LATEST ARTICLES

Uruguayan Independence Day Celebrated in The Hague

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Uruguayan Independence Day Celebrated in The Hague

The Embassy of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay marked his country’s Independence Day with a grand and festive reception. Held on August 27 at the Leonardo Royal Hotel in The Hague, the event drew over 200 distinguished guests from various sectors of Dutch society.

Ambassadors, chiefs of international missions, diplomats, academics, business leaders, and representatives from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, along with members of the Uruguayan community, all responded to H.E. Ambassador Dr. Álvaro González Otero’s invitation to celebrate ‘Día de la Independencia’—Uruguay’s National Day, commemorating its independence from Brazil in 1825.

H.E. Dr. Álvaro González Otero, Ambassador of Uruguay. National Day 2024 The Hague.

After nearly 200 years of conflict and civil unrest under Spanish and then Brazilian rule, Uruguay has emerged as a country renowned for its welcoming people, stunning landscapes, first-class meat production, and high-quality wine. In recent decades, Uruguayans have enjoyed a stable democracy, a steady improvement in living conditions, and overall well-being.

In a packed room with an animated audience, Ambassador González Otero took the microphone to thank all the attendees for their sincere affection for his people and country. He then proudly expressed:

“Two years have quickly passed since I arrived in this lovely kingdom. Since then, we have started to shift the focus of the Embassy, placing more emphasis on our bilateral relations. The Netherlands and Uruguay have more in common than people might imagine. We share international principles, landscapes, agricultural production, developed services, qualified exports, and a progressive lifestyle.

We also share strong commitments to the well-being of our citizens and visitors, the protection of human rights, environmental sustainability, progressive social policies, and significant efforts towards renewable energy and climate action. Both countries also emphasize education, democratic governance, and active participation in international organizations promoting peace and development. So, we will keep working to boost our bilateral relations.”

Uruguay National Day, August 27 at the Leonardo Royal Hotel in The Hague.
From the Embassy of Uruguay, Counsellor Pablo Bayarres, Ambassador Gonzalez Otero and Hans Akerboom, Deputy Director Protocol and Host Country Affairs from the Netherlands.

Ambassador González Otero then listed some of the most relevant initiatives undertaken by the Embassy over the last few months:

– Uruguayan participation in the World Hydrogen Summit 2024: Led by the Minister of Industry, Energy, and Mining, Ms. Elisa Facio, with over 50 representatives from various sectors of the public and private sectors.

– Active participation in the “26th World Energy Congress.”

– Cooperation Project with Delft Institute for Water Education: Since 2011, Uruguayan professionals specializing in water resources have participated in the Delft Institute program for advanced training. Initially, the program began with 40 scholarships, resulting in 37 professionals successfully completing their studies. This early success led to the program’s relocation and implementation at the Technological University of Uruguay, now featuring regional participation. The program has since had two new editions in 2022 and 2024, expanding to include 17 professionals from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Peru. This development has transformed Uruguay into a regional hub in the field of water resource education.

– Uruguay’s status as one of the 32 signing states of the Ljubljana – The Hague Convention in February 2024.

– Positioning Uruguay as a potential living and working destination for Dutch farmers.

– Interactions with RVO and Port of Rotterdam related to port cooperation.

– Exploring and initiating new cooperation projects with Westland Municipality and Wageningen University.

– Meetings with private sector actors related to agribusiness.

– Preparation for the Capitan Miranda’s visit to Amsterdam: Uruguay’s school tall ship has already confirmed its participation in Sail Amsterdam 2025.

– Multilateral achievements: The Embassy has made progress in multilateral areas, including ongoing contributions and work with international organizations based in The Hague: the ICJ, ICC, OPCW, HCCH, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Additionally, a closer relationship with The Hague Academy of International Law has been pursued. Significant advances have also been made through the coordinated work of the GRULAC Group in relation to various international organizations.

H.E. Mr. Fernando Arias, OPCW Director General , Ambassador Gonzalez Otero and Mr Arias spouse, Patricia van Oordt.

Following his remarks, Ambassador González Otero invited the audience to watch a short video about Uruguay, which made a great impression on those present. He expressed, “Uruguay is an exceptional country that has developed a dynamic and robust culture, shaped by a fascinating blend of gaucho traditions, European influences, and the unique Rioplatense spirit. Tango, folklore, candombe, and milonga are examples of its rich artistic musical expression. Uruguayan gastronomy, featuring high-quality meat, wine, and dairy products, especially the beloved ‘dulce de leche,’ delights palates and consistently wins prestigious awards worldwide.”

“The work we have done does not mean we are satisfied; we want to continue advancing in a deeper process. The bilateral relationship is already strong, but the potential to strengthen bonds in several key areas is even greater.”

The Ambassador of Uruguay, H.E. Alvaro Gonzalez Otero and the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Graciela Gatti Santana with her husband Mr Gustavo Segovia.

The event was conceived to showcase the rich and diverse culture of Uruguay, a nation with a population of approximately 3,495,527 as of 2022.

The national anthems of Uruguay and the Netherlands were performed by the Uruguayan opera singer Sara de los Campos. After the ambassador’s speech, the Embassy paid tribute to two influential musicians: José “El Sabalero” Carbajal and Jaime Roos, who both lived in the Netherlands. Jaime Roos settled in Amsterdam in 1978, where he played bass in several salsa, rock, and jazz groups. He had a son and remained in the Netherlands until 1984 when he returned to Uruguay.

Carbajal spent his days in the Netherlands with his wife, Anke van Haastrecht, and their two children. Anke was invited to share some special stories from their life together.

Uruguayan opera singer Sara de los Campos.
Uruguayan drummers Luis Gradin, Marcelo Terra, and Nicolás Sánchez.

The enthusiastic audience enjoyed an authentic performance by talented Uruguayan drummers Luis Gradin, Marcelo Terra, and Nicolás Sánchez. The celebration continued with Uruguayan wine, classic savory empanadas, and dulce de leche, which delighted the crowded room and completed the great celebration.

Ambassador González Otero concluded the event by thanking his Embassy team: Counselor Pablo Bayarres, Chancellor Gustavo Morales, his assistant Juan Diego, and Martha Hernández and Sofía Anastasiou. He then led a warm toast for the people of the Netherlands, Uruguay, and the necessary and desired peace in the world.

China: A New Actor in the Contemporary Multipolar World

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
China: A New Actor in the Contemporary Multipolar World

By Mariarosaria Iorio, Political Analyst

I. The post-cold war world  

International relations are nowadays characterised by major changes that started at the end of the 80s with the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Indeed, the end of the cold war was marked by the dislocation of the two main political blocks, namely the Soviet Union and the Western World. Such a dislocation resulted in the marginalization of the post-war multilateral system embodied in the United Nations, and the standstill of the multilateral trade negotiations in the late 90s in the context of the World Trade Organisation.  New lines of political thought have been facing each other since then, while reshaping the post-cold war world in a number of fragmented and variable sub-blocks of countries. 

The United States decided to put itself first by concentrating on its internal affairs, while withdrawing from international affairs.  

Europe, the old continent, looks for an efficient strategy towards autonomy from the United States.  Europe also tries, not without difficulty, to create a more cohesive internal and external political approach.  The reality is however evolving rather more towards fragmentation of Europe in favour of European National fragmented interests. Such a fragmentation is the natural consequence of the decadence of the European Institutional and collective actions to the advantage of individual Sates actions and interests.   In sum, what seemed to be a structured and coherent European Union block fighting for the promotion of its economic and political values all over the world has somehow become an alliance at variable geometry both internally and externally.  The disorganisation of the leadership results in a chaotic and unpredictable European External and Internal action. 

Thereof, the empty influence spaces left on the international relations scene has given new international actors the opportunity to emerge.  

Meanwhile, the fragmentation of the European Institutions has also impacted the EU-USA relations within NATO, and affected the security and peace sphere.  Security issues have been on and off on the European agenda.    

In this context, Russia that has lost its empire in the 80s looks now for a new power game. In spite of the disruption of the Soviet Union, Russia attempts either by influence or by force to exercise power in its ancient affiliate countries.  Russia that was supposed to be defeated with the fall of the Berlin Wall takes back its role of opponent to the Western World on the international scene at least as it concerns the international affairs philosophy.  Thus, creating a tension aimed at restoring its power in the world.   

The group of emerging and developing economies that constitute a new variable block with a large portion of population employed in agriculture have emerged as new actors in the world’s geo-political discourses.  At the head of this block on the international scene, there is China.  The shaky international leadership context has indeed given China a new space. China’s   communist past combined with its market-based economic strategy gives it a particular position.  

