On Wednesday, 6 November 2024, the inaugural ministerial meeting of the IAEA World Fusion Energy Group (WFEG) will be held at Italy’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation in Rome. Co-organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Italy, the meeting will see governments, executives from public and private institutions, and investors join forces in paving the way for this promising technology to provide the abundant clean energy the world needs to meet its growing development needs.
The meeting will begin at 10:00 CET with welcome remarks by Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Antonio Tajani, followed with opening remarks by IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, Minister of the Environment and Energy Security Gilberto Pichetto Fratin, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
A family photo will be taken at 09:45 in the Mosaic Room (across from the International Conference Room) before the meeting.
Statements from the Head of Delegation of each invited country will follow. Director General Grossi and Minister Fratin are expected to hold a joint press conference around 13:30 in the Aldo Moro Hall, which will be the listening room for the Press.
At the event, the IAEA will launch two publications, Fusion Key Elements and the World Fusion Outlook 2024. The WFEG meeting will also feature three panel discussions on the status of fusion energy; global collaboration and public-private partnerships; and sustaining resources and exploring alternative business opportunities. The tentative programme is available here.
All media representatives wishing to attend the meeting must submit their accreditation request to Italy. Please see this page for more details.
I thank the President of the Security Council for allowing me the opportunity to update you on the IAEA’s activities concerning nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine. I also thank the Council for their continuing support of the IAEA’s efforts.
It has been more than two years since the war began, the first ever to be fought amid the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
The IAEA has been monitoring the situation closely and assisting Ukraine every day since the start of the war. IAEA staff are continuously present, monitoring the situation at all five of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, including at Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, which remains under Russian operational control.
Today my statement will focus on the recent grave violations of the five concrete principles that I first established in this very chamber on 30 May. These five concrete principles are there to prevent a nuclear accident and to maintain the integrity of the Zaporizhzhya NPP. Let me remind them what they are:
There should be no attack of any kind from or against the plant, in particular targeting the reactors, spent fuel storage, other critical infrastructure, or personnel;
ZNPP should not be used as storage or a base for heavy weapons (i.e. multiple rocket launchers, artillery systems and munitions, and tanks) or military personnel that could be used for an attack from the plant;
Off-site power to the plant should not be put at risk. To that effect, all efforts should be made to ensure off-site power remains available and secure at all times;
All structures, systems and components essential to the safe and secure operation of ZNPP should be protected from attacks or acts of sabotage;
No action should be taken that undermines these principles.
On 30 May last year I said here that observing these principles was essential to avoid the danger of a catastrophic nuclear incident and that I had respectfully and solemnly asked both sides to commit to them.
At our meeting last May distinguished Members of the Security Council and Ukraine clearly supported those principles.
Nevertheless, Madame President, over the past ten days, the first of these principles has been violated repeatedly in what marks a step-change increase in risk to nuclear safety and security at Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant.
On Sunday, 7 April, the International Support and Assistance Mission to ZNPP (ISAMZ) confirmed the first attacks since November 2022 to directly target ZNPP.
The ISAMZ team was able to inspect the location of one direct strike at the apex of the containment dome of the Unit 6 reactor building. Whilst the damage to the structure is superficial, the attack sets a very dangerous precedent of the successful targeting of the reactor containment.
The other two attacks were in close proximity to the main reactor buildings and resulted in at least one casualty.
Agency experts at the site have been informed by ZNPP of a drone strike against the site’s oxygen and nitrogen production facility; two attacks on the training centre located just outside the site perimeter and reports of a drone shot down above the turbine hall of Unit 6.
These reckless attacks must cease immediately. Though, fortunately, they have not led to a radiological incident this time, they significantly increase the risk at Zaporizhzhya NPP, where nuclear safety is already compromised.
I am not only concerned about the attacks themselves, but also the context in which they have occurred. For several months before these direct attacks there had already been an increase in isolated drone incursions in the vicinity of the facility and in the nearby town of Energodar.
In other areas of nuclear safety degradation, the plant is currently relying on just two lines of external power. There have been at least four occasions in the past year when the plant has had only one line of external power supply, with the precarity lasting for periods of up to four months.
Let me put it plainly. Two years of war are weighing heavily on nuclear safety at Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant. Every one of the IAEA’s 7 pillars of nuclear safety and security have been compromised. We cannot sit by and watch as the final weight tips the finely balanced scale.
Even though the plant’s six reactors are now in cold shutdown, with the final unit shifting into that status two days ago following the IAEA’s recommendation, the potential dangers of a major nuclear accident remain very real.
The Agency will continue closely to follow the operational status of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and provide technically viable alternatives in a context of rapid changes and challenges.
Our work at this facility remains essential. This has been recognized by all, irrespective of their side in this conflict. But to be effective, the IAEA teams need timely access to assess the condition of the plant and evaluate the cumulative impact that more than 26 months in a war zone have had on nuclear safety.
Madame President,
We are getting dangerously close to a nuclear accident. We must not allow complacency to let a roll of the dice decide what happens tomorrow. We must do everything in our power today to minimize the risk of an accident.
The five principles established in this very chamber one year ago must be adhered to. They are there to prevent a major nuclear accident with potentially significant radiological consequences.
The latest attacks represent a flagrant violation of these crucial principles and must stop.
I am asking this Council for its steadfast support for the five principles and the IAEA’s seven pillars of nuclear safety and security which they help to underpin. And I am asking for your continued support of the IAEA’s role monitoring the situation, in the service of the international community.
Despite huge challenges, the IAEA has kept open the indispensable lines of communication and will continue doing so. The support of your nations and of the Council as a whole is a necessity.
I thank the Council for inviting me today, thereby demonstrating your continuing commitment to this critical issue.
The IAEA and myself remain at your disposal to assist this body in its mission to preserve international peace and security.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Rachel Ama Asaa Engmann, Associate Professor and Director of Christiansborg Archaeological Heritage Project, Associate Graduate Faculty, Rutgers University
Thousands of sculpted heads – captive African men, women, and children – meticulously created by the artist Kwame Akoto-Bamfo, emerge from the soil at the Nkyinkyim Museum, as a sacred gathering of ancestors. Together, they form a powerful monument to the horror, violence, and resistance to enslavement, as well as the ongoing work of remembrance and healing.
Kwame Akoto-Bamfo is a Ghanaian multidisciplinary artist who engages with the histories and legacies of the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism at home and, increasingly, internationally, on both sides of the Atlantic.
As an archaeologist who works in the field of critical heritage studies, Akoto-Bamfo’s work is important for its powerful engagement with memory, material culture and restorative justice. I feature it in a chapter of a new book that I co-edited called Architectures of Slavery: Ruins and Reconstructions.
Who is Kwame Akoto-Bamfo?
Akoto-Bamfo studied at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi. He obtained his bachelor’s and master of fine arts degrees, both in sculpture. After graduating, the artist worked as a school teacher and a university lecturer.
In 2015, Akoto-Bamfo rose to international fame through a series of large-scale installations. He called it ‘Nkyinkyim’ (“twisting” in the Ghanaian Twi language, as in the proverb, “Life’s journey is twisted”).
Four years later, he established the ‘Nkyinkyim Museum’, a non-profit organisation known as the ‘Ancestor Project’. This open-air museum is located in Nuhalenya-Ada, a two-hour drive from Accra. It has become a space for people of African descent to engage in restorative healing through art and education.
Nkyinkyim Museum
At the site’s entrance, three twenty-five-foot monuments are displayed. They are made of stone, concrete and wood. The first is inspired by North and Eastern Africa, and the second by Sudano-Sahelian architecture. The third is inspired by the Forest regions in Central and West Africa.
The collection includes multiple installations in collaboration with the local community. They illustrate “the diversity in our narratives surrounding history, philosophy, and religious beliefs”. The artist himself, demonstrates a mastery of multimedia art forms, working in cement, terracotta, brass, copper, and wood, noting “one can reach different heights with different technologies.”
Today, the museum features a sacred healing space with a compelling display of thousands of unique concrete life size heads and 7,000 terracotta miniature sculpted heads. They include captive Africans abducted, sold and forcibly trafficked during the transatlantic slave trade.
His sculptures capture captives’ shock, horror, anger, distress and fear—emotions. This is communicated through their facial expressions in an installation that is disturbingly evocative and profoundly haunting. It is inspired by ‘nsodie’, an Akan funerary sculpture tradition, that dates back to approximately the twelfth century. Akoto-Bamfo explains during our conversations relating to the research for book:
I wanted to draw upon Akan belief in commemoration and remembrance after death in order to honour the young, old, men and women, who originated from various ethnic groups and who died in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Passage and did not get that chance.
Each year, the annual ‘Ancestor Veneration’ ceremony takes place under the guidance of chiefs, priests, and priestess from various ethnic groups.
Visitors are invited to participate in certain Akan rites and ceremonies – free from photography and selfies that undermine or commercialise sacred funerary art practices. Says Akoto-Bamfo:
I am Akan, so initially I began with Akan traditional rites, but now our ceremonies welcome other African ethnic groups including the Ga-Dangme, Ewe, and Yoruba, from Ghana and Nigeria, as well as African descendant people in the African diaspora.
In contrast, the ‘Freedom Parade Festival’ allows participants to creatively express and contribute to an evolving heritage tradition, without the specified observances. For example, painted bodily adornment applied directly onto the skin, yet without the necessary spiritual rites.
A protest monument
Akoto-Bamfo’s sculptures have also gained recognition beyond Ghana’s borders. For instance, the permanent installation at the Legacy Museum and National Museum for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Alabama in the US.
More recently, in 2021, his Blank Slate Project Monument toured throughout the United States. This included stops at Times Square in New York and the King Center in Atlanta. It depicts an enslaved ancestor, bent forward with his hands behind his back, head turned sideways, face on the ground, with a booted foot on his head.
Akoto-Bamfo describes this work as “a noisy one — a protest piece that speaks against racist Civil War monuments.” The work was completed prior to the police killing of George Floyd that led to widespread protests in the US in 2020. It was first unveiled in a private viewing in Ghana, prior to its shipment to the United States.
He says:
We had a lot of discussions among those involved in the project: some feared it might incite violence, others said that it was a prediction.
The work is interactive. It holds a removable placard that invites viewers to inscribe their reactions to the statue, which are then exhibited. Akoto-Bamfo emphasises:
I wanted ordinary people, both individuals and communities, to relate, and to contribute to, not only towards my artwork but also to the wider ongoing discussions. As an artist, I believe that I do not have the sole right to speak. I wanted ordinary Americans to add their voices because I am already contributing.
In Europe too, his work is featured at the 169 Museum in Germany.
In Ghana, Akoto-Bamfo’s work was initially seen as too controversial. The artist shares:
At first, I had to be extremely resilient because my work was concerned with the slave trade, slavery, colonialism, racism, and human rights. I embraced uncomfortable dialogue. Yet these were difficult topics for galleries and the art world at that time in Ghana.
He adds:
Today, however, some even view me as a spiritual leader… but I have always had an innate antipathy towards injustice. My work is not only about the past but what is unfolding now.
Akoto-Bamfo offers a closing reflection on why this kind of memory work matters:
I just want to use the little knowledge that I have to contribute towards the work of restorative and transformative justice.
Rachel Ama Asaa Engmann does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Rachel Ama Asaa Engmann, Associate Professor and Director of Christiansborg Archaeological Heritage Project, Associate Graduate Faculty, Rutgers University
Thousands of sculpted heads – captive African men, women, and children – meticulously created by the artist Kwame Akoto-Bamfo, emerge from the soil at the Nkyinkyim Museum, as a sacred gathering of ancestors. Together, they form a powerful monument to the horror, violence, and resistance to enslavement, as well as the ongoing work of remembrance and healing.
Kwame Akoto-Bamfo is a Ghanaian multidisciplinary artist who engages with the histories and legacies of the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism at home and, increasingly, internationally, on both sides of the Atlantic.
As an archaeologist who works in the field of critical heritage studies, Akoto-Bamfo’s work is important for its powerful engagement with memory, material culture and restorative justice. I feature it in a chapter of a new book that I co-edited called Architectures of Slavery: Ruins and Reconstructions.
