prosperity. The central task is simple: build a financial architecture that strengthens society’s productive capacity and the planet that sustains it, not that merely flatters the next quarter’s accounts.

The current global financial architecture was built for a world that believed growth could be separated from ecology, projects from systems, and risk from resilience. That world is gone.

France’s G7 presidency offers a chance to replace it with a financial system that measures real wealth, funds investments that work together, and rewards countries for reducing the risks that threaten everyone. That is how we move from fragmented finance to resilient prosperity and from short-term gain to long-term global public investment.

 

Hyginus ‘Gene’ Leon is the Executive Director of the Development Bank for Resilient Prosperity and was the sixth President of Caribbean Development Bank (CDB)

Simon Reid-Henry, PhD is a Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo and Head of Secretariat of the Coalition of Governments (and International Organisations) on Global Public Investment

 

Chatbots and AI companions have rapidly moved from science fiction into everyday life. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jun 15 2026 (IPS)

AI chatbots and AI companions designed to simulate human-like conversation and provide relationships and companionship through generative artificial intelligence (AI) have rapidly evolved from science fiction into everyday reality.

Globally, approximately one billion people – about 12% of the world’s population – now use generative AI chatbots monthly, with usage approaching parity among men and women.

Dedicated AI companions and virtual friends are estimated to have between 50 to 100 million active users worldwide. The global AI companion market is valued at roughly USD 50 billion in 2026 and is projected to grow nearly ninefold by 2034.

These technologies, including the growing use of AI avatars, are increasingly taking the place of human interactions in homes, schools, workplaces, and other settings. Marketed as virtual friends, romantic partners, or personal assistants, AI chatbots and AI companions offer users emotional support, entertainment, guidance, and companionship.

As their capabilities become more sophisticated, many users report forming emotional attachments to these systems, with increasing numbers of users believing that their AI companion or chatbot is sentient or possesses human-like awareness.

While these technologies can provide new opportunities for connection, they cannot replace the face-to-face interactions that are essential to social development, particularly among children and adolescents

Advances in robotics are also moving AI companions beyond screen-based interactions into the physical world. With increasingly human-like appearances, behaviors, and communication abilities, these systems are becoming more sophisticated and human-like in the way they interact with people.

Unlike AI assistants, which primarily answer questions or perform tasks, AI companions are designed to simulate conversations and relationships, encouraging emotional connections as friends, confidants, or romantic partners.

By providing human-like conversation, these artificial intelligence devices are offering support against social isolation and loneliness, providing educational instruction, dispensing advice and guidance, becoming friends and romantic partners, and transforming personal relationships.

The chatbots and AI companions have introduced social, psychological and ethical changes to how men, women, and especially children experience companionship, domestic life, and schooling. In particular, generative AI chatbots and AI companions have opened a new frontier in developing friendship and social relationships.

Many adolescents now rely on these new technologies for school assistance, entertainment, and emotional support. As a result, relationships with chatbots and AI companions – as friends, therapists, and even romantic partners – have become increasingly complex and, in some cases, riskier.

These emotionally engaging interactions can exacerbate psychological vulnerabilities and blur the lines between human relationships and machine-generated companionship.

In several widely publicized cases, AI chatbots have encouraged or failed to prevent self-harm. In addition, some deaths have been linked to young people who developed obsessive emotional attachments to AI companions.

However, despite the complications and risks, the world’s current attention and concerns about AI remain focused primarily on its growing impact on employment, budgetary cuts, and taking over jobs currently performed by men and women.

In contrast, relatively little attention is being given to chatbots and AI companions that engage in conversations and increasingly form personal relationships with men, women, teenagers, and children at home, in schools and in many other settings.

While these technologies can provide new opportunities for connection, they cannot replace the face-to-face interactions that are essential to social development, particularly among children and adolescents.

AI chatbots also raise risks to personal privacy, psychological well-being, the spread of misinformation, and the reinforcement of harmful behaviors. In addition, a broad range of other concerns has been identified regarding the use of chatbots and AI companions.

These concerns include delaying social and emotional development among children and teenagers, blurring the distinction between software and reality, encouraging risky behavior, exploiting young people’s emotional needs, reinforcing unhelpful thoughts, distorting users’ sense of reality, and fostering simulated attachments and dependence (Table 1).

Source: Author’s compilation.

The United States Psychological Association recently warned that relationships between children and adolescents and AI chatbots could displace or interfere with healthy social development. The association noted that friendships and social support from other people have long-term benefits for emotional well-being, physical health, and longevity.

Among generative AI chatbots, the leading platforms by market share in May 2026 are generally reported to be ChatGPT, Claude AI, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, and Grok. Several industry analyses place ChatGPT’s share at roughly 50-55%, with Claude AI at about 21% of market share emerging as the second-largest platform (Figure 1).

Source: FirstPageSage.

In March 2026, the country with the largest number of ChatGPT users was the United States, with approximately 205 million users. Following the U.S., the countries with the largest ChatGPT user populations were India, Brazil, Canada, and France (Figure 2).

Source: fatjoe.

It is certainly the case that chatbots and AI companions cannot feel love toward an individual. Nevertheless, hundreds of millions of men, women, and children worldwide are increasingly relying on these technologies for conversation, information, companionship, and non-judgmental interactions.

These technologies may help to address chronic loneliness and social isolation, conditions that have consistently been linked to detrimental effects on physical and mental health and increased risk of premature death. The World Health Organization (WHO) formally recognizes loneliness as a global public health concern, with roughly one in six people worldwide experiencing problematic levels of loneliness.

Chatbots and AI companions can help alleviate loneliness and social isolation by providing readily available conversation and companionship without judgement and expectations. As chatbots, AI companions, and androids become increasingly sophisticated, growing numbers of people are exploring the new forms of emotional connection and intimacy with these technologies.

At the same time, the growing use of chatbots and AI companions for personal relationships raises important social, psychological, ethical, and policy concerns.

