Global

As tensions escalate between Iran and its Western adversaries, the Iranian government is now considering one of the most consequential diplomatic withdrawals in contemporary arms control history: the potential abandonment of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This decision, should it materialize, would not merely represent a legal realignment of Iran’s international obligations but would constitute a seismic strategic maneuver—disrupting the global nonproliferation architecture, reshaping diplomatic alliances, and accelerating the regional arms race in a Middle East already teetering under the weight of protracted conflict and fractured diplomacy.

Established in 1970, the NPT rests on three foundational pillars: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, facilitating the peaceful use of nuclear technology, and promoting disarmament. Iran’s current commitment to the treaty has remained, at least in formal terms, one of the last remaining legal barriers preventing its open development of nuclear weapons. As of 2025, 191 states remain parties to the NPT, making it the most widely adopted arms control agreement in human history. However, should Iran exit, the symbolic and material damage to this institutional cornerstone may extend well beyond the region.

From a strategic standpoint, Iran’s withdrawal would signal a clear departure from what Jacques E.C. Hymans in Achieving Nuclear Ambitions (2017) characterizes as “nuclear latency”—the state of possessing technological capability without crossing the threshold. Until now, Iran has carefully danced on the periphery of weapons capability, maintaining plausible deniability while accumulating enriched uranium and advanced centrifuge design. Abandoning the NPT, however, would mark an irreversible step from latency to overt preparation, thereby dismantling the carefully curated ambiguity that has served as both shield and sword in Tehran’s nuclear diplomacy.

The political ramifications of this decision are likely to be equally profound. In Nuclear Politics (2017) by Alexandre Debs and Nuno Monteiro, the authors argue that nuclear proliferation is inherently political—tied not only to the technological constraints of a state but also to its perception of existential threat and diplomatic isolation. With the recent U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, Tehran’s calculus has dramatically shifted. The strikes may have paradoxically accelerated the very outcome they purported to prevent, legitimizing within Iran a discourse of resistance that views nuclear armament not as an offensive ambition, but as a necessary deterrent in an anarchic international system.

On the diplomatic front, Iran’s departure would further erode the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the organization charged with verification and monitoring under the NPT. As explained in Maria Rost Rublee’s Nonproliferation Norms (2017), much of the success of nonproliferation hinges on normative adherence, not merely technical inspections. Should Iran expel inspectors and cease all cooperation with the IAEA—as is anticipated in the wake of withdrawal—other states disillusioned with Western double standards may reconsider the utility of remaining bound by a treaty perceived as discriminatory and selectively enforced.

The security implications are perhaps most destabilizing. Mark Fitzpatrick, a noted arms control expert, argues that such a move would remove Iran’s final legal constraints and free it to pursue weaponization openly. Already, Iran is believed to possess over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity, technically just short of the 90% required for a weapon. With the infrastructure for advanced enrichment in place and a cadre of nuclear scientists—despite the assassination of several key figures by Israeli operations—still intact, Fitzpatrick warns that Iran could feasibly complete a weapons program within a year. This timeline finds corroboration in Jeffrey Lewis’ The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States (2018), which, while fictionalized, illustrates how rapidly a state with the technical base and political will can escalate from enrichment to deployment.

Moreover, Iran’s exit from the NPT would not exist in isolation. The regional fallout, especially in terms of proliferation contagion, cannot be overstated. As noted in Shashank Joshi’s The Future of Nuclear Deterrence (2020), the exit of one state from the global arms control regime often triggers anxieties in others, particularly those with existing rivalries. Saudi Arabia has already pledged to match Iran’s nuclear capabilities should it proceed toward weaponization, and Egypt, long aggrieved by Israel’s undeclared arsenal and exemption from NPT scrutiny, may see an opportunity to challenge the status quo. The fragile balance of deterrence across the Middle East could thus collapse into a cascade of armament and instability.

The global normative order also stands at risk. If the U.S.—itself a founding signatory of the NPT—can target another signatory’s nuclear infrastructure without consequence, and if the IAEA proves unable to enforce compliance or prevent escalation, then the treaty’s legitimacy may begin to unravel. As articulated in Fiona Cunningham’s Nuclear Norms in East Asia (2021), international regimes rely not merely on legal instruments but on perceived fairness and reciprocity. The perception that the NPT regime disproportionately penalizes non-Western states while tolerating exceptions for allies—such as Israel or India—could hasten a broader exodus from the treaty.

Russia’s role as a potential counterbalance on the diplomatic chessboard must also be considered. While Moscow remains a signatory of the NPT and is unlikely to openly assist Iran in developing a nuclear weapon, its alignment with Tehran in international forums—especially at the United Nations Security Council—could serve as a strategic shield against renewed sanctions or enforcement actions. This maneuvering resembles the patterns described in Andrew Futter’s Hacking the Bomb (2018), which explores how nuclear power is now shaped as much by information warfare and diplomatic alliance as by kilotons and centrifuges.

Finally, there is the matter of strategic miscalculation. Should Iran proceed with weaponization and Israel respond with preemptive strikes—potentially supported again by U.S. tactical operations—the possibility of a full-scale regional war would no longer be hypothetical. As Caitlin Talmadge notes in The Dictator’s Army (2017), nuclear breakout scenarios often escalate not through deliberate choice, but through misinterpretation, miscommunication, and the psychology of brinkmanship. Each step away from treaty obligations narrows the window for de-escalation and expands the risk of unintended catastrophe.

In conclusion, Iran’s threatened withdrawal from the NPT represents not merely a response to recent attacks but a profound inflection point in international security architecture. The unraveling of treaty commitments, the weakening of normative frameworks, and the potential for cascading proliferation across the Middle East suggest that the cost of unilateral coercive diplomacy may be greater than the strategic benefits it purports to yield. The global community stands at a precipice, where the pursuit of short-term tactical gains may irreparably fracture the long-standing scaffolding of nuclear restraint.

A New Chapter in Global Escalation

Israel’s attack on the heart of Iran in June 2025 was not just the latest episode in the long history of the Middle East conflict. It was a loud signal that great power rivalry is now transforming into an open struggle, with Asia and the Global South as the main arenas of interest. For China, which has always maintained a balance between Iran and Israel, this war is a real test of its diplomatic strategy and national interests.

China: From Balancing to Taking Sides?

China has historically pursued a policy of “dual engagement” in the Middle East—strengthening economic ties with Israel while building a strategic partnership with Iran, especially in the areas of energy and security. However, the 2025 war revealed a significant shift in Beijing’s attitude. Just a day after the Israeli attack, China’s Ambassador to the UN, Fu Cong, openly called Israel’s actions a violation of Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, while urging an end to Israel’s “military adventurism.” This strong statement was reinforced by President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who reiterated their support for Iran’s right to self-defense and rejected further US military involvement.

This policy is not just rhetoric. China is a major buyer of Iranian oil, with more than 80% of Iran’s oil exports going to China—even amid Western sanctions. The 25-year partnership signed in 2021 deepens energy dependence and infrastructure investment, making Iran a key pillar of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in the region. This relationship, economically and geopolitically, positions China as the main defender of Iran’s interests in global forums.

However, this position carries significant risks. China-Israel relations, which previously flourished in the technology and infrastructure sectors, are now experiencing serious rifts. Israel and its Western allies see China’s stance as a bias that undermines trust and narrows the space for dialogue. Iran, on the other hand, views China as an important strategic partner in the face of Western pressure, although it remains aware of the limits of Beijing’s commitment to direct military involvement.

Immediate Impact on Asia and the Global South: Energy, Economics, and Uncertainty

The domino effects of the conflict were immediately felt in Asia and the Global South. The surge in world oil prices—topping $75 per barrel—triggered inflation, increased the fiscal burden on energy-importing countries, and depressed people’s purchasing power. Indonesia, India, and ASEAN countries immediately evacuated residents from conflict zones, strengthened energy reserves, and prepared for economic contingency scenarios.

Asia’s dependence on Middle Eastern energy has now become a strategic vulnerability that cannot be ignored. Any threat to the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for one-third of the world’s oil supply, immediately shakes markets and creates investment uncertainty. For countries in the Global South, energy price volatility means the risk of slowing growth, weakening currencies, and rising living costs—issues that exacerbate inequality and increase the potential for domestic political instability.