Who is Kwame Akoto-Bamfo?
Akoto-Bamfo studied at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi. He obtained his bachelor’s and master of fine arts degrees, both in sculpture. After graduating, the artist worked as a school teacher and a university lecturer.
In 2015, Akoto-Bamfo rose to international fame through a series of large-scale installations. He called it ‘Nkyinkyim’ (“twisting” in the Ghanaian Twi language, as in the proverb, “Life’s journey is twisted”).
Four years later, he established the ‘Nkyinkyim Museum’, a non-profit organisation known as the ‘Ancestor Project’. This open-air museum is located in Nuhalenya-Ada, a two-hour drive from Accra. It has become a space for people of African descent to engage in restorative healing through art and education.
Nkyinkyim Museum
At the site’s entrance, three twenty-five-foot monuments are displayed. They are made of stone, concrete and wood. The first is inspired by North and Eastern Africa, and the second by Sudano-Sahelian architecture. The third is inspired by the Forest regions in Central and West Africa.
The collection includes multiple installations in collaboration with the local community. They illustrate “the diversity in our narratives surrounding history, philosophy, and religious beliefs”. The artist himself, demonstrates a mastery of multimedia art forms, working in cement, terracotta, brass, copper, and wood, noting “one can reach different heights with different technologies.”
Today, the museum features a sacred healing space with a compelling display of thousands of unique concrete life size heads and 7,000 terracotta miniature sculpted heads. They include captive Africans abducted, sold and forcibly trafficked during the transatlantic slave trade.
His sculptures capture captives’ shock, horror, anger, distress and fear—emotions. This is communicated through their facial expressions in an installation that is disturbingly evocative and profoundly haunting. It is inspired by ‘nsodie’, an Akan funerary sculpture tradition, that dates back to approximately the twelfth century. Akoto-Bamfo explains during our conversations relating to the research for book:
I wanted to draw upon Akan belief in commemoration and remembrance after death in order to honour the young, old, men and women, who originated from various ethnic groups and who died in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Passage and did not get that chance.
Each year, the annual ‘Ancestor Veneration’ ceremony takes place under the guidance of chiefs, priests, and priestess from various ethnic groups.
Visitors are invited to participate in certain Akan rites and ceremonies – free from photography and selfies that undermine or commercialise sacred funerary art practices. Says Akoto-Bamfo:
I am Akan, so initially I began with Akan traditional rites, but now our ceremonies welcome other African ethnic groups including the Ga-Dangme, Ewe, and Yoruba, from Ghana and Nigeria, as well as African descendant people in the African diaspora.
In contrast, the ‘Freedom Parade Festival’ allows participants to creatively express and contribute to an evolving heritage tradition, without the specified observances. For example, painted bodily adornment applied directly onto the skin, yet without the necessary spiritual rites.
A protest monument
Akoto-Bamfo’s sculptures have also gained recognition beyond Ghana’s borders. For instance, the permanent installation at the Legacy Museum and National Museum for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Alabama in the US.
More recently, in 2021, his Blank Slate Project Monument toured throughout the United States. This included stops at Times Square in New York and the King Center in Atlanta. It depicts an enslaved ancestor, bent forward with his hands behind his back, head turned sideways, face on the ground, with a booted foot on his head.
Akoto-Bamfo describes this work as “a noisy one — a protest piece that speaks against racist Civil War monuments.” The work was completed prior to the police killing of George Floyd that led to widespread protests in the US in 2020. It was first unveiled in a private viewing in Ghana, prior to its shipment to the United States.
He says:
We had a lot of discussions among those involved in the project: some feared it might incite violence, others said that it was a prediction.
The work is interactive. It holds a removable placard that invites viewers to inscribe their reactions to the statue, which are then exhibited. Akoto-Bamfo emphasises:
I wanted ordinary people, both individuals and communities, to relate, and to contribute to, not only towards my artwork but also to the wider ongoing discussions. As an artist, I believe that I do not have the sole right to speak. I wanted ordinary Americans to add their voices because I am already contributing.
In Europe too, his work is featured at the 169 Museum in Germany.
In Ghana, Akoto-Bamfo’s work was initially seen as too controversial. The artist shares:
At first, I had to be extremely resilient because my work was concerned with the slave trade, slavery, colonialism, racism, and human rights. I embraced uncomfortable dialogue. Yet these were difficult topics for galleries and the art world at that time in Ghana.
He adds:
Today, however, some even view me as a spiritual leader… but I have always had an innate antipathy towards injustice. My work is not only about the past but what is unfolding now.
Akoto-Bamfo offers a closing reflection on why this kind of memory work matters:
I just want to use the little knowledge that I have to contribute towards the work of restorative and transformative justice.
Rachel Ama Asaa Engmann does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
For the first time since the end of apartheid in 1994, the ruling African National Congress lost its parliamentary majority in 2024. After 30 years in power, it had to form a coalition with 10 other political parties to govern the country. The creation of the “government of national unity” marked a turning point in the country’s democracy.
This development appears to have rekindled hope and positive sentiment among South Africans about the country’s future and its democratic processes.
The period leading up to the 2024 elections was characterised by widespread pessimism. Years of economic stagnation, high unemployment, severe electricity shortages, and high-level corruption cases had taken their toll on public trust and satisfaction with the ANC’s governance. Previous analyses by Afrobarometer (a research network that conducts public attitude surveys) had consistently shown declining satisfaction with the country’s direction and the functioning of democracy.
We are political scientists who have worked with public opinion data in South Africa for almost a decade. We analysed data from a special Afrobarometer survey just before and after the country’s 2024 election. The results show a sharp turnaround in attitudes on three issues: the direction of the country, government performance, and views on democracy.
One of the most significant findings is the shift in citizens’ perceptions about the general direction of the country. Before the election, a mere 14% of South Africans believed the country was heading in the right direction. Post-election, this figure surged to 39%.
South Africans’ renewed optimism after the formation of the unity government underscores the importance of electoral processes in shaping citizen perceptions of democracy and governance. Whether these sentiments are sustained will depend on a few things, including the coalition government’s ability to meet citizen expectations and address their most pressing concerns.
The post-election optimism boost
Afrobarometer interviewed the same group of adult South Africans before (April/May 2024) and after (August/September 2024) the election. This allowed us to track which respondents changed their views and in which direction. Here, we focus on citizens’ views of the overall direction of the country (optimism), government performance, and views on democracy.
A surge in optimism: The data show that 35% of the population became more positive in their outlook after the election. This was consistent across gender, age, and education levels. At the same time, 4% of the population maintained their positive outlook on the country’s trajectory.
About half (48%) continued to say that South Africa was going in the wrong direction after the election. A further 10% moved towards a negative outlook.
Renewed faith in democratic processes: Beyond general optimism, there was a resurgence in pro-democratic attitudes. The proportion of South Africans who believe democracy is preferable to any other form of government increased from 45% before the election to 55% after. Satisfaction with the way democracy works in South Africa jumped from 36% to 59%. These levels of support for and satisfaction with democracy were the highest recorded by Afrobarometer in South Africa since 2018 and 2011, respectively.
We found that three in 10 (29%) respondents were newly in favour of democracy after the elections. About four in 10 (39%) shifted from dissatisfaction or a neutral opinion before the election to stating they were “fairly” or “very” satisfied with the country’s democracy afterwards.
Where are the sore losers?: In both the case of support for and satisfaction with democracy, we found that a greater proportion of poorer citizens shifted their opinions, compared to their wealthier counterparts. In contrast, there were no clear patterns of opinion change by respondents’ gender, age, level of education, or race.
When examining the same question by party affiliation, the outcome was interesting. The share of partisans who preferred democracy increased among supporters of the ANC, the Economic Freedom Fighters and the MK Party after the election. A majority of supporters from the four major parties were satisfied with how democracy worked in the country.
Even ANC supporters remained largely satisfied with democracy despite the party’s electoral losses. Collectively, these findings suggest a post-electoral vote of confidence in multiparty competition.
Expectations of the new government: Citizens also appeared more hopeful about the new coalition government’s ability to tackle some of the nation’s most pressing issues. Pre-election evaluations of government performance on key services were overwhelmingly negative. The post-election wave showed some modest increases in optimism.
Two-thirds (67%) of South Africans felt the government of national unity would be more effective in the critical area of electricity provision. There was also hope for progress in other areas; 42% expected the new government to be more effective in creating jobs. Another 41% believed it would be more successful in fighting corruption.
Over the past year, the government seems to have met citizens’ expectations. South Africa has not experienced prolonged periods of power cuts over the past 12 months. However, the unemployment rate has remained unchanged, at 32.9%.
Looking ahead
The 2024 elections in South Africa seem to have served as an inflection point. It is contributing to a revival of optimism and pro-democratic sentiment. The shift from pre-election pessimism to post-election hope was palpable. Maintaining renewed public confidence, however, relies on a government’s ability to meet citizens’ expectations and deliver tangible improvements on their concerns.
The ongoing skirmishes between the ANC and the Democratic Alliance illustrate the coalition government’s difficulty in translating agreement on a broad agenda into specific outcomes.
The coming months and years will tell whether the unity government’s infighting ultimately squanders citizens’ goodwill.
Matthias Krönke works for the University of Reading and consults for Afrobarometer.
Rorisang Lekalake is affiliated with Afrobarometer.
For the first time since the end of apartheid in 1994, the ruling African National Congress lost its parliamentary majority in 2024. After 30 years in power, it had to form a coalition with 10 other political parties to govern the country. The creation of the “government of national unity” marked a turning point in the country’s democracy.
This development appears to have rekindled hope and positive sentiment among South Africans about the country’s future and its democratic processes.
The period leading up to the 2024 elections was characterised by widespread pessimism. Years of economic stagnation, high unemployment, severe electricity shortages, and high-level corruption cases had taken their toll on public trust and satisfaction with the ANC’s governance. Previous analyses by Afrobarometer (a research network that conducts public attitude surveys) had consistently shown declining satisfaction with the country’s direction and the functioning of democracy.
We are political scientists who have worked with public opinion data in South Africa for almost a decade. We analysed data from a special Afrobarometer survey just before and after the country’s 2024 election. The results show a sharp turnaround in attitudes on three issues: the direction of the country, government performance, and views on democracy.
One of the most significant findings is the shift in citizens’ perceptions about the general direction of the country. Before the election, a mere 14% of South Africans believed the country was heading in the right direction. Post-election, this figure surged to 39%.
South Africans’ renewed optimism after the formation of the unity government underscores the importance of electoral processes in shaping citizen perceptions of democracy and governance. Whether these sentiments are sustained will depend on a few things, including the coalition government’s ability to meet citizen expectations and address their most pressing concerns.
The post-election optimism boost
Afrobarometer interviewed the same group of adult South Africans before (April/May 2024) and after (August/September 2024) the election. This allowed us to track which respondents changed their views and in which direction. Here, we focus on citizens’ views of the overall direction of the country (optimism), government performance, and views on democracy.
A surge in optimism: The data show that 35% of the population became more positive in their outlook after the election. This was consistent across gender, age, and education levels. At the same time, 4% of the population maintained their positive outlook on the country’s trajectory.
About half (48%) continued to say that South Africa was going in the wrong direction after the election. A further 10% moved towards a negative outlook.
Renewed faith in democratic processes: Beyond general optimism, there was a resurgence in pro-democratic attitudes. The proportion of South Africans who believe democracy is preferable to any other form of government increased from 45% before the election to 55% after. Satisfaction with the way democracy works in South Africa jumped from 36% to 59%. These levels of support for and satisfaction with democracy were the highest recorded by Afrobarometer in South Africa since 2018 and 2011, respectively.
We found that three in 10 (29%) respondents were newly in favour of democracy after the elections. About four in 10 (39%) shifted from dissatisfaction or a neutral opinion before the election to stating they were “fairly” or “very” satisfied with the country’s democracy afterwards.
Where are the sore losers?: In both the case of support for and satisfaction with democracy, we found that a greater proportion of poorer citizens shifted their opinions, compared to their wealthier counterparts. In contrast, there were no clear patterns of opinion change by respondents’ gender, age, level of education, or race.
When examining the same question by party affiliation, the outcome was interesting. The share of partisans who preferred democracy increased among supporters of the ANC, the Economic Freedom Fighters and the MK Party after the election. A majority of supporters from the four major parties were satisfied with how democracy worked in the country.
Even ANC supporters remained largely satisfied with democracy despite the party’s electoral losses. Collectively, these findings suggest a post-electoral vote of confidence in multiparty competition.
Expectations of the new government: Citizens also appeared more hopeful about the new coalition government’s ability to tackle some of the nation’s most pressing issues. Pre-election evaluations of government performance on key services were overwhelmingly negative. The post-election wave showed some modest increases in optimism.
Two-thirds (67%) of South Africans felt the government of national unity would be more effective in the critical area of electricity provision. There was also hope for progress in other areas; 42% expected the new government to be more effective in creating jobs. Another 41% believed it would be more successful in fighting corruption.
Over the past year, the government seems to have met citizens’ expectations. South Africa has not experienced prolonged periods of power cuts over the past 12 months. However, the unemployment rate has remained unchanged, at 32.9%.
Looking ahead
The 2024 elections in South Africa seem to have served as an inflection point. It is contributing to a revival of optimism and pro-democratic sentiment. The shift from pre-election pessimism to post-election hope was palpable. Maintaining renewed public confidence, however, relies on a government’s ability to meet citizens’ expectations and deliver tangible improvements on their concerns.
The ongoing skirmishes between the ANC and the Democratic Alliance illustrate the coalition government’s difficulty in translating agreement on a broad agenda into specific outcomes.
The coming months and years will tell whether the unity government’s infighting ultimately squanders citizens’ goodwill.
Matthias Krönke works for the University of Reading and consults for Afrobarometer.
Rorisang Lekalake is affiliated with Afrobarometer.
Weeks ahead of the first anniversary in Kenya of the Gen Z-led anti-government protests that resulted in at least 60 deaths and displays of police brutality, news broke that Albert Ojwang, a young Kenyan blogger, had died in police detention. Kamau Wairuri who has studied the politics of policing in Kenya, sets out why these events aren’t outliers, what efforts have been made to reform Kenya’s security forces, and what still needs to be done.
When did this all begin?
Recent events are part of a long history of police brutality in Kenya that can be traced back to colonial times.
Historians (colonial and post-colonial Kenya) such as David Anderson and Caroline Elkins present gruesome details of how state authorities brutalised indigenous Africans during colonial times.
The colonial origins of the police – largely modelled along the approaches of the Royal Ulster Constabulary known for its brutality in Ireland – partly explains why Kenya’s policing is the way it is. The police force was never designed for service. It was designed to safeguard the interests of the white minority ruling elite.
While there have been important changes in the architecture of policing since independence, subsequent post-colonial Kenyan regimes have adopted the same brutal approaches to stay in power. My previous work demonstrates this use of state security apparatuses to enhance the capacity of incumbents to crack down on opposition protests.
The brutal policing experienced under the current Kenya Kwanza regime falls within this broader historical trajectory.
The ruling elite see and use the police as their last line of defence against challenges to their misrule.
But police brutality goes beyond the policing of politics to everyday crime control. Police violence is a common occurrence, especially against poor young men.
What’s changed
Kenya’s history has been marked by strong agitation for justice and reform. Again, this goes back to colonial times.
There have been important legal and institutional changes since independence. The most important was the disbandment of the Special Branch in 1998, an intelligence unit of the police responsible for political repression. It was replaced by the National Security Intelligence Service. This then became the National Intelligence Service.
The most important changes came about through the constitutional reform of 2010. This saw a change in the architecture of the police, including:
bringing the Kenya Police and Administration Police under a singular command
Internal Affairs, a unit within the police service, is supposed to investigate police misconduct. The policing oversight agency is a civilian-led institutions with a similar mandate. Ideally, the two institutions should work together in executing crucial investigations. Internal affairs should provide access to information from within the police service that would be difficult for outsiders to access.
The National Police Service Commission was set up to handle the management of personnel. It’s mandated to address the challenges of corruption, nepotism and negative ethnicity that have characterised recruitment into the police service.
But it’s clear from the continued police brutality that these institutions aren’t achieving the intended effect. This means that police officers can expect to continue acting with relative impunity despite the control measures in place.
What still needs to be done
Policing is often imagined as the investigation of crimes, arresting suspects, and presenting them to court for prosecution and punishment if guilty. In Kenya, the actions of the police often appear to substitute for the entire criminal justice system.
In many cases, officers go beyond the metaphor of judge, jury and executioner to also become the complainant, mortician and undertaker. For instance, Mbaraka Karanja died in police custody in 1987 and officers proceeded to incinerate his body.
In my view, the brutality won’t end until the following steps have been taken.
First, the National Police Service Commission needs to reclaim its mandate. It seems to have completely abdicated duty, transferring crucial responsibilities back to the inspector general of the police service. As the human resource unit of the police, the commission has an important role of professionalising the service and maintaining discipline. It’s presently not doing so.
Second, the Internal Affairs Unit needs to be strengthened and given more autonomy. So far, it has been difficult to assess the effectiveness the unit given the secrecy that characterises the police service. A better-resourced unit will enhance investigations of police misconduct. It would unearth obscure squads within the police service and reveal evidence to help identify perpetrators.
Third, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority needs to defend its independence and develop popular legitimacy. With its limited success in prosecuting police officers – despite the prevalence of police abuse – many Kenyans have lost confidence in it. Crucially, the authority has failed in it’s deterrence role.
Fourth, the independence of the National Police Service needs to be safeguarded. The police service leadership continues to serve at the pleasure of the prevailing regime. This in turn shapes the priorities of the service. Inspectors-general have been forced to resign. President William Ruto confessed to having fired the director of criminal investigations when he took power. Ruto had initially claimed that the director had resigned.
Crucially, and in fifth place, there needs to be a change in policing culture alongside broader governance culture in Kenya. Impunity is rampant across the public service. Kenya won’t have a highly accountable police force while other agencies and senior officials are operating with significant impunity.
Identifying the levers of cultural change isn’t easy. There are many proposals to alter policing culture. These include a complete redesign of Kenya’s Penal Code to dislodge its colonial roots, transforming the training of police officers, and strengthening the policing oversight authority’s capacity to investigate cases.
But, in my mind, a crucial starting point is citizen agitation and demand for accountability. The light that Gen Z protesters, the media and civil society organisations are shining on police abuses should be encouraged. A clear signal that Kenyans will no longer tolerate police abuse is crucial for culture change within the service and among the political elite.
However, this needs to be understood within the reality that many Kenyans support police violence, believing it to be the most effective way of dealing with crime as my earlier research demonstrates. In another study, I note how police abuse is endorsed by politicians and religious leaders as a way of responding to crime and punishing groups of people they don’t like.
Combined with ineffective accountability mechanisms, this popular support for police violence, both tacit and explicit, gives the police the belief that they are the thin blue line between order and chaos. That they have the popular mandate to use any means they consider necessary – often brutal violence – to keep society safe.
In other words, the conversation on police reform requires a fundamental reframing to kick start the journey towards democratic policing. At present, we’re not only way off the mark, we seem to be heading in the wrong direction.
Kamau Wairuri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The reaction of world leaders after U.S. forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday Iran time ranged from Israel lauding President Donald Trump’s decision to the U.N. calling for de-escalation and Iran and some other nations condemning the attacks.
ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, RECORDED STATEMENT:
“Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history… History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime the world’s most dangerous weapons.”
IRAN FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAQCHI, ON X:
“The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations. The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.”
U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL ANTONIO GUTERRES, STATEMENT
“I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security. There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world. I call on Member States to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and other rules of international law. At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace.”
NEW ZEALAND FOREIGN MINISTER WINSTON PETERS, STATEMENT:
“We acknowledge developments in the last 24 hours, including President Trump’s announcement of US strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran. Ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying, and it is critical further escalation is avoided. New Zealand strongly supports efforts towards diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks. Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action.”
AUSTRALIA GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON, STATEMENT:
“We have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security. We note the US President’s statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”
MEXICO FOREIGN MINISTRY, ON X:
“The ministry urgently calls for diplomatic dialogue for peace between the parties involved in the Middle East conflict. In keeping with our constitutional principles of foreign policy and our country’s pacifist conviction, we reiterate our call to de-escalate tensions in the region. The restoration of peaceful coexistence among the states of the region is the highest priority.”
VENEZUELA FOREIGN MINISTER YVAN GIL, ON TELEGRAM:
“Venezuela Condemns U.S. Military Aggression Against Iran and Demands an Immediate Cessation of Hostilities. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela firmly and categorically condemns the bombing carried out by the United States military, at the request of the State of Israel, against nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan complexes.”
CUBA PRESIDENT MIGUEL DIAZ-CANEL, ON X:
“We strongly condemn the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which constitutes a dangerous escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The aggression seriously violates the UN Charter and international law and plunges humanity into a crisis with irreversible consequences.”
A person receiving radiotherapy treatment for liver cancer in Mumbai, India. (Photo: IAEA)
The IAEA and UK social enterprise MedAccess have launched a new partnership under the Rays of Hope: Cancer Care for All initiative. This collaboration will focus on advancing innovative financing solutions to improve access to affordable, high-quality radiation medicine services in low- and middle-income countries.
“Through this partnership with MedAccess under the framework of the Rays of Hope initiative, we are unlocking new pathways to accelerate access to life-saving cancer care” said IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi during the partnership signing ceremony on Monday. “By combining financial innovation with technical expertise, we are helping countries turn ambition into action”.
“Innovative financing models have an important role in enabling countries to invest in radiotherapy equipment and services for cancer patients,” MedAccess CEO Michael Anderson said. “Rays of Hope provides a platform to evaluate and test such models to accelerate access to reliable radiation therapy.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) led a team of international experts to collect samples today of ALPS treated water stored at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (FDNPS) prior to the water’s dilution with seawater and its discharge to the sea.
The sampling mission is the fourth under the additional measures, which focus on expanding international participation and transparency. These measures permit third parties to independently verify that water discharge which Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO) – operator of the FDNPS – began in August 2023 continues to be consistent with international safety standards.
International experts from Belgium, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and Switzerland, along with IAEA staff, conducted hands-on sampling of the water stored in tanks designated for the 14th batch of ALPS-treated water to be discharged.
The IAEA initiated the first practical steps of the additional measures in October last year. This fourth mission follows the mission in April which sampled diluted water just prior to its discharge into the sea, and a mission in February when IAEA Director General Grossi presided over the additional measures to collect seawater samples in the vicinity of FDNPS.
The samples collected in today’s mission will be analysed by the participating laboratories – the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, the China Institute of Atomic Energy, the Korean Institute for Nuclear Safety, the Institute for Problems of Environmental Monitoring of the Research and Production Association “Typhoon” in Russia and the Spiez Laboratory in Switzerland – as well as by the IAEA’s laboratory and TEPCO in Japan. All laboratories are members of the IAEA’s Analytical Laboratories for the Measurement of Environmental Radioactivity (ALMERA) network, which are selected for their high level of expertise and analytical proficiency.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi during the high-level event on combatting marine pollution at the United Nations Conference in Nice, France (Photo: E. McDonald/IAEA)
The IAEA highlighted the role of nuclear science in protecting our oceans at the 2025 United Nations Ocean Conference held last week in Nice, France.
Co-hosted by France and Costa Rica, the conference convened over 10,000 participants, including scientists, diplomats and politicians, to address the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. It aimed to accelerate progress towards SDG14, Life Below Water, through innovative technologies and action. The IAEA took center stage at the event to share how nuclear technology is boosting ocean health and tackling critical threats such as marine plastic pollution.
The IAEA organized and participated in more than a dozen events at the conference, and on research vessels in the Port of Nice. Experts from the IAEA’s Marine Environment Laboratories in Monaco highlighted how isotopic tools can help monitor and reduce plastic pollution in the ocean.
Plastic waste is not only infiltrating our oceans, but also the human body in the form of microplastics. Without urgent action, the amount of plastic entering the ocean each year could reach 37 million metric tons by 2040, according to UN estimates, becoming a threat to marine and human life.
Plastic pollution featured prominently throughout the conference, with a focus on the ongoing negotiations for the development of an internationally legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. The negotiations for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-led treaty are expected to conclude later this year in Geneva, following five previous sessions.
At the conference, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi spoke about the IAEA’s work to combat plastic pollution and emphasized the need to share data data between scientists, policymakers and environmental agencies.
“Four years ago, at the last UN Ocean Conference, I announced NUTEC Plastics, an initiative that gives countries the tools they need to address the issue of marine microplastic pollution. Today, I am delighted to report that we have made significant progress with 99 countries involved, and we have been equipping more than 100 Member State laboratories all over the world. We are building the capacity that countries need to translate data into policies and action.”
NUTEC Plastics is an IAEA flagship initiative that supports countries in researching microplastics and using nuclear techniques to improve recycling techniques.
Director of the IAEA Marine Environment Laboratories Florence Descroix-Comanducci (left), highlighted IAEA’s work to support sustainable ocean management and monitor marine microplastic pollution at the 2025 UN Ocean Conference in France (Photo: E.McDonald/IAEA)
“Nuclear and isotopic techniques add incredible value to boost ocean health,” said Florence Descroix-Comanducci, Director of the IAEA Marine Environment Laboratories. “Our laboratories in Monaco support Member States in the implementation and use of these techniques, and to develop harmonized methods to generate globally comparable data, especially in light of the forthcoming plastics treaty.”
At events organized by the IAEA, panelists highlighted the need to address the top of the plastic life cycle to prevent further pollution, employing a “source to sea approach” to reduce marine litter and, by extension, marine plastic pollution. “While many indicators on oceans are moving in the wrong direction, there are also positive points. Our metrics on marine litter are moving in the right direction,” said Martin Adams, Head of the Environment Department at the European Environment Agency. “Timely and relevant data are essential to inform good decision-making, but we don’t need to know everything. We just need to know enough to act.” Other events organized by the IAEA focused on ocean-based carbon dioxide removal, ocean acidification, IAEA support for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and nuclear energy and ocean health.
The IAEA’s unique expertise in nuclear applications is contributing to both mitigations, by using radiation technology for waste recycling, and monitoring, by using isotopic techniques to monitor and assess impacts of microplastic pollution. Through the NUTEC Plastics initiative, and with the support of the IAEA’s technical cooperation programme, 99 countries are participating in marine monitoring of microplastics, and 52 around the world are developing innovative recycling technology.
The International High Level Forum on NUTEC Plastic, organized by the IAEA on 25–26 November 2025, in Manila, Philippines, will highlight the progress achieved to date, address current challenges, and chart course to strengthen regional and international cooperation in the sustainable management of plastic waste through innovative nuclear technologies.
The IAEA team based at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) has been informed that challenges related to the availability of cooling water and off-site power will need to be fully resolved before any of its reactors can be restarted, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today.
Those pre-conditions for any future decision to take the ZNPP’s six reactors from their current cold shutdown status were communicated to the IAEA team during discussions with the plant and Rostekhnadzor, the Russian regulator which is this week conducting pre-licensing inspection activities at reactor units 1 and 2. The current operating licenses – issued by the Ukrainian State regulator, SNRIU, – are due to expire in December this year and in February 2026, respectively.
Europe’s largest nuclear power plant (NPP) has not been generating electricity for almost three years now, and its location on the frontline of the conflict continues to put nuclear safety in constant jeopardy.
Its off-site power situation also remains extremely fragile, with only one power line currently functioning compared with ten before the conflict. In addition, the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in mid-2023 means the ZNPP does not have sufficient water to cool six operating reactors.
“Based on the discussions at the site this week, it is clear that there is a general consensus among all parties that the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant cannot start operating again as long as this large-scale war continues to endanger nuclear safety at the site, which is what the IAEA has also been stating very clearly,” Director General Grossi said.
During this week’s meeting, the Rostekhnadzor representative said a team of its inspectors are currently conducting a two-week pre-licensing inspection scheduled to end on Friday. The results of the inspection – together with documentation submitted by the ZNPP – will subsequently be evaluated by Rostekhnadzor.
Also this week, the IAEA team has been observing various maintenance activities at the site, including on parts of the safety system of reactor unit 5 and on the unit 4 main transformer – which commenced its planned maintenance period this week.
The team was informed that a pump in one of the site’s 11 groundwater wells built after the destruction of the Kakhovka dam is currently not working and will be replaced. The ten remaining wells continue to supply the sufficient flow of water needed for the shutdown reactors.
The IAEA team reported hearing explosions at various distances from the site on most days over the past week.
At Ukraine’s other nuclear sites, the IAEA teams at the three operating NPPs – Khmelnytskyy, Rivne and the South Ukraine – and the Chornobyl site all reported hearing air raid alarms over the past week, with the IAEA team at the Khmelnytskyy NPP sheltering at the site yesterday.
The IAEA team based at the Khmelnytskyy NPP observed a two-day emergency exercise to test the response to a site blackout.
Over the past week, one of the three reactor units at the South Ukraine NPP completed its planned refuelling and maintenance outage and returned to full power generation, after which another unit was shut down for maintenance. The refuelling and maintenance outage of the third unit is still ongoing, as is the planned such outage of one Rivne NPP’s four reactors.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is continuing to closely monitor and assess the situation regarding the Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing frequent public updates about developments and their possible consequences for human health and the environment, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today.
Since the military attacks began almost a week ago, the IAEA has been reporting on damage at several of these facilities, including at nuclear-related sites located in Arak, Esfahan, Natanz and Tehran, and their potential radiological impact.
In his statement to the Board of Governors on 13 June, the morning of the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the Director General recalled the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”.
He also stated that, furthermore, the IAEA has consistently underlined that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked”, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.
Later at the special session of the Board of Governors on 16 June 2025, in his statement, the Director General emphasized that, “For the second time in three years, we are witnessing a dramatic conflict between two IAEA Member States in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being compromised. The IAEA, just as has been the case with the military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, will not stand idly by during this conflict.”
“The IAEA is monitoring the situation very carefully,” he said. “The IAEA is ready to respond to any nuclear or radiological emergency.”
It was the Director General’s third comprehensive statement in four days about the situation in Iran, following the statement to the Board on 13 June and one to the United Nations Security Council later the same day. In addition, the Agency has provided regular updates on its official X account.
IAEA inspectors remain present in Iran, ready to be deployed at nuclear sites when possible, even though the number of Agency staff has been reduced somewhat in light of the security situation, Director General Grossi said.
He added: “The Agency is and will remain present in Iran. Safeguards inspections in Iran will continue as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under its NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement, as soon as safety and security conditions allow.”
Calling for maximum restraint to avoid further escalation, Director General Grossi stressed that he was ready “to travel immediately and engage with all relevant parties to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency mandate, including by deploying Agency nuclear safety and security experts, in addition to our safeguards inspectors in Iran, wherever necessary.”
“Military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” he said.
The IAEA stands ready to act within its statutory mandate to assist in preventing a nuclear accident that could result in grave radiological consequences, he said, adding: “For the IAEA to act, a constructive, professional dialogue will have to ensue, and this must happen sooner rather than later.”
Based on information available to it, the IAEA has been reporting on the situation at the nuclear facilities and sites in Iran, including:
The Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant site was targeted in attacks on 13 June that destroyed the above-ground part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, one of the facilities at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60% U-235.
Electricity infrastructure at the plant – including an electrical sub-station, a main electric power supply building, and emergency power supply and back-up generators – was also destroyed. The loss of power to the underground cascades may have damaged the centrifuges there, Director General Grossi told the Board on 16 June.
Later this week, the IAEA issued an update, saying that based on continued analysis of high- resolution satellite imagery collected after the attacks on the nuclear site at Natanz, the Agency has identified additional elements that indicate direct impacts also on the underground enrichment halls at Natanz.
There has been no radiological impact outside the Natanz site, but circumscribed radiological and chemical contamination inside the enrichment facility, Director General Grossi reported.
“It was limited to this facility. There was no radiological impact externally,” he said.
Considering the type of nuclear material at the Natanz facility, it is possible that uranium isotopes contained in uranium hexafluoride, uranyl fluoride and hydrogen fluoride are dispersed inside the facility, he said. The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if uranium is inhaled or ingested. However, this risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory protection devices while inside the affected facilities. The main concern inside the facility is the chemical toxicity of the uranium hexafluoride and the fluoride compounds generated in contact with water.
At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in Friday’s attack: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and the enriched uranium metal processing facility, which was under construction. As in Natanz, off-site radiation levels remain unchanged at the Esfahan nuclear site.
On 18 June, the IAEA said in an update that it had information that two centrifuge production facilities in Iran – the TESA Karaj workshop and the Tehran Research Center – were hit. Both locations were previously under IAEA monitoring and verification under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
At the Tehran Research Center, one building was hit where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested. At the Karaj workshop, two buildings were destroyed where different centrifuge components were manufactured.
The Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, under construction, was hit on 19 June. As the reactor was not operational and did not contain any nuclear material, Director General Grossi said no radiological consequence was expected. While damage to the nearby Heavy Water Production Plant was initially not visible, it is now assessed that key buildings at the facility were damaged, including the distillation unit.
At present, no damage has been observed at Iran’s other nuclear sites.
While there so far has been no major radiological incident as a result of the attacks, Director General Grossi stressed the possible nuclear safety and security risks.
“There is a lot of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the potential for a radiological accident with the dispersion in the atmosphere of radioactive materials and particles does exist,” he said.
Director General Grossi also emphasized the importance of cooperating and exchanging information with the Iranian authorities.
“Amid theses challenging and complex circumstances, it is crucial that the IAEA receives timely and regular technical information about the nuclear facilities and their respective sites. This information is needed to promptly inform the international community and ensure an effective response and assistance to any emergency situation in Iran,” he said, adding that he was also in constant contact with other countries in the region.
Momentum for nuclear energy as a key driver toward net-zero is stronger than ever. Now is the time to turn last year’s historic consensus in Dubai into action, advancing nuclear solutions to ensure energy security, achieve climate targets and promote sustainable development.
This year’s COP has climate finance at the top of the agenda. Building on the back of the historic inclusion of nuclear in the COP28 Global Stocktake and the first ever Nuclear Energy Summit in Brussels, Director General Grossi will attend COP29 with a call to increase climate finance for nuclear. At the Financing Low Carbon Technology, Including Nuclear Energy event on 13 November at 16:00, Director General Grossi, as well as the COP29 presidency, ministers, heads of international organizations, multilateral development banks and the private sector will discuss scaling up the financing necessary to expand all low carbon energy technologies, including nuclear power.
In recently published projections, the IAEA increased its forecast for nuclear power generation for the fourth consecutive year. In its high-case scenario, global nuclear capacity by 2050 could reach two and a half times today’s levels, with small modular reactors (SMRs) contributing a quarter of this expansion. The United States Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy, John Podesta, and Director General Grossi will host an event on Accelerating Early Deployment of Small Modular Reactors at 12:45 on 13 November.
Throughout the two-week conference, which runs from 11 to 22 November, the IAEA will also promote the use of nuclear science and technologies for climate change adaptation and monitoring to achieve sustainable water management, protect coastal and marine ecosystems and provide food security.
Millions worldwide still face hunger, and transforming agrifood systems through science and technology is essential to address this challenge amid changing climate conditions. An event on the joint IAEA/FAO Atoms4Food initiative will take place at the China Pavilion on 12 November to present achievements in agriculture and food security in the context of national climate adaptation efforts.
The Atoms4Climate pavilion will be hosted by the IAEA in the Blue Zone at COP and will showcase nuclear power, science and technology solutions for climate change mitigation, adaptation and monitoring.
The IAEA will host and participate in more than 50 events focusing on four thematic areas: energy, food, the ocean and water.
See the IAEA COP29 page for the complete list of IAEA and partner events. Check the individual event pages for updates on livestreaming opportunities.
