By Mohammad Rakibul Hasan
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Mar 20 2026 (IPS-Partners)
My Name is Dhaka is a one-minute experimental film portraying Dhaka as a living, breathing entity with a 400-year history. Through a reflective voice, the city recounts its transformations, crises, and resilience. It captures contrasts between pollution and celebration, hardship and hope, revealing a megacity shaped by climate change, migration, and human survival.
——————————————————————–My name is Dhaka. I am more than 400 years old. I have witnessed empires rise and fall, from Mughal glory to colonial rule, from independence to the present day. Now I carry nearly 36 million people within me. I have grown into a megacity.
I am also one of the world’s climate hotspots. My rivers swell, my heat rises, and my air grows heavier each year. I often rank among the most polluted cities in the world.
I remember the silence of the coronavirus pandemic when my streets suddenly emptied. I remember the fear and chaos of bus bombings during the political unrest of 2013 – 14. And I remember the fall of a fascist regime in 2024.
But I am not only a city of crisis. I am a city of contrasts. I hold stories of child labor and deep social injustice, where many struggle just to survive. At the same time, I celebrate life my streets burst into color during Holi, and my people find joy even in hardship.
Credit: Mohammad Rakibul Hasan
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Credit: Michaela Stache/AFP
By Samuel King
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Mar 20 2026 (IPS)
When German Chancellor Friedrich Merz opened the 62nd Munich Security Conference by declaring that the post-war rules-based order ‘no longer exists’, there was plenty of evidence to back his claim. Israel is committing genocide in Gaza in defiance of international law, Russia is four years into its illegal invasion of Ukraine, the last nuclear arms control treaty between Russia and the USA has just expired and the USA has withdrawn from 66 international bodies and commitments. Since the conference, Israel and the USA have launched another war on Iran, threatening to spark a broader regional conflict. Meanwhile the UN is undergoing a funding crisis, cutting staff and programmes, and civil society organisations that relied on US Agency for International Development funding are facing closure.
Inaugurated in 1963 as a transatlantic defence meeting, the Munich Security Conference has grown into the most significant annual global security meeting, with heads of state, foreign ministers, civil society, think tanks and the media taking part. The 2026 edition focused on the theme ‘Under Destruction’ and convened over 1,000 participants from more than 115 countries, including over 60 national leaders, alongside China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the directors of multiple UN agencies.
The conference’s Munich Security Report 2026 provided the analytical backdrop. It argued that the world has entered a period of ‘wrecking-ball politics’, with the post-1945 order being demolished by political forces that prefer disruption to reform. The report’s Munich Security Index showed the scale of the crisis. In France, Germany and the UK, absolute majorities of respondents said their government’s policies would leave future generations worse off. Across most BRICS and G7 countries, the USA is now rated as a growing risk.
In the build-up the conference, the world had been bracing for Rubio’s keynote address. Last year, US Vice President JD Vance’s aggressive speech accused European governments of suppressing free speech and aligning with political extremism, with no apparent acknowledgement of irony. Rubio took a more conciliatory tone, calling Europe America’s ‘cherished allies and oldest friends’. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she was ‘very much reassured’. Half the hall rose to applaud.
The substance of the speech, however, followed every position Vance advanced the year before. Rubio defined the transatlantic relationship not around shared democratic institutions or international law, but around ‘Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, and ancestry’. This framing drew anger from global south delegates, who understood its explicit claim of global north cultural and racial superiority, excluding the majority of humanity.
The Trump administration was making a strategic calculation, having evidently concluded that Vance’s confrontational tone had backfired, bringing Europe closer to China and making it more reluctant to endorse US-led initiatives. So it switched to a softer messenger without changing the message.
Rubio’s post-conference itinerary made the USA’s current priorities clear. He flew directly from Munich to Budapest and Bratislava to meet two nationalist leaders, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico. Both are pro-Trump and friendly towards Vladimir Putin. These are the European politicians the Trump administration considers its true allies. Now the USA is planning to fund right-wing think tanks and charities across Europe in a blatant attempt to influence the continent’s politics.
Friedrich Merz’s diagnosis led to a historic and disturbing move: he and French President Emmanuel Macron announced they’d begun talks on extending France’s nuclear umbrella to cover other European countries. This is a development it would have been hard to imagine just a year ago. For decades European countries have based their security policies on NATO and its article 5, the collective defence commitment. But the Trump administration has threatened not to respect article 5, driving European states to embark on the long and expensive process of detaching themselves from relying on NATO. Now this evidently includes the exploration of nuclear alternatives.
Von der Leyen described the move as a ‘European awakening’ and called for a ‘mutual defence clause’ to be brought to life. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for ‘hard power’ and readiness to fight if necessary. Poland’s nationalist President Karol Nawrocki said his country should get nuclear weapons. By responding in this way to the unravelling of the multilateral order, European states are further weakening the norms of non-proliferation and arms control that the post-war order sought to sustain. Responding to crisis with a second nuclear arms race could bring still further instability. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was the only European leader at the conference to warn against this.
The conference’s conclusion was that those who care about the international order must build new institutions, coalitions and frameworks that are fit for purpose and accountable to the people they are supposed to serve. This reasonable framing sidesteps crucial questions: whose interests institutions will serve, and who’s excluded as the blueprints are drawn.
Instead of a new nuclear arms race, European states’ reaction to the fraying of their old alliances with the USA must be anchored in human rights, genuine multilateralism and a commitment to international law. This will only happen if civil society is present as a partner at the table.
It’s clear the old order is broken, and those committed to human rights and opposed to militarisation and naked power politics can’t afford to be bystanders. Their responses need to be more assertive and inclusive. A new international architecture that continues to exclude civil society and sideline the global south will simply reproduce the structures that have failed to address today’s crises.
Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.
For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
A number of households are settling along the bank of a river in West Java, Indonesia. Geospatial data are critical in improving the management of water resources. Credit: Pexels/Tom Fisk
By Kareff Rafisura, Orbita Roswintiarti and Huang Qi
BANGKOK, Thailand, Mar 20 2026 (IPS)
Across Asia, new initiatives are showing how satellite Earth observation data and AI-powered technologies can turn fragmented water-related data into actionable insights for managers and policymakers in line ministries and local governments.
Only about 3% of global water quality measurements (around 60,000 out of 2 million) come from the world’s poorest regions, according to the United Nations, highlighting a persistent water data gap. Even where data exist, they are often scattered across agencies, with monitoring stations sparse and datasets rarely analysed together.
Integrating satellite observations with cognitive digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, can bring these fragmented sources into a single data and analytical pipeline, turning environmental data into timely insights that strengthen water governance and accelerate progress toward SDG 6.
Guiding smarter water infrastructure investments
One example is from Cimanuk–Cisanggarung River Basin in West Java, Indonesia. Rapid urban growth, land-use change and climate variability are increasing flood risks during the rainy season and water shortages during the dry season.
Retention ponds or small reservoirs designed to capture and store excess rainwater are widely recognized as effective solutions because they can hold excess runoff during heavy rains and provide water for irrigation and communities during dry periods.
The main policy challenge, however, is optimizing investments in retention ponds: quickly identifying the best locations and making site selection more systematic and less subjective. Conventionally, planning relies heavily on field surveys and fragmented datasets, making the process slow, costly and hard to scale.
An AI-powered tool developed by Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) and the West Java Department of Water Resources demonstrates how a single data and analytical pipeline can guide infrastructure investment decisions.
The tool combines satellite Earth observation data, including digital elevation maps, land cover maps and rainfall data, with georeferenced drainage networks and soil type information to identify locations where retention ponds can provide the most benefits for flood control and drought resilience. Socio-environmental filters exclude protected areas or sites that might cause social or legal conflicts.
To ensure the tool supports operational decision-making, the results were validated through field assessments and consultations with local stakeholders. Additionally, a mobile-based application is being developed to enable field technicians to access the outputs directly on site, improving the speed and practicality of retention pond planning.
Applying this tool shifts infrastructure planning from subjective judgment to transparent and evidence-based prioritization. Supported by capacity-building activities for local institutions, this approach enables governments to allocate resources more efficiently while enhancing the long-term resilience of water systems.
Monitoring lake ecosystems from space
While the Indonesia example shows how digital technologies can guide infrastructure investments, similar approaches are also transforming how water ecosystems are monitored and protected.
Water quality monitoring in Songkhla Lake, Thailand’s largest lagoon system and a critical resource for fisheries and aquaculture, has traditionally relied on periodic sampling at fixed stations. Expanding the coverage and frequency of monitoring data could improve early warning for ecosystem management and aquaculture.
