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

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, paid a visit to Pyongyang this week and signed a defence pact with reclusive North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, as he looks for new allies who can help him increase Russia’s supply of munitions for the war in Ukraine. As part of this mutual aid deal, the two leaders promised that each country will come to the defence of the other if attacked. Kim also promised North Korea’s full support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. What’s interesting about the entire Russia-North Korea showy display of camaraderie is China’s response: silence. China has misgivings about how things are unfolding, which reports suggest prompted Chinese president Xi Jinping’s call to Putin to call off the latter’s visit to Pyongyang. Obviously, Putin didn’t heed Xi’s request. Why would Beijing be so rattled by the Russian-North Korea defence treaty? After all, China has its own defensive pact with North Korea, which was inked in 1961 and renewed in 2021. Beijing also has a “no limits” partnership with Russia. Logically, if China could sign its own defence treaty with North Korea, so can Russia. But the pact made by Putin and Kim severely threatens Chinese security. China was already worried that whatever control it has over North Korea was weakened when Pyongyang reportedly supplied almost 7,000 containers worth of weapons to Moscow. And this is why, in April, the Middle Kingdom sent its third most senior leader within the Chinese Communist party hierarchy, Zhao Leji, to assure the North Korean strongman that Beijing was still a strong ally. Now the defensive pact that draws Moscow and Pyongyang closer threatens to further diminish China’s influence over Kim. The Kremlin knows that one of Beijing’s greatest fears is that a renegade North Korea may one day point its weapons at China. And this is a key reason behind Putin’s peace treaty with Pyongyang. China and North Korea’s turbulent past For decades, China had tried to maintain its influence over Pyongyang by being the mediator between North Korea and the rest of the world. This included attempting to curb North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Beijing does so to safeguard its own safety and survival, and probably believes that as long as North Korea remains dependent on China, it wouldn’t bite the hand that feeds it. China also remains North Korea’s biggest trade partner. This all sounds awfully bizarre, since China’s mutual defence pact with North Korea suggests that both nations are close allies. But North Korea has a tradition of defying China, and this deal with Russia might embolden it further – and that will be worrying Beijing. In 2017, for instance, Kim Jong-un, in clear defiance of China, ordered the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, in Malaysia. And when China retaliated by halting all coal imports from North Korea into China, North Korea not only condemned Beijing for “dancing to the tune of the United States”, but also vented its anger by firing missiles in the direction of Japan. But where the missiles originated from in North Korea and the distance that it covered towards the direction of Japan provided China with a rather grim check on reality: North Korea’s weapon capabilities extend to major Chinese cities. The Sino-Korean animosity dates back centuries and took shape when Korea was a vassal state of imperial China. Unfortunately, this animosity extended to modern times when Mao Zedong decided to station Chinese troops in North Korea even after the conclusion of the Korean war, and when Beijing did not aid Pyongyang in its nuclear ambitions. It didn’t help either that the founding leader of North Korea, Kim Il-sung, was suspected of espionage and was nearly executed by the Chinese Communist party in the 1930s. All this history plays a part in what decisions and alliances are being made today, and why. It would be a serious mistake to think that the Russians, even in desperation, would believe that making North Korea an ally would turn the tide of the Ukrainian-Russian war in Russia’s favour. But this move, and his recent trip to Vietnam, shows Putin’s desperation. Even if Pyongyang continues to supply Russia with much-needed ammunition and weapons, Moscow will need greater technology and firepower to win against a Ukraine that uses weapons supplied by the US and Europe. Putin’s agenda This fact is not lost to Putin, and he knows that for Russia to stand a winning chance in the war that he started in 2022, requires its partner of “no limits” to stand firmly by Russia’s side. But beyond supplying Russia with the dual-use technology (which could be used for civilian or military purposes) to fuel Russia’s industrial war complex, China appears to have fallen short of supplying actual weapons to Russia. Even if China wanted to provide weapons to Russia it can’t. This is because it fears further antagonising the west, and triggering economic sanctions would prove lethal for an already ailing Chinese economy. China knows that it needs a strong Russia so that the west doesn’t consolidate its resources to deal with the perceived Chinese threat. But on the other hand, helping Moscow may prove too much for Beijing to stomach since that would harm China’s economy. So, Putin needs to force Beijing’s hand, and the peace treaty that he just signed with North Korea might just do the trick.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском While the flurry over Vladimir Putin’s visit with Xi Jinping last May caused a gush among many media outlets, the public declarations of an enduring alliance is more of the same old bluster rather than a serious démarche. A longer view of Sino-Russo relations tells a far more serpentine story. Future historians will be amused by the irony of how quickly, in world historical time, China and Russia changed places. In 1949, China was the Soviet Russian empire’s vassal, a victorious Communist state that tried to emulate all things Soviet. By 2024, a mere 75 years later, Russia had become China’s vassal, a stale dictatorship hoping to survive a pointless war it had initiated a year before. Rising from the misery of World War II and its own civil war, China entered the succeeding era adrift. Its economy was in ruins, its military vulnerable. As leader of the Communist bloc, the USSR appeared as the natural strategic big brother. The mutual benefits were obvious. China was in desperate need of assistance. The USSR required access to Chinese rail links and ports in the Far East. Moscow felt it needed to defend its interests against potential armed attacks from Japan, while China was wheeling toward international isolation. Both countries feared the growing dominance of the United States. Since that time, relations between Soviet Union/Russia and China have undergone a unique push and pull. The interplay has shift from patron/client state to a formal military alliance (1950-59), schism (1960s), open conflict (1969), détente (1970s), rapprochement (1980s) and, normalisation (after the collapse of the Soviet Union). Now, the war in Ukraine has set loose a new politesse between Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC)—a “no limits” partnership. Or so the Russians would like to believe. The Chinese disagree: their EU ambassador Fu Cong characterised the partnership in 2023 as “nothing but rhetoric.” To be sure, Russia’s need of a market for its natural resource wealth and China’s energy intensive growth have certainly impelled them to seek a mutually beneficial arrangement. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin have met 40 times since 2012. Both men share a similar family story as well as similar views about civilisational wars, the decline of the West, color revolutions, and the threat posed by the United States and NATO. However, despite these personal, philosophical, and trade complementarities, the PRC and Russia are moving on diverse tracks. Fu Cong’s dismissive attitude is on the mark. To start, the economic synergy is exaggerated. Russia is fourteenth among China’s largest trading partners. Its trade with Russia is relatively inconsequential. Each is more dependent on third countries than on the other. Russia needs the EU. China relies on other Asian countries and the United States. Further, despite its economic heft, China cannot match Europe’s potential as a driver of industrial and commercial modernisation for Russia. Secondly, due to its monopsonistic position, China forces Russia to sell oil, natural gas, and coal at heavily discounted prices. These discounts are so deep that Russian gas exports to China often do not cover the operational costs of their extraction and transportation. Additionally, the PRC makes payments to Russia in Chinese renminbi and uses these transactions to leverage its position over non-Russian suppliers. Unsurprisingly, direct Chinese investment in Russia has almost exclusively focused on the energy and other extraction industries. Sectors with the greatest potential for productivity gains, such as high-tech manufacturing, utilities, construction, financial services et al, go undeveloped. In addition to trade priorities, another reason for this neglect is that the Chinese have found that doing business in Russia is as daunting for them as it is for western investors. The infrastructure in Russia’s Far East is so underdeveloped that the PRC has had to make substantial investments to get access to the resources it wants. By all reports, these investments have underperformed. Further, the lack of rule of law and the absence of a business-friendly ecosystem leave even the Chinese frustrated and grumbling. Russia wants investments but not investors—a common refrain often directed at the PRC. The Russian economy has long been beset by structural problems: low diversification, a faltering industrial base, uncontrolled corruption, the absence of an entrepreneurial class and now, inflation. The mounting costs of the war in Ukraine exacerbates existing matters and will probably prolong the economic dysfunctionality far into the future. In short, Putin’s hunger to reconstitute the Soviet empire is “making Russia a smaller, worse-educated and poorer country.” China’s own economy has its challenges, too. Rising corporate debt, labour shortages and, poor investment efficiency are driving it into stagnation. In 2012, the PRC launched its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in order to link its economy with under-developed regions from Central Asia, Africa, and Europe. The dream was to provide its export-oriented economy with markets. There have been several major defaults, and recipients of Chinese loans are subject to falling into debt traps. In light of the current pressures on the economy, the risk is even more intense. By most analyses, the PRC will need cooperation from the West if the scheme has any hope of success. In Central Asia, a confrontation with Russia may be percolating. China’s Belt and Road could compete with Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). From the beginning, the Eurasian Union was a token attempt at economic regionalism and a veiled instrument of Russian geopolitics. Many contend it survives as merely another façade to reconstitute the Soviet Union. While it offers little incentive in the way of any real political or market institutions, it represents Russia’s bid to bolster its influence in the region and beyond. Although its threat to the BRI is not significant, it has prompted one regional expert to conclude China may fear a Russian victory in Ukraine because it could strengthen Moscow’s influence in Central Asia. In a move that diminishes Russian energy policy as a source of political influence, Chinese companies have taken stakes in Central Asian oil and gas fields and have built a network of pipelines. Beijing also abandoned its interest in investing in the Power of Siberia II pipeline. Additionally, the China-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) froze lending to Russia and Belarus in 2023. As a vassal state, there is little Moscow can offer Beijing except for its agency as a counterbalance against the United States. The fundamental difference is that Xi wants to reform the global economy, while Putin wants to upend it. As one Chinese analyst puts it, “Russia is seeking to subvert the existing international and regional order by means of war, whereas China wants to resolve disputes peacefully.” Russia’s war against Ukraine has troubled the Chinese. The global economy on which China depends so greatly is being disrupted. Indeed, Beijing may be preparing for a Russian defeat. A recent analysis by Beijing University’s Feng Yujun is worth quoting at length for what it surely reveals about the current Chinese leadership’s views of Moscow: “Russia’s eventual defeat [is] inevitable. In time it will be forced to withdraw from all occupied Ukrainian territories, including Crimea…. Ukraine may yet rise from the ashes. When the war ends, it can look forward to the possibility of joining the European Union and NATO. “The war is a turning-point for Russia. It has consigned Mr. Putin’s regime to broad international isolation. He has also had to deal with difficult domestic political undercurrents, … Mr. Putin may recently have been re-elected, but he faces all kinds of possible black-swan events.” At some point the Kremlin will become a liability for Beijing. Putin and his circle can bray at the moon about the constant state of siege between nations and societies, invoke other nuggets of Leninist doctrine, and even claim how Poland attacked Nazi Germany and, thus, began World War II. But when the time comes, Xi, rather than conjure up Lenin, will take counsel from another source – Sun Tzu: “There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” When that moment finally arrives is uncertain. However, the sway China holds over Russia and the tide of events suggest it is approaching.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском The announcement of Spain's recognition of the State of Palestine constitutes a significant step, but it is not accompanied by the adoption of other necessary measures for its effective consolidation. Already, 147 fully-fledged member states of the United Nations recognize the State of Palestine. With Norway's, Ireland's, and Spain's decisions, along with Slovenia's recent accession, three-quarters of the UN's 193 member states now uphold this commitment. Beyond the particular implications of this, it remains to be defined whether it will be accompanied by other necessary measures of broader scope to achieve full recognition and to act urgently for a permanent ceasefire, the end of Israeli occupation, and the massacre against the Palestinian people. According to the Ministry of Health, more than 37,000 people, including 12,000 children, have been killed in the Gaza Strip since the beginning of Israel's military offensive in early October last year. Among these actions are the reconsideration of diplomatic and trade relations with Israel, an arms embargo, support for South Africa's lawsuit in the International Court of Justice for the genocide in Gaza, and the involvement of the international community to effectively ensure a process of peace, security, and guarantees in the territory. The Dimension of Recognition May 28th, 2024. This was the day when the Council of Ministers approved the official recognition of the State of Palestine by Spain. This date also marked the change in the designation of Husni Abdel Wahed, who had been the representative of the Palestinian National Authority in Spain since March 2022, to now serve as the ambassador of the State of Palestine to Spain. "We are very grateful for a measure that holds significant political and legal importance in strengthening the bonds of brotherhood and friendship, where Spain is playing a crucial role in favor of a peaceful solution at a time when Israel is committing genocide with the support of the United States, Germany, and other countries," states Wahed, emphasizing the importance of opening a space of hope that recognizes the rights of the Palestinian people to live freely in their own state. The 1967 borderlines upon which this recognition is based, as well as its effectiveness, have been debated in recent days. According to Wahed, "If it were merely symbolic, Israel would not react with such hysteria, because they know this goes beyond symbolism and has practical effects because, when more countries join in recognizing Palestine, it constitutes pressure not only on Israel as the occupying power but also on its supporters, who are complicit in the genocide." The recognition itself is not the goal for the ambassador but rather a step on the path that needs to be continued. Ana Sánchez, member of the Solidarity Network Against the Occupation of Palestine, distinguishes in her assessment the dual nature of the measure as both a necessary but insufficient step, stating that "it does not meet the needs or guarantee the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people as a whole, nor will it have an impact on the daily lives of Palestinian individuals," for which she calls for more decisive measures against the apartheid and genocide being committed by Israel. It was September 2009 when the then Prime Minister of Spain, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, called for Palestinian recognition as a key element for peace in the Middle East in a speech at the United Nations headquarters. This commitment did not materialize until fifteen years later, about which, in addition to other related issues in the report, this media outlet sought to inquire from the current Secretary of State for Foreign and Global Affairs, Diego Martínez Belío. The response from the ministry's communication team was a refusal to grant an interview citing scheduling reasons. Regarding the delay in Palestinian recognition over time, Sánchez, from the RESCOP, recalls how governmental arguments pointed to the intention for recognition to be more coordinated with other EU member states, emphasizing the need to promote this process institutionally with the necessary conditions for effective implementation. On the other hand, Olga Rodríguez, a journalist specializing in international affairs and the Middle East, agrees with Sánchez on the positive direction of the recognition step, but also highlights that it comes late and is insufficient. This promise to recognize the Palestinian state by Spain "has not materialized until now due to political reasons and because there was no price to pay for not doing so." Rodríguez specifies in the historical and political context how not only did the trend of neglect towards Palestine continue, but also how the United States, first under Trump and then under Biden, pushed the Abraham Accords to formalize relations between several Arab countries and Israel as if the Palestinian issue did not exist. In fact, she recalls that when Hamas attacks occurred on October 7th, the United States had been promoting the signing of these agreements between Saudi Arabia and Israel for some time, following their signing by several Arab countries in recent years. According to her, the fundamental key lies in the fact that today the territory designated for the Palestinian state is not available to the Palestinian population because it has been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967, thereby violating several United Nations resolutions. "In recent years, especially in the last two decades, this occupation has tripled, and settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have expanded with the connivance and support of Europe and the United States, major powers dominating the region, which have maintained their preferential economic and trade alliances with Israel," she adds. What additional measures can be taken? The United Nations General Assembly's 1947 partition plan allocated 54% of the territory of historic Palestine to the Israeli state and the remaining 46% to the Palestinian state, despite the Palestinian population being numerically larger than the Jewish population at that time. The Zionist conception of a Jewish state was tied to a Jewish majority, leading to an ethnic cleansing known as the Nakba, which resulted in the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinian people from their homes. Israel, through Plan Dalet, occupied new territories that were not allocated in that partition and used the wartime scenario to annex up to 78% of historic Palestine. Therefore, as Rodríguez mentions, when discussing the allocation of a future Palestinian state, we are only talking about 22% of historic Palestine, which is also filled with checkpoints, settlements, and under Israel's military dominance. "The essential thing is to end the Israeli occupation. This issue often gets overlooked, even when discussing the recognition of the Palestinian State and the so-called two-state solution. Everything must be based on a starting point, which is the end of the Israeli occupation and the withdrawal of troops from all Palestinian territory in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem", proposes Wahed. The Ambassador of the State of Palestine to Spain emphasizes that without Israeli withdrawal and the end of the occupation, Israel's apartheid regime against the Palestinian people will continue. "The question is how long will the international community continue to be, in many cases, complicit in this?". Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967, recently published the report called "Anatomy of a Genocide," in which she concludes that Israel is committing the crime of genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza by "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." Both, she and 52 other UN experts and rapporteurs, have called for sanctions and arms embargoes on Israel following the shocking Israeli attack on the refugee camp in Rafah. From the Solidarity Network Against the Occupation of Palestine, Sánchez believes that recognizing a State while maintaining relations with the State attempting to eliminate it is a double standard. "It is very hypocritical to say that dignity and hope are recognized shortly after the heartbreaking images from Rafah, and that alongside this recognition, there is no arms embargo on Israel, no severing of diplomatic, economic, commercial, military, academic, and sports relations with those perpetrating such crimes. I do not find this policy very coherent." Despite the Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union, and Cooperation, José Manuel Albares, stated that arms exports to Israel had been suspended since October 7th, military equipment worth over one million euros was exported from Spain to Israel in November and December 2023, according to a research conducted by the Centre Delàs. Sánchez reaffirms the above by arguing that Spain has not stopped buying or selling weapons to Israel, nor has it stopped allowing Spanish territory to be used as a transit space for weapons destined for the Zionist state. She demands more information and transparency regarding the role of the Rota base in recent months. "The demand for a military embargo is a historical request to the international community. This is not just about the current genocide in Gaza, but if Israel is capable of perpetrating this televised genocide, it's because they have been armed for decades," she explains. Rodríguez also agrees that without real pressure on Israel through political and economic measures at the level of nation-states, the European Union, and the United Nations, "nothing will change, as demonstrated by Israeli history in recent decades." Therefore, she contrasts the immediate mechanisms applied to Russia, while, except for some countries, there has been no suspension or rupture of diplomatic relations with Israel, protected by the United States and Europe. Furthermore, she highlights how these sanctions and arms embargoes have been requested for years because this did not start on October 7th, as Israel "has been violating international law, illegally occupying, implementing an apartheid system, torturing, killing, and discriminating for a long time." Therefore, she regrets that all this has continued to happen, even becoming more sophisticated, because nothing has been done due to geopolitical reasons, being in Europe and under its umbrella and within the American orbit, with all that this implies. "This is the impunity and the policy of Israeli fait accompli." Rodríguez believes there is a significant risk of collapse of the "fragile scaffolding" built upon the United Nations Charter and international law, as she considers that in recent months all red lines have been crossed with insults and breaches by Israel, but also with very concerning and serious challenges from the United States. She opines that the severity lies in transitioning to the law of the jungle, the law of the strongest, "at a time of devouring capitalism and resource depletion, where major powers will compete for the domination of wealth, with victory going to those who arrive first through war." Currently, there are two international courts investigating Israel. On one hand, there is the International Criminal Court's request for arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Meanwhile, on the other hand, there is the genocide complaint regarding Gaza that South Africa filed against Israel in the International Court of Justice, the most prominent judicial body of the United Nations. Regarding the latter, Spain has joined the proceedings but has not taken a position to support the lawsuit. In response, Sánchez sees the accountability processes in international courts as a positive development, but she adds that it is more of a political and diplomatic message rather than something that will have practical application with consequences on the ground. Therefore, the next consistent and coherent step should be the implementation of other measures such as an arms embargo against Israel. Finally, Rodríguez believes that the way Minister Albares presented the initiative has watered it down because he has insisted that they will not take sides. "We will have to see the statement of intervention in the procedure when they send the request, but he has made it clear that they do not support South Africa's complaint and that they will limit themselves to supporting the provisional measures issued by the Court for compliance by Israel." Therefore, she emphasizes that this will not have effective capacity unless it is accompanied by political actions that push to achieve that goal. Camping and Academicide In the realm of demanding actions to be carried out, the academic sphere is also involved. The University Network for Palestine, which is present in over forty public universities in Spain, advocates several demands to university leadership teams, the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities, and the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities. Specifically, these five points: condemning the destruction of universities in Palestine, demand for an immediate ceasefire allowing necessary humanitarian interventions, severance of diplomatic relations with Israel, non-collaboration with companies involved in genocide, and allocation of economic resources for hosting students and academic staff in Palestine and for the reconstruction of universities in Gaza. In the face of Israel's daily normalization of genocide against the Palestinian people, student encampments at universities highlighted the unacceptability of these actions and the need to defend human rights. The effect of these encampments expanded like what happened in 2011 in the city squares during the 15M movement. Within the network's common framework, each encampment operates autonomously. Specifically, the encampment in Madrid was formed through a coalition of university groups that had previously worked on Palestine-related issues. From there, the encampment was convened, attracting people beyond its original coalition. Oriol Erausquin, a Sociology Ph.D. student at the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) and the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), who participated in the Palestine camp at the UCM, believes that the recognition, which has been promised on several occasions and could exert some pressure on Israel, "may seek to enhance the international projection of the Pedro Sánchez government, but the reality is that there is a genocide happening". Therefore, he asserts that it is essential to act with sanctions and an embargo on commercial activities with Israel, because "anything short of direct action on what is happening seems very limited, inadequate, and belated to us." The encampment in Madrid