On 6 September 2025 the High Scardus Ultra returns to southern Kosovo — a mountain running festival built around the jagged ridges and glacial lakes of the Balkan Sharr (Shar) Mountains. The fourth edition this year offers three distances (an 11 km Bear Trail, a 35 km Oshlak Skyrace and the long Scardus Ultra of roughly 56 km/60 km), and once again links the city of Prizren with the high alpine terrain along the Kosovo–North Macedonia border. (High Scardus Ultra)
Showcasing Kosovo
The race is much more than a sporting test: organisers and local partners position the High Scardus Ultra as a showcase for Kosovo as a destination for mountain sports and active tourism. The event brings international athletes, visitors and media to Prizren and nearby mountain resorts, helping put the Sharr massif — its national park, alpine lakes and summer pastures — on the trail-running map of the Balkans.
Routes & race facts information
Date: 6 September 2025.
Distances: 11 km (Bear Trail) — fast, technical city-to-foothill loop; 35 km (Oshlak/Skyrace) — ~2,000 m+ elevation; 56/60 km (Scardus/Ultra) — the cross-border long route across the highest ridges.
Start/finish: events centre on Prizren with stages traversing high passes and, for the longest route, crossing into/finishing on the Macedonian side of the Sharr ranges. The course information and ITRA listings show the international/cross-border nature of the long course.
Certification & safety: the race is organised to ITRA standards and is listed on ITRA, which helps with international recognition and participant confidence.
Practical info for travellers & runners
Registration: open now on the official race pages — for example the Bear Trail shows a modest fee (example listed €15 for the 11 km) and registration windows (check the race site for exact deadlines). (High Scardus Ultra, bashke.app)
Where to stay: Prizren is the natural base — charming old-town hotels, guesthouses and the festival atmosphere make it ideal. For high-altitude acclimatisation consider nearby mountain hubs (Prevalla, Brezovica, Popova Šapka on the Macedonian side).
Weather & terrain: early September typically offers mild days and cool alpine nights; expect technical trails, steep ascents, exposed ridgelines and sudden weather changes — standard mountain race kit and careful pacing recommended. (Race pages and previous editions describe rocky, path-only terrain and significant elevation gain.)
Cross-border logistics: the long course crosses the border with North Macedonia — organisers handle official route permissions, but international participants should check travel documents and any temporary border or admin requirements before arrival.
Why runners love it
Participants praise the raw Balkan landscapes — high ridgelines, alpine lakes and wildflower meadows — and the event’s friendly, grassroots vibe. The race’s mix of short city trails and high-altitude ultras attracts both weekend trail runners and seasoned ultra athletes from across Europe and beyond.
A chance for Kosovo tourism
Beyond sport, High Scardus Ultra is a platform for sustainable tourism: it channels visitors into lesser-known natural areas, supports local guides and accommodation, and raises awareness of the Sharr Mountains National Park — a strong selling point for Kosovo’s growing outdoor tourism offer.
The Government of Pakistan announced the Illegal Foreigners’ Repatriation Plan (IFRP) on September 26, 2023. This plan aims to regulate the presence of foreigners in the country and ensure the repatriation of individuals who reside illegally or have overstayed their visa validity. It does not, ipso facto, discriminate based on nationality or country of origin, and extends to all the illegal foreigners residing in Pakistan. However, as Afghans form the most significant foreign population in Pakistan, they are the most substantially covered under the scope of the IFRP. Nonetheless, all legally registered foreign nationals, including Afghans, residing in Pakistan, remain exempt from the provision of this IFRP.
Many international organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have criticised Pakistan for targeting Afghans under the IFRP and allegedly in violation of its international obligations. However, such criticism takes a simplistic view of a complex issue. For over four decades, Pakistan has demonstrated exceptional generosity by hosting millions of refugees, mostly Afghans, earning global recognition as one of the largest refugee-hosting countries. In recent years, however, changing circumstances have compelled Pakistan to reassess its policy regarding foreign nationals, in the light of its national interests. This insight analyses the legality of Pakistan’s decision to repatriate Afghans vis-à-vis its international obligations.
The Afghan refugees influx into Pakistan occurred in four distinct waves, each linked to significant political developments in Afghanistan. The First Wave occurred from 1978 to 1981, on the eve of the end of Daoud Khan’s government and the Soviet invasion. The Second Wave came in the 1990s after the Soviet withdrawal and the Taliban’s rise. Third Wave began in 2001, post 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent United States (US)-led NATO invasion. The Fourth Wave occurred in 2021, following the US withdrawal and the Taliban’s return to power.
During the fourth wave alone, approximately 600,000 Afghans arrived, many of whom hoped to relocate to Western nations eventually. However, to date, only a small fraction have been relocated, while the vast majority remain in Pakistan, awaiting their turn for years. This situation was further exacerbated when President Trump, after assuming office in January 2025, suspended the United States Refugee Admissions Programme (USRAP), leaving thousands of Afghans in uncertainty.
The decision of Pakistan to repatriate Afghans, pursuant to IFRP, is grounded in both domestic and international law.
