Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

No description

An employee of OpenAI has been arrested for and charged with using or endeavoring to use an electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept oral communications. Abdulrahman Alfozan, 35, a national of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was arrested on Oct. 9, and made his initial appearance in federal court today.

Finland's Ministry for Foreign Affairs has introduced its AI Assistant UMAI to an initial group of pilot users. The service enables the use of artificial intelligence to process information at national security classification level IV in a secure environment. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Government ICT Centre Valtori are acting as pilot organisations in the development of a common secure AI platform for central government.

The Indian Navy is set to commission Samarthak at Naval Base, Karwar on 16 Oct 2026. Built by M/s Larsen and Toubro Ltd under the Government of India's Make in India initiative, Samarthak is the first of four Multi-Purpose Vessels being inducted into the Indian Navy.

Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singh held a bilateral meeting with 1st Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry and Trade of Czech Republic Mr Karel Havlíček in New Delhi on October 13, 2026. During the interaction, both leaders reviewed the entire spectrum of defence industrial cooperation between the two countries. While the two sides welcomed the ongoing collaboration and successful establishment of various joint ventures, they agreed to further expand this cooperation, including under the aegis of India-Czech Joint Defence Committee to promote 'Make-in-India' and 'Aatmanirbhar Bharat'.

Foreign Minister Wadephul issued the following statement today (13 October 2026) prior to his departure for Warsaw:

Today the Department of Justice announced coordinated actions against the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (DPRK) government's schemes to fund its regime through remote information technology (IT) work for U.S. companies. These actions include an indictment, two arrests, searches of multiple known or suspected "laptop farms" in Texas pursuant to "Operation Lonestar Roundup," and the seizure of approximately 187 computer devices used by DPRK IT workers.

No description

Chaque mardi, Pascal Boniface reçoit un membre de l’équipe de recherche de l’‪‪IRIS pour décrypter un fait d’actualité internationale. Aujourd’hui, échange avec Marie-Cécile Naves, directrice de recherche à l’IRIS, autour des élections de mi-mandat du 3 novembre aux États-Unis. Alors que Donald Trump et les républicains sont en baisse dans les sondages notamment à la suite de la guerre en Iran et ses conséquences sur le coût de la vie, les élections à la Chambre des représentants et au Sénat pourraient rebattre les cartes au Congrès.

L’article Midterms : Trump est-il en train de paniquer ? | Les mardis de l’IRIS est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

À télécharger

• ARES Group #138 – Policy paper (PDF)

Since the European Commission announced its intention to revive the project of an internal market for defence, Member States have been on alert. The issue is particularly sensitive. Using the EU budget to strengthen the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) is one thing, regulating defence markets — and public procurement in particular — is quite another. Some countries are supportive, others remain sceptical, while others are still weighing up what position to take.

The idea of an internal market for defence does, after all, raise major issues. This is no longer simply a matter of supporting industry: it touches on the very exercise of national sovereignty, as governments decide which weapons and military equipment their security will ultimately depend on.

These questions have therefore been the subject of intense debate within the EU institutions for several months. In Brussels, even the terminology remains contested: a Defence Single Market? An Internal Market for Defence? A Defence Equipment Market?

But what is the view from European capitals? How are these issues perceived at national level? And what positions do the main Member States intend to defend in Brussels? To answer these questions, the ARES Group asked nine of its researchers, based in nine EU capitals, to examine the debate from their respective national perspectives. The picture that emerges is a nuanced one. National positions certainly diverge, but they are far from set in stone, and several areas of convergence are beginning to emerge. More importantly, some of these disagreements appear to stem from misunderstandings that could be clarified, potentially opening the way to compromise.

REMINDER: THE CHALLENGE FACING THE INTERNAL DEFENCE MARKET Analysing national perspectives DENMARK FRANCE GERMANY ITALY LITHUANIA POLAND SPAIN SWEDEN THE NETHERLANDS Conclusion CONCLUSION: DIVERGENCES ET CONVERGENCES

L’article The EU and the Internal Defence Market: What Are the National Perspectives? est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