China is The One that can communicate to Russia. China is also The One that can have an influence on the Western economic and political scene as China owns a big part of Western Foreign Debt  

China embeds a horizontal strategy in both its trade and development policies, while producing at low wages.  Its production system coupled with its pragmatic political approach has reshaped the international power structure.  The top-down approach of the Western World faces now the competition created by the horizontal win-win approach proposed by China in both developing and industrialized countries.

Indeed, as a result of the decline of the Western World global hegemony based on market access and economic and social liberalism as a means to ensure economic growth and promote economic development, the vision promoted by China’s discourse, centred on the protection of livelihoods and local sovereign choices finds new adepts.  Furthermore, China has successfully attempted to promote a trade-off approach to international cooperation during the last 20 years.  A cooperation that does not interfere in internal affairs of partner countries as it has often reproached to the Western countries involved in international cooperation.  

As the developing countries leader, China positions itself as the spoke country for the poor.  As a new world powerful economic actor China plays as the guarantor of the Western Economic stability.  China positions itself as the bridge between the rich and the poor.  It is representing a different hegemonic game that only changes in its discourse, while still pursuing its own interests and influence zones.  Such a situation poses the question of the values that the international regime wants to embrace.  Indeed, this changing world results in an increased number of conflicts – be new or historical conflicts.  

The dislocation of the traditional leaders of the international relations has definitely created a chaotic and unpredictable scenario.  Chaos has in some cases been chosen as a political strategy to disrupt the post-1945 international regime. Such a disruption has benefitted new actors, and given space to new lines of thought.  These new lines of thought have attacked the existing international framework but has not yet succeeded in creating a new regime.  The increasing unbalance of power and the lack of leadership on the international political scene is risky. 

The reduction by choice of leadership of the United States has indeed resulted in the weakening of the values emerged as a result of the dramatic experience of Second World War, namely freedom of thought and freedom of speech to mention only a few.   We are now facing a much more authoritarian world with force used as a means to manage the political arena.  Dialogue seems to be a rather consuming exercise that has left its place to the use of force.  Force is no longer seen as the last option but rather the opening act for political dialogue.  Nationalism and individual interests are now at the centre of the political game. This trend is taking the world to instability and conflict.  

The peoples of the world are more and more questioning the existing system. People’s needs and expectations are not met.  The new emerged actors, such as China have given the hope of a possible change in the present international system without fundamentally questioning its rationale but rather trying to rip a slate of the cake.  

The struggle for influence among countries has not succeeded in building a peaceful and stable world. Citizens will have to face the challenge of building a new era of peace and stability worldwide.

Derrière les murs du Palais de la Paix : permanence et changements de la Cour internationale de Justice

Editor
-
0
Derrière les murs du Palais de la Paix : permanence et changements de la Cour internationale de Justice

S.E. M. Philippe Couvreur est arrivé à La Haye en avril 1982, où il a d’abord occupé le poste d’assistant spécial aux bureaux du greffier et du greffier adjoint de la Cour internationale de Justice.

Il a ensuite exercé les fonctions de Secrétaire, Premier Secrétaire et Secrétaire juridique principal, avant d’être élu Greffier de la Cour en 2000, et réélu en 2007 et 2014. Pour marquer l’anniversaire de ses débuts à la Cour, il y a 35 ans, Diplomat Magazine l’a invité à témoigner de son expérience unique au service de cette institution, des évolutions qu’il a pu y observer, et à partager le regard qu’il porte sur les changements qui ont marqué la Cour et La Haye au cours des trois dernières décennies.
Philippe Couvreur avec le Pape Jean-Paul II prise le 13 mai 1985.
Je suis arrivé à La Haye en avril 1982 — de façon aussi inattendue que j’avais entamé des études de droit treize ans auparavant (mais c’est là une autre histoire…) — pour occuper un poste temporaire à la Cour internationale de Justice. La Cour était alors la seule institution judiciaire internationale existante au plan universel. Son activité, particulièrement faible à la fin des années 1970, ne pouvait en ce temps-là guère laisser présager du succès que rencontrerait la Cour dans les décennies à venir. Mon bienveillant maître de Louvain, le professeur Paul de Visscher, fils du célèbre internationaliste Charles de Visscher, unique juge belge à la Cour, m’avait prédit des jours aussi sereins qu’heureux, écoulés à lire et à écrire des ouvrages dans la solitude des imposants murs de la bibliothèque du Palais de la Paix…
Les mémoires ont été dûment déposés dans l’affaire El Salvador c. Honduras dans la salle Bol le 1 juin 1988, l’affaire du Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime.
En rejoignant la Cour, un frais matin d’avril, dont je garde un souvenir très précis, le jeune juriste que j’étais découvrit, non sans étonnement, une organisation de taille très modeste, le Greffe, qui en est l’organe administratif, alors composé de moins d’une quarantaine de fonctionnaires. Le fonctionnement de la Cour reposait entièrement sur cette équipe restreinte de personnel permanent, auquel s’ajoutait, selon que de besoin, un personnel temporaire pour faire face au surcroît de travaux linguistiques et de sténodactylographie lors des sessions (publiques et privées) de la Cour. Je me rappelle avoir été frappé par la personnalité haute en couleur de certains de ces traducteurs indépendants, dont la grande culture littéraire m’émerveillait. Cette structure très économique du Greffe impliquait une grande polyvalence de ses membres, et les Secrétaires de la Cour — ses fonctionnaires supérieurs — étaient appelés, en sus de leurs travaux de recherches juridiques, de préparation des documents de la Cour, et de rédaction de la correspondance diplomatique, à assumer eux-mêmes l’essentiel des tâches linguistiques (traduction et interprétation) et d’information, ainsi que la supervision de nombreuses activités administratives et logistiques.
La Grande salle de Justice, l’affaire Relative au Timor Oriental (Portugal c. Australie) Arrêt du 30 juin 1995.
Il n’était nullement rare qu’un nouveau venu comme moi ait à passer week-ends et nuits blanches au Palais de la Paix à effectuer les travaux les plus divers… allant jusqu’à imprimer et polycopier, sur de vieilles machines à stencils ronéotype, des décisions dont la Cour devait donner la lecture en séance publique le lendemain ! Dès mon arrivée au Greffe, j’ai eu le bonheur et le privilège d’être initié et associé à l’ensemble des fonctions de l’institution sous la patiente supervision de personnalités d’exception, tels que MM. Torres Bernárdez et Pillepich, alors respectivement Greffier et Greffier adjoint. J’en ai retiré le plus grand bénéfice, puisque cette immersion sans préparation dans toutes les facettes de l’activité du Greffe m’a permis d’acquérir de ce dernier une connaissance unique — de l’intérieur — et sous tous ses aspects —, un acquis particulièrement précieux au moment où j’ai été amené, bien des années plus tard, à assumer la délicate responsabilité d’en assurer la gestion au plus haut niveau. Devenir un fonctionnaire du Greffe au début des années 1980 signifiait accepter de se couler sans discussion dans un moule à tous égards exigeant, et se donner corps et âme, avec humilité et discrétion, à l’institution, sans penser à soi ni parler de soi. Depuis ces années d’initiation, j’ai été le témoin de profondes transformations de la Cour, rendues inévitables à la fois pour répondre à l’accroissement considérable de ses activités, avec la disparition du monde bipolaire qui avait relégué le règlement judiciaire à un rôle quelque peu marginal, et pour saisir les opportunités nouvelles offertes, notamment, par le progrès des technologies et de la communication. Entre 1982 et aujourd’hui, le nombre de fonctionnaires a ainsi presque triplé (il a quasiment doublé depuis l’an 2000, année de ma première élection en tant que Greffier). L’organisation du travail a été progressivement spécialisée entre les divers départements, juridique, linguistique et chargé de l’information, qui furent créés en 1997, et les services techniques. Par ailleurs, les Membres de la Cour ne disposèrent pas, pendant longtemps, de « référendaires » — ils s’y sont d’ailleurs longtemps refusés—, et l’assistance apportée aux juges en matière judiciaire était principalement répartie entre les fonctionnaires du Département des affaires juridiques.
H.E. Philippe Couvreur avec la Reine Beatrix photo prise pendant le 50 eme anniversaire de la Cour (18-04-1996).
Les cinq premiers postes de juristes référendaires ne furent obtenus de l’Assemblée générale et créés qu’en 2002, à l’issue de difficiles négociations que je me souviens avoir menées avec beaucoup de plaisir et d’intérêt ; le nombre de ces postes s’est progressivement accru, pour s’élever à quinze aujourd’hui. Les divers développements qui ont marqué le monde au cours des dernières décennies n’ont pas manqué de soulever pour la Cour de nouveaux défis. Comme c’est le cas pour toute institution, elle n’a pu les relever en faisant table rase des enseignements de son histoire ni, à l’inverse, en ne saisissant pas toutes les opportunités offertes par le temps présent. A ces différents égards, la Cour est certainement parvenue, au fil des ans, à assurer un équilibre, toujours délicat, entre changements et continuité. La continuité de la Cour est bien sûr inscrite dans son Statut, qui fait partie intégrante de la Charte des Nations Unies, et reflétée dans ses méthodes judiciaires, qui ont été très largement élaborées par sa devancière, la Cour permanente de Justice internationale, et héritées d’elle. Cette continuité historique était particulièrement présente lorsque j’ai rejoint le Greffe. Ainsi, en manière d’anecdote, divers hauts fonctionnaires alors en poste avaient eux-mêmes côtoyé, au début de leur carrière, d’anciens fonctionnaires de la Cour permanente. Tous nourrissaient à l’égard de cette dernière le plus grand respect. Il régnait d’ailleurs dans les couloirs du Palais de la Paix une atmosphère feutrée et délicieusement surannée, évocatrice de la défunte Société des Nations. Je me souviens en avoir encore utilisé maintes fournitures de bureau ! La continuité jurisprudentielle et procédurale entre les deux Cours constitue pour les Etats une garantie importante de sécurité et de prévisibilité juridiques. Cette continuité, juridique et historique, de même que l’expérience accumulée en plus de quatre-vingt-dix ans d’exercice de la fonction judiciaire, sont pour la Cour un facteur crucial de légitimité.
H.E. Philippe Couvreur vec le Roi Willem-Alexander photo prise pendant le 70 eme anniversaire de la Cour (20-04-2016).
En même temps, la Cour a eu, à l’évidence, à s’adapter aux changements du monde réel dans lequel elle opère, comme aux nécessités et opportunités nouvelles de chaque époque traversée. L’une des transformations notoires auxquelles j’ai assisté fut l’ouverture croissante de la Cour sur l’extérieur : longtemps à l’écart, à dessein, des organes politiques des Nations Unies, la Cour a souhaité se faire plus et mieux entendre de ces organes et des Etats membres. Elle a ainsi rompu avec ce qui était parfois perçu comme un « splendide isolement » au sein des Nations Unies, même si elle défend toujours jalousement son autonomie. La Cour doit en outre désormais également tenir compte des nombreuses autres juridictions, internationales ou régionales, qui ont été créées ces dernières années, et veiller, autant que possible, à assurer l’harmonie du « concert judiciaire » que permet ce foisonnement de cours et tribunaux sur la scène internationale. Davantage ouverte sur la communauté internationale et ses réalités, la Cour s’est montrée de plus en plus attentive, non seulement à sa place dans l’Organisation des Nations Unies, mais aussi à la poursuite des objectifs de celle-ci et à sa mission propre au service du règlement pacifique des différends internationaux. Des différends de plus en plus complexes, tant juridiquement que factuellement, en même temps que politiquement plus denses, lui ont été soumis. En révisant constamment, selon que de besoin, ses méthodes de travail, elle a su les résoudre rapidement et efficacement, à un coût particulièrement modeste pour la communauté internationale, tout en assurant le développement du droit. Enfin, pour conclure sur une note plus prosaïque, mais qui est loin d’être négligeable, je ne peux taire la chance que j’ai eue de connaître l’extraordinaire développement de la ville de La Haye au cours des 35 dernières années. Celle-ci offre aujourd’hui à la Cour, comme aux nombreuses institutions internationales qui s’y sont installées à sa suite, une qualité de vie et un cadre de travail uniques, qui sont très loin de ressembler à ce que j’ai trouvé en y arrivant. A l’image de l’imposante stature du Palais de la Paix où elle siège, symbole mondialement connu de la justice internationale, la Cour est une institution solidement établie. En dépit des périodes de doute ou de désaffection qu’elle a traversées par le passé, son rôle est unanimement salué au sein de la communauté internationale et le recours à ses services par les Etats n’a jamais été aussi soutenu. 35 ans après, je continue de mesurer chaque jour le privilège qui est le mien de servir au mieux de mes capacités l’organe judiciaire principal des Nations Unies. —– Les photos dans l’article sont une courtoisie de la Cour International de Justice.

Global Tensions and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis: A Geostrategic Analysis

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Global Tensions and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis: A Geostrategic Analysis

By Qazi Zaheer Ahmad

The Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, has once again become the focal point of global security concerns. Recent escalations between Iran and Israel, coupled with U.S. and European responses, have created a volatile environment that threatens not only regional stability but also the broader international order. This article examines the unfolding crisis, the positions of key actors, and the implications for global energy security and geopolitics.

The Strategic Importance of the Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow passage connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea. Approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through this corridor, making it indispensable for global energy markets. Any disruption in its security has immediate consequences for oil prices, shipping routes, and international trade.

The United States has emphasized that securing the Strait is not merely a regional issue but a global imperative. American officials have warned that failure to act collectively could undermine NATO’s credibility and weaken the alliance’s future. Talks are reportedly underway with at least seven countries to coordinate efforts aimed at reopening the Strait and ensuring safe passage for oil tankers and commercial vessels.

U.S. Pressure on China

China’s dependence on the Strait of Hormuz is particularly significant, as nearly 90% of its oil imports transit through this route. Recognizing this vulnerability, Washington has urged Beijing to cooperate in securing the Strait. Some American officials have even suggested that if China refuses, a planned summit between the U.S. and Chinese presidents could be postponed. This linkage of energy security with diplomatic engagement underscores the high stakes involved.

U.S. authorities also argue that once military operations in Iran subside, oil prices could stabilize and potentially decline. This expectation reflects the broader economic dimension of the crisis, where energy markets are directly tied to geopolitical developments.

Japan’s Cautious Approach

Japan, another major energy importer, has adopted a cautious stance. Prime Minister Senai Takachi has made it clear that Tokyo will not deploy naval forces to protect oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. She stressed that Japan must act within its constitutional and legal boundaries, while continuing to monitor the situation and consider possible measures.

This position reflects Japan’s longstanding pacifist orientation and its reluctance to become militarily entangled in Middle Eastern conflicts. Instead, Tokyo appears to be relying on diplomatic channels and multilateral frameworks to safeguard its energy interests.

Europe’s Divided Response

European nations are similarly divided. Some officials argue that the European naval mission in the Red Sea has already failed to achieve its objectives, and therefore a similar mission in the Strait of Hormuz would be ineffective. France’s defense minister has explicitly stated that as long as tensions remain high, France will not send warships to the Strait.

This divergence highlights Europe’s struggle to balance solidarity with the United States against skepticism about military interventions in the Middle East. Earlier, President Donald Trump had urged European allies to join a collective effort to secure the Strait, but the response has been lukewarm.

Iran’s Defiant Position

Iran has categorically rejected calls for a ceasefire, insisting that it is in a stronger position than before. Iranian leaders argue that negotiations with the United States are meaningless while attacks against Iran continue. They maintain that until President Trump declares the war illegal, Iran will persist in its resistance.

This defiance reflects Iran’s broader strategy of projecting strength and resilience in the face of external pressure. By refusing to compromise, Tehran seeks to reinforce its domestic legitimacy and regional influence.

Escalation Between Iran and Israel

The most intense clashes have occurred between Iran and Israel. In the past 24 hours alone, Iranian missile strikes have injured at least 198 people in Israel, with many in critical condition. Tel Aviv and other cities have suffered significant destruction, including damaged buildings, vehicles, and widespread fires.

Iran claims to have targeted key Israeli military and administrative centers using advanced ballistic missiles such as Sejjil and Kheibar Shekan. These attacks demonstrate Iran’s capability to strike deep into Israeli territory and escalate the conflict beyond localized skirmishes.

Regional Spillover: Gulf and Middle East Attacks

The conflict has spilled over into neighboring countries. In Baghdad, a missile or drone attack near the U.S. embassy was intercepted by American defense systems. Near Dubai Airport, a drone strike ignited a fuel tank, though authorities quickly contained the fire without casualties.

Saudi Arabia reported destroying 37 drones within an hour, underscoring the scale of aerial threats in the region. Kuwait also experienced missile and drone attacks, with Italy confirming that a U.S.-Italian military base was hit. An Italian-controlled aircraft was destroyed, though the crew survived.

These incidents illustrate how the conflict is destabilizing the broader Gulf region, threatening both military installations and civilian infrastructure.

Civilian Casualties in Iran and Lebanon

Civilian populations have borne a heavy burden. Iranian media report that U.S. and Israeli strikes have hit residential areas in several cities. In one city, four civilians were killed; in another, one person died and seven were injured. In Khomein, a school was damaged, though fortunately no lives were lost.

Lebanon has also suffered extensively. According to the Lebanese Ministry of Health, Israeli strikes since March have killed 850 people, including women and children. This toll highlights the humanitarian dimension of the crisis, where non-combatants are increasingly caught in the crossfire.

Implications for Global Security

The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has far-reaching implications:

  • Energy Security: Disruptions threaten global oil supplies and could trigger price spikes, affecting economies worldwide.
  • Alliance Cohesion: NATO’s credibility is at stake if member states fail to act collectively.
  • Regional Stability: The spread of attacks to Iraq, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait indicates a widening conflict that could engulf the entire Middle East.
  • Humanitarian Concerns: Civilian casualties in Iran and Lebanon underscore the urgent need for de-escalation and protection of non-combatants.

The unfolding crisis in the Strait of Hormuz represents a convergence of military conflict, energy security, and geopolitical rivalry. The United States seeks to rally allies, China faces pressure to act, Japan and Europe remain cautious, and Iran stands defiant. Meanwhile, Israel and neighboring states are experiencing direct attacks, with civilians suffering the most.

The situation demands urgent international attention. Without coordinated action, the Strait of Hormuz could remain a flashpoint for global instability, with consequences extending far beyond the Middle East. The challenge lies in balancing military deterrence with diplomatic engagement, ensuring energy security while preventing further humanitarian tragedy.

About the Author:

Qazi Zaheer Ahmad is a retired senior civil servant (BS-21) of the Government of Pakistan with over thirty years of experience in governance, public administration, and policy implementation. After qualifying the Central Superior Services (CSS) examination in 1991, he served in key administrative and development roles and represented Pakistan at various international platforms. He holds an M.Phil in Rural Development from the Netherlands and now writes on geopolitics, regional security, governance, and strategic affairs.

The Geopolitics of the Cross: Why Washington is Dismantling Faith-Driven Diplomacy Just as China Embraces It

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
The Geopolitics of the Cross: Why Washington is Dismantling Faith-Driven Diplomacy Just as China Embraces It

By Stephanos A. Peppas

In the quiet corridors of the United Front Work Department in Beijing, a new tactical manual is being written. After decades of successfully instrumentalizing Buddhism to build diplomatic bridges across the Global South, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is pivoting to a more ambitious target: the exportation of “Sinicized Christianity.” This is not an expansion of faith, but an expansion of statecraft—a model where religion is subservient to the party, designed to offer an alternative to Western-aligned religious networks.

Yet, as China ramps up its religious soft power to win hearts and minds in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, the United States is doing the unthinkable: it is dismantling the very infrastructure that has made it the world leader in faith-driven diplomacy for over two decades. Through a combination of institutional freezes and domestic polarization, Washington is creating a religious vacuum that Beijing is all too happy to fill.

The CCP’s “Patriotic Education” Export

For the CCP, religion has long been a “national security imperative” rather than a matter of individual conscience. As academic research and internal party documents confirm, Beijing has mastered the “Sinicization” of Buddhism, using state-controlled religious organizations as cultural ambassadors to advance socialist values internationally (Zumwalt, 2026).

One example is the cooperation between the Chinese authorities and Buddhists in organizing the inaugural World Buddhist Forum, which took place in Hangzhou from April 13th to 16th, 2006. At this forum, the 11th Panchen Lama, Bainqen Erdini Qoigyijabu, a prominent “living Buddha” of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition in China, stated that: “Defending the nation and serving the people is a solemn commitment that Buddhism has made to the nation and society.” (Kung, 2006).

Now, that same “Sinicization” pipeline—managed by the United Front Work Department—is preparing “politically reliable” Christian leaders for international deployment. The goal is to teach that politics must take precedence over faith and that all religious practice must be “obedient to the Beijing government” (Zumwalt, 2026). By exporting this model, China offers a version of Christianity that is compatible with authoritarianism, directly challenging the democratic, rights-based religious influence the U.S. has projected for half a century.

The U.S. Retreat: A “Wrecking Ball” to Soft Power

The American response to this challenge is currently paralyzed. Since early 2025, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—the primary engine of American engagement with global faith communities—has faced an unprecedented “freeze” on its grants. This disruption has been described by practitioners as a “wrecking ball” that threatens to kill the very “patient” it was intended to heal (CFR Workshop, 2025).

The irony is that the Strategic Religious Engagement (SRE) policies currently being paused were not the product of a single “liberal” or conservative” agenda. In fact, roughly 80% of the USAID policy released under the Biden-Harris administration was actually drafted during the first Trump administration (Mandaville, 2025). For twenty years, from the passage of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act to the expansion of White House faith offices under George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, there was a bipartisan consensus: faith leaders are among the “most trusted institutions” in unstable regions (Miller, 2026).

By pausing these grants, the U.S. is not just cutting “waste.” It is halting human rights programs in Pakistan, cutting off aid to religious minorities in Northern Iraq, and even leaving tons of American-grown wheat to rot in ports like Houston because the humanitarian partnerships required to distribute them have been suspended (Norquist, 2025).

Acknowledging the Counter-Voice in favor of the USAID freeze, it is presumed that the illegal trade observed in Uganda and Congo is tolerated, if not actively endorsed, by the governments of nations importing goods from this area, including the United States. Considering the magnitude of these operations and the increase in commodities from the Democratic Republic of the Congo transiting through Uganda, it appears that reports from USAID personnel are likely unwelcome in Washington (Anders, 2025).

The Cost of Domestic Polarization

The retreat is driven, in part, by a domestic shift toward the instrumentalization of religion. When U.S. leaders use forums like the National Prayer Breakfast to cast political opponents as “anti-God,” they do more than deepen domestic rifts; they shatter the “moral authority” required for international diplomacy (Rogers, 2025).

When American religious engagement becomes a “political football,” it loses its efficacy as a national security tool. While U.S. officials debate the “establishment clause” and “DOGE” budget cuts, China is building genuine, if coerced, ties. The U.S. Military Chaplaincy and organizations like the International Center for Religion & Diplomacy (ICRD) have spent decades building trust with local faith leaders to mediate conflict and “bridge generational divides” (Miller, 2026). That trust is an asset that, once lost, cannot be easily rebought.

The U.S. military identifies the chaplaincy as a “unique institutional capability”—a specialized resource that provides the “situational awareness” needed to navigate complex sacred spaces where traditional diplomacy might falter (Zumwalt, 2026). Specifically, U.S. military doctrine —Joint Publication 1-05— has long recognized that ‘religious situational awareness’ is a prerequisite for mission success. Chaplains aren’t just there for the troops; they are ‘strategic sensors’ who prevent conflict by bridging the gap between secular military objectives and the deeply religious societies in which they operate (Otis, 2009).

Countering the Sinicized Soul

If the United States is to compete in the new era of Great Power Competition, it must recognize that religious freedom is a strategic necessity. A world where “Sinicized Christianity” becomes the default for the Global South is a world where the concept of universal human rights—independent of the state—ceases to exist.

Washington must move past the demonization of the word “religion” in foreign policy. Protecting the global “mosaic” of faith is not just a moral duty; it is a defense against a Chinese model that seeks to nationalize the human  soul. The U.S. must lift the freeze on USAID and empower its “faith-driven diplomacy” once again. In the battle for global influence, the most powerful tool in the American arsenal isn’t a missile—it is the protection of the “voiceless” and the sanctity of the individual conscience.

Sources

Anders, Sophia. (2025, February 26). USAID cuts and their fallout on the ground – LSE International Development. LSE International Development – Social, Political and Economic Transformation in the Developing World. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/internationaldevelopment/2025/02/26/usaid-cuts-and-their-fallout-on-the-ground/.

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (2025, February 19). 2025 Religion and Foreign Policy Workshop: Bipartisan Religious Engagement in U.S. Foreign Policy. Featuring Samah Norquist, Melissa Rogers, Knox Thames, and Peter Mandaville. https://www.cfr.org/event/2025-religion-and-foreign-policy-workshop.

Kung, L.-Y. (2006). National identity and ethno-religious identity: A critical inquiry into Chinese religious policy, with reference to the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Religion, State and Society, 34(4), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637490600974450

Miller, Martine. (2026). International Center for Religion & Diplomacy (ICRD): Five-Year Strategic Vision.

Otis, Pauletta. (2009, December). An overview of the U.S. military chaplaincy: A ministry of presence and practice. The Review of Faith & International Affairs 7(4):3-15. DOI: 10.1080/15570274.2009.9523410.

U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2018). Religious Affairs in Joint Operations (Joint Publication 1-05).

Zumwalt, Zachary. (2026, February 17). China’s Exportation of Sinicized Christianity and the United States Military Chaplain Response. Berkley Center, GW University academic report.

Escalating Middle East Conflict and Its Global Geostrategic Implications

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Escalating Middle East Conflict and Its Global Geostrategic Implications

By Qazi Zaheer Ahmad

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has intensified significantly, creating a dangerous humanitarian, military, and economic situation across the region. Reports from multiple areas indicate that civilian infrastructure—including schools, hospitals, and residential buildings—has been struck during the hostilities. As a result, a large number of innocent civilians have been killed or injured, while thousands of families have been forced to leave their homes and seek safety elsewhere. The humanitarian cost of the conflict continues to rise, with displaced populations facing shortages of shelter, medical care, and essential supplies.

Iran–Israel Confrontation at the Core of the Crisis

The confrontation between Iran and Israel has been at the center of the escalating tensions. According to various reports, missile attacks in Israeli cities have injured more than one hundred people, some of whom remain in critical condition. Damage has been reported in several areas of Tel Aviv where buildings and vehicles were destroyed during the strikes. Iranian military officials have claimed that their operations targeted important Israeli military and administrative facilities, presenting these actions as part of what they describe as a defensive response to aggression.

Iranian Denials and Claims of False Flag Operations

At the same time, Iran has denied responsibility for several attacks reported across the broader region. Iranian officials have stated that Tehran has no involvement in drone attacks targeting Saudi Arabia or other neighboring states. They have also argued that some actors may be using copies of Iranian-designed Shahed drones in order to carry out attacks and falsely attribute them to Iran. According to Iranian statements, such actions could represent attempts to create “false flag” incidents intended to escalate tensions and blame Tehran for operations it did not conduct.

Iranian political figures have warned that certain parties may be planning incidents designed specifically to provoke wider war. They argue that Iran fundamentally opposes terrorism and destabilizing actions, and that its conflict is not with the American people but rather with policies and military actions that Tehran views as aggressive. From the Iranian perspective, the country is engaged in what it considers defensive measures against Israeli and American military pressure in the region.

Expansion of the Conflict across the Region

Meanwhile, the conflict has begun to spread beyond the immediate Iran–Israel theater. Reports have emerged of drone attacks and military incidents in Iraq, including near Erbil and close to the Baghdad International Airport, where installations associated with American forces were reportedly targeted. Some groups in Iraq have even released videos claiming responsibility for drone strikes against foreign military facilities. In addition, tensions have extended toward the Gulf, with reports of drone incidents near government compounds in Abu Dhabi and heightened military alert levels in several Gulf States.

Strategic Importance of the Strait of Hormuz

The conflict has also raised concerns about the safety of maritime routes in the Persian Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical oil shipping lanes, has come under particular scrutiny. Although some commercial vessels—including Indian ships—have reportedly passed through the strait safely, there have been indications that shipping movements could be restricted if tensions escalate further. Because nearly one-third of the world’s seaborne oil passes through this narrow waterway, any disruption there could have dramatic consequences for global trade and energy markets.

Impact on Global Oil Markets

Indeed, the economic consequences of the crisis are already being felt worldwide. Rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have pushed oil prices higher on international markets. Brent crude prices have increased by approximately $2.68 per barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude has risen by nearly $2.98 per barrel. In some trading sessions, U.S. crude oil prices have approached roughly $98.71 per barrel. Analysts warn that if the conflict intensifies or if shipping routes in the Gulf are disrupted, oil prices could climb much higher, placing additional strain on global economies—particularly developing countries that rely heavily on imported energy.

Risk of Global Economic Shock

A prolonged disruption of the Strait of Hormuz would likely trigger a serious global economic shock. Oil supply shortages could lead to dramatic price increases in petroleum products, potentially causing inflation, economic slowdown, or even recession in multiple regions of the world. In such scenarios, the United States and its allies may attempt to stabilize markets by releasing oil from strategic petroleum reserves or deploying naval forces to secure shipping lanes. However, analysts caution that purely economic measures might not be sufficient if the military confrontation continues to escalate.

Military and Strategic Costs of Prolonged Conflict

Beyond the economic consequences, the military dimension of the conflict is also becoming increasingly complex and costly. Sustained operations in the region require enormous financial resources, logistical support, and long-term strategic planning. Critics argue that prolonged engagement could place heavy pressure on American military and economic capabilities. Some observers believe that repeated attacks against American interests or facilities in the region may indicate a broader pattern of asymmetric resistance by local actors.

Historical Comparisons and Strategic Concerns

Because of these challenges, a number of analysts have drawn historical comparisons with past conflicts. Some experts warn that if the confrontation continues to expand and draw in additional actors, the situation could become a prolonged and costly struggle similar to earlier wars that proved difficult for major powers to sustain. In particular, there is growing discussion among commentators that a large-scale conflict involving Iran could become highly complex due to the region’s geography, political dynamics, and network of allied groups.

In summary, the escalating tensions across the Middle East have created a volatile situation with far-reaching consequences. The humanitarian toll continues to rise, regional security remains fragile, and the global economy is already feeling the effects through rising energy prices. Whether the crisis stabilizes or expands into a broader conflict will depend on diplomatic efforts, military decisions, and the ability of international actors to prevent further escalation in one of the world’s most strategically important regions.

About the author:

Qazi Zaheer Ahmad is a former senior civil servant of the Government of Pakistan and write regularly on geopolitical developments in South Asia.

75-Years Diplomatic  Anniversary  Philippines – Netherlands

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
75-Years Diplomatic  Anniversary  Philippines – Netherlands

By Roy Lie Atjam

Celebrating 75 years of partnership, friendship, and a relationship that continues to grow

This milestone marks 75 years of diplomatic relations between the Republic of the Philippines and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, highlighting more than seven decades of friendship, shared history, and cooperation. The celebrations included an appreciation dinner and the presentation of awards as tokens of this valued partnership. Interestingly, despite being thousands of miles apart, the Philippines and the Netherlands were once part of the same entity from 1565 to 1581, under Emperor Charles V and King Philip II. The Philippines is named after King Philip II. For the 75th anniversary celebration, a commemorative logo representing various aspects of the bilateral relationship was launched on January 1, 2026.

The Embassy of the Philippines in the Netherlands has released documentation highlighting various achievements and accomplishments to commemorate the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and the Netherlands. The festive evening began with welcome speeches from H.E. Mr. Eduardo Malaya, the Ambassador. The keynote address was delivered by H.E. Mr. Allan B. Gepty, the Undersecretary for International Trade at the Department of Trade and Industry. A summary of both speeches is included in this review. Dutch Ambassador Saskia de Lang also addressed the gathering.

Dutch Ambassador Saskia de Lang at 75th anniversary Philippines-Netherlands relations

Additionally, the program featured a written statement from H.E. Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the President of the Philippines, who proudly stated, “The Philippine economy is not only growing; it is thriving. Together, we can unlock unprecedented opportunities for growth and development.” The appreciation dinner for Dutch companies operating in the Philippines brought together prominent Dutch business figures, government officials, international representatives, members of the Philippine Netherlands Business Council (PNBC), and several other guests.

An exquisite seated dinner formed part of the evening. Everyone left the venue in high spirits, carrying a bag filled with Filipino treats.

Abbreviated Speeches by Ambassador Malaya and Undersecretary Gepty

Abbreviated welcome speech by Ambassador H.E. Eduardo Mlaya:

 “75 years of partnership, friendship, and a relationship that continues to grow.” Over the past 75 years, our partnership has thrived through strong business-to-business engagements. Many in the Philippines may be surprised to learn that the Netherlands consistently ranks among the top 5 investor countries and often leads within the European Union. In the last 12 years, Dutch investors contributed P755 billion (Euro 12 billion) to the Philippines, making the Netherlands the top source of foreign investments. Trade relations have flourished, with a steady annual growth of 10%, predominantly facilitated through the Port of Rotterdam.

As Ambassador, I’m pleased to see both governments recognizing the importance of these business ties. The Bilateral Consultation Commission met in June 2021 and September 2024 to enhance political interactions, with significant developments including the October 2023 visit of Foreign Minister Hanke Bruins Slot. In September 2024, we formalized a platform for economic discussions through the Coordinating Authorities, established under the 1995 MOU on Economic and Technical Cooperation.

This anniversary year began with the Netherlands’ Minister for Trade and Development visiting Manila on February 9-10, resulting in five agreements between Dutch and Filipino partners across various sectors. Recently, Undersecretary Gepty and I attended the Philippine-Europe Connectivity Exchange organized with PLDT at the KIT Tropical Institute in Amsterdam, showcasing the Philippines’ expanding digital industry. We also met with Deputy Director General for Foreign Economic Relations Yvette van Eechoud. Upcoming events include an economic mission for Philippine semiconductor companies mid-year and a concert featuring Filipino soprano Rachel Gerodias-Park on May 21 at Nieuwe Kerk. Please mark your calendars.

