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

AbstractPurpose: The main objective was to review literature on the Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus in Action with emphasis on how to solve Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia.  Methodology: The author reviewed credible secondary data of HDP case studies online as part of a systemic Critical review design. Only official organizational documents from the UN and its bodies, peer-reviewed published research, books, and mass-media outputs related to HDP nexus were admissible to guarantee validity of results and conclusion applicable to Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia.Results: Reviewed scoped evidence based on themes concluded that humanitarian -development peace nexus is intended to bridge collaborations among several development players in the humanitarian ecosystem. These collaborations are not limited only to funding and financial drivers, strategies such as resilience agenda pathways for societies, destabilizing the effects of environmental stress, etc. Tackling protracted environmental conflicts in Somalia ultimately leads to sustaining the peace humanitarian, development, and peace interventions agenda (OECD, 2017; FAO, 2018). Conclusion: The paper concluded that Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus in Action had an impact on Protracted Environmental Conflicts in Somalia. Unique Contribution to Theory: The paper contributes to the existing literature by reviewing the HDP nexus in action, specifically on how it can solve protracted environmental conflicts in Somalia. It highlights the collaboration among several development players in the humanitarian ecosystem and the strategies that can be used to tackle environmental stress.Unique Contribution to Policy: The paper emphasizes the importance of the HDP nexus in sustaining peace interventions in conflict-affected areas like Somalia. It provides insights on how collaborations and strategies can be used to address protracted environmental conflicts in the country. Unique Contribution to Practice: The paper offers a systematic critical review design that can be used by humanitarian practitioners and stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of HDP nexus programs in addressing protracted environmental conflicts. It highlights the importance of using credible secondary data sources and collaboration among development players in the humanitarian ecosystem. Overall, the paper highlights the importance of the HDP nexus in addressing protracted environmental conflicts in Somalia and provides insights on how it can be operationalized in practice. The findings can inform the design and implementation of contextually appropriate and effective HDP nexus programs in conflict-affected areas. Keywords: Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus, Protracted Environmental Conflicts   1.0 Introduction Protracted Environmental Conflicts  , collaborative evidence (OECD, 2017; FAO, 2018; Oxfam, 2019) warns of the dynamic complexity of solving environmental problems based on their polarity (based on the fact that there is conflict and disconnect between home based strategies and generic strategies), and protracted nature of environmental conflicts (ICARDA, 2020) .Protracted in sense of  breadth of  variability  of environmental conflicts such as concerns on climate change, global warming desertification and ecology risks impact on quality of life compounded by the fact that these risks have not been solved for a long time despite their risk profiles.  Swiss Re Institute (2021) ties the protracted nature of environmental conflicts to economic, social, cultural, and peace outcomes to humanity that pose an antagonistic end result to humanitarian goals if the vagaries of nature are not professionally managed. This is in agreement with Hinga (2018) looks at the impeccable challenges of protracted environmental and their outcomes on societies and individuals specially to WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene).  The available evidence views of, impeccable and protracted ‘challenges is more akin to of ‘stakeholders need to realize that environmental problems in Somalia and elsewhere are recurring unless the stakeholders change methodology. Consequently, in this paper, the author argues that as environmental conflicts in Somalia conflicts grow increasingly protracted, climate-related shocks more intense, ecological conflicts pitting nature and man more execrated, the vulnerability cycle of fragility, vulnerability and the exacerbation of conflict becomes more established in Somalia (Oxfam, 2019).In this regard, Abel et al (2021) commends  that a framework that integrates a coherent humanitarian, development and peace interventions is needed to tackle protracted environmental conflicts in the globe and elsewhere. This paper will be thus anchored in the humanitarian -development peace nexus theory.  1.1 Problem  The key environmental challenges in Somalia are land deforestation, land degradation, aridity, desertification, pastoral conflicts, water unsustainability, climate change among others, climate change among others. Protracted environmental pressures have been associated with economic, political, social and cultural problems thus downgrading human resilience and ecological sustenance in the region (unisdr,2021). Consequently, it also appears that although evidence relating to climate, environmental risks exists, a disjointed perception exists especially viewed from the success and operationalization of international humanitarian programmes discourse. One of the common misconceptions to the misapplication of humanitarian -development peace rests on the assumption that environmental resilience competes against humanitarian security. These two problems surrounding humanitarian– development– peace nexus and environmental acuity in Somalia builds the problem to be addressed in this paper (Oxfam, 2019). 1.2 Objectives  An overview of Role of the Humanitarian – Development – Peace Nexus evidence in Tackling Protracted Environmental Conflicts theory and literature forms study purpose. Review Role of HDP Nexus Evidence in Theory and PracticeConfigure Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus in Action evidence that is applicable to Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia1.3 Research QuestionsWhat are the elements of HDP nexus in context of Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in SomaliaWhat is the Role of HDP Nexus Evidence in Theory and Practice Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in SomaliaWhich Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus in Action strategies is applicable to Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia 1.4 Value of research  This paper aims at improved interlinking of the various instruments within the HPD. The interlinking of humanitarian aid and long-term development cooperation had already started to be implemented in the 1990s through the Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) approach. What is particularly new in terms of the triple nexus concept is the inclusion of the peace dimension. Humanitarians as well as development and peace actors are called upon to better coordinate their work in order to more effectively promote the transformation of crises and conflicts into sustainable peace. In the past, different mandates, approaches and funding logic as well as a lack of cooperation mechanisms among the stakeholders have led to the poor integration of interventions and often compromised efficiency and effectiveness as a result (OECD, 2017; FAO, 2018; Oxfam, 2019). This paper gives new insights on challenges: a broad strategy, lack of incentives and a poor mutual understanding of the HPD nexus. Despite the awareness of the relevance of the concept and initial successes, implementation still poses major challenges for the stakeholders involved. Effective and efficient cooperation beyond institutional borders requires an adjustment to internal structures, processes and procedures that have often evolved over decades. Within the institutions and the nexus system, there is also a lack of incentive structures to encourage cooperation. Furthermore, there is no in-depth understanding of the work and functioning of the other stakeholder groups. Last but not least, there is a lack of joint analysis and scenario planning to define the focus of coherent programmes that map all aspects of the HDP nexus. Despite OECD DAC recommendations, the rather broad concept leaves plenty of room for interpretation and leads to the various actors having a different understanding of how the actual implementation of the HDP nexus is to take place (Oxfam,201; Medinilla, Shiferaw and Veron, 2019; Abel et al. 20; Hinga, 2018). 1.5 Justification for Study  On the Possible solutions listed below: greater coordination, more changes of perspective and dedicated cooperation at all levels as follows are expected in Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus, Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia (OECD, 2017; FAO, 2018)).Leadership and governance: The HPD nexus should demonstrate commitment to accountability through feedback and openness integrated into environmental programs, monitoring and evaluation, staffing, stakeholder engagements, reporting etc.Transparency: provision of timely information on procedures structures and processes enabling informed decision makingFeedback: Actively engage affected populations to develop resilient policy and practice programming that customizes and responds to protection issues (environment.)Participation: Encourage community partnered participation models Design, Monitoring and Evaluation: Design, monitor and evaluate community conscious programs that are environment sensitive2.0 Critical review of Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus in Action Critical review of Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus in Action: Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia scopes literature based on following keywords is effected (Kroll,Warchold. and Pradhan,2019). These keywords encompass Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus, Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia as suggested by agents of humanitarian-development– peace nexus. These keywords capture the dynamism in the HDP landscape fueled by technology, globalization/commercialization, increased risks (financial/operational/ morbidity/mortality) , and evidence   points to sustained disruption in the otherwise unstable   environmental sector. A summary of HDP models is ascertained because these models converge HDP inputs ;( stakeholders), outputs;(participants and procedures) aimed at delivering short/long term outcomes (quality / cost efficient/ sustainable HPD) to society. Success of HDP projects/programs/health performance is a critical subject Moreso to the Somali government/ policy makers/practitioners /public (Sharma et al., 2019). Contextual keywords summarized included i.e.,’ humanitarian-development– peace nexus, r barriers of   the operationalization of the HDP, success factors to the operationalization of HDP, benefits of HDP – nexus efforts in tackling recurring environmental conflicts in Somalia, recommended a humanitarian-development– peace – nexus model in tackling desertification in Somalia. This sets the groundwork for the theoretical development, methodology Analysis and findings of the subsequent research content (Ashley 2018; Ekblad, 2017; Osa and Hanatani, 2018). The HDP theoretical precepts of this proposal aim to guide the integration of interlinkages in protracted issues of the humanitarian-development– peace nexus viewed through the lens of environmental sustenance, diminishing the adverse effects of environmental conflicts. Specifically, the humanitarian-development peace nexus intends to bridge collaborations among several development players in the humanitarian ecosystem. These collaborations are not limited only to funding and financial drivers, strategies such as resilience agenda pathways for societies, destabilizing the effects of environmental stress, etc. Tackling protracted environmental conflicts in Somalia ultimately sustains the peace HDP interventions agenda (OECD, 2017; FAO, 2018). Peace as a central component of HDP nexus has been championed from 2016. On the forefront is the UN who have placed peace as the banner of its operations. The UN argues that without peace, social developmental goals in public and private circumstances cannot exist. Peace is a human right that supports sustenance of any society, economy or political organization. (Webster and Paton, 2016). Based on this information, the HDP as a policy document cannot be ignored as a guiding document on the success of HDP. Kabia (2016) notes that achieving the optimal combination of humanitarian, development, and peace approaches, and integrating them, is crucial. A nexus approach should never be used as an excuse not to provide humanitarian aid promptly or to reduce development assistance. Many multi-mandated organizations, transforming the aid system, have become accustomed to recognizing and responding to these altering settings.  Khafagy's (2020) case study explores the nexus between FBOS's humanitarian and religious motives. To achieve this, the author argued that Humanitarian actions are socially constructed to the accountability of affected populations of a particular society in that populations' inherited socioeconomic and political aspects (traditions) are integrated into outcomes. The dissertation applies to this HDP nexus in Somalia because the HDP nexus will refer to employing power (resources and decision capabilities) by humanitarian stakeholders anchored with effective and meaningful programming that recognizes the social, cultural, and political independence of the Somali people. It is the protection function envisioned by the UNHCR whereby commitment to protecting human dignity is cherished. Barnett and Stein's (2012) case study of systematic reviews of why HDP fails is an allusion to the secularization of humanitarian outcomes as the process by which daily routines are delinked from a supernatural direction to a more humanistic attribution, thus challenging its roots of spiritual standing. The book is an apparent break from the religious philosophy of the humanitarian paradigm that has dominated the world.  In their premise, the book author's point to arising of the secular humanitarian approach, which justifies the need to have efficient systems of humanitarian delivery that are based beyond sacred roles DEMAC report (2021) arises from a five-year systematic review of the evidence of Diaspora Humanitarian response In Somalia. The report aimed to provide an integrated humanitarian ecosystem by evaluating the smallest peripheral interlocks of the Diaspora humanitarian stakeholders. They process different Humanitarian approaches, identifying gaps and recommending novelties for cross-fertilization of HDP, thus improving humanitarian outcomes. The report is very suitable in that DEMAC has piloted structures linking diaspora and institutional humanitarian players specifically in Somalia and, as such, provides quality first-hand information on this topic.3.0 Methodology The aim of this study, objectives, scope, hypothesis, data type,  converging in different data collection methods, diversified outcomes of the study, bias as well freedom of the researcher, among other factors, defined this study methodology problem in the sense that this study touched on various multidisciplinary settings that were incongruent, research was conducted in complex situational environments on top of research falling under contemporary social investigation which is not succinctly developed (Timans et al. 2019).An elaborate and concise elaboration of the research methodology problem that the researcher must be aware of is exhibited below;Validating the null hypothesis: The Role of the (HDP) Nexus evidence in Tackling Protracted Environmental Conflicts in Somalia based on the assumption that the HDP model is more resilient in mitigating HDP challenges is unknown (Ashley, 2018). The HDP model was chosen as the theoretical grounding for this dissertation because it argues that delivering a HDP('triple') nexus approach surpasses the Framework for Resilient Development and the One Programme Approach in that these two Frameworks leave out the structural elements of peace components. A significant benefit of HDP is that it will entail reconsidering funding channels, operations, required knowledge and thought on how to set criteria and define success in addressing environmental concerns. The HDP, in particular, is more purposeful and persistent in incorporating conflict sensitivity and improving local peace-making capacities. Problem: protracted issues in Somalia persist due to the lack of a feasible HDP environmental model relying on partnerships, promoting human resource’s function optimization, technology adoption, and use of local structure and strategy, among other novel concepts (Oxfam, 2019) Contextualizing the expected HDP model from theory to practice: systematically assembling HDP factors based on reviewing HDP evidence and identifying barriers and success factors is a tall order (Ashley, 2018). The latest document on HPD status released in 2021 i.e., the Somali humanitarian response plan, gives the newest revelation of the humanitarian situation in Somalia. The paper is a result of consolidation by OCHA on behalf of the humanitarian country team and partners. The dissertation provides a comprehensive understanding of the humanitarian crisis, challenges, and recommended strategies, for easing the Somalia humanitarian response plan (UNOCHA.ORG/,2022). 4.0 Discussion Summary  4.1 Discussion of relevant themes based on keywords  This paper used a positivist and pragmatic research philosophy to achieve its primary and secondary goals. Hence, both philosophies ensured that the research philosophy used was factual and that the choice of research philosophy was a function of this discourse research problem (Rowley, 2014). This also informed the study's design framework, methodology, and analytical ability., while qualitative would guide the formulation of the active part of the model (Fischer and Miller, 2017). 4.2 Summary  Role of HDP Nexus Evidence in Theory and PracticeTheory The first objective was Review literature on humanitarian-development–peace. The author reviewed credible secondary data of HDP case studies online. Only official organizational documents from the UN and its bodies, peer-reviewed published research, books, and mass-media outputs related to HDP nexus were admissible. Review scoping concluded that humanitarian -development peace nexus is intended to bridge collaborations among several development players in the humanitarian ecosystem. These collaborations are not limited only to funding and financial drivers, strategies such as resilience agenda pathways for societies, destabilizing the effects of environmental stress, etc. Tackling protracted environmental conflicts in Somalia ultimately leads to sustaining the peace humanitarian, development, and peace interventions agenda (OECD, 2017; FAO, 2018). Summary of tabulated results on respondents of the interview guide by selected sources   showed that stakeholders of HDP consisted of both genders, working in different capacities and roles under separate entities over various clusters of operations. This is affirmative to Medinilla et al. (2019), who argue that the HDP nexus intersects different inputs, outputs, and outcomes moderated by a risky environment. Empirical results on Familiarity and Experience with HDP Nexus show despite many respondents knowing HDP, experience, and uptake were low. This agrees with various studies showing that HDP nexus has not been adopted due to many challenges Ashley 2018; Ekblad, 2017; Osa and Hanatani, 2018). Case studies: Practice The HDP nexus theoretical precepts of this case studies are aimed at guiding the integration of interlinkages in protracted issues of the humanitarian-development– peace nexus viewed through the lens of environmental sustenance, diminishing the adverse effects of the ecological conflicts in Somalia ( Osa and Hanatani, 2018). Global case studies in volatile areas such as Nigeria, Yemen, Nigeria, and Somalia show that HDP seems to be moving beyond analysis and planning to practical, programmatic action with shared objectives. HDP success is not tied to Government desire, resources, or availability of resources to foster HDP outcomes. HDP success is evident in Ethiopia, Jordan, and Indonesia, whereby the government spearheads the implementation using state systems. HDP success is apparent in Chad and Somalia, whereby the government allows collaborations among various stakeholders. High volatility has required actors to hold the joint program in the face of the failure of the traditional peace system in areas such as Somalia, CAR, and S.Sudan. In Nigeria, governments have called for a strategy that capitalizes on a more immediate humanitarian response, thus building benefits for local communities (Hernaiz, 2020; Medinilla, Shiferaw and Veron,2019; Abel et al., 2021; Hinga, 2018). 4.3 Recommendations Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus in Action strategy that is applicable to Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia Humanitarian-Development–Peace nexus in Action evidence that is applicable to Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia can be improved by interlinking of the various instruments within the HPD.For instance, The inclusion of the peace dimension is a very novel addition to the triple nexus notion. Humanitarians, as well as development and peace-building players, are being urged to better coordinate their efforts in order to facilitate the transformation of crises and conflicts into long-term peace. Different mandates, methodologies, and financial logic, as well as a lack of cooperation channels across stakeholders, have in the past resulted in inadequate intervention integration and, as a result, often undermined efficiency and effectiveness (Ashley 2018; Ekblad, 2017; Osa and Hanatani, 2018). A broad approach, a lack of incentives, and a lack of mutual understanding are among the challenges facing Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus in Action evidence that is applicable to Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia. Despite widespread recognition of the concept's importance and early successes, implementation remains a substantial issue for the players involved. Cooperation across institutional boundaries that is effective and efficient necessitates changes to internal structures, processes, and procedures that have typically evolved over decades. There are also no incentive systems to foster cooperation between the institutions and the nexus system. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive awareness of the other stakeholder groups' work and operations. Finally, there is a dearth of combined analysis and scenario planning to determine the emphasis of coherent programs that map all components of the HDP nexus( Ashley 2018; Ekblad, 2017; Osa and Hanatani, 2018). On the Possible solutions of Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus in Action evidence that is applicable to Protracted Environmental Conflicts   in Somalia: greater coordination, more changes of perspective and dedicated cooperation at all levels as follows;Leadership and governance: The HPD nexus should demonstrate commitment to accountability through feedback and openness integrated into environmental programs, monitoring and evaluation, staffing, stakeholder engagements, reporting etc. Transparency: provision of timely information on procedures, structures and processes enabling informed decision-making feedback actively to engage affected populations to develop resilient policy and practice programming that customizes and responds to protection issues (environment)(Ashley 2018; Ekblad, 2017;). Operationalization of HDP nexus opportunities leads to Allocatable benefits measurable by both quantitative and qualitative indicators. The study findings revealed that Benefits of HDP – Nexus  In Somalia could be auctioned by  impact evaluation of   ; No of refugee families with housing, no of people accessing Health services, no of people above the poverty   line, funding gap in dollars,no of IDPS formerly with no land rights returning to properties with secure land tenure, no of refugees able to access clean water, sanitation and hygiene, no of livelihoods support programs including women’s and youth empowerment; no of Solved tribal/clan conflicts (Weishaupt, 2020). Timko et al (2018) is of the opinion that Human security aims to build local solutions to local problems based on the argument that recurrent environmental crises are intertwined and adversely affect individual social and well-being. Human Security complements humanitarian efforts by recognizing that long-term solutions considering local capacities and resources are a prerequisite for achieving sustainable results and preventing crises from recurring (UNTFHS,2016). 4.4 Conclusions The paper concluded that Humanitarian-Development– Peace nexus in Action had an impact on Protracted Environmental Conflicts in Somalia. The HDP nexus theoretical precepts are aimed at guiding the integration of interlinkages that solves protracted issues of the humanitarian-development– peace nexus in Somalia viewed through the lens of environmental sustenance, diminishing the adverse effects of the ecological conflicts.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this afternoon, at the Presidential Palace in Nicosia, at the joint statement with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis:  "Since the founding of this Eastern Mediterranean partnership between our three democracies, our relations have flourished bilaterally and trilaterally in ways that people found hard to imagine. I found it hard to imagine that it wasn't the case, when we have three very—in some ways, very similar countries.  Hundreds of thousands, by now millions, of Israelis have come here, both as entrepreneurs, as investors, as technologists, as tourists, as diplomats. That is very natural. The reason it's natural is that we feel very comfortable with the culture.  I saw that last night when we were having dinner, the three of us, in here, in Limassol, on the seaside, and Israelis walked by and they said hello. And you could see the Cypriot counterparts do the same. It's a very comfortable, informal Mediterranean democratic culture that we have that has historic roots and modern manifestations.  This people-to-people base is now obviously going, takes on a different capacity in three main areas that we discussed. They all have to do with energy. The first one is gas. The second one is electricity. The third one is fire.  On gas, we're discussing the possibilities that we'll have to decide soon, about how Israel exports its gas. And the same decisions have to be made by Cyprus. And we're looking at the possibility of cooperating on this. Those decisions will be made I think in the next three to six months. Probably closer to three months.  The second thing, on the electricity connector. Both Israel and Cyprus are islands. Crete, part of Greece, is an island. There is an electricity connector that is being organized right now from mainland Greece to Crete to Cyprus. We would like to have it connected obviously to Israel, and possibly to the east of Israel, so that we can use, we can optimize the use of electricity. We discussed now the mechanism of how to advance this.  The third thing is fire. The world is getting hotter, not only because the warmth of our relationship. That's the good side, but because the climate getting more punitive, with the eruption of fires that are, truly endanger our countries.  We have communicated, we've cooperated on firefighting planes. We're talking about going well beyond that into AI systems for early detection, and other things that we're developing separately. We're going to do it better together in a variety of ways that we agreed upon as well.  On terror, we've had instances now of cooperation between Israel and Cyprus, and Israel and Greece, where our security forces cooperated to stop terror, Iranian-backed terror.   I have to say that I think there's something else that could develop, and we discuss it at great length. There is now the possibility that we might have the expansion of the Abraham Accords to normalization with Saudi Arabia. All three countries view that as a great possibility, but they also see that this could lead to a connection between India, the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, Cyprus, Greece, and Europe. There is a natural, geographic connection, but it could be also something that would lead to many, many rewards for our peoples and for our countries. I think we all see eye-to-eye on that.  I have to say that it's a pleasure to have, to receive your hospitality and to see my old friend, Kyriakos, here, and you as well, Nikos. We have a wonderful friendship and we look forward to seeing you, as we say, next year in Jerusalem."  Prime Minister Netanyahu added:  "We like your food. We like your dairy products. We like your yogurt.  So as I told the leaders, and I'm telling you right now, we are going to soon open our dairy products market, which is long overdue. I think Israelis are going to be a lot happier, and your producers are going to be a lot happier. So be prepared for that. We can enjoy the benefits of each other's economies in the most direct sense. We intend to open the dairy market very soon to Greek and Cypriot—and other—imports. May the best yogurt win. You have a pretty good chance at winning."

The changing global order has created an enabling environment for the recent spike of takeovers in Africa’s ‘coup belt’ – with Russia and newly assertive middle powers offering themselves as partners to putschists  Coups d’états have returned to Africa. In the 1990s and 2000s, the number of forced takeovers of power on the continent fell; but the figure began to creep back up around 15 years ago. This deterioration has come to particular prominence with the emergence of a ‘coup belt’ spanning from Sudan to Niger (and mostly recently Gabon), where eight coups have taken place in the last three years.   The drivers behind coups range from state fragility to weak economic development. But such factors were also a constant in the decades immediately after the end of the cold war – when Africa experienced fewer coups.  The overlooked factor is the weakening of global order and the coup-enabling international environment it has created. Policymakers should consider, in particular, the role that activist ‘middle powers’ and Russia are now playing in taking advantage of an increasingly lawless international setting. US retrenchment, selective AU enforcement As the United States retrenches to pursue its strategic competition with China, its capacity to invest seriously in both strategic imperatives and values-led foreign policy objectives is coming under strain. With the essential taking precedence over the good, upholding democracy in Africa has slipped down the list of America’s strategic priorities.  Africa’s own system for deterring takeovers has also weakened considerably. The African Union’s  enforcement of its coup-prohibiting rules grew increasingly inconsistent during the same period, during which time it began to enforce only selectively, due to the whims of powerful AU member states. This started with the coup in Mauritania in 2008, and was followed by President Sisi’s post-coup election in Egypt, and more recently by coups in Chad and Sudan. The interregnum and the rise of the middle powers To paraphrase Gramsci, the international rules-based order has not yet died so the new order cannot be born. The world thus finds itself in an interregnum in which the rules-based order is fraying but where the next iteration of global order is yet to emerge.  Aware that the world around them is changing, African leaders worry that a new version of cold war is developing, and that they are at risk of being forced to choose a side – America or China. But a cold war-style scenario is not a given, which means African leaders may be preparing for the wrong thing. This risks obscuring a major challenge created by the interregnum: the rise of assertive middle powers.    With global order in flux, middle powers seek to maximise their sovereignty and expand their influence. For middle powers in the Gulf, to Egypt and Turkey, those twin ambitions translate into treating the Horn of Africa as their near abroad. Russia surges into the coup belt sharing the same middle power motivations, but it differs on one count: desire to undermine the West. The opportunity generated by coups determines where Russia chooses to engage. But pursuing its rivalry with the West provides a second motive for Russia’s focus on the western half of the coup belt: it works to push back the strongest European influence, namely France’s presence in francophone Sahel states.  Naturally, Russia’s and middle powers’ engagement in Africa pre-dates the interregnum, but the opportunity presented by the evolving global order supercharges their interventions. Russia and middle powers exploit US retrenchment and eroding AU norms by offering themselves as partners to putschists. Seeing the opportunity to gain influence in power-grabs, they move in and back their preferred horse. These include the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey throughout the Horn of Africa, where Turkey is more focused on Somalia; the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are more focused on Sudan. In the Sahel, Turkey is tentatively exploring economic and security cooperation in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali. Russia plays a role across the Horn of Africa and Sahel sections of the coup belt; its deepest footprint is in Mali and Burkina Faso. All active middle powers are eyeing the prize of Libya as part of the strategic rationale for getting involved in its bordering countries.  With increasing numbers of autocratic political entrepreneurs in the coup belt bidding for power, the opportunities for engagement multiply. Middle powers – and Russia, to a lesser degree – place serious political and financial capital behind their engagement as well as no-questions-asked security support. This creates outsize impact compared to the mid-level Western official engagement and more conditional provision of financial and security support. Even though they wield greater firepower, the abilities of middle powers’ diplomatic and security institutions have yet to catch up with the demands placed on them by their political masters’ robust will to act. The impact can be of the bull in the china shop variety.  Russia and middle powers create an enabling environment for Africa’s autocrats by making their international and African-regional isolation impossible. The previous, unipolar period allowed the US, with European flanking, all behind an African lead (generally the AU), to deploy carrots and sticks while corralling other external powers. But middle powers’ assertive go-it-alone policies hamper the formation of a critical mass of international support to disincentivise rule-breaking.  How to navigate this new landscape African leaders grasp that changing global order is creating greater interest in Africa. They encourage new partners as a welcome means of diversification beyond the former confined choice of the US, old colonial powers such as France and Britain, or China. But the impact of Russian and middle power engagement in the coup belt demonstrates the pitfalls of such diversification. Rather than creating an additionality of options for Africa’s benefit, Russian and middle power engagement strengthens African autocrats and feeds state destabilisation.  There will be no return to the unipolar US-led order; no American linchpin to hold together the rules-based order against coups in Africa. Even if the US were to reallocate political capital to this end, the interregnum phase has already created shifts in global order of a magnitude that makes assertive middle powers and Russia near impossible to contain.  Nor can muscular engagement by France in its former colonies – the Sahel swathe of the coup belt – fill the US leadership gap. As much as France struggles to retain its primus inter pares role among European powers in the Sahel, the fever-pitch of anti-French sentiment in its former Sahel colonies constrains its efficacy.  When encouraging all-comers to support development in their countries, African leaders may have lingered too little on the drawbacks of Russia’s and middle powers’ engagement. If their fear was of Africa’s instrumentalisation by China and the US, then Russia and middle powers are not creating greater African agency. As it stands, they simply add to the number of actors instrumentalising Africa. That is the true wake-up call sounded by the Niger coup.

Thank you very much.  Dear Mr. Speaker Stephanchuk, Distinguished Members of the Verjovna Rada,Excellencies, dear friends. I am very grateful to be here today, on this very special day for my country. Today, 1st July,  Spain assumes the great responsibility of becoming the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union for the next six months. And I wanted that the very first thing I did in my new capacity was to address the people of Ukraine through their Verjovna Rada. I wanted to tell you that we are and will be with you as long as it takes. I wanted to tell you that we will support Ukraine no matter the price to pay. That we will be with you in the achievement of your aspirations to be a free and sovereign  country that decides its own destiny as a member of the European family. In short, I am here to express the firm determination of Europeans and Europe to fight against the illegal, unjustifiable and unjustified Russian aggression to Ukraine. Once again, I have the honour to address all of you in this temple of Ukrainian democracy. My first address took place in February, on the first anniversary of Russia’s aggression against your sovereignty and territorial integrity. Things have changed since then. Today Ukraine is in the midst of the counter-offensive against an enemy that is showing signs of weakness. We have all seen the events of last week. They speak for themselves. And, if one side shows weakness, it is because in front of him there is someone who shows the opposite: determination. It's what I can see, right here, and right now: determination, strength and courage. What I can see is a whole country that refuses to be subjected and fights for its independence with immense dignity. I know the price to pay is enormous. Especially in human lives lost. Nothing I can say here today can comfort a family that has lost a daughter, a son, a mother, a father or a husband. Men and women who gave their lives defending a free and democratic Ukraine.  Still, I want to do it from the bottom of my heart on behalf of my country, Spain. A country that mourns with you. A country that condemns every Russian attack against Ukrainian civilians, like the one at Kramatorsk. Victoria Amelina, a Ukrainian writer was there. Severely injured, now fights for her life. Victoria was close to the front line, because she wanted to document the tragedy. She wanted to collect the memory of infamy. The lost heritage. The broken lives. The crimes committed. We need women Victoria Amelina, to write history. To tell the facts as they happened and preserve the memory of those who suffer this tragedy. Excellencies, dear friends, we do not forget that the European aspiration of the Ukrainian people was one of the excuses that triggered the Russian reaction and, in turn, the invasion. It was only fair to honour this aspiration by granting you the status of candidate to the European Union. No one deserves it more than you, than Ukraine. However, I know that this is not an easy process, especially with an ongoing war. To become a member state requires changes, reforms and sacrifices. Not long ago, Spain faced this challenge as a candidate country. But, let me tell you, that the process to become an European Union member taught us important lessons. One of them is that undertaking reforms has a value in itself. Reforms make your governance and your economy better, more modern and transparent. They bolster international confidence and proximity. They attract investment. And, in time, they will grant you access to our European Union. A Union, which is more than just the largest internal market in the world. Which is, above all, a community of values: human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Last week, the European Commission made a positive assessment of Ukrainians, of Ukraine’s progress concerning the required reforms. I congratulate you for the progress made, especially thanks to the legislative work of this Rada, and I encourage you to keep up with it. It is worth the effort. Congratulations. And of course we will be eagerly awaiting the report of the European Commission in the fall, which will set the basis for the future. Excellencies, We want a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Only Ukraine can set terms and times for peace negotiations. Other countries and regions are proposing peace plans. The involvement is much appreciated, but, at the same time, we cannot accept them entirely. This is a war of aggression, with an aggressor and a victim. They cannot be treated equally. And ignoring the rules should in no way be rewarded. That is why we support President Zelenski’s peace formula, which is respectful with International Law and the UN Charter. Ukraine is paying a heavy prize in terms of destruction of cities and infrastructure. So, we need to make sure that the country is rebuilt, thus creating the conditions for its growth and prosperity. And we have already started. Today, Spain has decided to dedicate another 55 million euros, including offering 51 M€ through the World Bank Group to help finance Small and Medium Enterprises in Ukraine, as well as 4 M€ to the UN Development Program to provide schools in Ukraine with green-friendly and resilient energy systems. Reconstruction will take time and investment in many sectors. Spain is committed to accompanying Ukraine in this process. There are some areas, such as the railway infrastructure, in which our companies have the know-how that can make the difference. The Spanish government will support finance the necessary investments to adapt and upgrade infrastructures and productive sectors in your country. Yet, we understand that reconstruction and prosperity will only arrive if real, long-term security is achieved. My friends, in my view, it is clear that we cannot rely on the promises made after the Cold War anymore. We have to adapt to a different security environment, one in which concepts like peace, sovereignty or territorial integrity can no longer be taken for granted. The aggression on Ukraine has shown us that they need to be effectively defended. Not just with words, but with facts. Therefore, we will need to rethink the security framework to ensure that your country, Ukraine, will be able to live free from aggression or intimidation. As the President said, we are approaching the NATO Summit in Vilnius, which will follow on the commitments we made last year, in Madrid, the capital of Spain. Spain supports enhancing the political participation of Ukraine through the creation of a NATO-Ukraine Council, where you will no longer be an invitee, but a member, a full member. We are also in favour of enhancing the practical cooperation, to continue to adapt your defence sector to NATO Standards. These are, my friends, big steps forward that will be further discussed during the upcoming NATO Summit in Vilnius. Spain will continue to do its part as well: we are delivering more Leopard tanks, armoured personnel carriers and a field hospital with surgical capacity. We also continue to reach out to other countries and continents, to explain what is really happening here in Ukraine, but also to listen to their concerns, especially those related to food and energy security or insecurity, in this case. Excellencies, Last February, before my trip to Kyiv, someone in Madrid, in my city, was  wondering about the Ukrainian’s state of mind and asked me: “Do you think they are afraid?”. When I came back, after the visit, I had a clear answer to this question and I told them: Look, they are not afraid. They are going to win. It will take them weeks, or months. It will take tears, blood and sweat, but Ukraine is going to win this war. And they asked me “Pedro, Pedro, why?, why?”. And I said, “Because there are two battles. One happens in the battlefield. The other happens in the mind, because it’s a battle of ideas. And that one, the Ukrainian people have already won it”. Ukraine has chosen democracy in the face of those who despise it. Ukraine has chosen openness and freedom, in the face of those who fear it. Ukraine has chosen to sit, and discuss, and vote, and change, and evolve, in the face of those who only believe in force and obedience. Ukraine has chosen to be independent, to move freely, to trade, to invest, to prosper, to have hope, in the face of those who still have delusional dreams about old empires. The Ukrainian people have chosen the European way. The Ukrainian people ARE, you are Europeans. And you are Europeans not only because of a geographical imperative. You are Europeans by moral and spiritual commitment. So, dear friends. During this years, I have learned many things about Ukraine. Even some Ukrainian words. For instance, I have learned that "Mriya" (emriya) means “dream” in English, we say in Spanish Sueño. That was the name of the largest plane in the world, located at the Hostomel airfield when it was destroyed by Russian troops in February 2022. That plane brought medical supplies during the pandemic or carried humanitarian aid in natural disasters. It was a symbol, a pride for Ukraine. They destroyed the symbol, but they couldn’t destroy the idea. Now, I have learnt that Ukrainian engineers are already working on the reconstruction of that giant of the skies. Let me tell you that you are not just rebuilding an airplane: you are rebuilding a dream. One day, that dream will cross the skies again. And from there, here on the ground, we will see a new Ukraine reborn from the ashes of destruction. That’s what you fight for. You fight for peace, for security and prosperity for your children. And every Ukrainian soldier knows it. Russian soldiers fight because they are scared they will be punished if they don’t. They ask themselves everyday “what are we doing here?”. You are united, you stand on the moral high ground. They even rebel, as we saw a few days ago. That’s why they cannot win and you cannot lose. I came here today to tell you that Europe is open to those who make the choice. The European Union was built to prevent new wars. We chose to get together, to be “united in diversity”, and that made us stronger. Europe is with you, and you are one with Europe. Mui Yevropa! [¡Somos Europa!] Slava Ukraini [¡Viva Ucrania!]

