Diplomacy & Crisis News

The Matanza Riachuelo River in Buenos Aires—long considered one of the world’s most polluted waterways—became the focus of a landmark 2006 Supreme Court ruling mandating its restoration in the name of environmental justice. !is article examines how that mandate unfolded through the lens of political ecology and environmental justice. Drawing on ethnographic research, we show how judicial orders and technocratic planning translated global imaginaries of “green corridors” into local interventions, as state actors interpreted and operationalized notions of risk and justice in ways that often displaced riverine dwellers. These interventions deepened inequality by neglecting residents’ territorial ties, everyday practices, and right to remain. We highlight how technocratic planning sidelined vulnerable populations and how communities resisted through claims to rootedness and in situ re-urbanization. Building on Latin American scholarship, the article demonstrates that restoration framed solely as ecological repair risks reproducing social inequities. We argue that river restoration must embrace governance frameworks that center a'ected populations, integrate ecological goals with social equity, and advance justice as recognition, participation, and distribution.

The world is falling behind on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a situation exacerbated by recent geopolitical disruptions and challenges to international cooperation. This policy brief, based on a virtual roundtable in the context of the Hamburg Sustainability Conference (HSC) with influential experts from Latin America, Africa and Asia, explores how recent global shifts – such as reduced funding for development, fundamental policy changes of major powers and weakened multilateral institutions – are reshaping development and trade cooperation.
While these disruptions have had damaging effects on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in particular, they also present opportunities to reform international systems, diversify cooperation formats and strengthen regional and sectoral alliances. Three key recommendations emerge from the roundtable discussion that are relevant for international cooperation for sustainable development going forward:
• Trade is increasingly being used as a tool to project geopolitical power, contributing to the fragmentation of global economic systems. In response to these disruptions, countries are encouraged to diversify cooperation by promoting open regionalism, fostering plurilateral partnerships and strengthening sectoral collaboration (e.g. on artificial intelligence) and economic resilience.
• The decline in development aid cannot be compensated by individual actors alone. LMICs are forced to actively address financing gaps through improved conditions for investments, stronger domestic revenue generation, better macroeconomic management and efforts to curb illicit financial flows. The international community should support them in these efforts. Aid remains vital, especially for low-income countries and humanitarian emergencies. However, fairer and more reciprocal part-nerships should be developed, acknowledging mutual economic interests and based on knowledge sharing.
• Recent disruptive and polarising policy decisions, while theoretically reversible, have lasting negative effects on trust, budget priorities and international cooperation. Nevertheless, experts emphasise the potential to build new alliances, involving LMICs, for sustainability transitions, reformed global governance structures and alternative cooperation models. To seize these opportunities, leadership from countries that depend on rules-based international cooperation systems – especially middle powers – is considered essential for driving systemic change.

Dr Priyadarshi Dash is Associate Professor at the Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS) in Delhi.
Dr André de Mello e Souza is Head of the International Policy Centre for Inclusive Development (IPC-id) at the Institute for Applied Economic Research (Ipea) in Brasília.

How to build an economic and security order that works for America.

The region lacks leaders who connect with the U.S. president.

 

On August 8, 2025, Washington hosted a landmark meeting where Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a U.S.-brokered peace agreement—an event that not only nudged the South Caucasus closer to a durable settlement, but also shifted calculations across the Caspian. Reuters reported the White House ceremony as a breakthrough likely to unsettle Moscow’s traditional sway in the region.   Beyond the headlines, this deal—and the transport link at its core—reframes routes, energy policy, and power balances from the Caucasus across Central Asia. The question is whether the promise of connectivity can outpace the frictions of geopolitics.   A central feature of the agreement is a new transit link across southern Armenia, officially branded the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), designed to connect mainland Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan. U.S. development rights and operational involvement make the project more than a road: it is a political instrument and a supply-chain corridor rolled into one, according to Reuters reporting.   Ankara publicly welcomed the corridor, emphasizing that TRIPP would operate under Armenian law—a sovereignty reassurance meant to defuse domestic and regional anxieties even as the U.S. role grows.   Meanwhile, Jamestown Foundation analysis captured an important detail: Washington and Yerevan envisage an “exclusive partnership” framework for up to 99 years, with an Armenia–U.S. company managing the route’s business operations—language that Armenia’s leadership says preserves sovereignty over the road itself.   First, TRIPP sits atop a wider turn toward connectivity. The Caspian’s “Middle Corridor” (TITR) has surged as states seek routes that bypass checkpoints. Jamestown noted freight volumes on the Trans-Caspian route jumped dramatically in 2024, with Azerbaijan pivotal to that growth.   Second, energy leverage is at stake. Brussels and Baku have been working to expand the Southern Gas Corridor as Europe pivots away from Russian gas. Reuters and the European Commission highlighted the corridor’s strategic value and the financing bottlenecks that must be overcome.   Third, security dynamics on the inland sea are evolving. Jamestown documented how Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan have expanded security cooperation, reducing Moscow’s ability to dictate outcomes alone.   Fourth, climate and logistics matter. Reuters reported Azerbaijan’s warning that falling Caspian water levels are forcing costly dredging to keep tankers moving—showing how natural limits can undermine otherwise sound projects.   Moscow publicly welcomed the U.S.-brokered deal yet warned against “foreign meddling,” signaling acceptance of de-escalation coupled with red lines about who shapes the region’s rules.   Tehran’s reaction has been mixed: welcoming peace between Baku and Yerevan in principle while expressing unease about a U.S.-involved corridor along its border.   For Armenia, TRIPP offers an economic shot in the arm—but politics will decide the pace. Jamestown pointed to fierce domestic criticism and the shadow of June 2026 elections, with constitutional and legal debates likely to shape implementation.   For Azerbaijan, the corridor consolidates long-sought connectivity and enhances Baku’s role as a transit and energy hub. Reuters framed the Washington signing as both a prestige and logistics win.   The Washington Summit has pushed peace closer in the Caucasus and rewired calculations across the Caspian. If implemented transparently and inclusively, TRIPP and related corridors could redefine trade and security for decades. If mishandled, they risk becoming flashpoints on a new geopolitical chessboard.

