Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Many colonies in Africa attained independence through negotiated settlements. However, several others engaged in armed liberation struggles, for example, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and the Portuguese colonies of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe. Newly independent states provided liberation movements with bases on their territories and political, military, intellectual, ideological, material, and moral support. In West Africa, Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, a notable pan-Africanist, declared in his Independence Day speech in 1957, “Our independence is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent.” In East Africa, Julius Nyerere and Jomo Kenyatta, the first presidents of independent Tanzania and Kenya respectively, showed similar commitment to Pan-Africanism and anticolonialism by hosting refugees fleeing armed struggles in Southern Africa. Tanzania hosted the Organization of African Unity Liberation Committee supported anticolonial resistance and liberation movements. President Nyerere supported them for “challenging injustices of empire and apartheid” and declared, “I train freedom fighters”. He encouraged Tanzanians living around liberation movement camps to welcome these movements and their freedom fighters and also protect them from agents of colonial governments. Support also came from many other countries on the continent including Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Algeria. The latter provided sanctuary to representatives of liberation movements such as Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.

Many colonies in Africa attained independence through negotiated settlements. However, several others engaged in armed liberation struggles, for example, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and the Portuguese colonies of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe. Newly independent states provided liberation movements with bases on their territories and political, military, intellectual, ideological, material, and moral support. In West Africa, Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, a notable pan-Africanist, declared in his Independence Day speech in 1957, “Our independence is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent.” In East Africa, Julius Nyerere and Jomo Kenyatta, the first presidents of independent Tanzania and Kenya respectively, showed similar commitment to Pan-Africanism and anticolonialism by hosting refugees fleeing armed struggles in Southern Africa. Tanzania hosted the Organization of African Unity Liberation Committee supported anticolonial resistance and liberation movements. President Nyerere supported them for “challenging injustices of empire and apartheid” and declared, “I train freedom fighters”. He encouraged Tanzanians living around liberation movement camps to welcome these movements and their freedom fighters and also protect them from agents of colonial governments. Support also came from many other countries on the continent including Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Algeria. The latter provided sanctuary to representatives of liberation movements such as Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.

Many colonies in Africa attained independence through negotiated settlements. However, several others engaged in armed liberation struggles, for example, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and the Portuguese colonies of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe. Newly independent states provided liberation movements with bases on their territories and political, military, intellectual, ideological, material, and moral support. In West Africa, Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, a notable pan-Africanist, declared in his Independence Day speech in 1957, “Our independence is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent.” In East Africa, Julius Nyerere and Jomo Kenyatta, the first presidents of independent Tanzania and Kenya respectively, showed similar commitment to Pan-Africanism and anticolonialism by hosting refugees fleeing armed struggles in Southern Africa. Tanzania hosted the Organization of African Unity Liberation Committee supported anticolonial resistance and liberation movements. President Nyerere supported them for “challenging injustices of empire and apartheid” and declared, “I train freedom fighters”. He encouraged Tanzanians living around liberation movement camps to welcome these movements and their freedom fighters and also protect them from agents of colonial governments. Support also came from many other countries on the continent including Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Algeria. The latter provided sanctuary to representatives of liberation movements such as Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.

Following the conclusion of the World Economic Forum in Davos, ELIAMEP’s experts share their views on the strategic trends highlighted in global geopolitics and assess their implications for transatlantic cooperation.

The analysis is available in Greek.

Central Asia has emerged as a key region where the convergence of geopolitics and development cooperation is most visible. Major powers are redefining their approaches: Japan combines official development assistance (ODA) with commercial partnerships to advance connectivity and reform; the EU is emphasising a sustainable infrastructure and governance-oriented approach; the US is expected to catalyse private investment rather than direct aid; China deepens its regional presence through the Belt and Road Initiative; while Russia leverages historical and security ties to maintain influence. Meanwhile, middle powers – countries that do not wield vast influence like major powers but possess substantial capacity to shape international events – are exploring new opportunities for engagement. Türkiye positions itself as a bridge between advanced economies and the Global South, emphasising connectivity and energy cooperation through the Middle Corridor and the Organization of Turkic States.
South Korea’s 2025 ODA Strategy for Central Asia identifies the region as a strategic partner for shared growth, integrating pragmatic diplomacy with value-based cooperation. By leveraging their soft power and policy experience, these middle powers offer a distinctive model for development partnership. Central Asian governments are responding to a changing international environment by diversifying partnerships through regional integration and more strategic engagement with development  partners.