The Afghan population currently residing in Pakistan holds varying legal statuses, depending on the type of documents they possess. Broadly, they fall into three categories: Proof of Registration (PoR) cardholders, Afghan Citizen Card (ACC) holders, and unregistered Afghans. The IFRP outlines a three-phase repatriation process based on this categorisation. Phase one aims to cover illegal or unregistered foreigners and those with expired visas or a period of unauthorised stay. Phase two covers the ACC holders. While Phase Three, set to begin after 30 June 2025, will address PoR cardholders. Phase one started in October 2023, and phase two is currently underway.
The Government of Pakistan’s implementation of IFRP reflects a broader effort to address security challenges, regulate the presence of foreigners, and manage limited resources. A resurgence in militant activity, particularly by the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, also known as Fitna al-Khawarij (TTP/FK), has heightened regional tensions. Some incidents, including suicide attacks in 2023, have involved Afghans, further complicating the security landscape. Additionally, with political stability gradually returning to Afghanistan, since the Taliban’s takeover in August 2021, Pakistan considers the conditions increasingly conducive for the return of illegal Afghans.
Given these circumstances, the decision of Pakistan to repatriate Afghans, under IFRP, is not without legal basis—both under domestic and international law. The regulation of foreign nationals residing within a state’s territory has, prima facie, been recognised as falling within the domaine réservé—that is, the exclusive domestic jurisdiction of the state. In Pakistan’s domestic legal framework, the IFRP finds its basis in the Foreigners Act, 1946. Specifically, section 3 of the Act empowers the federal government to control foreigners’ entry, stay, and departure, while section 3(2)(g) allows for their arrest or detention when necessary for national security.
Under international law, the status of refugees is primarily governed by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Pakistan is neither a party to the convention nor the protocol; hence, it is not legally bound by their specific provisions.
However, the cornerstone of the Convention—the principle of nonrefoulement—has evolved into a norm of customary international law. Although articulated in Article 33 of the Convention, this principle is now binding on all states, including non-signatories such as Pakistan.
The principle of non-refoulement obliges a state not to expel a refugee to a country where they may face persecution. However, it is not absolute and permits exceptions when individuals threaten the host state’s security. The determination of such a threat lies primarily with the host state itself, in this case, Pakistan. As noted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), if certain individuals act on behalf of foreign powers against the host country, the host state is entitled to invoke this exception among a mass of refugees. While IFRP mainly addresses Pakistan’s resource constraints and evolving situation in Afghanistan, both of which are justifiable under international law, security concerns posed by TTP/FK further reinforce the applicability of this exception. Therefore, despite not being a signatory to the Refugee Convention, Pakistan is still upholding its spirit. Nonetheless, the IFRP constitutes repatriation rather than refoulement.
Furthermore, Pakistan’s actions are neither unprecedented nor isolated; instead, they align with the practices of several Western nations, some of which have adopted far stricter measures, arguably violating international law. For instance, in April 2025, the US listed thousands of temporary immigrants as deceased to pressurise them into ‘self-deportation’. Similarly, in February 2025, the United Kingdom expelled nearly 19,000 undocumented migrants who had no legal right to remain in the country.
In March 2025, the European Union (EU) also proposed sending migrants without legal status to “return hubs” in third countries, from where they will be deported to their countries of origin.
This move is rooted in the controversial ‘EU-Turkey Deal,’ signed in March 2016. Under this deal, Türkiye was to curb illegal migration to Greece in exchange for €6 billion to support refugees.
This underscores the West’s dual standards—criticising Pakistan’s legal repatriation efforts while pursuing harsh policies themselves.
Therefore, while humanitarian concerns remain valid, Pakistan’s repatriation decision is grounded in domestic and international law. Given the serious security threats and the state’s sovereign right to regulate foreign nationals, the repatriation effort reflects a measured response to a complex challenge. Like many states, Pakistan strives to balance security needs with humanitarian responsibilities.
At the reception for the Quatorze Juillet, the French ambassador H.E. Francois Alabrune said in his speech that the Hague was “the city for international law and for multilateral diplomacy”. He made his statement in the aftermath of the NATO summit in the Hague and in the presence of the Netherlands’ minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Caspar Veltkamp.
Clearly the NATO summit had been a great succes, and the Netherlands received full marks for their organisation of this historic summit. The agreement within NATO to spend substantially more on defense – individually and collectively – came at an important moment in time. Nobody can predict how and when the current conflicts will be put to rest, but it is obvious that Europe needs a powerful defence – or lethal force, according to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte – which currently it does not have. It should be added that the financial consequences of the deal in the Hague are colossal, I have no other word for it. The agreed increase in pure defence spending from 2 to 3,5 % will lead to some 15 billion euro in extra expenses only in the Netherlands, every year. So will there be money for any other important areas of policy development if we want to protect the regular budgets for the known state concerns like education, and health care ? I do not see that.
Without a doubt, one of the most pressing subjects of a multilateral character is climate change. It so happened that immediatley after the NATO summit a preparatory meeting on climate change was held in the German town of Bonn, just some 300 kilometers to the east of the Hague. This meeting was focussing on the next Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change (COP) . The mood was not very positive in Bonn, with lots of fights on the agenda and on procedural matters. The Executive Secretary of the UN Climate Convention, Simon Stiell, said at the end that not enough progress was made and that world has to “go faster, further and fairer” if we want to stand a chance of keeping under 1.5 temperature rise as concluded in Paris in 2015. The next COP will be held in the city of Belem, in Brazil in November of this year, and there is a long list of important issues to be decided. Climate Justice is just one of them.
