Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Die europäische Entwicklungspolitik hat sich parallel zum europäischen Integrationsprozess stetig weiterentwickelt. Während der Politikbereich ursprünglich auf die überseeischen Länder und Gebiete (ULG) in Afrika beschränkt war, kamen mit jeder Erweiterungsrunde der Europäischen Union (EU) neue Zielregionen dazu. Heute arbeitet die EU in diesem Bereich mit nahezu allen Weltregionen zusammen. Damit hat die EU in ihrer Entwicklungszusammenarbeit eine deutlich breitere geografische Orientierung als die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten. Ein dichtes Netzwerk von EU-Delegationen vor Ort ermöglicht die Kooperation in allen Weltregionen. Auch finanziell ist die EU ein Schwergewicht in der Entwicklungspolitik: 2023 brachten die EU und ihre 27 Mitgliedstaaten zusammen 42 % der gesamten öffentlichen Entwicklungshilfe weltweit auf, insgesamt 95,9 Mrd. €.

Die europäische Entwicklungspolitik hat sich parallel zum europäischen Integrationsprozess stetig weiterentwickelt. Während der Politikbereich ursprünglich auf die überseeischen Länder und Gebiete (ULG) in Afrika beschränkt war, kamen mit jeder Erweiterungsrunde der Europäischen Union (EU) neue Zielregionen dazu. Heute arbeitet die EU in diesem Bereich mit nahezu allen Weltregionen zusammen. Damit hat die EU in ihrer Entwicklungszusammenarbeit eine deutlich breitere geografische Orientierung als die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten. Ein dichtes Netzwerk von EU-Delegationen vor Ort ermöglicht die Kooperation in allen Weltregionen. Auch finanziell ist die EU ein Schwergewicht in der Entwicklungspolitik: 2023 brachten die EU und ihre 27 Mitgliedstaaten zusammen 42 % der gesamten öffentlichen Entwicklungshilfe weltweit auf, insgesamt 95,9 Mrd. €.

Die europäische Entwicklungspolitik hat sich parallel zum europäischen Integrationsprozess stetig weiterentwickelt. Während der Politikbereich ursprünglich auf die überseeischen Länder und Gebiete (ULG) in Afrika beschränkt war, kamen mit jeder Erweiterungsrunde der Europäischen Union (EU) neue Zielregionen dazu. Heute arbeitet die EU in diesem Bereich mit nahezu allen Weltregionen zusammen. Damit hat die EU in ihrer Entwicklungszusammenarbeit eine deutlich breitere geografische Orientierung als die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten. Ein dichtes Netzwerk von EU-Delegationen vor Ort ermöglicht die Kooperation in allen Weltregionen. Auch finanziell ist die EU ein Schwergewicht in der Entwicklungspolitik: 2023 brachten die EU und ihre 27 Mitgliedstaaten zusammen 42 % der gesamten öffentlichen Entwicklungshilfe weltweit auf, insgesamt 95,9 Mrd. €.

Civilian perceptions of peacekeepers are a critical yet underutilized factor in the effectiveness of protection of civilians (POC) mandates. While peacekeeping missions are often assessed through mandate design and force posture, far less attention is paid to how communities themselves perceive peacekeepers’ conduct, legitimacy, and use of force.

This issue brief by Linnéa Gelot and Prabin B. Khadka draws on original survey data from more than 3,000 respondents in South Sudan and Somalia to examine how trust in peacekeepers shapes civilian demand for peacekeeping presence. The authors explore how patrol frequency, expectations around the use of force, and adherence to norms of conduct influence civilian perceptions.

The findings highlight that civilian support for peace operations cannot be assumed. Trust depends not only on presence but also on behavior, restraint, and perceived legitimacy. Integrating civilian perception data into mission planning can strengthen operational decision-making, improve POC outcomes, and support more context-sensitive peace operations.

Download

The post Civilian Perceptions and Protection of Civilians by Peacekeepers: Integrating Local Views into Robust Peace Operations appeared first on International Peace Institute.

Local civilians are often the first actors to respond to threats against civilians in conflict-affected settings. Long before international peacekeepers or humanitarian actors arrive, communities develop their own unarmed, nonviolent strategies to prevent violence, mitigate harm, and protect vulnerable populations.

This issue brief by Rachel Julian and Berit Bliesemann de Guevara examines the role of local civilians in protection of civilians (POC) efforts, focusing on unarmed civilian protection practices that operate alongside—or independently from—UN peacekeeping missions and specialized NGOs. The brief explores how civilians engage in early warning, mediation, negotiation, and protective accompaniment.

As peace operations face transitions, drawdowns, and lighter footprints, the brief raises critical questions about how international actors understand, support, or overlook local civilian protection strategies—and what this means for the future of POC.

