Women Leading Regional Diplomacy: Panama’s Coordination of GRULAC in the Netherlands
The first semester of 2026 marked an important chapter for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. As Panama assumed the coordination of the Group from Mexico on 1 January, it did so with a commitment to continuity, cooperation, and the strengthening of ties between Latin America and the Caribbean and one of Europe’s most dynamic centres of diplomacy, innovation, and international governance.
The transition was supported by the close collaboration of the GRULAC Troika, composed of H.E. Ms. Carmen Moreno Toscano, Ambassador of Mexico; H.E. Ms. Sally Loo Hui, Ambassador of Panama; and H.E. Ms. Franca Deza Ferreccio, Ambassador of Peru. Together, they ensured the continuity of ongoing initiatives while advancing new opportunities for engagement with Dutch institutions, international organizations, academia, and the private sector.
The semester also represented a notable milestone in diplomatic representation. The coordination and institutional continuity of GRULAC were guided by an all-female Troika, reflecting the growing role of women in international affairs and demonstrating the value of inclusive leadership in advancing regional priorities.
One of the most significant achievements of the semester was the strengthening of economic diplomacy through the Latin America and Caribbean Business Dialogue. Conceived as a platform for practical engagement between Latin American and Caribbean countries and the Netherlands, the initiative brought together ambassadors, policymakers, business leaders, academics, and sector experts to explore opportunities for cooperation and investment.
Discussions focused on areas of strategic importance, including water management, infrastructure, ports and logistics, energy, strategic materials, agribusiness, advanced manufacturing technologies, and economic free zones. By creating a space where public- and private-sector stakeholders could exchange perspectives and identify areas of mutual interest, the Dialogue reinforced the region’s position as a strategic partner for sustainable investment, innovation, and economic growth.
The promotion of connectivity also formed part of this broader economic agenda. Engagements with representatives of Air Europa explored opportunities to increase the visibility of Latin American and Caribbean destinations and strengthen links between the two regions through tourism and commercial exchanges.
Science diplomacy and climate resilience constituted another major pillar of Panama’s coordination. Building on initiatives launched during Mexico’s tenure, GRULAC organized the Forum for Dialogue, Water Science: Applications for Development and Business for Latin America and the Caribbean, which highlighted the role of scientific knowledge and technological innovation in addressing development challenges and generating economic opportunities.
The forum demonstrated how water science can serve as a bridge between research, policymaking, and business development while also fostering collaboration between Dutch institutions and countries across the region. These efforts were complemented by exchanges with Deltares, one of the Netherlands’ leading centres of expertise in water and climate adaptation, and with Dialectik, a Dutch organization specializing in socio-ecological intelligence for climate resilience. Together, these initiatives underscored the growing importance of science-based cooperation in addressing shared environmental challenges.
Knowledge exchange and capacity building remained central to the GRULAC agenda. Presentations and dialogues with Dutch institutions and experts provided valuable opportunities to deepen understanding of issues ranging from migration governance and the European Union Asylum Pact to circular economy practices, international education, and academic cooperation.
Among these exchanges was a presentation by Dr. Aniel Pahladsingh, Senior Lawyer at the Legal and Litigation Department of the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Deputy Judge at the District Courts of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, who provided insights into contemporary European migration and asylum policies. Additional engagements with the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), the T.M.C. Asser Institute, the Holland Alumni Network, and the GoAbroad Fair further strengthened connections between the region and Dutch institutions in the fields of education, governance, sustainability, and professional development.
GRULAC Ambassadors also participated in a strategic dialogue with The Hague Institute for Geopolitics, which provided an updated assessment of political developments in the Netherlands and their potential implications at the national and European levels. Such exchanges highlighted the importance of understanding the political and institutional environment of the host country in order to strengthen diplomatic engagement.
Consular cooperation likewise remained an important component of the Group’s activities. Through collaboration with SHOP Den Haag and a visit to Casa Migrante Amsterdam, GRULAC consular representatives exchanged experiences and gained valuable insights into the protection and support of vulnerable populations, including issues related to human trafficking, sex work, migrant integration, and social assistance. These initiatives demonstrated the practical value of regional cooperation in addressing shared consular challenges.
As the international city of peace and justice, The Hague offers unique opportunities for dialogue with organizations and institutions that shape global governance. Throughout the semester, GRULAC Ambassadors engaged with key actors in the international legal and multilateral system, including the President of the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court, the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the Registrar of the International Court of Justice.
These exchanges reaffirmed the longstanding commitment of Latin American and Caribbean countries to international law, multilateralism, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. The semester also included a farewell luncheon in honour of the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, H.E. Fernando Arias, recognizing his contribution to international peace and security and the strong relationship maintained between the Organisation and the countries of the region.
Panama’s coordination of GRULAC during the first semester of 2026 demonstrated the value of continuity, collaboration, and collective leadership. Through the combined efforts of Mexico, Peru, and Panama within the Troika framework, the Group advanced a dynamic agenda that strengthened political dialogue, promoted economic and scientific cooperation, expanded institutional partnerships, and reinforced engagement with the international community.
Above all, the semester illustrated how regional cooperation can translate into concrete opportunities for innovation, knowledge sharing, and sustainable development. Guided by a shared vision and strengthened by inclusive leadership, GRULAC continued to build bridges between Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, contributing to a more connected and collaborative international environment.
