An Indigenous community leader, Jackeline Mendoza Díaz, addresses participants during the webinar “Gold’s Dark Web: The Hidden Price of a Booming Market” on June 25, speaking about the devastating impacts of illegal and poorly regulated gold mining on Indigenous lands, forests and local communities. The webinar brought together community leaders, investigators, civil society organisations, financial experts and policymakers to discuss how soaring gold prices are accelerating environmental destruction, organised crime and human rights abuses. Credit: FERN
By Kizito Makoye
DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania, Jul 17 2026 (IPS)
The sweltering heat inside a London conference hall did not deter Indigenous leader Jackeline Mendoza Díaz from condemning the sheer destruction of the Peruvian Amazon. Her voice occasionally trembled with emotion but delivered a strong message — painting a picture far removed from the glittering gold bars traded in the world’s financial capitals.
Behind the rising price of gold, she said, lie poisoned rivers, razed forests and Indigenous communities jostling to defend their ancestral lands from the rising wave of illegal mining.
In her Asháninka community, she said, rivers that once sustained life no longer provide edible fish. Women trek for hours searching for clean water, while community leaders who speak out against encroachment increasingly do so at personal risk.
“Our rivers are being contaminated with mercury. When the rivers are contaminated, the fish become contaminated as well, and we indigenous people depend on these rivers for our survival,” Díaz told participants during a webinar that brought together Indigenous leaders, environmental advocates, investigators, bankers and policymakers to discuss the growing crisis of illicit gold.
Her testimony offered a glimpse into a global phenomenon that experts say is accelerating, as gold prices fuel environmental destruction, organized crime and corruption across continents
Behind the soaring value of gold lies a darker reality, visible in remote forests, fragile river systems and marginalised communities globally.
A recent report by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime (GI-TOC) warns that illicit gold has become one of the world’s most consequential criminal markets, functioning as an “accelerant economy” that fuels conflict, corruption, environmental crime and organised criminal networks worldwide.
The report says rising gold prices have enabled criminals to control entire supply chains.
For nearby communities, the consequences are dire.
“We are defenders of the forests and defenders of life. Yet because of this, Indigenous defenders are often attacked, and many of us are even killed for protecting our people, our territories and our way of life,” said Diaz.
Forests Falling, Rivers Dying
In Ghana, where illegal mining has become a national crisis, environmental campaigner Daryl Bosu described a country caught up in a moral dilemma to balance the worth of the precious metal with environmental woes.
“Ghana is Africa’s largest gold producer, and gold remains one of the most important pillars of our economy,” Bosu said. “However, alongside these economic benefits, we have witnessed an alarming increase in illegal and poorly regulated mining activities.”
The environmental consequences, he warned, have been severe.
“Many of our forest reserves have suffered extensive degradation. Rivers and water bodies that serve millions of people have become heavily polluted.”
Across gold-producing regions, forests are rapidly being cleared to dig mining pits, roads and processing kilns. Once mining begins, toxic substances often contaminate rivers and groundwater aquifers.
According to the GI-TOC report, illicit gold mining frequently paves the way for illegal logging, wildlife trafficking and land grabbing. Dirty money is increasingly being invested in cattle ranching that destroys critical forest ecosystems.
Mercury’s Silent Toll
While deforestation often captures public attention, experts say mercury pollution remains one of the most devastating but least visible consequences of artisanal and small-scale gold mining.
Speaking exclusively to IPS during the recent Global Environment Facility (GEF) Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, Monika Stankiewicz, Executive Secretary of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, warned that mercury contamination continues to threaten millions of people living in mining communities.
“Mercury contamination does not stop at the mining site,” Stankiewicz told IPS.
“It enters rivers and ecosystems, affecting fish, soil and water sources locally.”
For families dependent on fishing and farming, the consequences can be profound.
“Reduced food safety and food security, loss of income from contaminated natural resources, and long-term degradation of ecosystems they depend on,” she explained.
Mercury exposure can trigger neurological damage, memory loss, tremors, respiratory illnesses and reproductive health complications. Children are particularly vulnerable.
The impacts extend far beyond mining sites themselves.
