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

Sara Duterte’s visit to Australia marks a bold attempt to internationalise her father’s legal battle with the ICC, using diaspora diplomacy to challenge human rights mechanisms. Her campaign raises serious questions about how states like Australia should respond when populist leaders seek to undermine international legal norms from foreign soil. In a near two-hour speech before a crowd of supporters in Melbourne, embattled Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte (herein Sara) called on the Filipino community to “convince” the Australian government to “look into the case” of her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, before the International Criminal Court (ICC). During the rally, Sara publicly urged supporters to lobby the Australian government—a party to the Rome Statute. Mr Duterte is currently detained at The Hague for alleged crimes against humanity, perpetrated in the context of his bloody “War on Drugs.” Sara has seemingly embarked on a “global sympathy tour,” albeit tagged as a personal trip, to muster support for her father. At home, she fights off an impeachment trial, one which may plunge the Philippines into a constitutional crisis. The Duterte family is mobilising political resources and capital amid a crisis, with a strategy focused on building transnational support networks among loyal supporters to defend their violent legacy and deflect legal accountability. Australia is a critical stop in Sara’s roadshow. It was the first country explicitly named in news reports as a potential host for Mr Duterte as his defence team requests an interim release. Australia was her first stop after the defence made its request, prompting her to publicly deny that any formal approach had been made. Since Mr Duterte’s arrest in March, Sara has addressed overseas Filipinos in Qatar, Malaysia, and the Netherlands. There are key stakes that lie beyond Philippine domestic politics in every overseas trip she makes. In every visit, she stokes deeply emotional—and often inflammatory—appeals that challenge attitudes towards the rule of law. These may cause concern for public order, as Duterte supporters are known to be fiercely loyal, even engaging in politically trolling the ICC. Public assemblies organised around the trips have caused issues in other countries, resulting in investigations being made by host countries or the refusal of local institutions to associate with the pro-Duterte activities. Sara alluded to attempts at reaching out to Foreign Minister Penny Wong. She appealed for the fair application of rules to her father. These statements fit a pattern of invoking due process rhetoric when convenient, yet lacking genuine attempt at engaging official channels. For example, she called ICC lawyers “stupid” in attempts to undermine the investigation’s credibility, mirroring her father’s hostile attitude when he was in power. Filipino human rights defenders based in Australia have publicly condemned her visit as polarising. Domestic politics have deeply divided Filipinos back home. The visit drew prominent attention given Australia’s active role in the multilateral human rights system and adoption of a sanctions regime targeting rights violators. In urging migrant Filipinos to support her family, Sara’s speech brings to focus to an autocratic tendency in challenging human rights mechanisms. It also raises the question of whether states like Australia will be willing to act on political rhetoric from high-profile figures who undermine international norms and human rights. Observers also noted that Mr Duterte previously provoked tensions with Australia. He threatened to cut diplomatic ties in 2016 after criticism of his remarks about the rape and murder of an Australian missionary, and later ordered the deportation of Australian citizen Patricia Fox for opposing the War on Drugs. Australian officials have declined to engage Sara’s speech. Even so, her visit has roped Australia into the Dutertes’ impunity saga. The Dutertes’ recorded backlash against international legal norms—such as the former president’s withdrawal from the ICC, threatens to do the same with the UN Human Rights Council. Now, Sara’s public hostility towards the ICC prosecutor confronts the rules-based order that the Philippines and Australia commit to. Uncertainty in the international order affects Australia’s strategy on security, diplomacy, and international law, especially in light of recent strengthening of ties with the Philippines on security cooperation. Days after the visit, the ICC publicised the OTP’s opposition to Mr Duterte’s request for interim release. The OTP opposed the interim release due to flight risk. Sara’s political influence and vast network exacerbates the risk, and may help facilitate Mr Duterte’s evasion of justice. So far, Sara Duterte has made risky political moves: violent election rhetoric, assassination plots, attacking her impeachment, and evasion of congressional hearings. If she emerges unscathed, she could remain the frontrunner for the 2028 presidential race. The presidency would give her control over foreign policy. For states like Australia, ostensibly committed to the integrity of a rules-based international order, this raises questions about how they will respond to those who challenge international norms through provocative foreign engagements. This is not just about the ICC’s legitimacy or the Philippines’ politics—it is about whether international norms can withstand pressure from leaders who openly defy them.

Abstract This paper examines the evolving concept of European Union Strategic Autonomy (EU-SA) within the context of contemporary geopolitical challenges, with a particular focus on EU-Russia and EU-China relations. EU-SA reflects the EU's aspiration to act independently in foreign policy, security, defence, and economic affairs, moving from a rule-taker to a rule-maker in global politics. The study outlines the historical development of EU-SA from 2013 to the present, highlighting key milestones such as the Strategic Compass and the impact of the Ukraine War, which accelerated efforts toward defence collaboration, energy independence, and economic resilience. It explores the transatlantic dynamics, noting growing uncertainties in the U.S. commitment to NATO and the resulting push for a more autonomous European defence posture. Additionally, it addresses the complex EU-China relationship, marked by both cooperation and competition, as well as the strained EU-Russia ties amid ongoing conflict. The paper concludes by questioning the economic feasibility and political risks of deeper EU strategic autonomy, especially regarding security centralisation and Germany's leadership role. Key Words: EU, Strategic Autonomy, Security, Geopolitics, U.S, China, Russia Introduction At the 2025 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Summit in The Hague, member states (Allies) committed to investing 5% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually in core defence requirements and defence- and security-related spending by 2035. They will allocate at least 3.5% of GDP annually, based on the agreed-upon definition of NATO defence expenditure, by 2035 to resource core defence requirements and meet the NATO Capability Targets. Allies agreed to submit annual plans that show a credible, incremental path to achieving this goal.[1] At the same time, Spain secured a special compromise, committing to meet core requirements with just 2.1% of GDP, making it the only exception to the broader 5% target. Previously, in 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government had agreed to commit 2% of their national GDP to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. This decision was taken in response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge was built on an earlier commitment to meeting this 2% of GDP guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers. In light of the increase in defence spending, given that 23 out of 32 NATO Allies are EU member states, the idea of European Union strategic autonomy (EU-SA) comes to mind. This paper will explore the issue of EU-SA with a specific reference to EU-Russia and EU-China relations.[2] A Brief History of EU Strategic Autonomy European Union strategic autonomy is an evolving concept that reflects its ambition to act independently in strategically important policy areas, including foreign policy, security, defence, and economic relations. Strong strategic autonomy, according to Barbara Lippert, Nicolai von Ondarza and Volker Perthes, means being able to set, modify and enforce international rules, as opposed to (unwillingly) obeying rules set by others. The opposite of strategic autonomy is being a rule-taker, subject to strategic decisions made by others, such as the United States, China, or Russia.[3] The concept was first prominently discussed in the context of defence in 2013 and has since expanded to encompass a broader range of policy areas. Historically speaking, one can identify numerous phases during which EU-SA evolved. - 2013-2016: During this period, EU-SA focused on security and defence, with initiatives like the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund, aiming to strengthen the EU's defence capabilities.[4]  - 2017-2019: During this period, the EU-SA shifted its focus to defending European interests in a hostile geopolitical environment, influenced by events such as Brexit, the Trump presidency, and China's growing assertiveness.- 2020: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted economic vulnerabilities, prompting a focus on mitigating dependence on foreign supply chains, particularly in critical sectors like health and technology.- Since 2021: The scope widened to virtually all EU policy areas, including digital, energy, and values, with terminology evolving to include "open strategic autonomy," "strategic sovereignty," "capacity to act," and "resilience".- 2022: The Ukraine War and Accelerated Implementation. Russia's invasion of Ukraine catalysed concrete actions toward EU-SA, notably in defence, energy independence, and economic resilience. The European Council's Versailles Declaration (March 2022) expressed strong political will to increase EU-SA, calling for collaborative investments in defence, phasing out dependency on Russian energy, and reducing reliance on critical raw materials, semiconductors, health, digital technologies, and food imports.[5] - The Strategic Compass for security and defence policy (endorsed March 2022) outlines a roadmap to 2030, emphasising strengthened EU defence capacities. Among others, it includes: o   Establishment of a strong EU Rapid Deployment Capacity of up to 5000 troops for different types of crises.o   Ready to deploy 200 fully equipped Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) mission experts within 30 days, including in complex environments.[6]o   Conducting regular live exercises on land and at sea.o   Enhanced military mobility.o   Reinforcement of the EU's civilian and military CSDP missions and operations by promoting a rapid and more flexible decision-making process, acting more robustly and ensuring greater financial solidarity.o   Making full use of the European Peace Facility to support partners.[7] According to the EU itself, the EU-SA is not a zero-sum game, but rather a sliding scale between complete autonomy and full dependency, with different results for different policy areas. What is more, when compared to the famous Maslow's hierarchy of needs (European Parliament briefing's language), the EU is not only perceived as an economic power, but it is also seen as a normative power. Therefore, the EU is recognised for its core values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Ultimately, Maslow's “self-actualisation” could mean the achievement of an EU in which citizens recognise their European identity and which has realised its full autonomous policy potential.[8]   As if this is not enough, the same source introduces the concept of the 360° strategic autonomy wheel, which reportedly illustrates policy areas in which the EU aims for greater strategic autonomy, as well as the connections between them. Mutual influence between policy areas can happen across the wheel, but is particularly strong in adjacent areas. Military action, for example, can cause migration, health is linked to food quality, energy policy influences the climate, and misinformation undermines democracy. The wheel can help to understand links, set priorities and view potential conflicts. More autonomy in the digital green economy will, for example, require vast quantities of “rare earth” materials, making the EU more (instead of less) dependent on imports. Reductions in energy consumption achieved through the digitalisation of the economy (for example, by reducing transport) will be partly offset by the increase in energy consumption by electronic devices and data centres.   Global Context The significance of EU-SA lies in ensuring the EU's political survival and global influence in a multipolar world where its relative power is diminishing. The EU's long-term economic outlook is bleak: its share of global GDP, now at 17% (at current prices), could nearly halve by 2050. According to the World Economic Forum, this economic backsliding not only threatens Europe's ability to fund its social model but also risks weighing on the bloc's global influence, leaving it even more dependent on the U.S. and China.[9] Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the conflictual nature of economic interdependence, as reliance on foreign supply chains for critical goods exposed vulnerabilities. Soft power has become an instrument of hard power, necessitating autonomy in trade, finance, and investment.  The U.S.'s strategic pivot to Asia, the exclusion of Europe in conflicts like Nagorno-Karabakh, Libya, and Syria (termed Astanisation[10], which favours Russia and Turkey), the sidelining of the EU in EU-Russia negotiations regarding the war in Ukraine, and China's state-led economic model have all pushed the EU towards the sidelines. Transatlantic divide Security is a critical dimension, with significant uncertainty surrounding the U.S. commitment to NATO under the Trump administration. Reports indicate Trump has questioned NATO's Article 5 guarantees, with actions like withdrawing military personnel from a Ukraine aid hub in Poland on April 8, 2025, and proposing to stand down 10,000 light infantry troops in Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states by 2025.[11] This has led to fears of a "NATO-minus" scenario, where the EU must fill security gaps without full U.S. backing. In response, the EU is pushing for greater strategic autonomy in defence. Initiatives like ReArm EU are mentioned, with calls for the EU to develop a stand-alone, integrated military capacity to stabilise the global economy. As Jean-Pierre Maulny, Deputy Director of the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs (IRIS), adequately observes "The risk is now clear: a form of bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia, benefiting the interests of both countries, could leave Ukraine severely weakened and an easy prey for Moscow, thereby weakening other European countries consequently. As a consolation prize, we will have to ensure Europe's conventional security, as U.S. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth announced to Europeans at the opening of the NATO ministerial meeting held in Brussels on 12–13 February 2025. This situation will place Europeans in a terrible dilemma: Either they do not wish to provide security guarantees to Ukraine and risk completely discrediting themselves in the eyes of powers such as the United States, Russia, and China, as Europeans will have demonstrated that they are unable to defend the continent, while also creating a significant long-term risk to Europe's security. Alternatively, they could provide security guarantees to Ukraine, accepting the financial burden that would impact the European Union's long-term competitiveness. In light of this situation, some advocate for the establishment of a European pillar within NATO. If one considers that the United States is negotiating peace in Europe without and against the Europeans, and that they no longer wish to defend Europe with conventional military means (will they respect the NATO Defence Planning Process?), Europeans should take on Europe's security fully. This would mean taking control of NATO. It will also be easier to make NATO and the European Union work together with a more Europeanised organisation".[12] Economically, there are several issues that contemporary demand addresses, but the most pressing is, of course, the Tariffs. The U.S. and European Union are running out of time to strike a deal on trade tariffs. Negotiations have been slow since both the U.S. and EU temporarily cut duties on each other until July 9. If an agreement is not achieved by then, full reciprocal import tariffs of 50% on EU goods, and the bloc's wide-spanning countermeasures are set to come into effect.[13] According to Almut Möller, Director for European and Global Affairs and head of the Europe in the World programme (European Policy Centre), "for the first time in decades, Europeans can no longer rely on a benign partner on the other side of the Atlantic, leaving them dangerously exposed and acutely vulnerable, including on the very foundations of liberal democracy. Until recently, the U.S. dominated a world order that provided a favourable environment for the EU to extend its membership, further develop, and leverage its strengths, particularly as a trading power, without having to worry much about geopolitics. Suddenly, liberal Europe looks very lonely, and is struggling to keep up with a world of change".[14] Other problems arguably include digital regulation and data protection, antitrust policy and digital taxation, fiscal policy and social protection, geopolitical rivalries, China's rise, and competition and trade policy. EU–China conundrum Both the EU and the U.S. are concerned about China's growing economic and technological influence, but they have differing approaches to addressing this challenge. The EU has sought to maintain a balance between cooperation and competition with China, while the U.S. has adopted a more confrontational approach.[15] These differences have led to tensions in areas such as trade policy and technology regulation. For example, the EU has been critical of the U.S.'s unilateral approach to addressing China's trade practices, while the U.S. has accused the EU of being too lenient towards China. These disagreements have made it difficult to achieve a coordinated transatlantic response to China's rise.[16] According to German experts, the balance of power between China and the EU and its member states is developing increasingly asymmetrically to Europe's disadvantage. Only in trade policy – and partially in investment – can the EU maintain its position in a manner respected by China.[17] Europe holds significant importance for China across various dimensions: economically, as its top supplier and second-largest export destination; technologically, as a source of advanced technology; institutionally, as a model to emulate; politically, to advance its objectives concerning other nations, particularly the United States; and selectively, as a collaborator in areas like global health and regional stabilisation. Unlike Russia and the United States, China perceives a vital interest in the EU's continued existence and unity within a multipolar world; yet, it employs a "divide and rule" strategy. China selectively rewards or penalises individual EU countries based on their political and economic significance and their compliance with China's expectations on key issues. These issues include arms sales to Taiwan, meetings with the Tibetan Dalai Lama, and positions on the Uighurs, human rights in China, and the South China Sea. China engages with Europe on multiple levels — political, economic, technological, cultural, and academic — using various political channels (such as strategic partnerships with the EU and individual EU member states), dialogue formats (like the 16+1 format with sixteen Central and Eastern European countries), and high-level bilateral intergovernmental consultations with Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. China's hopes that the European Union would emerge as an independent and comprehensive player in global politics, serving as a counterbalance to the United States, have diminished. However, China would be supportive of any European efforts towards achieving strategic autonomy, provided it does not translate into a confrontational approach towards China itself. In contrast, Europe's political priorities—such as ensuring peace and stability in East Asia, China's role in global stability, development, environmental issues, climate change, and non-proliferation, as well as improving human rights in China — are often considered secondary and are not actively pursued by all EU member states. Europe lacks a unified and assertive foreign policy stance regarding the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China for dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. There is also an absence of a clear position on China's authoritarian vision of order. Even in trade and investment disputes, Europe struggles to establish a unified approach to resolving these issues. The EU member states are too diverse in terms of size, profiles, and interests in their dealings with China: Economically, there is a divide between countries that are appealing industrial and technological partners for China and those that compete for favour in Beijing. Some nations have a clear interest in global governance. Additionally, the United Kingdom and France maintain their respective military presences in the Asia region. In this context, ReArm EU and its financial instrument SAFE (analysed here https://worldnewworld.com/page/content.php?no=5384 ) have the potential to provide the EU with meaningful strategic autonomy and invite genuine geopolitical actorness. EU–Russia conundrum Since Donald Trump took office as the U.S. president, the coordination of transatlantic policies regarding Russia has largely disintegrated. The White House's openness to a comprehensive "deal" with Russian President Vladimir Putin contrasts with Congress's attempts to limit Trump's foreign policy options with Russia, resulting in the marginalisation of coordination with European allies. This situation is further complicated by Washington's increasing reliance on extraterritorial sanctions, a trend that began before Trump's presidency. Consequently, according to European foreign and security experts, Europe must achieve greater strategic autonomy in its dealings with Russia. However, this relationship is particularly strained by significant conflicts of interest. Russia's invasion of Ukraine significantly disrupted the previously peaceful and liberal democratic relations among European nations. Putin's "special military operation" compelled the EU to introduce seventeen (so far) escalating economic sanction packages aimed at undermining the Russian economy and ultimately limiting Russia's capacity to continue the war. In a gesture of solidarity with Ukraine, the EU has also allocated billions of euros to both EU member states and Ukraine to avert a humanitarian disaster and ensure the provision of essential needs for Ukrainians fleeing the conflict.