European Union

Trump has issued the Iranian leadership with an ultimatum, saying that unless the Strait of Hormuz is reopened by Tuesday night, power stations and bridges across Iran will be destroyed. Israel has also warned the Iranians on X to keep away from trains and railway stations. The UN is calling for a ceasefire and warning against violations of international law. Alarm bells are ringing in Europe's press.

Hungary has entered the final week in the run-up to next Sunday's general election. The polls put Péter Magyar's centre-right opposition party, Tisza, well ahead of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz, which has been ruling the country in an increasingly authoritarian manner for the past 16 years. Europe's media discuss the wider implications of the election beyond Hungary's borders.

La jeune fille était tellement bouleversée par cet incident qu'elle ne l'a pas signalé à ses parents.

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Japan, Apr 7 2026 (IPS)

As tensions surrounding Iran deepen and uncertainty spreads across global energy markets, Japan is once again confronting a structural weakness: its heavy dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

For decades, Japan has relied on crude imports from a region repeatedly shaken by war, confrontation and instability. With the stability of the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters once again under threat, Tokyo is accelerating efforts to diversify both supply sources and transport routes. In that process, Kazakhstan has emerged as an increasingly important partner.

Yet the strengthening relationship between Japan and Kazakhstan is not limited to oil, uranium or logistics. It also has a deeper historical and ethical dimension. Both countries carry the memory of nuclear suffering and have sought to transform that memory into a foundation for dialogue, cooperation and advocacy for peace.

Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue” (CA+JAD) Credit: Primi Minister’s Office of Japan

Japan’s growing interest in Central Asia was not triggered directly by the current Iran crisis. In December 2025, Japan hosted the “Central Asia plus Japan” summit in Tokyo and adopted the Tokyo Declaration. There, strengthening critical mineral supply chains and diversifying transport routes were set out as strategic priorities.

That framework has since taken on even greater urgency.

One important element is the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, the so-called Middle Corridor. Connecting Central Asia and Europe without passing through Russia, this route has drawn attention as a new transport channel for energy and strategic goods. In an era shaped by war, sanctions, shipping disruptions and intensifying rivalry among major powers, such corridors have become increasingly important for Japan.

Kazakhstan stands at the center of this calculation.

Middle Corridor. Credit: TITR

Japanese energy interests are already present in the Caspian region. INPEX, a Japanese company, holds stakes in major oil projects including Kazakhstan’s Kashagan field and Azerbaijan’s ACG field. Crude from these fields could serve as an alternative supply source to Middle Eastern oil for Japan. In addition, routes through the Caspian and Mediterranean can avoid the Strait of Hormuz, although that means longer transport times and higher shipping costs.

Karipbek Kuyukov(2nd from left) and Dmitriy Vesselov(2nd from right). Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

This reflects a shift in Japanese thinking. Diversification is no longer simply about finding new supplier countries. It is also about reducing the vulnerabilities embedded in the geography of trade itself.

Even so, energy alone cannot fully explain the distinctiveness of Japan-Kazakhstan ties.

What gives this relationship unusual depth is their shared historical experience of nuclear suffering. Kazakhstan endured the grave consequences of 456 nuclear tests conducted at the Semipalatinsk test site during the Soviet era. Japan remains the only country ever attacked with atomic bombs in wartime, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki continue to stand as enduring symbols of the catastrophic human cost of nuclear weapons.

The two histories are different. But the ethical language that emerged from them has much in common.

The remains of the Prefectural Industry Promotion Building, after the dropping of the atomic bomb, in Hiroshima, Japan. This site was later preserved as a monument. Credit: UN Photo/DB

Over the years, Kazakhstan has worked with civil society actors, including the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to draw attention to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear testing. Through conferences, exhibitions and testimony, these experiences have continued to be made visible in international discourse. That is especially significant at a time when nuclear debates are often narrowed to deterrence theory and geopolitical rivalry.

What matters here is the “dialogue” dimension of Kazakhstan’s diplomacy.

A Group photo of participants of the regional conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear-free-zone in Central Asia held on August 29, 2023. Credit: Jibek Joly TV Channel

Through the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, held in Astana since 2003, Kazakhstan has sought to position itself not merely as a supplier of resources or a transit country, but as a hub for dialogue across political, religious and civilizational divides. This initiative has become part of the country’s diplomatic identity, grounded in denuclearization, mediation and coexistence.

For Japan, this adds another layer to Kazakhstan’s significance. Kazakhstan is not only a country with oil, uranium and transport routes. It is also a state that has sought to transform its own history of suffering into diplomacy centered on peace, trust and human security.