Mercury released into the environment can travel vast distances through atmospheric circulation. Indigenous communities in the Arctic, for example, are experiencing mercury contamination despite having no mercury-intensive mining activities in their territories.
Following the Money
Yet environmental damage represents only one side of the illicit gold equation.
Several participants stressed that illicit gold is fundamentally a financial crime issue.
Julia Yansura, programme director, Environmental Crime & Illicit Finance, FACT Coalition, said billions of dollars earned through environmentally damaging mining activities continue to enter legitimate financial systems without scrutiny.
“What we are discussing today is not merely an environmental issue,” she said. “It is also a financial crime issue.”
Traditional responses have focused heavily on police raids and military operations targeting miners.
But according to Yansura, such interventions often fail because they focus on low-level actors while leaving intact the financial networks that sustain illegal mining.
“A more effective approach would focus on following the money,” she said.
The GI-TOC report supports that assessment, warning that criminals increasingly control entire gold supply chains.
The report also identifies growing use of cryptocurrencies and gold-backed stablecoins as emerging mechanisms for laundering illicit proceeds outside traditional anti-money laundering frameworks.
London’s Hidden Role
Much of the webinar focused on the responsibilities of major financial centres.
A coalition of 35 civil society organisations has urged governments gathering at the UK Illicit Finance Summit to recognise that gold has evolved beyond a commodity into what they describe as a strategic vehicle for organised crime, sanctions evasion and corruption.
The coalition notes that London remains the world’s largest over-the-counter gold trading hub, handling approximately 70 percent of global OTC gold trading volumes.
Because illicit gold frequently passes through multiple countries and refineries before reaching financial markets, campaigners argue that financial centres can no longer treat illegal mining as a problem confined to producer countries.
“The solution cannot come only from mining countries,” Yansura said. “It must also come from the financial centres where profits are ultimately laundered and legitimated.”
The coalition is calling for mandatory due diligence requirements, stronger beneficial ownership transparency, enhanced scrutiny of gold traders and robust anti-money laundering obligations across the entire gold supply chain.
A Crisis Outpacing Regulation
Sophia Pickles of the GI-TOC warned that existing international frameworks have failed to contain the evolving nature of illicit gold markets.
“There has undoubtedly been progress,” she acknowledged. “However, our recent research shows that criminal activity linked to gold mining is expanding.”
According to the GI-TOC report, voluntary responsible sourcing standards are insufficient against increasingly sophisticated criminal networks. Information gaps, weak customs oversight and opaque financial transactions continue to provide opportunities for illicit gold to enter legitimate markets.
Researchers argue that current approaches remain too narrowly focused on artisanal mining and conflict zones while overlooking broader vulnerabilities embedded throughout global supply chains.
Among the report’s key recommendations are legally binding due diligence requirements, stronger oversight of international bullion centres, mandatory transparency measures and enhanced scrutiny of financial institutions.
Searching for Solutions
Despite the scale of the challenge, Stankiewicz believes progress is possible.
Under the Minamata Convention, countries with significant artisanal and small-scale gold mining sectors are required to develop national action plans aimed at reducing mercury use and protecting communities.
The results, she says, are encouraging.
Countries are increasingly adopting mercury-free technologies, strengthening regulations and formalising parts of the mining sector.
Beyond the Gold Rush
As the webinar drew to an end, panellists emphasised that illicit gold is not just a mining issue but an environmental, health, governance, human rights and financial crime crisis.
For Mendoza Díaz and communities living on the edge of gold extraction, the message was crystal clear.
“We are not just defending our land and our territories; we are defending life itself and our ecosystem.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Related Articles
Sorry, this entry is only available in Greek.
Die EU-Kommission will den Europäischen Emissionshandel (ETS) reformieren und geht damit auf die Industrie zu, die sich über die hohen Kosten und Wettbewerbsnachteile beschwert hat. Claudia Kemfert, Leiterin der Abteilung Energie, Verkehr, Umwelt im Deutschen Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), warnt vor den Folgen:
Die EU-Kommission droht, das wichtigste Klimaschutzinstrument Europas ausgerechnet in dem Moment zu schwächen, in dem verlässliche Investitionssignale besonders wichtig wären. Die Industrie braucht Unterstützung bei der Transformation, aber keinen Aufschub. Kostenlose Zertifikate im Europäischen Emissionshandel können allenfalls eine befristete Brücke sein. Sie müssen strikt an konkrete, überprüfbare Investitionen in klimaneutrale Produktion in Europa gebunden werden. Wer nicht investiert, darf nicht entlastet werden. Andernfalls werden fossile Geschäftsmodelle verlängert und diejenigen Unternehmen bestraft, die frühzeitig in klimafreundliche Technologien investiert haben. Kostenlose Zertifikate dürfen keine Dauersubvention für fossile Produktion werden.
Europas Industrie wird nicht dadurch wettbewerbsfähig, dass sie länger fossil produziert. Sie wird wettbewerbsfähig durch günstigen erneuerbaren Strom, leistungsfähige Netze, Speicher, Elektrifizierung, grünen Wasserstoff, Klimaschutzverträge und verlässliche politische Rahmenbedingungen. Auch internationale Gutschriften sind kritisch zu bewerten. Klimaschutz im Ausland kann sinnvoll sein, darf aber nicht zur Ausweichroute werden, um notwendige Investitionen in Europa zu vermeiden. Wer den Emissionshandel verwässert, senkt die Kosten der Transformation nicht, sondern verschiebt sie in die Zukunft. Später werden sie höher ausfallen: wirtschaftlich, klimapolitisch und gesellschaftlich.
Die richtige Antwort auf internationalen Wettbewerbsdruck lautet deshalb nicht weniger Klimaschutz, sondern bessere Industriepolitik. Entlastung ja, aber nur gegen nachweisbare Transformation. Unterstützung ja, aber kein Freifahrtschein für längere fossile Produktion.
Abstract
This study examines whether strategic communication (StratCom) has evolved from a supportive public diplomacy tool into a primary instrument of modern diplomatic practice during international conflicts. By analyzing three contemporary case studies—the Russia–Ukraine war, the Gaza conflict, and the maritime security crisis in the Strait of Hormuz—this paper investigates how state and non-state actors employ strategic narratives, digital warfare, and information management to achieve geopolitically decisive outcomes. The findings suggest that StratCom no longer merely accompanies diplomatic maneuvers; rather, it actively dictates diplomatic agendas, shapes international coalitions, and alters the leverage of conflicting parties. Consequently, strategic communication represents a fundamental structural transformation in 21st-century diplomacy.
Keywords: Strategic Communication, Modern Diplomacy, Strategic Narrative, Russia-Ukraine War, Gaza Conflict, Strait of Hormuz, Information Warfare
1. Introduction and Theoretical Framework
1.1 Context and Problem Statement
The classic paradigm of international diplomacy—historically defined by state-centric, closed-door negotiations, formal ambassadorial channels, and delayed public statements—is experiencing a profound structural crisis. In the contemporary international system, characterized by hyper-connectivity, digital immediacy, and fragmented power structures, the traditional mechanisms of statecraft often prove too slow to control geopolitical realities. Instead, state and non-state actors increasingly rely on public, real-time, and narrative-driven communications to project influence and manage crises.
This evolution raises a fundamental question for security studies and international relations: Has strategic communication (StratCom) transitioned from a peripheral public diplomacy function into the primary operational instrument of modern diplomacy in conflict scenarios? Where diplomacy once dictated communication strategies, communication strategies now frequently dictate diplomatic options, alliance structures, and escalation dynamics.
1.2 Conceptualizing StratCom in International Relations
To evaluate this transition, StratCom must be positioned within existing theories of international relations. Strategic communication is defined here as the purposeful, aligned use of communication capabilities by an actor to advance its strategic objectives, political values, and policy goals.
Crucial to this concept is the theory of strategic narratives, which posits that actors construct compelling story arcs—identifying actors, conflict origins, moral imperatives, and resolution trajectories—to structure the perception of international order (Miskimmon et al., 2013). While Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power emphasizes attraction through culture and values, and hard power relies on military or economic coercion (Nye, 2004), StratCom acts as a bridge. It leverages both sharp power—the manipulative use of information to undermine adversaries (Walker, 2018)—and digital public diplomacy to achieve coercive outcomes without immediate physical force.
1.3 Methodology
This paper employs a comparative qualitative case study methodology. It evaluates three contemporary crisis theaters:
The state-versus-state, high-intensity Russia–Ukraine War;
The highly asymmetric, urban Gaza Conflict;
The maritime, choke-point security crisis in the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea corridor.
Each case is analyzed based on three variables: target audience segmentation, information delivery channels, and direct diplomatic or policy outcomes.
2. Comparative Case Studies
2.1 The Russia–Ukraine War:
Narrative Synchronicity and Military Diplomacy
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine initiated a high-stakes arena of competing strategic narratives. From the onset, the Ukrainian leadership recognized that military survival depended directly on immediate, sustained Western material and financial support.
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s daily video addresses bypassed traditional ambassadorial channels, addressing Western parliaments and populations directly. By framing Ukraine as the front line of global democratic defense against autocracy, Ukrainian StratCom created a moral imperative that constrained Western leaders. Diplomatic negotiations for advanced weaponry (e.g., main battle tanks, air defense systems, long-range missiles) were repeatedly unlocked not through secret protocol, but through public-facing narrative pressure campaigns that shifted the boundaries of acceptable diplomatic discourse (Bjola & Pamment, 2016).
Conversely, the Russian Federation deployed a bifurcated StratCom strategy. In Western spheres, Russian narratives sought to exploit societal fault lines, sow skepticism, and raise the perceived risk of nuclear escalation. In the Global South, Moscow leveraged historical anti-imperialist frameworks, positioning itself as a counterweight to Western hegemony (Freedman, 2019). Russia’s diplomatic maneuvering in multilateral bodies like the UN relied heavily on this narrative positioning to prevent universal isolation and maintain economic lifelines with non-aligned nations.
2.2 The Gaza Conflict: Information Battlegrounds and International Pressure
The Gaza conflict illustrates the power of asymmetric, hyper-visual strategic communication within a urban, non-state actor paradigm. In this theater, raw visual evidence—disseminated via social media platforms and instant messaging networks—frequently outpaces formal diplomatic channels.
Hamas and affiliated actors leveraged decentralized information networks to broadcast human suffering and damage, successfully framing the conflict around international humanitarian law and civilian casualty metrics. This bottom-up communication strategy mobilized global public opinion, triggering widespread civilian protests across Western and Middle Eastern capitals.
The resulting domestic political pressure directly constrained the diplomatic maneuvering room of major powers, including the United States, the European Union, and regional Arab states. Traditional diplomatic actors were repeatedly forced to adapt their official positions, issue public calls for ceasefires, or sponsor UN resolutions in response to real-time information flows rather than structured bilateral negotiations. StratCom in Gaza demonstrated that controlling the visual and emotional narrative can force third-party diplomatic intervention regardless of the physical balance of power on the ground.
2.3 The Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea Crisis: Deterrence and Maritime Security
The ongoing maritime security threats around the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab Strait represent a third dimension: asymmetric strategic communication deployed to disrupt global trade and project power across maritime choke points.
Houthi insurgents in Yemen, backed by Iranian strategic framing, utilized low-cost physical attacks combined with high-impact media production to project an image of regional capability. By framing their maritime actions as a moral blockade tied to the broader Middle Eastern crisis, they achieved a disproportionate impact on global shipping routes and international maritime logistics.
In response, the United States and international coalition partners initiated maritime security operations (e.g., Operation Prosperity Guardian). However, the diplomatic challenge extended beyond physical naval deployment. Western powers had to construct a clear, unified narrative emphasizing the protection of global freedom of navigation and international law. StratCom served as the primary glue for coalition building, reassuring commercial shipping markets and coordinating multilateral naval rules of engagement. In this theater, strategic communication functioned as a key component of military and economic deterrence.
3. Comparative Analysis and DiscussionAnalyzing these three distinct conflict environments reveals a consistent structural shift: Strategic Communication is no longer a downstream reflection of diplomatic policy; it is an active driver of policy choices.
Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Strategic Communication as a Diplomatic Arsenal Across Conflict Theaters
Conflict Area Primary StratCom Vector Target Audience Direct Diplomatic & Policy Outcome Russia–Ukraine War Presidential digital diplomacy (Zelensky), OSINT, value-based framing (democracy vs. autocracy) Western public, allied legislatures, Global South Unlocking heavy military aid packages (tanks, air defense), sustaining sanctions regimes Gaza Conflict Decentralized social media, raw visual evidence, moral framing (humanitarian law) Global public opinion, international bodies Rapid shifting of third-party diplomatic positions (US, EU, Arab states), UN intervention Strait of Hormuz / Red Sea Asymmetric threat projection (Houthi attacks, media production) vs. maritime law defense Global shipping markets, regional actors, coalition allies Multilateral naval coalition building (Operation Prosperity Guardian), economic deterrenceAcross all cases, traditional diplomatic channels proved insufficient when operating in isolation from the information domain. Modern statecraft relies on what can be termed narrative coercion: the capacity to control the contextual framework of a conflict to such a degree that opposing actors face unacceptable political, economic, or moral costs if they do not align with the narrative trajectory.
Furthermore, digital platforms have democratized information warfare. Non-state actors and smaller nations can achieve narrative parity—or even dominance—against traditionally superior military forces. Consequently, the speed, authenticity, and emotional resonance of a communication campaign have become as critical as territorial control or troop numbers.
This study set out to answer whether strategic communication represents the primary new diplomatic instrument in contemporary conflicts. The evidence from Ukraine, Gaza, and the Strait of Hormuz confirms that StratCom has evolved far beyond the boundaries of public relations or traditional public diplomacy.
Strategic communication now serves as the primary operational environment in which modern diplomacy takes place. It shapes political realities, builds and sustains international alliances, constrains adversary options, and dictates the pace of crisis resolution. While hard power capabilities (military units, industrial capacity) and classic negotiations remain indispensable, their effectiveness is fundamentally contingent upon the strategic narrative that frames them.
For 21st-century statecraft, communication is no longer an auxiliary function performed after decisions are made; it is the strategic arsenal through which international influence is won or lost.
References
Bjola, C., & Pamment, J. (Eds.). (2016). Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730844
Freedman, L. (2019). Ukraine and the art of strategy. Oxford University Press.
Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2013). Strategic narratives: Communication power and the new world order. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203078891
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.
Walker, C. (2018). What is „sharp power”? Journal of Democracy, 29(3), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2018.0041
A Strategic Communication as the New Diplomatic Arsenal: Evidence from Ukraine, Gaza, and the Strait of Hormuz bejegyzés először Biztonságpolitika-én jelent meg.
Map of the Strait of Hormuz. Credit: Wikimedia/Goran_tek-en
By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 17 2026 (IPS)
A continuation of hostilities within the Strait of Hormuz is once again threatening one of the world’s most critical supply chain arteries, posing another wave of disruption which could choke the global energy, shipping and commodity markets. With roughly a quarter of global seaborne oil trade transiting through the Strait, alongside significant flows of liquefied natural gas and fertilizers, further constraints on commercial traffic could send new cost pressures cascading through supply chains that have yet to absorb the full effects of the earlier conflict.
Unlike the initial disruption, this latest escalation is hitting an already elevated and damaged cost base. U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed a 20 percent charge on cargo transiting the Strait, a plan he abandoned on July 14th after pressure from Gulf allies. At a current crude oil price of roughly USD 85 per barrel, a 20 percent levy on all cargo would amount to an additional USD 17 per barrel, around 17 times Iran’s previously proposed USD 1 per barrel toll.
Yet, the larger challenge remains whether an assurance of safety through the Strait can really be guaranteed. While Washington has promised to safeguard commercial vessels attempting to transit, multiple vessels have been struck by Iranian forces, including the UAE-flagged supertankers Mombasa and Al Bahiyah on July 12th. Both vessels have a capacity of roughly 2 million barrels of oil, placing the potential value of a full cargo at roughly USD 171 million before insurance, maintenance and transit costs are considered.
If continued attacks deter vessels from transiting the Strait, constrained oil flows could combine with increased insurance premiums and higher transport costs, pushing additional expenses through global supply chains and eventually onto consumers.
These effects are already visible when examining vessel movements. On July 15th, a total of five transits were recorded, three inbound and two outbound, with one of those ships being Iranian-flagged outbound. Daily throughput in deadweight tonnage (DWT) stood at 130,311 DWT, or just 1.27 percent of the 10.3 million DWT pre-conflict daily average. Meanwhile, approximately 450 vessels remain waiting to transit the Strait, including 120 tankers, 180 bulk carriers and 150 other vessels.
War risk premiums, the additional fees charged to insure vessels operating within conflict zones, have skyrocketed from a 0.15 percent pre-conflict rate to 5 percent, a more than 33-fold increase. Very large crude carriers (VLCCs) can be valued from USD 130 million to more than USD 170 million, meaning a five percent premium could add an additional cost of USD 6.5 million to USD 8.75 million per voyage. For a VLCC carrying 2 million barrels, that would amount to roughly USD 7.5 million, compared with approximately USD 2.225 million under Iran’s proposed USD 1-per-barrel toll combined with pre-conflict war-risk premiums.
However, the compounding effects extend beyond oil. Data from the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Strait of Hormuz Trade Tracker shows that while crude oil shipments had begun to recover marginally, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and fertilizer-related shipments remain at a virtual standstill, with zero outbound shipments currently recorded. Renewed escalations risk further restricting already depressed commodity flows, with approximately one-third of the world’s seaborne fertilizer trade and one-fifth of global LNG transiting through the Strait.
Using a volume index in which 100 represents average volume levels, the WTO recorded a volume index of 25.69 for LNG on July 5th, following nearly four months in which shipments were recorded on only four other days. Fertilizer-related shipments showed greater resilience, recording a volume index of 97.62 on June 23rd. However, no further fertilizer-related shipments have been recorded, leaving the trade flow at a standstill for more than three weeks.
These restrictions could be particularly damaging for energy- and food-importing economies, notably developing countries that spend significant shares of national income on essential imports of energy and food. Simultaneous increases in fuel, transportation, and agricultural inputs risk creating a broader inflationary shock. Higher fertilizer costs can increase agricultural production costs, while elevated energy and shipping expenses raise the cost of transporting goods from exporters to importers, leaving consumers exposed to several layers of the same disruption.
The disruption has also carried a significant human cost. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has warned against continued commercial transit through the Strait, with IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez urging shipowners, operators, and flag States, along with all relevant authorities to “avoid exposing seafarers to unnecessary danger by transiting the Strait.” At the same time, the United States has announced that it will resume a naval blockade targeting vessels transiting to and from Iranian ports. Iran, meanwhile, has framed its control over the Strait as a national security issue and has threatened that it will remain closed “until the end of America’s evils.”
At its 137th session, the IMO Council reaffirmed that the right of transit through straits used for international navigation “should not be threatened, impeded, denied, hampered, impaired or suspended,” reiterating that any measures taken by coastal states to regulate traffic in vital shipping lanes should be done in accordance with IMO regulations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). The Council also stated that traffic through the Strait must “remain free of any tolls and charges, in accordance with international law, including the IMO Convention.”
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned that “Reports on the closure of the Strait of Hormuz are very alarming for their impact on human rights far beyond the region,” describing the Strait as “a vital lifeline on which millions are reliant.”
The dangers are also being borne directly by seafarers trapped in the Persian Gulf. Of approximately 20,000 seafarers stranded by the crisis, around 11,000 have been evacuated through an IMO-supported initiative. However, evacuation operations have reportedly been paused since June 25, leaving thousands still stranded.
The economic consequences of the initial disruption were already substantial before this latest escalation. According to the World Bank, global energy prices rose by 24 percent following the conflict’s onset, with fertilizer prices projected to rise by more than 30 percent in 2026. Renewed hostilities in the Strait now threaten to compound these pressures, demonstrating how insecurity within a narrow stretch of water can transmit costs across global supply chains, from ships at sea to businesses, households and economies around the world.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau