Donald Trump doit signer jeudi 8 mai à Washington un accord commercial bilatéral avec son allié historique, le Royaume-Uni, selon la presse américaine, le président américain ayant évoqué un « grand pays très respecté » sans toutefois le nommer.
The post Donald Trump annonce un « accord commercial majeur » jeudi, probablement avec le Royaume-Uni appeared first on Euractiv FR.
Les Albanais votent dimanche 11 mai pour élire leur parlement et choisir entre renouveler le mandat du Premier ministre socialiste Edi Rama ou faire revenir au pouvoir l'ancien président et ancien Premier ministre Sali Berisha, chef historique de la droite.
The post Élections en Albanie : deux ennemis jurés et la justice en embuscade appeared first on Euractiv FR.
This essay adopts a relational lens to examine China–Africa media interactions, focusing on the role of African journalistic agency in shaping relationships with Chinese counterparts across macro, meso, and micro levels. Drawing on interviews and multi-sited fieldwork conducted in China, Kenya, Ethiopia, Zambia, and Mauritius, it aims to provide a nuanced understanding of African journalistic agency in diverse contexts and propose a future research agenda.
This essay adopts a relational lens to examine China–Africa media interactions, focusing on the role of African journalistic agency in shaping relationships with Chinese counterparts across macro, meso, and micro levels. Drawing on interviews and multi-sited fieldwork conducted in China, Kenya, Ethiopia, Zambia, and Mauritius, it aims to provide a nuanced understanding of African journalistic agency in diverse contexts and propose a future research agenda.
This essay adopts a relational lens to examine China–Africa media interactions, focusing on the role of African journalistic agency in shaping relationships with Chinese counterparts across macro, meso, and micro levels. Drawing on interviews and multi-sited fieldwork conducted in China, Kenya, Ethiopia, Zambia, and Mauritius, it aims to provide a nuanced understanding of African journalistic agency in diverse contexts and propose a future research agenda.
This village is half in India and half in Pakistan. In Pakistan it is called Chilhana; on the Indian side, it's called Teetwal. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS
By Zofeen Ebrahim
KARACHI, Pakistan, May 8 2025 (IPS)
Just after the young couple arrived at Al-Sayyed Shabistan, a quaint guesthouse in Taobat, on April 30, soldiers showed up, urging them to leave—war, they warned, could break out any moment.
Yahya Shah, guest-house owner and head of Taobat’s hotel association, told IPS over the phone, “Tourist season just began, but for two weeks the village feels like a ghost town—everyone’s hit: shopkeepers, eateries, drivers.”
Just 2 km from the tense Line of Control (not a legally recognized international border, but a de facto border under control of the military on both sides between the Indian- and Pakistani-controlled parts of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir), Taobat sits where India’s Kishenganga river crosses into Pakistan—reborn as the Neelum.
Tensions spiked after a deadly April 22 attack in the Indian-administered Pahalgam by The Resistance Front, killing 26 people—25 Indians and one Nepali.
India blamed Pakistan for backing TRF, calling it a Lashkar-e-Taiba front. Pakistan denied involvement, urging an independent probe. Meanwhile, pressure mounted on the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, to respond forcefully, as the attackers remained at large two weeks later.
The question on everyone’s mind — including Michael Kugelman, a Washington, DC-based South Asia analyst — is, “How could such a horrific attack have been carried out on soft targets in one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world?”
Taobat is the last village of Neelum Valley and the place where the Kishenganga River enters Pakistani territory and is called the Neelum river. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS
When India crossed the line
On May 7, early morning, the intensity of the animosity between the two since the Pahalgam attack took on a serious turn when India launched a full-fledged series of attacks on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
India claimed it targeted “terrorist camps” in Pakistan, stating, “No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted.”
Pakistan’s armed forces have been authorized to take “corresponding actions” following the strikes, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s office said following the attack.
The Indian attack killed 26 civilians, injuring 46. In addition, the Pakistani army reported downing five Indian jets. In retaliatory attacks by Pakistani forces, at least 10 people have been killed in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Reuters, quoting the local government on the Indian side, admitted that three fighter jets crashed in Jammu and Kashmir hours after India announced it had struck “nine Pakistani terrorist infrastructure sites across the border.”
The international community has called for restraint, with the United States urging the two sides to “keep lines of communication open and avoid escalation” the United Kingdom offering “in dialogue, in de-escalation and anything we can do to support that, we are here and willing to do…” United Nations’ Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the international community could not “afford a military confrontation” between the nuclear-armed nations.
