What began more than forty years ago in the Netherlands as a simple yet radical idea has today found a home in Vietnam. The concept was straightforward: if children can borrow books from a library, why not art created especially for them?
At the time, I assumed such initiatives already existed everywhere. They did not. When de Volkskrant published an article about the very first Children’s Art Lending Library, Jeugdjournaal (Dutch Youth News) proposed organizing an official opening—an event that marked not only a Dutch first, but, according to the German University of Culture, a global one. There was no comparable institution anywhere else.
Today, that idea lives on in Da Nang, Vietnam—possibly the only Children’s Art Lending Library in Asia—through the Art for Children Gallery, a space dedicated to free creative activities for children and to making art truly accessible to young audiences.
Art Made For Children
The gallery’s uniqueness lies in its philosophy: all artworks are created specifically for children. Just as they borrow storybooks, children can take art home, live with it, and return it—making art a natural part of everyday life rather than something distant or untouchable.
This journey toward children’s art began unexpectedly. While presenting exhibitions for adults, a young girl once asked me a simple question: “Where is the exhibition for children?” I had no answer—and that was the moment everything changed.
Soon after, leading children’s illustrators and artists embraced the idea with enthusiasm. Artists such as Thé Tjong-Khing, Sylvia Weve, Tonke Dragt, and Max Velthuijs generously contributed their work. Invitations followed from institutions and companies worldwide. Philips invited me to Taiwan; Shell sent me to England, Brunei, and beyond, working closely with the Foundation for Dutch Education Abroad. Hundreds of travelling exhibitions followed across the Netherlands, Belgium, and further afield.
Art, especially art for children, rarely generates income—but it generates something far more valuable: connection, curiosity, and unforgettable journeys.
A New Chapter in Vietnam
As retirement approached, Vietnam entered my life—and never really let go. I lectured for UNESCO at the Hanoi National Art Museum for the Association of Vietnamese Museums and, with the support of the Dutch Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City, curated the international MeetingPoint exhibition at the HCMC Fine Art Museum.
Later, I was invited to become the first director of the Terracotta Park & Museum near Hoi An, an extraordinary experience that exceeded expectations in less than a year. Subsequent requests from museums in Hanoi followed, focusing on educational and outreach projects.
The turning point came in Da Nang, when Oanh—whom I had met while working at the Terracotta Museum—opened the Art for Children Gallery and Children’s Art Lending Library and invited me to visit. I could not resist. I am still there today, sharing experiences, writing booklets, creating videos, and supporting whatever new ideas emerge.
Building Bridges Through Stories
Several of my children’s books have been published in Vietnam, and my storytelling—often inspired by Vietnamese museums and culture—has been warmly received, often ending in applause.
Our YouTube channel offers further insight into our work in Vietnam, and any compensation for lectures or events is fully directed to supporting the Art for Children Gallery.
I spend a few months each year in the Netherlands, and for schools, companies, or cultural organizations wishing to organize Vietnam-related activities—especially for families and children—I am always happy to contribute. I do not claim to be a Vietnam expert, but I do know how to tell stories that connect.
And for those who wish to see it all firsthand: come visit us in Da Nang!
Liguria arrives in Utrecht with a story that speaks directly to the Dutch public, weaving together tourism, landscape and culture along a path that leads naturally from Northern Europe to the Mediterranean. From 8 to 11 January, the region will be present with an institutional stand created in collaboration with ENIT, showcasing a destination to be enjoyed all year round, amidst the sea, historic villages and the hinterland.
A strong cultural reference adds depth to this narrative: the major monographic exhibition “Van Dyck l’Europeo” (Van Dyck, the European), dedicated to the Flemish painter Antoon van Dyck, scheduled to take place in Genoa from 20 March to 19 July 2026. An international project, the exhibition provides an opportunity to trace a symbolic thread linking the Netherlands and Liguria, following the journey of a profoundly European artist and rediscovering Genoa as a city of exchange, historical connections and long-standing artistic tradition.
Liguria’s presence at Vakantiebeurs builds on a age-old relationship with the Dutch market, which has long shown an interest in accessible, authentic destinations offering rich opportunities for exploration. Liguria presents itself as a compact yet surprisingly varied region where, within just a few kilometres, panoramic coastlines give way to sea-view trails, inland villages and cities of art, allowing for flexible, customisable travel experiences.
A distinctive feature of Liguria’s offering is its appeal beyond the peak season. The calm of autumn, mild winters and the shoulder seasons reveal a more intimate Liguria, ideal for discovering villages in their everyday life, walking the trails at a slower pace and enjoying attentive hospitality, in a natural balance between quality and value for money.
Building on the journey that began in 2025 as the European Region of Sport, Liguria continues to highlight its landscape as a privileged setting for active and sustainable tourism: walking, exploring and experiencing the territory with awareness. This approach naturally aligns with the sensibilities of Northern European travellers, who are increasingly drawn to outdoor experiences that are authentic and respectful of local areas.
Participation in Utrecht stems from a shared effort involving local authorities and territorial organisations from Ponente to Levante, brought together in a regional stand that conveys a coherent, unified picture of the destination. It is a narrative shaped by landscapes, culture, traditions and relationships, designed to guide the Dutch public on a journey that begins with Flemish art and arrives at the Italian Riviera: understated, vibrant and deeply European.
