He added: “There is more to do, and we are doing it… we have effectively changed the face of the Middle East . Our enemies, Iran and the axis of evil, came to destroy us, and now they are simply fighting for their survival.”

Netanyahu was accompanied by Defence Minister Israel Katz, Israel Defence Forces Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, and Northern Command head Major General Rafi Milo, according to reports.

The remarks come as the Lebanese presidency confirmed direct talks with Israel will begin on Tuesday at the US State Department in Washington, even as Israeli airstrikes continue despite a ceasefire agreed last week between the United States , Israel and Iran’s allies.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun is pressing for an immediate and stable ceasefire amid a worsening humanitarian situation, while Israel is expected to demand the full disarmament of Hezbollah and tighter border security.

Separately, US Vice President JD Vance held 21 hours of talks with Iran ian officials in Islamabad, which ended on Sunday without agreement. Vance said the outcome was “bad news for Iran, much more than it's bad news for the United States."

"In the light of Easter, let us allow ourselves to be amazed by Christ! Let us allow our hearts to be transformed by his immense love for us! Let those who have weapons lay them down! Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace! Not a peace imposed by force, but through dialogue! Not with the desire to dominate others, but to encounter them!" he said.

Leo also warned against what he described as a growing desensitisation to violence, lamenting a world becoming indifferent to the deaths of thousands and the wider consequences of conflict.

"On this day of celebration, let us abandon every desire for conflict, domination, and power, and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars and marked by a hatred and indifference that make us feel powerless in the face of evil," the pontiff, who hails from Chicago in the United States , said.

Popes have long been viewed as a moral compass in times of crisis, and Leo’s Easter message appeared to continue that tradition — while also reflecting the unique position of the papacy as both a spiritual authority and a head of state.

Although the pontiff did not name specific leaders in his Easter address, his remarks come against the backdrop of escalating global tensions and ongoing conflicts .

Just days earlier, however, Leo had been more direct.

Speaking to journalists, he referenced remarks by Donald Trump, saying he hoped the US leader was seeking an “off-ramp” to reduce violence and halt the cycle of hatred, particularly in conflict zones such as the Middle East.

He also called on leaders to return to dialogue and reduce the level of violence , stressing that peace — especially during Easter — should prevail.

As conflicts persist across multiple regions, Leo’s call for restraint, dialogue and peace positions the Vatican once again at the centre of global appeals for an end to violence.

Iran—by this very name, character, and identity—is one of the oldest continuous civilizations in human history . Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination. Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers—and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbors—Iran has never initiated a war. Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.

The Iranian people harbor no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries. Even in the face of repeated foreign interventions and pressures throughout their proud history, Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness—not a temporary political stance.

For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful—the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.

Within this same framework, the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran—a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war. Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is. Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done—and continues to do—is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defense, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.

Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or tension. The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d’état—an illegal American intervention aimed at preventing the nationalization of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward U.S. policies.

This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of the 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression—twice, in the midst of negotiations—against Iran.

Yet all these pressures have failed to weaken Iran. On the contrary, the country has grown stronger in many areas: literacy rates have tripled—from roughly 30% before the Islamic Revolution to over 90% today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past. These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives.

At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impact of sanctions, war, and aggression on the lives of the resilient Iranian people must not be underestimated. The continuation of military aggression and recent bombings profoundly affect people’s lives, attitudes, and perspectives. This reflects a fundamental human truth: when war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible.

This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behavior? Does the massacre of innocent children , the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country “back to the stone ages” serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?

Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its commitments. The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation, and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the U.S. government—choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.

Attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure—including energy and industrial facilities—directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions carry consequences that extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension, planting seeds of resentment that will endure for years. This is not a demonstration of strength; it is a sign of strategic bewilderment and an inability to achieve a sustainable solution.

Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel , influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians? Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar—shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?

Is “America First” truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today?

I invite you to look beyond the machinery of misinformation—an integral part of this aggression—and instead speak with those who have visited Iran. Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants—educated in Iran—who now teach and conduct research at the world ’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West. Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?

Today, the world stands at a crossroads. Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come. Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors. All that remains of them are tarnished names in history, while Iran endures—resilient, dignified, and proud.

He added that the Pope’s call for “the laying down of arms and the renunciation of violence” had “resonated profoundly,” describing it as consistent with the teachings of major world religions.

“Whether we look to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism or any of the world's great spiritual traditions, the message is fundamentally the same: love, compassion, tolerance, and self-discipline,” the Dalai Lama said. “Violence finds no true home in any of these teachings.”

The statement comes as conflicts in the Middle East and between Russia and Ukraine continue, with limited signs of near-term diplomatic resolution.

“History has shown us time and again that violence only begets more violence and is never a lasting foundation for peace,” he said.

The Dalai Lama called for efforts to resolve conflicts through non-violent means, saying: “An enduring resolution to conflict, including the ones we see in the Middle East or between Russia and Ukraine, must be rooted in dialogue, diplomacy and mutual respect.”

He added that such efforts should be “approached with the understanding that, at the deepest level, we are all brothers and sisters.”

Pope Leo XIV — the first American pontiff — said in his Palm Sunday homily at St. Peter’s Square that “Jesus does not listen to prayers of those who wage war, adding that the Lord “always rejects violence.”

In his message, the Dalai Lama said a prayer for an end to ongoing conflicts : 

“I urge for and pray that the violence and conflicts may soon come to an end.”

Afghan Taliban officials said renewed clashes on Wednesday came after a temporary Eid ceasefire expired, killing at least two civilians in eastern Afghanistan, while each side accused the other of starting the exchange.

That has not stopped Islamabad from making a conspicuously public play for a role in the Middle East crisis.

Since the US-Israel war on Iran began on Feb. 28, Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership have been engaging what one of the source reports described as “regional and friendly countries” while repeatedly calling for de-escalation. 

Foreign Office spokesman Tahir Andrabi said earlier this week that Pakistan remained committed to resolving the conflict “through diplomatic means and engagements,” even as he urged the media to avoid speculation.

In a post on X, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif formally offered Islamabad as a venue for talks between Iranian and US officials, saying Pakistan stood “ready and honoured” to host “meaningful and conclusive talks” if both sides agreed. 

Sharif tagged President Donald Trump, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US special envoy Steve Witkoff. The idea of Islamabad hosting talks had in fact come from Washington, reporters revealed. Trump later shared Sharif’s post on Truth Social.

A messenger to Tehran

Pakistan’s role has not been limited to offering conference rooms.

Washington had sent a peace proposal to Tehran through Pakistan, with Reuters and the New York Times naming Islamabad as the messenger. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that either Turkey or Pakistan was being considered as a possible venue if talks advanced. 

Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, added to the speculation when he said he thought talks could take place in Islamabad over the weekend, though he stressed nothing had been settled.

Pakistani officials then moved from hint to confirmation, though not all the way to clarity. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said on X on Thursday that “indirect US-Iran talks” were taking place through messages relayed by Pakistan. He added that the United States had shared 15 points that Iran was considering. 

But he stopped short of saying Pakistan would definitely host any face-to-face meeting. Andrabi did the same in his weekly briefing, insisting this was a “process,” not an “event,” and saying any concrete developments would be announced later. He also rejected suggestions that security concerns were holding up Islamabad as a venue, saying Pakistan was “very safe and secure.”

Walking a tightrope

Islamabad has also sought to show that it has access to both sides. Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, spoke with Trump on March 23, while Sharif spoke the next day with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. 

In the Senate, Dar said he had conveyed Tehran’s position to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and backed Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, while also making clear that Pakistan “would not allow itself to be dragged into a broader regional conflict.”

About 35,000 Pakistanis were in Iran and that 792 had already been evacuated by land through the Taftan-Zahedan crossing.

Still, Pakistan’s emergence as a mediator remains real but provisional. The White House has warned against treating reported talks as official, and Araghchi has said exchanges through mediators do not amount to negotiations with Washington. 

For now, Pakistan is trying to end one war — even as it fights another at home.

The credibility of the rules-based order, he stressed, “depends on consistency.”

His remarks come as tensions involving Iran, Israel and the United States continue to reverberate across the Middle East , raising concerns among Asian governments over potential spillover effects on trade, energy security and regional stability.

Anwar reaffirmed Iran’s right to defend its sovereignty under international law, particularly in the context of continued Israeli strikes on Iranian territory and in Lebanon. At the same time, he called on all parties to exercise “maximum restraint” to avoid widening the conflict .

Moreover, the Malaysian premier warned of the risk that neighbouring Gulf states could be drawn further into the crisis, stressing that civilian populations and critical infrastructure in the region must be protected.

“The Gulf states, the region and the world have much at stake — economically, socially and in terms of long-term stability — and their peoples must not bear the consequences of decisions taken elsewhere,” he said.

Heaps praise for Pakistan’s mediation efforts

Alongside his criticism, Anwar signalled support for renewed diplomatic efforts. He welcomed Pakistan’s offer to host dialogue between Washington and Tehran, describing it as a “timely and constructive” initiative, and praised similar earlier efforts by Oman and other countries.

Malaysia supports such initiatives, he said, but cautioned that any negotiations must be anchored on a “clear commitment to ending the conflict”, rather than serving as temporary pauses.

“The international community has seen too many ceasefires that function as pauses rather than conclusions. The region deserves something more durable,” he said.

Anwar added that he had held discussions with leaders from the Gulf Cooperation Council, Türkiye, Egypt, Indonesia, Japan and Pakistan to advocate de-escalation, saying Malaysia would continue to support efforts towards a “just and lasting peace.”

The raid began in the early morning hours as U.S. forces struck key military infrastructure around the Venezuelan capital to disable air defenses. Special operations troops then moved in on Maduro’s compound, capturing him and his wife, Cilia Flores, before flying them out of the country to face charges in New York , where they remain detained.

The operation abruptly removed a leader who had ruled the oil-rich South American nation for more than a decade and had long been a target of U.S. sanctions and criminal indictments tied to alleged narcotics trafficking. Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was later sworn in as acting president following Maduro’s capture.

Less than two months later, another Saturday operation sent shock waves across the Middle East .

On February 28, U.S. forces launched “Operation Epic Fury,” a sweeping air and missile campaign targeting Iran’s military infrastructure and leadership. It followed what “preemptive” strikes launched by Israel . 

The strikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s most powerful political and religious figure, who had led the country since 1989.

The attack hit hundreds of targets, including missile facilities and command centers, and triggered retaliatory strikes by Iran against U.S. and allied positions across the region.

Khamenei’s death has plunged Iran into its most severe leadership crisis since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, with an interim council now overseeing the country while authorities determine a successor.

Together, the two operations underscore a striking pattern in the early months of Trump’s presidency: the direct use of U.S. military power to remove foreign leaders from power.

It also marks a stark contrast with Trump’s pledge to be a “president of peace,” a theme he emphasized during his 2024 campaign by repeatedly claiming he would end “un-endable wars.”

In his victory speech that year, Trump said: “I’m not going to start wars. I’m going to stop wars.”

Trump has since framed his approach as pursuing “peace through strength.”

Yet within eight weeks — and on two separate Saturdays — Washington helped bring down two governments thousands of miles apart, from Caracas to Tehran.

Thus far, the U.N.’s actions have largely centered on convening diplomacy and calling for de-escalation.

It convened an emergency meeting

The United Nations Security Council, the U.N.’s most powerful body responsible for maintaining international peace and security, held an emergency meeting after U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory attacks across the region.

The session, requested by Bahrain, France, Russia, China and Colombia , quickly exposed sharp divisions among major powers over the legality and justification of the strikes.

The United States and Israel defended the military action as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

At the meeting, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said: “Everything must be done to prevent a further escalation in the Middle East. I call on all sides to strictly uphold their obligations under international law, including the United Nations Charter, protect civilians and ensure nuclear safety.”

U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz told the council that stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was a matter of global security, adding that Washington’s actions were lawful.

Israel’s envoy, Danny Danon, similarly described the strikes as a preemptive move to neutralize what he called an existential threat.

Iran, however, strongly condemned the attacks.

Iranian Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani told the council that the airstrikes had killed and injured hundreds of civilians, calling them war crimes and urging the council to take action.

The meeting also saw other global powers weigh in. Russia demanded that the United States and Israel immediately halt their operations, while China expressed concern over the sudden escalation and called for renewed diplomatic negotiations.

It condemned the attacks

When hostilities broke out on February 28, Guterres was quick to condemn the escalation, warning that the exchange of attacks risks igniting a broader conflict in an already volatile region.

He said the use of force by the United States and Israel against Iran, as well as Iran’s retaliatory strikes across the region, undermines international peace and security.

“I call for an immediate cessation of hostilities and de-escalation,” Guterres said. “Failing to do so risks a wider regional conflict with grave consequences for civilians and regional stability.” 

He stressed that all countries must adhere to international law and the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

For now, the United Nations’ role remains focused on diplomacy and calls for restraint — even as the conflict threatens to move beyond words.

Jeffers said the deployment aims to provide “the security Gaza needs for a future of prosperity and enduring peace.”

Number of troops

President Prabowo Subianto, attending the meeting, said Indonesia would deploy troops within two months, starting with an advance team to assess risks and plan operations. The country has pledged up to 8,000 troops, the largest contingent of any ISF member.

Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Sugiono explained that the deputy commander role reflects both the size of the Indonesian contingent and the military’s extensive peacekeeping experience. 

“Indonesian troops are also the largest there, this deputy commander for operations is also something that honors and appreciates Indonesia's track record," Sugiono said. 

The ISF will operate under a U.S.-led Board of Peace. Indonesia’s forces will be deployed across Gaza’s five sectors — Rafah, Khan Yunis, Deir el-Balah, Gaza City, and Northern Gaza — with an initial focus on Rafah.

Humanitarian focus, not combat

While Indonesia leads the largest deployment after the U.S., its troops are assigned strictly to humanitarian and stabilization tasks, not combat. The government has warned it will withdraw if the ISF deviates from agreed mandates.

Other countries contributing troops include Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania, while Egypt and Jordan will train Gaza’s local police. The ISF’s long-term plan calls for 20,000 troops and 12,000 police officers on the ground.

The Board of Peace also aims to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and demilitarization, a plan opposed by Hamas, which has rejected foreign intervention and disarmament.

Trump highlighted Indonesia’s role during the meeting, praising Prabowo for his commitment and leadership. Members of the board pledged $7 billion toward Gaza relief, a fraction of the estimated $70 billion needed to rebuild after years of conflict.

The countries identified as prepared to contribute forces include Morocco, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Kosovo and Albania, while several other states are listed as members of the wider initiative.

The proposal emerges as global leaders continue to push for a sustainable ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, alongside longer-term arrangements for security and reconstruction in Gaza.

What is the “Board of Peace”?

The “Board of Peace” appears to refer to a multilateral initiative under discussion among governments aimed at supporting post-conflict stabilisation in Gaza. While details remain fluid, diplomatic reporting indicates the concept involves a peacekeeping or monitoring presence if and when political conditions allow.

International peacekeeping operations in the region would require a mandate, most likely from the United Nations Security Council, in line with established UN procedures. The UN has previously overseen peacekeeping missions in the Middle East, including the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO), which has operated since 1948 (United Nations Peacekeeping).

No formal UN mandate for a Gaza peacekeeping force has yet been confirmed publicly.

The countries reportedly willing to send the troops

Morocco

Morocco has long participated in UN peacekeeping operations across Africa and the Middle East. According to UN Peacekeeping data, Rabat consistently ranks among major troop-contributing countries, with deployments in missions such as MONUSCO in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and MINUSCA in the Central African Republic.

Its reported willingness to contribute troops to a Gaza stabilisation mission aligns with its broader foreign policy positioning as a regional diplomatic actor.

Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan has steadily expanded its international security footprint in recent years. The Central Asian state has contributed personnel to UN missions, including UNIFIL in Lebanon, according to official UN records. Kazakhstan has also sought a more prominent diplomatic role in global mediation efforts, hosting talks on Syria in Astana in previous years.

Indonesia

Indonesia is one of the world’s largest contributors to UN peacekeeping operations. The country has deployed thousands of personnel to missions in Lebanon, Congo and elsewhere, according to United Nations data. Jakarta has repeatedly expressed strong support for Palestinian statehood and humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza, positioning itself as a vocal diplomatic player in the Muslim world.

Kosovo and Albania

Kosovo and Albania, both located in Southeast Europe, have deepened cooperation with NATO and European security institutions over the past decade. Albania has previously contributed troops to international missions under NATO and UN frameworks. Kosovo, though not universally recognised as a sovereign state, has increasingly participated in international security partnerships and peace support initiatives.

Their inclusion reflects broader European engagement in any potential post-conflict arrangement.

Why Gaza Would Require an International Force

Gaza has experienced repeated cycles of conflict, most recently following the escalation that began in October 2023 after Hamas launched a large-scale attack on Israel .

Israel’s subsequent military campaign has resulted in extensive destruction and a humanitarian crisis, according to reporting by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and Al Jazeera.

Humanitarian agencies have documented severe infrastructure damage, displacement of civilians and strain on medical services. Any post-conflict governance model would likely require security guarantees, aid coordination, and oversight of reconstruction, roles typically associated with multinational stabilisation missions.

However, peacekeeping in Gaza would face substantial political and operational challenges. Analysts note that consent from both Israel and Palestinian authorities, as well as agreement among major global powers, would be essential before deployment.

Political and legal hurdles

Under international law, UN peacekeeping missions require Security Council approval. Any deployment without such a mandate would likely need bilateral or multilateral agreements involving the relevant parties on the ground.

UN has cautioned that Gaza’s dense urban environment, the presence of armed groups and unresolved governance questions would complicate traditional peacekeeping models.

UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told reporters in New York on Tuesday, 10 February, that the UN aid coordination office, OCHA, had received new reports of airstrikes, shelling and bombing, “including from at sea”, as well as shootings in residential neighbourhoods.

He warned that the violence “puts civilians in danger and adds to the immense hardship they have endured over the past 28 months,” stressing that under international humanitarian law, “even if they cross military demarcation lines or are near them...civilians must always be protected and during military operations and constant care must be taken to spare them.”

There is also the broader geopolitical dimension. The United States, European Union, Arab League and regional powers have each floated differing proposals for Gaza’s post-war administration, ranging from strengthened Palestinian Authority control to international trusteeship arrangements.

Today, it remains a live issue.

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) has reported that many Jewish Europeans experience harassment and feel antisemitism has worsened in their countries.

In response, the European Commission launched its EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021–2030), acknowledging the need for coordinated action across member states.

Against that backdrop, the new Eurobarometer 2026 data offers insight into how the wider public perceives the scale of the problem.

Where Europeans see antisemitism as a problem

Concern is highest in parts of western Europe:

In these countries, more than seven in ten respondents say antisemitism is an issue.

Mixed views in Central Europe

In countries such as:

Between four and six in ten respondents perceive antisemitism as a national problem.

Lower perceived levels in parts of Eastern and Southern Europe

Some countries report lower percentages of public concern:

However, this perception does not equal incidence. Public awareness, media coverage and the size of Jewish communities can influence how respondents interpret the question.

He said reckless actions by powerful actors are triggering dangerous consequences, and stressed that global challenges cannot be solved by one country imposing its will.

“Global problems will not be solved by one power calling the shots,” he said. “Nor will they be solved by two powers carving the world into rival spheres of influence.”

Guterres argued that the world is shifting toward multipolarity, but warned that this transition must be “networked, inclusive by design,” and grounded in partnerships rather than competition.

“For multipolarity to generate equilibrium, prosperity and peace, we need strong multilateral institutions where legitimacy is rooted in shared responsibility and shared values,” he said.

Concerns over private tech power

The UN chief also highlighted the growing influence of private technology companies, warning that unregulated platforms and artificial intelligence systems are increasingly shaping elections, markets and even conflicts.

“When technologies that shape behaviour, elections, markets, and even conflicts operate without guardrails,” he said, “the reaction is not innovation, it is instability.” He called for global governance frameworks to ensure AI and emerging technologies are used responsibly.

Final-year priorities

In what is expected to be his final year leading the United Nations, Guterres outlined key priorities focused on peace, development and institutional reform.

He said the UN is pushing for “just and sustainable peace rooted in international law,” including efforts that address the root causes of conflict rather than temporary ceasefires.

Guterres also highlighted the need to accelerate progress on the Sustainable Development Goals, reform the Security Council, and strengthen the global financial system to better support vulnerable countries.

On climate change, he called for greater equity in helping nations facing repeated climate catastrophes.

Guterres closed by urging governments to act with responsibility in an increasingly troubled international environment .

The Board of Peace, announced by Trump as part of his renewed foreign policy agenda, is framed as an alternative diplomatic mechanism aimed at resolving major international conflicts, including the war in Gaza and broader Middle East tensions.

According to reporting by Al Jazeera, participation in the board is by invitation, with countries free to accept or reject based on their political alignment and strategic interests.

Who has joined

The map shows a mixed response across regions. Several countries in the Middle East, parts of Asia, and Latin America have accepted invitations , viewing the board as a potential channel for influence or de-escalation:

Morocco, Argentina, Hungary and Belarus have also agreed to join, raising the number of countries that have confirmed participation to at least 24.

Countries that have rejected

In contrast, several prominent European and North American allies have explicitly declined the invitation, underlining scepticism about the initiative’s structure and neutrality. Countries that have rejected participation include:

In the same way, several other countries, including the UK, Italy, Japan, China and Russia, have been invited but have yet to take a stand on participation.

The Board of Peace gained prominence after Trump publicly linked it to efforts to end the war in Gaza, alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

According to Trump, the initiative was initially conceived as a mechanism to address the conflict in Gaza, but its mandate has since expanded to include broader global conflict resolution efforts.

India–Pakistan ceasefire agreement (South Asia)

In May 2025, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire after a period of heightened military tensions along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. The agreement was welcomed as a significant diplomatic step toward reducing hostilities between two nuclear‑armed neighbours who have fought repeated clashes in the region for decades. However, in the weeks following the deal, there were reports of minor violations and exchanges of fire, illuminating the fragile and contested nature of the truce. Despite these challenges, the ceasefire created space for renewed diplomatic engagement and prevented further large‑scale escalation in 2025.

DRC–Rwanda peace agreement (Central/East Africa)

On 27 June 2025, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda signed a US‑brokered peace agreement aimed at stemming long‑running conflict and militia activity in eastern DRC. The accord outlined a timetable for the withdrawal of Rwandan troops and the creation of joint security mechanisms, along with broader frameworks for cooperation among Great Lakes states. Although widely seen as an important diplomatic breakthrough with the potential to stabilise the region, implementation has faced serious practical and security challenges. Militia activity, logistical obstacles, and mutual mistrust have slowed progress, and the agreement’s long‑term impact depends on sustained political will from both capitals.

Cambodia–Thailand ceasefire (Southeast Asia)

On 26 October 2025, Cambodia and Thailand signed the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord during the ASEAN Summit in Malaysia, establishing an interim ceasefire and steps to de‑escalate longstanding border tensions. The agreement was backed by regional leaders and U.S. President Donald Trump, who played a visible role in encouraging both sides to halt hostilities. The accord included provisions such as coordinated troop withdrawals, joint de‑mining operations, and international monitoring to reduce accidental clashes along disputed frontier zones.

The deal was built on earlier ceasefire efforts mediated by Malaysia as ASEAN chair and supported by Trump, after months of sporadic clashes and large-scale displacement. While the agreement was widely hailed as a diplomatic success, skirmishes and disagreements over implementation persisted in some sectors. Renewed fighting in December 2025 prompted a special ASEAN ministerial meeting to revive and reinforce the peace process originally supported by regional leaders and Trump. Despite its challenges, the accord marked a significant step in structured cooperation between the two governments.

United Nations high-level conference on the Two-State Solution (Middle East)

In July 2025, the United Nations convened the Palestine Two‑State Solution Conference, a high-level meeting aimed at reinvigorating international efforts toward a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conference brought together representatives from countries across the Global South and other regions to discuss diplomatic strategies, coordinate international support, and identify concrete steps for sustained peacebuilding. The event fostered dialogue and strategic planning, it did not result in a binding agreement or a final political resolution, serving primarily as a forum to strengthen international coordination around the two-state solution framework.

Israel–Hamas ceasefire (Middle East)

In October 2025, Israel and Hamas agreed to a U.S.‑backed ceasefire to pause one of the most destructive phases of the Gaza conflict that began in October 2023. The first phase of the deal included Israel withdrawing forces to agreed positions inside Gaza and Hamas releasing hostages held since the 2023 attacks, while both sides pledged to reduce hostilities and allow increased humanitarian access across crossings. This agreement was hailed internationally as a significant step toward ending active large‑scale fighting after two years of intense conflict.

Despite the truce entering into force and creating periods of relative calm, the ceasefire has been fragile and contested. Both sides have accused one another of violations, and periodic exchanges of fire have occurred, complicating efforts to implement subsequent phases of the deal. Independent sources report that — even after the ceasefire — hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in incidents that local health authorities attribute to Israeli operations, and humanitarian conditions in Gaza remain severe, with disputes over aid delivery and access continuing to impede relief efforts.