One year of contribution, inspiration and excellence
Celebrating one year of
Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG)
Governance has acquired a curious habit; it talks incessantly about the future while preparing remarkably badly for it. Governments issue strategies, companies publish transformation plans, universities produce forecasts and consultants manufacture acronyms at an industrial scale. Yet the machinery for deciding what matters, what can wait and what may become disastrously expensive remains surprisingly weak.
That is where the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) makes a persuasive proposition. Its central idea, that better governance depends on improving methods, means and mindsets (the ‘3Ms’), sounds almost disarmingly simple. Its importance lies precisely there. Modern problems are rarely caused by a shortage of information; they are caused by institutions that cannot connect information to judgement.
GAFG’s first virtue is its refusal to respect the fashionable boundaries between disciplines. Climate change is not merely an environmental question; artificial intelligence is not merely a technology question; migration is not merely a border question; and development is not merely an economic one. Each is an unruly mixture of economics, politics, science, ethics, security and human behaviour. Policymakers who insist on putting such problems into tidy boxes are not being rigorous, they are being convenient.
GAFG’s five-dimensional view – land, sea, airspace, near outer space and cyberspace – is similarly useful. The modern world does not operate in compartments. A satellite disruption can affect a port; a cyberattack can interrupt electricity; a drought can alter food prices, migration and political stability thousands of kilometres away. The serious task of governance is therefore less about predicting isolated events than understanding connections.
There is also something refreshing in GAFG’s scepticism about technological hype. The world does not need another institution shouting that every new algorithm will revolutionise everything. Markets are perfectly capable of doing that without assistance. What decision-makers need today is someone prepared to ask the unfashionable questions: Does this technology solve a real problem? Who pays for its unintended consequences? What happens to workers, institutions, ecosystems and public trust? And who benefits when the promised revolution turns out to be mostly a press release?
That emphasis matters especially in the Global South. Development cannot sensibly be measured by the number of digital platforms deployed, data centres constructed or glossy innovation districts opened. Economic progress that leaves societies more unequal, ecosystems more damaged or institutions less capable is not progress with a footnote, it is progress on credit.
GAFG’s claim that it is a partner rather than an expenditure is therefore more than positioning. Good foresight is cheap compared with bad decisions. A government that avoids one failed programme, a company that detects one strategic risk early, or an institution that prevents one costly ethical or environmental mistake – before the bill for unintended consequences eventually arrives – may recover its investment many times over.
The real test, however, will be whether GAFG can remain as independent in practice as it is ambitious in principle. Neutrality is valuable only when it survives pressure from clients, politics, fashionable technologies and commercial interests.
After one year, the strongest case for the Global Academy for Future Governance is not that it possesses a crystal ball, but that it recognises the future’s most dangerous feature: everything is connected. Better methods, adequate means and wiser mindsets may not guarantee excellent governance, but without them, excellence is mostly branding and the future is too expensive to leave to slogans.
Thanos Kalamidas, Editor-in-Chief OVI Magazine
International Human Rights in Domestic Courts
Interview with Catarina Vieira
Human Rights Begin in Everyday Life: MEP Catarina Vieira on Why Europe Must Match Its Values with Action
By Aleksandra Osina, Charahja van Broekhoven, Peace Ojoma Idoko, Taeyun Kim, Longrui Deng, Lauren van Laarhoven-Hargreaves, Ayat Gadri Sa’eed Alkhdour.
Human rights are often discussed as legal principles, international treaties or courtroom debates. Yet for Member of the European Parliament Catarina Vieira, they are far more than abstract concepts. They are the foundation of daily life and the measure of whether governments truly serve their people.
Born in Portugal in 1996 and elected to the European Parliament in June 2024 on the joint GroenLinks-PvdA list, Vieira serves on the Committee on International Trade and the Subcommittee on Human Rights. Her work connects global trade with human rights, focusing particularly on Latin America and Africa, where issues, such as labour exploitation, rural poverty and unfair supply chains remain pressing challenges.
For Vieira, human rights are universal entitlements that belong to every person simply because they are human. Access to food, education, healthcare, equality, freedom from discrimination and the right to life should never depend on where someone lives, their income or their background. Governments, she mentions, have the primary responsibility to protect these rights through fair legislation, inclusive public services and policies, that reduce inequality rather than deepen it.
She warns that unequal access to education and healthcare continues to disadvantage people living in rural communities, migrants and other vulnerable groups. A strong democracy, she believes, is one, that guarantees equal opportunities for everyone without exception.
Migration remains one of the most sensitive issues, facing Europe today. Vieira is critical of deportation policies, that return people to countries, where their safety cannot be guaranteed. For her, this is not only a legal question, but also a moral one. Europe cannot claim to defend human rights, while exposing vulnerable people to serious risks.
She also highlights the growing gap between the promises of international law and the realities people experience every day. Rather than lowering human rights standards, Vieira believes political leaders must show greater courage in applying them consistently across national and European policies.
Her message is clear. Human rights are not distant ideals, reserved for legal experts. They influence the food on our tables, the conditions under which products are made and the protection offered to those seeking safety. Ultimately, democracy is judged not by the promises it makes, but by how well it protects those who need it most.
