SIPRI Yearbook 2025

SIPRI Yearbook 2025

STOCKHOLM, 01 Oct. - (ANA) - SIPRI has published Yearbook 2025 in the Swedish capital Stockholm.

1. International stability, human security and the nuclear challenge

Global security continued to deterioratethroughout 2024. Markers of this persistentdeterioration included major armedconflicts in Ethiopia, Gaza, Myanmar,Sudan and Ukraine. Military spending,meanwhile, rose for the 10th successiveyear and exceeded $2.7 trillion in 2024.

Ecological disruption also continued, with2024 being the first year on record in whichthe average global temperature was clearlymore than 1.5°C above the pre-industrialaverage. New uncertainties arose in thefirst quarter of 2025 following the electionof Donald J. Trump as president of theUnited States, which prompted a significantdeparture from previous US policy andassumptions about global security andrelations with allies.

A new nuclear arms race?

The era of nuclear weapons reductions appears to have ended. Bilateral nuclear arms control between Russia and the USA entered crisis some years ago and is now almost over. Revitalized national debates in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia about nuclear status and strategy suggest there is some potential for more states to join the nuclear club. The signs are that a new qualitative nuclear arms race is gearing up and, compared with the last one, therisks are likely to be more diverse and moreserious. Among the key points of competition will be technological capacities in cyberspace, outer space and ocean space.

Thus, the idea of who is ahead in the race will be even more elusive and intangible, arms control will no longer suffice.

Facing the challenge

With President Trump’s return to the White House, there is a repeat of the paradoxical situation experienced during his first administration, in which none of the three great powers is committed to defending and upholding the world order. China, as a rising power, Russia, as a declining power, and the USA, as a profoundly disaffected power under Trump, all seek freedom from the constraints of agreed rules whenever they are inconvenient. One way forward is for medium and small powers towork together in coalitions with likeminded governments on specific goals.

Cooperation is of value even when it is not comprehensive. It is a pragmatic, viableapproach: the new realism.

A return to an era of reductions to the global nuclear arsenal, however, requiresagreement among the three great powers.

A new, general understanding is needed that nuclear weapons do not buy security and that their existence demands balanced behaviour by political leaders. Initial small steps towards reducing risk could form guardrails against disaster. Together with the voices of an informed public, they could also be part of building pressure on the three great powers to take the next steps in reducing their nuclear arsenals. - (ANA) -

For the full report, visit: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-08/yb25_summary_en_v2.pdf

Israel doesn't want to negotiate, Antonio Guterres says

Israel doesn't want to negotiate, Antonio Guterres says in exclusive interview

By Ibtisam Azem, The New Arab

NEW YORK, 22 Sept. - (ANA) - In an exclusive interview with The New Arab's sister site Al-Araby al-Jadeed, United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, addressed several challenges facing the world, including the recent Israeli attack against Qatar, Palestine, and the situation in Syria and Lebanon.

The interview was conducted by Ibtisam Azem, Al-Araby al-Jadeed’s senior correspondent at the UN in New York.

This interview has been slightly edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: The State of Qatar was attacked on 9 September, after a series of other attacks on other countries in the region. How do you explain the precedent of launching an attack on a country that is mediating to end a war it is waging?

UN Secretary General António Guterres (AG): I think it's a unique case in recent history that a country (Israel) bombards six other countries on the same day. There was the bombardment of the Palestinians in Gaza, bombardment in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and, apparently, there were two drone attacks in Tunisia and Qatar.

The attack on Qatar in particular represents an unacceptable violation of the territorial integrity of the country. Qatar has done a fantastic job in trying to create the conditions, not only for a ceasefire in Gaza, but for the release of the hostages. So it is inconceivable that a strike is carried out on Qatar, violating its territorial integrity and killing at least six people on its soil.

I think that this strike demonstrates that the Israeli government really doesn’t want to negotiate. Unfortunately, we have reasons to be very concerned that the horrendous suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza will go on, and the destruction of Gaza City with all its consequences will go on.

We also have reasons to believe that essential humanitarian aid will be unable to support the Palestinian people, who are suffering from famine and from the total absence of minimum healthcare, due to Israeli restrictions.

It is all of these issues combined that make the level of death and destruction in Gaza the highest number in my mandate as a Secretary-General.

Q: On Monday, the conference on the two-state solution will take place after the UNGA adopted a resolution supporting the NY declaration last week. Some would say it's too little too late. Looking at the facts that Israel created on the ground, is it impossible to create a viable and contiguous Palestinian state?

AG: I would say that it's never too late to do the right thing, and I've been fighting with the instruments I have, which of course are limited, using at least my voice. I've been fighting for the two-state solution for several decades.

For a very simple reason, there is no alternative to the two-state solution. The idea of a one-state solution, in which Palestinians would be expelled, by which the Palestinians would be forced to leave under occupation, discrimination, is something inconceivable in the 21st century. And it would mean that there would be no peace in the Middle East, and it would mean a dramatic increase in radicalisation in many parts of the world.

So the problem is not that the two-state solution is difficult; the problem is that the one-state solution is intolerable, and so we must do everything we can to mobilise the international community and apply as much pressure as possible to make sure that there are no attempts to neutralise the two-state solution.

An example is the recent decision of increasing settlements and the E1 project; we must make all possible efforts to keep the two-state solution alive at the present moment and to create the conditions for its effective implementation as soon as possible.

Q: I would like to push back here a little bit, because as a matter of fact, we do have a one-state reality, which is an apartheid state. We have four sets of Israeli laws that apply differently to different Palestinians depending on where they live (in their historic homeland in Jerusalem, the West Bank, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Gaza), while we have one set of laws that applies to Israeli Jews no matter where they live. So why not fight for a one-state solution, democratic for all, instead of a two-state solution that is impossible because of the reality Israel created on the ground?

AG: From a democratic point of view, I would have no problems with that. But I don't think that the Israelis would ever accept that situation. I think it would be easier for them to accept a two-state solution in which they can live in peace and security with the Palestinians with equivalent rights.

Q: But they are not accepting that…

SG: Not at the present moment…

Q: What would make them accept the two-state solution at the present moment?

AG. Well, I think we need to continue putting pressure in all possible forms and make them understand that the only way for them to have real peace is if they grant the Palestinian people the satisfaction of their right to self-determination.

Q: A UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, found that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. What are your comments on this?

AG: I think that it is something that the Israeli authorities should look into very carefully. Our position has always been very clear. It is not for the Secretary-General to make the legal determination of genocide.

But independently of the name, I think what matters is the reality. And the reality is horrendous, absolutely intolerable, in which we are seeing the collective punishment of the Palestinian people for acts of Hamas that were totally condemnable, but they do not justify at all this level of death and destruction.

This is morally, politically, and legally intolerable.

Q: Following up on the word "morally," you also have an ethical or moral obligation- it will mean a great deal for a lot of people, especially the Palestinians in Gaza, if the Secretary-General also says "I can see that there is a genocide happening."

AG: What I've seen and what I say is that it is so clear and so tough that the problem is not the problem of words; the problem is the problem of a reality that we need to eliminate.

Q: And how do you want to eliminate it? Israel has impunity…

AG: We are doing what we can on all fronts for that purpose, and we should never lose hope. I don’t have an army. I don’t have the power to solve these problems, but I have a clear determination to solve these problems. I can guarantee that this is a central objective in the exercise of my mandate.

Q: Do you think that powerful states are not doing what they should to stop Israel?

AG: I think it is clear that Israel will only stop if there is pressure from the United States, and I believe, I hope, that the United States will understand that it is in the interest of peace and security around the world to tell Israel that they must abide by international law.

Q: What about European states that also have a lot of power?

AG: The same applies to all other countries in the world. I think it's important that they are clear about Israel that this is unacceptable.

Q: Do you think they should stop delivering weapons?

AG: There are many ways to express that. In my opinion, the pressure must be as effective as possible.

Q: What are your comments on the American veto at the UNSC on Thursday, against a resolution that called for a ceasefire and immediate entry of aid?

AG: I think we have a problem of legitimacy and effectiveness of the Security Council. It doesn't correspond anymore to what the world was in 1945. We need a Security Council in which the representation is equivalent to what the world is today. It's intolerable that Africa has no permanent seat at the SC and the same for Latin America, and there is a clear disequilibrium in the composition that reflects the end of the Second World War, with some small adjustments that were made in between.

On the other hand, the Security Council has been paralysed by the geopolitical divides and its inefficiency in addressing the key crises that we have in the world. It's not only the Gaza crisis, but the same in Ukraine and other places. This is something that makes it clear that the reform at the Security Council must be one of the important objectives of the international community.

Q: And what are your comments on yet another American veto?

AG: All vetoes that do not allow the Security Council to act in the right direction are something that is very negative and doesn't help the image of the Security Council and the image of the United Nations.

I believe that there is no solution for the problems of the world without a strong multilateral engagement.

Q: Your special envoy to Syria, Geir O. Pedersen, resigned on Thursday. This comes at a time when Syria is facing many challenges, which would make the UN job more difficult, no?

AG: I have an enormous admiration for the work that Geir Pedersen has been doing, always at the service of the Syrian people, without any other agenda but the well-being of the Syrian people and peace and unity in Syria.

But I believe that this is the moment in which we need to intensify our approach in Syria. We need to move our mission right-sized to Damascus.

I understand that Mr. Pedersen, who has been working for so many years, has decided that he should let someone new come. But I can guarantee that we will maintain the same commitment to support the Syrian people.

Q: You will be meeting the Syrian president next week during UNGA high-level meetings. Could you comment on the challenges you are seeing that the country is facing and where to go from here?

AG: Syria, for me, is a matter of heart. I worked in Syria as a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and I saw the enormous generosity of the Syrian people in welcoming the Iraqis. There were no refugee camps, and they shared everything with them. To see the Syrian people suffer, as I've seen since the repression that Assad started, and then its massive outflow and the destruction and deaths that occurred, was something that really always broke my heart.

And so I think we have now an enormous depth of gratitude towards the Syrian people, and we need to do everything to support the Syrians in making the most of the present situation, to move in the direction of its unity, its sovereignty and within a society in which all the different components, all the different groups, can be together and all of them can be respected in their identity, but at the same time fully participating in the life of the new state.

Q: In Resolution 2790 (2025) the SC extended the mandate of Lebanon (UNIFIL), for a final time until 31 December 2026, and decided that it should start an orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal from that date. Was this a mistake on the part of the SC, given the situation on the ground?

AG: I'm very proud of the work UNIFIL has been doing. I think they have shown enormous courage and dedication in the service of the Lebanese people and peace between Israel and Lebanon. Now, the mission will be moving into a sunset, and I think it's essential to take advantage of this period in order to make sure that the agreements that were made will be fully respected.

Israel must leave the territories that it still occupies in Lebanon and end its strikes. On the other hand, we fully support the efforts of the Lebanese government to create a monopoly on the use of force in the Lebanese army. We believe that that is an essential condition for the unity of the state and for effective governance in Lebanon, and we will also support the reforms that will be done.

We believe that with a Lebanon, whose Lebanese Armed Forces control the whole territory, and with Israel respecting the sovereignty of Lebanon and its territorial integrity, we will then have the conditions in which the role of UNIFIL will no longer be necessary.

Q: But it doesn’t look like we will get there soon…

AG: That is why it's very important to take advantage of the time that was given to us, to do our best to support this process.

Q: And you don't think that the Security Council may have made a mistake by just putting an end date on the mandate?

We will see that soon.

Q: Is there anything important you think our readers should know?

AG: The importance of supporting UNRWA. Almost 400 members of the staff of the UN have been killed in Gaza, most of them from UNRWA, many of them with their families in their houses. And the work that UNRWA has been doing has been vital for the Palestinian people. UNRWA is in an extremely difficult financial situation, and so all the solidarity that can be expressed to UNRWA is extremely important.

At the same time, I believe that the Arab world has today a growing influence in international affairs, and we move more and more into a multipolar world. And I believe that the union of the Arab world would be a very important element for the world to have more justice and more equality.

Q: Are wealthy Arab countries doing enough to support UNRWA?

AG: I hope they will rise to the challenge.

Author

Ibtisam Azem is a novelist and a journalist. She has been covering the UN for a decade. Her latest novel is The Book of Disappearance.

Global growth is projected to moderate Find GDP projections, OECD

Global growth is projected to moderate Find GDP projections, OECD

PARIS - Global GDP growth is expected to moderate from 3.2% in 2024 to 3.1% in 2025 and 3.0% in 2026, with higher trade barriers in several G20 economies and increased policy uncertainty weighing on investment and household spending.

Summary

• Global output growth remained resilient in 2024, with robust expansions in the United States and
several large emerging-market economies, including China.

• Recent activity indicators have begun to point to a softening of global growth prospects. Business
and consumer sentiment have weakened in some countries, and indicators of economic policy
uncertainty have risen markedly around the world.

• Significant changes have occurred in trade policies that if sustained would hit global growth and
raise inflation.

• Inflationary pressures continue to linger in many economies. Services inflation is still elevated, with
labour markets tight, and goods inflation is picking up from very low levels.

• Global GDP growth is projected to moderate from 3.2% in 2024, to 3.1% in 2025 and 3.0% in 2026,
with higher trade barriers in several G20 economies and increased geopolitical and policy
uncertainty weighing on investment and household spending.

• Annual GDP growth in the United States is projected to slow from its strong recent pace, to be
2.2% in 2025 and 1.6% in 2026. Euro area GDP growth is projected to be 1.0% in 2025 and 1.2%
in 2026, as heightened uncertainty keeps growth subdued. Growth in China is projected to slow
from 4.8% this year to 4.4% in 2026.

• Inflation is projected to be higher than previously expected, although still moderating as economic
growth softens. Headline inflation is projected to fall from 3.8% in 2025 to 3.2% in 2026 in the G20
economies. Core inflation is now projected to remain above central bank targets in many countries
in 2026, including the United States.

• These projections are based on an assumption that bilateral tariffs between Canada and the United
States and between Mexico and the United States are raised by an additional 25 percentage points
on almost all merchandise imports from April. Activity would be stronger and inflation lower in all
three economies if these tariff increases were lower or confined to a smaller range of goods, but
global growth would still be weaker than previously expected.

• Significant risks remain. Further fragmentation of the global economy is a key concern. Higher and
broader increases in trade barriers would hit growth around the world and add to inflation.
Higher-than-expected inflation would prompt more restrictive monetary policy and could give rise
to disruptive repricing in financial markets. On the upside, a more stable policy environment would
reduce uncertainty, and agreements that lower tariffs from current levels and more ambitious
structural policy reforms could strengthen growth. Higher government spending on defence could
also support growth in the near-term, but potentially add to longer-term fiscal pressures.

• Central banks should remain vigilant given heightened uncertainty and the potential for higher trade costs to push up wage and price pressures. Provided inflation expectations remain well anchored, and trade tensions do not intensify further, policy rate reductions should continue in economies inwhich underlying inflation is projected to moderate or remain subdued.

• Fiscal discipline is needed to ensure debt sustainability, maintain the ability for governments to
react to future shocks and accommodate current and future spending pressures.

• Countries need to find ways of addressing their concerns together within the global trading system.
Living standards would benefit from coupling these measures with efforts to strengthen the
resilience of supply chains, as well as regulatory reforms that promote dynamic product and labour
markets and policies to encourage skill upgrades.

• Faster diffusion of artificial intelligence technologies could also have significant productivity
benefits. Governments can help by ensuring the availability of high-speed digital infrastructure,
maintaining open and competitive markets and providing opportunities for workers to enhance their
skills.

To download the full report, visit: file:///Users/mac/Downloads/89af4857-en.pdf