The ceasefire has not yet resulted in a comprehensive political settlement to the broader Israeli‑Palestinian conflict. Negotiations over long‑term governance, security arrangements, and disarmament have stalled, and international pressure persists to ensure that the agreement holds and leads to expanded humanitarian and reconstruction initiatives.

Guyana–Venezuela — diplomatic talks over Essequibo dispute (South America)

In 2025, diplomatic engagement continued between Guyana and Venezuela over the long‑standing Essequibo territorial dispute. Regional organisations and international mediators worked to prevent escalation after a period of heightened tensions in prior years, and both governments engaged in dialogue to manage disagreements. Although no formal settlement was reached during this period, sustained diplomacy contributed to maintaining relative stability in northern South America. The case remains before the International Court of Justice, and continued negotiations have been viewed as crucial in preventing renewed conflict over the disputed territory.

Although many of these agreements and conferences did not result in final resolutions or full implementation, they represent important steps towards the peaceful management of complex conflicts. The persistence of tensions, implementation challenges, and the fragility of some accords demonstrate that diplomacy is an ongoing process, requiring sustained political commitment and international cooperation. The developments of 2025 underline the relevance of Global South participation and leadership in maintaining dialogue and coordinating international efforts to address geopolitical and humanitarian challenges that continue to affect millions of people worldwide.

The resolution highlights what many see as one of the most basic tenets of human dignity that under no circumstances, of war, terror, and political unrest, should torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment ever be tolerated .

The green-coloured countries on the above world map graphic representing votes in favour dominate the globe. A few pale-yellow countries abstained, and a tiny handful are shaded red or grey. The result sends a clear signal: torture is a red line, not a bargaining chip.

Yet the fact that the United States, Israel and Argentina stood alone in opposition has ignited immediate backlash across social media , activists’ networks, and human-rights groups.

Many are calling it a dangerous reversal from previous years, when such resolutions typically passed unanimously. “What does it say when these states oppose any opposition to torture?” asked one prominent critic, echoing widespread dismay at the outcome.

The resolution builds on recent work by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which in April 2024 passed a related resolution calling on states to take “effective national legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures” to prevent torture.

Moreover, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) has announced concrete plans to visit several countries, including Mozambique, Peru, France, and Mexico in 2025, to monitor compliance and press for implementation.

This dual thrust of symbolic condemnation via the General Assembly and practical oversight via the HRC and SPT represents one of the strongest global efforts in recent memory to confront torture as a systemic problem.

He described recent developments as a turning point in Darfur, claiming “the entirety of Darfurian territory” was now under the control of the Sudan Founding Alliance (Tasis), following what he called the defeat of the “terrorist Islamic Movement's Army and its allied mercenary movements.”

Addressing reports of atrocities during the battle for El Fasher, where the United Nations says more than 1,350 civilians were killed, Al-Taishi said his government would conduct a “fair and transparent investigation” into all violations. He insisted that abuses were “isolated acts” and that those responsible would be held to account.

Al-Taishi also urged Sudanese citizens, particularly Darfur residents, to participate in community-led efforts to rebuild El Fasher.

His remarks came days after RSF chief Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo declared control over the city, describing it as a “strategic shift” in the ongoing conflict .

Eighty years later, the UN remains one of the most significant symbols of global unity, with 193 member states spanning every corner of the globe. What began with 51 founding members has grown into a truly universal body, reflecting decades of decolonisation, independence movements, and shifting political landscapes.

When the UN Charter came into force in 1945, membership was dominated by major world powers and a handful of independent nations. But the decades that followed changed everything. Between 1946 and 1959, the organisation expanded steadily as post-war recovery reshaped Europe and Asia.

Then came a wave unlike any before: the 1960s and 1970s brought dozens of new African and Asian nations into the fold as colonial empires dissolved and independence swept across the Global South. According to the United Nations , membership had grown to 99 states by 1960 and surpassed 110 by 1962.

The next major shift occurred in the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Newly sovereign countries across Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Balkans joined the UN, marking the organisation's transition into a nearly complete representation of the world map. By the early 2000s, the UN had 193 member states, a number that remains unchanged today.

This steady expansion tells the story of a changing global order. From the original 51 states gathered in San Francisco to nearly every nation on Earth, UN membership reflects humanity’s ongoing quest for shared dialogue and collective problem-solving.

It also mirrors the rise of newly independent voices that reshaped international priorities, from development and equality to environmental sustainability.

In 2025, as the world marks the UN’s 80th anniversary, questions about its effectiveness and reform have taken centre stage. The recent election of Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Latvia, and Liberia to the UN Security Council for the 2026–2027 term underscores the continued effort to ensure diverse regional representation

The map released in connection with the deal shows Israeli-held zones along coastal areas and key border regions, while portions of Gaza City, Khan Yunis, Deir el-Balah, and North Gaza revert to Palestinian control.

The partial pullback comes as part of the Trump-brokered 20-point peace plan signed that same day in Sharm el-Sheikh. Under that agreement, Israel’s forces are to reposition within 24 hours, and Hamas is expected to return all living hostages and the remains of deceased ones within 72 hours.

Israel’s decision to retain over half of Gaza highlights the delicate balance struck in the ceasefire: a withdrawal significant enough to signal de-escalation, yet limited enough to maintain leverage. The held zones include buffer strips along the coast and border crossings, likely critical for security, monitoring, and aid control.

The new arrangement takes effect amid bleak humanitarian conditions. Gaza’s population faces severe food insecurity, and United Nations agencies are poised to escalate aid deliveries, contingent on continued troop pullbacks. Broader Stakes & Unresolved Questions

This pause in hostilities brings cautious relief. Earlier in the day, the Israeli cabinet approved the agreement, formalising a ceasefire and setting in motion plans to free hostages and swap hundreds of prisoners.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu reaffirmed his vow to disarm Hamas and warned of renewed military options if violations occur. Hamas, meanwhile, agreed to the terms but faces internal pressures over governance, disarmament, and long-term stability.

International oversight will play a pivotal role. The first phase calls for a joint task force involving the U.S., Egypt , Qatar, Turkey, and others to monitor compliance. The Rafah crossing (Egypt–Gaza) is also slated to reopen under EU monitoring, a symbolic and functional milestone for civilian movement and aid flows.

For now, the world watches to see if this withdrawal will become the start of a sustained peace or a temporary lull in a longer struggle.

Reports from Gaza indicate a devastating escalation in violence, resulting in at least 65 deaths and 153 injuries within a single day. The conflict continues to exact a severe humanitarian toll, with hospitals overwhelmed and infrastructure collapsing under repeated bombardments. Civilian areas have been hit hard, raising concerns among international observers about violations of human rights and the disproportionate impact on non-combatants. Jordan, sharing close geographical and humanitarian ties with Palestine, has expressed deep concern over the situation. The government has reiterated its call for an immediate ceasefire and the provision of unrestricted humanitarian access to Gaza, emphasising the urgent need for de-escalation to prevent further loss of life.

“The battle isn’t over yet,” Israeli army chief tells soldiers in Gaza

The Israeli army chief’s statement that “the battle isn’t over yet” signals a prolongation of the ongoing Gaza conflict, suggesting that Israel’s military operations will continue despite international appeals for restraint. This declaration has fuelled fears of an extended confrontation, with implications for regional stability, including Jordan, which remains a vocal advocate for peace in the Middle East. The statement has also intensified public debate across Arab nations about the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts to halt the violence. Jordanian officials have maintained that lasting peace can only come through a two-state solution and renewed negotiations under international supervision, rather than continued military engagement.

Prime Minister honours teachers, announces expanded support programmes

In domestic developments, Jordan’s Prime Minister honoured educators on World Teachers’ Day, announcing an ambitious set of new programs designed to improve working conditions, salaries, and professional development opportunities for teachers across the kingdom. The initiative reflects the government’s commitment to strengthening the education sector as a cornerstone of national progress. The Prime Minister emphasised that education remains central to Jordan’s socio-economic resilience, especially in the face of regional instability. These new programs are expected to include grants for rural schools, digital learning infrastructure, and teacher training in modern pedagogical methods. The announcement was met with optimism by teachers’ unions and educational institutions, which have long called for increased investment in the profession.

Jordan celebrates World Teachers’ Day, emphasising educators’ role in nation-building

As part of World Teachers’ Day celebrations, Jordan held nationwide events to celebrate the contribution of educators to the country’s development. Schools, universities, and civil society organisations hosted panels and cultural programs highlighting the sacrifices and achievements of teachers in shaping future generations. Government ministries underscored the importance of education not only as an academic pursuit but also as a moral and civic foundation for nation-building. The theme of the celebration—empowering teachers for sustainable development—resonated strongly with Jordan’s ongoing reforms in the education sector, which aim to modernise curricula and align learning outcomes with the needs of the 21st-century economy. The day concluded with awards recognising outstanding educators for excellence and innovation in teaching.

IEC delegation reviews Syrian parliamentary elections process

A delegation from Jordan’s Independent Election Commission (IEC) visited Syria to observe and review the process of the country’s first parliamentary elections since the fall of Bashar al-Assad. The delegation’s participation underscores Jordan’s increasing commitment to supporting democratic governance in the region. According to official statements, the IEC’s involvement was aimed at sharing technical expertise in election monitoring, voter registration systems, and transparency mechanisms. Observers noted that the elections mark a turning point for Syria, though questions remain about inclusivity and fairness. Jordan’s engagement was praised as a gesture of regional solidarity and as part of its broader diplomatic strategy to encourage political stabilisation and reconstruction in neighbouring countries.

“It’s completely unthinkable,” said Oeivind Stenersen, a historian who has studied the Nobel Peace Prize extensively. Speaking to AFP, Stenersen said Trump is “in many ways the opposite of the ideals that the Nobel Prize represents.”  

“The Nobel Peace Prize is about defending multilateral cooperation, for example, through the UN,” Stenersen added. “Trump breaks with that principle. He follows his own path, unilaterally.”

Trump has claimed he ended “six or seven wars” during his presidency, a figure experts call grossly exaggerated. While he often highlights the Abraham Accords, normalisation deals between Israel and several Arab states, analysts say those moves alone don’t align with the prize’s mission to reward diplomacy, peacebuilding, and respect for international law.

The Nobel Prizes are considered among the world’s most prestigious honours and will be announced next week, starting with medicine on Monday and ending with economics the following Monday. The Peace Prize winner will be revealed in Oslo on October 10.

France, led by President Emmanuel Macron, declared its recognition of a Palestinian state in a UN meeting meant to revive peace efforts in the Middle East. Macron argued that political recognition is essential to stabilising the region and providing an alternative to violence.

“Recognition of Palestine is the only way to provide a political solution to a situation which has to stop,” he said.

Malta’s move followed suit. Prime Minister Robert Abela confirmed that his country would formally recognise Palestine during the same Assembly, describing the moment as “historic” and in line with Malta’s long-standing support for Palestinian self-determination.

Luxembourg and San Marino were also part of this shifting landscape, signalling their commitment to recognising Palestinian statehood.

These recognitions come on the heels of a growing list of Western nations such as Canada, Australia, Portugal, the UK and others, making similar declarations, reflecting broader discontent with stalled peace processes and mounting humanitarian concerns in Gaza .

By formally recognising Palestine, these European countries are signalling several things simultaneously: support for international law, responsiveness to humanitarian crises, and frustration with the lack of progress toward peace.

Recognition is largely symbolic, but it carries real weight: increased legitimacy for the Palestinian Authority, pressure on Israel and its allies, and a wider platform for international mediation efforts.

France, in particular, has framed its recognition as integral to a three-pillar plan: first, recognising the State of Palestine; second, working toward a ceasefire that includes the release of hostages; third, building a sustainable two-state framework.

Israel, predictably, has condemned the move. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the recognitions as a “reward to terrorism,” and some voices in Israeli politics have warned of diplomatic pushback and possible escalations in policy in response.

Her remarks followed meetings in Washington between United States President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was joined by several European leaders on August 18.

“China always believes that dialogue and negotiation are the only viable solutions to the Ukraine crisis. We support all efforts that are conducive to peace,” Mao told reporters.

“China supports all efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis and is glad to see Russia and the United States maintain contact, improve their relations and promote a political settlement process of the Ukraine crisis.”

Beijing also called on all parties taking part in the Washington talks to work towards a settlement.

“We hope that all parties and stakeholders will participate in the peace talks in a timely manner and reach a fair, lasting, binding and acceptable peace agreement to all parties as soon as possible,” Mao said.

The discussions in Washington come after a summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday.

That meeting did not result in a ceasefire but included pledges from both leaders to provide “robust security guarantees” to Ukraine.

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, escalating a conflict that began in 2014 with Moscow’s annexation of Crimea.

The war has caused tens of thousands of deaths, displaced millions, and severely disrupted global energy and food markets.

According to Punch Nigeria, over 1,043 people have died from violence between May 2023 and May 2025.

Global South World sought to understand the gravity of the impact and what steps have been taken so far to address these dastardly acts through an interaction with Nigerian journalist, Segun Adewole.

Just like many locals in the country, Segun believes that at least 200 people were killed from this treachery which received global attention.

According to the journalist, several measures like doubling the weapons of security personnel as well as dialogue on security are in place to tackle the insecurity menace in the country.

However, efforts at dialogue seem to be producing nothing as security forces appear overwhelmed by the consistent loss of lives in the line of duty.

“How can they go to Benue State and kill people? Killed 200 people and no police could come and do something about it. They went to Benue, killed 200 people. For 2 days, they operated, and the police could not go there. Yet we have the military, we have the army, the navy, the police, the NSCDC, and different security agencies. That shows that there's something wrong somewhere,” Segun said. 

This, Segun also attributes to a problem in the governing structure of the country.

“No matter who becomes president, if Trump should come into Nigeria, with the kind of structure we have right now, he won't be able to succeed because the structure is not created for success,” he added.

Away from the boiling insecurity, the ordinary Nigerian seems to be getting some respite from the new tax measures President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has signed into law.

In a statement , the president said “The tax reforms will protect low-income households and support workers by expanding their disposable income.”

During the discussion, Segun explained that workers or individuals earning less than a million naira ($653.41) are exempt from paying taxes.

“The tax reforms signed into law, they affect the ordinary citizen, the ordinary man on the streets, because right about now, I think there's a portion that says if you are earning less than a million naira you won't, you'll be exempted from tax. That is one good thing because how can I be earning something little and I'm, I'll still be required to pay tax? So, the payment of tax would be for those earning above 1 million naira and the majority of the populace are earning below 1 million naira, so they are exempted from tax,” he explained.

The new tax laws are: the Nigeria Tax Act , which simplifies taxation by merging rules and scrapping 50+ overlapping taxes; the Tax Administration Act , which standardises tax collection nationwide; the Nigeria Revenue Service Act , replacing FIRS with the independent NRS; and the Joint Revenue Board Act , which boosts coordination and creates a Tax Ombudsman and Appeal Tribunal.

Watch the discussion attached to this story.

According to the data, peace has declined globally, with 78 countries experiencing increased conflict in the past year.

External conflicts, such as those in Gaza and Ukraine, have contributed significantly, but many other parts of the world, especially sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, have seen growing unrest.

Despite this trend, the Safety and Security domain recorded some improvements, particularly in perceptions of criminality and political terror.

Countries like Bangladesh, Norway, and Denmark recorded some of the steepest declines in peace due to growing militarisation. At the same time, sub-Saharan African countries such as Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Ghana are among those involved in five or more external conflicts.

The number of nations drawn into foreign wars has climbed to 98, up from 59 in 2008.

According to the index, the following countries are among the most peaceful in the Global South. They have lower conflict scores, lower levels of militarisation, and better safety records compared to many others within similar regions.

Most Peaceful Countries in the Global South (GPI 2025)

(Peace Score – Global Ranking)

Singapore – 1,367 (34)

Malaysia – 1,469 (41)

Mauritius – 1,586 (54)

Qatar – 1,593 (55)

Sierra Leone – 1,887 (57)

Madagascar – 1,895 (59)

Ghana – 1,898 (61)

Chile – 1,899 (62)

Zambia – 1,914 (64)

Uzbekistan – 1,926 (67)

Senegal – 1,936 (69)

Liberia – 1,939 (70)

Malawi – 1,955 (71)

Tanzania – 1,965 (73)

Angola – 1,987 (76)

Kyrgyz Republic – 1,988 (78)

Tajikistan – 1,996 (79)

Dominican Republic – 1,996 (79)

Tunisia – 1,998 (81)

Equatorial Guinea – 2,004 (82)

Bolivia – 2,005 (83)

Panama – 2,006 (84)

Morocco – 2,012 (85)

Thailand – 2,017 (86)

Cambodia – 2,019 (87)

Saudi Arabia – 2,034 (90)

Rwanda – 2,036 (91)

Algeria – 2,042 (92)

Côte d’Ivoire – 2,066 (94)

Peru – 2,073 (96)

Sri Lanka – 2,075 (97)

China – 2,093 (98)

Eswatini – 2,094 (99)

Guinea-Bissau – 2,112 (101)

Cuba – 2,123 (102)

Republic of the Congo – 2,132 (103)

El Salvador – 2,136 (104)

Philippines – 2,148 (105)

Egypt – 2,157 (107)

Guatemala – 2,174 (108)

Mauritania – 2,204 (110)

Out of all countries assessed, 94 became less peaceful, while only 66 showed improvement.

Two of the three main areas measured, ongoing conflict and safety and security, have worsened, with ongoing conflicts rising by 17.5%.

Only militarisation showed some improvement, but that trend has reversed in recent years.

What are the major causes?

Some of the biggest causes of the decline are the increase in external and internal wars, the rising number of refugees and displaced people, as well as weaker relations between neighbouring countries. Sixty countries now have poorer ties with their neighbours than in 2008, while only 19 have improved.

International cooperation in trade, diplomacy, and military alliances has also weakened.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, global integration has steadily declined. Countries are looking more inward, and trade restrictions have sharply risen, surpassing 3,000 in 2023, almost three times more than in 2019.

Debt burdens in developing countries are another big factor. On average, these nations now spend 42% of their government revenue on debt repayments, with China being the biggest lender.

Meanwhile, peacebuilding efforts have lost momentum. Spending on peacekeeping is now less than 1% of global military expenditure, and the number of peacekeeping troops has fallen by 42% in the past decade.

Nuclear-armed states have all increased or maintained their arsenals since 2022.

A new arms race is also emerging in high-tech weaponry such as AI-powered drones and space-targeting systems, driven by growing rivalry between major powers.

Conflicts that involve foreign military involvement inside another country have gone up by 175% since 2010. This includes 78 countries participating in wars beyond their borders.

The GPI now identifies 34 countries as having significant influence in the affairs of other nations, up from just six in the 1970s.

Experts believe that power is shifting toward middle-income countries, while Western economies struggle, and both the US and China approach the limits of their global influence. China’s economic model is showing signs of strain, with debt levels around 300% of GDP and comparisons being made to Japan’s situation in the late 1980s.

Conflicts could worsen in the coming years

The report also warns that certain current conflicts could grow worse. Based on nine identified risk factors such as ethnic exclusion, foreign military support, and the political use of violence, four countries stand out: South Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Syria.

The Institute for Economics and Peace, which compiles the index, said: "Geopolitical fragmentation is a major driver of conflict today. The old global order is breaking down, and a new, more volatile one is emerging."

The peace deal , signed by the foreign ministers of both countries, outlines key steps including military disengagement, the lifting of Rwandan defensive measures, and the neutralisation of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a rebel group that Rwanda sees as a threat.

The agreement also affirms respect for the territorial integrity of the DRC and allows either party to withdraw from the deal with 60 days' notice.

Despite this, many in Kinshasa and Kivu remain uncertain about the agreement’s effectiveness due to a history of failed peace efforts.

Romeo Limaka, a university professor in Kinshasa, emphasised the public’s desire for transparency and long-term peace. “The people were going to be involved to learn the timelines and outcomes of this agreement with a view to peace, which is much more sought after because that is what is most important to the people: peace, the end of the war,” he told CGTN.

Others have raised concerns about the exclusion of key local groups from the agreement. Ngenga Ewaenwa, President of the School of Patriot and His Patriotism in Africa (EPPAF) noted the absence of domestic armed groups and patriotic forces from the discussions. “But what makes us regret is seeing how the Patriots, the Wazalendo group, the M23, who fight day and night, were not involved in this agreement. The same goes for us, who are Patriots and carry patriotism in Africa. This is what worries us. So perhaps tomorrow, there could also be bad reactions to unforeseen issues.”

Supporters of President Felix Tshisekedi have welcomed the agreement. Phillipe Undji, secretary of the ruling Sacred Union, highlighted potential economic benefits. “We must now establish an economic framework that works on traceability… if there can be small commission agents in the sales chains and all that, in the profit, that the DRC earns a large part of its resources, well, we say that it is a victory.”

Just recently, a confidential UN report said Rwanda controls M23 rebels advancing in eastern Congo, gaining power and mineral access. Experts added that Rwanda trained M23 fighters and supplied them with advanced military tech to outmatch Congo’s army.

Recent reports indicate that over 7 million individuals have been forcibly displaced due to the ongoing conflict in eastern DRC. Nearly 780,000 people were compelled to abandon their homes between November 2024 and January 2025.

Since January 1, over 100,000 refugees have entered neighbouring countries. Of these, 69,000 have sought refuge in Burundi, 29,000 in Uganda, and approximately 1,000 in Rwanda and Tanzania, the UN Refugee Agency reports.

“This agreement is a significant step toward de-escalation, peace, and stability,” Guterres said in a statement released by the UN. He commended the United States for its mediation, alongside efforts by Qatar, African Union mediator Faure Gnassingbé of Togo, and regional organisations such as the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

The peace deal includes commitments to end state support for armed groups like the FDLR and M23, implement a ceasefire, establish a joint monitoring mechanism, and enable the voluntary return of displaced persons.

“With this peace agreement, we open a new chapter, one that calls not only for commitment, but for the courage to see it through,” said DRC Foreign Minister Therese Wagner.

A summit between DRC President Félix Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Paul Kagame is planned for late July at the White House.

Guterres emphasised that the agreement must be implemented in full accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2773 (2025) , which calls for an immediate halt to violence and the resumption of diplomatic dialogue.

Eastern DRC has faced decades of conflict since the 1990s, with recent UN reports confirming Rwandan military support to M23 rebels, claims Rwanda denies. The fighting has displaced over 7 million people and left 27.8 million in need of humanitarian assistance, according to the UN Office for the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) .

Despite the diplomatic progress, challenges remain with armed groups like the M23 still controlling territory, and a parallel negotiation process in Doha with M23 leaders is ongoing but not yet concluded.

Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier, in a cautious tone, stated that, “We must acknowledge that there is a great deal of uncertainty in our region, and beyond, because many previous agreements have not been implemented,” he said. “And there is no doubt that the road ahead will not be easy.”

UNHCR head Filippo Grandi described the agreement as "a chance to stop the cycle of violence and displacement," while MONUSCO chief Bintou Keita warned that without swift implementation and international backing, hopes for lasting peace could falter.

"The path to peace demands shared responsibility and collective action," Keita told the UN Security Council on Friday.

Rwanda is launching four initiatives to eradicate blood expiry by 2027, as reported by the Rwanda Biomedical Centre (RBC). These initiatives include using electric motorcycles for urban blood transport, establishing the Intwari Club 25 to mobilise youth donors, digitising blood services to streamline operations, and proactively matching blood collection with anticipated demand. The goal is to enhance the efficiency of the blood donation system while concurrently promoting healthier lifestyles to reduce transfusion needs.

Peace agreement between DRC and Rwanda

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have reached a provisional peace agreement , aimed at resolving the ongoing conflict in eastern DRC, as reported by various news sources. This agreement, mediated by the United States and Qatar, includes disarming M23 fighters and other armed groups, while also permitting Western countries to exploit the mineral-rich region for significant investments, amidst accusations of Rwandan support for M23. 

Arrest of opposition leader Victoire Ingabire in Rwanda

Rwandan opposition leader Victoire Ingabire was arrested by the Rwanda Investigation Bureau (RIB) for allegedly mobilising a group to incite public unrest, as indicated by the RIB's statement. Her arrest follows her appearance in a separate trial related to a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Ingabire, who previously served a prison sentence for forming an armed group, is now under investigation as part of a broader crackdown on opposition figures.

Strengthening military ties: Morocco and Rwanda's defence collaboration

Morocco and Rwanda have formalised their military cooperation with a new agreement focusing on training, technical assistance, and shared expertise, as affirmed by Moroccan Minister Abdeltif Loudyi during the Rwandan Defence Minister's visit. This collaboration is viewed as a strategic response to recent tensions with Algeria, reinforcing both nations' commitment to stability and security in the region.

Translocation of Southern White Rhinos to Rwanda's Akagera National Park

Seventy southern white rhinos have been successfully relocated from a controversial breeding facility in South Africa to Rwanda’s Akagera National Park, as reported by CNN. This significant operation , part of African Parks' Rhino Rewild initiative, entailed thorough planning and execution, aiming to establish a genetically viable population and combat poaching challenges amidst dwindling rhino numbers in Africa.

"We must not become accustomed to war," Pope Leo XIV says whilst hosting his regular general audience at St. Peter's Square, adding that he worries about the "powerful" nature of modern weaponry. "Since in today's war scientific weapons of all kinds are used, its atrocity threatens to take fighters to a barbarity far greater than that of past times," he says. 

In a statement published on its official Facebook page , the government emphasised its position: “The Thai force had to defend itself and the area of Thai sovereignty. The action complied with the principles of international law.”

The announcement referred to the May 28 skirmish between Thai and Cambodian troops in the Chong Bok area of Ubon Ratchathani province.

Following the incident, both governments engaged in discussions at multiple levels, including between prime ministers. They agreed to cooperate in restoring normalcy and use established bilateral mechanisms, notably the Joint Boundary Committee, which is scheduled to meet in Cambodia on June 14.

The government concluded by stating that the situation along the Thai-Cambodian border is stable and expressed confidence that both countries can reach a mutual resolution.

After promising to stand up to China and defend democracy at his inauguration, Lai insisted Taiwan was "willing" to communicate with Beijing if there was "parity and dignity". China has rebuffed Lai's previous offers to talk. "Peace is priceless and there are no winners in war," Lai said, but added "we cannot have illusions" and vowed to continue "to strengthen our national defence capabilities".

Taiwan will "actively cooperate with international allies, shoulder to shoulder to exert the power of deterrence, to prepare for war to avoid war, and to achieve the goal of peace," Lai told journalists at the Presidential Office.

China, which claims Taiwan is part of its territory and has threatened to use force to annex it, has held several rounds of large-scale military drills around the island since Lai took office. Taiwan's coast guard warned Monday that China may use "cognitive warfare" to "disrupt public morale" as Lai marks the first anniversary of his inauguration.

As Taiwan comes under pressure from Washington to move more factories to US soil and reduce their trade imbalance, Lai said Taiwan would not "put all our eggs in one basket". Taiwan would increase its economic resilience by diversifying markets and boosting domestic demand. Lai also announced plans to set up a sovereign wealth fund to "boost Taiwan's economic momentum", but did not provide details about its size.

At the heart of the plea was Yehuda Cohen, father of Nimrod Cohen, who has been held hostage in Gaza for nearly two years. In an emotional statement, he appealed directly to Trump and his allies:

"Mr. Donald Trump, Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, Adam Boehler, please continue the job. Please remember, Netanyahu is deceiving you. Netanyahu is lying to you. Same as Netanyahu is betraying us. He's betraying us. He's betraying the hostages for his personal purpose."

Cohen accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of deliberately prolonging the war for political survival rather than working toward a deal that could bring the hostages home:

"We all know that Netanyahu is working on stalling and prolonging the war on the blood, on the blood of Israeli civilians and Israeli soldiers. Please continue what you started. Please make Netanyahu, force Netanyahu, push Netanyahu to go for a hostage deal. End the war and a hostage deal. This is the only way," he added.

The emotional gravity of the moment was compounded by Einav Zangauker, the mother of Matan Zangauker, who has spent 584 days in Hamas captivity. Speaking in Hebrew, she described her son's fragile condition:

"My Matan is being held captive, together with Edan Alexander, who is being released today, and my heart, my heart is torn from the knowledge that my child will rot under torture and loneliness in Hamas captivity, alone. My Matan will not survive there alone with his muscular dystrophy."

Her appeal to Trump was filled with urgency and desperation as she said, "Mr President, sir, all of the Israeli people are behind you, end this war. Bring them all home. The coming week will determine the fate of the hostages. The coming week will determine the fate of my Matan, life or death."

"In March, the Ukrainian president said in Jeddah that he agreed to an unconditional ceasefire. And yesterday, the Ukrainian president said he had decided to meet (with Vladimir Putin) in Istanbul. This is the second time he has made major concessions. We must all be reasonable now. Either Russia, Mr Putin, is serious and wants peace, or it is not serious and we must impose even tougher sanctions ," Macron told the press on Monday, May 12.

Western leaders, including those from the United States , issued a firm demand on Saturday, May 10, for Moscow to implement an unconditional 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine beginning Monday, warning that failure to comply would trigger intensified sanctions targeting Russia’s banking and energy sectors.

Putin, however, on the same day, countered with a proposal to engage in talks in Istanbul.

“We are committed to serious negotiations with Ukraine … to remove the root causes of the conflict,” he said at a news conference. “I do not exclude that during these negotiations it will be possible to agree on some new ceasefire.”

Tributes continue to pour in from all corners of the globe, honouring Pope Francis, who dedicated his life to promoting peace, justice , and human dignity.

"I believe that all of us who knew him—and even those who knew him only from afar, through the news—remember this great man who worked tirelessly not only for the Church, but for the world, for peace in the world, for peace among nations, and dialogue between people s. His concern for the environment, and at the same time, his concern for debt and people in need of greater dignity," Orani Joao Tempesta, Cardinal of Rio de Janeiro, told AFP.

“We ratify once again Cuba's unwavering commitment to peace, to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and to the non-performance of nuclear tests,” Díaz-Canel said during the meeting.

The Cuban leader praised the long-standing relationship between Cuba and the CTBTO, and expressed gratitude for the organization's support in developing the country's scientific and institutional capabilities in nuclear monitoring and disarmament efforts.

Díaz-Canel also commended Floyd’s personal dedication to building what he described as a “robust, armored, effective, and efficient verification system” for nuclear weapons testing, Granma reports.

He also acknowledged the CTBTO's support in training Cuban experts, facilitating access to international data, and enhancing Cuba’s scientific programs and comparative studies related to nuclear monitoring and policy .

Reflecting on global nuclear tensions, Floyd noted the continued relevance of Cuba’s role, especially in light of its early commitment to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Cuba was among the first five nations to ratify the treaty, doing so in January 2018—just months after signing it at the UN in September 2017.

“Even in these dark times for global disarmament efforts, our organisation remains a flame,” Floyd said.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons officially entered into force on January 22, 2021, as part of global efforts to eliminate nuclear arms.

The recent developments in Syria have garnered significant international attention, particularly regarding the establishment of a new transitional Cabinet. The U.S. expressed optimism about this move, viewing it as a possible step towards a more inclusive government. According to Yeni Safak , State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce outlined essential conditions for any potential shifts in U.S. policy, stressing the importance of renouncing terrorism and ensuring the security of minority groups. The newly formed transitional government, consisting of 23 ministers under President Ahmad al-Sharaa, aims to address pressing humanitarian issues amid international scrutiny.

New transitional government in Syria includes a Catholic woman

President Ahmad al-Sharaa's inauguration of a transitional government marks a notable change in Syria's political landscape following the ousting of President Assad. This cabinet, composed of diverse ethnic and religious representatives, signifies a response to international demands for inclusivity amidst concerns of minority rights, particularly after recent violence against the Alawite community. As reported by Vatican News , the appointment of Hind Kabawat, the cabinet's sole female member, as Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, exemplifies efforts towards diversity in governance. Despite these steps, challenges persist, particularly with the Kurdish Autonomous Administration's rejection of the cabinet, citing inadequate minority representation.

Twelve civilians killed in apparent sectarian violence in Syria

At least 12 civilians, mostly Alawites, were killed Monday in apparent sectarian attacks in Syria’s coastal and central regions, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Six, including a local official, died in an assault in Tartus province. According to The National , the attackers, allegedly from a military base tied to Syria’s new authorities near Baniyas, reportedly shouted sectarian slogans before opening fire. Two suspects from a pro-government faction were later arrested, and security forces were deployed to remove the group from the area. Fears of reprisals persist among Alawites, the sect of former president Bashar al-Assad. March saw the worst sectarian violence since his fall, with massacres in Alawite-majority areas.

Syria appreciates international support for the new government

In a show of gratitude, Syria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged the support received from the international community following the announcement of the new government. SANA reports that this assistance is seen as a significant motivator for ongoing reforms, reflecting Syria's commitment to working alongside global partners to better serve its populace. Such international backing may also serve as a catalyst for political stability and security within the region.

Iraq and Syria to strengthen ties pledge security cooperation

Regional cooperation is also being emphasised, as evidenced by a recent phone call between Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani and President Al-Sharaa. The two leaders extended Eid al-Fitr greetings and discussed broader regional security issues. Shafaq reports that Al-Sudani has reaffirmed Iraq's support for Syria's political decisions and underscored the necessity for an inclusive political framework. This dialogue marks a significant softening of relations, with both nations addressing critical concerns, including security cooperation against ISIS and addressing drug trafficking across borders.

Among the laureates, 65 women have steadily carved their place in history and overcome significant barriers of gender inequality, systemic bias, and lack of opportunity against the contrast of 904 men laureates. Their stories and nationalities reflect broader social shifts and global progress in the inclusion of women in science, literature, and activism.

The first woman to receive a Nobel Prize was Marie Curie in 1903. She was honoured in Physics alongside her husband Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel for their work on radioactivity. Remarkably, she remains the only person to win Nobel Prizes in two different sciences—she won the Chemistry Prize in 1911 for her discovery of radium and polonium.

Since then, over 60 women have been awarded Nobel Prizes (as of 2024), with representation across all categories.

Peace (19 women winners)

The Peace Prize has historically had the highest female representation. Notable winners include:

Bertha von Suttner (Austria-Hungary) – 1905, the first woman to win the Peace Prize.

Mother Teresa (India) – 1979, for her humanitarian work.

Malala Yousafzai (Pakistan) – 2014, youngest laureate ever, honoured for advocacy of girls' education.

Literature (17 women winners)

Female voices have also resonated in the world of literature:

Selma Lagerlöf (Sweden) – 1909, first female Literature laureate.

Toni Morrison (USA) – 1993, a literary icon addressing African-American life and culture.

Olga Tokarczuk (Poland) – 2018, awarded for a "narrative imagination that represents the crossing of boundaries."

Medicine (13 women winners)

Women in medical science have received increasing recognition, such as:

Barbara McClintock (USA) – 1983, for her work in genetics.

Tu Youyou (China) – 2015, for discovering artemisinin, a breakthrough in malaria treatment.

Chemistry (8 women winners)

Aside from Marie Curie, recent milestones include:

Emmanuelle Charpentier (France) and Jennifer Doudna (USA) – 2020, for developing CRISPR gene-editing technology.

Physics (5 women winners)

Still a highly male-dominated field, but progress continues:

Donna Strickland (Canada) – 2018, third woman after Curie and Maria Goeppert-Mayer to win.

Andrea Ghez (USA) – 2020, for discoveries related to black holes.

Economic Sciences (3 women winners)

A relatively new category (established in 1969), with few female laureates:

Elinor Ostrom (USA) – 2009, the first woman to win in Economics.

Claudia Goldin (USA) – 2023, for advancing understanding of women’s labour market outcomes.

Where do they come from?

While women laureates come from a range of countries, several regions dominate:

The United States is the most represented country in terms of science and economics.

Europe: Countries like France, Germany, Sweden, and the UK have produced numerous female laureates.

Asia: India, China, Japan, Iran, and Pakistan have seen laureates mostly in Peace and Medicine.

Africa and Latin America: Representation has been limited but notable, such as Wangari Maathai (Kenya)—the first African woman to win the Peace Prize in 2004.

“I have said it time and again that our country will not go back to war. Let no one take the law into their hands,” Kiir stated.

The attack occurred as a UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) team attempted to evacuate soldiers from clashes in Upper Nile State. The helicopter came under fire, leaving one crew member dead and two others seriously injured. A South Sudanese army general and several officers were also killed, with UNMISS stating the incident could constitute a war crime.

Tensions have risen in recent weeks due to clashes between forces aligned with Kiir and First Vice President Riek Machar, straining their fragile power-sharing agreement. Kiir’s allies have accused Machar’s forces of inciting unrest in Upper Nile State alongside the White Army, an armed Nuer youth group linked to the vice president’s ethnic community.

South Sudan is the world’s youngest nation; it ended a five-year civil war in 2018 with a peace deal between Kiir and Machar.

Iceland boasts a very low crime rate, with violent crime being extremely rare. The country's strong social attitudes against crime, high level of trust in its well-trained police force, and lack of tension among social and economic classes all contribute to its safe and peaceful environment. Iceland has no military, and police officers don't even carry firearms .

But what makes Iceland stand out from the rest? For starters, its high standard of living and small population of just 393,349 people contribute to its safe and close-knit community. The country also has laws in place to guarantee equality, including same-sex marriage and adoption, religious freedom, and equal pay for men and women.

Iceland's impressive ranking is closely followed by that of Ireland, Austria, New Zealand, and Singapore. These countries consistently rank high in terms of peace, safety, and happiness, thanks to their strong social safety nets, high levels of education, and low crime rates.

However, the 2024 GPI report indicates a slight deterioration in global peacefulness, with the average level declining by 0.56%. This marks the 12th deterioration in peacefulness over the last 16 years, with 65 countries improving and 97 deteriorating in peacefulness.

The report also notes that the gap between the most and least peaceful countries is widening, emphasizing the need for concerted efforts to promote peace worldwide.​

The 2024 Global Peace Index evaluates 163 independent states and territories, covering 99.7% of the world's population, using 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators across three domains: Societal Safety and Security, Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict, and Militarisation.

To support Ukraine's defence capabilities, the United Kingdom pledged £1.6 billion ($2 billion) in export financing to procure over 5,000 air defence missiles manufactured in Belfast, Northern Ireland. This initiative complements a previously announced £2.2 billion loan for military aid to Ukraine, funded by frozen Russian assets. ​

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also introduced the "ReArm Europe" plan, proposing to unlock €800 billion (approximately $840 billion) to enhance defense capabilities across member states. This plan reflects the EU's recognition of an "era of rearmament" and aims to reduce dependence on external powers for security.

​In a decisive move to address the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, European leaders convened an emergency summit in London on March 2, 2025. The summit aimed to bolster support for Ukraine and assert Europe's role in seeking a peaceful resolution, especially in light of shifting U.S. policies.​

The summit occurred amid strained relations between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump, following a contentious meeting at the White House. This tension has prompted the suspension of military aid to Ukraine.

Scholz emphasised that while ending the war as quickly as possible is crucial, a Russian victory or Ukrainian collapse would not pave the way for sustainable peace. This sentiment is echoed by many experts, who warn that a ceasefire or temporary truce may not necessarily translate to lasting peace.

The release took place on Saturday, January 25 in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, which has been under Houthi control since 2014. The prisoners included individuals who were sick, wounded, or elderly, highlighting the humanitarian nature of the gesture.

Abdul Qader al-Murtada, head of the Houthis' Committee for Prisoners' Affairs, emphasised that the initiative aimed to build trust and pave the way for more serious and honest dealings in the future.

Iskandar Al-Maamari, spokesperson of the International Committee of the Red Cross also echoed these sentiments.

"The International Committee of the Red Cross expresses its readiness to play a neutral mediator role to facilitate similar releases," Iskandar said during a press briefing.

Christine Cipolla, the ICRC's head of delegation in Yemen, further expressed hope that this release would lead to more such positive steps.

"This operation has brought much-needed relief and joy to families who have been anxiously waiting for the return of their loved ones," she said.

This release comes amid a fragile ceasefire that has significantly reduced hostilities in Yemen. The ceasefire, brokered by the United Nations in 2022, has been a crucial step towards ending the conflict that has devastated the country for over a decade.

Many Israelis are relieved by the prospect of peace and the return of hostages. Families of those held captive have expressed overwhelming joy and hope that their loved ones will soon be home. "This is a significant step forward that brings us closer to seeing all hostages return," said a spokesperson for the Hostages and Missing Families Forum Headquarters.

The emotional toll of waiting for news about the hostages has been immense, and the ceasefire offers a glimmer of hope for their safe return.

However, not all reactions have been positive. Some Israelis are sceptical about the ceasefire's longevity and effectiveness. Concerns about the potential for the agreement to fall apart are prevalent. "Deep anxiety and concerns accompany us regarding the possibility that the agreement might not be fully implemented, leaving hostages behind," the spokesperson added.

The fear that the ceasefire might be temporary and that hostilities could resume at any moment looms large.

Politically, the ceasefire has also generated mixed opinions. Some view it as a necessary step towards peace, while others see it as a concession to Hamas.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to confirm the finalisation of the deal, adding to the uncertainty. The agreement's terms, which include the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli hostages, have been a point of contention.