An independent inquiry has established the complicity of external actors.

The continent needs more cooperation with America—not less.

America’s digital defenses are failing—but AI can save them.

Israel has threatened to withhold humanitarian aid deliveries into Gaza over Hamas’s slow return efforts.

Trump is treating the military like a “private army,” political scientist Nicholas Grossman warns.

If Trump wants peace, he must block Israel’s annexationist policies.

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that the Gaza deal proves Trump’s diplomatic chops.

The trip marks the culmination of a remarkable turnaround in ties.

 

On 14 September 2025, Shusha hosted the 1st Assembly of the Turkic World Insurance Union (TWIU)—a milestone bringing together supervisors, associations and market leaders from Turkic states under the umbrella of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS). The meeting’s symbolism was clear; its economic intent even clearer: align rules, deepen re/insurance capacity and cut frictions in cross-border cover.     Delegates signed a joint Proclamation to re-form the Union on OTS principles, with five founding members and three observers (Hungary, Turkmenistan and the TRNC). The stated aims: structured exchange of expertise and data, systematic formation of reinsurance ties, and a roadmap for sustainable growth of member markets.   The event’s organization—by the Azerbaijan Insurers Association with strategic support from the Central Bank of Azerbaijan and OTS—underlined a public-private partnership model the bloc wants to scale.   Azerbaijan’s insurance metrics offered a first anchor. According to public statements around the Assembly, sector assets rose 12% year-on-year to AZN 2.1 bn by mid-2025; profitability exceeded AZN 80 m, with approximate ROA ~7% and ROE ~25%—indicators of strengthened balance sheets and pricing discipline.     Beyond one market, intra-OTS trade has risen from roughly 3% to ~5–7% of members’ total turnover in recent years—still modest, but moving in the right direction and giving insurers a larger cross-border client base (cargo, liability, project, credit covers).     For global context, reinsurance is about 7% of worldwide net insurance premiums (≈ $312 bn in 2020). A coordinated Turkic risk pool—even if initially small by global standards—could secure better terms from top reinsurers and, over time, place regional insurance-linked securities.     Why a Union Matters (and Where It Gets Hard)   1) Regulatory harmonization. Different solvency regimes, reserving rules and licensing playbooks fragment risk pools. A TWIU “minimum standard”—even if principle-based—would shrink compliance costs and enable passporting for niche lines (e.g., cargo hull, surety, agrisk). Shusha’s Proclamation points in that direction, but execution requires working groups, model laws and supervisory colleges.   2) Data & modelling. Regional pricing still suffers from thin loss histories and uneven catastrophe models. The Union could mandate shared data lakes (anonymized), improve flood/quake modeling and co-fund actuarial capacity. That would narrow the bid-ask spread with reinsurers. (Context: Azerbaijani market growth and reported premium/revenue dynamics signal improving datasets but more depth is needed across the bloc.)     3) Capital depth. Some markets show comfortable capital buffers, yet others remain constrained. A pooled regional reinsurance facility—even with conservative retentions—can smooth shocks, especially for quake-exposed zones. Early phase options: quota-share pools for transport and property, then layered CAT covers once data improves.     4) Cross-border product fit. Trade corridors need portable solutions: CMR/CMI cargo liability, political risk for exporters, project all-risk for infrastructure, credit insurance for SMEs, and health/travel covers for mobile labor. A TWIU-endorsed wording library (English + national languages) would accelerate uptake.   5) Governance & trust. Predictable rules—claims timelines, dispute resolution, and enforcement—lower risk loads. An OTS-linked arbitration panel for insurance disputes would be a quick win.     With trade integration rising, insurance becomes a force multiplier: it crowds in investment by de-risking projects, cushions climate shocks and professionalizes credit flows. A functioning TWIU would deepen the region’s financial market architecture alongside development banks and capital-market initiatives—enhancing the bloc’s geo-economic leverage.     If Shusha’s deliverables stall, the Union risks remaining ceremonial, while multinational incumbents continue to price regional risk on external terms. Divergent rules, patchy data, or politicized claims handling would keep risk premia high. Conversely, disciplined follow-through would let local carriers keep more premium on-shore and buy reinsurance on better terms.     Shusha was not just a photo-op. The convening power of OTS, public confirmation by the Central Bank of Azerbaijan, and a signed Proclamation together mark the institutional birth of a regional insurance project with real economic logic. The question is no longer “why”—it is “how fast.” If 2026 delivers harmonized reporting, a starter reinsurance pool and shared CAT modelling, the Turkic insurance market can move from aspiration to exportable standard.

A powerful military unit has seized power after weekends of Gen Z-led protests.

Regardless of the result, Oliver Schulz’s case will have big consequences, both in Australia and globally.

Uranium exports from Uzbekistan embody the paradox of modern “clean” energy.

For decades, the party has been mostly counterpunching against the right with no real agenda of its own. 

The prize-winning political philosopher on how to engage in morally robust public discourse in the age of Trump.

Anti-Black videos speak to popular prejudices.