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 "Strategic autonomy" remains France's goalThe outcome of the US election has far-reaching political and economic implications for France, forcing the country, which is itself experiencing a serious political crisis, to define its own role in the world and in Europe. This was already clear in the run-up to the elections and was also commented on in initial reactions to the outcome. In the areas of trade and climate protection, but especially in the areas of security and defense, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States is an incentive for France to strengthen its own and European independence in order to protect French and European interests. The call for European partners to develop a foreign and security policy that strengthens Europe and reduces dependence on America without calling transatlantic cooperation into question remains the declared goal. Cooperation with Germany in particular is of crucial importance here.Security and defense policy: Europe is keyFrench President Emmanuel Macron has already worked with President Trump from 2017 to 2021. For him, another encounter with a President Donald Trump will therefore be nothing new. In France, at any rate, it seemed that internal preparations had also been made for the possibility of a second Trump administration. French representatives, in particular President Macron, had campaigned for strengthening European defense and making it more independent of the USA, especially when it came to NATO and defense. At national level, France has set up a special task force within the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs to deal with the various scenarios that a second Trump administration could bring. This task force is headed by Tristan Aureau, former Head of Cabinet of the Secretary of State for Europe and current Minister for Foreign and European Affairs Jean-Noël Barrot. With the actual election of Trump, however, there are still major challenges ahead for France and Europe that can only be tackled with a united European stance.The war in UkraineThere is also great concern in France that President Trump could freeze the war in Ukraine without involving the European partners by negotiating a ceasefire. A Trump-style freeze would mean abandoning the Ukrainian partner and that Ukraine would have to cede the territories conquered by Russia. This contradicts the French understanding that the war in Ukraine is a European issue that must first and foremost be resolved by the Europeans, certainly in consultation with the USA.Middle East conflictWhile Donald Trump has repeatedly reiterated his unreserved support for Israel, he has just as often made it clear that he wants to end the war as quickly as possible. The fact is that Trump is popular with Netanyahu's government, partly due to his actions during his first term in office (moving the US embassy to Jerusalem or recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights). What exactly can be expected of him now is not known. In any case, France has repeatedly called for a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon in recent weeks and emphasised this once again on the day of the US election.[i] Unlike the Trump-Netanyahu relationship, the relationship between Netanyahu and Macron has also suffered in recent weeks from the statements on the founding of the state of Israel, which have also caused irritation in France.[ii] It now remains to be seen to what extent the relationship between France and the US will develop on this issue as wellNATOAs far as NATO and the American security guarantees for Europe are concerned, France has traditionally emphasized the importance of NATO and advocated close cooperation with the USA. At the same time, however, France has been advocating for years - essentially what Trump is also calling for - that Europe should be the key to its own security and defense. As the EU's only remaining nuclear power with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, France aspires to influence world events, but also knows that this claim to leadership can only realistically be implemented with European partners in European security and defense policy.[iii] Macron made this clear in his second Europe speech at the Sorbonne in spring 2024, among other things, when he explained that they were aware that the US was focusing on itself and on China, and that Europe was not a geopolitical priority - regardless of which administration was in place in Washington. [iv] Even under an American Democratic government, Europe could no longer have assumed that there would be no partial US troop withdrawal. France's former ambassador to NATO, Muriel Domenach, also made it clear in an interview with the Grand Continent shortly before the US elections that it was not serious "[...] for Europe, with its wealth, heritage and responsibility, to resign itself to making its security entirely dependent on American decisions".[v] Trade policy: the fear of new import tariffsIn terms of trade policy, France is concerned about the effects of very likely protectionism under a second Trump administration, which could affect the French agricultural and aviation sectors in particular. Trump's announcements of import tariffs of 20% on all foreign products and also the prospect that Trump could impose import tariffs of 25% on wines and spirits from France, as he did in 2020, are causing great unease in France.However, a closer look reveals that trade policy under Joe Biden was also rather protectionist. One example of this from a French perspective is the Inflation Reduction Act, which was fundamentally oriented against China, but also had enormous consequences for Europe and France. During his state visit to Washington in December 2022, Emmanuel Macron had already taken a critical view of this plan and condemned it as "super aggressive".[vi]French reactions after the electionWhile Emmanuel Macron and the people involved in the government were quick to congratulate Trump and call for cooperation with the new American president, the right-wing and left-wing camps had different reactions.President and government: respect, willingness and cooperationThese words best summarize the reactions of politicians in government positions. President Emmanuel Macron congratulated Donald Trump via X on his election as US President even before the official announcement of the election results. Macron made it clear that he was prepared to work together, respecting their respective convictions and working together for peace and prosperity.[vii]Benjamin Haddad, Secretary of State for Europe, reacted in the same way, saying that we must find common ground and work together, while the answer to the challenges that the future brings lies "with ourselves". Thus, "Europeans [...] cannot accept that their security is decided without them, that tomorrow a capitulation is imposed on the Ukrainians, without the Ukrainians, without the Europeans."[viii]The reactions from the right: safe distance, warm congratulationsPrior to the elections, the French right had moderated its statements on Trump and muzzled its leaders in particular - with the exception of party leader Jordan Bardella - from commenting on Trump for party political reasons. The danger was considered too great that the political model proclaimed and exemplified by Donald Trump would stand in contrast to the institutionalization and de-demonization of the Rassemblement National. The deputy leader of the RN parliamentary group in the National Assembly, Jean-Philippe Tanguy, declared that Donald Trump was too negative for the party and embodied "excited populism". Nevertheless, Bardella had already indicated before the elections that he felt close to the ideas of President-elect Trump by expressing his admiration for American patriotism.[ix] After hesitant statements, however, it then became clear that the Rassemblement National supports Donald Trump. Bardella explained that France now had the task of taking its fate into its own hands and that a European defense had to be built.[x] Marine Le Pen, soberly agreed with this tone and called for this new political era to contribute to an improvement in bilateral relations and lead to constructive cooperation at international level.[xi]Eric Ciotti, who had only split from Les Républicains in the parliamentary elections, moved closer to the Rassemblement National and founded the new right-wing party A Droite, was very euphoric and described Trump's victory as a "wonderful victory of the American people against a system. A hope for peace, a defeat for the wokists. A way forward for the right in France and Europe. All the way to victory."[xii]Perplexity and cataclysm in the left-wing campThe goodwill and the euphoria prevailing in some quarters on the right contrasts with the reactions on the left in France. Social Democrat Raphael Glucksmann, Member of the European Parliament, described Donald Trump's election as a "global catastrophe" and a "nightmare for democracy, human rights and Europe".[xiii] The leader of the French Greens, part of the left-wing New Popular Front in the National Assembly, Marine Tondelier, expressed courage to the American citizens in the face of the "spreading hell".[xiv] Jean-Luc Mélénchon, founder of the left-wing populist party La France Insoumise, said that Trump's election was a consequence of a non-existent left-wing alternative in the US elections.[xv]Appeal to European and Franco-German cooperationHowever, the initial reactions were followed by Emmanuel Macron's direct appeal to Germany and Europe to come together and tackle the challenges of the future."I have just had an exchange with Chancellor @OlafScholz. We will work for a more united, stronger and sovereign Europe in this new context. By working together with the United States of America and defending our interests and values."[xvi]For Macron, a return to Franco-German cooperation is essential for a united, sovereign and independent Europe. This is also in line with the line taken by Friedrich Merz, who on election day in the USA, in a widely read guest article in the French daily newspaper Le Monde, lamented the European Union's constant hesitation in helping Ukraine and accused it of not sufficiently distancing itself from the Americans.