has directed its proposals to the public universities in Madrid. “We want to sit down with them and achieve agreements in a unified manner”, emphasizing the difficulty of this due to the refusal to negotiate by the Rectorate. “The pressure we are exerting, with some universities yielding to the demands and the international situation unfolding, may lead to the need to break a series of agreements that are whitewashing and legitimizing the Israeli regime, in addition to actively participating in its industry and war machinery”, Erausquin points out. So far, the universities in Madrid have not responded, while the universities of Barcelona, Seville, Jaén, Granada, Valencia, Salamanca, Cádiz, and Pablo de Olavide have fully embraced the points raised by the network and have suspended relations with Israeli institutions. In conjunction with the student block, the faculty has also mobilized. The Network of Teachers and Workers of Universities in the Community of Madrid for Palestine emerges within a broader national network that includes 44 universities across the country. Within this network, initiatives from faculty members of public universities in Madrid have arisen to unite and carry out more specific actions within the community since March of this year. These initiatives include organizing activities such as outdoor classes, roundtable discussions, and conferences that have enabled them to consolidate as a collective. One of their fundamental contributions is the quantification and visibility of what the term "academicide" entails. Through this, they seek to highlight the framework of the killings of over 230 teachers and 5,000 students in Palestine. Joan Pedro Carañana, a member of this network, explains that academicide consists of the systematic extermination of education and research: "It is scandalous that Israel has bombed all universities in Gaza, that it has killed thousands of people in the educational and scientific fields, and that more than 90,000 students cannot attend university." Academicide is therefore "a key vector of genocide that not only seeks to kill people associated with thought, but also to deprive an entire people of their right to knowledge, speech, and memory," he points out. Due to the difficulty in finding the people killed under the rubble, the number of victims will be higher than previously counted. The network considers various sources for this, such as the United Nations or Scholars Against the World in Palestine, among others. Additionally, according to the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, at least 140 journalists have been killed since October 7th, 2023. Before that date, Carañana details how in January of the previous year, there were 902 crimes, violations, and punishments by Israeli occupation forces committed during 2022. "This is obviously about silencing the victim so they can't even protest and raise their voice to convey their point of view. It's part of the dehumanization that accompanies genocide," he concludes. The right to self-determination of the Palestinian people Netanyahu displayed a map at the United Nations Assembly two weeks before Hamas' attacks, showing Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights as part of Israel. In other words, he desires that territory, without Palestinians, as Rodríguez points out. Given the complexity of the so-called two-state solution, she recalls that some advocate for a more just and egalitarian idea of a single state with equality, rather than a state where rights are only for one ethnicity or religion. In fact, many Palestinian people who were expelled in 1948 and 1967 have the right, for whom the United Nations recognizes their right of return through a resolution to return to the homes they were born in, which were taken from them through the Absentees' Property Law. For Wahed, the self-determination of the Palestinian people is always present and is something they will not relinquish. "I want to remind you that this so-called two-state solution is not a Palestinian demand. It is a Western plan, initiated by George Bush, which was embraced as the solution by the international community. We have adopted it, but our original demand from Palestine is a democratic and secular state for all citizens." He adds that Palestinian people today live in a state where Israel occupies nearly 100% of historic Palestine, but with two systems: one of democracy for Jews and another of apartheid for Palestinians. That's why he argues that the issue goes beyond the Palestinian people and that it is necessary to invest in a culture of peace. He points out, for example, that in recent years, most of NATO countries have approved increasing military spending to at least 2% of GDP. The Palestinian ambassador to Spain suggests that part of this GDP should instead be allocated to promoting a culture of peace, as this is the solution to combating war with peace, poverty with investment in the future, or hunger by dedicating resources to combating climate change and land desertification. "This is the solution not only for Palestine but for all humanity." On the other hand, Carañana believes it would be worthwhile to pay attention to what the people of Palestine are saying, where they welcomed this recognition as a step forward but with the need to delve deeper and implement measures beyond this. The path, he estimates, involves discussing the borders of the recognized State and how the construction of that State will be made effective in a context of occupation by the Israeli army, in order to then, intensify pressure on Israel so that it is forced to agree to a ceasefire and promote a peace process. Recently, the Camp for Palestine in Madrid has decided to dismantle and leave the esplanade of the Complutense University where they were, but not before planting an olive tree for peace. They do this firmly believing that the struggle for human rights continues in other spaces, where, as Erausquin explains, they will have to mobilize all the strength that has been gathered to continue fighting for the Palestinian cause. Meanwhile, in the RESCOP, they emphasize the complexity of whether a Palestinian state with sovereignty can exist in the current situation. "The policy of fait accompli that Israel is developing in the occupied West Bank seriously questions whether this is indeed a process that has the minimum guarantees to succeed," declares Sánchez, highlighting that the present and future must be approached from a decolonial perspective in response to the colonial regime policies being carried out by Israel. To guarantee the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, Sánchez believes that there must first be a process of accountability for those who have systematically violated the rights of the Palestinian people as a whole. "If we want negotiations to take place, the parties must be on equal footing because right now it's like placing someone who has been suffering abuses for decades against someone who is perpetrating them." Thus, he explains that there should be two processes: on one hand, Israel must face international courts to be judged for war crimes, apartheid, and genocide committed against the Palestinian population; on the other hand, the Palestinian population should be asked how they want to manage this process of self-determination, to avoid imposing a colonial framework that prevents people who have to decide their own destiny. Finally, Rodríguez reminds us that the self-determination of the Palestinian people is a right that has been overwhelmingly ratified through a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. However, as she counters, the problem lies in the fact that the Israeli Parliament also recently voted overwhelmingly against the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. This is a chamber where there are barely any parliamentary representatives advocating for peace and an end to Israel's violations of international law. "We must build everything to promote a culture of peace," emphasizes Rodríguez. This would encompass educational programs from childhood that are reinforced in high schools and universities, incorporating elements that emphasize peace culture and human rights. It also involves replacing in the media the promotion of war culture, which often receives awards, with peace culture. Additionally, she advocates for a modification of the voting and veto systems in the United Nations to achieve fairer mechanisms of mutual respect among states, replacing imposition with multilateralism. In essence, it is a long-term task for defending the Palestinian population and human rights that must be activated across multiple fields such as politics, social issues, media, and law. The article was translated and licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ES (Atribución-CompartirIgual 3.0 España).

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском The French election results are everything except what predictions had forecast. Only days ago, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party was tipped to win. But as results came in it became clear it was the loser of these National Assembly elections. The far right National Rally is coming third, behind Macron’s centrist Ensemble coalition in second. And in first place, somewhat against the odds, is the three-week-old left-wing alliance the New Popular Front. This is a major twist in the roller coaster that French politics has been since June 9 when Macron called a snap election. Macron, who will serve as president until 2027, now faces a turbulent period of government. Results are still coming in, and will for another few hours. However, the New Popular Front is tipped to win 177 to 192 seats, Macron’s alliance 152 to 158 seats, and the National Rally 138 to 145 seats. Only a week ago polls were predicting 200 to 260 seats for the National Rally and a decimated Centrist coalition. The latter certainly did better than expected, so did the moderate right of the Les Républicains party, with 63 to 67 seats in the new house. However, the results mean that no party will likely be able to form a parliamentary majority on its own, and France is heading for what will likely be a turbulent coalition government. Overall, this election is a significant victory for the left. However, the New Popular Front is unlikely to be able to deliver on its key electoral promises, contrary to what divisive hard-left populist Jean-Luc Mélanchon claimed in a victory speech he gave on behalf of La France Insoumise, the lead party within the New Popular Front coalition. Why will the coalition that came first not be able to form a government on its own? The French parliamentary system under the Fifth Republic was designed for two large blocs: the moderate right and the moderate left, with a small centre in the middle and even smaller extremes on the far left and far right. This is how it’s been working since 1958, with only two exceptions in over six decades: President Valéry Giscard D'estaing (1974-1981) and President Macron (since 2017), two centrists presidents who took the nation by surprise. Today, however, the situation is unheard of with three major coalitions very close to one another in the French lower house. None will be able to form a government on their own: they simply do not have the numbers. To achieve a majority in the French lower house, a coalition needs 289 of the 577 MP seats. Even today’s winner – the New Popular Front – is far from this magic number. So, how do you govern France with no leading majority coalition? In theory, any French government must have the support of the lower house – the National Assembly – in order to govern effectively and pass legislation. If a majority of MPs do not support the government, the government falls and a new government is constituted from that majority. With today’s results, potential crossbenchers have multiplied in the French lower house, creating what is likely to be France’s most unstable political landscape since the French Fourth Republic that went through 22 governments within 12 years, between 1946 and 1958. That being said, France’s next government will be left-leaning. It is unclear for now whether it will be uncompromisingly left or simply mildly labour – this will depend on how elected members of the new house decide to work with one another and transform election coalitions into government coalitions. What is clear, however, is that the New Popular Front will need to broker a deal with Macron’s coalition if it wants to govern and soften its agenda of reforms. The problem is that the most radical fringe of the New Popular Front (populist left-wing party La France Insoumise) does not wish to work with Macron, which they have spent the last two years detesting loudly. Although it is victorious today, the New Popular Front may very well implode, shortly or in a few months. Macron still has enough MPs to assemble a motley coalition spanning from the moderate labour of the Socialist Party and the Greens to the most moderate members of Les Républicains. But the Socialist Party is initially likely to try to work with its new unexpected ally of the France Insoumise (far left) to deliver a more left wing agenda and act as a power broker between the hard left and Macron’s centrists. In most other European countries, today’s results would not be an issue. Italy, Belgium and Germany for example are used to having coalition governments in office. France does not know how to do this. Its institutions are not designed for such types of government precisely because Charles De Gaulle wanted to avoid coalition government when he drafted the Constitution of the Fifth French Republic under which France is still operating. Besides institutions, French political culture is a little more sectarian and flamboyant by tradition, and collaboration is seen as a sin and a betrayal rather than a virtue. If the left and Macron’s centre are not able to collaborate for at least 12 months (the minimum constitutional delay for a new election), they can be sure that they will pave the way for the National Rally to win the next election as a result of popular exasperation. What do the results mean for Europe and the rest of the world? For now, and after much upheaval, very little is likely to change with regard to French foreign policy, regardless of the government that will emerge in the coming days or weeks. This is because although the National Rally has increased its MPs in the house – a small victory within a bigger defeat – the other parties are generally pro-European and pro-Ukraine. They are divided on internal politics, but much less so on foreign policy. French sovereignty, nuclear deterrence, multilateralism will remain keystones of French foreign policy. One notable difference with the former Macron government is that with a larger left in the lower house, pressure on Israel to stop the war in Gaza is likely to increase. A democracy in crisis? These elections have clearly shown that the French are unhappy with their political class, despairing of unresponsive centralised state services that seem to work for forms and permits rather than for the people, tired of waiting weeks and sometimes months to get a doctor’s appointment in rural areas, tired of restrictive green legislation they are not consulted about. The yellow vest movement was a violent eruption of frustrations that are now being voiced at the polling booth. France’s type of democracy is in crisis and its next government is unlikely to resolve structural issues and practical problems that plague French peoples’ everyday life, because such issues cannot be fixed overnight. Within a month, the French have voted three times. Never before has the far right done so well despite its ultimate defeat. Whether this was a vote sanction (a vote used to protest, rather than to show support to a political program) or a genuine move toward the far right, these results remain a warning that the French are longing for change.