China as Mediator: Ambitions, Challenges, and Realities

China is seeking to capitalize on this momentum to assert itself as a global mediator. Beijing has actively offered itself as a mediator, pushed for a ceasefire, and called for multilateral dialogue in forums such as the UN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In its official narrative and state media editorials, China has emphasized the importance of a political solution, respect for sovereignty, and rejection of Western-style “unilateral intervention.”

However, the effectiveness of China’s mediation role faces real limitations. China’s influence over Israel is very limited, given Tel Aviv’s closeness to Washington and skepticism of Beijing’s neutrality. On the other hand, China’s over-involvement risks provoking a confrontation with the United States, which remains the dominant player in the Middle East. The reality on the ground shows that while China has been able to construct a narrative as a new counterbalance, its ability to truly change the dynamics of the conflict is still constrained by its limited military and political leverage.

Strategic Implications: Global Polarization and the Future of Asia

The Iran-Israel conflict deepens global polarization between Israel’s pro-Israel bloc (the US and its Western allies) and Iran’s pro-Iran bloc (China, Russia, and much of the Global South). Asian and Global South countries are now faced with a strategic dilemma: balancing relations with the two great powers without getting caught up in a rivalry that could undermine regional stability.

For China, this conflict is a test of its ambition to become a leader of the Global South and a counterweight to Western dominance. Beijing’s firm stance in defending the principle of sovereignty and rejecting military intervention is a strong message to developing countries that have long felt marginalized in the global order. However, the challenge ahead is how to transform this diplomatic capital into real influence in resolving conflicts and building inclusive collective security mechanisms.

Conclusion: Asia and the Global South as Deciders of the Future

The Iran-Israel conflict and China’s response mark a new chapter in world geopolitics. Asia and the Global South are no longer spectators, but rather determiners of the future of the global order. By strengthening solidarity, policy innovation, and collective diplomacy, developing countries can take a greater role in maintaining world peace and prosperity. The challenges are great, but the opportunities to build a more inclusive and equitable world order are now wide open—and China, along with Asia and the Global South, is at the center of that change.

Russia called the US strikes on Iran ‘unjustified’ and ‘unprovoked’, while China warned they ‘set a bad precedent’.

Russia and China have strongly condemned US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, warning they could drag the world into a broader war and set a dangerous international precedent.

The reactions came just hours before Iran launched missiles at the US base in Qatar on Monday in response to Sunday’s strikes.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday described the American strikes as “unjustified” and said they were pushing the world towards a perilous tipping point.

Speaking after talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi at the Kremlin, Putin said Moscow would try to help the Iranian people but stopped short of detailing how.

“The absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran has no basis and no justification,” Putin told Araghchi. “For our part, we are making efforts to assist the Iranian people.”

The Chinese government also weighed in, with Foreign Minister Wang Yi condemning both the Israeli strikes on Iran and the US bombardment of its nuclear facilities. He said the rationale of attacking over “possible future threats” sent the wrong signal to the world and urged a return to diplomacy.

Wang called for all parties to “immediately resume dialogue and negotiation”, warning the escalation risked destabilising the region.

Bringing the world ‘to a very dangerous line’

Tensions have soared in recent days, with US President Donald Trump and Israeli officials openly discussing the possibility of assassinating Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and pushing for regime change – moves the Kremlin warned could plunge the region into a full-blown war.

During the high-level Kremlin meeting on Monday, Araghchi reportedly handed Putin a message from Khamenei, though the contents were not disclosed. A senior Iranian source told the Reuters news agency the letter called for increased Russian support, but Moscow has not confirmed receiving any such appeal.

Later, while addressing a gathering of elite military recruits, Putin spoke more broadly about growing instability. “Extra-regional powers are also being drawn into the conflict,” he said. “All this brings the world to a very dangerous line.”

Despite signing a 20-year strategic pact with Iran earlier this year, Russia has avoided making concrete military commitments to defend Tehran, and the agreement lacks any mutual defence clause.

Iranian frustration

Iranian officials, speaking anonymously to Reuters, expressed frustration with Moscow’s perceived inaction. They said Tehran felt let down by both Russia and China, despite repeated calls for support.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov declined to say whether Iran had asked for weapons or military aid but insisted Moscow’s ties with Tehran remained strong. “Our strategic partnership with Iran is unbreakable,” Ryabkov said, adding that Iran had every right to defend itself.

Still, the Kremlin appears wary of any move that might provoke a direct confrontation with Washington, particularly as Trump seeks to ease tensions with Moscow amid the war in Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said US-Iran developments would not affect the Russia-US dialogue, calling them “separate processes”.

Memories of US-led wars in the Middle East still linger. At Sunday’s United Nations Security Council session, Russia’s UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia drew comparisons with the 2003 Iraq invasion. He recalled how the US falsely claimed Iraq held weapons of mass destruction.

“Again, we’re being asked to believe the US’s fairytales,” Nebenzia said. “This cements our conviction that history has taught our US colleagues nothing.”

Russia, China and Pakistan have jointly submitted a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East.

In this episode, Ken Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, interviews Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla on how much the Global South has influenced the world order and whether it can actually exert any pressure on the international stage.

Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla is the general coordinator for Progressive International, a think tank working to unite, organise and mobilise progressive forces around the world.

She’s also one of the founders and the executive secretary of the Hague Group, a coalition of nations from the Global South formed in January 2025 to uphold the rulings of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court regarding Israel-Palestine, and “stand together to defend the principles of justice, equality and human rights”.

Among the collective measures the group has taken is to close their ports to ships carrying weapons or fuel to Israel and commit to honour international arrest warrants.

In the digital age, where power dynamics are increasingly defined by information flows and algorithmic influence, cyberspace has evolved from a mere technical domain into a fully fledged geopolitical arena. As Thomas Rid has argued, cyberwar is not a rupture but an extension of politics by other means, characterized by ambiguity, plausible deniability, and the absence of clear thresholds. In this new order, cybersecurity acts as an adaptive shield, protecting vital systems, while cyber defense becomes the digital sword, mobilizing state capabilities to detect, neutralize, and retaliate. This strategic pairing gives rise to an integrated doctrine, where every firewall becomes a sensor and every breach an opportunity for strategic hardening.

Thus, twenty-first-century conflicts no longer begin with declarations of war but with lines of malicious code. State-sponsored cyberattacks, technological espionage, and mass disinformation campaigns are the weapons of the future: silent yet potentially paralyzing. In this shadow war, financial systems, smart grids, healthcare infrastructures, and state institutions become critical pressure points, exposed to systemic shocks that can dislocate national continuity. In response, digital resilience is no longer a defensive posture but a vital imperative. It rests on the fusion of preventive cybersecurity and active cyber defense, forming an invisible architecture that balances anticipation with response. Partnerships like the one between Microsoft and U.S. Cyber Command, where Azure Sentinel’s AI bolsters offensive operations against Chinese APTs, illustrate the hybridization of technological shield and geopolitical weapon. Yet attribution remains a strategic Achilles’ heel; opacity and decentralization of attacks hamper deterrence logic.

For these reasons and inspired by nuclear doctrines, some states are now developing cyber deterrence strategies based on denial (making the attack ineffective) and targeted retaliation (imposing dissuasive costs). The U.S. Cyber Command’s “persistent engagement” model exemplifies this approach, where anticipation, calibrated response, and cognitive dominance form a triptych of integrated deterrence. On the other hand, the rise of artificial intelligence is disrupting this balance at dizzying speed. China’s DeepSeek R1, for instance, demonstrates that AI is no longer merely a tool for data processing but an autonomous force capable of identifying threats, executing countermeasures, and even making tactical decisions. This signals the emergence of a new form of algorithmic sovereignty, where strategic initiative shifts from human to calculated agency.

This paradigm shift is reshaping the military domain as well. Autonomous drones, automated intelligence platforms, and smart weapons systems are redefining doctrines of technological supremacy. Ukraine’s “Spider Web” operation marked a doctrinal rupture, deploying swarms of AI-coordinated micro-drones capable of dynamic, adaptive targeting in cluttered environments. It heralds the advent of fluid, decentralized warfare and prefigures future algorithmic conflicts.