[xvii] As early as November 7, the European summit hosted by Viktor Orbán in Hungary - a fervent supporter of Trump - will be about demonstrating this European unity.But Germany and France in particular must now show, regardless of the fact that both countries are in crisis mode, that they are once again moving closer together in this sense.References[i] https://www.leparisien.fr/international/israel/guerre-au-proche-orient-jean-noel-barrot-sera-en-israel-et-dans-les-territoires-palestiniens-ce-mercredi-05-11-2024-BAYPPARFV5DPBJ2HN5GLA7SXHE.php (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[ii]https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/10/16/les-tensions-entre-emmanuel-macron-et-benyamin-netanyahou-montent-d-un-cran-apres-les-propos-du-president-francais-sur-la-creation-d-israel-par-l-onu_6353358_3210.html (Aufruf 5. November 2024).[iii]https://dgap.org/system/files/article_pdfs/22-DGAP-MEMO-US2024_Jacob_DE.pdf (Aufruf: 5. November 2024).[iv]https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2024/04/24/discours-sur-leurope (Aufruf: 5. November 2024).[v]https://legrandcontinent.eu/fr/2024/10/30/vu-de-washington-le-maintien-de-100-000-personnels-en-europe-ne-va-pas-de-soi-une-conversation-avec-muriel-domenach-ancienne-ambassadrice-a-lotan/ (Aufruf: 5. November 2024).[vi]https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/12/01/emmanuel-macron-blasts-joe-biden-subsidies-in-state-visit_6006235_4.html (Aufruf: 4. November 2024).[vii]https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1854073283420754221 (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[viii]https://www.europe1.fr/international/presidentielle-americaine-leurope-doit-prendre-son-destin-en-main-reagit-la-porte-parole-du-gouvernement-francais-4277243 (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[ix]https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/11/02/donald-trump-l-encombrant-modele-du-rassemblement-national_6372584_3210.html (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[x]https://x.com/J_Bardella/status/1854084071858876485 (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[xi]https://x.com/MLP_officiel/status/1854083504700600705 (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[xii]https://x.com/eciotti/status/1854060752946245644 (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[xiii]https://www.instagram.com/p/DCBWcJBsUgp/?img_index=1 (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[xiv]https://www.europe1.fr/international/presidentielle-americaine-leurope-doit-prendre-son-destin-en-main-reagit-la-porte-parole-du-gouvernement-francais-4277243 (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[xv]https://www.leparisien.fr/international/etats-unis/enfer-qui-se-profile-espoir-pour-la-paix-de-lfi-au-rn-les-reactions-des-politiques-francais-a-lelection-de-trump-06-11-2024-FP4V4HGZUZGOFGAQEOVGMST5F4.php (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[xvi]Emmanuel Macron, https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1854075136468521077 (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).[xvii]https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2024/11/05/friedrich-merz-president-de-la-cdu-la-politique-etrangere-et-de-securite-europeenne-est-dans-un-etat-de-desolation_6377309_3232.html (Aufruf: 6. November 2024).

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The world economy is underperforming as a result of tight monetary policies, weaker global trade, a slowing Chinese economy and uncertainty around the US election. An escalation of conflict in the Middle East could increase uncertainties, harming inflation reduction efforts and hurting growth. It has been over a year since the Hamas-led attack on Israel. Israel’s response in Gaza has resulted in widespread destruction and significant loss of life. The conflict has since expanded beyond Gaza, involving the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iranian strikes targeting Israel. In addition to the awful humanitarian cost of the conflicts, the war and the possibility of its further expansion pose significant repercussions for the global economy. This article discusses three potential ways in which the current conflict and a wider conflict in the Middle East could affect the global economy. Increased geopolitical uncertainties First and foremost, an escalation of the Middle East conflict could lead to greater geopolitical uncertainties. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the geopolitical risk (GPR) and geopolitical acts (GPRA) indices (Caldara and Iacoviello, 2022) – these are text-based measures of heightened uncertainties due to adverse geopolitical events such as wars, terrorism and international tensions. (See this article for more discussion about these measures.) Following the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023, both the overall GPR index and its ‘war and terror acts’ component spiked strongly, to a level higher than that seen during the ISIS attack in Paris in November 2015. Both indices eased significantly in the months following October 2023 despite the continuation of the conflict. But they jumped again following Israel’s attack on southern Lebanon in September 2024. As of mid-October 2024, the GPR and GPRA remain, respectively, 21% and 35% higher than their historical averages.   What might be the consequences of such elevated levels of risk? Research tells us that higher geopolitical risk raises oil prices (Mignon and Saadaoui, 2024). It also reduces global investment and increases inflation (Caldara et al, 2022). Greater geopolitical risk has a significantly negative impact on business and consumer confidence in several advanced economies (de Wet, 2023). This is because consumers typically cut non-essential spending and businesses postpone investment decisions during turbulent times. This reduces firm-level investment, particularly for businesses with higher initial investment costs and greater market power (Wang et al, 2023). Higher geopolitical risks also reduce global trade and financial flows, causing greater volatility in capital flows in emerging markets (Kaya and Erden, 2023). Oil production cuts and higher energy prices The second way in which the Middle East conflict could affect the global economy is its impact on energy prices, both directly through production cuts and indirectly through greater uncertainties. In response to Israel’s actions against its neighbours, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could reduce oil production to penalise countries supporting Israel. A similar action in the 1970s led to a significant jump in oil prices, which contributed to years of stagflation, with higher global inflation and recessions in major economies. Before Israel's attack on Lebanon at the end of September, oil prices had been declining due to falling demand, particularly from China. On the supply side, oil production had increased in Canada and the United States, countering the production cuts by OPEC, and Saudi Arabia was expected to increase oil production from December. But the situation quickly reversed following Israel’s attack on Lebanon. Oil prices jumped by nearly $10 per barrel within a week, before easing by around $5 per barrel. While the immediate oil price impact of Israel’s attack has mostly faded, the potential for higher oil (and other energy) prices still poses a risk to global inflation and economic activity (Liadze et al, 2022). To provide further context for the potential scale of this impact, we can show what would happen if oil and gas prices were to remain $10 higher for two years than the baseline levels projected in the Summer Global Economic Outlook from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), using NIESR’s Global Macroeconometric Model (NiGEM). The results demonstrate that the $10 rise in oil and gas prices increases inflation by around 0.7 percentage points in major economies in the first year (see Figure 2). The impact is higher in China, where the economy relies relatively more on oil imports for its strong manufacturing industries. The inflationary pressures persist for two years despite central banks’ efforts to curb inflation by increasing interest rates.   The effect of higher oil and gas prices on real GDP is shown in Figure 3. In the scenario described above, GDP would fall by 0.1-0.2% in major economies immediately. Partly due to higher interest rates, real GDP would continue to weaken for three years following the shock. After this, economic activity would start to return to base levels as oil and gas prices revert to their levels in the baseline forecast.   Increased shipping costs and supply chain disruptions A wider conflict in the Middle East could also affect the economy through higher shipping costs and supply chain disruptions. Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea in late 2023 showed that such disruptions can have a huge impact on global trade through shipping, which comprises 80% of world trade volume. Following the rocket attacks by the Houthi rebels, some commercial shipping re-routed from the Red Sea to the Cape of Good Hope, leading to significant delays in travel times and increased freight costs. As a result, the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index – a measure of sea freight rates – rose by around 260% in the second quarter of 2024 with additional disruptions to supply chains. Our analysis shows that an increase of 10 percentage points in shipping cost inflation can lead to import prices rising by up to around 1% and consumer inflation increasing by around 0.5% in OECD countries. As Figure 4 shows, the impact of shipping costs on inflation shows its full effects over six quarters. This means that inflationary concerns could be with us for the next year and a half as a result of higher shipping costs that may emerge from any possible escalation of the Middle East conflict.   Wider economic implications and policy responses While rising geopolitical risk and increased oil and shipping costs can each individually exert upward pressure on inflation and may slow down economic activity in the global economy, the combined impacts are likely to be greater. Countries with stronger trade and financial ties to the Middle East and those that rely heavily on oil imports as an input for domestic production would be most affected. On the monetary policy front, central banks may have to take a more hawkish stance in response to rising inflationary pressures from the Middle East conflict. This could lead to higher interest rates, which would further dampen economic activity, particularly in an environment where there are already recessionary concerns in some major economies. Beyond its immediate economic implications, an escalation of the Middle East conflict could trigger large-scale displacement of people, which would increase economic and social pressures on neighbouring countries. Many countries may also have to increase their military spending in response to growing regional tensions. Given that public debt levels are already elevated in many countries due to successive shocks to the global economy over the past decade, any additional defence spending could come at the expense of public infrastructure investments that would otherwise boost productivity growth. Overall, the global economy is already underperforming as a result of the lagged effects of tight monetary policies, weaker global trade, a slowing Chinese economy and uncertainties surrounding the upcoming US election and possible changes to US trade policy. A potential escalation of conflict in the Middle East could exacerbate the situation by increasing uncertainties, harming efforts to bring down inflation and reducing global GDP growth. Over the medium and long term, it could further damage the global economy, with the possibility of refugee crises as well as increased defence spending, making the effects more complex and longer lasting. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Germany is expected to hold a snap election in February after Chancellor Olaf Scholz reportedly agreed a deal with opposition politicians for an early vote. The recent collapse of Scholz’s coalition made a vote of confidence in the government highly likely, but Scholz had been pushing for it to be held in the new year. Reports now suggest it will be held before Christmas and, as Scholz is expected to lose, it would almost certainly lead to parliament being dissolved within 21 days and an election held within a further 60 days. Friedrich Merz, the leader of the Christian democratic (CDU/CSU) opposition, has led the charge for an earlier vote. The CDU/CSU is comfortably ahead in the polls and has promised to enable key legislation to pass in exchange for an immediate vote. The three-party coalition between Scholz’s social democratic SPD, the Greens and the market-liberal FDP has had an unhappy time. Events served to accentuate policy differences: in particular, the war in Ukraine and resulting energy crisis heightened tensions between the fiscally hawkish FDP pressing for balanced budgets and the pro-investment SPD and Greens. Disagreements were also evident over climate, transport and energy policy. The FDP is the only one of the three parties that is pro-nuclear. Matters got worse after a federal constitutional court verdict set major restrictions on government borrowing by imposing a rigid interpretation of constitutional debt restrictions. A downward revision of tax revenue forecasts last month then made things instantly worse. These challenges have led to an unhealthy cycle of political bickering. Germany has regular state elections, and for the most part the three coalition partners have done badly in these since coming to power. Most recently, three eastern states delivered record election results for the far right Alternative for Germany (AfD). After each such defeat, party leaders have felt compelled to raise their own profile by making policy demands in line with their priorities. But in doing so, they have added to the impression of a chaotic, disunited government. A recent Deutschlandtrend poll showed just 14% of citizens satisfied with the government against 85% who were dissatisfied.  Things came to a head when FDP leader and finance minister Christian Lindner tabled a list of demands of his coalition partners – with major tax and spending cuts – that he knew were certain to be rejected. Coalition leaders met on Wednesday but there was no agreement, leading Scholz to dismiss Lindner, effectively bringing the coalition to a close. There was a bitter exchange of views, with Scholz calling Lindner “petty” and “irresponsible”. The timing of the FDP’s exit, just after Donald Trump’s US election victory, when stability would have been preferred, came in for particular criticism. For the interim period between now and the anticipated election, Scholz has reshuffled his cabinet, appointing a new finance minister, Jörg Kukies, from his own party. One of the FDP’s ministers, Volker Wissing, refused to follow Lindner’s lead and has remained in the cabinet. He will continue as transport minister and will add justice to his brief. The Green agriculture minister will also look after education. In these circumstances, it is possible that the parliament cannot agree a budget for the 2025 calendar year, and would roll over existing spending plans, which is not unusual (indeed, it happened at the start of this year after the constitutional court verdict meant the 2024 budget had to be rewritten), but normally for a shorter time. It would be possible to make available additional funds for Ukraine and it is unlikely the other parties in parliament would block these – although the CDU/CSU has indicated it wouldn’t support the SPD’s proposal to suspend constitutional debt restrictions to make extra defence funding available. How the election could unfold A snap poll has indicated strong support for early elections. As things stand, the most likely outcome is a CDU/CSU led government under CDU leader Friedrich Merz with the SPD as junior coalition partner. The AfD is currently second in the polls but all parties have ruled out any sort of coalition deal with them. Back in 2021, it seemed possible there would be a CDU/CSU-Green coalition (as has been quite widely practised at a state level). But, under Merz, the CDU has shifted rightwards and engaged in such a lot of green-bashing that such a move seems unlikely, even if it commanded a majority (which, according to current polls it will not). The FDP is in a battle for survival, with current polls not even giving it the 5% of votes needed to qualify for representation in parliament. The left populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) looks set to enter the parliament for the first time. It is remarkable that the EU’s largest member state chose to collapse its government just hours after the continent was given the huge challenge of a Trump presidency. But constitutional mechanisms exist to keep German politics ticking over. The most likely outcome of the elections – a CDU/CSU coalition with the SPD – is a tried and tested model that will offer at least some stability.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Russian President Vladimir Putin last week hosted the BRICS summit, where Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia became official partner members – the first step toward full membership.  Putin had two main goals at the summit, where he tried to build up more international support for Russia against the backdrop of its invasion of Ukraine. First, he wanted to convey that Moscow is far from isolated on the world stage despite being targeted by United States-led sanctions, and that some of the largest economies don’t see the war in Ukraine as an impediment to closer ties with Russia.  Second, Putin was trying to build up consensus to create an alternative to the U.S. dollar-led trading order, which has made Russia and a host of other countries, including Iran, vulnerable to sanctions from the West. Putin made considerable progress on the first goal, but far less with the second one.  The four Southeast Asian states help explain why this is the case. Multipolar? Although Russia’s trampling of international law and use of military force to change borders sets a dangerous precedent for the countries of Southeast Asia, most states in the region see Russia as the path to a multipolar global order. And for Southeast Asian states that are always trapped in an increasingly zero-sum competition between Washington and Beijing, Moscow presents itself as a guardian of multipolarity. To them, it is a model for standing up to the West, or at least charting a more independent foreign policy.  For countries, whose foreign policy is largely transactional, pursuing ties with Russia increasingly makes sense.  Indonesia – arguably, the country in the region that is most protective of its sovereignty – has repeatedly voted against Russia at the United Nations, but barely spoken of Russia’s invasion.  Former President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo hosted foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and met with Putin. But his Russia policy was extremely unprincipled and transactional. Russia has now supplanted Ukraine as Indonesia’s largest source for wheat imports. The country also is a major importer of oil from Russia, which has an internationally imposed price cap and sells below market rates. Prabowo Subianto, Indonesia’s new president, is set to continue this policy. Before his inauguration, he met with Putin and Prabowo’s foreign minister, Sugiono, made clear at the BRICS summit that Indonesia was seeking full membership in the grouping founded by Brazil, Russia, India and China. While Jokowi cared little about foreign policy, Prabowo seeks to assert Indonesia on the world stage with a much more active international policy and clout commensurate with its economic size. Russia is key to realizing this ambition. While Malaysia voted against Russia in two U.N. votes, its policy now is shaped by the conflict in Gaza, and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s seething anger towards the United States for its support of Israel.  Foreign corporations have recently pledged over U.S. $6 billion in investment to Malaysia’s semiconductor industry, one of the world’s largest.  Malaysia has angered Washington by repeatedly offering to sell semiconductors to sanctioned countries, including Russia and Iran. Anwar bristles at the unilateral imposition of U.S. sanctions on what he deems is a sovereign right to conduct foreign trade. Anwar views BRICS as not only a hedge against Western sanctions, but also as an alternative source of capital. Vietnam’s relations with Russia are long-standing and deep, and should be seen as part of its studiously neutral “bamboo diplomacy.” Vietnam voted with Russia in two U.N. votes, and abstained in a third. In July, Hanoi hosted Putin for a brief state visit.  Russia remains essential to Vietnamese security. Roughly 80% of its existing arsenal is Russian-made. While Vietnam seeks to diversify its supply chain, that will be difficult to do quickly.  