8 December 2025 | Doha, Qatar — The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), in collaboration with the Doha Forum, is pleased to announce that Ms. Malebona Precious Matsoso, former Director-General of South Africa’s National Department of Health, has been awarded the Doha Best Negotiator of the Year 2025.
The award recognises individuals who demonstrate exceptional leadership in negotiation, resilience in complex diplomatic processes, and a sustained commitment to advancing peace and international cooperation. Ms. Matsoso was selected for her instrumental role in leading negotiations on the Pandemic Agreement, adopted at the 78th World Health Assembly in May 2025.
About the Recipient
Ms. Malebona Precious Matsoso has held distinguished leadership roles across national, regional, and global health governance. She previously served as Director of Public Health Innovation and Intellectual Property at the World Health Organization (WHO) and led South Africa’s Medicines Control Council for six years.
Her extensive international experience includes serving as Chair of the WHO Executive Board, member of the UN High-Level Panel on Access to Health Technologies, Chairperson of the Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, and member of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.
From left to right: Mr. Rabih El-Haddad, Ms. Sabrina Wollmann, Ms. Matsoso and H.E. Maha Al-Awadi, marking the formal recognition of Ms. Matsoso’s achievement.
Currently, Ms. Matsoso directs the Health Regulatory Science Platform at the Wits Health Consortium, serves on the Interim Executive Committee of the College for Africa Regulatory Science Professionals (CARSP), and is an Adjunct Professor at Sunway University in Malaysia. She is also a recipient of the South African Medical Research Council’s Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award.
Ms. Matsoso was nominated for the Doha Best Negotiator of the Year Award for her leadership as Co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), where she guided UN Member States toward consensus on a landmark global framework for pandemic preparedness.
The Pandemic Agreement aims to:
Strengthen preparedness and surveillance systems;
Ensure equitable access to vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics;
Enhance coordinated responses to future health emergencies;
Uphold solidarity, transparency, and evidence-informed decision-making.
Her contribution is widely regarded as one of the most significant multilateral health achievements of the post-COVID era. During the award ceremony, Ms. Matsoso expressed her gratitude to all partners involved in the negotiation process, stating:
“We rebuilt trust, acted as bridge builders, and navigated complex constellations to keep the process moving forward. We have shown that when we come together, adversity can become a catalyst for lasting change.”
She also underscored the importance of sustained diplomatic engagement:
“Dialogue can and will pave the way. Let us continue to be the bridge builders, the trust rebuilders, and the hope keepers that this world needs.”
The award was presented by Mr. Rabih El-Haddad, Director of the Division for Multilateral Diplomacy at UNITAR, together with H.E. Maha Al-Awadi, during the Doha World Negotiation Day 2025.
This year’s edition focused on the role of preventive diplomacy in a rapidly evolving geopolitical environment. High-level speakers exchanged perspectives on strengthening multilateral mechanisms, rebuilding trust among international partners, and designing negotiation ecosystems capable of preventing future global crises.
Reflecting on the purpose of the initiative, Mr. El-Haddad noted:
“It is our task at the United Nations to recognise when positive things happen in the world — and to acknowledge negotiators who overcome deadlocks, rather than only those who fail.”
On 12 December 2025, H.E. Mr. Cai-Göran Alexander Stubb, President of the Republic of Finland, paid an official visit to the International Criminal Court (ICC), accompanied by his spouse, Ms. Suzanne Innes-Stubb. The Finnish delegation was received by ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane and ICC Registrar Mr. Osvaldo Zavala Giler.
During the visit, Judge Akane expressed her appreciation to President Stubb for Finland’s steadfast support of the Court, including its generous contributions to the Trust Fund for Victims. She underlined the crucial role of the ICC within the current international order and emphasized that sustained support from States Parties remains essential for the Court to effectively fulfil its judicial mandate.
President Stubb’s visit underscored Finland’s long-standing commitment to international justice and the collective efforts to combat impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. Finland signed the Rome Statute on 7 October 1998 and deposited its instrument of ratification on 12 May 2003.
At the age of 100, former Prime Minister of Malaysia Dr. Tun Mahathir Mohamad is still politically active. He keeps a weblog and shares his political views with journalists on a regular basis. When he took office for a second term in 2018, he had to deal with the aftermath of two events that had plunged the nation into mourning: the loss of all crew members and passengers of two Malaysia Airlines Boeing aircraft in 2014. Mahathir holds strong opinions about the cause of these disasters. “MH370 was probably brought down by the Americans.” And: “Why blame Russia and not Russians living in Ukraine for the downing of MH17?” Although critical of Malaysia’s current government, Mahathir praises the investments that are made in the development of the country. “Malaysia believes in peace. We don’t think wars will solve any problem. Malaysia spends only 3 percent of its budget on the military. 60 percent on education. That is our priority.” In 2014 Malaysia Airlines lost two passenger planes. On March 8, flight MH370 went missing on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Investigators found that less than an hour after the departure of the Boeing, its communications systems were turned off. Military radar then revealed the aircraft had turned back across Malaysia, skirted the island of Penang, and headed towards the northern tip of Sumatra.
Some 26 countries joined the search and rescue mission that followed the disappearance, but could find nothing. On July 17, flight MH17, which had departed from Amsterdam and was heading towards Kuala Lumpur, was shot down over Eastern Ukraine, where at that time a war was raging between the Ukrainian army and pro-Russian insurgents. The criminal investigation into the downing of the Boeing was led by a team of Dutch, Belgian, Australian, Ukrainian and Malaysian police officers and prosecutors – the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). In 2016 the JIT concluded that MH17 was downed from rebel-held territory by a Buk air defence system from Russia.
In 2022 the The Hague District court sentenced two Russians and one Ukrainian for having ordered and transported the Buk. The main culprits, those who shot down the plane, are still at large. The JIT assumes they are hiding in circles of the 53rd anti-aircraft brigade in Kursk, Russia. A Buk from that brigade allegedly crossed the border into Ukraine with crew on July 17, 2014, where it fired the fatal missile the same day. However, the JIT admitted that it had failed to identify those who pulled the trigger and gave the shooting order. It also admitted that it did not know why the plane was shot down.
In 2023 the JIT announced that it had halted the investigation. In 2025 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) passed judgment. Unlike the District Court of The Hague, the ECHR stated that it did not know whether a Russian crew had fired the fatal missile. It could also have been pro-Russian insurgents. However, the ECHR considered this irrelevant. According to the ECHR, the fatal missile was launched from an area in eastern Ukraine controlled by pro-Russian insurgents. Because the ECHR was convinced that these were directly controlled from Russia, it held the Russian state responsible for the disaster.
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was Prime Minister of Malaysia from 1981 to 2003 and again from 2018 to 2020. Critical statements that he made about the JIT investigation caused some turmoil, especially among family members of the 196 Dutch victims of the MH17 crash. Mahathir ended his last term as Prime Minister when he was 94. In 2022 he lost his seat in Parliament. At the age of 100 he still lives an active life. He keeps himself informed on a daily basis about developments in Malaysia and abroad, and shares his opinions via his weblog thechedet.com. We met with him in his office at the Perdana Foundation in Putrajjaya. the administrative centre of Malaysia.
In 2019, when you were Prime Minister, you criticised the official investigation into the crash. “We see too much politics in it ,” you said. “The idea was not to find out how this happened but seemed to be concentrated on trying to pin it to the Russians.” You made this statement before the MH17 trial had started in the Netherlands and the District Court of The Haghe had reached a verdict. Do you still hold the same opinion or did you change your mind?
During the Second World War, Russia and the Western nations worked together to defeat Germany. But the moment Germany was defeated, then the Western nations decided that the new enemy is Russia. And since then, the opinion about Russia is biased. When you have a court that is obviously manned by people who are actually against Russia, their findings cannot be accepted easily.
So you didn’t change your mind after the Dutch court in 2022 reached a verdict about MH17?
I don’t think it was the Russians who shot down the plane. Shooting down a passenger plane belonging to Malaysia is not something that Russia would do. The missile may have been produced in Russia, but the people who operated the weapon were Russians who lived in Ukraine. You can’t blame Russia for that. You sell weapons to other countries, and if those countries use these weapons, normally you are not blamed. And sometimes mistakes are made. We know that the Americans, for example, shot down an Iranian passenger plane. They claimed that it was a mistake. Why blame Russia and not Russians living in Ukraine for the downing of MH17?
In 2020, at a press conference, you questioned the 9/11 attacks in the United States. You said there was strong evidence they were staged. Do you think MH17 could have been a false flag too?
In the case of the Twin Towers, we note that there was a third tower which was also brought down. The third tower was not hit by any plane. And yet it collapsed just like the other two towers Then there was this plane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon… We didn’t see any trace of the plane, only pictures of the destruction of parts of the Pentagon.
Also, to plan the seizure of four airplanes at the same time and to fly them to hit the Twin Towers… Arabs are not very good at planning such a major complicated operation. The evidence does not show clearly that this was a planned attack by the Arabs.
A Dutch foundation of the family members of the MH17 victims sent you a letter. They accused you of spreading doubt about the investigation of the JIT. Did you respond to their letter?
No. I still maintain that the investigation should have been done by a third party. Certainly, if any findings are put before a court, it must be a court that is not in any way linked to nations making claims over what happened to the plane.
Is this your message to the family members of the victims, or do you have something to add to this?
No, they are entitled to make claims. But they must make claims against the people who actually shot down the plane. It was not Russia. It is more likely to be Russians living in Ukraine.
Your critical remarks about the JIT were at odds with the comments of the Malaysian prosecutor Muhammad Hanafiah bin Zakaria. At a press conference in 2019, he told reporters that the findings were based on extensive investigations and legal research. “We support the findings,” he said.
Whatever may be the Malaysian delegation’s stand, I still maintain that the research was done by people who from the very beginning wanted to implicate Russia and that the shooting down of that plane was done by Russians living in Ukraine.
Can you tell us something about the role Malaysia played in the JIT? Because we haven’t heard much about that in the Western press.
Well, they too may be biased. Because Malaysia, of course, is very pro-Western and against Russia.
There are no concrete things you’ve heard about the role Malaysia played in the criminal investigation?
No, I don’t put much faith in their impartiality. They should not have associated themselves with the European countries which set up the court to pass judgment over the incident.
What is the position of the current Malaysian government on MH17?
