Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy

31. Navigating Disagreement: Why Did the Brazilian President Visit the United States?

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
05-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
On May 6, 2026, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva traveled to Washington at the invitation of U.S. President Donald Trump, seeking to strengthen bilateral relations. The visit coincided with mounting domestic pressures on the Brazilian president, following a series of successive setbacks—most notably a vote by more than two-thirds of Congress members in favor of legislation proposing to reduce sentences handed down against former President Bolsonaro, despite the presidential veto, and the Senate’s rejection of da Silva’s nominee for the Supreme Court—the first time in decades that a president’s choice for the Court had been turned down. Those reverses gave fresh momentum to Bolsonaro’s son as a leading presidential contender in the 2026 elections, even as da Silva’s capacity to advance his domestic agenda showed signs of strain. Complicating the picture further were a number of unresolved Brazilian-American tensions, set against a turbulent international and regional backdrop marked by escalating U.S.–Chinese competition in Latin America, a dynamic that rendered the visit a practical test of Brazil’s ability to balance its rapprochement with Washington against its commitments to Beijing within the BRICS framework. Against that backdrop, the analysis that follows traces the most significant points of friction in Brazilian-American relations in recent times, examines the motives behind the visit and its anticipated outcomes, and assesses the potential repercussions for the wider region.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Geopolitics, Donald Trump, and Lula da Silva
Political Geography:
Brazil, South America, and United States of America

32. Technical Alliance: The Turkestan Summit and the Digital Integration Drive Within the Organization of Turkic States

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
06-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
The informal summit of the Organization of Turkic States convened in Turkestan, Kazakhstan, on May 15, 2026, reaffirming the Organization’s standing as the foundational pillar of Turkic influence in Central Asia. Far from a ceremonial gathering, the summit appeared to be a concerted attempt to forge a new vision for the future of the Turkic world, one that moves beyond traditional cultural frameworks toward more substantive economic and technological partnerships. Founded on October 3, 2009, under the name the Cooperation Council of Turkic-Speaking States (the Turkic Council), the Organization came into being following the signing of the Nakhchivan Agreement between Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. At the Baku Summit in 2019, Uzbekistan announced its accession, bringing the total membership to five states, alongside Turkmenistan, Hungary, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as observers. At the Istanbul Summit in 2021, the body was formally renamed the “Organization of Turkic States.”
Topic:
Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Economy, Regional Organizations, and Organization of Turkic States
Political Geography:
Central Asia and Turkic States

33. Arena of Rivals: China, Taiwan, and the Contest for Africa

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
05-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
The China-Taiwan file has undergone a notable transformation at the African level. Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te concluded his visit to Eswatini on May 5, 2026 — a trip that had originally been scheduled for April 22 to 26 before being postponed, after Seychelles, Mauritius, and Madagascar revoked overflight permits for the Taiwanese presidential aircraft. Beijing, meanwhile, received the President of Mozambique from April 18 to 22, who met Chinese President Xi Jinping at the latter’s invitation, as well as Namibia’s Minister of International Relations and Trade from April 11 to 18.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Geopolitics, and Trade
Political Geography:
Africa, China, Taiwan, Asia, and Eswatini

34. Balancing Act: Why China Chose “Pragmatic Neutrality” in the War on Iran

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
03-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
Since the outbreak of the American-Israeli war on Iran on February 28, 2026, China has maintained what can best be described as a flexible, carefully calibrated stance. Foreign Ministry statements issued on February 28, March 2, and March 11 condemned the American-Israeli strikes, called for a halt to the escalation, and emphasized that the war serves no party’s interests. Complementing its public statements, Beijing reinforced its diplomatic engagement by dispatching its special envoy for Middle Eastern affairs, Zhai Jun, to the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Neutrality, and 2026 Iran War
Political Geography:
China, Iran, and Asia