Tensions between India and Pakistan ripple across South Asia.
“A tense situation between Pakistan and India is always a cause for worry for others in the region,” said Reaz Ahmad, Dhaka Tribune’s editor, with over 30 years of writing about South Asian politics. Bangladeshis only “want both nations to stop the blame game and tit-for-tat actions that only worsen life for ordinary people.” These unfortunate events, said Ahmed, referring to the war-like situation, show the “people deserve far better from their leaders.”
Daily life in Taobat Bala, about 1.5 km from Taobat. The area isn’t populated; people may work in the area but live in Taobat. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS
Closed gates, broken pacts
Following the Pahalgam attack, India and Pakistan shut borders, halted visas, expelled visitors, and downgraded missions—familiar moves in past standoffs. But this time, India suspended the 1960 water treaty, prompting Pakistan to threaten withdrawal from the 1972 Simla Agreement.
Dr. Moonis Ahmar, former chairman of the department of international relations at Karachi University, blamed leaders of both countries for “misguiding their people” and polarizing them by spewing so much vitriol. “What was the point of bringing in the unnecessary “jugular vein” conversation out of the blue?
The ‘jugular vein’ debate
Recently, Pakistan’s army chief of staff, General Asim Munir’s characterization of Kashmir as Pakistan’s jugular vein at a diaspora event held just days before the Pahalgam tragedy, was considered provocative and a “trigger” for the massacre.
“But that is what it is, and the general only reiterated the stand taken by the Quaid,” defended Khawaja Muhammad Asif, the country’s defense minister, referring to the country’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Defining the jugular vein, Asif said Kashmir stirred both deep emotions and economic concerns. Recalling the lesser-known massacre of the partition, he said, “Thousands of Muslims were massacred in the Jammu region by mobs and paramilitaries led by the army of Dogra ruler Hari Singh,” adding that Muslim villagers from Jammu province were forced to evacuate to West Pakistan and were then accommodated in refugee camps in the districts of Sialkot, Jhelum, Gujrat, and Rawalpindi.
Asif, a native of Sialkot, emphasized that the economic significance of Kashmir cannot be overstated. “Kashmir is our lifeline—all our rivers, including the Jhelum, Sutlej, and even the smaller tributaries flowing through my own hometown, originate there,” he said, acknowledging that India’s recent announcement to withdraw from the pact posed a “real threat.”
Village life in Taobat Bala before the escalation of violence. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS
What is the root of conflict?
Over the years many historians from both sides have unraveled the historical, political, and emotional fault lines dividing India and Pakistan since 1947. But Kashmir remains the stumbling block, 78 years later.
“At the time of British India’s partition in August 1947, the 565 princely states were given the option to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent—provided their people had the right to decide.” Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu king, Maharaja Hari Singh, initially chose to remain independent.
After tribal militias from Pakistan invaded parts of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947—reportedly with covert support from Pakistani forces and encouragement from some local Muslims—the situation quickly descended into chaos and violence. Facing the threat, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding the state’s sovereignty to India in exchange for military assistance.
The Indian government, led by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, agreed to extend help but asked Hari Singh to sign an Instrument of Accession first. The Raja agreed. The documents conferred a special status on Jammu and Kashmir and allowed it to have its constitution, a flag, and control over internal administration, except in matters of defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications, and were subsequently enshrined under Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution.
“These rules were not just legal provisions; they were a vital protection that ensured that no non-resident could purchase immovable property in the region, and this was done to safeguard the distinct identity, local ownership, and indigenous rights of the Kashmiri people,” explained Naila Altaf Kayani, an expert in Kashmir affairs, speaking to IPS from Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
But even before 2019, especially between 1952 and 1986, and through 47 presidential orders, the historical guarantees under the Maharaja’s Instrument of Accession had slowly been diluted and J&K’s special status steadily diminished. “India effectively dismantled the State Subject Rules that had long been in place in Jammu and Kashmir,” said Kayani.
In 2019, India finally scrapped these articles completely, and J&K became a union territory (governed directly by the central government, unlike states, which have their own elected governments with significant autonomy).
Can India and Pakistan ever make peace?
Both Asif and Ahmar doubt the Kashmir dispute will be resolved in their lifetime. And till that doesn’t happen, the thorn in their side will keep pricking. But what the latter finds befuddling is the “unstable and unpredictable” Pakistan-India relationship. “The two countries swing between total silence and sudden warmth, with no steady, consistent engagement like most nations maintain,” he said.
Ironically, it’s during the lowest points in their relationship that both Indian and Pakistani leaders stand to gain the most politically, said Kugelman. “Delhi can bolster its tough-on-terror stand and reputation as a strong and defiant administration by responding with muscle, and in Pakistan, the civilian and military leaderships, which are not terribly popular, can shore up public support by rallying the country around it in the face of an Indian threat.”
Forgotten formula or a new peace plan?
Ahmar said this is the lowest point in India-Pakistan relations he has ever witnessed.
However, “if by some miracle General Pervez Musharraf’s out-of-the-box four-point formula gets a shot in the arm,” perhaps we can begin anew, on a friendlier note,” he said, referring to the July 2001 Agra summit, hosted by Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee.
The four fixes included a gradual demilitarization of troops from both sides; no change in borders but allowing the people of Jammu and Kashmir to move freely across the LoC; self-governance without independence; and a joint supervision mechanism in the region involving India, Pakistan, and Kashmir.
But until that happens, Ahmar said, it would be best to let the territory be put under international supervision until its fate is decided. “I would say, place the region under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations for at least 10 years,” he said.
Comprising the five permanent UN Security Council members—China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US—the Trusteeship Council aims to guide territories toward self-government or independence, either as separate states or by joining neighboring countries. The last trust territory, Palau, gained independence in October 1994. “The Trusteeship Council may have completed its mission in Palau but continues to exist on paper, under the UN Charter, chapter XII,” added Ahmar.
Columnist Munazza Siddiqui, also executive producer at Geo News, a private TV channel, advocated for yet another option: “Turn the LoC into a Working Boundary (a temporary, informally demarcated line used to separate areas, often in disputed regions or during a ceasefire, but different from the LoC, which is a military control line; something in-between the LoC and an international border), similar to the one that exists between Pakistan’s Punjab and Indian-administered J&K, as recognized under UN arrangements.
“The idea is to then shift focus towards bilateral cooperation in other areas,” she pointed out, adding, “This approach can hopefully help de-escalate the violence historically associated with the Kashmir issue.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Aiming to secure peace in Europe after the horrors of the Second World War, the Schuman Declaration proposed cooperation among European countries in two key economic areas central to rearmament and warfare: coal and steel. As an institutional framework for this cooperation, the Schuman Declaration proposed the creation of the first supranational organisation in Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Established in 1952, the ECSC laid the foundations for today’s European Union (EU). The Schuman Declaration is therefore seen as the EU’s founding act. Presented by the French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, on 9 May 1950, the anniversary of this key date in European integration is marked on 9 May each year in the EU.
Europe in the mid-20th centuryIn the middle of the last century, coal and steel played a significant political and economic role in Europe. As essential elements in national defence industries, in the potential to wage war, and in economic growth, they were seen as indicators of state power. After the Second World War, however, coal, one of the most important energy sources for steel production, was a scarce resource. American and British intentions to lift production limits for the German steel industry from mid-May 1950 therefore put pressure on France to find a swift solution to the ‘German issue’. In other words, France had to define a strategy to safeguard itself against potential German aggression and to make sure to benefit in political and economic terms from the German economic resurgence. From the end of the war, France had followed a policy aimed at preventing Germany from getting back on its feet, through territorial fragmentation and disarmament. From 1949 on, however, French foreign policy on the ‘German issue’ became increasingly shaped by moves towards Western European integration. Similarly, in Germany, plans for Western European integration were also discussed, as a way to abolish the Occupation Statute and to obtain sovereignty for the Federal Republic founded in 1949. The Schuman Declaration provided a simple but convincing answer as to how to secure peace in Europe by combining the difficult ‘German issue’ with thinking on the new political architecture of post-war Europe.
Schuman Declaration: Monnet’s supranational innovationJean Monnet, guiding light of the Schuman Declaration and first President of the ECSC High Authority, alerted Schuman and French Prime Minister George Bidault to the possible consequences for the French economy of an unimpeded German economic recovery, in an urgent appeal in early May 1950. At that time, Monnet was Head of the French Planning Committee and familiar with contemporary thinking on transnational cooperation in the coal and steel sectors. He worked from mid-April 1950 on the text, which later became the Schuman Declaration. There are a total of nine recognised versions of the text. Its main objectives were to ensure peace, security, European unification, modernisation of the French economy, and improvement of industrial production conditions, especially for steel production. This was to be achieved by the establishment of a common market for coal and steel, and equivalent production conditions for France and Germany. The really innovative element of the Schuman Declaration, however, was the institutional creation of a new European political organisation. This encompassed a supranational design in the form of the High Authority (today’s European Commission), equipped with real competence and independent of any direct influence from the participating Member States.