About the authors:
This article is produced by Aleksandra Osina, Charahja van Broekhoven, Peace Ojoma Idoko, Taeyun Kim, Longrui Deng, Lauren van Laarhoven-Hargreaves, Ayat Gadri Sa’eed Alkhdour, participants in the Bright Future Foundation, as part of the European Union’s “Participate & Promote Democracy” Youth Participation project, in cooperation with Diplomat Magazine, Embassy of the Netherlands in Armenia and young members of the Armenian partner organization Promising Youth.
TECH – MIND – HEALTH
Beyond Technology: Preserving Humanity in the Age of AI
The unprecedented acceleration of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies has fundamentally transformed the conditions under which humanity lives, governs, communicates, and understands itself – something I was writing about extensively for more than two decades . Yet the principal challenge of the digital age does not lie in the increasing sophistication of algorithms, computational power, or autonomous systems. Rather, it lies in humanity’s diminishing capacity to guide technological development through reflective awareness, ethical judgment, and responsibility.
Humans, technology, and nature exist within a relationship of profound interdependence in which every technological innovation reshapes the social, ecological, cognitive, and political conditions of human existence – thus confirming the central premise of the so-called anthropotechniques[1]. Consequently, the contemporary digital crisis is ultimately not a crisis of technology, but a crisis of consciousness – as this author noted long ago, describing the “cognitive deficit crisis”[2].
Human development can therefore no longer be measured solely through economic growth, productivity, or computational capability. It must equally be evaluated through the quality of human consciousness, mental well-being, ecological sustainability, social cohesion, cross-generational contents and solidarities, as well as other formats of equity and justice, to the very preservation of life in all its forms.
The chapters collected in this volume approach these questions from different disciplinary perspectives, yet they converge on one essential conclusion: technology must remain an instrument of human development rather than becoming the measure of humanity itself. The decisive question of our age is therefore not what technology can accomplish, but what humanity is capable of becoming through its responsible use.
More than seven centuries before the emergence of modern science, Jalal ad-Din Rumi reminded humanity that existence cannot be confined to the visible and the material, warning against the illusion that external forms alone constitute reality. Centuries later, Max Planck, whose discoveries inaugurated the quantum revolution, questioned the mechanistic worldview of classical science and argued that consciousness occupies a fundamental place in our understanding of reality. Although emerging from entirely different intellectual traditions and historical settings, Rumi, Planck and Buddhist philosophy converge in recognising that matter and consciousness cannot be understood as isolated or competing domains. To reduce one to the other—or to imagine that technology may ultimately substitute for human consciousness—is not merely philosophically inadequate but fundamentally contrary to the relational order of nature itself.
This understanding resonates equally with the humanistic philosophy of the post-Second World War European thought, most notably in the works of Erich Fromm, who argued that the highest achievement of civilization is not the accumulation of technical power or material possessions but the realization of the human person. The essential question is therefore not what technology can produce, but what human beings are capable of becoming. Technology derives its legitimacy not from novelty, speed or efficiency, but from its capacity to deepen freedom, cultivate reflective awareness, strengthen solidarity and enable the flourishing of individuals, communities and civilizations.
AI, as well as other forms of digital (over)exposure that is (over)stimulating us, should therefore be understood as nothing else but the latest form of anthropotechnique—one of the techniques through which humanity extends, cultivates and transforms its own capacities. I’ve written several books on this.
The history of civilization is, in essence, the history of anthropotechniques. Their original purpose was survival (through the mechanical solidarity of the group); their ultimate purpose is human (group and individual) self-realization. Such realization is therefore both the purpose and the criterion by which every anthropotechnique—from the first stone tool to AI—must ultimately be judged.
Throughout history, anthropotechniques have served humanity by strengthening its normative orders. Their legitimacy has never resided in technical sophistication itself, but in their contribution to the development of the human person and the advancement of civilization. Whenever technological development ceases to enhance human dignity, autonomy, wisdom, ecological responsibility and intergenerational well-being, and instead promotes dependence, alienation, domination, environmental degradation or the reduction of persons to objects of algorithmic optimisation, it fails its fundamental civilizational purpose. Technology was created to advance humanity; humanity was never created to advance technology.
At this critical civilizational juncture, humanity carries a responsibility extending far beyond the present generation. Our obligation is not merely to innovate, but to preserve the social and generational contract as well as the balance between analogue and digital, between efficient and human, between rational and empathic.
As this author have repeatedly argued in his writings, sustainable development is too often described as ‘any development that meets the entire needs of the present without compromising such needs of the future generations (deprived from hidden – societal, health or environmental costs)’, but maybe more accurate – while shorter, definition would be “any development aimed at the so-called 3Ms: the maximum good for maximum species, over maximum time-space span – comprehensive stewardship.” This principle applies with equal force to AI and to every past, current or emerging anthropotechnique. The 3Ms are therefore not merely a sustainability principle; they constitute the normative criterion by which every anthropotechnique should be evaluated. Technology fulfils its civilizational purpose only when it secures the greatest good for the greatest number of species over the longest possible time-space horizon, while preserving the social contract between contemporaries and the generational contract between present and future generations.
From this perspective, Quantum Buddhism (connecting Technology – Mind – Health; for more, see the author’s works on Geopolitics of Quantum Buddhism) may be understood as one possible ethical-philosophical orientation that restores the missing bridge between matter and spirit, capability and responsibility, science and wisdom – a merge between Newton and Rumi, between Weber and Sartre, between the vehicle and the journey, between colour and rhythm. It neither rejects science nor opposes technological innovation. Rather, it reminds us that technological progress acquires meaning only when directed toward the higher and longer-lasting common good. Science expands knowledge. Technology expands capability. Philosophy cultivates wisdom. A sustainable civilization requires the harmonious balance of all three. And these three require an unrestricted and fair, yet analogue, horizontal and vertical transmission.
If technology is the vehicle through which civilization advances, ethical reflection remains the compass that ensures the journey continues toward humanity rather than away from it. The journey begins with the human being, and its destination is human self-realization.
Ultimately, the future of technology will not be determined by machines but by humanity’s capacity to preserve wisdom alongside knowledge, responsibility alongside power and consciousness alongside innovation. The true measure of technological progress is therefore not whether machines become more intelligent, but whether humanity itself becomes wiser, freer, healthier, more compassionate and en route to its own self-realisation.
Technology is humanity’s greatest invention because of humanity’s unique ability to deploy the mind for abstract thinking. One exists only through the other. If we inherited this world from previous generations, then—even in the best of circumstances—we inherited only half of it; the other half is borrowed from future generations.
Geneva/Vienna, March 2026
Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, GAFG’s co-founder and ABC
About the 4th GAFG eBook:
https://archive.org/details/technology-mind-health-gafg
https://pdfhost.io/v/rN4LPWa99g_Technology__Mind___Health
[1] As anthropotechniques, we should assume the (precognitive and) conscious clustering of different experiences, knowledges, discoveries, patents and the like; its practical application in any human activity (including all modes of horizontal and vertical transmission) aimed at acquiring resources for consumption in space and time by variety of tools and weaponry. As the only compensation for the biological and neurological limitations of humans (inferior to other forms of life on the planet), the anthropotechniques were answering the central pre-cognitive concern of humans: Survival! This is a self-coined definition based on works of prof. Kulic from late 1990 and early 2000, that ever since this author further developed and extensively used in his lectures on the ‘Institutions and Instruments of Sustainable Development’ (chapter: Environmental ethics). As such, the definition is extensive enough to describe the event of first usage of the sharp stone/broken bone by early homo faber all the evolutionary way to the development and deployment of the nuclear bomb.
[2] “…our crisis cannot be environmental, as it was never a financial or security (…) – our crisis must be a moral one”.
Sudan’s Future in the Grip of Competing External “Quartets”
By Willy Fautré, director of Human Rights Without Frontiers
Two different quartets now shape the battle for Sudan’s future. One is a hard‑edged regional bloc—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Iran—pursuing overlapping but by no means identical interests in the Red Sea corridor, political Islam, and regional security. The other is a more awkward concert of Western and multilateral actors—the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and the African Union—drifting towards a lowest‑common‑denominator outcome that restores a familiar interlocutor, even if that means reconciling themselves to the very forces Sudanese protesters tried to eject from power in 2019.
This is not simply diplomatic choreography. It is the frame within which outside powers are trying to close down Sudan’s war as a problem, rather than open up Sudan’s future as a political question. It is also the triumph of expediency and strategic self-interest over the interests and aspirations of a people battered by war and systematic repression.
The Saudi–Egypt–Turkey–Iran quartet operates from a clear premise: Sudan is a strategic asset. Its ports, its airspace, its Islamist networks, its security services and its militias are all potential instruments in wider regional contests. Each member of this group reads the country through its own security lens. For Egypt, the priority is a strong, army‑dominated Sudan that keeps Islamist rivals in check, protects the Nile waters and ensures that no disorder spills catastrophically across its southern frontier. For Saudi Arabia, Sudan is part of a broader belt of vulnerabilities from the Red Sea to the Horn of Africa—a theatre in which Riyadh wants to prevent chaotic state collapse but also to preserve leverage with whichever actors ultimately control territory and coastal infrastructure. Turkey and Iran, each in their own way, view Sudan as a field for projecting influence and countering their rivals’ alignments, whether through security cooperation, arms supplies, or ideological networks. Crucially, this engagement is not limited to mediation or diplomacy: all four states have materially and politically backed the SAF, treating it as the most reliable vehicle for securing their interests rather than as one party among many in a neutral peace process.
What binds this quartet together is not a shared vision of Sudan’s political future, but a shared insistence that Sudan’s future must be mediated through actors they understand and can deal with. In practice, that means a bias towards dealing with the Sudanese Armed Forces under General Burhan. A hierarchical army, operating through familiar security structures and embedded in long‑standing relationships, is far easier for them to read than a fragmented coalition of civilians and armed movements pushing for a radically different, secular and decentralized order. Burhan, with his Transitional Sovereign Council, offers an institutional form and a set of uniforms that look reassuringly like “the state.”