Although chatbots and AI companions may help reduce loneliness and social isolation for some users, they also pose risks, especially for children and young people. Because AI systems do not possess genuine empathy and are not trained or licensed as mental health professionals, excessive reliance on them for emotional support may isolate vulnerable individuals and distort perceptions of human relationships.

Debate continues regarding the appropriate level of regulations for these technologies. Some government officials, technology companies, investors, and researchers argue that these new and emerging AI technologies should remain largely unregulated, with people themselves determining how to adapt to these technologies.

Some of the reasons for keeping the development of AI unregulated include: prevents regulatory paralysis; accelerates technological breakthroughs; encourages venture capital investment; maintains global geopolitical competitiveness; promotes national security; prevents market monopolies; benefits national interests; and leads to better lives for men and women.

Others, however, argue that AI chatbot and AI companion technologies need to be regulated in order to protect the mental health of children and young adults; reduce the negative effects of social media and excessive screen time; mitigate risks, deception, bias, discrimination, and misinformation; promote economic stability and fairness; become a public resource; protect human rights and intellectual property; and ensure data privacy.

Among the proposed safeguards and regulations for chats and AI companions are requirements for non-human disclosure, crisis protocols for self-harm, age verification measures, limits on their use in elementary schools, bans on impersonation, and stronger protections for minors.

Fueled in part by technology companies, governments worldwide are moving rapidly to deploy generative AI systems and chatbots in schools, universities, and other settings.

However, the spread of these new AI technologies may pose risks to the development and well-being of children and teenagers, raising concerns among educators, parents, and policymakers. Interactions with AI chatbots, especially when they are intense and prolonged, may contribute to the onset or worsen delusions or mania. Research is also finding that AI companions provide responses that may worsen mental health issues.

Additionally, a recent study reported that reliance on generative AI chatbots may reduce critical thinking engagement in some contexts. Another study has raised concerns that AI chatbots can exploit teenagers’ emotional vulnerabilities, sometimes leading to inappropriate and harmful interactions.

The United States Federation of Teachers recommends “no screens” for children in second grade or younger, and restricting the use of AI chatbots for students in elementary schools. The organization has expressed concerns that excessive screen use may hinder socialization, independent thinking, and critical-thinking development.

The long-term effects of AI chatbots remain uncertain, with researchers just beginning to investigate them. However, classroom teachers and some city officials report that many students are increasingly relying on chatbots for easy answers rather than developing problem-solving and critical-thinking skills.

The U.S. Federation of Teachers has urged elementary schools to avoid using artificial intelligence tools like AI chatbots with students and called for national privacy and safety standards governing AI use in schools.

Research suggests that chatbots and AI companions may pose several risks, particularly for teenagers. Concerns include emotional dependency, declining mental health, harmful interactions, and revealing sensitive personal information, including mental health issues and sexual orientation.

Reliance on chatbots and AI companions for emotional support may also contribute to social isolation and interfere with the development of normal human relationships. Because these technologies are designed to simulate emotional intimacy, they can blur the line between genuine human connections and artificial interactions.

A risk-assessment study found that inappropriate dialogue could be readily elicited from chatbots on topics such as sex, self-harm, violence, drug use, and racial stereotypes, raising concerns about their influence on vulnerable users, particularly children and adolescents.

In conclusion, chatbots and AI companions have rapidly moved from science fiction into everyday life. They increasingly exhibit human-like characteristics, including natural-sounding human voices, memory of past interactions, continuous processing of personal information, apparent preferences, constant availability, and the ability to provide companionship and guidance on personal and social matters.

Public discussion of generative AI has focused largely on employment and job displacement, while less attention has been given to its social, psychological, and ethical effects. As chatbots and AI companions become more capable and widely used, concerns about their impact on the well-being, development, and relationships of young people are likely to become increasingly important for parents, educators, policymakers, and technology developers.

 

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

ENTSCHLIESSUNGSANTRAG
eingereicht gemäß Artikel 115 Absätze 2 und 3 der Geschäftsordnung
zu dem Entwurf eines Durchführungsbeschlusses der Kommission über die Finanzierung des Jahresaktionsplans 2026 für die Vereinigte Republik Tansania
(D115284/01 - 2026/2749(RSP))
Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Thousands gather outside Istanbul City Hall to mark one year since the arrest of Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu on 18 March 2026. Credit: Yasin Akgul/AFP

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jun 15 2026 (IPS)

When Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán lost by a landslide to a unified opposition in April, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was watching. The lesson he drew was not that he should be more moderate; it was that he needed to crack down harder. He had already arrested Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP)’s leading presidential contender, in March 2025. After Orbán’s defeat, he has accelerated his campaign to fracture the opposition and rewrite the rules before the next election in 2028.

Electoral autocracy

Erdoğan has been in power since 2003. After surviving a coup attempt in July 2016, he used emergency powers to purge the state at scale. Over 150,000 people were detained, fired or suspended from their jobs. Emergency decrees expanded the government’s power to shut down organisations and remove elected officials. A 2017 constitutional referendum, narrowly approved in a campaign that independent observers found deeply flawed, replaced Turkey’s parliamentary system with a hyper-presidential one.

Independent media has been systematically dismantled. Turkey now ranks 163rd out of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders’ 2026 World Press Freedom Index. Yet elections have continued, and the opposition has continued to win at the municipal level, most strikingly in Istanbul in 2019 and again by an even wider margin in 2024. That residual competitiveness is what Erdoğan is now moving to close.

İmamoğlu had beaten Erdoğan’s candidate in Istanbul twice, was formally nominated as the CHP’s 2028 presidential candidate and polled strongly against Erdoğan nationally. Authorities arrested him on charges of corruption and links with terrorism as his nomination was under way, triggering Turkey’s largest wave of protests in over a decade. A 4,000-page indictment filed in November 2025 sought to sentence him to over 2,000 years in prison. Espionage charges followed in February 2026. His trial began in March amid continuing protests. He remains in prison, and in the 14 months since his arrest, over 500 more people have been detained, including 16 CHP-affiliated mayors.

