Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Deutschlands Infrastruktur steht am Scheideweg. Ein 500-Milliarden-Euro-Fonds könnte sich als nutzlos erweisen, falls nachhaltige kommunale Reformen ausbleiben., Das Sondervermögen von 500 Milliarden Euro für Investitionen könnte Deutschlands Zukunft entscheidend beeinflussen. Es wird jedoch scheitern, zusätzliche Investitionen anzustoßen, wenn nicht gleichzeitig grundlegende Reformen der Kommunen umgesetzt werden: Entschuldung der Kommunen, Reform der ...

Die Rahmenvereinbarung mit der EU folgt dem Muster vergangener Trump-Deals, die USA verkaufen kurzfristige Zollsicherheit zum Preis hoher Investitionen. Für die Regierung Trump ist das Modell ein Erfolg. Wie ist dieser Deal zu bewerten?

Stablecoins are playing a growing role in the global financial system. The Genius Act of 2025, signed by President Donald Trump on 18 July, marks a significant development, establishing a comprehensive and binding legal framework for crypto assets. This landmark step positions the United States at the forefront of regulatory innovation in this sector. It also raises important questions around global financial stability, geopolitical dynamics and potential conflicts of interest.

Stablecoins represent a specific category of crypto currency. Their value is pegged to a particular asset, most commonly a traditional currency such as the US dollar. The Genius Act now integrates stablecoins into the US financial system. In order to comply with regulatory requirements, stablecoins must be fully backed by liquid US-dollar assets, primarily in the form of short-term Treasuries. The new rules establish a clear legal framework for stablecoins in their largest market, but also present significant risks.

Potential risks for Europe

Rapid growth of stablecoins pegged to the US dollar, along with the associated shift in assets and financial transactions, could weaken the euro area’s monetary sovereignty and hamstring its monetary policy. The requirement to back stablecoins 1:1 creates strong incentives to purchase short-term US Treasuries, despite mounting concerns about the sustainability of US debt. This could lead to rising demand for US securities and falling demand for European bonds. This would increase interest rates for heavily indebted euro states.

The greatest risk, however, lies in the opacity of many stablecoin issuers. Although they claim that their products are backed by traditional assets such as Treasury bills, the complex structure of their capital and reserves creates considerable potential for a sudden crisis of confidence. This could quickly lead to market panic, making it unfeasible to convert them into traditional assets. That would have spillover effects on the European financial sector.

The potential conflict of interest arising from the personal involvement in crypto raises particular concerns. According to media reports, companies belonging to the Trump family have made substantial profits in this sector. Given the need to sell more US debt – with which stablecoins could be helpful – it is in Trump’s interest to see that market grow as rapidly as possible. However, this raises questions about the effectiveness of oversight in the United States, as well as the likelihood of public intervention in the event of a crisis.

More reasons to introduce a digital euro

The Genius Act marks a radical departure from EU’s approach to regulating digital currencies. It focuses on rapid development of private currencies pegged to the dollar. By contrast, the EU’s leading initiative is the digital euro, a central bank digital currency to be issued by the European Central Bank. The United States currently prohibits the development of central bank digital currencies on the paradoxically grounds that this form of money, when issued by a central bank, is too risky.

While the Genius Act concentrates on the use of stablecoins to strengthen the influence of the dollar and create incentives to buy US bonds, the EU is pursuing a more cautious, comprehensive and balanced approach. Its MiCA regulation (Markets in Crypto-Assets) prioritises financial stability and consumer protection within the cryptocurrency ecosystem. The divergence between these regulatory approaches has the potential to engender conflict.

In any case, the advent of the Genius Act underlines the need for a secure digital euro that preserves monetary sovereignty in the digital ecosystem and permits private sector innovation, including stablecoins based upon it. Europe must also monitor developments in the United States and identify potential risks. Excessively rapid growth or turbulence there would pose a threat to Europe’s financial stability.