Set against this is the second quartet: the US, the EU, the UN and the AU. This group presents itself as the guardian of humanitarian norms and political transitions. It has backed negotiations, issued statements, applauded ceasefire initiatives, and repeatedly insisted on civilian protection and inclusive dialogue. Yet it is increasingly constrained by its own fatigue and caution. After a decade in which international crises—from Syria to Yemen, Afghanistan to Ukraine—have stretched diplomatic bandwidth and humanitarian budgets, Sudan registers as yet another calamity in a crowded field of emergencies. The appetite for a robust intervention—political or otherwise—that would fundamentally reconfigure the power balance on the ground is conspicuously absent.
Instead, this quartet tends to slip towards outcomes that stabilize the file rather than transform it. In practice, that means circling back to familiar interlocutors. The SAF under Burhan looks, from Western and multilateral vantage points, like the least disruptive option: an actor that can sign ceasefires, attend summits, promise transitions, and, crucially, anchor a narrative of “state continuity.” This attraction is reinforced by a pervasive fear of what a victory by the RSF—or a genuinely radical civilian coalition—might bring: legal instability over past atrocities, a redistribution of power away from the Nile corridor, and a reconfiguration of Sudan’s external alliances.
The result is convergence between these two quartets at precisely the point where Sudan’s internal rupture is most profound. Sudanese citizens have repeatedly signalled their rejection of the Islamist‑dominated National Congress Party (NCP) order, and of the security‑state structures that underpinned it. Yet the military‑centric solution now tacitly favoured by many external actors is rebuilding the political scaffolding of that order. NCP‑linked cadres, Islamist networks and elements of the old security apparatus have drifted back towards the SAF‑led regime as it struggles to hold power against the RSF and a fragmented civilian camp. The coalition around Burhan thus looks less like a neutral guardian of the transition, and more like a recycled version of the hegemonic, Nile‑centred elite which peripheral communities rose against in the first place.
At the same time, the RSF has seized on the vacuum created by this dissonance between external preferences and internal demands. It has begun to articulate an alternative political project—secular, democratic, regionally devolved—which presents itself as a break with the Islamist, centralized state. The credibility of that offer is limited by the RSF’s violence against civilians—a record more than matched by the SAF, whose atrocities extend to the use of chemical weapons—but the important point, in political terms, is that a contest of visions is underway. This is not simply a war about who controls the presidential palace; it is a war about whether Sudan continues under the familiar model of a Nile‑centric, Islamist‑inflected security state, or moves to a decentralised, more inclusive configuration in which historically marginalised regions gain genuine power.
The twin quartets, however, are signalling that this contest should be truncated in favour of a settlement that looks “legible” from the outside. For Riyadh, Cairo, Ankara and Tehran, this means a Sudan that does not suddenly turn into a laboratory for secular regionalism or a platform for rival Islamist movements out of their control. For Washington, Brussels, New York and Addis Ababa, it means a Sudan whose leadership can be invited to conferences, sign memoranda, and offer plausible assurances on humanitarian access, counter‑terrorism and migration. In both cases, Burhan’s Transitional Sovereign Council becomes the convenient pivot.
The cost of this convenience is that the deeper political rupture created by the uprising and by the war is pushed out of view. Sudan’s peripheral communities—Darfur, South Kordofan, Blue Nile, eastern Sudan—have paid a disproportionate price in displacement, famine and violence. They have also been at the heart of demands for a different state: one in which power is not monopolised by Khartoum’s Islamist‑leaning cabals, but shared institutionally and economically with the regions that have long supplied cannon fodder and resources without representation. If external actors close ranks around a settlement that implicitly rebuilds the old centre, they risk entrenching the very inequalities that made Sudan so fragile in the first place.
If the US‑EU‑UN‑AU quartet continues down this path, it will claim that it is “ending the war” and “saving lives.” Some lives will indeed be saved by any reduction in open fighting. But the underlying political violence—the violence of exclusion, marginalisation and impunity—will remain untouched. The SAF will have little incentive to genuinely demilitarise politics or dismantle the Islamist networks that have reattached themselves to its command structure. The RSF, if forced into a subordinate or purely security role, will have still less incentive to accept accountability. Civilian actors will once again be invited to manage the public face of an order over which they hold little real control.
A different course is possible, but it requires both quartets to abandon the search for the “easy” interlocutor. For the regional quartet, it means recognising that a stable Sudan cannot be built on the back of a narrow Islamist‑military elite whose legitimacy is shot and whose appetite for compromise is thin. For the Western‑multilateral quartet, it means accepting that Sudan’s transition cannot be scripted as a technocratic exercise in constitution‑writing, while the armed centre is quietly restored. Pressure needs to be recalibrated: not towards legitimising one armed actor over another, but towards enforcing a genuinely inclusive process in which civilian movements, regional representatives and victims of violence are not simply decorative.
Sudan’s war is already the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, and the temptation to “make it go away” by recognising whoever controls the capital will only grow. But the country’s future will not be settled by convenience. It will be settled by whether its people, particularly those in the peripheries, are allowed to renegotiate the basic terms of power. The two quartets now hovering over Sudan can either facilitate that renegotiation, or smother it under the reassuring illusion of familiar uniforms and familiar faces.
