Abstract
On July 8, 2026, the third edition of the institutional conference “Geopolitical Changes and New International Scenarios,” organized by Geocrazia, took place at the House of Representatives in Palazzo San Macuto, Rome. The event brought together representatives of institutions, diplomacy, academia, business, civil society and international organizations to examine how current geopolitical instability is reshaping international trade, energy security, supply chains and the future of global cooperation.
The conference was structured around two main panels. The first, “How Conflicts Influence International Trade,” explored the growing connection between conflicts, strategic corridors, maritime routes, critical raw materials and economic resilience. Speakers emphasized that globalization can no longer be understood only in terms of efficiency and low costs, but must be reconsidered in light of reciprocity, security and responsibility.
The second panel, “Towards a New World Order between Dialogue and Diplomacy,” addressed the emergence of a multipolar system, the crisis of traditional multilateralism and the need to rebuild international dialogue. Particular attention was given to the Mediterranean, Eurasia, Kazakhstan, new trade corridors and the strategic relevance of technological, maritime and logistical infrastructures.
Within this framework, Maria Gabriella Mieli, representing UPF Italy, offered a distinctive peacebuilding perspective. Her intervention underlined that lasting peace cannot depend solely on diplomatic agreements or security strategies, but requires education, ethical responsibility, interdependence, mutual prosperity and universal values. UPF initiatives such as peace zones and peace gardens were presented as practical and symbolic spaces of reconciliation.
The conference highlighted that trade can become either a field of confrontation or an infrastructure of cooperation. UPF Italy’s contribution helped to bring the human and ethical dimension into the geopolitical debate, reaffirming the role of civil society, education and interreligious dialogue in building bridges of trust. In this sense, the event invited participants to transform geopolitical awareness into responsibility for the common good and for a more peaceful international order.
Longer report
On July 8, 2026, the third edition of the institutional conference “Geopolitical Changes and New International Scenarios,” organized by Geocrazia, took place in the Sala del Refettorio at the House of Representatives in Palazzo San Macuto, Rome. The event brought together representatives of institutions, diplomacy, academia, business, civil society and international organizations to reflect on the impact of current geopolitical instability on trade, security, energy, and the future of global cooperation.
The conference was structured around institutional greetings and two main panels. The first panel, “How Conflicts Influence International Trade,” addressed the growing connection between geopolitical tensions and the reorganization of global supply chains. The second panel, “Towards a New World Order between Dialogue and Diplomacy,” focused on the emergence of a multipolar international system and on the need to recover dialogue as a condition for peace and stability.
In the opening session, several speakers underlined that geopolitical change is no longer a distant or abstract issue. Conflicts, disruptions in strategic corridors, energy insecurity and technological competition now directly affect economies, companies and citizens. National security is increasingly linked not only to military capacity, but also to the control of ports, technologies, critical raw materials and strategic supply chains.
A recurring theme of the conference was the transition from a “naïve globalization” to a more mature and responsible understanding of interdependence. The speakers noted that international trade can no longer be interpreted only through the lens of efficiency and low costs. In the present global context, supply chains, maritime routes, energy corridors and access to critical resources have become decisive elements of sovereignty and resilience.
During the first panel, the discussion highlighted the strategic importance of the Mediterranean, the freedom of navigation and the security of maritime choke points such as Suez, Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. Italy was described as a natural platform in the wider Mediterranean, with a crucial role in connecting Europe, Africa and Asia. The debate also addressed the need to support Italian companies abroad, strengthen export diversification and develop more secure forms of economic diplomacy.
The concept of economic resilience emerged as one of the key words of the day. Recent crises have shown that global supply chains cannot be organized only around speed and efficiency. Phenomena such as friend-shoring, near-shoring and the diversification of raw material procurement reflect a deeper change: the economy is becoming increasingly inseparable from security. Trade, in this perspective, is not merely a victim of conflicts; it can also become an instrument for preventing instability when it is based on reciprocity, transparency and trust.
The second panel broadened the reflection to the future of the international order. Speakers examined the weakening of unilateral hegemony, the rise of multipolar dynamics, the role of the BRICS and the increasing importance of Eurasia, Central Asia and the Trans-Caspian Corridor. Particular attention was given to Kazakhstan as a strategic actor in the emerging Eurasian balance, due to its resources, geographic position and multi-vector diplomacy.
The debate also touched on the new frontiers of geopolitical competition: cyberspace, outer space, the seabed and critical infrastructures. These domains show how power is no longer exercised only through territory in the traditional sense, but also through control of data, technologies, logistical routes and strategic platforms. In this context, the crisis of the multilateral system and the limitations of the current United Nations structure were repeatedly emphasized.
Within this broad geopolitical framework, Maria Gabriella Mieli, representing UPF Italy, offered a distinctive contribution centered on the culture of peace, education and the responsibility of civil society. Her intervention recalled that lasting peace cannot be built only through institutional agreements, diplomatic negotiations or security strategies. These are necessary, but they remain fragile if they are not supported by an ethical and human foundation.
UPF’s perspective is rooted in the principles of interdependence, mutual prosperity and universal values. Interdependence reminds us that no nation, economy or community can achieve lasting security by ignoring the needs and dignity of others. Mutual prosperity indicates that development cannot be considered authentic if it creates wealth for some while leaving others in vulnerability. Universal values offer the moral criterion through which political, economic and social choices can be oriented toward the common good.
From this point of view, peace is not understood as the mere absence of war, but as an active construction. It requires education, dialogue, character formation, cooperation among sectors and the courage to move beyond the logic of walls. The family, education and the formation of responsible citizens were presented as essential foundations for any long-term strategy of peacebuilding. Without the integrity of individuals and leaders, treaties and international agreements risk remaining fragile structures.
Mieli also presented UPF initiatives such as peace zones and peace gardens, intended as symbolic and practical spaces of reconciliation. These initiatives express a vision in which geography, often used as a reason for separation or conflict, can be transformed into a field of encounter and cooperation. The proposal of peace zones, particularly in areas marked by historical division, points to the need for preventive diplomacy and for the involvement of religious, cultural, academic and civic actors.
Another important dimension of the UPF contribution concerns the role of civil society in international relations. In a world marked by competition among powers and by the crisis of traditional multilateralism, NGOs, faith-based organizations, academic institutions and community leaders can help rebuild trust where official channels are blocked or weakened. This form of track-two diplomacy does not replace governments, but can prepare the human and relational ground on which more stable agreements may become possible.
The conference also highlighted the need to rethink the United Nations system in light of today’s multipolar reality. Several speakers stressed that the post-1945 order no longer fully reflects the current distribution of power and the complexity of global crises. UPF’s longstanding proposal for greater involvement of religious and spiritual leaders in global decision-making processes was therefore particularly relevant. In a world where religion can be manipulated to fuel conflict, spiritual wisdom and interreligious dialogue can also become resources for prevention, mediation and reconciliation.
The final message of the Geocrazia conference was that the future of international stability will depend on the ability to combine realism and dialogue. Strategic realism is necessary to understand power, security and economic vulnerability. However, realism alone is not sufficient. Without trust, ethical responsibility and a shared commitment to the dignity of the human person, the international order risks becoming only a competition among interests.
UPF Italy’s contribution helped to bring this human dimension into the discussion. In an age of uncertainty, the challenge is not only to navigate geopolitical change, but to build bridges of cooperation where fear and fragmentation are growing. Peace requires institutions, but also citizens capable of embodying peace in their relationships, communities and public responsibilities.
The Geocrazia conference therefore offered an important opportunity to reflect on the connection between geopolitics, trade and peacebuilding. It showed that the economy can become either a field of confrontation or an infrastructure of cooperation. It also reaffirmed that diplomacy must not be limited to state actors alone, but should include civil society, culture, education and the ethical resources of the human family.
In this sense, the path toward a more stable and peaceful world order requires more than new strategies. It requires a renewed vision of interdependence, capable of transforming borders into bridges, trade into cooperation, and geopolitical awareness into responsibility for the common good.