Big Tech: Geopolitical Hydras

When Big Tech dictates the rules of cyberspace, states become variables in someone else’s equation. It is no longer armies but platforms that shape power balances. This paradigm shift cements the rise of an extraterritorial technological power not based on monopoly of legitimate violence but on mastery of data flows and digital architectures. Then, GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) now operates as systemic entities, wielding influence that eclipses traditional state sovereignty. Their power, driven by an unprecedented concentration of computational, financial, and informational capital, grants them a structuring role in international relations, rivaling even the core prerogatives of the state.

This rise isn’t merely economic or technological; it redefines global governance. These corporations act as the architects of the “matrix politica,” enforcing opaque algorithmic regulation of public discourse, social behaviors, and collective perception. By replacing legitimate legal norms with proprietary logic, they institute an unelected algorithmic order, generating “invisible prisons” where individuals become exploitable variables and national sovereignty becomes a residual fiction.

In this context, any viable cyber defense or deterrence strategy must confront this structural asymmetry. Strengthening state defenses against conventional cyber threats is no longer sufficient. The relationship between public authority and private technological hegemony must be recalibrated. Effective digital resilience demands a democratic reconquest of communication infrastructures and political oversight of the normative power wielded by platforms. Absent such rebalancing, cyberspace will continue to slide into a deterritorialized algorithmic sovereignty that deeply reconfigures the exercise of power in the 21st century.

This silent capture of normative power presents a strategic challenge to cyber deterrence doctrines. After all, what is the purpose of state deterrence if critical infrastructures, codebases, and mass cognitive systems are controlled by transnational private entities? Digital sovereignty must encompass offensive capabilities against state-backed cyber aggressors and against hegemonic drifts of platforms capable of reshaping cognitive battlegrounds, manipulating public perception, and influencing political decisions in real time.

This revolution comes at a cost. Deep learning algorithms can now launch sophisticated cyberattacks, detect invisible vulnerabilities, and strike without warning, pushing human intervention into the background. AI thus generates a strategic paradox: it enhances resilience while simultaneously magnifying vulnerabilities. Advances like DeepMind’s AlphaFold show how such technologies permeate critical domains, from biology to cybersecurity, blurring the lines between scientific progress and digital militarization. In this new era, AI is no longer a tool; it is a geopolitical actor.

In fact, major powers and actors are investing in this revolution in different ways. The United States, a pioneer in AI research, focuses on innovation and developing offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. China, aiming for technological supremacy by 2030, is coupling digital sovereignty with state surveillance to bolster its global position. The European Union adopts a more regulatory and ethical approach, seeking to govern AI use while preserving its technological autonomy.

Warfare in the Age of AI

The military domain, too, is being swept into the vortex of AI-led automation. Autonomous drones, smart weapon systems, and automated intelligence platforms are reshaping defense doctrines, ushering in a new form of technological supremacy. These tools offer asymmetric advantages to well-equipped powers but also pave the way for an unprecedented militarization of cyberspace.

Delegating lethal decisions to machines raises profound ethical dilemmas: who bears responsibility for algorithmic misfires? How do we regulate autonomous weapons in a world where legal norms lag behind innovation? Without clear answers, AI risks transforming the battlefield into a dehumanized theater of operations beyond political and moral control.

Subsequently, the proliferation of hybrid threats, cyberattacks, disinformation, and covert operations underscores the urgency of enhanced international cooperation. In fact, the Russo-Ukrainian conflict has highlighted cyberspace’s centrality in modern warfare, with the rise of cyber-volunteers, hacktivists, and destabilization campaigns. Ukraine’s IT Army exemplifies a new form of cyber mobility, where citizens and transnational collectives become key players in cyber conflict.

In this regard, Ukraine’s “Spider Web” operation against Russian targets demonstrates a new military application of AI in hybrid warfare. Here, AI no longer acts as a mere optimizer but as a digital war commander, orchestrating data collection, target identification, battlefield navigation, and dynamic strike execution. This machine-learning-powered architecture transforms each drone into both a sensor and a lethal vector, capable of real-time adaptation. More than a technological feat, Spider Web signals a metamorphosis of warfare, with AI assuming operational control and ushering in an era of autonomous algorithmic wars.

Fragmented Tech Ecosystems and Strategic Rivalries

Meanwhile, the militarization of cyberspace is accelerating. Leading powers are developing advanced cyber weapons, espionage tools, and surveillance systems to maintain digital supremacy. China’s “Made in China 2025” strategy channels massive investment into cybersecurity and tech sovereignty, while the U.S. doubles down on proactive defense to safeguard its hegemonic edge.

This trend drives increasing fragmentation of the global digital landscape, undermining the ideal of an open internet and encouraging the formation of rival digital blocs. The Sino-American tech rivalry extends beyond infrastructure development, despite enduring interdependencies in key sectors. While semiconductor and 5G decoupling advances, shared reliance persists in AI, cloud computing, and components. This duality complicates strategic choices. Each power must navigate between tech independence and global innovation access, accelerating cyber-nationalism and deepening digital polarization. Huawei’s Harmony OS and U.S. bans on Chinese semiconductors are clear signs of a growing digital decoupling that could redefine global tech ecosystems.

In this climate of intensifying threats and systemic interdependence, states are turning to cyber sovereignty strategies to secure critical infrastructure and reduce exposure to foreign interference. This forms part of a broader reconfiguration of global digital order, where control over data and information flows becomes a strategic lever.

International bodies such as NATO and the EU are gradually adapting. The EU’s Cyber Rapid Response Teams (CRRTs) and NATO’s adoption of offensive cyber doctrines signal a growing intent to pool resources and establish collective response mechanisms. Thus, China exemplifies the sovereigntist approach: its Great Firewall symbolizes a strategy combining national infrastructure protection, strict data regulation, and bolstered cyber-offensive capabilities.

From Code to Context: Redefining Cyberwarfare

Cyberwarfare is no longer about code but about context. Victory lies in merging civilian neural networks, predictive algorithms, and bio-neural systems, where every smartphone becomes a sensor and every hacktivist a cognitive disruptor. Tomorrow’s cyber defense rests on algorithmic sovereignty: an ecosystem where tactical metaverses, morphic AI drones, and quantum blockchains redefine resilience. In addition, Ukraine has shown that the future belongs to those who break hierarchies to build combat bio-networks—info-centric systems powered by quantum geolocation and operational proliferation of cyber volunteers. In this borderless arena, victory is won not by hacking machines but by hacking perceptions, hybridizing human agency, generative AI, and legal ambiguity.

Furthermore, cybersecurity is no longer a static defense line but a fractal weapon with evolutionary capabilities, where every intrusion becomes a counter-weapon and every psychokinetic attack an information battleground. That’s to say, this next-gen cyber architecture is based on adaptive algorithmic systems capable of dynamic reconfiguration in the face of ever-mutating threats. Its strength lies in an advanced synergy of AI, quantum cryptography, and autonomous protocols—modular, decentralized, and self-replicating systems that respond proportionately to the intensity and nature of cyberattacks. In a world shaped by asymmetry and uncertainty, this model grants states algorithmic superiority, shaping tomorrow’s deterrence and digital resilience.

Therefore, in the face of this accelerating tech revolution, global AI governance is no longer optional—it’s an existential necessity. Without robust legal frameworks and multilateral oversight, the world risks plunging into a digital arms race defined by opacity, irresponsibility, and strategic instability. It is no longer about regulating innovation; it is about preserving global balance in a world where the boundaries between war and peace, civil and military, and human and machine are increasingly blurred. Namely, an international architecture of trust and transparency is essential to prevent AI from becoming the unaccountable arbiter of tomorrow’s conflicts.

Disruption Scenario: Toward Unchecked Algorithmic Warfare

By 2032, the lack of international regulation on military AI triggers an uncontrolled rise of autonomous weapons and AI-powered cyber capabilities. Amid mounting tensions between the West and the Sino-Russian bloc, the race for AI military supremacy enters a tipping point. China, after scaling up AI militarization with Central Asian partners, unleashes targeted cyberattacks against European logistics and energy systems, paralyzing large parts of the continent. Simultaneously, autonomous drone swarms developed under a Sino-Russian program infiltrate NATO airspace disguised as meteorological probes.

Behind the scenes, Russia orchestrates a massive cognitive warfare operation using generative AI trained to manipulate Western public opinion. Deepfakes, forged documents, and fake military orders—Europe’s political systems are plunged into information chaos. In several capitals, key decisions are based on alerts fabricated by hostile AI. Thus, a devastating strike then hits a NATO logistics hub in the Baltic Sea, causing significant casualties. No state claims responsibility, but suspicion falls on Russia. Western attribution systems, despite being AI-enhanced, are circumvented by adversarial AI obfuscation networks. Indeed, caught in a spiral of disinformation and decision paralysis, a NATO member launches a massive cyber counterattack on Russian civilian infrastructure. Moscow retaliates with a hybrid strike combining autonomous weapons, electronic warfare, and satellite disruption. Within a week, a high-intensity hybrid conflict erupts regionally, with immediate nuclear escalation risk. Traditional command chains are disabled, decisions are made under AI pressure, and human agency vanishes. Strategic equilibrium, once upheld by nuclear deterrence and diplomacy, collapses under the weight of self-evolving, autonomous algorithms.

Moreover, conflicts no longer begin with declarations of war: they emerge, self-perpetuate, and unfold in an algorithmic fog where the line between peace and hostility vanishes. Humanity then realizes that, in failing to regulate, it has surrendered control to hostile, elusive, and autonomous intelligences.

Coding Sovereignty in the Algorithmic Fog

The future of cybersecurity lies in the ability of states to reconcile innovation, regulation, and strategic cooperation. The implementation of robust cyber doctrines, blending deterrence, algorithmic resilience, and control over critical infrastructure, will be key to preserving national sovereignty and global stability. That is to say, in the age of information supremacy, building cyber coalitions, massively investing in sovereign digital infrastructures, and establishing binding international norms are essential to secure peace and security. Cybersecurity is no longer a defensive tool; it is a core pillar of state power.

This indicates that cyberwar is no longer a future scenario; it is a strategic reality where supremacy depends on integrating offensive and defensive capabilities into a deterrent cyber ecosystem. The convergence of cyber intelligence, algorithmic resilience, and anticipatory response is reshaping defense doctrines, establishing a digital sovereignty rooted in system self-learning, cognitive warfare, and adversary vulnerability exploitation.

Finally, in this asymmetrical theatre, mastery over critical infrastructure and the ability to conduct hybrid operations will determine the balance of power in a cyberspace that has become the epicenter of global strategic rivalries. In the algorithmic fog of tomorrow’s wars, sovereignty is no longer declared, but it is coded, learned, and defended with every line of data.

China’s response was to strongly condemn Israel’s actions, which violate all basic norms governing international relations. The Chinese Foreign Ministry considered the attacks on Tehran’s nuclear facilities to set a dangerous precedent, the repercussions of which could be disastrous for international peace and stability. In response to this direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran, Beijing has consistently taken a firm pro-Iran stance, with China officially declaring that Tehran is not an instigator of regional instability. Beijing also immediately linked this Israeli escalation against Iran to the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip, a conflict that China has long advocated for resolving through the United Nations. All Chinese political and intelligence analyses have emphasized that the current situation and the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran are the latest extension of the conflict that has been raging for more than two years in the Gaza Strip. This serves as yet another reminder that the Palestinian issue remains central to the Middle East and impacts long-term peace, stability, and security in the region. To this end, Chinese circles believe that if the conflict in Gaza is allowed to continue, the negative impact of the conflict is expected to spread further, making the region even more unstable.

 Reflecting the same context of official Chinese statements, Chinese experts view these events not only as another chapter in the Israeli-Iranian conflict but also as an extension of the war in the Gaza Strip. According to Chinese Professor Liu Zhongmin of Shanghai International Studies University and Professor Tang Qichao, Director of the Research Center for Development and Governance in the Middle East at the Institute of West Asian and African Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the confrontation that began in the Gaza Strip has now expanded to five additional fronts: the West Bank, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the Red Sea, where Israel’s enemies are trying to divert its attention and deplete its resources.

  Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Director of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Central Committee of the ruling Communist Party of China, held talks with his Israeli counterpart. Minister Wang Yi affirmed China’s opposition to Israel’s violation of international law by attacking Iran with force, describing Israeli behavior as internationally unacceptable. China affirmed that diplomatic means regarding the Iranian nuclear issue have not been exhausted, and there is still hope for a peaceful solution to the issue. The Chinese leadership confirmed to President Xi Jinping that “the force used by Israel against the Iranians cannot establish lasting peace between the two sides.” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi also affirmed that “China is ready to play a constructive role in containing the escalation of the conflict between Tehran and Tel Aviv.”

  These Chinese talks with Iranian and Israeli officials to stop the war should be understood as part of China’s efforts to prevent relations between Tel Aviv and Tehran from destabilizing the region’s security, maritime, navigational, and logistical stability. This is particularly true given Iran’s explicit accusations that several regional powers facilitated Israeli airspace attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is in addition to the current link between US President Trump’s recent visit to three Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE) and the coordination of Israel’s current military strike on Iran. This is in addition to analyses by several Chinese political and intelligence circles that several regional powers have shared intelligence with Israel regarding the attack on Iran. Through China’s analysis of all these current developments, Beijing’s interest in neutralizing the course of Israeli-Iranian relations, at least for the time being, stems from its pivotal role in mediating the restoration of diplomatic relations between these two regional rivals as a price for restoring stability to the Middle East. 

  Supporting the Chinese view in this context is what Chinese officials consistently praise as a wave of regional reconciliation, as evidence of the effectiveness of the Global Security Initiative launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping. This alternative security framework is often positioned in contrast to the Western system, which Chinese officials and researchers often portray as a front for American hegemony.

  Beijing is leveraging Tehran’s support for several groups in the Middle East to advance its interests in confronting the balance of power with the United States in the Middle East, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. China and Russia also appear to be working to establish closer relations with Hamas. A delegation of senior leaders from Hamas and other Palestinian movements, including Islamic Jihad, which the United States officially designates as a terrorist group, has visited Moscow and Beijing several times to coordinate their positions on the Israeli escalation in the Gaza Strip, with explicit American support. Chinese think tanks described this Iranian retaliatory attack against Israel, after its war against it, as an unprecedented development in its long-standing proxy conflict with Israel. They expected Iran to respond militarily soon through a third party, such as the Houthis in Yemen, to disrupt maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Bab Al-Mandab, and the Suez Canal in Egypt. This would be part of Iran’s leverage over Israel and the United States to halt its war and refrain from continuing to attack its nuclear facilities, harm its interests, and assassinate its military leaders and scientists.

  On the other hand, China has several leverage points against Israel. It has significant investments in Israel, particularly in the infrastructure and technology sectors, and has maintained them throughout the conflict in the Gaza Strip. China also relies heavily on Iran for 90% of its crude oil imports, which go directly to China. To this end, China will attempt to play a calming role between Tehran and Tel Aviv, especially since these Israeli retaliatory strikes targeted Iranian oil infrastructure in a way that could impact Iranian oil exports to China. Therefore, Beijing is likely to raise its voice in condemning Israel’s actions against the Iranians and even intervene and broker a peace agreement between the two parties to preserve its oil interests with Tehran. China remains one of the few countries that buys oil from Iran despite US sanctions. Beijing also brokered the agreement to restore diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023, which could play a role in establishing a peace agreement between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

   Regarding the views of senior Chinese military leaders regarding Iran’s role in confronting the Israeli war against it, Chinese experts Teng Jiankun, a senior researcher at the China Institute of International Studies, and Wang Mingzhi, director of the Strategic Education and Research Office at the People’s Liberation Army Air Force Command College, believe a direct attack from Iran is unlikely and instead expect Iran to respond through its proxies, such as the Houthis. In a previous interview with China Central Television (CCTV), Colonel “Du Wenlong” of the People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Sciences stated, “If Iran transfers its weapons to areas in Syria, Yemen, Gaza, and Lebanon, then through intermediaries, it could achieve war feats similar to those of the Israeli war against it. Therefore, in the next step, Iran could influence actors throughout the Middle East to carry out joint retaliatory operations against both Israel and the United States.” Chinese military expert “Li Li” also emphasized that “Iran has effectively demonstrated its ability to retaliate against Israel, as well as the Iranians’ prowess in operational planning and the capabilities of their military industry,” which she described as “extremely systematic and extensive.” Professor Li Li emphasized that “Iran’s real goal now is to demonstrate its ability to strike deep into Israeli territory and enhance its deterrence to secure political and strategic goals.” Professor Ding Jun, a well-known Chinese professor of Middle East politics and head of the Institute of Middle East Studies at Shanghai International Studies University, emphasized that “the political nature of the operation outweighs its military significance.” According to Chinese political and military analyst Wang Mingqi, “Iran’s restraint in the attack on Tel Aviv may have been due to Tehran’s goal of not diverting the international community’s attention away from Gaza and Israel, which is the same goal the Israelis are aiming to achieve by launching their current, unexpected attack on Tehran.”

    By understanding this previous analysis, we find that the American side is counting heavily on China as well to play a role in calming the situation between Tehran and Tel Aviv. The closest example of this is the United States’ request that China use its influence over Tehran to curb the Iranian-backed Houthi group in Yemen, which is attacking ships in the Red Sea.

As Israel and Iran exchange deadly salvoes for a fourth day, there are growing concerns that the conflict will spread across one of the world’s key oil- and gas-producing regions. Equity markets initially were roiled after Israel’s surprise attack on Friday but have since stabilised.

A day after Israel killed several of Iran’s top military commanders and nuclear scientists and damaged some of its nuclear sites, Israel then hit Iran’s fossil fuel sector on Saturday with Iranian state media reporting a blaze at the South Pars gasfield. More than 220 people have been killed in the Israeli attacks, including at least 70 women and children, according to Iranian authorities.

Iran responded with a barrage of ballistic missile and drone strikes, a small percentage of which succeeded in penetrating Israeli defences, killing at least 24 people.

On his Truth Social platform, United States President Donald Trump warned Tehran that the next “already planned attacks” would be “even more brutal”, adding: “Iran must make a deal [on its nuclear programme] before nothing is left.”

As the conflict between the Middle East’s two most powerful militaries spirals towards a full-fledged war, financial markets and the aviation sector are taking a hit. Analysts are watching oil prices, and investors are turning to safe havens like gold.

And a full-blown war could make things even worse – much worse, experts warned.

What has happened to the price of oil?

Brent crude, the global benchmark, rallied to $74.60 per barrel early on Monday.

That marked an almost 7 percent increase from Thursday, the day before Israel launched its surprise attack.

Much of the world’s oil and other key commodities such as natural gas pass through busy sea lanes in the Middle East, including the Strait of Hormuz.

The strait, a narrow waterway separating Iran from the Gulf states, links the Arabian Sea to the Indian Ocean.

It is a conduit for one-third of the world’s seaborne oil supplies, channelling roughly 21 million barrels every day.

At its narrowest point, it is 33km (21 miles) wide. Shipping lanes in the waterway are even narrower, making them vulnerable to attack.

The conflict between Israel and Iran has revived a decades-old question of whether Tehran will close the maritime chokepoint, triggering an oil price rally.

Quoting key conservative lawmaker Esmail Kosari, the Iranian news agency IRINN reported that Tehran is considering closing the strait as the conflict with Israel intensifies.

According to Goldman Sachs, a worst-case scenario involving blockades in the Strait of Hormuz could push oil prices above $100 per barrel.

Still, during the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, in which both countries targeted commercial vessels in the Gulf, Hormuz was never completely closed.

What’s more, attempts to block the Strait of Hormuz would likely disrupt Tehran’s own exports, especially to China, cutting off valuable revenue.

According to Hamzeh Al Gaaod, an economic analyst at TS Lombard, a strategy and political research firm, “the repercussions to closing off the strait would be severe for Tehran itself.”

Have global inflation rates been affected?

When oil prices rise, the cost of production also goes up. This is eventually passed on to consumers, especially for energy-intensive goods like food, clothing and chemicals.

Oil-importing countries around the world could experience higher inflation and slower economic growth if the conflict persists.

Looking ahead, analysts warned that central banks would face reduced policy flexibility in trying to control rising prices.

“Central bankers from the G7 are currently on an [interest rate] cutting cycle, and so will be worried about a potential energy price shock,” Al Gaaod told Al Jazeera.

The Bank of England has recently slashed the United Kingdom’s base interest rate to 4.25 percent although the US Federal Reserve has held off on cutting rates in the wake of Trump’s tariffs, imposed on almost all countries since he returned to power in January.

How have markets responded?

Wall Street has taken a hit. On Friday, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite indices shed 1.1 and 1.3 percent, respectively. In the Middle East, Egypt’s benchmark EGX 30 index fell 7.7 percent on Sunday while the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange 35 Index dropped 1.5 percent.

European equities also drifted down on the news of Israel’s attacks. Germany’s DAX and France’s CAC 40 fell a little more than 1.1 percent at the end of last week while the UK’s FTSE 100 ended 0.5 percent lower on Friday.

Still, some UK companies rallied. BAE Systems, a defence contractor, was up almost 3 percent on Friday, reflecting concerns that tensions could escalate.

In the US, share prices of military suppliers, including Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and RTX, also rose.

Elsewhere, oil companies BP and Shell gained in value with the former closing nearly 2 percent higher and the latter closing at just more than 1 percent higher.

The price of gold was also trading about 1 percent higher on Friday at $3,426 an ounce, close to the record high of $3,500 it hit in April.

On Monday, investors tempered some of their risk-off positioning with oil and gold prices falling and stock prices rising.

“It seems that markets are anticipating the conflict will remain relatively contained. Crucially, Iran has not attacked any US military assets in the region,” Al Gaaod said.

What has the impact been on the aviation sector with airspace closures?

Several airlines have suspended or cancelled flights in the Middle East, and some countries have shut their airspace.

Here is a list of some suspended and rerouted flights:

• Emirates, the Middle East’s largest airline, said it has suspended flights to and from Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Iran until June 30 with flights to Lebanon halted until Sunday.
• Etihad Airways has cancelled all flights between Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv until Sunday. The airline is also rerouting several other services and has advised customers to await updates regarding their flight status.
• Qatar Airways has temporarily cancelled flights to Iran, Iraq and Syria due to ongoing tensions with passengers advised to check the status of their flights before travel.

Elsewhere, Iran’s official news agency IRNA reported that aviation authorities have shut down the country’s airspace until further notice.

On Friday, Iraq also closed its airspace and suspended all traffic at its airports, Iraqi state media reported. Eastern Iraq is home to one of the world’s busiest air corridors. Dozens of flights cross there at any one moment, flying between Europe and the Gulf – many on routes from Asia to Europe.

Jordan’s civil aviation authority said it had “temporarily” closed Jordanian airspace “in anticipation of any dangers resulting from the escalation happening in the region”.

For Al Gaaod, “there may be short-term disruption for Middle East tourism but only for a month or so. I suspect tourism will bounce back.”

He made a similar prediction about global financial markets: “So long as strikes remain contained, I think equity prices will continue to recover from last week.”

‘Brutal funding cuts leave brutal choices,’ says aid chief, as humanitarian appeal slashes and priorities refocused.

The United Nations has announced sweeping cuts to its global humanitarian operations, blaming what it described as the “deepest funding cuts ever” for a drastic scaling back of its aid ambitions.

In a statement released on Monday, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said it was now appealing for $29bn in aid – down sharply from the $44bn it had requested in December – and would refocus on the most critical emergencies under a “hyper-prioritised” plan.

The move follows a steep decline in funding from key donors, with the United States – historically the largest contributor – having slashed foreign aid under the administration of President Donald Trump.

