On January 19 the European Commission released a preliminary plan which is designed to reduce the European Union’s dependence on the US dollar. In addition, the plan signals an intention to protect European companies from Washington-imposed extraterritorial sanctions. As a long-term strategy, it states an intention to “considerably” increase the role of euro as an international currency.
European officials, who are in charge of financial transactions, emphasize that the sanctions and tariff strikes carried out by the Trump administration against potential allies in the past couple of years point to the still high level of Europe’s dependence on the financial system with the American dollar in the center. Washington’s policy «had an outright negative impact on the EU’s and member countries’ capacity to promote their foreign policy interests».
At present, the American currency accounts for more than four fifths of all exchange transactions worldwide. As a result,, if Washington needs to block any financial transactions, all it needs to do is to enter individuals, organizations or countries on the “black list”, which will be sent to all banks across the globe. For fear of losing the possibility of making payments in dollars, an overwhelming majority of companies and financial institutions have to follow instruction from US authorities.
On December 3, 2020 the Directorate General for External Policies of the European Parliament published a special report on orders from the Committee on International Trade which says that «US extraterritorial sanctions against Russia, Iran and Cuba affect the interests of EU countries and are legally groundless». Such measures, the report points out, run counter to WTO regulations, while the American secondary sanctions, which block access to the dollar-based financial system, are estimated by the authors of the document as «a serious challenge to the 27 Union countries».
For a major protection measure the report calls for «increasing the share of payments in euros or terminating cooperation with the US in some areas».Under the document published on January 19, the European Commission expects that a general plan approved in the summer last year to rescue the EU economy from the consequences of coronavirus pandemic, along with the supplementary programs of financial restoration as part of the 7-year budget, will become key to an early consolidation of the EU financial policy. This, in turn, will set the stage for strengthening the international role of the euro.
The “rescue plan” was approved in the amount of 750 billion euros, and, for the first time ever, the EU members agreed to issue a common debt to finance it. It is expected that emission of new bonds, both by individual EU members, and by the Community as a whole, will contribute to «a considerable expansion of liquidity on the EU capital markets» and will attract investors.
While the history of top world reserve currencies goes back several centuries, none of them has ever occupied such a domineering position as the US dollar nowadays. In our time, the only instance of a relatively fast change of reserve currency – from the British pound to the US dollar – took place as a result of two world wars.
Overall, experts are unanimous that a country or a community of countries that claim the role of reserve currency emitter, must possess a large-scale, growing and sustainable economy, a developed financial market, which offers potential investors huge liquidity volumes and a variety of reliable assets, and must guarantee freedom of capital movement. Finally, they must demonstrate readiness and capability to play a leading role in international relations, that is, to have a substantial military and geopolitical weight.
Europe is doing well in terms of nominal economic growth and given the low cost of financial transactions, since reception and dissemination of information is transparent by nature. Meanwhile, even the most ardent supporters of a stronger financial and economic influence of the EU acknowledge that at present «major financial hubs, London and New York, are located beyond the bounds of the EU, while the capital markets within the EU are too segmented», – RBK says.
The euro, despite its 20-year history, has yet to reach the “clear parameters” of a regional currency. On the one hand, by 2019 the euro had made a tangible contribution to the weakening of the positions of the US dollar in global economy. According to the European Commission, at that time already one fifth of global currency reserves was denominated in the single European currency, while «60 countries and territories tie their currencies to it, in one way or other». The euro has also done well on the promising market of “green” bonds, of which nearly half are denominated in the common European currency, according to The Financial Times.
In November last year the inter-bank payments system SWIFT reported that «the dollar for the first time since 2013 ceased to be the most used currency in global payments». In October the system indicated that the dollar accounted for 37,6% of transactions, while the euro — 37,8%. In March payments in dollars made up nearly 45%.Bloomberg says a drop in the dollar rate, and a decrease in dollar payments are the result of crises in trade, an economic slump which was triggered by the pandemic, and “political instability”.
On the other hand, according to The Financial Times, the share of euro in global gold and currency reserves reduced from 23% in 2009 to 20% in 2019. In addition, the euro is now vying for a top currency with both the dollar and the yuan. In nearly ten years, by the end of 2019, The Economist says, debt obligations denominated in yuan had outnumbered the British pound, the euro and the Japanese yen. But not the dollar.