Planned relocation, the process of moving a community from one area of residence to a new one in response to an environmental risk or threat, is an important option for climate change adaptation. Given the acute climate and environmental risks facing them, small island developing states (SIDS) have taken a leading role in developing policies and processes for planned relocation in response to these risks. This policy brief will look at how planned relocation works as an adaptation strategy in informal urban settlements and will examine the role of social cohesion in planned relocation processes. Fiji has become a regional leader in planned relocation policy, with the Human Mobility in Climate Change Contexts (HMCCC) project serving as a magnifier of Fiji’s existing expertise in planned relocation. Since 2017, the Fijian government and civil society in cooperation with the German and New Zealand governments have developed planned relocation standard operating procedures (SOPs) for helping villages in high-risk areas navigate the physical, cultural, social and economic costs of relocating to higher ground or a safer location. These SOPs have become a “gold standard” for other countries to learn from and emulate in their own planned relocation policies. 
The next step that the government is starting to undertake involves adapting the SOPs to informal urban settle­ments that are facing climate and environ­mental risks. Fiji’s informal urban settlements have faced a number of social, political and eco­nomic challenges over the years. These include serious issues with crime, land insecurity and historical political exclusion. Thus, along with the threats that come with climate change, particularly sea-level rise and flooding, any planned relocation policy for informal urban settlements has to simultaneously address trust in institutions, cooperation for the common good, and inclusive identity. The historical case of the Bainiose being relocated from central Suva to a suburb of Suva in the late 1990s offers guidance on how this can be done. 

Key policy messages

• Planned relocation for communities in urban settings requires long-term planning for services such as new public transportation connections, schools, secure land tenure and health facilities.
• Measures should be taken to build institutional trust with urban com­munities, who may lack the traditional mechanisms of chiefly or customary representa­tion that is present in rural settings.
• Community identity is often strong and can be a starting point for policy-makers and communities to identify sustainable options for relocation.

Dr Anawaite Matadradra is a Lecturer at the University of the South Pacific.
Dr Sevanaia Sakai is a Senior Lecturer at the University of the South Pacific.
Unaisi Raileqe is a Project Officer at the Pacific Centre for Peacebuilding.
Dr Timothy Fadgen is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Auckland.

Planned relocation, the process of moving a community from one area of residence to a new one in response to an environmental risk or threat, is an important option for climate change adaptation. Given the acute climate and environmental risks facing them, small island developing states (SIDS) have taken a leading role in developing policies and processes for planned relocation in response to these risks. This policy brief will look at how planned relocation works as an adaptation strategy in informal urban settlements and will examine the role of social cohesion in planned relocation processes. Fiji has become a regional leader in planned relocation policy, with the Human Mobility in Climate Change Contexts (HMCCC) project serving as a magnifier of Fiji’s existing expertise in planned relocation. Since 2017, the Fijian government and civil society in cooperation with the German and New Zealand governments have developed planned relocation standard operating procedures (SOPs) for helping villages in high-risk areas navigate the physical, cultural, social and economic costs of relocating to higher ground or a safer location. These SOPs have become a “gold standard” for other countries to learn from and emulate in their own planned relocation policies. 
The next step that the government is starting to undertake involves adapting the SOPs to informal urban settle­ments that are facing climate and environ­mental risks. Fiji’s informal urban settlements have faced a number of social, political and eco­nomic challenges over the years. These include serious issues with crime, land insecurity and historical political exclusion. Thus, along with the threats that come with climate change, particularly sea-level rise and flooding, any planned relocation policy for informal urban settlements has to simultaneously address trust in institutions, cooperation for the common good, and inclusive identity. The historical case of the Bainiose being relocated from central Suva to a suburb of Suva in the late 1990s offers guidance on how this can be done. 

Key policy messages

• Planned relocation for communities in urban settings requires long-term planning for services such as new public transportation connections, schools, secure land tenure and health facilities.
• Measures should be taken to build institutional trust with urban com­munities, who may lack the traditional mechanisms of chiefly or customary representa­tion that is present in rural settings.
• Community identity is often strong and can be a starting point for policy-makers and communities to identify sustainable options for relocation.

Dr Anawaite Matadradra is a Lecturer at the University of the South Pacific.
Dr Sevanaia Sakai is a Senior Lecturer at the University of the South Pacific.
Unaisi Raileqe is a Project Officer at the Pacific Centre for Peacebuilding.
Dr Timothy Fadgen is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Auckland.

Planned relocation, the process of moving a community from one area of residence to a new one in response to an environmental risk or threat, is an important option for climate change adaptation. Given the acute climate and environmental risks facing them, small island developing states (SIDS) have taken a leading role in developing policies and processes for planned relocation in response to these risks. This policy brief will look at how planned relocation works as an adaptation strategy in informal urban settlements and will examine the role of social cohesion in planned relocation processes. Fiji has become a regional leader in planned relocation policy, with the Human Mobility in Climate Change Contexts (HMCCC) project serving as a magnifier of Fiji’s existing expertise in planned relocation. Since 2017, the Fijian government and civil society in cooperation with the German and New Zealand governments have developed planned relocation standard operating procedures (SOPs) for helping villages in high-risk areas navigate the physical, cultural, social and economic costs of relocating to higher ground or a safer location. These SOPs have become a “gold standard” for other countries to learn from and emulate in their own planned relocation policies. 
The next step that the government is starting to undertake involves adapting the SOPs to informal urban settle­ments that are facing climate and environ­mental risks. Fiji’s informal urban settlements have faced a number of social, political and eco­nomic challenges over the years. These include serious issues with crime, land insecurity and historical political exclusion. Thus, along with the threats that come with climate change, particularly sea-level rise and flooding, any planned relocation policy for informal urban settlements has to simultaneously address trust in institutions, cooperation for the common good, and inclusive identity. The historical case of the Bainiose being relocated from central Suva to a suburb of Suva in the late 1990s offers guidance on how this can be done. 

Key policy messages

• Planned relocation for communities in urban settings requires long-term planning for services such as new public transportation connections, schools, secure land tenure and health facilities.
• Measures should be taken to build institutional trust with urban com­munities, who may lack the traditional mechanisms of chiefly or customary representa­tion that is present in rural settings.
• Community identity is often strong and can be a starting point for policy-makers and communities to identify sustainable options for relocation.

Dr Anawaite Matadradra is a Lecturer at the University of the South Pacific.
Dr Sevanaia Sakai is a Senior Lecturer at the University of the South Pacific.
Unaisi Raileqe is a Project Officer at the Pacific Centre for Peacebuilding.
Dr Timothy Fadgen is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Auckland.

Der Nahost-Experte und Islamwissenschaftler Guido Steinberg erklärte, wie iranische Unterstützung die Huthi-Miliz stärkt und warum Saudi-Arabien im Jemen unter Druck steht. Eine größere US-Militäraktion hält er für eher unwahrscheinlich.

Donald Trump a annoncé vendredi avoir conclu un accord avec Vladimir Poutine concernant l’importation de pétrole russe. Une décision qui met fin à des années de sanctions occidentales contre la Russie après son invasion de l’Ukraine.

À l’approche des élections de mi-mandat aux États-Unis, la flambée des prix de l’essence, aggravée par la guerre en Iran, met à mal l’une de ses principales promesses de campagne. En cherchant à soulager son électorat à court terme, Trump est prêt à financer la machine de guerre russe et à sacrifier la sécurité ukrainienne et européenne. Après les sanctions contre la CPI et les attaques contre le droit international, ce nouvel accord menace désormais directement la souveraineté de ses alliés.

Ne serait-il pas temps que les Européens réagissent ? Mon analyse dans cette vidéo.

L’article Trump : panique à Washington est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

This paper examines how additional private financial resources can be mobilised through the use of multilateral development bank (MDB) funds. It focuses on identifying the leverage potential of different financing instruments, improving their mobilisation efficiency, and examining how greater leverage can promote development outcomes while safeguarding the financial sustainability of MDBs. Its contribution is a comparative synthesis that brings together mobilisation mechanisms, differences in the public resources and risks underlying leverage ratios, and development impact. The analysis covers six categories: debt instruments, equity instruments, risk-transfer instruments, guarantees, advisory services and policy-based lending. It compares their characteristics, including the level of intervention, mobilisation mechanisms, constraints addressed and time horizons. It also distinguishes transaction-level private direct and indirect mobilisation from broader catalytic effects arising through market development, institutional strengthening and policy reforms.
The comparison shows why instruments cannot be assessed by a single leverage ratio. MDB lending, guarantee exposure and expenditure on advisory services represent different commitments of public resources and risk. Similarly, private finance linked to a transaction cannot be measured in the same way as subsequent investment enabled by policy reform. Available evidence therefore indicates differences in mobilisation potential rather than an established empirical ranking of instruments. The paper argues that leveraging efficiency can be increased by moving to more powerful approaches and by better targeting instruments to binding investment constraints. It examines how this can enhance the development impact and financial viability of MDB/DFI portfolios through two channels: a financial/portfolio efficiency channel and a development/catalytic channel. However, a high leverage ratio does not necessarily indicate superior performance. It may reflect investment in easier markets, weak additionality or an understatement of public risk. Conversely, a lower ratio may be consistent with greater additionality in a fragile market or pioneering sector. These findings highlight the importance of assessing leverage alongside additionality, development impact and financial sustainability. Using concessional funds through blended finance instruments can be costly and can reduce the resources available for other development priorities.
Therefore, the development finance institutions (DFIs) must strictly apply the additionality principle and further operationalise the principle of using minimum concessionality. If interpreted too generously, there is a risk of creating leverage without sufficient development impact. The paper provides specific recommendations for refining the use of financing instruments and integrating transaction-level support into a broader market-shaping approach that draws on the strengths of policy-based lending and technical assistance. Higher leverage should not be pursued as an end in itself; its value depends on its contribution to additional development impact.

Dr Jürgen Karl Zattler is a distinguished non-resident fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington, DC and a non-resident research fellow at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) in Bonn. Until October 2023, he was Director General at the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Prior to that, he served as the Executive Director representing Germany at the World Bank.

This paper examines how additional private financial resources can be mobilised through the use of multilateral development bank (MDB) funds. It focuses on identifying the leverage potential of different financing instruments, improving their mobilisation efficiency, and examining how greater leverage can promote development outcomes while safeguarding the financial sustainability of MDBs. Its contribution is a comparative synthesis that brings together mobilisation mechanisms, differences in the public resources and risks underlying leverage ratios, and development impact. The analysis covers six categories: debt instruments, equity instruments, risk-transfer instruments, guarantees, advisory services and policy-based lending. It compares their characteristics, including the level of intervention, mobilisation mechanisms, constraints addressed and time horizons. It also distinguishes transaction-level private direct and indirect mobilisation from broader catalytic effects arising through market development, institutional strengthening and policy reforms.
The comparison shows why instruments cannot be assessed by a single leverage ratio. MDB lending, guarantee exposure and expenditure on advisory services represent different commitments of public resources and risk. Similarly, private finance linked to a transaction cannot be measured in the same way as subsequent investment enabled by policy reform. Available evidence therefore indicates differences in mobilisation potential rather than an established empirical ranking of instruments. The paper argues that leveraging efficiency can be increased by moving to more powerful approaches and by better targeting instruments to binding investment constraints. It examines how this can enhance the development impact and financial viability of MDB/DFI portfolios through two channels: a financial/portfolio efficiency channel and a development/catalytic channel. However, a high leverage ratio does not necessarily indicate superior performance. It may reflect investment in easier markets, weak additionality or an understatement of public risk. Conversely, a lower ratio may be consistent with greater additionality in a fragile market or pioneering sector. These findings highlight the importance of assessing leverage alongside additionality, development impact and financial sustainability. Using concessional funds through blended finance instruments can be costly and can reduce the resources available for other development priorities.
Therefore, the development finance institutions (DFIs) must strictly apply the additionality principle and further operationalise the principle of using minimum concessionality. If interpreted too generously, there is a risk of creating leverage without sufficient development impact. The paper provides specific recommendations for refining the use of financing instruments and integrating transaction-level support into a broader market-shaping approach that draws on the strengths of policy-based lending and technical assistance. Higher leverage should not be pursued as an end in itself; its value depends on its contribution to additional development impact.

Dr Jürgen Karl Zattler is a distinguished non-resident fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington, DC and a non-resident research fellow at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) in Bonn. Until October 2023, he was Director General at the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Prior to that, he served as the Executive Director representing Germany at the World Bank.

This paper examines how additional private financial resources can be mobilised through the use of multilateral development bank (MDB) funds. It focuses on identifying the leverage potential of different financing instruments, improving their mobilisation efficiency, and examining how greater leverage can promote development outcomes while safeguarding the financial sustainability of MDBs. Its contribution is a comparative synthesis that brings together mobilisation mechanisms, differences in the public resources and risks underlying leverage ratios, and development impact. The analysis covers six categories: debt instruments, equity instruments, risk-transfer instruments, guarantees, advisory services and policy-based lending. It compares their characteristics, including the level of intervention, mobilisation mechanisms, constraints addressed and time horizons. It also distinguishes transaction-level private direct and indirect mobilisation from broader catalytic effects arising through market development, institutional strengthening and policy reforms.
The comparison shows why instruments cannot be assessed by a single leverage ratio. MDB lending, guarantee exposure and expenditure on advisory services represent different commitments of public resources and risk. Similarly, private finance linked to a transaction cannot be measured in the same way as subsequent investment enabled by policy reform. Available evidence therefore indicates differences in mobilisation potential rather than an established empirical ranking of instruments. The paper argues that leveraging efficiency can be increased by moving to more powerful approaches and by better targeting instruments to binding investment constraints. It examines how this can enhance the development impact and financial viability of MDB/DFI portfolios through two channels: a financial/portfolio efficiency channel and a development/catalytic channel. However, a high leverage ratio does not necessarily indicate superior performance. It may reflect investment in easier markets, weak additionality or an understatement of public risk. Conversely, a lower ratio may be consistent with greater additionality in a fragile market or pioneering sector. These findings highlight the importance of assessing leverage alongside additionality, development impact and financial sustainability. Using concessional funds through blended finance instruments can be costly and can reduce the resources available for other development priorities.
Therefore, the development finance institutions (DFIs) must strictly apply the additionality principle and further operationalise the principle of using minimum concessionality. If interpreted too generously, there is a risk of creating leverage without sufficient development impact. The paper provides specific recommendations for refining the use of financing instruments and integrating transaction-level support into a broader market-shaping approach that draws on the strengths of policy-based lending and technical assistance. Higher leverage should not be pursued as an end in itself; its value depends on its contribution to additional development impact.