Other donors have since followed suit, citing global economic uncertainty. So far this year, the UN has received only $5.6bn, a mere 13 percent of what it initially sought.

This comes as humanitarian needs soar in conflict zones, including Sudan, Gaza, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Myanmar.

“Brutal funding cuts leave us with brutal choices,” said undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, Tom Fletcher.

“All we ask is 1 percent of what you spent last year on war. But this isn’t just an appeal for money – it’s a call for global responsibility, for human solidarity, for a commitment to end the suffering,” he added.

OCHA said remaining aid efforts would be redirected towards the most urgent crises and aligned with planning already under way for 2025 to ensure maximum impact with limited funds.

“We have been forced into a triage of human survival,” Fletcher said. “The math is cruel, and the consequences are heartbreaking. Too many people will not get the support they need, but we will save as many lives as we can with the resources we are given.”

Emily Feng is an award-winning Chinese American journalist who spent a decade reporting from China and Taiwan. In 2022, Feng was barred from returning to the Chinese mainland and labelled a “race traitor” for her journalism.

Her recent book, Let Only Red Flowers Bloom: Identity and Belonging in Xi Jinping’s China, tells the human stories of resistance and rebellion against the Chinese state’s vision of a unified national identity.

In this episode, Ken Roth and Emily Feng examine Xi Jinping’s past, exploring what distinguishes his style of authoritarianism and how this affects human rights both within China and globally.

WASHINGTON, June 12 (UPI) — Taiwan may be an island of just over 23 million people, but what happens there could ripple across the global economy. The small democratic nation produces the vast majority of the world’s most advanced semiconductors — chips that are used in everything from smartphones and electric cars to defense systems and spacecraft.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. “produces roughly 90% of the most sophisticated computer chips, and the loss of that would be devastating,” said Steven David, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “We can’t get around without it.”

For Taiwan, this manufacturing dominance isn’t just economic — it’s strategic. Analysts call it the island’s “silicon shield.” The world relies heavily on Taiwan’s chips, which deters China from launching a military attack and pushes allies like the United States to come to Taiwan’s defense.

The geopolitical stakes around Taiwan’s semiconductor dominance have soared as China escalates military pressure, through increased fighter jet incursions, large-scale naval drills and explicit threats of reunification.

U.S. lawmakers from both parties have increasingly voiced concern that a Chinese invasion could upend global chip supply chains and empower Beijing with outsized economic leverage.

“It [would be] monumentally stupid to try to keep something as fragile as chips production going during the time of war,” said Kitsch Liao, associate director of the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub.

The United States has taken steps to address this vulnerability. In 2022, former President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, allocating $280 billion to support domestic semiconductor manufacturing and research, including subsidies for Taiwan Semiconductor to build a plant in Phoenix.

In March, President Donald Trump announced a new $100 billion deal with the company to dramatically expand its manufacturing presence in the United States.

“America is building plants with Taiwanese investment and cooperation in Arizona and elsewhere, but it would still be devastating,” David said, referring to the potential impact of a Chinese attack on chip production.

Taiwan’s government has had to carefully balance cooperation with the United States against growing fears at home that shifting too much chip production abroad could weaken its security.

Taiwan’s two main political parties, the Kuomintang, or KMT, and the Democratic Progressive Party, or DPP, have debated the best approach to cross-strait relations.

While the KMT supports closer ties with China, the DPP, which currently holds the presidency under Lai Ching-te, has leaned toward reinforcing Taiwan’s democratic independence and diversifying trade, actions that could increase already mounting pressure from China.

“If China does successfully invade Taiwan and takes over the TSMC plant, it won’t be able to use the plant the way Taiwan does,” David said. “But it would deny its use to others, and that would be devastating to the world economy. Several percentages of world GDP would drop as a result.”

Analysts worry that even the threat of invasion could destabilize markets. Blockades or gray zone tactics by Beijing, short of all-out war, could still limit Taiwan Semiconductors’ ability to export.

“Any erosion in Taiwan’s ability to trade with the rest of the world would have a significant impact on the global economy,” said Jack Burnham, a research analyst at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“It would disrupt the flow of semiconductors to a variety of different industries that are incredibly valuable to the United States, its allies and partners, and the global community.”

Taiwan has long been one of the most contentious issues in United States-China relations. After the Chinese Civil War, the Nationalist government fled to Taiwan in 1949, and the Chinese Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China on the mainland. Since then, Beijing has claimed Taiwan as an inalienable part of its territory.

In 1979, the United States. ended formal diplomatic recognition of Taipei in favor of Beijing, but passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which commits the United States to help Taiwan maintain a “sufficient self-defense capability.”

The United States, though, has remained deliberately vague about whether it would come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of a Chinese invasion — a policy known as strategic ambiguity.

But as threats of an invasion increased, this stance continued to be tested. In a speech in Singapore last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth vowed that “devastating consequences” could result should China seek to “conquer” Taiwan, warning that an invasion could be “imminent.”

Beyond semiconductor and chips manufacturing, Taiwan remains a core interest in the Indo-Pacific region. The island sits at the heart of the “first island chain,” a line of U.S.-aligned territories stretching from Japan to the Philippines.

If China were to take over Taiwan, experts warned it could use the island as a launchpad to project power deep into the Pacific, posing a direct challenge to U.S. interests.

“Should China be successful [in a reunification scenario], it would have a significant impact on the lives of everyday Americans — both in their wallets and in the political situation they find themselves in,” Burnham said.

“What’s at stake when it comes to Taiwan is the free flow of trade, a significant part of the American economy, and the health and stability of the United States’ key allies and partners in the region.”

A Civil Service Transformed: The Case of Hong Kong

Hong Kong is currently conducting one of the most significant experiments in applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the civil service. The aim: to increase government efficiency and address a growing fiscal deficit. According to a report by CNA on February 26, 2025, the city plans to leverage AI to manage a major civil service restructuring effort.

By April 2027, Hong Kong plans to cut around 10,000 civil servant positions — reducing approximately 2% of staff annually. These reductions are part of a strategic push to trim government spending while maintaining, or even enhancing, public service quality through digital transformation. AI is expected to shoulder some of the workload left behind. For example, the Census and Statistics Department is already using AI to handle verification tasks previously done manually.

To support this shift, Hong Kong has committed over HK$11 billion (approx. US$1.4 billion) in AI innovation and digital transformation funding. This includes a HK$1 billion allocation for R&D institutions and a HK$10 billion innovation and technology fund targeting strategic future industries.

A Global Pattern: AI as Evaluator, Not Just Executor

This ambition mirrors a broader global pattern. In Indonesia and across the Global South, artificial intelligence is no longer a distant buzzword. It is quietly reshaping the public sector — not just by automating tasks, but by evaluating the very people behind them.

Civil servants in several pilot regions are now being rated by AI systems based on data traces: collaboration metrics, email patterns, task outputs. These scores are then used to “recommend” which roles are redundant, inefficient, or low impact.

This echoes trends around the world. In the United States, the Department of Energy’s Office of the Inspector General (DOE OIG) has tested AI to flag anomalies in procurement and performance. In South Korea, AI has been trialed to detect underperformance in public health roles. Across parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, donor-funded projects use algorithmic scoring to evaluate local staff performance for continuity.

The Distorted Lens of Efficiency

On the surface, this sounds fair. After all, who wouldn’t want a government that works better?

But look deeper, and the danger reveals itself.

AI is not just a tool. It is a lens. And any lens distorts reality based on how it was shaped — by whom, for what purpose, and with which blind spots. In the name of objectivity, we risk building systems that reproduce the very inequalities we failed to fix manually.

The real question is not: “Can AI detect inefficiency?”
It is: “Who defines efficiency? And who benefits from its definition?”

Jobs with emotional, preventive, or contextual value — often held by women or marginalized communities — rarely register well on digital data. Loyalty and discretion, the backbone of many silent roles in diplomacy or social cohesion, are invisible to algorithms. The AI sees output. But not intention. It scores impact. But not nuance.