7th Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions Group Photo by Secretariate of the 7th Congress

This approach resonates with the realities of today’s world, where multiple crises overlap.

Credit: akorda.kz

As Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has warned, nuclear risks are rising again. At the same time, energy insecurity, supply-chain fragility and geopolitical fragmentation are all intensifying. These are no longer separate policy issues. They are now deeply intertwined.

In this context, the relationship between Japan and Kazakhstan carries a broader lesson.

Cooperation between states does not have to be shaped only by economic and strategic interests. It can also incorporate shared memory, moral purpose and a commitment to dialogue. In practical terms, that means cooperation on energy and transport. Politically, it means contributing to a more stable and diversified regional order. Humanitarianly, it means sustaining the argument that security must not be separated from its human consequences.

Of course, this relationship is not free from limits or contradictions. Alternative routes are costly. State behavior is still heavily shaped by strategic calculation. Dialogue alone cannot neutralize the pressures of war.

Even so, in an international environment marked by fragmentation, coercion and renewed nuclear anxiety, the growing closeness between Japan and Kazakhstan means more than a tactical adjustment. It is also an attempt to connect realism with responsibility.

That is why this relationship deserves attention.

At a time when many countries are retreating into narrower and more inward-looking definitions of national interest, Japan and Kazakhstan are seeking to build a partnership that links resource security and diplomacy, memory and strategy, and national resilience with the search for peace.

Credit: UN photo

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

With instability around Iran exposing Japan’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil, Tokyo is deepening ties with Kazakhstan in search of more resilient supply chains, alternative energy routes and renewed cooperation on nuclear disarmament.

Heiner Janus and Daniel Esser argue that the rush to devise a strategy for Iran is bound to run into bureaucratic pathologies that drive failures in intelligence and foreign aid alike: manufactured urgency and institutional whitewashing.

Bonn, 7. April 2026. In einer Zeit wachsender geopolitischer Fragmentierung wird sich zeigen, ob Regierungen globale Gesundheit als globales öffentliches Gut verteidigen oder sie geopolitischen Interessen unterordnen.

Zum Weltgesundheitstag 2026 ruft die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) weltweit dazu auf: „Together for health. Stand with science.“ Für die WHO heißt das, nicht nur wissenschaftliche Evidenz zu respektieren, sondern auch Kooperation und Vertrauen zu sichern, die wirksames globales gesundheitspolitisches Handeln ermöglichen. Das ist die richtige Botschaft. In einer zunehmend fragmentierten geopolitischen Landschaft ist jedoch entscheidend, ob Regierungen noch bereit sind, Kooperation, Vertrauen und Institutionen zu verteidigen, auf die die globale Gesundheitsforschung angewiesen bleibt.

Globale Gesundheitsforschung kann Leben retten, Resilienz stärken und erhebliche gesellschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Erträge schaffen. Doch diese Gewinne setzen voraus, dass Staaten Wissen teilen, Vertrauen aufbauen und Evidenz in kollektives Handeln übersetzen. Genau das wird schwieriger. Globale Gesundheit gerät zunehmend unter den Druck geopolitischer Rivalitäten und transaktionaler Formen der Zusammenarbeit. In einem solchen Umfeld droht Wissenschaft der Logik von Macht und Verhandlung untergeordnet zu werden: Datenaustausch wird an Bedingungen geknüpft, epidemiologische Überwachung politisiert und Forschungspartnerschaften werden asymmetrischer.

Der Austritt der Vereinigten Staaten aus der WHO und die jüngsten bilateralen Gesundheitsabkommen der Trump-Regierung zeigen, wie weit diese Entwicklung bereits reicht. Globale Gesundheit wird von einem Feld internationaler Solidarität zunehmend zu einem Instrument geopolitischer Einflussnahme. Die US-Regierung hat mit 14 afrikanischen Staaten transaktionale Gesundheitsabkommen geschlossen, die erhebliche Risiken für Souveränität, Datenhoheit und Versorgungssicherheit mit sich bringen. Gleichzeitig sind Partnerländer keineswegs ohne Handlungsmacht. Sambia widersetzte sich einem Vorschlag, Gesundheitsfinanzierung an den Zugang zu Kupfer und Kobalt zu knüpfen. In Kenia verzögerte die gerichtliche Überprüfung die Umsetzung eines Gesundheitsabkommens mit den Vereinigten Staaten. Solche Deals erschweren nicht nur die Zusammenarbeit zum Schutz globaler Gesundheit. Sie untergraben auch die multilaterale Grundlage für die Prävention und Bewältigung von Pandemien, antimikrobiellen Resistenzen und klimabedingten Gesundheitsrisiken.