Dr Jürgen Karl Zattler is a distinguished non-resident fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington, DC and a non-resident research fellow at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) in Bonn. Until October 2023, he was Director General at the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Prior to that, he served as the Executive Director representing Germany at the World Bank.

À télécharger

• Lire la note (PDF)

Les liens entre l’establishment militaire, la défense nationale et l’Université au Japon sont à la fois emblématiques et contrastés. La modernisation de l’archipel depuis 1868 a été soutenue par la création d’un appareil militaire puissant et performant ayant trois objectifs : la protection de l’indépendance nationale contre la menace occidentale sur les marches de l’empire ; la constitution d’un glacis colonial à Taiwan et sur le continent ; la construction en Asie orientale d’un « espace vital » dit de « coprospérité » par substitution au colonisateur occidental. Pour cela, il lui a fallu utiliser des ressources de plus en plus nombreuses, en hommes, en matériels grâce à la montée en puissance des arsenaux militaires et de l’industrie lourde, en moyens financiers et en connaissances, grâce à un système de formation des élites universitaires au service de l’État.

On considère que les rapports entre l’Université et les militaires se resserrent au sortir de la Première Guerre mondiale lorsque se créent, de façon informelle et éphémère, les premiers cercles d’études militaires à l’intérieur de quelques établissements d’enseignement supérieur, dont Waseda.

Au début des années 1930, les manœuvres d’intimidation des forces armées minent le gouvernement des partis. L’isolement du Japon sur la scène internationale après son départ de la Société des Nations (SDN) en mars 1933, l’enlisement en Chine, la perspective d’un
élargissement du conflit aux puissances occidentales ‒ sans exclure l’URSS ‒ pousse les autorités sur la voie d’une économie de guerre planifiée et autarcique, à une accélération de l’intégration idéologique des sujets, en bref à une galvanisation des énergies nationales autour de la satisfaction des buts de guerre. L’enseignement supérieur y apporte son concours par le développement important des filières technologiques, soit au sein des établissements existants soit en en créant de nouveaux, et dont les étudiants bénéficient de reports d’incorporation.

La défaite de 1945 a opéré dans le monde universitaire une rupture singulière par rapport à l’institution militaire. Cependant, cette rupture ne signifie pas que les intellectuels japonais ‒ juristes et politistes notamment ‒ ne se sont pas intéressés aux changements de la politique de défense de l’archipel. Bien au contraire, et le plus souvent dans un sens critique. Mais on a longtemps observé dans les milieux académiques trois angles morts : faiblesse de la recherche stratégique ; désintérêt pour l’étude de la condition des Forces d’autodéfense (FAD) et surtout mise à distance par rapport à l’industrie de défense. Ces angles morts s’expliquent par la prégnance du pacifisme constitutionnel et l’occultation du militaire dans l’espace public.

L’article Université et défense nationale dans le Japon d’après-guerre : de nouvelles « liaisons dangereuses » ? est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

Seit dem britischen EU-Austritt haben die deutsch-britischen Beziehungen eine bemerkenswerte Wende durchlaufen: von der bewussten Distanzierung Berlins, während der Brexit-Verhandlungen – in denen Deutschland konsequent die Geschlossenheit der EU-27 über bilaterale Sonderwege – hin zu einer schrittweisen Wiederannäherung, die 2025 im Kensington-Freundschaftsvertrag ihren vorläufigen Höhepunkt fand.