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском More than a “before and after”, these elections represent a new chapter in the progressive integration of the far right into European politics. On the night of June 9th, the polls for the much-feared 2024 European elections closed. These were the elections of a change of cycle, the breakthrough of the far right, or the end of the grand coalition. In the end, it wasn’t as dramatic as expected, and the worst predictions of a possible right-wing majority did not come true. It is true that the earthquake some predicted did not occur, but for some time now, the tectonic plates of the EU have been moving in the same direction. The far right improved its results for the fifth consecutive time, which should not leave anyone indifferent. The grand coalition will not break, and the European institutions will not collapse due to the far-right tremor. However, for some time now, the European foundations have been shaking due to a far-right tectonic movement that could eventually bring the house down. The far right is growing, but it’s not taking over If we look at the results at the European level, beyond the respective victories in France and Italy, it seems that the far right is not growing as much as expected. The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) of Giorgia Meloni gain four seats but do not surpass the Renew Liberals, who lose 22 seats but remain the third-largest group with 80 MEPs. Identity and Democracy (ID), the group of Le Pen and Salvini, gains slightly more, nine seats, but with 58 seats, it remains the fifth-largest group in the chamber and sees its growth hampered by the departure of Alternative for Germany (AfD), which would have brought it a whopping 15 MEPs. These numbers may vary slightly, and if some deputies currently among the non-affiliated, like Viktor Orbán's Fidesz, are incorporated, the ECR could become the third-largest group ahead of the liberals. However, this would not significantly alter the majorities in the European Parliament, where the grand coalition between the conservatives, social democrats, and liberals will continue to govern the main EU policies. Nevertheless, the European People's Party (EPP) will have a bargaining tool with its partners: the possibility of blocking certain laws by making agreements with the far right. The combined seats of the conservatives and radical right-wing parties are not enough to form an alternative majority that, as Giorgia Meloni intends, would exclude the social democrats. However, the 184 MEPs from the EPP, together with the two far-right groups, could be sufficient to block legislation on key issues such as the green transition. Additionally, around thirty non-affiliated deputies also hold far-right positions (15 from AfD, 11 from Fidesz, and three from Alvise), further complicating the EU's green and social agenda. The radical right will not bring down the European structure for now, but its influence will increase in this new period. They do not yet have the strength to cause everything to collapse, but election after election, their ideas continue to permeate the European agenda. In the previous legislature, they already made their mark on key legislation such as the European Migration Pact, where despite voting against many motions, Jorge Buxadé managed to become the rapporteur for one of them related to the creation of a biometric database of irregular immigrants. This five-year term will likely start with a prominent commissioner chosen by the far-right, and with Giorgia Meloni seated on the European Council, they will have much more to say than in 2019. We shall see where it ends. More than a "before and after," these elections represent another chapter in the progressive normalization and integration of the far-right into European politics. Their ideas are here to stay, and although they do not yet have the capacity to lead majorities or elect presidents of the Parliament or the European Commission, they are managing to alter the frameworks of numerous debates, such as immigration and the green transition. This is the real danger, and this election reinforces that we continue to discuss these issues in the terms desired by Meloni, Orban, or Le Pen. Bipartisanship resists Another point that I believe needs to be highlighted about this election is that bipartisanship is holding up better than many expected. While it's true that the heyday of the two major political families adding up to over 400 members will never return, for the first time since 2004, the People's Party and the Socialists have not lost seats together, breaking a trend that seemed irreversible. The EPP gained nine seats, winning the elections in three of the five most populous states: Germany, Spain, and Poland. The Social Democrats obtained 137 seats, slightly below the 139 they had in the previous legislature, avoiding the drop predicted by almost all polls. The Liberals and Greens, on the other hand, have collapsed, each losing about twenty seats. As I was saying, the heyday of social democratic hegemony passed long ago, but beyond the endurance of the Iberian social democracy — the only ones alongside the Cypriots to independently exceed 30% — there are some good signs that suggest this family may be moderately satisfied. In France and Greece, two paradigmatic examples of the crisis in this space, Pasok and PSF, which seemed long defunct, are now vying for leadership in opposition again. In Italy, the Democratic Party (DP), despite insufficient results, has outplayed the 5 Star Movement in the opposition, solidifying its position as the main opposition force to Giorgia Meloni's government. And in the Netherlands, a coalition with the Greens has managed to surpass the ultra-right Geert Wilders. It's evident that the current situation for social democrats is not ideal, but if we look back ten years, many parties that seemed on the brink of disappearance have recovered and could even become a government alternative in a few years. This directly links to the crisis of an alternative left that in many European countries has shifted from being a viable alternative to a minority space. In France and Spain, these spaces that once made socialists tremble now find themselves divided and subordinate. In Greece, Syriza remains the second force, but in 2019 it led the center-left by 15 points and one million votes, a difference that has now been reduced to just 2%. In northern Europe, things seem to be going a bit better as the green left, formerly the Socialist People's Party, has won the elections in Denmark, while in Finland, the Left Alliance — a member of The Left — is the second force with 17% of the votes. Interestingly, this is where the far-right has fallen the most, being the sixth force in Finland, fourth in Sweden, and ninth in Denmark. These results provide a glimmer of hope and show to the left in other regions a path to defeat the far-right. This is the landscape we find ourselves in. In the face of a far-right that is gradually gaining power and influence in Europe, the only ones seeming to withstand the far-right surge are the two traditional families, the EPP and the Social Democrats. The former, increasingly unabashed in their alliances with the radical right, remain committed to drawing a distinction between the "good" ultras, such as the Atlanticists like Meloni and Poland's Law and Justice Party, and the "bad" ultras, who are anti-European and aligned with Putin, like the AfD or Salvini. This distinction allows them to present agreements with parties that have repeatedly shown scant respect for human rights as respectable. And the latter, either through action or omission of others, have managed to weather the storm following the 2008 crisis and remain in many countries as the alternative to far-right governance. Who would have thought this ten years ago when many were signing the death warrant for social democratic parties. This is the Europe that remains. The rise of far-right influence and the consolidation of bipartisanship are the two main headlines of a night that will go down in history more for Macron's advancement than for immediate repercussions on Union governance, where everything will continue more or less the same. No earthquakes, but with tectonic shifts that may one day bring everything crashing down. The article was translated and licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ES (Atribución-CompartirIgual 3.0 España).

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском “This article was originally published here by the International Crisis Group”Tensions between China and the Philippines are increasing the risk of armed conflict in the South China Sea. In this excerpt from the Watch List 2024 – Spring Update, Crisis Group looks at how the EU can support regional diplomacy to mitigate maritime disputes. Rising maritime tensions between China and the Philippines have highlighted the risk of armed conflict in the South China Sea and the dangers it would pose to global trade. Several countries are implicated in the set of complex sovereignty disputes in the sea, which stem from rival claims to various features and the maritime entitlements they generate, but recent incidents involving Beijing and Manila have triggered the greatest concern. The Philippines controls nine outposts in the Spratlys, a contested group of land and maritime features at the heart of the South China Sea. A submerged reef known as Second Thomas Shoal has become a dangerous flashpoint, with Chinese boats continually trying to block Manila’s efforts to resupply the BRP Sierra Madre, a rusting ship housing a handful of soldiers that a former Philippine government purposely grounded in 1999 in a bid to assert sovereignty over the atoll. China, which also claims the shoal, first started interfering with these missions in 2014, but relations between the two countries in the maritime domain have never been as volatile as during the last seven months. Chinese boats have regularly rammed the Philippine supply vessels or doused them with water cannons, occasionally wounding the sailors on board. Manila has a Mutual Defence Treaty with Washington, making this burgeoning maritime dispute part of the geopolitical competition between the U.S and China. In effect, the South China Sea has become a zone where conflict risks are rife – and where Washington and Beijing could be drawn into direct confrontation. Considering these developments, the EU and its member states should: • Seek greater diplomatic engagement with both Beijing and Manila to keep tensions in check. They should also expand their diplomatic presence across South East Asia and, where relevant, establish reliable channels through which they could communicate with high-level authorities in China and other claimant states should disputes at sea escalate; • Work to promote respect for international law, particularly the law of the sea, as a source of neutral rules for dispute resolution and conflict prevention, for example by organising public events, roundtables and dialogues in Manila and elsewhere. While this measure may not bridge the divides between Manila and Beijing, it could at least help establish a level of mutual support and understanding among the other South China Sea claimant states; and • Strengthen coast guard cooperation with the Philippines, focusing on building capacity in areas such as environmental protection, safety and search-and-rescue procedures. Troubled Waters The sovereignty disputes that underpin the tensions between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea go back decades. But it was Beijing’s manoeuvres to take control of Mischief Reef (in the east of the Spratlys) from Manila in 1995 that altered the perceived balance of power between the two states and in the region, setting off the territorial dispute that has now taken a turn for the worse. China’s assertiveness in the sea has grown in the past few years, along with its military capabilities. The brewing territorial dispute made headlines in 2012 when Beijing in effect took control of Scarborough Shoal, an atoll 220km west of the Philippine mainland but within Manila’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), after a maritime altercation. The incident prompted then-President Benigno Aquino to file a case challenging China’s territorial claims under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On 12 July 2016, the presiding arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of Manila, dismissing China’s claim to all the waters within its “nine-dash line”, which constitute almost the entire South China Sea. But it was a Pyrrhic victory. Beijing not only rejected the adjudication and the subsequent ruling, but it had also already undercut efforts to settle the dispute through legal channels by building and fortifying seven artificial islands in the Spratlys while the case was winding its way through the system. This move fundamentally changed the status quo, enabling Beijing to post permanent garrisons in the area for the first time. By many accounts, China has thus ensured itself control of the sea in any situation below the threshold of armed conflict. A short lull in the maritime dispute appeared to follow. After coming to power in 2016, Aquino’s successor, Rodrigo Duterte, pursued a pragmatic policy toward Beijing. Duterte downplayed the tribunal’s decision and cast sovereignty issues aside, hoping to benefit from Beijing’s economic largesse in exchange. Yet his ambitious gambit did not pay off. Tensions at sea continued in the form of regular standoffs between the country’s coast guard and Chinese vessels. Filipino fisherfolk struggled to reach their traditional fishing grounds, and Manila could not exploit the precious oil and gas reserves within its EEZ to which it is entitled under international law. In March 2021, Chinese ships massed around Whitsun Reef, an unoccupied feature in the sea, ringing alarm bells in Manila, where senior officials voiced public criticism of China’s behaviour for the first time in years. By the end of the Duterte administration, the Philippines had revived its ties with the U.S. and become more assertive still, filing several diplomatic protests with the Chinese government. Elected in 2022, President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Duterte’s successor, was initially disposed toward friendly relations with Beijing, but the relationship soured only a few months into his presidency. Although China remains the Philippines’ top trading partner, Marcos, Jr.’s meetings with President Xi Jinping did not achieve the desired results: Beijing neither agreed to make major new investments nor curtailed its “grey zone” tactics in the South China Sea, understood as coercive actions that remain below the threshold of armed conflict. These rebuffs have helped push Marcos, Jr. toward strengthening ties with Washington, and the Biden administration has, on several occasions, publicly committed that the countries’ Mutual Defence Treaty would be deemed triggered in the event of an armed attack on Philippine warships, aircraft or public vessels. In perhaps the most significant recent development, after a series of high-level visits by U.S. officials to Manila, the two countries agreed to scale up implementation of their Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which gives U.S. troops rotational expanded access to Philippine military bases, and which China perceives as a provocation, especially given these bases’ proximity not just to the South China Sea but also to Taiwan. Manila has also received defence and diplomatic support from a host of other countries, particularly Japan and Australia. Despite the dispute it has with Vietnam over parts of the South China Sea, it has engaged, more quietly, with Hanoi, and acquired maritime defence equipment from India, thus expanding its circle of partners. Joint naval exercises with various countries have included large-scale ones with the U.S. in April, which involved the deployment of missiles that can reach targets almost 1,600km away – something that was sure to draw Beijing’s attention – and took place just after Manila wound up its first-ever trilateral presidential summit with Washington and Tokyo. In the meantime, the Marcos, Jr. administration has pursued what it calls a “transparency initiative”, publicising information about maritime incidents by inviting journalists to join its coast guard ships or posting video recordings of events almost as they are happening. Dramatic footage of Chinese vessels blocking, ramming or attacking its resupply missions to Second Thomas Shoal with water cannons has generated widespread condemnation in the Philippines and abroad. Many consider these tactics to be bullying. For its part, and despite the 2016 ruling, Beijing asserts that Manila is intruding into its waters and maintains that it is demonstrating maximum restraint. China has also recently referred to a so-called gentleman’s agreement under former President Duterte that it says foresaw preserving a status quo in the South China Sea, with Manila ostensibly agreeing to supply only humanitarian goods and no construction materials to the BRP Sierra Madre; Manila denies that there was any such arrangement. Given the Philippines’ determination to continue resupplying its troops on the BRP Sierra Madre, Second Thomas Shoal will likely remain a flashpoint. Due to the constraints imposed at sea by the Chinese maritime militia and coast guard, Manila is starting to look into other means of provisioning its outpost, some of which are likely to irk Beijing even more, such as airdrops or closer U.S. naval escorts. In September 2023, a U.S. plane was in the shoal’s vicinity during a resupply mission, while a U.S. warship passed through waters nearby in December. But the shoal is not the only possible source of tension. Chinese vessels, both official and non-official, sail through many areas where Philippine fisherfolk traditionally work, while other features, such as Scarborough Shoal, are also points of friction. A large-scale encounter or accident at sea could be especially dangerous. Should a Filipino or Chinese national die during such a confrontation, it could stir nationalist sentiments in Manila and Beijing and heighten threat perceptions on both sides. In case of loss of life on the Philippine side, Manila would expect its U.S. ally to assist under the Mutual Defence Treaty, especially given the recent exchanges with Washington on that topic, although the U.S. has not said precisely how it would come to the Philippines’ aid. How such a dangerous situation would evolve depends in large part on Manila’s political decision to invoke the treaty and the choices Washington makes about how to fulfill its commitments. In principle, Beijing and Manila remain open to negotiations. But the bilateral consultative mechanism, a confidence-building measure designed in 2017 to manage maritime issues between the two countries, among other things, has generated no results of note. Meanwhile, efforts to create a Code of Conduct, which aims to reduce tensions at sea by setting up norms and rules between claimants and has been under discussion between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) for over two decades, have stagnated. Why the Sea Matters The South China Sea is a vital waterway through which around one third of global shipping passes. Peace and stability in the sea are a prerequisite for safe trade and are demonstrably in the interest of the EU and its member states. At over 40 per cent, the share of the EU’s trade with the rest of the world transiting the sea is even higher than the global average. Instability in the area would deal a major blow to the European economy; even a slight disturbance of shipping routes could result in higher transport costs, shipping delays and acute product shortages. Should there be an escalation that pits China against the U.S. in a direct conflict, the consequences could be catastrophic and global. European positions toward South China Sea disputes have traditionally highlighted the importance of all parties respecting international law and the need for peaceful resolution, while being careful not to take sides. But over the last few years, China’s assertiveness and expanding military capabilities have driven a greater sense of urgency and something of a shift in European thinking. First, the EU and several of its member states have developed “Indo-Pacific” strategies, designed to guide and promote cooperation with countries throughout the region. Secondly, Brussels has increased its diplomatic support for the Philippine position following maritime altercations, offering supportive statements in December 2023 and March 2024. Brussels and several European capitals now back Manila in regularly underlining the importance of UNCLOS and maritime law in the South China Sea context. Meanwhile, Europe’s presence in the region is growing, if slowly and in part symbolically. In 2021, the EU appointed a special envoy for the Indo-Pacific for the first time, while European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen visited Manila in July 2023, the first trip to the Philippines by someone holding that office and an opportunity to express, at the highest level, the EU’s readiness to strengthen cooperation with the government in maritime security, among other areas. A German frigate entered the South China Sea in 2021, and French and Italian ships made port calls in Manila in 2023. In March 2024, the EU and the Philippines agreed to resume negotiations over a free trade agreement, while a month later France announced talks regarding a Visiting Forces Agreement with the Philippines. While EU interest in the region is rising, European stances on the South China Sea are complex, with member states harbouring different views on maritime disputes in the region and, more broadly, on big-power competition. Some, such as France – which is the only EU member state to have overseas territories in the region (and which has significant EEZ interests there) – see themselves as having stakes higher than others and are keen to participate in the region’s discussions on security. Others, such as Greece and Hungary, are less concerned with maritime flare-ups so far away and tend to ascribe greater importance to maintaining good relations with Beijing. What the EU and Its Member States Can Do As the EU and its most powerful member states are drawn deeper into the South China Sea, they should raise their diplomatic game in the region – both to ensure awareness of mounting tensions and to look for ways to manage corresponding risks. As a practical matter, Brussels could leverage its status as an ASEAN Strategic Partner to seek more participation in that bloc’s security mechanisms and regional forums; the EU and member states could seek higher levels of engagement with regional powers such as Japan, Australia, and South Korea on matters concerning the South China Sea; and Europe could post more diplomats to the region, including permanent defence attachés who speak the language of naval diplomacy. Of particular importance will be maintaining strong lines of communication with Beijing, where Europe is seen as still having some distance from the U.S.-China strategic rivalry, which works to its diplomatic advantage. While to some extent this communication will be traditional bilateral statecraft, it may also mean looking for new opportunities and new channels for dialogue. For example, some member states could also seek to follow the precedent set by France and China in establishing a coordination and deconfliction mechanism between their militaries. Brussels should also continue raising the South China Sea in its engagement with Beijing as it did during the EU-China summit in 2023. Maintaining these channels will become both more difficult and more important if and when the EU and member states expand their operational presence in the region – for example, if they decide to establish a calibrated maritime presence in the South China Sea, as proposed by the EU envoy to the Indo-Pacific. Such a move is still deemed unlikely for now. As for public diplomacy, Brussels and EU member states should consider practical ways to promote principles of the law of the sea in the region, making the case that broader regional support for and adherence to these principles would provide neutral ground for peacefully avoiding and resolving disputes. While it is hard to see this approach appealing to Beijing, which has rebuffed the UNCLOS tribunal’s decision, there could still be benefits in forging closer cooperation among other claimant states. Convenings in Manila and other regional capitals could cover topics related to the continuing disputes but also to cross-cutting themes of regional interest such as fisheries. With negotiations over a regional Code of Conduct stuck, like-minded countries in the region could use these occasions to at least develop common positions on discrete issues that might be addressed by the Code or that could foster regional confidence-building in the South China Sea. Finally, in the realm of capacity building, European governments should continue to strengthen coast guard cooperation with South China Sea claimant states, helping them develop tools and protocols that might be used where appropriate to avoid confrontation and conflict. Since Aquino’s administration, Manila has tried to boost its coast guard capabilities. Given that many of the other claimant states’ vessels in the South China Sea are coast guard ships, and find themselves embroiled in maritime confrontations, a common approach on rules of engagement could help avoid misunderstandings at sea. Building on the EU’s integrated coast guard system, the EU could host or sponsor joint workshops to develop operating principles for the region’s law enforcement vessels and exchange best practices with Philippine authorities. Brussels could also fund agencies such as the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to strengthen coast guard expertise on issues such as environmental protection, safety and search-and-rescue procedures. European member states could also participate in joint activities with the Philippine and other ASEAN coast guards to strengthen fisheries control and maritime border protection and deter piracy or smuggling.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Hotfoot from signing a security pact with North Korea on Wednesday, Vladimir Putin has popped up in Vietnam, another of the few remaining countries where the Russian president is still welcome (or doesn’t face arrest under the war crimes warrant issued by the International Criminal Court last year). Here he was congratulated by the president, To Lam, for his election victory earlier this year and for maintaining stability and continuity in Russia. Putin, meanwhile, made much of the Soviet Union’s historical support for the Vietnamese people’s struggle for independence and unity from the 1950s to the 1970s, referring, without a hint of irony, to Vietnam’s “heroic struggle against foreign invaders”. The visit has been billed as part of Putin’s strategy to promote a new “multipolar” world order, free from US control. But it should be noted that the pragmatic Vietnamese have already hosted Joe Biden and Xi Jinping over the past nine months. Hanoi’s “bamboo diplomacy” depends on the country being “actively neutral” – with one eye on China, Vietnam has also upgraded relations with the US, Australia and South Korea in recent times. So, while there will be plenty of expressions of goodwill from Vietnam’s leadership, they are less likely to commit to anything more concrete as things stand. North Korea knows little of such diplomatic niceties, though, and has fewer choices when it comes to its friends. Very little detail has emerged of the new pact with Russia, except that it would require each country to come to the aid of the other if attacked. But it’s likely that close to the top of the agenda would have been Russia’s military requirements. North Korea’s supplies of artillery and ammunition are thought to have been vital in helping Russia overcome the harsh sanctions imposed by the US as well as Beijing’s unwillingness to directly provide arms for the war in Ukraine. Kim, in turn, wants Russian know-how when it comes to sophisticated military tech as well as economic support when it comes to feeding his country’s starving population. But warm relations between the two countries is nothing new. Official pronouncements emphasised the “traditionally friendly and good” relations between Russia and North Korea “based on the glorious traditions of common history”. For Kim, writes Robert Barnes, a senior lecturer in history at York St John University, this is something of a family affair which harks back to the 1930s when the North Korean leader’s grandfather Kim Il-sung was a relatively unknown Korean communist leading a small guerrilla band fighting the Japanese in Manchuria. Kim spent much of the second world war in the Soviet Union, where he joined the Red Army and rose to the rank of major. After the conflict, he was handpicked by Stalin to lead the Korean Workers’ party and then North Korea when it was established in 1948. The Korean war which followed almost led to a nuclear confrontation between the Soviet Union and the west. Hopefully, concludes Barnes, nothing as dramatic will result from this latest iteration of the relationship between the two countries. But pariah states such as North Korea aren’t the only countries where Putin can command a degree of support, if the recent European parliamentary elections are any guide. As Natasha Lindstaedt notes here, the rise of the far right in EU member states such as Germany, France, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria is throwing up an increasingly powerful group that stands in opposition to EU support for Ukraine. It may seem counterintuitive that such an avowed anti-fascist as Putin is courting extreme right organisations such as Germany’s Alternative for Deutschland party (AfD) or Hungary’s Fidesz party. But Lindstaedt believes that leaders such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán have shown little concern for the institutions of democracy – as shown by Hungary’s adoption of a similar foreign agents’ law which acts to curtail press freedom and the work of NGOs. She concudes: “Putin is seen by the far right as a strong and conservative leader that can defend himself against the liberal west, which is trying to undermine these values.” The west, meanwhile, remains divided over the manner and extent of its support for Ukraine. The good news for Kyiv is that the recent G7 meeting in Puglia, southern Italy, ended in an in-principle agreement to use the US$3 billion (£2.36 billion) interest from US$350 billion of Russian assets frozen in the western banking system to underwrite a US$50 billion loan to Ukraine. But Gregory Stiles and Hugo Dobson, experts in international relations at the University of Sheffield, sound a cautionary note suggesting that the details of how this will work are likely to take months to agree. Meanwhile, they write, five of the seven leaders – US president Joe Biden, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Canada’s Justin Trudeau, the UK’s Rishi Sunak and Japan’s Fumio Kishida – all face elections this year which none of them are guaranteed to survive. And, to take just one example, if Biden loses in November to Donald Trump, the likelihood of this deal proceeding becomes significantly reduced. Summit on peace Many of these leaders went on to Switzerland at the weekend for the Summit on Peace in Ukraine. Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, was following proceedings and concludes that it’s hard to judge the meeting an unqualified success. Out of 160 countries and international organisations invited, only 92 attended. Biden was a no-show and Canada’s premier, Justin Trudeau, was the only G7 leader to stay for both days of the conference. The main problem, writes Wolff, was that the only peace plan on the table was that proposed some time ago by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky. This calls for the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, including Crimea, and the payment of reparations for rebuilding his country. Seven other peace plans, proposed by the likes of China (which also failed to send anyone), Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, a group of African states led by South Africa and the Vatican were not discussed. Most of these call for a ceasefire, which is anathema to Kyiv and its backers in the US and UK, as it would accept, for the time being at least, Russia’s territorial gains on the ground, including the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Putin, meanwhile, was trolling hard from the sidelines, releasing his terms for a ceasefire deal, which are for Ukraine to accept Russian annexation of Crimea and not just the land his troops currently occupy, but all of the four regions he annexed in September 2022. Putin’s column As previously noted here, a season of relative success on the battlefield, has left Putin in a bullish mood. It emerged recently that (despite being seriously disadvantaged by the war in Ukraine and the harsh western sanctions which have ensued) the boss of Russian energy giant plans to build an 80-metre column in St Petersburg to commemorate Peter the Great’s triumph in the great northern war, after which Russia declared itself to be an empire for the first time. As George Gilbert, an expert in Russian history at University of Southampton notes, anything honouring Peter the Great is a sure-fire way of buttering up the Russian president, who sees himself as a latter-day incarnation of the man who built his home town of St Petersburg, glossing over the fact that Peter saw his capital as a way of making Russia more of a west-facing country. Gilbert gives us some historical context about the conflict, in which Russia lined up alongside much of what would become Poland and Germany as well as Britain, by virtue of its king, George I, also being the ruler of Hanover. The key battle, he writes, was at Poltava, which is in the middle of what is now Ukraine, which involved defeating a crack regiment of Cossack cavalry, which you’d have to imagine is very much grist to Putin’s mill. One suspects, though, that it’s Peter the Great’s imperial achievements that Putin wants to emulate most of all.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском We can talk about selective tariffs - but not about protective tariffs - Concerns about the effects of economic dependencies are increasingly overshadowing the benefits of open global trade. - In the current geopolitically charged situation, there may be situations in which trade policy dependencies - for example in the case of rare earths - can be mitigated by state intervention. - In such cases, selective tariffs are the best choice. Subsidies to build up own production capacities are significantly less efficient, more expensive and undermine the market principle. - Protective tariffs for industries whose products are sufficiently available on the global market, such as the automotive and steel industries, should be rejected. - The fundamental goal should be the preservation of rule-based world trade in accordance with WTO rules. Any kind of state intervention must be justified on the basis of solid data. Background During Chinese party leader Xi Jinping's visit to Europe in May, there was once again a lot of talk about economic dependencies. They are seen as a threat to the "economic security" of Germany and Europe. What often seems to fade into the background is that the arguments for a global division of labor remain valid: it enables general prosperity precisely because certain countries and regions concentrate on the production of individual goods and consequently do not produce others themselves. On the other hand, it is also true that the economic damage more than compensates for these advantages if a state such as China uses economic dependencies as political leverage and, in the worst case, stops supplying goods for which it has a monopoly. In principle, China has achieved such a monopoly for refined rare earths and some other smelted metals.1 However, this clearly does not apply to electric cars, steel or solar cells. The reason for such quasi-monopolies is simple: Chinese companies export the products in question so cheaply that production elsewhere in the world is not worthwhile. If this were solely due to the fact that Chinese companies produce better, the only correct response would be to roll up our sleeves and become better ourselves. In the case of rare earths from China, however, the advantage of Chinese manufacturers is largely due to direct and indirect subsidies. In such an environment, in which Chinese producers have massive cost advantages due to politically granted benefits, it is not worthwhile for private companies outside China to build up their own capacities for the production of rare earths, for example. Even if prices were to rise and economic production were possible, this would not be rational; state-supported Chinese companies can easily survive periods of low prices. The usual market mechanism, whereby companies with the most competitive solutions survive, does not apply here. Even technologically superior production methods do not prevail due to Chinese subsidies. Possible reactions The best economic solution is undoubtedly for the state not to react at all and to see the availability of very cheap products that are available for domestic consumption or for further processing as an advantage. The fact that the products in question have been made cheaper by Chinese taxpayers' money can be gratefully accepted. It would be a genuine and courageous system competition not to respond with the same instruments, but to maintain a market economy system and thus exploit the weaknesses of the counter-design. Shaping the economic framework conditions politically in such a way that innovations that provide alternatives to the use of the raw materials in question can be developed more easily would be a reaction that is still justifiable within the framework of the social market economy. This would be, for example, favorable recycling processes. In most cases, such innovations are possible. However, their introduction and application is significantly more expensive than importing standard products from China. If dependence on China is really not justifiable in individual cases,2 there are two possibilities for state intervention in the form of subsidies or tariffs, which may be justifiable in rare individual cases, but are not provided for within the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Important indicators for the assessment of dependencies are, for example, the lack of substitutability of the imported good, the degree of concentration of supply in a country and the relevance of the good in question for the domestic economy. However, state intervention to protect domestic production sites, such as is being discussed for electric cars or steel, appears to be explicitly unjustifiable. There is a sufficiently diversified supply of such products on the global market and there is no dependency on just one country. Economic effects of tariffs and subsidies Tariffs and subsidies both aim to compensate for the price difference to cheaper foreign competitors. Tariffs make imports more expensive, while subsidies make domestic production cheaper through state subsidies. Both have a negative welfare effect, but the correlation is more harmful in the case of subsidies. Figure 1 uses a schematic example, which is not based on empirical data, to illustrate the effect if the costs of producing rare earths in Germany were reduced to the level of the import price from China (country 1) through subsidies.   With the subsidies, it is now economically viable for the subsidized companies to produce the rare earths from ore in Germany. The actually cheaper ways of importing rare earths from alternative countries or using other technical solutions remain more expensive and would hardly be used. The goal of reducing dependencies would therefore be achieved in a very expensive way. Large sums of taxpayers' money would be spent on this. In this example, the most expensive possible route is discussed in order to clearly demonstrate the negative consequences. In reality, however, it is very unlikely that the cheapest route in economic terms will be subsidized. This is because there are always many different providers and technical solutions, which means that all the options are often not even known or can only develop in the long term. It is therefore very unlikely that the optimal subsidy recipients will be selected. A benefit is created for a specific, relatively arbitrarily selected application, but not for others. The effectiveness of the market is thus distorted and the competitiveness of the location decreases as a result. As the subsidies compensate for a competitive disadvantage, it is unlikely that high additional tax revenues will be generated. The funds spent are no longer available for other state investments. The result is a loss of welfare on this scale. Only the subsidized companies benefit from this. The price at which rare earths can be purchased in Germany does not change. It is also possible to subsidize production abroad in order to reduce dependence on one country. Such models are being attempted via "raw material partnerships", for example. Such an approach can be significantly cheaper than subsidizing domestic production. In the example (Figure 1), only the significantly lower import price from country 2 would have to be subsidized. However, the other disadvantages of subsidies listed above also apply in this case. In particular, it is even more difficult to obtain all the necessary information for projects abroad and therefore even less likely to choose the most cost-effective option. The targeted tariffs discussed here are intended to respond to dependencies on supplies from a specific country. They are therefore only imposed on imports from this country. Other imports are not affected. To stay with the example, the importer pays a surcharge on the imported rare earths. This makes his product, for which he processes rare earths, more expensive domestically. Manufacturers abroad who are not affected by the duty become more competitive in comparison.    If the tariff rate were set in the same way as above so that the competitive disadvantage for the most expensive option - metal processing in Germany - is compensated for in terms of price, the tariff rate on imports from China would be very high. However, consumers of rare earths in Germany would still have access to the significantly cheaper other options. Metal processing in Germany would therefore remain unprofitable, while imports - now no longer from China, but from country 2 - would continue to be significantly cheaper. However, the price difference to the cheapest processing variant in Germany, in the example (Figure 2) recycling, would no longer be so great, so that this variant would be easier to make economically viable by scaling up or using innovative technical solutions. In reality, the introduction of customs duties would not divert all procurement to a single country; there is no capacity for this anywhere. The result would be a mix of different suppliers, which would make it more worthwhile to drive innovation in Germany. Changes in the price structure between the different providers and processes over time can be tracked by customers in this model - the best process (or the second best, if the best is used in China) then prevails on the market. The welfare loss here arises from the fact that consumption or further processing of the imported products becomes more expensive by at least the difference to the second cheapest source of supply. However, the volume of the welfare loss is significantly lower than in the case of subsidies. It can be argued that tariffs make the prices of downstream products in the supply chain more expensive, whereas subsidies do not. While this is true, it overlooks the fact that the much larger group of companies and consumers who are not directly affected do not suffer any direct additional costs in the case of tariffs, but bear the costs of subsidies through their taxes. Political effects of tariffs and subsidies In terms of their political and structural consequences, subsidies are more harmful than targeted tariffs. This is simply due to the procedure at the end of which individual companies receive a subsidy decision. An "objective" allocation is hardly possible here. On the contrary: the procedure is susceptible to personal relationships, political influence and direct corruption. Furthermore, subsidies that are only granted in one country of the European Union jeopardize the integrity of the European Single Market. Similar problems can arise with customs duties. This happens when they are used to protect certain domestic industries. In the case of targeted, selective tariffs, which are based on clearly defined, objective categories, such as the degree of dependence on a product from a country, there is little scope for political influence once the criteria have been established. Tariffs cannot harm the European single market either, as they can only be imposed at European level anyway. WTO conformity The reduction of tariffs and subsidies within the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the predecessor agreement GATT are a central reason for the reduction of global poverty in recent decades and one of the cornerstones of Germany's prosperity. It is therefore self-evident that tariffs and subsidies not only contradict the idea of the WTO. They also contradict its two basic principles: Subsidies for domestic production contradict the non-discrimination principle3, tariffs against individual countries violate the Most Favorite Nation Clause4. There are exceptions for both in the WTO rules. For example, WTO members must notify subsidies so that they can be examined and other countries can object to them if necessary. In principle, subsidies are only intended - and within a narrow framework - for developing countries, which still includes China. However, the notification of subsidies to the WTO hardly works any more. For example, 64 countries (around a third of members) have not even notified their subsidies for 20175. Nevertheless, some of China's subsidies may indeed be legal according to the letter of the WTO rules. But they are certainly not legitimate, as the aim of the WTO is to liberalize world trade and not to cement the opposite. And even if subsidies are known, the WTO cannot take legally binding action against them due to the dispute settlement mechanism blocked by the USA. Consequently, the USA has not reacted to the unresolved problem of China's subsidies within the WTO framework. Although tariffs have been imposed on some Chinese imports, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a huge subsidy program. If the dispute settlement mechanism were to work, the IRA would almost certainly have to be declared WTO-incompatible. However, as this path is blocked, many countries and regions of the world - including Germany and the EU at the forefront - are reacting with their own openly WTO-incompatible subsidy programs. The current subsidy race is constantly creating new reasons to impose subsidies in response to the subsidies of others. This will further damage the multilateral trading system, which has been very successful for Germany in particular. Targeted tariffs, on the other hand, which can be used to eliminate competitive disadvantages caused by subsidies and which are therefore only levied on goods from the subsidizing country, are in principle in line with the basic idea of the WTO. This is because it balances out a distortion of the world market created by subsidies. Therefore, tariffs are generally permitted as a reaction to dumping and subsidies6. A reaction to subsidies via tariffs within the strict WTO framework is currently hardly possible for the reasons mentioned above. In this situation, it should be actively communicated that in an unsatisfactory legal situation, the path of the least evil will be taken with tariffs. At the same time, serious efforts should be made to reform the WTO. Conclusion The argument: "We want to have the production of certain things in Germany because we believe that we would no longer be supplied with them in crisis situations" is not an economic argument. Production for strategic reasons is always a financially subsidized business. Because if there was money to be made, the private sector would do it. Politically, this line of argument is perfectly legitimate - as is the attempt to steer the economy directly in a politically acceptable direction through subsidies. However, this has nothing to do with a social market economy, but rather the opposite. However, if Germany and Europe are to remain committed to the social market economy and open multilateral trade, the only economically sensible response to problematic dependencies from abroad (if one has to respond at all) is to impose targeted, selective tariffs - but certainly not protective tariffs for domestic production sites. The German government should work within the EU to set a clear framework for this and at the same time work on a reform at WTO level to finally reduce the rampant subsidies. Because these - and not tariffs - are currently the biggest threat to the open global trading system that is so important to us. References 1 Vgl. etwa die Darstellung der Abhängigkeiten von für die Energiewende nötigen Metallen in Cernicky (2022): https://www.kas.de/documents/252038/16166715/Energiewende+und+Protektionismus+-+Wie+gehen+wir+pragmatisch+mit+China+um.pdf/442ba770-d504-43cc-25f1-eaf7d970dfc1, genaue Zahlen vgl. etwa die Auflistung des BDI: https://bdi.eu/publikation/news/analyse-bestehender-abhaengigkeiten-und-handlungsempfehlungen/ 2 Zum Versuch einer entsprechenden Bewertung vgl. etwa die von der KAS und dem Ifo-Institut durchgeführte Studie zu Abhängigkeiten in Lieferketten, Flach et al (2021): https://www.kas.de/de/analysen-und-argumente/detail/-/content/globale-wertschoepfungsketten 3 Art. III GATT 4 Art. I GATT/ WTO 5 WTO | 2023 News items - Members reiterate concerns on lack of transparency with subsidy notifications: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news23_e/scm_02may23_e.htm 6 GATT Art VI, Dumping und Ausgleichzölle Publisher: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e. V., 2024, Berlin Design: yellow too, Pasiek Horntrich GbR Produced with the financial support of the Federal Republic of Germany. This publication of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e. V. is for information purposes only. It may not be used by political parties or election campaigners or helpers for the purpose of election advertising. This applies to federal, state and local elections as well as elections to the European Parliament. The text of this work is licensed under the terms of "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 international", CC BY-SA 4.0 (available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.de).

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Poland ranks seventh in Europe and 12th worldwide among the least business-friendly countries. It also performed the worst in this regard compared to neighboring countries, including war-torn Ukraine. Greece is the most challenging country to conduct business in. These conclusions come from the eleventh edition of the annual Global Business Complexity Index report by TMF Group, a leading provider of compliance and administrative services. The authors of the TMF Global Complexity Index 2023 examined 79 jurisdictions, accounting for 93% of the world’s GDP and 88% of net foreign direct investment. They compared 292 annually monitored indicators regarding key aspects of business operations, administrative regulations, and legal compliance for entrepreneurs planning to conduct business in a selected market. For the first time, Saudi Arabia appeared in the ranking, taking the 37th position. Poland, considering European countries, ranked seventh in the index, three places better than the previous two years. “We observe progress in digitizing processes in Poland. This is a significant convenience for investors and businesses along the Vistula River. An example is the ability to perform all financial reporting activities in an IT service. Another example is the growing interest in the simplified joint-stock company (PSA), introduced just over two years ago, which requires only 1 PLN of capital and has straightforward management and liquidation rules. The turmoil related to the introduction of the Polish Deal has also passed, which is welcomed by businesses and improves sentiment.” – explains Joanna Romańczuk, Director of TMF Group for Central and Eastern Europe, highlighting positive changes in conducting business in Poland. At the same time, Poland performs the worst regarding ease of doing business compared to neighboring countries (excluding Belarus, not included in the ranking), including Ukraine. “The position of a country in the ranking is determined by the complexity of internal business rules and how other countries in the ranking handle such issues. While we see positive signals in Poland, our neighbors are better at facilitating business establishment and operation, even war-torn Ukraine. Ukraine has the status of a candidate country for the European Union. Therefore, the government is introducing many business facilitations, and the pace of reforms is very rapid. For example, no penalties are imposed for self-corrected tax returns. Additionally, attractive solutions for businesses, such as favorable tax conditions and automatic intellectual property protection, are being implemented in the IT sector.” – adds Joanna Romańczuk. TMF Group experts point out that entrepreneurs in Poland are burdened by the necessity of repeatedly reporting the same information to various institutions and the long-standing variability of regulations, such as the announcement of the National e-Invoice System (KSeF), followed by the postponement of its implementation, which caused significant costs for many large organizations to adapt to its introduction. Among the countries where it is most difficult to conduct business, European countries dominate – Greece, which swapped places with France for the top spot this year. They are followed by Colombia, Mexico, and Bolivia. In Europe, it is also more difficult to conduct business in Italy, Belgium, Spain, and Croatia than in Poland. The Cayman Islands (a British Overseas Territory), Curaçao (a Dutch Overseas Territory), Denmark, Hong Kong (a Special Administrative Region of China), and New Zealand are the best in the world at eliminating business obstacles. In Europe, besides Denmark, which has consistently held top positions in this category for years, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Malta, and Ireland are the most business-friendly countries. “Last year, I gave examples of Denmark, which has long been a global leader in business-friendliness, and the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Malta. This year, the Czech Republic also shows that Europe can be very business-friendly, competing even with the United States. No one doubts that it would be beneficial for Poland to join the ranks of leaders in this field in the coming years,” concludes Joanna Romańczuk. In addition to analyzing business conditions in 79 jurisdictions, the authors of the TMF Global Complexity Index 2024 (GBCI) also identify key topics shaping the global business landscape and regulatory environment: Impact of Global Regulatory Compliance on Foreign Investments The authors of this year’s GBCI emphasize that representatives of most jurisdictions expressed confidence in the stability of regulations over the next five years, continuing a trend of increased stability compared to previous years. For example, in 2020, representatives of only 35% of jurisdictions predicted no significant regulatory changes. This sense of stability has grown yearly, reaching 58% of jurisdictions in 2024. Experts suggest that the number or complexity of regulations is not the biggest challenge, but the speed of regulatory changes is the real difficulty. Geopolitical Factors and Bridge Economies Geopolitical instability has an obvious impact on the flow of trade and investment worldwide. While energy prices remain high, supply chain disruptions and trade barriers also pose significant challenges for global players. As a result, many companies are reevaluating their potential growth plans and long-term expansion goals. However, while geopolitical issues may disrupt supply chains or create trade barriers for some jurisdictions, others benefit from global shifts. Due to their neutrality on global issues, countries known as “bridge economies” can capitalize on their unique positions. For these countries, their newly established roles in the global supply chain have become a crucial way for international companies to manage their risks during periods of international instability. Uncertain Times and Success Strategies – Technology and Retaining Employees Although jurisdiction representatives cited various factors influencing growth, IT and technology topped the list as the most influential. Technology offers growth opportunities in multiple ways, providing development possibilities where countries have technological expertise in production and can increase market share through production. The use of technology to increase productivity has also been identified in terms of streamlining work. In many jurisdictions, including New Zealand and Hong Kong, companies automate office, basic, and part-time work using artificial intelligence to keep the workforce size low and focus on higher-value tasks. At the same time, the vast majority of jurisdictions face challenges in attracting and retaining talent (78%), with this figure even higher in the EMEA (90%) and APAC (79%) regions. The ability to respond effectively to demand in this area largely depends on two factors: local labor laws and the potential of regional talent. Jurisdictions with restrictive labor laws and a strong presence of trade unions – or those with a shortage of available talent – are naturally much less able to flexibly adjust employment levels.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском In March and April, Vietnamese Foreign Minister Bui Thanh Son’s nearly back-to-back visits to the U.S. and China highlighted Vietnam’s increasing penchant for delicate diplomacy with major powers amid the U.S.-China strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific and Vietnam’s territorial tussles with China especially in the South China Sea (SCS), which Vietnam calls the East Sea. Much of the (perceived) disorder in the Indo-Pacific hails from the SCS, and one of Vietnam’s principal challenges is fostering order on its maritime borders. Therefore, Vietnam—historically distrustful of major powers—has been diversifying its relations by seeking security and defense ties with Indo-Pacific partners like the European Union (EU), India, and Japan, as well as with Russia, a country that poses an “existential threat” to the transatlantic allies. At the same time, Southeast Asia is battling disunity within the region for resolving disputes in the SCS, for instance. The regional multilateralism embodied by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) seems to lack teeth even as China ‘controls’ some of its members using its financial and economic heft. So clearly, efforts beyond Vietnam’s “bamboo diplomacy” that deepen international solidarity are required. In a similar vein, Europe’s reluctant rapprochement with China in recent times amid the EU calling China a strategic challenge but continuing to look for economic engagement is reminiscent of Vietnam and much of Asia’s predicament vis-à-vis China. Moreover, like in Southeast Asia, not every member-country of the EU is embracing the Indo-Pacific construct, led by the U.S. Or even if a member does, like France or Germany, it does not spell the end of a productive relationship with China. Nonetheless, it is clear that the EU has started to take a greater interest in the growing geopolitical situation in the Indo-Pacific, even as the disunity over the extent of the Indo-Pacific priorities, including China, is as apparent. In such a scenario, is it possible for the EU and Vietnam, and by extension ASEAN, to have greater convergence, if not congruence, in their policies? Revisiting Vietnam’s Lack of an Indo-Pacific Tilt The Indo-Pacific, the maritime space and littoral between the western Indian and Pacific Oceans, has become the world’s most geopolitically critical region. In this region, much of the focus and debate among the EU’s more proactive members, such as France, the Netherlands, and Germany, is in response to Chinese unilateralism, trade dependency, and unchecked Sino-U.S. contestation. Several of these EU members have come to understand each other’s positions on the Indo-Pacific. Gradually, there is a realization that it is not just about what the EU and its members seek to accomplish in the region but just as much the perspectives and priorities of key Indo-Pacific resident actors—and their views on European strategies and contributions. Vietnam is one such country that is worthy of greater European strategic attention. Vietnam is known for its “bamboo diplomacy”—a reference to the bamboo plant’s strong roots, sturdy stems, and flexible branches—balancing ties with the two big powers, the U.S. and China. In the words of Foreign Minister Bui Thanh Son, Vietnam’s foreign policy caters to “independence, self-reliance, peace, friendship and cooperation, and multilateralization and diversification of external relations and proactive international integration.” However, Hanoi has never officially and fully embraced the term “Indo-Pacific” nor the U.S.-led Indo-Pacific construct although it does recognize that some aspects of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific tenet advocated by the U.S. and its allies are compatible with its national interests. For instance, the order in the Asia-Pacific, a term that Hanoi prefers to use, should be rule-based. This speaks to one of Vietnam’s most important foreign policy priorities: finding peace and stability in the SCS disputes with China and other claimants. However, the order that Vietnam seeks is in more than just the security domain. The goal of development has been the highest priority since Doi Moi (renovation) in 1986. Economic growth is considered the backbone of national security and regime legitimacy. Hanoi’s development of foreign relations can be said to be grounded in its national development experience, with the stress on economic priority leading to national stability and international standing. Vietnam chooses to engage in the Indo-Pacific construct on its terms. Vietnam and EU Convergence On both economic and security fronts, Vietnam and the EU can find converged interests that align closer to each other. Even as Hanoi has not officially adopted the term “Indo-Pacific,” the EU’s Indo-Pacific strategy, if implemented well, could address both Vietnam’s economic and security needs. Despite its security and military power limitations in the Indo-Pacific, the EU can still play a crucial role in effectively addressing these needs, which are vital for the EU’s strategic interests as well. The two already have a Framework Participation Agreement. Vietnam is also part of the EU’s Enhancing Security In and With Asia (ESIWA) project, which covers crisis management and cyber security. This also aligns with the EU’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, where Vietnam is considered a “solid” partner. Notably, both the EU and Vietnam face (potential) economic coercion from China. As China is now Vietnam’s largest trading partner, sudden trade restrictions hindering Vietnamese exports to China would dramatically hurt the Vietnamese economy. In this vein, Hanoi welcomed the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), hoping it would give opportunities to diversify its trading partners and thus mitigate the risks of economic coercion from China. On the other hand, the EU and its member-states are also trying to increase economic resilience by diversifying trading partners as they wrestle with economic overdependence on China. So, strategically, Brussels presents an excellent opportunity for Hanoi and vice versa. However, challenges remain. For example, all the EU member-states are still to ratify the Investment Protection Agreement signed along with the EVFTA. Even though this is usually a time-consuming procedure, the imperative to reap benefits as soon as possible has taken a setback amid a challenging geopolitical landscape. Nonetheless, the two sides are concerned about more than just traditional economic development; they are concerned about sustainable development and green transition. For instance, under the EU’s Global Gateway framework, the EU and Vietnam have signed the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), which looks to provide a multi-projects credit facility worth €500 million. This is supposed to be the EU’s primary focus in Vietnam now. Yet, Hanoi’s cautious approach for fear of falling into any potential debt trap could stymie smooth cooperation. Projects involving vast sums of money, such as the JETP, are also practically challenging to push at the moment as officials are afraid to be the targets of the Communist Party of Vietnam’s anti-corruption campaigns. Vietnam would also be keen for ASEAN and the EU as blocs to reinvigorate multilateralism and shore up security cooperation, particularly in the SCS disputes. ASEAN states, in general, are looking to the EU as a non-threatening balancing power to reduce the impact of the China-U.S. strategic competition. Among the potential areas of cooperation between the EU and Vietnam within the ASEAN are regional climate action measures, food security, digitalization, and tech innovation. The two sides must also use their partnership to realize an ASEAN-EU FTA. EU as a Security Balancer? The EU and Vietnam also share their commitment to upholding the rules-based order—an essential component of security cooperation because of the region’s strategic importance. However, improving communication and understanding of maritime incidents more effectively is challenging. The SCS territorial conflict is simmering, particularly between China and the Philippines. In 2016, an arbitration tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) overwhelmingly ruled in favor of the Philippines, which China rejected. However, the ruling bolstered Vietnam’s claims, which were not openly welcomed by other ASEAN states besides the Philippines. In the absence of an agreement for a code of conduct (CoC) between China and ASEAN, which has been dragging on for years, China’s violations of international law in the SCS, including the latest against Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin, have increased. Against this scenario, Vietnam and the Philippines have signed maritime security deals. At the same time, Vietnam would be reluctant to do anything more drastic, such as support the Philippines in its attempt to draft a “separate” CoC for fear of Chinese retaliation. While Vietnam is less discussed in major global media than the Philippines on the issue, Hanoi is actively using diplomatic means to internationalize the problem, bringing in more players to address complex territorial disputes to safeguard its sovereignty and promote regional peace. In this context, winning the support of the EU and its member-states would be strategically important for Vietnam. The Vietnamese side can facilitate this by providing foreign entities, including the EU, with more transparent and timely information when incidents occur. Naturally, using a media strategy like the Philippines might sensationalize the issue, which might be different from what Hanoi prefers as it walks a tightrope to balance its complex relations with China. However, Hanoi can at least offer foreign diplomats transparent and detailed information in a timely fashion to help them verify and assess the situation on the ground. This will speed up the EU’s and other potential like-minded states’ response to sea incidents and foster ways forward for more multilaterally agreeable forms of modus vivendi in the South China Sea. Ultimately, such a modus should serve China too. EU No Longer a Bystander The EU’s recent stance on the SCS issue has been its respect for a rule-based order and freedom of navigation, strong opposition to unilateral actions, and supporting the ASEAN-led “effective, substantive and legally binding” CoC while mentioning China but not singling it out. This is a change from the EU’s pre-Indo-Pacific embrace when it was a more divided, neutral house. The EU’s heavy dependence on maritime trade through the SCS mandates that the EU can no longer stand as a bystander. However, ASEAN claimant states, particularly Vietnam, would perhaps expect a sharper or clearer position, which the EU has indeed been moving toward. For example, in March 2024, the EU released a statement expressing concerns about the incidents involving “repeated dangerous maneuvers” by the Chinese Coast Guard and Maritime Militia in the SCS. This tilts to the U.S. line, even as the U.S. has been more vocal in directly criticizing China on the SCS, by calling China’s claims “completely unlawful” even before the current events. One could argue that despite the U.S. and its allies having been vocal, this has yet to lead to a concrete resolution of the conflict. However, if the EU cannot send clear signals on the issue, the division among like-minded countries will be seen as weak and exploitable in China’s eyes. Importantly, this is true not just for the SCS disputes but also for China’s coercive activities in general. Therefore, given the convergent non-confrontational, inclusivity-, and economic interests-oriented attitudes of both Vietnam and the EU toward the Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific region, both sides are primed to embrace the other’s strategic outlook and up their game in the face of a challenging China and efforts to foster order.