July was also the month of a groundbreaking Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the responsibilities of states for the global climate. The Advisory Opinion had been asked for by the General Assembly of the UN by Resolution 77/276, at the initiative of small island states like Vanuatu. This issue of climate change has not received the greatest global political attention in the recent period – inter alia as a result of the pro-fossil views of the American Trump administration. These views can be summarized by the words “drill, baby, drill “. The need to drive out fossil fuels was simply no longer keenly felt, whereas this had been a major yardstick for a necessary climate policy before.
The ICJ gave a lengthy and unanimous advice on 23 July, of some 130 pages. In my own words the summary is that all States, large or small, have an international legal obligation to prevent significant harm to the environment and to avoid contributing to the degradation of our climate by excessive emissions of greenhouse gases. Conduct of States which act within the scope well known conventions like the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, has to conform to the terms of those conventions. In general, such conduct should be guided by Due Diligence, a principle which the Court had expressed in several previous cases relating to environmental protection (like the pulp mills in Uruguay) . The ICJ gave a rather precise indication of what Due Diligence actually means, both in a material sense (such as sticking to scientific advice, adhering to the best available standards) , as in the procedures to be followed.
The Court emphasized further that States have a duty to cooperate, which is easier said than done in a time of world wide conflicts and sanctions. Also, any breach by a state or states of an existing obligation gives rise to a wrongful act on the part of the state responsible, and that may lead to claims by those States that have to live with the negative consequences. No wonder that the small island states were very happy with this important advice. An Advisory Opinion by the ICJ is strictly speaking not a binding ruling but it carries a lot of weight as the considered and in this case even unanimous view of the principal judicial organ of the UN .
So from NATO to climate change, it only shows the outsize magnitude of the tasks for governments of the world in the near and more distant future. Defence is now in a state of alert, and rightly so, but the time will come that other issues will take it to the front pages.
How can the Public and Private Sectors hold onto the unprecedented shifts of AI, Robotics, and Digital Innovation? How can these modern intelligent technologies intersect with the amplified needs for interconnected future policy and regulations in the geopolitical, socioeconomic, technological, and security spaces? – Complex questions that can mesmerize each curious mind. Yet, it is globally significant for an open dialogue in the most transformative era of our times.
But, in the Global Interdisciplinary Online Course, “Understanding AI, Robotics, and Its Multi-Dimensional and Multi-Spatial Implications for the Public and Private Sectors,” complex questions are not just curiosity against the current status quo but also driven by the ongoing digital data and case studies that need a deeper understanding, attention, and proactive solutions—which are fundamental in today’s most innovative global shifts.
The 8-week program with a 2.5-hour intensive dialogue finally had its closing on July 10th, 2025. The session circled around the theme “Economic Diplomacy in the Digital Age,” attended by esteemed professionals from different regions (researchers, practitioners, executives, and tech enthusiasts) and by renowned expert guests from different industries: Daniele Sangion (UniCredit Group, Austria), Antonio Salmeri (Space Law, Lunar Policy Platform), Muntasir Mamum (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangladesh), and Ronald Derler (Kompetenzzentrum Digitale Wasserwirtschaft).
In the final week of the program, notable speakers shared comprehensive insights on the current trends of Artificial Intelligence and modern intelligent systems and unveiled the dynamic use, effects, influence, and risks of these technologies in all public and private sectors.
The concluding session delved into: Digital Economic Diplomacy, Global Strategy, Digital Finance, Technology and Infrastructure Risk, and Market Access and Innovation.
Deepfake Dangers and the Rising Cost of Cybercrime
The first round of the program was explored by a distinguished keynote speaker, Mr. Daniele Sangion, the Chief Information Security Officer from UniCredit Bank Austria. He started his discussion by playing a deepfake video to show how threatening AI and similar technologies can be when it comes to cyberattacks, physical threats, business disruptions, information bias, evolution of frauds, phishing, fake identities, and cybersecurity risks.
Coming from internal experience and national cooperation efforts, Mr. Sangion painted a striking picture of the staggering scale of the issue, that “cybercrime is a trillion-dollar business” and should be the third country in the world in terms of GDP. He explained that cybercrime today includes the misuse of AI through deepfake voices, fake identities, fake shops, and phishing campaigns—tools that fraudsters can now use at scale. He gave concrete examples, mentioning how thousands of deepfake shops of a bank were generated and how attackers used AI to create websites that looked “really similar to your website,” tricking people into entering their login credentials and OTPs. He recalled that in an awareness initiative, even colleagues were deceived during a real-time call by a deepfake version of himself, highlighting how easy it has become “to not recognize me.” According to him, “awareness is the first control measure,” and reinforcing it is essential at every level of internal and external security.
He emphasized that “now, there are not any more silos” in the threat landscape, explaining that crimes can start in the digital realm and create physical consequences—or vice versa—making it essential to look at security in a holistic way. He also shared how Bank Austria, as part of an initiative supported from the Austrian government, works with other banks and other main companies and launches some initiatives to support the Austrian citizens and to create awareness on phishing, frauds, and deepfakes. These efforts include integrating fraud awareness and security at Austrian level.
While AI poses serious cyber risks, Mr. Sangion made it clear that it also provides a critical advantage for defenders when used responsibly: monitoring attacks, enhancing security resilience, deepening institutional memory, and reinforcing human awareness.
Law Beyond Earth: Digital Policy in Space Exploration
After the first speaker, the second talk was delivered by Dr. Antonino Salmeri, a space lawyer specialized in the governance of space resources and lunar activities, a world-class expert in the field of space law, and Director of the Lunar Policy Platform. Dr. Salmeri presented on the current status of lunar activities and outlined the legal and policy elements required to enable their prosperous, peaceful, safe, and sustainable conduct.
Dr. Salmeri highlighted that while space is not the Wild West, thanks to international agreements like the Outer Space Treaty, more work is needed to design specific governance solutions suitable to the ambitions of existing plans from governments and companies to establish long-term and large-scale operations on the Moon by the end of the next decade. To this end, he presented the work conducted by the Lunar Policy Platform, a globally established group facilitating the development of policies and standards and providing expert advice to the United Nations, governments, and companies on the legal and policy aspects of their lunar-related engagements. He emphasized that without cooperative governance, the Moon’s shared promise risks becoming a contested domain. Through law and policy, he argued, humanity can ensure a peaceful, prosperous, and inclusive future beyond space.
Dr. Salmeri reminded the audience that “space law exists and that it provides solid foundations for us to build upon. There is no Wild West in space.” Yet, he emphasized, “If we want to have a thriving economy where no economy existed before, we do need more than that. We need policies and standards.” That, he explained, is the mission of the Lunar Policy Platform: to work with all actors—governments, industry, and academia—to develop tools that are going to enable a peaceful, prosperous, and cooperative future on the Moon for the benefit of all humanity.
Digitalizing the Invisible Backbone: Ronald Derler’s Perspective on Cybersecurity in the Water Industry
The third keynote expert was Mr. Ronald Derler, CEO of the Competent Center for Digitalization in the Water Industry, who offered a rare and highly relevant perspective on how critical infrastructure is undergoing a digital transformation—with both promise and peril. Drawing on his experience as a cybersecurity leader, military and police veteran, and Harvard graduate in crisis leadership, Mr. Derler addressed the overlooked but essential challenge of protecting water supply and wastewater systems across Europe. He stated plainly that this is not about flying to the Moon but about ensuring that millions of people have clean water every day.
With over 8,000 water-related organizations in Germany alone, many operating for more than a century—Mr. Derler spoke plainly about the challenges ahead. He said digital transformation is no longer optional—it is essential for managing everything from rising energy costs to labor shortages. But he also warned that greater connectivity means more risk. He pointed to real cyberattacks on water systems in Germany and Texas, showing how remote access gaps and outdated industrial controls can be serious liabilities. He addressed a disturbing issue that OT systems are also vulnerable to attacks, stating, “You don’t have to hack the systems; you just have to find the systems, and you can do what you want.”
Mr. Derler and his team launched the Situation Center Cybersac at Water, Europe’s first industry-wide Security Operations Centerdedicated to the water sector to address water challenges. This operates 24/7, raises awareness through specialized e-learning, and conducts workshops to promote digital resilience. Even with improved technical defenses, smaller utilities still face legal and compliance pressures. European cybersecurity rules, he noted, are hard to keep up with—especially when supply chains are fragile. He also raised concerns about social engineering, saying it now accounts for over 90% of cyber incidents. AI, he explained, is making both attackers and defenders stronger.
Mr. Derler’s response is not just about better firewalls. He is advocating for a broader strategy: a “zero trust” approach, clear software transparency requirements, and stronger cooperation with national security agencies. To him, solving these issues is not just technical—it is about people, priorities, and planning ahead.
From Static States to Fluid Futures: Reimagining Governance in the Age of Digital Sovereignty
Following the third keynote guest is a notable expert, Dr. Syed Muntasir Mamun, Director General, (ITIT) (ICT) of Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
This high ranking official from the prominent South Asia country brought a bold and deeply reflective narrative on the future of governance. With decades of academic and strategic engagement, he started by situating a theme—governance, imaginaries, and digital space—as the product of over a decade of inquiry into the evolution of republics and state systems. Focusing on the Global South, Mr. Mamun emphasized how 80% of the world’s population who are living in bottom-of-the-pyramid markets are still experiencing institutional voids in governance, economy, welfare, and identity. He asked how people in post-colonial societies relate to the state today. Mamun said that digital space is not just about cyber warfare anymore—it has become “the core terrain of livelihoods, identities, and aspirations.” Because many regions still face “institutional voids” in areas like governance, welfare, and the economy, he noted that new frameworks are emerging. These, he said, aim to bypass outdated systems through digital sovereignty and innovation.
In response to this shift, he introduced the “AAA” model: Adaptive, Agentic, and Agile—as a new way of thinking about governance in a world where timelines are shrinking fast. “Ideas once projected for 2100,” he reminded the audience, “must now be realized by 2030.” This “Fluid Institutions” model is built on the principle that governments should not rule over the people but serve them—moving away from hierarchical, slow, and procedural bureaucracies toward fluid, agile, and digital-first governance structures. At one point, Mamun gave concrete examples to make his point. “We’ve seen this in Rwanda with drones for healthcare delivery,” he said. “In Ghana with blockchain land registries, and in Bangladesh with mobile money that reaches even the poorest.”
