Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

Abstract The right to freedom of expression is currently facing a global crisis unleashed by the conflict in Gaza. The conflict has led to a high polarisation of public opinion, with opposing factions supporting either Israel's actions or the Palestinian cause. Yet, the right to freedom of expression of Palestinian activists and their supporters is facing systematic suppression worldwide. In this column, I shed light on how state and non-state actors have been active vehicles for the restriction of the right to freedom of expression by targeting voices in support of the Palestinian cause and I consider the application and scope of the right to freedom of expression in this context. The column concludes that the failure to protect the right of Palestinians to have their voices heard contributes to the erosion of our collective right to freedom of expression and has wider repercussion on the promotion and protection of human rights more generally. KeywordsFreedom of expression, Gaza, peaceful protests, media freedom, academic freedom‌, International Law Department, Geneva Graduate Institute, Geneva, Switzerland 1. INTRODUCTION Since 7 October 2023, the right to freedom of expression has been severely restricted worldwide. Irene Khan, current UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, has depicted the current situation as ‘a global crisis of freedom of expression’ unleashed by the conflict in Gaza.1 The threats to the exercise of this fundamental human right have been so extensive and granular that, for instance, in early October 2024, a beekeeper was fined in Italy for merely having exposed a banner at his market stall reading ‘Stop bombing Gaza – stop genocide’.2 Despite the fact that the International Court of Justice has confirmed that what we see on our screens and read about in the newspapers (which cannot even fully reflect the reality that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank face every day) may amount to a real and imminent risk of genocide already in January 2024,3 the right to freedom of expression of Palestinian activists and their supporters is severely restricted, especially in North America and Europe. It has been commented that ‘rarely has a conflict challenged freedom of opinion and expression so broadly and so far beyond its borders’.4 As a result, in this column I shed light on how both state and non-state actors have been active vehicles for the restriction of the right to freedom of expression in the context of the conflict in Gaza by targeting voices in support of the Palestinian cause in different ways. I then consider the application and scope of the right to freedom of expression in this context and I draw some conclusions on the wider implications that restrictions imposed on freedom of expression bear for the protection and promotion of human rights more generally. 2. SILENCING THE PALESTINIAN CAUSE: THE ROLE OF STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS Since the beginning of the conflict in Gaza, public opinion has become highly polarised, with opposing factions supporting either Israel's actions or the Palestinian cause. Yet, Palestinian voices and their supporters have faced systematic suppression, with both states and non-state actors actively taking measures to silence their positions. Protests in support of the Palestinian cause have been severely restricted in many countries across the world, often on the grounds that these measures are necessary to protect public order and security, to counter “support of terrorism”, and/or to “prevent antisemitism”. Governments, and Western ones in particular, have imposed specific restrictions, blanket bans or pre-emptive bans on demonstrations in support of Palestine.5 Additionally, law enforcement officials have often resorted to excessive use of force and arbitrary detention to disrupt the protests.6 Although in some instances these protests have seen incidents of violence or vandalism, oftentimes the imposed restrictions have been disproportionate. In Germany, for instance, public authorities have imposed pre-emptive bans on several solidarity gatherings in support of Palestinians, based on concerns for ‘public security’, a need to prevent the ‘public celebration of the Hamas terrorist attacks’ of 7 October 2023, and ‘the increase in antisemitic attacks’ in the country.7 These decisions, however, were often grounded on ‘unspecified risks of “inciting, antisemitic exclamations, glorification of and incitement to violence, and acts of violence”’.8 In Italy, protests have been met with excessive use of force by police. For instance, during a protest organised in Pisa in February 2024, riot police and police vehicles were deployed against protesters to block the route to the university square, where participants were directed. In an effort to prevent the participants to reach the square, police charged forward and hit students with batons.9 The disproportionate response by law enforcement led to an unprecedented statement by Italian President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella, who criticised the policing of the protest.10 These restrictions have not been limited to public demonstrations. Academic freedom, in fact, has also faced severe challenges. In many university campuses across the world, students have set up encampments, in solidarity with the Palestinian people, to call for a ceasefire as well as to demand that their universities divest from corporations profiting from the conflict and occupation of the Palestinian territories.11 However, these initiatives have also been met with restrictions: university administrations and local authorities have forcibly removed the encampments, often employing excessive use of force and arbitrarily arresting protestors.12 Students who have participated in the protests have even faced disciplinary measures: as underscored by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, these have included ‘suspension, possible expulsion, eviction from campus housing and the threat of deportation of some foreign students, which could jeopardize their scholarships and future careers’.13 Universities have also increasingly cancelled and even prohibited the holding of events on Israel and Palestine. The recent suspension of a planned event with Francesca Albanese, current UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 by the University of Munich14 and by the Free University of Berlin15 are only the latest example in a long list of events on Palestine canceled by universities across the globe.16 Journalists, and the media more generally, have been subjected to an unprecedented level of attacks. Israel has not only denied access to Gaza to foreign press,17 thereby preventing proper reporting from the ground, but those journalists with access to Gaza have been deliberately killed or arbitrarily detained: according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, as of 3 February 2025, 167 journalists and media workers were confirmed killed (159 Palestinian, 2 Israeli, and 6 Lebanese), 49 journalists were reported injured, 2 journalists were reported missing, and 75 journalists were reported arrested.18 Under international humanitarian law, the deliberate killing of journalists is prohibited and the killing of civilians is a war crime.19 Israel has also banned Al-Jazeera20 and raided its offices.21 Recently, the Israeli government has additionally sanctioned the newspaper Haaretz and banned government funding bodies from communicating or placing advertisements with the newspaper on the grounds that Hareetz published ‘many articles that have hurt the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to self-defence, and particularly the remarks made in London by Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken that support terrorism and call for imposing sanctions on the government.’22 Additionally, the Israeli government relies on a military censor, which is empowered to fully or partially redact any article dealing with “security issues”: in 2023, 613 articles were barred from publication, and 2,703 articles were redacted.23 Traditional and social media have also played a huge role in censoring pro-Palestinian content. While journalists reporting from Gaza and the West Bank have been silenced by Israel, a worrying majority of media outlets from North America and Europe have consistently failed to perform their watchdog role and speak truth to power: newspaper headlines and TV shows have regularly dehumanised Palestinians,24 and their coverage of the situation in Gaza has consistently employed wording that contributes to the creation a “normality” where, as also underscored by Fuad Zarbiyev, Palestinian lives are not as grievable as Israeli ones.25 Social media platforms have played a crucial role in providing real-time information about the situation in Gaza. This is especially so given that, as mentioned, Israel has severely restricted foreign media access. Nonetheless, despite their crucial role for providing access to information on the situation in Gaza, social media platforms have also significantly contributed to censoring Palestinian content, either because of their inadequate and biased content moderation systems, or following governmental requests for content removal. A human rights due diligence exercise reviewing the impact of Meta's policies and activities during the May 2021 crisis in Israel and Palestine confirms that Meta's policies and practices have resulted in biased outcomes which have specifically impacted Palestinian and Arabic speaking users.26 For instance, the report revealed that Arabic content had greater over-enforcement, meaning that platforms were erroneously removing Palestinian voices.27 While platforms’ content moderation systems already disproportionately restrict Palestinian voices, governmental requests for content removal further exacerbate the issue. As reported by Human Rights Watch, between 7 October and 14 November 2023 alone, Israel's Cyber Unit sent social media platforms 9,500 content takedown requests, 60% of which went to Meta, and platforms overwhelmingly complied with these requests in 94% of cases.28 Content that was shared in support of the Palestinian cause was frequently removed by social media platforms, including the slogan “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free”. Although this slogan has been meant and interpreted by many as a peaceful call for the right to self-determination of Palestinians,29 it has been removed by the platforms.30 The slogan has even been criminalised or sanctioned in some countries.31 Taken together, this range of measures represent a substantial and highly problematic attack on the right to freedom of expression and access to information and, in turn, to the promotion and protection of human rights more generally. I will now set out the application and relevance of the contours of this right in this context. 3. THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION The right to freedom of opinion and expression is protected by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),32 as well as under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).33 Additionally, article 20 of the ICCPR prohibits ‘any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’.34 The right to freedom of expression also includes the ‘freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice’.35 Freedom of expression is integral to the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of assembly and association,36 protected under article 20 of the UDHR, article 21 of the ICCPR37 and article 11 of the ECHR.38 Crucially, for the right to freedom of expression to be restricted, such restriction must meet three cumulative criteria: (1) it must be provided by law; (2) it must pursue a legitimate aim (the respect of the rights or reputations of others or the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals); and (3) the restriction must be necessary and proportionate for pursuing such aim.39 Because the right to freedom of expression is considered to be an enabler for the exercise of other fundamental rights,40 any restriction must be construed narrowly so as not to impair its exercise. Restrictions to freedom of expression, even when pursuing the legitimate aims of protecting the rights of others (for example, the right to non-discrimination of Jewish people and the fight against antisemitism) or public order, need to be proportionate. The rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism requires all states to take the necessary measures to protect Jews, Muslims, Palestinians and Arabs from discrimination and hate speech. However, oftentimes restrictions to freedom of expression have relied upon a definition of “antisemitism” which is, in itself, contrary to international human rights law. Many governments rely, in fact, on the working definition of antisemitism provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.41 This definition is overly broad, does not contain the element of “incitement”, and conflates criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism, therefore contravening the right to freedom of expression since international human rights law allows for criticism of all states.42 The reliance by many governments on this working definition has been considered as a ‘politically motivated instrumentalization of the fight against antisemitism’,43 primarily harming Palestinians and human rights defenders advocating on their behalf.44 As also underscored by Irene Khan, ‘[t]he central conceptual flaw of the “working definition” is the inherent conflation of Zionism, a political ideology, with antisemitism’, which results in “the suppression of legitimate criticism of Israel, not the enhancement of protection of Jews from racial and religious hatred and intolerance”.45 The disruption or prohibition of peaceful protests through the means of excessive use of force, the forcible removal of peaceful student encampments, or even the prohibition of events addressing the topic of Palestine or criticising the state of Israel's actions without it being necessary and proportionate for pursuing a legitimate aim cannot be considered measures in compliance with international human rights law. As also underscored by the UN Human Rights Committee and the Special Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Assembly and Association, isolated instances of violent conduct are not sufficient to taint an entire assembly as non-peaceful46 and ‘[w]here isolated instances of violence take place in the context of a protest, law enforcement personnel must make all efforts to locate and remove the violent individuals, to allow other protesters to exercise their rights to assemble peacefully and express themselves’.47 Likewise, the attacks on journalists and on media freedom violate everyone's right to freedom of expression and to access to information and, in some instances, they also contravene international humanitarian law. These violations become even more troublesome given the ‘allegations of targeted attacks on media as part of a strategy to cover up evidence of war crimes’.48 At the same time as governments are violating their own obligations under international human rights law, corporate entities such as traditional media and social media are acting in contravention of their own responsibility to respect human rights. By virtue of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, ‘[b]usiness enterprises should respect human rights’, meaning that “they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved”.49 As such, both traditional media and social media platforms should ensure that their business activities do not infringe on the rights to freedom of expression and access to information. This would include ensuring that reporting does not perpetuate double standards and that content moderation systems do not disproportionately censor Palestinian content. Precisely because the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and access to information acts as a catalyst for the exercise of other fundamental rights, its restriction has wider repercussion on the promotion and protection of human rights more generally. Not only the right to freedom to peaceful assembly is also heavily impacted, but, more crucially, the right to self-determination of Palestinian people is also affected. The blanket ban on the use of Palestinian symbols is but one example of the impact that restrictions on the right to freedom of expression have on the Palestinian right to self-determination. The lack of proper protection of the right to freedom of expression also results in the failure to shed light on a variety of human rights violations that Palestinians are subjected to everyday in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the right to life and the right to be free from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.50 4. CONCLUSION That a beekeeper is fined for exposing a banner calling for the end of a genocide, that students lose their scholarship or visas for calling on their government to demand a ceasefire and on their university to divest from corporations profiting from the conflict and occupation, that a professor is prevented from giving a lecture about Gaza in a university premise, that our governments respond to student peaceful protests with violence – these are issues that should concern each of us. Each of these restrictions, when failing to comply with the standards of legality, legitimacy, necessity and proportionality (as set out in international human rights law), violates our fundamental right to freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression is considered to be an enabler to the exercise of other fundamental rights. As reiterated by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, ‘the genocide in Gaza, the violation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territory and the failure of Israel to respect its international legal obligations, including the occupation of Palestinian territory, are matters of global public interest’.51 By failing to stand up for the exercise of our right to freedom of expression in support of the Palestinian cause, and by failing to demand accountability from those actors who consistently violate it, we contribute to its erosion. And by failing to stand up for the rights of Palestinians, including their right to have their voices heard, we fail to stand up for human rights. Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.FundingThe author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Notes1. Irene Khan, Global threats to freedom of expression arising from the conflict in Gaza - Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression 2024 [A/79/319] para 1.2. Federico Berni, ‘Striscione pro Palestina al mercato di Desio, arrivano i carabinieri: multa di 430 euro all’apicoltore’ Corriere della Sera (16 October 2024) <https://milano.corriere.it/notizie/lombardia/24_ottobre_16/striscione-pro-palestina-al-mercato-di-desio-arrivano-i-carabinieri-multa-di-430-euro-all-apicoltore-7c08956e-a16b-4070-a1e7-93b3c5b31xlk.shtml> accessed 3 February 2025.3. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel) (International Court of Justice). See also, Francesca Albanese, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 - Anatomy of a genocide 2024 [A/HRC/55/73].4. Khan (n 1) para 1.5. ibid 34.6. ‘Europe: Under Protected and Over Restricted: The State of the Right to Protest in 21 European Countries’ (Amnesty International, 2024) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur01/8199/2024/en/> accessed 3 February 2025.7. ibid 97.8. ibid, emphasis added.9. ibid 98.10. ibid.11. Khan (n 1) para 40; Michael Williams, ‘Pro-Palestinian Student Protests around the World – in Pictures’ the Guardian (7 May 2024) <https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2024/may/07/pro-palestinian-student-protests-around-the-world-in-pictures> accessed 3 February 2025.12. Khan (n 1) para 41.13. ibid 42.14. Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt [@FranceskAlbs], ‘The University of Munich Has Canceled My Talk, a Decision I Hope They Will Reconsider. If Not, I Look Forward to Seeing You Elsewhere, German Friends. May Freedom of Expression and Your Right to Be Informed Prevail. @LMU_Muenchen’ <https://x.com/FranceskAlbs/status/1885703501516267743> accessed 4 February 2025. On how anti-Palestinian racializing processes and repression operate within a framework of liberal freedom in German education, see Anna Younes and Hanna Al-Taher, ‘Erasing Palestine in Germany's Educational System: The Racial Frontiers of Liberal Freedom’ (2024) 33 Middle East Critique 397.15. ‘Statement Regarding the Planned Public Lecture and Discussion with Francesca Albanese and Eyal Weizman on February 19, 2025’, Freie Universität Berlin (12 February 2025) <https://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/informationen/fup/faq/nahost/wissenschaftliche-veranstaltung/index.html> accessed 24 February 2025. On the gravity of these actions for academic freedom, see Isabel Feichtner, ‘Where Is Our Outcry?' (Verfassungsblog, 19 February 2025) <https://verfassungsblog.de/where-is-our-outcry/> accessed 24 February 2025; Khaled El Mahmoud, ‘Special Editorial: A Nation in Crisis: The Suppression of Academic Freedom and the Rise of Ideological Conformity’ (Völkerrechtsblog, 21 February 2025) <https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/special-editorial-a-nation-in-crisis/> accessed 24 February 2025.16. See, for example, Vimal Patel and Anna Betts, ‘Campus Crackdowns Have Chilling Effect on Pro-Palestinian Speech’ The New York Times (17 December 2023) <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/17/us/campus-crackdowns-have-chilling-effect-on-pro-palestinian-speech.html> accessed 4 February 2025; ‘Harvard Medical School Cancels Class Session With Gazan Patients, Calling It One-Sided’ The Harvard Crimson (22 January 2025) <https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/1/23/hms-cancels-gaza-patient-panel/> accessed 4 February 2025.17. ‘Open up Access to Gaza and Protect Journalists’ Le Monde (29 October 2023) <https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/10/29/open-up-access-to-gaza-and-protect-journalists_6212695_23.html> accessed 4 February 2025.18. ‘Journalist Casualties in the Israel-Gaza War’ (Committee to Protect Journalists, 3 February 2025) <https://cpj.org/2025/02/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/> accessed 4 February 2025.19. Under art. 79 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (signed on 12 December 1977, entered into force on 7 December 1979) 1125 UNTS 3. “Journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict shall be considered as civilians within the meaning of Article 50, paragraph 1”; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3, art 8(2).20. Al Jazeera Staff, ‘Israel Bans Al Jazeera: What Does It Mean and What Happens Next?’ Al Jazeera (6 May 2024) <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/israel-bans-al-jazeera-what-does-it-mean-and-what-happens-next> accessed 4 February 2025.21. ‘Israel Raids and Shuts down Al Jazeera's Bureau in Ramallah in the West Bank’ AP News (22 September 2024) <https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-al-jazeera-gaza-war-hamas-4abdb2969e39e7ad99dfbf9caa7bb32c> accessed 4 February 2025.22. ‘Israel Sanctions Haaretz Due to Articles That “Hurt” Israeli State’ Al Jazeera (24 November 2024) <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/24/israel-sanctions-haaretz-due-to-articles-that-hurt-israeli-state> accessed 4 February 2025.23. Amjad Iraqi, ‘Israeli Military Censor Bans Highest Number of Articles in over a Decade’ +972 Magazine (20 May 2024) <https://www.972mag.com/israeli-military-censor-media-2023/> accessed 4 February 2025.24. The dehumanisation of Palestinians in traditional media is a longstanding phenomenon. See, for example, Laura Albast and Cat Knarr, ‘Opinion | How Media Coverage Whitewashes Israeli State Violence against Palestinians’ Washington Post (28 April 2022) <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/28/jerusalem-al-aqsa-media-coverage-israeli-violence-palestinians/> accessed 4 February 2025.25. Fuad Zarbiyev, ‘“What about October 8? What about October 9? What about October 10? What about October 11?” On the Grievability of Palestinian Lives’, Geneva Graduate Institute (14 October 2024) <https://www.graduateinstitute.ch/communications/news/the-grievability-of-palestinian-lives> accessed 4 February 2025.26. ‘Human Rights Due Diligence of Meta's Impacts in Israel and Palestine | Reports | Sustainable Business Network and Consultancy’, BSR (22 September 2022) <https://www.bsr.org/en/reports/meta-human-rights-israel-palestine> accessed 4 February 2025.27. ibid 5.28. Rasha Younes, ‘Meta's Broken Promises’, Human Rights Watch (21 December 2023) <https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and> accessed 4 February 2025.29. Ellen Ioanes, ‘“From the River to Sea,” the Phrase Used amid the Israel-Hamas War, Explained’ Vox (24 November 2023) <https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23972967/river-to-sea-palestine-israel-hamas> accessed 17 February 2025.30. Human Rights Watch has found that “[i]In hundreds of cases, th[e] slogan [“From the River to the Sea”], as well as comments such as “Free Palestine,” “Ceasefire Now,” and “Stop the Genocide,” were repeatedly removed by Instagram and Facebook under “spam” Community Guidelines or Standards without appearing to take into account the context of these comments.”, ibid 27.31. See, for example, Federal Ministry of the Interior, “Announcement of a ban on associations in accordance with Section 3 of the Association Act Ban on the association ‘HAMAS (Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya)” in German), 2 November 2023, available at <https://www.bundesanzeiger.de/pub/publication/M0JVrk5Qop55DhqscjE/content/M0JVrk5Qop55DhqscjE/BAnz%20AT%2002.11.2023%20B10.pdf?inline>32. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, art 19.33. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR), art 10.34. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (n 32), art 20.35. ibid 19(2).36. Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No. 34, Article 19, Freedoms of Opinion and Expression’ (2011) CCPR/C/GC/34 para 4.37. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (n 32), art 21.38. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (n 33), art 11.39. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (n 32), art 19(3).40. Frank La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression 2011 [A/HRC/17/27] para 22.41. Khan (n 1) para 79.42. ibid, para 80.43. Tendayi Achiume, Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance - Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, E. Tendayi Achiume 2022 [A/77/512] para 71.44. ibid 76.45. Khan (n 1) para 81.46. Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No. 37, (2020) on the Right of Peaceful Assembly (Article 21)’ (2020) CCPR/C/GC/37 para 19; Clément Voule, Protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests during crisis situations - Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Clément Nyaletsossi Voule 2022 [A/HRC/50/42] para 40.47. Voule, (n 46), para 40.48. Khan (n 1) paras 17 & 89.49. OHCHR, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights - Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’ (2011) HR/PUB/11/04 Principle 11.50. OHCHR, ‘Israel's Escalating Use of Torture against Palestinians in Custody a Preventable Crime against Humanity: UN Experts’ (5 August 2024) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/08/israels-escalating-use-torture-against-palestinians-custody-preventable> accessed 18 February 2025; Amnesty International, ‘Israel/OPT: Horrifying Cases of Torture and Degrading Treatment of Palestinian Detainees amid Spike in Arbitrary Arrests’ (8 November 2023) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/> accessed 18 February 2025.51. Khan (n 1) para 88.*This column is based and expands upon a short article previously published on the Geneva Graduate Institute website, available here https://www.graduateinstitute.ch/communications/news/silenced-voices-freedom-expression-gazaCorresponding author(s):Stefania Di Stefano, International Law Department, Geneva Graduate Institute, Geneva, Switzerland. Email: stefania.distefano@graduateinstitute.ch

Abstract The transatlantic relationship is undergoing a period of critical recalibration, marked by the return of a more transactional US administration and a world order moving towards multipolarity. The return of Donald Trump to the helm of the White House with an ‘America First’ doctrine raises serious questions about US involvement in the transatlantic alliance. President Trump’s repeated claims that the EU was set up to ‘screw’ the US reflect both that his administration is unwilling to engage productively with the EU and that it distrusts multilateral forums, preferring bilateral, nation-to-nation contacts. This article seeks to bring clarity to the future US–EU relationship by identifying some of the points of contention and offering a perspective on how the transatlantic partnership can move forward constructively. KeywordsTransatlantic relations, EU–US relations, Trump administration, EU, Bilateral relations, Multipolar world order Introduction Three years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a new axis of power is taking form, led by Russia and China and supported by North Korea, Iran and Belarus. This shift brings a profound transformation within the global balance of power and is a direct threat to the liberal international world order. In the midst of this geopolitical recalibration, the return of Donald Trump to the helm of the White House with an ‘America First’ doctrine poses serious questions about US engagement with the transatlantic alliance. There are growing worries about the US’s willingness to continue to honour its Article 5 commitments within NATO and maintain an active role in the collective defence of Europe, but also about the role of the US as a supporter of Ukraine and the liberal multilateral rule-based system. State of play in the EU–US partnership During the first Trump administration, at the state funeral of former US president George H. W. Bush, the EU’s ambassador to the US, David O’Sullivan, was asked to stand at the back of the line-up to pay his respects, breaking diplomatic protocol (Knigge 2019). He politely acquiesced, but in the days that followed it came to light that during the first Trump administration, the US Department of State had downgraded the diplomatic status of the EU in the second half of 2018 without informing the EU Delegation in Washington (Smith 2019). Beyond the failure to communicate this important diplomatic status change, which was not well received in Brussels, and in addition to the protocol issue of having a long-serving foreign ambassador downgraded on the spot at a state funeral, this sent a clear message: the Trump administration does not respect the EU, and nor does it view the Union as an interlocutor. On many occasions during his first administration, Trump’s officials clashed with the EU. In a major foreign policy speech in Brussels, then–Secretary of State Mike Pompeo openly questioned the continued value of the EU and urged European countries to reassert their national sovereignty (Pompeo 2018). As the second Trump administration begins its work with unprecedented vigour, so far the EU has hardly featured as a consideration for the president or his top officials. At the time of writing, the nominated US ambassador to the EU, Andrew Puzder, has not yet testified (Singh and Jones 2025). In his early remarks as secretary of state, Marco Rubio has hardly mentioned the EU at all. On 29 January, the first call between High Representative Kaja Kallas and Rubio took place, alleviating some concerns about the distinct lack of US–EU dialogue taking place due to the change in administration (Liboreiro 2025). However, at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, the new US administration went beyond the usual call for European allies to spend more on defence. Vice-President JD Vance drove home the seismic shift underway in the US commitment to European defence and upended decades of policy (Quinville 2025). Moreover, on the European side, the attempts by some members of the Trump administration to support far-right candidates in Europe (as done by Elon Musk and Vance in Germany and Romania) bring a new level of discomfort and mistrust, as it looks like parts of the administration and Trump’s brand of conservatism, colloquially known as ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA), want to export their domestic cultural wars to Europe, thus attacking the core shared value of the transatlantic partnership: liberal democracy. A divorce or just a rough patch in transatlantic relations? Over the past seven decades, successful cooperation between the US and European institutions has helped to build the liberal multilateral world order and to uphold the UN Charter by promoting global stability and prosperity. With a combined population of nearly 800 million people, the US and the EU have the most integrated economic cooperation in the world, accounting for 43% of global GDP and 30% of global trade in goods and services (European Council 2025). President Trump’s repeated claims that the EU was set up to ‘screw’ the US reflect the Trump administration’s unwillingness to engage productively with the EU and its distrust of multilateral forums, and hence its preference for bilateral, nation-to-nation contact. The administration’s growing distrust of the EU also reflects the changing public perception of the EU among segments of the American public, such that 29% of Republicans view the EU as ‘unfriendly’ or ‘hostile’, up from 17% last year, and negative perceptions of Europe among Democrats are also slowly rising (The Economist 2025). This represents an inward turn in American society as politics becomes increasingly polarised. On the other hand, favourable attitudes among Europeans towards the US have fallen below 50%, with only around a third of Germans (32%) and the French (34%) having a positive view of the current American administration, with the least favourable views being held in Denmark, where only 20% approve (Britton 2025). Less than 100 days into his second term, at the time of writing, Trump has already broken long-standing norms and practices in US–European relations. Vance’s critical discourse at the Munich Security Conference, which harshly attacked European values, brought a major departure from traditional diplomatic language. The US vote alongside Russia and North Korea, and against traditional allies, on a UN resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine and calling for the return of occupied territory to Kyiv further deepened concerns (Landale and Jackson 2025). Additional actions, such as the controversial Oval Office meeting between the Trump administration and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the temporary suspension of intelligence and military assistance to Ukraine, the exclusion of Europeans from Ukrainian peace negotiations, and the disproportionate and unjustified tariffs on the EU have heightened European anxiety. These moves have raised fears of a possible end to the transatlantic partnership and a wider US retreat from global leadership. For most Europeans, the second Trump administration appears to be strategically prepared, driven not only by revenge in domestic politics, but also by a sense of retribution in foreign policy. But while distrust has never been higher, it would be a mistake to take the path of severing the relations between the US and the EU. The Euro-Atlantic partnership has suffered similar lows in the past, from vastly different perspectives on the US invasion of Iraq, the Obama administration’s pivot to the Indo-Pacific and the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. Points of tension and contentionTech On tech regulation, storm clouds are already gathering as Trump has lashed out at the EU for regulating big tech companies (Doan and Stolton 2025). During the transition, the new Trump administration has been noted for the active participation of several tech CEOs. This was most evidently on display during Trump’s inauguration, which saw the likes of Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and Elon Musk (Tesla), as well as other billionaires from around the world (including TikTok’s CEO) gather to welcome in the new administration (Kelly 2025). These tech CEO supporters, not usually as prominently on display in American politics, are flocking to the new administration, which has pledged massive tax cuts for billionaires, the promotion and deregulation of cryptocurrencies, and the removal of restrictions on free speech and fact-checking (Samuel 2025). The EU’s attempts to regulate big tech companies under this new administration will be even more difficult, given their close proximity to and influence on the second Trump presidency. Energy Another likely area of divergence between the US and the EU is in their approaches to energy policy and climate policy. Trump has pledged to ‘drill baby drill’, promising to fund more fossil fuel extraction and curbing green and renewable projects. He has openly called climate change a hoax and ended US participation in the Paris Climate Agreement. Meanwhile, the EU and its member states continue to invest heavily in renewables, with clean energy sources accounting for 70% of the bloc’s electricity demand in 2024 (Vetter 2025). The US, already trailing in wind power and investment in renewables, now risks falling irrevocably behind most of the developing world in clean energy production. Trump might find less of a market for fossil fuels in the EU as a result of its heavy investment in renewables, instead having to turn to other markets. Trade and tariffs On the campaign trail, Trump vowed that as president he would impose tariffs on everyone from China to neighbours, Mexico and Canada, to allies such as the EU. Although the initial tariffs placed on Mexico and Canada were swiftly lifted, a new wave of tariffs of 25% on foreign steel and aluminium was announced on 11 February. This move mirrors that of his first administration (Wiseman 2025). The EU was swift to respond, announcing a slew of counter-measures targeting iconic US products such as jeans, bourbon, peanut butter, whiskey and motorcycles. European steel companies could see as much as 3.7 million tons of steel exports lost as a result of US-imposed tariffs. Together, as noted above, the US and the EU account for about 30% of global trade, with deeply intertwined production and supply chains. However, this does not appear to be part of the Trump administration’s reasoning behind its decision to impose ‘reciprocal’ tariffs of 20% on almost all other EU products as part of its Liberation Day plan. The proposed tariffs could affect around 70% of EU exports to the US, worth around €532 billion ($585 billion) in 2024, with potential tariffs on copper, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and timber still on the cards (Blenkinsop 2025). As the trade wars begin again, US–EU trade and economic relations will undoubtedly face difficult times over the next four years and risk undermining or limiting cooperation in other areas as a result. Responding to Trump’s announcement, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, astutely summed up: ‘The global economy will massively suffer. Uncertainty will spiral and trigger the rise of further protectionism. The consequences will be dire for millions of people around the globe’ (European Commission 2025). The EU, in addition to planning and implementing counter-measures to Trump’s tariffs, has to walk a difficult tightrope to maintain its investment ties (Casert 2025). The Arctic Trump’s approach to the Arctic in the days leading up to the transition and in his first three months, most notably his refusal to promise not to invade Greenland by force, if deemed necessary (Kayali 2025), sparked widespread condemnation from European leaders. Trump raised the idea of purchasing Greenland from Denmark in 2019 during his first term, and reasserted his intention to acquire the vast island, rich with rare earth minerals, on a fiery phone call with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. In response, the Danish premier garnered support among European heads of state. However, Trump’s focus on Greenland could have profound implications for the balance of power in the Arctic region. Although the Arctic is increasingly discussed in geopolitical terms, in part due to Russia’s and China’s interests in new shipping routes, it remains a zone of peace. The implications of potential NATO infighting over Greenland, and the possibility that this could accelerate Greenland’s independence, could work to China’s or Russia’s advantage and risk disrupting the balance of power in the Arctic region that has allowed peace to prevail. Defence spending The Trump administration’s renewed push for European NATO allies to spend at least 5% of their GDP on defence has reignited tensions over transatlantic burden-sharing. During his first visit to a NATO defence ministers’ meeting, US Secretary of Defense Hegseth made it clear that the US no longer sees an indefinite American presence in Europe as guaranteed (Erling 2025). While these pressures reflect Washington’s frustration over decades of unequal defence spending, they also risk undermining alliance cohesion by demanding an unrealistic increase in European defence budgets. Most European states have already significantly increased their military spending, jointly spending €326 billion on defence in 2024, an increase of 30% since 2021 (European Defence Agency 2024). And the European Commission’s recently launched ReArm Europe/Readiness 2030 initiative proposes an additional €800 billion to help EU member states fill their defence gaps and increase their military production and capacity (Gomez 2025). However, calling for a sudden escalation to 5% of GDP overlooks the political, economic and social constraints within Europe and could provoke backlash rather than cooperation. A more realistic target of 3% to 3.5% of GDP offers a more balanced and politically realistic path, consistent with strengthening NATO’s European pillar, and could be discussed as a new NATO defence commitment at the upcoming Hague Summit this summer. EU defence market The EU is developing its European Defence Technological and Industrial Base in response to the challenging new security and geopolitical reality. A key focus within the plan is strengthening the European internal market for defence, which remains heavily underdeveloped and dependent on non-EU suppliers, notably the US, which accounts for more than half of the EU’s defence procurement. The European Defence Industrial Strategy, launched in 2024 by the European Commission, proposes some ambitious objectives: by 2030, at least 50% of member states’ defence acquisitions should go to the European defence industry, rising to 60% by 2035, and 40% of these procurements should be through collaborative projects (European Commission 2024). Nevertheless, this strategy is not without challenges, as some EU member states, particularly the Eastern European countries, still favour US suppliers and see buying American defence systems as a way to foster security ties with Washington. The return of Trump, along with signs of US disengagement from Europe, has led to a renewed debate within the EU about reducing reliance on American defence capabilities and investing more in equipment ‘Made in Europe’. At the same time, the evolving US position has complicated transatlantic defence industrial cooperation. While Rubio has recently stressed the importance of continued American participation in European defence procurement, the latest EU proposals to prioritise the European defence industry have raised concern in Washington (Cook and Croucher 2025). Any move to limit access for American defence companies might provoke a political backlash, even as European leaders become increasingly worried about the credibility of the US defence commitments. Recent events such as the politicisation of US military aid to Ukraine and the unpredictability of future armament deliverables have further shaken European confidence. But despite the growing uncertainty, EU countries should remain interested in cooperation with the US, not exclusion. The challenge now is to strike a balance: to build a more autonomous and resilient European defence market while maintaining a constructive and cooperative relationship with the US. Ukraine peace negotiations The peace negotiations for Ukraine are becoming a major point of divergence between the US administration under Trump and its European allies. Trump’s main goal is to quickly end the conflict in Ukraine and position himself as a successful deal maker on the global stage. So far, his administration has shown a willingness to make significant concessions to Russia, often unilaterally and without securing reciprocal commitments from Moscow. This approach might be part of a broader strategy that includes weakening Russia’s alliance with China, securing American access to Ukrainian rare earth resources and continuing a larger US strategic pivot towards the Indo-Pacific (Mills 2025). So far, this conciliatory ‘deal making’ has caused anxiety among European leaders, who fear that a hasty or unbalanced peace agreement might lead to a forced Ukrainian capitulation and would undermine long-term European security and stability. Therefore, European countries are insisting on being part of the discussions on defining what a just, long-standing and sustainable peace should look like, a peace that secures Ukraine’s sovereignty and deters further Russian aggression on the country or continent. In parallel, European countries are formulating their own vision for a lasting peace, independent of American leadership. Recent discussions and meetings led by the UK and France are proposing a ‘coalition of the willing’ that would send 10,000 to 30,000 troops to Ukraine to enforce a future ceasefire (O’Sullivan and Khatsenkova 2025). But current plans face significant obstacles: disagreements among European states over troop commitments and mandate, fears of escalation in a direct conflict with Russia and a lack of critical defence enablers that only the US can provide. While countries such as the UK, France and Sweden are considering ‘boots on the ground’ in Ukraine, Eastern European states, notably Poland, remain reluctant, preferring to commit to logistical roles rather than direct engagement. Moreover, European allies are seeking explicit US backstop support (logistical, intelligence and political) to enhance the credibility of the deterrence of these peacekeeping forces against future Russian aggression. The way in which the Ukraine peace negotiations unfold could be a source of further tension between the US and European partners in the months and years to come. A way forward The transatlantic relationship is undergoing a period of critical recalibration, marked by the return of a more transactional US administration and a world order migrating towards multipolarity. A possible way forward in Euro-Atlantic relations is to adopt a pragmatic approach that preserves cooperation where possible while accepting a more interest-based partnership. Paradoxically, as the US pivots towards the Indo-Pacific to counterbalance China’s global rise, this may offer a new avenue for transatlantic rapprochement. Both the US and the EU increasingly recognise the need to address China’s more assertive economic and geopolitical behaviour, and both see the growing socio-political and security threats from the rise of this axis of upheaval formed of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. For Europeans, navigating this increasingly unstable geopolitical landscape will require clarity, political maturity and a greater sense of strategic responsibility. The EU must continue to invest in its strategic autonomy—not to disengage from the US, but to become a more equal and reliable transatlantic partner. The coming months will be vital in charting a new course for transatlantic cooperation, one that emphasises increased European defence investment, a coordinated approach to the Russian and Chinese threats, the need for a deeper EU–NATO cooperation, a responsible resolution to the war in Ukraine, and a more balanced EU–US partnership. As such, European leaders will need to make a concerted effort to build bridges with the Trump administration by focusing on areas of convergence and mutual strategic interest. What lies ahead is a period of repositioning, a reordering of the transatlantic relationship from one rooted primarily in shared norms, values and principles towards a more pragmatic and transactional partnership based on common interests and careful management of differences. While challenging, this transformation could lead to a more resilient and mature transatlantic alliance, shaped by partners on an equal footing, capable of adapting to the demands of an unstable and unpredictable multipolar world order. ReferencesBlenkinsop P. (2025). EU seeks unity in first strike back at Trump tariffs. Reuters, 7 April. https://www.reuters.com/markets/eu-seeks-unity-first-strike-back-trump-tariffs-2025-04-06/. Accessed 7 April 2025.Britton H. (2025). European favourability of the USA falls following the return of Donald Trump. YouGov, 4 March. https://yougov.co.uk/international/articles/51719-european-favourability-of-the-usa-falls-following-the-return-of-donald-trump. Accessed 8 March 2025.Casert R. (2025). EU vows countermeasures to US tariffs. Bourbon, jeans, peanut butter, motorcycles are easy targets. The Associated Press, 11 February. https://apnews.com/article/eu-us-tariffs-trump-trade-war-leyen-0b23d25d30428eb288b79bfda4fa25e9. Accessed 16 February 2025.Cook E., Croucher S. (2025). Europe’s plan to ditch US weapons spooks Trump administration: Report. Newsweek, 2 April. https://www.newsweek.com/europes-plan-ditch-us-weapons-spooks-pentagon-report-2054087. Accessed 2 April 2025.Doan L., Stolton S. (2025). Trump blasts EU regulators for targeting Apple, Google, Meta. Bloomberg, 23 January. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-23/trump-blasts-eu-regulators-for-targeting-apple-google-meta. Accessed 5 February 2025.Erling B. (2025). Hegseth tells Europe to spend on defence as US presence may not last forever. Reuters, 14 February. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hegseth-tells-europe-spend-defence-us-presence-continent-may-not-be-forever-2025-02-14/. Accessed 17 February 2025.European Commission. (2024). The European Defence Industrial Strategy at a glance. https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/edis-our-common-defence-industrial-strategy_en. Accessed 5 March 2025.European Commission. (2025). Statement by President von der Leyen on the announcement of universal tariffs by the US. 3 April. https://ec.europa.Eu/commission/presscorner/detail/mt/statement_25_964. Accessed 7 April 2025.European Council. (2025). EU relations with the United States. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/united-states/. Accessed 25 March 2025.European Defence Agency. (2024). EU defence spending hits new records in 2023, 2024. 4 December. https://eda.europa.Eu/news-and-events/news/2024/12/04/eu-defence-spending-hits-new-records-in-2023-2024#. Accessed 22 January 2025.Gomez J. (2025). Readiness 2030: How is Europe planning to rearm and can it afford it? Euronews, 26 March. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/26/readiness-2030-how-is-europe-planning-to-rearm-and-can-it-afford-it. Accessed 27 March 2025.Kayali L. (2025). Trump doesn’t rule out military intervention in Greenland—again. Politico Europe, 30 March. https://www.politico.eu/article/usa-donald-trump-military-intervention-greenland-again-denmark/. Accessed 30 March 2025.Kelly S. (2025). Trump’s inauguration billionaires, CEOs: Ambani, Zuckerberg, Bezos attend church, ceremony. Reuters, 21 January. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-inauguration-billionaires-ceos-ambani-zuckerberg-bezos-attend-church-2025-01-20/. Accessed 12 February 2025.Knigge M. (2019). Washington downgrades EU mission to US. Deutsche Welle, 1 August. https://www.dw.com/en/trump-administration-downgrades-eu-mission-to-us/a-46990608?maca=en-Twitter-sharing. Accessed 14 January 2025.Landale J., Jackson P. (2025). US sides with Russia in UN resolutions on Ukraine. BBC, 25 February. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7435pnle0go. Accessed 27 February 2025.Liboreiro J. (2025). In first call, Kaja Kallas and Marco Rubio agree to keep ‘maximum pressure’ on Russia. Euronews, 29 January. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/01/29/in-first-call-kaja-kallas-and-marco-rubio-agree-to-keep-maximum-pressure-on-russia. Accessed 3 February 2025.Mills C. (2025). Ukraine and Russia: A shift in US policy. House of Commons Library UK Parliament, 3 April. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10218/. Accessed 3 April 2025.O’Sullivan D., Khatsenkova S. (2025). French President Macron announces plan for ‘reassurance force’ in Ukraine. Euronews, 27 March. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/27/coalition-of-the-willing-meets-in-paris-to-strengthen-support-for-ukraine. Accessed 27 March 2025.Pompeo M. R. (2018). ‘Restoring the role of the nation-state in the liberal international order’. Speech made to the members of the German Marshall Fund, Brussels, 4 December 2018. U.S. Department of State. https://2017-2021.state.gov/restoring-the-role-of-the-nation-state-in-the-liberal-international-order-2/. Accessed 20 January 2025.Quinville R. S. (2025). Making sense of the Munich Security Conference. Wilson Center, 18 February. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/making-sense-munich-security-conference. Accessed 22 February 2025.Samuel S. (2025). The broligarchs have a vision for the new Trump term. It’s darker than you think. Vox, 20 January. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/395646/trump-inauguration-broligarchs-musk-zuckerberg-bezos-thiel. Accessed 7 February 2025.Singh K., Jones R. P. (2025). Trump nominates former CKE Restaurants CEO Puzder as US ambassador to EU. Reuters, 23 January. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-nominates-former-cke-restaurants-ceo-puzder-us-ambassador-eu-2025-01-23/. Accessed 1 February 2025.Smith K. E. (2019). The Trump administration downgraded the E.U.’s diplomatic status in Washington. That’s going to hurt. The Washington Post, 8 January. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2019/01/08/the-trump-administration-is-downgrading-the-e-u-s-diplomatic-status-in-washington-thats-going-to-hurt/. Accessed 17 January 2025.The Economist. (2025). Schooled by Trump, Americans are learning to dislike their allies. 31 March. https://www.economist.Com/graphic-detail/2025/03/31/schooled-by-trump-americans-are-learning-to-dislike-their-allies. Accessed 1 April 2025.Vetter D. (2025). As Trump dumps clean energy, fossil fuels lose their grip on Europe. Forbes, 23 January. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2025/01/23/as-trump-dumps-clean-energy-fossil-fuels-lose-their-grip-on-europe/. Accessed 13 February 2025.Wiseman P. (2025). Trump once again slaps taxes on foreign steel, aluminum, a move that proved costly in his first term. The Associated Press, 10 February. https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-steel-aluminum-jobs-mexico-canada-89815eeb12ff28b83f5b855ca44f1820. Accessed 15 February 2025.Corresponding author(s):Ionela Maria Ciolan, Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, Rue du Commerce 20, 1000 Brussels Belgium. Email: iciolan@martenscentre.eu