The current Malaysian government is not very popular in Malaysia. There are many things that this government has done which are not in favour of Malaysia. They are influenced in some way by America.
The current government supports the verdict of the Dutch court, you think?
Well, that is their stand. But it’s not necessary that everyone agrees with the government’s view.
What happened to flight MH370?
So far there has been no wreckage discovered of MH370. So this plane could have been hijacked by some people for some reason. What is known is that Boeing has the capacity to take over control of a plane in flight. Of course, they have to have some instruments installed. And I was told by a Japanese journalist that this plane has been hijacked. It had landed somewhere, and it may have been taken to pieces, or it may have been taken to other countries. If the plane had crashed, we should have found some evidence, some wreckage floating around. Very extensive searches have been conducted.
Do you think there could be a connection between the loss of MH17 and MH370?
No, I don’t think so, because MH370 was probably brought down by the Americans. I have seen a report long before this happened, a report that the US government had given Boeing the ability to bring down a plane which is flying. And it is very likely that the plane was taken over. To take over a plane and paralyse the whole system is very easy. You just cut off the oxygen supply and the pilots and passengers will all die. And the plane can then land somewhere. Whatever happened after that of course is anybody’s guess.
Have you anything to add to this interview?
Yes, I think when we want to pass judgment, don’t set up a court that is biased. For example, in the case of the Nuremberg Court on the Second World War, the people who were regarded as having committed war crimes, they were tried by a court set up by the victors. It should be a court that is not related to the victors or the losers. It should be an independent court. When the victors set up a court to try the losers, you cannot accept the findings.
We are living in a world that America wants to dominate. America has taken action that is against almost every country in the world. This has subverted the multipolar world. The Americans like wars, and because the Atlantic separates them from Europe, they would be okay with war in Europe.
Immediately after the defeat of Germany, the first thing that the Western nations did was to set up NATO. NATO is a military alliance that excluded Russia and regarded Russia as an enemy. But Russia was your partner before. Why do you have to have an enemy? Europeans must have an enemy at any time. And for the enemy, you have to prepare for war to defend yourself. In the end, you become aggressive. Compare this to China. We in Malaysia have lived with China for 2,000 years. We have never been conquered by them. The Portuguese came here in 1509. Two years later, they came with battleships, with armed merchantmen, and conquered Malacca, Malaysia. So the attitude is different. The Chinese do not conquer, but the Europeans conquer and colonise.
Malaysia believes in peace. We don’t think wars will solve any problem. Wars create problems at great cost. The whole country will be destroyed. So much money is spent now on weapons. This way you can’t concentrate on development. Malaysia spends only 3 percent of its budget on the military now. 60 percent on education. That is our priority.
——————
This interview with Dr. Tun Mahathir Mohamad took place on December 24, 2025. On January 6, 2026, he was admitted to the hospital after suffering a hip fracture following a fall at his residence. The centenarian fell while doing his normal morning exercise of brisk walking, according to Mahathir’s son, Mukhriz, who added that doctors ruled out surgery due to his age and therefore his recovery may take longer.
Christian Daily International(08.01.2026) – A Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) drone strike on Dec. 25 killed at least 11 Christians on their way to Christmas celebrations in South Kordofan state, Sudan, sources said.
In addition to the 11 Christians killed, at least 18 other people were seriously wounded in the attack on congregation members making their way to the Episcopal Church of Sudan in Julud (Biyam Jald area) on Christmas morning, said an area Christian attorney.
“The church [building] was not hit, but a congregation who were marching in procession towards the church were targeted,” the attorney told Morning Star News, requesting anonymity.
The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-North), which has joined the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in its fight against the SAF, and the Foundation Alliance reported that 12 civilians were killed and 19 others injured in the SAF strike on the “Biyam Jald” area in South Kordofan state, according to the Sudan Tribune. The area is controlled by the SPLM-North.
“The drone targeted civilians who were celebrating Christmas,” the SPLM reported. The attack follows a Nov. 29 drone attack by the SAF targeting a medical clinic center in the Kumi area of South Kordofan state that reportedly killed 12 people and injured 19 others, including children and women. Another drone strike on Dec. 5 targeted Ghadeer locality, Kalogi, South Kordofan, killing more than 10 children ages 5 to 7 inside a kindergarten, according to the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
Conditions in Sudan have worsened since civil war that broke out between the RSF and the SAF in April 2023. Sudan registered increases in the number of Christians killed and sexually assaulted and Christian homes and businesses attacked, according to Open Doors’ 2025 World Watch List (WWL) report.
“Christians of all backgrounds are trapped in the chaos, unable to flee. Churches are shelled, looted and occupied by the warring parties,” the report stated. Both the RSF and the SAF are Islamist forces that have attacked displaced Christians on accusations of supporting the other’s combatants. Sudan is 93 percent Muslim, with adherents of ethnic traditional religion 4.3 percent of the population, while Christians constitute 2.3 percent, according to Joshua Project.
The conflict between the RSF and the SAF, which had shared military rule in Sudan following an October 2021 coup, has terrorized civilians in Khartoum and elsewhere, killing tens of thousands and displacing more than 12 million people within and beyond Sudan’ borders, according to the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights (UNCHR).
The SAF’s Gen. Abdelfattah al-Burhan and his then-vice president, RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, were in power when civilian parties in March 2023 agreed on a framework to re-establish a democratic transition the next month, but disagreements over military structure torpedoed final approval.
Burhan sought to place the RSF – a paramilitary outfit with roots in the Janjaweed militias that had helped former strongman Bashir put down rebels – under the regular army’s control within two years, while Dagolo would accept integration within nothing fewer than 10 years.
Both military leaders have Islamist backgrounds while trying to portray themselves to the international community as pro-democracy advocates of religious freedom. Sudan was ranked No. 5 among the 50 countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian in Open Doors’ 2025 World Watch List (WWL), down from No. 8 the prior year. Sudan had dropped out of the top 10 of the WWL list for the first time in six years when it first ranked No. 13 in 2021.
Following two years of advances in religious freedom in Sudan after the end of the Islamist dictatorship under Bashir in 2019, the specter of state-sponsored persecution returned with the military coup of Oct. 25, 2021. After Bashir was ousted from 30 years of power in April 2019, the transitional civilian-military government had managed to undo some sharia (Islamic law) provisions. It outlawed the labeling of any religious group “infidels” and thus effectively rescinded apostasy laws that made leaving Islam punishable by death.
With the Oct. 25, 2021 coup, Christians in Sudan feared the return of the most repressive and harsh aspects of Islamic law. The U.S. State Department in 2019 removed Sudan from the list of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) that engage in or tolerate “systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom” and upgraded it to a watch list. Sudan had previously been designated as a CPC from 1999 to 2018.
In December 2020, the State Department removed Sudan from its Special Watch List.
A three-year, complex cross-border investigation into the murder of a 26-year-old man has been concluded by a joint investigation team (JIT) of Italian and Slovenian authorities coordinated by Eurojust. Two Italian suspects, who were minors at the time of the murder, are facing criminal proceedings after DNA analysis in both countries confirmed a match between the biological traces and the two individuals.
On 11 January 2022, a passer-by discovered a lifeless body in a border area between Gorizia, Italy and Nova Gorica, Slovenia. The passer-by alerted Italian emergency services, and as the body was found a few metres beyond the Slovenian border, Slovenian authorities were immediately involved. Initial investigations revealed that the death had occurred the previous evening and was caused by multiple stab wounds. In the meantime, Italian and Slovenian authorities started focusing their investigation on two Italian juvenile suspects with no prior criminal records.
As authorities initiated a complex investigation spanning two countries, a JIT was set up at Eurojust to enable real-time exchange of information and evidence and enable both authorities to take action in both countries. To ensure the investigations were aligned, multiple meetings took place at Eurojust with police and prosecutors from both countries.
Over 270 interviews were conducted, and data from electronic devices and surveillance footage were requested and analysed. Through the JIT at Eurojust, the suspects’ residences were searched, the suspects were interviewed and biological traces were collected and analysed.
In 2024, the authorities found substantial evidence against the suspects, including a DNA match between the suspects and the biological traces found. Following these findings, the suspects were subject to precautionary measures, including a ban on leaving Italy. In recent days, the joint investigation concluded with the notification that the preliminary investigations and the final interviews of the involved individuals had been completed. The suspects will now face trial in Italy, pending a final judgment by the court.
Eurojust, in particular, facilitated the cooperation between the following authorities:
Italy: Public Prosecutor Office at the Juvenile Court of Trieste; Mobile Squad – Italian State Police Headquarter of Gorizia
Slovenia: District State Prosecutor’s Office in Nova Gorica; Police Directorate, Criminal Police Sector in Nova Gorica
In today’s interconnected and unpredictable world, no government, corporation, or public institution is immune to crisis. Natural disasters, cyber-attacks, economic shocks, public scandals, and misinformation campaigns can emerge suddenly, threatening stability, credibility, and public confidence. For leaders, particularly in the Global South, where governance systems often face chronic resource constraints, limited institutional capacity, and fragmented decision-making, the ability to manage crises decisively and communicate effectively is not just beneficial, it is essential for survival and legitimacy.
Inspired by the work of luminaries such as Olga Algayerova (former UN Under-Secretary-General), Adnan Shihab-Eldin (former OPEC Secretary-General), Ana Birchall (former Prime Minister Deputy) and Dimitris Avramopoulos (former EU Commissioner), as well as Brussels-based specialists like Anna Meusburger – to mentioned but few, the following lines examine the core principles of crisis management and crisis communication, as outlined by the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) under the guidance of Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević and Dr. Philipe Reinisch. Their framework aims to strengthen leadership capacity and institutional resilience in these critical areas, particularly in contexts where public institutions and key private sectors are under pressure from unforeseen events, rapid socio-economic and technological change and weaker institutional infrastructures.
Understanding Crisis Management
Crisis management involves preparing for, responding to, and recovering from unexpected events that disrupt operations or threaten an organization’s reputation. It is not merely reactive; it encompasses systems and practices that allow leaders to anticipate risks, act decisively, and recover with minimal damage. In the Global South, these crises often intersect with systemic challenges, including limited technological infrastructure, uneven regulatory oversight, and vulnerabilities in public service delivery.
Crisis management typically unfolds in three stages: Preparation, Response, and Recovery. The preparation stage occurs before a crisis, encompassing risk identification, vulnerability assessment, emergency planning, and staff training. In many Global South contexts, preparation also requires prioritizing low-cost, high-impact interventions that can compensate for limited resources.
Response involves swift actions during the crisis to protect people, assets, and reputation. Recovery focuses on learning lessons, repairing relationships, and rebuilding trust after the occurrence of the crisis. In contexts where public trust may already be fragile, recovery strategies must prioritize transparent communication and visible accountability to reinforce institutional legitimacy.
A notable illustration of effective crisis management is Johnson & Johnson’s response to the 1982 Tylenol poisoning incident. The company withdrew products nationwide, communicated transparently, and prioritized public safety over profit. Although prior preparation was limited, the effectiveness of the response and recovery phases transformed a potential catastrophe into a benchmark of responsible corporate leadership.
Similarly, Iceland’s management of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption demonstrates effective governance under pressure. Rapid coordination, clear public communication, and strong international cooperation enabled Iceland to mitigate disruption while maintaining public confidence. These cases underscore the assertion that preparedness, transparent communication, and decisive action form the backbone of successful crisis management. However, the author notes that while these two cases offer universal lessons, leaders in the Global South often face additional constraints, such as fragmented governance structures and weaker emergency coordination networks, that make even straightforward interventions challenging.
Conversely, several high-profile crises illustrate the consequences of poor preparation and flawed communication. The 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill was exacerbated not only by technical failures but also by slow, inconsistent messaging, which undermined public trust and escalated reputational damage. The 2015 Volkswagen “Dieselgate” scandal revealed how delayed, hesitant responses to internal ethical lapses can escalate into global reputational crises. The 2003 European heatwave, which caused over 15,000 deaths in France, highlighted the fatal consequences of inadequate preparation and weak public communication.
Effectively, these examples show that strong crisis management and communication are foundational to building resilience, especially in the Global South. Clarifying roles, improving collaboration, and accessing reliable data must be prioritized to avoid confusion, delays, and reputational damage during crises.
Understanding Crisis Communication Management
Crisis communication is the public-facing dimension of crisis management. It involves how institutions convey information to citizens, partners, investors, employees, and the media during moments of uncertainty. The tone, timing, and clarity of communication often determine whether one recovers swiftly or suffers long-term loss of public trust. In the Global South, effective communication is often complicated by limited media penetration, low public literacy rates, and rapid spread of misinformation via informal channels, making clarity and credibility even more critical.
Effective crisis communication relies on four principles:
Clarity – Messages must be precise, consistent, and free of technical jargon.
Credibility – Communication should be truthful, evidence-based, and transparent. Misleading information erodes trust.
Empathy – Leaders must acknowledge the human and social impact of crises.
Timeliness – Information should be shared early and regularly, even if all facts are not yet known. Silence fosters uncertainty, which fuels fear and rumor.
In the age of social media, where misinformation spreads rapidly, these principles are more crucial than ever. Timely, transparent communication is both an ethical imperative and a strategic necessity. For Global South leaders, these principles must be adapted to resource-constrained and socially diverse environments, where miscommunication can quickly exacerbate public fear and distrust.
The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) offers guidance for tailoring communication strategies to the type of crisis. External crises, such as natural disasters, require empathy and solidarity, whereas internal failures, such as negligence or corruption, demand accountability, apology, and corrective action. In all cases, actions and messages must align: strong communication reinforces effective decisions, but cannot compensate for poor ones. In contexts where institutional failures are magnified by systemic resource limitations, SCCT principles must be applied with pragmatic sensitivity to local capacity and public expectations.
Integrating Management and Communication
Crisis management and communication are inseparable: management determines what an organization does, while communication shapes how it explains and justifies those actions. When the two are disconnected, confusion spreads, and public trust erodes. This dynamic is especially pronounced in the Global South, where multiple ministries, local governments, and private actors must coordinate within often fragmented systems. Here, communication acts as the critical connective tissue, ensuring coherence in both action and messaging.
An example illustrating this principle is the BP oil spill. The technical teams worked diligently, but insensitive leadership statements exacerbated public outrage. In contrast, New Zealand’s response to the 2019 Christchurch shootings showed how empathetic, transparent communication can strengthen societal cohesion and earn international respect.
The stakes are particularly high in the Global South. Effective crisis response depends on coordination among ministries, public agencies, private actors, and communities. Communication is essential not only for conveying decisions but also for aligning diverse actors and scarce resources, while maintaining credibility under intense public scrutiny. The author argues that crisis preparedness should be viewed as a strategic investment rather than a cost, as it prevents far greater losses associated with delayed or uncoordinated responses.
The Role of GAFG
The Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) provides tailored support to governments, institutions, and corporations. Through capacity-building, advisory services, and leadership development, GAFG strengthens your crisis management and communication capabilities.
GAFG’s mission is to build better governance systems for the future, helping leaders anticipate challenges, respond effectively, and maintain credibility during turbulent times. This is realized through training, leadership development, advisory services, and international networking.
a. Capacity Building and Training
GAFG’s executive programs integrate academic insights with practical simulations to enable leaders to:
Build crisis response systems within ministries, agencies, or companies.
Develop crisis communication protocols and leadership messaging.
Coordinate responses across multiple stakeholders.
Communicate calmly, credibly, and compassionately during emergencies.
b. Advisory and Strategic Support
GAFG provides direct advisory services, helping organizations:
Design crisis management frameworks tailored to local realities.
Establish crisis communication offices or spokesperson systems.
Create early-warning and response mechanisms linking operational, reputational, and communication responses.
Review and improve governance structures post-crisis to rebuild trust and resilience.
In many parts of the Global South, where responsiveness is low and institutional coordination is often fragmented, these advisory services provide the clarity and structure necessary to act effectively under pressure.
c. Leadership Development and Global Networking
Through programs like the Future Governance Leadership Programme, GAFG connects leaders across the Global South. These programs foster peer learning, expert mentorship, and international cooperation. This network helps leaders gain context-specific strategies for both crisis management and communication.
d. Cost-Saving and Value Creation
Crisis preparedness is not an expense but an investment. Political fallout, social disruption, environmental damage, and reputational loss are far more costly than prevention. Capacity building and credible communication reduce long-term risks while enhancing resilience. In Global South contexts, early preparedness prevents disproportionately high political, social, and financial costs due to weak institutional barriers.
Building a Culture of Preparedness – Reputational Crisis Resilience
Investing in crisis management and communication is not optional but necessary. For governments and corporations in the Global South, where institutional fragility can amplify the impact of crises, embedding a culture of readiness is critical for legitimacy and social stability.
With support from the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG), leaders gain the knowledge, frameworks, and networks required to anticipate, manage, and communicate effectively in moments of uncertainty. Such preparation is not a cost but an investment that reduces the political, social, financial, and ethical consequences of poor decisions, delays, or miscommunication. Importantly, it also strengthens resilience against reputational crises, which can be severe, persistent, and deeply damaging to long-term public trust. This proactive approach is particularly vital in resource-constrained environments, where delayed responses can rapidly escalate into political, social, or reputational crises.
Embedding preparedness into governance and corporate culture enables institutions to enhance responsiveness, safeguard legitimacy, and ensure continuity even in the face of unexpected challenges. Organisations that cultivate a culture of readiness do not merely survive crises; they learn from them, adapt, and emerge stronger, transforming potential threats into opportunities for resilience and sustainable value creation.
Crisis management concerns what an organisation does. Crisis communication concerns how the organisation explains what it does. Together, they form the foundation of credible and competent leadership.
In regions where governance systems may lack responsiveness and resources can be limited, effective crisis leadership depends on preparation, knowledge, and moral authority. Through training, advisory support, and international networking, GAFG equips decision-makers with the tools required to lead responsibly under pressure.
Engaging with GAFG is not an expenditure — it is an investment in institutional resilience. Crises are inherently costly: financially, socially, politically, environmentally, and ethically. Poor crisis handling often leads to reputational crises, whose consequences can be long-lasting and damaging to public confidence and stakeholder relationships. Preparedness reduces risks, preserves trust, and prevents avoidable losses.
By supporting leaders in contexts with systemic governance challenges, GAFG transforms reactive crisis handling into proactive resilience, turning potential threats into opportunities for strengthened institutions and sustainable governance.
About the author:
Silvie Drahošová
Silvie Drahošová is a Vienna-based, Central European University fellow (CEU Culture, Politics, and Society) with experience in research, strategy, communications, and project coordination across international organizations.
She recently joined the GAFG as a Project and Information Officer, where she supports research activities, conference development, and stakeholder engagement. Silvie is fluent in Czech, English, German, and proficient in French. Her work is driven by a strong interest in sustainability, youth engagement, and fostering initiatives that strengthen dialogue across cultures and institutions.
A quiet but growing frustration is emerging in contemporary international relations. It is increasingly referred to as ‘International Law Fatigue’, a condition in which states recognise the existence of international legal rules but question their authority due to arbitrary and selective application. This fatigue does not indicate a rejection of law in general. Rather, it indicates a growing scepticism about whether international law still serves as a truly protective framework, or if it has become subservient to power and political expedience.
International law was never intended to get rid of politics. Its purpose, as illustrated by the United Nations Charter, treaty obligations, and customary international law, was to balance political dominance by formulating common rules of conduct. For many states, particularly those with limited military or economic power, these rules provide some predictability and protection. Inconsistent application of legal norms causes more than just doctrinal damage. It undermines trust in the system as a whole. International law fatigue occurs when states demonstrate consistent compliance while similar obligations are ignored elsewhere with little consequence.
Consider the practice of recognising breakaway or contested territories. International law does not forbid recognition, but it embeds it within principles such as territorial integrity and non-intervention. When recognition decisions seem driven by strategic calculations rather than consistent legal criteria, it creates uncertainty. Smaller and medium-sized states, in particular, fear that the selective application of these norms could weaken the protection that maintains national and regional stability. Inconsistent precedents, even if quietly accepted, can accumulate over time, eroding confidence in legal frameworks that were meant to protect all states equally.
Treaties illustrate a similar pattern. Agreements codified under instruments like the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are intended to be binding and performed in good faith. Yet when obligations are suspended or reinterpreted for political convenience, and international responses are slow or muted, trust begins to be shattered. States may start to ask themselves: if compliance carries cost but violations are tolerated for others, why adhere strictly to agreements? This perception fuels fatigue and can weaken the very rules designed to provide predictability.
At a structural level, international law relies on coercion than on shared expectations. States comply not because sanctions are guaranteed, but because predictable behaviour benefits everyone. When powerful actors appear insulted by consequences, these expectations reode. Legal norms then risk becoming rhetorical, invoked when convenient, ignored when inconvenient. The result is a system in which obligations are unevenly distributed, and the stability that law is meant to ensure begins to fray.
International law fatigue is not about rejecting norms. It is a warning sign. Persistent inconsistency pushes states towards unilateral actions, informal arrangements, or regional solutions, all of which carry higher risks of tension and conflict. Smaller and medium-sized states may feel particularly vulnerable, as the protection law is supposed to provide seems negotiable. In this environment, legal compliance is no longer just a duty; it has become a strategic calculation which weighs against the likelihood that others will follow suit.
The challenges are visible in multiple areas, from treaty compliance and humanitarian law to the regulation of contested territories. States that rely on law to stabilise borders, manage shared resources, or resolve disputes peacefully find that selective enforcement undermines these very protections. Over time, this can shift the focus from the law as a stabilising tool to law as a political instrument which can easily be invoked when convenient.
Yet international law fatigue is not inevitable. It is a symptom of selective application, uneven enforcement, and the perception that powerful actors can flout rules with little consequence. If addressed early, it can be managed through consistent adherence, transparent decision-making. And multilateral coordination. Upholding law consistently is not a moralistic exercise; it is a practical necessity for stability, predictability, and trust in international affairs.
The question facing the international community is whether states are willing to defend legal constraints even when doing so limits their political freedom. A rules-based order cannot survive if rules operate differently depending on influence, power, or strategic convenience. If legal norms are applied unevenly, trust diminishes, states may disengage, and international law risks being reduced to a language of convenience.
The stakes are not abstract. When the law is perceived as uneven or unreliable, disputes are more likely to be resolved through unilateral action or informal arrangements, increasing the risk of instability. Conversely, when states uphold shared norms consistently, even in politically inconvenient situations, law demonstrates its value not as an idealistic abstraction, but as a stabilising force.
Ultimately, international law fatigue is a warning, but it is also an opportunity. It reminds states and international organisations that the credibility of legal rules depends on consistent application. Law cannot be treated as optional or negotiable without undermining the very order it is meant to protect. For diplomats, policymakers, and practitioners, the challenge is clear: ensure that international law remains binding, consistent, and meaningful. Only then can the rules-based international system continue to provide the predictability and stability on which all states, large and small, depend.
About the author:
Ayesha Asim
Ayesha Asim, PhD Scholar in law and LLM International Law Analyst, lecturer, and extensive experience in legal research, advisory, policy analysis and teaching.
Authorities from the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine with the support of Eurojust took action against a criminal network operating call centres in Dnipro, Ivano-Frankivsk and Kyiv, Ukraine that scammed victims across Europe. The criminal group established a professional organisation with employees who received a percentage of the proceeds for each completed scam. The estimated damage to more than 400 known victims is over EUR 10 million.
The fraudsters used various scams, such as posing as police officers to withdraw money using their victims’ cards and details, or pretending that their victims’ bank accounts had been hacked. They convinced their victims to transfer large sums of money from their ‘compromised’ bank accounts to ‘safe’ bank accounts controlled by the network. They also lured victims into downloading remote access software and entering their banking details, enabling the criminal group to access and control the victims’ bank accounts.
The criminal network recruited their employees from the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and other countries and brought them to their call centres in Dnipro, Ivano-Frankivsk and Kyiv to extort money from victims in these and other European countries. Members of the criminal group had different roles in the organisation, ranging from making calls and forging official certificates from the police and banks to collecting cash from their victims. Investigations showed that around 100 people from different European countries worked in the call centres.
Employees who successfully obtained money from their victims would receive up to 7% of the proceeds to encourage them to continue the scam. If callers obtained more than EUR 100 000 in proceeds, the criminal leaders promised bonuses such as cash, a new car or an apartment in Kyiv. However, these bonuses were never distributed as the employees never reached this goal.
A joint investigation team was set up at Eurojust to ensure smooth and efficient cooperation between the authorities. The authorities met at the Agency’s premises in The Hague three times to share information and plan actions to dismantle the call centres in Ukraine. Financial support from Eurojust enabled authorities from the Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania to join the action day in Ukraine and work together with their Ukrainian counterparts.
On 9 December, a total of 72 searches in three cities were carried out in Ukraine. Offices, residences and vehicles were searched where items were seized such as forged police officers and bank employee ID’s, computers, laptops, hard drives and mobile phones and a polygraph machine. Authorities also seized cash, 21 vehicles and various weapons and ammunition. Twelve suspects were arrested during the action day on 9 December. During the entire investigations in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine, 45 people have been identified as suspects.
The actions were carried out by the following authorities:
Czech Republic: Municipal Public Prosecutor´s Office Prague; National Counter Terrorism; Extremism and Cyber Crime agency; Criminal Police and Investigation Service
Latvia: Municipal Public Prosecutor´s Office Prague; National Counter Terrorism; Extremism and Cyber Crime agency; Criminal Police and Investigation Serviceof the Central Criminal Police Department of the State Police of Latvia
Lithuania: Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office; Vilnius County Police Headquarters
Ukraine: Prosecutor General’s Office; National Police of Ukraine