As he wrapped up, he emphasized a shift in mindset: “Governance today is about real-time intelligence. ”It is about measuring trust, building legitimacy, and creating new institutional narratives that embrace digital tools and fluidity.” In his words, “We need institutions that are dynamic, tech-savvy, and citizen-first. Fluid institutions for a fluid world.”
* * * *
The Understanding AI and Robotics Course, organized by IFIMES (International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies), SILKROAD 4.0 Platform, Scientific Journal (European Perspectives), and their consortium of international partners (D-8, ICCD, IAF, THC, Diplomatic Academy, Diplomatic Magazine, and many more), explored globally interdisciplinary topics that gave thought-provoking insights and timely information to participants from Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and Australia/Oceania.
This unmatched collective exchange of data is what opens doors to the investigative mind—to help great people analyze, deepen their understanding, and awaken their consciousness in this era of thrilling and fast-paced intellectual developments.
This is just the inception of the deep transfer of knowledge—to prepare for what lies ahead in the upcominginitiative: Global Academy for Future Governance. To equip each future attendee with the up-to-date data and develop a profound expertise that can bring lasting change not only in the Global North and the Global South, but also in the immersive transformation of digital realms.
About the author:
Jehanie Milky Nagon photography courtesy of IFIMES
Jehanie Milky Nagon is a Manila-based Information Officer of IFIMES (Department for Strategic Studies on Asia). Beyond ASEAN and Asia, her interests are in history, research technology and innovations, global studies, and the environment.
The Kingdom of Spain, a State Party to the International Criminal Court (ICC) since 2000, has made a voluntary contribution of EUR 40,000 to the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV), reaffirming its commitment to international justice and the rights of victims of crimes under the Rome Statute.
This unrestricted contribution from the Kingdom of Spain will be allocated by the TFV to support reparations for former child soldiers who are victims in the Lubanga and Ntaganda cases, convicted before the ICC in relation to the situation in Ituri, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Through the TFV programme, approximately 3,000 eligible former child soldiers will benefit from rehabilitation services including medical treatment, trauma counselling, education, and socio-economic support. The programme also includes the construction of community centres in four locations, which serve as spaces of recognition and commemoration, as well as for dialogue, peacebuilding, and reconciliation activities amongst community members.
H.E. Kevin Kelly, member of the Board of Directors of the TFV stated: “The Trust Fund for Victims extends its heartfelt appreciation to the Kingdom of Spain for its generous contribution. This support reflects the enduring commitment of the Kingdom of Spain to the principles of justice, accountability, and reparation. At this critical time, it is more important than ever for States to contribute to the Trust Fund. We call on the international community to follow the example of the Kingdom of Spain and to support this vital work.”
H.E. Consuelo Femenía Guardiola, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Spain to the Kingdom of the Netherlands stated: “This voluntary contribution to the Trust Fund for Victims reflects the commitment of Spain to the protection of children in armed conflict and its commitment to justice, reparation, and reintegration for all victims of crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Spain strongly supports the work of the ICC and the TFV in ensuring that justice for the victims of international crimes remains a priority.”
As of July 2025, the Kingdom of Spain is the seventh-largest contributor to the Trust Fund for Victims, having provided over EUR 3 million in voluntary contributions. These funds have supported the implementation of reparations and rehabilitation programmes for former child soldiers in the Lubanga case, as well as programmes for the benefit of victims in the situations in the Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Georgia.
Chinese President Xi Jinping met with European Union leaders during their visit to Beijing for the 25th China-EU Summit on Thursday. CGTN published an article exploring China-EU relations in two-way trade and investment, emphasizing the need for both sides to embrace multilateralism, openness and cooperation to bring greater stability and certainty to the world.
BEIJING, July 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Fifty years ago, China-Europe trade was a trickle. Now, as the two sides mark half a century of ties, a single day’s trade equals what they exchanged in the entire year when relations were first established.
Noting that this year marks the 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties between China and the European Union, Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Thursday that China-EU relations have come to another critical juncture in history.
There are no fundamental conflicts of interest or geopolitical contradictions between China and the EU, Xi told European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.
“The current challenges facing the EU do not come from China,” he said, adding that the fundamentals and prevailing trend of China-EU relations featuring cooperation over competition and consensus over differences have remained constant.
Xi put forward three proposals for the future of China-EU relations: both sides should uphold mutual respect and consolidate the positioning of their relations as partnership, embrace openness and cooperation while properly managing differences and frictions, and practice multilateralism and uphold international rules and order.
Trade and investment
At Thursday’s meeting, the Chinese president said the China-EU economic and trade relationship is by nature complementary and mutually beneficial and can indeed achieve dynamic equilibrium through development.
China’s high-quality development and opening up will provide new opportunities and potentials for China-EU cooperation, Xi noted, calling on both sides to strengthen green and digital partnership and boost mutual investment and cooperation.
In 2024, trade between China and the EU soared to $785.8 billion, an increase of over 300 times compared to when diplomatic relations began in 1975, according to China’s customs authorities.