For Europeans the number one “obstacle” is the geopolitical one. Despite all statements of late about the expediency of political consolidation, the EU is still far from transforming into an organization somewhat reminiscent of a confederation. Besides, the EU is unable to “exert political influence on other global economic hubs”, including the United States and China.
Judging by the published document, the European Commission hopes to maintain the pace of economic and financial integration which the EU acquired in the course of a joint struggle against the corona crisis. For the first time in history EU members have agreed on the emission of the Community’s common debt. As the USA and China move towards a “cold war” in the financial, commercial and technological spheres, the European currency and financial system as a whole may serve as a ‘safe haven’, a refuge for an ever growing number of countries and businesses which are striving to avoid losses in conducting payments and settlement transactions.
However, if it wants to compete with the dollar and yuan on the basis of parity, the EU ought to make a breakthrough in developing its own financial technology, which is, undoubtedly, one of the key features of authority and sovereignty. Many in Europe tend to interpret Washington’s policies under Trump as America’s bid for changing the global economic layout. And now, the idea of “nationalizing” vitally important technologies is gaining strength in all leader countries.
Europe is terribly behind the USA and China in the development of companies that offer services in managing social platforms, Internet commerce an finances. Bridging this technological gap in a few years is challenging, if not outright impossible. What is making the situation worse is the absence of a common European market of digital technologies and services. Given the situation, what could serve as an effective means of reducing this gap is “re-nationalization” of data – the major resource of the IT industry. In addition, the EU is trying to make the most of its position as a major market for IT giants, and de facto occupy the position of a trend setter in international regulation of their activities. In the future, this may come to signify “globalization” for “own” companies alone and administrative restrictions for “others”.
Echoing this are European Commission proposals concerning the launch of a digital euro under the patronage of the European Central Bank. According to a recent ECB report, the role of the dollar as an international payments currency may diminish considerably, if central banks agree on direct cross-border payments, through exchanging digital currencies.
At present, the European Central Bank is among the top three financial regulators that demonstrate considerable interest in developing block chain technology and introducing digital currencies. As for prospects for reducing dependence on the dollar, a matter of primary concern is the possibility of issuing the so-called Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). What is meant is virtual money, which is controlled by a national, or supra-national, as in the case of the ECB, central bank, and which does not exist in cash but only in the form of information recorded on computer memory chips.
The geopolitical consequences of the start of the emission of a digital euro may acquire fairly huge proportions. As soon as there appeared the first crypto currency – bitcoin, Washington sounded alarm that “America’s foes”, be it governments or non-governmental institutions, could succeed in setting up a financial network totally independent of the US dollar. In this case, the United States would lose a major instrument of non-military pressure, which it could use to influence its competitors and rivals.
Should countries or intergovernmental organizations begin to emit crypto currency, unilateral sanctions will become pointless. Just as a withdrawal of any nation, even as powerful as the USA, from multilateral agreements which hinge upon the threat of imposing sanctions, will make no sense either.
A digital euro undermines such a weighty instrument of US political pressure as the inter-bank payment system SWIFT because it guarantees instant payments without the dollar. 2020 reports said that the European Central Bank had created a working group to look into the possibility of establishing cooperation between national digital currency projects, with the participation of Canada, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain.
On the whole, the euro needs a “solid foundation” if it wants to successfully compete with the dollar and the yuan. The EU common budget should finally reach beyond the bounds of a fund that subsidizes member countries. It is also essential to balance the growth of the Eurozone in terms of its dependence on exports, “and on the corresponding export of capital”.
An agreement on the emission of Europe’s common debt “for the first time inspires hope of creating a substantial reserve of common European debt obligations”. But whether the decision to emit EU bonds will herald the formation of a supra-national ministry of finance is unclear. Until recently, discussions to this effect all but fueled differences in attitude between Eurozone governments.
Nevertheless, the corona crisis has given new impetus to political moods in favor of preserving and strengthening currency sovereignty. European politicians, interested in cementing the international role of the EU, have a good reason for their option in favor of financial and economic agenda. Europe’s dependence on the USA in military area is pervasive,, while in the economic and financial spheres Europe has been pursuing a more independent agenda in recent years. Now, the European Union seems to be nearing a point after which it may make new important steps in this direction.
From our partner International Affairs
Iran has an integral role to play in Russian-South Asian connectivity
Iran is geostrategically positioned to play an integral role in Russian-South Asian connectivity. President Putin told the Valdai Club during its annual meeting in October 2019 that “there is one more prospective route, the Arctic – Siberia – Asia.
The idea is to connect ports along the Northern Sea Route with ports of the Pacific and Indian oceans via roads in East Siberia and central Eurasia.” This vision, which forms a crucial part of his country’s “Greater Eurasian Partnership”, can be achieved through the official North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) and tentative W-CPEC+ projects that transit through the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The first one refers to the creation of a new trade route from Russia to India through Azerbaijan and Iran, while the second concerns the likely expansion of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC, the flagship project of China’s Belt & Road Initiative [BRI]) westward through Iran and largely parallel to the NSTC. W-CPEC+ can also continue towards Turkey and onward to the EU, but that branch is beyond the scope of the present analysis. The NSTC’s terminal port is the Indian-backed Chabahar, but delays in fully developing its infrastructure might lead to Bandar Abbas being used as a backup in the interim.
CPEC’s Chinese-backed terminal port of Gwadar is in close proximity to Chabahar, thus presenting the opportunity of eventually pairing the two as sister cities, especially in the event that rumored negotiations between China and Iran result in upwards of several hundred billion dollars worth of investments like some have previously reported. The combination of Russian, Indian, and Chinese infrastructure investments in Iran would greatly improve the country’s regional economic competitiveness and enable it to fulfill its geostrategic destiny of facilitating connectivity between Russia and South Asia.
What’s most intriguing about this ambitious vision is that Iran is proving to the rest of the world that it isn’t “isolated” like the U.S. and its closest allies thought that it would be as a result of their policy of so-called “maximum pressure” against it in recent years. While it’s true that India has somewhat stepped away from its previously strategic cooperation with Iran out of fear that it’ll be punished by “secondary sanctions” if it continued its pragmatic partnership with the Islamic Republic, it’s worthwhile mentioning that Chabahar curiously secured a U.S. sanctions waiver.
While the American intent behind that decision is unclear, it might have been predicated on the belief that the Iranian-facilitated expansion of Indian influence into Central Asia via Chabahar might help to “balance” Chinese influence in the region. It could also have simply been a small but symbolic “concession” to India in order not to scare it away from supporting the U.S. anti-Chinese containment strategy. It’s difficult to tell what the real motive was since American-Indian relations are currently complicated by Washington’s latest sanctions threats against New Delhi in response to its decision to purchase Russia’s S-400 air defense systems.
Nevertheless, even in the worst-case scenario that Indian investment and infrastructural support for Iran can’t be taken for granted in the coming future, that still doesn’t offset the country’s geostrategic plans. Russia could still use the NSTC to connect with W-CPEC and ultimately the over 200+ million Pakistani marketplaces. In theory, Russian companies in Pakistan could also re-export their home country’s NSTC-imported goods to neighboring India, thereby representing a pragmatic workaround to New Delhi’s potential self-interested distancing from that project which could also provide additional much-needed tax revenue for Islamabad.
Iran must therefore do its utmost to ensure Russia’s continued interest in the NSTC regardless of India’s approach to the project. Reconceptualizing the NSTC from its original Russian-Indian connectivity purpose to the much broader one of Russian-South Asian connectivity could help guarantee Moscow’s support. In parallel with that, Tehran would do well to court Beijing’s investments along W-CPEC+’s two branch corridors to Azerbaijan/Russia and Turkey/EU. Any success on any of these fronts, let alone three of them, would advance Iran’s regional interests by solidifying its integral geo-economic role in 21st-century Eurasia.
From our partner Tehran Times
The phenomenon of land grabbing by multinationals
Since 2012 the United Nations has adopted voluntary guidelines for land and forest management to combat land grabbing. But only a few people know about the guidelines, which aim to protect small farmers particularly in Third World countries.