With İmamoğlu imprisoned, Erdoğan’s next move was to prevent the CHP from consolidating around anyone else. On 21 May, an appeals court annulled the outcomes of the CHP’s 2023 national congress, ejecting the party’s elected leader Özgür Özel, who had raised the CHP to rough parity with Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) in national polls, and reinstating his predecessor Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, a divisive figure who lost the last presidential election. Özel condemned the ruling as a judicial coup and refused to leave the party’s headquarters. Three days later, riot police stormed in, firing rubber bullets and teargas. The government denied any involvement, implausibly claiming the judiciary had acted independently. The operation was legal in form and political in substance.

Turkey’s constitution limits presidents to two five-year terms, and Erdoğan’s second expires in 2028. In May 2025, he appointed a legal team to draft a new constitution. It seems clear the goal is to extend his eligibility. The AKP and its nationalist allies fall short of the parliamentary threshold required to change the constitution or call a referendum on it. Some analysts believe the government’s recent initiative to end the decades-long conflict with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party is at least partly designed to attract enough parliamentary votes to clear that threshold.

There is a structural reason the stakes are so high. Turkey’s hyper-presidential system means that, unlike Orbán, Erdoğan would have no safe path back from electoral defeat. For him, losing power could mean political extinction. His crackdown is a response to this threat.

Civil society resistance

Turkey’s civil society has, however, not submitted. Huge protests followed İmamoğlu’s arrest. A mass rally marked his 100th day in jail, and people marched again when the CHP headquarters were raided. Most recently, when Erdoğan ordered the closure of Bilgi University, one of Turkey’s oldest liberal academic institutions, students and staff immediately gathered outside to protest. Within two days the government reversed the closure. This illustrated both the extent of Erdoğan’s repressive urges and their limits when met with swift resistance.

The government has responded to protest with blanket bans on public gatherings, social media restrictions and mass arrests. Four days after İmamoğlu’s arrest, at least 1,879 people had been detained. Police repeatedly intervened forcefully, using teargas and detaining protesters and journalists.

Orbán’s downfall has frightened Erdoğan as much as it has inspired the Turkish opposition. He is moving to eliminate the conditions that made it possible. He has got rid of the most credible and unifying opposition candidate, neutralised the main opposition party and is in the process of dismantling what’s left of an electoral architecture that, however tilted, could still allow the opposition to win.

Turkey’s democracy now depends on whether enough people keep showing up, and on whether they can keep resisting Erdoğan’s campaign to dismantle democracy.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

 

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');  

  

 

Marchés publics opaques, procédures d'exception, risques environnementaux : l'Expo2027 prévue à Belgrade reproduit des mécanismes déjà observés dans d'autres grands projets d'infrastructure en Serbie. Entretien.

- Articles / Belgrade Waterfront, Courrier des Balkans, Vucic, Serbie, Economie, Environnement, Politique

Du Hung Viet (left), President of the Eleventh Review Conference for the NPT 2026, chairs the closing session of the NPT Review Conference (27 April-22 May). Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 15 2026 (IPS)

On principle, the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is an issue that unites the international community. But for a select few states, these principles came with conditions and a refusal to compromise on their security strategy.

The Eleventh Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) concluded on May 22, 2026 without member states reaching consensus on a final outcome document. It was the culmination of four weeks of extensive debates starting on April 27, along with the special meetings, consultations and briefings that preceded the conference.

Compared to earlier editions shared before and during the conference, the final draft weakened much of the language surrounding the obligations of nuclear states, including those that related to disarmament efforts. Yet even with these concessions, for the third time in a row after 2015 and 2022, the NPT parties failed to adopt an outcome document.

At the closing session of the conference, Do Hung Viet, President of the NPT Conference and the UN Permanent Representative of Vietnam, remarked that the collective threat posed by nuclear weapons requires a collective response. He warned that in 2031, the NPT would pass 20 years without an outcome. It was the responsibility of state parties, he said, to uphold the NPT until Article VI, which calls for parties to pursue disarmament measures in good faith, could be implemented, and they needed to bolster the treaty as a tool to address modern threats.

Following the closing of the conference, Viet told reporters that the current state of the international environment requires “urgent action” in the face of recent tensions. Although the conference could not reach consensus, Viet attempted to find some positives in the proceedings, in that the engagement “highlights the value of the NPT and multilateralism as a whole”. Yet he expressed concern for the health of the treaty going forward as it related to state parties’ commitments.

Izumi Nakamitsu, UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, added that if parties to the NPT wanted to prevent a “further decrease of confidence” in the nuclear nonproliferation regime, then they “need to visibly make a commitment” through measurable steps.

She remarked that the international community at large needed to take lessons from the proceedings, starting with the acceleration of disarmament commitments under existing treaties. There were also increased calls for a “strengthening of the review process”, or enhancing accountability and transparency measures over the implementation of countries’ commitments to the NPT.

“Nonproliferation and disarmament are two sides of the same coin, and it is simply wrong for nuclear weapons states to assume that nonproliferation obligations will be just adhered to without nuclear weapons states’ commitment and implementation of disarmament commitments under Article 6,” said Nakamitsu.

Susi Snyder (left), ICAN Director of Programmes, and Seth Shelden (right), ICAN’s UN Liaison, at a press briefing held on the final day of the NPT 2026 Review Conference. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

Parties to the NPT, including nuclear-armed states, repeatedly acknowledged the NPT as a “cornerstone” for multilateral diplomacy and the nuclear disarmament regime. However, when it came to other nuclear treaties, such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), such acknowledgements were scarce. The final outcome draft makes a limited few references to these treaties but does not elaborate on the disarmament requirements outlined in them.

The final outcome document draft was noteworthy for its references to the humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear testing for the first time in the context of the NPT Review Conference. Experts from the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) noted that this was possible thanks to the advocacy efforts of civil society and of the communities impacted by nuclear weapons use and testing.