Watch Remarks 

Watch Full event on UN Web TV>>

IPI President Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein addressed the UN High-Level Conference on “The Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution” on July 28th, urging the international community to focus on moving past diplomatic gestures and vague visions. He stressed that short of clear and collective action with specific policy commitments based on a recognised sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state, the two-state solution will remain an abstraction.

Read his remarks in full:

Thank you, Your Highness, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, friends.

I am grateful to be joining Presidents Mary Robinson and Juan Manuel Santos, as the third external speaker to this morning’s session; and would like to begin by thanking our Co-chairs France and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – not only for their leadership on this topic, but also for their insistence this conference centres on the specific actions needed to realise a two-state solution.

Our Co-Chairs are also right to think the greatest threat to the viability of a two-state solution is a staggering international community that lacks an understanding of either what a workable two-state solution actually entails, or of the path we must all take to get there, once the terrible atrocities in Gaza stop.  In other words, how can we transition from rubble to renewal without a compelling and credible vision for what renewal means?

Others may argue this differently, claiming the main obstacle to peace is not so much the violent extremists on both sides who demand the complete removal or destruction of the other – that is perhaps too obvious a point – rather it is the filing down in both societies of those who believe peace is possible. Such is the depth of fear, anger, and fatalism that now marks the prevailing mood.

After all, virtually all Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and many others accuse the Israeli leadership of committing acts of genocide in Gaza, this on top of a long and cruel military occupation of Palestine.  The Israeli government, the US Administration, and some European leaders see Israel as fighting a violent enemy which threatens it existentially, an enemy that murdered Israeli civilians cold-bloodedly almost two years ago, and took hostages.  Many people around the world see truth in both views.

Despite conceding the reality of the present moods and hatreds swirling within the two populations, what is fortunate about a vision of two states is that, like any other vision, it need not correspond exactly with the current psychology of Israelis and Palestinians.  A vision is not for today’s emotional audit, but for a tomorrow when new imperatives have inspired both populations, and not because the vision would be something utterly fanciful; quite the opposite, a two-state solution would have to be practical to gain support.

This is why one of the first lessons to draw on from decades of failed efforts to resolve this conflict is that wholesale vagueness about the endgame is not strategic— it is dangerous. It empowers rejectionists and weakens those who believe peace is still attainable.

Today, as we have heard many speakers say, leading figures in Israel’s far-right government are openly articulating a vision of permanent occupation, territorial annexation, and forced displacement. And they are acting accordingly, taking steps every day to implement their vision through concrete policies and actions on the ground.  The international community cannot counter this with carefully worded platitudes.  What is needed is a clear, collective affirmation of the two-state solution—not as an abstraction, but with specific policy commitments: a full end to the occupation, borders based on the 4 June 1967 lines, and a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state.  Short of this, recognition of Palestine will remain symbolic and will do little to transform the lives of Palestinians on the ground and effect meaningful progress towards Palestinian self-determination.

Now this is not a fantasy.

Palestinians and Israelis, working together, have developed a vision for a two-state solution that can work, and they have devised elegant and symmetrical solutions to issues like settlements, refugees, and Jerusalem; core issues that have divided them in the past.

The first point this vision articulates is this: a viable peace must address the emotional and deep connection felt by both Israelis and Palestinians to all the land, from the river to the sea.  The vision also addresses the need for two distinct and sovereign states as a means of facilitating self-determination for two peoples and ensures a complete end of the military occupation. And it also overcomes past obstacles to the achievement of a two-state settlement, proposing a just solution for the Palestinian refugee population and a framework for Jerusalem while guaranteeing access to it.  And it achieves all of this in a way that ensures Israel can maintain a Jewish voting majority.

So how can this be done?

