France

« Nous ne pouvons plus partir du principe que les solutions d'hier sont adaptées aux problèmes d'aujourd'hui », a déclaré Maria Luís Albuquerque.

The post La commissaire européenne aux finances préconise une refonte du cadre bancaire post-2008 appeared first on Euractiv FR.

La BBC a réussi à s'entretenir avec certains Iraniens qui vivent actuellement au milieu des explosions, des difficultés pour s'approvisionner en nourriture et des coupures d'Internet.

La Hongrie a voté contre, tandis que l'Autriche et la Belgique se sont abstenues.

The post Les pays de l’UE soutiennent les mesures de sauvegarde agricoles liées à l’accord commercial avec le Mercosur appeared first on Euractiv FR.

Cooking food to distribute free to children. The meals are made with food that is close to its expiry date. Workshop with Karuizawa Food Bank. Credit: Ippei Takemura

By Ippei Takemura
MIYAGI PREFECTURE, Japan, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

I recently came across a statistic that stopped me in my tracks.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Japan has the highest suicide rate among the G7 countries. Even more alarming, suicide is the leading cause of death among people in their teens and twenties. Among elementary, junior high, and high school students, the most common factors linked to suicide are “school-related issues,” including academic pressure and difficulties with peer relationships.

At the same time, the number of children who do not attend school is rising every year. In 2023, Japan’s Ministry of Education reported that more than 340,000 elementary and junior high school students were chronically absent—a record high. These two realities are not separate problems. They are deeply connected.

Truancy is often misunderstood as a lack of motivation or discipline. In reality, it is rooted in complex emotional and psychological struggles that cannot be reduced to a single cause. Rather than treating truancy itself as the problem, society must ask a deeper question: Are we creating environments where young people feel safe, accepted, and understood?

I know this struggle firsthand. I began missing school just three days after entering junior high. My family had lived overseas for many years due to my parents’ work, and returning to Japan left me emotionally exhausted. I found comfort in playing online games with close friends I had made abroad, but while I was holding on to those connections, I missed the chance to build new ones at my new school. Before I realized it, I was caught in a cycle of frequent absences that lasted nearly three years.

What helped me break that cycle was not a dramatic intervention but a small and unexpected turning point. I joined a monthly, off-campus workshop focused on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To my surprise, students from my school were also participating. Because we shared a genuine interest in global issues, conversation came naturally as we worked together on projects. Eventually, we began spending time together outside the workshop. For the first time in a long while, I started looking forward to going to school again.

That experience taught me a powerful lesson: shared interests and common ground are the foundation of human connection.

Learn about the Internet of Things (IoT) using a toy. ‘Let’s upcycle’ workshop with the One Smile Foundation. Credit: Ippei Takemura

 

What’s the importance of gender in Japan? Workshop with Plan International, Japan. Credit: Ippei Takemura

 

Provide children with free meals made from food that is close to its expiry date. Workshop with Karuizawa Food Bank. Credit: Ippei Takemura

A place where someone feels safe and comfortable is different for everyone. Sociologist Ray Oldenburg describes this idea through the concept of a “Third Place”—a space that exists beyond home (the first place) and school or work (the second place). Third places allow people to relax, connect, and simply be themselves. Finding such a place was the catalyst that inspired me to want to create similar spaces for others.

Social connection is not optional for human beings. It is essential for mental and physical health, helping to reduce stress, strengthen cognitive function, and foster a sense of belonging. However, people connect at different speeds. Some are naturally outgoing, while others need time and distance before they feel ready to engage. A truly inclusive third place respects these differences.

Based on my experiences, I believe there are three key elements that make a third place successful. First, it must include both spaces for solitude and spaces for interaction, with a clear separation between the two. Some people need time to observe and feel comfortable before speaking. A quiet area allows them to exist without pressure and to join others when they are ready.

Second, there should be shared activities. When people gather around common interests—whether environmental issues, crafts, or sports—conversation becomes easier, and relationships develop more naturally.

Finally, many people struggle to take the first step socially. Having facilitators or mentors who can gently initiate activities or conversations can make a huge difference.

One place that embodies these principles is the Moriumius Summer Camp in Miyagi Prefecture, which I have attended since elementary school. In high school, I joined for the first time as a staff intern. The organizers intentionally build community by using shared work as a catalyst for connection.

Campers collaborate on everyday tasks such as cooking (photo ①), preparing fish, starting fires (photo ②), and cleaning. These shared responsibilities create trust and a sense of equality. Beyond that, participants can deepen relationships through activities aligned with their interests, including crafts (photo ③), marine sports, gardening, and farming. During one workshop, I befriended an elementary school student who was making a bamboo fishing rod and shaping slate into a knife. We connected naturally through our shared love of creating things. Because everyone at the camp already enjoys outdoor life, friendships form more easily—and shared hobbies strengthen them even further.

Campers help with cooking. Credit: Ippei Takemura

 

Campers can collaborate on starting fires and cleaning. Credit: Ippei Takemura

 

Participants can deepen relationships through activities aligned with their interests, including crafts. Credit: Ippei Takemura

A place can be more than just an escape. It can be the first step toward healing, renewed confidence, and hope. When young people find a space where they feel safe enough to be themselves, they often rediscover the courage to reconnect—with others, with learning, and with their own sense of possibility.

This is why I want to continue supporting the creation of spaces that can become “someone’s own place”—places where young people feel seen, valued, and free to grow at their own pace. Sometimes, finding the right space is all it takes for someone to realize that they belong.

Yet this need for belonging is not unique to one school or one country. Around the world, young people are facing increasing isolation, academic pressure, and mental health challenges. Rising youth suicide rates and growing school disengagement reflect a global crisis. When young people are left without spaces where they feel safe, heard, and supported, the consequences extend far beyond classrooms and households—they shape the future of entire societies.

Creating and protecting “third places,” therefore, is not merely a personal or local effort; it is a global responsibility. Governments, schools, communities, and international organizations must work together to invest in inclusive environments where young people can connect through shared interests, express themselves without fear, and rebuild a sense of belonging. Doing so directly supports the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG 4 (Quality Education), by addressing mental health, social inclusion, and equitable access to supportive learning spaces.

Every young person deserves a place where they feel safe enough to take their first step forward. By listening to youth voices and turning commitment into action, we can move from awareness to impact—and from isolation to hope. The future depends not only on how we educate young people but also on whether we give them places where they truly belong.

Edited by Dr Hanna Yoon

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

« Le bloc n'a pas de réponse mature en matière de défense », a déclaré Christophe Gomart à Euractiv.

The post Christophe Gomart, vice-président de la commission de la sécurité et de la défense au Parlement européen, appelle à la nomination d’un nouveau chef d’état-major de l’UE appeared first on Euractiv FR.

The Third Wave of Democratization's international dimension connects domestic democratization processes with the global spread of democracy after 1989. How has democracy promotion, a specific international source, contributed to the Wave of Democratization? And is scholarship well equipped to study the fundamental shifts in democracy promotion caused by the Third Wave of Autocratization? This article answers these questions from two perspectives. First, it assesses the relevance, patterns and effects of international democracy promotion between 1995 and 2024. Second, it takes a meta-perspective and identifies the main characteristics and blind spots of the study of international democracy promotion. Based on these insights, the article makes a conceptual contribution by distinguishing between democracy support and democracy protection. Furthermore, it defines the international scope conditions necessary for effectively promoting democracy during periods of autocratization. Finally, it proposes a new agenda for the study of international democracy promotion after the Third Wave of Democratization.

The Third Wave of Democratization's international dimension connects domestic democratization processes with the global spread of democracy after 1989. How has democracy promotion, a specific international source, contributed to the Wave of Democratization? And is scholarship well equipped to study the fundamental shifts in democracy promotion caused by the Third Wave of Autocratization? This article answers these questions from two perspectives. First, it assesses the relevance, patterns and effects of international democracy promotion between 1995 and 2024. Second, it takes a meta-perspective and identifies the main characteristics and blind spots of the study of international democracy promotion. Based on these insights, the article makes a conceptual contribution by distinguishing between democracy support and democracy protection. Furthermore, it defines the international scope conditions necessary for effectively promoting democracy during periods of autocratization. Finally, it proposes a new agenda for the study of international democracy promotion after the Third Wave of Democratization.

The Third Wave of Democratization's international dimension connects domestic democratization processes with the global spread of democracy after 1989. How has democracy promotion, a specific international source, contributed to the Wave of Democratization? And is scholarship well equipped to study the fundamental shifts in democracy promotion caused by the Third Wave of Autocratization? This article answers these questions from two perspectives. First, it assesses the relevance, patterns and effects of international democracy promotion between 1995 and 2024. Second, it takes a meta-perspective and identifies the main characteristics and blind spots of the study of international democracy promotion. Based on these insights, the article makes a conceptual contribution by distinguishing between democracy support and democracy protection. Furthermore, it defines the international scope conditions necessary for effectively promoting democracy during periods of autocratization. Finally, it proposes a new agenda for the study of international democracy promotion after the Third Wave of Democratization.

Heute spricht 'fossilfrei' Host Wolf-Peter Schill mit Brigitte Knopf, Gründerin von Zukunft KlimaSozial, über die kürzlich vorgelegten Eckpunkte zum Gebäudemodernisierungsgesetz (formerly known as Gebäudeenergiegesetz) und die vermeintliche neue Freiheit im Heizkeller. Müssen Eigenheimbesitzer*innen ...

« Ce projet permettra d'acquérir des connaissances nouvelles et plus approfondies sur notre géologie et n'est possible que grâce à la contribution française », a déclaré le gouvernement groenlandais.

The post Paris signe un accord pour exploiter les richesses minérales du Groenland appeared first on Euractiv FR.

Faute de quorum et de majorité pour élire un nouveau chef de l'État avant l'échéance constitutionnelle, la présidente du Kosovo Vjosa Osmani a signé un décret dissolvant l'Assemblée. Le pays se dirige désormais vers de nouvelles élections législatives anticipées.

- Le fil de l'Info / Kosovo Vetëvendosje, Courrier des Balkans, Kosovo, Politique

Cette nouvelle pourrait expliquer la réticence de Kiev à autoriser les inspections de l'oléoduc Druzhba.

The post L’Ukraine peut survivre financièrement jusqu’après les élections en Hongrie, estime Bruxelles appeared first on Euractiv FR.

Les cosmétiques ont fait l'objet de près de 4 700 alertes de sécurité des produits dans l'UE en 2025.

The post L’UE enregistre le plus grand nombre d’alertes relatives à la sécurité des produits depuis plus de 20 ans appeared first on Euractiv FR.

Le contrôleur européen de la protection des données souligne la nécessité de fixer des limites claires qui doivent être respectées en matière de flux de données spécifiques aux frontières.

The post L’UE doit fixer des limites claires à l’accès des États-Unis aux données des Européens, selon le contrôleur européen de la protection des données appeared first on Euractiv FR.

Discussion circles at the Dalton Junior High School, Japan. Credit: Miko Nakano

By Miko Nakano
TOKYO, Japan, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

Around the world, conflicts often begin not with violence, but with assumptions. When people judge others before understanding them, labels replace dialogue—and division replaces trust. For young people growing up in an increasingly polarized world, learning to listen may be one of the most powerful tools for peace.

“We unilaterally assume that people we have never met are demons—and repeat the same mistakes.”

This line from the anime Attack on Titan made me stop and think. In the story, enemies who were taught to hate each other finally meet and realize they are human beings with fears, families, and dreams.

But this pattern is not fiction. Throughout history, societies have judged others before understanding them. During the Crusades, opposing sides saw each other only as threats. In modern times, media narratives and online discussions sometimes simplify complex issues into “good” versus “evil.” Once labels are applied, empathy becomes difficult.

Conversation time with children who live in the slum areas in Ghaziabad, India. Credit: Miko Nakano

Even justice systems are not immune to bias. The Hakamata case in Japan, widely reported by BBC News, raised serious concerns about how media pressure and unreliable evidence can influence judicial decisions. The case showed how justice can be compromised when assumptions take priority over careful examination of facts and individual voices. Around the world, wrongful convictions and discrimination continue to demonstrate how easily fairness can be undermined when judgment replaces understanding.

This is why SDG 16—peace, justice, and strong institutions—matters. Peace is not only about ending wars. It is about building societies where people are heard before they are judged.

Conversation about education with Yoshimasa Hayashi, Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan, at the National High School Future Conference, House of Councilors Members’ Office Building, Tokyo, Japan. Credit: Miko Nakano

My awareness of this issue began in elementary school. A classmate was widely labeled as “strange,” and many students avoided her. One day, she spoke openly about the pain of being ignored. Listening to her changed my perspective. I realized how easily we can judge someone without ever asking why.

Instead of keeping this reflection to myself, I decided to take action.

In junior high school, I helped organize small discussion circles during class activities where students could share experiences of being misunderstood or judged. We created simple rules: listen without interrupting, ask questions before assuming, and respect differences. At first, conversations were awkward. But over time, students began speaking more openly. Some admitted they had judged others too quickly. Others shared experiences of feeling excluded.

These small conversations changed the atmosphere in our classroom. They did not solve every problem, but they created space for listening.

I later learned that young people around the world are doing similar work. Programs like Seeds of Peace and Generation Global bring together youth from different backgrounds to engage in dialogue across conflict lines. Their work shows that listening is not passive—it is an active form of peacebuilding.

As young people, we may not control institutions or governments yet. But we shape the culture around us every day—in classrooms, online spaces, and communities. If we normalize quick labeling and division, conflict grows. If we normalize listening, trust grows.

Building peaceful societies begins long before political negotiations. It begins when we ask “why” instead of assuming. It begins when we recognize that every person has a story that deserves to be heard.

In a world facing rising polarization and mistrust, choosing to listen may seem small. But it is not weak. It is foundational.

Peace does not start in courtrooms or parliaments alone.
It starts in conversations.

And young people are ready to lead them.

Edited by Dr Hanna Yoon

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

Excerpt:

Youth voice on SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Jugendliche vor Social-Media-Gefahren zu schützen, ist richtig. Doch sie auszusperren, ist Symbolpolitik. Europa muss endlich spürbare Plattformregulierung durchsetzen., Die Forderung nach einem Social-Media-Verbot für Kinder und Jugendliche bis zum Alter von 16 Jahren klingt erst einmal nach gesundem Menschenverstand. Wer würde nicht zustimmen, wenn es um Schutz vor Cybermobbing, sexualisierten Inhalten oder exzessiver Nutzung geht? Jedoch werden soziale Medien ...

Accelerating net-zero transitions requires deliberate governance. We examine the deliberate acceleration of net-zero transitions through a case study of California’s governance of private vehicle electrification. Our analysis integrates the literatures on policy mixes and political institutions to offer a novel explanation for how California has effectively expedited its net-zero transition to electric cars. We base our inductive analysis on evidence from 47 expert interviews conducted in 2022–23. We argue that California’s systemic acceleration capacity has two core components: first, an effective policy mix that harnesses the accelerating forces of creative destruction, and second, specific path-dependent political institutions that have enabled this respective policy mix. Together, these two components have contributed to California’s state capacity to accelerate its technology substitution pathway away from internal combustion engines. California’s climate technocracy offers critical lessons for other jurisdictions seeking to speed up similar net-zero transitions.

Accelerating net-zero transitions requires deliberate governance. We examine the deliberate acceleration of net-zero transitions through a case study of California’s governance of private vehicle electrification. Our analysis integrates the literatures on policy mixes and political institutions to offer a novel explanation for how California has effectively expedited its net-zero transition to electric cars. We base our inductive analysis on evidence from 47 expert interviews conducted in 2022–23. We argue that California’s systemic acceleration capacity has two core components: first, an effective policy mix that harnesses the accelerating forces of creative destruction, and second, specific path-dependent political institutions that have enabled this respective policy mix. Together, these two components have contributed to California’s state capacity to accelerate its technology substitution pathway away from internal combustion engines. California’s climate technocracy offers critical lessons for other jurisdictions seeking to speed up similar net-zero transitions.

Accelerating net-zero transitions requires deliberate governance. We examine the deliberate acceleration of net-zero transitions through a case study of California’s governance of private vehicle electrification. Our analysis integrates the literatures on policy mixes and political institutions to offer a novel explanation for how California has effectively expedited its net-zero transition to electric cars. We base our inductive analysis on evidence from 47 expert interviews conducted in 2022–23. We argue that California’s systemic acceleration capacity has two core components: first, an effective policy mix that harnesses the accelerating forces of creative destruction, and second, specific path-dependent political institutions that have enabled this respective policy mix. Together, these two components have contributed to California’s state capacity to accelerate its technology substitution pathway away from internal combustion engines. California’s climate technocracy offers critical lessons for other jurisdictions seeking to speed up similar net-zero transitions.

Credit: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

In recent months, the language surrounding the escalating confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran has taken on a tone that should trouble anyone concerned with global peace.

Across television studios, online sermons, and political commentary, some American preachers and commentators have begun describing the conflict not merely as geopolitics or national security, but as a “holy war.”

Reporting in outlets such as The Guardian, along with coverage in other international media, has noted the growing number of Christian nationalist and Evangelical voices framing the Middle Eastern conflict in explicitly theological terms.

Certain Evangelical preachers in the United States have long interpreted tensions involving Israel through apocalyptic or biblical narratives. In these interpretations, the confrontation with Iran is sometimes presented as part of a divinely ordained struggle between good and evil.

In sermons broadcast online and amplified through social media, the war is described as a moment in which believers must stand with Israel in a battle perceived as spiritually consequential – even leading to ‘the rapture’.

The rhetoric is not limited to pulpits. Some former military figures and commentators have echoed similar themes, invoking civilizational language that portrays the confrontation with Iran as part of a broader clash between Judeo-Christian civilization and an Islamic adversary.

When such language enters strategic discourse, it transforms political conflict into something far more dangerous: a war imbued with sacred meaning.

History shows that once wars are framed as sacred struggles, compromise becomes nearly impossible. Political conflicts can, at least in theory, be negotiated. Holy wars, by contrast, are perceived as battles for divine truth. In that framing, negotiation is betrayal.

This phenomenon is not unique to the current Middle Eastern crisis. Religious legitimization of war has surfaced repeatedly in contemporary conflicts. At the outbreak of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, for example, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, framed the war in spiritual terms.

In sermons and public statements, he suggested the conflict represented a metaphysical struggle over the moral future of the Russian world. The language of spiritual warfare, cultural purification, and civilizational defence became intertwined with political justification for military action.

Such rhetoric matters. When religious authority sanctifies violence, it grants moral legitimacy to warfare and discourages dissent among believers. Faith communities that might otherwise advocate peace can become mobilized behind nationalistic or militaristic agendas.

We are therefore witnessing something deeply unsettling: the return of explicitly religious language to modern warfare. For decades after the Second World War, global diplomacy attempted—imperfectly but deliberately—to frame conflicts primarily in political and legal terms.

International institutions, treaties, and multilateral frameworks were designed to prevent precisely the kind of civilizational framing that once fueled centuries of bloodshed.

Yet the present moment suggests that these restraints are weakening. Wars are again being narrated as existential struggles between belief systems. Political leaders, clergy, and media personalities increasingly draw upon religious symbolism to rally support.

The danger is not simply rhetorical. When wars are sacralized, they risk becoming limitless conflicts, unconstrained by borders or diplomacy.

The Collapse of Multilateralism and the Silence of Faith Institutions

For years, I have written and spoken about the uneasy relationship between religion, global governance, and peacebuilding. In articles as well as in interviews and public lectures, I have repeatedly warned that governments and intergovernmental entities have failed to develop a coherent framework for engaging religions constructively in international affairs.

Faith-based organizations today are everywhere. They participate in humanitarian work, development programs, diplomacy initiatives, and interfaith dialogues. International institutions increasingly acknowledge the importance of religious actors in peacebuilding and development. Conferences, seminars, department programmes, global initiatives on “religion and …” or “faith and …” are not only commonplace, but proliferating.

Yet despite this apparent proliferation of engagement, the deeper structural problem remains unresolved: religious actors themselves remain profoundly fragmented, as are the political protagonists dealing with them.

Rather than forming robust alliances capable of confronting violence carried out in the name of religion, many faith organizations continue to operate within narrow institutional or theological boundaries. Interfaith initiatives exist, but they often remain symbolic—highly visible yet limited in their capacity to challenge political power or mobilize believers at scale.

I have argued that religious organizations too often underestimate their responsibility in shaping public narratives around conflict, and doing so together. When religion is invoked to legitimize violence, silence from religious leaders becomes complicity.

At the same time, the broader international system that might once have moderated such dynamics is itself under strain. The erosion of multilateralism has been one of the defining features of the past decade. International institutions that once served as mediators of global crises increasingly appear weakened or sidelined.

The United Nations Security Council remains gridlocked. International law is invoked selectively – if at all. Great-power competition has returned with renewed intensity. In such an environment, appeals to universal norms carry less weight.

Alongside this institutional weakening has come a worrying rise in authoritarianism worldwide. Governments across regions have adopted increasingly illiberal practices—restricting civil liberties, marginalizing minorities, and suppressing dissent. In many cases, religion is instrumentalized to reinforce nationalist narratives or legitimize political authority.

