L’Union européenne et ses États membres devraient définir des principes communs pour la création d’un marché unique numérique, selon la présidence danoise du Conseil de l’UE.
The post Les Danois réclament des principes communs pour la numérisation du marché unique appeared first on Euractiv FR.
Bienvenue dans Rapporteur. Je suis Eddy Wax, avec Nicoletta Ionta à Bruxelles. À savoir : Gaza : les dirigeants européens soutiennent le plan de paix de Donald Trump, le Hamas n’a pas encore réagi Parlement : le PPE reste silencieux sur la question de savoir si la députée européenne Dolors Montserrat perçoit un deuxième salaire […]
The post Les mesures désespérées de Bruxelles pour l’Ukraine appeared first on Euractiv FR.
Le président ukrainien a appelé à la création d’un bouclier européen commun pour contrer les menaces aériennes russes lors du Forum sur la sécurité de Varsovie, où le Premier ministre polonais Donald Tusk a également averti que la guerre en Ukraine était « notre guerre » et a exhorté l’Europe à redoubler d’efforts.
The post Volodymyr Zelensky appelle à la création d’un bouclier aérien européen appeared first on Euractiv FR.
A nuclear test is carried out on an island in French Polynesia in 1971. Credit: the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO)
By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 30 2025 (IPS)
Is the unpredictable Trump administration toying with the idea of resuming nuclear tests?
The New York times reported April 10 that some of Trump’s senior advisers had proposed the resumption of “test denotations for the sake of national security”. The last such US explosion took place in 1992.
But former US Representative Brandon Williams, (Republican-New York), the new administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which plays an integral role in the nation’s $1.7 trillion nuclear weapons modernization effort, testified last April before the Senate Armed Services Committee he would not recommend the re-start of nuclear weapons testing.
The last confirmed full-scale nuclear explosive test was conducted by North Korea in September 2017—with perhaps more to come.
Speaking at a meeting, September 26, on “the international day for the total elimination of nuclear weapons,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned “nuclear testing threats are returning, while nuclear saber rattling is louder than in past decades.”
Hard-won progress – reductions in arsenals, the cessation of testing – these are being undone before our eyes. We are sleepwalking into a new nuclear arms race, Guterres warned,
“I call on every State to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, ending once and for all and for all the dark legacy of nuclear tests.
And every State must support the victims of nuclear use and testing – and confront the enduring harm: poisoned lands, chronic illness, and lasting trauma” declared Guterres.
Meanwhile, the devastating after-effects of past nuclear tests from a bygone era are still lingering.
During the British nuclear weapons tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963, Indigenous voices were systematically ignored, resulting in severe health and cultural devastation, according to a published report.
Through decades of relentless campaigning, survivors and their descendants have forced a belated official acknowledgement of the harm caused. However, the fight for full justice continues to this day, with the voices of many still unheard.
For years, both governments dismissed or covered up the health dangers associated with the tests, despite Aboriginal communities reporting severe health issues like rashes, blindness, and cancers. A 1956 letter from an Australian government scientist mocked a patrol officer for prioritizing the safety of a “handful of natives” over the British Commonwealth.
Despite state-sanctioned ignorance, Aboriginal survivors and their advocates refused to be silenced, ensuring their experiences were recognized.
Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director pro-tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS a resumption of nuclear weapon testing by the United States will most likely lead other countries like Russia, China, India, and North Korea to test their nuclear weapons.
In turn, this will increase the likelihood of an accelerated nuclear arms race, and a greater likelihood of nuclear weapons being used somewhere in the world with catastrophic consequences.
But even without nuclear war, the people who live close to these test sites, which in many cases have included indigenous communities, will suffer from exposure to radioactive contamination and other environmental effects.
The only countervailing force that one can place some hope on under these circumstances is the peace and disarmament movement, that might be able to catalyze public opposition to testing, declared Dr Ramana.
Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS: It is somewhat reassuring that the new head of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, Brandon Williams, during his confirmation hearings said he would advise against resuming explosive nuclear tests.
“However, the second Trump regime’s likely nuclear policy is spelled out in a manifesto by Project 2025, which proposes that a second Trump administration prioritize nuclear weapons programs over other security programs, accelerate the development and production of all nuclear weapons programs, increase funding for the development and production of new and modernized nuclear warheads, and prepare to test new nuclear weapons,” she pointed out.
Separately, Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security advisor during his first term, wrote in Foreign Affairs, that in order to counter China and Russia’s continued investments in their nuclear arsenals, the U.S. should resume nuclear testing.
“And we must keep in mind that Russell Vought, one of the architects and co-authors of Project 2025, is now the Director of the powerful Office of Management and Budget,” said Cabasso.
Since 1945, she said, there have been 2,056 nuclear weapons tests by at least eight countries. Most of these tests have been conducted on the lands of indigenous and colonized people.
The United States conducted 1,030 of those tests in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground, while the USSR carried out 715 nuclear test detonations.
“Not only did these nuclear test explosions fuel the development and spread of nuclear weapons, but hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered—and continue to suffer—from illnesses directly related to the radioactive fallout from nuclear detonations in the United States, islands in the Pacific, in Australia, China, Algeria, across Russia, in Kazakhstan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and elsewhere,” said Cabasso.
According to an AI extract: Some of the major nuclear test sites include:
• Pacific Proving Grounds: A U.S. site in the Marshall Islands where numerous high-yield tests, including the 1954 Castle Bravo shot, caused extensive radioactive contamination.
• Semipalatinsk Test Site, Kazakhstan: A major Soviet test site where 456 tests exposed as many as one million people to radiation, leading to high rates of cancer and birth defects.
• Novaya Zemlya, Russia: The Soviet Union’s test site for the largest nuclear explosion in history, the Tsar Bomba, in 1961.
• Lop Nor, China: The location for all of China’s nuclear tests.
• Reggane and Ekker, Algeria; Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls, French Polynesia: French nuclear test sites.
• Maralinga, Emu Field, and Montebello, Australia: British test sites.
Environmental and health effects include:
• Increased cancer rates: Long-term exposure to radioactive fallout has been linked to increased rates of various cancers, including thyroid cancer, leukemia, and other solid tumors. The highest risks are often seen in communities living downwind of test sites and in those exposed during childhood.
• Acute radiation sickness: Individuals near test sites who were exposed to high levels of radiation suffered from immediate symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and hair loss.
• Soil and water contamination: Radioactive particles can contaminate soil, water, and air for decades, entering the food chain and posing long-term risks.
• Disruption of ecosystems: Radioactive fallout can cause genetic mutations and death in animal populations, leading to wider ecological disruption.
• Psychological impact: Survivors and affected communities have also experienced profound psychological trauma, anxiety, and fear.
• Downwinder compensation: In the U.S., the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was established in 1990 to provide compensation to “Downwinders” who contracted specific cancers and diseases from fallout exposure from the Nevada Test Site.
This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Credit: United Nations
By Jesselina Rana
NEW YORK, Sep 30 2025 (IPS)
Last week, the United Nations (UN) marked its 80th anniversary against the backdrop of an unprecedented global crisis. With the highest number of active conflicts since 1946, trust in multilateralism is faltering.
Yet the UN’s founding vision, rooted in the principle of ‘We the Peoples,’ remains as urgent as ever; affirming that peace, human rights, and development cannot be achieved by governments alone. From the very beginning, civil society has been integral to this vision, a role formally recognised in Article 71 of the UN Charter, which underscores the value of NGOs in shaping international agendas.
“Article71: The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organisations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international organisations and, where appropriate, with national organisations after consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned.”
Yet despite this important provision, multilateral processes have increasingly become state-centric, turning global governance into a top-down exercise detached from the people it is meant to serve.
Excluding civil society and global citizens from policy-making not only produces laws and policies out of touch with local needs but also undermines community-driven practices that are often best placed to identify challenges and craft solutions.