A project, implemented by Prince of Songkla University in collaboration with local authorities, is exploring this potential on Ko Yor Island in Songkhla Lake. The initiative combines multi-source satellite remote sensing data, historical monitoring records and machine learning models to estimate key water quality parameters, such as turbidity and biochemical oxygen demand.
Satellite-based remote sensing expands the coverage and frequency of water-quality monitoring, enabling near-monthly maps rather than quarterly point measurements.
This effort draws on more than a decade of operational experience from Poyang Lake, the largest freshwater lake in China. There, Jiangxi Normal University developed a comprehensive monitoring and early warning platform integrating satellite Earth observation, drone, ground and lake-surface sources, combined with ecological data simulated by models to track the lake’s dynamic ecological security issues and overall health.
The system supports water management and the conservation of flagship species and their habitats, including migratory birds and the Yangtze finless porpoise.
From pilots to regional transformation
These pilots highlight an important trend: many of the innovative technologies needed to address water data gaps are already available. Earth observation satellite-derived data can complement ground-based observations by expanding environmental monitoring, while cognitive technologies integrate datasets into decision-ready insights.
Scaling these innovations is not only a technological challenge. As emphasized in ESCAP’s report Seizing the Opportunity: Digital Innovation for a Sustainable Future, digital innovation is a socio-technical transformation that requires the skills, institutions and partnerships to integrate technology into governance systems.
Experiences from Indonesia and Thailand illustrate how integrating satellite-derived data, geospatial analysis and artificial intelligence can simultaneously strengthen climate resilience, livelihoods and water governance. With supportive policies, stronger digital capacities and sustained regional cooperation, such approaches could be adapted and replicated in suitable contexts.
These pilots, along with exchanges of technical experience, including lessons from the Poyang Lake monitoring system, are supported through the Asia-Pacific Plan of Action on Space Applications for Sustainable Development (2018–2030).
The Asia-Pacific SDG Progress Report 2026 warns that progress across many Sustainable Development Goals remains off track, while data gaps continue to constrain effective policymaking. Strengthening water governance will depend not only on building infrastructure, but also on building the data systems and analytical capacities that guide where and how those investments are made.
Scaling proven digital innovations could therefore help turn fragmented water data into the actionable intelligence needed to accelerate progress toward SDG 6 and the broader 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Kareff Rafisura is Economic Affairs Officer (Space Applications), ESCAP; Orbita Roswintiarti is Senior Scientist, BRIN; Huang Qi is Associate Research Fellow, School of Geography and Environment, Key Laboratory of Poyang Lake Wetland and Watershed Research (Ministry of Education), Jiangxi Normal University, and Director of Nanji Wetland Field Research Station, Poyang Lake
Chaoyang Fang, Distinguished Professor, School of Geography and Environment and Chief Engineer, Key Laboratory of Poyang Lake Wetland and Watershed Research (Ministry of Education) of Jiangxi Normal University, also contributed insights to this piece.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Ce vendredi 20 mars, l’Algérie célèbre, à l’instar de nombreux pays musulmans, le premier jour de l’Aïd el-Fitr, marquant la fin du mois sacré de […]
L’article La météo du 1er jour de l’Aïd el-Fitr en Algérie : quel temps pour ce vendredi 20 mars ? est apparu en premier sur .
World Water Day 2026 (March 22) will be celebrated at a high-level event at United Nations Headquarters in New York under the theme “Water and Gender Equality”, highlighting the links between equitable water access, sustainable development and human rights. Source: UN News
By Lyla Mehta and Alan Nicole
BRIGHTON, UK, Mar 19 2026 (IPS)
The 2026 campaign on World Water Day’s focuses on Water and Gender – ‘where water flows, equality grows’ . While substantial progress has been achieved across a range of gender indicators spanning education, health and public participation, the situation around WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) is still marked by deep inequalities with women and girls disproportionately affected – and this reflects the persistence of global patriarchy.
More than 2 billion people still lack access to safely managed drinking water. In households without piped water, women and girls are made to be responsible for about 70–80% of water collection trips worldwide, taking anything from 30 minutes to four hours daily. This time can instead usefully be spent on education, productive activities or even leisure and rest, but they don’t have the choice.