Monnet could not convince Bidault to agree to his plan. Schuman, in contrast, saw it as an opportunity for French foreign policy. Having obtained agreement in principle from German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Schuman presented the Declaration in a press conference at the Quai d’Orsay on 9 May 1950. As the text, marking a turning point in European history, was read out by Schuman, it was thereafter known as the Schuman Declaration.
Objective: Peace in EuropeTo find a way to secure peace in Europe in the post-war era was a difficult task. Nevertheless, it was precisely this task to which the Schuman Declaration attempted to find an answer. The declaration’s first two sentences made this absolutely clear. They read: ‘World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it. The contribution which an organised and living Europe can bring to civilisation is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations.’ It is thus safe to say that the Schuman Declaration was, in essence, a peace project. This was furthermore underlined by the day chosen to present the declaration, 9 May 1950, exactly one day after the fifth anniversary of the capitulation of Nazi Germany. Without the establishment of a common market for coal and steel, the creation of a strong supranational institution and the possibility for mutual monitoring, it is possible that European countries might have sleepwalked into another war. The 1951 Paris Treaty founding the ECSC adopted the essence of the Schuman Declaration, putting securing peace in Europe first and foremost.
Negotiating the European Coal and Steel CommunityOn 3 June 1950, the six participating countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – announced the launch of an intergovernmental conference to flesh out the Schuman Declaration. The countries’ agreement to start negotiations was due to both political and economic reasons. Politically, no country wanted to remain outside the newly developing Europe represented by the ECSC. Economically, Italy and the Benelux countries especially sought solutions to energy issues due to the lack of coal and emerging globalisation, which put European energy sectors under pressure from cheaper energy sources coming from non-European countries.
Intensive negotiations started in June 1950 in Paris and took almost one year. For example, various changes to the ECSC’s institutional form were made during the negotiations. While Monnet had designed the High Authority as a small, completely independent and highly powerful body, the Benelux countries in particular demanded the creation of various control bodies. Therefore, further entities were added to the institutional set-up, including the Court of Justice, a special Council of Ministers (equivalent to today’s Council of the European Union), and the ECSC Common Assembly, the forerunner of the European Parliament. The High Authority’s competences softened, the Paris Treaty establishing the ECSC is not therefore identical to the institutional framework envisaged by Monnet when preparing the Schuman Declaration. Signed on 18 April 1951, the Paris Treaty entered into force after ratification on 23 July 1952. (Concluded for a fixed period of 50 years, the Treaty expired in July 2002, although its provisions had by then largely been subsumed into the EU Treaties.)
Historical significanceBy creating the ECSC, for the first time in European history, participating states voluntarily gave up part of their sovereignty to an organisation at European level. The Schuman Declaration thereby allowed the establishment of the present-day EU by preparing its historical institutional framework. This included, as one of the most important Schuman Declaration achievements, the breakthrough in Franco-German reconciliation. Clearly its most important legacy, however, is that the supranational institutions for which the declaration paved the way have contributed a great deal to guaranteeing the peaceful co-existence of European Union Member States for many decades. It is therefore fitting to call the Schuman Declaration an innovative and visionary peace treaty.
Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Schuman Declaration, May 1950‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Emmanuel Macron et le nouveau chancelier allemand Friedrich Merz ont promis mercredi 7 mai un « réalignement » des politiques énergétiques française et allemande afin de réduire les coûts énergétiques et de garantir la sécurité de l'approvisionnement.
The post Emmanuel Macron et Friedrich Merz prônent un « réalignement » des politiques énergétiques française et allemande appeared first on Euractiv FR.
Il avait dit qu'il se rendrait à Moscou pour le défilé de la victoire du 9 mai 1945. Il l'a fait, malgré toutes les mises en garde européennes. Aleksandar Vučić doit rencontrer ce jeudi son homologue russe Vladimir Poutine.
- Le fil de l'Info / Serbie, Courrier des Balkans, Questions européennes, Relations internationales, Vucic, Poutine et les Balkans