Two-way investment flows have also shown sustained growth in recent years, indicating a positive trend. Chinese battery manufacturer CALB, for instance, is building a $2.2-billion plant in Sines, Portugal, expected to create 1,800 jobs.
Xi expressed hope that the EU can remain open in the trade and investment market, refrain from using restrictive economic and trade tools, and foster a sound business environment for Chinese enterprises investing and operating in the EU.
At the 25th China-EU summit on Thursday, both sides agreed to forge an “upgraded version” of the China-EU export control dialogue mechanism, have timely communication on each other’s concerns and jointly keep the industrial and supply chains between China and Europe stable and unimpeded.
Multilateralism
Xi said China has always viewed and developed China-EU relations from a strategic and long-term perspective, regarded the EU as an important pole in a multipolar world and consistently supported European integration and the strategic autonomy of the EU.
China-EU relations are not targeted at, subjugated to, or controlled by any third party, he said, calling on both sides to deepen strategic communication, enhance understanding and mutual trust, and foster a correct perception of each other.
Pascal Lamy, the former European commissioner for trade, told CGTN that despite differences, China and the EU share crucial common ground in defending multilateralism and cooperating on global challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss and ocean protection.
Among the outcomes of Thursday’s summit, leaders of China and the EU issued a joint statement on climate change, highlighting their shared commitment to addressing climate change and pursuing green development.
Xi underscored the importance of China and the EU as constructive forces for multilateralism, openness and cooperation, and called on both sides to provide more stability and certainty to the world.
On 7 May 2025, Their Majesties King Frederik X and Queen Mary officially boarded the royal yacht Dannebrog at Nordre Toldbod, Copenhagen, marking the formal commencement of the 2025 sailing season.
A parading roll by the ship’s crew welcomed them aboard. The ceremony included a 27-gun salute fired from Battery Sixtus, followed by a reception in Helsingør, where the royal couple were greeted by local dignitaries and residents.
This annual boarding tradition dates back to the reign of King Christian IX in the late 1800s and has been upheld by successive monarchs, including King Frederik IX and Queen Margrethe II.
Their Majesties King Frederik X and Queen Mary.! Foto Hasse Ferrold.
The royal yacht Dannebrog (A540), launched in 1931 and commissioned in 1932, serves both as the official and private residence of the Danish monarch and royal family during summer cruises and state visits. In addition, it supports the Royal Danish Navy in duties such as surveillance, rescue operations, and the training of conscripts—having covered over 800,000 nauticalmiles and trained more than 3,400 conscripts over its decades of service.
You may have noticed that in the last few years, the use of the term “Resilience” has skyrocketed and now has become a buzzword. This was also noticeable during the recent NATO Summit in The Hague. In and by itself, this shouldn’t surprise us since many of us feel the world we live in has become increasingly ‘Vulnerable, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous’ – or “VUCA,” as it is known.
The term ‘Resilience’ however, has been around for a long time, something that those who use the word may not always be aware of. Time therefore to take a brief dip – with a Thought and a Smile… – into understanding the origin, meaning, use and limitations of ‘Resilience.’
So, here’s a brief guide, for diplomats as well as non-diplomats.
Origin and development of ‘Resilience’
Fingers are pointed here to an obscure branch of science called ‘Materials Technology’ where the word was used to describe the (cap)ability of matter to return to its original form after deformation.
In the latter part of 20th century its use expanded to other scientific domains such as (small island) ecology and (mental) health. During the 1980’s it developed into a hot topic in the private sector (business continuity) and public administration (“COOP”: Continuity of Operations).
Resilience nowadays is something that links negativity (‘jeopardy’) with positivity (‘opportunity’), thus functioning as a bridge between ‘Risk’ (= problems) and ‘Resilience’ (= solutions).
Intermezzo…
Let’s use an example from the world of sports to clarify this essential point.
Most coaches, teams, clubs, and fans continuously ask: “How can we score goals?” (= opportunity).
Smart(er) coaches, teams, clubs, and fans, however, also ask this question: “What prevents us from scoring goals?” (= jeopardy)
The most successful of coaches, teams, clubs, and fans ask and answer both questions simultaneously. Like a bridge. Like Resilience. Transitioning from ‘Risk’ to ‘Resilience.’
How do we define ‘Resilience’?
The most practical definition is this one:
CAPACITY
Resilience = —————–
VULNERABILITY
Please note that when we talk about CAPACITY, there is a distinction between Coping capacity (for rapid-onset problems) and Adaptive capacity (for more gradually developing problems).
Confirmed during the NATO Summit but also on a more regular basis at local, national, and international levels (such as other The Hague-based entities like OPCW), one can strengthen resilience by increasing capacity, by reducing vulnerability or, preferably, by doing both.
Lastly, a note of warning. When defining ‘Resilience,’ be aware of differences in semantics, terminology, and connotation. In the Netherlands for instance, the Dutch government considers the term ‘weerbaarheid’ as synonymous with ‘resilience.’ When we translate ‘weerbaarheid’ however, we end up with ‘the ability to resist’ and the underlying suggestion is that there is an external enemy.
Resilience of ‘what’?
This question can be rephrased as: “What should we be afraid off?” Well, the answer to that one is not too difficult: a disruption of essential services.
For what the ‘Top-4-Essential-Services’ looks like for all things alive, [= Oxygen, Water, Calories, Shelter], you can also visit my previous column “Biology 101 for Diplomats”.