Hyeyoung Woo is a specialist at the Center for International Development (CID), Korea Development Institute (KDI). From July to October 2025, she served as a guest researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). She holds a Ph.D. in Development Policy from the KDI School of Public Policy and Management, where her dissertation examined transition countries, including those in Central Asia. Over the past years, she has contributed to policy consultations through Korea’s Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP) with Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic, particularly in fintech regulatory sandbox development and official development assistance (ODA) evaluation.

Central Asia has emerged as a key region where the convergence of geopolitics and development cooperation is most visible. Major powers are redefining their approaches: Japan combines official development assistance (ODA) with commercial partnerships to advance connectivity and reform; the EU is emphasising a sustainable infrastructure and governance-oriented approach; the US is expected to catalyse private investment rather than direct aid; China deepens its regional presence through the Belt and Road Initiative; while Russia leverages historical and security ties to maintain influence. Meanwhile, middle powers – countries that do not wield vast influence like major powers but possess substantial capacity to shape international events – are exploring new opportunities for engagement. Türkiye positions itself as a bridge between advanced economies and the Global South, emphasising connectivity and energy cooperation through the Middle Corridor and the Organization of Turkic States.
South Korea’s 2025 ODA Strategy for Central Asia identifies the region as a strategic partner for shared growth, integrating pragmatic diplomacy with value-based cooperation. By leveraging their soft power and policy experience, these middle powers offer a distinctive model for development partnership. Central Asian governments are responding to a changing international environment by diversifying partnerships through regional integration and more strategic engagement with development  partners.

Hyeyoung Woo is a specialist at the Center for International Development (CID), Korea Development Institute (KDI). From July to October 2025, she served as a guest researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). She holds a Ph.D. in Development Policy from the KDI School of Public Policy and Management, where her dissertation examined transition countries, including those in Central Asia. Over the past years, she has contributed to policy consultations through Korea’s Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP) with Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic, particularly in fintech regulatory sandbox development and official development assistance (ODA) evaluation.

Central Asia has emerged as a key region where the convergence of geopolitics and development cooperation is most visible. Major powers are redefining their approaches: Japan combines official development assistance (ODA) with commercial partnerships to advance connectivity and reform; the EU is emphasising a sustainable infrastructure and governance-oriented approach; the US is expected to catalyse private investment rather than direct aid; China deepens its regional presence through the Belt and Road Initiative; while Russia leverages historical and security ties to maintain influence. Meanwhile, middle powers – countries that do not wield vast influence like major powers but possess substantial capacity to shape international events – are exploring new opportunities for engagement. Türkiye positions itself as a bridge between advanced economies and the Global South, emphasising connectivity and energy cooperation through the Middle Corridor and the Organization of Turkic States.
South Korea’s 2025 ODA Strategy for Central Asia identifies the region as a strategic partner for shared growth, integrating pragmatic diplomacy with value-based cooperation. By leveraging their soft power and policy experience, these middle powers offer a distinctive model for development partnership. Central Asian governments are responding to a changing international environment by diversifying partnerships through regional integration and more strategic engagement with development  partners.