[18] After three and a half years from the outset of the war, Russia continues to pose a complex challenge that the EU and European nations cannot address independently in the foreseeable future. If the U.S. security guarantee weakens before Europe can bolster its own capabilities, the EU could face new vulnerabilities that Russia might exploit along its external borders, such as in the Baltic states, and elsewhere. Currently, the EU and its member states lack sufficient means to deter Russia from pursuing its interests aggressively and recklessly in the shared neighbourhood.[19] Critics, on the other hand, argue that calls for EU strategic autonomy, particularly the creation of a European Army and a significant increase in military spending, are a double-edged sword. First, the primary official rationale is that the EU must prepare itself for a possible attack on EU member states by Russia. The legacy media are full of European leaders claiming that Russia will sooner or later attack Europe.[20] Yet, this claim is not substantiated with much evidence. The proponents of the European army completely disregard numerous doubts surrounding the 2013/2014 "Euromaidan" and the role of the CIA in the events.[21] Second, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) 's estimations, the total number of conflict-related casualties in Ukraine from April 14, 2014, to December 31, 2021, stood at 51,000 – 54,000. These numbers are broken down as follows: 14,200 - 14,400 killed (at least 3,404 civilians, estimated 4,400 Ukrainian forces, and estimated 6,500 members of armed groups), and 37,000 - 39,000 injured (7,000 – 9,000 civilians, 13,800 – 14,200 Ukrainian forces and 15,800 - 16,200 members of armed groups).[22] In short, the situation was chaotic, with many casualties among civilians. Third, it was allegedly Europeans who torpedoed a first chance of peace negotiations as early as April 2014 in Istanbul.[23] Fourth, many European leaders seem to be utterly oblivious to the fact that the prolongation of the war adds to the destruction of Ukraine and Ukrainian society, deaths and emigration. Last but not least, given the fact that it is Germany that calls for both the European Army and the federalisation of Europe (with some assistance from France), one should be extra careful given the role of Germans during the WWII and the fact that neither has there been any official peace treaty with Germany nor have they recompensated countries such as Poland. Conclusion Strategic autonomy may be a necessity for Europe, given the dynamics of transatlantic relationships. The questions, however, that have to be pondered (and it does not seem that anyone in the legacy media or mainstream academia is ready to ask them) are numerous. Who will pay for that? Can Europeans afford such expenses under the current economic circumstances, and even worse economic prospects? Is the centralisation of security and military a Pandora's box? Should Europeans allow Germany (of all EU member states) to take special responsibility for this project? Isn't the pro-war rhetoric of Western political leaders making relations with Russia even more tense and dangerous, in other words, leading to escalation? History has solemnly proven that when left to their own devices, the Europeans inevitably create disastrous conflicts that have lasting consequences for generations. The American pivot to Asia and the consequent withdrawal from Europe may therefore have tragic ramifications for the European continent. References[1] Defence expenditures and NATO’s 5% commitment. (2025, June 27). North Atlantic Treaty Organization. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm[2] NATO and the EU have 23 members in common: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. See more at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-nato-cooperation/#0[3] Lippert, B., von Ondarza, N., & Perthes, V. (2019, March). European Strategic Autonomy. Actors, Issues, Conflicts of Interests. Stiftung Wissenschaft Un Politic. Deutches Institut für Politik Und Sicherheit. https://www.swp-berlin.org/ doi:10.18449/2019RP04/#hd-d14204e263[4] Damen, M. (2022, July). EU strategic autonomy 2013-2023: From concept to capacity (EU Strategic Autonomy Monitor). European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu[5] Informal meeting of the Heads of State or Government Versailles Declaration. (2022, March 10–11). Stiftung Wissenschaft Un Politic. Deutches Institut Fur Politik Und Sicherheit. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/54773/20220311-versailles-declaration-en.pdf[6] See more at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/csdp-structure-instruments-and-agencies_en[7] See more at: https://fpi.ec.europa.eu/what-we-do/european-peace-facility_en[8] Damen, M. (2022, July). EU strategic autonomy 2013-2023: From concept to capacity (EU Strategic Autonomy Monitor). European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu[9] Open but Secure:  Europe’s Path to Strategic Interdependence. INSIGHT REPORT. (2025). World Economic Forum. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Open_but_Secure_Europe%E2%80%99s_Path_to_Strategic_Interdependence_2025.pdf[10] In reference to the Astana format on Syria) which leads to the exclusion of Europe from the settlement of regional conflicts in favour of Russia and Turkey. See more: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/why-european-strategic-autonomy-matters_en[11] Tilles, D. (2025, April 8). US to withdraw military from Ukraine aid hub in Poland. Notes from Poland. https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/04/08/us-to-withdraw-military-from-ukraine-aid-hub-in-poland/[12] Maulny, J.-P. (2025, February 13). United States – Europe: Our Paths Are Splitting. The French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs (IRIS). https://www.iris-france.org/en/united-states-europe-our-paths-are-splitting/[13] Kiderlin, S. (2025, June 18). These are the sticking points holding up a U.S.-EU trade deal. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/18/these-are-the-sticking-points-holding-up-a-us-eu-trade-deal.html#:~:text=The%20EU%20and%20US%20flags,Poland%20on%20March%206%2C%202025.&text=Afp%20%7C%20Getty%20Images-,The%20U.S.%20and%20European%20Union%20are%20running%20out%20of%20time,($1.93%20trillion)%20in%202024?[14] Möller, A. (2025, February 26). Europe in the World in 2025: Navigating a perilous world with realism and ambition. European Policy Centre. https://www.epc.eu/publication/Europe-in-the-World-in-2025-Navigating-a-perilous-world-with-realism-625da4/#:~:text=2025%20will%20be%20a%20year,with%20a%20world%20of%20change[15] Bradford, A. (2023). When Rights, Markets, and Security Collide (pp. 221–254). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197649268.003.0007[16] Portanskiy, A. (2023). UE - US: new barriers to trade. Современная Европа. https://doi.org/10.31857/s020170832304006x[17] Lippert, B., von Ondarza, N., & Perthes, V. (2019, March). European Strategic Autonomy. Actors, Issues, Conflicts of Interests. Stiftung Wissenschaft Un Politic. Deutches Institut für Politik Und Sicherheit. https://www.swp-berlin.org/ doi:10.18449/2019RP04/#hd-d14204e263 [18] Klüver, L. (2025, April 18). Putin’s War on Ukraine: What can the EU actually do? European Careers Association. https://ecamaastricht.org/blueandyellow-knowyourunion/putins-war-on-ukraine-what-can-the-eu-actually-do#:~:text=Similarly%2C%20the%20Strategic%20Compass%2C%20the%20most%20recent,its%20interests%20and%20promote%20its%20values%20internationally.[19] Lippert, B., von Ondarza, N., & Perthes, V. (2019, March). European Strategic Autonomy. Actors, Issues, Conflicts of Interests. Stiftung Wissenschaft Un Politic. Deutches Institut für Politik Und Sicherheit. https://www.swp-berlin.org/ doi:10.18449/2019RP04/#hd-d14204e263 [20] ochecová, K. (2025, February 11). Russia could start a major war in Europe within 5 years, Danish intelligence warns. Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-war-threat-europe-within-5-years-danish-intelligence-ddis-warns/[21] Katchanovski, I. (2024). The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine The Mass Killing that Changed the World. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67121-0[22] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2022, January 27). Conflict-related civilian casualties in Ukraine: December 2021 update. United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. https://ohchr.org[23] Johnson, J. (2022, May 6). Boris Johnson Pressured Zelenskyy to Ditch Peace Talks With Russia: Ukrainian Paper. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper

Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra has been suspended following the leaking of a recording of a conversation she had with former Cambodian leader Hun Sen. The conversation was seen as a serious breach of ethics, even an act of treason, against a backdrop of tensions with Phnom Penh. The affair rekindled border tensions and exacerbated clan rivalries within the Thai government. On 2 June 2025, Thailand's Constitutional Court voted unanimously (9-0) to examine a petition filed by thirty-six senators calling for the impeachment of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. On 1 July, the court ordered her immediate suspension by seven votes to two, pending a final verdict. The leader now has 15 days to prepare her defence. Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai is now acting Prime Minister, while Paetongtarn herself has been given the portfolio of Culture, following an express reshuffle of the government. Paradoxically, this reshuffle, approved by the King, leaves the country without a Defence Minister, in the midst of a diplomatic crisis with Cambodia. The official reason for Paetongtarn's suspension? A ‘serious breach of ethics,’ following the leak of an audio recording of a private conversation between Paetongtarn and Hun Sen, Cambodia's former strongman. This diplomatic scandal is exacerbating Thailand's political crisis. It reveals the underlying tensions of a fragile system, marked by dynastic alliances, the judicialization of politics, military rivalries, and a polarized society. A leaked audio recording at the heart of the scandal Since May 2025, tensions between Thailand and Cambodia have been rising steadily, fueled by ancient border disputes inherited from the French colonial period. On 18 June, a 17-minute audio recording was made public; its broadcast appears to have been orchestrated from Phnom Penh, although it is not clear by whom. It shows the Prime Minister talking to Hun Sen, President of the Cambodian Senate and father of the current Prime Minister Hun Manet. The subject of the discussion is the sovereignty of three temples on the Thai-Cambodian border, which has been a theatre of tension for decades. Paetongtarn adopts an informal and conciliatory tone. At one point she says: ‘Uncle, please be lenient with your niece’. A little later, she adds: ‘Your Excellency Hun Sen, whatever you want, I will take care of it.’ In the call, she also criticizes the commander of Thailand's second military region, Lieutenant-General Boonsin Padklang, who is in charge of the border sector, describing him as a member of the ‘opposing camp.’ This is a worrying sign of institutional cohesion, in the context of historic mistrust between the Shinawatra clan and the military establishment. Since the recording was leaked, Paetongtarn has apologized to General Boonsin and publicly expressed her regrets to the Thai people - not for her remarks to Hun Sen, but for the leak itself, which she describes as regrettable. She justified the tone of the conversation by referring to a negotiating technique on her part. Hun Sen claims that he only shared the recording with around eighty colleagues to ‘inform’ them, without being able to identify the person who orchestrated the leak. Not a very convincing line of defence, especially as he then threatened to divulge further compromising information about Paetongtarn and his father Thaksin (former prime minister of Thailand from 2001 to 2006). The effect was immediate: a national outcry, accusations of treason and a government in crisis. The People's Party, the main opposition party and offshoot of the Move Forward Party, which was dissolved in 2024, demanded the dissolution of parliament and an early general election. The Bhumjaithai, a conservative party with its base in the Buriram region (Isan), and the second largest force in the government coalition behind the Prime Minister's Pheu Thai, announced its withdrawal from the government on 19 June - officially, in the name of national sovereignty in the face of a head of government judged incapable of responding to threats from Cambodia; unofficially, it is seeking to dissociate itself from a weakened government, in a context of rivalry over control of the strategic Ministry of the Interior. It was against this backdrop that a group of senators close to the Bhumjaithai party - nicknamed the ‘dark blues’ (the color of the Bhumjaithai party) because of their partisan allegiance - appealed to the Constitutional Court, accusing Paetongtarn of a ‘serious breach of ethics.’ In their petition, they formally called for her dismissal, arguing that her behaviour had breached the standards of probity expected of a head of government. A risky response and a threatened majority In this climate of hostility, Paetongtarn has a way out: to resign before the Constitutional Court's decision, as many politicians and analysts have urged her to do. This strategy would enable her to preserve her political future and stand for re-election at a later date. This choice is not without precedent in the Shinawatra dynasty. In 2006, her father Thaksin dissolved parliament in an attempt to defuse a political crisis but was overthrown shortly afterwards in a military coup. In 2014, her aunt Yingluck, prime minister from 2011 to 2014, adopted the same strategy: she dissolved the National Assembly before being impeached by the Constitutional Court, then overthrown in her turn by the army. These precedents partly explain why Paetongtarn seems to have ruled out this option: in the Thai political system, dissolving Parliament offers no guarantee of survival. She therefore prefers to face the verdict of a Constitutional Court perceived to be close to the royalist and military establishment, which has historically been hostile to the Shinawatras, despite the risk of political banishment. Politically, her position has become untenable. The Pheu Thai party, which she leads, has just 141 seats out of 495. Her new majority is based on a fragile coalition of around 260 seats, threatened at any time by internal divisions and power struggles. Around twenty MPs originally elected in opposition - nicknamed the ‘Cobra MPs’ for having switched sides in return for financial compensation - could provide occasional support to the government, but without guaranteeing its stability. In this context, the cabinet reshuffle is a tactical maneuver: it aims not only to reassure public opinion, but also to broaden the parliamentary base by integrating or rewarding small parties likely to join or support the coalition. And yet, neither the dissolution of the Assembly nor the holding of early elections are on the agenda. Pheu Thai hopes to have its budget adopted before October, and to avoid an electoral confrontation with the opposition represented by the People's Party, credited with 46% of voting intentions according to a NIDA poll on 29 June, compared with just 11.5% for Pheu Thai. In addition, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is investigating several cases involving Paetongtarn: her alleged illegal ownership of shares in a luxury resort; a 2016 family transaction in which she allegedly used undated promissory notes to ‘pay’ 4.4 billion baht (around $135 million) in shares, thereby avoiding nearly 218 million baht in taxes; and her controversial handling of the 28 May border crisis, which resulted in the death of a Cambodian soldier. Added to this are the court cases against his father, which could weaken the whole family, at a time when the compromises made between Pheu Thai and its former conservative adversaries seem increasingly fragile. Thaksin is on trial for the crime of lèse-majesté, following an interview he gave to a South Korean media outlet nine years ago. He is also on trial for his controversial return to Thailand in 2023: although officially sentenced to one year in prison after a royal pardon, he did not spend a single day behind bars, having been transferred to the police hospital on the first night for health reasons. This prolonged stay in a VIP room provoked considerable controversy, which was rekindled in June 2025 when a judicial enquiry was opened and several doctors were suspended by the Medical Council, against a backdrop of political pressure. History repeats itself: a court at the heart of power games Paetongtarn's suspension is one in a long series of politically biased judicial decisions. In 2024, his predecessor Srettha Thavisin, a member of Pheu Thai, was dismissed for ethical breaches after appointing a minister who had served time in prison. At the same time, as we mentioned earlier, the Move Forward Party was dissolved and its leaders banned political life for campaigning in favor of reforming the lèse-majesté law. In 2022, the Court suspended Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha for exceeding his legal term of office, before concluding in a controversial decision that his term of office had only really begun with the adoption of the new Constitution in 2017, even though he had already been leading the military government since 2014. This trend is not neutral. Judicial institutions, in particular the Constitutional Court, are regularly mobilized to neutralize figures perceived as hostile to the established order (monarchy, army, high bureaucracy). Once again, the procedure follows a well-worn pattern: acceptance of the complaint, investigation against the accused, then removal from office. It should be noted that the Bhumjaithai party was also the subject of a complaint for its alleged involvement in fraud during the 2024 senatorial elections. It was accused of having illegally financed certain candidates. The Constitutional Court unanimously rejected the application, ruling that there were no grounds for prosecution. This decision contrasts with the acceptance of the complaint against Paetongtarn, and fuels suspicions of differential treatment. Bhumjaithai is increasingly establishing itself as the new political pillar of the conservative forces. Regional maneuvers, national protests The current crisis goes well beyond the parliamentary framework. On 28 June, thousands of demonstrators gathered in Bangkok under the banner of the ‘United Front for the Defence of Thai Sovereignty’. They were led by Sondhi Limthongkul, a central figure in the Yellow Shirts movement, a royalist and ultranationalist group opposed to Shinawatra governments and one of the architects of Thaksin's overthrow in 2006. Alongside the traditional figures of the conservative right wing, there were also former allies of Thaksin who have now broken away, including Jatuporn Prompan, one of the leaders of the Red Shirts, a popular movement born in reaction to the 2006 coup. Another demonstration is scheduled for mid-August when the Constitutional Court is due to deliver its verdict. The speeches vary, but all converge on a moral formal accusation: the Prime Minister is said to have traded national interests for family benefits. While the majority are calling for change through parliamentary channels, some zealous conservatives are raising the spectre of a coup d'état. The patriotic music, the protest scarves, the whistles: everything was reminiscent of the mobilizations that preceded the most recent coup, in 2014. In the background, relations between Thailand and Cambodia are worsening, against a backdrop of territorial rivalries and political reshuffling. Officially, Phnom Penh is considering taking a border dispute over Kood Island, potentially rich in oil and gas resources, to the International Court of Justice. But many analysts see this move as part of a wider strategy to weaken the Thai government by fueling controversy over the parallel diplomacy between Thaksin Shinawatra and Hun Sen. The joint development project in this area, long discussed between the two men, now symbolizes an informal alignment that is disturbing Bangkok. It is in this context that the audio leak is a deliberate maneuver: Hun Sen is seeking to expose these links publicly, to divert attention from the internal tensions in Cambodia, and to influence the Thai political balance. This offensive can also be explained by more immediate economic interests: the legalization of casinos, promoted by Paetongtarn, and her policy of fighting cross-border criminal networks, directly threaten the Cambodian casino industry and the income of Cambodian elites based along the border. These attacks are reigniting old suspicions about the links between the Shinawatra family and Cambodia. Thaksin and Hun Sen have enjoyed a close relationship for decades, based on shared economic interests and a form of political pragmatism. When Thaksin and former prime minister Yingluck fled Thailand after the coups of 2006 and 2014, it was Hun Sen who offered them asylum. In 2008 and 2011, border tensions - particularly around the Preah Vihear temple - had already been used to portray the Shinawatras as traitors to the nation. Now, with Paetongtarn in power and Thaksin back in the fold, these accusations are resurfacing. Chronic instability and a locked political scene Paetongtarn's removal from office seems increasing but the succession options remain unclear. Her designated replacement within Pheu Thai, Chaikasem Nitisiri, is attracting reservations due to his state of health and his past stance in favor of reforming the crime of lèse-majesté. Within the coalition, other leading figures such as Pirapan and Jurin lack political clout or have been weakened by the controversy. At present, the only candidate with sufficient parliamentary clout and a degree of legitimacy seems to be Anutin Charnvirakul. But in the event of a parliamentary deadlock, former prime minister Prayut Chan-o-cha could emerge as a ‘wild card’ candidate, although he would only be able to hold the post for two more years before reaching the maximum number of years allowed by the Constitution. Paetongtarn's downfall, if confirmed, will be part of a familiar cycle: leaders emerging from the ballot box are discredited by institutional mechanisms, conservative elites reorganize, the streets fill up, and the army prepares in the background. Behind the image of a generational or female revival, Paetongtarn's power rested on an architecture inherited from her father that she neither reformed nor challenged. But by seeking to navigate this system while re-imposing the influence of her family, she has rekindled tensions with the conservative elites who had done everything to exclude the Shinawatras. The challenge is less institutional than political, but she may have underestimated the resilience of the existing system. In the short term, everything depends on the decision of the Constitutional Court, expected in one- or two-months’ time. But as always in Thailand, the real negotiations do not take place in Parliament or in the public square; they take place behind the scenes, between families, factions, and interlocking interests, with the King at the head of state.

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

Brazil's BRICS+ presidency ahead of the summit in Rio de Janeiro Brazil is using its BRICS+ presidency in 2025 to promote a more inclusive and sustainable world order as a pragmatic mediator for developing and emerging countries and to preserve its independence in foreign policy. For Europe, this presents both challenges due to the growing heterogeneity and independence of the BRICS+ group, as well as opportunities for a strategic partnership with Brazil, for example through the EU-Mercosur agreement and joint projects in the areas of climate, health, and technology. It is crucial that Europe recognizes Brazil as an equal partner in order to jointly set global standards and actively shape the international order. The Brazilian BRICS+ presidency With the assumption of the BRICS+ presidency in January 2025, the first following the expansion of the alliance, Brazil is once again assuming a vital role on the international stage after the G20 presidency in the previous year. Under the motto "Strengthening cooperation in the Global South for more inclusive and sustainable governance", Brazil is setting clear priorities: global health cooperation, trade and finance, climate change, regulation of artificial intelligence, multilateral peace architecture and institutional development of the BRICS+ bloc. Brazil is advancing the latter, for example, through events such as the 11th Parliamentary Forum in Brasília in June 2025, which aims to deepen political dialog and parliamentary cooperation and promote the democratic legitimacy of the bloc. Between February and July, the Brazilian Presidency set a broad agenda with over one hundred ministerial and technical meetings. The selected topics reflect the interests of many emerging and developing countries and illustrate Brazil's claim to function as a bridge builder between the so-called "Global South" (a controversial term due to its vagueness and homogenization) and the established industrialized countries. Foreign policy pragmatism as a leitmotif Brazil's foreign policy has historically been characterized by pragmatism and a clear focus on national interests. For decades, the country has pursued a strategy aimed at preserving the greatest possible autonomy and not subordinating itself to the priorities of the major powers. This attitude is currently particularly evident: Brazil has not joined the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and voted against the inclusion of Nicaragua and Venezuela in the BRICS. Brazil's great dependence on its most important trading partner China is now also being viewed critically in parts of Brazilian politics and diplomacy. However, the government in Brasília continues to strictly refuse to be pigeonholed or categorized into a fixed camp, instead opting for flexibility and openness - a strategy that ensures maximum freedom of action. In contrast to countries such as Mexico, which is more closely tied to the USA due to its geographical location and economic ties, Brazil can balance its foreign policy between different centers of power and represent its interests with confidence. Heterogeneity and dynamics of the BRICS+ The BRICS+ group is anything but homogeneous. The member states are democracies, autocracies and dictatorships and disagree on a variety of issues. For example, whether BRICS+ should function as an anti-Western force or serve as a platform for a reformed, more inclusive world order. The refusal of President Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin to attend the BRICS+ summit in Rio de Janeiro on July 6-7 highlights the internal tensions and heterogeneity of the alliance of states. If Putin could take part in the summit virtually, there is speculation in Brasília about the reasons for Xi's refusal. Is the Chinese partner annoyed by Brazil's rejection of the Belt and Road Initiative or are they bothered by India's prominent participation in Rio de Janeiro? Chinese voices justify Xi's absence with the fact that he has already met President Lula twice in less than a year, once at the G20 summit in Brazil in 2024 and most recently at the China-CELAC summit in Beijing in May. The Egyptian government also recently announced that President Al-Sisi will not be traveling to the summit due to the situation in the Middle East. Other high-ranking guests such as Mexican President Sheinbaum and Turkish President Erdoğan have also announced that they will not be traveling to Rio. An Iranian delegation has not yet been confirmed. On the one hand, the absence of the two heavyweights, Xi and Putin, could weaken the international appeal and political weight of the meeting, as the media attention and the signal effect of such a summit depend on the presence of the heads of state. On the other hand, this constellation opens up new scope for action, especially for those countries that are not clearly anti-Western - above all Brazil, India, and South Africa. These countries could use the opportunity to set their own priorities and campaign for a more pragmatic, more open orientation of the BRICS+. Brazil in particular, which traditionally pursues an interest-oriented and pragmatic foreign policy, sees itself in the role of a mediator who does not want to commit the bloc to a confrontation with the West. Rather, Brazilian diplomacy is concerned with using BRICS+ as a platform for reforming the international order without submitting to the priorities of individual major powers. The fact that Brazil has neither joined China's Belt and Road Initiative nor supported Venezuela's admission to the BRICS underlines this independent and active course of non-alignment. Within Brazilian politics, academia and diplomacy, the increasing heterogeneity of the BRICS+ group is being increasingly criticized. Although the expansion to include new members such as Indonesia and Ethiopia has increased the global reach, it has also exacerbated internal conflicts of interest. There are voices in Brasília who fear that the bloc's coherence and ability to act could suffer as a result of this diversity. At the same time, however, diversity also offers opportunities for Brazil: it enables Brazil to distinguish itself as a constructive force and promote dialog between different political and economic systems. However, it is questionable whether the current government under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) will be able to take advantage of this opportunity. Multipolarity, geography and new zones of influence The multipolar world order that is currently emerging following the end of US unipolar dominance is tending towards instability. Several centers of power are competing for influence, the complexity of international relations is increasing, and the risk of conflict is rising. In the course of these developments, the BRICS+ are also gaining relevance. We are experiencing a time in which zones of influence such as those actively pursued by the USA and Russia are once again gaining in importance - be it in Eastern Europe, the Middle East or in North and South America. In this environment, Brazil is pursuing a "hedging" strategy: it is skillfully balancing between the major powers without committing itself, thus preserving its foreign policy autonomy. A balancing act that is becoming increasingly difficult, as demonstrated by the recurring critical questions from Europe about Brazil's BRICS+ membership. Brazilian diplomatic pragmatism is difficult to reconcile with the European idea of a value-based multilateral world order and is therefore difficult for Europeans to understand. Brazil's geographical location - as the largest nation in South America, with access to the Atlantic and as a bridge between North and South - also has a major influence on its foreign policy stance. Geography plays a key role in understanding certain political actions. Its distance from the global centers of conflict allows Brazil to take on a moderate, mediating role. While many conflicts in other parts of the world are dominated by geopolitical tensions, Brazil can often act more neutrally and constructively. Brazil's wealth of raw materials and the associated potential, as well as its special geographical and strategic position, make it an important player in international diplomacy and a key player for Europe. Resources, narratives, and soft power In the 21st century, power is no longer measured exclusively in terms of military superiority. Rather, access to natural resources - especially rare earths -, economic innovation and the ability to shape global narratives are at the heart of the modern exercise of power. Soft power, i.e., influence through diplomacy, cultural exchange, and the targeted shaping of narratives, has become a central instrument of international politics. A striking example of the importance of soft power was demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic: China and Russia made targeted use of vaccine diplomacy to expand their influence in Latin America. The BRICS alliance also gained in importance and stood for cooperation in the so-called "Global South". Europe, but also the USA, on the other hand, was initially perceived in the region as cautious and concerned with its own advantage. The EU's so-called "vaccine nationalism" at the beginning of the pandemic had a lasting impact on the trust of many countries in European solidarity. This experience is still present in Latin American memory today. Brazil has made great progress in its own vaccine production in recent years and has established itself as a regional player in the healthcare sector. Nevertheless, the country is still dependent on international supply chains, particularly for the procurement of precursors and technologies. The opening up to China and Russia in the healthcare sector as a result of vaccine diplomacy has created additional opportunities for these players to strengthen their presence and influence in Brazil and the region. Opportunities for a strategic partnership with Europe It is precisely against this backdrop that Europe must seek new opportunities to put its relationship with Brazil on a future-oriented and partnership-based footing. The EU has considerable strengths: economic and technological innovation, diplomatic experience, and the ability to set international standards. With the "Strategic Compass", the EU has further developed its foreign policy instruments and focuses on the four guiding principles of "Acting, Securing, Investing, Partnering". However, in order to be successful in global competition, Europe must act faster and be prepared to meet Brazil on an equal footing and take it seriously as an equal partner. The EU should make targeted use of its economic, technological, and diplomatic strengths for sustainable and strategic cooperation. This includes the promotion of joint research projects, technology and science transfer and support for the development of local production capacities - particularly in the healthcare sector, but also in areas such as sustainable raw material extraction, digitalization, and green transformation. Especially at a time when the reliability of the USA as a partner is being questioned for good reasons, Europe and Germany can score points with reliability, transparency, and long-term commitment. In addition to the EU-CELAC summit in November 2025, another important instrument in this context would be to hold renewed German-Brazilian government consultations before the Brazilian presidential and parliamentary elections in the fall of 2026. The conclusion of the EU-Mercosur agreement, cooperation on renewable energies, the promotion of sustainable agriculture, the deepening of cooperation in the defense industry and the co-design of global health standards are fields in which Europe and Brazil can jointly set standards. At the same time, it is essential for the EU to strengthen its own raw material security and secure access to key technologies and rare earths in order to maintain its own ability to act. In the long term, a close partnership with Brazil offers the EU and Germany the opportunity not only to pursue