Tonight celebrates you, your companies, and the contributions of the two chambers and exemplary individuals to the strong Philippines-Netherlands partnership.

75th anniversary Philippines-Netherlands relations

As President Marcos stated, “foreign investments … fuel our growth … and broaden our economic base.” We express our heartfelt gratitude to everyone here, especially to our collaborators, the Philippines-Netherlands Business Council, represented by Ambassador Saskia de Lang, and the Dutch Chamber of Commerce, particularly Arthur Plugge. We also appreciate the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, represented by Director Jacobs, Mr van Tooren, and Ms Karlijn van Bree.

There have been challenges in doing business in the Philippines, but your perseverance has brought rewards. In the spirit of a Dutch saying about appreciation, I’ll quote Jean Baptiste Massieu: “gratitude is the memory of the heart.” Thank you all, and I wish you a wonderful evening.

Celebrating 75 year Philippines – Netherlands

Abbreviated speech by H.E. Allan B. Gepty, the Undersecretary for International Trade at the Department of Trade and Industry:

Our economies, despite cultural differences, share values like good governance, adherence to rules, and a commitment to fair trade, innovation, and sustainable development. The Netherlands is a key economic partner for the Philippines, ranking as the 13th largest trading partner and 5th largest export market as of 2025.

It’s encouraging to see Dutch companies expanding in sectors like semiconductors, electronics, software development, and IT-BPM services, which align with the Philippines’ strengths in a skilled digital workforce and a growing innovation ecosystem. A stable partnership with the Dutch fosters innovation in a globalized economy, as the Netherlands was a pioneer in this regard.

H.E. Allan B. Gepty, Undersecretary for International Trade at the Department of Trade and Industry.

 Additionally, ASEAN has led the creation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, the largest trading bloc globally, representing 50% of manufacturing output, 50% of automotive products, and 70% of electronic products, serving as key hubs for China, South Korea, and Japan.

Just like the Netherlands in the 17th century, ASEAN is reshaping global trade networks as we upgrade existing agreements and establish a new one with Canada. Southeast Asia’s digital economy is expected to hit USD 1 trillion by 2030, driven by rapid growth in fintech, e-commerce, and digital payments. The region is also developing digital trade ecosystems through the Digital Economy Framework Agreement, reminiscent of historical financial innovations in Amsterdam. For investors and companies, this presents dynamic opportunities to connect European innovation and capital with Asia’s growth markets.

The Philippines is emerging as a key connectivity and digital services hub in the Asia-Pacific, driven by expanding subsea cable systems, cloud infrastructure, and a young, tech-savvy workforce. This positions the country as an attractive market for Dutch firms looking to expand into ASEAN. Trade between the Philippines and the European Union is growing, with the EU being a major trading partner, boosted by the GSP+ scheme.

The Netherlands plays a pivotal role as a trading hub, facilitating the entry of various Philippine products like electronics, coconut products, bananas, tuna, and garments into Europe. The Philippines boasts one of the fastest-growing digital economies in Southeast Asia, with rapid advancements in digital payments, e-commerce, and technology services—providing ample opportunities for Dutch investors in fintech and smart urban solutions. Additionally, the shift toward a sustainable and circular economy opens up opportunities in renewable energy and sustainable resource management, where Dutch companies excel in areas like water technology and offshore wind. We anticipate that our collaboration will yield both economic and environmental benefits.

As we pursue food security, we can leverage Dutch expertise in smart agriculture and water management. Our partnership transforms lives and shapes the future for our people. Dutch investments enhance our workforce in key sectors like manufacturing, services, and agriculture, while also bringing advanced innovations in technologies such as semiconductors and sustainable practices. The Netherlands and the Philippines exemplify a partnership between a global gateway and a dynamic emerging market, combining experience in logistics and sustainability with growth and talent. The message is clear: Europe must strengthen its presence in Asia to maintain its innovation and industrialization advantages.

The Philippines has the potential to foster innovation-driven industries, act as a strategic trade route, and promote sustainable development. Historically, global transitions reward regions that plan ahead. The free trade agreement with the European Union is transforming our relationship from a traditional trade partnership to a strategic alliance focused on sustainability, security, and shared prosperity, encompassing good governance, economic resilience, and exclusivity.

Spain Boosts Support for Victims at the ICC

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Spain Boosts Support for Victims at the ICC

The Kingdom of Spain, a State Party to the International Criminal Court (ICC) since 2000, has made voluntary contributions totalling EUR 340,000 to the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) in 2025, reaffirming its strong commitment to international justice and to the rights of victims of crimes under the Rome Statute.

Spain’s contribution—currently the second largest received in 2025—is unrestricted and will support efforts to redress the harm suffered by victims through the implementation of reparations ordered by the ICC, as well as programmes aimed at their rehabilitation and well-being.

Welcoming the contribution, H.E. Mr. Kevin Kelly, Member of the Board of Directors of the TFV, stated: “Spain has been a steadfast supporter of the Trust Fund for Victims, and its commitment to international justice is truly commendable. On behalf of the Board of Directors, I warmly welcome Spain’s contributions and encourage other States to follow its example in strengthening support for victims of the most serious crimes.”

H.E. Mrs. María Consuelo Femenia Guardiola, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Spain to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, added: “Spain reaffirms its strong commitment to the work of the Trust Fund for Victims. Providing reparations, assistance, and support to victims is essential in the fight against impunity, in ensuring accountability for the most serious crimes, and in strengthening the international criminal justice system as a whole.”

Spain has provided regular voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund for Victims since 2006 and is currently its seventh-largest donor, with total contributions exceeding EUR 3.3 million—demonstrating its sustained commitment to supporting victims of international crimes.

The Iranian Crisis and the Reconfiguration of the Global Balance

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
The Iranian Crisis and the Reconfiguration of the Global Balance

or the End of the Geopolitical Illusions of the Post–Cold War World[1]

“Crises do not create new realities; they reveal those that already existed.”
— inspired by the reflections of Raymond Aron

By Major General (Two Stars) (retd) Corneliu Pivariu

At certain moments in history, regional conflicts transcend the geographical framework in which they occur and become indicators of deeper systemic transformations. They function as genuine stress tests for the international order, revealing the limits of existing institutions, the fragility of geopolitical balances, and the emergence of new centers of power. The war unfolding around Iran belongs to this category of revelatory conflicts.

Beyond its immediate military dimension, it brings to light a series of structural tensions that run through the international system and indicate that the world is entering a phase of strategic reconfiguration. In this sense, the conflict surrounding Iran does not represent merely a regional crisis, but rather a moment of strategic clarification in which the structural fractures of the post–Cold War international order become visible.

The Seven Fractures of the Emerging World Order

The war unfolding around Iran should not be interpreted merely as a regional military confrontation limited to the traditional dynamics of rivalries in the Middle East. In reality, it functions as a genuine geopolitical revealer, bringing to the surface the structural tensions that run through the international system during this period of historical transition.

Major conflicts of the contemporary era are no longer simple regional episodes. They become moments of strategic clarification in which the legitimacy of international institutions, the balance among major powers, and the capacity of states to protect their interests in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical environment are simultaneously tested. In this sense, the confrontation surrounding Iran can be viewed as a moment in which a series of fractures already present within the international system become visible and acquire major political relevance.

These fractures are not produced by war; they are merely accelerated and amplified by it. They reflect the gradual transformation of the global order constructed after 1945 and consolidated following the end of the Cold War. From this perspective, the conflict can be interpreted as a symptom of the broader process of geopolitical rebalancing that characterizes the early twenty-first century.

In the history of international relations, such moments of crisis have often functioned as points of strategic clarification, in which the real structures of power become more visible than during periods of apparent stability.

1. The West and the Global South

One of the major transformations of the contemporary international system is the erosion of the global consensus regarding the norms and legitimacy of Western interventions. The first of these fractures is represented by the increasingly evident divergence between the West and what is today commonly referred to—albeit imperfectly yet suggestively—as the Global South.

While in Western capitals military intervention against Iran is justified primarily through arguments related to security, regional stability, and the prevention of nuclear proliferation, in many states across Asia, Africa, and Latin America the perception is different. In these regions, military action is often interpreted as another episode of Western geopolitical interventionism, reinforcing the perception of double standards in the application of international law.