Hyeyoung Woo is a specialist at the Center for International Development (CID), Korea Development Institute (KDI). From July to October 2025, she served as a guest researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). She holds a Ph.D. in Development Policy from the KDI School of Public Policy and Management, where her dissertation examined transition countries, including those in Central Asia. Over the past years, she has contributed to policy consultations through Korea’s Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP) with Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic, particularly in fintech regulatory sandbox development and official development assistance (ODA) evaluation.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – the global framework establishing 17 universal and interconnected goals to guide sustainable development efforts – was adopted in 2015 following a uniquely participative and ambitious process. A decade on, it is increasingly evident that most of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are unlikely to be achieved by 2030 as originally envisioned. Discussions about a follow-up framework beyond 2030 are gaining momentum ahead of the SDG Summit in September 2027. This paper evaluates the process design, inclusiveness, negotiating strategies, fora and fault lines in 2015 and discusses to what extent the lessons learned can be applied to negotiations for a potential follow-up framework. We find that several process design elements and negotiation strategies, as well as actor composition, fostered trust and ownership, reduced polarisation and enabled agreements on ambitious targets. In particular, the process benefited from the inclusion of diverse, non-hierarchical actor communities, a long, science-based stocktaking phase, the breaking up of traditional negotiating blocks, transparency, and emphasis on common interests. We also identify several recurring fault lines that are overwhelmingly still relevant today. Apart from the above best practices of the process leading to the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, we identify several shortcomings that should be addressed in the beyond-2030 negotiations: inefficiencies due to competing tracks for the development of the goals; top-down agenda-setting processes leading to less ambitious outcomes; barriers to participation of and accountability towards some marginalised and informal actors; and the watering down of goals and indicators – including non-tangible targets and unresolved inconsistencies and trade-offs within the agenda. Finally, the paper argues that the beyond-2030 negotiations will take place in a context that is similar to the process that led to the SDGs but is nevertheless in many ways more challenging than in 2015, amidst intensifying crises, political shifts and loss of trust.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – the global framework establishing 17 universal and interconnected goals to guide sustainable development efforts – was adopted in 2015 following a uniquely participative and ambitious process. A decade on, it is increasingly evident that most of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are unlikely to be achieved by 2030 as originally envisioned. Discussions about a follow-up framework beyond 2030 are gaining momentum ahead of the SDG Summit in September 2027. This paper evaluates the process design, inclusiveness, negotiating strategies, fora and fault lines in 2015 and discusses to what extent the lessons learned can be applied to negotiations for a potential follow-up framework. We find that several process design elements and negotiation strategies, as well as actor composition, fostered trust and ownership, reduced polarisation and enabled agreements on ambitious targets. In particular, the process benefited from the inclusion of diverse, non-hierarchical actor communities, a long, science-based stocktaking phase, the breaking up of traditional negotiating blocks, transparency, and emphasis on common interests. We also identify several recurring fault lines that are overwhelmingly still relevant today. Apart from the above best practices of the process leading to the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, we identify several shortcomings that should be addressed in the beyond-2030 negotiations: inefficiencies due to competing tracks for the development of the goals; top-down agenda-setting processes leading to less ambitious outcomes; barriers to participation of and accountability towards some marginalised and informal actors; and the watering down of goals and indicators – including non-tangible targets and unresolved inconsistencies and trade-offs within the agenda. Finally, the paper argues that the beyond-2030 negotiations will take place in a context that is similar to the process that led to the SDGs but is nevertheless in many ways more challenging than in 2015, amidst intensifying crises, political shifts and loss of trust.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – the global framework establishing 17 universal and interconnected goals to guide sustainable development efforts – was adopted in 2015 following a uniquely participative and ambitious process. A decade on, it is increasingly evident that most of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are unlikely to be achieved by 2030 as originally envisioned. Discussions about a follow-up framework beyond 2030 are gaining momentum ahead of the SDG Summit in September 2027. This paper evaluates the process design, inclusiveness, negotiating strategies, fora and fault lines in 2015 and discusses to what extent the lessons learned can be applied to negotiations for a potential follow-up framework. We find that several process design elements and negotiation strategies, as well as actor composition, fostered trust and ownership, reduced polarisation and enabled agreements on ambitious targets. In particular, the process benefited from the inclusion of diverse, non-hierarchical actor communities, a long, science-based stocktaking phase, the breaking up of traditional negotiating blocks, transparency, and emphasis on common interests. We also identify several recurring fault lines that are overwhelmingly still relevant today. Apart from the above best practices of the process leading to the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, we identify several shortcomings that should be addressed in the beyond-2030 negotiations: inefficiencies due to competing tracks for the development of the goals; top-down agenda-setting processes leading to less ambitious outcomes; barriers to participation of and accountability towards some marginalised and informal actors; and the watering down of goals and indicators – including non-tangible targets and unresolved inconsistencies and trade-offs within the agenda. Finally, the paper argues that the beyond-2030 negotiations will take place in a context that is similar to the process that led to the SDGs but is nevertheless in many ways more challenging than in 2015, amidst intensifying crises, political shifts and loss of trust.