There would be two states, but one homeland.  The path to reach it entails, as a starting poin,t an acceptance of the Armistice Line as it was prior to 4 June 1967 as the border between the two states — with, at most, minor territorial adjustments, rather than more significant swaps or the sweeping annexation contemplated by other proposals. Israeli settlers who wish to remain in their homes would have the option of becoming permanent residents of the State of Palestine.  They would pay their taxes, abide by local law, and enjoy full protection of their rights, as is the case with permanent residents in almost all countries.  All Palestinian refugees will, in turn, have the right to become citizens of Palestine, but they would also have the option of becoming permanent residents of Israel, creating a path for return.  Israeli Arabs would remain Israeli citizens and would be guaranteed full equality.  Over time, there will be freedom of movement for all throughout and across both states.  Jerusalem would be given special status.  There will be some confederal institutions, including a human rights court as an appellate body.

A mechanism will need to be devised to bind the two states together—possibly through a cleverly designed, regionally anchored security arrangement—to prevent unilateral abrogation. As a first urgent transitional step, a reconstruction and rehabilitation mission should be established with an international mandate and based on a regional partnership. To succeed, this mission must prioritise restoring political and economic links between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which Israel and the PLO have recognized as constituting a single territorial unit.

Finally, Israel’s approach of achieving security through domination and fragmentation of Palestinian life— by imposing a stranglehold on Palestinian territory, institutions, and leadership, and by the undermining of UNRWA over the years — has hitherto produced only a notion of security for Israel. It has deepened Palestinian dispossession, inflicted great harm and degraded the Palestinian civilian population and threatened regional stability. Years of these measures, and the expensive fortified fences and sensor arrays surrounding Gaza, did not prevent the atrocious attacks of October 7.  The lesson for Israel is not to double down on fortification, separation, and militarisation — after all, there will always be new ways to inflict harm on Israeli citizens in the absence of a just peace.  What has worked has been mutuality —a sense of equality in status and obligation–and cooperation. This is why Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan have been so durable. They were born not out of dominance, but respect for sovereign equality and territorial inviolability.

It is on these foundations that this vision of meaningful and durable renewal, this vision of Two-States One Homeland, was conceived — not in abstraction, but grounded in law, shaped by pragmatism, and sustained by a shared attachment to the land that both Israelis and Palestinians call home.

I thank you for your attention.

The post Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein: The Two-State Solution Needs A Credible Path Forward appeared first on International Peace Institute.

Stefan Bach erklärt, warum eine sinkende Stromsteuer vor allem Besserverdiener*innen entlastet, die klimafreundlich leben. Das Interview  führte Jörg Staude und es erschien am 25. Juli in der Frankfurter Rundschau. , Herr Bach, die Debatte um die Stromsteuer war sehr aufgeladen, obwohl die Entlastung für Haushalte nur gering war. Liegt die Aufregung an der angespannten finanziellen Lage vieler Haushalte? Wir haben seit 2019 kaum noch Wirtschaftswachstum. Daher sind die Einkommen real kaum gestiegen und bei ...

„Der grundsätzliche Konflikt ist nicht gelöst“

Nach tagelangen, blutigen Gefechten an der thailändisch-kambodschanischen Grenze gibt es erstmals Hoffnung auf Entspannung: Unter internationalem Druck haben sich beide Länder auf eine sofortige und bedingungslose Waffenruhe geeinigt. Doch wie stabil ist die Feuerpause wirklich? Wir sprechen darüber mit dem Politikwissenschaftler Dr. Felix Heiduk, Leiter der Forschungsgruppe Asien bei der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.

US-Präsident Donald Trump und EU-Kommissionspräsidentin Ursula von der Leyen haben sich gestern auf einen Handelsdeal geeinigt. Dazu eine Einschätzung von Ruben Staffa, Außenhandelsexperte und wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter der Abteilung Makroökonomie im Deutschen Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):

