Feed aggregator

At the Winter Paralympics in Italy, the decision to allow athletes from Russia and Belarus to compete under their countries' flags has met with widespread criticism. At the same time the Ukrainian team has been banned from wearing outfits featuring a map of Ukraine that includes the Russian-occupied territories. Several countries have joined Ukraine in announcing that they will boycott the opening ceremony.

Rapporteur Axel Voss will brief journalists on Tuesday 10 March at 15.00 on Parliament’s proposals to protect EU creative production in the age of artificial intelligence.
Committee on Legal Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Rapporteur Axel Voss will brief journalists on Tuesday 10 March at 15.00 on Parliament’s proposals to protect EU creative production in the age of artificial intelligence.
Committee on Legal Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Rapporteur Axel Voss will brief journalists on Tuesday 10 March at 15.00 on Parliament’s proposals to protect EU creative production in the age of artificial intelligence.
Committee on Legal Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Rapporteur Axel Voss will brief journalists on Tuesday 10 March at 15.00 on Parliament’s proposals to protect EU creative production in the age of artificial intelligence.
Committee on Legal Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Discussion circles at the Dalton Junior High School, Japan. Credit: Miko Nakano

By Miko Nakano
TOKYO, Japan, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

Around the world, conflicts often begin not with violence, but with assumptions. When people judge others before understanding them, labels replace dialogue—and division replaces trust. For young people growing up in an increasingly polarized world, learning to listen may be one of the most powerful tools for peace.

“We unilaterally assume that people we have never met are demons—and repeat the same mistakes.”

This line from the anime Attack on Titan made me stop and think. In the story, enemies who were taught to hate each other finally meet and realize they are human beings with fears, families, and dreams.

But this pattern is not fiction. Throughout history, societies have judged others before understanding them. During the Crusades, opposing sides saw each other only as threats. In modern times, media narratives and online discussions sometimes simplify complex issues into “good” versus “evil.” Once labels are applied, empathy becomes difficult.

Conversation time with children who live in the slum areas in Ghaziabad, India. Credit: Miko Nakano

Even justice systems are not immune to bias. The Hakamata case in Japan, widely reported by BBC News, raised serious concerns about how media pressure and unreliable evidence can influence judicial decisions. The case showed how justice can be compromised when assumptions take priority over careful examination of facts and individual voices. Around the world, wrongful convictions and discrimination continue to demonstrate how easily fairness can be undermined when judgment replaces understanding.

This is why SDG 16—peace, justice, and strong institutions—matters. Peace is not only about ending wars. It is about building societies where people are heard before they are judged.

Conversation about education with Yoshimasa Hayashi, Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan, at the National High School Future Conference, House of Councilors Members’ Office Building, Tokyo, Japan. Credit: Miko Nakano

My awareness of this issue began in elementary school. A classmate was widely labeled as “strange,” and many students avoided her. One day, she spoke openly about the pain of being ignored. Listening to her changed my perspective. I realized how easily we can judge someone without ever asking why.

Instead of keeping this reflection to myself, I decided to take action.

In junior high school, I helped organize small discussion circles during class activities where students could share experiences of being misunderstood or judged. We created simple rules: listen without interrupting, ask questions before assuming, and respect differences. At first, conversations were awkward. But over time, students began speaking more openly. Some admitted they had judged others too quickly. Others shared experiences of feeling excluded.

These small conversations changed the atmosphere in our classroom. They did not solve every problem, but they created space for listening.

I later learned that young people around the world are doing similar work. Programs like Seeds of Peace and Generation Global bring together youth from different backgrounds to engage in dialogue across conflict lines. Their work shows that listening is not passive—it is an active form of peacebuilding.

As young people, we may not control institutions or governments yet. But we shape the culture around us every day—in classrooms, online spaces, and communities. If we normalize quick labeling and division, conflict grows. If we normalize listening, trust grows.

Building peaceful societies begins long before political negotiations. It begins when we ask “why” instead of assuming. It begins when we recognize that every person has a story that deserves to be heard.

In a world facing rising polarization and mistrust, choosing to listen may seem small. But it is not weak. It is foundational.

Peace does not start in courtrooms or parliaments alone.
It starts in conversations.