economic interests, but also to jointly develop global standards and actively help shape, reform and strengthen the rules-based international order. However, this requires Europe to respect Brazil as an independent, equal player and to recognize and consider the country's specific interests and experiences. The latter also applies equally to the other side. Symbolic gestures such as Brazilian President Lula's participation in the military parade in Moscow on May 9 to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of the war are detrimental to cooperation with Europe. They hinder trusting, forward-looking cooperation between Europe and Brazil, which could bring great benefits to both sides and contribute to stabilizing the multilateral world order. Outlook: COP30 and Brazil's global agenda In November 2025, Brazil will host the UN Climate Change Conference COP30 in the Amazon region in Belém in the final phase of its two-year leadership role - a further step towards positioning itself as a global player in climate and environmental policy and acting as a mediator between the so-called "Global South" and the industrialized nations. The Brazilian agenda focuses on sustainable development, the protection of biodiversity and the promotion of renewable energies. This underlines Brazil's claim to assume not only regional but also global responsibility. The COP30 offers Europe and Brazil a further opportunity to intensify their cooperation on climate protection and related issues and to provide joint impetus for a more sustainable world order. Conclusion The emerging multipolar world order is more unstable and prone to conflict than the unipolar phase before. Brazil acts skillfully in the field of tension between the great powers and uses its resources and diplomatic flexibility to secure national interests. Europe should recognize this reality and actively shape its partnership with Brazil to its own advantage. The influence of the BRICS+ alliance should be viewed soberly - neither overestimated nor underestimated, but with a realistic assessment of its importance and potential. Only through strategic engagement and a little more pragmatism can the EU and Germany safeguard their interests and contribute to stabilizing an increasingly fragmented world. The BRICS+ summit and the upcoming COP30 are touchstones for Brazil's and Europe's ability to help shape a new, complex world order and act on an

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском I. Introduction On 13 June 2025, Israel attacked more than a dozen locations across Iran in the largest assault on the country since the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Beginning on the evening of 13 June, Iran retaliated by launching ballistic missiles and drones at Israel. Conflicts between the two countries have intensified. Amid intensified conflicts between Israel and Iran, the US attacked Iran by bombing three Iranian nuclear sites on 22 June 2025. In retaliation for these attacks from the US and Israel, Iran may consider closing or blocking the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, Iran’s parliament has reportedly approved of the closing of the Strait of Hormuz on 22 June 2025. However, on 24 June 2025, President Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, thereby reducing the possibility of the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran. Nonetheless, there is still a possibility that conflicts between Iran and Israel continue and then Iran may reconsider the closing of the Strait. This is because the ceasefire is so fragile that the conflicts between Israel and Iran can take place at any time. If the closing of the Strait of Hormuz happens, it will have significant impacts on global economy, in particular on Asian economies, because 84% of the crude oil and condensate and 83% of the liquefied natural gas that moved through the Strait of Hormuz went to Asian markets in 2024. This paper analyzes the impacts of Iran’s closure or blockage of the Strait of Hormuz on the global economy with a focus on Asian economies. II. Examples of Geopolitics Impacting Energy Prices Crude oil remains the world's most geopolitically charged commodity. Despite robust supply growth and growing energy transitions, as Figure 1 shows, turmoil in oil-producing regions such as Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 continues to ripple through prices.   Figure1: Examples of Geopolitics Impacting Crude Oil Prices As Figure 2 shows, in June 2025, global oil price surged into the mid‑$70s per barrel amid escalating Iran–Israel tensions and threats to the Strait of Hormuz. In mid‑June 2025, Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure led to an immediate 7–11% increase in the Brent crude oil price. The market reacted swiftly to the geopolitical risk, particularly over fears of supply disruption through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian lawmakers, who threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, finally approved of closing the Strait on 22 June 2025. While tanker traffic continued, the Brent crude oil price briefly climbed to $79.50 and then dropped to $74.85.   Figure 2: Movements of crude oil (WTI) and Brent oil prices III. The importance of the Strait of Hormuz 1. Location of the Strait of Hormuz As Figure 3 shows, the Strait of Hormuz, located between Oman and Iran, connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. The strait is deep enough and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers, and it is one of the world's most important oil chokepoints.  Figure 3: Picture of the Strait of Hormuz 2. Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz As Table 1 shows, large volumes of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz, and very few alternative options exist to move oil out of the strait if it is closed. In 2024, oil flow through the strait averaged 20 million barrels per day (b/d), or the equivalent of about 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption. In the first quarter of 2025, total oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz remained relatively flat compared with 2024.  Table 1: volume of crude oil, condensate, petroleum transported through the Strait of Hormuz Although we have not seen maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz blocked following recent tensions in the region, the price of Brent crude oil (a global benchmark) increased from $69 per barrel (b) on June 12 to $74/b on June 13, 2025. This fact highlights the importance of the Strait to global oil supplies. Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global sea routes that are critical to global energy security. The inability of oil to transit a major chokepoint, even temporarily, can create substantial supply delays and raise shipping costs, potentially increasing world energy prices. Although most chokepoints can be circumvented by using other routes—often adding significantly to transit time—some chokepoints have no practical alternatives. Most volumes that transit the Strait of Hormuz have no alternative means of exiting the region, although there are some pipeline alternatives that can avoid the Strait. 3. Destinations Flows through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024 and the first quarter of 2025 made up more than one-quarter of total global seaborne oil trade and about one-fifth of global oil and petroleum product consumption. In addition, around one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas trade also transited the Strait of Hormuz in 2024, primarily from Qatar. Based on tanker tracking data published by Vortexa, Saudi Arabia moves more crude oil and condensate through the Strait of Hormuz than any other country. In 2024, exports of crude and condensate from Saudi Arabia accounted for 38% of total Hormuz crude flows (5.5 million b/d). As Figure 4 shows, 84% of the crude oil and condensate and 83% of the liquefied natural gas that transported through the Strait of Hormuz went to Asian nations in 2024. China, India, Japan, and South Korea were the top destinations for crude oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz. Asia accounted for a combined 69% of all Hormuz crude oil and condensate flows in 2024. These Asian markets would likely be most affected by supply disruptions at Hormuz.  Figure 4: volume of crude oil and condensate transported through the strait of Hormuz In 2024, the United States imported about 0.5 million b/d of crude oil and condensate from Persian Gulf countries through the Strait of Hormuz, accounting for about 7% of total U.S. crude oil and condensate imports and 2% of U.S. petroleum liquids consumption. In 2024, U.S. crude oil imports from countries in the Persian Gulf were at the lowest level in nearly 40 years as domestic production and imports from Canada have increased. IV. Economic Effects of the Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz Iran has repeatedly threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, notably during crises with the United States in 2011, 2018 and 2020. So far, these threats have never materialized into a total closure, but the mere mention of them is enough to provoke crude oil price rises. According to many economists and energy experts, a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would have significant economic impacts, including sharp increases in oil prices, disruptions to global supply chains, and potential economic sanctions. These effects could ripple through various sectors, affecting businesses, consumers, and global economies alike. The 2021 Suez Canal blockage provides a relevant, if smaller-scale, precedent. The six-day disruption in the Suez Canal caused approximately $9.6 billion per day in global trade delays according to Lloyd's List Intelligence. A Strait of Hormuz closure would likely generate significantly larger economic impacts given the strategic importance of the energy resources involved. 1. Short-term Impacts of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz Main short-term effects of the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz are as follows:· Increased Oil Prices:A blockage would likely lead to temporary spikes in global oil prices, potentially above $100 per barrel, due to supply disruptions and increased demand. · Disrupted Supply Chains:The Strait of Hormuz is a vital transit point for oil and LNG, and any disruption could cause significant delays and disruptions to global supply chains. · Higher Shipping Costs:With increased demand and reduced supply, shipping costs, including insurance premiums, would rise. · Energy Costs:Higher oil prices would translate to higher energy costs for consumers and businesses, impacting various sectors.  2. Long-term Impacts of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz Main long-term effects of the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz are as follows:· Reduced Oil Production:Oil exporters might reduce production to conserve resources or diversify export routes, potentially leading to long-term supply shortages. · Economic Sanctions:In response to a blockade, major oil buyers might exert pressure on oil-producing states to increase supply, potentially leading to economic sanctions against Iran. · Diversification of Trade Routes:Oil-producing states and major oil importers might explore alternative trade routes to reduce reliance on the Strait of Hormuz, potentially shifting trade patterns. · Geopolitical Instability:The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic chokepoint, and any disruption could lead to increased geopolitical tensions and conflicts.  3. Overall Economic Consequence  Overall economic effects of the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz are as follows:· Increased inflation:Higher energy costs would contribute to inflation in various countries, impacting consumers and businesses.· Global economic slowdown:Disruptions to supply chains and increased costs could lead to a slowdown in global economic growth.· Regional economic instability:The Strait of Hormuz is a key economic artery for the Middle East, and any disruption could lead to significant economic instability in the region.  