Feed aggregator

Israel and Iran appear to be observing the ceasefire announced by Donald Trump on Tuesday after several days of the two countries exchanging rocket fire and unusually harsh criticism of their respective leaders by the US president. Europe's press comments on the display of power from Washington and discusses what should follow.

Romania's new, pro-European government was confirmed by the country's parliament on Monday. In his inaugural speech, Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan announced a harsh austerity programme to tackle the budget deficit, which is the highest within the EU. A reduction in public sector staffing, caps on civil servants' salaries and the rollback of privileges are the agenda, as well as increased investments in healthcare and education.

In its 2019 Green Deal, the EU emphasised the importance of domestic electric vehicle (EV) battery production to achieve the energy transition while fostering a competitive and sustainable battery value chain

Les températures sont au-dessus des normes saisonnières. Le mercure a grimpé à plus de 35 degrés par endroits.

Dauer des Videos : 90'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2025 - EP

Le Moyen-Orient est une région presque toujours en proie à des conflits politiques, mais c'est aussi une région d'une grande importance pour le monde en termes de production de pétrole et de gaz et de routes de navigation commerciale, et c'est également le centre de deux des principales religions du monde : l'islam et le christianisme.

Le Moyen-Orient est une région presque toujours en proie à des conflits politiques, mais c'est aussi une région d'une grande importance pour le monde en termes de production de pétrole et de gaz et de routes de navigation commerciale, et c'est également le centre de deux des principales religions du monde : l'islam et le christianisme.

Módosult a Proof of Concept című, 2024-2.1.3-POC kódszámú pályázati felhívás az alábbiak szerint:

AMENDMENTS 1 - 398 - Draft report EU political strategy on Latin America
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Davor Ivo Stier

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

This policy brief situates the crisis of Official Development Assistance (ODA) within a broader transformation of global development cooperation. Today’s challenge goes beyond shrinking aid budgets; it reflects deeper pressures on the post-Cold War development consensus and its institutional architecture. Development cooperation is under strain due to spending cuts by the US and parts of Europe, alongside the rise of nationalist approaches, especially in the United States (US). The longstanding policy norms – framing development as a shared global endeavour, combining moral and strategic redistribution and favouring multilateral coordination – are eroding. Fiscal pressures and domestic priorities have weakened elite and public support for ODA, while populist movements often frame aid as conflicting with national interests. At the same time, development finance has become more geopolitical, increasingly tied to foreign policy, migration deterrence and economic diplomacy. This transactional approach coincides with a retreat from multilateralism, declining support for the UN system, and fragmentation among donors and recipients. The landscape has also diversified, with emerging actors such as China, the Gulf states and new development banks offering alternative financing, governance models and priorities. Many middle-income countries now access international financial markets, reducing dependency on OECD donors. As a result, development cooperation has become a field of strategic contestation. While these trends have evolved gradually over the past decade, the approach of the second administration of US President Donald Trump has accelerated them. Simultaneously, economic progress in parts of the Global South has fostered expectations for reciprocal partnerships rather than traditional donor–recipient hierarchies. The challenge, then, is to reimagine the future of development cooperation in ways that are politically feasible and institutionally resilient. This policy brief argues that this requires rethinking the foundations of development cooperation, rebuilding multilateral credibility and navigating a more pluralistic and geopolitically divided global order.
We propose four plausible options, each reflecting a different configuration of value-based, institutional and political alignment:

• Option 1 assumes a renewed political commitment to development as a global public good, and revitalised leadership from both North and South.
• Option 2 suggests continuity with diminished ambition: multilateralism persists, but its core weakens, with development focused more on stability than transformation.
• Option 3 offers a decentralised, experimental path driven by new actors and coalitions. While less coherent, it avoids the worst effects of fragmentation.
• Option 4 reflects a marked shift towards increased bilateralism, ideological filtering, and instrumentalism.

