Connect with us

Russia

Norway’s Okkupert: Russia, The Neo-Cold War, Crimea, the Baltics, and Finlandization

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] T [/yt_dropcap]here has appeared lately a veritable plethora of books examining the present US-Russia relationship in the light of the recent investigations into the Russia-Trump connections, the so called New Cold War.

It is quite obvious that President Trump, for some reason or other, does not wish to dwell on his personal interests and dealings with Russia and has been using every imaginable distraction to deflect attention from it. Some are now speculating that the sending of tomahawk missiles into Syria is one such distraction. That in itself is an interesting conjecture.

Neither do Russia or its oligarchs, who have enriched themselves tremendously after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, are that eager to entertain the subject, nor are those who may be presumably be agents and spies for the Kremlin and minimize Russian assertiveness and aggression.

It is also quite obvious that those who defend Trump and his policies (or perhaps “non-policies might be a better term) do not wish to discuss the Russian aggression against Crimea, the Ukraine, its alliance with a war criminal who gasses his own people including women and children, the New Cold War which may portent a new Cold War in the making, despite the mutual admiration society that Trump and Putin have created in the last two years or so. One wonders why. Let’s see.

I’d like to analyze the above mentioned issues in the light of a 10 episode TV series which has come out recently out of Norway with the title “Occupert” (Occupied). It can be taken as an alternate tale of the above described rosy scenario downplaying the idea of a new Cold War and a manifest Russian aggression, albeit it is a fictional account.

Some may call it “fake news” or disinformation, something the Russians are quite expert at. Why bring in fiction when we have documented facts to rely on? Well, because sometimes myths and fictions can be more powerfully real than factual historical accounts, especially when they ruffle too many feathers and probe into the essential truth or falsehood of a subject at hand. One thinks of Orwell’s “1984,” not to speak of Plato’s ancient myth of the cave.

While the experts challenge scholars to imagine a third alternative to pro-Russia (overt or covert) vs. pro-Us, one devoid of partisanship, nationalism and patriotism, almost devoid of ideologies, this film has in fact ruffled many Russian diplomats’ feathers including Vladimir Putin and have exacerbated tensions existing between Russia and the EU over the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in the Ukraine and the very meaning of democracy and human rights.

Russia’s ambassador in Oslo, Norway, Vyacheslav Pavlovsky, who being more sophis- ticated than Donald Trump, communicates via email, told the press via email that “It’s definitely very regrettable that in the… 70th anniversary of the victory of World War II, the authors of the series — as if they had forgotten about the heroic contribution of the Soviet army in the liberation of northern Norway from Nazi occupants — decided in the worst Cold War traditions to frighten the Norwegian audience with a non-existing threat from the east.”

One interesting response to that protest by the Russian ambassador was that of the director of the movie Erik Skjoldbjaerg who said this “They’re commenting on a series they haven’t even seen yet, they are opposed in principle”. In other words, the ambassador, even before viewing the film, is saying that it is a piece of propaganda or a lie. The actual deviousness may actually consist in reviewing a movie one has not seen yet via ideological lenses. But let’s continue.

Let’s remember that the story is fictitious and its author is Jo Nesbo, a hugely popular crime writer in Norway. It depicts basically a Norway which in the near future (near because some of the events described in the movie are unfolding as we speak) plunges the world into a tragic international crisis by suddenly halting its oil and gas production following an environmental catastrophe. But again, why all the fuss over a piece of entertaining crime fiction? Are Norwegians and others too dumb to take it as such, as unadulterated entertainment? Obviously this fictional account has hit some raw historical or ideological nerves. Which ones?

Let’s begin with a quick look at the complex plot of the narrative. Russia takes over production of the black gold or oil being drilled in the North Sea which Norway wants to halt. In this it has the blessing of the European Union which has pulled out of NATO and the Atlantic alliance. Russia does what is now called a “silk occupation” of the country. It begins not with a military invasion but with an economic control of the oil, in effect an economic occupation with the Russian ambassador in charge in Oslo and the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jesper Berg, forced to play second fiddle in other to retain a modicum of dignity and sovereignty.

This sounds eerily similar to the Finlandization of Finland after World War II during the Cold War. Something like that is being attempted by Putin in the Ukraine and even in Crimea before its outright annexation. That may explain the angry protest of the Russians. The film may be fictitious, the ideas expressed in it may have preceded the Ukraine crisis, but it appears all too real when it assignes to the Russians the role of aggressors. That may be one of the raw sensitive nerves that has been hit. It is the nerve of the accusation by the EU of military interference in the Ukrainian conflict which some see as the beginning of a new Cold War, or at the very least as the beginning of the frostiest relations between Russia and the West since the collapse of the USSR.

On the other hand the Norwegians insist that the story is about what happens in an occupied country where life appears quite normal but some are ready to sacrifice themselves in a fight for freedom. The Russians are not buying it and have in fact increased their activities off its Arctic coast, close to Norway. This concerns the Norwegians who do not belong to the EU, they never joined, but are in sinc with it when it comes to sanctions against Russia because of the Ukraine crisis in which Russia is heavily involved despite its denials.

But there may be another raw nerve and it is historical. Okkupert, while never even mentioning the word “quisling,” does evoke the Nazi occupation of Norway when Vidkun Quisling collaborated with the invaders and so in some way evokes the trauma of that era. Quisling’s for all intent and purposes was a puppet government which revoked the authority of the Norwegian King (who was exiled to England after he refused to abdicate), banned the entry of fleeing Jews, and committed Norwegian soldiers to the Eastern front under Nazi supervision. After the war the very name of “quisling” became an eponym for “traitor.”

So, the Russians see Okkupert as a modern version of Quisling’s shameful legacy, revisited on Russia for the near future. The question arises: is the revisiting, if indeed it is that, well deserved because of certain notoriously aggressive moves by present day Russia?

There is also the issue of environmental ethics. The Norwegian Prime Minister Jesper Berg is from the Green party which has succeeded in assuming power after a damaging global warming hurricane. He wants to introduce a new form of nuclear energy-powered chemical element called thorium, with Norway leading by example and shutting down gas and oil production. This action is found unacceptable by the EU and Russia which threaten Norway with a full scale invasion unless it commits to maintaining fuel extraction under Moscow’s supervision (the crew doing the extraction will all be Russian) while the US, somewhat similar to what may eventually happen soon, having withdrawn from NATO and achieved energy independence, sits this one out.

How relevant is all this to what has occurred in the Ukraine? Isn’t Russia occupation of parts of the Ukraine a so called friendly “velvet occupation”? In the film, when the Russians first come to Norway, they come as civilians, with no thanks or fighter jets. There are not even “little green men. Only those who care to notice see the subtle diminution of Norwegian sovereignty and the increasing assertion of Russian control. Thus Berg goes along with the temporary occupation hoping that nobody will take notice.

The book came out in 2012 but it became relevant and more relevant in the light of the forced annexation of Crimea, the subsequent Ukraine crisis in 2014 and the appearance of East-West tensions over Putin’s new-found assertiveness in Europe, an attempt to divide Europe from the US and finance its ultra-nationalist, fascist leaning parties inimical to the union of the EU, the violation of Baltic and Scandinavian airspace and seas which have become routine. Trump, up to now has played right into this scenario refusing to criticize Russia in any way, for dubious reasons. War games are being played in the Kremlin in which Russian troops seize the Estonian capital of Tellinn in 60 hours. It all lends authenticity and relevancy to the present situation in Europe and the US too.

Indeed, there is little about this show that feels unrealistic and implausible. The human drama that it reveals feels very real. One of its deepest insights is to show how a democratic society, because of its compromises with democratic principles aimed at “getting along and surviving,” slowly but inexorably gets transformed, willy nilly, into a morally corroded polity. This society wished to continue its normalcy and end up thinking of the “Free Norway” secret underground para-military movement as a terrorist movement, but in reality it is the only movement which retains its patriotic fervor in the face of humiliating compromises.

The show also portrays an admirable journalist, Thomas Eriksen, who repeatedly risks his life to expose the truth. Also Martin Jjupvik, a security detail agent who believes he is helping his country by working with the Russians in rooting out his fellow Norwegians. That of course raises the specter of Quisling. It also raises the specter of Finnish neutrality during the Cold War which allowed that country to remain independent but subservient to the Russians and thus avoid the fate of the Baltics which were forcefully incorporated to the Soviet Union. Finland made “Finlandization” a dirty word describing what happens to a small country when it lives next to a big and territorially expansionistic one. It ends up trading a reduction of its sovereignty in exchange for self-rule. That is another raw nerve in the Norwegian psyche. They wish to avoid a repetition on “Finlandization” in Norway, the equivalent of a “lion in a cage” according to the Estonian-Finnish novelist Sofi Oksanen. And so do most of the democratic EU nations, I dare say. They do not wish to become satellite with the illusion of independence and sovereignty.

It was therefore quite predictable that the Russian government of Vladimir Putin would not be very pleased with Occupert. It intimates that Russia can be friendly with neighboring democratic governments but only when they are on a leash. In other words, it reveals too much of the game of “divide and conquer” which Putin is playing as we speak. He wants to keep in place the Russian propaganda with its sense of victimhood at the hands of the Bullying West, remind the world of Russia’s role in the Great Patriotic War, and continue its vehement denial that Russia poses any kind of threat to any of its neighbors.

The EU for one is not buying. It remains to be seen if Trump, who is capable of pivoting on a dime, since he has little if any ethical and democratic principles, also comes around. A Gallup poll among Norwegians a couple of years ago reveals that 89% of Norwegians disapprove of Russia’s leadership. As Lincoln said: “One can fool some of the people all the times, and all of the people some of the times, but one cannot fool all the people all of the times.” Putin and company will eventually discover that.

Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Continue Reading
Comments

Russia

The Russia-China-Iran Alliance

Published

on

NATO, the U.S. Government, and all other “neoconservatives” (adherents to Cecil Rhodes’s 1877 plan for a global U.S. empire that would be run, behind the scenes, by the UK’s aristocracy) have been treating Russia, China, and Iran, as being their enemies. In consequence of this: Russia, China, and Iran, have increasingly been coordinating their international policies, so as to assist each other in withstanding (defending themselves against) the neoconservative efforts that are designed to conquer them, and to add them to the existing U.S. empire.

The U.S. empire is the largest empire that the world has ever known, and has approximately 800 military bases in foreign countries, all over the planet. This is historically unprecedented. But it is — like all historical phenomena — only temporary. However, its many propagandists — not only in the news-media but also in academia and NGOs (and Rhodesists predominate in all of those categories) — allege the U.S. (or UK-U.S.) empire to be permanent, or else to be necessary to become permanent. Many suppose that “the rise and fall of the great powers” won’t necessarily relate to the United States (i.e., that America will never fall from being the world’s dominant power); and, so, they believe that the “American Century” (which has experienced so many disastrous wars, and so many unnecessary wars) will — and even should — last indefinitely, into the future. That viewpoint is the permanent-warfare-for-permanent-peace lie: it asserts that a world in which America’s billionaires, who control the U.S. Government (and the American public now have no influence over their Government whatsoever), should continue their ‘rules-based international order’, in which these billionaires determine what ‘rules’ will be enforced, and what ‘rules’ won’t be enforced; and in which ‘rules-based international order’ international laws (coming from the United Nations) will be enforced ONLY if and when America’s billionaires want them to be enforced. The ideal, to them, is an all-encompassing global dictatorship, by U.S. (& UK) billionaires.

In other words: Russia, China, Iran, and also any nation (such as Syria, Belarus, and Venezuela) whose current government relies upon any of those three for international support, don’t want to become part of the U.S. empire. They don’t want to be occupied by U.S. troops. They don’t want their national security to depend upon serving the interests of America’s billionaires. Basically, they want the U.N. to possess the powers that its inventor, FDR, had intended it to have, which were that it would serve as the one-and-only international democratic republic of nation-states; and, as such, would have the exclusive ultimate control over all nuclear and other strategic weapons and military forces, so that there will be no World War III. Whereas Rhodes wanted a global dictatorship by a unified U.S./UK aristocracy, their ‘enemies’ want a global democracy of nations (FDR named it “the United Nations”), ruling over all international relations, and being settled in U.N.-authorized courts, having jurisdiction over all international-relations issues.

In other words: they don’t want an invasion such as the U.S. and its allies (vassal nations) did against Iraq in 2003 — an invasion without an okay from the U.N Security Council and from the General Assembly — to be able to be perpetrated, ever again, against ANY nation. They want aggressive wars (which U.S.-and-allied aristocracies ‘justify’ as being necessary to impose ‘democracy’ and ‘humanitarian values’ on other nations) to be treated as being the international war-crimes that they actually are.

However, under the prevailing reality — that international law is whatever the U.S. regime says it is — a U.N.-controlled international order doesn’t exist, and maybe never will exist; and, so, the U.S. regime’s declared (or anointed, or appointed) ‘enemies’ (because none of them actually is their enemy — none wants to be in conflict against the U.S.) propose instead a “multilateral order” to replace “the American hegemony” or global dictatorship by the U.S. regime. They want, instead, an international democracy, like FDR had hoped for, but they are willing to settle merely for international pluralism — and this is (and always has been) called “an international balance of powers.” They recognize that this (balance of powers) had produced WW I, and WW II, but — ever since the moment when Harry S. Truman, on 25 July 1945, finally ditched FDR’s intentions for the U.N., and replaced that by the Cold War for the U.S. to conquer the whole world (and then formed NATO, which FDR would have opposed doing) — they want to go back (at least temporarily) to the pre-WW-I balance-of-powers system, instead of to capitulate to the international hegemon (America’s billionaires, the controller of the U.S. empire). 

So: the Russia-China-Iran alliance isn’t against the U.S. regime, but is merely doing whatever they can to avoid being conquered by it. They want to retain their national sovereignty, and ultimately to become nation-states within a replacement-U.N. which will be designed to fit FDR’s pattern, instead of Truman’s pattern (the current, powerless, talking-forum U.N.).

Take, as an example of what they fear, not only the case of the Rhodesists’ 2003 invasion of Iraq, but the case of America’s coup against Ukraine, which Obama had started planning by no later than 2011, and which by 2013 entailed his scheme to grab Russia’s top naval base, in Crimea (which had been part of Russia from 1783 to 1954 when the Soviet dictator transferred Crimea to Ukraine). Obama installed nazis to run his Ukrainian regime, and he hoped ultimately for Ukraine to be accepted into NATO so that U.S. missiles could be installed there on Russia’s border only a five-minute missile-flight away from Moscow. Alexander Mercouris at The Duran headlined on 4 July 2021, “Ukraine’s Black Sea NATO dilemma”, and he clearly explained the coordinated U.S.-and-allied aggression that was involved in the U.S.-and-allied maneuvering. U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media hid it. Also that day, Mercouris bannered “In Joint Statement Russia-China Agree Deeper Alliance, Balancing US And NATO”, and he reported a historic agreement between those two countries, to coordinate together to create the very EurAsian superpower that Rhodesists have always dreaded. It’s exactly the opposite of what the U.S.-and-allied regimes had been aiming for. But it was the response to the Rhodesists’ insatiable imperialism.

To drive both Russia and China into a corner was to drive them together. They went into the same corner, not different corners. They were coming together, not coming apart. And Iran made it a threesome

So: that’s how the U.S. regime’s appointed ‘enemies’ have come to join together into a virtual counterpart to America’s NATO alliance of pro-imperialist nations. It’s a defensive alliance, against an aggressive alliance — an anti-imperialist alliance, against a pro-imperialist alliance. America’s insatiably imperialistic foreign policies have, essentially, forced its ‘enemies’ to form their own alliance. It’s the only way for them to survive as independent nations, given Truman’s abortion of FDR’s plan for the U.N. — the replacement, by Truman of that, by the U.N. that became created, after FDR died on 12 April 1945.

Continue Reading

Russia

New Strategic Report: Development Prospects for Improving Russia’s Policy in Africa

Published

on

An expert group, has completed its studies of Russia’s policy implementation processes, impact and setbacks, and the development prospects in Africa, and has presented its final report with some recommendations intended to improve and scale up the existing Russia’s influence in Africa.

The report was prepared as part of a programme sponsored by the Russian Foreign Ministry. The Situation Analytical Report, compiled by 25 Russian policy experts, was headed by Sergei A. Karaganov, Dean and Academic Supervisor of the Faculty of World Economy and International Relations of the National Research University – Higher School of Economics (HSE University). Karaganov is also the Honorary Chairman of the Presidium, Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.

The 150-page report, released in November, offers new directions, some development prospects and recommendations for improving policy methods and approaches with Africa. The report identifies two key factors necessary for determining the long-term importance of the continent: (i) human capital and (ii) natural resources.

These make for the increased interest for investment in extractive industries and infrastructure, booming consumer markets rising at rates much higher than the rest of the world. With its 1.3 billion, it is a potential market for all kinds of consumable goods and for services. In the coming decades, there will be an accelerated competition between or among the external players over access to the resources and for economic influence in Africa.

Nevertheless, despite the growth of external player’s influence and presence in Africa, Russia has to intensify and redefine its parameters as it has now transcended unto the fifth stage. Russia’s Africa policy is roughly divided into four periods, previously after Soviet’s collapse in 1991.

The first historic summit created a good basis for launching or ushering in a new fifth stage of Russian-African relations. The joint declaration adopted at the summit raised the African agenda of Russia’s foreign policy to a new level and so far remains the main document determining the conceptual framework of Russian-African cooperation.

Some of the situation analysis participants, who contributed to the latest policy report spoke very critically of Russia’s current policy towards Africa and even claimed that there was no consistent policy and/or consistency in the policy implementation at all. The intensification of political contacts are only with a focus on making them demonstrative. Russia’s foreign policy strategy regarding Africa has to spell out and incorporate the development needs of African countries.

While the number of top-most and high-level meetings have increased, the share of substantive issues on the agenda often remains small or scanty. There are little definitive results from such meetings. There are, indeed, to demonstrate “demand for Russia” in the non-Western world; the formation of ad hoc political alliances with African countries geared towards competition with the collective West. Apart from the absence of a public strategy for the continent, there is shortage of qualified personnel, the lack of coordination among various state and para-state institutions working with Africa.

In addition, insufficient and disorganized Russian-African lobbying, and combined with the lack of “information hygiene” at all levels of public speaking were listed among the main flaws of Russia’s current Africa policy. Under the circumstance, Russia needs to compile its various ideas for cooperation with Africa into a single comprehensive and publicly available strategy to achieve more success with Africa.

In many cases and situations, ideas and intentions are often passed for results, unapproved projects are announced as going ahead. Russia’s possibilities are overestimated both publicly and in closed negotiations. The supply of Russian-made vaccines to Africa is an example. Having concluded contracts for the supply of Sputnik V to a number of African states, Russian suppliers often failed to meet its contractual obligations on time. Right now, there are many agreements signed, before and during the first Russia-Africa summit, and Russia simply fails to deliver, as promised with African countries.

“The situation analysis participants agreed that the lack of project due diligence and proper verification of contracting partners is one of the key challenges for Russian business in Africa. Many projects announced at the top and high political levels have not been implemented. The reason is usually that the projects were not properly prepared before official approval. As a result, budget funding is often spent on raw and unprepared initiatives,” according to the report.

The adoption by Russia of an open doctrinal document on cooperation with Africa will emphasize the seriousness of its intentions and create an atmosphere of trust, in which individual steps will attain greater weight and higher-level justification. In African conditions, this will mean accelerated coordination of essential decisions. It is important to note that such public strategies for the entire continent are a necessary instrument of the other countries that are active in Africa.

Unlike most competitors, Russia can afford to promote a more honest, open, direct and understandable agenda for Africa: sovereignty, continental integration, infrastructure development, human development (education and medicine), security (including the fight against hunger and epidemics), normal universal human values, the idea that people should live with dignity and feel protected. All situation analysis participants agreed with this view. The main advantage of such an agenda is that it may be more African than those of its competitors.

It is advisable to present such a strategy already at the second Russia-Africa summit, and discuss and coordinate it with African partners before that. Along with the strategy, it is advisable to adopt an Action Plan — a practical document that would fill cooperation with substance between summits.

One of the most important tasks critical for the effectiveness of Russian actions in Africa is the centralization and strengthening of the role and capacity of Russian state institutions on the African track, especially in the information sphere.

The report proposes dialogues should be enhanced between civil societies, including expert and academic organizations. In a situation where a rapid expansion of trade and economic relations is difficult (for example, due to economic stagnation or a crisis in the respective country), the humanitarian track can become one of the ways to deepen relations further.

On foreign players in Africa, the report points to China as number one active player. India’s influence continues to grow, as does the involvement of Turkey, the UAE, and Qatar, which are relatively new players in Africa. The influence and involvement of the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil in the coming years, are likely to remain at the level of the past decade and will decline compared to China’s influence.

China, the EU, Germany, Turkey, Spain, and others have developed, announced and are implementing progressively their African strategies.

In general, of all the G7 countries, only Germany still has some potential to increase its influence and presence in Africa. Canada, Italy, and the UK, according to the authors, can at best maintain their influence at the same level, but it, too, will decrease compared that of the new centers of power.

At the same time, for its part, Africa will retain its importance for Europe in the long term and may even increase being an important source of a wide range of resources. Europe needs mineral resources (cobalt, gas, bauxite, rare earth metals) in order to carry out the energy transition, and human ones in order to make up for the natural decrease of population. The European banking system and financial institutions traditionally rely on Africa as a source of funding (while African capital often seeks refuge, and instability only accelerates its flight).

The influence of other non-European emerging powers, who often compete with each other, is also growing in Africa. UAE and Turkey may be mentioned among others. Their rivalry is visible in North Africa, West Africa and, especially, the Red Sea, and includes competition for control over both port infrastructure and points of possible military presence. A vivid example of this rivalry is Somalia, where Turkey is interacting and strengthening its position in Mogadishu, while the UAE, which recently lost control of the port in Djibouti, is taking a foothold in Berbera (in the self-proclaimed Republic of Somaliland).

There are indications that Israel, whose activity in many African countries, particularly in East Africa, has remained traditionally high (especially in “sensitive” areas, such as internal security, the training of security and special forces, as well as in economic, especially agriculture projects), will continue to increase its involvement in the short and medium term.

Making efforts to maintain and expand its presence in Africa, Israel is developing contacts with the UAE and through it with a number of Gulf countries. Africa will be one of the platforms for Israel’s interaction with these countries. It will continue attempts to reduce the influence of Iran that has been carrying out its own diverse activity in Africa, seeking to expand it further.

On July 22, 2021, already after the situation analysis had taken place, it was declared that Israel had obtained an observer status to the African Union.

In the next ten years, rivalry, the balance of power and interests in the Indian Ocean will become a key factor of military and strategic importance, for this is where the interests of China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Arab countries, Iran, as well as the United States, France and other players are likely to collide. These countries will use significant resources to strengthen their positions along the entire coast of Eastern Africa, from Egypt to South Africa, which means both risks and new opportunities for the countries of the region. The military and strategic importance of the Indian Ocean islands (including four African island states) will continue to grow.

The report proposes discussions on possible mechanisms and formats of bilateral and multilateral alliances with interested parties, whose interests in Africa may coincide with the Russian ones. For example, the potential of bilateral cooperation in Africa with India (including outside of BRICS) has not been fully tapped yet. Joint initiatives in Africa in the areas of international development assistance, education, health care, and project financing may be of interest as well. It is also advisable to explore, including at the expert level, the possibility of engaging with countries such as South Korea (widely represented in Africa), Vietnam (showing growing interest), Cuba, Serbia, and several others as part of Russian initiatives in Africa.

Without Africa, Russia would not have so many friendly partners sharing its strategic goal of building a fair polycentric world order. By all purposes, Africa seems to be a favorable region in terms of positioning Russia as a global center of power and a country that defends peace, sovereignty, the right of states to choose development models independently, and as a protector of nature and the environment. Therefore, Russia’s increased presence and influence in Africa does not and should not cause resistance among African countries.

It is also important to move away from the “zero-sum” approach in relations with the West, even though at first glance the interests and aspirations of the EU and the U. S. in Africa seem to be opposite to those of Russia. Russia should build its policy and rhetoric in relation to Africa regardless of its rivalry with the West and should not create the impression that its policy in Africa is driven by the wish to weaken the positions of the United States and the EU on the continent.

The situation analysis participants agreed that Russia’s policy in Africa should be a derivative of Russia’s overall foreign policy goals and objectives, the three key areas being:

a) Ensuring national security. In the African context, this means primarily the danger of new viruses, extremism, anything that may impact Russia’s national security, including competition with other centers of power.

b) Ensuring social and economic development of Russia. Africa is a promising market
for Russian products and services, and a factor that facilitates the diversification and
modernization of the Russian economy. The situation analysis participants agreed that this is the main aspect today. In future, Africa can become one of the important factors in the development of some of Russian non-resource sectors, particularly railway and agricultural engineering, automotive and wheeled equipment, as well as services (primarily education and health care).

c) Strengthening the position of the Russian Federation as one of the influential centers in the modern world. Political partnership with African countries and the African Union as friendly players can make an important contribution to these efforts. As UN votes show, the positions of Russia and most African countries are conceptually identical or similar on many issues. None of the African countries imposed sanctions or restrictions against Russia. The ideological basis for cooperation at this level can be provided by the conceptual documents and ideas recognized and supported by all African countries: the approach of “African Solutions to African Problems” be strictly followed, working within the framework of the African Union Agenda 2063 and the UN Development Goals 2030.

Continue Reading

Russia

How the Arms Control Approach Could Help Russia Tackle Climate Change

Published

on

The right approach would probably be to create a special interagency coordinator under a senior official reporting directly to the head of state. It is vitally important that whoever heads the office is well respected by international partners: a worthy counterpart to the likes of John Kerry of the United States.

The energy crunch in Europe; the knee-jerk accusations of Russia having engineered it to win early approval of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline; and the Kremlin’s riposte, pointing to the EU’s own policy failures, dominate the news. Yet one really important development remains underreported. Moscow’s official view of climate change and energy policy has just undergone a major reversal. Weeks before the COP-26 climate summit in Glasgow, Russia’s Economic Development Ministry has come up with a national goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2060.

This is not a covert attempt by the in-system liberals to begin aligning Russia’s climate policy with the policies of the world’s major powers. Rather, it is the consummation of a sea change that has been brewing for the past couple of years in the Kremlin’s thinking. President Vladimir Putin announced the carbon neutrality goal in remarks at the recent Russian Energy Week in Moscow. Climate change denial is over. Debate about what exactly has caused it is considered politically irrelevant. What matters are the existing realities and the current trends, which amount to all the world’s major economies moving away from dependence on fossil fuels. As a result, the new nexus of efforts to deal with climate change, the energy transition those efforts center on, and the geopolitical impact of that transition are moving right to the top of the Russian foreign policy agenda.

Of course, this is not all or even mostly foreign policy. Energy transition, which is the core issue, will affect not just the oil and gas sector, which in 2020 accounted for 15 percent of Russia’s GDP, but the country’s entire economy and finances, its political economy, and the relative political influence of various vested interests. Given the coincidence of energy transition and the inevitable transfer of political power, this combination is likely to become one of the most important processes shaping Russia’s future for years and decades to come.

Still, the foreign policy aspect of the change is non-negligible. The carbon neutrality pledges already announced by Russia’s main economic partners—the European Union and China; the United States, Japan and others—as well as the UN climate conference in Glasgow next month are all compelling Moscow to come up with a strategy of its own, and soon. Such a strategy will aim to preserve the country’s position as an energy power, but on a much more diverse foundation.

Integrating climate science, energy issues, and geopolitical objectives to produce and pursue an effective strategy could be compared to the task faced by the Soviet Union in the late 1960s–1980s. Back then, Moscow had to come up with a practical way to link nuclear science and weapons development, military force posture and strategy, the capabilities of the defense industry, and wider foreign policy goals. The result was transiting from the sterile rhetoric of universal disarmament to a diplomacy of strategic arms control that eventually produced strategic stability between the Soviet Union and the United States.

What is needed today is for various parts of the Russian government to pool their resources. The offices of the president’s special representative for climate issues and the special representative for liaison with international organizations on reaching sustainable development goals are evidently too small to take control. The ministries of foreign affairs, economic development, and finance; the Russian Academy of Sciences; and the Security Council all have an interest and possess valuable expertise on the issues, but none of them can actually be charged with taking the lead on their own.

The right approach would probably be to create a special unit under a senior official reporting directly to the head of state. That unit would become an interagency coordinator among the many ministries that have interest and expertise on the relevant issues. Also, to borrow a page from the history books on Soviet arms control, a permanent mechanism could be organized of principals and deputies from various parts of the government to discuss and prepare decisions on these matters. This would be an analogue of the Big Five on strategic arms negotiations (the Party Central Committee, the Defense Ministry, the KGB, the Military Industrial Commission of the Council of Ministers, and the Foreign Affairs Ministry). It is vitally important that whoever heads the office has direct access to the president and is well respected by international partners. He or she needs to be a worthy counterpart to the likes of John Kerry of the United States.

The current hike in gas prices in Europe has motivated a number of people in Russia to sneer at green and alternative energy projects and reassert the continuing primacy of traditional sources of energy. Life is never linear, of course. However, even if future economic development does not completely close the books on fossil fuels (and it probably won’t, at least for a long time), the balance of energy consumption by some of the key buyers of Russian oil and gas will most likely change fast.

The speed of change means that temporizing now would undermine Russia’s chances of limiting the damage from the reduction of the world’s demand for its oil and gas. It would also prevent it from participating in developing new global norms and from taking advantage of its vast potential capabilities in such areas as hydrogen energy. Strategic decisions on that score have just been made, and this is a crucial positive step. The task now is to construct well-designed mechanisms to implement those decisions nationally and in foreign policy.

This article was published as part of the “Relaunching U.S.-Russia Dialogue on Global Challenges: The Role of the Next Generation” project, implemented in cooperation with the U.S. Embassy to Russia. The opinions, findings, and conclusions stated herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Embassy to Russia.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Energy News54 mins ago

Colombia’s energy districts: an example for the region

An energy district is a local institution that leads, implements and accelerates a locally-owned, inclusive and clean energy transition. In...

Tech News3 hours ago

193 countries adopt the first global agreement on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

All the nations members of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted on Thursday a historical text that...

Africa Today5 hours ago

Africa Industrialization Week 2021 at UNIDO

A series of webinars on themes such as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, climate-related challenges in industrialization, and opportunities for Japanese...

Health & Wellness7 hours ago

WHO urges caution over travel bans linked to new COVID-19 variant

The UN health agency has urged all countries to adopt a risk-based and scientific approach to travel bans linked to...

EU Politics8 hours ago

Europe and Central Asia Ministers endorse new roadmap to reduce risk of disasters amid Covid-19 crisis

Governments across Europe and Central Asia have backed a roadmap towards preventing future disasters including new pandemics in the face...

Finance9 hours ago

8 Time Management Tricks to Handle Studies

For many students, midterms are just around the corner! It’s the final effort that they have to make before going...

Middle East11 hours ago

Yemen recovery possible if war stops now

War-torn Yemen is among the poorest countries in the world, but recovery is possible if the conflict ends now, the UN Development...

Trending