Diese Entwicklung hat direkte Folgen für die deutsche globale Gesundheitspolitik. Die Frage ist nicht mehr nur, ob Deutschland globale Gesundheit unterstützt. Entscheidend ist auch, die politischen und institutionellen Voraussetzungen zu schützen, unter denen Wissenschaft grenzüberschreitend wirken kann: Datenaustausch, verlässliche epidemiologische Überwachung, kooperative Forschung und Institutionen, die Evidenz in politisches Handeln übersetzen.

Der jüngste Review der deutschen Strategie zu globaler Gesundheit ist deshalb wichtig. Sie bekräftigt die Bedeutung globaler Gesundheit und setzt bis 2030 stärkere Akzente bei Prävention, klimaresilienten Gesundheitssystemen, Pandemievorsorge und multilateraler Gesundheitsgovernance. Auch die neue BMZ-Strategie setzt stärker auf Reform der globalen Gesundheitsarchitektur, Arbeitsteilung mit anderen Gebern und multilaterale Ansätze. Im Grundsatz ist das richtig. Der eigentliche Test ist jedoch die Kohärenz: ob dem höheren Anspruch auch Umsetzung folgt. Drei Punkte sind dabei wichtig:

Erstens sollte Deutschland über seine traditionelle Geberrolle hinausdenken und einen stärker reformorientierten Ansatz verfolgen. Sein finanzielles und politisches Gewicht könnte nicht nur dazu dienen, bestehende globale Gesundheitsinstitutionen zu erhalten, sondern auch dazu, Organisationen wie Gavi und den Global Fund besser aufeinander abzustimmen und wirksamer aufzustellen. Dazu würde auch eine engere Zusammenarbeit im Sinne der Lusaka Agenda gehören, mit dem klaren Ziel, Fragmentierung für Partnerländer zu verringern.

Zweitens sollte Deutschland wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse über die Wechselwirkungen zwischen Umwelt und menschlicher Gesundheit ernst nehmen und eine One-Health-Logik noch konsequenter in die Umsetzung integrieren. Dadurch ließen sich Prävention und Bewältigung systematischer mit Klima-, Wasser- und Umweltgesundheit verknüpfen. Andernfalls drohen breitere ökologische und soziale Ursachen gesundheitlicher Risiken – von Entwaldung und Biodiversitätsverlust über den Klimawandel bis hin zur intensiven Landwirtschaft – unzureichend berücksichtigt zu bleiben.

Drittens spricht vieles dafür, bilaterales Engagement neben multilateralen Ansätzen gerade in fragilen Kontexten zu erhalten, in denen lokale Verankerung, Flexibilität und politische Reaktionsfähigkeit oft entscheidend sind. Das ist nicht nur für eine wirksame Umsetzung wichtig, sondern auch für die vertrauensvollen Beziehungen, auf denen Datenaustausch und wissenschaftliche Zusammenarbeit häufig beruhen. So könnte Deutschland multilaterale Stärke mit lokaler Handlungsfähigkeit verbinden, wo multilaterale Institutionen allein oft nicht schnell genug reagieren können.

Der Weltgesundheitstag 2026 trägt damit eine klare politische Botschaft. Zur Wissenschaft zu stehen bedeutet mehr, als wissenschaftliche Evidenz anzuerkennen. Es bedeutet, das Vertrauen, die Fairness und die Institutionen zu verteidigen, die Wissenschaft in den Dienst des Gemeinwohls stellen. In einer Zeit wachsender geopolitischer Fragmentierung wird sich zeigen, ob Regierungen globale Gesundheit als globales öffentliches Gut verteidigen oder sie geopolitischen Interessen unterordnen.

An artisan puts final touches to the monument of Magawa, a Tanzanian-born bomb-sniffing rat. Credit: APOPO

By Kizito Makoye
MOROGORO, Tanzania , Apr 7 2026 (IPS)

At Mazimbu village, not far from Tanzania’s Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), Stephano Jaka still remembers the night he trapped and killed a rat that had been feasting on his maize cobs – stored in a meticulously woven basket designed to protect grains from rodents.
“I felt a big sense of relief when I finally killed it. It had been causing huge losses to my family,” he tells IPS.

Thousands of kilometres away in Siem Reap, Cambodia, farmers were among the dignitaries invited on Saturday to honour a Tanzanian-born rat for detecting hundreds of landmines, helping to clear swathes of land for farming.

Where farmers in Tanzania’s Morogoro region still perceive rats as destructive creatures threatening their livelihoods, communities in Cambodia embrace one of the species as a life-saving hero – underscoring how a despised animal has come to embody entirely different meanings across continents.

Cambodia remains one of the world’s most landmine-infested countries, with millions of explosives still buried underground, making large areas unsafe for farming, settlement and development.