A Looming Social Risk in the Global South

Beyond governance concerns, there are critical social risks, especially in developing nations. The displacement of human workers by AI can exacerbate unemployment, particularly where alternative job opportunities are scarce. The digital literacy divide means many workers may not have the skills to transition into new roles that require AI fluency. And in countries where digital infrastructure remains uneven, the push toward AI-first public service may deepen inequality rather than bridge it.

A hopeful counterexample: Rwanda’s AI policy includes mandatory community consultations and AI literacy programs as preconditions for any government automation project. While still in early stages, this localized, participatory approach reflects an awareness of both technical and social impact.

Governance That Protects Human Dignity

Worse, the introduction of AI in bureaucratic job assessments often lacks three critical governance pillars:

Explainability – Can employees understand why they are marked “low value”? Or are they just shown a score?

Human-in-the-loop decision-making – Is there room for compassion, second chances, or clarification before action is taken?

Public transparency – Who audits the system? Who sets the parameters? And is the public informed?

Without these guardrails, AI becomes not a tool for reform — but a tool of quiet elimination. You are not fired. You are “scored out.”

In Global South contexts, this is particularly risky. Power is often personalized, and resistance to automation is framed as “anti-progress.” The pressure to adopt AI for prestige, for cost-cutting, or donor appeal creates a climate where ethical reflection is deemed a luxury.

But dignity is not a luxury.

Contextual Governance, Not Imported Frameworks

The solution is not to reject AI. It is to govern it.

We need multidisciplinary teams to co-design such systems. Ethics officers must be embedded from day one. Auditability must be built in, not patched later. And most of all, we must recognize that governance is not just about outcomes — it is about the process of deciding what counts as valuable.

Crucially, this governance must be contextually rooted. Borrowing AI regulatory frameworks from the Global North without adaptation risks deep mismatch. Social structures, political systems, cultural dynamics, and levels of digital literacy vary widely across the Global South. Most developing countries are still primarily users, not developers, of AI — making them more vulnerable to biases embedded in foreign-made systems. If not critically assessed, these biases could further marginalize local communities under the guise of algorithmic neutrality.

At the same time, reskilling and upskilling efforts must be scaled to support those displaced by AI-driven efficiency measures. Governments, educational institutions, and industry must work together to ensure that affected individuals — especially those from vulnerable communities — can transition into meaningful roles in the evolving digital economy.

What Kind of System Are We Building?

When AI becomes a gatekeeper of human worth, our silence becomes complicity.

It is not enough to build systems that work.
We must build systems that understand why people matter.

Global Finance has released the results for the 2025 World’s Best Treasury & Cash Management Systems and Services Awards. This program is part of the 25th annual World’s Best Treasury & Cash Management  Providers awards, and a full report on the entire survey will be published in the July/August 2025 print and digital editions and online at GFMag.com. 

Global Finance used a multi-tiered assessment process—which included entries from banks and providers and input from industry analysts, corporate executives, technology experts and independent research—to select the treasury & cash management systems and services. A variety of subjective and objective criteria were considered, including profitability, market share and reach, customer service, competitive pricing, product innovation and the extent to which organizations have successfully differentiated themselves from their competitors around core service provision.

“Driven by digital advancements and demand for visibility, the Treasury and Cash Management sector is rapidly evolving,” said Joseph Giarraputo, founder and editorial director of Global Finance. “Corporations seek integrated platforms with automation and AI, while financial institutions offer innovative solutions for efficiency and transparency. The Treasury and Cash Management Awards recognize those excelling in this changing landscape.”

The list of Global Finance’s World’s Best Treasury & Cash Management Systems & Services Awards 2025 follows.

###

For editorial information, please contact Andrea Fiano, editor, [email protected]

Global Finance’s Transaction Banking Awards Ceremony 2025

On the morning of September 30, Global Finance will host its annual Transaction Banking Awards Ceremony at the Melia Frankfurt Hotel during the Sibos conference. Winning organizations will be notified about details in advance of the event.

About Global Finance

Global Finance, founded in 1987, has a circulation of 50,000 and readers in 193 countries and territories. Global Finance’s audience includes senior corporate and financial officers responsible for making investment and strategic decisions at multinational companies and financial institutions. Its website — GFMag.com — offers analysis and articles that are the legacy of 38 years of experience in international financial markets. Global Finance is headquartered in New York, with offices around the world. Global Finance regularly selects the top performers among banks and other providers of financial services. These awards have become a trusted standard of excellence for the global financial community.

Logo Use Rights

To obtain rights to use Global Finance’s Award Logos, please contact Chris Giarraputo at: [email protected].

The unauthorized use of Global Finance Logos is strictly prohibited.

Thousands of activists from across the globe are marching to the Gaza Strip to try to break Israel’s suffocating siege and draw international attention to the genocide it is perpetrating there.

Approximately 1,000 people participating in the Tunisian-led stretch of the Global March to Gaza, known as the Sumud Convoy, arrived in Libya on Tuesday morning, a day after they departed the Tunisian capital, Tunis. They are now resting in Libya after a full day of travel, but do not yet have permission to cross the eastern part of the North African country.

The group, which mostly comprises citizens of the Maghreb, the Northwest African region, is expected to grow as people join from countries it passes through as it makes its way towards the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza.

How will they do it? When will they get there? What is this all about?

Here’s all you need to know:

Who’s involved?

The Coordination of Joint Action for Palestine is leading the Sumud Convoy, which is tied to the Global March for Palestine.

In total, there are about 1,000 people, travelling on a nine-bus convoy, with the aim of pressurising world leaders to take action on Gaza.

Sumud is supported by the Tunisian General Labour Union, the National Bar Association, the Tunisian League for Human Rights, and the Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights.

It is coordinating with activists and individuals from 50 countries who are flying into the Egyptian capital, Cairo, on June 12, so that they can all march to Rafah together.

Some of those activists are affiliated with an umbrella of grassroots organisations, including the Palestinian Youth Movement, Codepink Women for Peace in the United States and Jewish Voice for Labour in the United Kingdom.

How will they reach the Rafah crossing?

The convoy of cars and buses has reached Libya. After taking a brief rest, the plan is for it to continue towards Cairo.

“Most people around me are feeling courage and anger [about what’s happening in Gaza],” said Ghaya Ben Mbarek, an independent Tunisian journalist who joined the march just before the convoy crossed into Libya.

Ben Mbarek is driven by the belief that, as a journalist, she has to “stand on the right side of history by stopping a genocide and stopping people from dying from hunger”.

Once Sumud links up with fellow activists in Cairo, they will head to El Arish in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and then embark on a three-day march to the Rafah crossing to Gaza.

Will the activists face obstacles?

The convoy has yet to receive permission to pass through eastern Libya from authorities in the region. Libya has two rival administrations, and while the convoy has been welcomed in the west, discussions are still ongoing with authorities in the east, an official from the convoy told Al Jazeera on Tuesday.

The activists had previously told The Associated Press news agency they do not expect to be allowed into Gaza, yet they hope their journey will pressure world leaders to force Israel to end its genocidal war.

Another concern lies in Egypt, which classifies the stretch between El Arish and the Rafah border crossing as a military zone and does not allow anyone to enter unless they live there.

The Egyptian government has not issued a statement on whether it will allow the Global March to Gaza to pass through its territory.

“I doubt they would be allowed to march towards Rafah,” a longtime Egyptian activist, whose name is being withheld for their safety, said.

“It’s always national security first,” they told Al Jazeera.

If the convoy makes it to Rafah, it will have to face the Israeli army at the crossing.

Why did the activists choose this approach?

Palestine supporters have tried everything over the years as Gaza suffered.

Since Israel’s genocidal war began 20 months ago, civilians have protested in major capitals and taken legal action against elected officials for abetting Israel’s mass killing campaign in Gaza.

Activists have sailed on several humanitarian aid boats towards Gaza, trying to break a stifling blockade that Israel has imposed since 2007; all were attacked or intercepted by Israel.

In 2010, in international waters, Israeli commandos boarded the Mavi Marmara, one of the six boats in the Freedom Flotilla sailing for Gaza. They killed nine people, and one more person died of their wounds later.

The Freedom Flotilla kept trying as Gaza suffered one Israeli assault after another.

Israel’s current war on Gaza prompted 12 activists from the Freedom Flotilla Coalition to set sail on board the Madleen from Italy on June 1, hoping to pressure world governments to stop Israel’s genocide.

However, the activists were abducted by Israeli forces in international waters on June 9.

Will the Global March to Gaza succeed?

The activists will try, even if they are pretty sure they will not get into Gaza.

They say standing idle will only enable Israel to continue its genocide until the people of Gaza are all dead or ethnically cleansed.

“The message people here want to send to the world is that even if you stop us by sea, or air, then we will come, by the thousands, by land,” said Ben Mbarek.

“We will literally cross deserts … to stop people from dying from hunger,” she told Al Jazeera.

How bad are things in Gaza?

Since Israel began its war on Gaza on October 7, 2023, it has strangled the food and supplies entering the Palestinian enclave, engineering a famine that has likely killed thousands and could kill hundreds of thousands more.

Israel has carpet-bombed Gaza, killing at least 54,927 people and injuring more than 126,000.

Legal scholars previously told Al Jazeera the suffering in Gaza suggests Israel is deliberately inflicting conditions to bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinian people in whole or in part – the precise definition of genocide.

Global outrage has grown as Israel continues to kill civilians in thousands, including children, aid workers, medics and journalists.

Since March, Israel has tightened its chokehold on Gaza, completely stopping aid and then shooting at people lining up for what little aid it allows in, leading to rare statements of condemnation from Western governments.

The World Bank has slashed its 2025 global growth forecast, citing trade tensions and policy uncertainty as the United States imposed wide-ranging tariffs that weigh on global economic forecasts.

On Tuesday, the bank lowered its projection for global gross domestic product (GDP) growth to 2.3 percent in its latest economic prospects report, down from the 2.7 percent that it expected in January. This is the most recent in a series of downgrades by international organisations.

In its twice-yearly Global Economic Prospects report, the bank lowered its forecasts for nearly 70 percent of all economies, including the US, China and Europe, as well as six emerging market regions, from the levels it projected just six months ago before US President Donald Trump took office.

“That’s the weakest performance in 17 years, outside of outright global recessions,” said World Bank Group chief economist Indermit Gill.

Global growth and inflation prospects for this year and next have worsened because of “high levels of policy uncertainty and this growing fragmentation of trade relations”, Gill added.

“Without a swift course correction, the harm to living standards could be deep,” he warned.

By 2027, the World Bank expects global GDP growth to average 2.5 percent in the 2020s, which would be the slowest rate in any decade since the 1960s.

The Trump effect 

The gloomier projections come as Trump imposed a 10 percent tariff on imports from almost all US trading partners in April as well as higher rates on imports of steel and aluminium. He had initially also announced radically higher rates on dozens of these economies, which he has since suspended until early July.

Trump’s on-again off-again tariff hikes have upended global trade, increased the effective US tariff rate from below 3 percent to the mid-teens, its highest level in almost a century, and triggered retaliation by China and other countries.

He also engaged in tit-for-tat escalation with China, although both countries have hit pause on their trade war and temporarily lowered these staggering duties as well. But a lasting truce remains uncertain.

While the World Bank’s growth downgrade was proportionately larger for advanced economies, the bank cautioned that less wealthy countries have tricky conditions to contend with.

Commodity prices are expected to remain suppressed in 2025 and 2026, Gill said.

This means that some 60 percent of emerging markets and developing economies – which are commodity exporters – have to deal with a “very nasty combination of lower commodity prices and more volatile commodity markets”.

GDP downturn 

By 2027, while the per capita GDP of high-income economies will be approximately where it was in pre-pandemic forecasts, corresponding levels for developing economies would be 6 percent lower.

“Except for China, it could take these economies about two decades to recoup the economic losses of the 2020s,” Gill cautioned.

Even as GDP growth expectations have been revised downwards, inflation rates have been revised up, he said, urging policymakers to contain inflation risks.

Despite trade policy challenges, however, Gill argued that “If the right policy actions are taken, this problem can be made to go away with limited long-term damage.”

He urged for the “differential in tariff and non-tariff measures with respect to the US” to be quickly reduced by other countries, starting with the Group of 20, which brings together the world’s biggest economies.

“Every country should extend the same treatment to other countries,” Gill stressed. “It’s not enough to just liberalise with respect to the US. It’s also important to liberalise with respect to the others.”

The World Bank said developing economies could lower tariffs on all trading partners and convert preferential trade deals into pacts spanning the “full range of cross-border regulatory policies” to boost GDP growth.

Generally, wealthier countries have lower tariffs than developing countries, which could be seeking to protect budding industries or have fewer sources of government revenue.

This month, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development also slashed its 2025 global growth forecast from 3.1 percent to 2.9 percent, warning that Trump’s tariffs would stifle the world economy.

This came after the International Monetary Fund in April too cut its world growth expectations for this year on the effects of Trump’s levies, from 3.3 percent to 2.8 percent.

Cameroon is facing the world’s most neglected displacement crisis, according to a recent report by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). The growing humanitarian emergency is worsened by insufficient funding, limited media attention, and a lack of effective international engagement.

The NRC’s Neglected Displacement Crises Report ranks crises based on three core criteria: humanitarian funding shortfalls, minimal media coverage, and inadequate political efforts to resolve conflicts. Cameroon, already prominently in past editions, now leads the list, underscoring the worsening plight of displaced communities.

Globally, displacement caused by conflict or disaster has doubled over the past decade, with 2024 marking a peak in numbers. Cameroon has endured multiple crises over the last ten years, each displacing thousands across the country.

The ongoing Anglophone crisis in the North West and South West regions, where separatist groups have clashed with government forces since 2016, has resulted in thousands of deaths and displacements, causing school closures.

In the Far North, insurgencies by Boko Haram and ISWAP terrorists have ravaged the Lake Chad Basin since 2014, creating a severe humanitarian emergency. Meanwhile, violent instability spilling over from the Central African Republic, along with ethno-political tensions over resources along the border with Chad, has further destabilised the region.

Despite the severity of these crises, international diplomatic engagement and financial assistance remain minimal. The NRC states that Cameroon’s 2024 humanitarian response plan is only 45 per cent funded, leaving a gap of $202.8 million needed to address urgent needs.

“Adequate funding is essential,” said Jan Egeland, Secretary General of NRC, in the statement. “But funding alone cannot halt the suffering. Without effective conflict resolution, disaster prevention and diplomatic engagement, these protracted crises will go on and on. More people will be displaced, and more lives will be shattered.”

The NRC annually highlights the ten most overlooked displacement crises worldwide, shining a spotlight on communities suffering in silence. Alongside Cameroon, the 2024 list includes Ethiopia, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Mali, Uganda, Iran, DR Congo, Honduras, and Somalia.

Refugees from neighbouring countries now living in Cameroon speak of deliberate neglect. Djeinabou, a 32-year-old Central African Republic refugee, says: “Life is very difficult at times, and we get by with a little farming and working in small businesses to try and find enough to eat. We worry about the future of our children. They need to go to school. We have been forgotten here in Cameroon, and it’s very difficult for us to even think about the future of our families.”

Globally, humanitarian funding shortfalls are growing. The report reveals a $25.3 billion gap in 2024, with more than half of the required aid unmet. This comes as global military spending hits record highs, raising serious questions about donor priorities.

Egeland condemned the trend: “International solidarity is being overtaken by increasingly introverted and nationalistic policies in previously generous donor nations. This is deepening the neglect of people affected by crisis and displacement at a time when a record number of people have been forced from their homes.”

Several donor countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Belgium, have slashed foreign aid budgets, further restricting resources available to address crises like Cameroon’s.

The NRC insists that displacement is not a distant problem but a shared global responsibility. The report calls urgently for a reversal of brutal aid cuts, warning that continued neglect will cost more lives.

“It is critical that we do not accept donors’ abandonment of aid as a foregone conclusion. Displacement isn’t a distant crisis: it’s a shared responsibility. We must stand up and demand a reversal of brutal aid cuts which are costing more lives by the day,” Egeland urged. 

Without swift intervention, the suffering of displaced communities in Cameroon and beyond will continue, and international neglect will only worsen their conditions.