Prime Minister Rama Meeting with Scholz to Discuss Albania’s EU Accession

Prime Minister Rama Meeting with Scholz to Discuss Albania’s EU Accession
Prime Minister Edi Rama is in Germany on Monday (11 April) to meet with several politicians as well as Chancellor Olaf Scholz in a bid to boost Albania’s EU accession which is currently stalled.

Rama touched down in Berlin on Sunday, where he took part in an official welcoming ceremony. His agenda for Monday includes meetings with the Mayor of Berlin, Franziska Giffey, the Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and Scholz.

Following the meeting with Scholz, a press conference will be held.

The Albanian premier is expected to ask for Scholz’s support amid Albania’s EU accession bid. Albania’s bid to join the bloc has been linked to its neighbour, North Macedonia. While both countries have, on paper, satisfied requirements, Bulgaria has vetoed the latter over historical and human rights issues.

“Albania cannot wait any longer for the two neighbours to resolve their quarrel. Our course in that direction will fully change,” Rama said on Thursday in Tirana

Meanwhile, the feeling in Brussels is that enlargement is dead and that Albania only got a unanimous vote to continue accession because they knew the Bulgarian veto against North Macedonia would stop progress in its tracks.

However, other sources say that following Ukraine’s bid to join the EU, Albania and North Macedonia will get the green light in June. An opinion on the accession of Ukraine, including whether the process can be sped up, is expected during the same month.

Sources say that a positive assessment for Ukraine could not be on the table unless Albania and North Macedonia progress.

Serbia and Montenegro are in the lead out of the Western Balkan six. But Montenegro’s accession process has stagnated somewhat, and while Serbia continues opening chapters, there is no real political will to join the EU.

Albania and North Macedonia are next, waiting to formally start talks, while Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina are yet to get candidate status.

After Scholz met the Austrian Chancellor in late March, he said, “We must take care to strengthen and support the neighbouring regions. Any further delay will make the Western Balkans more vulnerable and open to third-party influence.”

The chairman of the EU enlargement committee in the German Bundestag, Green Party politician Anton Hofreiter, told DW in an interview that he hopes the opening of negotiations will take place after the French presidential election. “I have the impression that the EU is also aware that the region and Europe will become more stable and stronger, with the membership of Albania and Northern Macedonia in the European Union,” he added.

Read th article on the site of ExitNews.

New Book Reveals Just How Close Israel and Syria Were to a Peace Accord

Alongside U.S. President Barack Obama’s attempt to renew the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, a former military officer was tasked with reviving the Israeli-Syrian negotiations. Frederic C. Hof’s new book sheds light on Netanyahu and Assad’s reactions

Syrian President Bashar Assad and former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on two separate occasions.

Syrian President Bashar Assad and former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on two separate occasions. Credit: Amos Ben Gershom and AFP

From 2009 through 2014, when Barack Obama was president of the United States and Benjamin Netanyahu was prime minister of Israel, the Israeli-Arab peace process was centered around attempts to reach an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Two efforts, one led by Obama and the other by Secretary of State John Kerry, ended in failure and increased Israel-U.S. tensions.

A lesser known fact is that alongside these efforts, the Obama administration made a covert attempt to mediate between Israel and Syria. This mediation was cut short due to the civil war in Syria in March of 2011, but according to U.S. mediator Frederic C. Hof, it was on a promising track, with Syrian President Bashar Assad and Netanyahu both showing surprising willingness to engage in serious negotiations on an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement.

This mediation effort was the sixth attempt to settle the dispute between Israel and Syria. Between 1992 and 2011 Syria and Israel had complex relations, with ongoing attempts to settle the conflict and reach a peace accord alongside an armed struggle conducted mostly by proxy, with Syria supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, during that time Israel discovered a Syrian attempted, aided by North Korean, to build a nuclear reactor and produce nuclear weapons in it. In 2007, under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Israel Air Force destroyed the reactor.

During these years the United States played an active role in attempts to settle the Israeli-Syrian conflict. In the early phases of this effort, the “American peace team” led the way. Syrian ruler Hafez Assad viewed the peace process with Israel not as a bilateral process, but a trilateral one, similar to that which produced peace between Israel and Egypt in the late 1970s.

He was not solely interested in peace with Israel for its own sake. Assad, of course, wanted the Golan Heights returned, but no less than that, he wanted to establish new relations with the United States, to legitimize Syria in Washington’s eyes and to obtain U.S. economic aid. Therefore, even when Syria held direct talks with Israel, Assad insisted that American diplomats participate in them and maintain the tripartite nature of the process.

U.S. President Barack Obama with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his arrival ceremony at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, in 2013.
U.S. President Barack Obama with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his arrival ceremony at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, in 2013.Credit: AP

During the last decade of the previous century, and in the year 2000, President Clinton personally enlisted in the effort and met twice with Hafez Assad in an attempt to overcome the inherent difficulties in the Syrian-Israeli negotiations. The American peace team was composed mostly of experienced diplomats who began their careers under President George H.W. Bush, remaining in their positions under Clinton, with two of them – Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk – continuing under Obama as well.

The American peace team was the embodiment of what is known in Washington as the “revolving door,” through which diplomats and academics come and go between government, academia and think-tank posts. In the late 1990s, there was in a most interesting exception this tableau. A problematic figure of Lebanese descent, George Nader, who had been making the rounds since the 1980s between Washington, Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem, connected the Assad regime with the first Netanyahu administration, enlisting cosmetics mogul Ronald Lauder for a mediation effort between Netanyahu and Assad. The effort, which began surprisingly well, eventually failed, leaving scars on both Damascus and Jerusalem. This effort revealed that Netanyahu was willing to make far-reaching territorial concessions in order to reach a deal with Damascus, and that direct contact with Assad, rather than through intermediaries, produces better results.

It was important to Israel to hold direct negotiations with Syria, unmediated by a third party, since Israel rightly viewed the very holding of direct talks as a sort of normalization – the very same reason that Hafez Assad and his successor and son Bashar sought to minimize direct contacts and preferred mediation. In 2008, when then-Prime Minister Olmert decided to renew the negotiations with Syria, he agreed to Turkish mediation (which like former efforts, began promisingly and ended in failure and in Turkish-Israeli tensions.)

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama, PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and King Abdullah II of Jordan in the White House in 2010.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama, PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and King Abdullah II of Jordan in the White House in 2010.Credit: Alex Wong / Getty Images / AFP

In 2009, Frederic Hof entered the picture. He was enlisted as an adviser by Senator George Mitchell, who had been appointed by Obama as an envoy to the Middle East, to conduct the Israeli-Arab peace process. Mitchell assumed the task after a distinguished career in the Senate and an impressive peacemaking success in Ireland. He, like Obama, focused (unsuccessfully) during his mission on the Israeli-Palestinian track, and left the attempt to revive the Israeli-Syrian negotiations in the hands of his assistant, Hof. In his new book, “Reaching for the Heights: The Inside Story of a Secret Attempt to Reach a Syrian-Israeli Peace,” he recounts his experience.

Hof was brought on by Mitchell after a career as an army officer and in the State Department; he served as the U.S. military attaché in Beirut. He gained expertise as well as a reputation as the leading expert at drawing the boundaries between Israel and Lebanon and between Israel and Syria (which became known as the June 4, 1967 lines). When Mitchell came to him with his request, Hof was heading a consulting firm – a typical track in Washington. Hof says that he lived in Syria as a student as part of an American-Syrian exchange program; since then, his dream was to help bring peace between Syria and Israel.

When Hof assumed his new position, he encountered two main obstacles. In the Obama White House and in Hillary Clinton’s State Department, there was not much enthusiasm for another attempt to forge peace between Israel and Syria. This was due to a well-known issue:

Syria was demanding – and already had been since the days of Hafez Assad – that the negotiations begin with a commitment by Israel to withdraw completely from the Golan Heights. Israel, meanwhile, refused to make such a promise before receiving concrete proof of Syria’s intention to achieve a full peace and to meet Israel’s security needs.

Syrian President Bashar Assad, right, speaks with Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in Damascus, Syria, last month.
Syrian President Bashar Assad, right, speaks with Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in Damascus, Syria, last month.Credit: /AP

In 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin found a solution to this issue. He entrusted U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher with a conditional and hypothetical willingness for a complete withdrawal from the Golan in return for a sufficient package of peace and security. Various versions of this formula were used by prime ministers Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu (when Lauder was an envoy), Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, but this was not enough in the end, and Hof sought a different way to solve the issue.

Hof overcame the difficulty he encountered within the Obama administration by joining up with Dennis Ross. Hof and Ross are very different. Ross is an exceptionally creative diplomat, who knew how to make his way through the maze of a number of U.S. administrations and to navigate between Israelis and Arabs. He therefore played a central role in the peace process from its inception until 2011. Hof, meanwhile, went into his job in the administration with the outlook he gained as an army officer. He operated through orderly procedures and respected the hierarchy into which he was embedded. The contrast and combination between the two were fascinating and productive.

Ross made it clear to Hof that in order to succeed in his task, he had to earn the backing of the president and to meet with Netanyahu. Hof wondered how he could get to the president and meet with Netanyahu when he was subordinate to Mitchell. He wrote in his book that he had grown up in a traditional home and was then subjected to 20 years of structured life in the U.S. Army – “respect for authority was as natural as breathing.” Hof respected Mitchell and the hierarchical framework in which he found himself, but with Ross’ help he was also able to meet with Netanyahu and with Obama, and in the end he began the job of mediation between Netanyahu and Bashar Assad.

Most of Hof’s book is a description of his meetings with Assad and Netanyahu in early 2011, which were surprisingly successful. Hof and Ross overcame the issue of guarantees when they presented a U.S. working paper that included a reference to the June 4th lines. Surprisingly, the formulation worked for both Assad and Netanyahu. As opposed to previous efforts, the main point of the U.S. mediation was not the usual formula of “land for peace” but “land in return for strategic change.”

Syrian President Bashar Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin during their meeting in Damascus, Syria, in 2020.
Syrian President Bashar Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin during their meeting in Damascus, Syria, in 2020.Credit: Alexei Druzhinin/AP

In other words, in exchange for a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights, Israel was supposed to receive not only peace with Syria but also Syrian disengagement from Iran and Hezbollah. From the time of the Second Lebanon War in 2006, the trilateral Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance had been seen by Israel as a grave strategic threat, and the formula presented by Hof and Ross was enough to convince Netanyahu to agree to enter serious negotiations based on it.

Hof describes in detail the reactions of Assad and Netanyahu to the U.S. plan. With proper caution, he does not claim that the effort was inevitably headed for success, and does not reject the possibility that one or both of the two parties could have jumped off the train before reaching the destination.

In any case, the effort was cut short due to the outbreak of the civil war in Syria in March 2011. As a result of the war Assad became an illegitimate ruler in the eyes of the world, including Israel, viewed as a war criminal who killed about half a million of his citizens and used chemical weapons against them, and the issue of the Israeli-Syrian agreement was removed from the agenda, at least for a substantial number of years.

With the conclusion of his mediation efforts, Hof remained in the Obama administration, became an ambassador, and together with the former ambassador in Damascus, Robert Ford, he coordinated U.S. policy in Syria. The two diplomats were burned by Obama’s policy, especially when in 2013 Obama decided at the last moment not to attack Syria after its massive use of chemical weapons against a civilian population, which he had described a year earlier as a “red line.”

Meeting of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington D.C., in 2012.
Meeting of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington D.C., in 2012.Credit: Amos Ben Gershom GPO

Ironically, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a hand in stopping Obama from striking Syria, by promising that Damascus would eliminate its chemical weapons stockpile. Needless to say, this promise was only partially kept and Assad continued to use chemical weapons against the civilian population in the following years.

In 2015, Putin was encouraged by Obama’s hesitancy and intervened directly in the civil war in Syria. In cooperation with Iran, he tipped the balance in Assad’s favor. At present, when Putin is waging a cruel war with its neighbor, bombing civilian targets and destroying residential neighborhoods, it’s hard not to see the connection between the Russian intervention in Syria and the present crisis in Ukraine.

In any case, Hof, like Ambassador Ford, was disappointed by the Obama administration’s handling of Syria. Both resigned and became outspoken critics of Obama and his policy. This criticism is blatantly expressed in Hof’s book as well.

Read the article on the site of Haaretz.

The world according to Tidjane Thiam

In an exclusive interview with Hichem Ben Yaïche and Nicolas Bouchet, leading financier Tidjane Thiam, now executive chairman of the investment company Freedom Acquisition, relates his vision of Africa and his belief in building more on the human capital of the continent.

You have done so many things in your career that it is difficult to know where to begin. What are you doing at the moment?

The situation of each of us is always the result of a will and of circumstances. Sometimes the will prevails over the circumstances and sometimes it is the opposite. My career began in the private sector, by choice. I wanted to get to know the business world in depth, hence my years in consulting.

After that, following the death of President Houphouët-Boigny at the end of 1993, I was called back to Côte d’Ivoire in 1994 by President Bédié to the Department of Control of Major Works (DCGTx). I left my career in the West to go and do that for a few very rewarding years. I learned a lot there and, I hope, also brought a little to the country. Circumstances again dictated that there was a coup in Côte d’Ivoire at the end of 1999.

The adventures associated with this event brought me back to the West and to consulting. In 2002, I was called by a headhunter who offered me a senior position in the City, London, with Aviva. I accepted it because it was really interesting and because Richard Harvey, for whom I was going to work, was someone quite extraordinary. A few years later, in 2007, another insurance group, Prudential, then called me and I became its managing director from 2009 to 2015, as later at Credit Suisse. All this is already more or less known.

I am now entering the second half of a career that began in 1986. After 36 years spent in both the public and private sectors, I am now in a moment of pause and reflection, but also of commitment since it coincided with the Covid-19 crisis, in which I had to play a role.

Today, I have a portfolio of activities that all fascinate me. I have commercial activities with my company Freedom Acquisition Corporation, where I raised 345 million dollars, the board of directors of Kering which owns brands like Gucci, Yves-Saint-Laurent, Boucheron, Balenciaga and of which I chair the audit committee. And more generally, I have a role of mentor since some entrepreneurs are sometimes kind enough to ask me for advice and I am always very happy to discuss with them.

I also have a number of activities more in the nature of public service missions. Thus, I am consulted on various issues by heads of state and governments. I help President Kagame and Rwanda to make Kigali an international financial center. I belong to a number of think tanks like the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington. I also carry out more specific missions such as my participation in 2020, at the request of David Malpass, head of the World Bank, in the committee which appointed the new director general of the IFC, Makhtar Diop. Sport is one of my passions and I have the great pleasure and honor of having been elected a member of the IOC (International Olympic Committee).

In short, I am not unemployed!

How would you sum up your extremely rich and varied background?

I was born in Africa. Genetically and culturally, I am African. I have never put my culture in my pocket, which has a cost that I assume. I have never deprived myself in my public statements of making abundant reference to my African culture. Everyone who has worked with me knows a number of Ivorian or Senegalese proverbs that have come into common use with them.

After the years spent in Côte d’Ivoire at the head of the DCGTx then the BNETD and the many projects carried out during this period, I have never stopped leading an action for Africa. I had the honour in 2003-2004 to be associated by Prime Minister Tony Blair with the Commission for Africa, which was really a very important moment. This work later led to the G8 at Gleneagles and all the debt forgiveness that drove African growth in the 2010s. I am proud to have been able to take part in this.

I had the pleasure, at Prudential, which was not present in Africa before my arrival, to create Prudential Africa. A football lover, I was watching the AFCON a few weeks ago and I saw the Prudential Africa commercials taking place there, which gave me a certain satisfaction. I couldn’t resist sending a message to Matt Lilley, whom I had appointed at the time boss of Prudential Africa, because the little discussion we had had in my office in London had an impact on reality. But I don’t want to multiply the examples…

You move at the highest level. What have you learned there about decision-making, methods and perspectives that is not open to the rest of us?

One of the things that this experience teaches you for me is the permanence and importance of the human element in everything that we do.