This policy brief situates the crisis of Official Development Assistance (ODA) within a broader transformation of global development cooperation. Today’s challenge goes beyond shrinking aid budgets; it reflects deeper pressures on the post-Cold War development consensus and its institutional architecture. Development cooperation is under strain due to spending cuts by the US and parts of Europe, alongside the rise of nationalist approaches, especially in the United States (US). The longstanding policy norms – framing development as a shared global endeavour, combining moral and strategic redistribution and favouring multilateral coordination – are eroding. Fiscal pressures and domestic priorities have weakened elite and public support for ODA, while populist movements often frame aid as conflicting with national interests. At the same time, development finance has become more geopolitical, increasingly tied to foreign policy, migration deterrence and economic diplomacy. This transactional approach coincides with a retreat from multilateralism, declining support for the UN system, and fragmentation among donors and recipients. The landscape has also diversified, with emerging actors such as China, the Gulf states and new development banks offering alternative financing, governance models and priorities. Many middle-income countries now access international financial markets, reducing dependency on OECD donors. As a result, development cooperation has become a field of strategic contestation. While these trends have evolved gradually over the past decade, the approach of the second administration of US President Donald Trump has accelerated them. Simultaneously, economic progress in parts of the Global South has fostered expectations for reciprocal partnerships rather than traditional donor–recipient hierarchies. The challenge, then, is to reimagine the future of development cooperation in ways that are politically feasible and institutionally resilient. This policy brief argues that this requires rethinking the foundations of development cooperation, rebuilding multilateral credibility and navigating a more pluralistic and geopolitically divided global order.
We propose four plausible options, each reflecting a different configuration of value-based, institutional and political alignment:

• Option 1 assumes a renewed political commitment to development as a global public good, and revitalised leadership from both North and South.
• Option 2 suggests continuity with diminished ambition: multilateralism persists, but its core weakens, with development focused more on stability than transformation.
• Option 3 offers a decentralised, experimental path driven by new actors and coalitions. While less coherent, it avoids the worst effects of fragmentation.
• Option 4 reflects a marked shift towards increased bilateralism, ideological filtering, and instrumentalism.

This policy brief situates the crisis of Official Development Assistance (ODA) within a broader transformation of global development cooperation. Today’s challenge goes beyond shrinking aid budgets; it reflects deeper pressures on the post-Cold War development consensus and its institutional architecture. Development cooperation is under strain due to spending cuts by the US and parts of Europe, alongside the rise of nationalist approaches, especially in the United States (US). The longstanding policy norms – framing development as a shared global endeavour, combining moral and strategic redistribution and favouring multilateral coordination – are eroding. Fiscal pressures and domestic priorities have weakened elite and public support for ODA, while populist movements often frame aid as conflicting with national interests. At the same time, development finance has become more geopolitical, increasingly tied to foreign policy, migration deterrence and economic diplomacy. This transactional approach coincides with a retreat from multilateralism, declining support for the UN system, and fragmentation among donors and recipients. The landscape has also diversified, with emerging actors such as China, the Gulf states and new development banks offering alternative financing, governance models and priorities. Many middle-income countries now access international financial markets, reducing dependency on OECD donors. As a result, development cooperation has become a field of strategic contestation. While these trends have evolved gradually over the past decade, the approach of the second administration of US President Donald Trump has accelerated them. Simultaneously, economic progress in parts of the Global South has fostered expectations for reciprocal partnerships rather than traditional donor–recipient hierarchies. The challenge, then, is to reimagine the future of development cooperation in ways that are politically feasible and institutionally resilient. This policy brief argues that this requires rethinking the foundations of development cooperation, rebuilding multilateral credibility and navigating a more pluralistic and geopolitically divided global order.
We propose four plausible options, each reflecting a different configuration of value-based, institutional and political alignment:

• Option 1 assumes a renewed political commitment to development as a global public good, and revitalised leadership from both North and South.
• Option 2 suggests continuity with diminished ambition: multilateralism persists, but its core weakens, with development focused more on stability than transformation.
• Option 3 offers a decentralised, experimental path driven by new actors and coalitions. While less coherent, it avoids the worst effects of fragmentation.
• Option 4 reflects a marked shift towards increased bilateralism, ideological filtering, and instrumentalism.