Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Failed Martial Law Bid Shows Need to Protect Human Rights, Rule of Law (Seoul) – The South Korean National Assembly’s 204 to 85 vote to impeach President Yoon Suk-yeol on December 14, 2024 after his rejected imposition of martial law has reinforced democratic rule and checks and balances in South Korea, Human Rights Watch said today.  All 300 National Assembly lawmakers participated in the vote, with 204 votes in favor, 85 against, three abstentions, and eight invalid votes. The National Assembly charged the president with directing the military and police to obstruct the assembly from voting to overturn his decree; attempting to take over the National Election Committee; and arresting political leaders, current and former judges, journalists, and members of civil society. “Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment reflects the broad support among South Koreans for the rule of law and democracy,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Yoon’s impeachment should encourage South Korea’s political leaders to recommit to democratic institutions and upholding human rights and civil liberties.” The National Assembly impeached Yoon in response to his short-lived declaration of martial law on the evening of December 3, during which he attempted to ban all political activities and suspend due process rights and freedoms of speech and assembly. Yoon sent soldiers into the National Assembly to arrest political leaders and to stop lawmakers from voting to lift the decree.  In announcing martial law, Yoon contended that it was justified because of opposition efforts to impeach members of his cabinet and obstruct the budget, and due to unspecified threats from North Korean communist forces. Yoon repeated these claims in a televised speech on December 11, saying that his decree was a legitimate exercise of his constitutional powers, akin to conducting foreign policy, and so did not amount to insurrection.  The South Korean constitution allows a president to declare martial law only during “war, armed conflict, or similar national emergency.”  In his December 11 speech, Yoon stated that he had not intended to stop the National Assembly from lifting martial law under article 77 of the constitution – a critical check on potential abuses of power that it exercised on the night of December 3. But testimony by military officers ordered to carry out his decree contradicted his claim. In a news conference on December 12, an army special forces commander, Col. Kim Hyun-tae, who led the special forces team that stormed the National Assembly on December 3, said he had received orders from senior military commanders to prevent more than 150 National Assembly members – the number required to repeal martial law – from gathering. The head of South Korea’s police agency, Cho Ji-ho, testified in the National Assembly on December 9 that on the evening of December 3 the armed forces asked the police to help them locate and detain 15 people, including the leaders of the biggest political parties. He also said that several hours before declaring martial law, Yoon ordered him to occupy the newsrooms of several media organizations, including MBC, one of South Korea’s largest broadcasters and a repeated target of criminal defamation charges by Yoon and his allies.  The former deputy director of South Korea’s National Intelligence Service testified that he was ordered to arrest a broadcaster and a union official, as well as several political leaders, including a sitting judge who had ruled in favor of Yoon’s political opponent, a former chief justice of the Constitutional Court, and other political leaders. Martial law troops also occupied the National Election Commission’s offices and confiscated the phones of five election officials. On December 8, a special police investigation team arrested Yoon’s former defense minister, Kim Yong-hyun, on charges of insurrection. On December 11, the team arrested Cho on the same charge, along with another senior police official.  South Korean law defines insurrection as any attempt to “overthrow government organs established by the Constitution or to make the exercise of their functions impossible by using force.”  As investigations into the events of December 3 continue, the Constitutional Court will now decide whether to uphold the impeachment vote. A police raid on the president’s office on December 11 suggests he may also be charged with insurrection. The proceedings should be fair and impartial and ensure due process, Human Rights Watch said.  Yoon’s actions reflect a culmination of his administration’s assault on the country’s democratic institutions and human rights, Human Rights Watch said. In 2022, Yoon campaigned for president on an anti-feminist platform, rejected the existence of systematic gender discrimination, and pledged to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Once in office, his administration eroded human rights protections for women and girls; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people; racial minorities; migrants; older people; and people with disabilities.  While in office, Yoon also directed police and prosecutors to attack political opponents, unions, and journalists, eroding the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly that his martial law decree nearly suspended. “Events in South Korea since December 3 have highlighted the crucial role democratic institutions play in preventing abuses of power and protecting the rule of law,” Pearson said.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Kenya’s government faces the challenge of meeting its debt obligations, while avoiding further unrest. President William Ruto must find ways to raise money, manage the economic recovery from Covid-19 and respond to the threat of climate change. William Ruto was elected as Kenya’s fifth president in September 2022. He had previously served ten years as deputy president and came into office with broad international support. In May 2024, Ruto embarked on the first state visit to the United States by an African leader in 16 years. That same month, his government proposed a raft of taxes designed to reduce Kenya’s budget shortfall – the fiscal deficit is projected to be 4.3% of GDP in 2024/25. The measures were encouraged by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which had loaned Kenya $2.3 billion to meet the financial obligations resulting from Covid-19 and existing debt-servicing costs. The taxes were drafted into a bill comprising mostly VAT measures, which would place a disproportionate burden on poorer Kenyans. As a result, thousands of citizens, led by the younger generation, took to the streets in protest. This culminated in them storming the parliament buildings on 25 June, with around 50 protesters being killed. The next day, the president declined to sign the bill. Two weeks later, he dismissed his entire cabinet. What are the roots of Kenya’s debt crisis? In the last 15 years, Kenya’s debt has risen significantly. Government debt totalled a manageable 39% of GDP in 2010; by March 2023, it stood at 68% of GDP. This rise in debt is the result of a surge in borrowing between 2013 and 2022, under Uhuru Kenyatta’s administration. Following strong growth rates in the early 2000s, Kenyatta took out large loans to pay for infrastructure projects. Many of these did not result in enough economic growth to cover their costs. One often-cited example of this excessive borrowing is the $5.3 billion loan from China to pay for the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) project linking the port city of Mombasa and the capital, Nairobi. Many of these infrastructure projects were victims of corruption, which siphoned money away from large loans. In particular, significant allegations of embezzlement have been levelled over the allocation of the Eurobonds (large international loans) secured by the Kenyan government in 2014 and 2018. The government lost at least 567.4 billion Kenyan shillings ($4.4 billion) to corruption between 2013 and 2018 alone, according to estimates from consulting firm Odipo Dev. Over the last ten years, Kenya has consistently ranked between 120th and 140th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s corruption perception index. During this period, the Kenyan shilling has also lost 31% of its value against the US dollar. This has helped Kenyan exporters, particularly those that export to the United States (9.8% of exports). The dollars that Kenya receives from exporting have been vital to its debt repayment, especially because the country imports more than it exports. Its trade deficit sat at around $18 billion, according to 2022 figures. The shilling’s drop in value poses a significant problem for the treasury. Kenya’s $80 billion debt pile is mostly denominated in dollars, and the depreciation of the shilling has made these repayments significantly harder. Figure 1: Kenyan shilling ten-year exchange rate with the US dollar Source: xe.com The Kenyan government is not solely at fault for the accumulation of debt. IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva called Kenya an ‘innocent bystander’ to external shocks after visiting in May 2023. She was referring primarily to the pandemic, which had caused dramatic short-term rises in unemployment and food security, and to the drought and inflation that followed. Where there is a country in debt distress, such as Kenya, there is often an irresponsible lender as well as the borrower. Campaign group Debt Justice points out that Kenya’s credit dried up after the pandemic, when developing countries were generally seen as riskier lending options. As a result, it had to turn to World Bank and IMF loans, and eventually bonds with double-digit interest rates. In the words of the African Forum on Debt and Development (AFRODAD), Kenya’s debt was the result of ‘a combination of irresponsible lending by developing partners… and an unsatiable appetite to borrow by the government of Kenya.’ In May 2020, the World Bank upgraded Kenya’s risk of debt distress from moderate to high. The pandemic depressed Kenyan exports and economic growth, and the government’s strong fiscal response magnified the existing budget deficit. At this point, both the World Bank and the IMF still viewed Kenya’s debt as fundamentally sustainable. What role has China played in Kenya’s debt burden? Since the Kenyatta administration started borrowing vast sums of money from China in 2013, the Asian giant has been accused of indulging in ‘debt-trap diplomacy’. Many Kenyans fear that the collateral for China’s $5.3 billion loan for the SGR is the strategic Mombasa port. Specifically, if Kenya is forced to default, it has been argued that China will seize the port. Similar accusations have dogged Chinese projects in Uganda and Zambia. In the last financial year, Kenya has repaid China $1.18 billion, a third of which comprised interest payments. Nonetheless, China’s role in Kenya’s debt crisis has probably been overstated. Kenya owes China approximately $6 billion, out of a total of $70 billion of debt. The World Bank and the IMF have judged the $2 billion Eurobond to be the more decisive factor in Kenya’s default risk. While Kenyatta’s government did borrow excessively from China, those loans at least resulted in completed infrastructure projects. The challenges that Kenya faces with Chinese loan repayments are mostly representative of its wider debt struggles. Chinese loans are dollar-denominated, and repaid at 3% above the benchmark global interest rate. What happened in 2024? In 2024, Kenya faced a looming June deadline to repay a $2 billion Eurobond issued in 2014. The IMF stepped in with a $941 million loan in January, bringing the organisation’s total exposure to Kenya to $4.4 billion. To cover the rest of its shortfall, Kenya issued an international bond of $1.5 billion, with an interest rate of 10.4%. The second loan was met with relief by international markets, which no longer feared an immediate Kenyan debt default. Many observers see this level of interest payment as a stark warning of financial ill health. Indeed, six of the 15 countries to issue bonds at 9.5% or higher interest rates since 2008 have eventually defaulted, according to Morgan Stanley analysts. In return for the low-interest loan from the IMF, Ruto’s government agreed to raise taxes. It introduced a finance bill in May 2024, outlining plans to raise 346 billion Kenyan shillings ($2.68 billion). It was these proposals that triggered the country’s mass protests. In the end, the president refused to sign the bill into law after these protests, which had culminated in the storming of Kenya’s parliament on 25 June. At least 50 demonstrators were killed in the violence, bringing worldwide attention to Kenya’s political and economic struggles. Who is protesting and why does it matter? Debt repayment is a controversial topic in many developing countries. Since the so-called ‘third world debt crisis’ in the 1980s, many have been mired in debt. The IMF provided emergency loans to affected countries throughout the 1980s. But these loans were conditional on austerity measures being implemented, privatisation programmes introduced and the countries’ economies opened to foreign capital. As a result, the IMF is frequently accused of seeking to influence the economic strategy of poor countries. Many Kenyan protesters took this line, decrying the IMF programme for tax rises and spending cuts in order to finance Kenya’s debt to the West as colonial. Many debt specialists around the world have sympathised with this view. Binaifer Nowrojee, president of the Open Society Foundations, noted that Kenyans make up just some of the three billion people living ‘in countries that are spending more on servicing their debt than public spending on education or health’. The Ruto government faces the challenge of overcoming the debt crisis and convincing the population to accept measures needed to do so. The protesters are predominantly urban, young and poor – the Kenyans who feel squeezed in the current economy. One study indicates that youth unemployment could be as high as 67%. For example, to buy a motorbike – often critical for employment – young people are forced to turn to microloans, which often leave them in inescapable debt. Kenya’s biggest cities have been at the heart of the anti-tax protests since the movement escalated on 18 June – 57 of the 215 protests took place in just seven cities. Many of the protesters left rural areas in search of economic opportunity and better government services but were left disappointed with the opportunities available. The demonstrators generally see themselves as existing outside civil society. One study finds that the wave of African protests since 2010 have typically been led by ‘political society’ (Branch and Mampilly, 2015). These are the most impoverished urban workers, who have little interaction with the state and tend to accomplish their aims through direct demonstration rather than the electoral system. Where does Kenya go from here? The IMF’s communications director has apologised to Kenyans, but maintains that an austerity programme is critical for the country’s economic health. So long as Ruto’s government seeks to avoid a default, the IMF is likely to insist on its measures being passed. Ruto responded to the 25 June events by branding the demonstrations as ‘treasonous’. He later moderated his position, dismissing almost his entire cabinet on 11 July. The new cabinet includes four members of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), led by political opponent Raila Odinga. Demonstrations continue against the government, albeit to a lesser extent than in June. In order to address these, Ruto will have to accept that the ‘political society’ behind the protests is not allied to the ODM. Thus far, protesters have not shown themselves to be wedded to a party political or ethnic identity. Their demands – to bring down inequality, introduce measures against corruption and end police brutality – will require political will. Ignoring the protests, on the other hand, risks another crisis. Now that indirect tax rises are too politically toxic, the government must find other ways to increase its revenue. The obvious pivot is to raise direct taxes, particularly income tax and corporation tax. Kenya has a GDP per capita of $1,949, ranking 17 out of 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The treasury has historically struggled to convert this into revenue. A recent study finds that Kenya’s tax revenue is equivalent to just 16.5%, down from a high of 17.5% in 2017 (OECD, 2023; KRA, 2024). This puts Kenya below the African average in both tax and non-tax revenue, and far below the Western average of 30-40%. Increasing direct tax revenue in sub-Saharan Africa is easier said than done. Prior to independence, colonial governments built tax bases that relied on controlling the movement of goods in and out of the territory (Cooper, 2002). Modern African states – many of which are poor and sparsely populated – have also relied on indirect taxes (Herbst, 2000). The IMF’s encouragement of Kenya to move away from indirect taxes on trade (that is, tariffs) towards taxing consumer expenditure (VAT) has damaged the government’s ability to collect taxation on a natural source. In common with some other African countries, state infrastructure is generally more effective at taxing trade since it is more regulated and accessible to the public authorities than domestic consumer spending. A short-term return to tariffs on foreign goods would be risky. It would be likely to result in higher consumer prices and increased costs of production for Kenyan companies. In the longer term, the government may need to expand formal employment and seek to bring in higher-wage jobs in order to expand the tax base (Cheeseman and Griffiths, 2005). For the time being, Kenya has averted a default. IMF loan interest rates are minimal, and the country won’t have to start repayments on its $1.5 billion bond until 2029. There are also some positive indicators. Kenya’s tax revenue in 2023/24 was $18.8 billion, an 11.1% increase on the previous year (at $16.4 billion). Economic growth rates are stable, at around 5.5% year-on-year. Nonetheless, Kenya is still spending 60% of its revenue on debt servicing, half of which goes to interest repayments alone. The situation is close to unsustainable and, without changes, the country could be facing a negotiated default in the coming years. What about inflation? Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) has a mixed record of managing inflation. The country has seen inflation averaging 6.5% over the last decade. The impact of Covid-19 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brought further rises, but this has been contained at 7.7%, broadly in line with the sub-Saharan average of 7.1%. Figure 2: Inflation in Kenya, 2014-24 Source: World Bank The rise in the value of the shilling in 2024 may begin to translate into a further reduction in inflation, but this is is unlikely to be sustainable. Kenya’s foreign exchange reserves have seen significant volatility, as the country has repaid and subsequently issued large bonds. The CBK’s reserves total around $7 billion – enough to cover less than four months’ worth of imports. If these reserves fall further, then foreign investors may withdraw from Kenya, depreciating the shilling and inducing higher inflation. What about climate change in Kenya? Kenya has suffered repeated droughts over the last decade, with that of 2021-22 being particularly severe. In late 2022, 4.3 million people faced severe food insecurity, as a result of the country’s worst drought for 40 years. Approximately 2.6 million livestock deaths were attributed to the drought. Food prices jumped temporarily by 60-90%. In a country where agriculture comprises 33% of production and exports are predominantly horticultural, food insecurity is widespread. Climate change poses a major challenge to Kenya and its neighbours. Kenyan farmers are vulnerable to increasingly variable rainfall – 98% of agriculture in the country does not use irrigation. The economic damage from droughts – which interrupt work, school and medical appointments and thus have knock-on effects on health and education – is costing Kenya 2-2.8% of GDP every year. By 2050, the crop yields of staples such as maize, rice, coffee and tea are likely to drop by 40-45%. By 2055, food prices are expected to be between 75-90% higher in relative value (World Bank, 2022). Kenya’s ability to develop climate resilience, through effective land and water management, will be vital for its economic health in the next few years.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Who could have predicted that after nearly 14 years of civil war and five years of stalemate, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria would collapse in just a week? With Assad’s departure, the pressing question now is what lies ahead for Syria’s immediate future. When opposition fighters led by the group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seized the major city of Aleppo in late November with minimal resistance, commentators widely believed it marked the beginning of the Assad regime’s downfall. Many anticipated a bitter fight to the end. Assad was caught off guard, and his forces were clearly unprepared. He withdrew his remaining troops from Aleppo to regroup and gain time for reinforcements to arrive from Russia and Iran, and hope the opposition fighters would stop there. It wasn’t to be. Emboldened by their swift success in Aleppo, HTS fighters wasted no time and advanced on Hama, capturing it with ease. They quickly followed up by seizing Homs, the next major city to the south. Russia provided limited air support to Assad. But Iran, having depleted its forces in Hezbollah’s defence against Israel in Lebanon, was unable to offer significant assistance and withdrew its remaining personnel from Syria. Meanwhile, Assad’s frantic calls for support from Iraq did not go anywhere. Seeing the writing on the wall, the morale of Assad’s forces and leadership plummeted. Fearing retribution in the event of the regime’s collapse, defections began en masse, further accelerating Assad’s downfall. And on the last day, Assad fled the country, and his prime minister officially handed over power to HTS and its leadership. It marked the end of 54 years of Assad family rule in Syria. The Assad legacy The Assad family, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez al-Assad, will likely be remembered by the majority of Syrians as brutal dictators. The modern state of Syria was established in 1920 following the Sykes-Picot Agreement in the aftermath of the first world war. Syria became a League of Nations mandate under French control, only gaining independence in 1944. Following a tumultuous period, including a failed unification with Egypt, the Ba'ath Party seized control in 1963 through a coup that involved Hafez al-Assad. In 1966, Hafez al-Assad led another coup alongside other officers from the Alawite minority. This ultimately resulted in a civilian regime, with Hafez al-Assad becoming president in 1970. Hafez al-Assad established himself as an authoritarian dictator, concentrating power, the military and the economy in the hands of his relatives and the Alawite community. Meanwhile, the Sunni majority was largely marginalised and excluded from positions of power and influence. Hafez al-Assad is most infamously remembered for his brutal suppression of the opposition in 1982. The uprising, led by the Islamic Front, saw the opposition capture the city of Hama. In response, the Syrian army razed the city, leaving an estimated 10,000 to 40,000 civilians dead or disappeared and decisively crushing the rebellion. Hafez al-Assad died in 2000, and, the least likely candidate, his younger son, Bashar al-Assad, assumed the presidency. Having been educated in the West to become a doctor, Bashar al-Assad projected a moderate and modern image, raising hopes he might usher in a new era of progress and democracy in Syria. However, Bashar al-Assad soon found himself navigating a turbulent regional landscape following the September 11 2001 terror attacks and the US invasion of Iraq. In 2004, after the United States imposed sanctions on Syria, Assad sought closer ties with Turkey. He and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became friends, removing visa requirements between their countries and making plans to establish economic zones to boost trade. Erdoğan and Assad then had a falling out during a series of events in 2011, a year that marked a turning point for Syria. The Arab Spring revolts swept into the country, presenting Assad with a critical choice: to pursue a democratic path or crush the opposition as his father had done in 1982. He chose the latter, missing a historic opportunity to peacefully transform Syria. The consequences were catastrophic. A devastating civil war broke out, resulting in more than 300,000 deaths (some estimates are higher), 5.4 million refugees, and 6.9 million people internally displaced. This will be Assad’s legacy. Syria’s immediate challenges Syria now has a new force in power: HTS and its leadership, spearheaded by the militant leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. They will face immediate challenges and four key priorities: 1) Consolidating power. The new leadership will now try to ensure there are no armed groups capable of contesting their rule, particularly remnants of the old Assad regime and smaller factions that were not part of the opposition forces. Critically, they will also need to discuss how power will be shared among the coalition of opposition groups. Al-Jolani is likely to become the founding president of the new Syria, but how the rest of the power will be distributed remains uncertain. It seems the opposition was not prepared to take over the country so quickly, and they may not have a power-sharing agreement. This will need to be negotiated and worked out quickly. The new government will likely recognise the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the territories it controls as an autonomous region within Syria. An independent Kurdish state, however, will be strongly opposed by Turkey, the main external backer of the opposition. Yet, history seems to be moving in favour of the Kurds. There is now the eventual possibility of an independent Kurdish state, potentially combining northern Iraq and northeastern Syria into a single entity. 2) International recognition. Syria is a very complex and diverse place. As such, the new government can only be sustained if it gains international recognition. The key players in this process are Turkey, the European Union, the United States and Israel (through the US). It is likely all of these entities will recognise the new government on the condition it forms a moderate administration, refrains from fighting the Kurdish YPG, and does not support Hezbollah or Hamas. Given their unexpected success in toppling Assad so quickly, the opposition is likely to accept these conditions in exchange for aid and recognition. 3) Forming a new government. The question on everyone’s mind is what kind of political order the opposition forces will now establish. HTS and many of the groups in its coalition are Sunni Muslims, with HTS having origins linked to al-Qaeda. However, HTS broke away from the terror organisation in 2016 and shifted its focus exclusively to Syria as an opposition movement. Nevertheless, we should not expect a democratic secular rule. The new government is also unlikely to resemble the ultra-conservative theocratic rule of the Taliban. In his recent interview with CNN, al-Jolani made two key points. He indicated he and other leaders in the group have evolved in their outlook and Islamic understanding with age, suggesting the extreme views from their youth have moderated over time. He also emphasised the opposition would be tolerant of the freedoms and rights of religious and ethnic minority groups. The specifics of how this will manifest remain unclear. The expectation is HTS will form a conservative government in which Islam plays a dominant role in shaping social policies and lawmaking. On the economic and foreign policy fronts, the country’s new leaders are likely to be pragmatic, open to alliances with the regional and global powers that have supported them. 4) Rebuilding the country and maintaining unity. This is needed to prevent another civil war from erupting — this time among the winners. A recent statement from HTS’s Political Affairs Department said the new Syria will focus on construction, progress and reconciliation. The new government aims to create positive conditions for displaced Syrians to return to their country, establish constructive relations with neighbouring countries and prioritise rebuilding the economy. Syria and the broader Middle East have entered a new phase in their modern history. Time will tell how things will unfold, but one thing is certain: it will never be the same.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Special Keynote Address by HH Prince Faisal Bin Farhan Al SaudDelivered at the 20th Regional Security Summit The IISS Manama Dialogue on 7th of December 2024 in Bahrain. This text is a verbatim transcript of the speech (As Delivered) HH Prince Faisal bin Farhan al Saud, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: “In the name of God, all merciful, may you have a very blessed morning. Firstly, I would like to express my elation for joining the 20th Manama Dialogue while reiterating my thanks and appreciation for the Kingdom of Bahrain, two last decades, for hosting the most prominent Manama Dialogue, that is of increasing importance as a main dialogue platform, gathering officials from all over the world in order to discuss the most important issues that touch the security of the area at a time we need it, mostly towards security solutions, facing mutual solutions. Not to mention, I thank the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and the chairman for so kindly inviting me. This is convened at a critical time that the global system is going through, an accelerating crisis and polarisation with increased mutual threats. Our area is not separated from the global arena, and vice versa is true, given the conflict that is crossing borders, affecting global security, creating risks for the global economy. Hence, the framework for the 20th Dialogue is leadership in the Middle East to create prosperity, which is increasing in importance – to attain prosperity, which is correlated to security and peace, that are based on permanent peace, that is sustainable and not on the basis of interests. For the Kingdom, it has forever been earnest in its political overcoming of crises, responding to economic development, not to mention that we have been committed to regional tolerance, cooperation and dialogue, a strengthening of partnerships and creation of new integration on the basis of economy. But the crises and the wars are deviating us towards a dangerous crossroad. Hence, it is upon us, in cooperation with the global community, to mutually mobilise ourselves effectively to correct the path, going back to tolerance and cohabitation in peace, ridding ourselves of wars [that are] leaving thousands of victims, void of attainment of strategic goals. Hence, our pivotal goal for political security is to focus on the challenges standing in the way of perpetrators towards a better future, not to mention that we have seen that this reality is achievable, but it calls for commitment and effort by everyone with a political will, even courage, steering away from personal or self-interest. Peace needs enabling to face all those standing in the way of achieving it and realising it, and above all, it needs earnest partners from all sides. Dear ladies and gentlemen, the continuity of war in Gaza is touching the region and global security and is standing in the way, as Israel has impunity and is getting away without punishment. One stand is important to preserve the peace and the global security. Otherwise, it will deteriorate all efforts to remedy the situation. Hence, the global community should intensify their efforts in order to have a ceasefire and entry of humanitarian aid to Gaza, release of all the detainees. We warn against speech of hatred that is feeding victims’ inclusive declarations, that are threatening Gaza settlements, and against the twostate solution.  When it comes to the Kingdom, the path to peace is clear but has obstacles. And if we look at the reality of crises, we find out that peace is a common denominator based on the two-state solution. Should the global community care to protect what credibility is left, they have to put their hands in the hands of the Kingdom and earnest countries in order to translate words into actions and realise the two-state solution based on responding to the needs and security. Everybody has to follow, including Israel. The Kingdom believes … the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is earnest to follow the peace followed by the Arab Peace summit and the two last summits. Not to mention, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with its alliance [inaudible] for the two-state solution, based on pragmatic steps to materialise the Palestinian state, ending occupation, based on the rights of selfdetermination by the Palestinian people void of any other obstacles from other parties. It is high time, in order for us to overcome the freeze of peace efforts, to move from speech to industry of peace. Not to mention, the Kingdom is going to continue its efforts in that way to have two states, Israel and Gaza, going back to the original borders, with Jerusalem as its capital. Dear ladies and gentlemen, the Kingdom reiterates, it is important to be earnest against acceleration and escalation to avoid bad results, hence welcoming ceasefire in Lebanon, hoping that international exerted efforts to meet the 701 Resolution of the United Nations to empower Lebanon, ridding them of humanitarian suffering. As the rest of the crises – in Sudan, Libya, etc. – calls for shunning violence and military action towards political solution, void of external intervention, towards sovereignty, void of accelerating humanitarian and risk of collapse of national systems. Dear ladies and gentlemen, the Kingdom’s vision is a cornerstone to support socio-economic development on a sustainable basis with a foreign policy reflecting the priority of the vision towards creating a brighter reality that will seep into the entire area, hence invested all efforts for regional stability and mutual security by empowering unity among the brothers based on dialogue among countries of the region while mediating peace efforts. The events today call for worry, yet the Kingdom looks at an interactive future of the Middle East given our ample resources, geographical proximity amid three continents, rich resources, reiterating that the area continues to have importance globally – not to mention the popular call for peace in order to realise economic integration while being sure that lack of security is not inevitable, but due to political feuds, calling for political solution and ridding ourselves of the zero formula that is not a win–win situation. We look forward to an alternative path [that] falls into interests that are wide-ended as opposed to self-interest, towards hope and a better future for the people of the area. Thank you very, very much.” As Delivered Disclaimer:This speech is published under the principles of press freedom, with no commercial intent, and solely for the purpose of informing interested individuals. The speech was publicly delivered by HH Prince Faisal Bin Farhan Al Saud at the 20th Regional Security Summit The IISS Manama Dialogue. This publication aims to provide access to the content for informational purposes and does not imply endorsement or official authorization by the event organizers. Public Information:This speech addresses critical global and regional security issues and is therefore of significant public interest. Its publication aims to make these important topics accessible to a broader audience, fostering awareness and understanding. Transparency and Accessibility:Providing the speech in written form enhances access to key political and security-related information, making it easier for readers to engage with the content.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Subsequent U.S. administrations, except for brief moments of relative calm, have persisted in demanding that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) abandon its nuclear program and, moreover, have made extensive efforts to destabilize its political and economic system. Meanwhile, the successive leaders of the DPRK have persisted in advancing their defensive capabilities until reaching their preferred deterrent: nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, a guarantee of survival. This persistent situation reached an unprecedented moment when, during his previous presidency, Donald Trump made a surprising shift in U.S. policy toward the DPRK, temporarily unraveling, although without the expected results, the "Korean Gordian Knot." This led to successive summits in 2018 and 2019 (Singapore, Hanoi, and Panmunjom) with Kim Jong Un, the leader of a state that, throughout its history, has maintained sharply confrontational relations with the United States. The world witnessed the transition from exchanges of insults and threats—Trump calling Kim "Little Rocket Man" and Kim referring to Trump as "old senile man"—and threatening the latter with "fire and fury" if the North Korean leader continued missile tests, to becoming "pen pals" and holding three unprecedented summits. No U.S. president has managed relations with the DPRK like Donald Trump did, and no North Korean leader in history has sat face-to-face, as equals, with a sitting U.S. president as Kim Jong Un did, which granted him prestige on the global stage. Due to reasons associated with its strategic ambiguity, the Biden Administration made no diplomatic progress with Pyongyang. Even though at the beginning of his term he committed to a "new strategy toward North Korea," over the past four years, his actions have only promoted sanctions in the Security Council, which have clashed dramatically with Russia's veto, struggled with the dissolution of the DPRK Expert Group in the Sanctions Committee, and observed the exponential increase in its arsenal of intercontinental, hypersonic, and short-range ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear warheads capable of targeting the continental U.S. and U.S. military bases in the region. Furthermore, the DPRK has resumed uranium enrichment and reopened its nuclear test center. In the end, the outgoing president has been unable to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table, much less contain it. So, one must ask: Will Trump's return to the White House mark continuity or a change from his previous term? An analysis of the future position of the Trump administration toward the DPRK should consider that, compared to his previous term, the circumstances have radically changed. 1. DPRK’s nuclear and missile programs have made new and significant advances. At the same time, its foreign policy has undergone a reorientation due to the sustained increase in distrust toward Washington from Pyongyang.2. By order of its leader, the DPRK has severed all its ties and symbols of relations with the Republic of Korea, which it classifies as the "main and unchanging enemy," and as it has no intention of avoiding war, it has instructed the People's Armed Forces to accelerate preparations to "occupy, subjugate, and fully reclaim" South Korea, in response to the confrontational attitude and increasingly close military and intelligence ties between Washington and Seoul.3. There has been a tightening of ties between Pyongyang and Moscow. The two summits between Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, and Kim's description of Putin as the "closest comrade," have shown the high level of understanding and commitment between the two, which has materialized in the DPRK's unwavering support for Russia's special military operation in Ukraine and the signing of a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, ratified by both legislatures. This treaty includes a clause for "mutual military assistance," while Russia provides diplomatic and economic backing to the DPRK, opposing multilateral and unilateral sanctions, and expanding its exports, mainly oil, raw materials, and food, as well as assistance in various fields.4. An emerging anti-U.S. and anti-Western axis is taking shape between China, Russia, the DPRK, and Iran, which has become so significant that Washington and its allies are labeling it the "new axis of evil." In this interconnected relationship, the DPRK holds significant advantages in three strategic dimensions: economic, military, and diplomatic. At least these four factors will significantly impact Donald Trump's decision to return, or not, to diplomacy with Kim Jong Un, raising doubts about whether the former would be willing to revisit it. However, if he tries, it is unclear what Kim Jong Un's response would be, clearly more determined and militarily more powerful in the eyes of Washington, which at first glance seems unwilling to renew its offers related to denuclearization. The ironic jest by Trump at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, when he said that Kim Jong Un "missed him," that they "got along very well," and that "he misses me" and "wants me back in the White House" and "it's good to get along with someone who has a lot of nuclear weapons," was met with a response from North Korean media, stating that "they don't care" who assumes office in the U.S. This suggests that Pyongyang's official stance is that, regardless of what happens, it will not abandon its nuclear deterrent. Considering the visible changes in the geopolitical and geostrategic landscape that differ from those in 2018-2019, any type of negotiation aimed at reaching compromises between the parties on the denuclearization of North Korea will be even more challenging. Trump may seek alternative approaches to encourage the DPRK to freeze nuclear and missile tests, but he will need to weigh several options. These include: which side should take the first step toward engagement; whether it is necessary to "rattle sabers" to create influence; the possibility of "unilateral conciliatory gestures"; and whether he should stick to the goal of "complete denuclearization" (Chad O’Carroll and Shreyas Reddy, 2024). Donald Trump exhibits an unpredictable, egocentric personality and is a fan of diplomatic spectacle, with a penchant for reality shows. Given this, he might be tempted to revisit diplomacy, possibly considering the absence of John Bolton, who, alongside Michael Pompeo, led the Hanoi Summit to failure. Many agree with what was stated by Moon Chung In, emeritus professor at Yonsei University and former special advisor for foreign affairs and national security during the previous Moon Jae In administration, when he admitted: "It is possible that, in his second term, Trump will prioritize solidifying his political legacy. His foreign policy would be heavily influenced by media attention and personal ego, as he cares about how history will remember him. Achieving a major deal with Pyongyang and contributing to peace on the Korean Peninsula could serve to fulfill that ambition, potentially allowing him to win a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. While resolving the Ukraine war or the Gaza crisis could also improve his chances of receiving the prize, negotiations with Kim Jong Un are likely to be a key agenda for Trump. In that sense, Trump could actively engage with the North Korean leader, and might even consider a visit to Pyongyang for a summit, where he could make surprising offers. However, the success of such efforts ultimately depends on Kim's response" (Lee Hyo Jin, 2024). It is necessary to build some scenarios: 1. The influence of personal friendship could encourage Kim Jong Un to engage in communication with Trump, turning the page on the Hanoi failure and minimizing distrust toward the U.S.2. Recognition by the Trump Administration of the DPRK as a de facto nuclear power and easing of sanctions to promote progress toward the partial normalization of relations.3. Strong U.S. demands for denuclearization and the promotion of further sanctions, leading to increased tensions. Given Trump’s volatility and the unpredictability of the DPRK leadership, there are currently no conditions to determine the most likely scenario. The campaign team has not commented on whether Trump will seek new meetings with Kim Jong Un, but his statements prior to his victory suggest that he might seek to revive talks, possibly sooner rather than later. Now, it is unpredictable what roadmap Trump will implement, as his opinions during the campaign may differ from the decisions he makes officially when in office. It is not accurate to assume that his demeanor during the first term will be indicative of his future conduct. It is worth dedicating a brief space to the designated Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. As a staunch anti-communist, he is one of the promoters of the term "axis of evil," which includes the DPRK, and considers China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as aligned against the US. He has advocated concrete actions and plans against these states. It is expected that, initially, he will oppose any commitment from the incoming administration with the DPRK. As John Bolton and Michael Pompeo did at the time, Rubio could attempt to limit Donald Trump’s maneuvering room with Kim Jong Un. However, there is also the possibility that the next U.S. president’s assertive and authoritarian character, who, despite previous disagreements, appointed Rubio, will lead him to align with Trump’s decisions or, alternatively, suffer the same fate of being ousted with a “tweet and a punch,” as happened to Rex Tillerson and John Bolton. Regarding the Republic of Korea, it is important to specify that the most critical foreign policy issues for Donald Trump’s new administration will be its relationship with the European Union, the Middle East conflicts, the war in Ukraine, the China-Taiwan dispute, and relations with the DPRK. It is precisely the latter that concerns South Koreans the most, as their security largely depends on the presence of U.S. troops in their country and Washington’s support for South Korea’s defense against the imminent “North Korean threat.” The conservative government of Yoon Suk Yeol has marked a clear distinction from his predecessor Moon Jae In by significantly strengthening his alliance with the U.S., driven by his growing animosity towards the DPRK and his pro-American stance. This situation presents little likelihood of encouraging Trump to engage in talks with Kim Jong Un, especially without a clear indication from Pyongyang toward denuclearization. This is likely, as all signs point to Pyongyang not making significant concessions regarding its nuclear deterrent and showing a strong aversion towards the Republic of Korea. After Donald Trump's victory, the South Korean president had a phone conversation with him to extend his congratulations and quickly express his desire for the alliance to continue under his leadership. Although both agreed to hold a summit as soon as possible, the issue of the DPRK, which was already addressed in this initial dialogue, will certainly be on the agenda. It is said that Trump plans for his government to work with South Korea on several bilateral issues, but one of the key aspects will be South Korea’s contribution to Washington for hosting U.S. bases on its territory. Let's remember that during Trump's first term, this was a hot topic in his military relations. It is worth mentioning that due to Donald Trump's transactional approach to international relations, his perception that many of the U.S. allies are "taking advantage" of its military power, and the pressure he exerted on Seoul when he was in office, with Trump's victory, national security against the DPRK is placed at the forefront. Many are concerned that his return to the White House could mean that Washington will no longer be a reliable partner, making it necessary for South Korea to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Han Dong Hoon, leader of the ruling People Power Party, said at a seminar organized to discuss the future of South Korea's nuclear policy that Trump's victory had positive aspects. "Acquiring nuclear potential — meaning having the right to enrich and reprocess uranium — does not inherently equate to possessing nuclear weapons," he said, according to The Korea Herald. "But we would be able to move to that phase at any time if North Korea intensifies its nuclear threats," he added. "I believe we should be prepared for such a scenario amid the changing dynamics of global power and order." Meanwhile, retired Army General Han Ki Ho went a step further and suggested that South Korea may no longer have a choice. "Nuclear armament may be the only path left for South Korea's survival," he stated (Julian Ryall, 2024). However, whether the Republic of Korea acquires nuclear weapons will depend on how the Trump administration approaches the alliance and relations with North Korea, that is, whether it abandons or restricts the "extended deterrence" and whether it pursues an agreement with Pyongyang that halts its development of long-range missiles that could reach the continental United States in exchange for accepting North Korea as a de facto nuclear power. This type of agreement would affect Seoul, located just 48 kilometers from the border, and therefore within the range of North Korea's short-range missiles. We are facing an uncertain situation, and therefore, expectant, where the expectations regarding Donald Trump's stance on DPRK are uncertain. Whether the denuclearization of DPRK is a priority for the Trump administration depends on the approach and methods with which the president and his team address an increasingly complex scenario. DPRK, in terms of its economic performance and national defense potential, is not the same as before, which gives Kim Jong Un greater effectiveness in his military deterrence and diplomatic maneuverability, especially when his reliable conduct with Moscow and the appropriate handling of relations with Beijing strengthen his position vis-à-vis the U.S. Trump will have to deal with these realities. And while he may intend to continue his legacy, he will necessarily have to reframe his policy towards DPRK, considering that DPRK is no longer the same, that its main contenders (Russia and China) are precisely the closest to DPRK, and that the country itself is no longer the same, either militarily or socioeconomically, as it was when he engaged in talks with Kim Jong Un in 2018-2019. References - Simone McCarthy (2024) Trump claims Kim Jong Un “isses him. But he faces a very different North Korea leader this time around. Disponible en: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/asia/trump-kim-jong-un-north-korea-intl-hnk/index.html- Keith Johnson (2024) Could Trump Rekindle Diplomacy With North Korea? Disponible en: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/13/trump-north-korea-diplomacy-putin-russia/- Joel S. Wit (2024) Blame Donald Trump for North Korea´s sable-rattling. Disponible en: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/blame-donald-trump-for-north-koreas-sabre-rattling/- Rubén Criado (2024) Así afecta la victoria de Trump a Corea del Norte. Disponible en: https://as.com/actualidad/politica/asi-afecta-la-victoria-de-trump-a-corea-del-norte-n/- Josh Smith (2024) Donald Trump se enfrenta a un Kim Jong Un envalentonado, cercano a Rusia y con un arsenal de misiles más grande. Disponible en: https://www.infobae.com/america/mundo/2024/11/07/donald-trump-se-enfrentara-a-un-kim-jong-un-envalentonado-cercano-a-rusia-y-con-un-arsenal-de-misiles-mas-grande/- Julian Ryall (2024) Regreso de Trump atiza debate nuclear en Corea del Sur. Disponible en: https://amp.dw.com/es/el-regreso-de-trump-atiza-el-debate-nuclear-en-corea-del-sur/a70798786#amp_tf=De%20%251%24s&aoh=17317231276140&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com- Chad O´Carrol y Shreyas Reddy (2024) Why North Korean denuclearization will likely take backseat in second Trump term | NK Disponible en: https://www.nknews.org/2024/11/why-north-korean-denuclearization-will-likely-take-backseat-in-second-trump-term/- Miguel Jiménez (2024) Donald Trump planea elegir a marcos Rubio como secretario de Estado. Disponible en: https://elpais.com/internacional/elecciones-usa/2024-11-12/donald-trump-elige-a-marco-rubio-como-secretario-de-estado.html?outputType=amp#amp_tf=De%20%251%24s&aoh=17317890370552&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The changes which officially made to the Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence on November 19, 2024, served as a signal from Russia to the West in response to the first use of U.S. and British-made tactical missiles on Russian territory.  Judging by Russia's actions, the adjustment of its nuclear policy is part of a plan for retaliatory escalation steps, which was prepared some time ago when the United States came close to deciding on the use of its missile weapons deep within Russian territory. We are at the beginning of a dangerous escalation spiral, which could potentially lead to a conventional conflict between Russia and the United States, followed by a nuclear conflict. The immediate task of the Doctrine is to clarify the essence of future Russian signals to the adversary, ensuring their proper interpretation. At the same time, several innovations introduced in this document could have far-reaching consequences for the containment strategies of all world states. Emerging Challenges First and foremost, the changes in the doctrine are driven by the technological revolution that has occurred in military affairs over the past few decades. This revolution has effectively erased the distinction between what was once considered conventional military-technical or military cooperation and direct involvement in warfare. The core of this revolution is that the information and technological aspects of modern warfare now play a decisive role in shaping the course of combat operations. Superiority in technical intelligence, command and control systems, and information processing can provide a decisive advantage on the battlefield and transform the capabilities of weapons systems that might previously have been considered obsolete. A great power providing its partner with real-time intelligence, space communications infrastructure, and command and control and data processing software, all while requiring continuous technical support, provides the ability to fully control and direct the activities of a junior ally. Before the digital age, the recipient of even the most sophisticated weapons could use them as they saw fit, without anyone knowing, at least as long as they had the capacity to maintain them. Real-time intelligence assistance was nearly impossible: satellite images on analog media, typically only usable at the strategic command level, could be transmitted to an ally. Now, Ukraine’s American backers have the ability to blind the Ukrainian Armed Forces and paralyze the Ukrainian command and control system with a single click: all long-range strikes, including those carried out by drones assembled by Ukraine, are planned jointly, and none are carried out without American approval. Thus, any external power that provides significant assistance to a warring party, connected with the use of modern systems of satellite and electronic intelligence, information processing and control, is a full-fledged participant in the war. Consequently, retaliatory strikes against its troops and territory are fully justified. Technical changes are combined with political ones. The progress of the American model of globalization, which continued until recently, led to the coming to power in a number of countries of real "citizens of the world", claiming to enter the global elite and detached from national interests. Such states, under the leadership of a globalist elite accumulating their capital abroad, are capable of making colossal human and economic sacrifices, significant territorial losses in order to implement political directives imposed on them from outside. The durability of such regimes can be significant due to the powerful propaganda apparatus created with American assistance, as well as the systematic use of mass repressions, extrajudicial killings, torture, etc. sanctioned by the United States. Georgia during the reign of Saakashvili and modern Ukraine are classic examples of modern American proxies following this path. This model of relations is much more dangerous than the American alliances of the Cold War, when junior partners of the United States had almost complete freedom in domestic policy and tried to follow their national egoistic interests. Solutions There is no doubt that Russia has the right to strike American reconnaissance and communication satellites, as well as reconnaissance aircraft and drones involved in providing information support for the activities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The only question is the feasibility of this step in achieving the goals of the Special Military Operation (SMO). The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has previously stated, in particular, that Western satellites involved in supporting military operations could be legitimate targets for a Russian strike. The updated "Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence" extend this logic to the sphere of nuclear deterrence. The "Basic Principles" specifies that aggression against Russia and/or its allies by a non-nuclear state, carried out with the support of a nuclear state, is considered as their joint attack. Other changes concern possible scenarios for the future use of service "kamikaze states" like Ukraine by the enemy against Russia. This is the receipt of reliable information about a massive launch (take-off) of air attack weapons of all types (from drones to missiles) and their crossing the Russian border. The US can quickly give its proxy a huge capability to strike deep into Russia with drones and missiles; even if Russia completely destroys the immediate aggressor with a retaliatory strike, it will suffer heavy losses, and the US will remain the winner. Therefore, the US should be the target of a retaliatory strike on par with the immediate aggressor. Given the widespread proliferation of long-range attack drones around the world, and the US policy of transferring intermediate- and shorter-range cruise missiles to its junior allies, this condition should potentially create a new framework for future local conflicts. Given that the ability of France and the UK to produce long-range weapons without extensive use of US technology is largely lost, any massive long-range strike against sensitive forces inside Russia, delivered with Western weapons and/or big data, should result in a strike against the US. At this point, since American and European long-range strikes on Russia have already been carried out, Russia probably has no choice but to transfer to one or two countries the weapons or technology that will allow them to reliably deliver payloads to North America and Western Europe: the Americans and Europeans must pay. But how widespread such a practice will be in the future is one of the important questions of the post-war world order. In the course of the current conflict, the question of strikes on American targets will probably arise with the further expansion of the practice of American proxy strikes deep into Russian territory. Another change related to the response to threats of possible conflicts in the coming years was the specification of the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons in the event of non-nuclear aggression against Russia. If earlier the condition for the transition to the use of nuclear weapons was defined extremely vaguely as "aggression using conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened", now we are talking about a "critical threat to the sovereignty and/or territorial integrity" of Russia and Belarus. As the experience of the Ukrainian Armed Forces operation in the Kursk region showed, the United States can send its proxies to carry out operations that lead to an advance into Russia by tens of kilometers. In the future, each such operation should be considered as an attack by the United States on Russia. The Problem of Defining Criteria The issue of "proxy states" or "kamikaze states," which can be rapidly rearmed and thrown into battle under external control, will continue to increase. This will be driven by the development of military capabilities (particularly those involving artificial intelligence, autonomous platforms, and weapon systems, etc.) in combination with the refinement of methods for societal control. Russia is not the only one that will have to deal with this problem. In the long term, there will be a difficulty of developing criteria for the level of "support" by a nuclear state for a non-nuclear country, at which the actions of the junior partner become their joint aggression.  Probably, we can talk about finding a combination of political, economic and military-technical conditions, at which the "junior partner" can no longer be considered as a separate participant in international relations. In this case, the responsibility for any significant attacks from it on Russian or Belarusian territory should be borne by the patron state. Such criteria must be logical and transparent, and their development and announcement probably need to be done in advance. Perhaps such a practice will gain some currency in the future unstable world as a way to protect the national territories of great powers from attack, narrowing the potential for the use of "service states".

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском While the IPCC warns that we should reach the emissions peak this year, greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere will grow by 0.8%, according to the annual report from the Global Carbon Project presented this Wednesday at COP29. A cold shower in the middle of the Climate Summit, or rather, a scorching one. The independent organization Global Carbon Project (GCP), specialized in quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, has released its latest research. The 2024 edition of the Global Carbon Budget projects, with just over a month and a half left in the year, total annual emissions from fossil fuels to reach 37.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). This represents a 0.8% increase compared to 2023 — with a possible error range from a 0.3% decrease to a 1.9% increase — marking a new unprecedented record at the worst possible moment. In the crucial year in which, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), humanity should reach its emissions peak if it wants any chance of avoiding a global average temperature rise of 1.5°C, not only has a new historical high been reached, but there is also "no signal" that the world has reached the peak of emissions from fossil industries, warn the team behind the research presented this Wednesday. As Professor Pierre Friedlingstein from the University of Exeter’s Global Systems Institute, who coordinated the study, laments, "we still don’t see any signs that fossil fuel burning has peaked." The figures are actually more concerning, as the emissions from the "changes in land use" —which include deforestation caused by humans and their agroindustry — will add 4.2 billion tons of CO2 (GtCO2). This means that we will emit 41.6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, one billion more than last year, a period that was already a record. More coal, more oil, and more gas amid the acceleration of the climate crisis Despite significant progress in decarbonization, emissions from the three main fossil fuels will increase in 2024. The GCP’s projection is that coal emissions will rise by 0.2%, with coal responsible for 41% of emissions from fossil fuels; oil emissions will increase by 0.9%, with oil burning accounting for 32% of emissions; and gas emissions will grow by 2.4%, contributing 21% of total fossil fuel emissions. On the other hand, emissions from the cement industry, which account for 4% of global emissions, will decrease by 2.8% in 2024, mainly due to a reduction in the EU, although they will increase in China, the United States, and India, according to the research. By economic poles, while the EU — responsible for 7% of global emissions — will reduce its emissions by 3.8% this year, the United States, accounting for 13% of the total annual emissions, will only reduce them by 0.6%. China, the leading polluting power, with 32% of global annual emissions, is projected to increase its emissions by 0.2%, although the projected range suggests it could end the year with a slight decrease. Another emission hub, India, which produces 8% of greenhouse gases, will increase its emissions by 4.6% in 2024. In the rest of the world, where 38% of global emissions are produced, the forecast is an increase of 1.1%. The GCP highlights the growing importance of aviation and maritime transport in the emissions inventory: their emissions are expected to increase by 7.8%, although they remain below their 2019 level. An unprecedented concentration of gases in human history The report, conducted by researchers from over 80 institutions worldwide, including the universities of Exeter and East Anglia (UK), Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich (Germany), and the CICERO Center for International Climate Research (Norway), provides an overview of emissions over the past decade. While they mention a certain stagnation in the past decade regarding the total greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, the reality is that emissions continue to rise, and the previous decade (2004-2013) saw strong emission growth, with an annual increase of around 2%. Such figures mean that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. Just two weeks ago, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) warned of a new record for greenhouse gas concentrations last year: an annual average of 420 parts per million (ppm) for CO2. In addition, surface concentrations of 1,935 parts per billion (ppb) of methane (CH4) and 336.9 ppb of nitrous oxide (N2O) were recorded. These represent increases of 151%, 265%, and 125%, respectively, compared to pre-industrial levels. "During 2023, CO2 emissions caused by massive wildfires and a possible reduction in carbon absorption by forests, combined with persistently high CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for human and industrial activities, drove the observed increase in concentrations," stated the WMO Annual Bulletin on Greenhouse Gases. Never in human history has the atmosphere been so laden with these gases, which have been released at an unprecedented speed: in twenty years, CO2 concentrations have increased by 11.4%. It is expected that atmospheric CO2 levels will reach 422.5 parts per million in 2024, 2.8 ppm higher than in 2023 and 52% above pre-industrial levels. Half-full glass However, at GCP, there is room for hope amid all the discouraging figures. "Despite another increase in global emissions this year, the latest data shows evidence of widespread climate action, with the growing penetration of renewable energy and electric vehicles displacing fossil fuels, and the decrease in deforestation emissions in recent decades, now confirmed for the first time," says Corinne Le Quéré, Research Professor at the Royal Society in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. In the same vein, Dr. Glen Peters from the CICERO Center in Oslo points out that "there are many signs of positive progress at the country level, and a sense that a peak in global fossil CO2 emissions is imminent." A total of 22 countries, accounting for a combined 23% of global fossil CO2 emissions, have reduced their emissions in the 2014-2023 decade. Furthermore, countries within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in the group of wealthier nations, increased their emission reduction rates in the last decade compared to the previous one, from 0.9% to 1.4%. In the non-OECD group (excluding China), emissions growth decreased from 4.9% in the 2004-2013 decade to 1.8% in 2014-2023. However, Peters warns that "the global peak remains elusive" and emphasizes that "climate action is a collective issue, and while gradual emission reductions are occurring in some countries, increases continue in others." Another positive note is that, globally, emissions from the change in land use have decreased by 20% in the last decade, although they are expected to increase in 2024 under this category. While permanent CO2 removal through reforestation and afforestation (new forests) is offsetting emissions, it is only compensating for about half of the emissions from permanent deforestation. The GCP also issues a direct message to proponents of techno-optimism: "Current levels of technology-based carbon dioxide removal (excluding nature-based methods such as reforestation) account for only about one-millionth of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels," they emphasize.This article was translated and licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ES (Atribución-CompartirIgual 3.0 España)

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Among Turkey’s political elite, the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election is inspiring confidence in a reboot of Turkish-American relations and a strengthening of Turkey’s status in international affairs. What are the prospects for an “upturn” in Turkish-American relations? Turkey remains an important NATO member because of its geographical position and its geopolitical ambitions to integrate the countries of the Turkic world. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s policy of strengthening national sovereignty and independence from the United States is, naturally, of considerable concern to Washington. Turkey has traditionally remained a difficult partner for the West (as well as the East) because it has never fully abandoned its imperial mentality, and because Turks continue to hope for the resuscitation of Ottomanism, albeit in a new form. It is the repeated declarations of the doctrine of neo-Ottomanism and Panturanism by Turkish politicians that are causing concern in the US and EU, as well as in Russia, Iran and China. Perhaps the only country with an interest the formation of a new Turanian Union under Turkish leadership is the UK. London’s goal is to promote British geo-economic and geopolitical interests deep into Eurasia to gain access to the rich mineral resources of the post-Soviet Turkic countries and to create a dividing corridor between Russia, on the one hand, and Iran and China on the other. The intensification of Turkey’s mutually beneficial ties with Russia (especially in the area of military-technical cooperation on the S-400 air defense system deal) was the formal reason for Ankara’s withdrawal from the US fifth-generation F-35 fighter program and a contract for the delivery of 40 upgraded F-16 fighters. Immediately following the conclusion of the deal, sanctions were imposed on some Turkish officials, and the process of Turkey’s integration with the EU was once again blocked. Subsequently, the Turkish economy plunged into a protracted financial crisis. Turkey began to develop its trade and economic relations with Russia following the beginning of Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine independently of US sanctions. The trade turnover between the two countries doubled in 2022, adding problems for Turkey’s relations with the US and resulting in threats from US financial institutions. During Joe Biden’s presidency, Erdoğan’s failed to make an official visit to the United States. As part of the 2023 presidential election process, Turkey engaged in pragmatic political horse-trading with the United States over its agreement to Finland and Sweden’s membership of NATO. This political deal laid the ground for a restart in Turkey’s strained relations with the United States, as part of which the US president agreed to a “military deal” on the fate of 40 F-16 fighter jets and the IMF agreed to provide financial support for the Turkish government. Erdoğan has included pro-American specialists, led by Finance and Treasury Minister Mehmet Şimşek, in his new government’s economic department. The victory of Republican candidate Donald Trump in the US presidential election has raised hopes among Turkey’s ruling political elite for a comprehensive restart in Turkish-American relations. In Ankara both politicians and experts have expressed confidence that as a result of Donald Trump’s policy of withdrawing the US from conflicts abroad, firstly, the US will stop supplying arms to Israel and stop the war in Gaza and Lebanon; secondly, that, with Turkish mediation, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict can be frozen; thirdly, that Turkey can once again participate in the F-35 fighter jet production program and address other issues necessary to ensure the strategic security of the state; fourthly, the process of Turkey’s integration can be stepped up, with Turkey continuing to strengthen its key logistical function of connecting the West with the East; fifthly, Turkey can continue its expansion into the vast Turan region (post-Soviet Central Asia) under the auspices of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS). Erdoğan was among the first to congratulate Trump on his election victory and invited him to visit Ankara. In summary, he is counting on a full restoration of Turkish-American relations. Turkey hopes to regain its status as the main mediator in the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, following Donald Trump’s reelection to the White House, reiterated his support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and his hopes for a ceasefire in the near future. The pragmatic Turks are aiming for the participation of their construction companies in the reconstruction of Ukraine. However, the Turkish Foreign Minister failed to specify under what conditions this peace should take place. And how can the territorial integrity of Ukraine be reconciled with the realities on the ground after two and a half years of fighting and successes on the Russian side? In a recent interview with the Turkish newspaper Hürriet, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed bewilderment at the fact of Turkey’s military and technical cooperation with the Kiev regime, because Turkish weapons allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers and civilians. Nevertheless, Sergey Lavrov thanked his Turkish counterparts for their active attempts to achieve peace and a political resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. However, he doubted the success of Turkey’s political mediation, given the obstructive approach of the head of the Kiev regime, Volodymyr Zelensky, who rejects constructive peace proposals from Moscow. What has changed since Turkey has repeatedly and insistently expressed its confidence in initiatives to secure peace between Russia and Ukraine? Obviously, with Donald Trump’s victory, the policy of the main sponsor of the Ukrainian conflict and of the Kiev regime may change. If Donald Trump stops providing financial, military-technical and political support to Kiev and wishes to restore Ukraine’s constitutional norms and change Zelensky’s regime, then it is hard to see how the military conflict can continue. But it should be kept in mind that Erdoğan, as part of his development of trade relations with Russia amid the Ukrainian crisis, has not neglected the supply of dual-use goods to the Russian Federation. In this regard, the Turkish side periodically cites financial and economic threats from the US in connection with the circumvention of US sanctions. In other words, Erdoğan has officially provided military assistance to the Kiev regime, in compliance with the concept of the strategic interoperability of NATO member states, and Russia has, in effect, allowed such tacit assistance as part of an independent and pragmatic policy that allows Turkey to maintain partnership ties with Moscow as well. Will there be an “Istanbul 2”? In reality, Turkey rather tends to support military conflict between brotherly Slavic peoples and states so that both states and their military might are weakened. Ankara demonstrates a diametrically opposed policy towards the ethnically kindred countries and peoples of the Turkic world, and, with the unambiguous support of the UK and the tacit consent of the US and the EU, it has established the Organization of Turkic States, and is establishing a place in the South Caucasus and Central Asian regions, and as a result, is displacing or weakening Russia’s presence in those regions. Since the late 18th century, Turkey has maintained a steady interest in resuscitating its dominance in the Crimean peninsula and the Black Sea basin as a whole. Under these conditions, Turkey expects that a reduction or cessation of US military assistance to Ukraine will reset the Istanbul platform for the resumption of Russian-Ukrainian peace talks. Whether Istanbul-2 will play out in the same way that Istanbul-1, time will tell. However, the status of Crimea and the liberated territories cannot be a subject for bargaining and compromise.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Abstract The BRICS group emerged at the beginning of the current century as one of the important economies in the international system based on the hegemony of Western powers led by the United States of America. With the emergence of this group, political and economic writings have diversified, trying to explain the extent of this group's ability to compete globally facing the Western powers to rise to the top of the hegemony pyramid on the one hand, and the role of this group and its political and strategic influence in confronting economic, political and security challenges on the other hand. With the holding of the sixteenth presidential summit of the group in the Russian city of Kazan during the period 22 - 24 October 2024 under the slogan "Strengthening multilateralism for development, security and fair worlds" and with the participation of the group’s members and a number of other countries and representatives of international and UN organizations, many theories of international relations have tried to provide explanations for the emergence and rise of this group, including the Power Transition Theory. From this perspective, this study comes to investigate the BRICS group by relying on the interpretation of the Power Transition Theory as one of the most important theories of international relations that can contribute to developing interpretations of this group. KeywordsBRICS, International Relations Theories, Power Transition Theory, Kazan Summit Introduction Since the establishment of the BRIC group (Brazil, Russia, India and China) in September 2006, and its first summit meeting in 2009, and with the accession of South Africa in 2011 to become an entity that includes the fastest growing economies in the world, and its name became the "BRICS Group", the group has appeared on the horizon as a diplomatic and financial alliance that is increasingly important for development in many countries, and it has also appeared as an attempt to escape Western control at the economic level. Despite the differences between the BRICS countries in terms of geographical affiliation, economic disparity and their levels of production, and ethnic, religious and linguistic disparity, they have succeeded in finding a formula for agreement among themselves and finding global geostrategic influence. In this context, it is easy to notice the serious and ambitious endeavor of the countries of this group to formulate a new international system within the framework of the important radical changes that the world is witnessing. The countries currently under the group's banner: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, present themselves as an alternative to the existing international financial and political entities. The countries of the group are trying to present themselves as representatives of the countries of the South and as "the alternative model to G7". From this perspective, the BRICS group has received great attention from a wide sector of researchers and scholars in various science fields despite the recent history of this group. Accordingly, this study attempts, by relying on the statements and assumptions of the Power Transition Theory, to determine the nature of this group. Can BRICS achieve success in shaping a new global order? The problem of the study This study believes that understanding of the BRICS group does not only require applied analysis, but also requires theoretical understanding, as theoretical thinking helps to avoid the limitations of purely empirical interpretation of the nature, mechanisms & perspectives of the BRICS countries' development. Accordingly, this study focuses on interpreting the theory of power transition for the rise of the BRICS group, and its position in the international system facing the Western powers led by the United States. How does this theory view this group through its propositions and assumptions, by answering the following questions: Are the BRICS countries just another institution for international cooperation that fits the structure of the existing international system, or is it a radically different way of international relations that could seriously change current global politics? What are the motives of the BRICS countries? Can the BRICS group become an alternative to the hegemony of Western powers that has been formalized in the current system of international institutions and systems? Will this institution provide fundamentally new conditions that may lead to the development of international cooperation in contrast to the power policies pursued by the United States and its allies? Can the BRICS countries be considered as a new mechanism for global governance, or are they nothing more than a temporary/short-lived international governmental arrangement? Accordingly, through the previous questions, this study examines a main question that revolves around how to interpret the Power Transition Theory for the BRICS group. First, Power Transition Theory Despite the many writings that have addressed the future of global hegemony in light of the remarkable rise of the role of the BRICS group, these writings have not paid much attention to placing the issue of the impact of the power transition process on the future of that hegemony within its theoretical framework, which is a framework that may shed useful light on the nature of the challenges imposed on the Great Power as it exercises its hegemony. Here, the study discusses this theory and its ability to explain the rise of the BRICS countries and its potential to bring about changes in the current international system. This is done by addressing the concept of power transition, its indicators, and its application to the BRICS group. (1) The concept of power transition Organski proposed the Power Transition Theory in an attempt to analyze global politics by presenting a hierarchical system of powers or states in light of the proportions of power resources and the possibility of war. Thus, he describes a hierarchical system through which all states are known according to the relative power distribution. The distribution of power varies between units, so at the top comes the group of Dominant Nations in which power is concentrated, and thus they are at the top of the pyramid, and thus they control the largest proportion of resources in it, but they are not considered the dominant power, because they cannot control the behavior of other powerful actors on their own, but they maintain their position as a dominant power by ensuring the preponderance of power in their favor in the face of the potential competing power, as well as their ability to manage global politics according to the rules that help ensure the profit of their allies [1].   This, and in the next tranche of the pyramid of power, come those countries called "Great Powers", which are the major countries that are not as powerful as to dominate global politics, but they have the capabilities that make them a potential competitor to the dominant power. This group of great powers is generally satisfied to remain in its position as long as there is an alliance with it and with the dominant or hegemonic power. However, in many cases, a number of these great power countries are not satisfied to remain in the same tranche following the hegemonic power, and therefore seek and try to make a change in its current international status (Kai, J. (2017)). Accordingly, the concept of a great and not satisfied power - according to Organiski's description - is the group of countries that have grown to their maximum power after the current international system has been completely entrenched, and they have not - therefore - had a share or a portion in establishing this current international system, the benefits of which have already been distributed. In addition, the dominant power and its supporters are generally unwilling to grant newcomer countries more than a small fraction of the advantages they derive from the status quo, and thus these newcomers seek to establish a new position for themselves on the international stage, these countries are noted to be growing rapidly in power and are expected to continue to grow, which gives them reason to believe that they can compete with - and sometimes surpass - the dominant nation in terms of power. Also, one of the characteristics of this category of great powers is that they do not accept the marginalization of the international stage, especially if their pursuit of hegemony and dominance will contribute to granting them greater benefits and privileges [2]. In this, and at the third and lowest stage of the pyramid of international power comes this group of countries called "middle powers", which are considered relatively strong countries in specific geographical regions, but they do not have the ability to challenge the dominant nation or the structure of the international system as a whole. At the base of the pyramid of power comes this group of states called "small powers" and colonies. Accordingly, the concept of "Power Transition" refers to "the loss of a hegemonic country’s leadership position in the international system to another newcomer whose power is rapidly growing." Thus, this newcomer seeks to reach a position of hegemony. In order for a power transition to occur, the rising country must possess power components that are greater than those of the dominant country, or at least equal to them, and thus the rising country must work to narrow the gap between its national capabilities and the capabilities of the hegemonic country. (2) Applying the Power Transition Theory to the BRICS groupThe power transition theory (PTT) is considered the most popular theoretical approach to studying the BRICS group among Western scholars. PTT is based on a number of assumptions, including: that changes in the balance of power in world politics occur systematically, and that disputes and wars are usually the result of the increasing influence of countries competing with the hegemonic powers. In this regard, all countries are divided into two groups: those that support the status quo, and "revisionists", which are the group of emerging countries that are dissatisfied with the status quo. Powerful and influential countries, such as the United States, enjoy the advantages of the existing world order and fall into the status quo category, while countries that are dissatisfied with their status and role in the international relations system are considered revisionists. According to PTT, the latter favor radical changes in the current international order. In this sense, Russia and China are the main candidates for revisionist powers, while PTT supporters view Brazil, India and South Africa as countries with “moderate” revisionist ambitions (mostly regional in nature, although Brazil and India have some global aspirations such as their intention to become permanent members of the UN Security Council). In the following, the study examines the application of traditional and non-traditional indicators of the power transition theory to the BRICS group. A- Indicators of military power transition for Russia and ChinaAs for Russia, it has succeeded in modernizing its military force and doubling its military spending through huge oil revenues, which has placed the Russian army in the second place globally among the 138 most powerful armies in the world after the United States army [3]. Moreover, Russia’s military spending is expected to increase in light of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war, and in March 2021, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute issued a report on arms exports for 2020, in which it confirmed the growth of the American, French and German arms exports against a decline in Russian-Chinese arms exports, but the report expects the arms boom for 2020, especially in the wake of the billions of dollars in military aid provided by Europe to Kiev. The Russian Ukrainian war highlighted the inevitability of increasing military spending, which is directly proportional to the growth of the arms market. As for China, its defense budget has been revealed, especially in light of the escalation of external threats to suppress and contain it, as it will increase by 7.2% during 2023 in order to support and develop its military capabilities, bringing total military spending to $225 billion, according to the draft budget report issued by the annual meeting of the National People's Congress of China, making this increase the fastest in China's history since 2019 in light of the escalation of tensions with the United States of America. B - Indicators of the transition of the economic power of Russia and ChinaThe economic development that Russia witnessed during the Putin era represented a pivotal point for political decision independence, which was clearly evident in the Russian national security strategy, and in Russia's approach in dealing with the challenges it faced on the international stage. Russia's domestic production in 2020 amounted to about $1.67 trillion, ranking second among the world's strongest economies (4), and it also ranks third in oil production with an estimated 12.1% of global production, in addition to being the second largest producer of natural gas with 17%. Despite the economic sanctions imposed by the West on Russia following its war with Ukraine, the Russian economy remains able to bounce back and remains one of the major powers on the international stage. As for the Chinese economy, it recorded higher-than-expected growth in the first quarter of 2023, reaching 4.5% year-on-year, supported by policymakers’ moves to boost growth after lifting strict anti-Covid-19 restrictions in January 2023. Retail sales in the first two months of the year jumped 3.5% compared to 2022, a turnaround from the 1.8% year-on-year decline recorded in January 2023. This consumption will lead the economic recovery at a time when weak global demand is weighing on China’s exports. Infrastructure investment also increased by 9% year-on-year in early 2023, driven by government spending aimed at supporting the economy (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2023). According to PTT, today’s Russia is a typical revisionist country that creates many problems for the United States and its allies. Especially the threats it poses to countries friendly to the United States, such as Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and Sweden. The problem is also exacerbated because of Russia’s cooperation with “rogue countries,” such as Syria, Iran and North Korea. While revisionist powers – Russia and China – are seen as a source of destabilization of the international system and their activities are automatically associated with negative consequences, the behavior of hegemonic or dominant countries (status quo) is considered positive because they perform protective functions within the above system. C- Indicators of power transition for Brazil, India, and South AfricaAs for explaining the “moderate” revisionist policies of Brazil, India, and South Africa as middle powers, it is primarily through their ambitions to play the role of “regional hegemony” in South America, South Asia, and Africa, respectively. However, unlike Brazil and South Africa, which do not have “hot” conflicts with their neighbors and mainly use their soft power arsenal to achieve hegemonic positions in their areas of influence, India faces more serious security challenges, including territorial disputes with China and Pakistan – and sometimes – military confrontation with the latter. It should be noted that the policies of individual BRICS countries are assessed differently. A number of PTT advocates see BRICS as a tool that allows some of its members to secure their status as great powers and balance the West at the regional and global levels. However, another group of PTT adherents see the international position of the BRICS countries differently: while Brazil and China are seen as rising powers, Russia and South Africa are seen as declining powers due to their economic problems. However, in response to the challenges posed by China and Russia, a group of push-and-talk advocates have proposed various types of containment policies, yet not all PTT theorists see the BRICS countries as revisionist powers. Some even see Putin’s policy in Ukraine as a status quo strategy aimed at securing Russia’s influence in the post-Soviet space and counterbalancing NATO’s eastward expansion [5]. These analysts believe that the same (status quo) motivations drive Beijing and Moscow’s behavior at the global level. For example, Beijing and Moscow are quite skeptical about reforming the United Nations, preferring to preserve its structure and powers. As for the rest of the BRICS countries (Brazil, India, South Africa), on the contrary, they express their interest in reforming the UN in the hope that their status in the Security Council in particular and in the UN system in general will be raised. The advocates group of BRICS countries’ behaviour of PTT theorists who interpret the status quo believe that many of the problems with the BRICS countries stem from the fact that they have not been equally integrated into the international security system that emerged in the post-Cold War era. That is, Western countries led by the United States and Europe have crossed some of the “red lines” set by Russia in the post-Soviet space. For example, the armed conflict in Georgia in August 2008 was a clear manifestation of this Western policy 1. The Russian-Ukrainian war, which began in 2014 with a crisis and is still ongoing, is another example. When the Kiev authorities that came to power after the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime publicly declared their intention to join the European Union and NATO, Moscow reintegrated Crimea into Russia and supported pro-Russian rebels in Donbass (southeastern part of Ukraine). From the point of view of this group, Russia's policy is determined not only by its geopolitical interests but also by its geographic & economic interests, in particular, there is a constant competition between two integration projects - Russian and EU - in the post-Soviet space: the Eurasian Economic Union led by Moscow and the Eastern Partnership program led by the EU [6]. Supporters of this point of view believe that it is better to cooperate than to confront Russia. The same approach has been proposed in relation to other BRICS countries including, for example, the Chinese "Belt and Road" initiative or the "New Silk Road" initiative.  D- Soft power in BRICS countries’ policies as an unconventional indicator in the concept of power transitionWithin the framework of the principles and assumptions of the liberal perspective that help understand international relations, dating back to John Stuart Mill, Giuseppe Mazzini, Woodrow Wilson and John Maynard Keynes, as well as to the perceptions of Immanuel Kant in the 18th century, neoliberal IR theorists believe that the BRICS group can be better explained through the concept of soft power, and they emphasize that in contrast to the Cold War era, when many countries preferred to rely on hard (military) power, soft power tools have become more effective nowadays. Neoliberals note that the soft power strategy is attractive to the BRICS countries for a number of reasons: First, it can help them overcome their negative image in the international stage, an image that resulted from their systematic involvement in a series of international conflicts (Russia versus Georgia and Ukraine; China versus its neighbors in the South China Sea; India versus Pakistan, South Africa versus Angola and Namibia). Second, the soft power arsenal can also be useful in diversifying the BRICS countries’ methods of geopolitical and geoeconomic expansion and making these methods more effective. It is worth noting some specific details in the BRICS countries’ interpretation of the concept of soft power. First, the BRICS countries interpret soft power differently from its initial meaning given by Joseph Nye, who defined soft power as the power of attraction. In fact, however, the soft power policies of the BRICS countries (especially Russia and China) are often dominated by pragmatic interests rather than being attractive to other countries. For this reason, these soft power strategies do not always consider the preferences of international partners. In Nye’s view, this is often unacceptable to the BRICS partners and may provoke a hostile reaction to their soft power initiatives [7]. Moreover, several studies have found that the BRICS countries’ reading of the concept of soft power is much broader than Nye’s. While Nye believes that a country’s soft power depends primarily on three resources: its culture, its political values, and its foreign policies that should be attractive to foreign partners, BRICS theorists believe in the need to include the problem of soft power in everything that cannot be attributed to the security (military) agenda. That is, for BRICS countries, the concept of soft power is synonymous with the concept of soft (non-military) security, which includes not only diplomatic, social, and cultural components - according to Nye - but also other elements, such as economic and/or financial power. In contrast, this belief is unacceptable to Nye, who believed that economic and financial tools can be tools of coercion and push rather than attraction. Moreover, for BRICS theorists, soft power is a comprehensive concept that covers other closely related concepts: public diplomacy, peoples’ diplomacy, the humanitarian dimension of politics, and NGO diplomacy. Among the soft power tools, economic and financial tools, cultural cooperation, ethnic diaspora, educational and religious institutions are the preferred methods of the BRICS countries. In this context, the BRICS countries have created special bodies to implement soft power: the Chinese Confucius Institutes, the Russian Rossotrudnichestvo (agency for cooperation with citizens abroad), the “Russian World”, the Gorchakov and Andrei Pervozvani foundations, among others. It is worth noting here that in the BRICS countries, the governments of the countries play a major role in controlling and directing soft power policy, which makes it less flexible and effective.  In general, it can be said that the BRICS countries use soft power in their own way, trying to avoid imitating the Western experience and going beyond Nye’s interpretation - which can be described as narrow - of the concept of soft power. Policymakers and experts/academia in these countries have not yet developed a clear terminology regarding soft power and this negatively affects both the theoretical understanding of this political tool and its effectiveness. At the same time, the BRICS countries have enormous soft power potential that can enhance their international positions if used properly. This is what the BRICS countries have demonstrated in the successful use of their soft power arsenal through: China’s economic, financial and cultural expansion in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. Beijing’s “Belt and Road” initiative; the rather successful Russian integration projects in the post-Soviet space (the Eurasian Economic Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organization). From the perspective of what was mentioned before, it can be argued that, although there are several advantages put forward by the power transition theory, it has many shortcomings. This theory was most applicable in the Cold War period, when two superpowers were interested in preserving the status quo due to the risk of mutual destruction in the event of a nuclear war. The current system of international relations, including its structure, is still in its formative stage, and in this context, the PTT can explain little about the behavior of the BRICS countries. Moreover, the PTT does not take into account the existence of a third type of countries - reformers who do not fully agree with the current system of international relations but prefer not to radically change the “rules of the game”. Instead, they try to adapt these rules to the dynamic changes in the world system in order to make them more fair and comfortable for all members of the international community. Often, these countries do not act as revisionists but it prefers the status quo by demanding that the "rules of the game" and international legal standards be observed. For example, the BRICS countries strongly oppose any attempts to revise the UN Charter regarding the use of military force and the principles of inviolability of state sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states (in contrast to the Western doctrine of “humanitarian intervention”). It is clear from the above that if PTT supporters want this theory to better fit current realities and retain its explanatory power, they need to revise the classification of states they use and supplement it with a new (“reformist”) type of authority. Second: The Kazan Summit and its dynamics and interactionsDuring the period 22-24 October 2024, the Russian city of Kazan hosted the sixteen Presidential Summit under the slogan "Strengthening Multilateralism for Fair Global Development and Security", with the participation of members of the bloc and several other countries and representatives of international and UN organizations. This summit witnessed several dynamics and events, which can be summarized in the following elements: 1. Continuing requests to join the group: The group represented about 36.7% of the global economy in 2024, which is more than the share of the G7 countries, which amounted to 30% in 2023. In this context, many countries expressed their desire to join, most notably Turkey, which submitted an official request to join in September 2024, while countries such as Azerbaijan and Belarus also applied to join the group.  2. Wide participation by heads of state: 38 countries participated in the BRICS summit held in the Russian city of Kazan, and most of the participation was at the level of leaders and heads of state; The participations came mainly from the heads of the bloc’s member states, namely His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the United Arab Emirates, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, and Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira, in addition to the participation of the Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres, and the participation of some the head of the heads of states that showed interest in the bloc, including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and, Vietnamese Minister Pham Minh Chinh. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated with a high-level delegation headed by Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, as an invited country to join the group, and not as a full member as is the case for countries that have recently joined at the beginning of 2024. 3. Focus on international issues: The main focus of that summit's agenda was focused on the governance of the global system and its institutions, especially financial institutions that have begun to harm developing countries and tend to achieve the interests of Western powers alone; and the severe damage caused by Western sanctions to the economy and their conflict with the values of globalization, in addition to addressing raging international and regional issues such as the war in Ukraine and the Middle East. Views were also exchanged on cooperation between the BRICS countries on the international stage, including with regard to resolving ongoing regional conflicts. The agenda included discussing the conclusions of the previous summit in Johannesburg, especially deepening financial cooperation within the group, and discussing expanding the scope of the group and including new members in light of more than 30 countries expressing the desire to join. 4. Holding several meetings on the sidelines of the summit: Several meetings were held on the sidelines of the summit between the participants, perhaps the most prominent of which was a direct meeting between the Chinese president and his Indian counterpart for the first time. This came shortly after the two countries reached an agreement on conducting patrols on the disputed border in the Himalayas, after four years of military confrontation that led to an escalation of tensions between the two countries. As the host president, Putin also held bilateral meetings with all participating member states, as well as heads of invited states such as: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Lao President Thongloun Sisoulith, Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Cheikh El Ghazouani, and Bolivian President Luis Arce. 5. Moscow presented cooperative proposals: These included the creation of an online information exchange mechanism to resolve disputes related to e-commerce; with the aim of creating a proactive framework before litigation; an initiative to establish a BRICS Investment Arbitration Center; and the development of an agreement to settle investment disputes, it also proposed the establishment of a BRICS grain exchange, which would help discover fair and predictable prices for products and raw materials; to ensure food security and protect national markets from harmful external interference, speculation, and attempts to create artificial food shortages. That summit concluded with several outcomes and results, and the Kazan Declaration was formulated as the final statement of the summit. The most prominent of these outcomes were: 1. Financial and monetary cooperation: by moving forward towards establishing an independent infrastructure to regulate the settlement of cross-border payments and financial transactions (BRICS Clear), with the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism (ICM) focusing on facilitating and expanding innovative financial practices and methods for projects and programs, including finding acceptable mechanisms for financing in local currencies. With the study of establishing a unified transportation platform to ensure multi-modal logistics services between the countries of the association, and welcoming the establishment of a new investment platform that uses the infrastructure of the New Development Bank. 2. Reforming the governance of the global system: by endorsing the call launched by the G20 during Brazil’s presidency of the group regarding reforming global governance, while endorsing dialogues and partnerships that enhance cooperation with the African continent, such as the China-Africa Cooperation Forum Summit, the India-Africa Forum Summit, and the Russia-Africa Summit, while working to build on the outcomes of the second Johannesburg Declaration of 2023, and supporting the call for comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including its Security Council; with the aim of making it more democratic, representative, effective and efficient, and increasing the representation of developing countries in the membership of the Council so that it can respond appropriately to prevailing global challenges, and support the legitimate aspirations of emerging and developing countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America.  3. Stance regarding Palestinian events: The bloc stressed the urgent importance of launching a comprehensive political process to address the entire Middle East problem, stop the violence, provide vital assistance to those affected, and work to establish a two-state solution and correct the historical injustice that the Palestinian people suffered from, and which is the only guarantee for establishing peace in the Middle East, while supporting Palestine's accession to the bloc as a member state.  4. Strengthening nuclear security: The bloc countries call for strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and for the Middle East region to be free of nuclear weapons, while stressing the need for all parties to renew the Iranian nuclear agreement. Support for the initiative to establish a center for research and vaccines development was also announced, as well as continuing to develop the integrated early warning system for the BRICS group to prevent the risks of diseases and epidemics. 5. Regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war: The bloc members stressed the importance of resorting to a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian crisis and resorting to dialogue. The summit, its dynamics and its outcomes carry many implications and may have some repercussions, which can be explained as follows: 1. Russian flexibility and vitality: The success of Russian diplomacy and the Kremlin in hosting this summit at this time and mobilizing broad international participation, including the Secretary-General of the United Nations, represents a challenge to Western efforts to represent Putin as an isolated leader under Western sanctions and threatened with arrest, under the ruling of the International Criminal Court; as Russia has proven the flexibility and vitality of its regional and international partnerships as a system that enjoys international acceptance and trust. 2. The balance of Turkish foreign policy: Perhaps Turkish participation has provoked many reactions; given that it has the largest army in the ranks of NATO, which is hostile to Russia, this comes as an extension of its balanced approach in its foreign policy in order to diversify alliances while maintaining relations with the West, and it also reflects Turkish discontent with European policy regarding Ankara's membership in the European Union, and Turkey's joining the BRICS group would achieve strategic gains for the group; this will give it a balanced character instead of viewing the group as anti-Western, and this will achieve gains for Turkey, which will benefit from the flexibility of its relationship with both the East and the West. 3. Establishing a unified currency: The symbolism that Putin used during the summit regarding a unified currency for the bloc was not accepted by some of the bloc’s members themselves, who fear identifying with the Russian-Chinese orientation at the expense of their interests and their relationship with the West, most notably India and Brazil. There is a degree of exaggeration in imagining the possibility of eliminating the dollar’s position in the global system and moving towards removing it from the global economy. 4. Resolving the balance of power: We cannot ignore what is reflected in the interest of the countries of the South in participating in the activities of the BRICS summit, as well as the emerging international powers, and what it represents in terms of a trend among those countries to express their desire to change the balance of power in the global system based on Western hegemony, and to express dissatisfaction with the prevailing system, which reflects the interest in the efforts of China and Russia to direct the international community against the Western system due to its double standards, especially after the fragility of the international community organizations entrusted with implementing the rules of international law regarding the war in the Middle East became clear, in addition to their exposure of the flaws in the rules of international trade, and the frameworks of economic sanctions that harm the economies of the countries of the South in favor of the West.  In estimation, the importance of the development represented by the BRICS group and what it reflects in terms of a rapid transformation in the global system cannot be overlooked, within the framework of what it includes in terms of economy, markets, natural and industrial resources, and a huge human mass, but exaggerating the impact of the group's movements deviates from reality, especially considering that the group carries within it many contradictions that prevent the group from moving effectively, and in light of the divergence of the interests and goals of its members themselves, which can be inferred from the nature of the outcomes of the presidential summit, which are limited to announcements and visions regarding general cooperative projects without the existence of timetables and realistic implementation plans for many of them; the effectiveness of the group remains questionable. Third: Economic cooperation between the BRICS countriesData indicate that the ratio of the BRICS countries' GDP to the global GDP is witnessing a continuous increase during the period (2000-2023) to the point that it surpassed the G7 countries for the first time in 2020, as the BRICS share reached 31.02% for the G7 countries.   It is notable that the GDP rate of BRICS countries has witnessed declines during the mentioned period (2000-2024), and this decline can be explained by a number of reasons, including: the global financial crisis of 2009, the economic conditions experienced by a number of BRICS countries such as: Brazil 2015, represented by a high budget deficit and high inflation rates, Russia 2014, the decline in South Africa's GDP due to the collapse of raw material prices, and the decline in the GDP growth rate of the group's countries due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and the global economy. As for the trade exchange volume, it witnessed a growth of 95.2% during the period from 2010-2022, recording about $10.52 trillion in 2022 compared to $5.39 trillion in 2010 [9]. On the side of foreign direct investment flows, according to UNCTAD data, we find that foreign direct investment flows to the BRICS group more than quadrupled during the period from 2001 to 2021, recording about $355 billion in 2021 compared to about $84 billion in 2001. In addition, the share of these flows in total global flows reached about 22% in 2021, compared to about 11% in 2001 [10]. UNCTAD data also indicate an increase in foreign direct investment among the group’s countries to reach about $167 billion in 2020, compared to about $27 billion in 2010, and China played a pivotal role in this increase by being the largest investor and recipient of investments within the BRICS group. On the other hand, Brazil and India witnessed strong growth among the group’s countries, while Russian growth declined and South Africa's foreign direct investment balance declined [11]. ConclusionThere are many theories of international relations that have tried to explain the emergence and development of the BRICS group, one of these theories is the power transition theory. The power transition theory has several analytical advantages that explain the rise of the BRICS group, but one of its biggest shortcomings is its greater applicability to the conditions of the Cold War era, where the status quo was maintained and there was fear of a nuclear war. However, the current international system is completely different, as it is in a new birth phase that hinders the power transition theory in explaining the behavior of the BRICS countries. This necessitates the interest of researchers and academics in several theories of international relations that explain the BRICS group, such as the peaceful coexistence theory, the state theory, and the global regionalism theory. In addition, supporters of the power transition theory should review the classification of countries they use to classify countries, and they should establish another type, which is reformist countries, as stated in the study. The concept of soft power as defined by Joseph Nye is completely different from that used by the BRICS group, as the group adheres to a pragmatic and practical approach to using soft power directed at promoting and protecting national interests rather than considering the preferences of international partners. The BRICS member states apply different methods in their pursuit of status - from mobility and competition strategies - to different types of policies. The BRICS group is one of the most important global economic groups that is characterized by a large number of advantages that qualify it to play a vital role in bringing about changes in the global economy due to the diversity of its member economies: Among these advantages are: - The growing economic weight of the group as a result of its association with the economies of emerging countries, which contributes to improving its ranking within the economies of the G20 countries. - The vital role played by the group in global food security through the occupation of Russia, Brazil, and India as the largest producers and exporters of wheat, soybeans, and rice - respectively - - It has adopted several important initiatives to promote and encourage investment within the group, especially with the increasing concern about the conditions of the global economy and the challenges associated with tensions on the international stage. - The BRICS countries are interested in establishing alternative development financial mechanisms to those of the West, such as: the New Development Bank (NDB), and the establishment of a Contingency Reserve Fund (CRA). - Establishing the BRICS Economic Partnership Strategy 2025, which defines the path for the group’s development and sets the framework for cooperation between its members in accordance with current economic trends and conditions. References 1. تعتبر الحرب الروسية الجورجية التي اندلعت في أغسطس 2008 أحد الأدلة على بدء سعي روسيا للسيطرة واستعادة نفوذها السابق سواء إقليميا أو عالمياً، حيث أن تلك الحرب مثلت لموسكو فرصة كبيرة لتحقيق نصالحها عبر استعادة نفوذها في جورجيا من جهة، وإيصال رسالة للغرب وللدول السوفيتية السابقة التي تحاول الخروج من دائرة النفوذ السوفيتي بأنها قادرة على حماية مصالحها ونفوذها ولا يمكن الاستهانة بقوتها وقدرتها العسكرية والتعامل معها كدولة كبرى لها دور فاعل ومؤثر.لمزيد من التفاصيل حول الحرب الروسية- الجورجية 2008، أنظر: عودة،جهاد (2017)، الحرب الروسية- الجورجية: استعادة النفوذ الروسي في جورجيا، المجلة العلمية للبحوث والدراسات التجارية، المجلد ،31 العدد .1  [1] Organski, A. F. K., and Jacek Kugler. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. [2] A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler. The War Ledger. Pp. xii, 292. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1980 [3] Stockholm international Peace2020 ، [4] Statistical Review of World Energy, 2020 [5] Samuel Charap & Keith Darden, Russia and Ukraine, Global Politics and Strategy, Volume 56, 2014, Issue 2. [6] Patricia Hill Collins, Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas, Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 41, 2015. [7] Joseph S.Nye, JR, The Limits of Chinese Soft Power, The World’s Opinion Page, Jul 10, 2015. [8] http://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-world-gdp-g7-brics/#:~:text=By%202023%2C%20the%20difference%20had,held%20by%20the%20G7%20countries[9] World Development Indicators Database. [10] UNCTAD. 2023. BRICS Investment Report [11] UNCTAD. 2023. BRICS Investment Report

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском During a whirlwind few hours in South Korean politics, President Yoon Suk Yeol placed the country under martial law on Dec. 3, 2024, only to lift it just a short while later. It marked the first time that a South Korean leader has imposed the emergency power since 1979. And although short-lived, the measure provoked concerns of the country backsliding into authoritarian rule. To explain what happened and what it means for South Korean democracy, The Conversation U.S. turned to Myunghee Lee, an expert on authoritarianism, democracy and South Korean politics at Michigan State University. How did all this unfold? It was a crazy few hours, and I’m still trying to get my head around it – and a lot is still unknown as to why President Yoon did this. But at around 9:30 p.m. Korean time on Dec. 3, rumors started circulating among journalists that Yoon was planning an emergency press conference. And then at 10:20-ish, Yoon gave a short speech in which he blamed certain pro-North Korean and anti-state forces in South Korea of trying to destabilize the country. In effect, he was pointing the finger at opposition parties who have been blocking his policies and trying to impeach some of his appointees. He declared the situation unacceptable and said there was no way for him to continue to smoothly run the county, and as such he was declaring emergency martial law to save the nation from pro-North Korean and anti-state forces. The minister of defense then held a meeting with major military personnel, set up a martial law headquarters, and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Park An-su was appointed as martial law commander. A martial law proclamation was then issued stating that all political activities were now banned – including the work of the South Korean parliament. This all took place within around one hour of Yoon’s declaration. Despite the proclamation, legislators headed to the National Assembly, where some were blocked from entering. But many did get in, and, at around 1 a.m. local time, legislators voted against the martial law – in effect forcing Yoon to repeal his declaration. He did this but not for another three and a half hours, during which the situation was very tense. He relented at around 4.30 a.m., held another press conference and announced that he was lifting the emergency measure. Why did he declare martial law now? That’s what many people – myself included – are trying to work out. This shocked a lot of people, and it appears many were taken unawares. Obviously some people were in the know, such as the defense minister and army general appointed martial law commander. But it appears even some in his own party were unaware that Yoon was planning to do this. For sure, some opposition politicians have been warning about something like this happening since September. And Yoon has become increasingly frustrated by both divisions in his own party and moves by the opposition in the National Assembly to block key parts of his agenda. Also Yoon is facing numerous influence-peddling scandals involving both himself and his wife. This wasn’t a declaration made from a position of strength then? Hardly. Yoon is in an incredibly weak position: His approval rating has been hovering around the 20% mark. He presides over a divided party, a gridlocked parliament and a population in which he has become very unpopular. So was this an act of desperation? I don’t think so, no. The suggestion that Yoon took this step before the opposition could impeach him? That doesn’t make sense to me. He was already facing calls for impeachment – but I’m not sure that before this episode there was appetite in the country for a second impeachment, following the 2016 impeachment of President Park Geun-hye over a corruption scandal. So on that front, despite the scandals and the political issues he faced, I don’t think this can be characterized as an act of desperation. Especially as those calls for impeachment and removal from power have only been intensified by his actions. I think Yoon declared martial law out of anger – he was angry, and resentful at the opposition blocking him repeatedly. But then again, I can’t read his mind. For many, it is regarded as a foolish move – he was in such a weak position politically, it would have seemed unlikely that this tactic would succeed. But he and some of the plotters must have calculated politically that this tactic would give them a chance to gain support from his core base. The real puzzle is what drove him to make that political calculation. Is Yoon known to be an authoritarian figure? People certainly have aired concern over his autocratic tendencies. Even before this martial law incident, some of his decisions have prompted concerns. He has ignored legal procedures and tried to circumvent the National Assembly. He has certainly shown an illiberal streak at home, attacking the media as “fake news” while smearing opponents as communists and North Korean sympathizers. But that’s not always the way he is perceived in the West. Since the Russian invasion, there have been attempts by foreign policy types to divide the world into two blocs – a liberal one and an illiberal one. Yoon, as a key ally to the U.S., is framed in Washington as a defender of democracy. At home, however, it’s a different story. With the declaration of martial law, his authoritarian tendencies have been amped up for the world to see, and it’s difficult to imagine that won’t be part of his legacy. But even before this decision, he was known for being authoritarian. How does that legacy fit into the political history of South Korea? South Korea has a long history with martial law and autocratic, even military, rule. This latest declaration of martial law is by some counts the 17th instance in Korean history. The last time it was declared was in 1979 following the assassination of Park Chung-hee, a dictator who ruled South Korea during the 1960s and 1970s. That period of martial law lasted until 1981, during which Chun Doo-hwan, another dictator, came to power through a coup and perpetrated a massacre in Gwangju. Martial law hasn’t been declared since the 1980s, but certainly many older Korean people can still remember that occasion, when troops brutally cracked down on protesters. But since becoming a democracy in 1987, there hadn’t been a declaration of martial law until now. Interestingly, in a straw poll of my family, age factored into the response to Yoon’s move. Older family members very much feared the declaration of martial law. For younger family members and friends, it was met not as a joke, but certainly as a foolish move that wouldn’t actually result in a prolonged period of martial law. What happens next? My guess would be President Yoon’s days are numbered – and that this episode will hasten his political demise. Before the events of Dec. 3, there were still many people in the parliament and the public at large resistant to the idea of another impeachment following the last one in 2016. But there appears to be a groundswell of opinion in the parliament that the president should be removed, and it is echoed by the public.