One could also rephrase this question as: “What makes a person or organization ‘resilient’?”
Aside from increasing capacity and decreasing vulnerability (see above), Diane Coutu researched for years what the personal and institutional characteristics were that would favour Resilience. She shared her findings in the Harvard Business Review in 2002.
She concluded that there were three essential ingredients needed to be(come) resilient:
SEE THINGS FOR WHAT THEY ARE
[= and not what you want them to be – or are afraid they might be…]
GIVE MEANING TO HARDSHIP
[= don’t sit in a corner crying and wait for help but get up and do something…]
HAVE AN UNCANNY ABILITY TO IMPROVISE
[= this includes the option to throw out all pre-existing plans, procedures, and protocols…]
Amanda Ripley confirmed that these three elements indeed needed to be present at the same time (!) in her book “The Unthinkable” (2008).
So yes, Resilience is a good thing.
Do you want a few more things to mull over?
From a philosophical perspective, one might say that the only entity that is truly resilient by design (and not by retrofit) is ‘Nature.’
From an operational perspective, yes, reducing vulnerability and increasing the capacity to cope or adapt, is highly advisable.
Finally, remember that being resilient is not so much a status or a box-to-be-ticked, but a mindset, a mentality.
Which leaves all of us to ponder the following question, with a thought and a smile:
So, how ‘resilient’ are we, really?
About the author:
Eelco H. Dykstra. Photography by Tom Manning
Once dubbed a ‘Global Nomad’ in East Africa, Eelco H. Dykstra is a seasoned international crisis and emergency expert. As a true ‘Prac-Ademic’, he blends – also in his column “A Thought and a Smile” – his innate optimism with knowledge from his practical experience and rigorous fact-finding.
Aside from being founder/chair of the Daily Impact Emergency Management (DIEM) network and a visiting professor in South Africa, he initiated the ’20/20 Vision’ program for the dual purpose of strengthening value-based resilience and overcoming the obstacles that stand in the way of implementing lessons (to be) learned. Eelco has been a correspondent, written multiple books and articles and continues to work extensively with media, government, business, NGO’s and community-based initiatives. In short, Eelco is a transdisciplinary and trans-cultural multi-tasker – just like diplomats are.
Among his hobbies are cooking and playing the cello – see picture, taken by Tom Manning, during an impromptu performance with the Soweto Youth Orchestra.
Eelco H. DykstraProfessor (visiting), Adaptation and Resilience, University of South-Africa, UNISA. Chair, ’20/20 Vision’ Program: How do we go from ‘Risk’ to ‘Resilience”? Founder, Daily Impact Emergency Management (DIEM) Network www.diem.nuwww.20outof20.vision / eelco.dykstra@diem.nu
The opening of the Thailand Grand Festival 2025, organized by the Royal Thai Embassy in The Hague. This is the largestfestival in the Netherlands that showcases the very best of Thailand.
Lange Voorhout, The Hague,Saturday 12th July 2025. The annual Thailand Grand Festival has triumphantly outdone last year’s attendance, marking an extraordinary celebration of Thai culture.
The beautiful weather played a vital role in inviting crowds to join in this joyous celebration. This year’s carefully crafted program highlighted the richness of Thai traditions, from enticing cuisine to the exhilarating Songkran Thai New Year celebration, reminding us all of the vibrant spirit of togetherness and heritage.
Opening Remarks by H.E. Ambassador Asi Mamanee.
“We’ve brought together the mouthwatering street food, refreshing drinks, authentic Thai products, dazzling performances from all regions of Thailand presented to you by Tourism Authority of Thailand and the prestigious “Banditpatanasilpa” Institute of Fine Arts under our Ministry of Culture.
This year, we are especially proud to highlight Songkran, the Thai New Year, as part of our show. Songkran is one of our most beloved traditions — a time of renewal, family, respect, and joy.
Through this celebration of Thai cultural heritage, we hope to deepen the bond of friendship between Thailand and the Netherlands and between our two peoples which has lasted over four centuries.
I hope you will enjoy the spectacular performances, and feel the spirit of our friendship throughout this festival. But this is just the appetizer — so stay tuned for more showstoppers, including our much-anticipated raffles and competitions!
This year’s raffle prizes include a return air ticket from Amsterdam to Bangkok on EVA Air, luxury hotel stays in Bangkok, Phuket, and Chiang Mai and many more surprises. Who knows — you could already be on your way to Bangkok and beautiful islands in Thailand after this event! So please try your luck at the raffles, which will be drawn at 7 PM today.
We hope this festival rekindles your passion for Thailand and look forward to welcoming you to Thailand very soon. We invite you to help us spread the joy of today event— by sharing your pictures on Facebook and tagging us.
Last but not least, I wish to sincerely thank our wonderful partners: Thai Beverage, Carabao Group, PTT GC, TIPCO Asphalt, EVA Air, บริษัท ท่าทราย รุ่งอรุณ, บริษัท ทวีภัณฑ์ ภูเก็ต บริษัท Artra Lux, บริษัท Crown Aviation, ECCO Group and Tourism Authority of Thailand and all othres generous sponsors for making today possible.
My heartfelt appreciation also goes to all the vendors showcasing the very best of Thailand.Mr Van Zanen, Mayor of the Hague also addressed the crowd.”
Another Thailand Grand Festival 2025, what an extraordinary day it has been.
“War begins with words.” Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah
By Jan FigelandSheikh Al Mahfoudh bin Bayyah
In an age marked by overlapping crises – from armed conflicts and ideological extremism to ethical breakdowns in public discourse – a need to return to the essence of words and their meaning is more urgent than ever. Words are not mere tools of expression; they are often sparks that ignite or extinguish fires. This is precisely what Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah, President of the Abu Dhabi Forum for Peace, warns of in his profound message: “War begins with words.”
With this statement he encapsulates an entire philosophy: that every physical war is preceded by a war of words, and every act of violence is rooted in a prior act of verbal aggression. Unless speech is restrained, purified of hatred, and founded on mutual respect, the path to peace will never begin.
Words: Instruments that Build or Weapons that Destroy
Human history is filled with examples of how words have sparked long and bloody conflicts. From hate-filled speeches that paved the way for the Holocaust to media propaganda that fueled ethnic violence in Rwanda or Bosnia – these tragedies prove that words are not neutral. Words can amplify fear, distort perceptions, and turn ordinary people into enemies.
But on the other hand, words can also heal, reconcile, and build bridges between hearts. Therefore, impactful peace building emphasizes that the real struggle is not only against weapons, but against the discourse that justifies their use.
Hate Speech: A Global and Local Threat
Hate speech is no longer confined to fringe groups or isolated contexts. It has become a global phenomenon – amplified by digital platforms and nourished by misinformation, religious fanaticism, and xenophobia. Even worse, some forms of hate speech are cloaked under the guise of “freedom of expression”, undermining the ethical principles that should govern that very freedom.
The recent surge in hate-driven attacks on churches, mosques, synagogues – and even schools and markets – reminds us that behind each act of violence was a flood of words, posts, videos, slogans, and speeches that legitimized hatred.
Vision: From Awareness to Protection
For true healing we need not only correct diagnostics – but also clear vision and deeply prescriptive effort. Religion cannot be seen as a problem, but as an essential part of the solution. Each freedom is a call for responsibility. This is a key with religions as well. Leaders and faith-based communities must nurture and share their religious social responsibility. One strand is a call to promote human dignity through religious discourse and education. Education on equal dignity is a source of peaceful coexistence and moral fortification against hate.
At the Ministerial Conference to Advance Religious Freedom (Washington DC, 2019), Sheikh bin Bayyah has urged political and religious leaders to “reengineer concepts”- such as loyalty, jihad, and the “other” – to align with the higher objectives of faith and the universal values of human rights. Human dignity is indivisible, and peace cannot be established in a climate poisoned by divisive speech. Real peace is achieved when people are seen, heard, and respected – regardless of faith, ethnicity, or background.
Hatred, intolerance, violence and war are ugly faces of evil. And every evil is strong because it has many influential allies. The most significant are three siblings: indifference, ignorance and fear. When we do not care about the others´ because it is not our problem, it is far away, it is complicated issue. When we do not know, nor understand what is going on locally or globally. And when we are afraid to raise our voice on behalf of the defenseless or voiceless people.
The best antidotes against these allies of evil are engagement for common good, education and learning the truth, and courage to stand up for justice and equal dignity of all people.
Responsibility: From Words to Deeds and Action
Combating hate speech is not solely the responsibility of governments. It is a shared duty that involves religious leaders, educators, media professionals, legislators, and even social media users. Every word we write, share, or amplify can either contribute to healing – or to harm.
The fight against hate speech must begin in education, be embedded in law, and reinforced through responsible media. Platforms must be held accountable, and clear legislation must be enacted to criminalize incitement while safeguarding freedom of speech within ethical bounds. Education is not mere preparation for life. It is a life itself. Lifelong we need to adapt, to learn how to live together in dialogue, cooperation and shared neighborhoods. To live means more than to exist only.
Above all, we must revive the power of truth and kind speech. Truth sets us free and shows that we are diverse siblings in one universal human family. Discourse is the key to understanding and peace in and among our communities.
Let Words Be Bridges, Not Barriers
Pope Leo XIV was elected at the 80th anniversary of V-Day in Europe, May 8, 2025. He often emphasizes that peace is built in the heart and through active participation, requiring the uprooting of pride and resentment, careful communication, and building relationships of unity and fraternity, even in difficult times. He frequently links the concept of peace to the heart, advocating for a deeper, more personal and relational approach to peacebuilding.
Peace begins not at the signing of treaties, nor with the silencing of weapons. It begins in human hearts and with words. It begins when we choose to speak with others rather than about them, when we engage in dialogue instead of demonization, and when we listen rather than judge.
Nurturing ethics and cultures grounded in human dignity and wise restraint – is the only real path to a world of greater peace and justice. Because indeed, war begins with words. So, let our words always begin with peace.
About the authors:
Jan Figel, is the president of FOREF Europe, Slovakia. He was EU Commissioner for Education (2004-2009) and former EU Special Envoy of Freedom of Religion or Belief (2016-2019).
Sheikh Al Mahfoudh bin Bayy, is the Secretary General of The Abu Dhabi Forum for Peace, UAE