35. Strategic Hedging in Motion: Japan’s Trajectory to Counter Growing Chinese Influence

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
02-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
Japan has recently intensified diplomatic and security efforts to reinforce regional alliances and mitigate the potential repercussions of Beijing’s rising power amid China’s significant expansion of influence across Southeast and East Asia. Expanded security coordination and military cooperation with the United States, South Korea, and the Philippines now characterize these initiatives, raising important questions about their impact on the regional balance in East Asia.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Hedging, Foreign Influence, and Military Cooperation
Political Geography:
Japan, China, and Asia

36. Behind the Ballots and the Bluster: Decoding Votes on Ukraine Resolutions at the UN

Author:
Nienke Wessel and Bob Deen
Publication Date:
02-2026
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
Four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, an end to the war remains elusive. Ukraine is not only fighting Russia on the battlefield, but also in the diplomatic arena to secure international support. This report analyses the way this diplomatic war has unfolded by looking at two dimensions: votes in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and attendance of the peace conference in Bürgenstock. A closer look at voting patterns in the UNGA reveals a gradual decrease in support over the past few years. Immediately after the invasion, 141 states voted in favour of pro-Ukrainian resolutions; in December 2025, this number had dwindled to 79. Ukraine and its supporters in its diplomatic struggle against Russia could benefit from a careful analysis of the various reasons behind these shifting levels of support. This report therefore presents a clustering of voting patterns, which can help identify both the nations that hold fixed positions and those who vary in their voting behaviour and stated positions. A better understanding of the motivations behind these positions is crucial for a diplomatic strategy that aims to convince them to support Ukraine. The approach in this study is two-fold: it first discusses the narratives that have been promoted by both Russia and Ukraine and then analyses why these may or may not appeal to different states across the world. While Ukraine rightfully claims that the invasion is a violation of international law and posits itself as a democracy that has fallen victim to a brutal act of aggression, Russia instead promotes a narrative of defence against supposed threats by the West. While most countries around the world generally and rhetorically support international law, the narrative of the ‘threatening West’ also finds support across the world and particularly in the grouping of countries sometimes referred to as the ‘Global South’. However, the appeal of the Russian narrative is only part of the puzzle. Practical reasons are perhaps much more important to determine the level of support; many countries may have their own reasons to either support Russia or at least not jeopardize their relationship with Moscow. These include food security, maintaining trade relations with Russia, strategic voting considerations, or a preference for a multipolar world order. For any diplomatic strategy to be effective in convincing countries to support Ukraine, it requires listening to their individual concerns and addressing those to the extent possible. Understanding does not imply agreement as not all arguments have moral equivalence and some may not be put forward in good faith, but the West should also be wary of its own biases. A convincing argument should address both the narrative as well as the practical interests driving state positions. It should furthermore realise that there is no one-size-fits-all solution: while there are common patterns across the world, the different elements present themselves in different combinations for each individual nation. A convincing diplomatic strategy begins with listening.
Topic:
Diplomacy, United Nations, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

37. Inspiration for AI Diplomacy: A Glance at the AI Strategies of the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, and Singapore

Author:
Maaike Heijmans and Alexandre Ferreira Gomes
Publication Date:
04-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
In preparing to launch its forthcoming artificial intelligence (AI) diplomacy strategy, the Netherlands would benefit from a better understanding of leading peers’ (international) strategies and AI governance structures. This Clingendael Report contributes to this objective by offering an exploratory analysis of key initiatives and governance structures of the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, and Singapore. These countries stand out for their strong AI policies or their leadership in sub-fields such as AI safety. The case studies show that the United Kingdom (UK) has adopted a laissezfaire attitude towards AI, aligning with the United States (US) and focusing on attracting foreign investors. While this comes with development gains, it also poses risks to data sovereignty. The UK does have a notable ‘AI Security Centre’ focused on research around emerging AI risks and AI auditing, but it has recently withdrawn from international consensus-building efforts. Denmark’s approach consists of cultivating AI use across society in accordance with Danish values, with a particular focus on AI in the public sector and not so much in the private sector. Despite its focus on domestic sovereignty and risk management, it has made limited efforts internationally. France’s strategy somewhat resembles the underpinnings of the US’s DARPA program, focusing on funding a wide range of potentially good ideas instead of funnelling all investment into one project. This has led to the emergence of competitive startups, research hubs, and a pronounced international presence. However, this wide-scope approach means that France lacks centralised AI governance structures and has spread mandates across existing bodies. Singapore has a strong emphasis on safety, standards, and guidelines, and enables bottom–up development and testing of (opensource) models. It designates specific strategic niches in which it can carve out and sustain an edge and where it focuses its efforts. Its international presence is characterised both by its consensus-seeking efforts, and through providing a model for developing a well-rounded AI strategy using limited resources. While these four countries are frontrunners in specific domains, AI strategy and governance is an emerging field. The Netherlands would do well, first and foremost, to chart its path forward based on its own interests, priorities, and niches for AI development and not simply seek to replicate existing strategies.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Governance, Innovation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, France, Denmark, and Singapore

38. Coercive Extractivism: The mechanics of Trump’s transactional approach to Europe

Author:
Rem Korteweg and Diederick van Wijk
Publication Date:
04-2026
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
The episode with Greenland was telling. US foreign policy under the Trump administration has become increasingly transactional, raising serious doubts about the transatlantic relationship across Europe. On 17 January 2026, the US president threatened European NATO allies with ten percent tariff walls “until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” Earlier, eight NATO allies had sent a very limited number of military personnel to Greenland for a reconnaissance mission, in response to the US president’s claims that Greenland was undefended and should therefore become part of the United States. Since coming to office in early 2025, the president had repeatedly made his ambition to annex Greenland clear. It was not the first time the US administration used European dependence on US economic or security ties to twist arms. This Clingendael Report examines the mechanics of Trump’s transactional approach to Europe, where security, economic and regulatory interests are fused in the pursuit of an ‘America First’ agenda. Based on a series of interviews conducted in Washington DC in late 2025, two papers drafted by US experts Max Bergmann and Peter Harrell, and an expert workshop in December 2025, eight key dynamics emerge that define contemporary US transactional policies. This, in turn, leads to a set of recommendations for how the EU and European countries, including the Netherlands, can respond. Europeans should expect President Trump’s transactional approach to continue as his administration aims to extract economic and political concessions from EU capitals. In the short-term, as European governments increasingly express concern about their dependence on the United States and seek to cushion themselves from US coercion, the extractive nature of US transactionalism could in fact intensify. Europe’s vulnerability will only diminish once steps to reduce lop-sided dependencies have materially delivered results. The report concludes with a set of options for how the relationship between Europe and the US could then evolve.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Diplomacy, European Union, Donald Trump, Coercion, and Extractivism
Political Geography:
Europe, Greenland, and United States of America

39. AI Diplomacy for a Multipolar World: Policy Brief Europe’s Moment to Act on Trusted AI Partnerships

Author:
Maaike Heijmans and Alexandre Ferreira Gomes
Publication Date:
03-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
US and Chinese AI models and their embedded normative biases are spreading, without any clear European counterbalance or alternative. The Netherlands and the EU need an AI diplomacy strategy that builds a modular tech offer to safeguard global AI diversity, openness, and democratic governance. By working on AI diplomacy through the EU’s Global Gateway, the Netherlands can also strengthen its own competitiveness and digital development. Dutch technological niches that are in high global demand and make for concrete sectoral offerings include agritech, cybersecurity, healthtech, and edtech.
Topic:
Development, Diplomacy, Science and Technology, Governance, European Union, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, Netherlands, and United States of America

40. The State, Hezbollah and War: Lebanon's Enduring Political Impasse

Author:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Publication Date:
06-2026
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Abstract:
Following a series of meetings, Lebanese and Israeli delegations reached a US-backed framework agreement to advance negotiations. However, Lebanon’s internal divisions, Israel’s record of noncompliance, and overlapping regional conflicts complicate any lasting settlement.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Hezbollah, Armed Conflict, Regional Politics, and 2026 Iran War
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Lebanon, and United States of America