The People’s Army leadership is close to Moscow. Its military is familiar with Russian equipment and produces many spare parts. Russia also allows licensed production of key weapon systems. In 2023, Moscow and Hanoi concluded an agreement to use proceeds from a Vietnamese investment in Siberian oil to fund the next generation of weapons. This alternative payment system was established to evade U.S. dollar transactions and thus Washington’s ability to impose sanctions. Thailand’s motivation in becoming a BRICS partner state has more to do with geopolitics than anything else.  A U.S. treaty ally, Thailand has been angered by Washington’s repeated imposition of sanctions as a result of military intervention in politics, including coups in 2006 and 2014.  China tried to fill that vacuum by maintaining close ties to the military leadership and increasing arms sales. Thailand feels caught between a rock and a hard place.  De-dollarization doubts Putin’s second goal, of de-dollarization, was far more divisive at the BRICS summit.  Luckily for the four Southeast Asian states, which depend so much on trade with the United States and which have no interest in creating a dollar alternative, they had India to hide behind.  Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar firmly rejected Moscow’s de-dollarization agenda and made clear that India would continue to settle the majority of its trade in U.S. dollars. That was all the cover the Southeast Asian states needed. In sum, Jakarta, Putrajaya, Hanoi, and Bangkok are not seeking to upend the U.S.-led liberal international order through BRICS. They describe the grouping not as an “either-or” but an “and.”  A distant war For Southeast Asia, the war in Europe is far away. And the countries remain in deep denial about the international legal precedent being set or what Russian success in achieving its war aims would mean for global security. But Putin’s confidence presupposes the economic realities. While Russia has seemingly defied international sanctions and there’s still positive economic growth, expected to be 3.6% for 2024, this is now a war economy. Foreign investment has fled and is unlikely to return. More than 600,000 of Russia’s educated urban middle-class has emigrated in a massive brain drain.  Domestic production, meanwhile, is geared solely to support the war effort. Interest rates are now 21% to help counter the 13.4% inflation rate.  With an estimated 1,000 battlefield losses a day, and over 70,000 new hires in Russia’s primary defense contractor, Rostec, the labor market is tight. The IMF is predicting the Russian economy to finally feel the weight of prolonged sanctions and the war economy with GDP expected to fall to 1.3% and 1.2% in 2025 and 2026, respectively.  And even Moscow’s arms exports to Southeast Asia – one of its primary instruments of statecraft – are in doubt, as domestic demand surges. Between 2022-2024, Moscow’s arms exports fell by 60%, compared to the previous three-year period, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.  While Moscow sees the BRICS as the key to a multipolar world that would erode the dominant position of the United States, his moves to weaken the dollar’s grip is too confrontational for many of the new partner states. Putin’s own bravado may be undermined by Russia’s isolated wartime economy and inability to be the security partner of choice for many developing states. Copyright ©2015-2024, BenarNews. Used with the permission of BenarNews. 

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Few maritime security environments across the globe have consistently shown a degree of tension and volatility akin to the Baltic Sea scenario. Having established the deterrence of Russia's ambitions as an emphasis of European defence, the increase in military investments within the region, as well as the political realignments across the Baltic shore after the invasion of Ukraine show that the security assessment has radically changed in the last few months. The current deployment of NATO and Russian Federation forces in this region, along with the Alliance's geopolitical developments, provides a valuable perspective for analysing defence planning and assessing present and future vulnerabilities and areas of risk. The Baltic security architecture, and its continuous updates and transitions, justifies an integrative reading into the key aspects of the present security challenges in the area.  A new arena for security in the Baltic  Unbeknownst to many, the security environment along the Baltic is one of the most potentially volatile maritime areas in the world. Recent developments, especially the inclusion of Finland and Sweden into NATO, have resulted in a surge of military and intelligence-gathering activities, as well as grey zone operations by both NATO and Russia across those shores.  A central idea in any present assessment of this location is the significant shift in the last decades on many critical aspects. For one, the political geography has been radically altered. In 1990, Germany and Denmark were the sole NATO members in the whole region. To say the security strategy lacked some alignment would be an understatement. Even after the fall of the Iron Curtain, key security partners such as Germany and Poland were diametrically opposed in their security approach to Russia. The German foreign policy, for years, engaged the Russian political sectors, as well as the society at large by developing close economic and political links. Energy cooperation, namely, became a staple of Berlin’s policies [1]. In stark contrast, Poland adopted a cautious and often adversarial stance toward Russia, influenced by historical conflicts and concerns over regional security. Additionally, aware of the risks of relying on Russian energy, Poland invested in alternative sources, such as the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal in Świnoujście and pursued the Baltic Pipe project to import natural gas from Norway via Denmark [2]. Following the overall international consensus, the change of posture vis à vis Russia after 2022 has helped to align the strategies of the European countries on the Baltic, and has given an unprecedented impetus to security cooperation and the strengthening of political and military ties in the region.    Sweden and Finland's decision to abandon their decades-long, semi-neutral stance signifies that not only Germany, but the entire European continent, now acknowledges Russia's aggressive posture in the Baltic region. NATO membership was pursued, and the EU Common Security and Defence Policy began to tilt to other scenarios, such as the Baltic Sea, which may have been overlooked in previous analysis. The shift of the security policy in Europe, as some experts have called, has had a “shift to the East” [3].  Key Aspects and Challenges    Even if other policymakers are catching up only now with the crucial importance of this region for Moscow, the Baltic states are much more familiar with the nature of the Russian ambitions, the realities of hybrid warfare, and the crucial attention paid to the maritime routes by Russia’s economy and military. It holds primordial outlets for oil & gas, as well as consumer goods, offered by the harbours of Primorsk or St. Petersburg; perhaps even more critically, it is also home to the exclave of Kaliningrad, the base of the Russian Baltic Fleet and to its nuclear arsenal [4]. With border tensions with Poland and Lithuania growing every month, the fierce Russian intent of defending the freedom of passage to Kaliningrad is, perhaps, the most overt exemplification of Moscow’s grapple for control of the Baltic.  The geography of the Baltic could be serving Russian interests, as some experts claim. Actions not too dissimilar from a limited show of force, or mere military exercises over “token pieces of territory, such as an island in the Gulf of Finland, or an unpopulated area just across the border from Russia”, could very well be instrumentalized to divide the public opinion on the strategy, or even possibility, of a NATO response to such an act [5]. Grey-zone operations such as these, perhaps reminiscent of the 2014 invasion of Crimea, easily become a chip on the shoulder of international credibility for actors such as the United States, and could rapidly diminish general support for the Western security stance in the Baltic.   The challenge posed by Russia is heterogenous. Many different actions over the last decade have been understood by some as partial preludes to potential invasions. Mischief concerning military exercises and routes of air and sea-borne units, the constant sighting of illegal submarine activities, as well as the employment of “ghost fleet” tankers which could potentially be used as environmental weapons, are only some examples of the aggressive stance of Moscow.   Differences and persisting difficulties   Notwithstanding the challenges of the present security scenario, it must also be said that the positions of NATO in the Baltic are far stronger now than they were a couple of years ago [6]. The new membership of Finland and Sweden, as well as the overarching tactical shift concerning security policy, mean that the Alliance is now able to exert its air superiority, control of sea routes and logistic channels far more gracefully. The Enhanced Forward Presence missions in the Baltic states now face Russian ground forces with wildly different postures, morale and equipment, due to the tensions imposed by the fighting in Ukraine. Capabilities such as anti-submarine resources, mine countermeasures or amphibious operational groups have a larger and more advanced presence now in the Baltic; it is also expected that the Port of Gothenburg will serve as the main shipping point for NATO forces in the region.    Due to the reality of hybrid warfare in the region, along with the vulnerabilities of the Baltic Sea nations (cyberattacks, sabotage of subsea infrastructure, attacking gas lines and communication cables), the hostility of Russia will plausibly remain a principal concern of NATO in the near future. Moscow’s aggression towards  the West’s sovereignty, security and economic interests, are expected to continue, if only through the “less overt” operational examples such as disinformation operations or backing fringe political groups, just to name a couple [7].   The inherent geographical and energetic disadvantages currently faced by Russia do not mean that the Baltic Sea is under total NATO control. The diversity of capabilities and aggressive tactics available to Moscow mean that they could very well target naval or terrestrial assets of the Alliance with little extra preparation. The submarine and minelaying assets of Russia, for example, continue to be a long-established concern, and it may be hard to deter, even if effective and innovative technological countermeasures come to be deployed in the Baltic.  The strategic choke points of the region, under the environmental or geographical considerations of relevance, will not be easily evaded by any side. The commencement of the operational use of unmanned surface or undersea vessels will not limit the capacity for disruption of NATO or Russia.  Conclusion  The rise in investments and political interest for Baltic security is a welcome situation; nevertheless, it will need to be continued for years to come. The challenges faced by the Ukrainian forces in terms of international military or financial aid remain a stark reminder of the rapid disintegration of the toughest geopolitical conflicts’ weight in worldwide newsrooms and political cabinets. The key for the defence of peace in the Baltic seems to lie on the stalwart buttressing of NATO for the freedom of maritime traffic. This, in turn, both proves the validity of the security measures and resources in the area, as well as sending a clear message to the other nations that the supply lines, in both military and commercial terms, will continue to be supported. The real concerns for the security of the maritime routes into the easternmost parts of the Sea mean that the dependence on the Alliance’s militaries’ sea-going and aerial capabilities remains. Because of that, further efforts to coordinate, expand and train the different nations’ forces in the region continue to be called for. And not only that, as the antics of maskirovka (a Russian military term that refers to measures taken to mislead adversaries about military capabilities, intentions, and operations) to which the Russian Military Staff have continued to rely on time and time again have shown, the fear for limited, short-range, grey-zone scenario attacks remain another tangible possibility. Such an operation, an incredibly delicate venue for further international tensions and even military action, would clearly exploit the capabilities of amphibious Russian troops, well suited to the “island-hopping”, small squad black operations in a well-charted territory for them.   The stronger NATO, as seen today, will necessarily need to elicit further enhancements in the security policy for the Baltic Sea. Defence mechanisms, such as the development of territorial forces, the strengthening of the will to fight across the Baltic nations, or the continual efforts to guarantee the forces’ superiority in the aerial and naval domain, will need to continue their trajectory. In the end, only time will tell if the Baltic will finally come to be an example in the face of growing Russian aggression elsewhere.   References  [1] Westgaard, K. “The Baltic Sea Region: A Laboratory for Overcoming European Security Challenges”. Carnegie Endowment Research. 2023. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/12/the-baltic-sea-region-a-laboratory-for-overcoming-european-security-challenges?lang=en   [2] European Commission . “Inforegio - New Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal Improves Energy Supply and Security in Poland.” Europa.eu, 2021, ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/poland/new-liquefied-natural-gas-terminal-improves-energy-supply-and-security-in-poland.  [3] Erlanger, S. “Ukraine War Accelerates Shift of Power in Europe to the East”. The New York Times. January 26th, 2023. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/world/europe/eu-nato-power-ukraine-war.html   [4] Messmer, M. “The Baltic Sea is far from a ‘NATO lake’ – the alliance must strengthen its defences”. Chatham House Comments. 2024. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/04/baltic-sea-far-nato-lake-alliance-must-strengthen-its-defences   [5] Lucas, E. et al. “Sea Change: Nordic-Baltic Security in a New Era”. CEPA Comprehensive Reports. 2024. Available at: https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/sea-change-nordic-baltic-security-in-a-new-era/   [6] Wills, S. “BALTOPS 24 in a Contested NATO Lake”. Center for Maritime Strategy. 2024. Available at: https://centerformaritimestrategy.org/publications/baltops-24-in-a-contested-nato-lake/   [7] Savitz, S. & Winston, I. “A Brief Naval Overview of the Baltic Sea Region”. RAND Corporation Expert Insights. June 2024. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2111-1.html#document-details 

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском There’s a degree of irony that countries attending the 2024 Brics summit this week voted to adopt the Kazan declaration (named for the capital city of the autonomous republic of Tatarstan in Russia, where the summit is being held). The declaration’s first clause emphasises that “all states should act consistently with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter in their entirety”. There’s also a certain amount of chutzpah on the part of conference chair, Vladimir Putin, whose ongoing invasion of Ukraine is so egregiously in breach of that charter.  Article one stresses that the primary purpose of the UN is to “maintain international peace and security”. Article two rules that: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means”. If that’s not clear enough, it goes on to further insist that: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”  Still, its a funny old world in which the UN secretary general, António Guterres, pitches up at a summit whose host is wanted on an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court on charges relating to the alleged illegal deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. In a country whose troops are currently fighting in Ukraine in direct contravention of the UN’s charter.  To add a further layer of irony, October 24 is the 79th anniversary of the entry into force of the UN Charter in 1945.  Guterres called on Putin to agree a peace deal “in line with the UN Charter, international law and UN General Assembly resolutions”. The Russian leader is perhaps more likely to listen to a deal proposed by the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. He said: “We must uphold the three key principles: no expansion of the battlefields, no escalation of hostilities, and no fanning flames and strive for swift de-escalation of the situation.”  The UN chief’s idea of a just peace would call for Russia to give up its illegal occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Xi’s proposal appears to call for a deal based on the status quo – virtually the opposite, in other words.  This is pretty much all Ukraine can hope for, as far as the University of Portsmouth’s Frank Ledwidge is concerned. Ledwidge, who has written regularly for The Conversation since Putin launched his invasion in February 2022 and is well plugged into defence and intelligence networks in Nato as well as in Ukraine itself, believes that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia – at least as things stand.  Ledwidge says Ukraine’s western allies are partly to blame for the maximalist aims of the country’s president Volodymyr Zelensky. Western rhetoric has not properly been matched by sufficient weapons or the permission to use them as effectively as the situation warrants. Now is the time for realism, he writes:  A starting point could be accepting that Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are lost … Then we need to start planning seriously for a post-war Ukraine that will need the west’s suppport more than ever.  One of the key factors that Ledwidge stresses is that just one of Russia’s allies, North Korea, has supplied twice as many artillery shells this year as the whole of Europe. Now North Korean troops are apparently also about to join their Russian comrades on the battlefield. This, writes Ra Mason – a Korea specialist at the University of East Anglia – will help ease the pressure on Putin to bring forward his mobilisation plans.    It’s a diplomatic coup for Putin, Mason believes – it’s a “clear show of opposition towards the Washington-led global order”, which “deals a further blow to the myth that the Russian Federation is isolated, as an international pariah, in a world led by western powers.”  But a military coup de grace against Ukraine? Probably not. The jury is out on how effective North Korea’s “poorly equipped, unmotivated and undernourished” troops will be against Ukraine’s highly motivated defenders. It will also be interesting to see where and how they are deployed. If sent to the frontlines in Kursk, they’ll be helping an ally in its struggle against an incursion by Ukrainian forces. If deployed inside Ukraine, they’ll join Russia in breach of international law. Mason concludes:  If sent into new theatres of war against state-of-the-art Nato-supplied weaponry, it could effectively mean waves of ill-prepared cannon fodder being thrown into the meat grinder of Donbas’ trenches.  Incidentally, the term “meat grinder” has been much bandied about of late. It follows reports from US intellegence recently that, while Russian forces have been making rapid advances and gaining a significant amount of ground in recent weeks, they are doing so at considerable cost in terms of dead and wounded. September was a particularly bloody month, with reports of Russian losses of more than 1,000 men a day, killed or wounded.  But Russian military strategists are well versed in such pyrrhic victories, writes historian Becky Alexis-Martin, who points to equally savage losses in Russia’s defence against Napoleon and in the first and second world wars. Stalin, in particular, was able to defeat the Nazi war machine by, inter alia, throwing millions of troops at their enemies (and incurring terrible casualties). But it’s not a strategy that guarantees success. And terrible psychological effects are beginning to manifest themselves in veterans returning from Ukraine with severe and often violent post-traumatic stress disorder.  The diplomatic front  As if things weren’t bad enough for Zelensky on the battlefield, the Ukrainian president was dealt a serious blow earlier this month when the US president, Joe Biden, was forced by extreme weather events, including a hurricane hitting the state of Florida, to cancel the planned meeting of the heads of government of up to 50 of Ukraine’s western allies in Germany. The “Ramstein Group”, so-called after the German air base at which they meet, was scheduled to meet in the second week of October to consider Zelensky’s “victory plan”. Stefan Wolff, an international security expert at the University of Birmingham writes that the Ukrainian president was hoping to get some degree of commitment for a path to Nato membership for Ukraine as well as permission to use western-supplied long-range missiles against targets deep inside Russia.  Neither of these seem likely to happen in the short term, says Wolff. Like Ledwidge, Wolff thinks Ukraine is doomed to defeat unless its allies double down on their aid – and fast. And like Ledwidge, Wolff sees little indication of that happening any time soon.  When it comes to continuing US support for Ukraine’s war effort, all eyes are now firmly fixed on November 5. The outcome of the presidential election will be seriously consequential for Ukraine’s future. Both candidates have made their positions clear and there is considerable difference between the two positions.  Donald Trump has said any number of times that had he not lost that “rigged and stolen” election to Biden in 2020, Putin would never have invaded Ukraine in the first place. Still, he says, if he wins this one, he’ll bring the war to a very rapid conclusion. But it remains to be seen, given Trump’s oft-stated admiration for Putin, whether the conclusion will be palatable to Kyiv – or to Nato in general.  Trump’s opponent, Kamala Harris, said the former president’s proposals are not “proposals for peace, they’re proposals for surrender”. As vice-president during the Biden administration, she flew to Europe not long after the invasion in February 2022 to help shore up support for Kyiv. Harris has also regularly restated her intention to continue to back Ukraine against Russia. In the only debate of the campaign she said that Ukraine was not Putin’s final stop and that he has “his eyes on the rest of Europe, starting with Poland”.  Poland, incidentally, is an interesting case in point. While it is Ukraine’s firmest ally and it leadership is four-square behind Kyiv, the people are curiously divided on the country’s support for Ukraine. You can read more about that here.  One imagines that Zelensky is as transfixed as anyone else on the 2024 US presidential election campaign as it heads into its final ten days. All we can tell you is that the polls are still very, very close. Well within most pollsters’ margin for error, in fact. A poll of polls, which combines polls from different agencies, published on the website FiveThirtyEight on October 22 shows that Harris leads Trump by 48.1% to 46.3% in the national popular vote. But the accepted popular wisdom is that the complex electoral college system used in the US may well favour Trump’s candidacy.  We’ll be providing daily updates on the US presidential race and full coverage of election day on November 5 and its aftermath.  Update: this article originally said that Vladimir Putin launched Russia invasion of Ukraine in February 2024. This has now been corrected to February 2022. Apologies for the error. 

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Ushering in a multipolar order requires a streamlined and coherent political agenda – not unfocused expansion.  The 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia, concluded last week with the usual grand declaration of the group’s commitments, concerns and aspirations.  Many media headlines, particularly in Western countries, focused on how the summit and BRICS generally, symbolised Moscow’s ability to circumvent the fallout of sanctions by turning to the global south. In this way, BRICS is indirectly viewed as a threat to Western efforts to isolate Russia, weaken its power projection capabilities, and end its invasion of Ukraine.  Western governments and analysts often struggle to frame BRICS’s evolution beyond a binary, zero-sum narrative in which the group is a key geopolitical challenge to the Western-dominated international order. This interpretation places the forces of democracy and liberal political values in one camp and authoritarian governments in another, with certain developing countries caught in the middle, trying to play one side off the other for their own benefit.  There is some merit to these kinds of headlines. Russia and China are primarily major status-quo powers. Both have been permanent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members since its establishment. Moscow was the ‘other pole’ in the international order for most of the 20th century, a position Beijing is working towards. And the foreign policy goals of both place them in confrontation with the United States and its Western allies.  BRICS may be on a path towards unnecessary substantive bloat, and away from its core business.  So, are these two countries in a position to champion the global south’s cause, and why haven’t more representative bodies like the Non-Aligned Movement played a more prominent role?  The preoccupation with Russia and China detracts from BRICS’s broader, underlying geopolitical project – the need for global south countries to reform and shape the international order’s future direction on their own terms.  These include greater representation and agency in global policy- and decision-making bodies and facilitating greater freedom to trade, invest and borrow money outside the Western-dominated financial system. They also include a more just and equitable global power balance that reflects modern realities.  In pursuing these aims, BRICS countries have made steady progress on developing a shared strategic agenda for increased cooperation across various policy domains.  The Kazan summit’s 32-page outcomes declaration covers almost everything from reforming the UNSC and Bretton Woods institutions to climate change, biodiversity and conservation. It also covers challenges from global crises, conflicts and terrorism and a suite of economic development, health, education, science and cultural exchange-related issues.  A group of democracies, autocracies and theocracies speaking with one voice on human rights and democracy is absurd.  The group’s ballooning cooperation agenda may indicate progress. But it could also signify the limits of its diverse members’ ability to agree on ‘hard’ political and security matters central to the core business of reforming the international order.  The expansion of BRICS’ substantive agenda and its membership dilutes its primary purpose and reinforces the binary, zero-sum Western narrative its members constantly try to shed.  Tangible, albeit gradual, progress on establishing intra-BRICS institutions and processes such as the Interbank Cooperation Mechanism, the cross-border payment system and its independent reinsurance capacity suggest that BRICS’ clout and credibility are growing.  These initiatives could enable members to pursue their international economic objectives without the constraints and transactional costs associated with traditional financial bodies like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Ideally, this would improve their relative positions of global power and influence, and help deliver a more multipolar international order.  In contrast, deepening cooperation on big cat conservation, while important, doesn’t serve that purpose. Nor does facilitating youth exchanges on sports and healthy lifestyles or championing a BRICS alliance for folk dance. Including these kinds of initiatives in BRICS’ growing agenda detracts from its core objectives.  A streamlined agenda would divert attention from the contradictions and geopolitical manoeuvring of BRICS’ members.  More worryingly, this suggests that BRICS’ diverse constellation of member states is pursuing the path of least resistance – expanding their cooperation in every direction, hoping something eventually sticks.  Instead of doubling down on hard strategic questions about a shared conception of multipolarity, and the steps necessary to reform global governance and security institutions, BRICS seems to be heading for greater expansion and formalisation. And with that come the risks, challenges and institutional dependencies that have led to the stagnation and ineffectiveness plaguing more established international organisations in recent years.  Perhaps the group’s core members recognise that they have very different ideas of what constitutes multipolarity. Russia (and China to an extent) envisage much more than global institutional reforms, focusing instead on reimagining international norms and core principles.  These differences are also reflected in BRICS’ expanding membership. It seems Russian and Chinese enthusiasm has been curbed by other founding members, who prefer a ‘partner country’ model for future growth. This contrasts with the full membership offers to Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and UAE in 2023. (Argentina’s new political administration declined, and the Saudis have remained non-committal.)    Most worrying, however, is BRICS’ preoccupation with promoting democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms. There is no doubt that these terms are increasingly politicised and rife with double standards – among developing nations with mixed political systems and traditionally liberal, Western democracies. However, for BRICS to meaningfully champion normative values, its members must at least attempt to commit to common political governance systems in their own countries.  Having a group of partner nations composed of progressive constitutional democracies and closed repressive autocracies and theocracies attempting to speak with one voice on promoting human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms is absurd. It reeks of empty political rhetoric at best, and Orwellian double-speak at worst.  This again dilutes BRICS’ key messages, undermines its important core business, and detracts from the significant progress being made towards a common strategic agenda.  BRICS primary goal moving forward should be to trim the fat.  A streamlined annual working agenda would divert attention away from its individual member states' contradictions and geopolitical manoeuvring. With a focus on addressing the international system’s failures, institutional reform and greater representation for global south countries in policy- and decision-making bodies could be prioritised.  This seems unlikely though, if this year’s summit is anything to go by. By following the path of least resistance, BRICS may be setting itself on a course towards increasing and unnecessary substantive bloat, and away from its core business.  Only time will tell if certain members are willing to be more assertive and correct course before they are too far down a path impossible to pivot away from. 

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, combined with a Republican-led US Senate, was widely feared among international allies and will be cheered by some of America’s foes. While the former put on a brave face, the latter are finding it hard to hide their glee.  On the war in Ukraine, Trump is likely to try to force Kyiv and Moscow into at least a ceasefire along the current front lines. This could possibly involve a permanent settlement that would acknowledge Russia’s territorial gains, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the territories occupied since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.  It is also likely that Trump would accept demands by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to prevent a future Ukrainian Nato membership. Given Trump’s well-known animosity to Nato, this would also be an important pressure on Kyiv’s European allies. Trump could, once again, threaten to abandon the alliance in order to get Europeans to sign up to a deal with Putin over Ukraine.  When it comes to the Middle East, Trump has been a staunch supporter of Israel and Saudi Arabia in the past. He is likely to double down on this, including by taking an even tougher line on Iran. This aligns well with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s current priorities.  Netanyahu seems determined to destroy Iran’s proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen and severely degrade Iranian capabilities. By dismissing his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, a critic of his conduct of the offensive in Gaza, Netanyahu has laid the ground for a continuation of the conflict there.  It also prepares for a widening of the offensive in Lebanon and a potentially devastating strike against Iran in response to any further Iranian attack on Israel.  Trump’s election will embolden Netanyahu to act. And this in turn would also strengthen Trump’s position towards Putin, who has come to depend on Iranian support for his war in Ukraine. Trump could offer to restrain Netanyahu in the future as a bargaining chip with Putin in his gamble to secure a deal on Ukraine.  Pivot to China  While Ukraine and the Middle East are two areas in which change looms, relations with China will most likely be characterised more by continuity than by change. With Chinese relations being perhaps the key strategic foreign policy challenge for the US, the Biden administration continued many of the policies Trump adopted in his first term – and Trump is likely to double down on them in a second term.  A Trump White House is likely to increase import tariffs, and he has talked a great deal about using them to target China. But Trump is also just as likely to be open to pragmatic, transactional deals with Chinese president Xi Jinping. Just like in relations with his European allies in Nato, a serious question mark hangs over Trump’s commitment to the defence of Taiwan and other treaty allies in Asia, including the Philippines, South Korea, and potentially Japan. Trump is at best lukewarm on US security guarantees.  But as his on-and-off relationship with North Korea in his first term demonstrated, Trump is, at times, willing to push the envelope dangerously close to war. This happened in 2017 in response to a North Korean test of intercontinental ballistic missiles.  The unpredictability of the regime in Pyongyang makes another close brush of this kind as likely as Trump’s unpredictability makes it conceivable that he would accept a nuclear-armed North Korea as part of a broader deal with Russia, which has developed increasingly close relations with Kim Jong-un’s regime.  Doing so would give Trump additional leverage over China, which has been worried over growing ties between Russia and North Korea.  Preparing for a Trump White House  Friends and foes alike are going to use the remaining months before Trump returns to the White House to try to improve their positions and get things done that would be more difficult to do once he is in office.  An expectation of a Trump push for an end to the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East is likely to lead to an intensification of the fighting there to create what the different parties think might be a more acceptable status quo for them. This does not bode well for the humanitarian crises already brewing in both regions.  Increasing tensions in and around the Korean peninsula are also conceivable. Pyongyang is likely to want to boost its credentials with yet more missile – and potentially nuclear – tests.  A ratcheting-up of the fighting in Europe and the Middle East and of tensions in Asia is also likely to strain relations between the US and its allies in all three regions. In Europe, the fear is that Trump may make deals with Russia over the head of its EU and Nato allies and threaten them with abandonment.  This would undermine the longevity of any Ukrainian (or broader European) deal with Moscow. The relatively dismal state of European defence capabilities and the diminishing credibility of the US nuclear umbrella would not but help to encourage Putin to push his imperial ambitions further once he has secured a deal with Trump.  In the Middle East, Netanyahu would be completely unrestrained. And yet while some Arab regimes might cheer Israel striking Iran and Iranian proxies, they will worry about backlash over the plight of Palestinians. Without resolving this perennial issue, stability in the region, let alone peace, will be all but impossible.  In Asia, the challenges are different. Here the problem is less US withdrawal and more an unpredictable and potentially unmanageable escalation. Under Trump, it is much more likely that the US and China will find it hard to escape the so-called Thucydides trap – the inevitability of war between a dominant but declining power and its rising challenger.  This then raises the question of whether US alliances in the region are safe in the long term or whether some of its partners, like Indonesia or India, will consider realigning themselves with China.  At best, all of this spells greater uncertainty and instability – not only after Trump’s inauguration but also in the months until then.  At worst, it will prove the undoing of Trump’s self-proclaimed infallibility. But by the time he and his team come to realise that geopolitics is a more complicated affair than real estate, they may have ushered in the very chaos that they have accused Biden and Harris of. 

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском There must be a reconciliation between the human rights agenda and current humanitarian realities. In Gaza, the daily struggle is frightening, and there appears no end or peace plan in sight.  As the Gaza conflict enters its second year, the situation in the Middle East is taking an alarming turn. Having already escalated tensions by carrying out a series of high-profile assassinations, including Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, and its top leadership, as well as Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed in Tehran on 31 July during his visit for President Masaoud Pezeshkian’s inauguration, Israel has now launched a ground incursion into Lebanon, further intensifying its conflict with Iran. As of 30 September, 42,337 Palestinians have lost the lives. This is compared to just 1,540 Israelis. Put differently, that number is 27 Palestinian killed for each Israeli since 7 October 2023. Although Israelis claim that a portion of Palestinians killed are Hamas fighters. On 18 September 2024, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution (124 nations in favour, 14 against, and 43 abstentions) demanding Israel end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories within 12 months. This resolution builds upon the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion outlining the illegality of Israel’s ongoing settlements in the Westbank, and called on all nations to refrain from acknowledging legitimacy of this protracted occupation. The UNGA’s call underscores the international community’s growing impatience with the ongoing conflict. Yet, as diplomatic pressures mount, the human cost of this prolonged strife remains devastatingly high. Glaring double standards and changing dynamics of global diplomacy  In the one year since the 7 October massacre, the conflict has taken a devastating toll on Palestinian civilians including nearly 16,765 children fatalities. Every hour, 15 people are killed, six of whom are children, while 35 are injured. This staggering figure contrasts sharply with the Ukraine War, which has seen far fewer civilian casualties with 1,551 children killed in more than two years. In addition to civilians, 210 aid workers have been killed, surpassing the annual toll of aid worker fatalities in any other past conflict in last 20 years, including the Ukraine-Russia conflict where 50 aid workers have died. More than 125 journalists have been killed in Gaza, compared to only 11 journalists who have died reporting the Ukraine war. This stark disparity underscores the disproportionality of rights violations in the Gaza conflict. While the US and its allies have been strongly critical of Russia, their criticism of Israel has been minimal in spite of the much larger scale of civilian casualties. While thousands of Palestinians continue to die in Gaza, and now with a ground war raging in Lebanon, the West has imposed limited sanctions against only a few Israeli settlers. For instance, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, while strongly condemning Russia for waging a “ruthless war,” remained mostly muted on Israel’s atrocities, leading EU staffers to criticize her “uncontrolled” support for Israel.  These double standards have led to protests from San Francisco to Sydney, speaking out against atrocities committed in the name of “self-defence.” The Gaza war has been changing the dynamics of international diplomacy as a growing number of countries have taken steps to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state. As of June 2024, 146 of 193 UN member states have made this step, including several European nations like Norway, Poland, Iceland, and Romania. Spanish and Irish governments are leading voices in Europe, pushing for a joint recognition of Palestine, signalling a strengthening of support for a Palestinian state in the diplomatic landscape surrounding the conflict What lies ahead The path towards a just resolution remains elusive, and the questions raised demand a re-examination of the moral and ethical foundations that underpin global order. The fate of thousands of Palestinians hangs in the balance and the conflict shows no signs of abating. The escalation of tensions with Hezbollah and Iran complicates the situation, threatening to engulf the entire region in a wider conflict. The international community must act now, and decisively, to prevent further loss of lives and work towards a lasting peace in the region. Correcting the gross injustice to innocent civilians in Palestine and addressing the Israel-Gaza conflict starts with recognising humanity in equal measures as well as rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security side by side. It involves implementation of international law, upholding human rights, and a concerted effort to address root causes of the conflict, such as the displacement of Palestinians from their abode more than seven decades ago. While killing of any innocent civilians, including Israelis by Hamas, is not acceptable, what is also equally true is that when generations of Palestinians are born and grow up without a state and a sense of national identity, there is always a risk that frustration growing over decades can get out of control. The 18 September UNGA resolution demands that Israel return land in the West Bank and other “immovable property,” as well as all assets seized since the occupation began in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians. It calls for Israel to allow all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their place of origin and make reparation for the damage caused by its occupation. It urges UN member states to refrain from recognising Israel’s presence in East Jerusalem and the West Bank as lawful, preventing engagement in activities that support the occupation, ceasing imports of products from Israeli settlements, and implementing sanctions against entities involved in maintaining Israel’s unlawful presence. Unless some of the major players in the West, which includes countries like US, UK, Germany, and France, apply principles of rights and justice consistently, any effort will continue to remain infructuous. Advocating human rights and equality while turning a blind eye to atrocities does not work in the age of social media and digital platforms where the truth is more readily accessible and more difficult to suppress. The Gaza conflict is a wake-up call for the world, which has been for far too long oblivious to humanitarian crises. The fact that the state of Israel emerged from ruins of the untold sufferings caused to by the Nazis is a testament that justice prevailed. Today the Jewish peoples have a modern, prosperous, and democratic state in Israel. Hence, it is rather an irony that one of the educated and cultured populations of Middle East, the Palestinians, today are on the receiving end of human rights violation by a nation whose people went through one of the worst atrocities committed in the last century.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском A review of the African strategy of major powers considering the continent's growing global importance in economic, demographic, and even political terms. A few days ago, the United Nations General Assembly approved the so-called “Pact for the Future”, an action that the organization's Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, described as "a historic moment" because it will allow "a step forward towards a more effective and sustainable networked multilateralism”. In the corridors of the United Nations, intensive work has been carried out for more than nine months to find the greatest possible consensus, and although the document (a 42-page agreement outlining 56 actions in areas ranging from nuclear, climate, and digital issues to human rights) was not put to a vote in the Assembly, it is known to have the support of most nations in the world, with the exception of Russia and some countries like Belarus, Iran, North Korea, and Eritrea. In Africa, 54 countries rejected Russian amendments aimed at halting the dialogue around this document, something perhaps facilitated by the possibility that a second permanent seat for Africa in the United Nations Security Council could soon be consolidated. The United Nations, and therefore multilateralism, are going through a difficult time: Ukraine, Gaza, or Lebanon bear witness to this. The right to veto in the Security Council turns any serious initiative to stop conflicts around the world into a joke. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called for the reform of the organization to ensure that it becomes truly functional and democratic, in addition to demanding a well-deserved central role for the continent in conflict resolution and modern geopolitics. So, calls for multilateralism are heard everywhere, which basic definition, to put it simply, is when more than three countries agree to move together towards a specific goal, in a context where the world's geopolitics continues to function, breathe, and evolve like any living organism. This is also true in Africa.  China In early September, more than fifty African leaders (a record number) traveled to meet with President Xi Jinping at a new Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), the major China-Africa gathering that began in the year 2000. As in each of the previous editions, President Xi announced a significant financial aid package, also outlining the main areas of future cooperation: $51 billion in loans, investments, and assistance for Africa over the next three years. Although this amount surpasses the $40 billion committed in 2021, it remains lower than the $60 billion promised in 2015 and 2018. The Africans also attended the meeting with a message: the trade balance needs to be adjusted. In 2023, Chinese exports to Africa reached $170 billion, while imports from the continent amounted to $100 billion, a significant difference that leaders like South African President Ramaphosa did not hide upon his arrival in Beijing. While China sends manufactured products, agricultural and industrial machinery, as well as vehicles, its imports from Africa are mainly concentrated in raw materials (oil, gas, metals, and minerals). China continues to be involved in initiatives such as the “Belt and Road Initiative”, the modernized Silk Road, and the construction of major infrastructure projects. Russia Russia's presence in Africa is not new. They were already in places like Angola during the Cold War and supported the struggles for independence in the 1960s, but perhaps now their actions on the continent are receiving more attention. With almost the entire world questioning its invasion of Ukraine, Russians find in Africa, especially in the Sahel countries, a point from which to secure mineral and economic resources and, at the same time, create tension and concern for the Europeans. Their support for military junta coups in countries like Mali, Niger, or Burkina Faso, or their influence in regimes like that of the Central African Republic, with a business model that exchanges security for mineral resources, for example, has shaken up the African geopolitical map. Their promises of cooperation in satellite or nuclear technology, still up in the air, captivate governments that have distanced themselves from the West and have chosen them as partners in recent years. The European Union In Europe, in my opinion, we continue struggling to understand how to approach our relationship and alignment with our African friends and neighbors. Individually, each country is making its efforts: Italy with the Mattei Plan, France repositioning itself after withdrawing from the Sahel countries, Denmark with a strong commitment, and now Spain, working on a new strategy of its own that we will learn about very soon. The migration factor and the colonial legacy continue to be issues that influence the relationship with African governments and even with civil societies. In geopolitical terms, Europe has given a name to its aspirations of influence: the Global Gateway. The undertaking is so vast and its objectives so ambitious that it deserves one, or even several, separate articles. Not only do I promise this, but I also share that, from Casa África, we will soon bring its representatives to the Canary Islands to explain what the Global Gateway entails, what funds it has, and how we, from the Archipelago, can act as a bridge with them. United States The U.S. elections are approaching, but before leaving office, Joe Biden will visit Africa (specifically Angola) for the first time in his term. This is a clear gesture towards the continent, which at least partially makes up for the fact that the previous president, Donald Trump, not only never visited it even once, but also left behind that infamous phrase caught by an open microphone in which he referred to African countries as “shitholes”. Faced with the overwhelming Chinese presence and the concerning Russian influence in the Sahel, many voices in the United States have called for a genuine diplomatic and economic effort on the continent. The choice of Angola is not trivial: the Americans are heavily invested in a strategic project crucial for the geopolitics of energy, the Lobito Corridor, a railway line that will connect the Angolan port of Lobito (on the Atlantic) with the city of Kolwezi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The goal: the transit of strategic minerals for the North American and European markets, which is key to reducing dependence on China for the so-called critical minerals (lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, manganese, or rare earth elements). Türkiye For a few years now, Türkiye has had a very clear objective of increasing its presence and influence in Africa. In the last two decades, Türkiye has nearly quadrupled the number of its embassies in Africa: from 12 in 2002 to 44 in 2022. Its flag carrier, Turkish Airlines, connects Istanbul with 62 African destinations. At the same time, it has achieved diplomatic reciprocity: 38 African countries have established embassies in Ankara. All of this is reflected in trade volumes, which increased from $5.4 billion in 2003 to over $41 billion in 2022 (although they dropped slightly to $37 billion in 2023). For example, in 2011, President Erdogan was the first international leader to dare to set foot in Somalia in 20 years. Now, Türkiye has a military base in Mogadishu and oil and gas exploitation agreements. It is also the fourth-largest arms supplier to sub-Saharan Africa: helicopters and, above all, the famous Bayraktar drones have been sold to many African countries. And, finally, the Turks are also making significant strides in infrastructure construction (more than 1,800 projects in the last 20 years, including the modernization of Tanzania's railways, for example). A noteworthy effort, but obviously still far behind the Chinese and Russians. Published in Kiosco Insular, eldiario.es, and Canarias7 on September 27 and 28, 2024.