Download

The post Local Civilians’ Role in the Protection of Civilians: Expanding UN-Led Protection through Community-Led Approaches appeared first on International Peace Institute.

AGOA technically lives on after a one-year extension, but its main advantage has largely disappeared since the US added tariffs on top of it. Our simulations show the new tariff regime drives large declines in US-bound exports, with the steepest damage in a few AGOA-dependent countries and sectors such as apparel. The shock is forcing African policymakers to think beyond fragile preferences and build resilience through diversification and stronger regional and alternative market links.

AGOA technically lives on after a one-year extension, but its main advantage has largely disappeared since the US added tariffs on top of it. Our simulations show the new tariff regime drives large declines in US-bound exports, with the steepest damage in a few AGOA-dependent countries and sectors such as apparel. The shock is forcing African policymakers to think beyond fragile preferences and build resilience through diversification and stronger regional and alternative market links.

AGOA technically lives on after a one-year extension, but its main advantage has largely disappeared since the US added tariffs on top of it. Our simulations show the new tariff regime drives large declines in US-bound exports, with the steepest damage in a few AGOA-dependent countries and sectors such as apparel. The shock is forcing African policymakers to think beyond fragile preferences and build resilience through diversification and stronger regional and alternative market links.

Secretary-General António Guterres attends the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe.

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 2 2026 (IPS)

The United States and Israel launched a joint military strike on Iran on February 28. Iran followed with military strikes on Israeli bases and on Arab Gulf states, including Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. The realized threat of a new war has caused alarm for the security situation in the Middle East and its impact on civilian populations.

While the latest outbreak of fighting unfolded in the Middle East, the UN Security Council in New York convened an emergency meeting to deliberate over the military attacks in Iran. The session was convened at the request of Iran and members of the Security Council.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres briefed the Council on the situation up to that point and condemned the escalating hostilities. “We are witnessing a grave threat to international peace and security. Military action carries the risk of igniting a chain of events that no one can control in the most volatile region of the world,” he warned.

Under Article 2 of the UN Charter, all member states shall “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” Guterres reminded the Council. He reiterated that there would be no “viable alternative to the peaceful settlement of international disputes” and that “lasting peace” could only be accomplished through diplomatic negotiations.

Guterres also noted that the U.S.-Israeli strikes took place following the latest round of indirect negotiations between the U.S. and Iran mediated by Oman, which were expected to lead into further political talks. “I deeply regret that this opportunity of diplomacy has been squandered.”

According to Iran, the U.S.-Israeli strikes constituted a clear violation of the UN Charter and a threat to international peace and security. Sayed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, said in a letter addressed to Guterres that in response to the aggression, Iran was invoking its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. This outlines that the Charter shall not “impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense,” and that any actions taken by member states to exercise their right to self-defense must be “immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and the responsibility” of the Council to take actions as it “deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

“The United States and the Israeli regime shall bear full and direct responsibility for all ensuing consequences, including any escalation arising from their unlawful actions,” Aragchi said. Noting the “grave and far-reaching consequences” of a regional conflict, Aragchi wrote of the collective responsibility of the UN and the Security Council to take immediate action and to “discharge their duties without delay.”

Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani of Iran reiterated the point before the Security Council, remarking on the threat to the country’s sovereignty and that actions taken by the U.S. and Israel were in violation of the UN Charter. There is also the added context that the first round of U.S.-Israeli strikes killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Some members of the Council spoke against Iran’s military actions on Saturday and against the regime under Khanmenei as it related to its nuclear program and its “appalling violence and repression against its own people.” The U.K., France and Germany jointly condemned the regime and its attacks on countries in the region.

Acting Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom James Kariuki remarked that the present was a “fragile moment for the Middle East.” As the president of the Security Council for the month of February, Kariuki noted that Iran “repeatedly ignored calls” for a solution to its nuclear program and the seeming lack of cooperation with the IAEA. He stated that Iran “must refrain from further strikes, and its appalling behavior, to allow a path back to diplomacy. ”

“My country, which is a champion of peace and coexistence, never expected to be targeted by wanton aggressions without any justification,” said Bahrain Ambassador Jamal Al Rowaiei. Bahrain was one of the Gulf states targeted by Iranian military forces and currently sits on the Security Council as an elected member. Al Rowaiei condemned Iran for its attacks on residential areas and vital facilities—including a U.S. Navy base—and called for all in “containing this crisis” to protect the stability of the region.

Other member states remarked on the threats to international peace and security. In condemning the military attacks on Iran and the Arab Gulf states, Pakistan Ambassador Asim Ahmad regretted that “diplomacy has once again been derailed,” referring to the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. “These military actions undermine dialogue and further erode trust that was already in short supply,” said Ahmad.

