Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Le centre Pompidou à Malaga rassemble du 23 juillet au 8 novembre 25 oeuvres de Nicolas de Staël, peintures et œuvres sur papier, souvent de grand format, qui retracent l'évolution de l'artiste.

Le Centre Pompidou à Paris propose jusqu'au 19 octobre l'exposition "Christo et Jeanne-Claude. Paris!" consacrée au travail du couple d'artistes pour des œuvres gigantesques et éphémères. L'exposition s'intéresse à leur période parisienne, rappelant les différents projets qu'ils ont conçu pour la capitale tel le Pont-neuf emballé.

Le musée de l'Albertina à Vienne propose à partir du 6 août "Nature et Symbole", une exposition centrée sur la confrontation d'oeuvres des artistes Franz Gertsch, Christiane Baumgartner, Ofer Lellouche, et Kiki Smith et leur lien avec les thèmes de la nature et de l'existence humaine.

La Walker Art Gallery de Liverpool présente depuis sa réouverture le 15 juillet sa collection de peintures préraphaélites, l'une des plus importantes consacrées à ce mouvement du XIXème siècle inspiré de la Renaissance.

Le musée national de Cracovie organise jusqu'au 27 juillet "À qui appartient le cosmos ?" Élaborée à partir des archives numérisées du photographe Zygmunt Rytka, l'exposition met en scène l'évolution des sujets qu'il exploite entre 1978 et 1983, principalement au tour de la propagande du régime pendant la Guerre froide.

Syria’s civil war has long since been decided in favour of the regime. There is no prospect of a negotiated settlement, reconciliation or lasting stabilisation.

Syria faces enormous challenges, well beyond the rebuilding of infra­structure and housing. It will also need assistance to restart its economy, stabilise its currency and renew its public services, in particular education, health, electricity and water.

The funds required for comprehensive reconstruction are extremely un­likely to become available, given the attitude of the Syrian leadership, the economic ramifications of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the geopolitical interests of regional and global powers. Nor are resources likely to be deployed in line with the needs of the population.

The EU and its member states have made engagement in Syria’s reconstruc­tion conditional on viable steps towards a negotiated conflict settle­ment and a political opening. They should adapt their approach to align better with the current realities and challenges on the ground.

That means in particular targeting humanitarian aid more effectively, dismantling certain sectoral sanctions and supporting the rehabilitation of basic infrastructure – even in areas controlled by the Syrian government. This would represent a more effective contribution to improving living conditions and avoiding further erosion of public services.

Lasting stabilisation will require fundamental reforms. In this vein, Brus­sels should spell out its “more for more” approach.

Europe should refrain from normalising relations with the top leaders of the Assad regime and instead step up its support for prosecution of war crimes, grave human rights violations and the use of internationally banned weapons.

 

 

Herr Overhaus, Sie haben die Expertengruppe USA – »Jenseits der Wahlen – Langfristige Trends in der US-amerikanischen Innen- und Außenpolitik« ins Leben gerufen. Warum braucht es diese Expertengruppe?

Marco Overhaus: Die Motivation bestand darin, einen wichtigen Beitrag zur öffentlichen und politischen Debatte zu leisten, wie wir in Zukunft mit den USA umgehen. Gegenwärtig werden häufig einzelne Personen und hier insbesondere der US-Präsident Donald Trump sowie aktuelle Ereignisse wie die Proteste nach dem gewaltsamen Tod von George Floyd betrachtet. In der Expertengruppen widmen wir uns den langfristigen und strukturellen Trends dahinter, um Schlüsse für die Zukunft der transatlantischen Beziehungen zu ziehen.

Wie haben Sie die strukturellen und längerfristigen Trends ermittelt?

Marco Overhaus: Zunächst haben wir in der Expertengruppe im Rahmen eines Brainstormings Entwicklungen gesammelt, die wir als wichtig erachten. Anschließend haben wir anhand der beiden Kriterien Wahrscheinlichkeit und Wirkung entschieden, welche der insgesamt fünfzig Ergebnisse wir weiterverfolgen. Also: Wie wahrscheinlich ist es, dass das, was wir untersuchen wollen, die Innen- und Außenpolitik der USA auch in Zukunft prägen wird? Und wie gravierend könnten sich diese Faktoren und Trends auswirken? Am Ende haben wir sieben Trends bestimmt.

Christian Lammert: Wir haben die Trends nach festen Regeln bewertet, unabhängig von unseren eigenen Forschungsschwerpunkten. Da kam es zu einigen Überraschungen.

Können Sie ein Beispiel nennen? 

Marco Overhaus: Wir haben zum Beispiel das Thema Klima als besonders wichtig eingestuft, obwohl niemand aus der Gruppe Klimaexperte ist. Um diesen Bedarf zu decken, haben wir dann aber mit Susanne Dröge eine SWP-Expertin für Klimapolitik gewinnen können.

Welche Trends halten Sie darüber hinaus für besonders relevant – sowohl in der Innen- als auch in der Außenpolitik der USA?

Marco Overhaus: Wir haben vier Trends definiert, die in den Bereich Innenpolitik fallen. Dazu gehören die Entwicklung der Medienlandschaft, gesellschaftliche und politische Polarisierung, Zunahme gesellschaftlicher und wirtschaftlicher Ungleichheit sowie die strukturellen Veränderungen in der Wirtschaft hin zu einer Digitalwirtschaft in den USA. Im Bereich der Außenpolitik haben wir uns für die wachsende Rivalität der USA mit China und die Zunahme internationaler Konflikte als Herausforderung für die USA entschieden.

Christian Lammert: Es hat sich schnell gezeigt, dass wir beide Perspektiven immer zusammendenken müssen. Denn die Trennlinie zwischen Außen- und Innenpolitik wird immer poröser. Die Handelspolitik hat Konsequenzen für den Arbeitsmarkt – auch in den USA. Und es ergibt keinen Sinn, Klimapolitik nur innenpolitisch zu betrachten, weil es ein globales Problem ist. Ebenso sind die Veränderungen in der Wirtschaft nicht rein innenpolitisch zu verstehen. Es geht dabei auch um den Einfluss globalisierter Finanzmärkte.

Der gewaltsame Tod von George Floyd hat in den USA eine heftige Debatte über strukturellen Rassismus aufgeworfen. Welche Rolle spielt das in der Arbeit der Expertengruppe? 

Christian Lammert: Wir haben gesehen, dass sich Polizeigewalt, struktureller Rassismus und jetzt die Black-Lives-Matter-Bewegung in vielen Schwerpunkten wiederfinden, vor allem in den innenpolitischen. Der politische Diskurs über die Legitimität des Protestes ist in den USA sehr polarisiert. Aus sozioökonomischer Perspektive sind Afroamerikaner und Hispanics immer noch benachteiligt. Die Unzufriedenheit darüber zeigt dieser Protest nun auch.

Wie wirkt sich die Corona-Krise auf diese Trends aus?

Christian Lammert: Die Corona-Krise führt dazu, dass sich einige Trends verschärfen oder neue Dimensionen sichtbar werden. Das wird am Beispiel Rassismus auf ganz dramatische Weise deutlich. Afroamerikaner sind überproportional von den Folgen der Pandemie betroffen. Das hängt neben dem mangelnden Zugang zum Gesundheitssystem auch mit ihrer schlechteren Situation auf dem Arbeitsmarkt zusammen. Diese Bevölkerungsgruppe ist deutlich häufiger in Berufen beschäftigt, in denen man sich leichter infizieren kann, darunter Pflege und Einzelhandel.

Marco Overhaus: Die Corona-Krise könnte auf längere Sicht auch zu einer Ressourcenverknappung in der amerikanischen Außenpolitik führen. Prognosen gehen davon aus, dass die USA im Jahr 2021 eine Schuldenlast von weit mehr als 100 Prozent gemessen am Bruttoinlandsprodukt haben werden.  2019, vor Corona, waren es noch 80 Prozent – auch dies schon ein beachtlicher Wert.

Welche Folgen hat das für die US-Außenpolitik?

Marco Overhaus: Die Kluft zwischen den außenpolitischen Ambitionen, international präsent zu sein und in allen Weltregionen Einfluss zu nehmen, und den innenpolitischen Möglichkeiten, diesen Ambitionen gerecht zu werden, ist in den vergangenen Jahren immer größer geworden. Und die Corona-Krise wird das verschärfen. Wenn die Arbeitslosigkeit steigt und die wirtschaftliche Ungleichheit in den USA weiter wächst, kann man davon ausgehen, dass auch die gesellschaftliche Unterstützung für außenpolitische Kosten abnehmen wird. Langfristig wird sich das auch auf die amerikanische Politik in ihren Allianzen, wie der NATO, auswirken.

Wie würden sich die transatlantischen Beziehungen unter einem Präsidenten Joe Biden entwickeln?

Marco Overhaus: Alle Trends, die wir identifiziert haben, würden auch eine Präsidentschaft von Joe Biden beeinflussen. Auch er müsste mit einem hochgradig polarisierten US-Kongress umgehen, der seinen Handlungsspielraum einschränkt. Ein anderes Beispiel ist China. In den vergangenen fünf bis zehn Jahren hat sich der Anti-China-Konsens in den USA stark verfestigt. Wir können nicht davon ausgehen, dass die USA unter Joe Biden eine Chinapolitik fahren, die deutschen Idealvorstellungen entspricht. Da sollten wir mehr Realismus an den Tag legen und nicht wie bei Obama hochfliegende Hoffnungen in einen neuen Präsidenten setzen.

Christian Lammert: Gerade deshalb ist die Trendanalyse so wichtig: weil sie über die jeweilige US-Administration hinausreicht. Sicherlich wäre es einfacher, mit einem Präsidenten Joe Biden zu reden, aber an den grundsätzlichen Problemen würde ein Wechsel im Weißen Haus nichts ändern.

Das Interview führte Cetin Demirci von der Online-Redaktion der SWP.

Miguel Otero-Iglesias, Ignacio Molina y José Pablo Martínez. DT 14/2020 - 17/7/2020

España ha sido uno de los países del mundo que ha registrado un mayor impacto del COVID-19. Teniendo en cuenta la información ya disponible, pueden plantearse algunas hipótesis sobre los motivos por los que la propagación ha sido tan severa en nuestro país.

On 10 July, Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan issued a decree reconverting the Hagia Sophia Museum to a mosque, thus realizing a long-cherished dream of conservative currents in Turkish society. Originally built as a cathedral by the Romans, the Hagia Sophia functioned as Istanbul’s main mosque of throughout the Ottoman era. Its conversion into a museum in 1934 was one of a series of moves intended to distance Kemal Atatürk’s new secular republic from the Islamic heritage of the defunct Ottoman Empire – and became a totem of conservative resentment towards the Kemalist regime. Reconversion should therefore be considered a significant symbolic achievement for the conservative side and a settling of scores with the early republican period. Erdoğan is also seeking political gain by treating this issue as an identity battle between conservatives and secularists.

A Tactical Move?

According to a poll conducted in June, a majority of the Turkish population regards the Hagia Sophia controversy as an attempt by the government to divert attention from economic problems and reverse its declining support. Only 30 percent said they felt it was really just about a change of use from museum to mosque. This means that even among supporters of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its ultranationalist junior partner, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), significant numbers consider the move to be more tactical than ideological – even if they ultimately agree with the outcome.

Erdoğan’s earlier statements also suggest that this is a tactical move. During local election campaigning in 2019, he responded angrily to a crowd that raised the topic of Hagia Sophia, pointing out that the adjacent Sultan Ahmad Mosque (Blue Mosque) is almost always empty during prayer times. He told his audience that he would consider reconverting the Hagia Sophia if they first filled the Sultan Ahmed Mosque. Given that this was consistent with previous remarks and little has changed since the exchange, political expediency now seems to have outweighed religious or ideological considerations. Erdoğan expects reconversion to produce three political benefits.

Erdoğan’s Political Expectations

The first benefit is to energize the more conservative segments of his power base by meeting one of their longstanding symbolic demands, in particular in light of the emergence of two splinter parties from the AKP with potential to appeal to this electorate. The prominence of the controversy suggests he has succeeded in this. The second benefit would be to distract the public from the country’s serious socioeconomic problems. Where the unemployment rate – including those who have given up seeking work – has reached 24.6 percent, the government would like to talk about anything but the economy. Here, Erdoğan has gained relief, but probably not to the extent he hoped.

The third and most important benefit would be to establish yet another identity battle between conservatives and secularists. This is the arena where Erdoğan feels most secure, and the Hagia Sophia issue appeared ideally suited for the AKP’s identity wars. Its symbolism is multi-layered. First of all, a fight over mosque versus museum slots easily into a religion/modernity binary. It can also be used to create an Islam/Christianity binary as Hagia Sophia was originally built as a church and functioned as such for nine centuries until the Ottoman conquest of Istanbul. Secondly, it awakens historical allusions and underlines the real or perceived dichotomy between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic. Reversing a decision taken by Atatürk also inflames existing debates over the early republican reforms. Finally, the move is also expected to provoke adverse international reactions, thus offering a perfect opportunity for Erdoğan to breathe new life into his narrative of Turkey encircled by enemies, with Western powers subverting its sovereignty.

Domestically Erdoğan would expect the reconversion to provoke uproar among secularist circles and lead the secularist People’s Republican Party (CHP) in particular to condemn the decision and mobilize public opposition. This would create another opportunity for him to stir the “culture wars”. In fact, however, the CHP and most of the other opposition parties avoided this ploy and either supported the reconversion or remained neutral. This approach is in line with the new strategy of CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who has been careful to avoid such traps in recent years. While he has received much criticism from his party base – especially the secularist intelligentsia – for his calculated lack of interest in cultural conflicts, Kılıçdaroğlu seems to have been successful in preventing Erdoğan from picking his fights.

In light of the lack of domestic push-back, Erdoğan will focus on international condemnation to fan the flames of identity conflicts, presenting these reactions as interference in Turkey’s internal affairs – if not outright Islamophobia. Given that certain European countries have their own problems with accommodating Muslim places of worship, European criticisms can easily be framed as hypocritical and anti-Islamic. In that sense, Hagia Sophia is the perfect fight for Erdoğan: it is symbolic, emotionally charged, politically polarizing, and consolidates political camps. And all this is achieved with scant real-life consequences. European policymakers should follow the example set by the opposition parties in Turkey and deny Erdoğan the trivial rhetorical fights he clearly seeks.

This text has also been published at fairobserver.com.

With the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its guiding principle, “Leave no one behind”, the international community has set itself the goal of improving the living conditions of poor and marginalised groups. In many cases, these groups include refugees and migrants. However, they are hardly taken into account in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are decisive for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. As a result, there is a growing danger that existing disadvantages will become more permanent or more pronounced. Five years after the adoption of the SDGs, the balance sheet is sobering: Disaggregated data is necessary to be able to understand and monitor changes in the living conditions of migrant population groups, but these data are still lacking in most countries. In line with its overarching commitment to the implementation of the SDGs, the German government should work to ensure that migrants and refugees are systematically taken into account in the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda.

Der Green Deal, den die Europäische Kommission 2019 auf den Weg gebracht hat, erfordert eine Neuausrichtung der Energiediplomatie der Europäischen Union (EU). Allerdings sollte die Energiediplomatie nicht auf die Außenkommunikation des Green Deal redu­ziert werden. Vielmehr wird sie sich mit den tief­greifenden und vielfältigen geoökonomischen und geopolitischen Veränderungen auseinander­setzen müssen, die die Energiewende mit sich bringt. Deswegen sollte der Aktionsplan der EU-Energie­diplo­matie von 2015 angepasst werden. Wenn die EU dabei neue Prioritä­ten setzt, wird sie ein realistisches Gleichgewicht zwischen ihren globalen Bestre­bun­gen und ihren begrenzten finanziellen Mitteln finden müssen. Die deutsche EU-Ratspräsi­dent­schaft sollte ihre Bemühungen um eine Aufwertung der EU-Energiediplomatie in drei Richtungen intensivieren. Erstens: die bestehenden Prio­ritäten entsprechend den neuartigen Herausforderungen überprüfen. Zweitens: den geographischen Aktions­radius über die direkte Nachbarschaft hinaus erweitern auf 12 Ankerpartner entlang der afro-euro-asiatischen Ellipse, denen besondere Aufmerk­samkeit zukommen sollte. Drittens: das energie-außenpolitische Instrumentarium passend zu fünf neuen Aktions­bereichen nachjustieren, wobei ein realistischer und auf das jeweilige Land zugeschnittener Ansatz einem normativ-ideologischen vorzuziehen ist.

 

Event Video: English | French 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-lgrdhr").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-lgrdhr").fadeIn(1000);});});

Despite advances in some areas of sustainable development, countries around the world are still not on track to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and implement the 2030 Agenda. As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes more and more important to renew the multilateral cooperation around the SDGs, but a major challenge to doing so is the disconnect between the local, national, regional, and global levels.

On July 16th, the International Peace Institute (IPI)—in collaboration with the government of The Gambia and the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, along with the governments of Japan, and Switzerland—addressed this question with a virtual interactive discussion and launch of a report on how to design locally led strategies for the 2030 Agenda entitled Localizing the 2030 Agenda in West Africa: Building on What Works (available in French and English).

The meeting followed up on one held last October in Banjul, and Mamadou Tangara, the Gambian Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that the Banjul Forum had made clear the importance of inclusive engagement and multilateral cooperation around the SDGs. “The process must include actors at various levels of the development process. As the famous African proverb goes: if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

Mr. Tangara praised UN Secretary- General António Guterres for his “build back better” pledges to go beyond just restoring the UN in the post-COVID period but making sure it was more effective than before. “If there could be anything like a bright side to the pandemic, it is that it has shown us the resilience of the UN spirit in the face of adversity,” he said. “If we are to succeed in localizing the 2030 Agenda, we must possess this spirit of resilience. Better communities make better countries. Better countries make better regions. And better regions create a better world. It all starts with our communities.”

Read his full remarks here.

Munyaradzi Chenje, UN Development Coordination Office (DCO) Regional Director for Africa, said the word “local” was key to successfully implementing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs and to combating the effects of the COVID-19 virus. “We build from the ground up and not the other way around,” he said. “Local means data and information on where everyone is, knowing those who have been left behind, those at risk of being thrown back into poverty and vulnerability because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the vulnerable, the marginalized, the young adults… Our success will hinge upon empowered communities as a driving force with national, regional, and sub-regional partners.”

Also emphasizing the importance of building up from the local level was Tamba John Sylvanus Lamina, Minister of Local Government and Rural Development in Sierra Leone. “Sierra Leone is in the midst of a pandemic, and that speaks to the issue of how we should use home grown methods to help achieve the goals. The more we focus our attention on the issues and ensuring that people have buy-in, especially at the local level, then the more progress we’ll make as a nation.”

He said that in the aftermath of its civil war, Sierra Leone had created a “People’s Planning Process ” which it is now taking forward in implementing its national development plan. “Consultations were done all over the country to formulate that document, and after that, we moved around the communities for validation of that document to find out what the communities wanted to prioritize.” One of the priorities that emerged from that consultation was an emphasis on education, and particularly secondary school courses in science for girls. “Moving forward, the people’s participatory framework is a social mobilization tool where people sit together and discuss issues together as we would in our traditional homes around the fireplace.”

Georges Ki-Zerbo, World Health Organization Representative in Guinea, spoke about the localization of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Guinea. “Two days ago, I was in the municipality of Kaloum in Conakry, and the Kaloum mayor, who was with us at the Banjul Forum, the Minister of Communication, and religious leaders from Conakry joined in to discuss how to best strengthen community engagement in stopping COVID-19. I learned from that discussion that by engaging communities at the district level, the Kaloum municipality was able to reduce the number of COVID-19 infections from 380 to five cases in just a few weeks. This amazing local success was possible through engaging the elders, religious leaders, and women’s and youth associations who went around with the medical teams, promoting face masks and helping families with food, hygiene kits and other commodities. This is a success story, and it shows that we can leverage community networks for responses to scale up the COVID-19 responses and improve social protection and development.”

Noting that as part of commemorating the UN’S 75TH birthday, this year had been designated a year for “listening,” he declared, “Listening will be key for localizing the SDGs and leaving no one behind. In addition to listening locally, we need to work better across borders, not only geographical borders, but also cultural, religious, gender, and age group borders to rebuild after COVID-19 so that we can have the unique ability to innovate.”

“With the added challenge of COVID-19, it is evident that we must consider the decade of acceleration towards the SDGs with the highest possible level of humility, gravitas, and resolve,” Mr. Ki-Zerbo said.

Raheemat Omoro Momodu, Head of Human Security and Civil Society Division, ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) Division, said that in reaction to the COVID-19 crisis people would be expecting more from their states and governments. “And that’s how ECOWAS will become more relevant,” she said. “We are going to see greater relevance of intergovernmental organizations.”

As a consequence, Ms. Momodu said, ECOWAS had mainstreamed its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. “ECOWAS will need to re -strategize, innovate, and reform to be a better fit for a redefined course in a post-COVID world. We need to reexamine our approaches, listen more and get more connected to the local community. We need to start the local transformation in such a way that we are informed by what the local needs are.” As part of that transformation, she said, ECOWAS was promoting community-based economic growth “so that people at that level can survive day by day.”

Dominique Favre, Deputy Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN, noted that in his country the 2030 Agenda was applied at both the federal and cantonal level. “At the international level, Switzerland is promulgating the same approach regarding all levels of actors for implementation of the agenda, including the local level, civil society, and public authorities. Local partners are priority partners. It’s indeed at the local level that solutions are lived. It’s at the local level that leaving no one behind seems most personal and applicable. ”

Nérida N.M. Batista Fonseca, CEO of Innovation, SARL, in Guinea- Bissau, said that the greatest needs in her country were upgrading the health and education systems and thereby helping young people, who make up 64% of the population. She said that civil society organizations and the private sector could help in several key areas like agriculture. “Our country relies on agriculture mainly so we need to create new entrepreneurs who can collaborate and work within certain areas to meet the needs of the population.

The biggest problem was political, Ms. Fonseca said, because there were frequent changes of government and consequently little stability in the country’s institutions. Also, there was little interaction between the private sector and the UN. Accordingly, she said, “we will only be able to continue the work if we create a commission on sustainable development with innovators from all sector of society that remains a constant platform that withstands the political upheavals.The training of people is crucial because it helps their inclusion in the work force. And we need to support the female entrepreneurs as well if we really want to achieve the 2030 Agenda.”

The authors of the report are Jimena Leiva Roesch, IPI Senior Fellow and Head of the Peace and Sustainable Development Program, and Masooma Rahmaty, IPI Policy Analyst for the Peace and Sustainable Development and Women, Peace, and Security programs.

Citing highlights of the report, Ms. Leiva Roesch said it contemplated a more “people-centered and context specific” approach to putting the SDGs into effect. “We can’t think that we’re going to parachute the SDGs into a local context and just think that municipalities will follow. The 2030 Agenda needs to be perceived as a flexible format that allows for greater inclusion and participation. It’s like opening a door so we can all speak a common language, the SDGs language.”

She also questioned approaches taking up the SDGs in a siloed manner. “The SDGs were designed as a tapestry of connections, so once you focus solely on a specific SDG, the tapestry falls apart and you lose the complexity of the framework. If you’ve ever seen the movie Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, shrinking the SDGs from the national to the sub-national level makes it less overwhelming to tackle the SDGs from a local level, but it hopefully becomes less overwhelming when it’s beyond the national level to the subnational but still keeps the holistic nature of the framework.”

Ms. Leiva Roesch recalled that at last year’s Banjul Forum, the seating was designed to be “non-hierarchal,” with ministers mixed in with local leaders and municipal figures. “What happened there is that national representatives had an ‘aha’ moment where they realized that they had so many resources at home, that there were so many initiatives happening within. We should become aware that there’s a lot more inside than we originally thought. For international actors, it has to be a more humbling process. When you’re trying to localize the SDGs, there’s already so much inside that we have to build on what’s there already.” With COVID-19, this way of working becomes more relevant and urgent than ever.

In brief comments, Alex Konteh, a municipal authority leader from Sierra Leone who participated in the Banjul Forum, asserted that “we must prioritize local cultures as the yardstick of measurement for the realization of the SDGs.”

In concluding remarks, Toshiya Hoshino, Deputy Permanent Representative of Japan to the UN, said the SDGs were “widely promoted” in his country and embodied Japan’s commitment to the “human security agenda,” something he said had become even more relevant with the COVID-19 pandemic. He termed it “politically important to include the concept of human security in the process of localizing the SDGs.”

Ms. Leiva Roesch moderated the discussion.

.content .main .entry-header.w-thumbnail .cartouche {background: none; bottom: 0px;} h1.entry-title {font-size: 1.8em;}

Accords historiques ou simple revalorisation salariale ? La crise sanitaire a placé la santé au cœur des priorités nationales. Face à la réactivité démontrée par les professionnels du secteur et en réponse aux difficultés rencontrées, le gouvernement a lancé une grande concertation auprès de l’ensemble des acteurs, le "…

Der Regierungswechsel in Usbekistan stellt einen Präzedenzfall im post­sowjetischen Raum dar. Präsident Mirziyoyev, ein Regime-Insider, hat einen Kurswechsel initiiert und gleichzeitig eine Destabilisierung ver­mieden. Das von Mirziyoyev vertretene Reformprogramm zielt auf eine Liberalisierung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, lässt das politische System jedoch weitgehend unangetastet.

Die Reformen, deren Umsetzung wie früher zentral gesteuert und be­aufsichtigt wird, verlangen den Usbekinnen und Usbeken schmerzhafte Anpassungen ab. Sie werden aber akzeptiert, weil sich damit konkrete Hoffnungen auf eine bessere Zukunft verbinden. Zudem schaffen vor allem die wirtschaftlichen Reformmaßnahmen in einem Tempo Fakten, dass kaum Raum für Alternativen bleibt.

Obwohl Usbekistan wichtige Signale auch für eine politische Liberalisierung gesetzt hat, ist es nach wie vor ein autoritärer Staat mit einem Prä­sidialsystem, dessen institutionelle Grundlagen nicht zur Disposition ste­hen. Aus diesem Grund läuft die Transformation perspektivisch weniger auf Demokratisierung zu als vielmehr auf einen »aufgeklärten Autori­tarismus«, der von einer Allianz neuer und alter Eliten getragen wird.

Dennoch gibt es für Deutschland und Europa gute Gründe, den Reformkurs zu unterstützen. Der Schwerpunkt sollte dabei auf jenen Handlungsfeldern liegen, die für die Entwicklung hin zu einer offenen Gesellschaft von besonderer Relevanz sind: Förderung von politischem Wettbewerb, Ermutigung zu offener Debatte und unabhängigem gesellschaftlichem Engagement und Ermöglichung echter Teilhabe.

Event Video: 
Download Transcript

“What’s true is that a world organized by multilateral cooperation is a more just world order based upon sovereign equality of states, the rule of law, the practice of diplomacy, and not ‘might makes right’ in which a strong country can simply take territory from another country, as we saw for all of human history, up until the 20th century,” said Adam Lupel, IPI Vice President, during an event hosted by the United Nations Association of the United States of America (UNA-USA).

He added, “This is important for small countries, though the strong countries also have an interest in this system, because we all have an interest in peace, and there is no doubt statistically that interstate war has been [on] a dramatic decline since the creation of the UN.”

Dr. Lupel spoke extensively on multilateralism during a conversation with Peter Yeo, President of the Better World Organization, on July 15, 2020, at an event moderated by Rachel Pittman, Executive Director of UNA-USA.

“I think today’s context of a pandemic is a real case in point,” Dr. Lupel pointed out. “This is a global phenomenon and even the strongest country in the world can’t handle it in isolation—it’s something that we need cooperation to handle.”

“Also, it’s only through multilateral cooperation that we can aspire to do the really big things—end poverty, feed the world, combat climate change, advance human rights—things that we’re looking to do on a global scale,” he said. “And this uncertainty has only been exacerbated by the pandemic and evident divisions in the multilateral system that has made a globally coordinated response so difficult.”

In response to a question about nationalism, Dr. Lupel said, “If nationalism means isolationism and go-it-alone, it is a problem from an international perspective because it won’t lead to a safer, more secure and more prosperous nation. It will actually lead to an impoverished and more insecure nation, because there are a host of problems that can only be addressed through both cooperation and the pursuit of national interests.”

Dr. Lupel noted that the multilateral system is not just about the UN Security Council but also relates to real technical cooperation—civil aviation, the Universal Postal Union, telecommunications—”all these things have multilateral mechanisms that ease the way for us to do things that are very common, but actually would be very difficult if we didn’t cooperate internationally,” he said.

He recalled that the conversation in the lead up to the UN’s 75th anniversary “is more future-oriented. It is about recognizing global transformations and the uncertainty regarding where the international system is heading.

“Many people are beginning to speak about this moment as one of two things for the international system. It is either a moment in which long-term trends are simply being accelerated: geopolitical division, inequality, rising nationalism. Or it is a fork in the road, where we can make real change, and change direction.”

Dr. Lupel said it is likely a bit of both, “but what is clear is that the decisions being made today will have profound consequences.”

He added, “So to the extent that ‘Multilateralism is under Fire,’ organizations like the UNA-USA and IPI have a great task ahead of them to work against those trends that threaten multilateral approaches and work to improve efforts at international cooperation.”

Le 25 juin dernier, l’Institut Montaigne et la Fondation Genshagen réunissaient des personnalités européennes de premier plan pour débattre de la place du climat dans les plans de relance en Europe. L’eurodéputé Yannick Jadot (EELV), la députée au Bundestag Franziska Brantner (Bündnis 90-Die Grünen), le représentant de la Fédération allemande de l'Industrie Dr. Carsten Rolle, l’économiste du climat Christian Gollier et la Présidente du Forum Energii de Varsovie…

Les programmes de maintien dans l'emploi ont été l'un des principaux outils politiques utilisés dans de nombreux pays de l'OCDE pour contenir les retombées sociales et sur l'emploi de la crise du Covid-19. Leur usage était sans précédent : en mai 2020, les programmes de maintien dans l'emploi ont soutenu environ 50 millions d'emplois dans l'OCDE, soit environ dix fois plus que pendant la crise financière mondiale de 2008/2009. Quels ont été les effets de ces…

Le 30 mai dernier, deux astronautes américains ont rejoint la Station spatiale internationale à bord d'une fusée SpaceX, la société d’Elon Musk, confirmant le rôle central des États-Unis dans la conquête de l’espace. Tournant majeur ou exercice de communication, ce lancement aura au moins permis aux enjeux spatiaux de revenir au centre des débats. Trois questions à Arthur Sauzay, conseiller de l’Institut Montaigne pour les questions spatiales.

…

Londres a généreusement ouvert ses portes aux Chinois de Hong Kong voulant fuir le régime de Xi Jinpping. Un geste d'ouverture qui contraste avec le Brexit. Mais en prenant ses distances avec l'Union européenne, le Royaume-Uni a toutefois compromis toute possibilité de peser vraiment face à un géant tel que la Chine.

Il y a quatre ans, par référendum, les Britanniques disaient "oui" au Brexit. Leur vote n'était…

Federico Steinberg. Comentario Elcano 27/2020 - 15/7/2020

Tras la pandemia del COVID-19, el cambio de orientación de la política exterior europea se ha vuelto imprescindible.