SWP

For decades, Maghrebi decision-makers have instrumentalised friend and foe narratives with regard to Israel and Iran, two of the most controversial regional actors in the MENA region. Only Morocco has official relations with Israel, only Algeria and Tunisia with Iran. A systematic analysis of news agency reports and social media shows that political elites in the Maghreb exploit public sentiment on Israel and Iran for their own domestic and foreign policy ends: distracting from socio-economic challenges, restricting freedom of expression, strengthening the security apparatus, demonising neighbours, and nation-branding. The escalation of violence in the Middle East since 7 October 2023 has amplified existing trends in the three Maghreb states concerning Israel and to a lesser extent Iran, and revealed almost unanimous public rejection of Israel and, to a lesser degree, growing sympathies for Iran. The official responses vary: Rabat is sticking to its normalisation with Israel and rejection of Iran. Algiers is seeking to position itself as a voice for global justice in the international arena, while the Tunisian president styles himself as one of the Arab World’s most steadfast proponents of the “liberation” of Palestine. Decision-makers in Europe need to develop an understanding of the frus­trations in the Maghreb over Western double standards, and of the fundamentally different perspectives on Israel/Palestine. Otherwise they risk losing all their (civil society) partners in the region. At the same time, European policy-makers should be attentive when Maghrebi governments restrict freedom of expression and religious plu­ralism under the pretext of opposing Israel or Iran and – in the case of Algeria and Morocco – resort to potentially destabilising propaganda and sabre-rattling.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 also called the sovereignty of Belarus into question. The country served as a launching pad for the attack, thus becoming a co-aggressor. However, relations between Minsk and Moscow changed the longer the war has lasted. Belarusian leader Lukashenka has increasingly acted like a self-confident war service provider toward Kremlin boss Putin. At the same time, he has been able to avoid any direct military involvement and has sought to preserve his chance at serving as a mediator. Nevertheless, Belarus’ structural dependence on Russia has continued to increase in many areas. Right now, this gradual loss of sover­eignty can still be reversed. In order for this to remain the situation, the EU and Germany must not write the country off.

In China, money, currency and payment transactions are manifestations of state sovereignty and political power. The primary objective of Chinese monetary policy is to maintain domestic stability, expand the scope of its own influence internationally, and reshape the global financial and monetary system to make it more compatible with the structures of the Chinese one-party state. China is pursuing the internationalisation of the renminbi on several tracks in small persistent steps and with a long-term perspective, but it has so far shied away from the decisive transition to convertibility. For the time being, the renminbi does not play a significant role on the global financial and currency markets. However, it is gaining ground as a trading, credit and reserve currency in Asia and the Global South. China is a pioneer in the development and introduction of digital central bank money. It is striving to play a leading role in the digitalisation of international payment transactions. Prospectively, the technology and infrastructure developed in China and the standards set for cross-border payments using blockchain and real-time transactions could replace the current international banking and clearing system in a cost-effective manner. The Chinese leadership believes that digital central bank money offers great potential: In terms of domestic policy, it creates further opportunities for surveillance and repression. Internationally, it would become easier for China and third countries to circumvent Western financial sanctions. In response to China’s currency campaign, the European Union and the European Central Bank should step up their own efforts to internationalise and digitise the euro. Europe should avoid dependence on China when it comes to the future critical infrastructure of an interoperable system for international payments with digital central bank money.

Vom 06. bis 09. Juni 2024 wählen die Bürger:innen der Europäischen Union ein neues Parlament. Das Dossier bündelt Analysen zu den Auswirkungen der Wahl auf die Institutionen der EU, ihre politischen Prioritäten sowie die europäische Parteienlandschaft.

Russia’s war against Ukraine seems to have no immediate end in sight, the strategic competition between China and the US continues, and the expanding military cooperation between China and Russia increases the challenges facing the international com­munity. In this context, the Arctic seems to be a relic of the past, no longer the “zone of peace” that Mikhail Gorbachev described in 1987. Indeed, this Arctic exceptionalism ended long before Russia’s war of aggression began. In order to restore at least a minimum level of cooperation, informal talks are needed that could help to provide perspective after the end of the war. Two former relatively uncontroversial projects could serve as starting points: the recovery of radioactive remnants of the Cold War and an agreement to prevent unintentional escalation, namely, another Incidents at Sea Agreement (INCSEA). A return to old approaches to arms control could pave the way to renewed cooperation in the Arctic in the future.

Die Sondersendung befasst sich mit den Herausforderungen der Wahlen und den großen Wahlkampfthemen: Migration und Grenzen, Klima, Umwelt und Wirtschaft.

Impulse für die EU-Reformdebatte

Wirtschaftlich können Sanktionen im sanktionierten Land beträchtliche negative Wirkungen von langer Dauer entfalten. Doch ökonomische Kosten setzen sich keineswegs zwangsläufig in politische Wirksamkeit um. Sanktionen sind, was die Durchsetzung der angestrebten Politik- und Verhaltensänderung angeht, häufiger erfolglos als erfolgreich. Sanktionen gegen die für eine anstößige Politik verantwortliche staatliche Führung und die sie stützenden Kerngruppen sind politisch nicht wirksamer als konventionelle umfassende Handelssanktionen. Im Fall autoritärer Systeme mit einem funktionierenden Repressions- und Propagandaapparat muss damit gerechnet werden, dass Wirtschafts­sanktionen regimekonsolidierend wirken. Insbesondere multilaterale, für den betroffenen Staat kostspielige Sank­tionen können jedoch zu Regimewandel beitragen, wenn über die internationale Missbilligung der Herrschenden die Verhandlungsmacht einer gewaltlos agierenden Protestbewegung im Lande gestärkt wird. Wirtschaftssanktionen haben vielfach beträchtliche negative, ja kontraproduktive Auswirkungen in den sanktionierten Staaten: auf die Menschenrechtslage, auf Armut und Ungleichheit, die öffentliche Gesundheit, die Lebenserwartung und die Kindersterblichkeit, den Grad an Repression und an staatlicher Kontrolle über die Wirtschaft.

While a second Trump Presidency would be challenging for transatlantic ties, US nuclear assurances to its NATO allies in Europe would likely be the last casualty – not the first – of a fraying relationship. There is an intrinsic incompatibility between the United States completely abandoning its role as global actor, which would be the prerequisite for the withdrawal of such assurances, and Trump’s domestic interests. It cannot be denied that the worst-case scenario – namely, the end of extended nu­clear deterrence – is possible and requires careful contingency planning on the part of the allies; but it is highly unlikely and should not distract from addressing the more prob­able outcome. Even in the best-case scenario of a Trump II administration resembling his first term, US nuclear assurances are likely to become less credible. To allay con­cerns, German and European policymakers should work with their US counterparts before and after the November 2024 election to strengthen transatlantic diplomatic coordination, conventional deterrence and defence, as well as nuclear options.

Entscheidungsträger im Maghreb bedienen seit Jahrzehnten Freund- und Feindbilder mit Blick auf zwei regionale Akteure, die in der MENA-Region am meisten umstritten sind: Israel und Iran. Offizielle Bezie­hungen zu Israel hat nur Marokko, zu Iran pflegen nur Algerien und Tunesien Beziehungen. Die systematische Auswertung von Texten aus Nachrichtenagenturen und sozialen Medien zeigt, dass politische Akteure im Maghreb Diskurse und Stimmungslagen zu Israel und Iran für innen- und außenpolitische Zwecke nutzen. Dabei geht es um Sicherung der eigenen autoritären Herrschaft, Einschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit, Stärkung der Sicherheitsapparate, Dämonisierung des Nachbarstaates und Nation-Branding in der internationalen Arena. Die Eskalation der Gewalt in Nahost seit dem 7. Oktober 2023 hat in den drei Maghreb-Staaten negative Haltungen zu Israel und in geringerem Maße positive zu Iran verstärkt und nahezu einhellige Ablehnung Israels in den Bevölkerungen offenbart. Die offiziellen Reaktionen variieren: Rabat hält an der Normalisierung der Beziehungen mit Israel und der Ablehnung Irans fest. Algier versucht sich in der internationalen Arena als Stimme globaler Gerechtigkeit zu profilieren. Tunesiens Präsident geriert sich als standfester Kämpfer gegen den Zionismus. Europäische Entscheidungsträger sollten Verständnis für grundlegend andere Sichtweisen im Maghreb auf Israel und Palästina sowie Iran aufbringen, solange diese Auffassungen keine Hetze und Gewaltaufrufe beinhalten. Es gilt auch, wachsam zu bleiben, wenn Maghreb-Staaten unter dem Vorwand des Kampfes gegen Israel oder Iran Meinungsfreiheit sowie kulturellen und religiösen Pluralismus einschränken und – im Falle Algeriens und Marokkos – Desinformation und Säbelrasseln gegen den jeweiligen Nachbarstaat betreiben.