Das Konjunkturbarometer des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) setzt seinen schrittweisen Aufwärtstrend fort und steigt im Januar auf 94,8 Punkte. Im Dezember lag der Wert noch bei 93,4 Punkten. Der Barometerwert ist somit noch einmal etwas näher an die neutrale 100-Punkte ...

Bauvolumen dürfte 2026 erstmals seit fünf Jahren wieder zulegen – Öffentliche Investitionen treiben das Wachstum – Auch der Wohnungsneubau dürfte im laufenden Jahr wieder im Plus landen – Sorge bereitet schwache Produktivität im Bausektor Die deutsche Bauwirtschaft steht vor einer Trendwende: Nach ...

Die Europäische Union und Indien haben ein umfassendes Freihandelsabkommen beschlossen. Welche Bedeutung das hat, kommentiert die Handelsexpertin des DIW Berlin, Sonali Chowdhry:

Das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der Europäischen Union und Indien ist von großer Bedeutung. Die bilaterale Partnerschaft gewinnt nach einem langen Verhandlungsprozess, der 2007 begann und wiederholt ins Stocken geriet, die nun dringend benötigte Dynamik. Indien wird bis 2026 voraussichtlich um 7,3 Prozent wachsen und in den kommenden Jahren zu einer der drei größten Volkswirtschaften der Welt aufsteigen. Die EU kann es sich kaum leisten, ihre Präsenz auf diesem Markt nicht auszubauen.

Das Abkommen baut auf den bilateralen Handelsbeziehungen zwischen der EU und Indien auf, die bereits mehr als 170.000 Käufer-Lieferanten-Beziehungen zwischen indischen und EU-Unternehmen umfassen. Durch den Abbau von Zöllen und anderen Handelshemmnissen in Schlüsselindustrien eröffnet das Abkommen EU-Exporteuren in vielen Sektoren wie Automobil, Maschinenbau und Getränken neue Möglichkeiten. Gleichzeitig wird sich der Marktzugang für indische Exporte wie Arzneimittel, IT-Dienstleistungen und Textilien verbessern.

Über diese unmittelbaren wirtschaftlichen Vorteile hinaus erfüllt das Abkommen eine weitere wichtige Funktion, die nicht unterschätzt werden sollte: Es ist eine Versicherungspolice in der derzeitigen unsicheren Lage. Denn die im Rahmen von Freihandelsabkommen eingegangenen Verpflichtungen sorgen für Transparenz und Vorhersehbarkeit im internationalen Handel und in der globalen Governance, die anderswo untergraben werden. Solche Freihandelsabkommen schützen das globale Handelssystem und verhindern, dass es in eine Spirale des Protektionismus gerät.

This study examines portrayals of marine mammal celebrities (MMCs) in popular culture over the past 70 years, reflecting evolving public attitudes toward ocean conservation. It identifies four main types of MMCs, each linked to a specific era and shaped by changes in media landscapes, perceptions of marine mammal agency and welfare, and conservation priorities: (1) Hollywood MMCs (ca. 1960–1990s)—wild animals captured and exhibited in aquaria, cast as celebrities based on their roles in traditional mass media (blockbuster movies); (2) MMCs in human care (ca. 1990s–2010s)—animals housed in aquaria whose fame stemmed from public concern about their welfare and calls for their release; (3) rescued MMCs (ca. 1980s–present)—marine mammals cared for by humans after they were injured in the ocean; and (4) endangered and dangerous MMCs (2010s–present)—wild animals that approach humans, demonstrate human‐like behaviours, or interact with boats. Introducing the method of “following the animal,” the article provides examples of celebrity animals that illustrate each of the four categories, such as the dolphin Flipper and the walrus Freya. The study contributes to the thematic issue on "Ocean Pop: Marine Imaginaries in the Age of Global Polycrisis" by highlighting the mutual influence of media, animal celebrity, and conservation, and urges further research into how shifting representations shape global engagement with marine life and the environment.