At worst, silencing those who hold governments accountable empowers authoritarian regimes to flout international law, restrict human rights, and erode the rules-based international order. While the UN may recognise the role of civil society in principle, why does practice remain so distant from this commitment?
One area for reflection is the extent to which international spaces mirror national realities. Many see the multilateral system as an all-powerful body safeguarding humanity from the scourge of war. In reality it is a regrouping of national actors, the same ones responsible for shrinking civic space at home.
According to the CIVICUS Monitor, more than 70 percent of the global population lives in countries where freedoms of expression, association, and assembly are severely restricted. For many human rights defenders (HRDs), even raising their voices at the UN has led to reprisals at home, including surveillance and imprisonment.
By privileging repressive states and sidelining accountability actors, multilateral institutions replicate domestic restrictions globally, leaving abuses unchecked and defenders excluded.
A second challenge is how money dictates priorities. The collapse of the global aid sector has forced many to confront this reality again. The UN is funded largely by member states through mandatory and voluntary contributions. Over time, earmarking of funds and shifting UN priorities have led to chronic underinvestment in human rights.
Today, the human rights pillar receives just five percent of the UN’s regular budget, and with the upcoming UN80 budget cuts, this already underfunded area faces further risk. When human rights are deprioritised through budget cuts and underfunding, the message to member states is clear- resources and political will are better placed elsewhere. This dynamic discourages collaboration with civil society and reinforces their marginalisation.
A third challenge is the unequal access granted to civil society at UN headquarters. Negotiation rooms are closed to most organisations, and draft resolutions are often circulated only among those with close ties to diplomats, leaving others without privileged access unable to provide timely input. Meaningful participation is impossible without timely information.
During high-level weeks in New York, even side event spaces can only be booked through a member state, effectively controlling who speaks and what is discussed. Major processes such as the Summit of the Future or Financing for Development rarely engage civil society at the national level in time to influence outcomes.
Even when hundreds of civil society organisations submit feedback on policy documents, there is little transparency on how their contributions are used. These opaque practices erode trust and leave committed groups questioning whether investing their scarce time and resources in multilateral spaces is worthwhile.
Despite these glaring challenges, which have turned the system into “we the member states,” the UN is not without tools to ensure it is inclusive of the people it was created to serve. First, existing tools such as the UN Guidance Note on the Promotion and Protection of Civic Space provide a clear framework for action through the “three P’s”: participation, protection, and promotion. To move this document beyond paper, the task force assigned to implement it must act urgently.
Accreditation processes may get civil society past the security desk after years of hurdles, but it does not guarantee meaningful engagement. What matters in the long run is meaningful participation across the UN system, not just at headquarters, in order to achieve political and practical impact.
Second, a focus on accountable leadership. When funding is slashed and political will abandoned, the UN inadvertently strengthens authoritarian regimes, enabling them to silence voices, restrict rights, and openly flout international law. This erosion of support for human rights contributes to shrinking civic freedoms worldwide and leaves many losing trust in the multilateral system.
In this context, civil society engagement is not optional, it is key to steering the UN’s future leadership toward defending human rights and global freedoms.
With conversations on the next Secretary-General already gaining momentum, civil society’s role must be a central test for every candidate. Town halls with nominees should be used to demand clear commitments to meaningful participation of civil society, as well as sustained funding and protection for human rights programmes.
This is not about tokenistic symbolism; meaningful civil society engagement is a fundamental condition for development progress, the protection of human rights, and the survival of a rules-based international order- including multilateral organisations like the UN.
As the UN enters its ninth decade, its relevance depends on accountability to the people, not just the states. Civil society must be recognized as independent partners, with their constructive input embedded across decision-making, financing, and oversight. Only by centering people and their rights can the UN restore trust, strengthen multilateralism, and truly fulfill its founding promise: a world grounded in peace, development, and human rights.
Jesselina Rana, a human rights lawyer, is the UN Advisor at CIVICUS’ New York Hub.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau