Five of the world’s most active and largest sovereign wealth funds are to be found in the Gulf Region: the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF), the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) and the United Arab Emirates’ Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), Mubadala and ADQ. These funds not only serve to convert oil revenues into investment capital, thereby enabling the transition from rent-based to more diversified economies; they also contribute to expanding the foreign policy capabilities of the countries in which they are based. Institutional and personnel linkages enable the Saudi, Qatari and UAE governments to deploy their funds strategically, which, in turn, allows them to significantly expand their hard, soft, and sharp power – for example, through domestic and foreign investments in sectors such as armaments, media, sports and new technologies as well as through cooperation with politically influential actors. At the same time, the Gulf monarchies seek to portray their sovereign wealth funds as apolitical and purely profit-oriented – a narrative that is facilitated by the establishment of subsidiaries or cooperation with private equity firms. Understandably, Germany and its European partners have an interest in attracting sovereign wealth funds as investors, but they must not overlook the risks involved. These include third parties gaining access to critical infrastructure, sensitive military and security technology being leaked and the Gulf monarchies exercising political influence. Further, Germany and the EU must take a more fundamental look at how the three Gulf monarchies have increased their foreign policy options through the sovereign wealth funds. This is important as the actions of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar – at both the regional and international level – are at times contrary to German and European interests.
Die strategische Lage der Insel und ihre Ressourcen sind der Grund, weshalb seit dem 19. Jahrhundert in Regierungskreisen der USA immer wieder die Idee diskutiert wird, Grönland zu erwerben. Im Sommer 2019 wollte US-Präsident Donald Trump dem Königreich Dänemark erstmals Grönland abkaufen. Mittlerweile hat Trump den Besitz und die Kontrolle Grönlands zur »absoluten Notwendigkeit« für die nationale Sicherheit erklärt, woraufhin der dänische Geheimdienst erstmals die USA als eine potentielle Bedrohung für die Sicherheit des Königreichs bezeichnete, weil diese nicht länger den Gebrauch militärischer Gewalt sogar gegen Verbündete ausschlössen. Aber geht es Trump tatsächlich um Sicherheit oder nur um den größtmöglichen Immobilienbesitz? Wie ist sein Griff nach Grönland zu bewerten und welche Implikationen und Lösungsansätze sind damit verbunden?
The fossil-fuel foreign policy of the United States under President Donald Trump has intensified the conflict between petrostates and electrostates in international climate politics. At COP30 in Belém in November 2025, this cleavage was particularly evident in the dispute over a roadmap for the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels (TAFF). While an increasing number of countries regard TAFF as a necessary consequence of the global energy transition, fossil fuel producers prevented any substantive progress being made. The conference highlighted the structural limits of the capacity of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to mediate this distributional conflict. As a result, the EU faces a strategic dilemma: to further politicise the COP process around TAFF or to prioritise the stabilisation of key mechanisms of the Paris Agreement. Whether it can overcome that dilemma will become apparent during the run-up to the next global stocktake, which is due at COP33 in India in 2028.