I had a basic scientific training but I must admit that I have evolved a lot compared to my convictions at the start of my career. I believed then, like many people who have this type of training, in equations. My faith in equations has only diminished since then and my awareness of the importance of the human element in everything we do has only grown.

In the end, we can only act through men and women, their conviction, their motivation, their hearts and minds. Unfortunately, in classic Cartesian-type training, we are taught above all to speak to the mind – to the brain – and not at all to the heart, that is to say to the heart, to the guts. In the end, people only act and are moved by emotions, by the heart.

I love this well-known and almost overused anecdote of John Fitzgerald Kennedy visiting NASA when it was planning the mission to the Moon. Meeting a sweeper, he stops and asks him: “And you, what are you doing?” The street sweeper replies: “Mr. President, I am helping to put a man on the Moon!”

That sense of mission and vision is really, really important. Good for them, human beings are ultimately only motivated by such things. That’s what I learned.

What can be done to lead Africa towards a virtuous circle?

To make the link with the importance of the human element, the answer belongs and can only belong to Africans themselves.

The challenges are many and real. What we Africans have in the face of these challenges is our intelligence, our capacities, our emotions, our determination and our convictions. It is the only material we have to work with.

Raw materials are good, but they are only worth if we are able, first, to extract them and, second, to manage them well. It always comes back to the human element and human capital. So you have to manage to combine three things.

The first is private initiative. For me, to trust someone is to trust the human race. Human beings, faced with a situation of pressure, are endowed by nature with the ability to rise, to be creative, to act. Rather than preaching, we must trust African men and women. In a nutshell, let the private sector, private initiative develop.

The second, closely linked to the first – and which is not possible without it – is to invest in this human capital. Which brings us to the issue of health and education. The two elements feed and reinforce each other.

For the third element, creating a favourable environment, it is important to make a distinction between the “hard” components and the components that I will call “soft”, in a way the hardware and the software. They must both be adequate. The “hard” environment is what we talk about every day and what I was doing in Côte d’Ivoire: roads, wells, bridges, airports, container terminals, thermal power stations, hydroelectric dams, solar panels… infrastructure in the broad sense. The “soft” is actually what matters most.

I include in the list of these “soft” elements fundamental things such as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, the absence of corruption, the refusal of violence, etc. These elements, when present, provide a favourable framework for private initiative. If I had to sum up my thinking in one word, it is about culture. It’s the culture, what’s in people’s minds that guides their behaviour and ultimately it’s the behaviours that matter more, more than roads and bridges.

If it is necessary to acquire knowledge, to learn equations and to know how fluid mechanics works, in reality, the way you are going to organise your business, inside to be competitive, and outside outside to go and win in the markets, must deeply take into account what you are and reflect it. That is to say, take into account your culture.

We talked a lot at the beginning of the 21st century about soft power, which could be translated by influence, the fact that others seek to imitate you and are inspired by your example. All countries are engaged in a race for soft power. They realise, more and more, that this is the real power. Take, for example, what the United States has done in Silicon Valley through Facebook, Instagram, Netflix. They have changed the way we all live! The creation and then the success of Netflix had a direct impact on hundreds of millions of lives.

People settle in, binge and watch series. That is real influence. And we see that soft power today can slow down or even stop the advance of divisions and tanks…

We are moving towards a world where it is the intangibles that have the most value. If you look at the balance sheets of companies today, it is no longer the factories, the walls and the computers that make the bulk of their value. What matters more and more is what is called goodwill, i.e. the value of intangible or intangible assets of companies such as brands or intellectual property.

Can Africa prepare for this game-changing revolution? Can she fight this fight?

Yes, she has no choice! You have to participate, otherwise you will be progressively marginalised. We must not be mistaken in war. We rarely win the war with the techniques and technologies of the previous war. We must be aware today that we are all engaged, all countries on all continents, in a battle for innovation, for intellectual capital and for intangibles. This is what determines the value of an Apple or a Google. The latter has very few physical assets but is worth nearly $3 trillion thanks to the intelligence of employees that the group has been able to hire and motivate.

All of this may seem far removed from our African concerns. But I was recently talking to an entrepreneur I know in Silicon Valley and was surprised to learn that he has already made seven significant investments in Africa and the Middle East! It is developing pharmacies to distribute medicines to 400,000 registered patients in Ghana, and is also investing in South Africa, Kenya, Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Dubai.

Technology is to be seen as a lever that can allow us to win. States have long led efforts to foster African integration. At the same time, major progress is actually being made by the private sector with the motive of profit and economic success. I know seven or eight companies that are each already in about 15 African countries and allow money to be sent from one country to another in Africa in complete safety. This is economic integration achieved by people who have been well trained, for many, in Africa.

Africa is thus beginning to reap the dividends of the investment it has made in its human resources across the continent and in the diaspora. These women and men are putting everything they have learned at the service of the African economy. This is how we will win.

Are you satisfied at the rate things are being done in Africa?

In itself, satisfaction is always to be fought and I remain eternally dissatisfied, not only about Africa. Dissatisfaction is one of the most powerful engines of evolution!

On the contrary, we must go faster than the others. If we are less advanced than the others, it is not by working less that we will manage to catch up with them and even less to exceed them.

That said, you need a healthy appreciation of things and know how to motivate without discouraging. No complacency, therefore, but we must also know how to appreciate, given the challenges faced by previous generations, the path that they have enabled Africa to travel and which remains important.

Do donors take what you say into account in their approach to Africa?

Donors remain an important actor in Africa. They play a useful role and we are lucky to have an African, Makhtar Diop, at the head of the IFC and Kristalina Georgieva of Bulgarian origin, at the head of the IMF. They both understand the dynamics I have just described and provide significant support to the continent. The European Union and other donors are not left out.

That said, there is such a disproportion today between the resources of public actors and those of private sector actors that the most important challenge for Africa in the years to come is to benefit from the masses of private capital available in the world. Some are counted in tens of billions of dollars and others in hundreds of billions.

The development we are currently seeing in Africa is ahead of my expectations and that makes me rather optimistic. Twenty years ago, I could not call an investor from Silicon Valley and hear him speak to me spontaneously about Africa. Today, when I call them, they no longer speak of Africa but of Kenya, Nigeria and Egypt. It means that they have come down to the country level, put us on the map and a fundamental step has been taken. Now, when they call me, it’s no longer to ask me whether to invest in Africa or not, but where to invest in Africa. They want to be enlightened on the dynamics of the countries. It’s very positive.

How should African debt be treated today?

In the long run, the only real solution to debt is growth and that will come from the things I just told you about. To look at the debt is often to look at the symptom rather than the evil. Debt is not bad in itself if you have enough growth and pay it down. All the states that have taken off economically have gotten into debt at some point because they needed more capital than their own savings capacity.

The obsession must be economic growth. In this context, it is necessary at all costs to obtain better mobilisation of the domestic resources of African economies. The development of local financial institutions and in particular that of funded pension systems, given the youth of the population on the continent, is essential to finance and stimulate investment.

Economic growth is an imperative that is all the more important for Africa as population growth is very high there. This is a little less the case now, but back when there was 3.8% population growth in Côte d’Ivoire, every year the annual economic growth was less than 4%. We were backing up! It is still extraordinary when having 4% growth is a very good economic performance. This additional pressure in Africa is real but, as China has shown, it is possible to have explosive growth for a long time.

Could you give a personal mapping of the countries that are finding their trajectory and a method?

I don’t want to award good and bad points between countries. Things are happening that are working. In terms of opportunities, we must start with agriculture because one of the first economic opportunities is still to feed human beings, especially in the context of increasing urbanisation. You can see great dynamism throughout the agricultural sector.

African peasants sweat blood and water to produce an agricultural harvest in a very hostile environment where, very often, 40 to 60% of this harvest is destroyed by insects or rots on the edge of the field. We can see huge gains to be made all along the agricultural production chain. There are many companies that have been created in this field. For example, there are often tensions in West Africa between herders and farmers.

A young Ivorian entrepreneur makes mini-mills that allow the surplus of agricultural production to be transformed into animal feed. Suddenly, this company created a win-win situation. The cultivator’s harvest, which was rotting, is now valued. The herder who was always in conflict with him is happy because he can now feed his cattle. This is what I have in mind when I talk about innovation, human capital, creativity. This idea comes from an Ivorian engineer. He was in the region he knows and where he has friends. The combination of knowledge and local knowledge necessarily leads to innovations that improve things. Throughout agriculture, there are extraordinary opportunities. In town too.

In Egypt, there are companies that are developing a lot in local delivery. Financial services is another area where we know very well that there is a major problem with SME financing when it comes to small loans, in the order of $1,000 to $3,000. Many digital solutions are being put in place. In Nigeria, I have spoken to promoters who do referral-based lending and experience less than 1% loss. All of this is done digitally by taking advantage of the expansion of cell phones.

There are endless investment opportunities. One of the most interesting things about all these winning African companies is that they are expanding to 10, 14, 20 countries. There is a contagion of success when they manage to achieve something. This is done by osmosis, without major declarations or major conferences, but close to the ground.

Are you tempted to switch to politics? Translating all of this into action is also important.

No, I really prefer to stick, for now, to what I know. I’m quite busy as it is and I manage to talk to everyone and be listened to, which is an advantage. My goal right now is to have influence. For the rest, the future will tell.

Are you tempted to write your memoirs, to conceptualise and, above all, to push this analytical vision of the world further?

Yes, I’m working on something. I believe that we must strive to continue a very African tradition, which consists of the older ones sharing their experience with the younger ones. I have learned a lot in my life from my readings and I hope to never stop until the day I leave the planet. Here, I am currently reading Homo Migrans [not yet translated into English – editor], an extraordinary and fascinating book by Jean-Paul Demoule,  where he explains that we are all descendants of migrants. He gives a statistic that I did not know: throughout the ages and everywhere in the world, only 3% of human beings migrate; 97% of human beings die where they were born. This is a very long-term statistic.

I encourage anyone who has an experience to write to share it. For a long time, I was in action and told myself “Actions speak louder than words”. I arrive at a more nuanced position today, with perhaps a better balance between “action” and “words”…

With your knowledge of the continents, which one inspired you the most?

It’s just a matter of circumstances. I think, if I had lived in the 19th century, it would have been America. The 20th century will have been largely, in its second half, the century of China. The scale of this transformation is unparalleled and unprecedented. Ezra Vogel, America’s foremost expert on China, describes in detail the transformation that Deng Xiaoping has achieved and says that never has one human being lifted so many human beings out of poverty. I think it’s true: 700 million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty. When I went to China for the first time in 1984, there was not enough to eat there. China had $259 billion in GDP for 1.2 billion people. This country is now creating $17 trillion. This transformation has extremely profound implications for everyone. No one in the world can think of being unaffected by such a major shift in the distribution of economic power on our planet.

We forget today that, in the 1970s, Asia was considered a vast disaster. We deplored the wars in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the coups in the Philippines and Thailand. Many people then believed more in Africa than in Southeast Asia. Today is an ocean of prosperity. I had the chance to meet Lee Kuan Yew for a few hours that I will never forget. He told me, “Singapore’s goal is to spread prosperity.” At first there were only the four Tigers of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, exceptions in a sea of ​​misery. Now look at Vietnam where I have been very often, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia. All are extraordinary.

After two years of Covid and a year that has begun with a war, how do you see these developments?

The heavy trends that we designed together remain. I talked about intellectual capital. What got us out of the Covid crisis? The doctor who created BioNTech is the son of Turkish emigrants in Germany. The answer to this problem came out of a man’s brain. If there is one thing that the health crisis has vividly illustrated, it is the importance of intellectual capital and knowledge. We were all distraught, shutting ourselves up and hiding. This man, Uğur Şahin, and his wife, Özlem Türeci, liberated us.

Ask yourself, whenever a child does not go to school, where we would be if Mr. Uğur Şahin had not gone to school. Every time a child is out of school, you have to ask yourself this question. We may be cutting off an arm from humanity. This is why this question of investing in men, women and children is at the heart of everything. We can only get out of this. Whether it’s Covid or Ukraine, at the end of the day, it’s all about men and women.

There is, through what you say, a pressing appeal to this civilisation of humanism. But as we can see, today there is a war that is devastating a country.

There will always be tension. What I am saying is a call to put the long term before the short term. We have a natural propensity, nature made us like that, to do the opposite. This transition will only happen with a great conscious and deliberate effort at all times. It’s in everyone’s interest to raise children even if every dollar put into a child’s education doesn’t go to consumer spending, buying a TV or buying a steak. You have to deprive yourself to invest for the long term.

Your serenity and optimism are striking

You can’t be me and not be optimistic! My mother was illiterate and never went to school. I could have been illiterate too. I was put in school. I was able, by the grace of circumstances and of God, to manage two of the biggest companies in the world. And I was born in Abidjan! I am not an emigrant born in Paris. I passed my Baccalaureate at the Lycée Classique in Abidjan. And I got to do what I could do.

I’m not saying this out of false modesty, but it’s important that everyone understands that I’m not exceptional. There are many people like me in Africa. Every time I meet Westerners, Europeans and even you who give me all these compliments, I want to tell them that I am not unique. I do not have the ambition to be the exceptional “token black”. I think there are many Africans as talented if not more talented than me. They simply do not have the opportunity to express themselves and have not had the opportunity to access knowledge and express their talent. Yes, I am optimistic because I think any African of my generation can tell a story similar to mine. I think 99% of Africans have illiterate grandparents, like my mother was. My mother was born in 1931. Many Africans born in the 1930s did not go to school. We are all descendants of these generations. Look at how far we’ve come since on all fronts!

This is what determines my optimism, along with my love of my culture, which is never to the detriment of other cultures. Africa has a lot to bring to the world. What would music be without our input? What do people listen to, everyday, everywhere? In Beijing, in Rangoon, I hear our music. I hear the voice of Africa speaking everywhere. So why be shy and complexed? You have to take responsibility.

I say it, you can only succeed by being yourself. You have to be yourself, have confidence, set a goal and not give in to short-term temptations. We must put the long term before the short term and I am sure that, if not this generation, the following generations will see an Africa that the world will seek to imitate rather than teach it lessons.

The challenges are many and real. What we Africans have in the face of these challenges is our intelligence, our capacities, our emotions, our determination and our convictions. It is the only material we have to work with. This question of investing in men, women and children is at the heart of everything. We can only get out of this.

Read the article on the site of New African.

Olivier Blanchard : “Fed Will Have Hard Time Slowing Inflation”

The U.S. Federal Reserve will have a difficult job ahead trying to cool the hottest inflation in four decades without triggering a recession, a former International Monetary Fund chief economist said.

“I’m not as optimistic as most people — I still think it’s going to be very, very tough,” Olivier Blanchard, now a fellow at the Peterson Institute, said Thursday in an interview with Lisa Abramowicz and Tom Keene on Bloomberg. “The Fed is going to have a hard time slowing down the machine. It has to admit that it has to stall the machine a lot and we don’t want a recession.”

On Wednesday, minutes of the Fed’s March meeting showed policy makers signaled they will reduce the central bank’s massive bond holdings at a maximum pace of $95 billion a month as part of their plan to curb inflation.

The minutes also show that many of them viewed one or more half-point increases as possibly appropriate going forward to cool off prices.

Watch the interview on the site of Bloomberg.

Didier Reynders : “Il y a des preuves évidentes de crimes de guerre à Boutcha”

Des soldats ukrainiens marchent au milieu de chars russes détruits à Boutcha

Des soldats ukrainiens marchent au milieu de chars russes détruits à Boutcha   –   Tous droits réservés  AP

La découverte du massacre de Boutcha en Ukraine a suscité l’indignation dans le monde entier. De nombreux responsables politiques occidentaux appellent à ce que la justice internationale soit saisie.

Euronews s’est entretenu avec Didier Reynders, le Commissaire européen à la Justice qui a évoqué la nécessité de récolter les preuves sur le terrain pour juger les responsables de ces crimes.

“Le premier objectif est de collecter les preuves, de les préserver et de donner suffisamment de matériel aux procureurs ukrainiens, européens et à ceux de la Cour pénale internationale qui a la compétence universelle d’organiser non seulement l’enquête, mais aussi de poursuivre les responsables de ces crimes”, explique Didier Reynders.

Pour le commissaire européen, il y a déjà des preuves évidentes de crimes de guerre commise sur le territoire ukrainien :

“Nous avons relevé des preuves très évidentes de crimes de guerre à Boutcha et dans d’autres villes. Mais pour aller plus loin, nous devons recueillir toutes les preuves possibles. Il peut s’agir de vidéos, de témoignages et de tous types de preuves possibles. Nous sommes tous choqués par les images, mais le délai de la justice est assez long, c’est pourquoi nous devons recueillir ces preuves pour entamer des poursuites et organiser un procès.”

Nouvelles sanctions contre Moscou

Nouvelle aide militaire à l’Ukraine, renforcement des sanctions contre la Russie: les Occidentaux durcissent mercredi leurs positions après la récente découverte de nombreux cadavres à Boutcha.

L’Union européenne a de son côté promis de nouvelles sanctions “cette semaine” contre la Russie. La Commission européenne a proposé que les Vingt-Sept cessent leurs achats de charbon russe, qui représentent 45% des importations de l’UE, et qu’ils ferment leurs ports aux bateaux opérés par des Russes.

Le président ukrainien Volodymyr Zelensky réclamait ces derniers jours des sanctions alourdies et la mise de la Russie au ban de la communauté internationale.

Moscou rejette toute accusation d’exactions, accusant les autorités ukrainiennes de préparer des “mises en scène” de civils tués dans plusieurs villes pour faire condamner le Kremlin.

Lire l’article sur le site de Euronews.

Josep Borrell : “Guerre en Ukraine : attaque aérienne russe meurtrière contre des civils à Kramatorsk”

Au moins 50 personnes, dont cinq enfants, ont été tuées par des roquettes visant la gare de cette ville de l’est du pays, selon un nouveau bilan. De nombreuses personnes attendaient le train pour fuir la région, sur laquelle se concentrent désormais les forces armées russes. L’UE « condamne fermement » cette attaque.

Par Les Echos

Publié le 8 avr. 2022 

Alors que de nombreux témoignages font état de massacres commis par les troupes russes avant leur retrait de la région de Kiev , l’Union européenne a adopté, ce vendredi, de nouvelles sanctions contre la Russie. Côté diplomatie, l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU a suspendu, jeudi, la Russie du Conseil des droits de l’Homme pour ses atteintes « flagrantes et systématiques » aux droits humains. La présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, est arrivée ce vendredi à Kiev. Elle est accompagnée du chef de la diplomatie de l’UE, Josep Borrell.

Sur le terrain, une nouvelle frappe russe a fait 50 morts ce vendredi dans la ville de Kramatorsk, dans l’est de l’Ukraine. La roquette a frappé une gare bondée où étaient massés des civils cherchant à fuir la ville. Les autorités ukrainiennes redoutent par ailleurs une « attaque massive » dans la région de Louhansk, dans l’est du pays. Les Etats-Unis, eux, s’attendent à ce que le conflit dure « des mois ou plus ».

 Retrouver les temps forts du vendredi 8 avril sur le site des Echos.

Volker Perthes: “Recipe for famine”

CAIRO (AP) – Each day brings new financial burdens for Ikhlas Zakaria, a single mother of six who sells cups of tea at a roadside stand in a provincial town in Sudan. Prices for basic goods have skyrocketed, and at times she can only provide one meal a day for her children.

The cost of the water she boils for tea has doubled. Two of her children dropped out of school a few months ago to work in the fields, but their earnings are shrinking as dry spells hurt harvests.

“The situation has become impossible,” said Zakaria who lives in the war-ravaged Darfur region and whose husband left several years ago.

Across Sudan, living conditions rapidly deteriorated since an October military coup sent an already fragile economy into free-fall. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and currency devaluations have compounded the economic pain.

The October 25 military takeover upended Sudan’s transition to democratic rule after three decades of repression and international isolation under autocratic President Omar al-Bashir. The African nation has been on a fragile path to democracy since a popular uprising forced the military to remove al-Bashir and his extremist government in April 2019.

The coup also stalled two years of efforts by the deposed government of Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok to overhaul the economy with billions of dollars in loans and aid from major Western governments and international financial institutions. Such support was suspended after the coup.

The previous government also floated its currency to stop black market trading.

“The economy has been shrinking since the revaluation and this has been exacerbated after the coup,” said Sabna Imam, a Sudanese economics researcher at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

But a more recent devaluation pushed prices higher: In March, the Sudanese pound slipped further, at one point trading at 800 to the dollar. It recovered some value but by then the damage was already done.

It triggered dramatic price increases for bread, fuel, electricity, medicine, healthcare and public transportation. In February, inflation reached nearly 260 per cent, according to the country’s census agency.

United Nations (UN) envoy to Sudan Volker Perthes warned that the country is now at risk of missing critical World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) deadlines and the prospect of some USD50 billion in debt relief is no longer secure.

“The combined effects of conflict, economic crisis and poor harvests will likely double the number of people facing acute hunger to about 18 million people by the end of this year,” he told the UN Security Council.

Many of Sudan’s over 45 million people are already living in poverty.

In Nyala, West Darfur’s provincial capital, where Zakaria lives, the price of sugar and petrol is twice what it was weeks ago. To make ends meet, Zakaria raised the price of a cup of tea by 50 per cent. Some of her customers can’t afford that now.

In the capital of Khartoum, relentless anti-coup protests have paralysed the city as protesters barricade streets to pressure the generals. With the latest bout of inflation, people were forced to cut their consumption by half, according to Ahmed al-Tayeb, who sells groceries in one of the city’s main markets.

He said he’s seen significant shortages in basic goods partly because of the closure of main highways linking the capital to Red Sea ports and the Egyptian border to the north.
Two UN agencies – the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – are warning that the worst is yet to come.

The FAO said 5.6 million people are affected by the dry spells in addition to the 9.8 million people who are food insecure due to the economic crisis. It said this season’s rain level in most provinces is less than normal, with lengthy dry spells expected into the summer.

The two agencies said recent bouts of violence in the Darfur and Kordofan regions have damaged farms and left many jobless.

“In Sudan, we are currently sailing into the perfect storm,” the WFP’s head of programme in the country Carl Paulson said. He said a number of factors are to blame, most recently Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The invasion has driven up prices of fuel and food worldwide, but this is a bigger issue for poor countries in Africa and the Middle East, which depend heavily on imports to feed growing populations. Russia and Ukraine are the source of 87 per cent of Sudan’s imported wheat.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said over USD1.9 billion is needed in 2022 to provide assistance and protection to 14.3 million people in Sudan.

Sudan has for years struggled with an array of economic woes. The country was plunged into an economic crisis when the oil-rich south seceded in 2011 after decades of war, taking with it more than half of public revenues and 95 per cent of exports.

Sudan was also an international pariah after it was placed on the United States’ (US) list of state sponsors of terror early in the 1990s. This largely excluded the country from the global economy and prevented it from receiving loans from international institutions like the IMF.

Former US President Donald Trump removed Sudan from the blacklist after the transitional government agreed to pay USD335 million in compensation for victims of attacks carried out by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network while the terror leader was living in Sudan.

Imam, the economic researcher, said Sudan had been expecting USD700 million in the 2022 budget in foreign loans and aid to ease the burden of austerity measures, including the currency flotation and slashing of subsidies for bread and fuel.

But with suspension of such aid, the military-led government has increased taxes and other fees by 145 per cent.

“This adds to people’s sufferings,” she said.

Read the article on the site of Borneo Bulletin.

Nicolas Véron : “How Ukraine kept banks afloat and money flowing”

DARIAN WOODS, HOST:

In a terrible war, you can kind of forget that millions of Ukrainians are still working their normal jobs. That’s especially true in the majority of Ukraine, which is not under Russian occupation. In between curfews and air raid sirens, many Ukrainians are still buying coffees from cafes. They’re still paying their phone and electricity bills. And to do that, they’re using their banks.

ADRIAN MA, HOST:

And maybe surprisingly, Ukraine has managed to avoid a financial collapse despite being pummeled by Russian bombs. That’s because there’s been this mammoth effort to keep the banking system running during this war. To keep the money flowing requires radical actions from the top at Ukraine Central Bank all the way through to the worker who is loading up the ATMs with cash. And how Ukraine has managed this is by following the playbook from really any financial disaster.

This is THE INDICATOR FROM PLANET MONEY. I’m Adrian Ma.

WOODS: And I’m Darian Woods. Today on the show, an international economist tells us four steps to keep your banks running during a crisis. And a Ukrainian banker tells us how that’s playing out on the ground while trying to keep his staff safe.

SERHII NAUMOV: I will not tell you many details. We cannot openly say many things.

WOODS: What we did learn after the break.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

MA: To find out how Ukraine is keeping its banking system afloat, we spoke to Nicolas Veron. He’s with the think tanks Bruegel and the Peterson Institute.

NICOLAS VERON: There’s been a lot of surprises, I think, on all fronts since the war started. So there is – there’s much to be humble about.

WOODS: And one surprise was in Ukraine’s banking system. Ukraine is a fairly new democracy, and it’s been dogged by these episodes of really high inflation. Several years ago, the country did reform its monetary system and it got inflation under control. But then Russian forces, a few months ago, started building up along the Ukrainian border. So you can imagine, you know, on top of how dangerous the situation was, financially, Ukrainians would have been feeling a little on edge and ready to take their money out of the bank.

VERON: It is completely rational at an individual point of view. It’s also destabilizing at the collective point of view. So that’s what economists or game theorists call a collective action problem.

MA: A collective action problem. What’s right for each individual person is terrible for the economy at large. And in this case, that means a lot of people converting their savings into dollars and euros from the local Ukrainian currency, the hryvnia. Which is, you know, understandable because some people might be afraid of the currency collapsing.

WOODS: Yeah, the hryvnia had been getting less and less valuable in the last several months in the lead up to the war. Also, all that demand for cash withdrawals is a really big problem for banks. So when you have a bank account, it has – I don’t know – $5,000 in it, the bank doesn’t actually have those $5,000 in bills in its vault. It’s already lending most of your money out.

VERON: Kind of a stampede, a collective dynamic that would become completely uncontrollable and highly destabilizing. And so to avoid the stampede, you say just, you know, people cannot move.

MA: And so the central bank is going to try and essentially stem the flow of money out of the country. This is the first of four actions a central bank can take in a crisis, which we’re going to call a freeze-frame. It’s like hitting the pause button on a video game. It gives a central bank time to scramble, get its house in order and temporarily try and stop a panic from spiraling out of control. And the way Ukraine’s central bank did that within hours of the Russian invasion was, one, by fixing the exchange rate and also by using these things called capital controls.

WOODS: Capital controls meant most people couldn’t convert hryvnias to dollars or euros. You weren’t even allowed to send money to your PayPal account. And fixing the exchange rate meant that the few transactions that were allowed, the government made these specific exchange rates that were frozen in time that couldn’t change with any market forces.

VERON: And that’s what had been discovered by the refugees, especially, who came to Europe with, you know, banknotes, stashes of hryvnia but have found it very difficult to exchange them for euros or dollars.

MA: Refugees not being able to convert much of their savings into local currency is one of the reasons capital controls cannot last forever. They start to create other problems. And just like with a paused video game, eventually, you’re going to want to restart. And so in the meantime, the central bank needs to bolster the banking system. And that’s action No. 2 – phone a friend.

WOODS: Specifically, Poland – on the same day of the invasion, Ukraine signed an agreement with Poland saying that they could swap about a billion dollars’ worth of Ukrainian hryvnia for the Polish currency at an agreed rate. And that is a huge help because it allows Ukraine to pay other countries in a more stable currency.

MA: The other friend was the International Monetary Fund. At its heart, it’s a bank for countries in financial trouble. The IMF gave Ukraine a no-strings-attached $1.4 billion loan in early March.

VERON: That was disbursed immediately to help the Ukrainian government with their urgent spending needs that the IMF very euphemistically puts it.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

WOODS: Some of those urgent needs were part of the third step that can be used to stem a financial crisis. Step 3 – load them up; lend banks a lot of money for any withdrawals they need. The central bank said it would loan banks an unlimited amount of hryvnia, Ukrainian cash, whenever people wanted to withdraw it. And by announcing this policy that Ukraine’s banks would have a way to make good on any cash needs, this was a way to calm everybody down and avoid a bank run.

MA: But to convince everyone the cash will actually be there when you need it, you need the help of the retail banks. And that’s step No. 4 – cash out.

NAUMOV: It is really difficult to deliver cash.

WOODS: This is Serhii Naumov, the CEO of the Ukraine’s second largest bank, Oschadbank.

NAUMOV: On the road, you will for sure be under fire. This is very dangerous.

MA: When we spoke to Serhii, he was in a home office in the western part of Ukraine with a blue and gold Ukrainian flag pinned behind him on the wall.

WOODS: Serhii’s staff have come up with all kinds of ways to keep safe when delivering cash to ATMs and bank branches. And Serhii didn’t want to give exact details about how his staff might be finding safer times or safer routes to travel or maybe even using different vehicles. But he did say this.

NAUMOV: Our people there show that they are really brave. In some cases (laughter), they do things like a hero, trying to transfer cash if it is not possible, even by using the – some rivers stopped the boat (ph) – in order to bring money to allow people to get payments.

MA: They used a boat to cross the river because the bridge had been bombed by Russian forces. I mean, that’s pretty impressive.

WOODS: Yeah, that’s thinking on your feet. It’s pretty amazing.

MA: Yeah, yeah. But ultimately, Serhii says he has an even bigger worry than getting cash to banks. He’s worried about his staff. In some towns, he says, his bank has started to evacuate employees, but they haven’t been able to get everyone out.

NAUMOV: Sometimes people, they don’t want even leave in some cases. And they are still working to the final end, you know?

WOODS: Yeah. I mean, it is a devastating situation at the moment. I mean, how is that for you personally?

NAUMOV: I mean, who is prepared for such this scale of war? But together with team, with people, with support, I mean, we are working. We are working, and it is not easy, but this is our reality. We have to work.

MA: So far, Ukraine has not faced financial freefall, even while fighting this devastating war. This is the big surprise Nicolas was talking about.

VERON: We’re discovering the reality of this commitment of Ukrainians to their national idea, which takes many form on the battlefront, but also in the financial world.

WOODS: And while the future is anyone’s guess, the country’s financial resilience, at least for now, is a testament to the fast action from officials at Ukraine’s central bank, from Serhii at Oschadbank and from Serhii’s delivery drivers improvising a cash delivery system along a river somewhere in Ukraine.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

WOODS: We want to thank Joel Wasserman. He’s an English teacher in Ukraine who helped connect us with Serhii. And we also want to say hi to our students, INDICATOR listeners Anna M. (ph), Anna K. (ph), Alena (ph), Alexy (ph) and Serhii. We’re wishing you all the best.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

MA: This show was produced by Jamila Huxtable and Nikki Ouellet with engineering by Isaac Rodrigues. It was fact-checked by Corey Bridges. Viet Le is our senior producer. Kate Concannon edits the show. And THE INDICATOR is a production of NPR.

Listen to the podcast on the site of NPR.

How to stop China and the US going to war

Sorry, this entry is only available in French. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

Armed conflict between the world’s two superpowers, while not yet inevitable, has become a real possibility. The 2020s will be the decade of living dangerously

by Kevin Rudd

As images of destruction and death emerge from Ukraine, and refugees flee the country in their millions, the world’s attention is rightly focused on the horror of what many once thought an impossibility in the 21st century: a large-scale modern war in Europe. In this grim moment, however, it is all the more important to think through and coldly reassess the dangers presented by other potential conflicts that could be sparked by growing geopolitical tensions. The most significant among these is the risk of a war between the United States and China. The salutary lesson of our time is that this scenario is no longer unthinkable.

The 2020s now loom as a decisive decade, as the balance of power between the US and China shifts. Strategists of both countries know this. For policymakers in Beijing and Washington, as well as in other capitals, the 2020s will be the decade of living dangerously. Should these two giants find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests, the world will be better for it. Should they fail, down the other path lies the possibility of a war many times more destructive than what we are seeing in Ukraine today – and, as in 1914, one that will rewrite the future in ways we can barely imagine.

Armed conflict between China and the US in the next decade, while not yet probable, has become a real possibility. In part, this is because the balance of power between the two countries is changing rapidly. In part it is because, back in 2014, Xi Jinping changed China’s grand strategy from an essentially defensive posture to a more activist policy that seeks to advance Chinese interests across the world. It is also because the US has, in response, embraced an entirely new China strategy since 2017, in what the Trump and Biden administrations have called a new age of strategic competition. These factors combined have put China and the US on a collision course in the decade ahead.

We have arrived at a point in the long evolution of the US-China relationship when serious analysts and commentators increasingly assume that some form of crisis, conflict or even war is inevitable. This thinking is dangerous. The advantage of diplomatic history – if we study it seriously – is that the risk of talking ourselves into a crisis is real. The discourse of inevitability takes hold, mutual demonisation increases, and the public policy response, ever so subtly, moves from war prevention to war preparation. The sleepwalking of the nations of Europe into war in 1914 should remain a salutary lesson for us all.

In my view, there is nothing inevitable about war. We are not captive to some deep, imaginary, irreversible forces of history. Our best chance of avoiding war is to better understand the other side’s strategic thinking and to plan for a world where the US and China are able to competitively coexist, even if in a state of continuing rivalry reinforced by mutual deterrence. A world where political leaders are empowered to preside over a competitive race rather than resorting to armed conflict.

Indeed, if we can preserve peace in the decade ahead, political circumstances may eventually change, and strategic thought may evolve in the face of broader planetary challenges. It may then be possible for leaders to imagine a different way of thinking (the Chinese term is siwei) that prioritises collaboration over conflict, in order to meet the existential global challenges confronting us all. But to do that, we must first get through the current decade without destroying each other.


Ihave been a student of China since I was 18, beginning with my undergraduate degree at the Australian National University, where I majored in Mandarin Chinese and Chinese history. I have lived and worked in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taipei through different diplomatic postings, and have developed many friendships across greater China. I have travelled back to China and Taiwan regularly in the past 40 years, including in my role as prime minister of Australia, personally meeting with Xi Jinping and other senior Chinese leaders. I admire China’s classical civilisation, including its remarkable philosophical, literary and artistic traditions, as well as the economic achievements of the post-Mao era in lifting a quarter of humanity out of poverty.

At the same time, I have been deeply critical of Mao’s depredations of the country during the Great Leap Forward of 1958, which left 30 million dead from starvation; the Cultural Revolution, which led to millions more deaths and the destruction of priceless cultural heritage; and human rights abuses, which continue to this day. I am still haunted by the thousands of young faces gathered in Tiananmen Square in late May 1989. I spent the better part of a week walking and talking among them – before the tanks moved in on 4 June. I have simply read and seen too much over the years to politely brush it all under the carpet.

That’s why I could not avoid the whole question of human rights when, in 2008, I returned to Beijing as Australia’s prime minister on my inaugural visit. On the first day I delivered a public lecture in Chinese at Peking University, where I argued that the best classical ideals of friendship within the Chinese tradition – the concept of zhengyou – meant that friends could candidly speak to each other without rupturing the relationship. With those ideals in mind, I raised human rights abuses in Tibet in the middle of my speech.

The Chinese foreign ministry went nuts. So, too, did the more supine members of the Australian political class, business community and media, who did what they always do and asked: “How could you upset our Chinese hosts by mentioning the unmentionable?” The answer was straightforward: because it happened to be the truth, and to ignore it was to ignore part of the complex reality of any country’s relationship with the People’s Republic.

Just as I have lived in China, I’ve also lived in the US, and have a deep affection for the country and its people. I am intimately aware of the differences between the two countries, but I’ve also seen the great cultural values they have in common – the love of family, the importance that Chinese and Americans attach to the education of their children, and their vibrant entrepreneurial cultures driven by aspiration and hard work.

No approach to understanding US-China relations is free from intellectual and cultural prejudice. For all my education in Chinese history and thought, I am inescapably and unapologetically a creature of the west. I therefore belong to its philosophical, religious and cultural traditions. The country I served as both prime minister and foreign minister has been an ally of the US for more than 100 years, and actively supports the continuation of the liberal international order built by the US out of the ashes of the second world war. At the same time, I have never accepted the view that an alliance with the US mandates automatic compliance with every element of American policy. Despite pressure from Washington, my political party, the Australian Labor party, opposed both the Vietnam war and the invasion of Iraq. Nor am I complacent about the failings of American domestic politics and the unsustainable economic inequalities that we find increasing across American society.

The judgment I bring to bear on US-China relations also reflects my personal loathing for jingoistic nationalism, which, regrettably, has become an increasingly prominent feature of Chinese and American public life. This may be emotionally satisfying to some and politically useful for others, but it brings about no good whatsoever. Above all, when it comes to international relations, nationalism is a very dangerous thing indeed.


The current state of US-China relations is the product of a long, contested history. What emerges across the centuries is a recurring theme of mutual non-comprehension and suspicion, often followed by periods of exaggerated hopes and expectations that then collapse in the face of differing political and strategic imperatives. Over the past 150 years, each side has blamed the other for the relationship’s failings.

In its narrowest conception, the modern relationship between China and the US has relied on common economic self-interest. At other times, this has been supported by a sense of shared goals in the face of a common enemy – at first the Soviet Union and, after 9/11, to a much more limited extent, militant Islamism. More recently, China and the US have developed shared concerns about global financial stability and the impacts of climate breakdown. Human rights have always remained an underlying point of friction. Despite occasional flirtations by the Chinese Communist party (CCP) with various forms of political liberalisation, there has been, at best, a sullen tolerance for each other’s political systems. For a long time, these various pillars – economic, geostrategic and multilateral – combined to support the relationship in a way that’s been relatively robust. But one by one, over the last decade, each pillar cracked.

Most Americans, including educated elites, struggle to understand how politics works in the People’s Republic of China. And the lack of American familiarity with the Chinese cultural canon, its logographic language, its ancient ethical concepts and its contemporary communist leadership can cause Americans to feel uncertain and distrustful about this newly emerged rival for the mantle of global leadership.

This chasm of distrust has been growing for many years. Washington no longer believes in China’s self-proclaimed “peaceful rise”. The US national security establishment, in particular, now holds the view that the CCP has never had any compunction about deceiving its political or strategic adversaries. It sees such language as little more than a diplomatic ruse, while China spreads its influence, backed by military power, throughout the world. It points to island reclamation in the South China Sea, the building of Chinese naval bases around the Indian Ocean, and Chinese cyber-attacks on the US government as evidence of the reality of Chinese aggression.

Each side points to the other as the guilty party. Beijing does not buy Washington’s claims that it has no interest in “containing” China’s rise. As evidence, China points to increased arms sales by the US to Taiwan despite repeated American promises to reduce these, the trade war that Beijing sees as a concerted effort to cripple its economy, and the American campaign against Huawei, which it sees as an effort to stymie China’s technological advance. Beijing reads Washington’s insistence on freedom of navigation for itself and its allies in the South China Sea as hostile interference in Chinese sovereign waters.


In Thucydides’s History of the Peloponnesian War, the ancient Greek historian concluded that “it was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable”. Taking this as his starting point, the Harvard professor of government, Graham Allison, has developed the notion of the Thucydides Trap. This, he explains, is “the natural, inevitable discombobulation that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power”. According to Allison’s model, based on his examination of multiple historical case studies, where this dynamic is present, war is more likely than not.

In many respects, many elements of Thucydides’s Trap are already present in the US-China relationship of today. It is relatively easy to envisage a series of events that mutates into a sort of cold war 2.0 between the US and China, which, in turn, runs the risk of triggering a hot one. For example, hackers could disable the other side’s infrastructure, from pipelines and electric grids to air traffic control systems, with potentially deadly results. More conventional military exchanges are also within the realm of the possible. The US has Asian allies it has sworn to protect, and China’s ambitions push up against those alliances. From Taiwan to the South China Sea and the Philippines to the East China Sea and Japan, China is increasingly testing the limits of US defence commitments.

While Beijing’s chief aim for the modernisation and expansion of its military has been to prepare for future Taiwan contingencies, China’s growing military, naval, air and intelligence capabilities represent, in the American view, a much broader challenge to US military predominance across the wider Indo-Pacific region and beyond.

Of greatest concern to the US is the rapid expansion and modernisation of the Chinese navy and its growing submarine capabilities, as well as China’s development, for the first time in its history, of a blue-water fleet with force-projection capabilities beyond its coastal waters. This has enabled China to expand its reach across the Indian Ocean, enhanced by a string of available ports provided by its friends and partners across south-east Asia, south Asia and all the way to east Africa and Djibouti in the Red Sea. Added to this is a wider pattern of military and naval collaboration with Russia, including recent joint land-and-sea exercises in the Russian far east, the Mediterranean and the Baltic. These have caused American military thinkers to conclude that Chinese strategists have much wider ambitions than just the Taiwan Strait.


Changes in the balance of power are one part of the story. The other is the changing character of China’s leadership. Not since Mao has China had a leader as powerful as it has right now. Xi’s influence permeates every level of party and state. He has acquired power in a way that has been politically astute and brutal. To take but one example, the anticorruption campaign he has wielded across the party has helped “clean up” the country’s almost industrial levels of corruption. It has also enabled him to “clean out” – via expulsion from the party and sentences to life imprisonment – nearly all the rivals who might otherwise have threatened his supreme authority.

For Americans who imagined that as China adopted a free market economy it would one day become a liberal democracy, China’s new leadership represents a radical departure. As Washington sees it, Xi abandoned any pretence of China ever transforming itself into a more open, tolerant, liberal democratic state. He has also adopted a model of authoritarian capitalism that is less market-driven and prioritises state enterprises over the private sector, and he is tightening the party’s control over business. Even as Beijing appears determined to rewrite the terms of the international order, the US also sees Xi as fanning the flames of Chinese nationalism in a manner that is increasingly anti-American. The US sees Xi as determined to alter the status quo in the western Pacific and establish a Chinese sphere of influence across the eastern hemisphere.

Washington has also concluded that Xi decided to export his domestic political model to the rest of the developing world by leveraging the global gravitational pull of the Chinese economy. The ultimate objective is to create an international system that is much more accommodating of Chinese national interests and values. Finally, the US has concluded that these changes in China’s official worldview are underpinned by a powerful Chinese party-state that is increasingly on a self-selected collision course with the US.

Of course, China doesn’t see it like that. Xi’s view is that there is nothing wrong with China’s political-economic mode, and that while Beijing offers it to others in the developing world to emulate, it is not “forcing it” on any other state. Xi points out the considerable failings of western democracies in dealing with core challenges, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. He argues that China has modernised its military in order to secure its longstanding territorial claims, particularly over Taiwan, and he makes no apology for using the Chinese economy to advance its national interests. Nor does he apologise for using his newfound global power to rewrite the rules of the international system and the multilateral institutions that back it, arguing that this is precisely what the victorious western powers did after the second world war.

The CCP’s goal under Xi is also to pull China’s per-capita GDP up to “the level of other moderately developed countries” by 2035. Chinese economists typically place that somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000, or a level similar to South Korea. This would require a further doubling or tripling of the size of China’s economy. Given the party’s controversial 2018 decision to remove the two-term limit on five-year presidential terms, Xi could remain China’s paramount leader through the 2020s and well into the 2030s. It is likely to be on his watch that China finally becomes the largest economy in the world, supplanting the US after more than a century of global economic dominance. With this shift in the global balance of power, Xi will probably feel emboldened to pursue a growing array of global ambitions over these next 15 years – none more consequential to him than to see the return of Taiwan to Beijing’s sovereignty.

In the eyes of China’s leadership, there is only one country capable of fundamentally disrupting Xi’s national and global ambitions. That is the US. That’s why the US continues to occupy the central position in Chinese Communist party strategic thinking.

Xi is no neophyte in his understanding of the US. He visited the country during his earlier political career, once as a junior official in the 1980s, where he famously stayed with a family in rural Iowa, and again more than 20 years later when, as Chinese vice-president, he was hosted by then US vice-president Joe Biden on a weeklong visit to various American cities and states. In 2010, Xi sent his only child to Harvard University for her undergraduate degree. Xi also hosted multiple US delegations throughout his political career, in Beijing and in the provinces.

Despite all this, Xi neither speaks nor reads English. His understanding of the US has always been intermediated through official Chinese sources of translation, which are not always known for accuracy or nuance. And official briefings, generated from China’s foreign policy bureaucracy and intelligence community, rarely see the US in a benign light. (Chinese officials, wary of angering Xi, also provide analyses that conform to what they believe he wants to hear.)

Still, Xi’s direct experience of the US exceeds the direct experience of China of any American leader, including Joe Biden. No American leader has ever spoken or read Chinese, and all have been similarly reliant on intermediate sources. As a Mandarin speaker, I was fortunate as foreign minister and prime minister of my country to be able to communicate directly with my counterparts and other Chinese officials in their own language. More western political leaders will need to do so in the future.

For many reasons, much of the American strategic community discounts the idea of China’s peaceful rise or peaceful development altogether. Instead, many believe that some form of armed conflict or confrontation with Beijing is inevitable – unless, of course, China were to change strategic direction. Under Xi’s leadership, any such change is deemed to be virtually impossible. In Washington, therefore, the question is no longer whether such confrontation can be avoided, but when it will occur and under what circumstances. And to a large extent, this mirrors the position in Beijing as well.

There is, therefore, a moral and a practical obligation for friends of China and friends of the US to think through what has become the single hardest question of international relations of our century: how to preserve the peace and prosperity we have secured over the last three-quarters of a century while recognising the changing power relations between Washington and Beijing. We need to identify potential strategic off-ramps, or at least guardrails, which may help preserve the peace among the great powers while also sustaining the integrity of the rules-based order that has underpinned international relations since 1945.

To borrow a question from Lenin: “What is to be done?” As a first step, each side must be mindful of how their actions will be read by the other. At present, both sides are bad at this. We must, at a minimum, be mindful of how strategic language, actions and diplomatic signalling will be interpreted within each side’s political culture, systems and elites.

Developing a new level of mutual strategic literacy, however, is only the beginning. What follows must be the hard work of constructing a joint strategic framework between Washington and Beijing that is capable of achieving three interrelated tasks:

1) Agreeing on principles and procedures for navigating each other’s strategic redlines (for example, over Taiwan) – which, if inadvertently crossed, would probably result in military escalation.

2) Mutually identifying the areas – foreign policy, economic policy, technological development (eg semiconductors) – where full-blown strategic competition is accepted as the new normal.

3) Defining those areas where continued strategic cooperation (for example, on climate change) is both recognised and encouraged.

Of course, none of this can be advanced unilaterally. It can only be done bilaterally, by senior negotiators who have been charged by the two countries’ presidents with an overarching responsibility for the relationship. As with all such agreements, the devil will, of course, lie in the detail – and in its enforcement. Such a framework would not depend on trust. It would rely exclusively on sophisticated national verification systems already deployed by each country. In other words, the integrity of these arrangements would not rely on Ronald Reagan’s famous “trust, but verify” approach, which Reagan insisted on with the Soviet Union, but rather on “verify” alone.

A joint strategic framework of this type will not prevent crisis, conflict or war. But it would reduce their likelihood. Of course, it would also not prevent any premeditated covert attack by one side against the assets of the other as part of a complete violation of the framework. But where a joint framework could assist is in managing escalation or de-escalation in the event of accidental incidents at sea, in the air or in cyberspace.

I’m not so naive as to believe that any agreed-upon joint framework would prevent China and the US from strategising against the other. But the US and the Soviet Union, after the near-death experience of the Cuban missile crisis, eventually agreed on a framework to manage their own fraught relationship without triggering mutual annihilation. Surely it’s possible to do the same between the US and China today. It is from this hope that the idea of managed strategic competition comes.

Certainly, the rest of the world would welcome a future in which they are not forced to make binary choices between Beijing and Washington. They would prefer a global order in which each country, large and small, has confidence in its territorial integrity, political sovereignty and pathways to prosperity. They would also prefer a world whose stability was underpinned by a functioning international system that could act on the great global challenges of our time, which no individual nation can solve alone. What happens next between China and the US will decide if that is still possible.

Read the original article on the site of the Guardian.

‘For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power’

Prince Michael of Liechtenstein at 2015 WPC

Russia’s destruction in Ukraine could go on for a long time. If the two sides are to find an agreement, the West will have to stop fueling Russian fears of domestic interference.

Ukraine Russia negotiations
Dialogue is critical to get both sides to agree to a ceasefire and prevent further destruction of Ukraine.

United States President Joe Biden delivered an important and, at times, emotional speech in Warsaw. The U.S. leader emphasized NATO unity and called its collective defense principle, Article 5, “a sacred commitment.” He harshly deplored the Russian invasion and brutality against the Ukrainian population. Toward the end, apparently departing from the prepared text, he said of Russian President Vladimir Putin: “For God’s sake, this man cannot stay in power.”

Mr. Biden visited Poland following an emergency summit at the NATO headquarters in Belgium. Poland is the main destination for Ukrainian refugees. The president met displaced Ukrainians near the border and then flew to Warsaw, where he gave the mentioned speech.

Scorched-earth strategy

At the start of the invasion, Moscow likely underestimated Ukraine’s defensive capabilities while overvaluing the aptitude of its own armed forces. A brutal war of attrition has ensued. Ukrainians have shown impressive grit and fighting skills. However, in the long term, Russia is stronger. The U.S. and NATO have restricted themselves to supporting Kyiv with war materiel and economic sanctions against Russia.

Under these circumstances, the destruction in Ukraine may continue for an extended period, even though the government of President Volodymyr Zelenskiy will try to avoid this outcome at all costs.

Russia is mainly interested in the eastern part of the country, and it also wants to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. However, its overarching objective is to prevent the U.S. and Western Europe from interfering in the Russian Federation’s internal affairs. The Kremlin thinks in terms of realpolitik and zones of influence.

Turkey has been working hard to keep the Kyiv-Moscow talks alive. This dialogue is critical to get both sides to agree to a cease-fire and prevent further destruction of Ukraine. Most likely, the Kremlin has little appetite for expanding its faltering invasion into Western Ukraine, where Russian forces could meet with even stronger resistance. Western Ukraine has a Polish-Austrian history; the Soviet Union incorporated it following the 1939 partition of Poland between Stalin and Hitler. President Putin cannot be interested in creating an Afghanistan-like asymmetric battlefield in Ukraine.

Urge to punish

The West must stand firm against this Russian aggression. However, NATO will continue  to avoid direct military involvement unless the conflict escalates. It probably is an illusion – even if many in the West harbor it – that Russia’s policy would change if President Putin was removed from power.

Russia’s overarching objective is to prevent the U.S. and Western Europe from interfering in the Russian Federation’s internal affairs.

There is only one realistic way to avoid further bloodshed and destruction in Ukraine. Moscow and Kyiv need to reach an arrangement that, on the one side, would validate the West’s point that such transgressions are not allowed and, on the other side, would let Russia feel that the West is ready to respect its internal governance system. For such an agreement to come into existence, it must be based on realpolitik, not a desire to punish.

It is a welcome development that the talks in Turkey are now conducted directly between Kyiv and Moscow, without the involvement of the U.S.

The conflict in Syria offers a valuable lesson: good negotiations start with no preconditions. After the start of the civil war there in 2011, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama and the European governments put forth a  precondition: President Bashar al-Assad had to go first and be put on trial. That made a solution impossible. Had negotiations back then been  pragmatic and without preconditions the disaster that eventually caused hundreds of thousands to lose their lives and millions to be displaced could have been prevented. President al-Assad is still in power.

Face to face

Sadly, even the most justified urge to punish can block solutions that, while imperfect, may prevent bloodletting. Pragmatism is the foundation and essence of prudent statesmanship. Of course, this does not relieve leaders from their duty to defend their country and protect citizens’ freedom.

In the dramatic present circumstances, the U.S. president’s angry words about Mr. Putin were counterproductive and dangerous, and a show of poor statesmanship. Russian imperialism is not limited to President Putin personally; we need to acknowledge it as a historical trait. Following the Warsaw speech, the White House tried to walk the statement back, but President Biden stuck to his guns: he had expressed “moral outrage,” he said, while denying that he was “articulating a policy change.” This incident will only enhance Russian fears of foreign intervention in their internal affairs. The massacre in the Ukrainian city of Bucha, revealed to the world last week, illustrates the brutality of the war. The expression of outrage is justified, but the underlying problem will not be solved by a change of regime in Moscow.

It is undoubtedly good news that the negotiations in Turkey are now taking place without further American and Western European presence.

Read the original article on the site of GIS Report.

Olivier Blanchard : “When driving up debt makes sense”

In 2019, former International Monetary Fund chief economist Olivier Blanchard used his last speech as president of the American Economic Association to put forward a provocative yet simple idea: In a world where interest rates are very low, governments can afford to take on more debt.

The gist of his argument: As long as the economy is growing at a rate faster than the interest rate on government borrowing, financing debt should be sustainable.

Fast forward three years — Governments around the world borrowed trillions to combat a global pandemic that walloped their economies and are now faced with rising interest rates to combat soaring inflation. In the U.S., fiscal responsibility is back in vogue — Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has pushed for deficit reduction, a message also embraced by the White House, which needs Manchin’s support to salvage its social spending agenda.

Blanchard, who has a forthcoming book, Fiscal Policy Under Low Interest Rates, chatted with MM about U.S. debt, the Biden administration’s Covid response and the role of fiscal policy in combating inflation. (He’ll discuss the book at an event today hosted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, where he is a senior fellow.)

The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity:

You said in a recent magazine piece, give me a specific country in a specific time and I’ll tell you whether the level of debt is safe right now. So what is your view of U.S. debt?

“I don’t worry about U.S. debt. There is going to be a bump in real rates due to the need to decrease inflation, but after this, we should go back to a world in which the real rate remains negative, or zero. So in that context, you can clearly afford more debt. It’s not the end of the world, even when you take account of the uncertainty. So if we need to have larger deficits for a good reason, then it’s fine.”

“I’m not against debt, but it has to be used for the right reason.”

Sen. Joe Manchin has raised concerns about new spending programs that may add to deficits over the coming years. Is he right to be concerned?

“I think he’s partly right. If we are going to have to spend more, there’s no particular reason not to make us, the American taxpayers, pay for it now. There’s no reason to basically push it to the future. For example, child care — I’m very much in favor of child care, I think child care is absolutely essential. Why should it not be financed by taxes? Why should it be financed by debt? What is the argument for delaying the cost to future generations? I don’t see it.”

“I think that this administration got derailed at the beginning in doing too much and in not worrying enough about the macroeconomic effects on the economy, the overheating and the inflation. I think that they went too far.”

Do you think deficit reduction should be a priority right now?

“Deficits are going to come down because some of the pandemic spending is going to go away. But we should try to prevent very large deficits going forward, if they are not justified. In the U.S., the primary deficits even before Covid were too large. There is no question. So we have to have a plan, such that at least we don’t increase debt or the debt ratio.”

Senator Manchin has also argued that we should reduce deficits now because inflation is high. Do you agree?

“These are two completely different issues. We need to reduce inflation because we don’t want too high inflation.”

“Inflation comes from demand today, and we basically have to slow down demand now. And that’s what the Fed has to do. We can have a discussion about whether inflation will come down on its own, whether the Fed will have to tighten and increase interest rates a lot. But that has absolutely nothing to do with Build Back Better. BBB is relevant to what happens in the next 10 years.”

“If I were him, I would make the argument that, if we’re going to do good things for people, we should pay for most of it today. Which seems to me to be a much better argument than saying, oh, inflation is high.”

Is there a role for fiscal policymakers to play to help bring down inflation?

“My sense is the Fed is still the primary mover, because it is the one which says it wants to achieve 2 percent inflation. So that hopefully gives people a sense of where the Fed is trying to go, and that affects expectations.”

“The other way to slow down inflation would be with a dramatic deficit reduction, a big tax increase, and people would spend less. This would increase unemployment, which would lead to less wage pressure, less price pressure. But how to control demand and bring inflation under control can be done much better by the Fed. In this case, fiscal policy should not stand in the way, one way or the other, either by being too tight or being too loose.”

Read the original article on the site of Politico.

What role does the Ukraine war play in the upcoming French elections?

With the field and debate dominated by two far-right candidates and Macron’s mixed legacy, it seemed that all was to play for in this Sunday’s French presidential election. But war in Ukraine has unsettled the field, forcing U-turns on Putin from some candidates and penalizing Macron’s preference for international diplomacy over campaigning. CNN’s Jim Bittermann reports from Paris.

Watch the report of the CNN website.

« Même si les Russes ne voulaient pas de cette guerre, ils attendent de leur président une victoire militaire convaincante »

Rétablissement de la grandeur, lutte contre le nazisme, rejet multiforme de l’Occident… telles sont les cordes sensibles sur lesquelles Vladimir Poutine joue pour susciter l’adhésion de la population à son intervention en Ukraine, analyse dans une tribune au « Monde » Tatiana Kastouéva-Jean, spécialiste de la Russie.

« Les Russes veulent-ils la guerre ? » Ainsi commence une célèbre chanson soviétique, devenue symbole du pacifisme dans le pays qui a subi les plus grandes pertes humaines lors de la seconde guerre mondiale. Pourtant, si le conflit que Vladimir Poutine livre à l’Ukraine horrifie une partie des Russes et pousse certains d’entre eux à protester ou à fuir à l’étranger, beaucoup semblent la soutenir.

Quelles fibres de l’âme russe le maître du Kremlin a-t-il réussi à toucher pour susciter une adhésion à sa sanglante aventure ? Depuis l’annexion de la Crimée en 2014, la population russe baigne dans une propagande féroce. Omniprésente dans le champ informationnel russe, l’Ukraine était ces dernières années l’objet du mépris et de la haine d’innombrables commentateurs.

De nombreux Russes n’acceptent aujourd’hui que le récit diffusé par les chaînes publiques nationales, même face aux témoignages des parents proches ou aux vidéos des prisonniers russes en Ukraine, qu’ils considèrent comme victimes ou vecteurs de la propagande ennemie. Quant à la propagande russe, elle joue sur plusieurs cordes sensibles.

La quête d’une grandeur perdue

Tout d’abord, la nostalgie de l’URSS qui ne s’est jamais vraiment estompée : trente ans après sa disparition, 63 % des Russes continuent à regretter l’Union soviétique ; la majorité impute son effondrement à la « trahison des élites » et à la « perfidie de l’Occident ». Pour préserver la paix sociale, l’Etat russe n’a jamais officiellement condamné le Parti communiste. Lénine gît toujours dans son mausolée sur la place Rouge et Staline reste la personnalité historique la plus admirée.

Il n’y a pas eu de lustration en Russie, et les anciens agents du KGB tiennent aujourd’hui tous les rênes du pouvoir. Le travail sur la mémoire historique a été essentiellement mené dans les milieux intellectuels urbains, notamment par l’association Memorial, récemment dissoute. La population russe est vieillissante : parmi les 37 millions de retraités, nombreux sont ceux qui restent très attachés au passé soviétique et arrivent même à convertir une partie des jeunes à leur quête d’une époque perdue de grandeur nationale.

 

Lire l’article sur le site du Monde.

Why China Won’t Mediate an End to the Ukraine War

If there is one person other than Vladimir Putin who can end Russia’s war in Ukraine, it is Chinese President Xi Jinping. But Xi has so far remained on the sidelines and is likely to stay there, owing to various domestic political vulnerabilities and his own lack of courage and imagination.

CAMBRIDGE – Russian President Vladimir Putin thought he could quickly capture Kyiv and replace Ukraine’s government. Whether he was misled by poor intelligence or by his own fantasies about history, his “smash and grab” failed in the face of effective Ukrainian resistance. He then turned to a brutal bombardment of cities like Mariupol and Kharkiv to terrorize the civilian population into submission – as he had previously done in Grozny and Aleppo. The tragic upshot is that Ukraine’s heroic resistance has been accompanied by increasing civilian suffering.

Is there any way to end this nightmare quickly? One possibility is for Chinese President Xi Jinping to see that he has a “Teddy Roosevelt Moment.” After the brutal war between Russia and Japan in 1905, Roosevelt stepped in to mediate. He pressed hard for the parties to compromise and ultimately prevailed, thereby boosting America’s global influence and winning himself a Nobel Peace Prize.

Read the entire article on the site of Project Syndicate.

Guerre en Ukraine : les pays Baltes veulent obtenir une protection accrue de l’Otan

Avant le sommet de l’Otan à Madrid en juin prochain, les dirigeants des pays Baltes continuent d’alerter sur la nécessité de renforcer la protection de leurs pays après l’invasion de l’Ukraine.

Un soldat français lors d'un exercice de l'Otan à la base militaire de Tapa, en Estonie, en février 2022.
Un soldat français lors d’un exercice de l’Otan à la base militaire de Tapa, en Estonie, en février 2022. (ALAIN JOCARD/AFP)

Par Virginie Robert, Emmanuel Grasland

Publié le 30 mars 2022

Pas assez écoutés – malgré les annexions successives par la Russie de territoires en Géorgie, au Donbass et en Crimée -, et se sentant encore plus vulnérables depuis l’invasion de l’Ukraine, les pays Baltes n’ont de cesse de réclamer une protection plus importante des membres de l’Alliance atlantique qu’ils ont rejointe en 2004.

« Il faut que l’Otan se prépare aux menaces futures » et il n’y a qu’une réponse possible : « une dissuasion crédible, visible, et efficace », plaide le président d’Estonie , Alar Karis, dans une tribune publiée par le « Financial Times » mardi. Cela passe selon lui par une présence permanente et renforcée sur le flanc est de l’Otan, qui succéderait aux rotations actuelles et mettrait la Pologne et les pays Baltes à égalité avec l’Allemagne, l’Italie ou le Royaume-Uni.

Lors du Sommet de Varsovie en juillet 2016, l’Otan a établi une présence avancée renforcée (« enhanced Forward Presence », eFP) dans les pays Baltes et en Pologne avec des bataillons multinationaux. La France vient d’ajouter 150 soldats aux 300 présents en Estonie, où les Britanniques sont la nation cadre. Mais ce dispositif est encore jugé insuffisant.

A l’avant-poste face aux Russes

Les pays Baltes réclament une aide sur terre, sur mer et dans les airs pour avoir « le muscle nécessaire afin de bloquer Poutine » qui cherche « à restaurer les frontières de l’Otan de 1997 et créer un nouveau rideau de fer en Europe », assure Alar Karis. Du grain à moudre pour les membres de l’Alliance atlantique qui vont se retrouver en juin à Madrid.

« Les pays Baltes se sentent à l’avant-poste de l’Union européenne et de l’Otan face à la Russie. Par rapport à la question ukrainienne, ils sont extrêmement engagés et ne cessent de dire qu’il faut aller plus loin et qu’on n’en fait pas assez. En général de concert avec la Pologne », explique Céline Bayou, enseignante à l’Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales et spécialiste de la région.

Populations russophones

Imants Lieģis, ancien ministre de la Défense et ancien ambassadeur de Lettonie en France, raconte combien la situation a été extrêmement tendue en Lettonie après l’invasion de l’Ukraine. « Les gens étaient inquiets. J’ai rassuré ma femme en disant que nous faisions partie de l’Otan. Elle m’a répondu que ses parents avaient quitté le pays en 1944 avec une valise et qu’elle ne voulait pas se retrouver dans cette situation. »

Les pays Baltes, depuis qu’ils sont sortis du giron soviétique en 1991, sont passés du collectivisme à une économie de marché, du parti unique au pluralisme. Il leur a aussi fallu construire un discours national, plus évident pour la Lituanie riche d’une histoire millénaire que pour l’Estonie et la Lettonie. Alors qu’il y avait moins de 10 % de russophones dans les trois pays Baltes avant 1939, on compte désormais 30 % de russophones en Lettonie , 25 % en Estonie et 6 % en Lituanie.

« Enfin, on nous écoute »

« Les pays Baltes n’ont cessé de dire pendant des années que la Russie était une menace mais ils étaient souvent considérés comme des russophobes au sein de l’Union européenne. Aujourd’hui, les leaders d’opinion et les élites politiques de ces pays se disent : enfin, on nous écoute, enfin l’Europe a compris », explique Katerina Kesa, estonienne et enseignante à l’Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales.

Face à la menace russe, les dangers sont multiples : dépendance énergétique, cyberguerre, campagnes de désinformation, attaques hybrides avec l’envoi de migrants syriens orchestrés depuis la Biélorussie.

Les pays Baltes ont fait des choix stratégiques pour leur sécurité : intégration à l’Otan, protection des Etats-Unis, adhésion à l’Union européenne. « Nous voulons que les Américains et les Européens travaillent ensemble car ce sont les démocraties qui sont défiées », explique un conseiller diplomatique pour qui l’appui américain est une « question de survie ».

Coincés entre la Russie, la Biélorussie et Kaliningrad

Les Baltes éprouvent en revanche la plus grande méfiance vis-à-vis du concept d’autonomie stratégique européen et de défense européenne. « Quels sont les objectifs, quelles sont les lignes rouges ? » s’interroge un diplomate balte. Toute architecture sécuritaire ne peut s’entendre qu’avec l’Alliance atlantique, car l’Union européenne est très loin d’être une puissance militaire. Coincés entre la Russie, la Biélorussie et le couloir de Kaliningrad, les risques de conflits conventionnels, voire nucléaires, leur paraissent plus réalistes que jamais.

Lire l’article sur le site des Echos.

Quelle alimentation pour demain ?

CHRONIQUE. Comment nourrir la planète en temps de guerre et de dérèglement climatique ? Les innovations existent, mais elles n’incarnent pas toutes le progrès.

Les << laits sans vache >> representent 15 % du marche americain (pour un montant de 20 milliards de dollars).

Les « laits sans vache » représentent 15 % du marché américain (pour un montant de 20 milliards de dollars).© CARDOSO / BSIP / BSIP via AFP

Par Jean de Kervasdoué

Nabil Fahmy Describes Egypt-US Ties as ‘Vital’

Saturday, 2 April, 2022 – 09:00
Egypt’s former foreign minister Nabil Fahmy (File/Reuters)
Cairo – Rasha Ahmed

Egypt’s former foreign minister Nabil Fahmy described the Egyptian-US relations as “vital” throughout modern history, citing Cairo’s pioneering role at the regional level and Washington’s leadership at the global level.

His remarks came during the signing ceremony of his book dubbed “Epicenter of Events…Egypt’s Diplomacy in War, Peace and Transition” at the American University in Cairo, where he currently serves as the Dean of School of International Affairs and Public Policies.

Speakers at the event included Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, former secretary- general of the Arab League and former Egyptian foreign minister Amr Moussa, Director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina Mostafa El- Feki, Chairman and Founder of Dar El Shorouk Ibrahim al-Moallem, AUC President Ahmad Dallal, and other senior diplomatic figures.

His book covers an Egyptian diplomatic era, with its regional and global interactions over four decades of his public service in the offices of the Egyptian Presidency as a career diplomat.

He served as policy advisor to the Foreign Minister, ambassador to Japan, and was appointed as ambassador to the US for nine years before leading Egypt’s foreign policy as foreign minister in 2013-2014.

Fahmy said he visited Moscow in 2013 and met his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov at the time and told him that Cairo does not intend to replace the US with Russia but rather aims to expand the circle of its international partners and diversify its options to preserve the sovereignty of Egypt’s decisions.

He stressed that “misunderstanding” in relations with major powers is more critical than differences in positions.

Commenting on the peace process, Fahmy said the Palestinian cause is no longer on the international community’s agenda, even before the Russian war on Ukraine.

He called for engaging multiple parties in sponsoring the global peace process, urging Palestinian parties to unite and learn a lesson from the Israelis who put aside their fundamental differences and united to topple Benjamin Netanyahu and keep him from forming a government.

Read the original article on the site of Asharq Al-Awsat.

New cold wars emanating from Russia, China put Asia on edge

Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine upends region’s security landscape

U.S. President Joe Biden, second from left, speaks with, left to right, Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Brussels on March 24.   © Reuters

TOKYO — Just a little over a month since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, the world is facing two wars. One is Russia’s cruel aggression against its western neighbor; the other is the outbreak of a new cold war between Russia and the West.

Read the article on the site of Nikkei Asia.

Ukraine war gives Turkey a way in from the European cold

Turkey this week hosted another round of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. As tragic as the Ukraine war is, it has become an opportunity for Ankara to improve its relations with Europe after a long period of tension.

Turkey has, in recent years, had a rough relationship with the EU, exacerbated by its combative attitude toward both France and Greece. Relations between Turkey and France first became tense over Libya, as the two NATO allies were supporting opposing sides. However, the animosity grew and reached a personal level as French President Emmanuel Macron said, following the beheading of a schoolteacher by a fanatic, that Islam needed “reform.” Erdogan used this comment to launch a campaign against France, even accusing Macron of having mental health problems. Meanwhile, the long-standing problem with Greece over Cyprus intensified in 2019, when Turkey demarcated its maritime border with Libya, cutting through Crete.

However, as Europe faced up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it found in Turkey a necessary ally, while Ankara seized the opportunity to rekindle its relationship with the EU. Last week’s NATO summit was an opportunity for Turkey and France to mend their relations. Meetings have already taken place between the two countries on a ministerial level. Their cooperation on Ukraine will also help them coordinate on other issues, such as Syria, Libya and the eastern Mediterranean.

Despite the previous bitterness between Macron and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, their countries’ interests dictate that they cooperate. Turkey has been trying to get into the EU. However, its accession process, which started in 2005, initially failed due to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ferocious objection. Another opportunity arose in 2016, when the Syrian crisis produced a flow of refugees heading to the old continent. Turkey was a good buffer zone and it struck a deal with the EU, under which it absorbed many of the refugees and prevented them from traveling to Europe. In return, Ankara was promised visa-free travel for Turkish nationals in addition to €6 billion ($6.6 billion) and trade facilitation.

Then, however, the 2016 coup attempt took place in Turkey and mass arrests were made. This provided the perfect excuse for the Europeans to weasel out of a deal they were forced to strike in order to stop the flow of refugees. Since then, relations have soured, with the Turks driven by the sentiment of being cheated by Europe and left to handle the burden of 3.5 million refugees alone, with Europe providing minimal assistance. The nadir was reached when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was seated alone behindErdogan while her male colleague sat next to the Turkish president. Von der Leyen accused Erdogan of disrespecting her because she was a woman.

The coming months will reveal how carefully Erdogan treats his relations with the Europeans and what benefits they bring

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib

Today, Turkey is providing mediation that the Europeans are hoping will end the Ukraine conflict with the least damage possible. Meanwhile, Turkey’s strategic location is indispensable when crafting any policy to contain Russia. The war in Ukraine erupted at a time when Erdogan realized he had created far too many problems and that he needed to patch up ties with former allies who were on the verge of turning into enemies. This was greatly influenced by the economic situation in Turkey. Erdogan faces elections in a year’s time and he cannot afford a free-falling currency and deteriorating living standards.

The Turkish president started by engaging with the Arab Gulf countries and then turned to Europe. The Ukraine crisis coincided with his efforts to engage with Europe. In addition to its mediation and the support it is providing Ukraine thanks to its Bayraktar drones — as well its control of the straits that control the Russian navy’s access to warm waters — Turkey is also the endpoint of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that transports 1 million barrels of oil per day from Central Asia to the Mediterranean.

Despite Turkey’s past coordination with Russia, Ankara and Moscow are on opposing sides in the conflicts in Syria, Libya and the Caucasus. Turkey would therefore not want Russia to win in Ukraine, as that would embolden Vladimir Putin in other territories. With its relations with heavy hitter France improving, ties with the EU are also likely to progress. The issues now are how Erdogan plans to use this opportunity to his country’s benefit, what role Turkey will play and what it will ask for in return. Of course, this crisis is an opportunity for Erdogan to make some of gains he could not make in 2005 and 2016.

The coming months will reveal how carefully Erdogan treats his relations with the Europeans and what benefits they bring. Will he gain concessions in Libya, Syria and the eastern Mediterranean? Will Turkey obtain access to the common market and visa-free travel for Turkish citizens? Or will it be another disappointment?

Read the original article on the site of Arab News.

« Les Vingt-Sept ont devant eux l’occasion de résoudre une injustice, celle de la politique de migration européenne »

Parmi les débats relancés par la guerre en Ukraine et l’exode de millions des réfugiés, celui sur la répartition des migrants entre les pays européens doit être une priorité. Afin de la rendre plus juste, Randy Kotti, chercheur en économie, prône, dans une tribune au « Monde », l’abandon du règlement de Dublin.

Publié le 01 avril 2022

Tribune. La couverture médiatique de la guerre en Ukraine n’a pas manqué de révéler les biais profondément ancrés que nous, Européens, avons construits sans distinction autour des mots « migrant » ou encore « réfugié ». Maintenant que l’opinion publique semble plus favorable à accueillir une vague de migration forcée, les Vingt-Sept ont devant eux l’occasion de résoudre la vraie injustice : la politique de migration européenne.

En application du règlement actuel, aussi appelé « règlement de Dublin », les demandes d’asile ne peuvent être déposées que dans le pays de première arrivée. Ce système avait été établi en 1997 dans un contexte où les flux migratoires étaient encore maîtrisables et maîtrisés. Mais dès que l’Union européenne (UE) a dû faire face à la « crise des migrants », commencée en 2015, le règlement de Dublin a imposé, de fait, une responsabilité disproportionnée aux Etats membres situés sur les principales routes migratoires au sud de l’Union, notamment la Grèce et l’Italie, qui se trouvaient déjà en position de fragilité à la suite de la crise de la zone euro.

En 2015, au plus fort de la crise migratoire, plus de 1,8 million d’entrées illégales ont été enregistrées sur le territoire européen, ainsi que 1,3 million de demandes d’asile. Les Etats membres de première ligne ont été submergés. La photo du petit Aylan, retrouvé mort noyé sur une plage [de Turquie], est devenue l’emblème de la crise. En dépit de l’urgence, l’UE n’est pas parvenue à trouver une solution de long terme ; la proposition de la Commission européenne de relocaliser les demandeurs d’asile entre Etats membres ne trouvant pas suffisamment de soutien. Même lorsque Angela Merkel, dans un rare élan de courage politique, a ouvert grande la porte de l’Allemagne, le reste de l’Europe est resté fermé. L’opinion publique était trop hostile aux migrants.

Pacte avec le diable

Pour résoudre la crise, l’UE n’a eu d’autre choix que de conclure un pacte avec le diable. En échange de 6 milliards d’euros d’assistance et de la redynamisation très controversée du processus d’accession de la Turquie à l’UE, Erdogan a accepté en 2016 d’accueillir la part de réfugiés qui incombait à l’Europe. L’UE a ainsi acheté un succès de court terme au prix fort – un pansement sur une jambe cassée. En externalisant sa politique migratoire et en se laissant extorquer des fonds par un gouvernement notoirement irrespectueux des droits de l’homme, l’UE a révélé son point faible, la migration, donnant plus tard l’occasion à la Biélorussie de Loukachenko d’utiliser les demandeurs d’asile comme arme de déstabilisation.

Lire l’article original sur le site du Monde.

WHY WORLD BACKUP DAY HAS NEVER MATTERED MORE

Is your business protected from losing all its data? Are you fully backed-up and prepared against data loss and data theft?

How recoverable is your critical data? Are you covered across all devices, from the cloud through to a device such as a network attached storage? World Backup Day on March 31st places the focus on these key questions and today’s protection imperative encouraging individuals, families, and organizations alike to ‘take the pledge’ and backup their important documents, files, and data. It is perhaps then no wonder that World Backup Day has over 72,000 publications and mentions in media all over the world – this is something that impacts every single one of us.

And while the #WORLDBACKUPDAY focus is highlighted once a year, it has never been more important to make data protection and recoverability a 360-degree whole year commitment, baked in by design into our personal and professional practices. Backup can no longer be an afterthought or reactive behavior to an issue – it must be a proactive and integral part of an organization’s overall security posture. This is something I had the pleasure to discuss with Jack Bailey, Director of Sales & Channel Enablement at iland, an 11:11 Systems company, and global leader in managed infrastructure solutions provision across cloud, connectivity and systems. Here are our collective thoughts on what has changed and how to get ahead.

Dynamic_Threat_Landscape.png

Lessons Learnt: Recent Ransomware and Cybersecurity Events

Cybersecurity attacks are more pervasive than ever, with multiple change drivers coming to the fore over the last year including the rise in the value of data, the IoT device explosion and growth of the API economy, an acceleration in multi-cloud adoption and cloud-native applications, increased technology and IT/OT convergence, and the rise of hybrid decentralized working and Bring/Choose Your Own Device.

In combination, cyber threats have fast become more complex, converged, and sophisticated. Examples include bad actor collaboration, Supply Chain, IoT and Small to Medium Business vulnerabilities, device hacking, phishing, attacks right across the DoS, DDoS, SaaS platform, MitM and Log4j spectrum and notably the rising risk of ransomware. A ransomware event is projected to occur every 11 seconds in 2022, with 83% of these successful ransomware attacks employing alternative extortion methods such as using stolen data to extort customers (Venafi) and backups being specifically targeted. Putting this all into context, the average ransom payment today has now reached an eyewatering $1.79 million (Cloudstrike).

‘Security threat actors are continually evolving their attack approaches to make them more impactful, including the coming together of cyber-criminal gangs with increasingly complex and professional tactics. We must respond in kind as a sector and as organizations and individuals – this requires a 4 Pillar focus on Technology, Culture, Processes and Skills’.

 Dr Sally Eaves, Chair of Global Cyber Trust, Global Foundation of Cyber Studies and Research

Backup_Beyond_the_Tech.jpeg

As highlighted above, I believe the key lesson from this conflation of threats is the need to focus on security protection holistically across the Four Pillars of Technology, Culture, Processes and Skills. No gaps can be left behind. For example, in respect to data we have seen some critical types sometimes overlooked (Github 2021). With security increasingly shifting left or in other words earlier into the development lifecycle, it is key to consider code as intellectual property and back up your devops processes, repositories, servers and metadata too.

Equally, education and awareness gaps persist. As an example, a key challenge facing SMBs is confusion around shared responsibility models and clarity around what security duties are handled by their cloud service provider and which belong to the organization itself as a user (Eaves 2022). Backup plays an important role in addressing these lessons across the four pillars, especially facing the growing threat of ransomware targeting backups directly, and organizations having inadequate backup and recovery processes in place. Recent research reflecting that less than half of ransomware victims were able to successfully restore their systems (CyberEdge) puts this into sharp focus – but this is something that can be overcome:

More than ever, having an air-gapped/hardened backup target has become a must-have. Many ransomware varieties or malicious processes will attempt to delete or encrypt backup data. Ensuring your organization’s backups are protected from those threats is an absolute necessity’ Jack Bailey, Director of Sales & Channel Enablement at iland

Future Proofing Protection: Evolving Ways of Work

Ensuring reliable backup will become ever more critical for organizations to expediently leverage their mission critical restorations, with BaaS growth understandably predicted to more than double in the next three years (iland). And this is brought to the fore when we focus further on one of the key drivers of change – the evolution of ‘the office’. As identified by new Morgan Lovell research, an illuminating ‘87% of workers believe their workplace needs to change substantially after covid’. These are trends set to stay!

Indeed, we are seeing the blending of Space, Place and Pace giving rise to Workplace 4.0 and the brand new concept of the physical ‘Collaboratory’ space (Eaves and Mitel 2022) accessed for specific activities whilst other tasks are conducted remotely. This reflects the current transition to hybrid or remote working models for the long-term and seeks to balance decentralized WFH/WFA activities with physical office space for collaborative, interactive and social hub activities alongside dedicated quiet spaces, and all empowered by a focus on the three pillars of technology, sustainability and wellbeing.

Organizations of any size need to be able prevent security risks and recover quickly if they occur, so backup affords a vital role in the security strategy of actualizing the work from anywhere model – from our home, when on the move and when in ‘the Collaboratory’ and all often using devices that well may be our own. As discussed with Jack Bailey, Director of Sales & Channel Enablement at iland, this means developing a security strategy that consists of both “protecting” and “recovering” data and applications. Customers need to be able to continually and easily monitor and remediate risks along with the ability to restore and recover on-site, or perform recovery to the cloud as well as connect in a secure and seamless manner – from anywhere.

So as organizations shift towards a hybrid or remote workforce this means three things:

1. Critical data is in more locations and needs to be protected wherever it is.

2. Given human error is a great cause of data loss and access, the risks to data increase. Having a strong backup strategy in place is even more necessary.

3. This must be supported by investment in education and training at all levels of the organization including within non tech facing roles.

Read the original article on the site of BBN Times.

More Mixed Signals From Russia as Ukraine War Enters Sixth Week

March 31, 2022

Megan Specia, Anton Troianovski and 

A military funeral for three Ukranian soldiers in Lviv on Thursday.
Credit…Mauricio Lima for The New York Times

KRAKOW, Poland — Facing deeper isolation by the day over the Ukraine war, Russia seemed to slightly recalibrate its stance Thursday, allowing greater humanitarian access to the devastated port city of Mariupol and apparently retreating from a payment confrontation with European gas customers.

But Western officials said they saw little evidence to support Russia’s claims that it was greatly reducing its military presence around Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, and fighting continued unabated in areas around the city on Thursday. In Dnipro, the central city that has become a hub for humanitarian aid to other parts of Ukraine, a Russian attack overnight destroyed an oil terminal, a local official said.

“Russia maintains pressure on Kyiv and other cities, so we can expect additional offensive actions, bringing even more suffering,” the NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said at a news conference.

Whatever Moscow’s real intentions on the battlefield, Russian officials scoffed Thursday at American claims a day earlier that subordinates of President Vladimir V. Putin, fearing his wrath, were misleading him about how the war was going.

“They do not understand President Putin,” said the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov. “They do not understand the decision-making mechanism and they do not understand the efforts of our work.”

Image

A damaged street in Mariupol on Thursday. The city has been cut off from the outside world by heavy Russian bombardment and intense fighting.
Credit…Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters

In Mariupol, where the population has, for weeks, been cut off from the outside world by heavy Russian bombardment and intense fighting, a respite appeared possible amid reports that a team from the International Committee of the Red Cross was preparing to try to enter the city. The group hoped to deliver emergency humanitarian aid and begin evacuating residents on Friday.

“There seems to be a glimmer of hope we might be able to go, so we need to be close,” said Crystal Wells, a spokeswoman for the Red Cross in Geneva.

Thousands of civilians are believed to have died, and survivors have been trapped in basements without heat or electricity, and desperately short of food, water and other essentials.

Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, Iryna Vereshchuk, said Thursday that a convoy of 45 buses had departed for Mariupol to reach trapped civilians, and that an agreement had been reached on a passageway for evacuating people from the city of Melitopol, farther west.

People from both cities were expected to make their way to Zaporizhzhia, a city farther north that remains under Ukrainian control, although evacuations in previous days have been sporadic and have often been scrapped at the last minute because of fighting.

Image

The bodies of soldiers and civilians in Irpin, being taken away for burial on Thursday.
Credit…Daniel Berehulak for The New York Times

The Russians also appeared to show some leeway on Mr. Putin’s demand that European customers of his country’s natural gas now pay in rubles, or risk a cutoff. European governments, which rely heavily on Russian gas imports, had rejected this new condition, arguing that it violated purchase contracts.

After speaking with the Russian leader, the prime minister of Italy, Mario Draghi, said he did not believe that Europe was “in danger” of having its gas supply halted. He said that he understood that the Russian president would grant a “concession” to European countries, and that the conversion of payments from dollars or euros into rubles was “an internal matter of the Russian Federation.”

Russia also said Thursday that its forces were leaving the defunct Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, according to a statement from Ukraine’s state-run energy company. Chernobyl, site of the worst nuclear accident in history, had been occupied by Russian forces since the war’s early days.

Asked about unconfirmed reports that some Russian soldiers had suffered radiation sickness, the Pentagon press secretary, John F. Kirby, said the troop movement appeared to be part of a broader repositioning and not from “health hazards or some sort of emergency or a crisis at Chernobyl.”

Both Ukrainian and Russian officials signaled a willingness to keep negotiating over how to end the war, now in its sixth week. A member of Ukraine’s negotiating team said that discussions would resume via video link on Friday, and the foreign minister of Turkey, which hosted talks this week, said that his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts could meet within weeks.

And on Thursday, Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, offered cautious backing to a proposal circulating in European corridors of power that might help bring about a peace agreement. In principle, Mr. Erdogan said, Turkey could help guarantee Ukraine’s security.

Image

The site of an apparent missile strike Thursday in the vicinity of a cultural center near central Kharkiv that was being used as a military barracks.
Credit…Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

During peace talks earlier this week in Istanbul, Ukrainian officials said their country was ready to concede a key demand from Moscow and declare itself permanently neutral, forsaking hopes of joining NATO. Ukrainian negotiators also said they were willing to discuss Russian territorial claims.

But the Ukrainians said they would make the concessions only in return for security guarantees from a group of other nations.

Ukrainian officials envision an arrangement in which a group of countries — potentially including NATO members like the United States, Britain, Turkey, France and Germany — would commit to defending Ukraine.

On Thursday, a Ukrainian negotiator, Mykhailo Podolyak, suggested to a Turkish broadcaster that the so-called guarantor countries would have legal obligations to provide weapons, military personnel or financial help if conflict involving Ukraine erupted again.

“This is the meaning of this pact: A country that considers an attack will know that Ukraine is not alone,” he said.

The big question was whether Moscow, which has repeatedly objected to what it calls NATO encroachment, finds this palatable.

Despite Russian claims that the war was proceeding according to plan, the Kremlin is said to be struggling with problems in its military, which has made far less headway in Ukraine than Western experts had once expected.

On Thursday, the director of Britain’s electronic surveillance agency, Jeremy Fleming, said the Russian forces, hampered by low morale and weapons shortages, had accidentally shot down their own aircraft and had refused to carry out orders.

But in Russia itself, Mr. Putin’s approval ratings have reached levels unseen in years, according to a Russian poll released on Thursday, as many Russians rally around the flag in the face of sanctions and other international pressure.

Image

A volunteer teacher organizing games and activities for children in a bunker in a small town south of Kyiv on Thursday.
Credit…Ivor Prickett for The New York Times

Although the credibility of the poll might be questionable — especially since Mr. Putin has severely limited free expression since the war — it was conducted by the Levada Center, one of the few independent pollster groups left in Russia.

“The confrontation with the West has consolidated people,” said Denis Volkov, the center’s director.

While they generally did not support Mr. Putin, some respondents said that now was the time to do so.

People believe that “everyone is against us” and that “Putin defends us; otherwise, we would be eaten alive,” Mr. Volkov said.

The war’s destructive ripple effects have spilled over into marketplaces around the world.

Both Ukraine and Russia are major providers of the world’s wheat, corn and barley, but Ukrainian agricultural officials said Thursday that more than 16 million tons of grain had been stranded in the country, and that Ukraine had missed out on at least $1.5 billion in exports. Earlier in the week, the U.S. State Department’s No. 2 official warned at a U.N. Security Council meeting that the war posed “immediate and dangerous implications for global food security.”

With fuel costs soaring over sanctions on Russian oil, the U.S. government announced a plan to release up to 180 million barrels from strategic reserves over the next six months to enlarge the supply and ease prices.

An Irpin resident evacuating from the city with her dogs on Thursday.

 

Credit…Daniel Berehulak for The New York Times

Still, the Biden administration made clear that it would expand the sanctions on Russia as part of the American-led effort to cripple the Russian economy as punishment for the Ukraine invasion.

In Washington, the Treasury Department on Thursday leveled new sanctions on Russian technology companies and what it called illicit procurement networks that Russia is using to evade existing sanctions.

“We will continue to target Putin’s war machine with sanctions from every angle until this senseless war of choice is over,” the Treasury secretary, Janet L. Yellen, said in a statement.

Read the original article on the site of the New York Times.

«Les tristes restes du néoconservatisme»

Renaud Girard. Jean-Christophe MARMARA/Le Figaro

CHRONIQUE – Dans son discours de Varsovie, Joe Biden a déclaré que Poutine ne pouvait pas «rester au pouvoir». Or ce n’est pas aux Américains mais aux Russes de décider qui doit gouverner en Russie.

Le samedi 26 mars 2022, dans la cour du château royal de Varsovie, Joe Biden a fait un discours destiné à rester dans les annales. Requinqué par une résistance ukrainienne à l’exact opposé de l’effondrement militaire afghan d’août 2021, le président américain affichait une forme olympienne. Comme si l’agression russe contre l’Ukraine du 24 février 2022 avait offert une seconde vie au chef de l’Alliance atlantique.

Non seulement l’Otan avait connu une résurrection par rapport à son «état de mort cérébrale», diagnostiqué en novembre 2019 par Emmanuel Macron, mais elle avait un chef à sa tête, bien décidé à appliquer son article 5 (la défense commune de tout État membre agressé militairement). Comme Donald Trump avait fait planer un doute sur l’application automatique par les États-Unis de cet article 5, Joe Biden sut saisir l’occasion de se démarquer de son prédécesseur.

Lire l’article complet sur le site du Figaro.

Investing for Impact and Profit

Although environmental, social, and governance investing has become increasingly fashionable, it has not lived up to its promise. Activists and advocates have tried to change the basic logic of financial investment and corporate governance when they should be focusing on ways to harness it.

PARIS – Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards are the talk of the investment world these days. But despite the trillions of dollars of investments that have been labeled “ESG,” this form of investing has yet to have much real-world impact.

This is especially true on the environmental front (though such investments’ social impact has not been much more evident). Investor coalitions to combat climate change have exploded onto the scene, promising to steer a massive amount of capital toward “green” businesses and industries. At last year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), private financial institutions pledged to mobilize $130 trillion – a figure greater than global GDP – for clean energy. And yet, the climate outlook is only worsening. Last month’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change offered “the bleakest warning yet” about what awaits humanity on a rapidly warming planet.

Welcome to the world of greenwashing: Though firms’ owners have committed to cutting carbon dioxide emissions, they have not actually ordered firms’ managers to do so. But, instead of blaming investors or companies, ESG activists should consider why there is such a large, persistent gap between public commitments and action. Simply put, climate advocates have failed to persuade investors and firms to act because they have failed to understand what ultimately drives business.

Read the entire article on the site of Project Syndicate.

L’échec de la gouvernance mondiale de la santé publique : une analyse médico-légale

L’échec de la gouvernance mondiale de la santé publique : une analyse médico-légale

Cet article propose de considérer la gouvernance mondiale de la santé publique dans la perspective plus large de la réforme de la gouvernance internationale. Il distingue plusieurs phases : la phase «  amont » de la préparation à la pandémie caractérisée par « le déni et la négligence » ; la première phase (« faire face à l’épidémie ») qui a bénéficié d’une coopération scientifique immédiate, bien que la  réponse à l’épidémie se soit fait attendre et qu’elle ait souffert du manque de coordination; la deuxième phase (« répondre et contenir l’épidémie ») avec une montée en régime du dépistage, freinée par la concurrence face à la disponibilité limitée des équipements  et la mise sur le marché des tests tardive ; la troisième phase (« protéger ») marquée par le développement exceptionnellement rapide de nouveaux vaccins dans un contexte de rivalités nationales ; et enfin la dernière phase (« la sortie ») où l’accélération de la distribution des vaccins n’a pas empêché l’échec flagrant de  la vaccination dans les pays pauvres.

Par Anne Bucher, George Papaconstantinou et Jean Pisani-Ferry

Publié le 

Synthèse

L’analyse de la gouvernance mondiale dans différents domaines politiques a mis en lumière six dimensions importantes. On retrouve deux d’entre elles clairement dans la santé publique : un diagnostic du problème et une expertise communs, notamment dans la réponse scientifique et institutionnelle. C’est moins le cas pour les principes d’action communs, et les mécanismes de notification et de communication transparents. Enfin, pour les deux dernières dimensions, l’absence d’un processus collectif d’évaluation et d’ajustement des instruments ainsi que le manque de confiance qui a entravé l’action de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS) ont été très problématiques.

La décision importante qui a été prise d’explorer la possibilité d’un nouveau traité sur les pandémies doit être évaluée au regard de la réforme de la gouvernance mondiale de la sécurité sanitaire, notamment de quatre propositions qui sont à l’ordre du jour. Les deux premières concernent le renforcement de l’OMS afin d’en faire une autorité de normalisation et de surveillance forte et indépendante en matière de préparation, de prévention et d’intervention, ainsi que la rationalisation et la consolidation des institutions et initiatives existantes afin d’améliorer la fourniture de produits  médicaux essentiels dans le monde.

Un organe de type G20 devrait être créé pour assurer le leadership et garantir une approche « pangouvernementale » qui repositionne la gouvernance mondiale de la santé dans l’ordre mondial et la place au même niveau que l’interdépendance économique ou la stabilité financière en termes de gouvernance, de soutien institutionnel et de ressources. Enfin, il faudrait mettre en place un financement adéquat par le biais d’un fonds autonome pour remédier aux défaillances que la crise de la  COVID-19 a révélées en matière de préparation des systèmes de santé nationaux, de surveillance pour la détection et l’endiguement de pénuries et d’allocations erronées des produits médicaux essentiels.

Lire l’article complet sur le site de Terra Nova.

“How the Ukraine War Must Remake Europe”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made Europe more united than it has ever been. The challenge now is to uphold this sense of common purpose, and build a stronger, more resilient, and more self-sufficient EU capable of advancing its geopolitical interests in a world of renewed great-power rivalry.

War has returned to Europe. One month ago, a European great power attacked its smaller neighbor – which it claims does not have the right to exist as a sovereign nation-state – and even threatened to deploy nuclear weapons against those that challenge it. With that, the world was fundamentally changed. Europe must change with it.

With his unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin deliberately destroyed the underpinnings of European peace and, to some extent, of the entire post-Cold War international order. Not only has the West’s diplomatic and economic relationship with Russia been decimated; direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia is a distinct possibility.

Read the rest of the article on Project Syndicate.

Michel Foucher : “La France est une puissance moyenne de rang mondial”

Michel Foucher est géographe, diplomate, conseille, ancien directeur du Centre de prévision du ministère des Affaires étrangères.Michel Foucher est géographe, diplomate, conseille, ancien directeur du Centre de prévision du ministère des Affaires étrangères. COLLECTION PERSONNELLE

Publié le 

DOSSIER “LA FRANCE DANS LE MONDE” – Géographe, Michel Foucher a enseigné à l’Institut d’études politiques de Paris, à l’École normale supérieure de la rue d’Ulm, contribue au “1” et au “Point”. Il fut aussi l’ambassadeur de la France en Lettonie.

Quel genre de puissance est aujourd’hui la France sur la scène internationale ?

La réponse la plus précise est de la définir comme une puissance moyenne de rang mondial. Puissance en raison de son passé, de sa langue, de son influence culturelle, de la connaissance que l’on a d’elle à l’extérieur, de son indépendance stratégique. Moyenne en raison de sa démographie et de son économie, par comparaison aux États-Unis et Chine, et même à l’Allemagne. De rang mondial avec le 4° réseau diplomatique, sa place au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies et dans les institutions internationales et son influence dans l’Union européenne. Il y a une quinzaine de puissances de ce type dans le monde. Sur 195 pays ce n’est déjà pas si mal.

Qu’incarne la France, en a-t-on une image positive ?

La France a une image assez nette, ce qui est déjà beaucoup. Elle est sur la carte mentale des autres. En même temps, son profil varie, ce n’est pas la même France selon que vous vous trouvez à Pékin, Berlin, Washington ou Moscou. Pays de la révolution en Chine, romantique aux USA, pays du débat politique en Italie, rivalité des proches au Royaume-Uni, pays de culture pour les Émirats Arabes Unis. Au Brésil, l’influence de la France est marquée sur le drapeau, la devise Ordre et progrès d’Auguste Comte.

Est-elle un interlocuteur que l’on entend, sollicite ?

Certainement, car la réputation de la France est sa capacité à émettre des idées, du moins si elle sait les partager avec d’autres. C’est un pays de penseurs, d’écrivains, littéraire, très innovant sur le plan diplomatique.

Pourquoi précisez-vous : “Si elle sait les partager avec d’autres” ?

Notre problème, et ce sont les limites de l’influence, est qu’on a le sentiment que quand on a énoncé quelque chose ça suffit. Autrement dit, le verbe tient lieu d’action, on a beaucoup de mal à faire le service après-vente, on ne travaille pas assez avec les autres. On le voit très bien avec le discours de la Sorbonne du Président de la république, en septembre 2017, sur la souveraineté européenne et la recherche de l’autonomie stratégique. Très bien. Il se trouve que l’agression russe lui donne raison, mais jusqu’en février 2022 personne ne comprenait de quoi il s’agissait, c’est une idée qui n’était pas partagée

La réputation de la France est sa capacité à émettre des idées, du moins si elle sait les partager

La France doit-elle pousser ainsi l’Europe pour avoir une taille plus critique ?

C’est l’évidence même car c’est en se rassemblant que l’on peut peser sur les règles dans un monde de rapports de force. Que représente son siège au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, à cet égard ? C’est une capacité de rappeler qu’il y a des règles de conduite dans les relations internationales, surtout en période de crise. Elle “tient” la plume au Conseil, prenant ainsi nombre d’initiatives dans la rédaction de projets de résolution, notamment ceux concernant des opérations de maintien de la paix importantes.

Mais cette influence n’est pas que géopolitique, non ?

Dans mes deux atlas (NDLR, Atlas de l’influence française au XXIe siècle, chez Laffont, et Atlas des mondes francophones, Grand Prix de l’Académie française en 2021, chez Marie B), j’insiste sur la culture dans tous les domaines, de la littérature à la BD, aux livres pour la jeunesse. Sur la langue, sur la richesse de la pensée, philosophie, sociologie, histoire, la recherche, l’économie ; sur le débat, comme ceux organisé par les Instituts français dans le monde, les seuls à le pratiquer. Oui, création, diffusion d’idées, innovation.

L’aspect philosophique, au sens des Lumières, joue-t-il dans la place que la France se donne dans le monde ?

Il y a sans aucun doute cet héritage du XVIIIe, qui a été décliné d’abord dans le droit international, droits de l’homme, droit humanitaire, qui doivent beaucoup aux juristes français qui ont plaidé pour leur caractère universel et pas seulement international. La Déclaration des droits de l’homme de 1958 est l’œuvre de René Cassin, comme la création de l’Organisation internationale du travail par Léon Bourgeois, etc. Il n’y a pas beaucoup de pays qui sont intéressés par la marche du monde, pensent à l’échelle mondiale. La France a participé à la majorité des grandes conférences internationales de sécurité, contribué à la création des organisations intergouvernementales. Les forums informels ont été lancés à Paris dès 1975, le G5 devenu G8, G7.

Cela trouve-t-il un écho chez les Français ?

L’engagement des dirigeants français dans les affaires du monde est soutenu par les électeurs, c’est incontestable.

Outremer : Des relais sur trois océans

162 îles, un immense territoire en Amérique du Sud. La France possède la deuxième zone économique exclusive derrière les États-Unis. 11,3 millions de km² qui lui “donnent une présence à travers tous les continents”, sur les océans Atlantique, Pacifique et Indien, décrit le géographe Jean-Christophe Gay, des richesses dont une part est encore un potentiel, mais une puissance relative. La présence armée y est “modeste”, relève ce professeur agrégé, ancien de l’université Paul-Valéry, en poste désormais à l’université Nice-Côte d’Azur. “Ce n’est peut-être pas le facteur de la puissance n°1, continue son collègue Alain Nonjon, mais ce sont des relais important pour sa projection. Et on peut penser, au regard des turbulences terrestres, que la mer est encore le plus sûr moyen pour défendre et approvisionner un pays.” Sur un plan économique, “les Terres australes et antarctiques françaises sont les plus exploitées à travers le poisson. La légine en particulier, vendue sur le marché japonais. C’est une vraie, vraie richesse.” Une autre tapisse les fonds de Clipperton, les nodules polymétalliques dont l’évolution des prix des métaux dira s’il sera demain rentable de les collecter. Au-delà, Jean-Christophe Gay souligne “la diversité extraordinaire” que représente cet ensemble épars et hétérogène, en même temps que “le laboratoire juridique, avec des choses très hardies”, qu’il a constitué pour la Métropole, en Polynésie et Nouvelle-Calédonie. “Des statuts, une autonomie, que la Corse regarde avec beaucoup d’attention.”

Lire l’interview sur le site de Midi Libre.

Freedom of opinion and fake news

Prince Michael of Liechtenstein at 2015 WPC

For democracy to flourish, we need to be more tolerant of opposing views.

Cartoon (fake news)
Phenomena like cancel culture are stifling open debate. © GIS

The term “fake news” has come to dominate society and the media. The definition of fake news is difficult to come by and is open to subjective assessment. There are plenty of examples throughout history of facts initially condemned by most people (even scientists) and whose dissemination was forbidden and criminalized, but which ended up proving true. One striking case is Galileo’s promotion of Copernican heliocentrism. Who decides what is fake news and what is not?

Over centuries, the free world gradually adopted the concept of freedom of opinion. It is one of humanity’s great achievements and allowed open society to develop. The competition of ideas continues to enrich humankind. Democracy feeds off divergent opinions and open debate, and even tolerates strongly conflicting or grotesque-appearing arguments. It must even tolerate instances of stupidity and when people ignore facts. A healthy, confident democracy should be able to cope with such factors.

Growing intolerance

Tolerance is an important foundation of a free society. Unfortunately, intolerance toward contrary opinions is growing. Cancel culture, support for particular views on gender, and, in the United States, the rise of critical race theory are radically suppressing debate and differing ideas. Twitter and Facebook censor certain messages, not limited to hate speech or other illegal activities.

Social media is widely blamed as the main source of fake news because there is no gatekeeper who limits what people can say. But realistically speaking, plenty of politicians, traditional media and public institutions – at the national and supranational level – frequently ignore facts or interpret them in the wrong way. This is certainly not good, but it normally backfires eventually. One example of this is how the head of the European Central Bank continues to declare that inflation will be “contained” – a statement that was accepted without question by most in the mainstream media.

This phenomenon shows the danger we face. The information behind this “news” was falsely interpreted or analyzed, based either on a hidden agenda or mere incompetence. The wrong policy decisions were made, and the damage was enormous.

Fake news debate

The debate on what fake news is, where it appears and what should be done about it rages on. Most people engaging in this debate agree that democracy thrives – as mentioned above – on an open exchange of differing opinions. However, in intellectual and social-science circles, as well as in established Western political parties, there is wide consensus that this discussion must take place within the parameters of commonly accepted facts and based on a certain social consensus. According to this view, obvious lies – especially those that do societal harm – should be eliminated.

We need to trust in citizens’ sound judgment.

We can agree that one should not lie. But who decides which lie can be disseminated and which cannot? Which lies are “obvious” and how does one manage the damage they do? As these questions are pushed aside, a “moralistic intolerance” is increasingly becoming apparent. This stance opens the door for arbitrary views and decisions. Canceling and intolerance present a big challenge to freedom.

Instead, we should increase the quality of information that citizens receive, decrease intellectual narrow-mindedness and reject the “harmonization” of opinions. Just a few months ago, people who doubted the effectiveness of vaccines against Covid-19 were marginalized and called “covidiots.” In the meantime, it was shown that while the vaccines did increase protection against the virus, breakthrough infections could occur. The arrogant way in which the doubters were demeaned, however, increased their opposition to the vaccine.

Politicians must learn to be clearer in what they say and more open in debate. It has come to a dangerous point when a president of the European Commission says, “When it becomes serious, you have to know how to lie” and a German chancellor declares that her decisions are “alternativlos” (without any alternative). At least we can recognize that the Commission president’s remarks contained a grain of sound cynicism. But not only do such statements produce fake “facts,” which naturally lead to fake news, they also create fertile ground for fake news to flourish.

A show of strength

Western Europe should also show strength in the face of the war in Ukraine. Russian news channels such as Russia Today have been blocked in many European countries. Yes, the quality of its news is highly debatable, some of its stories have been clearly wrong and its interpretations have distorted the truth. But the question is whether a healthy, free society needs this act of censorship.

Banning such channels creates more conspiracy theories than would showing benign tolerance, which is a sign of strength. Most people – especially those entitled to vote – should be able to distinguish nonsense from reality. The minority that believes the disinformation will only see the banning of such media as support for their unreasonable views.

We need to trust in citizens’ sound judgment. Frequently, they have more common sense than the arrogant, self-declared “moral judges” in intellectual circles, positions of authority, academia and politics. Also, the media should be more courageous. It should think creatively and step out of its established comfort zone. Most importantly, it should be more tolerant.

Read the original article on the site of GIS.

Philippe Baptiste : “Le programme européen spatial est fragilisé par la guerre en Ukraine”

Ce vendredi 18 mars, Philippe Baptiste, président du CNES, est revenu sur les conséquences de laguerre en Ukraine sur les programmes spatiaux, dont la mission ExoMars avec les Russes, dans l’émission Good Morning Business présentée par Sandra Gandoin et Christophe Jakubyszyn. Good Morning Business est à voir ou écouter du lundi au vendredi sur BFM Business.

Regarder son intervention sur le site de BFM TV.

A tale of two summits

The Negev Summit was at once a spectacular success and one of the most flagrant displays of Israeli diplomatic incompetence in history.

The just-concluded Sde Boker summit was at once a tremendous and moving success and an unmitigated disaster. It was in fact two summits happening at the same time.

The first was an Arab-Israeli summit and revolved around Arab-Israeli dynamics unimaginable only a few years ago, not only in their warmth but also in the seriousness of common strategic purpose. That aspect proceeded almost in complete obliviousness to the American elephant in the room. It was symbolized by the astonishing and heart-capturing speech by the United Arab Emirate’s foreign minister, His Excellency Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in which he expressed his regret for knowing so little about Israel and his determination to remedy that.

The second summit was the U.S.-Israeli-Arab regional meeting, where America attempted to redefine the agenda and interject itself between Israelis and Arabs. In the process, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken reflected not only his irrelevance but the harm of U.S. involvement at this point, based on its Middle East team’s haughty and increasingly hostile policy toward the states attending.

In truth, the summit should have been an Israeli-Arab summit only, namely an escalated continuation of the Sharm el-Sheikh summit, with no American presence. Its purpose should have been strategic planning among regional partners for a period of American absence or even hostility, and to establish an independent regional cooperative structure that deals with global crises in unison (such as the impending grain and raw materials shortages).

Bringing in the United States changed the summit’s dynamics and transformed part of it into a catastrophe. By doing so, the summit hosts—the Israelis themselves—empowered the Biden team to reassert its primary goals of:

1. Maintaining control of allies over whom Washington was rapidly losing control due to its betrayal of them;

2. Sabotaging the operational cooperation emerging among regional partners to create an effective strategy of confrontation and even war against Iran;

3. Reasserting the primacy of America’s obsession with the Palestinian issue and transforming the achievement of the Trump-era Abraham Accords into another chapter of Palestine-first failure. The statement by Blinken at the edge of the summit not only captured this aim perfectly, but also humiliated the Israeli host and registered a partisan dig at the previous administration by forwarding the idea that the Abraham Accords were neither significant nor a real peace, saying these “agreements are not a substitute for progress between Palestinians and Israelis.”

4. Putting Israel on the defensive on regional issues by publicly blaming and shaming it in front of its regional partners for its implied intransigence, its settling of Judea and Samaria, the failure of the Palestinian issue and its alleged tolerance of settler violence against Arabs.

At the press conference just preceding the summit, no mention was made of Palestinian terror (which had already claimed four elderly Israeli lives the day before), the P.A.’s refusal to negotiate with the Israelis directly for the previous decade, the constant incitement that led to a dangerous war last year and threatens an internal uprising of Israeli Arabs, and the persistence of the P.A. “pay for slay” policy.

The focus, stated bluntly, was “curbing settlement expansion, settler violence… and halting evictions of Palestinians from their homes.” Standing next to Israel’s prime minister while saying this, Blinken made no mention of the facts that settler violence is negligible compared to the volume and lethality of violence against Israelis, or that the planned eviction was of Arab squatters in houses which Jews have held deeds to for the last 100 year or more.

Worse were the optics in a regional cultural framework. For a guest to so humiliate his host in front of other guests is, in Arab culture, tantamount to political castration.

This all had the result of forcing a wedge and exposing a strategic disconnect between Israel—who still grovel in the unrealistic hope that the Biden administration can “be brought back around”—and the Arabs, who have concluded that this administration is irreconcilably hostile to their interests. Thus, the United States also tarnished Israel’s image as a strong horse worthy of an alliance.

Even more disturbing was the news that Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz—who embodies the collective Israeli defense establishment and its “concept”—even tried to insert Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah of Jordan, who increasingly sets the aim of Jordanian foreign policy as being to champion Palestinian Arab nationalism. Gantz’s thankfully failed intervention reveals a depth of misunderstanding of regional political and geo-strategic dynamics that would be mind-numbing if it were not so horrifying.

Instead of this summit being only and unequivocally a meeting of regional allies to plan for a period of American absence or even American hostility, it became also an Israeli-sponsored diminishing of the Jewish state by the U.S. Secretary of State. Israel owes considerable gratitude to the UAE and Bahrain, as well as the other Arab participants, for at least balancing the spectacular failure of this “second” summit with the even more spectacular success of the Arab-Israeli “first” summit.

Sadly, as an American patriot, I have come to the conclusion that the only way the dynamics unleashed by the United States’ disruptions before and at the summit could have been salvaged would have been by a strong and public Israeli rebuke of Blinken.

Such an act would become a public admission by Israel—and a clarion call to its friends in the United States—that it faces a U.S. administration animated by the hostility of its progressive camp and/or BDS-sympathetic Middle East appointees. Such a rebuke would have put Blinken in a terrible position in front of cameras and signaled to the United States that it was losing all residual regional credibility (the last pockets of which were among Israeli defense and foreign policy elites).

But it would have also demonstrated to the Arabs in attendance that Israel was on the same page as they were, and is a strong ally confident that it can stand on its own, even in the face of tension with this U.S. administration.

Instead, the Israeli government left this second summit’s challenge unanswered. In doing so, this “second” concurrent summit will stand as a spectacular display of Israeli weakness and represents one of the most incompetent Israeli diplomatic meltdowns I have ever seen—and all of it self-inflicted.

Read the original article on the site of JNS.