On the eve of the International Day for Mine Awareness, a 2.2-metre statue – the world’s first public monument dedicated to a life-saving rat – was unveiled. The monument honours Magawa, whose bomb-sniffing career began after a yearlong stint at Sokoine University. He was hailed not as a crop-raiding pest but as an unlikely hero whose extraordinary sense of smell helped uncover hidden dangers.

For years, Magawa worked across some of Cambodia’s most dangerous terrain, detecting more than 100 landmines and helping to make large areas safe before his death in 2022. He remains the only rat ever awarded the PDSA Gold Medal for bravery.

Carved from local stone by Cambodian artisans, the statue shows Magawa wearing his medal and operational harness. Its base incorporates fragments of decommissioned explosives, symbolising the threat he helped eliminate. Erected in central Siem Reap, the monument also directs visitors to APOPO’s centre, where they can learn about the rats’ work and the ongoing impact of landmines.

“Magawa became a global symbol of hope for Cambodia’s mine-affected communities. This statue honours his extraordinary service and the work of all APOPO HeroRATs who continue to save lives in Cambodia and around the world — step by step, life by life,” said Christophe Cox, founder of APOPO.

The tribute also serves as a reminder that millions of landmines remain buried, and efforts to clear them continue despite limited resources.

Magawa was trained by APOPO, a non-governmental organisation that deploys African giant pouched rats to detect explosives. Because they are too light to trigger landmines, the animals can safely search contaminated areas far more quickly than conventional methods.

Born at Sokoine University of Agriculture in Morogoro, Magawa showed early promise before being deployed to Cambodia in 2016, where he became one of the most successful detection animals in the programme.

In heavily affected regions such as Battambang, land once considered too dangerous has been cleared and returned to productive use, allowing communities to rebuild livelihoods and restore a sense of normalcy.

Magawa’s work also highlights a broader story of African innovation contributing to global solutions, with a programme developed in Tanzania now supporting mine clearance efforts in several countries.

Although Magawa died in 2022, other trained rats continue the work, helping to reduce the threat posed by unexploded landmines.

Residents of Morogoro spoke with a mix of pride, curiosity and quiet awe when reflecting on the global recognition of Magawa, the giant African pouched rat whose work in Cambodia has saved countless lives.

“Who would have thought a rat from our region could become a global hero?” said Jaka. “Here, rats are something we chase away. But Magawa has changed that story completely. He has shown us that even the smallest creatures can carry the biggest responsibilities.”

At the Morogoro main market, trader Rehema Msuya said Magawa’s story had sparked new conversations among residents about science and innovation.

“People now talk about rats differently,” she said. “We used to see them only as destructive. But this one saved lives and detected danger where machines sometimes fail. It makes you proud, knowing such intelligence can come from a rat.”

For some, Magawa’s legacy goes beyond admiration, emphasising the possibilities often overlooked.

“Magawa represents Africa in a very powerful way,” said Dar es Salaam-based secondary school teacher Godfrey Lwambano. “We often underestimate what we have – our environment, our knowledge, even our animals. Yet here is a creature trained with patience and care, going on to clear deadly landmines and protect communities far away.”

Young people in Morogoro, too, say the story touched them.

“When I first heard about him, I thought it was a joke,” said 22-year-old university student Neema Kibwana. “But when I learnt he worked for years detecting mines and even received awards, I was inspired. It shows that impact doesn’t depend on size or status.”

As the story of Magawa circulates in Tanzania and beyond, it continues to challenge long-held perceptions – transforming an animal once seen only as a pest into a symbol of ingenuity, resilience and hope.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Anis Chowdhury
SYDNEY, Apr 7 2026 (IPS)

Bangladesh is scheduled to graduate from the least developed country (LDC) status in November this year after more than half a century. Bangladesh joined the UN club of LDCs in 1975 and consistently met all three graduation criteria – per capita Gross National Income (GNI), human asset and economic vulnerability – since 2018.

Anis Chowdhury

However, there is resistance and the current government has requested the UN for a delay. This is not surprising given the capture of the state by the business class, especially the ready-made garments (RMG) sector. In FY 2024-25 alone, the RMG sector received more than USD 1.3 million (BDT 16 crore) in cash subsidies and tax concessions despite the Interim Government’s effort to gradually phase out cash incentives.

RMG’s dominance and failure to diversify

Bangladesh is indeed a leading, often the highest, user of Duty-Free Quota-Free (DFQF) facilities among LDCs, largely driving its RMG sector growth through the European Union (EU)’s Everything But Arms (EBA) scheme. This reliance on preferential access has made Bangladesh a dominant exporter among LDCs.

However, the RMG sector’s dominance also made Bangladesh highly vulnerable. In the late 1970s when the RMG sector started its journey, it accounted for less than 5% of Bangladesh’s total exports. By the end of the 1990s, this proportion had reached about three-fourths. After more than four decades, since 2013, it has been hovering between 80-85%, according to the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA).

Bangladesh’s heavy reliance on a single export item makes its export basket one of the least diversified among the global economies. This is starkly different from South Korea, a country from which Bangladesh received technical assistance to usher in its RMG sector. South Korea’s textile industry accounted for 33.3% of exports in 1970; it declined to 22.6% within two decades in 1990 as the economy diversified. By 1975 South Korea became a major exporter of electrical machinery and appliances, transport equipment and various other manufacturing products.

Bangladesh’s vulnerability does not arise only from its export product concentration. Bangladesh’s export market is also not diversified with close to 60% going to the EU and UK with apparel comprising more than 90%. The USA, which does not provide any LDC related preferential market access, accounts for about 16% Bangladesh’s exports.

Here, too, Bangladesh’s experience differs from that of South Korea. With the diversification of the economy, South Korea’s exports by destination also became less concentrated. For example, while around 63% of South Korea’s export went to Japan alone in 1960, the combined market share of Japan and the USA fell to around 56% by 1975.

The South Korean State’s autonomy from groups with a vested interest is well documented. Thus, its policies were driven by broader national interest. On the other hand, Bangladesh’s policy space has been captured by the RMG sector.

Undoubtedly, the preferential treatment by the state helped the RMG sector expand rapidly; but at the high cost of failure to diversify. Professor Munir Quddus of Prairie View A&M University and President, Bangladesh Development Initiative (BDI) compared the RMG sector’s support environment with Leather exports to demonstrate the RMG sector’s state capture. His findings, summarized below, are revealing:

The usual justification for such preferential treatment is that RMG is the “largest export sector and foreign exchange earner”. But the argument is perverse. Given some of these subsidies have been in existence for nearly 50 years, prudent policymaking demands that it is high time to redirect scarce resources to support other potentially dynamic export sectors.

Being used to state support, the RMG sector ignored the need for raising productivity. The sector’s average labour productivity is lower than Bangladesh’s competitor countries except Cambodia. The sector’s compliance with the environmental and labour standards has also come under scrutiny. However, it seems by becoming too big through state support, the sector’s demand cannot be ignored.

The cosy relationship between the RMG sector leaders and the fallen kleptocratic regime is well-known. The regime allowed them to flourish through loan defaults and state subsidies and in return the business leaders were cheering on the fascist regime hoping to see its continuation. Understandably, they were fearful that they might not enjoy the same crony relationship with the Interim Government led by Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus; thus, they cried foul and campaigned for a postponement of LDC graduation.

LDC graduation as structural transformation

The Interim Government accepted the White Paper’s recommendation and viewed the LDC graduation momentum as an opportunity to accelerate structural transformation of the economy. Despite bureaucratic inertia, it did succeed in improving business environment, such as significant reductions in times to obtain business licenses/certificates/permits, simplifications of customs procedures and fast-tracked implementation of national logistic and national tariff policies. It also identified the bottlenecks for potential sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, leather & footwear, electronics, light engineering and fishing & agro-based industries and took measures to remove or ease them.

No doubt a lot still needs to be done as part of an ongoing process of reform and policy adjustment. But that cannot be used as a justification to request a delay on the basis that the preparation is inadequate, particularly when Bangladesh’s macroeconomic performance is far better than the most LDCs, including Nepal and Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), the two countries scheduled to graduate along with Bangladesh.

Thanks to the macroeconomic management of the Interim Government which succeeded in preventing a total collapse of the economy; it restored discipline in the financial and banking sector, rebuilt the country’s foreign exchange reserves, stabilized the exchange rate and earned the confidence of international financial leaders to re-open trade financing and maintain foreign investment inflows. It earned the diaspora community’s confidence resulting in increased remittances. The Interim Government concluded Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Japan in record time, ensuring duty-free market access for 99.9% of its products. It also initiated EPA talks with other major trade partners, including the EU.

Graduation delay: Bad signal for LDCs and win for vested interest

The UN-DESA uses three criteria for LDCs – GNI per capita, human asset index (HAI) and economic vulnerability index (EVI). Its evaluation in February 2025 shows that Bangladesh is in a much better position than Nepal and Lao PDR in terms of GNI per capita and EVI. Bangladesh with higher GNI per capita is economically less vulnerable than Nepal and Lao PDR, both of which suffer from additional disadvantages of landlockedness.