This study examines portrayals of marine mammal celebrities (MMCs) in popular culture over the past 70 years, reflecting evolving public attitudes toward ocean conservation. It identifies four main types of MMCs, each linked to a specific era and shaped by changes in media landscapes, perceptions of marine mammal agency and welfare, and conservation priorities: (1) Hollywood MMCs (ca. 1960–1990s)—wild animals captured and exhibited in aquaria, cast as celebrities based on their roles in traditional mass media (blockbuster movies); (2) MMCs in human care (ca. 1990s–2010s)—animals housed in aquaria whose fame stemmed from public concern about their welfare and calls for their release; (3) rescued MMCs (ca. 1980s–present)—marine mammals cared for by humans after they were injured in the ocean; and (4) endangered and dangerous MMCs (2010s–present)—wild animals that approach humans, demonstrate human‐like behaviours, or interact with boats. Introducing the method of “following the animal,” the article provides examples of celebrity animals that illustrate each of the four categories, such as the dolphin Flipper and the walrus Freya. The study contributes to the thematic issue on "Ocean Pop: Marine Imaginaries in the Age of Global Polycrisis" by highlighting the mutual influence of media, animal celebrity, and conservation, and urges further research into how shifting representations shape global engagement with marine life and the environment.

This study examines portrayals of marine mammal celebrities (MMCs) in popular culture over the past 70 years, reflecting evolving public attitudes toward ocean conservation. It identifies four main types of MMCs, each linked to a specific era and shaped by changes in media landscapes, perceptions of marine mammal agency and welfare, and conservation priorities: (1) Hollywood MMCs (ca. 1960–1990s)—wild animals captured and exhibited in aquaria, cast as celebrities based on their roles in traditional mass media (blockbuster movies); (2) MMCs in human care (ca. 1990s–2010s)—animals housed in aquaria whose fame stemmed from public concern about their welfare and calls for their release; (3) rescued MMCs (ca. 1980s–present)—marine mammals cared for by humans after they were injured in the ocean; and (4) endangered and dangerous MMCs (2010s–present)—wild animals that approach humans, demonstrate human‐like behaviours, or interact with boats. Introducing the method of “following the animal,” the article provides examples of celebrity animals that illustrate each of the four categories, such as the dolphin Flipper and the walrus Freya. The study contributes to the thematic issue on "Ocean Pop: Marine Imaginaries in the Age of Global Polycrisis" by highlighting the mutual influence of media, animal celebrity, and conservation, and urges further research into how shifting representations shape global engagement with marine life and the environment.

The emerging global system is one in which three nuclear-armed leaders, insulated from dissent, pursue risky gambits. The result will not be the relatively stable if tense competition that characterized the Cold War. It will be something more volatile: a world in which the most consequential decisions rest on the whims of men who have systematically discarded anyone willing to tell them no.

The emerging global system is one in which three nuclear-armed leaders, insulated from dissent, pursue risky gambits. The result will not be the relatively stable if tense competition that characterized the Cold War. It will be something more volatile: a world in which the most consequential decisions rest on the whims of men who have systematically discarded anyone willing to tell them no.

The emerging global system is one in which three nuclear-armed leaders, insulated from dissent, pursue risky gambits. The result will not be the relatively stable if tense competition that characterized the Cold War. It will be something more volatile: a world in which the most consequential decisions rest on the whims of men who have systematically discarded anyone willing to tell them no.

In order for civil society groups to successfully leverage the private sector’s potential in uplifting democratic principles, they must learn to speak the sector’s language.