Ein Handelskrieg zwischen den USA und der EU konnte abgewendet werden. Das ist angesichts der vorherigen Drohgebärden von US-Präsident Trump erstmal eine gute Nachricht. Doch die Einigung hat es in sich: 15 Prozent Einfuhrzölle auf europäische Warenausfuhren in die USA bedeuten knapp eine Verzehnfachung der durchschnittlichen Zölle, die vor Trumps zweiter Amtszeit galten. Hinzu kommen Zusagen Europas, im dreistelligen Milliardenbereich fossile Brennstoffe und Militärausrüstung in den USA einzukaufen. Hoffnungsvoll stimmt, dass für einige ausgewählte Gütergruppen gegenseitig keine Zölle erhoben werden sollen, darunter Halbleiterprodukte, die die USA dringend für die Chip-Herstellung benötigen. Vielleicht kommen auf diese Ausnahmeliste demnächst noch weitere Produkte. Vertragsdetails sind bisher nicht bekannt. Das gilt auch für viele der anderen Abkommen, die die USA in den vergangenen Wochen und Monaten geschlossen haben. Als regelbasierte Handelspolitik lässt sich dieses Vorgehen kaum bezeichnen. Es ist zu hoffen, dass die derzeit laufenden Untersuchungen zu Einfuhren von Pharmaprodukten nicht in produktspezifischen neuen Zöllen münden, denn diese würden Europa besonders treffen und den Wert der Einigung deutlich schmälern.

Wie geht's weiter mit der Wirtschaft?

US-Präsident Donald Trump hat mit der EU eine Einigung im Zoll-Streit erzielt. Nach monatelangem Hin und Her, Drohungen und Deadlines ist es zu diesem «Deal» gekommen. Wir fragen heute, wie Trump verhandelt und erklären, welche Rolle die Inszenierung dabei spielt.

Unser Vorschlag zum Boomer-Soli hat eine kontroverse und verzerrte Debatte ausgelöst. In diesen vier Punkten liegen die Kritiker*innen falsch., "Die Rente ist sicher" – dieses Versprechen hat der damalige Bundessozialminister Norbert Blüm vor 40 Jahren auf dem Bonner Marktplatz plakatiert. Es hat sich fest in das ikonografische Gedächtnis der alten Bundesrepublik eingebrannt. Heute kann unsere Gesellschaft dieses Versprechen nicht mehr ...

Der bewaffnete Konflikt zwischen Thailand und Kambodscha kann Folgen für die gesamte Region haben, sagt der Südostasien-Experte Felix Heiduk. Auch die USA und China könnten hineingezogen werden. Wer kann jetzt mäßigend eingreifen?

Der US-amerikanische Chiphersteller Intel hat die Pläne für eine Chip-Fabrik in Magdeburg endgültig aufgegeben. Dazu eine Einschätzung von Martin Gornig, Forschungsdirektor für Industriepolitik in der Abteilung Unternehmen und Märkte des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):

Die geplante Ansiedlung von Intel in Magdeburg wäre ein zentraler Baustein für den Aufbau eigener Halbleiterkapazitäten gewesen. Angesichts geopolitischer Spannungen und globaler Abhängigkeiten – etwa bei Mikrochips – wird die Versorgungssicherheit bei einer solchen, für viele Produkte entscheidenden, Komponente immer dringlicher. Investitionssubventionen, wie sie im Fall von Intel staatlicherseits geflossen wären, sind deshalb quasi eine Versicherungsprämie gegen zukünftige Krisen. Deutschland und die EU müssen nun umso entschlossener den Aufbau eigener Kompetenzen zur Chipproduktion vorantreiben – etwa über Initiativen im Rahmen der Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI), wie sie bereits in Dresden erfolgreich umgesetzt wurden.

As the search for reliable sources of critical raw materials turns to the ocean floor, international conflicts could result. Although very little is known about the possible impacts of deep-sea mining, Washington has launched an initiative that undermines the existing international regime for seabed minerals. Currently, they are considered a global common good under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). If the United States unilaterally launches commercial deep-sea mining, it would undermine a touchstone of international law and shake the foundations of ocean diplomacy and international maritime affairs. Germany, together with 36 other countries, spoke out against this at the United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC-3) in June 2025, reaffirming its support for a “precautionary pause” on the introduction of this high-risk technology. In view of current global political turbulence, that line should be maintained.