V. Analysis of Economic Effects of the Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz According to several Western banks, a complete closure of the Strait could cause crude Oil prices to soar above $120 to $150 a barrel, or even more if the conflict between Israel and Iran is prolonged. According to Deutsche Bank, the scenario of a total closure of the Strait, causing an interruption of 21 million barrels a day for two months, could push oil price to over $120 a barrel, or even beyond if global supplies are permanently disrupted. Analysts from Rabobank, a Dutch multinational banking and financial services company, even mention a spike towards $150 a barrel, recalling that in 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Brent crude oil price briefly touched $139. But the difference here is major: Persian Gulf oil is geographically concentrated and trapped in a single access point, they note. TD Securities, a Canadian multinational investment bank, points out that the oil market is currently in a situation of oversupply, but if the Strait of Hormuz are blocked, even temporarily, no production capacity - neither from OPEC nor the United States - can immediately compensate for a shortfall of 17 to 20 million barrels/day. According to analyses from these Western banks, consequences of the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz are below: • Energy inflation: Crude oil and gas prices would soar, affecting household bills, industrial costs and overall inflation. An oil price surge above $120 would trigger a drop in global growth, similar to 1973, 1990 or 2022, claims Deutsche Bank. • Energy shock in Europe and Asia: Europe is still largely dependent on Qatari LNG, which transits through Hormuz. And for Asia, the closure of the Strait would be a major blow, particularly for China, India and South Korea, according to ING, a Dutch multinational banking and financial services corporation. • Disruption of supply chains: Beyond energy, Hormuz is also a key axis of global maritime trade. A prolonged closure would increase marine insurance premiums, impacting the prices of imported goods, and delaying many imports. According to JP Morgan, the situation remains fluid, and the magnitude of potential economic impact is uncertain. However, the impact is likely to be uneven globally.S&P Global projects substantial economic consequences across multiple regions if disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz take place:· Middle East: Direct production and export disruptions would immediately impact regional economies dependent on energy revenues.· Asia-Pacific: The region’s high energy dependency creates a multiplier effect, where initial price shocks trigger broader economic impacts.· Europe: While less directly dependent on Gulf oil than Asia, Europe would face secondary supply chain bottlenecks and inflationary pressures. The Asia-Pacific region faces severe vulnerability, with approximately 84% of its crude oil imports transiting through the Strait of Hormuz according to International Energy Agency data from 2025. This dependency creates a significant economic exposure that extends far beyond immediate energy price effects. For example, nearly 90% of Iran’s oil exports go to China. China has relatively diversified oil import sources and large reserves. However, markets such as India, South Korea, Japan, and Indonesia, which rely heavily on Middle Eastern oil, will be more vulnerable. Higher sustained oil prices would have far-reaching economic consequences in Asia, including China. India, South Korea, and Japan. Even China, with their high dependence on Middle Eastern oil, would see their inflation rates accelerate, their economic growth drop and the price of goods rise because of an increase in energy prices. If rising fuel costs continue, they could be even more devastating for emerging markets in Southeast Asia. Specifically, India is highly exposed to Middle East energy. More than 60% of its oil comes via Hormuz. A $10 hike in global crude will cuts India’s GDP growth by 0.3% and raises inflation by 0.4%, according to India’s Ministry of Finance. Shipping insurers have already raised premiums by 20%. Cargo rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope adds 15–20 days and significant costs. Indian refiners are holding prices for now, but margins are tightening. According to Brig Rakesh Bhatia, an India security expert, it’s not just about energy. India’s trade with Iran, especially Basmati rice exports worth ₹6,374 crore in FY 2024–25, faces disruption due to insurance issues and port uncertainty. According to Amitendu Palit, a Senior Research Fellow and Research Lead (trade and economics) in the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) at the National University of Singapore, the impacts of closing of the Strait of Hormuz or its disruptions on India are below: •  India, which imports about two-thirds of its crude and nearly half of its LNG through the Strait of Hormuz, stands to lose significantly in case of disruption. A closure or disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would spell trouble for India. Nearly 70% of its crude oil and almost 40% of its LNG imports pass through this route, with Qatar alone supplying nearly 10 million tonnes of LNG in 2024. Any blockage could severely impact energy security and prices.• Energy prices: Surging oil and gas costs could spike domestic inflation, especially in transport and food.• Currency pressure: Rising import bills would widen the current account deficit and weaken the rupee.• Sectoral impact: Aviation, logistics, tyres, and manufacturing sectors could face cost surges.• Though India holds strategic oil reserves, experts caution these are built for short-term supply shocks—not sustained disruption from a regional war. According to Palit, the major impacts on India result from the escalation in crude oil prices. India is one of the largest importers of crude oil in the world after China, Europe and the United States (US). However, unlike China, which is the largest global buyer of Iranian crude oil, India’s main sources of crude oil are Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Russia, followed by the United Arab Emirates and the US. Crude oil price rises will impact India’s overall import bill. Though many Indian refiners have long-period forward contracts to purchase crude oil at previously agreed prices, future such contracts entered into now will have to factor in the prevailing higher prices. Needless to say, spot purchases of crude oil, based on immediate requirements, will be at much higher prices. Higher crude prices will impact domestic prices across the board. Refiners are unlikely to absorb these prices and will pass them on to consumers. Liquefied petroleum gas, diesel and kerosene – all of which are refined petroleum products for common household use, including by low-income families – will become costlier. The multiplier effects of higher prices will be noticeable as energy demand is high during peak summer. Higher prices will also be experienced by civil aviation. Air travel is set to become more expensive as aviation turbine fuel prices go up. Apart from domestic air travel, international air travel will also become costlier. Air India and other Indian carriers are already taking longer routes by avoiding the Pakistani airspace. Now, more international airlines, particularly the Middle Eastern carriers, will be rerouting their flights to avoid Israeli and Iranian airspace, leading to longer routes and higher prices. This is certainly not good news during the peak tourist season, with Indians travelling to the West, especially to holiday spots in Europe. Apart from flying costs, there are major disruptions for travel agents and tour planners as they will be forced to rework itineraries. Domestic inflation prospects in India will be aggravated by the sharp escalation in gold prices. Geopolitical volatility never fails to trigger the urge to invest in ‘safe havens’. The tendency is visible through a sharp rise in the prices of the US dollar, and gold and silver. Unless there is a quick resolution of the Iran conflict, precious metal prices will remain high into the festive season, which commences in India in about three months. Consumer pockets and household budgets will feel the squeeze from the cumulative higher costs. For much of India, high prices from exogenous shocks such as the Iran conflict, is clearly not great news in a year when the overall prospects for economic growth are more subdued than in the previous years Unlike India, China appears more insulated. China has been over-importing crude for months, building strategic reserves of more than 1 billion barrels. Its diversified supply lines from Russia, Venezuela, and the Gulf provide flexibility. However, China has significant Belt and Road investments in Iran and Iraq, including infrastructure and power plants, thereby damaging China. Taiwan Minister of Economic Affairs Kuo Jyh-huei estimated on 23 June 2025 that if Iran moves to block the Strait of Hormuz, it would cause crude oil prices to rise and subsequently impact Taiwan's fuel prices and consumer price index (CPI). Currently, less than 20 percent of Taiwan's crude oil and natural gas import pass through the Strait of Hormuz. If the strait were to be blocked, ships would be forced to take longer alternative routes, delaying deliveries, causing oil prices to rise, Kuo claims that a 10 percent increase in oil prices would raise the CPI by approximately 0.3 percent. The ripple effects are already hitting Southeast Asia. As Al Jazeera reports, energy-importing nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam are facing higher shipping costs and insurance surcharges. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, already under economic strain, are especially vulnerable to energy supply delays and inflation. For Southeast Asia, this situation would result in escalating costs across various sectors. Energy-dependent industries, including manufacturing, transportation, and logistics, would face soaring operational expenses, which could reduce output and increase consumer prices. The manufacturing sector in Southeast Asia, a pivotal component of regional economic growth, would be particularly adversely affected by rising fuel costs, thereby diminishing its competitiveness in the global market. Additionally, inflationary pressures would undermine consumer purchasing power, dampening domestic consumption and subsequently slowing GDP growth throughout the region.  Iran itself would not escape unscathed. Closing the Strait would choke its own oil exports, which account for 65% of government revenue, risking economic collapse and domestic unrest for Iran. On the other hand, Europe’s demand for LNG has increased since the Russia-Ukraine Conflict, although reliance on the Middle East has fallen as Europe imported more from U.S. However, Europe remains highly sensitive to energy prices. Conversely, the U.S., as a net energy exporter, could be less impacted compared to previous oil crises when it relied more on oil imports. However, the U.S. is entering this period from a vulnerable state of increasing risks of inflation and an economic slowdown. It is estimated that a USD 10 increase in oil prices could add 0.3-0.4% to inflation, exacerbating current stagflationary risks given the surge in tariffs. This also complicates the Federal Reserve's (Fed) decision-making. Economic experts still expect the Fed to be slow to cut interest rates, as inflation risks remain larger than unemployment concerns for now.  VI. Conclusion This paper showed that the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz will increase oil & other energy prices, inflation, and shipping costs, while it reduces economic growth in the world. This paper claimed that these negative impacts will be largest in Asian countries because 84% of the crude oil and condensate and 83% of the liquefied natural gas that transported through the Strait of Hormuz went to Asian markets in 2024.

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 The relationship between the United States and Israel has been described as one of the most enduring and strategic alliances in modern politics. Beyond shared cultural ties and democratic values, this alliance has been heavily sustained by the systematic influence of pro-Israel state and lobbying groups within U.S political institutions. In this context, the Israeli lobby, most notably represented by organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has played a central role in shaping key foreign policy decisions, from military aid assistance to diplomatic recognition of Israeli interests on the international stage (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007).  While the presence of interest groups is a common feature of the U.S. democratic system, the Israeli lobby stands out due significant presence and impact on Middle East policy and America diplomacy. As some critics argue, this influence has at times, led to the subordination of U.S. strategic interest in favor of Israeli priorities (Pappé,2017). This article analyzes how the Israeli lobby operates, the mechanisms it employs, and the broader implications it holds for the independence of U.S. foreign policy. Mechanisms of Influence on U.S Foreign Policy         The Israeli state and lobby employs a wide array of tools to influence U.S foreign policy, combining financial, institutional, and narrative-based strategies. One of the most impactful methods is political funding. Pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) have historically directed campaign contributions to congressional candidates who demonstrate unwavering support for Israel, in 2020 there a significant contribution of $30 million to federal campaigns. (OpenSecrest,2021). Lobbying efforts also extend to direct engagement with policy makers. AIPAC, for instance, organizes annual conferences that attract top U.S. officials, including presidents and congress members. Through strategic lobbying, the Israeli lobby has been instrumental in passing measures such as the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act and ensuring continued military aid exceeding $3.8 billion annually (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007).  While often presented as an independent force acting within the American political landscape, the Israeli lobby maintains close ties with the Israeli government, which allows it to act as a semi- official conduit for its foreign policy objectives. One clear example of his coordination was evident during the Obama administration’s negotiations of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA). During the Obama administration, to finalize the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress in 2015 without the White House´s approval. This unprecedented move coordinated with Republican congressional leaders highlighted how the Israeli lobby facilitated direct access to U.S. political institutions, effectively bypassing executive authority (Beauchamp, 2015).     Over decades, Israeli influence within U.S foreign policy decision making has moved beyond traditional lobbying, a structural element in how Washington approaches the Middle East. What initially began as advocacy in cultural and strategic alignment has gradually evolved into a form of embedded influence that often shapes policy trajectories before they reach public debate. In recent years, the influence has been reinforced by Israel´s growing military modernization and significant victories against their enemies such as Iranian proxies in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza. These developments and Israeli momentum have not only bolstered Israel´s image as a capable regional power but also fueled a more assertive posture in its foreign relations. The confidence generated by these military gains has translated into hardened political positions and intensified pressure on allies, particularly the United States.                  These examples illustrate that the Israeli state and lobby does not operate in isolation but often reflects, channels, and amplifies the geopolitical agenda of the Israeli state. This dynamic complicates the notion of national interest within the U.S. foreign policy, especially when lobbying efforts coincide with foreign governmental objectives. From Influence to Entrapment: The U.S.- Israeli Alliance in the Iran Conflict               Despite initial promises of restraint under the renewed “America First” vision, the current U.S. administration finds itself increasingly entangled in a regional conflict it once sought to avoid. Under President Trump´s second term, American foreign policy was publicly framed around non-intervention, prioritizing domestic renewal over costly military initiatives and strategic assertiveness, which have steadily eroded Washington’s space for independent decision making.               Israel´s sustained rhetorical pressure and military assertiveness have shaped U.S. involvement in the ongoing war with Iran. Drawing on a momentum strengthened by recent strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, Israeli leadership has framed Tehran as an imminent existential threat, pressuring Washington to intensify its military posture. As Froman (2024) observes, “Israel´s actions have fundamentally reshaped the security landscape of the Middle East.”  This situation highlights a concerning shift in how the United States is managing its foreign policy in the Middle East. Rather than settling the pace or leading diplomatically, Washington is now largely responding to events already set in motion by Israel. This reflects the long-standing nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship. America leaders now find themselves caught in a conflict they did not start but now must lead. With Iran already responding militarily and tensions rising across the region, the risk of a wider war is growing quickly. This mirrors past U.S experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, where limited interventions turned into long, costly wars. As Israel continues to act from its position of strength, the U.S. faces danger of a new war.             With the collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the sidelining of multilateral diplomacy, there is little room left for negotiation. Institutions such as the United Nations or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have been largely absent in terms of more action, also the intervention of the members of the security council of the United Nations, reflecting how hard power dynamics have overtaken diplomatic engagement. In this vacuum, the Israeli security narrative has become dominant. A War of Choice or a Path to Diplomacy The ongoing conflict has triggered a significant reconfiguration of the Middle East´s power structure. For now, Israel, strategically supported by the United States, has asserted its military and political dominance. Iran, weakened by the degradation of its proxy network and recent strikes on three nuclear facilities, finds itself momentarily contained. This alignment places the U.S.-Israel axis in a position of regional superiority.   However, this superiority could be temporary. If Iran succeeds in eventually acquiring a nuclear weapon, the balance may shift again, this time not through conventional power, but through nuclear deterrence. As seen during the cold war, deterrence is not about battlefield victory but about creating unacceptable costs for aggression.  A nuclear-armed Iran would no longer need to outmatch Israel or the U.S. militarily. This is precisely why diplomacy must be reviewed not as appeasement, but as a tool to prevent irreversible escalation. As Vaez (2025) states, “Washington and its partners should not give up on diplomacy with Iran not because it's not easy, but because it is the only sustainable way to prevent further escalation.” The current moments offer a fleeting opportunity: one where military success has bought time for diplomacy to reassert itself. Among the most urgent priorities               is re-engaging in serious negotiations surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), not simply to contain Iran´s nuclear ambitions, but to rebuild a broader framework of strategic dialogue. Failing to seize that opportunity could lock the region into a new war, one shaped not by diplomacy.             References:Beauchamp, Z. (2015, March 3). Why Netanyahu’s speech to Congress is one of the most controversial in history. Vox.  https://www.vox.com/2015/3/3/8142663/netanyahu-speech-congressMearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2007). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.OpenSecrets. (2021). Pro-Israel PACs contributions to candidates, 2019–2020. Center for Responsive Politics.             https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/industry-detail/Q05/2020Pappé, I. (2017). Ten Myths About Israel. Verso Books.Vaez, A. (2025, June 16). Don’t Give Up on Diplomacy With Iran. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/dont-give-diplomacy-iran