Echoing Guterres’ sentiments, other UN entities and leaders reiterated calls to continue negotiations and to respect international law. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), said that he was “deeply troubled” by the situation in the Middle East and expressed that world leaders should choose the “challenging path of dialogue” over the “senseless route of destruction.”

“My heart goes out to the civilians trapped in the crossfire. Regardless of borders, everyone deserves to live without the threat of violence around them,” he said.

Across Iran, civilian infrastructures have been destroyed, leading to scores of casualties. Of note, schools have been bombed by Israeli airstrikes, including a girls’ elementary school in Minab in Hormozgan province in southern Iran. As of March 1, the death toll from this strike has risen to 165, according to state sources.

UNICEF issued a statement shortly after the school bombings, warning that the “weekend’s military escalation in the Middle East marks a dangerous moment for millions of children in the region.” They called for an immediate end to the hostilities and for all parties to uphold their obligations to international humanitarian and human rights law, including the protection of children. “Targeting civilians and civilian objects, including schools, is a violation of international law.”

“Bombs and missiles are not the way to resolve differences but only result in death, destruction and human misery,” said Volker Türk, the UN Human Rights Chief. He added that all parties must de-escalate and return to the negotiating table and warned that failing to do so would only lead to further “senseless civilian deaths” and “destruction on a potentially unimaginable scale.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said that they were “closely monitoring” developments, urging restraint to “avoid any nuclear safety risks.”

The U.S. will take over as president of the Security Council in March. It will be a matter of waiting to see the role that this institution will play in protecting the principles of international law and preventing further loss of civilian lives.

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');  

The PLA’s tech strategy is working.

Iran, Venezuela, and the end of the Powell Doctrine.

The People’s Republic of China has considerably expanded its engagement with the United Nations (UN) system, but its influence differs significantly across issue areas. Despite this unevenness, patterns in Beijing’s multilateral priorities suggest what a growing Chinese footprint may portend for the future of the UN. We examine this via three main dimensions. With regard to the underlying logic of multilateralism, China emphasises intergovernmental control at the expense of more autonomous UN bureaucracies. On the substance of multilateralism, China’s objective to ensure the primacy of the state challenges core liberal values long promoted by the UN. In terms of multilateral power dynamics, Beijing works towards increasing space for the UN’s developing country majority, with China as its de facto leader. The Trump administration’s attack on international organisations further strengthens Beijing’s bid to reshape UN multilateralism. The paper assesses the implications of these reordering pathways and concludes with policy recommendations.

The People’s Republic of China has considerably expanded its engagement with the United Nations (UN) system, but its influence differs significantly across issue areas. Despite this unevenness, patterns in Beijing’s multilateral priorities suggest what a growing Chinese footprint may portend for the future of the UN. We examine this via three main dimensions. With regard to the underlying logic of multilateralism, China emphasises intergovernmental control at the expense of more autonomous UN bureaucracies. On the substance of multilateralism, China’s objective to ensure the primacy of the state challenges core liberal values long promoted by the UN. In terms of multilateral power dynamics, Beijing works towards increasing space for the UN’s developing country majority, with China as its de facto leader. The Trump administration’s attack on international organisations further strengthens Beijing’s bid to reshape UN multilateralism. The paper assesses the implications of these reordering pathways and concludes with policy recommendations.

The People’s Republic of China has considerably expanded its engagement with the United Nations (UN) system, but its influence differs significantly across issue areas. Despite this unevenness, patterns in Beijing’s multilateral priorities suggest what a growing Chinese footprint may portend for the future of the UN. We examine this via three main dimensions. With regard to the underlying logic of multilateralism, China emphasises intergovernmental control at the expense of more autonomous UN bureaucracies. On the substance of multilateralism, China’s objective to ensure the primacy of the state challenges core liberal values long promoted by the UN. In terms of multilateral power dynamics, Beijing works towards increasing space for the UN’s developing country majority, with China as its de facto leader. The Trump administration’s attack on international organisations further strengthens Beijing’s bid to reshape UN multilateralism. The paper assesses the implications of these reordering pathways and concludes with policy recommendations.

Der Tod von Ali Chamenei schwäche das Regime zwar, so Nahost-Experte Guido Steinberg. Aber er habe in allen Bereichen Vertreter ernannt, die die Getöteten ersetzen.

South Africa produce an unconvincing performance with the bat as they beat Zimbabwe by five wickets to set up a semi-final against New Zealand

How the latest strikes risk opening a Pandora’s box in the Gulf.

A Conversation With Karim Sadjadpour

An Early Assessment of the U.S.-Israeli War Against Iran