Bangladesh’s economy is projected to grow at a faster rate (around 5.0%–5.1% in FY 2005-26 and 5.7% in FY 2026-27 according to the ADB) than both Nepal and Lao PDR despite slightly elevated inflation rates. Bangladesh also performs better in logistics, ranked 88th out of 139 countries by the World Bank compared to Nepal’s rank of 114th and Lao PDR’s 115th. Bangladesh also has better productive capacity according to the UNCTAD’s productive capacity index.

Bangladesh will continue to enjoy DFQF market access for three more years after its graduation as endorsed by the WTO. Australia and Canada indicated extended periods of DFQF access until at least 2034. The UK will allow 92% Bangladesh products duty-free access after 2029. Therefore, a delay for a better performing Bangladesh will be a bad signal for the LDCs aspiring to graduate from LDC status.

It will also mean a win for the vested interest groups and stalling of the momentum towards accelerated structural transformation. The state capture by the RMG sector has already become clear; a highly professional and successful central bank governor has been replaced with a failed (loan defaulter) garment sector businessperson with no background in banking or international macroeconomics. The Transparency International Bangladesh views “such a decision risks turning the central bank once again into an instrument of business lobbies dependent on defaulted loans and political connections, rather than safeguarding national interest, as was the case during the authoritarian kleptocratic regime”.

Bangladesh will be better off spending its diplomatic efforts to secure GSP+ facilities in the EU and EPA with its trading partners instead of lobbying for a LDC graduation delay. It should worry more about EU’s new, stricter and mandatory Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) regulations. Whereas ESG failure may cost Bangladesh 30% of EU exports, strict compliance can function as powerful catalysts for production upgrading and accelerating structural transformation while achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Anis Chowdhury, Emeritus Professor, Western Sydney University (Australia). He held senior UN positions in Bangkok and New York and served as Special Assistant to the Chief Advisor for Finance (with the status and rank of State Minister) in the Professor Yunus-led Interim Government. E-mail: anis.z.chowdhury@gmail.com

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Workers in Kiribati were building sea walls to protect against rising sea levels from climate change. Credit: UNFPA/Carly Learson

By Andie Fong Toy, Nobuko Kajiura and Peter Emberson
BANGKOK, Thailand, Apr 7 2026 (IPS)

Rising seas, intensifying storms, saltwater intrusion and shifting coastlines are the lived realities of Pacific communities today. Families are making difficult decisions about whether to stay, adapt or move. Some communities have already relocated. Others are preparing for that possibility. Many are determined to stay for as long as possible on lands that hold ancestral meaning and identity.

Climate mobility is not simply a policy category. It is about people, culture, dignity and the future of Pacific societies. With the endorsement of the Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility in 2023, Pacific leaders articulated a collective approach grounded in human rights, community leadership and regional solidarity.

But frameworks alone do not move communities to safer ground. Implementation does.

A Pacific vision anchored in community

At the heart of the Framework is a simple but powerful principle: Climate mobility must be guided by the voices and priorities of Pacific communities themselves. This is not abstract diplomacy. It reflects lived experience, where communities are asking how to preserve identity, protect livelihoods and ensure that mobility, if necessary, occurs with dignity rather than desperation.

The Framework seeks to ensure that these decisions are not forced by crisis, but shaped through planning, consultation and collective responsibility. Mobility has long histories through voyaging and internal migration in the Pacific, but climate change introduces new pressures requiring coordinated governance.

Stories from community representatives who have already experienced planned relocation show that this is not merely a technical exercise. It is a human process touching identity, belonging, spirituality and intergenerational memory.

A deeply personal story shared by people forced to leave their village during a period of social conflict in Fiji’s colonial past is a reminder that movement has long been part of human history. What matters is whether that movement occurs with dignity, opportunity and support, or under conditions of hardship and loss.

Climate mobility policy, when relocation becomes necessary, should open pathways to resilience rather than trauma.

A regional responsibility

Communities across the Pacific face similar challenges, yet each context is unique. Regional cooperation allows sharing lessons, strengthening capacities and solidarity expressed in practical ways.

But collaboration must also be genuine.

The Pacific has long benefited from strong partnerships with development partners, including technical work that contributed to the development of the Framework.

Yet, a quiet caution as implementation begins. Climate mobility cannot become another item on the international development checklist.

Too often, global processes risk becoming procedural: workshops are convened, reports produced, partnerships announced, while communities remain marginal in decision-making.

This approach will not suffice. Partners must genuinely listen. Communities, relocated or contemplating relocation, carry knowledge that cannot be replicated in technical reports. Their experiences reveal the social, cultural and emotional dimensions of mobility that policy frameworks must address.