Europeans should allow their countries to be hosts for free debate among the Russian emigrés of the 21st century. But they should resist the temptation to view the exiles as channels of influence to reform Russia.  Life as a refugee is always difficult. And being a Russian exile in Europe is difficult in its own way. You are blamed for the war you opposed. You might fight the blame, or you might own it and try to atone – either way, there is little you can do. And what you are able to do inevitably proves inadequate: it is hard to convince Europeans that Russian society does not bear blame for Vladimir Putin’s war; and you can never apologise enough to shake away the guilt. Alternatively, you might be of the opportunistic type, who arrives with a sense of entitlement in search of the good life – and also ends up disappointed by the cool welcome. Either way, you start slowly losing touch with home, while never quite agreeing with the worldview of your new neighbours.  The politically motivated exodus of Russians to Europe started slowly in around 2012 and dramatically intensified over the past year and a half. The exiles come with a panoply of views. There are those who indeed feel guilty about the war, because, as Russian citizens, they feel responsible for failing to prevent it. There are those who think of themselves first and foremost as victims of the Putin regime and refuse to be answerable for its crimes. There are those who do not bother with questions of guilt at all, but just come in search of a safe haven – for their money, perhaps, or from mobilisation. There are those who worked for the Putinist system before becoming disillusioned or falling out of favour; there are those who kept their distance from the very start. And finally, there are surely those who have not truly fled at all, but have been planted among the refugee community by the Russian special services.  Europeans and the European Union lack a common policy towards the exiles. While Ukrainian refugees will correctly remain Europeans’ priority, what should European decision-makers do about the fleeing Russians: embrace them; reject them; or put them on probation?  What should European decision-makers do about the fleeing Russians: embrace them; reject them; or put them on probation?  Some in Europe view the exiles as our best link to civil society in Russia; as a group who could be instrumental to democratising the country in the future. They suggest welcoming them, helping them, and working with them. Behind the scenes, though, many others, especially European officials working on security matters, are governed by caution: ‘We don’t know who these people really are,’ they say in private. ‘They might be anti-Putin, they might be undercover FSB. And if they are effective in their anti-Putin activities, the Kremlin might send assassins after them – which won’t help our security either.’  A third approach is to approve of Russians as long as they think and behave in particular ways. In many places the exiles are welcome as long as they conform to local expectations, which vary widely, and are maximalist in some places. A good illustration of this is the fate of TV Dozhd. Russia’s last-remaining liberal television channel moved its operations to Latvia, but soon lost its licence for its programming’s lack of Latvian subtitles, for referring to the Russian army as “our army,” and for using (probably accidentally) a map that showed Crimea as part of Russia. Consciously or otherwise, the Latvian government seems to have hoped TV Dozhd would become essentially a Russian-language Latvian television channel, taking Riga’s official line and helping to sway the views of Latvia’s extensive Russian diaspora. When TV Dozhd continued to operate as part of the Russian debate and media landscape – hence its reference to the Russian army as “ours” – it went beyond the bounds of the expectations of the Latvian authorities.  All approaches have their logic and merit. All have shortcomings too.  It is likely true that, for the time being, the exiles are Europe’s best link to Russian society. Most have friends and family in Russia, with whom they communicate on a daily basis. However, if the standoff endures, over time these links will weaken. Former friends, some of whom stayed, some of whom left, will take separate paths in life. They will be part of different debates, with different social codes. The exiles will slowly lose their authentic ‘feeling’ for Russia; they could start projecting their own hopes and fears upon reality. At that point, anyone who relies on the political analyses of the exile community alone will need to start double-checking its members’ assessments.  It is also hard to say what part the exile community can play in post-Putin Russia. To an extent this will depend on the length of time they are away. The Russians who fled the Bolshevik revolution after 1917 believed they would soon head back – and as a result lived out of suitcases for most of their lives. By contrast, those who left in the 1970s and 1980s expected never to return – but many had done so by the early 1990s. We simply do not know what the future holds for today’s emigrés.  It is also impossible to predict the influence they will have if they go back. In some societies – the Baltic states, for instance – returning exiles adapted smoothly and played important political and social roles following the collapse of the USSR. Not so in Russia – in the 1990s, the homegrown networks of post-Soviet Russian politics proved fairly impenetrable to those who had been away. This may change after Putin; or it may not.    It is unlikely that Europeans will ever have a truly common policy towards their Russian exile community. The questions of Russia and Russians are of different levels of sensitivity in different countries, and different states’ policies will always reflect that. Accepting this will make life easier for everyone, and Europe is diverse enough to welcome Russians in various ways. For instance, TV Dozhd may have moved to Latvia in the hope of being close to Russia in a town inhabited by exiles. But ultimately it may be better off in its new home in the Netherlands, where society is less instinctively suspicious of everything Russian.  Also, much of what regulates the daily life of Russian exiles – rules on visas, border crossing, residence permits, asylum – will remain in the competence of interior ministries, and thus outside the regulatory reach of the EU. Its institutions may still wish to draw up a list of recommendations or best practices, which could help member states at least streamline their actions, so that unilateral steps by some do not leave others exposed. (Think, for instance, of how the visa bans introduced by the Baltic states last year increased the migration pressure on Finland and Norway – until they too restricted the movement of Russians.) This would also help address the Kafkaesque set of regulations inside the EU faced by the exiles. But truly uniform policies across the bloc or the Schengen visa space are probably unrealistic for the time being.   Of course, the exiled Russians need to adapt to the societies where they have settled. They need to follow local rules and laws, and put up with local views about Russia – there is no avoiding that. However, their hosts should allow them to be themselves – Russian Russians – not just Russian-speaking Europeans.  Ultimately, Europeans’ approach should be to provide space for Russians without over-investing in them or instrumentalising them. Allow them space to live, safe from the Kremlin. Enable them to talk freely about Russia – painful and necessary as it is. For now, exile is the only place where there can be a Russian debate about the country’s political system, how to fix it, and how to atone for its crimes. Parts of their soul-searching may connect with the discourse in Russia, although there is no guarantee of this. But above all, Europeans should not view them as a column that will smash the Putinist regime. Do not embrace them as such, do not project your hopes onto them, and do not try to micromanage Russian politics with the help of exiled political leaders (even if they ask you to).  The rationale for welcoming Russians should be that Europe is Europe: a place that provides shelter for refugees and a home for honest debate. Europeans’ reasoning should not be rooted in any expectations about the political influence exiles will have in a future Russia – because that may never materialise. If those who departed eventually acquire such influence, it will be a welcome surprise. Above all, the more that Europeans steer clear of intra-Russian intrigues and political manipulation, the more likely it is that such influence will be worth the steadfastness of circumspection.

While it is prudent to be cautious, it may also be wise to explore cooperation in those areas where there are shared interests rather than assume that the BRICS and the West are strategic rivals on all fronts. This analysis was first published in the Global Observatory, 30 August 2023. When Jim O’Neill coined the BRIC acronym in 2001, the point he was trying to convey was that the global economic system needed to incorporate the world’s largest emerging economies. His advice fell on deaf ears and in 2009, Brazil, China, India and Russia decided to take matters into their own hands and formed the BRIC grouping. South Africa joined the group in 2010 to form the BRICS. This July, the group held its 15th summit in South Africa, where they decided to add six new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. More are likely to join in the future, including countries like Indonesia and Nigeria.  What these countries have in common is a frustration, if not a grievance, about being side-lined to the periphery of the world economy. Together, the BRICS represent approximately 40% of the world’s population. The combined size of their economies are approaching approximately 30% of the world’s GDP, which puts them roughly on par with combined size of the economies of the G7 countries, depending on whether size is measured in GDP or PPP.  More importantly, in the next few decades, the combined size of the BRICS economies will surpass that of the G7. Despite this growing parity, all the members of the BRICS, with the exception of Russia, self-identifies as being part of the Global South, i.e., they feel excluded from a global system dominated by the Global North. Their stated aim is to work towards a future system of global governance where they will have equal political and economic say in global institutions, and where no one state will dominate others. In pursuit of this aim, BRICS countries have established their own development bank, set up their own contingency reserve arrangement, are developing their own payment system, and have started to trade with each other in their own currencies.  The BRICS want to free their economies from the dollar-based international financial system. They feel exposed to United States interest rates that can have a negative effect on their economies, for no domestic reasons. The dollar-based financial system also provides the US with significant advantages in the global economy, which the BRICS see as unfair. They also feel a dollar-based financial system gives the US hegemonic influence in global affairs, through for example, exerting US jurisdiction on all dollar-based trade or investments that flow through US banks or financial institutions.  While the BRICS countries have these clear shared macro-economic interests, many of the members also have competing interests in other domains. China and India are geopolitical rivals in South Asia. Egypt and Ethiopia are at loggerheads over the Nile. Brazil, India, South Africa and the newly-added Argentina are democracies, while other countries in the group are governed by a diverse set of autocratic regimes, which could set up an irreconcilable clash of values on some issues. Many of the members of the BRICS also have close ties to the United States and Europe, including Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, in a televised statement to the nation on the eve of hosting the BRICS summit in South Africa, explained that South Africa remains non-aligned, and he announced that in 2023 the country will also host a major United States-Africa trade meeting and an EU-South Africa summit. South Africa will also host the G20 in 2025, the first in Africa. For many countries, membership of the BRICS does thus not necessarily imply aligning themselves with one global alliance versus another, but rather cooperation in a group around a series of shared interests.  Where does this place the BRICS on the Russian war in Ukraine? The BRICS summit in Johannesburg steered clear of taking a position on the war, other than welcoming mediation aimed at resolving it through dialogue and diplomacy. Some BRICS members like Iran are clearly supporting Russia, while most others have stopped short of either supporting or condemning Russia. For many such as Egypt, the war has adversely affected their economy. Two of the BRICS members, Egypt and South Africa, are part of an African initiative to seek a mediated end to the conflict, which is perhaps the first African initiative to mediate an international conflict. Overall, however, the BRICS have their eyes on the medium- to long-term transformation of the global macro-economic and financial system, and countries like China are probably frustrated that the Russian war in Ukraine has drawn attention away from this larger objective.  Are the BRICS and the West headed for a new cold war? The shift in the center of gravity of the global economy to the East is an unstoppable fact driven by demographics and economic factors like the cost of production. At the same time, Europe and the United States will remain major economic players. In tandem with these changes in the global economy, it is clear that the global political order will become more multipolar, with China, Europe, India, and the United States representing some of the major centers of influence.  In an August 27 article, Jim O’Neil argues that the influence of the BRICS will be determined by their effectiveness, not their size. An expanding BRICS will most likely succeed in helping its members to break free from a dollar-based international financial system, but that will take several decades of incremental change before it reaches a tipping point. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on the degree to which your economy is tied to the United States. Many of the BRICS countries, including China, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa all have economies whose prosperity are closely tied to the Unites States. They will thus have an interest in a slow, stable freeing up of the international financial system, and this should give everyone that is prudent time to adapt.  The same logic also applies to changes in global governance architecture. Apart from Russia, all the other BRICS countries have an interest in making sure that changes in the global order are managed at a slow steady pace that does not generate instability. All the BRICS countries, apart from Russia, are also strong supporters of multilateralism, with the United Nations at its center. Many Western countries and BRICS members may thus have more shared interests than the doomsday headlines suggest. While it is prudent to be cautious, it may also be wise to explore cooperation in those areas where there are shared interests rather than assume that the BRICS and the West are strategic rivals on all fronts.

Surveys show that the elite’s opinion toward China diverges with those of citizens in Singapore and Indonesia. Elites tend to weigh long-term geopolitical strategies and have more access to information, but increased citizen engagement will enhance foreign policy.  Societies are often divided on policy matters — and foreign policy is no exception. American politics have long been divided between the Democrats, who are cautious of U.S. militarisation, and the Republicans, who traditionally tend to support US global military presence. The U.K.’s Brexit referendum saw opinion sharply divided along generational lines, with young people generally preferring to remain in the European Union and the older generation voting to leave. Are similar divisions manifest in Southeast Asia?  Think tanks and research organisations have conducted various surveys to understand how major powers influence the region. Notable ones include the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute’s State of Southeast Asia Survey, Blackbox’s ASEAN Turns 50, the Foreign Policy Community Indonesia’s ASEAN-China Survey, and the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Survey. Comparisons of these surveys must be mindful of their different objectives, sampling methods, and timing of sample collection. Still, they provide empirical data to explore whether Southeast Asian elites and laypersons have divergent opinions over foreign policies. This article considers how the rise of China is viewed by society in Singapore, the region’s commercial and financial hub, and Indonesia, ASEAN’s largest country and current chair.  The findings of several polls are quite revealing. The most recent iteration of ISEAS’ annual survey, targeted at the regional elites and policymakers familiar with international affairs, concluded that the region’s trust in China to provide leadership remains low, including respondents in Singapore. However, in contrast, the survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre in 2021 showed that ordinary Singaporean citizens have favourable views of China (Chart 1). This poll, repeated in 2022 on 19 countries (mostly OECD members), found that Singapore was one of three countries that viewed China and President Xi Jinping in favourable terms.   A dissonance can also be observed when comparing surveys in Indonesia – but in this case, the elites’ disposition toward China has grown warmer while the citizens’ mood has chilled over time. The ISEAS surveys concluded that Indonesian elites have become more positive about China in the past three years. Meanwhile, the polls conducted by the Lowy Institute found that ordinary Indonesian citizens tend to be more cautious of China’s influence in their country compared to ten years ago (Chart 2).   What explains these divisions between the region’s elites and laypersons? First, elites and policymakers often project national interests and pursue long-term geopolitical strategies, while some ordinary citizens may prioritise immediate concerns such as economic and social issues. The relationship between Singapore and China is strong, as both sides are indispensable trade and economic partners. Understandably, Chinese economic influence can be felt on the ground. In addition, the social ties between Singapore and China are strong. The majority of Singapore citizens are ethnic Chinese who may still maintain some degree of socio-cultural connection with China.   Second, elites and laypersons have varying degrees of access to information, exposure to disinformation, and interests. Those in foreign policy establishments usually have greater access to information and in-depth analysis, affording them more wide-ranging perspectives on specific issues. Meanwhile, the general public primarily depends on media coverage or word of mouth, which may limit their perspective and sometimes expose them to biased narratives.  In the case of Indonesia’s elites, who tend to be more optimistic over China’s role, their attitudes might be influenced by more nuanced views, for instance, that China’s economic resources are valuable for Indonesia’s economic development and good rapport with China is key to settling the territorial disputes in the Natuna Islands. On the other hand, Indonesia’s laypersons are more wary of China, possibly due to growing concerns over Chinese investments, Chinese natural resource extraction industries, and the influx of Chinese workers taking away local jobs.  While this division might be polarising, the discrepancy can also bring about greater checks and balances between governments’ and citizens’ interests. The cases of Singapore and Indonesia should be a reminder that Southeast Asia is a diverse region at the heart of major power contestations. Taking into consideration different interest groups will help policymakers understand wide-ranging foreign policy preferences so as to better strike strategic balance and neutrality for the region.  Countries in the region must not ignore their citizens’ views when crafting their foreign policies or evaluating whether certain foreign policies resonate well with the public. Several countries have attempted to create platforms for citizens to voice their concerns on foreign policy. The Foreign Policy Community Indonesia (FPCI), developed by the prominent former diplomat Dino Patti Djalal, was established to promote non-government views on international relations and to embrace the Indonesian spirit of civic engagement. The club has chapters in local universities, allowing students to express and channel their thoughts on geopolitical issues. Some Southeast Asian countries also have a network of foreign correspondent clubs, most notably the Foreign Correspondent Club of Thailand (FCCT) founded in the 1950s to be a platform for local and international journalists to discuss international affairs.  The practice of foreign policy is becoming more complex and multifaceted due to increased political tensions between major powers, with greater considerations placed on the nexuses between economics, security, diplomacy, social development, and climate change. Sovereign border lines have become blurred due to greater people-to-people connectivity between countries. The rise of citizen engagement in foreign policy may be a positive development for the region as it would help to moderate foreign policy in the event that governments operate in their own echo chambers.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine imposed a sudden energy shock on Europe 18 months ago. Faced with the prospect of much less Russian gas, there were fears that Europe’s energy infrastructure would not cope with winter 2022-23, causing economies to crumble.   Yet a mild winter and the EU’s gradual rollout of a plan to reduce its energy consumption and buy more from alternative suppliers saw it emerge shaken but not beaten on the other side.  Germany, Italy and other gas-reliant nations pivoted from Russian dependency without major electricity shortages. Since then, there has been more good news. Energy prices have fallen steadily in 2023, while Europe’s gas storage levels hit 90% capacity three months ahead of the November target and could even hit 100% in September.    According to politicians like the German energy minister, Robert Habeck, the worst of the energy crisis is over.  Yet, as we shall see, it’s a little early to be so confident.  New vulnerabilities  The share of EU piped gas imports from Russia fell from 39% to just 17% between early 2022 and early 2023. To cope with this shift, the EU has become much more reliant on shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) than before.  LNG’s total share of EU gas imports rose from 19% in 2021 to around 39% in 2022, amid a rapid upgrade to infrastructure that aims to have grown LNG capacity by one-third between 2021 and 2024. (Indeed, 13% of LNG imports into the EU actually still come from Russia, whose shipments have also significantly increased since the invasion).  This LNG increase has made European countries vulnerable to volatility in that market – particularly as 70% of these imports are bought at short notice rather than using the long-term oil indexed contracts that prevail in Asia.  For example, we’ve seen Europe’s benchmark gas price ticking upwards in recent weeks due to concerns over strikes at Australian LNG plants. This shows that supplies remain tight and that there are many potential disruptions in our highly interconnected world market.  To synchronise demand for LNG, the European Commission has introduced initiatives like the EU Energy Platform, an IT platform that makes it easier for supplier companies in member states to jointly buy the fuel. However, it is uncertain what level of supplies can be channelled through this instrument as it remains untested. Additionally, the industry fears this kind of state intervention could backfire and undermine the functioning of the market.  As for pipeline gas, Norway has overtaken Russia to become Europe’s leading supplier, providing 46% of the requirement in early 2023 (compared to 38% a year earlier). This extra load has strained Norway’s gas infrastructure. In May and June, delayed maintenance work caused sluggish flows that drove up prices, again showing how tight the European market is at present. Extended maintenance work in Norway leading to more obstructions in future looks distinctly possible.  Meanwhile, the EU is still expected to have to buy around 22 bcm (billion cubic metres) from Russia this year. That’s the equivalent of around 11% of all the pipeline gas used by the bloc in 2022. A large proportion is coming through Ukraine, and with the current Russia-Ukraine transit agreement unlikely to be renewed after it expires in 2024, this supply route is in jeopardy.  As part of the pivot away from Russia, the EU managed to reduce gas consumption by 13% in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency (against a target of 15%). In the months ahead, war-weary EU states may not do so well on this front.  It will not help that prices have fallen, nor that some states didn’t pull their weight last winter. Only 14 out of 27 EU members introduced mandatory energy reduction policies, while eastern states like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria did little to reduce consumption. Should there be a physical shortage of gas in continental Europe this winter, this might undermine calls for solidarity.  What comes next  The harsh reality is that for at least another two or three winters, Europe will have to hope for mild weather across the northern hemisphere without major interruptions to global LNG supply if it is to avoid significant gas price spikes.  Even as things stand, European gas prices remain around 50% above their pre-invasion long-run average, which is hurting both households and businesses. This is particularly important for Germany, the EU’s industrial powerhouse, with its energy-intensive automotive and chemical industries. There are growing concerns that continued high energy prices could promote de-industralisaton as energy-intensive industries move elsewhere.  The good news is that pressure on gas should at least subside from the mid-2020s. Significant new supplies of LNG will come online in the US and Qatar and the market will re-balance. European gas demand should also get significantly lower – down 40% by 2030, according to the energy reduction plan.  There is even talk of a supply glut by the end of the decade, depending on renewable energy deployment accelerating in Europe, and a new generation of nuclear power stations coming on stream. This would significantly reduce Europe’s need to import gas for good, but will only happen if the bloc coordinates effectively.  We saw what can be achieved in the months after the invasion when France supplied gas to Germany to help reduce its dependence on Russia, then Germany later supplied more electricity to French cities to help with outages caused by nuclear reactor maintenance.  The challenge is to take the same approach to decarbonisation. While France tries to gather support for nuclear modernisation both at home and elsewhere in Europe, it is facing opposition from the likes of the German-led “Friends of Renewals” group, which advocates building out only renewable energy. Divisions like these may prove a serious obstacle in achieving a more rapid energy transformation away from fossil fuels.  So while Europe has managed to pivot away from Russia’s pipeline gas, it will remain exposed to the volatility of global gas markets unless it reduces its gas demand significantly in the coming years.

Now with 11 members, BRICS’ decision-making by consensus will be that much more difficultOnce upon a time, the BRICS were nothing but a slogan devised by Goldman Sachs’ economists to describe four emerging market economies to which South Africa was later added. But more than a decade later, the grouping, now with an investment bank—New Development Bank—of its own is besieged by dozens of countries of the Global South for membership.The Johannesburg summit of BRICS has drawn unusual interest around the world. There was a time when it barely merited a mention in the western press, but now it has been the subject of major stories, in which some saw BRICS as brittle whiel others thought it was  seeking to challenge the G7 and the western world through a process of enlargement. While the BRICS puts itself forward as a unified face of the emerging economic powers, the reality is that within the organisation—which  is neither a trade nor military bloc—there is considerable jostling between two Asian powers who are developing a global imprint—India and China.BRICS expansion announced in JohannesburgOne of the issues where this jostling played out in was the BRICS expansion process. Reportedly, 40 countries have expressed interest in joining BRICS, though some 22 nations had formally expressed interest in joining the bloc. With the latest expansion, Iran, Egypt, Argentina, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and UAE have been offered membership effective 1 January 2024. That there was a bit of lobbying is evident from the fact that  last week, President Ebrahim Raisi of Iran spoke on the phone with Prime Minister Modi. According to the official spokesman, they talked about “regional and bilateral matters” as well as issues like the expansion of BRICS. The two leaders later met in Johannesburg as well.There was some doubt at the beginning of the summit as to whether expansion would actually be announced. This was because of the intense negotiations over the names of the proposed members.Earlier this month, an Indian official spokesman had clarified that India believed that BRICS expansion should take place through “full consultation and consensus” among members of the bloc. In his speech at the summit, the Prime Minister made it clear that “India fully supports the expansion of the BRICS membership. And welcomes moving forward with consensus in this.” On Thursday, too, there were reports that there were “eleventh hour negotiations” over the potential new members. Reuters claimed that an agreement had meant to be adopted on Wednesday, but it was delayed by India’s introduction of new criteria for membership. On Tuesday President Lula of Brazil had made it clear that his country was did not want to be any kind of “a counterpoint to G7, G20 or the United States. We just want to organise ourselves.”In an organisation that acts through consensus, getting in is difficult, but global politics is about give and take and a certain degree of persuasion and arm twisting does go on. So does the notion of giving a push to countries who you see eye to eye with and blocking countries that you don’t. Sometimes the negotiation involves two powerful players splitting the difference and negotiating the entry of countries in such a way that a balance of sorts is maintained. This is the way India became a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation dominated by China. India’s case was pushed by Russia to balance China, and Beijing finally agreed to have India, if Pakistan, its “iron” friend, could become a member at the same time.Another element in such organisations is that countries seek membership not just to further their interests but to block the ambitions of others. In this way, China sought and became a member of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) arrangement and once in there, it has used its vote to block efforts by the United States (US) to shape APEC into an Asia Pacific Economic Community in the manner of the European Economic Community that finally gave rise to the European Union.India has been reportedly joined by Brazil in resisting the haste and suggesting that new members may first be given the status of observers. The Indian position has been that while it was all for expansion, there was need to develop and standardise mechanisms to consider the applications and move on them.As of now, BRICS is more of a symbol than a unified and purposive entity. True, it has members like China and India who wield substantial power in their respective regions, but the entity itself hardly functions as an economic bloc of any kind. It does have the New Development Bank headquartered in Shanghai, which, in 2021, sharply stepped up its disbursements to US$7.6 billion, with its total disbursements being of the order of US$32 billion for infrastructure and sustainable development in four continents . The initial subscribed capital of the bank is equally distributed among the BRICS members.China’s role in and vision for BRICSBeijing, no doubt views BRICS as a means of offsetting US global power. In a page 2 commentary in the People’s Daily by someone with the nom de plume  “Huanyu Ping,” said that currently the world governance system was “at a historical turning point”. The growth of the emerging market and developing countries has enhanced their influence. But the western-dominated global order was a “stumbling block to world economic development and social progress.” The multilateralist BRICS was therefore providing a model for decisions to be made on the basis of equality and consensus, as testified by the share-holding of the New Development Bank. They also actively promoted reform of the global governance system and upheld the validity of multilateral and multipolar solutions.There should be no doubt about the weightage China has within BRICS. It has a GDP more than twice the size of the other members combined. Its economy may have slowed down but it is still growing, with IMF predicting a 5.2 per cent growth as against 5.9 for India. The others are growing at less than 1 per cent.  It has played a significant role in getting together two of the new incoming members, Saudi Arabia and Iran. In 2022, China was the largest trading partner of South Africa, India and Brazil.There should be little doubt that China sees Africa as a battleground in the global struggle against the US. In a meeting with President Cyril Ramaphosa on Tuesday, President Xi spoke of the urgent need for China to promote cooperation with Africa because of “changes and chaos” in the world, an indirect allusion to the US. He took up the theme in the Business Forum meeting that he did not attend, but where his speech was read out: “Right now, changes in the world, in our times, and in history are unfolding in ways like never before, bringing human society to a critical juncture.”China may swear by multilateralism, but it is not really comfortable with it. What it is seeking to do is to shape institutions like BRICS in its own image for countering its principal rival, the United States of America. In this, it is unlikely to get Indian support, so what it is trying to do is to pack its membership with countries where it has already made significant investments through its Belt & Road Initiative. Such countries would be inclined to follow its global agenda, which is now manifesting itself as the Global Security Initiative, Global Development Initiative and the Global Civilisation Initiative.The Chinese aim, according to James Kynge in the Financial Times is two-fold. The first is to ensure that large parts of the world remain open to Chinese investment and trade in an environment where western attitudes are increasingly hardening. And the second is to have a bloc of votes in multilateral forums like the United Nations (UN) to project Chinese influence.In the turbulent world, China’s path is not an easy one. Its economy is slowing down and its global security calculations have been roiled by the Russian adventure in Ukraine. Further, in promoting the Global South it runs up against India which has its own ambitions, as well as the backing of the west. Even while promoting the UN and its institutions, China is not interested in any serious reform there because that could result in a bigger role for its adversaries like Japan and India.Done increases with the expansion of its membership. Now, with 11 members, things will be that much more difficult. The BRICS countries have economies and geopolitical profiles that are hugely divergent, and which makes consensus-based decision-making hugely difficult.

War and conflict in Sudan have forced more than 4.5 million people to flee. Many of those fleeing from the war are themselves refugees, who originally came to Sudan to escape crises in their home countries. Eritreans are among the largest and longest living groups of refugees in Sudan. Many cannot return home, leaving them in a limbo.  Sudan as a transit hub and a new home The majority of migration studies in the Greater Horn of Africa point to Sudan as the main crossing point for migrants from the region. Migrants from Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia that are crossing the Sudanese border remain in Sudan for a while and then migrate to Europe, Gulf countries, and Israel. Khartoum is considered as the main transit hub for migrants from the Horn, including Sudanese migrants hoping to make their way to Europe. Thousands of the Eritreans, however, have not only seen Sudan as a transit but as a new home. There are an estimated 134,000 Eritrean refugees and asylum-seekers in Sudan. Some of them arrived as early as the 1960s and have since remained. Most of them live in the camps in Eastern Sudan bordering their country of origin, around 100,000 in Kassala state and 14,000 in Gedaref state, while some of them live in towns, among them around 10,000 in Khartoum state. No longer a safe haven Before the war erupted in Khartoum, many Eritreans had sought permanent refuge in the city, or using it as a pit stop on the journey onward through Libya with hopes of reaching European countries, risking their lives crossing rivers, deserts, and finally the Mediterranean Sea. These young Eritreans, both men and women, had escaped from forced conscription into the Eritrean army. They ran away from an extremely repressive state described as Africa’s equivalent to North Korea, or sought alternatives from a future without economic prospects. Many of them worked in Khartoum’s hospitality or informal business sectors, and have been victims of harassment and arbitrary detention by Sudanese security, aiming at cracking down on irregular migration. When the war broke out, they were among the civilians caught in the crossfire between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), with an immediate need for protection and humanitarian assistance. Returning to Eritrea could seem like one of the most obvious ways out of the dire situation. But for many Eritreans, returning to their country of origin is not an option. Going back home would imply no protection from severe human rights violations by the Eritrean regime,  such as arbitrarily detentions, forced disappearances, secret prisons, and collective punishment of relatives of those who ran away from military service. Eritreans interviewed by Adam Babekir in Gedaref all state that they would not go back. A 28-year-old Eritrean woman, who was born in Sudan, expressed: Due to this war in Khartoum, some of my friends fled to other Sudanese towns like Kassala or Wad Medani, and those who have enough money to South Sudan. Most of the refugees are not willing to return to Eritrea because I have heard from a friend of mine from Eritrea that the situation is very bad there. So I will stay here till peace is restored in Khartoum. This is my hope and dream. Precarity in Eastern Sudan According to the Commission of Refugees (COR)’ local office in Gedaref town more than 4000 refugees (Ethiopian and Eritrean) arrived there after fleeing the fighting in Khartoum. Some Eritrean refugees have temporarily settled in the Um Gulja closed camp at Amna Aregawi Church while others are staying in Gedaref town benefiting from their relatives’ network. The refugee camps in Sudan are run by the COR and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) collectively. COR is facing capacity constraints due to the evacuation of UN staff and other humanitarian actors from Khartoum and elsewhere. The evacuation of some UN staff, and NGO employees in addition to the influx of refugees into other states resulted in a heavier work oad and resulted in capacity constraints for COR, and the UNHCR has proposed to relocate the refugees to other camps in Kassala and Gedaref states. The majority of Eritrean refugees who has arrived in the Um Gulja camp are women and children who need essential services such as food, water, sanitation and protection. But there is no service provider or referral pathway for them even though they are in dire need of physical support. The Um Gulia closed camp in Gedaref is infamous for lacking provision of basic services. However, the only alternative camp for Eritrean refugees is El Shagarab camp, Kassala State, Eastern Sudan. A 25 -year-old Eritrean women who was born in Khartoum said: Conditions are very bad here in Gedaref. No one helps us to get medicine, food, and cover basic needs. Even my sister's husband, who lives in Germany, has difficulties sending money to us due to closed cash transfer agencies. To me, returning to Eritrea is an impossible option, so I am thinking about travelling to Egypt. Yet, the vast majority of of the Eritrean refugees are reluctant to be relocated from their current location to the Shagarab camp. The Shagarab camp is remotely located, far away from any nearby town. Therefore this option severely limits the freedom of movement for the refugees. The camp also lacks many facilities that are available to the refugees in Gedaref. Many of the refugees are also hopeful that the UN will work for a third country resettlement solution, eventually enabling them to go to Europe or Canada, and have appealed to the UNHCR to act accordingly. A 27 -year-old Eritrean women born in Khartoum confirmed that ‘COR and UNHCR have proposed for us to stay in refugee camps in Kassala state, but we have requested the UNHCR to take us to a third country, as there is no future for us in Sudan.’ She added that if she suffers more than this, and if the war in Sudan does not come to an end she is considering travelling to Europe via Libya. Her preferred destination is Europe, as she expects Western communities to respect women and their rights: ‘We are very strong women with promising potential in our countries, but our societies do not empower women.’ An immediate need for protection The protection of civilians, including both citizens and refugees, can only materialize through the cessation of hostilities, an opening of safe passage to humanitarian aid, and engagement in  comprehensive dialogue between all parties. For this to happen, international bodies such as the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the UN and the TROIKA countries consisting of Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States must continue to exert pressure, and provide technical help if negotiations materialize. Locally, in Eastern Sudan, COR must work with the UNHCR and all relevant stakeholders to provide safe passage out of conflict areas such as Khartoum to other parts of Sudan and must provide effective services to the Eritrean refugees who wish to stay in the country.