Nuclear security measures
For the third time, the IAEA is supporting the COP host country to implement nuclear security measures during the two-week conference. In October, the Agency trained more than 100 national first responders and staff from security enforcement bodies, including through hands-on equipment training conducted at the Baku Stadium, the venue for the COP. The Agency has also supplied over 100 radiation detection devices to support the nuclear security measures throughout COP, which is expected to draw around 40 000 participants. Similar assistance was provided by the IAEA at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, and COP28 in Dubai, UAE, as part of the IAEA’s two decades worth of support offered to countries, upon their request, for nuclear security at major public events.
IAEA media team contacts
IAEA experts in climate change mitigation, adaptation and monitoring will be available for interviews at COP29.
For interview requests and other media-related questions, please contact Fredrik Dahl, IAEA Spokesperson, at Fredrik.Dahl@iaea.org and copy press@iaea.org.
The IAEA video team will be present at COP29. B-roll footage is available here. For additional requests of B-roll of the Director General, the IAEA pavilion or specific events, please contact multimedia.contact-point@iaea.org and copy press@iaea.org.
Registration
To attend IAEA events in person, you must register for COP29. For media accreditation and all other details concerning the attendance of COP29, please refer to the UNFCCCC online registration page. The IAEA cannot assist with accreditation to COP29.
Media kit
The COP29 media kit provides information on the four key areas highlighted at the #Atoms4Climate pavilion — energy, food, the ocean and water — along with recent reports and further background information.
The IAEA Board of Governors will convene its regular November meeting at the Agency’s headquarters starting at 10:30 CET on Wednesday, 20 November, in Board Room C, Building C, 4th floor, in the Vienna International Centre (VIC).
Board discussions are expected to include, among others: applications for membership of the Agency; report of the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Committee; verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015); nuclear verification: the conclusion of safeguards agreements and of additional protocols (if any), staff of the Department of Safeguards to be used as Agency inspectors, application of safeguards in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Syrian Arab Republic, naval nuclear propulsion: Australia and naval nuclear propulsion: Brazil, and NPT safeguards agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran; nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine; transfer of the nuclear materials in the context of AUKUS and its safeguards in all aspects under the NPT; and restoration of the Sovereign Equality of Member States in the IAEA.
The Board of Governors meeting is closed to the press.
Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi will open the meeting with an introductory statement, which will be released to journalists after delivery and posted on the IAEA website.
Press Conference
Director General Grossi is expected to hold a press conference at 13:00 CET on Wednesday, 20 November, in the Press Room of the M building.
A live video stream of the press conference will be available. The IAEA will provide video footage of the press conference and the Director General’s opening statement here and will make photos available on Flickr.
Photo Opportunity
There will be a photo opportunity with the IAEA Director General and the Chair of the Board, Ambassador Philbert Abaka Johnson of Ghana, before the start of the Board meeting, on 20 November at 10:30 CET in Board Room C, in the C building in the VIC.
Press Working Area
The Press Room on the M-Building’s ground floor will be available as a press working area, starting from 9:00 CET on 20 November.
Accreditation
All journalists interested in covering the meeting in person – including those with permanent accreditation – are requested to inform the IAEA Press Office of their plans. Journalists without permanent accreditation must send copies of their passport and press ID to the IAEA Press Office by 14:00 CET on Tuesday, 19 November.
We encourage those journalists who do not yet have permanent accreditation to request it at UNIS Vienna.
Please plan your arrival to allow sufficient time to pass through the VIC security check.
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi will open the conference on Tuesday, 26 November, at 09:30 CET, alongside Co-chair of the Conference Kai Mykkänen, Minister of Climate and the Environment, Finland; Co-chair of the Conference Kwaku Afriyie, Minister for Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation, Ghana; Dongyu Qu, Director General, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Ailan Li, Assistant Director-General, Universal Health Coverage/Healthier Populations, World Health Organization (WHO); Shaimaa Al-Sheiby, Vice President for Public Sector and Strategy, the OPEC Fund for International Development; Demetrios Papathanasiou, Global Director, Energy and Extractives Global Practice, the World Bank; and Tom McCulley, Chief Executive Officer, Anglo American Crop Nutrients. This is the second Ministerial Conference of its kind.
A ministerial declaration is expected to be adopted on 26 November, recognizing the role of nuclear science and technology and the Technical Cooperation Programme in addressing global challenges, advancing the 2030 Agenda and fostering international collaboration for peaceful purposes, with a focus on capacity building and equitable access for all Member States.
The conference will take place in Boardroom B/M1, M Building, Vienna International Centre (VIC). The conference, including the ministerial segments, technical sessions and panels, is open to media and will be livestreamed. The provisional programme is available here.
Among 1400 participants, more than 50 high-level officials, including ministers, are expected to deliver national statements. The scientific and technical programme comprises panel discussions among ministers, scientists and experts on the latest developments in nuclear science, technology and applications. Member State’s representatives will also share experiences on how the IAEA Technical Cooperation Programme has contributed to their national development.
Accreditation
All journalists interested in covering the meeting in person – including those with permanent accreditation – are requested to inform the IAEA Press Office of their plans. Journalists without permanent accreditation must send copies of their passport and press ID to the IAEA Press Office by 14:00 CET on Monday, 25 November.
We encourage those journalists who do not yet have permanent accreditation to request it at UNIS Vienna.
Please plan your arrival to allow sufficient time to pass through the VIC security check.
The IAEA Board of Governors will convene a meeting at the Agency’s headquarters starting at 10:00 CET on Thursday, 12 December, in Board Room C, Building C, 4th floor, in the Vienna International Centre (VIC).
The meeting is convened by the Chair of the Board following a letter addressed to him by the Governor from Ukraine, requesting a meeting of the Board.
The Board of Governors meeting is closed to the press.
Photo Opportunity
There will be a photo opportunity before the start of the Board meeting on Thursday, at 10:00 in Board Room C, Building C, 4th floor, in the VIC.
Press Working Area and Accreditation
The Press Room on the M-Building’s ground floor will be available as a press working area starting from 09:00 on 12 December.
All journalists interested in covering the meeting in person – including those with permanent accreditation – are requested to inform the IAEA Press Office of their plans. Journalists without permanent accreditation must send copies of their passport and press ID to the IAEA Press Office by 14:00 on Wednesday, 11 December.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors will convene its regular March meeting at the Agency’s headquarters starting at 10:30 CET on Monday, 3 March, in Board Room C, Building C, 4th floor, in the Vienna International Centre (VIC).
Board discussions are expected to include, among others: Nuclear Safety Review 2025; Nuclear Security Review 2025; Nuclear Technology Review 2025; verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015); the conclusion of safeguards agreements and of additional protocols; application of safeguards in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Syrian Arab Republic; NPT safeguards agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran; nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine; transfer of the nuclear materials in the context of AUKUS and its safeguards in all aspects under the NPT; the restoration of the sovereign equality of Member States in the IAEA; and personnel matters.
The Board of Governors meeting is closed to the press.
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi will open the meeting with an introductory statement, which will be released to journalists after delivery and posted on the IAEA website.
Press Conference
Director General Grossi is expected to hold a press conference at 13:00 CET on Monday, 3 March, in the Press Room of the M building.
A live video stream of the press conference will be available. The IAEA will provide video footage of the press conference and the Director General’s opening statement here and will make photos available on Flickr.
Photo Opportunity
There will be a photo opportunity with the IAEA Director General and the Chair of the Board, Ambassador Matilda Aku Alomatu Osei-Agyeman of Ghana, before the start of the Board meeting, on 3 March at 10:30 CET in Board Room C, in the C building in the VIC.
Press Working Area
Conference room M7 on the M-Building’s ground floor will be available as a press working area, starting from 09:00 CET on 3 March. Please note the change of room.
Accreditation
All journalists interested in covering the meeting in person – including those with permanent accreditation – are requested to inform the IAEA Press Office of their plans. Journalists without permanent accreditation must send copies of their passport and press ID to the IAEA Press Office by 14:00 CET on Friday, 28 February.
We encourage those journalists who do not yet have permanent accreditation to request it at UNIS Vienna.
Please plan your arrival to allow sufficient time to pass through the VIC security check.
When we met the last time, at ICONS 2020, many of us could not have imagined the momentous change we would experience between then and today, change that would affect billions of people, international peace and security, and nuclear security. A global pandemic was in the making and a war – in Ukraine – for first time soon would be fought among the facilities of one of Europe’s biggest nuclear power programmes.
Meanwhile, profound technological advances have been made. Assessing their impact on nuclear security is a crucial task. Artificial Intelligence, and unmanned vehicles pose both a threat to nuclear security and offer new tools with which to enhance it. In the nuclear field itself, Small Modular Reactors promise new opportunities for applications such as desalination and power brought to remote communities via barge, but also require us to consider new security elements.
The use of nuclear science and technology, often facilitated by the IAEA, has come on in leaps and bounds. Climate change and the drive for energy security are fuelling a desire for nuclear power. At this past Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, COP28, world leaders – those whose states use nuclear power and those whose do not – for the first time in nearly 30 years of COP meetings agreed nuclear power must be part of the transition to net zero. More than 20 countries have signed a pledge towards tripling nuclear power capacity and at the IAEA’s Nuclear Energy Summit in March heads of state agreed on the urgent need for conducive financial conditions.
Nuclear security is relevant throughout all the steps of the nuclear fuel cycle and is part of the social contract that underpins the existence and growth of nuclear power. Nuclear power programmes require national nuclear security threat assessments and “security by design”. Nurturing relevant research and a strong security culture are key, not only in countries with NPPs.
The use of life-saving and life-affirming applications of nuclear science and technology is growing, from cancer patients gaining access to radiotherapy to farmers benefiting from new crop varieties developed with the help of irradiation. IAEA initiative such as Rays of Hope: Cancer care for all; Nutec Plastics; Zoonotic Disease Integrated Action (ZODIAC); and Atoms4Food are key vehicles facilitating wider access.
All these opportunities to use nuclear and radioactive material depend on a strong and adaptive global nuclear security regime. For countries new to using nuclear and radioactive material, this means building up legal infrastructure, practices and culture that bolster nuclear security. Nationally and across borders, collaboration and laser-focused vigilance are key to preventing groups with malicious intent from using nuclear and radioactive material to cause panic and harm.
The threats to nuclear and other radioactive material and associated facilities are real and varied. The international nuclear security threat landscape keeps evolving. Today, anyone can type a few words into a computer and generative AI can create images of nuclear Armageddon, meaning it is now possible to spread panic about radiation fallout without a nuclear device. Risk scenarios include theft of nuclear and other radioactive material for use in improvised devices and sabotage at nuclear installations or during transport of nuclear and radioactive material. The risk of cyber-attacks requires the implementation of computer security programmes by those who use nuclear power and those who don’t. Risks come from outsiders and from those within the fold who are disgruntled or have been corrupted.
Nuclear security is the national responsibility of individual states, but it also benefits enormously from close collaboration and the enabling role of the IAEA. ICONS, which started in 2013, has been the place for ministers, policymakers, senior officials, and experts to gather to assesses current priorities, prepare for new challenges, and engage in scenario-based policy discussions. ICONS 2024, presided over by the co-presidents, HE Tim Watts, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia and HE Sungat Yessimkhanov, Vice-Minister of Energy of the Republic of Kazakhstan, covers the themes of policy, law and regulation; technology and infrastructure for prevention, detection and response; capacity building; and cross-cutting areas, such as the interface between nuclear security and nuclear safety. ICONS is the most important high-level international meeting on nuclear security. At this time of heightened tensions, it is imperative that there remains a unity of purpose and that nuclear security does not become a political football.
This year marks the 10-year anniversary of the IAEA’s Division of Nuclear Security. The IAEA is at the forefront of adapting nuclear security to new challenges, including war. The seven indispensable pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security have broad international support. They have brought crucial clarity at a time of war and are testament to the adaptiveness of the IAEA and the security regime.
Those seven pillars are backed up by an enormous ongoing effort by the IAEA to support Ukraine, including through the continuous presence of IAEA experts at all of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, including Zaporizhzhya NPP on the front lines of the war. When there were allegations of nuclear security breaches, the IAEA was there to investigate with impartiality and science. We set the facts straight that no nuclear material had been diverted, cutting through the fog of war, and diffusing a tense situation.
Not all our efforts require quite as much courage as our experts have shown in Ukraine, nor do they make international headlines. But every day, the IAEA – the Secretariat and the Member States – work together fastidiously to underpin nuclear security, never resting, always learning.
Radioactive sources are extensively used in many domains, including medicine, industry, agriculture and research. An incident in one State can have far-reaching consequences for others, so security for one is security for all. That means supporting States with no, or less developed nuclear security infrastructure makes everyone safer. That support, which often comes via the IAEA, includes making lawmakers aware of their responsibilities.
Nuclear Security requires the implementation of appropriate and robust legislative regulatory frameworks. In 2022, the first Conference of the Parties to the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (A/CPPNM) was held under the auspices of the IAEA. Reflecting the global importance of the legal framework and of nuclear security, parties managed to agree an outcome document and for the IAEA convene a subsequent conference. Since 2020, 14 new parties have joined the A/CPPNM bringing the total to 136. Five new Parties joined the CPPNM, bringing that total to 164. In addition to the A/CPPNM, political commitment to legally non-binding instruments, like the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources and its supplementary guidance, is a strong indication of radiation safety and nuclear security culture.
But legal frameworks are just the beginning. They must be implemented. The IAEA plays a central role in assisting its Members States so they are able to do that. Last year we inaugurated the most visible symbol of our collaboration: the Nuclear Security Training and Demonstration Centre (NSTDC). This first-of-its-kind space, made possible by 15 donors, is a cornerstone for capacity building amid the growing need for sophisticated hands-on nuclear security training using advanced, specialized equipment. The NSTDC is part of a wide range of services offered by the IAEA, including peer reviews, such as the International Physical Protection Advisory Service (IPPAS), of which there have now been more than 100, and Advisory Missions on Regulatory Infrastructure for Radiation Safety and Nuclear Security (RISS), a service we launched in 2022. Our Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB) now has 145 members and has enabled the reporting of more than 600 incidents in which nuclear or radioactive material went out of regulatory control. Almost 8,000 people have benefited from our training in nuclear security, and we continue to work very hard to remove barriers that prevent talent from entering the field. In March 2021, we launched the Women in Nuclear Security Initiative (WINSI) to support the achievement of gender equality in nuclear security. Meanwhile, the IAEA’s Marie Sklodowska Curie Fellowship Programme financially supports women pursuing a master’s degree in nuclear subjects and offers them internships, while our Lise Meitner offers women in the early and middle part of their career enriching opportunities within the field.
As the use of nuclear and other radioactive material around the world increases, more and more States are needing to increase their level of nuclear security. Nuclear security is as important as nuclear safety – we must put it on equal footing in terms of reliability of funding and the robustness of implementation.
At ICONS 2024 we are – as the name of the conference indicates – “shaping the future”, not only of nuclear security, but of the world our children will inherit. That is because nuclear security is about more than preventing nuclear terrorism. It is an enabler to providing, through nuclear science and technology, the clean energy; cutting-edge medicine; nutritious food and hope for a better tomorrow.
The IAEA has been monitoring the situation on the reported military activities taking place in the vicinity of the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant (NPP).
This NPP has six units of two different reactor types: RBMK-1000 and VVER-510. Two of the RBMK-1000 are in shutdown and two are fully operational. The two VVER-510 units are under construction.
In view of the reportedly significant military activity, I wish to remind all parties of the seven indispensable pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during an armed conflict. Additionally, I emphasize the five concrete principles to help to ensure nuclear safety and security which have been established for the Zaporizhzhya NPP in the context of the current conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and which are equally applicable in this situation. These include, among others, the imperative to ensure the physical integrity of a nuclear power plant. This is valid irrespective of where an NPP is situated.
At this juncture, I would like to appeal to all sides to exercise maximum restraint in order to avoid a nuclear accident with the potential for serious radiological consequences. I am personally in contact with the relevant authorities of both countries and will continue to be seized of the matter. I will continue to update the international community as appropriate.
Nobel’s spotlight on our perilous path and how we change course
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Rachel Ama Asaa Engmann, Associate Professor and Director of Christiansborg Archaeological Heritage Project, Associate Graduate Faculty, Rutgers University
Thousands of sculpted heads – captive African men, women, and children – meticulously created by the artist Kwame Akoto-Bamfo, emerge from the soil at the Nkyinkyim Museum, as a sacred gathering of ancestors. Together, they form a powerful monument to the horror, violence, and resistance to enslavement, as well as the ongoing work of remembrance and healing.
Kwame Akoto-Bamfo.
Kwame Akoto-Bamfo is a Ghanaian multidisciplinary artist who engages with the histories and legacies of the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism at home and, increasingly, internationally, on both sides of the Atlantic.
As an archaeologist who works in the field of critical heritage studies, Akoto-Bamfo’s work is important for its powerful engagement with memory, material culture and restorative justice. I feature it in a chapter of a new book that I co-edited called Architectures of Slavery: Ruins and Reconstructions.
Who is Kwame Akoto-Bamfo?
Akoto-Bamfo studied at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi. He obtained his bachelor’s and master of fine arts degrees, both in sculpture. After graduating, the artist worked as a school teacher and a university lecturer.
In 2015, Akoto-Bamfo rose to international fame through a series of large-scale installations. He called it ‘Nkyinkyim’ (“twisting” in the Ghanaian Twi language, as in the proverb, “Life’s journey is twisted”).
Four years later, he established the ‘Nkyinkyim Museum’, a non-profit organisation known as the ‘Ancestor Project’. This open-air museum is located in Nuhalenya-Ada, a two-hour drive from Accra. It has become a space for people of African descent to engage in restorative healing through art and education.
Nkyinkyim Museum
At the site’s entrance, three twenty-five-foot monuments are displayed. They are made of stone, concrete and wood. The first is inspired by North and Eastern Africa, and the second by Sudano-Sahelian architecture. The third is inspired by the Forest regions in Central and West Africa.
Sculptures at the museum entrance.Kwame Akoto-Bamfo
The collection includes multiple installations in collaboration with the local community. They illustrate “the diversity in our narratives surrounding history, philosophy, and religious beliefs”. The artist himself, demonstrates a mastery of multimedia art forms, working in cement, terracotta, brass, copper, and wood, noting “one can reach different heights with different technologies.”
Today, the museum features a sacred healing space with a compelling display of thousands of unique concrete life size heads and 7,000 terracotta miniature sculpted heads. They include captive Africans abducted, sold and forcibly trafficked during the transatlantic slave trade.
An installation of the heads of enslaved people.Kwame Akoto-Bamfo
His sculptures capture captives’ shock, horror, anger, distress and fear—emotions. This is communicated through their facial expressions in an installation that is disturbingly evocative and profoundly haunting. It is inspired by ‘nsodie’, an Akan funerary sculpture tradition, that dates back to approximately the twelfth century. Akoto-Bamfo explains during our conversations relating to the research for book:
I wanted to draw upon Akan belief in commemoration and remembrance after death in order to honour the young, old, men and women, who originated from various ethnic groups and who died in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Passage and did not get that chance.
Each year, the annual ‘Ancestor Veneration’ ceremony takes place under the guidance of chiefs, priests, and priestess from various ethnic groups.
The museum displays 7,000 terracotta sculpted heads.Kwame Akoto-Bamfo
Visitors are invited to participate in certain Akan rites and ceremonies – free from photography and selfies that undermine or commercialise sacred funerary art practices. Says Akoto-Bamfo:
I am Akan, so initially I began with Akan traditional rites, but now our ceremonies welcome other African ethnic groups including the Ga-Dangme, Ewe, and Yoruba, from Ghana and Nigeria, as well as African descendant people in the African diaspora.
In contrast, the ‘Freedom Parade Festival’ allows participants to creatively express and contribute to an evolving heritage tradition, without the specified observances. For example, painted bodily adornment applied directly onto the skin, yet without the necessary spiritual rites.
A protest monument
Akoto-Bamfo’s sculptures have also gained recognition beyond Ghana’s borders. For instance, the permanent installation at the Legacy Museum and National Museum for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Alabama in the US.
More recently, in 2021, his Blank Slate Project Monument toured throughout the United States. This included stops at Times Square in New York and the King Center in Atlanta. It depicts an enslaved ancestor, bent forward with his hands behind his back, head turned sideways, face on the ground, with a booted foot on his head.
The Blank Slate Monument in New York.Roshi Sariaslan
Akoto-Bamfo describes this work as “a noisy one — a protest piece that speaks against racist Civil War monuments.” The work was completed prior to the police killing of George Floyd that led to widespread protests in the US in 2020. It was first unveiled in a private viewing in Ghana, prior to its shipment to the United States.
He says:
We had a lot of discussions among those involved in the project: some feared it might incite violence, others said that it was a prediction.
The work is interactive. It holds a removable placard that invites viewers to inscribe their reactions to the statue, which are then exhibited. Akoto-Bamfo emphasises:
I wanted ordinary people, both individuals and communities, to relate, and to contribute to, not only towards my artwork but also to the wider ongoing discussions. As an artist, I believe that I do not have the sole right to speak. I wanted ordinary Americans to add their voices because I am already contributing.
In Europe too, his work is featured at the 169 Museum in Germany.
The effects of enslavement are still felt today.Kwame Akoto-Bamfo
In Ghana, Akoto-Bamfo’s work was initially seen as too controversial. The artist shares:
At first, I had to be extremely resilient because my work was concerned with the slave trade, slavery, colonialism, racism, and human rights. I embraced uncomfortable dialogue. Yet these were difficult topics for galleries and the art world at that time in Ghana.
He adds:
Today, however, some even view me as a spiritual leader… but I have always had an innate antipathy towards injustice. My work is not only about the past but what is unfolding now.
Akoto-Bamfo offers a closing reflection on why this kind of memory work matters:
I just want to use the little knowledge that I have to contribute towards the work of restorative and transformative justice.
– Kwame Akoto-Bamfo: the Ghanaian artist using work about slavery to find justice and healing – https://theconversation.com/kwame-akoto-bamfo-the-ghanaian-artist-using-work-about-slavery-to-find-justice-and-healing-259184
For the first time since the end of apartheid in 1994, the ruling African National Congress lost its parliamentary majority in 2024. After 30 years in power, it had to form a coalition with 10 other political parties to govern the country. The creation of the “government of national unity” marked a turning point in the country’s democracy.
This development appears to have rekindled hope and positive sentiment among South Africans about the country’s future and its democratic processes.
The period leading up to the 2024 elections was characterised by widespread pessimism. Years of economic stagnation, high unemployment, severe electricity shortages, and high-level corruption cases had taken their toll on public trust and satisfaction with the ANC’s governance. Previous analyses by Afrobarometer (a research network that conducts public attitude surveys) had consistently shown declining satisfaction with the country’s direction and the functioning of democracy.
We are political scientists who have worked with public opinion data in South Africa for almost a decade. We analysed data from a special Afrobarometer survey just before and after the country’s 2024 election. The results show a sharp turnaround in attitudes on three issues: the direction of the country, government performance, and views on democracy.
One of the most significant findings is the shift in citizens’ perceptions about the general direction of the country. Before the election, a mere 14% of South Africans believed the country was heading in the right direction. Post-election, this figure surged to 39%.
South Africans’ renewed optimism after the formation of the unity government underscores the importance of electoral processes in shaping citizen perceptions of democracy and governance. Whether these sentiments are sustained will depend on a few things, including the coalition government’s ability to meet citizen expectations and address their most pressing concerns.
The post-election optimism boost
Afrobarometer interviewed the same group of adult South Africans before (April/May 2024) and after (August/September 2024) the election. This allowed us to track which respondents changed their views and in which direction. Here, we focus on citizens’ views of the overall direction of the country (optimism), government performance, and views on democracy.
A surge in optimism: The data show that 35% of the population became more positive in their outlook after the election. This was consistent across gender, age, and education levels. At the same time, 4% of the population maintained their positive outlook on the country’s trajectory.
About half (48%) continued to say that South Africa was going in the wrong direction after the election. A further 10% moved towards a negative outlook.
Renewed faith in democratic processes: Beyond general optimism, there was a resurgence in pro-democratic attitudes. The proportion of South Africans who believe democracy is preferable to any other form of government increased from 45% before the election to 55% after. Satisfaction with the way democracy works in South Africa jumped from 36% to 59%. These levels of support for and satisfaction with democracy were the highest recorded by Afrobarometer in South Africa since 2018 and 2011, respectively.
We found that three in 10 (29%) respondents were newly in favour of democracy after the elections. About four in 10 (39%) shifted from dissatisfaction or a neutral opinion before the election to stating they were “fairly” or “very” satisfied with the country’s democracy afterwards.
Where are the sore losers?: In both the case of support for and satisfaction with democracy, we found that a greater proportion of poorer citizens shifted their opinions, compared to their wealthier counterparts. In contrast, there were no clear patterns of opinion change by respondents’ gender, age, level of education, or race.
When examining the same question by party affiliation, the outcome was interesting. The share of partisans who preferred democracy increased among supporters of the ANC, the Economic Freedom Fighters and the MK Party after the election. A majority of supporters from the four major parties were satisfied with how democracy worked in the country.
Even ANC supporters remained largely satisfied with democracy despite the party’s electoral losses. Collectively, these findings suggest a post-electoral vote of confidence in multiparty competition.
Expectations of the new government: Citizens also appeared more hopeful about the new coalition government’s ability to tackle some of the nation’s most pressing issues. Pre-election evaluations of government performance on key services were overwhelmingly negative. The post-election wave showed some modest increases in optimism.
Two-thirds (67%) of South Africans felt the government of national unity would be more effective in the critical area of electricity provision. There was also hope for progress in other areas; 42% expected the new government to be more effective in creating jobs. Another 41% believed it would be more successful in fighting corruption.
Over the past year, the government seems to have met citizens’ expectations. South Africa has not experienced prolonged periods of power cuts over the past 12 months. However, the unemployment rate has remained unchanged, at 32.9%.
Looking ahead
The 2024 elections in South Africa seem to have served as an inflection point. It is contributing to a revival of optimism and pro-democratic sentiment. The shift from pre-election pessimism to post-election hope was palpable. Maintaining renewed public confidence, however, relies on a government’s ability to meet citizens’ expectations and deliver tangible improvements on their concerns.
The ongoing skirmishes between the ANC and the Democratic Alliance illustrate the coalition government’s difficulty in translating agreement on a broad agenda into specific outcomes.
The coming months and years will tell whether the unity government’s infighting ultimately squanders citizens’ goodwill.
– One year on: South Africa’s coalition government boosted optimism, but will it last? – https://theconversation.com/one-year-on-south-africas-coalition-government-boosted-optimism-but-will-it-last-258497
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Kamau Wairuri, Lecturer in criminology, Edinburgh Napier University
Weeks ahead of the first anniversary in Kenya of the Gen Z-led anti-government protests that resulted in at least 60 deaths and displays of police brutality, news broke that Albert Ojwang, a young Kenyan blogger, had died in police detention. Kamau Wairuri who has studied the politics of policing in Kenya, sets out why these events aren’t outliers, what efforts have been made to reform Kenya’s security forces, and what still needs to be done.
When did this all begin?
Recent events are part of a long history of police brutality in Kenya that can be traced back to colonial times.
Historians (colonial and post-colonial Kenya) such as David Anderson and Caroline Elkins present gruesome details of how state authorities brutalised indigenous Africans during colonial times.
The colonial origins of the police – largely modelled along the approaches of the Royal Ulster Constabulary known for its brutality in Ireland – partly explains why Kenya’s policing is the way it is. The police force was never designed for service. It was designed to safeguard the interests of the white minority ruling elite.
While there have been important changes in the architecture of policing since independence, subsequent post-colonial Kenyan regimes have adopted the same brutal approaches to stay in power. My previous work demonstrates this use of state security apparatuses to enhance the capacity of incumbents to crack down on opposition protests.
The brutal policing experienced under the current Kenya Kwanza regime falls within this broader historical trajectory.
The ruling elite see and use the police as their last line of defence against challenges to their misrule.
But police brutality goes beyond the policing of politics to everyday crime control. Police violence is a common occurrence, especially against poor young men.
What’s changed
Kenya’s history has been marked by strong agitation for justice and reform. Again, this goes back to colonial times.
There have been important legal and institutional changes since independence. The most important was the disbandment of the Special Branch in 1998, an intelligence unit of the police responsible for political repression. It was replaced by the National Security Intelligence Service. This then became the National Intelligence Service.
The most important changes came about through the constitutional reform of 2010. This saw a change in the architecture of the police, including:
Internal Affairs, a unit within the police service, is supposed to investigate police misconduct. The policing oversight agency is a civilian-led institutions with a similar mandate. Ideally, the two institutions should work together in executing crucial investigations. Internal affairs should provide access to information from within the police service that would be difficult for outsiders to access.
The National Police Service Commission was set up to handle the management of personnel. It’s mandated to address the challenges of corruption, nepotism and negative ethnicity that have characterised recruitment into the police service.
But it’s clear from the continued police brutality that these institutions aren’t achieving the intended effect. This means that police officers can expect to continue acting with relative impunity despite the control measures in place.
What still needs to be done
Policing is often imagined as the investigation of crimes, arresting suspects, and presenting them to court for prosecution and punishment if guilty. In Kenya, the actions of the police often appear to substitute for the entire criminal justice system.
In many cases, officers go beyond the metaphor of judge, jury and executioner to also become the complainant, mortician and undertaker. For instance, Mbaraka Karanja died in police custody in 1987 and officers proceeded to incinerate his body.
In my view, the brutality won’t end until the following steps have been taken.
First, the National Police Service Commission needs to reclaim its mandate. It seems to have completely abdicated duty, transferring crucial responsibilities back to the inspector general of the police service. As the human resource unit of the police, the commission has an important role of professionalising the service and maintaining discipline. It’s presently not doing so.
Second, the Internal Affairs Unit needs to be strengthened and given more autonomy. So far, it has been difficult to assess the effectiveness the unit given the secrecy that characterises the police service. A better-resourced unit will enhance investigations of police misconduct. It would unearth obscure squads within the police service and reveal evidence to help identify perpetrators.
Third, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority needs to defend its independence and develop popular legitimacy. With its limited success in prosecuting police officers – despite the prevalence of police abuse – many Kenyans have lost confidence in it. Crucially, the authority has failed in it’s deterrence role.
Fourth, the independence of the National Police Service needs to be safeguarded. The police service leadership continues to serve at the pleasure of the prevailing regime. This in turn shapes the priorities of the service. Inspectors-general have been forced to resign. President William Ruto confessed to having fired the director of criminal investigations when he took power. Ruto had initially claimed that the director had resigned.
Crucially, and in fifth place, there needs to be a change in policing culture alongside broader governance culture in Kenya. Impunity is rampant across the public service. Kenya won’t have a highly accountable police force while other agencies and senior officials are operating with significant impunity.
Identifying the levers of cultural change isn’t easy. There are many proposals to alter policing culture. These include a complete redesign of Kenya’s Penal Code to dislodge its colonial roots, transforming the training of police officers, and strengthening the policing oversight authority’s capacity to investigate cases.
But, in my mind, a crucial starting point is citizen agitation and demand for accountability. The light that Gen Z protesters, the media and civil society organisations are shining on police abuses should be encouraged. A clear signal that Kenyans will no longer tolerate police abuse is crucial for culture change within the service and among the political elite.
However, this needs to be understood within the reality that many Kenyans support police violence, believing it to be the most effective way of dealing with crime as my earlier research demonstrates. In another study, I note how police abuse is endorsed by politicians and religious leaders as a way of responding to crime and punishing groups of people they don’t like.
Combined with ineffective accountability mechanisms, this popular support for police violence, both tacit and explicit, gives the police the belief that they are the thin blue line between order and chaos. That they have the popular mandate to use any means they consider necessary – often brutal violence – to keep society safe.
In other words, the conversation on police reform requires a fundamental reframing to kick start the journey towards democratic policing. At present, we’re not only way off the mark, we seem to be heading in the wrong direction.
– Kenya’s police still kill with impunity – what needs to be done to stop them – https://theconversation.com/kenyas-police-still-kill-with-impunity-what-needs-to-be-done-to-stop-them-259326
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
The world’s largest Legoland, the Shanghai resort is gearing up for an unforgettable debut. The site is buzzing with excitement as it fine tunes every aspect, prepares every brick and conducts phased staff testing and trial operations.
The entrance of Legoland Shanghai Resort in Shanghai, June 15, 2025. [Photo courtesy of Legoland Shanghai Resort]
The resort, located in Fengjing town, Jinshan district, Shanghai, is designed for families. Even before the official opening it has generated substantial market buzz, establishing itself as the most anticipated family theme destination in China’s Yangtze River Delta region.
According to Fliggy, a leading online travel platform in China, presale tickets exceeded 3,000 within 30 minutes of launch, while related merchandise sales topped 5 million yuan in 24 hours.
A China.org.cn reporter visited the Legoland Shanghai Resort on June 15 and participated in trial operations. The park features eight themed lands with over 75 interactive rides, shows, and attractions, showcasing thousands of intricate Lego models, built from more than 85 million bricks. Notably, its vibrant color scheme has already become a popular social media backdrop.
The park unveils two globally exclusive themed lands, each offering world-first experiences. Creative World is crowned by “Dada,” a towering 26-meter-tall Lego figurine, serving as the resort’s iconic centerpiece. If you look closely you might see the world’s first Lego-themed roller coaster spiraling through the “Dada” structure, with the rest of the resort sprawling outwards. The resort’s Miniland, located in this land, offers meticulously recreated Chinese landmarks — primarily Shanghai’s iconic sites — built with over 20 million Lego bricks. The scene is enhanced with dynamic lighting, sound effects and interactive elements, leaving visitors in awe.
Nearby, The Lego Monkie Kid land transports families into the world of Chinese mythology, highlighted by the debut of the world’s first “Lego Monkie Kid” live show — a spectacular production already winning over early visitors.
As is standard industry practice for major theme park launches, the current testing phase focuses on evaluating ride safety, food and beverage services, entertainment offerings and retail operations. This critical process allows the operation team to identify and address potential issues, ensuring an optimal guest experience upon opening.
The Legoland Hotel, a central part of the project, features a facade designed to resemble a Lego-built world. The rooms are themed, with family-friendly suites based on different Lego franchises being available. The hotel offers plenty of surprises and entertainment options for children to enjoy in the rooms, lobby, and other areas throughout the hotel.
A photo captures the giant “Dada” figurine, built from oversized Lego bricks, as the centerpiece of Legoland Shanghai Resort in Shanghai. [Photo courtesy of Legoland Shanghai Resort]
Despite heavy rain that forced the closure or suspension of some rides, China.org.cn found that the resort continued to captivate guests with its wide array of attractions and merchandise. For children, the real attraction was an endless supply of Lego bricks, found throughout the hotel and across the resort. Kids eagerly spent hours building and creating, their imaginations running wild. They enjoyed it so much that many were reluctant to leave, except when their parents ushered them on to the next adventure.
While not served by metro trains, the area remains easily accessible via high-speed rail, with trips taking as little as 18 minutes from Shanghai Hongqiao Railway Station or 19 minutes from Shanghai South Railway Station to the nearby Jinshan North Station.
Industry analysts emphasize China’s thriving theme park sector. The Institute for Theme Park Studies reported 130 million visitors and 30.39 billion yuan in revenue across 86 major parks in 2023 — marking year-on-year growth of 71.84% and 97.86% respectively.
The IAEA has a long history of helping countries adjust to salinized soils. In 1978, the IAEA helped develop climate smart agricultural practices to reclaim salt-affected soil that transformed saline soils in Pakistan into productive farmlands.
IAEA support to the country has continued as the changing climate has caused even further soil salinization. In Pakistan, erratic rainfall patterns have pushed farmers to irrigate using groundwater with high levels of salt. With IAEA support, Pakistan’s Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB) has developed and planted salt-tolerant crops and implemented soil nutrient and water management techniques. Today, NIAB is sharing its expertise by training scientists from other countries affected by soil salinization.
Following IAEA regional projects, in which 60 researchers from 10 countries were trained in soil, nutrient and water management to combat soil salinity, the IAEA published an open-access book enabling experts in several countries to successfully grow crops under saline conditions such as millet in Lebanon, barley and safflower in Jordan and Kuwait, okra in Syria and quinoa in the United Arab Emirates. “Thanks to the joint work with the IAEA, our scientists applied the recommended climate-smart agricultural practices to successfully grow crops under saline conditions,” says Nabeel Bani Hani, Director of the National Agricultural Research Center in Jordan.
“As the world faces increasing pressure to feed a growing population, restoring degraded land is more urgent than ever. The IAEA’s work shows that with the right tools—science, collaboration, and innovation—we can turn salty, barren soils into fertile ground for the future” said Mohammad Zaman, Head of the Soil and Water Management and Crop Nutrition Section of the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre.
An IAEA team of experts visited Malaysia’s nuclear research reactor, the Reaktor TRIGA PUSPATI, during an Integrated Safety Assessment for Research Reactors mission. (Photo: Nuklear Malaysia)
An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team of experts said Malaysia is committed to the safe operation of its sole nuclear research reactor, the Reaktor TRIGA PUSPATI (RTP). The team also identified the need to further enhance the effectiveness of the reactor’s safety committee, the management of refurbishment and modernization of the reactor’s safety systems and components, and operating procedures.
The five-day Integrated Safety Assessment for Research Reactors (INSARR) mission to the RTP facility, which concluded on 20 June, was conducted at the request of Malaysian Nuclear Agency (Nuklear Malaysia). The mission team comprised three experts from Slovenia, South Africa, and Thailand, and two IAEA staff.
RTP is located in Bangi, Selangor, about 30 kilometres south of Kuala Lumpur. Two INSARR missions were conducted at RTP in 1997 and 2014. Since then, the reactor has undergone modifications, including replacement of the rotary rack, refurbishment of the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems and the upgrading of the stack monitoring system.
RTP was constructed in 1979 and began operation in 1982. RTP was designed for various fields of nuclear research, education and training, and it incorporates facilities for neutron and gamma radiation studies, as well as isotope production and sample activation.
The INSARR team visited the reactor and its associated facilities and met with the research reactor staff and management. “Nuklear Malaysia has shown a commitment to safety by requesting an IAEA INSARR mission,” said Kaichao Sun, team leader and Nuclear Safety Officer at the IAEA. “Ageing management of reactor systems and components that are important to safety can be challenging. Effective application of the IAEA safety standards, including the establishment of effective leadership and management for safety and the utilization of operating experience feedback, helps address this challenge.”
The mission team made recommendations and suggestions to Nuklear Malaysia for further improvements, including the need for:
Improving the reactor safety committee’s oversight of all activities important to safety, including reactor modifications and operational safety programmes such as refurbishment and modernization of the reactor’s safety systems and components;
Strengthening procedures to respond to abnormal situations and events, such as loss of electrical power, fire and earthquakes;
Establishing procedures for learning from operating experience; and
Strengthening radiological protection practices by improving the classification of different areas of the workplace.
“The INSARR mission is a valuable opportunity for us to engage in a peer-review process,” said Julia Abdul Karim, Director of Technical Support Division at Nuklear Malaysia. “It enables us to benchmark our programmes and activities against the IAEA safety standards and the international best practices and to strengthen our operational safety of our research reactor.”
Background
INSARR missions are an IAEA peer review service, conducted at the request of a Member State, to assess and evaluate the safety of research reactors based on IAEA safety standards. Follow-up missions are standard components of the INSARR programme and are typically conducted within two years of the initial mission. General information about INSARR missions can be found on the IAEA website.
The IAEA Safety Standards provide a robust framework of fundamental principles, requirements, and guidance to ensure safety. They reflect an international consensus and serve as a global reference for protecting people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation.
Attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran have caused a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security in Iran. Though they have not so far led to a radiological release affecting the public, there is a danger this could occur.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has been monitoring closely the situation at Iran’s nuclear sites since Israel began its attacks a week ago. As part of its mission, the IAEA is the global nerve centre for information on nuclear and radiological safety, and we can respond to any nuclear or radiological emergency.
Based on information available to the IAEA, the following is the current situation at Iran’s nuclear sites. Which I offer as a follow up to my most recent report to this Security Council.
The Natanz enrichment site contains two facilities. The first is the main Fuel Enrichment Plant. Initial attacks on the 13th of June targeted and destroyed electricity infrastructure at the facility, including an electrical sub-station, the main electric power supply building, and emergency power supply and back-up generators. On the same day, the main cascade hall appears to have been attacked using ground-penetrating munitions.
The second facility at Natanz is the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant. It consists of aboveground and underground cascade halls. On the 13th of June the above-ground part was functionally destroyed and the strikes on the underground cascade halls were seriously damaging.
The level of radioactivity outside the Natanz site has remained unchanged and at normal levels, indicating no external radiological impact on the population or the environment.
However, within the Natanz facility there is both radiological and chemical contamination. It is possible that Uranium isotopes contained in Uranium Hexafluoride, Uranyl Fluoride and Hydrogen Fluoride are dispersed inside the facility. The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if inhaled or ingested. This risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory devices. The main concern inside the facility is chemical toxicity.
Fordow is Iran’s main enrichment location for enriching uranium to 60%. The Agency is not aware of any damage at Fordow at this time.
At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in last Friday’s attack: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor-fuel manufacturing plant, and the enriched uranium metal processing facility, which was under construction.
No increase of off-site radiation levels was reported. As in Natanz, the main concern is chemical toxicity.
The Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor under construction in Arak, was hit on the 19th of June. As the reactor was not operational and did not contain any nuclear material, no radiological consequence is expected. The nearby Heavy Water Production Plant is also assessed to have been hit, and similarly no radiological consequence is expected.
As stated in the IAEA’s update of the 18th of June, at the Tehran Research Center, one building, where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested, was hit. At the Karaj workshop, two buildings, where different centrifuge components were manufactured, were destroyed. There was no radiological impact, internally or externally.
Let me now refer to the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. This is the nuclear site in Iran where the consequences of an attack could be most serious. It is an operating nuclear power plant and as such it hosts thousands of kilograms of nuclear material. Countries of the region have reached out directly to me over the past few hours to express their concerns, and I want to make it absolutely and completely clear: In case of an attack on the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant a direct hit could result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment.
Similarly, a hit that disabled the only two lines supplying electrical power to the plant could cause its reactor’s core to melt, which could result in a high release of radioactivity to the environment. In their worst-case, both scenarios would necessitate protective actions, such as evacuations and sheltering of the population or the need to take stable iodine, with the reach extending to distances from a few to several hundred kilometres. Radiation monitoring would need to cover distances of several hundred kilometres and food restrictions may need to be implemented.
Any action against the Tehran Nuclear Research Reactor could also have severe consequences, potentially for large areas of the city of Tehran and its inhabitants. In such a case, protective actions would need to be taken.
I will continue to provide public updates about the developments at all these sites and their possible health and environmental consequences.
The Agency is, as madame Undersecretary kindly reminded, and will remain present in Iran and inspections there will resume, as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as soon as safety and security conditions allow.
In this context, let me restate that the safety of our inspectors is of utmost importance. The host country has a responsibility in this regard, and we expect every effort to be made to ensure that their security and their communication lines with the IAEA headquarters will be maintained.
As stated in my most recent report to the Agency’s Board of Governors and based on inspections conducted at the relevant facilities since then, Iran’s uranium stockpiles remain under safeguards in accordance with Iran’s comprehensive safeguards agreement. You may recall that more than 400kg of this stockpile is uranium enriched up to 60% U-235. It is essential that the Agency resumes inspections as soon as possible to provide credible assurances that none of it has been diverted.
Importantly, any special measures by Iran to protect its nuclear materials and equipment must be done in accordance with Iran’s safeguards obligations and the Agency.
Therefore, it is of paramount importance that the Agency’s inspectors are allowed to verify that all relevant materials, especially those enriched to 60%, are accounted for. Beyond the potential radiological risks, attacks on such materials would make this effort of course more difficult.
Madame President,
The IAEA has consistently underlined, as stated in its General Conference resolution, that armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place, and could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked.
I therefore again call on maximum restraint. Military escalation threatens lives and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.
Madame President,
The presence, support, analysis and inspections of technical experts are crucial to mitigating risks to nuclear safety and security – that is true during peacetime and even more so during military conflict.
For the second time in three years, we are witnessing a dramatic conflict between two UN and IAEA Member States in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being compromised. The IAEA, just as has been the case with the military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, will not stand idle during this conflict.
As I stated in this chamber just a few days ago, I am ready to travel immediately and to engage with all relevant parties to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency mandate, including by deploying Agency nuclear safety and security experts, in addition to our safeguards inspectors in Iran, wherever necessary.
For the IAEA to act, a constructive, professional dialogue is needed. I urge the Members of this Council to support us in making it happen sooner rather than later.
The IAEA must receive timely and regular technical information about affected nuclear facilities and their respective sites. I urge in this regard the Iranian regulatory authorities to continue a constructive dialogue with the IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre, which has been operating 24/7 since the beginning of this conflict.
Nuclear facilities and material must not be shrouded by the fog of war.
Yesterday there was an incorrect statement to the media by an Israeli military official that Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant had been attacked. Though the mistake was quickly identified and the statement retracted, the situation underscored the vital need for clear and accurate communication, and the Agency’s unique role in providing it in a technically accurate and politically impartial way is obvious.
Let me conclude by assuring the international community of the IAEA’s continued support at this very grave time.
A diplomatic solution is within reach if the necessary political will is there. Elements for an agreement have been discussed. The IAEA can guarantee, through a watertight inspections system, that nuclear weapons will not be developed in Iran. They can form the basis of a long-standing agreement that brings peace and avoids a nuclear crisis in the Middle East. This opportunity should not be missed. The alternative would be a protracted conflict and a looming threat of nuclear proliferation that, while emanating from the Middle East, would effectively erode the NPT and the non-proliferation regime as a whole.
A centrifuge manufacturing workshop has been hit in Esfahan, the third such facility that has been targeted in Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear-related sites over the past week, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today, citing information available to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The workshop – which made the machines used to enrich uranium – was previously under IAEA monitoring and verification as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), including with installed Agency cameras.
“We know this facility well. There was no nuclear material at this site and therefore the attack on it will have no radiological consequences,” Director General Grossi said.
It came a few days after the IAEA on 18 June reported that the Tehran Research Center, where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested, had been hit, as had a workshop in the city of Karaj where different centrifuge components were manufactured. There was no radiological impact, internally or externally.
The IAEA has closely been monitoring the situation at Iran’s nuclear sites since Israel began its attacks early on 13 June, providing regular updates on military strikes on facilities in Arak, Esfahan, Karaj, Natanz and Tehran.
Director General Grossi told the United Nations Security Council on Friday that “attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran have caused a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security” in the country, adding: “Though they have not so far led to a radiological release affecting the public, there is a danger this could occur.”
A large nuclear complex in Esfahan has been targeted for a second time during Israel’s attacks on Iran over the past nine days, with several more buildings struck, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said today.
The site in central Iran was first hit on 13 June when four buildings were damaged: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion facility, a reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and an enriched uranium metal processing facility under construction. No increase of off-site radiation levels was reported.
Based on information available to the IAEA today, six other buildings at the same site have now also been attacked: a natural and depleted uranium metal production facility which had not yet begun operations, a fuel rod production facility, a building with low-enriched uranium pellet production as well as a laboratory and nuclear material storage, another laboratory building, a workshop handling contaminated equipment and an office building with no nuclear material.
The same Esfahan complex includes a centrifuge manufacturing workshop that the IAEA earlier today reported had also been hit by Israel.
The facilities targeted today either contained no nuclear material or small quantities of natural or low enriched uranium, meaning any radioactive contamination is limited to the buildings that were damaged or destroyed.
“This nuclear complex in Esfahan – one of the key sites of the Iranian nuclear programme – has repeatedly been attacked and extensively damaged. Based on our analysis of the nuclear material present, we don’t see any risk of off-site contamination. Nevertheless, as I have repeatedly stated, nuclear facilities should never be attacked,” Director General Grossi said.