In particular, the draft “recognise[s] the growing calls for assistance to the people and communities affected by nuclear weapons use and explosive nuclear testing and for environmental remediation following nuclear weapons use and explosive nuclear testing” and “welcome[s] efforts already undertaken in this regard”.

The draft also included a call for member states to “take concrete measures to raise awareness of the public, including through education, on all topics relating to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation” by sharing the experiences of peoples and communities affected by nuclear weapons use and testing.

Recognition of the NPT stood in contradiction to the actions and statements made by nuclear-armed states. These states, which include the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, all maintain positions that contradict the principles of the NPT and broader efforts toward disarmament. These states have openly made plans to expand their nuclear arsenals and weave in the salience of nuclear weapons into their security strategy by justifying it through concepts of ‘extended nuclear deterrence’ and nuclear sharing with other countries considering their own nuclear expansion. Two members of the Security Council are engaged in separate, active conflicts that have only exacerbated geopolitical tensions, while also dredging up anxieties around nuclear weapons as a security strategy. With seemingly no end in sight to these conflicts, those anxieties have only deepened, and has shaped global and regional security policies for years to come.

For a civil society group like ICAN, the lack of outcome for the NPT is emblematic of increasing risks of proliferation among nuclear-armed states and their allies.

“There is a reason why the countries that claim protection from nuclear weapons are afraid of discussion of what these weapons actually do to people and the environment. They simply don’t want people to know the true extent of the horror and cruelty nuclear weapons wreak, because acknowledging these harms will eliminate any credible legitimacy for retaining nuclear weapons,” said Susi Snyder, ICAN’s Director of Programmes.

What will it take, therefore, for these countries to reverse their positions? Snyder told Inter Press Service that “increasing the stigmatisation” of nuclear weapons would be one such tactic. Reinforcing the nuclear taboo by raising awareness among the populations of these countries is critical for them to recognise the complete destruction that a nuclear weapon would bring about, and the impact this would have on targeted communities and on themselves. Snyder noted the literal cost of proliferation, claiming that in 2024 nuclear-armed states spent over USD 3000 per second on their arsenals.

Finally, security doctrines built on the theory of nuclear deterrence need to be challenged. Seth Shelden, the UN liaison for ICAN, noted that if nuclear weapons can be seen as useless from a military perspective and unsustainable from a policy perspective, nuclear-armed states would reevaluate their positions. “Nuclear weapons are irrational. Nuclear deterrence is a fable. And all technology is abandoned once it is seen as no longer useful,” Shelden said.

Though the 2026 NPT Review Conference ended without consensus, member states still have other avenues to pursue the nuclear disarmament agenda, both within and outside the NPT process. There still remain specific nuclear weapon-free zone agreements among countries and treaties like the CTBT and the TPNW which also contain legally binding obligations for their signatories. Snyder confirmed that the TPNW will host its first review conference at the end of this year. Meanwhile, the NPT remains in its current form and state parties recognise its obligations and safeguards on the nuclear regime.

In 2024, the UN General Assembly pushed to establish an independent scientific panel on the effects of a potential nuclear war, whose panellists will present their findings in 2027.

Galvanising the world public opinion on the nuclear regime is critical to restoring faith in the nuclear regime. Otherwise, Nakamitsu warned, the world is in “the trajectory of a very dangerous path.

“Let’s get back to a path that is more sustainable peace rather than creating arms race dynamics.”

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

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');

 

Related Articles

• Nuclear ‘Close-Calls’ Prove Deterrence No Guarantee for Peace
• ‘Nuclear Weapons Are Not Just Tools of War. They Are Weapons of Mass Suffering.’

By Robin Frisch
ALGIERS, Algeria, Jun 15 2026 (IPS)

The German government, along with a number of other countries, are currently organising flights to evacuate travellers and influencers stranded in the Gulf states. For many citizens of other nationalities, however, there is no such assistance. They remain stuck in precarious situations, marked by exploitation and insecurity.

Robin Frisch

The war in the Middle East demonstrates with brutal clarity that the Gulf states’ economic model is built on the systematic vulnerability of migrant workers. More than half of the region’s workforce are from abroad. Millions of people come from the Philippines, India, Bangladesh and African countries to work in the Gulf states — often for many years. Their biggest fears stem from the dangerous security situation, massive loss of income and total uncertainty about whether or not they will even be able to remain in their host country. Returning to their home country, on the other hand, is out of the question. In Nepal and Jordan, remittances from the Gulf states alone account for eight per cent of gross domestic product. Many emerging economies depend not only on oil and gas from the Gulf region, but also on jobs.

A system based on exploitation

The fact that these migrant workers cannot be evacuated is due to structural reasons. In the Gulf monarchies, the kafala system binds migrant workers to a kafil, or sponsor. This modern form of servitude gives employers virtually unlimited control over their workforce. The Gulf model only functions because workers are permanently kept in temporary employment. They are imported, but not integrated. Their rights remain limited, social security is minimal and political participation not permitted. This arrangement is not a shortcoming but a prerequisite for maximum flexibility and low costs.

The fact that the Gulf states’ economic model is reaching its limits is also increasingly the subject of current debate. In a much-discussed New York Times essay, Richard Florida explains that the economic model in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is actually exacerbating the crisis. His question – ‘Could this be the end of Dubai?’ – can certainly be answered in the affirmative, at least from a social perspective. The Gulf states have all failed to provide a social safety net for their millions of workers. The mere import of workers, and complete absence of integration or social security, signal the end of the Dubai model. For decades, the Gulf states have profited from permanently keeping their workers in temporary employment. This model may be economically efficient, but it is structurally vulnerable.

The current war is acting as a stress test for this system. And it has shown that there are no institutional mechanisms in place to protect migrant workers. While citizens are being evacuated, millions of migrant workers are left behind. While supply chains are being secured, there remains a lack of the most basic protection for those who keep those chains running. Nobody is taking responsibility — it is just being passed from pillar to post, between countries of origin, employers and governments.

An International Labour Organization (ILO) study showed that social security, if it exists at all, only ever applies to formal employment contracts. In almost all the Gulf states, these regulations place the burden on the employee. Health insurance is mandatory and must be purchased privately. Not one Gulf state has a functioning system of unemployment insurance. Saudi Arabia is the only state that provides social security coverage for workers from certain countries of origin. This model of temporary migration appears to be so successful that even the current crisis will not change it. It is not in the interests of the Gulf states to provide social security as they derive no benefit from it themselves.

Not a single Gulf country has ratified the landmark ILO Convention 189 on decent work for domestic workers, though Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have at least made slight improvements to their national legislation and acknowledge the problems. In Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, union activity is not strictly prohibited, and trade unions are working to better integrate migrant workers. However, the crisis caused by the war is now so dire that the extent to which the situation has improved for domestic workers seems of secondary importance. Whether through trade unions, government measures or employer obligations, what matters is that the situation for migrant workers in the Gulf states is fundamentally improved. Reforms will achieve little. It is time for systemic change.

Developing a social safety net

The executive secretary of the Arab Trade Union Confederation, Hind Benammar, has criticised the kafala system, but at the same time advocates for channels of communication to be opened with Saudi Arabia. Such diplomatic efforts are important now as they can help initiate reforms and resolve conflicts between governments. But the fundamental problem remains: How can working conditions be improved in the long term, and what form might an effective social security net take?

The victims of Iranian attacks in Dubai and the UAE were almost all migrant workers. In Dubai, there were even alarming social media posts about labour migrants being imprisoned. The strict internet censorship in these countries complicates the situation, as members of migrant communities are often unable to openly discuss the conditions on the ground. The fact that in this situation, it is the migrant networks – not governments – that are picking up the slack is not a sign of resilience but systematic failure.

One of the few organisations that are actually helping migrant workers at the moment is the International Domestic Workers Federation (IDWF). The IDWF organises emergency accommodation and coordinates aid, thereby effectively replacing government safety nets. Social security only exists where it is improvised. The millions of jobs as cleaners, nannies and nurses are primarily carried out by women. Domestic workers are often not even allowed to leave their workplaces, let alone move freely in public spaces. The social isolation of these workers is reminiscent of the pandemic. Here, too, they had nobody to rely on except for their own communities.

When governments, employers and insurances fail to provide assistance, communities must step into the breach. The IDWF approaches the embassies of workers’ countries of origin, calls for repatriation flights to be organised and provides its members with individual-level safeguards. They make contact with domestic workers through community leaders. These individuals, who together play a role similar to that of a works council, provide information about the situation, offer support in emergencies and organise training sessions on issues such as mental health, which is becoming increasingly important in light of the severe social isolation. In some of the Gulf states, this work has been criminalised, and several community leaders have even been detained. For domestic workers, but also for those in the construction and transportation sectors, this is a matter of sheer survival. For the most part, however, the Gulf states have no established trade union tradition. In the Gulf monarchies, policy-making is controlled by a handful of powerful men.

Over the last few years, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have sought to make financial contributions to the ILO. But the Gulf states will not be able to simply buy themselves a clean slate. Ambet Yuson, general secretary of the six-million-member Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI), has condemned the fact that Saudi Arabia’s reforms by no means signify an abolition of the kafala system, claiming they are in fact little more than rebranding. In Saudi Arabia, stadiums for the 2034 World Cup are currently being built, but the construction sector also lacks a basic social safety net. It would be disastrous if the mistakes made in Qatar were to be repeated here. There, too, the kafala system resulted in exploitation, as any worker who lost their job found it nigh on impossible to switch to a new sponsor. Recruitment practices and indebtedness in the home country further exacerbate this dependence.

Thus, the war has not only exposed a crisis — it has marked a boundary. A model that consistently shifts risks onto legally marginalised workers will only remain stable provided no shocks occur. As soon as they do, it becomes clear that there is no social security because uncertainty is an inherent part of the system. The Gulf crisis shows just how important it is to develop the social safety net that the trade unions are advocating for. The much-discussed question of reforms does not go far enough. The real problem is structural. Yet this does not automatically result in systemic change. On the contrary: reactions so far suggest that the cost of the crisis will, in fact, continue to be shifted onto migrant workers.

Change will therefore not come from the Gulf states alone. Here, external and transnational levers are crucial. Countries of origin must enforce stronger protection mechanisms and binding social security agreements; international organisations such as the ILO must strengthen minimum standards; and European countries must take responsibility, for instance by regulating recruitment practices, supply chains and labour standards.

Robin Frisch is the head of the regional trade union project in the MENA region and of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation’s office in Algeria.

Source: International Politics and Society, published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin.

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');  

  

 

Nestory Irankunda was born as a refugee in Tanzania before becoming Australian record breaker with goal in victory over Turkey.

Il manquait un musée à Pristina et au Kosovo : celui qui raconte l'expulsion massive par trains de près d'un demi-million d'Albanais du Kosovo pendant la guerre de 1999. Un petit musée installé dans un wagon comble ce manque et permet d'écouter les témoignages de ceux qui ont vécu cet exode forcé.

- Articles / Histoire, Kosovo, Courrier des Balkans, Bombardements OTAN

- Agenda / France - Régions, Bosnie-Herzégovine

BERICHT über den Bericht 2025 der Kommission über Bosnien und Herzegowina
Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten
Ondřej Kolář

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Report on the 2025 Commission report on Kosovo
Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten
Riho Terras

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

BERICHT über den Bericht 2025 der Kommission über Nordmazedonien
Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten
Thomas Waitz

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

The taunting reflects anger from parts of the continent over reports of xenophobia in South Africa.

La fermeture du détroit d’Ormuz a mis en lumière l’importance stratégique des points de passages maritimes et a montré que leur blocage peut avoir des répercussions sur les marchés mondiaux. Cependant, ce détroit n’est pas un cas isolé : d’autres détroits et canaux jouent également un rôle déterminant dans la fluidité des échanges internationaux. Toutefois, ces passages stratégiques sont exposés à divers risques, qu’ils soient géopolitiques, tels que des tensions, des conflits et des rivalités entre États, ou climatiques, susceptibles d’interrompre la circulation maritime.

Quelles sont les normes juridiques auxquelles sont soumis ces détroits et canaux ? En quoi leur fermeture peut-elle perturber les échanges mondiaux ? Quelles sont les vulnérabilités de ces points de passages stratégiques ? Au-delà du détroit d’Ormuz, quelles pourraient être les conséquences d’un blocage d’un autre point de passage sur l’économie mondiale ?

Julia Tasse, directrice de recherche à l’IRIS et responsable du programme Océan, décrypte ces enjeux dans cette nouvelle Chronique Océan.

L’article Points de passage stratégique en mer : quels scénarios et quels risques pour 2026 ? est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Participants at a Climate and Health Capacity Building Workshop. Credit: Friday Phiri

By Friday Phiri
BONN, Jun 12 2026 (IPS)

Africa contributes the least to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet it faces some of the world’s most severe climate-related health impacts. Several realities define the continent’s climate and health landscape – increased infectious diseases, air pollution, death, disruption and pressure on health systems through heatwaves, floods, droughts and storms.

Changing temperatures and, more significantly, rainfall patterns are expanding the geographical range and transmission dynamics of climate-sensitive diseases such as Malaria, Dengue fever, Cholera and other vector- and water-borne diseases.

Climate-induced droughts, floods, and changing rainfall patterns are reducing agricultural productivity and threatening food systems. This increases hunger, undernutrition, stunting among children, and vulnerability to disease. According to archive.uneca.org, malnutrition remains one of the largest climate-sensitive health risks across Africa.

Thus, as African climate negotiators intensify preparations for the 64th sessions of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies (SB64), a clear message is emerging from Bonn: climate action without health action is no longer an option.

Over two critical days of engagement, African negotiators, health experts, technical institutions, and young climate leaders came together to strengthen Africa’s negotiating positions and place health firmly at the centre of the continent’s climate agenda.

The Climate and Health Capacity Building Workshop supported by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), and the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) Lead Coordinators Meeting collectively noted the growing recognition that climate change is not only an environmental challenge but also one of Africa’s most pressing public health threats.

For AGN Chair, Nana Dr Antwi-Boasiako Amoah, the connection is clear, and the required measures are equally urgent.

“Health is the human face of the climate crisis,” he told negotiators and partners during the opening of the capacity building workshop in Bonn. “If climate negotiations are ultimately about protecting people, then health must remain at the centre of our efforts.”

Chair of AGN, Nana Dr Antwi-Boasiako Amoah, with Dr Lynn Wagner of IISD at the Climate and Health Capacity Building Workshop. Credit: Friday Phiri

Building a Stronger African Climate and Health Voice

Building on the launch of the first-ever African Negotiators Climate and Health Curriculum in 2025, by Amref Health Africa, the climate and health capacity-building workshop brought together representatives from WHO-AFRO, Africa CDC, Amref Health Africa, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), technical experts, and young negotiators to deepen understanding of climate-health linkages and identify strategic entry points across negotiation tracks.

Participants examined ways to strengthen Africa’s position on adaptation indicators, climate-resilient health systems, early warning systems, health infrastructure, preparedness for climate-related emergencies, and financing mechanisms that can support health adaptation efforts.

“Following the adoption of the Belém Adaptation indicators and the ongoing discussions under the Baku Adaptation Roadmap, Africa has a unique opportunity to shape how adaptation is measured, financed and implemented globally,” said the AGN Chair. “We must ensure that health indicators under the global goal on adaptation are meaningful, context-specific, and responsive to Africa’s realities. We must also continue pushing for adaptation finance that enables African countries to build climate-resilient health systems, strengthen early warning systems, protect health infrastructure, and enhance preparedness for climate-related health emergencies.”

The emphasis on institutional coordination reflected a growing understanding that advancing Africa’s climate and health agenda will require sustained collaboration between negotiators, public health institutions, technical partners, and civil society.

And the WHO-Africa Regional Team Lead on Climate Change, Health and Environment pledged coordinated stakeholder support for the climate and health agenda.

“At the WHO-Regional office, we have developed Africa-specific policy and implementation frameworks in support of an Africa-wide coordinated climate and health agenda. Together with the Africa CDC and Amref Health Africa, we have offered and continue to provide technical support for the continent’s climate and health agenda. As we head to the African COP next year, we pledge continued support to the AGN, as Africa’s voice in climate negotiations, to ensure that climate and health are not left behind.”

Meanwhile, IISD Senior Director for Tracking Progress Programme, Lynn Wagner, noted the need for coordinated climate action, pointing out that “isolated action is no longer tenable as the global community faces multiple and interconnected environmental and sustainable development crises.”

IISD has been supporting the Friends of Climate and Health initiative aimed at fostering international collaboration on climate change and health.

Unity and Coordination Ahead of Critical Negotiations

While health featured prominently in discussions, the AGN Lead Coordinators’ Meeting reinforced a broader strategic priority; maintaining a unified African voice theme across all negotiating streams.

Convening lead coordinators for the various thematic streams, the meeting focused on aligning positions ahead of what is expected to be a pivotal negotiating session, ahead of COP31 in November and, ultimately, COP32 next year.

Drawing on priorities established during the AGN Strategy Meeting in Accra earlier in March this year, lead coordinators reviewed progress in implementing elements of the African Common Platform and assessed emerging issues across the negotiation tracks.

The AGN Chair called for discipline, commitment, and coordinated action.

“Our strength lies in our unity and our ability to speak with one voice,” he said, reminding negotiators that Africa’s influence in the negotiations depends on collective preparation and strategic coordination.