Despite growing defence and economic ties, the Iran-Israel conflict reveals the limits of Russia-Iran relations and Moscow’s regional balancing act. The 12-day war between Israel and Iran, exacerbated by the air strikes conducted by the United States (US) on Iranian nuclear sites, has significantly escalated tensions in the Middle East. Russia has condemned both Israel and the US for ‘violating international law and the United Nations Charter’. However, beyond rhetoric, Russia could not do much in this conflict. Given its own involvement in the war with Ukraine, ongoing talks to normalise relations with the US, and close economic and people-to-people ties with Israel, Russia has been compelled to restrict its support for Iran to the diplomatic realm. Even on this level, Moscow’s proposal to mediate between Iran and Israel was rejected by US President Donald Trump. The Israel-Iran conflict has exposed limitations in the Moscow-Tehran strategic partnership and jeopardised Russia’s efforts to maintain regional equilibrium. Understanding the historical complexities of Russia-Iran ties The Middle East has always been a focal point in Moscow’s foreign policy, transcending its energy interests and the need to access the Western Indian Ocean. The region’s proximity to Russia, combined with its great power competition with the US, has driven Moscow to vie for regional influence. Iran and the erstwhile Soviet Union’s relations were complex, marked by instances of cooperation, yet peppered with deep distrust. This hindered Moscow from fully solidifying its ties with Tehran. Although the Soviet Union was the first major power to establish diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, its invasion of Afghanistan was perceived as an intervention in Tehran’s sphere of influence. This provoked a negative view of the USSR among the Iranian leadership and undermined the scope for cooperation. The death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the dissolution of the USSR created an opening in the relationship. Even though Moscow was largely looking to the US in its decision-making, Russia started assisting Tehran with its civil nuclear programme. Despite US proliferation concerns, Russia entered into a contract in 1995 to build a light-water reactor for the Bushehr nuclear power plant (NPP). The agreement also included training Iranian engineers and scientists at Russian nuclear research centres. That July, however, under US pressure and in a significant policy reversal, Moscow agreed to halt sales of conventional weapons to Iran. Throughout the 2000s, Tehran blamed Russia for adopting a transactional approach, often acting according to its own convenience and at times using Iran as a bargaining chip in its dealings with the US. During the same period, Moscow did not veto additional United Nations (UN)-sponsored restrictions imposed against Iran and limited the nuclear partnership by delaying the construction of the Bushehr NPP reactors. In the 2010s, Russia suspended the deal to supply Iran with S-300 air defence systems, following the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1929, which was supported by all the E3+3 countries (China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the US). The resolution banned Tehran from receiving any heavy conventional weapons, including missiles or missile systems. During the Syrian civil war, Russia worked in tandem with pro-Assad forces and Iran-backed ground forces in an attempt to eliminate the Islamic State. Even though this improved the bilateral relations with Iran, the lack of trustpersisted. A vivid example was the decision to revoke the permission for Russian fighter jets to use the Hamadan airbase for conducting raids over Syria, a week after granting the access—a move forced by a wave of protests in Iranian parliament and media. Russia has consistently upheld a non-proliferation stance on Iran, playing a crucial role in establishing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, which imposed significant restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Only after the JCPOA was signed did Moscow unlock the S-300 contract with Tehran. Russia was critical of Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018. Three years later, when Joseph Biden came to power in the US, Moscow supported an updated version of the JCPOA and expressed frustration with Iran’s obduracy. Russia-Iran engagement post-Ukraine Cooperation has gained momentum since the Ukraine conflict began in early 2022. Iran did not condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine but reiterated that war was not a solution. Defence relations strengthened as Iran exported Shahed-136 and the Mohajer drones to Russia and has reportedly exported ammunition, mortars, and other military equipment. In return, Iran has purportedly secured a deal to acquire Su-35 fighter jets from Russia. Although the contract’s details are obscure, as is the case with most Russia-Iran defence dealings, reports suggest Moscow supplied an unspecified number of jets to Tehran in late 2024. Even so, it is clear that whatever Iran obtained from Moscow did not help during the recent war with Israel, in which the latter established complete control of the Iranian airspace. Mutual economic interests span several sectors. Russia is the largest investor in the Iranian economy. In 2022–23, investments were estimated at US$2.76 billion. Although both countries compete with each other in the oil and gas sector, Moscow has pursued several projects with Tehran, planning to invest around US$8 billion in this sphere. The two sides have promoted a proposal to supply gas to Iran via Azerbaijan, with the first phase expected to start by the end of 2025. Both countries are eager to improve connectivity through the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). Russia has pledged a state loan of 1.3 billion euros for constructing the Astara-Rasht railway link that could bridge the remaining gap in the Iranian section of the INSTC. The two countries are working closely to integrate their payment systems. The Russian Mir App is already operational at Iranian point-of-sale terminals, and the full interoperability between the Mir and Shetab payment networks is anticipated soon. Although Tehran concluded a free trade agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union in 2023, its impact has been marginal, with bilateral trade hovering around US$5 billion over the past three years. Facing mounting international pressure, Russia and Iran have been compelled to align more closely. In January 2025, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Masoud Pezeshkian signed the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty covering a wide range of cooperation areas. Putin described it as a “real breakthrough, creating conditions for the stable and sustainable development of Russia, Iran and the entire region,” while Pezeshkian called it “a new chapter of strategic relations.” While the treaty obliges the sides “not to offer any military or any other aid to an aggressor attacking another party,” it stops short of a mutual security guarantee clause, such as the one Russia signed with North Korea. Tehran was reportedly reluctant to commit to military obligations, likely to avoid entanglement in Russia’s war with Ukraine. For Russia, maintaining equidistance between Middle Eastern powers without firmly siding with Iran is consistent with its traditional regional policy. The view that Russia was unable to support Tehran due to being bogged down in Ukraine is arguably reductive and not the primary reason for Russia’s fence-sitting in the Israel-Iran war. It would be unwise for Russia to antagonise Tel Aviv, which has adopted a restrained position regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite political tensions, Moscow appreciates that Israel has not joined Western sanctions against the Russian economy or sent any defence equipment to Kyiv. Additionally, the gradual reset of diplomatic contacts with Washington—furthered by the Trump administration's conciliatory stance towards Russia’s interests in Ukraine—has narrowed Russia’s regional manoeuvring space. Escalatory rhetoric or military involvement could cost Russia its hard-earned diplomatic positioning and risk renewed US support for Ukraine. In 2023–24, Iran formally joined non-Western multilateral organisations and groups such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), which is expected to bring Russia and Iran closer together in their interaction on Eurasian affairs and in their visions on ‘an emerging world order’. However, there are nuances to Moscow’s and Tehran’s approaches, which are not immediately apparent. While both capitals are seemingly sharing the anti-US sentiments, a significant section of their elites still seeks to restore ties with the West. This means that the Russia-Iran connection hangs on the external factor of their respective dialogues with the West. The more isolated they are, the more likely they are to gravitate towards each other; alternatively, both Moscow and Tehran would see little incentive in investing much political and financial capital in the bilateral relationship. This suggests that Russia and Iran are unlikely to become allies, and that their future partnership will factor in the US calculations.

Abstract: The Sahel is the most attractive strip of Africa for terrorist groups to establish themselves in. As a result of the fragility of the area and the limited resources to deal with armed gangs, more and more terrorist groups are emerging and coexisting in the area. This paper aims to briefly analyse the multiplicity of terrorist groups and the relationship between them, focusing essentially on one question: is the rise of Salafi attacks that make the Sahel the global epicentre of terrorism caused by all terrorist groups acting together to achieve their aims, or is each acting independently? Keywords:Sahel - Terrorism - Jihadism - Terrorist groups - Cooperation - Competition. The Sahel: Africa’s Perfect Stage for Terrorists?  The Sahel is defined as the large strip that runs from west to east across Africa, between the Sahara Desert and the tropical zone of Sub-Saharan Africa1; in fact, Sahel derives from an Arabic word meaning ‘shore’, thus forming the southern shore of the great Sahara Desert. Although this area covers a dozen countries, due to the existence of a greater number of similarities between certain states in the area, reference is usually made to five specific countries when talking about the Sahel, specifically those that formed the G5 Sahel group between February 2014 and November 2023, with the aim of trying to find a joint and concerted solution to the instability in the area.  Indeed, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad and Mauritania share similarities given their historical and political past, to a greater extent than the rest of the Sahelian countries, and all of them are subject to strong instability. Within this general instability, it should be noted that in the case of the first three countries mentioned above, they share the so-called ‘triple border’, an area where 80% of the attacks recorded in the Sahel are concentrated2.  The countries have the common legacy of the mostly French colonisation process, sometimes, and more in the framework of current narratives, it is held responsible for having generated great instability in their political institutions and in the economy of the states3. And, faced with the challenge of having to develop democratic and stable political regimes, the reality is that these have mostly failed, especially in the countries that make up this triple frontier, which have been subject to multiple coups between 2020 and 2023, generating a powerful feeling of instability, especially towards the most vulnerable population4 who always suffer the consequences of political and social instability.  In addition, they are very poor countries; in the Human Development Index these countries are among the 10 poorest of those evaluated worldwide5, and to which must be added the negative effects of climate change, which has a direct impact on food insecurity, health problems and the quality of life of civilians6, and have a life expectancy of around 53 and 65 years.7 As these are countries with limited security along with an overflowing population growth, with the population doubling every twenty years, since 65% are under 25 years old sytems and bodies8 - since they are fed by the taxes collected - they are not very effective and security can only be provided in some parts of these countries, which leads to a growing feeling of distrust and frustration on the part of the population towards them and towards the government, so that the ‘social contract’, the obligation to respect the rules and laws of a state in exchange for receiving a series of services - the basic and primordial one being security - is not fulfilled in large parts of the Sahel. Faced with this situation, jihadist groups sometimes present themselves as an alternative capable of offering certain services to cover these needs neglected by governments9. In such complex and hopeless conditions, where the feeling of abandonment and the instinct for survival grow, being part of a terrorist group - or an organised crime group - is often seen by many young people as almost the only work alternative, often the only viable choice.10 .. or emigration. While the term ‘jihad’ generates debate and there is no clear consensus on its meaning and personal implication, in the literal sense it means “struggle” and for radicals it is used as ‘holy war’, which justifies terrorist attacks11, largely obviating the meaning of ‘inner struggle’ that any believer must sustain in the face of life's temptations in order to be a good believer. But, in the common wisdom, jihad comes to be understood as holy war. And with the intention of imposing a comprehensive vision of Islam, jihadists try to recruit and indoctrinate young Africans, offering them a sense of protection from other armed groups - in short, a sense of security - as well as a sense of identity and hope12, filling the vacuum that would otherwise be filled by a developed nation-state. Thus, jihadism is growing rampantly in the Sahel, where conditions are favourable for its development. Thus, in 2024, most of the global deaths related to terrorism occurred in the Sahel, an area where this figure has increased tenfold since 2015.13 Complexity of terrorist groups in the Sahel. In this scenario, which is very favourable to the emergence and growth of terrorist groups, there are multiple groups that continue to multiply their attacks qualitatively and quantitatively throughout the region, although it is feasible to point to the existence of ‘two large conglomerates of terrorist groups of jihadist aetiology’14. The two groups that dominate the geopolitical landscape in the Sahel are, on the one hand, ‘Jama'at Nusrat al islam wa ak Muslimeen’ (JNIM), an Al Qaeda affiliate - the Arabic transliteration of its initials would correspond to ‘Support Group for Islam and Muslims’ - and, on the other hand, the ‘Islamic State in the Greater Sahara’ (EIGS or ISIS), which pledged allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS)15. To these two branches belong various groups such as Ansar Eddine, which acts under the umbrella of Al-Qaeda, as well as Macina or Al-Mourabitoun. In fact, JNIM is composed of an alliance between four terrorist groups that follow Al-Qaeda's line. Among them, three of those mentioned above are part of these Sahara Brigades that are grouped under the name of JNIM16, and represented by the slogan: ‘One banner, one group, one emir’, which makes clear the idea of unity among them. And under the aegis of ISIS or EIGS (Islamic State), the largest active terrorist group is Boko Haram, although other active groups, such as Junud al-Khilafa, also follow the same line. What we understand by the oath of allegiance or loyalty comes from the practice of bay'ah and is one of the traditional procedures required to formalise terrorists' alliances with the respective organisations.17. This act of adherence to a group would be beneficial for both the one that lends allegiance and the one that receives it, being a way of projecting itself globally and going further in its expansion in the search for the constitution of a caliphate, while at the same time giving more power and a new status to the group that pledges allegiance. This procedure, which has been playing an increasingly significant role for the two Jihadist branches mentioned above, changed the terrorist landscape, given that until then they were only sympathetic to al-Qaeda, but several groups began to opt to join the Islamic State, a fact that reinforces the concept of the two dominant branches of global Jihadism. Al Qaeda was the first reference group to establish the Islamist terrorist phenomenon in the Sahel. In 2007, the first terrorist organisation in the geographical area of the Sahel was renamed Al Qaeda because of the power that this global denomination reflected18. Later, the Islamic State created the ‘Agency of Distinct Provinces’ in 2014, which allowed the group to plan an African strategy19. And this shift towards the Sahel coincides with the year of the fall of Mosul in Iraq, a city in which the Islamic State had proclaimed its caliphate three years earlier and which in 2014 had been liberated by an international coalition from Jihadist hegemony, drastically reducing the presence of members of the terrorist group. And the growth of these groups in this strip of Africa, in the Sahel, highlights both the vulnerabilities that al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are trying to exploit to achieve their objectives and the fact that the loss of control of a territory does not mean the end of the Jihadist struggle.20, in search of alternative spaces.  Coexistence of Terrorist Groups in the Sahel: Allies for a Common Cause?  Thus, several terrorist groups coexist in the Sahel, all sharing the same Salafist ideology and the common goal of returning to the original Islamic community by establishing a caliphate21. One example is the 2018 campaign to isolate Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso, which was coordinated by both major groups to gain control of that territory—demonstrating that, under certain circumstances, the two major groups can cooperate to achieve jihadist objectives22.  Analyzing the actions and attacks carried out by each group shows that each faction has more or less presence in specific areas, and in several of them, different Salafi groups coexist. In fact, in the so-called “tri-border area”—the region most affected by these attacks—the two main jihadist branches operate side by side23. However, according to findings by the International Observatory for the Study of Terrorism in February 2025, JNIM (an Al-Qaeda affiliate) was the sole perpetrator of terrorist attacks in Burkina Faso and the main actor behind those in Mali. In contrast, in Niger, it is the Islamic State that has caused the highest number of casualties24. And although JNIM has been active in the Sahel longer than ISGS, which is reflected in the wide area they operate in, ISGS is responsible for more victims due to the intensity of its attacks. Because these groups often overlap in the same localities and carry out separate and uncoordinated operations, it is clear that they mostly act independently, leaving behind evidence of distinct attacks. Even though it may seem logical to assume they would act jointly toward their shared goal, this is not usually the case.  The motivation for terrorist groups to form alliances can depend on international political-military pressure and the policies of local regimes.25 Additionally, personal relationships between leaders and members of these terrorist groups can significantly influence the connections between factions. These relationships, often complex, can be explained by the fact that many of the terrorist groups currently active in the Sahel were born out of internal tensions within larger factions, including differing views on how jihad should be carried out.26 Such tensions sometimes result in splinter groups—some maintaining ties, while others become rivals. One example is the close relationship between Amadou Koufa, founder of Macina (now part of JNIM), and Iyad ag Ghali, leader of Ansar Dine and head of JNIM. Similarly, in August 2018, the UN Group of Experts identified Abdallah Ag Albakaye, a Tuareg emir of JNIM, as coordinating actions between JNIM and ISGS in the Gao region of Mali.27  These coordinated actions were possible for a time when both Salafi groups carried out attacks together without competing or issuing dual claims of responsibility. These attacks were officially announced by only one of the groups, although later reports revealed that fighters from both branches were involved—for instance, the May 2019 ambush in Niger in which around 30 Nigerien soldiers were killed. Regarding this attack, a JNIM commander confirmed that the fighters were split between the two groups28.  Such fluid personal relationships gave rise to the so-called “Sahelian exception,” which referred to the unusually cordial relations between rival leaders and the absence of conflict between the two factions. But this is not always the case.  Competition for jihadist dominance in the Sahel?  While Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have come to show connections in certain attacks, the style and tone of each group differs. The controversies and disputes that can be observed between Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are essentially two-fold: religious and political.  A phenomenon that was already occurring in previous years in parts of the Middle East, but is becoming increasingly common in the Sahel, is precisely this fragmentation and splintering of terrorist groups, which leads to clashes and disputes. In February 2018, JNIM claimed responsibility for an explosive attack in Mali, which EIGS claimed a year later; identical claims of attacks in the same territories are coming to light between 2019 and 202029. But what is significant is what happened in Mali in 2020, when a clash between terrorist groups took place due to the crossing of Al Qaeda-dominated territory by terrorists under the aegis of the Islamic State, a clash that was made official in a letter from the ‘number two’ of the EIGS affiliate to the JNIM30.  Despite this, and despite this and other clashes, it was not until May 2020 that both JNIM and EIGS openly acknowledged the armed disputes between them, and did so in an ‘official’ manner, in the weekly Al Naba newsletter31, a publication of the ISIS jihadist gang, which specifically mentions clashes in the area of Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali known as the triple frontier.  Later in 2022, the EIGS celebrated the addition of 11 new Al Qaeda members, news announced by the EIGS in a tone of supremacy and describing Al Qaeda fighters as sinners and infidels to God.32. And, on the part of the other groups, similar patterns are followed.  Therefore, it is feasible to point out that, on the one hand, tensions are generated due to clashes in the same territory and the desire to dominate it, and that despite having the same objective of imposing the caliphate, the motivation to control each region by a particular group is important, so much so as to fight against ‘apparent partners’, which reflects a clash over territorial ambitions.  On the other hand, there is also a certain religious and ideological fragmentation, a certain vision of Islam, which is what each group tries to impose, and this is of utmost importance, given that all this is framed in a ‘holy war’, so that the religious approach is a very important dimension in explaining these clashes. Both jihadist branches are based on the theory of takfirism, a doctrine that the Islamic State accuses al-Qaeda of not applying properly and vice versa33. As a result, both terrorist groups have blamed each other for deviating from the path of jihad; indeed, earlier this year the ISIS released a propaganda video mentioning JNIM as ‘impure’ for not applying Shariah34.  For this reason, and despite this common goal of creating an Islamic caliphate, since 2020 attacks between the two groups have not ceased and they have actively worked to increase the degree of territorial control exercised by each group, as a way of gaining supremacy in the region. Thus, in April 2020, JNIM had to withdraw from part of northern Burkina Faso due to pressure from the EIGS35, which is also gradually, and to a greater extent, taking root in the southern part of Niger, forcing JNIM to leave the area36.  Since then, there has been constant fighting between the groups in several regions of the Sahel, with the aim of consolidating and imposing themselves as the dominant reference point for jihad37… and those who suffer the results of this fighting end up being the civilians in these areas where government action is almost non-existent. Conclusion  The Sahel has become the epicentre of Islamic terrorism in which multiple terrorist groups from the two main branches coexist, as both JNIM and EIGS have been able to see the potential that this vast geographical area offers them due to the weakness of the region's states, especially in terms of security, to oppose these terrorist groups. And it is this vacuum that terrorist groups - and also organised crime groups - are trying to fill, presenting themselves as almost the only alternative life - apart from emigration - for many young people, which is why these groups are growing in power and degree of territorial control. While the common goal of all jihadist groups is to establish a caliphate, and despite the existence of a period of peaceful coexistence between the two main branches of jihadist terrorism, differences over both religious issues and simple power struggles are yet another source of conflict in this tortured part of Africa and the world. And, in addition to the chaos and suffering generated in the region, being the epicentre of global jihadism in a global world does not only have a regional impact. It has, and increasingly so, a global impact. References 1 MONTER, Jara “El mapa político del Sahel”, El Orden Mundial, 7 de febrero de 2025. https://elordenmundial.com/mapas-y-graficos/mapa-politico-sahel/  2 DEPARTAMENTO DE SEGURIDAD NACIONAL, “Terrorismo en el Sahel Occidental”, 16 de julio de 2021. https://www.dsn.gob.es/en/node/15446  3 ALLIANCE SAHEL, “Décryptage des causes et déterminants de la crise au Sahel: quels enjeux pour les partenaires au développement”, 12 de diciembre de 2023. https://www.alliance-sahel.org/seminaire-decryptage-causes-determinants-crise-sahel/#:~:text=La%20région%20du%20Sahel%20fait,augmentent%20la%20vulnérabilité%20des%20populations  4 FONDS MONÉTAIRE INTERNATIONAL, “La compléxité des défis au Sahel”, septiembre de 2024. https://www.imf.org/fr/Publications/fandd/issues/2024/09/the-sahels-intertwined-challenges-yabi   5 Datos de country economy (Human Development Index), 2024. https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/niger  6SÁNCHEZ HERRÁEZ Pedro, “Sahel: ¡tormenta perfecta de amplitud e intensidad creciente!!, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, 2021. https://www.defensa.gob.es/documents/2073105/2077188/Capítulo+8+Sahel+tormenta+perfecta+de+amplitud+e+intensidad+creciente.pdf/d4bc511b-75ef-6c12-aaeb-f9b51e72a765?t=1731579352666  7 SOLER David, “La esperanza de vida en África”, África Mundi, 26 de marzo de 2022. https://www.africamundi.es/p/la-esperanza-de-vida-en-africa  8 IFAD, “Afrontar los retos del desarrollo sostenible en el Sahel”. https://www.ifad.org/es/africa-occidental-y-central/sahel  9 BALLESTEROS MARTÍN Miguel Ángel, “Análisis geopolítico del Sahel”, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, octubre de 2015. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5270491  10 SÁNCHES HERRÁEZ Pedro, “El Sahel: ¿también epicentro de la reconfiguración global?, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, 18 de marzo de 2025. https://www.defensa.gob.es/ceseden/-/ieee/el_sahel_tambien_epicentro_de_la_reconfiguracion_global  11 SANJUÁN MARTÍNEZ Casimiro, “El terrorismo yihadista. El yihadismo en el Sahel amenaza a Europa”, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, 5 de noviembre de 2020. https://www.ieee.es/Galerias/fichero/docs_opinion/2020/DIEEEO140_2020CASSAN_yihadSahel.pdf   12 DEPARTAMENTO DE SEGURIDAD NACIONAL, “El terrorismo en el Sahel”, 12 de mayo de 2021. https://www.dsn.gob.es/en/node/14943  13 OBSERVATORIO INTERNACIONAL DE ESTUDIOS SOBRE TERRORISMO, “Anuario del terrorismo yihadista 2024”. https://observatorioterrorismo.