Effective climate mobility governance requires sustained cooperation across institutions and sectors, civil society practitioners and various development partners. No single agency can carry this work alone.

But coordination must be guided by humility. International partners must recognise that Pacific communities are not passive beneficiaries of policy. They are custodians of knowledge and agents of their own futures.

The global context: A critical moment

Later this year, the global climate community will gather once again for negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change when the human dimensions of climate change are becoming increasingly visible around the world.

Yet global governance mechanisms for addressing these realities of climate-driven displacement and migration remain fragmented.

The Pacific’s approach offers important lessons.

Pacific leaders have proactively confronted the issue, acknowledging mobility as part of the climate response landscape while emphasising rights, dignity and community agency.

The Pre-COP dialogue, to be hosted by Fiji and Tuvalu, provides an opportunity to bring Pacific perspectives into the global climate negotiation process directly, reminding the international community that climate mobility is not an abstract concept.

From framework to action

The Implementation Plan for the Framework is in place. Governance mechanisms are emerging through technical working groups and partnership platforms.

Now these commitments must translate into real outcomes for communities.

This means investing in community-led planning processes, supporting governments to strengthen legal and institutional frameworks and ensuring that relocation, where necessary, is accompanied by adequate resources, land access and long-term livelihood opportunities.

It also means recognising that mobility is only one part of the broader climate resilience agenda. Many Pacific communities remain determined to stay on their lands for as long as possible, supported by adaptation measures and protective infrastructure.

Climate mobility policy must therefore operate alongside, not instead of, ambitious climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.

The ball is now in our court

The Pacific has demonstrated leadership in confronting the complex dimensions of climate change, but implementation will require sustained commitment from governments, development partners, regional organisations and communities themselves.

The ball is now in the court of all stakeholders and partners.

Engagement must be genuine. Partnerships must be meaningful. Listening must precede action.

Above all, the work must remain anchored in the aspirations and dignity of Pacific peoples.

Climate mobility is not simply about moving people. It is about safeguarding cultures, protecting rights, and ensuring that communities can navigate a changing climate with agency and hope.

Andie Fong Toy is Head of ESCAP Subregional Office for the Pacific); Nobuko Kajiura is Economic Affairs Officer, ESCAP Subregional Office for the Pacific and Peter Emberson is Consultant, ESCAP Subregional Office for the Pacific.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Avec l'acquisition de missiles hypersoniques chinois intégrés à ses MiG-29, la Serbie inquiète ses voisins. Entre rivalité militaire avec la Croatie, tensions persistantes avec le Kosovo et stratégie d'équilibre entre Chine et Occident, à quel jeu joue Belgrade ?

- Articles / Radio Slobodna Evropa, Serbie, Défense, police et justice, Relations régionales

Credit: US Department of Defense / Wiki Commons

By Herbert Wulf
Apr 6 2026 (IPS)

 
Donald Trump ran on a platform of ending wars. After his success in Venezuela, he is intoxicated by his military achievements and is banking on regime change in several countries.

In a swift and decisive move, US forces abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife to the United States. The current government in Caracas has little choice but to largely submit to Washington’s dictates. Trump’s motives for the war against Iran remain unclear, partly because the US president has cited various reasons: to finally destroy the Iranian nuclear program, to end the Iranian threat to the Middle East, to support the Iranian people, and to overthrow the terrible regime in Tehran. He remains vague about his reasoning and seems to make off the cuff suggestions for regime change. Trump had a lofty idea at how he envisions the end of this war. He has suggested “unconditional surrender,” followed by his personal involvement in the selection of a successor: I must be involved in picking Iran’s next leader.

The swift victory against Iran failed to materialize, an end to the war is not in sight, and a new leader has been chosen without Trump’s involvement. The structures of the mullah regime appear so entrenched that the anticipated regime change following the rapid decapitation of the leadership did not occur. Yet Donald Trump had proclaimed: “What we did in Venezuela is, in my opinion, the perfect, the perfect scenario.” The Atlantic calls this attitude a “hostile corporate takeover of an entire country”. Now the US government expects Cuba to surrender. “I think I could do anything I want” with Cuba, Trump declared, now that the island is virtually cut off from energy supplies and its economy is in ruins. He is demanding the removal of Cuban President Diaz-Canel.

In the business world hostile corporate takeovers sometimes work, sometimes they fail. Similarly with Trump’s idea of swift government surrenders. In the case of Iran, he was misguided by the Wall Street playbook. Irresponsibly, he called on Iranians to overthrow the government before the bombing campaign started. Regime change in Iran has now been forgotten and Trump is agnostic about democracy. He is interested to get the oil price down and the stock market up.