The discussions intensified the interconnected nature of many agenda items. Climate finance remains Africa’s foremost priority, but increasingly, negotiators are recognising how finance decisions affect the various thematic outcomes, particularly, adaptation, which has been Africa’s main agenda over the years.

Health, Finance and the Road to COP32

A recurring theme across both meetings was the need to translate recognition of climate-related health risks into tangible climate finance support for African countries.

Negotiators emphasised the importance of securing adaptation finance that enables countries to build climate-resilient health systems, strengthen disease surveillance and early warning systems, protect health infrastructure, and improve preparedness for climate-related emergencies, as espoused in the Belem Climate and Health Action Plan launched at COP30.

“Health is already recognised within the investment frameworks and result areas of major climate finance mechanisms, such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD),” said David Kaluba, a Climate Finance Lead Negotiator. “However, the challenge is not only the availability of financing windows, but the limited pipeline of country-driven health-focused proposals and investment demand. Most countries have yet to fully integrate health priorities into their national climate plans (NDCs), financing strategies, and project pipelines, resulting in significant underutilisation of available climate finance opportunities for health system resilience, adaptation, and loss and damage responses.”

Kaluba therefore notes the need to generate sufficient country-level demand through evidence generation, development of bankable climate and health investment pipelines, and strengthening of institutional capacity to access and absorb available financing.

A Defining Opportunity for Africa

For many participants, this work extends beyond SB64. It forms part of a broader trajectory towards COP31 and ultimately COP32, significantly viewed as more than a diplomatic milestone.

It represents an opportunity for the continent to shape the global climate agenda around African realities and priorities, including climate and health.

As negotiations intensify, African countries are seeking to ensure that climate action delivers meaningful benefits for people on the ground, and health offers a powerful lens through which to frame that ambition.

Therefore, as formal negotiations begin on 8th June, one message is clear: protecting the climate ultimately means protecting human health. And for Africa, this principle is becoming an increasingly powerful driver of its engagement in the global climate process.

The author is the Climate Change and Health Advocacy Lead at Amref Health Africa.

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');

 

Deux mois après l’ouverture des discussions entre Washington et Téhéran, la perspective d’un nouvel accord sur le nucléaire iranien reste incertaine. Les négociations semblent dans l’impasse et aucun des deux camps ne semble disposé à faire les concessions nécessaires pour parvenir à un compromis. Parallèlement, les positions de Washington et Tel-Aviv paraissent moins alignées qu’au début du conflit. L’enlisement de la situation et l’absence de progrès diplomatiques contribuent à renforcer les divergences entre les deux alliés et impacter l’évolution des négociations avec l’Iran. Où en sont les négociations entre les États-Unis et l’Iran et quels sont les principaux obstacles à leur avancée ? Les divergences entre les États-Unis et Israël peuvent-elles peser sur l’avenir des négociations ? Enfin, quelles conditions permettraient de relancer les négociations et un accord est-il encore en mesure de limiter les capacités nucléaires de l’Iran ? Le point avec Jacques Audibert, ancien directeur politique du Quai d’Orsay, responsable des négociations avec l’Iran de 2009 à 2014, ancien conseiller diplomatique de François Hollande, et membre du Conseil d’administration de l’IRIS.

Après deux mois de négociations entre l’Iran et les États-Unis, marquées par de nombreux blocages, quel bilan d’étape peut-on tirer ? Au vu des pertes subies parmi les dirigeants iraniens et des remaniements erratiques au sein du département d’État depuis le retour de Donald Trump, pensez-vous qu’il y a suffisamment de compétences des deux côtés pour parvenir à un compromis efficient ? 

Le premier constat est qu’il n’y a malheureusement pas réellement de bilan d’étape, parce que la course n’a pas vraiment commencé. Les véritables négociations ne semblent pas encore engagées. Après deux mois, aucun progrès tangible n’est observable. Il y a eu des phases d’apaisement, des phases d’échanges plus positives, puis des phases de montée des tensions, comme actuellement, avec des échanges de tirs susceptibles de s’intensifier. Cette dynamique devrait toutefois se poursuivre sous la forme d’un conflit d’intensité moyenne : des moments d’apaisement devraient alterner avec des moments de tension, y compris avec des épisodes de frappes comme aujourd’hui. L’essentiel étant que des négociations s’ouvrent et se poursuivent. Or rien ne l’indique aujourd’hui.

Quant aux capacités des parties à négocier, tant du côté iranien qu’américain, il s’agit d’un des problèmes majeurs actuels. Si les deux parties ont intérêt à avancer vers une négociation et qu’aucune ne semble la rejeter totalement, aucun progrès n’est enregistré.

Côté iranien, les dirigeants ont été décimés. Plusieurs factions doivent se coordonner pour élaborer une position commune. Cela suppose des échanges internes et des négociations entre acteurs iraniens, ce qui paraît difficile sous la menace de frappes potentiellement mortelles menées par les États-Unis ou Israël. Les autorités iraniennes sont donc désorganisées et confrontées à leurs propres modes de fonctionnement institutionnels, qui rendent difficile l’adoption d’une position unifiée. Le Guide, les Gardiens de la révolution, le gouvernement et le Majlis n’ont pas nécessairement les mêmes approches.

Côté américain, il existe davantage d’unité de position, mais celle-ci est dictée par un président dont la capacité diplomatique de négociation semble limitée. Sa grammaire est celle qui a fonctionné dans la politique intérieure américaine : invectives, positions unilatérales pouvant aller jusqu’à l’injure, revirements ou affirmations éloignées de la réalité. Ces méthodes ne fonctionnent pas dans une négociation internationale. Par ailleurs, les outils de négociation mobilisés par Washington ne semblent pas suffisamment élaborés. Les interlocuteurs apparaissent surtout comme chargés de répéter rapidement les positions présidentielles. Rien ne laisse penser qu’une véritable équipe de négociation comparable à celle qui avait travaillé à l’obtention de l’accord de Vienne sur le nucléaire iranien (JCPOA) du 14 juillet 2015 soit aujourd’hui constituée.

Des deux côtés, les capacités de négociation apparaissent donc faibles. Cela explique l’absence de progrès, sur fond de conflit d’intensité moyenne alternant phases de tension et d’accalmie. La période actuelle correspond plutôt à une phase d’intensification.

L’imposition d’un cessez-le-feu au Liban comme condition à un accord par l’Iran et la pression, assez vaine à ce jour, mise par Donald Trump sur Netanyahou pour stopper l’escalade, ne révèlent-elles pas une perte de contrôle des États-Unis sur les négociations au profit de l’Iran et des orientations désormais différentes entre Washington et Tel Aviv. 

Les orientations de Washington et de Tel-Aviv semblent effectivement en train de diverger. Au moment de l’attaque de fin février, les États-Unis ont été convaincus par Israël qu’une frappe très forte visant à décapiter l’exécutif iranien conduirait à un succès rapide. Les résultats observés montrent que cela n’a pas produit les effets attendus. Depuis, les positions tendent à s’éloigner. Benyamin Netanyahou souhaite poursuivre le combat contre l’Iran et utilise pour cela la poursuite de l’affrontement avec le principal proxy iranien au Liban, le Hezbollah. Les frappes dans le sud du Liban se poursuivent donc. Les conséquences éventuelles sur les négociations ne semblent pas constituer une préoccupation majeure pour Israël, et il est même possible que le fait que cela ait un effet négatif sur les négociations lui convienne, puisqu’il continue de poursuivre l’idée d’éradiquer le pouvoir iranien et la capacité iranienne à combattre, ce qui ne paraît pas réaliste.

Pour autant, il ne semble pas que les États-Unis aient perdu le contrôle des négociations au profit de l’Iran. Les deux parties apparaissent surtout incapables de négocier efficacement. Aucune ne prend réellement l’avantage sur l’autre. Les deux auraient intérêt à parvenir à un accord, mais les exigences restent actuellement trop élevées de part et d’autre. Cette situation est classique au début d’un processus de négociation. Il faut ensuite commencer à construire des compromis, parfois sous forme chronologique : distinguer les problèmes selon leur degré d’urgence, traiter certains sujets immédiatement, d’autres à moyen terme et d’autres encore à plus long terme.

Dans ce conflit, la réouverture du détroit et la fin du blocus des ports iraniens constituent des intérêts communs. La question devient alors celle des contreparties possibles et, surtout, de l’ouverture immédiate de négociations crédibles sur le nucléaire. Aujourd’hui, les Iraniens ne semblent pas prêts à avancer sur ce sujet, mais une position affichée aujourd’hui peut évoluer demain. C’est précisément le principe d’une négociation : faire évoluer les lignes jusqu’à identifier une ouverture possible. Pour l’instant, cela ne semble pas se produire.

Face à ces négociations qui semblent s’enliser, comment la situation pourrait-elle se débloquer selon vous ? Compte tenu des capacités d’enrichissement acquises par l’Iran, un accord pourrait-il réellement empêcher ce pays d’avancer sur l’acquisition de l’arme nucléaire ?

Un déblocage relativement rapide pourrait intervenir si un compromis était trouvé sur un séquençage des problèmes.

Dans un premier temps, les sujets considérés comme urgents devraient être traités : pérennisation du cessez-le-feu, rétablissement de la circulation dans le détroit d’Ormuz, probablement en échange d’une levée partielle des sanctions ou d’un dégel des avoirs iraniens.

En parallèle, il faudrait engager immédiatement des négociations sur le sujet central : le nucléaire. Une solution sur ce dossier ne pourra pas être trouvée rapidement. Lors des précédentes négociations, cinq années avaient été nécessaires. Trouver un compromis sur le nucléaire est indispensable, mais cela demande du temps. Le sujet comprend plusieurs dimensions, notamment la vérification des engagements des différentes parties, en particulier ceux de l’Iran. Ces mécanismes sont extrêmement techniques et nécessitent de longs mois de travail. Il faudrait donc commencer immédiatement ce travail, avec un engagement des Iraniens à geler leurs activités. Rien ne garantit toutefois qu’un tel engagement puisse être obtenu.

L’ensemble se déroule dans un contexte marqué par une certaine irrationalité. Après l’opération américaine menée avec Israël en juin 2025, il avait été affirmé que l’ensemble du dispositif nucléaire iranien avait été « obliterated », c’est-à-dire totalement annihilé. Ce n’est manifestement pas le cas. Aujourd’hui, le résultat réel des frappes sur les capacités nucléaires iraniennes reste inconnu. Il n’est pas possible de savoir quelles installations dissimulées subsistent, ce qu’il est advenu du stock d’uranium enrichi — notamment les fameux quatre cents kilos — ni dans quelle mesure les capacités iraniennes de production et d’utilisation de centrifugeuses ont progressé. Pendant les années qui ont suivi le retrait américain de l’accord en 2018, les Iraniens n’étaient plus soumis aux obligations prévues par celui-ci et ont ainsi pu poursuivre leurs activités de recherche et de progression des capacités sans les mêmes contraintes.

L’article Iran/États-Unis : des négociations sont-elles vraiment possibles ? est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

Africa has no problem with ideas, but the struggle is in how to  implement them, leaders said at an inaugural forum convened to promote action on development. Addressing the inaugural Africa Development Impact Forum (ADIF), Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) Executive Secretary Clever Gatete emphasised that Africa must move quickly from great ideas to sound […]

International institutions promote policy coherence as crucial to the effective and fair implementation of global sustainability agendas, though the evidence for its benefits is slim. We present here the first systematic cross-country dataset on the consequences of national government efforts to promote policy coherence for vulnerable groups in society. We confirm that coherence is perceived to be beneficial for most groups. However, we find vulnerable groups are largely perceived to bear the brunt of incoherence, while traditionally powerful groups benefit from it in some cases. Based on these findings, we argue that coherence can play an important role in reducing inequality and ensuring countries “Leave No One Behind” in implementing climate and development goals.