And young people are ready to lead them.

Edited by Dr Hanna Yoon

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');  

Excerpt:

Youth voice on SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Credit: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

In recent months, the language surrounding the escalating confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran has taken on a tone that should trouble anyone concerned with global peace.

Across television studios, online sermons, and political commentary, some American preachers and commentators have begun describing the conflict not merely as geopolitics or national security, but as a “holy war.”

Reporting in outlets such as The Guardian, along with coverage in other international media, has noted the growing number of Christian nationalist and Evangelical voices framing the Middle Eastern conflict in explicitly theological terms.

Certain Evangelical preachers in the United States have long interpreted tensions involving Israel through apocalyptic or biblical narratives. In these interpretations, the confrontation with Iran is sometimes presented as part of a divinely ordained struggle between good and evil.

In sermons broadcast online and amplified through social media, the war is described as a moment in which believers must stand with Israel in a battle perceived as spiritually consequential – even leading to ‘the rapture’.

The rhetoric is not limited to pulpits. Some former military figures and commentators have echoed similar themes, invoking civilizational language that portrays the confrontation with Iran as part of a broader clash between Judeo-Christian civilization and an Islamic adversary.

When such language enters strategic discourse, it transforms political conflict into something far more dangerous: a war imbued with sacred meaning.

History shows that once wars are framed as sacred struggles, compromise becomes nearly impossible. Political conflicts can, at least in theory, be negotiated. Holy wars, by contrast, are perceived as battles for divine truth. In that framing, negotiation is betrayal.

This phenomenon is not unique to the current Middle Eastern crisis. Religious legitimization of war has surfaced repeatedly in contemporary conflicts. At the outbreak of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, for example, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, framed the war in spiritual terms.

In sermons and public statements, he suggested the conflict represented a metaphysical struggle over the moral future of the Russian world. The language of spiritual warfare, cultural purification, and civilizational defence became intertwined with political justification for military action.

Such rhetoric matters. When religious authority sanctifies violence, it grants moral legitimacy to warfare and discourages dissent among believers. Faith communities that might otherwise advocate peace can become mobilized behind nationalistic or militaristic agendas.

We are therefore witnessing something deeply unsettling: the return of explicitly religious language to modern warfare. For decades after the Second World War, global diplomacy attempted—imperfectly but deliberately—to frame conflicts primarily in political and legal terms.

International institutions, treaties, and multilateral frameworks were designed to prevent precisely the kind of civilizational framing that once fueled centuries of bloodshed.

Yet the present moment suggests that these restraints are weakening. Wars are again being narrated as existential struggles between belief systems. Political leaders, clergy, and media personalities increasingly draw upon religious symbolism to rally support.

The danger is not simply rhetorical. When wars are sacralized, they risk becoming limitless conflicts, unconstrained by borders or diplomacy.

The Collapse of Multilateralism and the Silence of Faith Institutions

For years, I have written and spoken about the uneasy relationship between religion, global governance, and peacebuilding. In articles as well as in interviews and public lectures, I have repeatedly warned that governments and intergovernmental entities have failed to develop a coherent framework for engaging religions constructively in international affairs.

Faith-based organizations today are everywhere. They participate in humanitarian work, development programs, diplomacy initiatives, and interfaith dialogues. International institutions increasingly acknowledge the importance of religious actors in peacebuilding and development. Conferences, seminars, department programmes, global initiatives on “religion and …” or “faith and …” are not only commonplace, but proliferating.

Yet despite this apparent proliferation of engagement, the deeper structural problem remains unresolved: religious actors themselves remain profoundly fragmented, as are the political protagonists dealing with them.

Rather than forming robust alliances capable of confronting violence carried out in the name of religion, many faith organizations continue to operate within narrow institutional or theological boundaries. Interfaith initiatives exist, but they often remain symbolic—highly visible yet limited in their capacity to challenge political power or mobilize believers at scale.

I have argued that religious organizations too often underestimate their responsibility in shaping public narratives around conflict, and doing so together. When religion is invoked to legitimize violence, silence from religious leaders becomes complicity.