This combination—the decline of multilateral governance and the rise of politicized religion—creates a volatile global environment. Without strong international frameworks to mediate disputes, imperialist narratives and actions gain traction – as in Trump’s and Netanyahu’s war against Iran. Religion, ethnicity, and culture become tools through which political conflicts are interpreted and mobilized.

Faith-based organizations, despite their potential influence, have struggled to counter this trend effectively. Some remain focused on humanitarian services rather than confronting the ideological narratives that legitimize violence. Most hesitate to challenge political authorities with whom they maintain close relationships, and seek financial and/or political backing.

As a result, the global religious landscape today is marked by a paradox: religion is increasingly present in global discourse, yet its potential as a force for peace remains under-realized.

Islamophobia and the Seeds of a Wider Religious Conflict

Perhaps the most troubling dimension of the present moment is the resurgence of Islamophobia as a powerful political force in international discourse.

For more than two decades following the attacks of September 11, 2001, narratives portraying Islam as inherently linked to extremism became deeply embedded in political rhetoric and media representation across many Western societies.

Despite sustained efforts by scholars, religious leaders, and civil society actors to challenge these narratives, they continue to shape public perceptions.

In the context of the current confrontation with Iran, such narratives risk reinforcing the perception that the conflict is not merely geopolitical but civilizational. When Iran is framed not simply as a state actor but as a representative of a threatening Islamic force, the conflict becomes symbolically larger than any single nation.

The danger is clear: political wars are becoming interpreted as religious wars.

If such framing takes hold, the implications extend far beyond the Middle East. Conflicts that are perceived as religious struggles can mobilize believers across borders. They can radicalize communities, fuel sectarian polarization, and undermine the fragile coexistence of diverse religious populations.

History provides sobering examples. The European wars of religion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries devastated entire regions, entangling political power struggles with theological disputes. Once religious identity became intertwined with warfare, violence spread across kingdoms and empires.

Today’s globalized world is even more interconnected. Diaspora communities, digital media, and transnational networks allow narratives of conflict to circulate instantly across continents. A war perceived as targeting Islam could ignite tensions in communities thousands of miles away from the battlefield.

Similarly, religious nationalism in multiple regions—whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim—has been gaining strength in recent years. When one religiously framed conflict emerges, it can reinforce others. Narratives of civilizational struggle feed upon each other.

As the confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran becomes widely interpreted through a religious lens, the consequences may be profound. Christian–Muslim tensions, already strained in many contexts, could escalate dramatically. Such conflicts would not respect national borders. They would unfold within societies, across communities, and through global networks of believers.

Ironically, this escalation occurs at a time when religious leaders frequently emphasize the peace-promoting teachings of their traditions. Interfaith initiatives celebrate dialogue, coexistence, and shared values. Religious texts across traditions contain powerful injunctions toward compassion, justice, and reconciliation.

Yet these ideals remain fragile when confronted with political realities.

If religious institutions fail to challenge narratives that sanctify violence, they risk becoming spectators to a new era of religious conflict. Worse still, they may be drawn into it.

Are “Religions” Truly for Peace?

We may therefore be standing at the threshold of a profoundly dangerous historical moment.

Religious language is once again being used to justify war. Political conflicts are increasingly framed as civilizational struggles. Multilateral institutions that once mediated global disputes appear weakened. And faith communities—despite their moral authority—have yet to mount a unified challenge to the narratives that sacralize violence.

None of this means that religion inevitably leads to war. On the contrary, religious traditions contain some of humanity’s most powerful ethical teachings about peace, justice, and compassion. Faith communities have played vital roles in reconciliation processes, humanitarian action, and social movements for justice.

But these possibilities are not automatic. They depend on conscious choices by religious leaders, institutions, and believers.

If religious actors allow their traditions to be mobilized in support of political violence, then religion will become part of the problem rather than the solution.

The question confronting us today is therefore both urgent and uncomfortable.

At a moment when wars are increasingly described as sacred struggles, when geopolitical conflicts are interpreted through religious narratives, and when Islamophobia and other forms of religious prejudice continue to spread, we must ask ourselves: How are religions truly forces for peace?

Prof. Azza Karam, PhD. is President, Lead Integrity

IPS UN Bureau

 

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