Diplomacy & Crisis News

Former Trump official Matthew Kroenig explains why he thinks the White House made the right call in capturing Nicolás Maduro.

L'assassinat d'Alain Orsoni, ancien dirigeant nationaliste devenu figure de la vie économique corse, a rappelé la persistance de la violence sur l'île. Mais celle-ci ne relève pas que de trajectoires individuelles ou d'une culture : elle s'enracine dans des conflits structurels, sur la question (…) / Mafia, Nationalisme, Corse

Further restrictions would almost certainly help the military as it consolidates power.

Central Asian governments’ silence is a strategic calculation driven by economic interests, authoritarian solidarity, and uncertainty about Washington's next move.

By Rachel Avraham   In the contemporary global debate on sovereignty, few countries embody the paradox of independence and unresolved historical justice as powerfully as Algeria. More than six decades after the end of French colonial rule, Algeria officially stands as a fully sovereign state — yet its political narrative, institutional memory, and diplomatic posture continue to be shaped not only by the trauma of colonization, but also by the unfinished moral and legal questions that surround it. Algeria’s story is not simply one of liberation; it is the story of a state that insists that sovereignty is incomplete without historical truth.   Across much of the post-colonial world, sovereignty has long been interpreted as a formal condition — the existence of borders, a national government, a flag, and a seat in international organizations. Algeria challenges this minimalist understanding. For Algiers, independence was never meant to be merely administrative separation from France; it was envisioned as a deeper, restorative process in which recognition of colonial crimes, acknowledgement of cultural erasure, and moral accountability would stand alongside political autonomy. What emerged instead is a long-term gap between legal sovereignty and historical justice — a gap that continues to inform Algeria’s strategic behavior at home and abroad.   The French colonial enterprise in Algeria was not a marginal episode of empire; it was one of the most entrenched settler-colonial projects of the twentieth century. Land confiscation, population displacement, systematic repression, and cultural assimilation policies were accompanied by mass violence during the war of independence. These realities explain why Algeria views memory not as a symbolic exercise, but as a sovereign right. Paris, on the other hand, has walked a cautious line — acknowledging suffering, yet often avoiding full juridical language such as “crime” or “responsibility.” This tension has produced what may be called a dual narrative: legal decolonization without comprehensive moral reckoning.   It is precisely within this contradiction that Algeria positions itself in the emerging global “parade of sovereignties,” where states increasingly link legitimacy not only to power or territory, but to ethical claims rooted in history. While many post-colonial states remain satisfied with nominal independence, Algeria argues that a sovereign nation cannot be fully whole so long as its past remains officially disputed or minimized. For Algiers, the struggle for independence did not end in 1962; it transformed into a campaign for recognition — archives, remains, apologies, compensation mechanisms, and the right to narrate its own history.   This posture is not without strategic consequences. Algeria’s insistence on historical justice shapes its diplomacy, fuels segments of its domestic political identity, and at times places it in friction with former colonial actors who prefer reconciliation without accountability. Critics argue that this approach can serve as a political instrument, reinforcing state legitimacy through memory narratives and allowing the ruling elites to frame sovereignty as a perpetual revolutionary project. Supporters counter that historical silence is the greater danger, because it leaves colonial violence unexamined and perpetuates structural asymmetries in international relations.   In a broader sense, Algeria exposes a deeper transformation underway in global politics: sovereignty is evolving from a purely territorial principle into a moral-political claim. From Africa to Latin America, states increasingly demand that independence be understood not as a single historical milestone, but as an ongoing process linked to dignity, memory, restitution, and epistemic autonomy — the right to define how history is written and whose suffering counts. Algeria stands at the forefront of this intellectual shift, presenting itself as both a survivor of empire and a claimant of historical truth.   Yet the challenge for Algeria, like for many post-colonial societies, lies in balancing memory with governance. The legitimacy derived from anti-colonial struggle must coexist with the responsibilities of economic reform, political accountability, and social development. A sovereignty narrative grounded solely in the past risks becoming static; one built on both justice and modernization can evolve into a constructive force. The country’s future relevance will depend on whether it can transform historical grievance into a forward-looking project that strengthens institutions rather than replacing them.   The Algerian case therefore invites a deeper reflection on the meaning of liberation in the twenty-first century. Independence may remove the colonial power, but it does not automatically resolve the ethical and psychological legacies of domination. Formal sovereignty establishes the state; historical justice completes it. Algeria’s insistence on this distinction is not merely an internal debate — it is a message to the international system that recognition, memory, and dignity are no longer peripheral themes, but foundational components of modern sovereignty.

As the international order becomes more volatile and less rule-bound, Tokyo and Seoul must band together.

Mass demonstrations against Aleksandar Vucic’s government could turn brutal in the year ahead.

Don’t let the quantitative changes mask the qualitative transformation.

/ Soudan, Soudan du Sud, Conflit, Guerre civile, Géopolitique, Matières premières - Afrique / Soudan, Soudan du Sud, Conflit, Guerre civile, Géopolitique, Matières premières

Following the decapitation strike on one of its closest partners, can Beijing still position itself as a credible security actor in the region?

Three months after the South Korea-Japan summit meeting, the leaders met again in Nara Prefecture, Japan. 

“Drawing on lived experience from Tiananmen, I have come to believe that 4 concrete conditions determine whether an autocracy like China or Iran has a genuine chance of meaningful democratic change.”

Russia's growing resolve to fight on in Ukraine.

The consequences of Trump’s assault on international law.

But a U.S. strike would prop it up.

The party's appointment of Pisan Manawapat, a career diplomat who defended the military regime installed after the 2014 coup, is a stain on its reformist image.

At a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty, the scale and pace of major military procurements in the region is increasing.

The opposition party is in a good position ahead of the polls, but it remains to be seen whether it can recreate the success of its predecessor, the Move Forward Party.

Yesterday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opened its first hearing in the genocide case brought by West African nation in 2019.

The fractured alignment between SOEs and policy banks that once underpinned China’s overseas lending model is now breaking down after a wave of sovereign defaults.