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ES-ANUARIO-OIET-2024.pdf  14 MARTÍN SERRANO Lucas, “Daesh vs Al Qaeda. La lucha por la supremacía a las puertas de Europa”, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, 11 de julio de 2016. D https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5998290  15 FUENTE COBO Ignacio, “Radiografía de la amenaza yihadista en el Sahel”, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, 5 de marzo de 2025. https://www.defensa.gob.es/ceseden/-/ieee/radiografia_de_la_amenaza_yihadista_en_el_sahel   16 ECSAHARAUI, “Estos son los grupos terroristas que operan en el Sahel”, 22 de septiembre de 2024. https://ecsaharaui.com/09/2024/estos-son-los-grupos-terroristas-que-operan-en-el-sahel/  17 IGUALADA Carlos y YAGÚE Javier, “El uso de la bay’ah por los principales grupos salafí-yihadistas”, OIET, 13 de octubre de 2021. https://observatorioterrorismo.com/actividades/el-uso-de-la-bayah-por-los-principales-grupos-salafi-yihadistas/  18 HERRERO Rubén y MACHÍN Nieva, “El eje Magreb-Sahel: La amenaza del terrorismo”, Revista UNISCI, octubre de 2015. https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/media/www/pag-74789/UNISCIDP39-8RUBEN-NIEVA.pdf  19 ORIENTXXI, “Estado Islámico, diez años de expansión en el continente africano”, 24 de marzo de 2023. https://orientxxi.info/magazine/estado-islamico-diez-anos-de-expansion-en-el-continente-africano,6325   20 BBC NEWS MUNDO, “Caída de Mosul: cómo Estado Islámico se está transformando ante la pérdida de su territorio”, 10 de julio de 2017. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-40407044  21 THOMAS Dominique, “État islamique vs Al-Qaïda: autopsie d’une lutte fratricide”, Politique Étrangère, 2016. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-politique-etrangere-2016-1?lang=fr&tab=sommaire  22 PÉREZ Carlota, “Al Qaeda y Daesh: rivales en Oriente Medio y aliados en el Sahel”, ATALAYAR, 29 de junio de 2018. https://www.atalayar.com/articulo/politica/al-qaeda-y-daesh-rivales-en-oriente-medio-y-aliados-en-el-sahel/20200224202755144652.html  23 BEAUDOUX Clara, “Qui sont les groupes islamistes qui opèrent en Afrique de l’Ouest?”, Fance Info, 20 de febrero de 2013. https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/qui-sont-les-groupes-islamistes-qui-operent-en-afrique-de-l-ouest_1645959.html  24 AGUILERA Ana, “Actividad yihadista en el norte de África y el Sahel”, OIET, 26 de marzo de 2025. https://observatorioterrorismo.com/yihadismo-en-el-magreb-y-el-sahel-2025/actividad-yihadista-en-el-norte-de-africa-y-el-sahel-febrero-2025/   25 FUMAGALLI Giuseppe, “Terrorismo in Africa; le complicità dei regimi autoritari”, Instituto per gli studi di política internazionale, 5 de abril de 2016. https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/terrorismo-africa-le-complicita-dei-regimi-autoritari-14927  26 DE LEÓN COBO Beatriz, “La estrategia glocal de los grupos yihadistas del Sahel”, OIET, 15 de enero de 2021. https://observatorioterrorismo.com/actividades/la-estrategia-glocal-de-los-grupos-yihadistas-del-sahel/#_ftn5  27 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL, “Letter dated 8 august from the Panel of Experts etablished pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017) on Mali adressed to the President of the Security Council”, 8 de agosto de 2018, p.20.https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2018_581.pdf  28 ALJAZEERA, “ISIL claims attack on Niger soldiers as death toll rises to 28”, 16 de mayo de 2019. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/5/16/isil-claims-attack-on-niger-soldiers-as-death-toll-rises-to-28   29 POST X, Menastream, “#Burkina faso: #JNIM claimed Thursday’s atttack against the police station in Manila…”, 27 de enero de 2019. https://x.com/MENASTREAM/status/1089648251291254784  30 EL IMPARCIAL, “Al Qaeda y Daesh se enfrenan en un conflicto armado inédito en el Sahel”, miércoles 9 de abril de 2025. https://www.elimparcial.es/noticia/212597/mundo/al-qaeda-y-daesh-se-enfrenan-en-un-conflicto-armado-indito-en-el-sahel.html  31 NSAIVIA Héni y WEISS Caleb, “The end of the Sahelian Anomaly: How the Global Conlict between the Islamic State and al-Qaìda finally came to West Africa”, Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, Julio de 2020. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-end-of-the-sahelian-anomaly-how-the-global-conflict-between-the-islamic-state-and-al-qaida-finally-came-to-west-africa/  32 OBSERVATORIO DE AL AZHAR, “Daesh celebra la incorporación de 11 miembros de Al Qaeda… una muestra más de las diferencias entre ambas organizaciones terroristas”, miércoles 3 de agosto de 2022. https://www.azhar.eg/observer-es/details/ArtMID/1201/ArticleID/63847/Daesh-celebra-la-incorporaci243n-de-11-miembros-de-Al-Qaeda…-una-muestra-m225s-de-las-diferencias-entre-ambas-organizaciones-terroristas  33 THOMAS Dominique, “État islamique vs Al-Qaïda: autopsie d’une lutte fratricide”, Politique Étrangère, 2016. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-politique-etrangere-2016-1-page-95?lang=fr  34 AGUILERA Ana, “Actividad yihadista en el norte de África y el Sahel, febrero 2025”, OIET, 26 de marzo de 2025. https://observatorioterrorismo.com/yihadismo-en-el-magreb-y-el-sahel-2025/actividad-yihadista-en-el-norte-de-africa-y-el-sahel-febrero-2025/  35 SUMMERS Marta, “Enfrentamientos entre JNIM y EIGS. Cambios en el equilibrio terrorista del Sahel”, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, 6 de julio de 2020. https://www.ieee.es/Galerias/fichero/docs_opinion/2020/DIEEEO98_2020MARSUM_Sahel.pdf  36 MARSTON Barry, “Analysis: High jihadist activity in Africa’s Sahel continues”, BBC, 9 de noviembre de 2023. https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c204qwhm   37 FUENTE COBO Ignacio, “Radiografía de la amenaza yihadista en el Sahel”, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, 5 de marzo de 2025. https://www.defensa.gob.es/ceseden/-/ieee/radiografia_de_la_amenaza_yihadista_en_el_sahel  

Abstract The Ukraine war has reshaped the global geopolitical landscape, positioning Europe, America, Russia and China as key players on a new global chessboard. Europe is grappling with the dual challenge of ensuring regional security and managing the economic fallout from the conflict. America’s evolving global relationships are marked by a burden-shift with Europe, diplomatic efforts to further deter Russian aggression and a strategic rivalry with China. For Russia, the invasion of Ukraine is a bid to reassert its influence, but it faces severe international sanctions and military setbacks, constraining its strategic ambitions. And China is navigating a complex balancing act between supporting Russia and maintaining its economic ties with the West. This complex interplay of alliances and rivalries underscores the shifting dynamics of global power and the urgent need for diplomatic solutions to ensure stability and peace. Introduction On 27 March 2025 a Summit on Peace and Security for Ukraine was organised by President Emmanuel Macron in cooperation with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. It was held in Paris. This summit was part of an ongoing series of political and operational meetings that the UK and France have been organising alternately over several weeks, aimed at contributing to a sustainable and just peace in Ukraine. This particular summit saw the participation of 31 countries, including non-EU nations such as the UK, Norway, Canada and Iceland, as well as high-profile figures such as the NATO secretary general, the president of the European Commission and the president of the European Council. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also attended. The increased frequency of meetings among this wide-ranging ‘coalition of the willing’ is recognition, in Europe’s eyes, of the immediate need to establish and permanently guarantee security and peace in the long term for Ukraine. It is evident that the unconditional ceasefire that Ukraine had declared its readiness to enter into on 11 March in Saudi Arabia has since evolved into a proposal for a limited ceasefire with additional conditions and demands from Russia. Moscow is employing delaying tactics, and there is a growing realisation, even within the US, that Russia is not genuinely interested in ending the war. Europe’s novel security approach: ‘Peace through strength’ This fear of a prolonged conflict in Ukraine, and the perceived risk of war between Europe and Russia, has pushed the European Commission to propose a way forward in its Joint White Paper for European Defence Readiness 2030 (European Commission 2025), which can be encapsulated by the motto ‘peace through strength’. This approach entails rapidly increasing military support for Ukraine, including the provision of more ammunition, artillery, air defence systems, drones and training. Additionally, it involves enhancing the capabilities of European countries by them investing more in their own defence, simplifying administrative processes and fostering better industrial cooperation, including with the Ukrainian defence industry. The European Commission has also outlined the financial instruments that have been established in record time to address these specific challenges. The primary objective of these financial instruments is to bolster European defence spending, with the EU targeting a total of €800 billion. This includes €150 billion in loans available to member states through a new Security Action for Europe (SAFE) instrument and up to €650 billion from national defence budgets, corresponding to an expenditure of 1.5% of GDP that can be excluded from national budgets by activating the ‘national escape clause’ of the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact. Additionally, private financing and funds from the European Investment Bank will be mobilised for investments in priority capabilities. Furthermore, the EU has identified several priority capabilities for investment. In the short term, joint EU purchases should focus on missiles and artillery systems. In the medium term, the goal is to develop large-scale EU systems in integrated air and missile defence, military mobility and strategic enablers. NATO standards will continue to serve as the foundation, and it is crucial that these standards are shared with the EU. Finally, ‘peace through strength’ also includes the further European integration of Ukraine, with Brussels clearly considering Ukraine the EU’s first line of defence. The Commission’s Joint White Paper and a parallel initiative launched by High Representative Kaja Kallas both aim to bolster military support for Kyiv and stress the importance of defence procurement both with and within Ukraine. Despite the commendable pace and scope of the numerous recent initiatives undertaken by the EU, it is imperative to recognise that these commitments must still be translated into tangible actions. The European Commission remains hopeful that the proposals delineated in the Joint White Paper can be actualised during the Polish Presidency, with the aim of reaching concrete decisions by the European Council meeting scheduled for 26–7 June. However, considering the ongoing deterioration of the European security landscape, it could be argued that this deadline lacks the requisite sense of urgency needed to address the pressing challenges ahead. European peace through strength—but not without the US While Europe is building its rise as a security, defence and military actor, there is a consensus among most EU member states that these efforts should not happen to the detriment of NATO and that there is a need to maintain solid US involvement in European security. Strength is not merely a matter of political initiatives but also of demonstrating a clear readiness to engage militarily. There must be a deterrent effect from military power, particularly in anticipation of potential new Russian offensives once Moscow rebuilds its troops and supplies during a future ceasefire or peace deal. And military power is exactly where Europe—willing or not—will still need to rely on the transatlantic partnership for a foreseeable while, due to its current overreliance on strategic US military and intelligence assets. Moreover, the new administration in Washington has manoeuvred fast to have a clear say on the future of European security. It is the US—not Europe—that is leading the diplomacy on a ceasefire or peace deal in Ukraine. And while Europe, in reaction, is focusing on shaping future security guarantees for Ukraine—or even pushing for boots on the ground through a ‘coalition of the willing’—both of these European endeavours hinge, first, on the success of US diplomacy to reach a deal with Russia; and second, on US logistical and intelligence support for the proposed troops on the ground. Without these, most of the ‘willing nations’ may withdraw their commitments. The situation is further complicated by the shortage of operational European troops: for instance, the UK has an expeditionary force, but relies heavily on its air and naval power; France has some units, but in insufficient numbers; and Germany’s contribution remains uncertain. In this context, a European plan to help Ukraine win and maintain peace should not compromise NATO’s resilience and should therefore be developed in close coordination with the alliance, particularly in terms of planning and interoperability. And as Europe is now spending on defence, it should do so while ensuring that its expenditures align with NATO capability objectives. Moreover, military strength is not the only domain in which Europe should continue to keep an eye on the US. Europe notably believes that it is imperative to increase pressure on Russia through sanctions. The EU is unequivocally clear that there can be no consideration of easing sanctions; on the contrary, some member states even advocate for intensifying them. The challenge for Europe, however, remains to emphatically convey this message to the Americans, as any decision by the US to ease sanctions—as requested by Russia—would undermine the most critical form of pressure against Russia. Some EU member states have already raised concerns about the future of European sanctions policy, highlighting the need for new methods to enforce sanctions, particularly if certain EU member states more friendly to Russia decide to obstruct them in the future. Putin’s patient game of chess Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin has clearly asserted a degree of dominance in the ongoing diplomatic negotiations. He has set preliminary conditions for a ceasefire, made a limited commitment regarding energy infrastructure and subsequently undermined the credibility of his own commitment with new attacks on Ukraine. Despite this, Putin’s demands concerning Western military supplies and intelligence-sharing reveal that Ukrainian attacks on Russian critical infrastructure are causing significant damage and irking the Russian president. Putin’s demands, including the reduction of Ukraine’s military capabilities, the transfer of entire Ukrainian regions to Russian control and the replacement of President Zelensky, are, naturally, unacceptable to Ukraine. These demands also pose the most significant risk to the West: if Russia were to succeed in installing a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv and controlling the Ukrainian military, it would alter the entire power and military balance in Eastern Europe. Should President Trump agree to this, it would likely cause a further deterioration in US–EU relations too. Achieving a middle-ground in any US–Russia agreement for Ukraine currently still poses a formidable challenge. Moscow therefore perceives that it has the momentum in its favour, despite Russia’s inability to achieve any strategic breakthroughs in Ukraine. The financial and human costs of this conflict for Moscow are substantial, while it is making minimal territorial gains. However, while Ukraine has successfully liberated 50% of the territory that was previously occupied by Russia, the Kremlin nevertheless still occupies approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory. Moscow has also likely observed in the US a desire to shift towards finding a consensus and a willingness to negotiate in a transactional manner. Moreover, the recent suspension of US intelligence and military support has already had immediate repercussions on Ukraine’s strength. It has weakened Ukraine’s ability to bring this war to a conclusion and could potentially lead to a temporary ceasefire that would de facto result in the creation of a ‘frozen conflict’—an outcome which Russia would not necessarily view unfavourably. A friendly US visit to Europe . . . On 3 and 4 April 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio participated for the first time in a NATO foreign ministerial meeting. Rubio’s visit to NATO headquarters was notably smoother and more amicable than the visit of his colleague at the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth, for the defence ministerial meeting in February 2025. Rubio, a seasoned diplomat, adroitly conveyed the message that European allies must significantly increase their defence spending, advocating for allocations of up to 5% of their GDP. He acknowledged the difficulty of this demand but emphasised that it could be achieved incrementally, provided the allies concerned showed a clear and consistent direction of progress. In a similar vein, Rubio addressed the situation in Ukraine, commending the resilience and fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people. He articulated President Trump’s recognition that a military solution in Ukraine is unattainable for both Ukraine and Russia, necessitating a negotiated settlement. Rubio underscored that peace negotiations inherently require compromises from all parties involved. He acknowledged that Ukraine has already made significant concessions, whereas Russia has yet to reciprocate. According to Rubio, Russia is testing President Trump’s resolve, but he also acknowledged that Putin faces severe consequences if he does not promptly agree to a ceasefire, indicating that the timeline for such an agreement is measured in weeks, not months. Rubio concluded by asserting that a peace agreement would be unattainable without European involvement. Rubio also expressed broad support for the EU’s defence initiatives, including the EU Joint White Paper and the ReArm programme. He praised the EU’s efforts to encourage its member states to meet their NATO commitments and to strengthen the industrial base, provided that the non-EU defence industry, particularly American firms, is not unduly excluded. Despite the positive reception of Rubio’s visit to Europe and NATO, there remains an underlying uncertainty about whether other influential figures within President Trump’s Make America Great Again movement share Rubio’s views. The path to achieving a cohesive and effective alliance strategy is fraught with challenges, and it remains uncertain whether NATO will navigate these obstacles successfully and emerge intact. . . . but Washington’s priority is the Asia–Pacific region Above all, the NATO foreign ministerial meeting of early April showed again that the US felt fundamentally displeased with the Western approach to China over the past several decades. The prevailing assumption—that a capitalist and economically prosperous China would inevitably evolve to resemble Western democratic nations—was a misguided and overly optimistic expectation. This erroneous belief has permitted Beijing to engage in deceptive trade and military practices for the past 30 years without facing significant repercussions. Today the US is clearly concerned about the way China has strategically weaponised its industrial capabilities by seamlessly integrating its civilian and military sectors through a dual-use strategy that is particularly evident in critical economic and high-tech domains, such as artificial intelligence. By blurring the lines between civilian and military applications, China has been able to enhance its technological and industrial base, thereby posing a multifaceted challenge to global security. Moreover, for the US, the presence of North Korean soldiers in Ukraine serves as a stark indicator of the interconnected nature of the threats emanating from the Indo-Pacific and European regions. For Washington, the collaborative efforts of adversarial states such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea in Ukraine and other geopolitical theatres necessitate a similarly unified and strategic approach from democratic like-minded nations to strengthening their alliances and enhancing their collective security measures in response to the evolving geopolitical landscape. Interconnected theatres of confrontation China’s alleged support for the Russian war effort in Ukraine and the military cooperation between Russia and North Korea, and Russia and Iran, clearly illustrate the interconnectedness of security dynamics between Europe, the Asia–Pacific region and the Middle East. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine represents a pivotal moment for the stability of the international system, impacting not only Europe but also other parts of the world. Contrary to the characterisation of the conflict in Ukraine as merely a ‘European war’ a few years ago, the war there is now considered by the West to be a globalised conflict with profound international implications. This perspective is widely accepted among the NATO allies, which recognise the growing interconnection between the three theatres of conflict. This attitude is also increasingly reflected in the enhanced dialogue between NATO and the Indo–Pacific Four partners—Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Republic of Korea. This cooperation is today seen by allies as mutually beneficial and necessary. Beyond exchanges of intelligence, particularly on the challenges posed by China, support for Ukraine dominates the partnership, alongside the joint battle against hybrid threats, progress on cybersecurity and the strengthening of maritime security. It is widely expected that NATO allies will seek to further strengthen this cooperation at the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague. Among NATO members there is, furthermore, a growing consensus on the need to be firm with China. Allies agree on the necessity of sending a stronger message and taking determined and united actions in terms of deterrence, including at the hybrid and cyber levels, as well as on imposing sanctions against Chinese economic operators involved in China–Russia cooperation in Ukraine. While Russia remains the primary long-term threat to the NATO realm, there is recognition that China poses a significant problem that must be addressed in its full magnitude, particularly in the context of China–Russia cooperation. It is essential to act firmly and in a united way to increase the costs of cooperation with Moscow for Beijing while keeping open the necessary avenues of engagement. Any dissonance between Europe and the US on this issue might otherwise become the root cause of the next big crisis of trust in the transatlantic relationship. China versus a Russian–American rapprochement Russia is not fighting its Ukraine war alone. It is receiving help from allies including China, Iran and North Korea. Moreover, the war in Ukraine is not just about Ukraine’s future. It is also part of a larger global struggle, with Russia seeking position alongside China in a reconfigured world order that is more multipolar and less centred on the US. In this respect, China may be inclined to silently assist Russia in opposing a proposed ceasefire or peace plan for Ukraine put forward by President Trump. Beijing likely recognises that by resolving the conflict in Ukraine and fostering better relations with Russia, Trump’s ultimate objective is to reallocate US diplomatic, military and economic resources to address the growing global influence of China and its impact on US national interests. In this respect Putin appears keen to keep President Xi Jinping informed about American attempts at rapprochement and ongoing negotiations concerning Ukraine. Historically, the ‘good relations’ between China and Russia are relatively recent; the stability of this relationship is attributed to the resolution of their border disputes, their complementary economies and their non-interference in each other’s ideological systems. But Moscow treads carefully as it knows it is the junior partner in the relationship. Moreover, the prospect of an American–Russian rapprochement is not viewed by either Moscow or Beijing with any real sense of threat. Ultimately Russia’s offerings to the US are limited; it has also been asserted that any rapprochement would not have an effect on Moscow–Beijing relations, as Sino-Russian ties are not dependent on any third party. Furthermore, regarding the Ukraine war, China maintains that it is ‘not a party’ to the conflict (DPA 2024). China upholds the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine while acknowledging Russia’s legitimate security concerns. In the eyes of Beijing, these principles must be reconciled to end the war. Additionally, China opposes unilateral sanctions on Russia but, due to its significant trade ties with the EU and the US, it accepts the Russian sanctions and their secondary effects on the Chinese economy. The ongoing negotiations on Ukraine are perceived by China as creating crucial momentum for achieving peace through dialogue, which should not be an opportunity missed. The American initiative is seen as a continuation of previous efforts, including the Chinese Peace Plan for Ukraine of 2023, the Ukraine Peace Summit 2024 in Switzerland and the Sino-Brazilian Six-Point Plan, also in 2024 (Gov.br 2024). China calls for non-escalation and direct negotiations, noting the signs of the exhaustion of manpower and resources on both the Russian and the Ukrainian sides. Despite China’s apparently laconic stance vis-à-vis the relationship, an American–Russian rapprochement could cause some concerns for Beijing. Economically, Moscow is less relevant to Beijing than Washington or Brussels. However, Russia holds fundamental strategic value due to its extensive land border with China. In the event of an American–Chinese rivalry escalating into direct conflict, Russia could become a lifeline for Beijing, especially if accompanied by a successful American blockade. These potential risks and scenarios, which seem increasingly likely over time, may serve as a significant incentive for China to obstruct the warming of relations between Moscow and Washington. References DPA (2024). China is not a party to Ukraine war, Xi tells Scholz in Beijing. aNews, 16 April. https://www.anews.com.tr/world/2024/04/16/china-is-not-a-party-to-ukraine-war-xi-tells-scholz-in-beijing. Accessed 15 April 2025. European Commission. (2025). Joint White Paper for European defence readiness 2030. JOIN (2025) 120 final (19 March). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52025JC0120. Accessed 15 April 2025. Gov.br. (2024). Brazil and China present joint proposal for peace negotiations with the participation of Russia and Ukraine. 23 May. https://www.gov.br/planalto/en/latest-news/2024/05/brazil-and-china-present-joint-proposal-for-peace-negotiations-with-the-participation-of-russia-and-ukraine. Accessed 15 April 2025. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Abstract This paper focuses on the European Union as a military power. It starts with an introduction to SAFE – Security Action for Europe as a financial instrument designed to make the EU a formidable military power.The second part of the paper provides an account of debates regarding the nature of the EU (civilian, normative through ethical to military). Next, a brief historical account of European defence cooperation is presented.The central part of the analysis examines the key characteristics of the EU as a military power, which is marked by a gap between its declared motivations and the actual application of military and political means.The paper ends with the expression of scepticism regarding the role of SAFE in the future of European Security. Key Words: SAFE, Geopolitics, Security, Europe, Ukraine. Introduction SAFE (Security Action for Europe) is a financial instrument introduced by the European Commission to bolster defence capabilities across EU member states. Proposed in March 2025 as part of the broader ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030, SAFE aims to provide up to €150 billion in loans by the end of the decade to support joint defence procurement and strengthen the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB).1 This initiative is driven by concerns over a potential Russian attack and growing uncertainty about long-term U.S. security commitments to Europe. To qualify for SAFE funding, 65% of a project’s value must originate from companies within the EU, the European Economic Area, or Ukraine.  Rationale behind SAFE The EU Council formally adopted SAFE on 27 May 2025. SAFE is part of the €800 billion ReArm Europe/Readiness 2030 plan, which also includes other pillars such as fiscal flexibility (national escape clauses), cohesion funds, and private capital mobilisation. It appears that several geopolitical and strategic factors drive the establishment of SAFE. Firstly, there is the case of ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine: The war, starting in February 2022, has exposed deficiencies in European defence capabilities and highlighted the need for rapid rearmament and increased self-reliance.2 The return of high-intensity warfare on European soil has prompted a reevaluation of defence priorities. Secondly, the shifting of the U.S. role. Concerns over reduced U.S. military support, particularly following political shifts in Washington.3 Thirdly, experts indicate the issue of capability gaps and industrial weaknesses. The EU has identified critical gaps in areas like air and missile defence, drones, and military mobility. The need to scale up production and reduce reliance on non-European suppliers has driven the creation of the SAFE initiative. Fourthly, support for Ukraine. SAFE includes provisions to integrate Ukraine’s defence industry, ensuring continued support for Kyiv amid uncertainties in global alliances.4 The evolving nature of EU power In recent history, it is Francois Duchene’s idea of “Civilian Power Europe” (CPE) that has dominated debates about the role of Europe and European institutions in the world.  Duchêne's concept of (CPE) refers to a particular role for Europe in the world that emphasises non-military means of influence and the promotion of international values. Duchêne's original idea, articulated in the early 1970s, suggested that Europe could play a distinctive role based on low politics, non-state actors, ideational influences, and international interdependence rather than traditional military power. The CPE concept highlights Europe's potential to exercise considerable non-military power, combining the power dimension akin to a "European Trading State" with a normative foreign policy perspective aimed at promoting values such as equality, justice, and concern for people with low incomes abroad.5 Fast forward to the 21st century, and Ian Manners proposes another equally influential concept – “normative power”. Ian Manners' main argument is that the European Union (EU) should be understood not only in terms of traditional conceptions of "civilian power" or "military power" but rather as a "normative power" in international relations. He contends that the EU's international role is fundamentally based on its ability to shape norms and define what is considered "normal" in world politics. This normative power stems from the EU's unique historical context, hybrid political structure, and constitutional basis, which predispose it to act normatively by promoting principles such as peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law, and human rights. Manners argues that this normative dimension is crucial for understanding the EU's identity and influence internationally, as exemplified by the EU's active pursuit of the international abolition of the death penalty. He emphasises that the EU's power lies less in its military or economic capabilities and more in its capacity to diffuse norms and reshape international standards, making the concept of "normative power Europe" not a contradiction but a significant form of power in world politics.6  Shortly afterwards, Lisbeth Aggestam proposes yet another concept regarding the nature and role of the European Union in the world – “ethical power.” The concept of 'ethical power Europe' (EPE) in EU foreign policy represents a shift from focusing on what the EU 'is' to what it 'does. It articulates the EU's ambition to be a proactive global actor that not only serves as a positive role model but actively works to change the world in the direction of a "global common good." This involves the EU taking on new tasks in crisis management, peacekeeping, state-building, and reconstruction of failing states, complementing its existing roles in development aid and humanitarian assistance. The EU positions itself as a "force for good" and a peacebuilder in the world, justifying its acquisition of both civilian and military power capabilities in these terms.7 EPE encompasses both civilian and military power, as well as social and material power, thereby broadening the scope beyond earlier concepts, such as civilian power in Europe, as proposed by Duchene, and normative power, as emphasised by Manners, which primarily focused on civilian and normative influence. The EPE concept also reintroduces the international and national dimensions into the analysis of the EU's role, recognising the importance of member states' interests and acknowledging that material interests and ethical considerations often overlap. Importantly, EPE is not presented as an empirical reality but rather as a concept that opens new lines of critical reflection on the EU's role, motivations, and ethical dilemmas in foreign policy. It recognises the complexity of ethical foreign policy, given competing visions of order and justice in the world and the challenges of translating ethical ambitions into practice. The concept invites analysis of the ethical values the EU promotes, the relationship between ethics and interests, the just use of power (including military force), and the problems inherent in pursuing a consistent ethical foreign policy. Conversely, Karen Smith asserts that CPE is definitively dead, and the EU now finds itself somewhere along a spectrum between civilian and military power like most other international actors. Rather than debating whether the EU is a civilian power, the focus should be on critically analysing what the EU does and what it should do in international relations.8 According to Smith, the implications of the EU employing military means are significant and multifaceted.  Firstly, the EU's acquisition and use of military instruments challenge the notion that the EU remains a purely "civilian power." Clinging to the civilian power label stretches the term beyond its breaking point, as military means are fundamentally non-civilian in nature. Peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, often considered civilian activities, frequently involve military personnel and can evolve into military operations, thereby further blurring the distinction between civilian and military roles.  Secondly, by using military instruments—even as a "residual" tool to safeguard other means—the EU complicates the clear-cut distinction between civilian and military power. This leads to fuzzy interpretations about when the EU ceases to be a civilian power, making it difficult to establish a clear cut-off point or assess changes along the civilian-military spectrum.  Thirdly, employing military means signals a shift from a post-modern, law-based international identity toward a more traditional power politics approach. This militarization risks discrediting the EU's earlier vision of transforming international relations through law and civilian influence alone. The EU moves closer to a "Hobbesian" model where military force backs diplomacy, which may undermine its unique post-modern identity and soft power.  Fourthly, the use of military force raises complex questions about the EU’s ends and means, including the justifications for intervention, the legitimacy of coercion, and democratic control over foreign policy decisions.  Finally, the continued use of military means necessitates moving beyond simplistic categorisations of civilian power to a more nuanced analysis of what the EU does in international relations. The EU, like most actors, falls somewhere along a spectrum between civilian and military power, and its military capabilities must be critically assessed rather than dismissed or downplayed. With this in mind, let us look at the EU as a military actor. A brief history of European defence cooperation Signed on March 4, 1947, the Treaty of Dunkirk was a bilateral alliance between France and the United Kingdom, primarily aimed at preventing renewed German aggression following World War II. Effective from September 8, 1947, and set to expire in 1997, it was also seen as a pretext for defence against the USSR. It laid the foundation for formal European defence collaboration, emphasising mutual assistance and alliance.9 In 1948, the Treaty of Brussels expanded this framework, encompassing Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, and established the Western Union. This alliance focused on defence, economic, cultural, and social collaboration. By 1955, following the signing of the Modified Brussels Treaty, it evolved into the Western European Union (WEU), with Italy and West Germany joining, marking the establishment of a broader European defence structure. Parallel to these developments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was established on April 4, 1949, by 12 countries, including the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations, to counter Soviet expansion. NATO's Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, has become a cornerstone of transatlantic security. During the Cold War, NATO served as a bulwark against Soviet influence, with significant military and political cooperation among members. The WEU, while secondary to NATO, played a complementary role. In 1950, its defence structures were transferred to NATO, reducing its authority, but it remained active in fostering European defence collaboration. The WEU's social and cultural roles were transferred to the Council of Europe in 1960, with its focus shifting to security and defence.  The end of the Cold War in the 1990s prompted a shift towards greater European autonomy in defence. The Maastricht Treaty of 1993 established the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), aiming to coordinate foreign policy and security. This was followed by the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999, which introduced the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), enabling the EU to conduct military and civilian missions independently. The 1998 Saint-Malo Declaration, prompted by the Kosovo War, endorsed a European security and defence policy, including the development of autonomous military forces. The 2002 Berlin Plus agreement allowed the EU access to NATO assets for peacekeeping, reflecting the close cooperation between the two organisations. The Petersberg Declaration of 1992, initially under the WEU, defined tasks such as humanitarian and rescue operations, which were later integrated into the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).  The Lisbon Treaty of 2009 further strengthened EU defence capabilities, incorporating the WEU's mutual defence clause. This rendered the WEU superfluous, leading to its dissolution on 30 June 2011, with its functions being transferred to the EU. The European Union Institute for Security Studies and Satellite Centre, previously WEU entities, were integrated into the EU framework in 2002, marking a consolidation of defence.   *Generated with Grok and gamma.app (9 June, 2025). EU as a military actor As of mid-2025, the EU has approximately 3,500 military personnel and 1,300 civilian personnel deployed worldwide. Since the first CSDP missions and operations were launched in 2003, the EU has undertaken over 40 overseas operations, utilising both civilian and military missions in several countries across Europe, Africa, and Asia. As of today, there are 21 ongoing EU CSDP missions and operations, comprising 12 civilian, eight military, and one combined civilian and military initiative.10  According to the EU itself, “Their (Security and Defence Policy ((CSDP)) Missions) aim is to help prevent or resolve conflicts and crises, enhance the capacities of partner countries and, ultimately, protect the European Union and its citizens. EU decisions to deploy a mission or operation are typically made at the request of the partner country receiving assistance and/or based on a United Nations Security Council Resolution, always in full respect of international law. These decisions take into account the EU’s security interests, EU strategic efforts and regional engagement strategies. They are tailored to the local circumstances and to the tasks that need to be implemented”.11 Scholars researching the topic conclude that the political motivations behind EU military operations are complex, driven by a combination of national interests, strategic considerations, and internal EU dynamics. While the EU often justifies its operations with humanitarian rhetoric, the sustained deployment of military forces is often driven by broader strategic and political considerations. The influence of key member states, such as France and Germany, plays a significant role in shaping the EU's military agenda. However, the EU's ability to project influence is constrained by internal divisions and resource limitations. National Interests One of the most significant political motivations behind EU military operations is the pursuit of national interests by its member states. While the EU often presents a unified front, the decision to deploy military operations is heavily influenced by the interests of its most powerful members, particularly France and Germany. These states often use EU military operations as a means to advance their own strategic and economic interests while framing them as collective EU actions. For instance, France has been a key driver of several European Union (EU) military operations in Africa, such as the EUFOR mission in Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR). Critics argue that these operations were motivated by French geo-strategic and economic interests in the region rather than purely humanitarian concerns.12 Similarly, the EU's naval operation, Atalanta, off the coast of Somalia, was influenced by the interests of member states with significant maritime trade routes in the region.13  The dominance of national interests is further evident in the EU's decision-making process. Member states often prioritise their security and economic concerns over broader EU objectives, leading to inconsistencies in the deployment of military operations. For example, the EU's reluctance to intervene in the 2006 Lebanon war, despite initial plans for a military operation, was primarily due to divergent national interests among member states.14 Power Politics and Strategic Culture The EU's military operations are also shaped by power politics within the organisation. The distribution of power among member states plays a crucial role in determining the scope and nature of these operations. France, in particular, has historically played a key The EU often justifies its military operations with humanitarian rhetoric, emphasising the need to protect civilians, prevent human rights abuses, and promote stability in conflict zones. However, this rhetoric often masks more pragmatic strategic considerations. For instance, the EU's intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 2006 was officially framed as a humanitarian operation. However, it was also driven by the strategic interests of EU member states in the region's natural resources and political stability.15  Likewise, the EU's naval operation Sophia in the Mediterranean was initially justified as a humanitarian response to the migrant crisis. However, the operation also served strategic purposes, such as enhancing the EU's maritime security capabilities and addressing the political priorities of member states like Italy and France.16 The gap between humanitarian rhetoric and strategic reality is a recurring theme in European Union (EU) military operations. While humanitarian concerns may play a role in the initial justification for intervention, the sustained deployment of military forces is often driven by broader strategic and political considerations.17 Ukraine and EU’s Involvement Against Russia The EU has consistently condemned Russia's actions, viewing them as a violation of international law, and supports Ukraine's right to self-defence. This includes diplomatic efforts to isolate Russia and coordinate with partners like the US and NATO. Ukraine's EU candidacy, granted in June 2022, reflects long-term integration goals, though the process is expected to take years.18 So far, the EU has imposed 17 sanction packages by May 2025, targeting Russia's economy, military, and individuals, including measures against Belarus, Iran, and North Korea for supporting Russia. These aim to weaken Russia's war capabilities, with recent packages focusing on export bans and measures to prevent circumvention.19 The EU has committed €147.9 billion in aid, with €50.3 billion allocated for military support, €77 billion for financial and humanitarian assistance, and €17 billion for refugee support. This includes weapons, training, and emergency relief, as well as support for Ukrainian refugees under the Temporary Protection Mechanism. To counter the impacts of war, the EU reduced its Russian gas imports from 40% in 2021 to 15% in 2023, thereby diversifying its energy sources. It also facilitates Ukrainian grain exports through solidarity lanes, addressing global food security.20 Now, as noble as it sounds and as much as it fits into the self-perception of Brussels’s elites (the EU being a force for good), the critics of the West's support of Ukraine make a couple of formidable points. Firstly, the longer the war continues, the more destroyed Ukraine becomes and the greater the number of Ukrainians killed. Secondly, the longer the war continues, the greater the likelihood of escalation, which poses a threat to the entire European continent. Thirdly, despite mainstream media reports, the Russian Federation appears to have adapted to operating effectively despite the sanctions, which may strengthen its economy in the short to medium term and, more importantly, bring it closer to cooperating with China and North Korea. Finally, since every war serves as a testing ground for new technologies, the Russians, especially the North Koreans and the Chinese, are gaining invaluable insight into the nature of modern warfare, which is often referred to as the next Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA).  Conclusion To answer the question introduced at the beginning of this analysis, “Can SAFE make Europe safe?” the author of this piece remains sceptical, to say the least. It appears that despite some initial intentions to end the Ukrainian war as early as April 2022, it is the European elites, especially French, German and Polish, who stand for the prolongation, if not escalation, of the Ukrainian war, potentially at the expense of the security of the whole European continent and definitely at the expense of Ukrainians and their country.  References:  1. La Rocca, M. (2025, May 27). Defence, final go-ahead for the SAFE fund. Von der Leyen: “Exceptional measures for exceptional times.” Eunews. https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/05/27/defence-final-go-ahead-for-the-safe-fund-von-der-leyen-exceptional-measures-for-exceptional-times/ 2. COUNCIL REGULATION establishing the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) through the reinforcement of European defence industry Instrument. (2025, March 19). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025PC0122&qid=1749479407767 3. Tidey, A. (2025, May 21). Everything you need to know about SAFE, the EU’s €150bn defence instrument. Euronews. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/21/everything-you-need-to-know-about-safe-the-eus-150bn-defence-instrument/4. Scazzieri, L. (2025, March 26). One step forward for Europe’s defence. Centre for European Reform. https://www.cer.eu/insights/one-step-forward-europes-defence 5. Orbie, J. (2006). Civilian Power Europe: Review of the Original and Current Debates. Cooperation and Conflict, 41(1), 123-128. Sage Publications, Ltd. https://www.jstor.org/stable/450844256. Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.7. Aggestam, L. (2008). Introduction: Ethical power Europe? International Affairs, 84(1), 1-11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/251447118. Smith, K. E. (2005). Beyond the civilian power EU debate. Politique européenne, (17), 63-82. L'Harmattan. https://www.jstor.org/stable/450177509. The road to European defence cooperation. (1947). European Defence Agency. https://eda.europa.eu/our-history/our-history.html10. European Union External Action, (2025, January 30). Missions and Operations. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/missions-and-operations_en#87694E11. EU COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY (CSDP) MISSIONS AND OPERATIONS. (2025, April). https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2025/EU-mission-and-operation_2025.pdf 12. See more at: Bono, G. (2011). The EU’s Military Operation in Chad and the Central African Republic: An Operation to Save Lives? Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 5(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2011.541781 and Olsen, G. R. (2009). The EU and Military Conflict Management in Africa: For the Good of Africa or Europe? International Peacekeeping, 16(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533310802685828 13. See more at: Dombrowski, P., & Reich, S. (2019). The EU’s maritime operations and the future of European Security: learning from operations Atalanta and Sophia. Comparative European Politics, 17(6), 860–884. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41295-018-0131-4 and Riddervold, M. (2018). Why Not Fight Piracy Through NATO? Explaining the EU’s First Naval Mission: EU NAVFOR Atalanta (pp. 195–217). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66598-6_10 14. Engberg, K. (2013). The EU and Military Operations: A comparative analysis. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203381663/eu-military-operations-katarina-engberg15. Engberg, K. (2013). The EU and Military Operations: A comparative analysis. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203381663/eu-military-operations-katarina-engberg 16. Dombrowski, P., & Reich, S. (2019). The EU’s maritime operations and the future of European Security: learning from operations Atalanta and Sophia. Comparative European Politics, 17(6), 860–884. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41295-018-0131-4 17. Bono, G. (2011). The EU’s Military Operation in Chad and the Central African Republic: An Operation to Save Lives? Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 5(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2011.541781   18. EU response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-response-russia-military-aggression-against-ukraine-archive/19. Russia’s war against Ukraine. (n.d.). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/topics/russia-s-war-against-ukraine/ 20. See more at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-the-eu-s-gas-come-from/

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском A leaked phone call, renewed clashes, and political brinkmanship have transformed a long-standing border dispute into a test of the Thai PM’s leadership, Cambodia’s assertiveness, and ASEAN’s credibility as a mediator in conflicts. Thailand finds itself in the eye of a growing political and diplomatic storm. What began as a deadly border clash in late May—with the killing of a Cambodian soldier in the contested Chong Bok region—has rapidly escalated into a full-blown national crisis culminating in a Thai Constitutional Court asking Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra to step down on 1 July. The skirmish reignited deep-rooted tensions over unresolved territorial claims and historical rivalries, but a leaked phone call lit the fuse. On 18 June, Cambodian Senate President and former Prime Minister Hun Sen released a 17-minute, 6-second phone call with Thai PM Paetongtarn on social media—unfiltered and explosive. The recording, confirmed as authentic by Paetongtarn after a public apology, included remarks that appeared critical of Thai military leadership and referenced her Cambodian counterpart as ‘uncle’, sparking outrage and shaking the foundations of her fragile coalition. The political fallout was immediate as the Bhumjaithai Party, a key coalition partner with 69 seats, pulled out the same day, triggering a government crisis. Calls for fresh elections erupted, protests spread nationwide, and ethics complaints flooded. Senate President Mongkol Surasajja responded by filing a petition with the Constitutional Court, questioning the PM's fitness to govern and requesting her removal due to alleged ethical misconduct and constitutional violations. In a firmer move on 24 June, Thailand sealed all land border crossings with Cambodia, allowing only students, medical cases, and urgent humanitarian travel. All other movements—tourism, trade, and casual transit—have been suspended indefinitely. Still, Paetongtarn has refused to back down. Calling for national unity and holding on to sovereignty, she remained defiant. She called the leak by the Cambodian counterpart a breach of diplomatic etiquette and trust, prompting Thailand’s Foreign Affairs Ministry to hand a letter of protest to the Cambodian ambassador. In a firmer move on 24 June, Thailand sealed all land border crossings with Cambodia, allowing only students, medical cases, and urgent humanitarian travel. All other movements—tourism, trade, and casual transit—have been suspended indefinitely. The crisis deepened further on 1 July, with Thailand’s Constitutional Court ordering Paetongtarn to step aside for up to 15 days while it examines the mounting allegations against her. Deputy Prime Minister Suriya Jungrungruangkit has been appointed to serve in an acting capacity during this period. With tensions simmering at home and diplomacy fraying abroad, understanding the evolving dynamics between Thailand and Cambodia and their implications is essential at this juncture. Historical Background of Border Tensions  Historically, Thailand and Cambodia have shared a dispute over a small section of the 817 km land boundary, particularly concerning the area around the Preah Vihear Temple,  which the Thais call Phra Viharn. The dispute's origins can be traced back to the 20th century under French colonial rule, when Thailand (then Siam) signed a border treaty demarcating the northern frontiers between the two. In the years leading up to 1953, when Cambodia gained independence from France, the region changed hands many times. After its independence, Thai troops occupied the region in 1954. In response, Cambodia brought the dispute before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which, in 1962, ruled in favour of Cambodia. However, Thailand did not accept the ICJ’s judgment, challenging the interpretation of the 1907 map presented as evidence. Thailand specifically maintained that it had never officially recognised the 1907 map, even though it had been used over an extended period, and asserted that the ICJ’s judgment applied solely to the immediate temple grounds, not the broader border region. In 2013, at the request of the Cambodian government, the ICJ reiterated its 1962 judgement, highlighting Cambodia’s sovereignty over the entire temple complex and urging Thailand to withdraw its troops from the area. The dispute gained renewed attention when Cambodia sought to register Preah Vihar as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008, and again in 2011 when about 40 people were killed after troops on both sides exchanged fire.  The boundary issue has resurfaced repeatedly at various points, leading to routine diplomatic breakdowns between the countries. For instance, in 2008 and 2011, Cambodia and Thailand were at loggerheads over the border issue. The dispute gained renewed attention when Cambodia sought to register Preah Vihar as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008, and again in 2011 when about 40 people were killed after troops on both sides exchanged fire.  Present-day Calculations   While the phone call has been a flashpoint of contention, raising questions about Thai governance, it was framed by the Thai PM as a negotiation tactic driven by a deep-seated desire to see peace prevail. However, sidestepping official diplomatic channels has made her vulnerable to political backlash and damaged her reputation. Unlike formal state visits or official talks, private conversations lack diplomatic protections, leave no official record, and offer no framework for managing the fallout. Once exposed, they can quickly be turned into tools for political attack. That is precisely what ensued. Facing mounting criticism, Paetongtarn has shifted from a conciliatory approach to firmer action. Casinos in Phnom Penh and other Cambodian border towns, which form a significant part of the country's tourism industry and attract Thai visitors, are now under scrutiny. On 23 June, citing national security concerns, Thailand announced a ban on the movement of vehicles, tourists, and traders through land border checkpoints across seven provinces bordering Cambodia. Paetongtarn also announced her government’s intention to collaborate with international partners and regional bodies to combat cybercrime networks in Southeast Asia. Earlier this year, Thailand took action against Myanmar-based scam centres by cutting electricity, internet, and gas supplies to border towns where online scam operations were based. A similar approach is now being extended to Cambodia, with essential cross-border supplies to suspected scam hubs set to be blocked. To stabilise the fragile coalition, the government has initiated a cabinet reshuffle to redistribute key ministerial roles and restore political balance. Compounding this political turbulence are anti-government protesters and royalists who have been holding demonstrations, asking for the resignation of the PM. The crisis has thus become more than a bilateral dispute. It is now a test of Thailand's coalition stability, the prime minister's credibility, and the balance between civilian and military relations. While diplomatic channels remain open, Thailand's capacity to navigate the crisis will continue to be constrained by its domestic political fragility. The crisis has thus become more than a bilateral dispute. It is now a test of Thailand's coalition stability, the prime minister's credibility, and the balance between civilian and military relations. On the other hand, Cambodia has reciprocated with various measures, such as taking legal recourse, reciprocating through political actions, and showing a strong military posture. Cambodia has again approached the ICJ, claiming a sovereign right over the temple's territorial areas, despite Thailand's request to resolve the issue bilaterally. Speaking on the issue, Hun Sen said that “our position to go to the ICJ has not changed”, declaring his intent to resolve the dispute over the Ta Moan Thom, Ta Moan Tauch, Ta Krabei temples and the emerald triangle area through the ICJ. This is an attempt by Cambodia to draw attention to the legal dimension of the dispute, highlighting Thailand’s unwillingness to accept ICJ judgements and its alleged violation of international law. Furthermore, while visiting the frontlines, Cambodian PM Hun Manet (also the son of Hun Sen) inspected the situation and called for ‘resolving border disputes peacefully.’ However, Hun Sen took a stronger position, instructing the military to dig trenches and prepare for both defensive and offensive operations. He has also escalated the confrontation into the political arena, reportedly threatening to “expose” former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, signalling his capacity to destabilise Thailand’s domestic politics. Apart from this, the country has stopped imports of oil, gas, fruits and vegetables from Thailand, and has stopped using the Thai internet services. The Cambodian Foreign Minister has also advised citizens to avoid travelling to Thailand. This border episode presents Cambodian PM Hun Manet with an opportunity to consolidate his domestic political support. The decision to pursue the dispute at the ICJ aligns with this political strategy, as do Hun Sen’s more assertive political tactics.  Implications of the Border Tensions  The resurgence of border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia has significant bilateral and regional implications. Bilaterally, the crisis has strained diplomatic relations and disrupted essential cross-border trade, harming vulnerable border communities. For Thailand, this comes during political instability, where internal coalition politics and tensions between military and civilian actors shape foreign policy. The controversy may erode regional confidence in Thailand's diplomatic posture, particularly its ability to manage neighbourly ties with ASEAN constructively. While the upcoming ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ meeting in July may address this issue, the prospects for diplomatic intervention remain uncertain. For Cambodia, while the government has shown diplomatic restraint and a willingness to engage through the Joint Boundary Commission, it has also responded forcefully by halting Thai imports and asserting its sovereignty. The move to potentially internationalise the dispute through the ICJ may further test ASEAN's non-interventionist norms. Regionally, the tensions challenge ASEAN's capacity for conflict resolution and border management, especially as its centrality is often undermined by its consensus-driven inaction and a non-interventionist outlook. The crisis underscores the bloc's limitations in de-escalating intra-regional disputes. While the upcoming ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ meeting in July may address this issue, the prospects for diplomatic intervention remain uncertain. With no formal ASEAN mediation, unresolved historical disputes continue to overshadow cross-border cooperation in Southeast Asia. As infrastructure connectivity and regional integration deepen, such tensions reveal the fragility of ties when nationalism, strategic missteps, and domestic politics converge. Whether Thailand and Cambodia can prevent this flare-up from turning into a renewed phase of prolonged conflict depends on the durability of their diplomatic mechanisms—and their political will to prioritise dialogue over posturing.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Introduction The geopolitical upheavals of the 1990s directly affected the Baltic Sea region: the USSR collapsed, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, and Germany was reunited. The logic of the “end of history” introduced completely new principles of international order across the European continent. Trade, economic, and military-political cooperation were based on shared development goals and universal practices of international interaction. Rapidly growing trade, economic, cultural, educational, and investment ties in the Baltic region helped overcome the recent legacy of Cold War bloc confrontation. Regional organizations and formats of cooperation, even if they did not create a new “Baltic” identity (an idea proposed in the early 1990s), certainly established working mechanisms for joint regional projects. These initiatives were implemented by countries ready for mutually beneficial cooperation. However, these carefully built formats and projects proved fragile in the face of global challenges. The decline of global governance institutions and growing tensions between the collective West and a resurging Russia — economically, politically, and militarily — led to a global political crisis. The increasingly militarized Baltic Sea region became a logistical hub for strategic rivals — Russia and NATO / the EU. A Region of Cooperation In March 1992, at a conference of foreign ministers of the Baltic Sea countries and Norway, the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) was established. The main initiators of this idea were German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher and his Danish counterpart Uffe Ellemann-Jensen. The creation of a common regional international organization marked the symbolic start of a phase of intensive interstate cooperation in the region, based on the principles of the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, the Paris Charter, and other CSCE documents. At the political level, CBSS member states declared their readiness to act together in the common interest. They confirmed their commitment to cooperation, including the peaceful resolution of regional disputes in a spirit of good neighborliness and partnership. The idea of building a system of regional organizations and initiatives under the CBSS political umbrella was seen as a more effective solution for regional development than relying on international organizations focused on global issues and the many military and humanitarian crises of the early 1990s. By the start of the 21st century, the Baltic region had a range of functioning projects and initiatives across various fields: from regulating the use of Baltic Sea biological resources to a joint online university (the Baltic University Programme), from a platform for marine spatial planning (Vision and Strategies Around the Baltic Sea, VASAB) to festivals organized by the Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC). One of the most important issues requiring practical cooperation between the EU and Russia was the development of the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation. This semi-exclave (due to its access to the sea) is separated from mainland Russia by the territories of Poland and Lithuania — countries that declared their intention to join Euro-Atlantic institutions, which was seen as a confrontational move by Russia — and Belarus. The “Kaliningrad Puzzle” was about finding the best strategy between Russia and the EU to support the daily life and sustainable economic development of the Kaliningrad region after Poland and Lithuania joined NATO and the EU. This brought restrictions on the transit of passengers and goods, on trade and energy cooperation with neighboring countries, and on maintaining the military security of the region. At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, there were only few scenarios discussed for resolving the "Kaliningrad Puzzle." One seemingly attractive idea was the concept of a “Hong Kong on the Baltic”, but it had no real prospects due to a lack of political will — both from neighboring countries and from the Russian central government. Moreover, the very idea of a demilitarized zone with open access for foreign investment and visitors, offering special conditions for business and governance, did not gain support at the federal level. It was removed from the agenda already during expert discussions. It is likely that this concept was viewed as a possible threat of “creeping separatism,” especially against the background of growing anti-federal sentiments in the region. Another concept discussed in parallel was that of a “land-based aircraft carrier.” This scenario involved limited trade and economic cooperation with neighboring countries, a significant reduction in cross-border passenger flow, and the strengthening of the region’s defensive (and in some proposals, offensive) military potential. This would mean creating an “island model” for the region's economy and energy system. From today’s perspective, it is clear that this unlikely scenario is exactly what has been implemented. In the 1990s, a research group led by Professor G. M. Fedorov of Kaliningrad University proposed the idea of “Kaliningrad as a region of cooperation between Russia and the EU.” It envisioned the region as a platform for building cooperation networks to enhance economic (a free or special economic zone), political (a venue for dialogue and negotiations), scientific and educational (development and internationalization of the university complex), and cultural (creation of a cultural cluster) ties with the EU. This could have helped establish a new model of international relations in the Baltic — a model of “EU–Russia cooperation in the region.” The proposal included a recommendation to legally define Kaliningrad’s development strategy at the federal level as a region of intensive interaction with the EU. This idea was perceived by both Russia and the EU more as a reflection of the spirit of the time than as a real plan of action. Implementation took place without formal legal support and with little political enthusiasm. Each side interpreted the idea of cooperation in its own way, based on its own interests — both open and hidden. When analyzing the implementation of the “region of cooperation” concept, it becomes clear that it was undermined by the efforts of Poland and the Baltic States, which, in the context of their Euro-Atlantic integration, worked to securitize nearly all forms of interaction with Russia. The accession of Poland and the Baltic States to the EU on May 1, 2004, had critical consequences for the regional landscape. The new EU members made “Eastern Policy” their foreign policy priority, aiming not only to offer expert assessments of the post-Soviet space but also to actively shape the EU’s policy toward Russia. This approach aligned with the Polish interpretation of the Giedroyc–Mieroszewski Doctrine, which argued that a long-term goal of Polish foreign policy should be the existence of post-Soviet states independent from Russian influence. Poland, the Baltic States, and later Germany saw the EU as the key moderator of the political and economic agenda in the Baltic Sea region. This was reflected in the development and adoption of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. In the field of security, they relied on NATO while also building bilateral military ties with the United States and strengthening their own defense capacities. “Cool War” and a Region of Conflict Professor K. K. Khudoley from St. Petersburg State University describes the growing tensions between Russia and Western countries in the Baltic Sea region as a period of “Cool War.” This phase is marked by decreased predictability and manageability of international processes due to a major rift between Russia and other regional actors. In the Baltic region, the development of multilateral cooperation networks and accumulated experience of interregional engagement failed to act as “political shock absorbers.” Instead, regional cooperation dynamics were defined by Russia’s relations with NATO and the EU. At that time, neutral countries like Sweden and Finland started participating in limited military-political cooperation with NATO countries, raising doubts in Russia about the permanence of their non-aligned status. In this context, scholar Y. M. Zverev accurately noted that the idea of the Baltic as a region of cooperation with Western neighbors gradually collapsed. It was a result of accumulating contradictions and rising global tensions, eventually leading to near-complete breakdown of cooperation — except for dwindling trade relations. Russia’s formal exclusion in 2022 from regional cooperation formats was preceded by processes inside NATO and the EU, aimed at building alternative cooperation mechanisms and strengthening their political, economic, and military presence in the Baltic region. On August 12, 2008, during the five-day war in Georgia, Polish President Lech Kaczyński addressed a rally in Tbilisi, with the presidents of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Ukraine present. He voiced concern over what he saw as an existential threat from Russia: “Today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine, the day after tomorrow the Baltic States, and then possibly my own country, Poland.” From that point, Warsaw actively promoted its view of regional security within Euro-Atlantic structures, emphasizing rivalry with Moscow — despite growing trade and energy ties between Russia and various EU countries. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia took an active role in developing the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, promoting a vision of the Baltic as a zone of priority EU interests. In this framework, relations with Russia, Iceland, Belarus, and Norway were seen as external. The European Commission was viewed as the main source of political influence and funding for transforming the region and reducing Russia’s role in the regional agenda. The adoption of the Strategy in 2009 became a turning point, undermining the earlier idea of a “Sea of Cooperation.” EU member states in the region prioritized EU-centered mechanisms that effectively excluded Russia — even though special cooperation formats were formally included. It’s important to highlight that the dismantling of the “region of cooperation” logic and the move toward a conflict-driven “Cool War” scenario was mainly caused by external, non-regional factors: the erosion of the dominant world order, worsening tensions between NATO and Russia, and the acute phase of that conflict — the Ukraine crisis. The escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 turned the situation in the Baltic into a conflict zone. Russia was removed from nearly all key cooperation frameworks — mechanisms that were originally created to absorb tensions, align interests, and prevent crises from becoming irreversible. On March 3, 2022, foreign ministers of all non-Russian member states of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs adopted a Declaration suspending Russia’s participation “until conditions allow for renewed cooperation based on fundamental principles of international law.” On May 17, 2022, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced the country’s withdrawal from the CBSS, describing the organization as a tool of anti-Russian policy. A similar fate befell the Northern Dimension — another highly effective and well-developed cooperation framework. It covered areas like the environment, nuclear safety, healthcare, energy, transport, trade, research, education, and culture. The Northern Dimension had real impact, including in global-scale nuclear safety. On March 8, 2022, the EU, Iceland, and Norway suspended all cooperation with Russia and Belarus under this program. Today, all foreign countries of the Baltic region support Ukraine and run national programs of political and military assistance. They also participate in NATO, EU, and “Baltic-format” initiatives. Poland has become a key logistics hub for delivering humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine, while also building up its military infrastructure and increasing the size and capabilities of its armed forces. A key milestone was the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, which confirmed the trend of militarization and strategic alignment of the region in favor of the U.S. and NATO. In NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept, Russia was declared “the most significant and direct threat” to the security of allies and the Euro-Atlantic area. Similar statements appeared in updated security strategies of Sweden and Finland. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, stated that after Sweden and Finland joined NATO, the non-nuclear status of the Baltic Sea was no longer relevant. Since 2022, the Baltic has turned into a region of rapid militarization, with NATO and Russia both increasing operational capabilities — especially along shared borders. For Finland, which shares a long border with Russia, joining NATO marked a major shift in its security policy. Previously, Finland maintained non-alignment, focusing on national defense and cooperation with Sweden while keeping stable relations with Russia. According to researcher S. V. Andreyev, the NATO debate in Finland started after the 2014 Ukraine crisis, but received little public support back then. However, Matti Pesu, senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, noted that although Finland had cooperated with NATO since the 1990s, the events of 2022 caused a decisive public shift: “The majority of Finns supported the decision.” In 2024, Finland’s military spending reached €6.8 billion (more than 2.4% of GDP). Sweden defines its role in NATO as a security guarantor in the Baltic region. Stockholm is developing military-technical cooperation with Finland and Norway, promoting the idea of a unified NATO operational command in Northern Europe (JFC Norfolk). Sweden is also interested in building joint defense capabilities with the Baltic States, Germany, and Poland. In Sweden’s strategic documents, Russia is identified as the main threat, “supported by other authoritarian states such as Iran and China.” On December 17, 2024, the Swedish parliament approved the national defense strategy for 2025–2030, which includes an increase in military spending from 122 billion kronor (2.2% of GDP) in 2024 to 186 billion kronor (2.6% of GDP) by 2030. To understand the scale of militarization, it is important to note that in 2024, NATO adopted its first-ever Digital Transformation Implementation Strategy — a comprehensive plan to modernize the Alliance’s digital infrastructure and capabilities. The public section of this document highlights the prioritization of cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure, including undersea cables and energy nodes. These priorities provide a basis for creating preventive response capabilities to threats — including scenarios involving damage or destruction of undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea in case of conflict escalation with Russia. The growth of NATO’s military presence in the region has led to new priorities in strategic planning, reflected in large-scale exercises held in 2023 and 2024. On April 29, 2025, Russian presidential aide and chairman of the Maritime Board, Nikolai Patrushev, stated that NATO was rehearsing offensive scenarios near Russia’s borders — including the seizure of the Kaliningrad region and blockade of shipping in the Baltic Sea. Some experts assess that the threat of a maritime blockade of Russia in the Baltic, long discussed by NATO politicians, is not only possible but realistic. A naval blockade of Kaliningrad and Saint Petersburg would almost certainly be seen by Russia as a casus belli, with corresponding consequences. Conclusion As of June 2025, the Baltic Sea has effectively become a “region of cooperation without Russia”. Russia has been excluded from all functioning regional cooperation mechanisms, while the military, energy, and economic collaboration among the other regional states and extra-regional actors (such as the United States and France) has intensified. The rapid militarization of the region and the loss of its non-nuclear status are reinforcing a long-term trend toward confrontation. At the level of military planning, regional actors are openly preparing for scenarios of full-scale conflict, which increases tensions between Russia and NATO. The idea of such a conflict is no longer unthinkable — it has strategic foundations, and the leading players in the region are preparing for it. When assessing the likelihood of this scenario, it is important to understand that the current intensity of the Baltic conflict is shaped by the short-term agendas and interests of the countries involved. A degree of cautious optimism about the future of the Baltic region is based on the possibility that post-conflict agreements between Russia and extra-regional actors could become a key factor in shaping the future model of international relations in the region. Global political dynamics are capable of changing rapidly, potentially reversing current trends and creating a new political reality — overriding the inertia of existing military planning. In the Baltic, there remains a solid legacy of cooperative networks. Across the region, direct links between participants of political, academic, and civic projects — both bilateral and multilateral — have not disappeared. Countries in the region still share objective common interests, especially in areas such as environmental protection and economic cooperation. This historical experience serves as a source of moderate optimism: in the foreseeable future, relations in the Baltic may move from a state of “cool war” and confrontation to one of selective cooperation. A “cool peace” and selective cooperation would clearly be more aligned with Russia’s long-term interests in the Baltic region than a scenario of full-scale conflict. About the Author Igor I. Zhukovsky — PhD in Political Science, Senior Research Fellow at the Baltic Region Comprehensive Research Group, Center for Strategic Planning Studies, Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences. Sources Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. President of Russia. 27 October 2022. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69695 (accessed: 30.06.2025). 1992 CBSS 1st Ministerial Session – Copenhagen Declaration. Council of the Baltic Sea States, 5–6 March 1992. URL: https://cbss.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/1992CBSS1stMinisterialSessionCommunique.pdf (accessed: 30.06.2025). Zhukovsky I. "Council of the Baltic Sea States: New Wine in Old Bottles?" Valdai Club. 19 September 2024. URL: https://ru.valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/sovetgosudarstvbaltiyskogomorya/ (accessed: 30.06.2025). Joenniemi P., Dewar S., Fairlie L.D. The Kaliningrad Puzzle: A Russian Region Within the European Union. COPRI Working Papers, Vol. 6, 2000. Oldberg I. "The Emergence of a Regional Identity in the Kaliningrad Oblast." Cooperation and Conflict, 2000, Vol. 35, pp. 269–288. Khlopetsky A.P., Fedorov G.M. Kaliningrad Region as a Region of Cooperation: A Monograph. Kaliningrad: Yantarny Skaz, 2000. See also: "Eastern Policy of the EU" is understood as the Union's external policy toward its eastern neighbors. Polish foreign ministers R. Sikorski and A. Rotfeld have repeatedly emphasized the significance of the "Giedroyc–Mieroszewski Doctrine." Ofitserov-Belsky D.V. "Eastern Policy of Poland: Conceptual Foundations and Practical Aspects." Russia and the New States of Eurasia, 2023, No. 4(61), pp. 51–61. Khudoley K.K. "The 'Cool War' in the Baltic Sea Region: Consequences and Future Scenarios." Baltic Region, 2019, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 42–54. Zverev Yu.M. "Three Russian Regions on the Baltic Amidst Russia–West Confrontation." Baltic Region, 2023, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 24–41. Speech by Polish President Lech Kaczyński in Tbilisi, 12 August 2008. URL: https://www.prezydent.pl/kancelaria/archiwum/archiwumlechakaczynskiego/aktualnosci/rok2008/wizytaprezydentarpwgruzji,26753,archive (accessed: 30.06.2025). EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR, 2009) — its development experience was later applied to other EU macro-regional strategies. Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Baltic Sea Strategy”, 19 April 2007. URL: https://eseimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalActPrint/lt?documentId=TAIS.295996 (accessed: 30.06.2025). Zhukovsky I.I. "Some Issues in the Evolution of Modern International Relations in the Baltic Region." Baltic Region, 2024, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 145–160. Declaration by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 3 March 2022. Government of Poland. URL: https://www.gov.pl/web/finlandia/federacjarosyjskazawieszonawpracachradypanstwmorzabaltyckiego (accessed: 30.06.2025). Statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry on Withdrawal from the CBSS, 17 May 2022. URL: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1813674/ (accessed: 30.06.2025). See, for example, the term “NATO internal sea” — used by various politicians and experts in relation to the Baltic. NATO 2022 Strategic Concept, 9 June 2022. URL: https://www.act.nato.int/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/290622strategicconcept.pdf (accessed: 30.06.2025). National Security Strategy. Government Offices of Sweden, 2024. URL: https://www.government.se/informationmaterial/2024/07/nationalsecuritystrategy/ (accessed: 30.06.2025). Government Defence Report 2024. Ministry of Defense of Finland. URL: https://www.defmin.fi/en/themes/defence_policy_reports#1f47ed12 (accessed: 30.06.2025). "The Baltic May Lose Its Nuclear-Free Status." RIA Novosti. 14 April 2022. URL: https://ria.ru/20220414/baltika1783465933.html (accessed: 30.06.2025). In 2024, Poland allocated over 4% of GDP to military modernization — the highest share in NATO. Andreev S. "Finland: Two Years in NATO." RIAC. 28 April 2025. URL: https://russiancouncil.ru/analyticsandcomments/analytics/finlyandiyadvagodavnato/ (accessed: 30.06.2025). Pesu M. “Logical, but Unexpected – Finland’s Road to NATO from a Close Perspective.” NATO Review, 30 August 2023. URL: https://www.nato.int/docu/review/pl/articles/2023/08/30/logicznealenieoczekiwanedrogafinlandiidonatozbliskiejperspektywy/index.html (accessed: 30.06.2025). Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014–2024). NATO. URL: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617defexp2024en.pdf (accessed: 30.06.2025). Defence Resolution 2025–2030. Government Offices of Sweden. URL: https://www.government.se/governmentpolicy/totaldefence/defenceresolution202520302 (accessed: 30.06.2025). NATO’s Digital Transformation Implementation Strategy. NATO. URL: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_229801.htm (accessed: 30.06.2025). According to NATO, more than 11 undersea cables were damaged in the last 18 months, raising concerns about potential “grey zone” attacks. "Patrushev: NATO Rehearses Kaliningrad Seizure Scenarios in Military Drills." TASS. 29 April 2025. URL: https://tass.ru/politika/23809423 (accessed: 30.06.2025). Stryukovatyy V.V. "Russia's Geostrategic Position on the Baltic and the Threat of Maritime Blockade in Modern Conditions." Bulletin of the I. Kant Baltic Federal University. Series: Natural and Medical Sciences, 2024, No. 1, pp. 57–75.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Introduction Strategically located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, the Gaza Strip is a crucially important enclave in the Levant. Its proximity to Israel and Egypt places it in an area of high strategic sensitivity, and it is deeply involved in the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Territorial disputes, rooted in sovereignty claims, overlap with the involvement of international actors with different economic and strategic interests.This territory, which is no more than 12 kilometers wide and a little more than 40 kilometers long, has been the scene of a confrontation between the State of Israel and the political, military and social organization Hamas (Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, Islamic Resistance Movement) for the last two years. In this war scenario, three main actors can be mentioned. On the one hand, the State of Israel, created in 1948, which has a great military and technological capacity thanks to the help of the United States. Israel distinguishes that Hamas is a permanent threat to the Israelis, hence its policy of land, naval and maritime blockade, arguing that it must defend itself from the aggressions of this group which has repeatedly launched missiles in this century. Secondly, Hamas, an organization created in 1987 during the first Intifada (rebellion or uprising), which exercises control of the Gaza Strip and leads the resistance to the State of Israel seeking the creation of a Palestinian State. Hamas' capabilities range from military development with the launching of missiles, to public administration and social work in the area. Third, the United States is an external actor in the region, but one that wields considerable influence, for while it sees itself as an arbiter in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, it has done little more than deploy over the decades military, political and financial support for the State of Israel. The choice of the period of analysis from 2023 to early 2025 is due to the succession of events in the area that have demanded specific attention, since the military escalation has denoted a more radical change in the posture of the main actors. Given this situation, the central research question is the following: How have the power dynamics between Israel, Hamas and the United States manifested themselves in the Gaza Strip during the period 2023-2025, and what have been the main implications of their actions. Hence, the main objective of this paper is to analyze the interactions between these three main actors from 2023 to early 2025. Israel, founded in 1948 and with great military and technological power thanks to U.S. support. Hamas, established in 1987, controls the Gaza Strip and leads the resistance, seeking the creation of a Palestinian state that does not recognize Israel. The United States, while presenting itself as an arbiter, has historically provided substantial military, political and financial support to Israel. The October 7, 2023 Hamas's attack, "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm," provoked the Israeli "Iron Swords" counteroffensive. This response included heavy aerial and ground bombardment throughout Gaza, causing widespread destruction and a severe humanitarian crisis. Israel seeks to dismantle Hamas' military capability, eliminate its leadership and release hostages, in addition to the establishment of a security zone. The U.S. position under the administrations of Joseph Biden and Donald Trump has been supportive of Israel, justifying its right to defend itself. However, concerns about civilian casualties and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza have led to calls for "humanitarian pauses." The "cease-fire" that is announced from time to time has not served to definitively stop the fighting; on the contrary, after its termination, the Israeli Defense Forces continue to gain ground. The fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip has been imposed since 2007, and its level of intensity has varied over the years, but what has not changed is the justification for it, which is related to security issues, to prevent the entry of arms and supplies that could be used by Hamas to attack Israeli territory. According to the State of Israel, the air, naval and land blockade is a fundamental part of its defense to protect its people from rockets launched from the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, the Hamas takeover came after Fatah (Palestine National Liberation Movement, a Palestinian political and military organization founded in the late 1950s, and a leading member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, PLO) lost the 2006 parliamentary elections, and Hamas fighters fought against them. Both parties claim to represent the Palestinians. The battle won by Hamas meant the dissolution of the existing unity government and the division of the Palestinian territories: West Bank for Fatah and the Gaza Strip for Hamas. Hamas' stated goal is the creation of a Palestinian state occupying the entire territory of Palestine, which means non-recognition of the State of Israel. The region has been characterized by rocket fire from Gaza into Israel and Israeli military incursions into Gaza, all within the framework of the Israeli naval, land and sea blockade, although Hamas rearmament has continued due to tunnels linking Gaza to Egypt. Background to the escalation of Violence The escalation of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in 2023, has been a process of accumulation of facts between both parties for decades. One of them has been the stalemate of the Peace Process that has promoted a radicalization of the parties' positions encouraging armed struggle. Secondly, the increasing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, considered illegal by a large part of the international community, which causes, on the one hand, the fragmentation of Palestinian sovereignty in the territory due to the inability to establish a related communication infrastructure between Palestinian lands, and on the other hand, resentment towards the Israeli occupation, which manifests itself in an armed resistance that is seen as the only solution in the absence of a political settlement. Thirdly, the problem of Jerusalem and the Holy Places (Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock and other mosques), where there are restrictions on entering the mosque area by Israeli security. This is seen as a violation of religious rights. Jerusalem is claimed to be the capital of the future Palestinian state. Israel denies this because it declared it as the eternal and indivisible capital in 1980 through a law passed by the Knesset (Assembly).Fourthly, the blockade of the Gaza Strip with the resulting humanitarian crisis has generated a lot of poverty, high unemployment, limited access to basic services such as water, electricity and health, which has increased the radicalization of the population.Fifth, the situation of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, some of whom have no open criminal cases, whereby hunger strikes and the conditions in which they live are a cause for protest by Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Finally, the competition between Hamas and Fatah, one in Gaza and the other in the West Bank, only encourages violence to see who represents the Palestinians more, i.e., to settle the representation of the Palestinian people, thereby increasing attacks on Israel, which in turn responds militarily: "Israeli forces need to wrest territorial control from Hamas to demonstrate to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank that they do not guarantee their security from Israel, just as Hamas's assault has called into question Israeli confidence in its Armed Forces" (Arteaga, 2023, 3). Israel may not need to occupy the entire Gaza Strip, but what it needs is to "dismantle as much of Hamas' military prestige as it can to challenge its Palestinian leadership, otherwise Hamas will increase its ability to influence the rest of the factions in Gaza and the West Bank to the detriment of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)" (ibidem). Hamas attack on Israel in 2023 During 2023, incidents in the Jerusalem area in front of mosques increased, prompting Israeli security forces to intervene, with Palestinians considering it an attack on all Muslims. Simultaneously, Israeli attacks on the West Bank increased to dismantle cells considered terrorists hiding in refugee camps or villages. Israeli settlers living in the West Bank also attacked Palestinian communities, causing damage and casualties. Israeli targeted assassinations of militants in Gaza or the West Bank, leading to hunger strikes in prisons and rebellions by the Palestinian population, should be placed in this context.Faced with this situation, on October 7, 2023, Hamas developed the operation "Al-Aqsa Storm" which involved the infiltration and coordination of fighters using paragliders, attacking Israeli security posts and using boats to infiltrate Israeli communities near the Gaza Strip. The attacks were carried out on villages, military bases, including a music festival, resulting in an estimated death toll of more than 1,200 Israelis and 250 prisoners of whom more than 50 remain in Hamas hands. The release of the hostages has been a strategy to obtain the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Israel's response The Israeli counter-offensive, called "Iron Swords", included intensive aerial bombardments against Hamas military targets in the Gaza Strip, but affected thousands of Palestinian civilians who were killed or wounded and their homes destroyed. The Israelis mobilized reservists for an all-out offensive against the entire Gaza Strip to completely eliminate Hamas, while imposing a total blockade on the supply of water, food, medicine and fuel, increasing the already humanitarian crisis. The destruction reached Hamas military infrastructure and civilian infrastructure such as public buildings, through ground and naval artillery and aerial bombardment. The Israeli ground incursions reached the entire Gaza Strip, because they are aimed at dismantling Hamas' military capacity, tunnels, missile launcher bases, supply sites, arsenals, etcetera. They also aim to dismantle Hamas by eliminating its leaders and the militants responsible for the offensive, to rescue the Israeli hostages, and to establish a future security zone to prevent further Palestinian attacks. Israel has been criticized for the disproportionate response of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to the Hamas attack, the failure to distinguish between civilian and military targets and to plan the attacks in such a way as to avoid civilian casualties. Israel has responded that Hamas uses the civilian population as a shield, and that the territory is densely populated so that war casualties could not be avoided, however, despite having the advantage in war material, so far it has not been enough to defeat Hamas militarily. Guerrilla warfare is the tactic employed by Hamas and that has been a complication for Israel, as it had been for the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, Hamas blends in among civilians making it even more difficult to locate its fighters, while the Israeli response causes collateral damage among civilians and what little infrastructure is left standing after nearly two years of conflict: "Gaza's demographic characteristics as a 'soft' factor are an advantage against Israel's 'hard' capabilities, where Hamas operatives can intrude into the population to set up ambushes against IDF armored columns" (Trujillo Borrego, 2025, 16). The government of Benjamin Netanyahu gained a great deal of public support for the military operation, however, the rising number of casualties along with the destruction caused in Gaza, brought down support. The families of the hostages are urging the government to enter into negotiations with Hamas to get them back, which clashes with the government's objectives. The mobilization of the reservists, together with the prolongation of the war, has generated social and economic problems, questioning the Netanyahu government, and also the intelligence agencies that were surprised by the preparation and the surprise of the Hamas attack. The position of the United States Historically, the United States has supported Israel economically, politically and militarily based on strategic and geopolitical interests. The Israeli lobby in the US Congress, the veto to UN Security Council Resolutions and the presidential statements, have strengthened the bond between both countries: "Israel remains the main recipient of US aid, an aid that has allowed it to transform its Armed Forces and maintain the "qualitative military edge" (QME) against its neighbors. It has always been guaranteed by the US Congress and has had the support of both major parties, in part thanks to the promotion at the domestic level of organizations in defense of Israel since the Yom Kippur War in 1973 (García Encina, 2023, 3). The US justification during the administration of President Joseph Biden (2021-2025), was that Israel had the right to defend itself by condemning Hamas in solidarity with its traditional ally. Support was maintained until the US administration began to worry about civilian casualties and the humanitarian crisis. Hence the calls for a "humanitarian pause" and a "cease-fire" for the hostage exchange. The position of current US President Donald Trump has been one of absolute support for Israel. While he has stated that "a lot of people are starving" and that "bad things are happening", his relationship with the Israeli Prime Minister has not changed despite mentioning that humanitarian aid is needed. In that sense, he has stated that Hamas has to be completely disarmed in order for the Gaza Strip to be a territory without weapons. Also, one of his proposals is that the United States take control of Gaza and relocate Palestinians to other countries because it is a pile of rubble, violating international law by the principle of self-determination of peoples and determining a forced displacement of Palestinians: “Despite its support for a two-state solution, the lack of effective pressure on Israel and the focus on Israeli security over justice for Palestinians have hindered significant progress toward peace. U.S. policy in the region has oscillated between attempts at mediation and unconditional support for Israel, making it impossible for the U.S. to act as an impartial mediator.” (Donoso, 2025, pp. 27–28) However, Trump has hinted at Israel's unwillingness to negotiate an end to the war, and has expressed that hunger should not be used as a weapon. In addition, he has lifted sanctions against a historical enemy of Israel, Syria, whose president Ahmed al-Sharaa, was linked to Al Qaeda, although he now belongs to another group called Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) (Organization or Life for the Liberation of the Levant). Israel has opposed the lifting of sanctions and has bombed Syria. Trump’s tour of the Middle East this past May demonstrated that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has taken a back seat due to the intransigence of both Hamas and Israel. For this reason, the U.S. president—who did not visit Israel—traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, seeking to invest in the oil sector and encouraging those countries to invest in the United States or purchase American products. For example, Saudi Arabia agreed to buy $142 billion worth of military equipment, including missiles, communication systems, and more. The total deal amounts to $600 billion, covering trade, investments, and arms purchases. Meanwhile, in contrast to the U.S. position of keeping control over the Gaza Strip, there is another initiative led by regional countries such as the United Arab Emirates to invest in Gaza’s reconstruction—without relocating Gazan residents to other countries in the region. Final Considerations The Gaza Strip, a narrow territory located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, stands as an epicenter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Surrounded by Israel and Egypt, it represents a strategic geographic point in the region, and has witnessed violence, blockades and a complex interplay between local, regional and international actors, with Israel, Hamas and the United States playing crucial roles. Israel has exerted overwhelming influence with ground and aerial bombardments throughout the Strip to not only eliminate Hamas, but also to secure the release of the hostages. Although at the beginning Israeli society supported this campaign, the cost in lives is being negatively evaluated, in addition to the call for reservists. This call-up has damaged the Israeli economy by extracting more than 300,000 reservists, affecting the labor force in different sectors of the economy. Israel, supported by the United States, has so far declared that it will not end the operation until the elimination of Hamas, the latest [Hamas] has demonstrated a great defensive and organizational capacity, which has been beneficial to the international community that has begun to criticize the Israeli attack due to the high cost in Palestinian victims and the precarious situation of the Gazans. According to the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip, more than 50,000 Gazans had been killed and more than 100,000 wounded as of March this year, but Israel contradicts these figures, while not allowing impartial observers and journalists into the area. In addition, more than 70% of the infrastructure and homes have been destroyed by Israeli air, land and naval bombardments. This has been compounded by the collapse of industrial production, rising inflation due to food and manufactured goods shortages, and an increase in both overall                 and youth unemployment—factors that further fuel resentment toward those considered responsible, namely the Israelis. Likewise, both exports (such as scrap metal, tropical fruits, and olive oil) and imports (especially food) have declined as a result of the conflict. The United States supported Israel's position from the beginning, but President Trump is now calling for the opening of a humanitarian corridor for the residents of Gaza. While Israel has managed to dismantle most of Hamas’ operational infrastructure, it has not succeeded in defeating the organization, nor in freeing all the hostages, and now is facing mounting international condemnation and accusations of war crimes. At the same time, Israel's public spending has increased significantly, primarily due to military operations, while the country's economic development and employment rates have fluctuated over the past two years. Naturally, the Palestinian economy has suffered far more than Israel’s.The escalation of violence between Palestinians and Israelis since 2023 is the result of a series of long-standing events and processes. Rocket attacks from Gaza, assaults by Israeli settlers on Palestinians in the West Bank, Israeli responses to missile fire, incidents near the mosques in East Jerusalem, the deplorable health conditions in Gaza due to the Israeli blockade, and the destruction of Gazan infrastructure have all prolonged the conflict and deepened tensions. In short, the intransigence of both parties—along with unwavering U.S. support for Israel and diplomatic efforts that have so far failed—has prolonged the conflict, preventing the achievement of a fair and lasting political solution for both sides. This has caused a high number of civilian casualties in Gaza, where a collapsing health system struggles to respond and food is scarce. At the same time, Palestinians living in the West Bank continue to suffer from attacks and displacement by Israeli settlers expanding their areas of control. Bibliography Arteaga, F. (2023). The war between Hamas and Israel: long and hard. Real Instituto Elcano, pp. 1-5. https://media.realinstitutoelcano.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/la-guerra-entre-hamas-e-israel-larga-y-dura.pdfBBC News World (2020). West Bank: 6 questions to understand the situation and Israel's plans to annex part of this Palestinian territory. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-53142850BBC News World (2021). Israeli-Palestinian conflict: 6 maps showing how the Palestinian territory has changed over the past decades. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-54162476BBC News World (2025). "Bullets raining down on us like a deluge": Israel attacks southern Gaza and already over 50,000 dead. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c0l1r6xdl9koBBC News World (2025). The history of the Gaza Strip, the former territory of the Ottoman Empire destroyed by Israel and from which Trump wants to evict Palestinians. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c06r7nlr84koDonoso, C. (2025). The United States: a partial and weak mediator in the Israel-Hamas conflict. In, Velasco, C. M. Á., Saint-Pierre, H. L., Mei, E., Borrego, E. T., Donoso, C., & Botta, P. Central theme: Reflections on a year of conflict: Israel and Palestine in the spotlight. Instituto de Altos Estudios del Estado, Paralelo Cero, Estudios estratégicos, geopolíticos y de seguridad, n° 8, pp. 23-30. https://editorial.iaen.edu.ec/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2025/01/PARALELO-0-Boletin-8-Final-1.pdfDoucet, L. (2025). What is the $53 billion plan for Gaza presented by Arab countries. BBC News World. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c5yx07841v9oGarcía Encina, C. (2023). USA and Israel: the strength of a relationship. Real Instituto Elcano, pp. 1-9. https://media.realinstitutoelcano.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/eeuu-e-israel-la-fortaleza-de-una-relacion.pdfGoldman, A., Bergman, R., Kingsley, P., Koplewitz, G., (2024). Israel's subway war against Hamas tunnels in Gaza. Infobae. https://www.infobae.com/america/the-new-york-times/2024/01/17/la-guerra-subterranea-de-israel-contra-los-tuneles-de-hamas-en-gaza/Gómez Díaz, L. (2023). Hamas and Fatah, rivals with different visions of Israel and the future of the Palestinians. Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española. https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20231020/hamas-fatah-rivales-politicos-palestinos-israel-diferencias/2458571.shtml.Hamdar, M., Razek, H. (2023). The aerial operation Hamas used to infiltrate Israel undetected. BBC News Arabic. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cv20n56p5ynoInfobae. (2025). With the flag flying in Damascus after 13 years the U.S. embassy in Syria was reopened. https://www.infobae.com/estados-unidos/2025/05/29/reabrieron-la-residencia-del-embajador-de-estados-unidos-en-damasco-mientras-washington-repara-los-lazos-con-siria/Infobae. (2025). Donald Trump spoke about the situation in the Gaza Strip: Many people are starving. https://www.infobae.com/estados-unidos/2025/05/16/donald-trump-hablo-sobre-la-situacion-en-la-franja-de-gaza-mucha-gente-esta-muriendo-de-hambre/Knickmeyer, E. (2025). Trump's Mideast trip highlights deals and diplomacy, but shuts up on human rights. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/espanol/eeuu/articulo/2025-05-16/viaje-de-trump-a-oriente-medio-destaca-por-acuerdos-y-diplomacia-pero-calla-sobre-derechos-humanosMerino, A. (2023). The map of the Israeli blockade of Gaza or how to make a territory uninhabitable. https://elordenmundial.com/mapas-y-graficos/mapa-bloqueo-israeli-gaza-territorio-inhabitable/United Nations (2024). Gaza crimes, pollution deaths, Haiti...Wednesday's news. News United Nations. https://news.un.org/es/story/2024/06/1530656Radio France Internationale (2025). Hamas releases three hostages and defies Trump's Gaza plan. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c06r7nlr84koSaul, J., Farrell, S. (2023). The complex network of Hamas tunnels facing the Israeli army in Gaza. Infobae. https://www.infobae.com/america/mundo/2023/10/26/la-compleja-red-de-tuneles-de-hamas-de-cientos-de-kilometros-de-largo-a-la-que-se-enfrenta-el-ejercito-israeli-en-gaza/Seddon, S., Palumbo, D. (2023). How Hamas staged a blitz attack on Israel that no one thought possible. BBC News World. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c25we958pwqoTrujillo Borrego, E. (2025). The implicit goals of Israel in its war operations in the Gaza Strip. In, Velasco, C. M. Á., Saint-Pierre, H. L., Mei, E., Borrego, E. T., Donoso, C., & Botta, P. Central theme: Reflections on a year of conflict: Israel and Palestine in the crosshairs. Instituto de Altos Estudios del Estado, Paralelo Cero, Estudios estratégicos, geopolíticos y de seguridad, no. 8, pp. 13-22. https://editorial.iaen.edu.ec/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2025/01/PARALELO-0-Boletin-8-Final-1.pdf

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Abstract The global development initiative proposed by China aims to promote global sustainable development and has received support from many Latin American countries. At present, green cooperation between China and Latin America has achieved positive results in multiple fields such as clean energy, green agriculture, and green transportation. Latin American countries can become important partners for China to promote the Global Development Initiatives. However, in terms of green cooperation, China and Latin America also face some challenges. Both sides must strengthen consensus and achieve coordinated development in various fields. Sustainable Development and the Global Development Initiative The current international situation is turbulent and constantly changing, with a global economy that remains stagnant, while challenges such as geopolitical conflicts, climate change, and the food crisis are becoming increasingly intertwined and exacerbated. In this context, all countries around the world face the important task of promoting sustainable development and maintaining healthy economic and social growth. On September 21, 2021, Chinese President Xi Jinping officially launched the Global Development Initiative at the United Nations, outlining a path toward a new stage of global development that is balanced, coordinated, and inclusive (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, 2021). The Global Development Initiative is aligned with the 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and places climate change and sustainable development as key areas of cooperation, emphasizing the idea of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature. Its goal is to promote stronger, more sustainable, and healthier global development, and to build a global community for development. The 33 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean are a fundamental part of the Global South and, in general, place great importance on sustainable development, which has allowed them to achieve notable successes in the field of sustainable cooperation. In a context of great power competition and ongoing regional conflicts, the strengthening of sustainable cooperation between China and Latin American countries presents numerous opportunities, creating ample space to jointly advance in sustainable development. The concept of a sustainable economy evolved from the idea of sustainable development, with harmony between humanity and nature at its core and the goal of achieving long-term sustainability. This approach maintains that economic growth is not an unlimited or uncontrolled process but rather must be conditioned by the ecological environment’s capacities and the resource carrying capacity. The concept of a sustainable economy emerged in the late 1980s when British environmental economist David Pearce introduced it in his work “Blueprint for a Green Economy”, published in 1989. However, it was not until the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, that the sustainable economy began to receive greater attention and became a central concept in global development strategies. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), a sustainable economy is driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, improve energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystems. A sustainable economy has always promoted development goals that integrate economic, social, and environmental aspects. This respect for the environment and nature is closely linked to traditional Chinese worldviews. Since ancient times, the Chinese have developed ideas about following the laws of nature and protecting the ecological environment. In the classical text “Yi Zhou Shu Ju Pian”, it is recorded: "During the three months of spring, no axes are used in the mountains and forests, to allow plants to grow; during the three months of summer, no nets are placed in rivers and lakes." These ideas have been a fundamental part of the spiritual thought and culture of the Chinese people for over five thousand years, and through them, they have envisioned humanity and nature as an organic and indivisible whole. They represent the basic understanding of the relationship between humans and nature in ancient Chinese agricultural society, where coexistence and mutual promotion between people and the ecological environment reflected a dialectical relationship of unity. These ideas, full of deep wisdom, constitute an essential component of China’s rich cultural tradition. Consensus Base for Green Cooperation In 2021, the Global Development Initiative, aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda, established eight key areas of cooperation: poverty reduction, food security, industrialization, connectivity, pandemic response, development financing, climate change, and the digital economy. It also proposed key principles such as “prioritizing development,” “people-centered focus,” “universal inclusion,” “innovation-driven efforts,” “harmony between humanity and nature,” and “action-oriented approaches.” Latin American countries also place great importance on sustainable development and share numerous points of consensus with China on these principles. Currently, several countries in the region, including Peru and Colombia, have joined the “Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative.” This shared commitment to sustainable development between China and Latin America provides an important foundation for advancing sustainable cooperation. Particularly, China and Latin American countries have broad consensus in the following areas: 1. Prioritizing national development. Both China and many Latin American countries are developing nations and consider the promotion of sustainable development a crucial goal. President Xi Jinping emphasized in the report presented at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC): “The fundamental fact that our country is still and will long remain in the primary stage of socialism has not changed; our international status as the largest developing country in the world has not changed.” (Xi, 2017) China’s fundamental national situation determines that its main task is to advance along the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and to focus its efforts on socialist construction. The Global Development Initiative also highlights “prioritizing development” as one of its core pillars. Latin America, for its part, faces the challenge of progressing in development. Although it was one of the regions in the Global South to achieve national independence and begin economic development relatively early, some Latin American countries have experienced stagnation in their economic transformation and have not managed to overcome the so-called “middle-income trap.” Affected by factors such as low global economic growth, fiscal constraints, and limited policy space, Latin America’s economy has shown a weak recovery in recent years, with some countries facing serious inflation and debt problems. Therefore, promoting sustainable development has become a top priority for governments in the region. In 2016, Latin American countries promoted the creation of the Forum of the Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean on Sustainable Development, as a regional mechanism for implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (ECLAC, 2016). By the end of 2023, six successful conferences had been held, and the Latin America and the Caribbean Sustainable Development Report had been published annually to assess the region’s progress in meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 2. Addressing welfare issues as a central task Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the Party’s central leadership, led by Xi Jinping, has promoted a people-centered development approach, insisting that everything should be done for the people and depend on the people, always placing them in the highest position. During the centennial celebration of the CPC’s founding, General Secretary Xi emphasized: “To learn from history and forge the future, we must unite and lead the Chinese people in a tireless struggle for a better life.” In contrast, Latin America is one of the most unequal regions in the world. The unequal distribution of wealth, along with gender and racial discrimination, are persistent issues that have been worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic and the global economic slowdown. According to data from the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), in 2023 the region’s poverty rate was 29.1%, and extreme poverty was 11.4%, both slightly higher than in 2022 (29% and 11.2%, respectively) (France24, 2023). As a response, many Latin American governments — such as those in Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Cuba — have incorporated attention to welfare issues and improving their citizens’ quality of life as key pillars in their public policy agendas. 3. Embracing inclusion and shared benefits as a guiding principle Following the end of the Cold War, the world experienced a trend toward multipolarity and continued economic globalization. However, in recent years, there has been a resurgence of protectionism in various forms, accompanied by a rise in unilateralism and hegemonic policies. These “deglobalization” practices not only fail to resolve internal problems, but also disrupt global supply chains, hinder healthy economic development, and harm the interests of countries. In response, developing nations such as China and Latin American countries advocate for multipolar development and oppose unilateralism and power politics. In December 2023, China’s Central Conference on Foreign Affairs Work emphasized the importance of inclusive and mutually beneficial economic globalization. Similarly, Latin America has maintained a diversified foreign policy and has worked toward building a new, fair, and equitable international political and economic order. Amid rising tensions among major powers, most Latin American countries have chosen not to take sides, maintaining a non-aligned policy. Moreover, countries in Latin America are increasingly focused on inclusive development both within their nations and across the region, striving to address internal development imbalances. In 2010, the Andean Development Corporation (predecessor to the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean) released the “Latin America Vision Plan 2040”, which highlighted the need to strengthen economic inclusion in order to achieve truly sustainable growth (CAF, 2010). In January 2023, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) Summit in Argentina approved the “Buenos Aires Declaration,” which stressed the importance of promoting inclusive development in the region and fostering inclusive dialogue with other regions (CELAC, 2023). 4. Embracing innovation as a key driver Marx pointed out that “science is also part of the productive forces” and that “the development of fixed capital shows the extent to which the general knowledge of society has become a direct productive force.” In 1988, at the National Science Conference, Deng Xiaoping declared, “science and technology are the primary productive forces.” Since the 18th CPC Congress, China has firmly pursued innovation-led development. It launched the National Innovation-Driven Development Strategy, issued the Medium- to Long-Term Science and Technology Development Plan (2021–2035), and rolled out the Technological Innovation Blueprint under the 14th Five-Year Plan. Thanks to this framework, China has made significant progress in accelerating emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data, quantum communication, and blockchain. Latin American countries are also intensifying their focus on technological innovation. In 2023, CELAC’s Buenos Aires Declaration underscored the importance of innovation for enhancing regional competitiveness and job quality, while encouraging scientific exchanges among nations and subregional organizations. Furthermore, the President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, committed to increasing investment in technological development. To that end, he announced at the 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change an investment of approximately 21 billion reais (around 4.28 billion U.S. dollars) in sustainable economy, innovative technologies, and low-carbon economy. In the 2023 Global Innovation Index, Brazil ranked 49th out of 132 countries, improving by five positions compared to the previous year. The President of Chile, Gabriel Boric, pledged to increase public funding for research and to finance the work of universities and research institutions. In 2019, the Colombian government established the “International Mission of Wise People,” a body composed of 46 national and international academic experts to promote production diversification and automation, with the goal of doubling the share of manufacturing and agriculture in the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2030. The current president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, has committed to transforming the country into a “knowledge society” and to continuing this initiative. 5. Making harmony between humans and nature a central goal Developing countries — including China and Latin American nations — prioritize climate issues and actively contribute to global climate governance. Since ancient China during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, philosophical schools such as Confucianism and Taoism had already proposed concepts about the “unity between Heaven and humankind.” Similarly, Indigenous cultures in Latin America also share related cultural traditions. The Quechua peoples of Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia promote the concept of “’Buen Vivir’” (“Good Living”), which emphasizes harmony between human society and nature. The Aymara of Peru and Bolivia, the Guaraní of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Bolivia, the Shuar of Ecuador, and the Mapuche of Chile all have similar philosophical expressions. So far in the 21st century, China and Latin American countries have intensified their focus on sustainable development. In August 2005, during a visit to Anji in China’s Zhejiang Province, Xi Jinping, then Secretary of the Communist Party of China in Zhejiang, put forward the principle that “lucid waters and lush mountains are as valuable as mountains of gold and silver,” highlighting the idea that economic growth should not be achieved at the expense of the environment. China’s Global Development Initiative includes climate change and sustainable development as key cooperation areas, aiming for stronger, healthier global progress. Simultaneously, Latin American countries value sustainability highly. Ten nations in the region have officially submitted carbon-neutrality timelines and developed emissions-reduction plans. Several governments have taken significant measures to accelerate energy transition, restore ecosystems, and enhance international cooperation. Notably, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay have made substantial strides in renewable energy: in Q1 2023, more than 90 % of Brazil’s energy came from renewables — the highest level since 2011. Progress of Green Cooperation between China and Latin America 1. High-level design for sustainable cooperation between China and Latin American countries has been continuously strengthenedAs comprehensive cooperation between China and Latin America progresses, sustainable collaboration has also become integrated into the strategic high-level planning. At the third Ministerial Meeting of the China-CELAC Forum in 2021, the "Joint Action Plan for Cooperation in Key Areas between China and CELAC Member States (2022–2024)" was adopted. This plan emphasizes the continuation of cooperation in areas such as renewable energy, new energy, civil nuclear energy, energy technology equipment, electric vehicles and their components, as well as energy-related geological and mineral resources. It also outlines the expansion of cooperation in emerging industries related to clean energy resources, support for technology transfer between companies, and the respect and protection of the natural environment. Joint declarations between China and countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina on establishing and deepening comprehensive strategic partnerships mention strengthening cooperation in areas such as climate change and clean energy. During the sixth meeting of the Sino-Brazilian High-Level Commission for Coordination and Cooperation in May 2022, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and the Brazilian Ministry of Economy agreed to sign a Memorandum of Understanding on Promoting Investment Cooperation for Sustainable Development, aimed at promoting investment in clean and low-carbon technologies in both countries. In April 2023, during Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's visit to China, the two countries issued the “China-Brazil Joint Declaration on Combating Climate Change” and signed several cooperation agreements related to the sustainable economy. For example, Article 3 mentions “expanding cooperation in new fields such as environmental protection, combating climate change, the low-carbon economy, and the digital economy,” while Article 10 notes the aim to “strengthen cooperation on environmental protection, climate change, and biodiversity loss, promote sustainable development, and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.” In the same month, the “China-Brazil Joint Declaration on Combating Climate Change,” the “Memorandum of Understanding on Research and Innovation Cooperation between the Ministries of Science and Technology of China and Brazil,” and the “Memorandum of Understanding on Promoting Investment and Industrial Cooperation between China and Brazil” identified key areas of future cooperation, including sustainable infrastructure, the development of sustainable industries, renewable energy, electric vehicles, sustainable technological innovation, and green financing. 2. Clean energy cooperation has deepened The development and use of clean energy are essential means for achieving green development. In recent years, clean energy cooperation between China and Latin America has shown the following main characteristics. The scope of clean energy cooperation is becoming increasingly broad. Currently, cooperation between China and Latin America in the fields of clean energy — such as hydropower, solar energy, wind power, nuclear energy, biomass energy, and lithium batteries — has reached a certain level of breadth and depth. At the same time, both sides have also initiated cooperation efforts in emerging areas such as green hydrogen and smart energy storage. China is constantly diversifying its target countries and modes of investment in clean energy in Latin America. In 2015, China began increasing its investment in the renewable energy sector in the region. Between 2005 and 2020, China’s main investment targets in renewable energy in Latin America included countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, and Bolivia. Investments in projects, mergers and acquisitions, and greenfield investments have gone hand in hand. 3. Green cooperation in the transportation sector has yielded outstanding results. Chinese companies continue to cooperate with Latin American countries in the field of public transportation infrastructure and electric vehicles, promoting the low-carbon development of the transport sector in Latin America. First, cooperation in public transportation infrastructure is advancing. In recent years, Chinese companies have actively participated in the construction of public infrastructure such as railways, roads, and bridges in Latin American countries, aiming to promote interconnectivity and green travel across the region. Bogotá Metro Line 1, in the capital of Colombia, currently under construction with Chinese investment, is to date the largest public-private partnership (PPP) project in individual transportation infrastructure in Latin America. Second, trade in electric vehicles is developing rapidly. China’s electric vehicle industry has extensive experience in large-scale production and a relatively complete industrial supply chain, making it a new growth area in China–Latin America trade. Electric buses and cars from independent Chinese brands such as BYD, JAC, and Dongfeng are favored in Latin America due to their good quality and low price. Third, cooperation in battery and tram production is also improving. China and Latin America have also begun bold attempts in green capacity cooperation within the manufacturing sector. Currently, BYD is carrying out a range of production activities in Brazil, including the assembly of bus chassis and the production of photovoltaic modules and batteries. 4. Green agricultural cooperation is on the rise. Latin America has vast and fertile land, and agricultural cooperation is an important component of China–Latin America trade. In recent years, Chinese companies have paid increasing attention to using advanced technologies to strengthen environmental protection and actively promote the green transformation of agricultural cooperation. COFCO (‘China National Cereal, Oil & Foodstuff Corporation’) and its Brazilian partners conducted risk assessments of more than 1,700 soybean suppliers in the Amazon and Cerrado ecological zones, and mapped over 1.1 million hectares of soybean fields using remote sensing satellites, which has raised farmers' awareness of sustainable development. By the end of 2021, COFCO had achieved 100% traceability for all direct soybean purchases in Matopiba, a major soybean-producing region in Brazil. At the same time, China and several Latin American countries are promoting cooperation in green agricultural research and development. The Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences has established cooperative relationships with nine Latin American countries, including Colombia, Panama, Ecuador, and Costa Rica. It has achieved progress in exchange and cooperation in areas such as the innovative use and protection of germplasm resources, efficient transformation and comprehensive utilization of biomass energy, green pest and disease prevention and control technologies, and efficient cultivation techniques. 5. Cooperation on green financing plays an important bridging role. The Global Development and South-South Cooperation Fund and the China-United Nations Peace and Development Fund are key financial platforms through which China supports project cooperation under the Global Development Initiative. In addition to the above-mentioned platforms, current green financial instruments between China and Latin America include the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the China–Latin America Cooperation Fund, the China–Latin America Development Finance Cooperation Mechanism, and subsidies provided by China’s Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Currently, all three financing projects of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in Brazil are related to the green economy. Challenges facing Sino–Latin American green cooperation Although green cooperation between China and Latin America has gradually achieved results and presents many development opportunities, the risks and challenges of cooperation should not be ignored. Most Latin Americans expect that foreign cooperation will promote social well-being, eliminate poverty, and reduce inequality in their countries. They place great importance on the social benefits of projects and pay close attention to the environmental impact of projects on local ecosystems. Currently, the process of extracting lithium from brine places high demands on water resources and carries the risk of air and water pollution. As a result, lithium mining has also faced opposition from Indigenous communities in some Latin American countries. In 2023, Indigenous peoples from Argentina’s Jujuy Province staged several protests against the exploitation of a lithium mine (Reventós, 2023). To reduce pollution in lithium extraction, further scientific and technological research is needed. The integration of Chinese companies into Latin America also faces many obstacles. The official languages of most Latin American countries are Spanish and Portuguese, which are deeply influenced by European and U.S. cultures. In addition to geographical distance, there is limited mutual understanding between the peoples of China and Latin America, and transportation and logistics costs are high. Most Chinese companies lack personnel fluent in Spanish or Portuguese and familiar with local laws and regulations. Currently, the U.S. government continues to view China as a strategic competitor. Latin America has also become a battleground for strategic competition between China and the United States. The U.S. has increasingly turned its attention to China’s cooperation with Latin American countries. In 2019, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs published an article stating that “China’s green investment in Latin America cannot offset local environmental damage” (Cote-Muñoz, 2019). In general, green cooperation between China and Latin America will face a more complex environment in the future. Final considerations In recent years, China has put forward the Global Development Initiative to promote international cooperation for sustainable development. Latin America, one of the regions with the most developing countries in the world, actively promotes the implementation of the Sustainable Development Agenda and has a solid green economic foundation. In this sense, the region can be an important partner for China in achieving the goals of the 2030 Agenda and building a shared future for humanity. China must continue to build consensus on development priorities with Latin American countries, plan key areas of cooperation according to their conditions and needs, promote connections between governments, businesses, universities, and media in China and Latin America, and jointly advance the green cooperation to a new level. China and Latin America have achieved multidisciplinary coverage in green cooperation. It is necessary to further improve the quality of cooperation in the future and achieve coordinated development across various sectors. For example, in the long term, the development of renewable energy will require greater energy storage capacity and wider electric grid coverage. Additionally, Chinese companies need to integrate more into local societies and generate greater social benefits while ensuring economic returns. They can strengthen cooperation with Latin American companies in order to quickly become familiar with local laws, regulations, and market conditions. Furthermore, more research — including environmental assessments and social consultations — should be conducted before launching projects. References CAF (2010). "Corporación Andina de Fomento, Visión para América Latina 2040 Hacia una sociedad más incluyente y próspera". https://scioteca.caf.com/bitstream/handle/123456789/496/latinamerica_2040_summary_esp.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yCELAC (2023). "Declaración de Buenos Aires". https://www.cancilleria.gob.ar/userfiles/prensa/declaracion_ de_buenos_aires_-_version_final.pdf CEPAL (2016). "El Foro de los Países de América Latina y el Caribe sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible y el Seguimiento Regional de la Agenda 2030". https://www.cepal.org/es/temas/agenda-2030-desarrollo-sostenible/ foro-paises-america-latina-caribe-desarrollo-sostenible-seguimiento-regional-la-agenda-2030Cote-Muñoz, N. (2019). "China's Green Investments Won't Undo Its Environmental Damage to Latin America". Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-green-investments-wont-undo-its-environmental-damage-latin-americaFrance24 (2023). "Tasa de pobreza se mantiene en 29 % en América Latina en 2023". https://www.france24.com/es/minuto-a-minuto/20231125-tasa-de-pobreza-se-mantiene-en-29-en-am%C3%A9rica-latina-en-2023-dice-cepalMinistry of Foreign Affairs of China (2021). "Global Development Initiative-Building on 2030 SDGs for Stronger, Greener and Healthier Global Development". https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zy/jj/GDI_140002/wj/202406/ P020240606606193448267.pdfReventós, B. y N. Fabre (2023). "Los grupos indígenas en Argentina que se oponen a la extracción del litio". BBC. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cevzgv0elp9o Cuadernos de Nuestra América. No. 014 | Nueva Época 2025, Centro de Investigaciones de Política Internacional (CIPI). Under CC BY-NC 4.0