The situation is even more dire for sanitation with 3.4 billion people lacking access to safely managed sanitation. All this affects women’s and girl’s dignity, safety, security and the privacy and comfort needed for dignified menstrual health management. At the same time, there is poor progress on women’s economic participation.
These patterns have remained remarkably persistent despite improvements in water and sanitation infrastructure. The sheer time and labour required for poor women and girls around WASH activities, combined with gendered inequalities and power imbalances under the persistence of patriarchy not only directly affect girls’ enrolment in education but inevitably diminishes their capacity for productive economic activity, the net impact of which worldwide is a huge dent in human development progress.
Water as a weapon of war against women and girls
Not only that, but the apparent normalisation of wars and genocides wrought largely by men means almost daily violations of international humanitarian law including the weaponisation of water and sanitation infrastructure as a target of attack. Most recently, the United States’ bombing of a freshwater desalinsation plant in Iran and retaliation by Iran on another desalination plant in Bahrain set a dangerous new precedent.
When water and sanitation infrastructure become fair game in war, as we’ve seen in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine in the last few years, existing gender inequalities around water and sanitation mean women and girls suffer most, compounding risks including sexual violence.
Male violence and malevolence are back
What we’re seeing real-time and online is something even more worrying. That is the resurgence of more explicit patriarchy desiring control over women’s lives and subjugation into traditional roles away from public life. From the slashing of Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programmes to the rollback of reproductive rights across the world from the USA to Chile, the resurgence of ‘toxic masculinity’ is forcing gender rights, feminism and equality off the agenda and they are equated with pejorative notions of ‘wokeism.’
Some institutions are already reframing debates in response. For instance, the World Bank is increasingly framing gender as about economic activity and jobs, rather than about rights. This is reflected in their new Water Mission implementation strategy that refers to employment but only mentions gender six times and women four times even though the gross inequalities in labour power and economic effects are, as stated above, so vast.
The gender backlash and reductionism in rights framings helps reinforce stereotypes and accepted norms, including the gendered division of labour in water collection, rather than confronting this more forcefully – and, at a minimum, asking why this is the case rather than accepted as a given.
If views persist that women and girls are responsible for water-related subsistence tasks, it ignores specific needs around sanitation and menstrual hygiene and increases male domination in decision-making and water management. Which is precisely what patriarchy seeking to achieve – domination and subjugation.
The rollback on funding for WASH continues
A year ago, Keir Starmer cut the UK aid budget by about 40 per cent. These cuts have been devastating for water and sanitation progress in some of the world’s poorest and most war-torn countries with direct and lasting consequences for women and girls. The cuts particularly impact countries like Sudan, Ethiopia and Palestine, already reeling from largely male-driven wars, conflicts and genocide.
It is estimated that around 12 million people will be denied access to clean water and sanitation as a result. These cuts directly affect gender equality because reduced access to water and sanitation impacts schooling, being at work and increases the risk of gender-based violence.
The UK justifies the cuts as a way to move away from direct aid around WASH to strengthening capabilities and partnerships. But these partnerships between the UK and Global South countries such as Nigeria focusing on growth, jobs and reducing aid dependency can backfire as more and more people’s health deteriorate, including more women suffering from ill health and long-term illnesses.
Ultimately, a waning collective effort to support gender equality in WASH provision opens the door to long-term decline in gender rights and economic development. Additionally, the dismantling of USAID is already having devastating consequences for gender equality and women’s health. Just when greater focus is needed on WASH projects to ensure we are not backsliding on gender rights, aid is being cut.
In sum, persistent inequalities, the gender backlash, illegal and forever wars and aid cuts lacking a moral compass have diluted global collective action on gender inequality. The least policymakers could do would be to achieve and maintain leadership that realises human rights for all in WASH provision, a substantial rationale for which has to be a big- ticket focus on the social and economic empowerment of women and girls.
Any other direction would be disastrous, enabling patriarchy and misogyny to grow even deeper roots in global society.
Professor Lyla Mehta is a Professorial Fellow at IDS and a Visiting Professor at Noragric, the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. She trained as a sociologist (University of Vienna) and has a PhD in Development Studies (University of Sussex).
Dr. Alan Nicol is the Strategic Program Leader – Promoting Sustainable Growth, at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Le tribunal d’El Harrach, à Alger, a prononcé ce jeudi des peines allant de trois à cinq ans de prison ferme à l’encontre de plusieurs […]
L’article Violences en marge de la Supercoupe : lourdes peines contre des supporters du MCA et de l’USMA est apparu en premier sur .
La page Josef Zinnbauer s’est officiellement tournée. Le technicien allemand a été limogé hier soir, au lendemain de la défaite concédée à domicile face à la […]
L’article JS Kabylie : limogé, Zinnbauer quitte le club est apparu en premier sur .
Written by Stefano De Luca.
CONTEXTTechnologies are evolving rapidly, data traffic is growing significantly, and demand for gigabit connectivity is increasing. Modern and sustainable digital infrastructures for connectivity and computing are critical enablers for digitalisation and for both industrial competitiveness and for society. High-quality, secure and resilient connectivity is needed, everywhere and for everybody in the European Union. The EU has set non-binding ‘digital decade’ targets to be reached by 2030. These include providing all EU households with access to a fixed gigabit network (with a capacity of 1 Gigabit per second – Gbps) and ensuring that all populated areas are covered by next-generation, high-speed wireless networks with performance at least equivalent to that of 5G.
On 21 January 2026, the European Commission published a proposal for a digital networks act. The proposed regulation aims to consolidate sector-specific legislation currently set out, inter alia, in the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) Regulation, the Open Internet Regulation, the ePrivacy Directive and the radio spectrum policy programme. By replacing directives with a regulation, the Commission aims to ensure uniform application of telecoms rules across all Member States.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL2026/0013(COD) – Proposal for a regulation on digital networks, amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120, Directive 2002/58/EC and Decision No 676/2002/EC and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1971, Directive (EU) 2018/1972 and Decision No 243/2012/EU (Digital Networks Act) – COM(2026) 0016 final, 21.01.2026.
NEXT STEPS IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTFor the latest developments in this legislative procedure, see the Legislative Train Schedule.
Read the complete briefing on ‘Digital networks act legislation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
The Russo-Ukrainian war, which began in February 2014, shows no signs of ending. Credit: UNOCHA/Dmytro Filipskyy
By Nickolay Kapitonenko
KYIV, Ukraine, Mar 19 2026 (IPS)
It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the tension, violence and uncertainty in the world in recent years. The number of wars is growing, more and more money is being spent on weapons, and the rhetoric of major powers is becoming increasingly decisive.
The latest escalation in the Middle East has reignited the debate about the start of World War III. The consequences of the Israeli and US strikes on Iran are being felt to varying degrees far beyond the region, at least by those who follow oil prices.
The interests of numerous great powers are at stake, and third parties are considering their next moves and making political statements. Opinions range widely, from the belief that there can be no Third World War because of the existence of nuclear weapons, to the conviction that it has already begun. So, what is really going on?
A journalistic and academic concept
When historians talk about world wars, they mean two unique events in the past. Their scale, the involvement of a wide range of states, the level of violence and the nature of the consequences put them in a league of their own.
To understand how these wars differed from any others, one need only glance at the diagram of human casualties, defence spending, or destruction in various armed conflicts of the 20th century.
However, historians also have different opinions. One of them, better known in his political capacity, Winston Churchill, once described the Seven Years’ War as a world war. This protracted 18th-century conflict drew most of the major powers of the time into direct combat; it spanned numerous battlefields in Europe, North America, the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean; and it had serious geopolitical consequences. How was this not a world war?
By the fact that it was not a total war between industrialised states, the scale of the clashes was rather limited, as were the number of armies; and the consequences, although serious, were not systemic — this may be the response of more conservative historians than the British Prime Minister.
The number of armed conflicts in the world has been growing over the past few years: 2024 has been a record year since World War II.
‘World War’ is both a journalistic and academic concept. To enhance the effect, attract attention or draw conditional analogies, it can be used to describe more events than just the First and Second World Wars. For example, the Thirty Years’ War of the 17th century, the Napoleonic Wars of the 19th century or even the Cold War are sometimes referred to as world wars.
Within this logic, individual elements of a world war can be seen even today. The number of armed conflicts in the world has been growing over the past few years: 2024 has been a record year since World War II. According to some estimates, 61 armed conflicts in 36 countries were recorded this year, which is significantly higher than the average for the previous three decades.
Global military spending is also on the rise: today it has reached 2.5 per cent of the global economy, the highest figure since 2011 and an upward trend since 2021. This is still significantly less than during the Cold War, when a range of 3 to 6 per cent was the norm. Analysing these figures, it is clear that global security has deteriorated in recent years, but how critically?
A more academic approach would be to define a world war as one in which most of the major powers are involved; which has global reach and is total in nature; leads to enormous loss and destruction; and significantly changes the world upon its conclusion. Direct and large-scale armed conflict between major powers is a mandatory criterion.
And this is the main argument against the idea that World War III has already begun. No matter how high the level of destabilisation in the modern world, no matter how far large-scale regional conflicts have escalated, and no matter how much money states spend on armaments, this is not enough for a world war. Large-scale military operations involving major powers are needed.
All just fears?
This has not happened in the world for a long time. The interval between the Second and Third World Wars turned out to be much longer than between the First and Second. Nuclear weapons played a central role in this, raising the price of war so high that major powers began to avoid it by any means possible. This safeguard has been in place for over 80 years and looks set to continue.
Peace, or rather the absence of war between major powers, remains one of the central elements of the current international order. International institutions and regimes may collapse or weaken, regional wars may break out, but the likelihood of war between major powers remains extremely low.
Proponents of the Third World War theory sometimes point out that even in the absence of full-scale war between major powers, other manifestations occur: hybrid wars, cyberattacks, or proxy wars. This is true, but all these outbreaks of conflict are several levels below a world war in terms of their destructive potential and are not total in nature.
Throughout history, states have fought through proxies or resorted to information, trade or religious wars, but we do not consider these wars to be world wars — except in a symbolic sense.
A systemic war does not necessarily have to be a world war
Unlike the 2003 war in Iraq, the strikes on Iran are taking place in a world where, instead of US hegemony, there is complex competition between at least two centres of power. This adds nuances and forces other states to respond, directly or indirectly, for example, by supplying weapons or intelligence data, supporting one side or the other.
But this does not make the war global. Arms supplies, for example, are a common practice found in most regional conflicts, as is diplomatic or financial support from allies or partners. Even if American troops use the technology or expertise of partners – such as Ukrainian drones – this does not mean that Ukraine is being drawn into the war. Just as American arms supplies to Ukraine during the Russian-Ukrainian war did not mean US involvement in the war.
For a world war, the key ingredient is still missing: direct confrontation between major powers. In addition to world wars, there are also systemic wars. In these conflicts, it is not so much the scale that is important as the change in the international order to which they lead.
The Thirty Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the First and Second World Wars mentioned above were systemic wars: after their completion, the rules of international politics were rewritten and new ones were adopted at peace conferences and congresses. A systemic war does not necessarily have to be a world war.
Moments of hegemonic crisis and the beginning of the struggle for hegemony always carry with them the danger of new wars, arms races and escalations.
The current destabilisation and growth of various risks are largely linked to the struggle for the future of the international order. The United States and China have almost fallen into the ‘Thucydides trap’ — a strategic logic similar to that which led to the Peloponnesian War in the 5th century BC. At that time, the narrowing of the power gap between the hegemon and the challenger forced the Spartans to start a preventive war.
Today, there are well-founded fears that the decline of American hegemony, the rise of China and the approach of a bipolar world will sharply increase the likelihood of direct armed conflict between the superpowers.
The decisive, to put it mildly, steps taken by the US administration can also be considered preventive actions aimed at strategically weakening China’s position while Washington still has the upper hand. Such moments of hegemonic crisis and the beginning of the struggle for hegemony always carry with them the danger of new wars, arms races and escalations.
We are in the midst of such a crisis. It is systemic in the sense that it is not just a collection of regional conflicts in different parts of the world, which have become more numerous, but a manifestation of a large-scale redistribution of influence and power on a global scale. This redistribution will entail changes in the international order, because the rules of the game are linked to the balance of power.
If, at some point, the leaders of major states decide that it is worth taking the risk of war and paying the price, the systemic crisis will turn into a world war. But this, as the Spartans themselves said, is ‘if’.
Nickolay Kapitonenko is an associate professor at the Institute of International Relations at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv and director of the Centre for International Relations Studies.
Source: International Politics and Society, Brussels
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau