CHRONIQUE – Notre pays est la seule puissance qui souhaite sincèrement la réussite du développement africain.
Pour le deuxième déplacement international de son deuxième mandat, du 25 au 28 juillet 2022, Emmanuel Macron a décidé de se rendre en Afrique (Cameroun, Bénin, Guinée-Bissau). Le président de la République estime, à juste titre, que les destins de la France et du continent africain sont étroitement liés.
Qu’est-ce à dire? La réponse est simple: quand la France réussit en Afrique, c’est bon pour l’Afrique et quand l’Afrique se développe, c’est bon pour la France.
La politique du «pré carré», qui consiste pour Paris à s’intéresser en priorité aux pays issus des anciennes Afrique occidentale et Afrique équatoriale françaises (AOF et AEF) est-elle condamnable? Absolument pas. Les liens historiques, politiques, économiques, linguistiques, culturels, et disons-le tout net, affectifs, tissés avec ces territoires depuis Jules Ferry, ont forgé un magnifique patrimoine humain commun qu’il serait honteux de laisser en déshérence.
Lire l’article dans son intégralité sur le site du Figaro.
UAE, Kuwait expected to send their envoys back to Tehran in coming days, says Iranian foreign minister
Syed Zafar Mehdi | 22.07.2022
Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian
TEHRAN, Iran
Iran’s foreign minister said Saudi Arabia has expressed its readiness to advance the tension-easing talks between the two estranged neighbors from the security to the political level.
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian made the remarks in an interview with Iran’s state TV late on Thursday, noting progress in the Baghdad-brokered talks that have been underway since last April.
Iran’s top diplomat said they received a message from Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein last week, who said that the Saudis were ready to advance the talks to the “political and public level.”
Iran, he added, also expressed its readiness to continue the ongoing talks brokered by the Iraqi government to the political level to restore their diplomatic ties.
The two Persian Gulf neighbors severed their diplomatic relations in 2016 after protesters stormed Saudi diplomatic missions in Tehran and Mashhad over the execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a prominent Shia cleric in Saudi Arabia.
After almost five years, the two neighbors last year agreed to hold peace talks mediated by Baghdad. While both sides have noted progress in the talks, a significant breakthrough has been eluding.
Amir-Abdollahian said the two countries have reached some agreements in the five rounds of talks, including on the reopening of embassies, lending credence to reports already doing rounds.
Pertinently, last week, after the Jeddah summit, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan said Riyadh has “extended a hand of friendship to Iran.” The comments were welcomed by Tehran.
Iran’s top diplomat also announced that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait would be sending their ambassadors to Tehran “in a few days,” saying the two countries introduced their envoys, and Tehran agreed with the choices.
His remarks came almost a week after UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash said Abu Dhabi was considering reinstating its ambassador to Iran, seeking enhanced economic ties with the country.
“We are now indeed considering sending an ambassador to Iran,” Gargash told journalists. “The next decade cannot be like the last decade. It is a decade where ‘de-escalation’ should be the keyword.”
Amir-Abdollahian also informed that Kuwait, which also snapped its diplomatic ties with Iran over the same incident in 2016, will be sending its envoy back to Tehran in the coming days.
In May, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi called for the restoration of Tehran-Kuwait relations to “their true capacities” amid his government’s outreach to Iran’s neighbors.
What effect does having women in executive roles have on the bottom line?
A survey of 21,980 publicly traded companies in 91 countries demonstrated that the presence of more female leaders in top positions of corporate management correlates with increased profitability of these companies, according to a paper published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The 35-page report, “Is Gender Diversity Profitable? Evidence from a Global Survey,” was written by Marcus Noland, Tyler Moran, and Barbara Kotschwar and supported by a major research grant from EY. The research is made up of rigorous data analysis of gender diversity and corporate profitability.
The study shows that the extent of gender diversity and its relationship to profitability varies robustly by country, sector of the economy, and by policies towards female work opportunities. The research finds no evidence that, by itself, having a female CEO is related to increased profitability, but there is some evidence that having women on a board may help—and robust evidence that women in the C-level (as in CEO, CFO and COO of management) is associated with higher profitability. In 2014 data, the study finds that nearly a third of companies globally have no women in either board or C-suite positions, 60 percent have no female board members, 50 percent have no female top executives, and fewer than 5 percent have a female CEO.
The PIIE report also found strong positive correlations between gender diversity in company size, the size of the company as well as national policies for women’s education, family leave, and the absence of discriminatory attitudes toward female executives. The study found that national averages for women’s participation on boards range across countries from 4 percent to roughly 40 percent, and that there is greater female representation on board and corporate leadership positions in the financial, healthcare, utility, and telecommunications sectors than in sectors such as basic materials, technology, energy, and industry. This is consistent with the authors’ interpretation that what matters most for gender diversity is creating a pipeline of women into corporate management, from elementary education through child-bearing years.
“We have found that some policy initiatives are more promising than others to deliver benefits while promoting gender equality, and that the emphasis should be on increasing diversity in corporate management broadly,” said Adam S. Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “At a minimum, the results from our unique global study, generously supported by EY, strongly suggest the positive impact of gender diversity on firm performance and identify in which sectors and countries the most progress on diversity needs to be made.”
“The impact of having more women in senior leadership on net margin, when a third of companies studies do not, begs the question of what the global economic impact would be if more women rose in the ranks,” said Stephen R. Howe, Jr., EY’s US chairman and Americas managing partner. “The research demonstrates that while increasing the number of women directors and CEOs is important, growing the percentage of female leaders in the C-suite would likely benefit the bottom line even more.”
Après le bombardement russe du port d’Odessa samedi, l’accord conclu la veille entre l’Ukraine et la Russie, et prévoyant des couloirs sécurisés pour exporter par la mer Noire 20 à 25 millions de tonnes de céréales ukrainiennes, est fragilisé, sinon caduc. De quoi doucher les espoirs des pays africains de voir se calmer les prix de leurs importations alimentaires et de leurs engrais.
L’Afrique pouvait attendre de l’accord entre l’Ukraine et la Russie une baisse des cours mondiaux des céréales, en particulier du blé. Mais selon le spécialiste des matières premières, Philippe Chalmin, le bombardement d’Odessa remet en cause les espérances du continent. « C’est vrai qu’avec un accord, les prix auraient eu logiquement tendance à baisser. Et qu’à la suite du bombardement du port d’Odessa, le mouvement [de baisse] va être enrayé. Manifestement, ce n’est pas demain ni même après-demain que des céréales ukrainiennes vont pouvoir librement sortir des ports ukrainiens », estime-t-il.
Faire pression sur l’Union européenne
Grâce à l’accord, l’embargo sur les engrais russes aurait dû être levé, ce qui aurait entraîné une baisse des prix des fertilisants, déjà très chers à cause de l’envolée des prix du gaz qui les compose. Il est urgent, souligne Philippe Chalmin de mettre en place des routes alternatives terrestres pour les céréales et les engrais ukrainiens.
« L’Afrique n’a pas grand-chose à espérer de ces mouvements diplomatiques. Et il me semble qu’il vaudrait mieux qu’elle fasse pression sur l’Union européenne pour que celle-ci finance – ce qui ne serait pas très élevé d’ailleurs – les capacités terrestres, notamment ferroviaires, pour sortir par la terre les céréales ukrainiennes, les amener sur le Danube, et pouvoir les exporter au départ des ports roumains ou bulgares. »
Les États africains devront aussi, selon le chercheur, mettre en place des politiques agricoles réduisant leur dépendance alimentaire.
U.S.-Chinese Competition Is Getting Sharper—but Doesn’t Necessarily Have to Get More Dangerous
By Kevin Rudd
In the year and a half since President Joe Biden took office, competition between the United States and China has only intensified. Rather than dismantle former President Donald Trump’s tough policies toward Beijing, Biden has largely continued them, underscoring that the two powers are almost certainly headed for a protracted period of sharp and militarily dangerous strategic rivalry. But that doesn’t mean that the United States and China are moving inexorably toward crisis, escalation, conflict, or even war. To the contrary, Beijing and Washington may be groping toward a new set of stabilizing arrangements that could limit—though not eliminate—the risk of sudden escalation.
Assessing the state of U.S.-Chinese relations at any given time is never easy, given the difficulty of distinguishing between what each side says about the other publicly—often for domestic political effect—and what each is actually doing behind the scenes. Yet despite the harsh and often heated rhetoric, some early signs of stabilization have emerged, including the tentative reconstitution of a form of political and security dialogue aimed at managing tensions.
Such stabilization falls well short of normalization, which would mean restoring comprehensive political, economic, and multilateral engagement. The days of normalization have been consigned to history. But stabilization would nonetheless be significant. It would mean the difference between strategic competition that is managed through steadying guardrails and competition that is unmanaged—that is, driven by a process of push and shove, primarily by each country’s military, in the hope that on any given day no one pushes too far. The question for both sides, and for the countries that are caught in the middle of this titanic struggle for the future of the regional and global orders, is what kind of strategic competition they will pursue.
A trilateral meeting of the leaders of Iran, Russia and Turkey seemed to suggest a new anti-American alliance. But there are major fissures between the countries, too.
By Steven Erlanger
BRUSSELS — Commenting on the visit of Vladimir V. Putin to Iran, a member of the Russian Parliament and television talking head, Yevgeny G. Popov, said that the two countries hoped to form an “axis of good,” mocking former President George W. Bush’s description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil.”
Trolling American foreign-policy blunders and rhetoric is a popular sport in Russia, from Mr. Putin, the president, on down, but the growing affection between Russia and Iran is that of two isolated, sanctions-stricken countries whose main connection is their active opposition to the United States, its allies and its domination of the multilateral world order.
While the United States likes to wrap its alliances in grandiloquent words about shared values and democracy, Russia, Iran and China, Moscow’s other openly supportive pal and American rival, are far more transactional in their connections.
But transactional relations do not make for lasting alliances or disguise the strains within them.
“Russia is isolated on the global stage in a way it’s never been,” said Charles A. Kupchan, a former American official who is a professor at Georgetown University. “Putin is looking for recognition and acceptance wherever he can get it, and that he can get it in Tehran speaks volumes.”
Even China, which has stood by its anti-American partnership with Russia, “has carefully kept its distance from the war in Ukraine,” Mr. Kupchan said. “And even though the lion’s share of the world’s countries aren’t enforcing the sanctions regime against Russia, they get it: that Russia’s invasion was a bald act of aggression.”
Read the full article on the site of the New York Times.
Following the wake of the war in Ukraine, a global panic has set in with the rising cost of living and prophets of doom predicting swelling inflation.
While the alarm bell is ringing for many, a former World Bank chief says anxious rhetoric could make matters worse and that the global economic model must be reinvented to prevent rising inequality.
The world order shifted after Russian president Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine in late February, prompting the West to slap sanctions on Russia which in turn have caused Putin to weaponise Russian gas exports to Europe.
“The issue is that the more you repeat things, the more central banks move in that direction, the more it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Bertrand Badré, who was also the chief financial officer of the World Bank, said in an interview with Euronews Next at the International Financial Forum in Paris.
“We have to kind of see what’s going on, not ignore the signals. Be cautious but also not just jump to conclusions,” he said.
But those signals point to a downturn that was worse than predicted.
Last week, the European Commission revised its inflation forecast for 2022 from 6.1 per cent to 7.6 per cent.
Many economists are predicting a recession for the eurozone but for the moment, European officials are keeping tight-lipped on that possibility. However, Badré does not believe the current economic woes will be as bad as the 2008 financial crisis.
“I don’t think there is a Lehman Brothers in the making,” he said.
“So, there are tensions; obviously, there’s a war in Ukraine. But at the same time, the pricing of agricultural and energy products are coming a little bit down”.
Badré, who authored the book Can Finance Save the World, said governments should be working together and not build walls during this period, which is not happening at the moment.
“I think none of these issues will be solved by a country alone,” he said, adding that if countries isolate themselves it will be “damaging for everybody”.
“Now is the time for some relocation of production, now is the time for being more cautious with your supply, but it’s also time to work together”.
After his tenure at the World Bank, Badré founded and is the chief executive officer of BlueOrange Capital, an investment fund that aims to finance the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.
The 54-year-old said as the world order changes and the current model of globalisation is questioned, people should also be thinking about what he calls “planetarisation,” issues the planet is facing such as climate, biodiversity and refugees
“We should not move away from the planet. We have to move away from a certain form of globalisation which was put together over the past 50 years. I think it is responsible for the limits we see today,” he said.
Asked if the financial worries could impact investment on green and sustainable investment, Badré said this is the ultimate “acid test” and that this is the moment “to stay firm” and not deviate from sustainable goals.
How to solve inequality
The global economy was already battered by the impact of lockdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic before the ripple effects of the war in Ukraine hit the world’s financial systems.
Commodity prices have as a result reached record highs, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in April said food prices are 34 per cent higher than this time last year, and have never been this high since FAO started keeping record.
Rising food prices, energy prices and tightening financial conditions have caused inequality to increase.
Badré said stopgap measures, for instance, government cash handouts to those most affected or systems such as a universal basic income or taxing the rich, only really work on the surface.
He believes the whole economic model needs reinventing to prevent inequality.
“Quick fixes are like the pediment sequences from Rome. ‘Give them something so they don’t bother us,’ though I think it’s not respectful at all,” Badré said.
The real solution, he says, is to work on education, training and salaries, which he calls the “bread and butter of the economy between the 1940s and 1980s” which have been dismantled.
“The quick fixes are worth being discussed but I think it’s mostly symbolic or marginal,” Badré said.
“The real fix would be to really provide opportunities for everybody within the system, not repair from the outside”.
Read the original article on the site of euronews.
La société russe Gazprom doit rouvrir jeudi le gazoduc Nord Stream I après une maintenance de dix jours. Si ce n’est pas le cas, l’Europe doit se préparer à des mois difficiles, explique Philippe Chalmin.
“Si vraiment la Russie ferme le robinet” du gaz “l’Europe sera très mal à l’automne”, prévient Philippe Chalmin, spécialiste des questions énergétiques, sur franceinfo mercredi 20 juillet. “On va le savoir dans quelques jours”, précise le spécialiste. La maintenance, en cours depuis le 11 juillet, sur le gazoduc Nord Stream I doit se terminer normalement jeudi. Si le robinet n’est pas rouvert, l’Europe doit se préparer à des mois difficiles : “Nous n’aurons pas suffisamment de gaz. La sobriété devra s’imposer aux Européens.” Le porte-monnaie des ménages pourrait aussi souffrir de cette crise énergétique qui touche la France, car “le prix de l’électricité est à peu près corrélé au prix du gaz naturel”, explique-t-il.
La Russie peut-elle vraiment nous couper totalement le gaz ?
Philippe Chalmin : C’est tout à fait plausible et à la limite, on va le savoir dans quelques jours. À l’heure actuelle, la Russie a coupé le gaz vers l’Europe pour des raisons techniques. Chaque année, le gazoduc Nord Stream I est en maintenance. Elle a commencé le 11 juillet et se termine normalement le 21 juillet. La grosse interrogation est de savoir si les Russes vont reprendre leur livraison ou s’ils vont arguer de nouveaux problèmes techniques.
Gazprom, la société d’État russe qui est l’interlocuteur des gaziers européens, leur a envoyé le 14 juillet une lettre disant et arguant de la probable difficulté de livrer du gaz pour des raisons techniques et veut faire état de ce qu’on appelle la situation de “force majeure”. “Force majeure”, c’est lorsque vous n’êtes pas en état de respecter un contrat. On voit que Gazprom essaye de maintenir les formes, mais manifestement, le gouvernement russe utilise l’arme du gaz et surtout fait tout son possible pour éviter que l’Europe ne continue à remplir ses capacités de stockage pour essayer d’aborder l’hiver avec le plus de stock de gaz possible.
Quelle peut être la riposte européenne ?
On n’a pas grand-chose. Très franchement, les solutions, on les connaît. On a des centrales à charbon, on essaye de louer le plus possible de terminaux flottants pour recevoir du gaz naturel liquéfié, le gaz de schiste américain. On n’est plus du tout regardant. De toute manière, si vraiment la Russie ferme le robinet, l’Europe sera très mal à l’automne. Nous n’aurons pas suffisamment de gaz ou du moins, nous n’aurons pas suffisamment de gaz dans les endroits où il en faut, notamment en Allemagne. Il y aura des problèmes régionaux d’approvisionnement de gaz.
D’autant plus que notre réseau de distribution du gaz en Europe, les gazoducs, n’est pas équipé pour ce type de situation. On a un réseau à l’intérieur de l’Europe qui est conçu essentiellement avec l’arrivée de gaz venant du nord de l’Europe. Nous avions essentiellement du gaz russe qui passait au départ par l’Ukraine, la Pologne et qui maintenant passe pour l’essentiel par ce célèbre gazoduc Nord Stream I qui passe sous la Baltique. En plus, nous n’avons pas les sites de regazéification où arrivent les méthaniers qui apportent du gaz naturel liquéfié. Ces sites sont plutôt dans la péninsule ibérique. On en a en France, mais il n’y en aurait pratiquement pas dans le nord de l’Europe. Il n’y en a pas en Allemagne non plus.
La sobriété va forcément s’imposer à nous ?
C’est évident. La sobriété et au passage, il faut quand même le signaler, une contrainte de prix. Le gaz naturel dans les années 2010, donc de 2010 à 2019, ça valait sur le marché entre 5 et 15 euros le mégawattheure. Aujourd’hui, nous sommes à 150 euros. Nous ne le ressentons pas, nous les ménages, puisque le prix du gaz est plafonné en France. Mais il ne faut pas se faire d’illusions. Les entreprises commencent déjà à payer le prix du marché. Et puis, un jour, ce sera peut-être aussi le tour des ménages. Derrière le gaz, il faut se rendre compte qu’il y a aussi le prix de l’électricité puisque grossièrement, le prix de l’électricité est à peu près corrélé au prix du gaz naturel.
In seeking to build a lasting peace after decades of mass violence, the World War II generation declared aggression the highest international crime, and made territorial integrity the foundation stone of the global order. Nothing good could come from allowing these principles to be eroded.
STOCKHOLM – After World War II, global diplomatic efforts sought to create a new international order that would prevent the world from descending into war, chaos, and anarchy again. A major part of that project was to refine the international legal order by establishing tribunals to prosecute war crimes. Hearings held in Nuremberg and Tokyo established that aggression is the “supreme international crime” – one for which leaders from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were sentenced to death.
The Nuremberg Tribunal’s judgment was very clear on this point: “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Since then, the international order has rested on the territorial integrity of states. To challenge this core principle with a violent act of aggression – the supreme international crime – is to put the entire world at risk of sinking into disorder, chaos and war.
BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union started membership negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia on Tuesday, a long-delayed step in the Balkan nations’ paths toward EU membership that gained momentum amid the war in Ukraine.
Officially, the process kicked off with the presentation of the negotiating frameworks, which allow the bloc’s head office to screen how prepared each country is to take on all the EU’s laws, rules and regulations.
The move comes at a crucial time for the EU, which in June made Ukraine and neighboring Moldova candidates for membership even though Western Balkan nations were kept waiting in line for a long time. North Macedonia and Albania became EU candidates 19 years ago, but their accession talks never commenced.
“This is not the beginning of the end, it is just the end of the beginning,” Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama said. “We need this to continue to build a strong, democratic, European Albania and a strong, democratic, Western and open Balkans.”
Any expansion beyond the 27 current EU members is likely to still be years off. Despite the delay, the Western Balkan nations have maintained their ambition to become part of the world’s most important trade bloc and pushed for progress.
“Today, Albania and North Macedonia open accession negotiations with the EU. This historic moment is your success. The result of your hard work,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told Rama and Prime Minister Dimitar Kovacevski of North Macedonia, .
Especially for North Macedonia, the past years have been trying. Disputes with Greece and then Bulgaria prevented the country’s bid from moving forward because any move by the EU to add new members requires unanimous agreement from existing ones.
It was only last week that the North Macedonian parliament approved an agreement overcoming Bulgaria’s objections and cleared the way for the negotiations to start, Bulgaria had held up any progress on the accession talks, accusing North Macedonia’s government of disrespecting shared cultural, linguistic and historic ties.
Kovacevski said he was particularly enthusiastic about promoting his country’s language.
“This opens doors for our Macedonian language to become one of the official languages of the European Union, something that I personally see as the greatest achievement, the greatest success,” he said.
U.S. President Joe Biden hailed the launch of Albania and North Macedonia’s accession talks and said Washington would “continue to be a strong and reliable partner as those nations work to defend human rights, strengthen democratic reforms, and uphold the rule of law.”
“In a moment when Russia has shattered peace in Europe, it is more important than ever to support the aspiration for a Europe whole, free, and at peace,” said Biden. “A democratic, secure, and prosperous Western Balkans remains essential to this vision.”
When G20 Finance Ministers meet this weekend in Bali, their meeting will likely be no more harmonious than their Foreign Minister counterparts managed ten days ago. But the world, and developing countries in particular, deserves better. The reality for the world’s poorest countries is getting bleaker by the day, and decisions taken by G20 Finance Ministers can avert complete collapse.
An economic tsunami is about to engulf the developing world and many poor countries are simply not prepared to deal with the economic, social, and political consequences. When daily life is disrupted by fuel and medicine shortages, power supply is turned off because every kilowatt hour sold costs more than consumers can afford to pay, and rising food bills consume much of meager household incomes, any spark can trigger a blaze of discontent. Sri Lanka is a visible example of how quickly economic crisis can lead to societal collapse. But sporadic protests are breaking out in many countries where governments are struggling to balance popular expectations with harsh financial realities.
The first responsibility for weathering the storm is with the leaders of the countries most at risk. Many of them had set forth 2022 budgetary plans to launch the recovery, increase investments, build reserves and pull back on COVID-19 induced spending. Others have been slower to act and will be more vulnerable. But all of them are constrained by a common reality: this crisis comes sharp on the heels of a devastating pandemic from which they have not yet emerged and during which they used up what little financial space existed to support households and firms. Unlike many in the G20, these poor countries cannot just print more money or borrow from international financial markets at concessional rates. They stand naked in the face of this onslaught.
G20 leaders cannot make the storm go away but they can help the poorest countries get better prepared to face it. Even as they struggle to find common ground on much else, here are five decisions they could make this weekend to positively improve the lives of a billion people living in the poorest countries in the world.
First, fund the World Food Program and avert the worst famine in a decade. According to WFP’s latest analysis, a record 345 million people are on the brink of starvation and 50 million are on the brink of famine. As the fallout of the war in Ukraine compounds hunger caused by conflict, climate shocks, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and rising food prices, WFP needs $22 billion to avert catastrophe. Hard-earned development gains and millions of lives are at stake.
Second, immediate liquidity is needed for the developing countries which are now facing a more severe economic shock than faced during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The fastest way to do this is by deferring debt repayments. The G20 can itself extend to end-2023 the bilateral Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) it so wisely put in place in 2020. However, we can also learn from two years of implementation and extend the repayment period over three years so countries do not face a steep bullet in 2024. This could defer at least $15 billion in debt service payments which could be used to provide safety nets for the most vulnerable. An enhanced DSSI initiative would go further by securing more robust creditor participation from all G20 creditors and the private sector.
Also on debt, the IMF should be asked to restart its own debt service relief program through the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT), which provided nearly $1 billion of relief during the pandemic to 31 vulnerable countries.
Third, developing countries urgently need more grant and concessional resources. An immediate step would be to ask the International Financial Institutions to respond to this crisis with the same scale and urgency as they announced for the pandemic. The IMF still has a formidable $700 billion of unused resources that could be deployed to contain the worst impact of the crisis. For the World Bank, IDA could be accelerated to reach $50 billion IDA program this year, and its equity could be used more aggressively to go even further. The G20 can also give a green light to some of the proposals for channeling surplus SDRs to the countries that need them most. A bolder step bring advocated by African Finance Ministers is the issuance of a second round of SDRs to shore up country reserves and strengthen their currencies.
Fourth, it is time to accept that the current debt management and resolution system is not working, largely because the G20 cannot agree among themselves on burden sharing, particularly with new creditors like China. As a result, the Common Framework is stuck and the three countries that have entered into a Kafkaesque process see no light at the end of the tunnel. The World Bank thinks as many as a dozen countries will need some form of debt treatment. Unless they can be offered a fast-paced and more predictable debt resolution framework, they will likely allow economic problems to fester and delay coming for the help they clearly need to get out of the crisis. Well defined proposals are already on the table to make the Common Framework fit for purpose: – including the IMF conducting transparent assessment of the debt relief needed, introducing comparability of treatment, and giving greater ownership of the process to new creditors. The IMF could introduce lending into arrears for countries undergoing restructuring – acting as a liquidity support tool – while implementing a full moratorium on payments during debt restructuring negotiations could also provide needed liquidity. The Bali meeting is the moment for G20 ministers to seize the mantle and adopt these proposals.
Finally, the G20 needs to agree how to get grain, fertilizer, and fuel shipping again from Russia and Ukraine. Costs for these products have as much as tripled, leading governments to spend substantial amounts on subsidies for food and fuel, placing stress on national budgets – and taking away from social protection programs. High fertilizer costs also jeopardize the productivity of planting seasons, further decreasing future food supplies. The sooner these products can flow again, the sooner prices will ease for essential imports.
The G20 acted swiftly and decisively during the COVID crisis. Today, the poorest countries are confronting a challenge which is bigger, more damaging and whose scarring potential is immense. The leaders know the remedies and have the authority to deploy them to demonstrate true solidarity with the poorest countries. They must make the meeting in Bali meaningful for all.
TOKYO — U.S. security allies in Asia and Europe are now closer to each other than ever, as seen in the first participation of Japan, Australia, South Korea and New Zealand in a NATO summit late last month.
Le samedi 09 Juillet dernier en Sri Lanka, des milliers de manifestants en colère ont envahi le palais présidentiel obligeant le chef de l’Etat à prendre la poudre d’escampette. Cette actualité ne laisse pas indifférent le banquier d’affaire, Lionel Zinsou qui a exprimé son inquiétude sur la fragilité des démocraties émergeantes dans le monde.
Dans un entretien accordé au site Suisse Brick et rapporté par le quotidien « LNT », l’ancien premier ministre béninois Lionel Zinsou s’est prononcé sur la situation en Sri Lanka qui selon lui est l’expression de la fragilité des démocraties émergeantes dans le monde.
En effet, excédés par la crise économique dont l’une des causes est la grande corruption au sommet de l’Etat, des manifestants ont investi le palais présidentiel contraignant le président Gotabaya Rajapaksa à fuir son lieu de travail. Evoquant la situation dans ce pays à régime démocratique socialiste, le banquier d’affaire Lionel Zinsou pense que la situation en Sri Lanka concerne tout le monde « et ne doit surtout pas laisser indifférent ».
« Dans le cas du Sri Lanka, le régime autoritaire des Rajapaksa n’était plus en mesure d’assurer le maintien de l’ordre. Or, cette question se pose dans d’autres pays, y compris les démocraties comme l’Afrique du Sud« , a fait remarquer le banquier d’affaire pour qui, le pire de la situation mondiale actuelle, est la fragilité des démocraties émergeantes.
La situation de Sri Lanka guette la Tunisie…
Pour l’économiste franco-béninois, les situations comme celles du genre actuellement en cours en Sri Lanka prennent leur source dans la crise surtout économique. A croire le banquier d’affaire, lorsque les populations sont à bout de souffre et n’arrivent plus à s’en sortir, il faut des institutions assez fortes pour résister.
Dans ce genre de contexte, plusieurs régimes surtout les régimes totalitaires font usage de la force pour empêcher les populations de manifester. D’autres régimes comme c’est le cas en Afrique du Sud font l’option du dialogue. Dans tous les cas, prévient l’ancien premier ministre béninois, la situation ne doit laisser indifférente personne.
Il pense même que la Tunisie est menacée par ce qui s’est passé en Sri Lanka si rien n’est fait pour améliorer la situation dans ce pays. L’économiste trouve quand même des situations atténuantes en Tunisie. A le croire, « les tunisiens ont des ressources , pétrole et phosphate qui pourraient être bien mieux valorisées et rapporter bien plus à la collectivité« .
Louise Mushikiwabo was named as secretary general of L’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) in 2018. Rwanda is in the unique position of having temporary stewardship of arguably both the most influential English and French speaking organisation in the world. File photo
As Kigali hosted the 47th l’Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) which concluded on 9th July 2022, the conference was a timely reminder of the need to maintain and rebuild the usage of French in schools and in every day life in Rwanda and cement the country’s status as a multilingual country.
In 2018, former foreign minister, Hon Louise Mushikiwabo was named as secretary general of L’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF), an organisation with 54 full members containing a population of one billion people, dedicated to promoting the French language and cultural and linguistic diversity, peace, democracy and human rights; to support education, training, higher education and research; and to foster economic cooperation to bolster sustainable development.
The move came after an eight-year cooling of relations between Kigali and Paris following Rwanda accusing France of being complicit in the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi which culminated in Rwanda dropping the French language from the school syllabus.
Upon her appointment in 2018, Mushikiwabo said, “As secretary-general, I intend to give importance to French in an increasingly multilingual world because I am convinced that French has its place among other languages and for the good of the world.”
Following President HE Paul Kagame’s taking over the chairmanship of The Commonwealth during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) which took place in Kigali the previous week, Rwanda is in the unique position of having temporary stewardship of arguably both the most influential English speaking organisation in the world and the most influential French speaking organisation in the world.
This puts Rwanda in a strong position to achieve its strategy of becoming an international hub for business, particularly as a location for businesses to place their African headquarters.
The recently established Kigali International Financial Centre (KIFC) seems to be the main conduit to turn this ambition into a reality.
It has legal and regulatory standards for compliant and safe financial transactions comparable to world leading financial centres enabling the use of investment vehicles which address the needs of the local ecosystem and structuring of cross-border transactions.
With an average annual growth rate of 8.6 per cent over the past ten years, Rwanda is one of Africa’s fastest growing economies which with the addition of the KIFC is now poised to become one of the continent’s leading financial centres.
Rwanda is ranked second in sub-Saharan Africa in the World Global Rule of Law Index and second for ease of doing business. Rwanda is also recognised as among the least corrupt and safest countries on the continent.
Rwanda has established a strong Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) network with many countries and the country is extending its network in Africa and with leading developing economies and entered into Investment Protection Agreements with several other countries.
The country’s position in holding temporary stewardship of both The Commonwealth and L’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie allows the opportunity for Rwanda to act as the gateway for Anglophone businesses to open up opportunities in Francophone Africa and for Francophone businesses to open up opportunities in Anglophone Africa.
The only other countries in Africa listing both English and French as official languages are Seychelles and Mauritius* (*Mauritius’s constitution gives no mention of an official language but members of parliament are also allowed to address the national assembly in either English or French) which are both strong international financial centres, but unlike Rwanda, lack direct air links into most of Africa; Cameroon, where French and English is spoken depending on region; and Burundi, which recently added English as an official language, but has an underdeveloped financial sector and has the world’s lowest GDP per capita according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Rwanda must do its best in not only promoting itself to Anglophone and Francophone businesses with an interest in Africa during this period, but also promoting the use of both languages in schools to maximise the benefit that ordinary citizens can also derive from Kigali becoming an Anglophone and Francophone and international financial centre.
The importance of Swahili cannot be downplayed as both a regional language and one that is evolving to become an African lingua franca. It is a recently recognised official language in Rwanda as well as an official language in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda as well as official language of the African Union (AU), East African Community (EAC) and Southern African Development Community (SADC), as well as a recognised minority language in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Mozambique and spoken in parts of Comoros, Madagascar, Malawi, Mayotte, Somalia and Zambia.
Botswana, Ethiopia, South Africa and South Sudan are non-traditionally Swahili speaking countries which have added the language to their curriculum.
Promoting English, French and Swahili nationally can help Rwanda to claim pole position for companies wishing to trade with both Anglophone and Francophone Africa whilst also stimulating trade within East Africa and allowing citizens to derive the benefits of these developments through employment, business and trade opportunities.
In an indication that Russian forces were ending what they called an operational pause in their invasion of Ukraine, the defense minister of Russia, Sergei Shoigu, on Saturday ordered his forces to intensify attacks “in all operational sectors” of the war.
As the Ukrainian government disclosed modest new ground attacks by Russian forces, the Russian defense ministry said in a statement that Shoigu had instructed that combat be intensified to stop Ukraine from shelling civilian areas in Russian-occupied territory.
After deadly Russian missile strikes across Ukraine in recent days that killed civilians, the statement was a new signal from Moscow that its invasion may be entering a more aggressive phase.
Shoigu’s statement appeared to be a response to Ukraine’s new ability to hit Russian targets in occupied areas due to more advanced, longer-range Western weapons, including the U.S. HIMARS precision-guided rocket systems and the French Caesar artillery pieces. Ukraine claims to have hit at least 30 Russian ammunition and logistics sites with the new longer-range weapons in the past two weeks.
Earlier this month, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested to lawmakers that Russia would escalate the war. “Everyone should know that, by and large, we have not started anything seriously yet,” Putin said.
The wreckage of a car burns in a crater after a Russian missile strike in Dnipro, in central Ukraine, on Friday. Indiscriminate Russian attacks on civilian areas have become a hallmark of its invasion, and this week, an international conference in The Hague sought to coordinate an approach to the overwhelming allegations of war crimes in Ukraine. | DANIEL BEREHULAK / THE NEW YORK TIMES
There were signs of new ground fighting in the hotly contested Donbas region, where Russian forces have taken one of its provinces, Luhansk, and are trying to take the rest of another, Donetsk, as well. Ukrainian military and regional officials reported five probing attacks along the crescent-shaped front line in the Donbas.
Ukrainian troops using “heavy fire” repelled a renewed overnight ground assault to capture the main road link between the cities of Lysychansk and Bakhmut, said Serhii Haidai, military governor of Luhansk, an assertion echoed in a report Saturday by Ukraine’s general staff. The road has been bitterly contested for months.
The latest analysis by the Institute for the Study of War said Russian forces were “likely emerging from their operational pause,” citing a series of limited ground assaults northwest of Sloviansk, southeast of Siversk, along the Bakhmut-Lysychansk highway and southwest of the city of Donetsk. “These assaults may indicate that Russian forces are attempting to resume their offensive operations in Donbas,” the analysis said, while noting that “the assaults are still small-scale and were largely unsuccessful.”
Some soldiers serving on front-line positions in the Donetsk region question whether the Russians ever actually paused, saying they have been under constant attack on the ground and with artillery and aerial bombardment.
The sound of heavy explosions is often audible from the front-line cities of Sloviansk and Bakhmut. Smoke from fires dots the horizon south and east of Bakhmut, where Russian forces have been trying to advance.
A rocket hit a small fruit-and-vegetable market in Bakhmut on Friday afternoon, wounding several people. Early Saturday, three more rockets struck a factory and a house in Kostiantynivka but without causing any casualties. “My cafe is broken. Factories are smashed. Everything is closed,” said Vitaliy, 40, as he repaired the boards on his cafe windows the day after the blast. “There is nothing left. What will the people buy?”
A shop hit by shelling Saturday in Bakhmut, Ukraine, on Saturday, where Russian troops are trying to advance. Ukrainian military officials said Ukrainian troops repelled an overnight assault by Russia to capture the main road link between the cities of Lysychansk and Bakhmut. | MAURICIO LIMA / THE NEW YORK TIMES
In the early hours of Saturday, at least three civilians were killed and three more were injured in a Russian rocket strike on the northern Ukrainian city of Chuhuiv, about 75 miles from the Russian border, regional police said.
In the neighboring Sumy region, one civilian was killed and at least seven more were injured after Russians opened mortar and artillery fire on three towns and villages not far from the Russian border, the regional governor said Saturday.
In Donetsk, seven civilians were killed and 14 more injured, the regional governor said Saturday.
The major strike came Thursday, when a Russian submarine fired cruise missiles into the heart of Vinnytsia, a city of 370,000 people about 125 miles southwest of Kyiv, the capital.
Ukrainian officials said that strike killed at least 23 people, including a 4-year-old girl with Down syndrome, causing outrage in Ukraine and the West.
A Ukrainian soldier plays with a puppy as he speaks on his phone near the front lines in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine on Thursday. | MAURICIO LIMA / THE NEW YORK TIMES
The Russian defense ministry said the strike on Vinnytsia was directed at a building where top officials from Ukraine’s armed forces were meeting foreign arms suppliers. Ukrainian officials have denied that the building contained military targets.
The war is causing significant economic stress in the rest of the world, reducing global growth both this year and next, Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, told a hybrid meeting of Group of 20 finance ministers and heads of central banks.
“The war in Ukraine has intensified, exerting added pressures on commodity and food prices,” she said in a statement Saturday. “Global financial conditions are tightening more than previously anticipated. And continuing pandemic-related disruptions and renewed bottlenecks in global supply chains are weighing on economic activity.”
Adding to the stress in Germany, which has been dependent on Russian energy, was a new statement by the Russian gas monopoly, Gazprom, urging German company Siemens to return a turbine it has repaired in Canada to ensure the Nord Stream 1 pipeline delivering gas to Europe can resume working after a 10-day maintenance period that began Monday.
Despite Western sanctions on Russia, Canada has agreed to grant what it has described as a time-limited and revocable permit for Siemens Canada to allow the turbine’s return. But Gazprom claims it has received no guarantees that the unit will be returned.
Germany was already coping with a 60% reduction in gas supplies through that pipeline, amid fears that Russia will not resume deliveries after maintenance. Conservative politicians have revived debate on extending the life of the country’s three remaining nuclear power plants, which produce about 6% of Germany’s electricity, a sensitive topic for the Greens, now in government. The plants are supposed to be shut down by the end of this year.
A resident walks by the entrance of a destroyed bazaar hit by shelling Saturday in Bakhmut, Ukraine, on Saturday, where Russian troops are trying to advance. Bakhmut has been battered by shelling this week, as Russia seeks to take the remaining Ukrainian-held areas of Donetsk province. | MAURICIO LIMA / THE NEW YORK TIMES
The European Union has banned the import of Russian coal, but a ban it imposed on oil imports is only gradual and partial. And there is no agreement on banning imports of natural gas. Brussels has also compromised on allowing Gazprom to be paid effectively in rubles, as Russia has demanded, with euro deposits into Gazprom’s own bank immediately shifted into rubles.
The EU has also backed off on enforcing full sanctions on goods moving from mainland Russia to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. The enclave is separated from the rest of Russia by Poland and Lithuania; Lithuania created tensions with Moscow by announcing that it would impose EU sanctions on Russian goods traveling by train to Russian Kaliningrad through Lithuania.
After fierce Russian complaints, Brussels “updated” its guidelines and said Russia would be allowed to transport civilian-use goods on the sanctions list through Lithuania by rail — though not by road — in amounts comparable to pre-invasion deliveries over the past three years.
There can be targeted checks, Brussels said, to ensure that sanctioned military and dual-use goods and related technologies are not part of the rail shipments.
As Russia seeks more answers to counter the newer NATO mobile artillery systems, it has turned to Iran to explore buying that country’s sophisticated armed drones, the U.S. national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said last week. On Saturday, a senior American official said that satellite images showed a Russian delegation visiting Iran to view unmanned, weapons-capable drones that could be purchased for use in the war in Ukraine and that could be used to better target the new NATO artillery in counter-battery strikes.
Plus de 20 millions de tonnes de céréales sont bloqués dans des silos ukrainiens. Le chef de la diplomatie européenne Josep Borrell appelle à trouver une solution de toute urgence.
La reprise des exportations de céréales depuis l’Ukraine est une “question de vie ou de mort” et nous avons “espoir” qu’un accord soit trouvé cette semaine pour débloquer le port d’Odessa, a déclaré lundi le chef de la diplomatie européenne, Josep Borrell.
“La vie de (…) dizaines de milliers de personnes dépend de cet accord” en train d’être négocié entre la Russie, l’Ukraine, la Turquie et les Nations Unies, a-t-il expliqué à son arrivée à Bruxelles pour une réunion des ministres des Affaires étrangères de l’UE consacrée à la guerre en Ukraine.
Le projet d’accord vise à faire sortir par la mer Noire quelque 20 millions de tonnes de céréales bloquées dans des silos ukrainiens à cause de l’offensive menée par Moscou. Il doit aussi faciliter les exportations russes de céréales et d’engrais, affectées par les sanctions occidentales qui frappent les chaînes logistiques et financières russes.
Les sanctions, une erreur?
La Russie a annoncé un “document final” pour une réunion organisée cette semaine par la Turquie. L’Union européenne entend poursuivre sa pression sur Moscou avec de nouvelles sanctions ainsi qu’un soutien financier et militaire à l’Ukraine, a annoncé Josep Borrell.
“Certains dirigeants européens ont déclaré que les sanctions étaient une erreur, une faute. Je ne pense pas que ce soit une erreur, c’est ce que nous devons faire, et nous continuerons à le faire”, a-t-il affirmé en réponse à une déclaration du Premier ministre hongrois, Viktor Orban.
Ce dernier avait dénoncé les sanctions vendredi, y voyant “une erreur” car “elles n’ont pas atteint leur but, et ont même eu un effet contraire”. “L’économie européenne s’est tiré une balle dans les poumons et est asphyxiée”, avait-il affirmé dans une allocution.
La Commission européenne a présenté vendredi de nouvelles mesures, dont un embargo sur les achats d’or à la Russie. Les ministres doivent par ailleurs se prononcer sur le déblocage d’une cinquième tranche de 500 millions d’euros de la “Facilité européenne pour la paix” pour financer les équipements militaires et les armes fournies à l’Ukraine.
TOKYO — Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s contribution to diplomacy and security cannot be underestimated. While having significantly reinforced the Japan-U.S. alliance, his Indo-Pacific initiative has prompted major nations to rethink their geopolitical strategies.
While the West has largely ignored Latin America, or tried to force the region to bend to its will, China has been offering regional actors huge perks, with none of the conditions (at least not up front). Unless the US and Europe change tack, they could end up losing a critical region – and the new cold war.
Is the West losing Latin America? During the Cold War, this question was feverishly discussed in Washington, DC, and beyond. Now, the return of great-power competition and the potential revival of spheres of influence – together with the recent wave of left-wing electoral victories in the region – are giving it renewed salience.
For the West, the looming specter of hot conflict with authoritarian regimes, from Russia to China, has again highlighted Latin America’s importance as a partner. At the same time, however, the United States and its allies are preoccupied by the war in Ukraine, including, not least, its implications for energy markets and economic prosperity.
OPINION. L’ancien ministre français des Affaires étrangères Hubert Védrine, propose une cogestion des flux migratoires économiques entre les pays de départ, de transit et d’arrivée, par la fixation périodique de quotas par métier
On pourrait évidemment prendre la question migratoire de façon manichéenne. Ce serait plus facile! Soit considérer que les pays d’Europe doivent se fermer complètement à tous les mouvements migratoires et que les demandeurs d’asile ne sont que des immigrants illégaux à refouler de toutes les façons, et exciter les foules contre ces invasions. Soit, au contraire, considérer que tous les immigrants (rebaptisés réfugiés), méritent de trouver asile, au sens le plus élargi du terme, dans les différents pays d’Europe et pourchasser de façon vindicative, par des déclarations morales grandiloquentes et des guérillas judiciaires, tous ceux qui n’acceptent pas ce principe d’ouverture généralisée.
CHRONIQUE – La leçon de morale est un instrument diplomatique périmé à l’ère numérique. Ce qui compte, c’est le soft power décrit par Joseph Nye.
A l’occasion du bouleversement stratégique que constitue la guerre d’Ukraine, les Occidentaux commencent à comprendre que leurs leçons de morale ne sont plus entendues par la majorité des populations de la planète. L’Occident, ce grand bloc de démocraties libérales industrialisées (Amérique du Nord, Europe, Japon, Corée du Sud, Australie), est seul à avoir pris des sanctions contre la Russie, pour la punir de la guerre qu’elle fait à l’Ukraine depuis le 24 février 2022.
Est-ce à dire que les pays d’Afrique, d’Asie et d’Amérique latine approuvent l’invasion de l’Ukraine par les forces russes? Non. Car ils sont très attachés à la charte des Nations unies, qui sacralise la souveraineté, l’indépendance et l’intégrité territoriale de tous ses membres, petits comme grands, jeunes comme anciens. Or l’Ukraine est un pays souverain, reconnu comme tel par les Russes depuis trente ans. Au sommet du G20 des ministres des Affaires étrangères, qui s’est tenu à Bali les 7 et 8 juillet 2022, ces pays extra-occidentaux…
L’UE refuse que la Russie se serve des réunions du G20 en Indonésie comme d’«une plateforme pour sa propagande» sur le conflit en Ukraine, a averti jeudi la porte-parole du chef de la diplomatie européenne Josep Borrell.
Une rencontre des ministres des Affaires étrangères des pays du G20 se déroule dans l’île de Bali jeudi et vendredi pour préparer le sommet des dirigeants des vingt puissances prévu pour novembre au même endroit. Josep Borrell n’a programmé aucune rencontre avec le chef de la diplomatie russe Sergueï Lavrov pendant ces deux journées, ont indiqué ses services.
«Une menace pour la crédibilité»
«La guerre effroyable contre l’Ukraine et les conséquences de l’agression de la Russie seront abordées au cours de ces réunions, mais nous ne permettrons pas que Moscou utilise le G20 comme une plateforme pour sa propagande», a déclaré sa porte-parole, Nabila Massrali, au cours du point de presse quotidien de la Commission européenne. «La participation de la Russie à un haut niveau peut constituer une menace pour la crédibilité, l’efficacité et la pertinence du G20», a-t-elle mis en garde.
L’Indonésie a invité le président russe Vladimir Poutine au sommet de novembre à Bali, malgré la pression occidentale, notamment des États-Unis, pour l’isoler. En guise de solution de compromis, Jakarta a également convié le président ukrainien Volodymyr Zelensky. «Il n’est pas question pour l’UE de boycotter le G20, car il reste un forum essentiel. Nous devons nous assurer que le multilatéralisme peut fonctionner en temps de crise», a ajouté la porte-parole, alors que le monde est confronté à des menaces de famine, à la flambée des prix de l’énergie et de l’alimentation et à l’emballement des risques climatiques.
Le G20, le club des 20 plus grandes économies du monde, compte dans ses rangs des États occidentaux qui ont imposé des sanctions à Moscou, mais également d’autres pays plus réservés, comme la Chine, l’Inde et l’Afrique du Sud.
Un groupe de suivi de l’inflation a été mis en place au sein de la commission des affaires économiques de l’Assemblée nationale. Objectif : faire toute la lumière sur les causes de l’inflation, qui a été de 4,3 % entre décembre 2021 et juin 2022. Le président de l’Observatoire de la formation des prix et des marges des produits alimentaires, Philippe Chalmin, était la première personnalité auditionnée, jeudi 7 juillet.
Quelles sont les causes réelles de l’inflation ? C’est à cette question que va tenter de répondre le groupe de suivi de la commission des affaires économiques, dont Guillaume Kasbarian (Renaissance) a annoncé la création ce jeudi matin. “Producteurs, transformateurs et distributeurs commencent à s’accuser mutuellement“, a souligné le président de la commission. “Cette situation n’est pas saine et mérite un éclairage des représentants de la Nation.”
Les résultats de ces travaux sont attendus pour le début du mois d’août, à l’issue d’un cycle d’auditions et de tables rondes. Xavier Albertini (Renaissance) et Aurélie Trouvé (La France insoumise) ont été nommés co-rapporteurs du groupe. En parallèle, la mission d’application à 6 mois de la loi Egalim 2 présentera son rapport. “Avec ce dispositif, on aura une vision assez globale du sujet“, s’est félicité Guillaume Kasbarian. Selon l’Insee, les prix ont connu une hausse de de 4,3 % entre décembre 2021 et juin 2022.
La création de ce groupe de suivi intervient dans un contexte particulier : depuis une semaine, plusieurs groupes d’opposition ont fait valoir leur volonté de demander la création d’une commission d’enquête sur le sujet, pour déterminer la part que représenterait notamment la spéculation dans la hausse des prix. Après LFI, le 1er juillet, c’est le RN qui s’est manifesté lundi, indiquant avoir déposé une résolution avec la même volonté d’investigation. Guillaume Kasbarian a toutefois rappelé que la mise en place d’une commission d’enquête ne pourrait pas intervenir avant le mois d’octobre, pour des résultats prévus pour le mois d’avril 2023. “Mais libre à vous d’utiliser votre droit de tirage“, a précisé le député. Contactée par LCP, Aurélie Trouvé a d’ailleurs confirmé que LFI maintenait sa demande.
LA GUERRE EN UKRAINE AU CENTRE DES INTERROGATIONS
Philippe Chalmin, président de l’Observatoire de la formation des prix et des marges des produits alimentaires, était auditionné ce matin par la commission. Parmi ses nombreuses interventions, l’économiste libéral a quelque peu tordu le cou au rôle joué par la guerre en Ukraine sur la hausse des prix dans l’alimentation. “Il y a une exagération incontestable“, a-t-il pointé ajoutant immédiatement qu’il existait cependant bien une crise alimentaire mondiale, dont les prémisses étaient visibles avant l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie, et davantage explicable par “l’insuffisance des politiques agricoles“.
IL Y A UNE EXAGÉRATION INCONTESTABLE : LIER LA CRISE ALIMENTAIRE MONDIALE À LA GUERRE EN UKRAINE. PHILIPPE CHALMIN, PRÉSIDENT DE L’OBSERVATOIRE DE LA FORMATION DES PRIX ET DES MARGES DES PRODUITS ALIMENTAIRES
Philippe Chalmin a notamment pris l’exemple du prix des pâtes, dont la hausse constatée sur un an oscille entre 15 % et 45 % selon les marques. Or, les pâtes alimentaires sont conçues à base de blé dur, qui n’est pas produit en Ukraine, contrairement au blé tendre. “La guerre en Ukraine n’a donc aucune incidence sur le prix des nouilles“, a résumé le spécialiste des matières premières. Les causes sont à rechercher du côté du Canada, un des gros producteurs, qui a été touché par une sévère sécheresse.
Plus largement, Philippe Chalmin a constaté de très fortes tensions sur les marchés alimentaires, dès 2021, liées à des phénomènes climatiques et au comportement de la Chine. Cette dernière a ainsi triplé ses importations en grains par rapport à 2019. Le conflit ukrainien a donc pu avoir un impact sur certains secteurs déjà fragilisés, comme les oléagineux, mais n’a pas autant d’influence que certains l’avancent, y compris concernant les céréales, a-t-il assuré.
While it is tempting to think that Ukraine would have remained safe if only it had held onto its Soviet-era nuclear warheads, that framing of the issue is too simplistic. Ultimately, all countries would benefit more in the long term from a strong non-proliferation regime than from possessing their own arsenals.
CAMBRIDGE – When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine inherited part of its nuclear arsenal. But in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to return these weapons to Russia in exchange for “assurances” from Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States that its sovereignty and borders would be respected. Russia brazenly violated this promise when it annexed Crimea in 2014, and tore up the Memorandum with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24. Many observers have concluded that Ukraine made a fateful mistake by agreeing to surrender its nuclear arsenal (once the world’s third largest). Are they right?
n the early 1960s, US President John F. Kennedy predicted that at least 25 states would have nuclear weapons by the following decade. But in 1968, United Nations member states agreed to a non-proliferation treaty that restricted nuclear weapons to the five states that already had them (the US, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China). Today, just nine states have them – the five named in treaty signatories plus Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea – but there are more “threshold states” (countries with the technological ability to build nuclear weapons quickly) considering the option.
CHRONIQUE – L’ambition de Xi Jinping est de rester dans l’histoire comme l’un des trois empereurs contemporains.
Après 900 jours sans voyages par crainte du Covid, Xi Jinping a effectué le 30 juin et le 1er juillet 2022 son premier long déplacement officiel. Il ne s’est pas rendu à l’étranger mais, symboliquement, dans un territoire chinois qui fut longtemps dominé par les étrangers.
L’île de Hongkong fut concédée en 1842 à la Couronne britannique par le «traité inégal» de Nankin, après que l’empire du Milieu eut perdu la première guerre de l’Opium. C’est une guerre que Londres fit aux Chinois pour les obliger à laisser entrer sur leur marché la drogue produite en Inde, qui était à l’époque le joyau de l’empire de la reine Victoria. La colonie s’agrandit en 1898, à la faveur d’un bail de 99 ans sur les «Nouveaux Territoires».
Lire l’article dans son intégralité sur le site du Figaro.
Le 1er juillet 1997 la Chine reprenait possession de Hong Kong. Vingt-cinq ans plus tard, Hong Kong connaît une reprise en main par Pékin de plus en plus sévère. Mais tout n’est pas joué, selon le sinologue Jean-Pierre Cabestan, de l’Université Baptiste de Hong Kong.
Le 30 juin 1997, trois soldats britanniques montent pour la dernière fois l’Union Jack sur le Cénotaphe du district central de Hong Kong. | STEPHEN SHAVER, AFP
En seulement vingt-cinq ans, dans un mouvement qui s’est largement accéléré depuis l’arrivée de Xi Jinping à la tête du pouvoir chinois en 2013, Hong Kong a perdu une grande partie des libertés d’expression politique qui la caractérisaient sous le contrôle des Britanniques. Xi Jinping a même tenu à venir, en personne, à l’occasion de cet anniversaire, marquer ce qu’il qualifie de «renaissance» de l’ancienne colonie. Analyse avec Jean-Pierre professeur à l’Université Baptiste de Hong Kong.
Lors de la rétrocession de Hong Kong, le Royaume-Uni et la Chine se sont engagés à respecter le principe : « un pays, deux systèmes ». Que prévoyait ce « deal » ?
La Grande Bretagne exigeait des garanties politiques, institutionnelles et juridiques pour préserver les libertés existantes et la démocratie. La Chine a accepté de préserver l’économie et le mode de vie « capitalistes » de Hong Kong, alors que le reste du pays vivait sous le « socialisme ». Mais c’est la distinction fondamentale faite par le Parti communiste chinois : préserver le « capitalisme », oui, mais il ne parle pas de démocratie.
La promesse a-t-elle été tenue ?
Hong Kong a vécu avec une certaine autonomie politique. La plupart des libertés politiques ont été préservées (presse, association, multipartisme, parole, manifestation) et les élections devaient devenir courantes… Sauf que, dès le départ, le Chef de l’exécutif a été choisi par Pékin, et formellement élu par un comité électoral dominé par ses partisans. On est loin de l’idée de départ qui était d’évoluer progressivement vers une élection du parlement (le Conseil législatif) et du Chef de l’exécutif au suffrage universel direct ; promesse non tenue, d’où la frustration des Hongkongais.
Comment s’est construite la reprise en main chinoise de Hong Kong ?
Elle a pris un virage décisif en août 2014. Pékin annonce une réforme du mode d’élection du chef de l’exécutif, qui peut se résumer ainsi : ok, on introduit le suffrage universel direct mais c’est nous (le PC chinois) qui choisissons les deux ou trois candidats susceptibles de se présenter ». Personne d’autre que Pékin ne pouvait proposer des candidats à ce poste, pas même les partis politiques de Hong Kong.
Lire l’entretien dans son intégralité sur le site de Ouest France.
Les cryptomonnaies portent mal leur nom. Leurs cours sont très volatils et les coûts de transactions sont gigantesques, or ce sont deux des principales caractéristiques d’une monnaie, explique Hélène Rey. Leur régulation devient inéluctable, ce qui fera prendre conscience de leurs déficiences.
Par Hélène Rey (professeure d’économie à la London Business School, chroniqueur aux « Echos »)
Publié le 30 juin 2022
Il y a deux grandes réunions annuelles durant lesquelles banquiers centraux et universitaires échangent leurs vues sur les sujets importants du moment lors de discussion d’articles de recherche et de panels : le symposium de Jackson Hole organisé par la Réserve fédérale des Etats-Unis et le symposium de Sintra organisé par la Banque centrale européenne qui a lieu ces jours-ci. De nombreux sujets y sont abordés, reliés à la politique monétaire ou aux changements structurels du monde dans lequel les banques centrales opèrent.
Le rôle des cryptomonnaies et la création de monnaies numériques de banque centrale (MNBC) en particulier a été discuté en profondeur. Les caractéristiques des monnaies sont bien connues. Elles doivent être des bons moyens d’échange (les coûts de transaction doivent être bas), ne doivent pas perdre leur valeur rapidement (l’inflation doit être modérée ou transitoire) et elles doivent être de bonnes unités de compte (le coût de notre panier de consommation doit pouvoir être facilement exprimé dans notre monnaie).
Lire l’article dans son intégralité sur le site des Echos.
India, Turkey, others aim to expand influence through delicate balancing act
The world is split into three major political blocs, with “neutral” powers like India and Turkey gaining influence by playing the two old camps, Western and Russia-China, off against each other.
HIROYUKI AKITA, Nikkei commentator
TOKYO — Japan is one of the major powers that is least sensitive to changes in the world order, thanks to its “privileged” U.S. protection from foreign aggression, and it continues to develop its security policy on the assumption that the U.S.-led global order will continue.
This is by no means misguided, but recent geopolitical developments have made a coolheaded reassessment of the long-term viability of the U.S.-centric order more urgent than ever.
Roughly four months after Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, it has become clear that the postwar order built on Washington’s leadership is on the verge of collapse. There is no dearth of facts to support this view. When the United Nations voted on a resolution to strip Russia of its seat on the Human Rights Council on April 7, 100 countries either voted against, abstained or did not vote, versus 93 nations that voted in favor.
According to the Economist Intelligent Unit, as of March 30, countries that have joined the international sanctions against Russia, or at least criticized it for its aggression against Ukraine, account for just 36% of the world’s population. Most are Western democracies.
Meanwhile, 64% of the world’s people live in countries that are either neutral on the conflict in Ukraine or have expressed “understanding” or “support” for Russia. The neutrals make up 32% of the global population and include India, Brazil and South Africa. The rest, the pro-Russian camp, includes China and Iran.
The leaders of major Western democracies, including U.S. President Joe Biden, like to say the world is united in denouncing Russia’s aggression, but that is obviously not the case. This reality was highlighted by the Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s premier defense summit, held on June 10-12 in Singapore.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida denounced Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, as did defense ministers from Japan, the U.S., South Korea and Australia. All of them warned of China’s increasingly assertive military behavior, calling for unity to counter what they see as a Chinese threat.
But their criticism of Moscow and Beijing was not echoed by many countries in Southeast Asia or the South Pacific. Indonesian Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto said his country has healthy ties with Russia, which he described as “a very good friend.” He also called China its close partner.
Malaysian Defense Minister Hishammuddin Hussein made clear his country’s neutral position, while his Fijian counterpart, Inia Seruiratu, said the island nation will try to reap benefits from its relations with all countries, including China.
Such remarks would have been unthinkable in a world where the U.S. was securely in charge. Many participants from Southeast Asia and India at the conference said U.S. leadership has been in steady decline for around 10 years, with many citing the following events:
In August 2012, then-U.S. President Barack Obama warned his Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad, that the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and invite U.S. intervention. Undeterred, Syrian forces killed hundreds of people with sarin gas the following year. Obama did not respond. Also in 2013, Obama declared the U.S. would no longer act as “the world’s policeman.” He took no action to stop the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 or to prevent China from building military bases in the South China Sea.
His successor, Donald Trump, adopted an “America First” policy, in effect ceding U.S. leadership in world affairs. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is taking place against this geopolitical backdrop.
In hopes of further undermining U.S. influence, Moscow has been stepping up its pressure on Asia. For example, it has threatened to halt shipments of arms components to Southeast Asian nations if they back the Western condemnation of Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine, according to one diplomatic source in the region.
Russia is Southeast Asia’s largest arms supplier. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russia sold some $10.9 billion of weapons to countries in the region between 2000 and 2021, more than the U.S. did.
Big buyers of Russian arms, especially Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia, would have trouble operating their militaries if Russia were to cut them off. It is safe to assume that Moscow is applying similar pressure to countries in the Middle East and Africa that rely on Russian military equipment.
China is using not just diplomatic pressure but also economic aid and investment to win over developing countries.
These development point to the end of the U.S.-led world order and its replacement not by a world without poles, or “G-zero,” as some experts have predicted, but by a tripolar world where three blocs of nations compete for global influence.
The first group consists of Western and Asian democracies, such as the U.S., the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Britain and Canada. The second bloc comprises China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and other authoritarian countries. The third is a loose coalition of “neutral” nations not allied with either the West or the China-Russia bloc. This camp includes India, South Africa, Indonesia, Turkey and Brazil.
As the confrontation between the “West” — including its Asian members — and the China-Russia bloc intensifies, the neutrals sense an opportunity to expand their influence through a careful balancing act. Encouraged by their success, large countries in this third group, such as India and Turkey, are now more actively pursuing their own agendas.
Turkey, for instance, brokered peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, then held a foreign ministers meeting with Britain on June 23 to explore ways of ending Russia’s blockade of Black Sea ports.
India, for its part, has stepped up its imports of Russian oil since March, but at the same time is working with Japan, the U.S. and Australia as part of the Quad group to counter China’s expansion.
As many of these “neutral” nations do not rely on a security alliance with any leading power, they eschew grand statements of principle, tending to focus on narrower interests. This makes it harder for them to stay as united on any given issue as either the Western democracies or the China-Russia alliance.
Leading Western powers need to bring these fence-sitters to their side and restore the status quo. But doing so will not be easy. To have a hope of success, Western countries must identify the needs of these nations and patiently build relationships with them based on mutual interest. The West may not have much choice: China is set to engage in diplomatic efforts with the same goal in mind.
L’économiste liste, dans sa chronique, les sujets sur lesquels le gouvernement et les différentes oppositions pourraient trouver un accord au cas par cas.
Emmanuel Macron a clairement annoncé que seuls les partis ayant déjà gouverné, ensemble ou séparément – Parti communiste (PC), Europe Ecologie-Les Verts (EELV), Parti socialiste (PS), Ensemble ! et Les Républicains (LR) –, pourront faire partie d’une possible « coalition d’action », tandis qu’en seraient exclus La France insoumise (LFI) et le Rassemblement national (RN), qui n’ont jamais gouverné. Le programme de gouvernement va devoir faire rapidement se confronter les protagonistes de la campagne électorale à la réalité.Il va falloir, en effet, prendre la mesure des investissements indispensables à brève échéance, que ce soit en matière de transition écologique, de résilience économique, de restructuration du système énergétique, d’éducation, de santé ou de défense. Dans l’immédiat, il va falloir, en outre, accepter qu’on ne pourra pas faire entendre raison à un agresseur – la Russie –, prêt à réduire ses revenus de 20 %, si on ne peut pas supporter que les nôtres baissent de 2 %. Ainsi, tout cela impliquera une ponction notable sur le pouvoir d’achat.
C’est au gouvernement bientôt remanié qu’il appartiendra de fixer l’addition. Et il devra compter juste. La soudaine remontée des alarmes sur les taux d’intérêt publics est sans nul doute excessive, mais elle signale un risque de panique qu’il faut endiguer. La France, dans ce contexte, doit trouver le bon équilibre budgétaire : certainement pas replier bagage de manière précipitée, comme en 2011-2014. Pas non plus, cependant, oublier toute discipline, à la manière du « quoi qu’il en coûte »de la période 2020-2022, qui n’a en fait pas été si onéreux, mais qui a laissé une trace politique impérissable. La première ministre ne peut pas décemment exiger des partenaires potentiels de la « coalition d’action » de s’inscrire dans la seule logique du projet présidentiel, mais M. Macron a cependant fixé certaines limites à la possibilité de s’en affranchir.
Terrains de compromis
Quels sont alors les terrains du compromis ? Les écologistes seront jugés sur un seul sujet : l’ambition climatique et, au-delà, l’ambition écologique du programme. La France est gravement en retard sur l’horizon d’une réduction de 50 % des émissions de gaz à effet de serre d’ici à 2030, et elle ne peut rattraper ce retard qu’en accélérant le déploiement des renouvelables et en misant sur la sobriété.
Lire la chronique dans son intégralité sur le site du Monde.
Black Sea Oil and Gas (BSOG) does not have war risk insurance for the Ana and Doina natural gas fields, which have recently started production, but the project moves forward, BSOG CEO Mark Beacom said on Tuesday.
He participated in a ceremony at Vadu, Constanta County, to mark the start of natural gas exploitation under the Midia project operated by BSOG. The first gas from these blocks entered the national grid on June 15.
According to Beacom, there is no war in Romania’s economic zone, but there is an impact. Mines have been detected near the platform, there were warships around, planes flying over the platform. Serpent Island, he said, is not far away, and they have witnessed Crimean platforms being bombed and everything is so close. But he added the company will carry through its project.
Asked if the project is insured against such events, he said no. He said you can’t have insurance when you’re operating near a war, so the company has to take up the risks.
Asked if BSOG will drop the lawsuit filed against Romania over some provisions in the Offshore Drilling Law that are still in force, he replied that he has not yet made a decision.
In his turn, Gabriel Comanescu, CEO of Grup Servicii Petroliere (GSP), the company that built the project, pointed out that this is the largest infrastructure project carried out in Romania in the last 30 years.
“It was a complicated project. The first engineering works started in 2019, laying the pipeline on land and under the sea took 90 days, and training started a year before. The offshore platform has no human operators, there is only maintenance and emergency response,” Comanescu said.
According to him, the BSOG project is a huge step forward towards reducing Romania’s dependence on natural gas imports.
“It is a project made 95% by GSP. From my point of view, it is the largest infrastructure project of the last 30 years, a brand new, tailor-made one. It is made by our strength, made by a Romanian company. It’s like we started with a Trabant and ended with a Mercedes S Class,” added Comanescu.
Lebanon’s parliament speaker is calling for a unity government that will rescue the country from its calamities. However, the reasons for these calamities and for Lebanon’s failure to have proper governance are mutilated concepts like unity government, “mithakia,” which means proper representation among all sects, and “consensual democracy,” which means all the different parties should be included in policymaking.
Lebanon has always had unity governments and none have been able to put forward any real program for the country. The concept of unity government came about after the death of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and was enforced after the Doha Agreement. During the time of Hariri, which extended from 1992, shortly after the end of the civil war, until 2005, the government was one of technocrats.
When Hariri took power after the Taif Agreement, the two main Christian parties were put out of power. Michel Aoun was in exile and Samir Geagea was in prison. Other politicians who kept their places under Taif, like Nabih Berri, the speaker of the parliament, and Walid Jumblatt, benefited from inflated government contracts in return for their acquiescence.
Many say the Hariri years institutionalized corruption. However, during the Hariri years, there was a business plan driving the country. After his death in 2005 came the concept of unity government. This was enforced after the 2008 Doha Agreement, which gave Hezbollah and Amal a third of the Cabinet and the power to veto government decisions.
Lebanon also has the mutilated concept of mithakia, or the fallacy of representation among the sects, which was reinforced after the Doha Agreement, i.e., each one that is strongest in his denomination should be assigned a position for that denomination. So, the Sunni party that gets most of the Sunni seats in parliament should have the premiership, the Shiite party that has most of the Shiite seats should have the speaker’s position, and similarly for the Christians and the presidential role.
The political class has no plan for the country, just a power-sharing scheme that ultimately shares the spoils of the state and through which each party uses some government facility or department as its fief, from which to extract as much money as possible. Former foreign minister and the president’s son-in-law, Gebran Bassil, who is a main pillar of corruption in the country, spelled it out on the sidelines of the 2019 World Economic Forum at Davos. He said that Lebanon could teach London and Washington how to manage a country without a budget.
Thus, the country was turned into a “farm,” as one of my Gulf colleagues described it. Although he added that even a farm has more order than Lebanon. There is no order to anything, just a corrupt class of elites agreeing among themselves to pillage the country. They fight over the ministerial quotas for each party and compete over the most lucrative ministries, like the Ministry of Energy and Water, where all the fatty fuel contracts go. No one can be held accountable as they are all part of the government. This was the motivation for the memorable slogan of the protest groups, “killun yaani killun” (all means all).
The political class has been very clever in benefiting the most from power while holding no responsibility for what has happened. This is mostly represented by Bassil’s famous line, “ma khalouna,” meaning “they did not let us,” blaming the failure on others.
A unity government is not really a democratic practice. Democracy means the minority follows the majority, which rules while the minority is in opposition and keeps a check on those who rule. Today, in the US, the administration is a Democratic one and not a hybrid between Democrats and Republicans. Similarly, in the UK, the government is a Conservative one headed by Boris Johnson, while the Labour Party is in opposition. The party that wins an election puts together a comprehensive political, economic and security strategy for the country and is held responsible for its success or failure.
One might say that, in the US, the people directly elect the head of state, while in Lebanon the parliament elects the president. Others might say that, unlike the US and UK, where there are dual-party systems and where the political scenes are divided between the liberal left and conservative right, Lebanon is a country where the political configuration is divided along sectarian lines.
Still, in the elections they are standing as blocks. For example, Hezbollah, Amal and the Free Patriotic Movement formed one block in the parliamentary elections. They represent the so-called resistance block. In the case of Lebanon, parties of similar thinking should form a coalition, with the coalition that has the majority of seats in parliament forming a government to put together a comprehensive plan and be held accountable for its execution and success. However, the leaders of the political class do not want any accountability. They know that, despite their differences on policy issues, they are “brothers” in corruption. They want to stay together and keep the status quo.
Today, Lebanon is collapsing and is in dire need of an International Monetary Fund bailout package. The Najib Mikati government, which is a unity government that took office from September 2021 to May 2022 and is now in caretaker status, was not able to seal a deal with the IMF. This was also the case of the government of Hassan Diab, which was in power from January 2020 until August 2021, when its members resigned en masse following the Beirut blast and it became a caretaker government. In total, two-and-a-half years of governments and caretaker governments have been unable to reach a deal with the IMF, which Lebanon badly needs because of this consensual democracy.
The mutilated concept of unity government and mithakia are driving political paralysis. It is giving an escape route to the different political parties, allowing them to blame the situation on others. The solution is to have one block form a government, put a comprehensive plan in place and be responsible in front of the Lebanese people and the international community.
Read the original article on the website Arab News
STOCKHOLM – After World War II, global diplomatic efforts sought to create a new international order that would prevent the world from descending into war, chaos, and anarchy again. A major part of that project was to refine the international legal order by establishing tribunals to prosecute war crimes. Hearings held in Nuremberg and Tokyo established that aggression is the “supreme international crime” – one for which leaders from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were sentenced to death.
The Nuremberg Tribunal’s judgment was very clear on this point: “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Since then, the international order has rested on the territorial integrity of states. To challenge this core principle with a violent act of aggression – the supreme international crime – is to put the entire world at risk of sinking into disorder, chaos and war.