A Decade After the Hague Ruling: The Lasting Impact of the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration
By Anton Lutter
On 12 July 2016, an arbitral tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague issued one of the most significant rulings in modern maritime law. The tribunal delivered its award in a case initiated by the Philippines concerning aspects of maritime entitlements and activities in the South China Sea. While the tribunal did not rule on questions of sovereignty over land features, it provided important interpretations of maritime rights and obligations under UNCLOS.
One of the central findings of the award concerned China’s claims to historic rights within the areas covered by the so-called “nine-dash line.” The tribunal concluded that such claims, insofar as they exceeded the maritime entitlements provided under UNCLOS, had no legal basis under the Convention. It also examined the maritime status of several features in the Spratly Islands and determined that none of the features assessed qualified as islands capable of generating a 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
The tribunal further found that certain Chinese activities had affected the Philippines’ sovereign rights within areas that the tribunal considered to fall within the Philippines’ EEZ. These findings included interference with fishing and petroleum exploration activities, as well as environmental harm associated with large-scale land reclamation and construction activities on coral reefs.
China did not participate in the arbitration proceedings and rejected the tribunal’s jurisdiction and conclusions, stating that the award was “null and void.” Beijing has maintained that its maritime claims in the South China Sea are based on historical and legal grounds, while continuing to assert its position regarding disputed features and maritime areas. The arbitration award did not resolve competing sovereignty claims over islands, reefs, and other maritime features, which remain subject to ongoing diplomatic discussions.
Over the past decade, the 2016 award has remained an important reference point in international discussions on maritime law. Successive Philippine governments have used the ruling as a basis for advancing their maritime positions, while other claimant states, including Vietnam and Malaysia, have continued to refer to UNCLOS principles in support of their respective maritime claims. Several countries, including the United States, Japan, Australia, and members of the European Union, have expressed support for the importance of UNCLOS and the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes through international law.
During a visit to Manila in 2023, then Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Hanke Bruins Slot highlighted the importance of respecting international law in the South China Sea and expressed support for the implementation of the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling.
The years following the award have witnessed continued maritime incidents involving Chinese and Philippine vessels in disputed areas, including confrontations involving water cannons, dangerous manoeuvres, and collisions. These developments have underlined the complexity of managing overlapping maritime claims in one of the world’s most strategically important regions. Diplomatic efforts, including negotiations between ASEAN and China on a Code of Conduct for the South China Sea, have continued, although a comprehensive agreement has yet to be reached.
As the world marks the tenth anniversary of the ruling in July 2026, governments and international organisations continue to refer to the arbitral award as an important development in the interpretation of maritime law. In a statement issued on 11 July 2026, EU High Representative Kaja Kallas reaffirmed the European Union’s support for efforts by ASEAN and China to conclude an effective, substantive, and legally binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea consistent with UNCLOS.
The statement also emphasised that tensions and disputes should be addressed through dialogue and peaceful means, in accordance with international law, the Charter of the United Nations, and UNCLOS. The European Union further expressed concern about rising tensions and dangerous incidents in the region, while reaffirming its commitment to safe, free, and open maritime routes in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
Ten years after the Hague ruling, the 2016 South China Sea arbitration has not brought an end to the complex maritime issues facing the region. Its lasting contribution lies in clarifying aspects of maritime rights and obligations under UNCLOS and providing an important legal reference point for future diplomatic discussions. While implementation ultimately depends on political dialogue and cooperation, the award continues to influence legal interpretations, diplomatic engagement, and the broader conversation on the relationship between international law and regional stability in the Indo-Pacific.
The Latin American Food Festival Comes to Hilton The Hague
The flavours, colours, and rhythms of Latin America will take centre stage on 28 August as Hilton The Hague hosts the Latin American Food Festival, an evening dedicated to celebrating the region’s rich culinary traditions and cultural diversity.
The festival will feature an extensive buffet-style presentation showcasing a wide variety of authentic dishes from numerous Latin American countries. Guests will have the opportunity to sample traditional specialties prepared with regional ingredients and time-honoured recipes, offering a unique culinary journey across the continent. From savoury classics and grilled delicacies to fresh salads, tropical flavours, and traditional desserts, the generous buffet is designed to highlight the remarkable diversity of Latin American cuisine.
“This is a valuable gastronomic initiative that promotes the social and cultural values of the region,” said Chef Rojas. According to the chef, the event will feature traditional dishes representing many Latin American countries, allowing guests to experience the richness and authenticity of the region’s gastronomy in one location.
Adding to the celebration, the evening will be accompanied by live Latin American music, creating a festive atmosphere where guests can enjoy the sounds and rhythms that have become synonymous with the region’s cultural identity.
The Latin American Food Festival is expected to welcome members of the diplomatic corps, representatives of international organisations, business leaders, and food enthusiasts from across the Netherlands. More than a culinary event, the festival serves as a platform for cultural exchange, demonstrating how gastronomy can bring people together, encourage dialogue, and strengthen mutual understanding among nations.
Hosted in the elegant surroundings of Hilton The Hague, the festival promises an evening of outstanding food, warm hospitality, colourful entertainment, and a genuine celebration of Latin America’s cultural heritage through its generous buffet, festive ambience, and lively music, in the heart of the international city of peace and justice.
Reservations Hilton The Hague
- Zeestraat 35, 2518 AA Den Haag
- Phone: 070 710 7025
- Menu: blueblood.nl
- Reservations: blueblood.nl
Italy’s Cultural Diplomacy Comes to Life in Athens
By Eleni Vasiliki Bampaliouta
The Embassy of Italy in Athens presents three landmark exhibitions celebrating archaeology, art, fashion, and cinema across the Greek capital’s leading museums.
This summer, the Embassy of Italy in Athens places Italian culture at the heart of the Greek capital through an ambitious cultural programme featuring three major exhibitions hosted simultaneously at three of Athens’ leading museums. Spanning archaeology, fine arts, fashion, and cinema, the exhibitions offer a compelling journey through Italy’s rich cultural heritage while highlighting the longstanding dialogue between Italy and Greece.
Maria Callas Through the Art of Italian Costume Design
Until 13 September, the Benaki Museum hosts Maria La Callas: The Italian Art of Film Costumes, an exhibition organised by the Embassy of Italy in Athens in collaboration with Polimoda, the event’s educational partner, and its Director, Massimiliano Giornetti, under the patronage of the National Chamber for Italian Fashion.
The exhibition celebrates Italy’s internationally renowned tradition of costume design for cinema and theatre through eighteen remarkable creations, accompanied by jewellery and accessories. The costumes were designed by the acclaimed costume designer Massimo Cantini Parrini, who also curated the exhibition and has received numerous distinctions at major Italian and international film festivals.
Created for Angelina Jolie’s portrayal of Maria Callas in Pablo Larraín’s acclaimed film Maria, the costumes showcase the creative dialogue between fashion and cinema while tracing the evolution of Italian elegance from the 1950s to the 1970s. Beyond their cinematic significance, the creations pay tribute to one of opera’s greatest icons and underscore Italy’s lasting influence on international design and visual storytelling.
The Acropolis Museum Explores the Legacy of Ancient Greek Art in Italy
Until 30 August, the Acropolis Museum presents Inspiration: Ancient Greek Art in Italy, an exhibition organised by the Department for the Enhancement of Cultural Heritage of Italy’s Ministry of Culture in collaboration with the museum.
Featuring thirty-eight exceptional works from some of Italy’s most important museums, the exhibition explores the profound influence of ancient Greek art on the Italian peninsula, from the Late Iron Age to the twentieth century.
Among the highlights are the Cup of Nestor from Ischia, the Euphronios Krater from Cerveteri, the Ludovisi Throne, the Maiden of Anzio, and the celebrated bronze heads recovered from the Porticello shipwreck.
The exhibition concludes with masterpieces by Antonio Canova presented in dialogue with the Parthenon Sculptures, alongside works by Giorgio and Alberto de Chirico, illustrating how the artistic ideals of classical Greece continued to inspire Italian creativity across the centuries.
The Otranto Shipwreck: A Window into the Ancient Mediterranean
Until 15 September, the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Athens presents Greece and the Maritime Routes to the West: The Shipwreck in the Strait of Otranto. The exhibition was inaugurated in June by Italy’s Minister of Culture, Alessandro Giuli, and Greece’s Minister of Culture, Lina Mendoni. It is the result of a collaboration between the Department for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Italy’s Ministry of Culture and the Italian Archaeological School at Athens.
At the heart of the exhibition is an extraordinary cargo of seventh-century BC Corinthian pottery and ceramic vessels destined for the markets of southern and Tyrrhenian Italy, discovered in a shipwreck lying 780 metres beneath the waters of the Strait of Otranto.
The archaeological finds were recovered during preliminary surveys carried out for the construction of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) and are regarded as one of the most significant underwater archaeological discoveries of recent decades. The exhibition offers valuable new insights into ancient Mediterranean trade routes and the pivotal role of the Greek world in connecting cultures across the region.
Paolo Cuculi: “A Unique Opportunity to Showcase Italian Culture”
Commenting on the significance of the initiative, the Ambassador of Italy to Greece, Paolo Cuculi, described the simultaneous presentation of three major exhibitions at some of Athens’ most prestigious museums as a unique opportunity to showcase the breadth and diversity of Italian culture.
As Ambassador Cuculi noted, the exhibitions highlight not only Italy’s archaeological and historical heritage but also the internationally recognised creativity, craftsmanship, and aesthetic excellence that define Italian style. At the same time, they reaffirm the vitality of the cultural dialogue between Italy and Greece, demonstrating how cultural cooperation continues to strengthen the longstanding friendship between the two countries while promoting a shared appreciation of their common Mediterranean heritage.
Through this exceptional programme, the Embassy of Italy in Athens brings together institutions, scholars, artists, and the wider public in a celebration of Italy’s cultural legacy. More than a series of exhibitions, the initiative demonstrates the power of culture as a diplomatic instrument, reinforcing the close bonds between Italy and Greece and promoting international understanding through a shared appreciation of two civilisations whose histories have long been intertwined.
Greece and Uzbekistan Deepen Cultural Diplomacy Through the Legacy of Alexander the Great
By Eleni Vasiliki Bampaliouta
A landmark exhibition, a joint feature film, and an ambitious programme of cultural cooperation signal a new chapter in relations between Athens and Tashkent. More than twenty-three centuries after Alexander the Great forged lasting ties between the Hellenic world and Central Asia, Greece and Uzbekistan are drawing upon their shared historical heritage to strengthen bilateral cultural relations.
During an official three-day visit to Greece, Uzbekistan’s Minister of Culture, Ozodbek Nazarbekov, met with Greece’s Minister of Culture, Lina Mendoni, to discuss an ambitious agenda for future cooperation. At the centre of the discussions were two flagship initiatives: the co-organisation of a major international exhibition dedicated to Alexander the Great and the joint production of a feature film exploring the story of the Macedonian king and Roxana.
Held in a particularly constructive atmosphere, the meeting underscored both governments’ commitment to expanding cooperation in culture, heritage, museums, audiovisual production, and international cultural diplomacy.
Alexander the Great: A Shared Historical Legacy
The discussions highlighted the unique historical links connecting Greece and present-day Uzbekistan through the legacy of Alexander the Great.
In 329 BC, Alexander captured Samarkand—known in antiquity as Maracanda—which had been founded around 700 BC and served as the capital of Sogdiana, a satrapy of the Achaemenid Persian Empire.
According to historical tradition, Alexander admired the city’s beauty upon entering it, declaring:
“Everything I have heard about Maracanda is true, except that it is even more beautiful than I imagined.”
Recognising the city’s strategic location, Alexander understood its potential to become a major commercial centre linking the Mediterranean with Asia. His vision of organised trade routes between East and West later contributed to the development of the Silk Roads, one of history’s most influential networks of commerce and cultural exchange.
Samarkand also occupies a special place in Alexander’s personal history. In 327 BC, he married Roxana, the Sogdian princess who became the mother of his only legitimate heir. Today, the Samarkand Museum preserves this shared historical memory through a dedicated exhibition tracing Alexander’s presence in the region.
It is this shared heritage that both countries now seek to transform into a platform for contemporary cultural cooperation.
From Shared Heritage to Institutional Cooperation
Building on their common historical legacy, the two ministers explored practical opportunities to expand bilateral cooperation across a broad range of cultural sectors. Minister Lina Mendoni highlighted the considerable potential for exchanging expertise in the protection and management of cultural heritage, archaeological documentation, monument conservation and restoration, and the management of cultural assets.
Museum cooperation emerged as another key priority. Both sides expressed their intention to promote exhibition exchanges and develop joint thematic projects highlighting the historical connections between Greece and Central Asia. Among the Greek institutions identified as potential partners were the National Archaeological Museum, the Museum of Islamic Art of the Benaki Museum, and the Museum of Asian Art of Corfu. Uzbekistan proposed cooperation with its Museum of Applied Arts and the State Museum of History.
The discussions also recognised the significance of Alexander the Great’s legacy in Central Asia and the spread of Greek artistic traditions beyond the Mediterranean as a shared field for future academic and museum collaboration.
Cinema, Digital Culture and Creative Industries
The meeting also explored new opportunities in the audiovisual and creative sectors, reflecting both countries’ intention to broaden cultural cooperation beyond traditional heritage projects. Among the proposals under consideration are virtual exhibitions, bilingual and multilingual digital archives, and collaboration on audiovisual productions.
The proposal to jointly produce a feature film on Alexander the Great and Roxana emerged as the flagship initiative, bringing together historical research, cultural storytelling, and contemporary filmmaking in a project designed to reach international audiences.
The ministers also discussed organising a Greek Cultural Week in Uzbekistan and an Uzbek Cultural Week in Greece, featuring programmes dedicated to traditional music, gastronomy, folk art, literature, and contemporary artistic expression, with the aim of strengthening people-to-people exchanges alongside institutional partnerships.
Strengthening Cooperation Through UNESCO
The meeting also reaffirmed the two countries’ commitment to closer cooperation within international organisations. The ministers welcomed the mutual support of Greece and Uzbekistan for their respective candidacies to UNESCO’s Executive Board for the 2027–2031 term, describing it as another indication of the growing partnership between the two countries in the multilateral arena.
Their discussions concluded with the signing of a Programme of Cooperation in Education, Science and Culture for the period 2026–2028, establishing a solid framework for future collaboration.
In the cultural field, the agreement provides for joint initiatives in heritage protection and management, exchanges of archaeologists, conservators, restoration specialists, and ethnographers, the organisation of archaeological, artistic, and ethnographic exhibitions, cooperation in cinema and audiovisual production, stronger links between literary and publishing institutions, and collaborative projects in music, dance, theatre, folklore, visual arts, and cultural routes.
A New Chapter in Cultural Diplomacy
The proposal to jointly organise a major exhibition and produce a feature film dedicated to Alexander the Great represents the most emblematic outcome of this new phase in Greek–Uzbek relations. Drawing on a shared historical legacy spanning more than two millennia, the initiative demonstrates how history can serve as a powerful instrument of contemporary cultural diplomacy.
More broadly, the agreements reached in Athens reflect a shared determination to transform common heritage into a dynamic framework for cooperation—one that extends beyond archaeology and museums to include education, the creative industries, digital innovation, and multilateral engagement. By placing Alexander the Great at the centre of this renewed partnership, Greece and Uzbekistan reaffirm the ability of culture to build bridges between nations, strengthen international dialogue, and promote mutual understanding among regions connected by a shared past.