This difference in perception has important political consequences. It does not reflect merely a divergence of interpretation, but rather structural differences of interest between the states that built the international order after 1945 and those that now aspire to a more balanced redistribution of power within the global system. It contributes to the erosion of the legitimacy of international institutions created after the Second World War and accelerates the fragmentation of the international system. Instead of a global consensus regarding the rules governing the system, a plurality of geopolitical perspectives is gradually emerging, in which states interpret their interests and international norms in an increasingly autonomous manner.

2. The Crisis of the Legitimacy of Military Interventions

The second fracture concerns the issue of the legitimacy of military interventions. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, numerous conflicts have raised questions about the limits of the use of force in international relations. Interventions in Iraq, Libya, or Syria have generated intense debates regarding the relationship between state sovereignty and the responsibility of the international community to prevent major threats to global security.

The conflict surrounding Iran brings this dilemma once again to the forefront. The argument of preventive war, invoked to justify strikes against potential nuclear programs or military infrastructures, remains one of the most controversial concepts in contemporary international law. In the absence of a clear consensus regarding the legitimacy of such actions, the interpretation of legal norms increasingly tends to depend on the balance of power among states.

3. The Resilience of Political Regimes

A third fracture concerns the stability of political regimes under external pressure. In recent decades, strategies aimed at changing political regimes have often been based on the assumption that eliminating leaders or destroying military infrastructure could produce a rapid collapse of authoritarian political systems.

Recent historical experience, however, suggests that this assumption is frequently exaggerated. Revolutionary or ideological regimes, such as the Iranian one, possess complex institutional structures, networks of political loyalty, and mechanisms of succession capable of ensuring the continuity of the system even under conditions of external military pressure. In such situations, military strikes may generate destabilization and significant economic costs, but they do not automatically guarantee the collapse of the regime.

4. The Regionalization of Conflicts

Another defining phenomenon of the emerging international order is the increasing regionalization of the global security system. This fracture manifests itself particularly at the level of regional security dynamics. The Middle East represents one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world, characterized by a complex combination of historical rivalries, religious tensions, and geopolitical competition. In such a context, any major conflict tends to quickly extend beyond the borders of the state directly involved.

Networks of alliances, armed organizations, and non-state actors transform military confrontations into a regionalized system of warfare, in which front lines become diffuse and theaters of confrontation multiply. From this perspective, the conflict with Iran has the potential to draw in a number of regional actors, either directly or through allied or proxy forces.

5. The Vulnerability of the Global Energy System

A fifth fracture concerns the vulnerability of the global energy system. Iran’s geographical position gives it major strategic importance within the architecture of the world’s energy system. Its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz—through which a significant share of global oil exports transits—transforms any conflict in this area into a factor of global economic instability.

Thus, a regional war produces effects that go far beyond the strictly military dimension, influencing energy markets, commercial flows, and international financial stability. In a globalized economy, energy security inevitably becomes part of the geopolitical equation.

6. Rivalry among Major Powers

The sixth fracture is represented by the divergences among the major powers. For the United States, the confrontation with Iran forms part of a broader strategy aimed at maintaining influence in the Middle East and preventing the emergence of regional power centers capable of altering the strategic balance of the region.

For other major powers, such as China or Russia, however, the situation is interpreted differently. Any conflict that limits the freedom of action of the United States or creates geopolitical opportunities in other regions of the world may be perceived as an element favorable to the broader strategic competition. In this sense, a regional conflict inevitably becomes an episode within the rivalry among the major centers of power of the international system.

7. The Transformation of Modern Warfare

Finally, a seventh fracture concerns the transformation of the nature of contemporary warfare. Modern conflicts are increasingly characterized less by large-scale conventional confrontations and more by combinations of advanced technologies, informational operations, and instruments of hybrid warfare.

The use of drones, precision strikes, cyber operations, and informational manipulation have become essential components of modern warfare. Military superiority is no longer determined exclusively by the number of troops or industrial capacity, but also by the control of information, technology, and the digital domain.

Conclusion

Viewed from this broader perspective, the war surrounding Iran does not represent merely a regional confrontation, but rather a moment of geopolitical clarification within an international system undergoing profound transformation. The seven fractures highlighted by this conflict indicate that the global order constructed after the end of the Cold War is entering a phase of accelerated reconfiguration.

Instead of a structure dominated by a single center of power, a system characterized by strategic plurality, competition among major powers, and a growing autonomy of regional actors is gradually taking shape. In this context, local conflicts increasingly become points of intersection between global rivalries, energy interests, and technological competition.

Thus, the war surrounding Iran can be interpreted not only as a military episode of Middle Eastern regional politics, but also as an indicator of a deeper historical transformation: the transition from the post–Cold War international order toward a multipolar world in which the balance of power will be defined not only by military force, but also by the control of resources, technology, and strategic narratives.

Taken together, these seven fractures represent more than the consequences of a regional conflict. They point to a profound transformation of the international system. The war surrounding Iran shows that the global order built after the end of the Cold War is gradually losing its coherence, being replaced by a far more fluid strategic configuration in which power is distributed among multiple centers of decision-making.

In this new geopolitical reality, local conflicts can no longer be interpreted in isolation, since they become points of convergence for global rivalries, competition for resources, and the confrontation between different models of political and economic organization.

From this perspective, the Iranian crisis does not represent merely a confrontation for influence in the Middle East, but one of the moments through which the end of the geopolitical illusions of the post–Cold War world becomes visible, together with the emergence of a far more fragmented and competitive international order.

Brașov, 14 March 2026

[1] Some of the reflections developed in this article were inspired by the analysis presented in the text “The Seven Fractures of the Emerging World Order,” published on 4 March 2026. The article argues that the international system is entering a phase of structural fragmentation, characterized by the emergence of several geopolitical fault lines, such as rivalry among major powers, regional conflicts, economic fragmentation, and competition between different political narratives regarding the future of the global order. The interpretations and conclusions presented in this material, however, belong entirely to the author.

Germany Strengthens Support for ICC Reparations

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Germany Strengthens Support for ICC Reparations

Germany has reinforced its role as a leading supporter of the International Criminal Court (ICC) by making a voluntary contribution of EUR 40,000 to the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV). A State Party to the Rome Statute since 2000, Germany continues to demonstrate its strong commitment to international justice and to the rights of victims of crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction. This latest contribution is specifically earmarked for the implementation of Court-ordered reparations.

Welcoming the contribution, H.E. Mr. Kevin Kelly, Member of the Board of Directors of the TFV, stated: “Germany has long been a bastion of support for the International Criminal Court, and its regular contributions to the Trust Fund for Victims clearly reflect its commitment to victim-centred justice. Such steadfast support is to be commended.”

H.E. Mr. Nikolaus Meyer-Landrut, Ambassador of Germany to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, highlighted the broader significance of the Fund: “The Trust Fund for Victims plays a key role in advancing the reparative justice pillars of the Rome Statute, through measures that recognise and redress the harm suffered by victims and their families as a result of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. Germany has supported the International Criminal Court from its very beginning and remains a major financial contributor, both to the Court’s general budget and to the Trust Fund for Victims and its important work.”

Germany has provided regular voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund for Victims since 2006 and is currently its fifth-largest donor, with total contributions exceeding EUR 4.4 million—underscoring its long-standing leadership in supporting victims of the most serious international crimes.

Realism’s Path to Peace: Beyond the War in Ukraine 

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Realism’s Path to Peace: Beyond the War in Ukraine 

Possible scenarios and hope for Europe

By Ján Figel

It is logical and painfully visible that to start was is always easier and faster that to end it. Internal and international war on Ukraine, Gaza, Iran and the whole Middle East confirm this. War itself does not bring new benefits, but suffering, destruction and instability.

Despite growing unrest and tension in the world, we must not give up in our efforts for a more peaceful and humane century. In the current state of the ongoing hot and cold wars in Eastern Europe, there are essentially only three scenarios: bad, much worse and … a hopeful one.

1) Today the most likely is the continuation of the war. Ukraine is bleeding, losing people, territory and infrastructure for four years already. Without a reasonable political solution and constructive diplomatic efforts, only a destructive military path is advancing. Interventions against infrastructure and facilities in Russia are numerous, but Russia is capable of a long, exhausting war. Even with the support of the collective West so far, Ukraine does not have the strength to push Russian troops out, nor even stop it.

2) A catastrophe through the escalation of war cannot be ruled out. Two world wars have emerged from Europe. The tragedies of the 20th century may get repeated, if escalation continues or fanaticism gets a chance. NATO has failed to implement a wise and effective policy of war prevention. The EU has gradually changed from the fruit of the Schuman peace project to a consumer of peace. The unprecedented armament promoted today in NATO and the EU may deter future aggression and strengthen defense industry, but it will not bring peace, nor create a prosperity.

3) Regrettably, France and Germany were not committed enough to guarantee implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Ukraine could have remained integral, democratic, multinational. After 2014 the hidden cold-war type confrontation between the West and Russia continued and grew. In February 2022 the full-scale international war erupted by invasion of Russian troops into Ukraine. a true peace agreement, acceptable to Russia and Ukraine, supported by the USA and Europe, can therefore arise on the basis of a turnaround in relations between the two decisive parties to the decade of confrontation: the USA and the Russian Federation. They are de facto parties of the current proxy war. This U-turn is possible, if President D. Trump’s determination to stop the war in Ukraine, confirmed at the Alaska Summit with President V. Putin, continues with a resolve.

Building Europe means building peace

An acceptable peace agreement as a package of conditions and solutions acceptable to warrying parties have not been found yet. Therefore, every constructive effort to reach an agreement between Russia and Ukraine should be appreciated. European powers (France, Germany) have failed to secure peace in Ukraine in the past decade. Unfortunately, current EU leadership does not follow mentality, nor practice of R. Schuman, neither K. Adenauer – Founding Fathers of reconciled and united Western part of Europe after the WWII.

The path to peace is narrow and difficult. In the spirit of Jean Monnet, building Europe means building peace. However, such a vision and process require a new and strong foundation. Change of strategic paradigm raises difficult questions. First, is it possible to turn the political, security and economic relations between the superpowers by 180 degrees? Second, is it possible to make war in Eastern Europe materially impossible and peace stable and lasting? Third, is it possible to achieve this in a short time? It is certainly easier to answer such fundamental questions after the fighting is ended and the peace agreement being prepared for signature.

I am convinced that, despite everything that happens today, the current geopolitical situation allows us to answer these three questions by YES. Surprising, perhaps even provocative solution is realistic. Realism is based on the history of the Euro-Atlantic area after World War II and on ongoing international consultations. We may have many reservations about the actions of the D. Trump and his Administration towards Europe, Venezuela or Iran. But his determination to stop the war in Ukraine as soon as possible is evident. This good will  and readiness can become a decisive factor. Realism of the proposed vision is already evidenced by some points from the agreement, which is being gradually discussed between the USA, RF, Ukraine and the EU (E3).

A peace scenario in the spirit of R. Schuman and G. Marshall

I am convinced that peace in Eastern Europe can be achieved through an updated combination of the principles of the Schuman and Marshall plans. Their authentic historical results are consistently inspiring, proven and valid even today. The original Schuman plan was about preventing further war and devastation in Europe. For the participating countries, this project has become a reality and has been successfully operating for more than 75 years. And George Marshall proposed to include and finance reconstruction of the originally aggressor country – Germany.

Today, we need an analogous action. I am deeply convinced that the Schuman and Marshall Plan 2.0 are possible. Transforming confrontation between two superpowers into their long-term and strategic cooperation is in the interests of both countries and their successful development. Leaders come and go, but nations remain. However, leaders can leave a positive legacy that will raise the lives of the peoples concerned to a higher level. The joint effort of East and West, Moscow and Washington, was the prerequisite and basis for the victory over Nazism and fascism in Europe. Likewise, the peaceful demise of communism was achieved non-violently and more rapidly thanks to dialogue, understanding and cooperation between the West and the East, between Washington and Moscow.

Foundation of this peace initiative should be an agreement between the two Euro-Atlantic powers: the USA and Russia. Economic and trade cooperation in the form of a common market must cover the resources and commodities necessary for waging war: energy and its infrastructure, and natural raw materials and rare minerals. Likewise, it is important to open up information technologies, artificial intelligence and intellectual property to the common market. An agreement on common markets for the aforementioned resources and commodities between two strong protagonists must be open to all free nations, especially those of Europe, North America and Central Asia. This must logically be accompanied by an agreement between the participating countries on shared security. Mutually beneficial cooperation could gradually lead to the creation of a great, new West-East Community from Anchorage on Alaska, to Vladivostok on Kamchatka, across Europe and Central Asia. War in such Community would become impossible and unthinkable, as it was in the case of a unified Western Europe after 1950. Such a vast zone of shared security, cooperation and prosperity in the Northern Hemisphere would constitute an unprecedented force for peace and stability throughout the world. Opening Alaska summit can be followed by decisive, great deal concluding summit of the two Presidents in Central Europe. The first reactions to this vision are encouraging.

Thanks to the proposal of R. Schuman and the approval of K. Adenauer, France and Germany began peaceful cooperation after 1950 in coal and steel. Schuman’s plan for a united Europe was an unprecedented political innovation. For many Europeans, reconciliation and unification with the former hostile power and aggressor was a utopia, for others a provocation, and some in France considered it a betrayal. However, the unthinkable partnership and friendship gradually became reality. This great and creative innovation, supported by the firm commitment of national governments and parliaments, proved to be a real and constructive path to a peaceful, stable and prosperous Europe! Unfortunately, this peacebuilding process in recent decades has not reached the entire continent, from the Atlantic to the Urals. Now we pay a very high price for the many failures in the necessary efforts.

A way out of the war is possible. However, true statesmanship, political courage, goodwill and programmatic perseverance in shaping this new path are crucial. The roots of conflict must be removed to make peace sustainable. And prevention of conflicts lies in the sharing of security and strategic resources. The roots of our common Judeo-Christian civilization invite us to mutual respect, to beneficial cooperation and to live in peace and unity

A dignified peace agreement

Such a Great Deal will help to create a new, West-East Community in the Northern Hemisphere, but will also offer and stimulate the basis for a dignified peace agreement beneficial and acceptable to the USA, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the countries of Europe. The package of conditions and compromises must include the return of refugees and displaced populations, respect for the dignity and fundamental rights of citizens, including ethnic minorities, a transitional, time-limited administration of the disputed territories with international support (UN, OSCE), respect for the transparently expressed will of the citizens of the affected territories for democratic self-determination, the application of transitional justice and the restoration of the rule of law, and the termination of all sanctions. Marshall Plan 2.0 will define conditions and offer effective help for economic stability, growth and prosperity. Special support must be given to a targeted, dynamic reconstruction of destroyed territories and infrastructure. Such process also requires constructive efforts for reconciliation, dialogue, confidence-building and will certainly deliver new relations among nations and states.

This basis for a dignified peace agreement can be an acceptable and face-saving way out for all, without gray, disputed areas and without a postponed, future or hidden confrontation. Lasting peace in Europe is a demanding, but noble and rewarding objective. Innovation does not come only from new ideas, but from the ability to see old ideas in a new light. I am convinced that creative, constructive and responsible efforts can triumph over the forces of conflict, violence and war in the near future.

About the author:

Mr. Ján Figel is a Former EU Commissioner and Deputy PM of Slovakia.

ICC Concludes Two Preliminary Examinations: Venezuela II Closed, Belarus-Lithuania Probe Opens

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
ICC Concludes Two Preliminary Examinations: Venezuela II Closed, Belarus-Lithuania Probe Opens

The International Criminal Court (ICC) Office of the Prosecutor has concluded two preliminary examinations: the Situation in Venezuela II and the Situation in Lithuania/Belarus, both referred by States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

After assessing jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of justice, the Office reached different conclusions in the two cases.

In Venezuela II, the Prosecutor found no reasonable basis to believe that crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction were committed as a result of sanctions imposed by the United States on Venezuela since 2014. The Office determined that available information did not establish the necessary causal link or criminal intent required under international criminal law. As a result, no investigation will be opened. Venezuela has 90 days to request a review of the decision.

The decision does not affect the separate and ongoing ICC investigation into alleged crimes against humanity in Venezuela related to detention practices since 2014.

In contrast, the Prosecutor has opened an investigation into the Lithuania/Belarus situation after concluding there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity may have been committed, including deportation and persecution on political grounds. The case concerns alleged actions by authorities in Belarus that affected victims on the territory of Lithuania, an ICC member state.

The investigation will examine alleged transboundary crimes committed since May 2020, where at least one element occurred in Lithuania.

The Office has notified ICC States Parties and invited individuals or organizations with relevant information to submit it through its secure platform.

ASP Receives Expert Panel Report on Alleged Misconduct by ICC Prosecutor

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
ASP Receives Expert Panel Report on Alleged Misconduct by ICC Prosecutor

The Hague, 10 March 2026 — The Presidency of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has confirmed receipt of the conclusions of an external panel of judicial experts regarding alleged misconduct by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

The panel, established by the ASP Bureau, was mandated to assess the matter under the legal framework of the Rome Statute and to provide a legal characterization of findings contained in a report by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).

The Bureau is expected to meet within five working days to review both reports. The documents are confidential and will not be made public. The ASP Presidency also called for respect for the privacy and rights of all parties involved while the process continues.

123...893Page 1 of 893