At the same time, the broader international system that might once have moderated such dynamics is itself under strain. The erosion of multilateralism has been one of the defining features of the past decade. International institutions that once served as mediators of global crises increasingly appear weakened or sidelined.

The United Nations Security Council remains gridlocked. International law is invoked selectively – if at all. Great-power competition has returned with renewed intensity. In such an environment, appeals to universal norms carry less weight.

Alongside this institutional weakening has come a worrying rise in authoritarianism worldwide. Governments across regions have adopted increasingly illiberal practices—restricting civil liberties, marginalizing minorities, and suppressing dissent. In many cases, religion is instrumentalized to reinforce nationalist narratives or legitimize political authority.

This combination—the decline of multilateral governance and the rise of politicized religion—creates a volatile global environment. Without strong international frameworks to mediate disputes, imperialist narratives and actions gain traction – as in Trump’s and Netanyahu’s war against Iran. Religion, ethnicity, and culture become tools through which political conflicts are interpreted and mobilized.

Faith-based organizations, despite their potential influence, have struggled to counter this trend effectively. Some remain focused on humanitarian services rather than confronting the ideological narratives that legitimize violence. Most hesitate to challenge political authorities with whom they maintain close relationships, and seek financial and/or political backing.

As a result, the global religious landscape today is marked by a paradox: religion is increasingly present in global discourse, yet its potential as a force for peace remains under-realized.

Islamophobia and the Seeds of a Wider Religious Conflict

Perhaps the most troubling dimension of the present moment is the resurgence of Islamophobia as a powerful political force in international discourse.

For more than two decades following the attacks of September 11, 2001, narratives portraying Islam as inherently linked to extremism became deeply embedded in political rhetoric and media representation across many Western societies.

Despite sustained efforts by scholars, religious leaders, and civil society actors to challenge these narratives, they continue to shape public perceptions.

In the context of the current confrontation with Iran, such narratives risk reinforcing the perception that the conflict is not merely geopolitical but civilizational. When Iran is framed not simply as a state actor but as a representative of a threatening Islamic force, the conflict becomes symbolically larger than any single nation.

The danger is clear: political wars are becoming interpreted as religious wars.

If such framing takes hold, the implications extend far beyond the Middle East. Conflicts that are perceived as religious struggles can mobilize believers across borders. They can radicalize communities, fuel sectarian polarization, and undermine the fragile coexistence of diverse religious populations.

History provides sobering examples. The European wars of religion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries devastated entire regions, entangling political power struggles with theological disputes. Once religious identity became intertwined with warfare, violence spread across kingdoms and empires.

Today’s globalized world is even more interconnected. Diaspora communities, digital media, and transnational networks allow narratives of conflict to circulate instantly across continents. A war perceived as targeting Islam could ignite tensions in communities thousands of miles away from the battlefield.

Similarly, religious nationalism in multiple regions—whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim—has been gaining strength in recent years. When one religiously framed conflict emerges, it can reinforce others. Narratives of civilizational struggle feed upon each other.

As the confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran becomes widely interpreted through a religious lens, the consequences may be profound. Christian–Muslim tensions, already strained in many contexts, could escalate dramatically. Such conflicts would not respect national borders. They would unfold within societies, across communities, and through global networks of believers.

Ironically, this escalation occurs at a time when religious leaders frequently emphasize the peace-promoting teachings of their traditions. Interfaith initiatives celebrate dialogue, coexistence, and shared values. Religious texts across traditions contain powerful injunctions toward compassion, justice, and reconciliation.

Yet these ideals remain fragile when confronted with political realities.

If religious institutions fail to challenge narratives that sanctify violence, they risk becoming spectators to a new era of religious conflict. Worse still, they may be drawn into it.

Are “Religions” Truly for Peace?

We may therefore be standing at the threshold of a profoundly dangerous historical moment.

Religious language is once again being used to justify war. Political conflicts are increasingly framed as civilizational struggles. Multilateral institutions that once mediated global disputes appear weakened. And faith communities—despite their moral authority—have yet to mount a unified challenge to the narratives that sacralize violence.

None of this means that religion inevitably leads to war. On the contrary, religious traditions contain some of humanity’s most powerful ethical teachings about peace, justice, and compassion. Faith communities have played vital roles in reconciliation processes, humanitarian action, and social movements for justice.

But these possibilities are not automatic. They depend on conscious choices by religious leaders, institutions, and believers.

If religious actors allow their traditions to be mobilized in support of political violence, then religion will become part of the problem rather than the solution.

The question confronting us today is therefore both urgent and uncomfortable.

At a moment when wars are increasingly described as sacred struggles, when geopolitical conflicts are interpreted through religious narratives, and when Islamophobia and other forms of religious prejudice continue to spread, we must ask ourselves: How are religions truly forces for peace?

Prof. Azza Karam, PhD. is President, Lead Integrity

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');  

BERICHT über die Empfehlung des Europäischen Parlaments an den Rat, die Kommission und die Vizepräsidentin der Kommission / Hohe Vertreterin der Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zu einer verstärkten Zusammenarbeit zwischen der EU und Kanada vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen geopolitischen Lage, einschließlich der Bedrohung der wirtschaftlichen Stabilität und der Souveränität Kanadas
Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten
Tobias Cremer

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

BERICHT über das Thema „Europäische Vorzeigeprojekte von gemeinsamem Interesse im Verteidigungsbereich“
Ausschuss für Sicherheit und Verteidigung
Lucia Annunziata

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Selon Europol, le risque de cyberattaques visant les infrastructures et les entreprises occidentales pourrait encore augmenter si le conflit persiste.

The post EXCLUSIF : Selon Europol, la menace terroriste dans l’UE s’est accrue en raison de la guerre au Moyen-Orient appeared first on Euractiv FR.

Également dans l'édition de vendredi : avantages accordés aux députés européens, retour des migrants, forces kurdes, autorité européenne de protection des données.

The post Crise énergétique : un sentiment de déjà-vu appeared first on Euractiv FR.

Will AI kickstart a new age of nuclear power? Credit: Unsplash/Taylor Vick In a data centre (above), servers are high-performance computers that process and store data. Meanwhile, the United Nations has taken a firm stance that decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons must rest with humans, not machines, warning that integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) presents an unacceptable risk to global security.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

As artificial intelligence (AI) threatens to dominate every aspect of human lives —including political, economic, social and cultural –there is also the danger of the potential militarization of AI.

The integration of AI into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems, as well as its use in military decision-making, introduces severe, unprecedented risks to global security, according to one report.

Key negative effects include the acceleration of decision-making to “machine speed” (leaving little time for human judgment), increased vulnerability to cyberattacks, and the erosion of strategic stability.

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, command and control of nuclear weapons is a delicate and complicated system, designed to prevent error while ensuring reliability under high-pressure conditions.

In environments where vast amounts of data shape high-stakes outcomes, artificial intelligence has become a natural consideration.

“The integration of a rapidly evolving technology raises fundamental questions about responsibility, data quality, and system reliability. When a single error could have irreversible consequences, how can confidence be built around the integration of machine learning into systems that have long relied on human judgment and oversight?”

“What guardrails should be maintained? Where are the opportunities for international collaboration and consensus?”

Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS the role of and integration of Artificial Generative Intelligence (AGI) raises some of the most consequential questions of our technological era.

The integration of AGI into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems is not merely an engineering challenge — it is a civilizational one.

The Problem of Machine Speed

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the integration of AGI into NC3 systems, he pointed out, is the compression of decision-making timelines to “machine speed.” Nuclear strategy has historically depended on deliberate human judgment — the ability of decision-makers to pause, assess ambiguous data, consult advisors, and choose restraint even under pressure or attack.

AGI systems, by contrast, are designed to process and respond at velocities no human can match. In a crisis, this creates a dangerous paradox: the very speed that makes AGI attractive also makes meaningful human oversight nearly impossible.

“If an AGI system misidentifies a sensor anomaly as an incoming missile — something that has happened with human-operated systems before, as the 1983 Soviet false alarm incident illustrates — the window for correction could shrink from minutes to seconds.”

The margin for error in nuclear decision-making has always been uncomfortably thin; AGI risks eliminating it entirely, said Rauf.

Data Quality and System Reliability

Data quality and integrity are foundational concerns regarding AGI. Machine learning systems are only as reliable as the data on which they are trained, he argued.

“Nuclear environments present unique ultra complex challenges: they involve rare, high-stakes events with limited historical data, adversarial actors who may deliberately feed misinformation into sensor networks, and geopolitical contexts that shift faster than training datasets can capture”.

An AGI system that confidently acts on corrupted or misrepresented data in a nuclear context could trigger escalation based on a fiction. Worse still, the opacity of many machine learning models — the so-called “black box” problem — means that even system designers may not be able to explain why a particular output was generated, let alone correct it in real time, declared Rauf.

Vladislav Chernavskikh, Researcher, Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme, at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) told IPS existing state approaches to AI-nuclear nexus already broadly converge on the principle of retaining human control in nuclear decision making, yet there is no consensus on how this should be defined or operationalized.

A formal recognition of this principle by nuclear-weapon states and elaboration of what human control constitutes in this context and how it can manifest in the nuclear weapons domain can be one of the first steps towards minimising risks, he declared.

At the AI Impact Summit in New Delhi last month, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the future of AI cannot be decided by a handful of countries and the whims of a few billionaires.

Last year, the General Assembly took two decisive steps, he said.

First, by creating an Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, and second, by launching a Global Dialogue on AI Governance within the UN, where all countries, together with the private sector, academia and civil society, can all have a voice.

He told participants at the summit that real impact means technology that improves lives and protects the planet. And he called on them to build AI for everyone, with dignity as the default setting.

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters last month, the Secretary-General is not calling for the United Nations to rule over AI. He’s calling for – and has put in place – an architecture with the help of Member States to try to ensure that everybody gets a seat at the table.

And as he said: “AI will and has already impacted all of us. It is vital that those countries who may not have the technology also have a voice and that science and fairness be put at the centre of AI.”

Responsibility and Accountability

In a further analysis, Rauf said when AGI recommendations or autonomous actions contribute to catastrophic outcomes, the question of accountability becomes deeply problematic.

Traditional chains of command assign clear human responsibility at each decision point. AGI integration fractures this clarity. Is it the software developer, the military commander, the government that deployed the system, or the algorithm itself that bears responsibility for a miscalculation? he asked.

The absence of clear accountability frameworks is not just a legal or ethical problem — it is a strategic one, because adversaries and allies alike need to understand who is in control and what decision logic is being applied.

Cyberattack Vulnerability

AGI-enhanced or dependent NC3 systems also expand the attack surface for adversaries. Sophisticated cyberattacks — including adversarial inputs designed to manipulate AGI outputs — could potentially spoof or blind these systems in ways that are difficult to detect until it is too late. The integration of AGI thus creates new vectors for destabilization that did not exist in earlier nuclear architectures, said Rauf.

The Case for International Collaboration

Despite these alarming challenges, international collaboration could be a potential avenue for managing risk. Confidence-building measures, shared technical standards, and bilateral or multilateral ‘enforceable’ agreements on the limits of AGI autonomy in nuclear systems could help preserve strategic stability.

Arms control history, said Rauf, shows that even adversaries can agree on rules that serve mutual interests in survival. Extending that tradition to AGI-enabled NC3 systems is urgently needed — before the technology outpaces diplomacy entirely.

“The integration of AGI into nuclear systems technically might be inevitable. Whether it is managed wisely is a political and moral choice that remains very much open and seems beyond the intellectual, moral/ethical processing capabilities of today’s civil and military ‘leaders’, declared Rauf.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (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');  

Die Konsequenzen der Epstein-Affäre holen den in Ungnade gefallenen Ex-Prinz Andrew weiter ein: Der Bruder von König Charles verliert jetzt eine weitere Immobilie. Das Crown Estate kündigte den Mietvertrag für die East Lodge vorzeitig.

Die Formel 1 hat ihre ersten zwei Stunden hinter sich. Noch sind die Zeiten rund drei Sekunden langsamer als vor einem Jahr. Doch die grossen Dramen blieben vorerst aus. Tagessieger: Lokalheld Piastri (McLaren) vor Antonelli (Mercedes).