Lessons from the past

The concept of regime change—replacing the top of the government to install one more agreeable to the US—is not new to US foreign policy. Proponents of regime change usually point to Japan and Germany as positive examples of successful democratization. Often, however, the goal is not, or at least not primarily, democratization, but rather the installation of a government that is ideologically close to the US or amenable to them. But the “Trump Corollary”, as explicitly stated in the National Security Strategy to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, is not new either. In reality, it was already the Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush doctrine.

Both Trump’s idea of regime change and his rigorously pursued territorial ambitions (Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal) are reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, particularly the version of this doctrine expanded by President Roosevelt in 1904. This doctrine legitimized American interventions in Latin America. At the beginning of the 20th century, the US intervened in numerous Latin American countries in ‘its backyard’, using military and intelligence means: in Colombia, to support Panamanian separatists in controlling the Panama Canal; repeatedly in the Dominican Republic; they occupied Cuba from 1906 to 1909 and intervened there repeatedly afterward; in Nicaragua during the so-called ‘Banana War’, to protect the interests of the US company United Fruit; in Mexico, as well as in Haiti and Honduras.

The New York Times recently suggested that Trump’s current enthusiasm for regime change is most comparable to that of Dwight D. Eisenhower. During his two terms in office from 1953 to 1961, the once coldly calculating general allowed himself to be seduced into a downward spiral from one coup to the next. In 1953, the US succeeded in overthrowing the elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh with Operation Ajax. Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the British-owned oil industry. The coup succeeded with CIA support. The US installed the Shah as its puppet. He ruled with absolute power until the so-called Iranian Revolution and the dictatorship of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. After the successful overthrow of the government in Iran, Eisenhower decided to intervene in Guatemala. The elected president, Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, who initiated far-reaching land reform laws, was overthrown in a coup d’état in 1954 and replaced by the pro-American colonel, Castillo Armas.

During this period, the US government also formulated the so-called domino theory, which aimed to prevent governments, particularly in Asia, from aligning themselves with the Soviet Union. The assumption was that if one domino fell, others would follow. It was during this time that the costly war in Korea ended in an armistice. Therefore, countries like Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Indonesia, and others were on Eisenhower’s domino list. However, the destabilization campaigns carried out by the CIA sometimes had the opposite effect. Governments in Indonesia and Syria emerged strengthened from the interventions. Eisenhower left Kennedy with the loss of American influence in Cuba. The failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961, intended to overthrow Fidel Castro, was the starting point for the decades-long blockade of Cuba, which Trump is determined to end now through regime change.

The most dramatic example of failed regime change in recent history is undoubtedly the Iraq War, which began in 2003 under President George W. Bush. The stated goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The war led to the overthrow of the regime. The United Nations and US teams found no weapons of mass destruction despite intensive on-site investigations. Attempts to establish an orderly state in Iraq failed. These experiences, and especially the disastrous outcome of two decades of military intervention in Afghanistan, discredited the concept of regime change.

What are the implications?

The most important lesson taught by efforts to affect externally forced regime change is that interventions often lead to crises that were ostensibly meant to be prevented or solved. The temptation was too great for Trump to miss the opportunity to depose the despised Maduro government.

Scholarly studies of the numerous attempted regime changes and democratization efforts reveal three key findings. First, simply removing the government from power (whether through assassination, as in the case of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or now in Iran, or through kidnapping as in Venezuela) is insufficient, as such actions often lead to chaos, state collapse, or even civil war. Thus, it will be interesting to watch further developments in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran.

A second lesson from empirical studies of regime change is that democratization is more likely to succeed if democratic experience already existed in the country. However, this is often not the case.

Finally, if the real goal is democratization (and not just to secure spheres of influence or oil supplies etc.), it is far more promising not only to hold elections (as in Afghanistan, for example), but to renounce violence and initiate a long-term program with development aid and support for civil society.

Whether the US government will be impressed by these findings, or even acknowledge them, is doubtful. Currently, the American president is euphoric, despite the strong reaction from the Iranian government which he, surprisingly, did not expect. His promises to end the senseless wars and not start any new ones, however, seem to have been forgotten.

Related articles:
The US: Good at Starting but Bad at Ending Wars
Failure of US–Iran Talks Was All Too Predictable — But Turning to Military Strikes Creates Dangerous Unknowns
The ‘Donroe Doctrine’
The Return of the Ugly American

Herbert Wulf is a Professor of International Relations and former Director of the Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies (BICC). He is presently a Senior Fellow at BICC, an Adjunct Senior Researcher at the Institute for Development and Peace, University of Duisburg/Essen, Germany, and a Research Affiliate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand. He serves on the Scientific Council of SIPRI.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');