When multinational investors buy up fields for their huge plantations, the residents lose their livelihood and means of support and will soon only be sleeping in their villages. If they are lucky, they might find work with relatives in another village. Many also try their luck in the city, but poverty and unemployment are high. What remains are depopulated villages and the huge palm oil plantations that have devoured farmland. People can no longer go there to hunt and grow plants or get firewood. The land no longer belongs to them!
Land grabbingis the process whereby mostly foreign investors deprive local farmers or fishermen of their fields, lakes and rivers. Although it has been widely used throughout history, land grabbing – as used in the 21st century – mainly refers to large-scale land acquisitions following the global food price crisis of 2007-2008.
From 2000 until 2019 one hundred million hectares of land have been sold or leased to foreign investors and the list of the most affected countries can be found here below:
Such investment may also make sense for the development of a country, but it must not deprive people of their rights: local people are starving while food is being produced and turned into biofuels for export right before their eyes.
In 2012, after three years of discussion, the UN created an instrument to prevent such land grabbing: the VGGTs (Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security:
Detailed minimum standards for investment are established, e.g. the participation of affected people or how to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples and prevent corruption. Formally, the document provides a significant contribution to all people fighting for their rights.
The document, however, is quite cryptic. The guidelines should be simplified and explained. Only in this way can activists, but also farmers and fishermen, become aware of their rights.
Others doubt that much can be achieved through these guidelines because they are voluntary. After all, the UN has little or no say in the matter and can do no more than that. If governments implemented them, they would apply them as they will.
In Bolivia, for example, there are already laws that are supposed to prevent land grabbing. In the Amazon, however, Brazilian and Argentinian companies are buying up forests to grow soya and sugar cane, often with the approval and agreement of corrupt government officials. Further guidelines would probably be of little use.
At most, activists already use the guidelines to lobby their governments. Together with other environmental and human rights activists, they set up networks: through local radio stations and village meetings, they inform people of the fact that they right to their land.
Nevertheless, in many countries in Africa and elsewhere, there is a lack of documentation proving land ownership. Originally, tribal leaders vocally distributed rights of use. But today’s leaders are manipulated to pressure villagers to sell their land.
The biggest investors are Indians and Europeans: they are buying up the land to grow sugar cane and palm oil plantations. This phenomenon has been going on since 2008: at that time – as noted above – the world food crisis drove up food prices and foreign investors, but also governments, started to invest in food and biofuels.
Investment inland, which has been regarded as safe since the well-known financial crisis, must also be taken into account. Recently Chinese companies have also been buying up thousands of hectares of land.
In some parts of Africa, only about 6% of land is cultivated for food purposes, while on the remaining areas there are palm oil plantations. Once the plantations grow two or three metres high, they have a devastating effect on monocultures that rely on biodiversity, because of the huge areas they occupy. There is also environmental pollution due to fertilisers: in a village, near a plantation run by a Luxembourg company, many people have suffered from diarrhoea and some elderly villagers even died.
Consequently, the implementation of the VGGTs must be made binding as soon as possible. But with an organisation like the United Nations, how could this happen?
It is not only the indigenous peoples or the local groups of small farmers that are being deprived of everything. The common land used is also being lost, as well as many ecosystems that are still intact: wetlands are being drained, forests cleared and savannas turned into agricultural deserts. New landowners fence off their areas and deny access to the original owners. In practice, this is the 21st century equivalent of the containment of monastery land in Europe that began in the Middle Ages.
The vast majority of contracts are concentrated in poorer countries with weak institutions and land rights, where many people are starving. There, investors compete with local farmers. The argument to which the advocates of land grabbing hold -i.e. that it is mainly uncultivated land that needs to be reclaimed – is refuted. On the contrary, investors prefer well-developed and cultivated areas that promise high returns. However, they do not improve the supply of local population.
Foreign agricultural enterprises prefer to develop the so-called flexible crops, i.e. plants such as the aforementioned oil palm, soya and sugar cane, which, depending on the market situation, can be sold as biofuel or food.
But there is more! If company X of State Y buys food/fuel producing areas, it is the company that sells to its State Y and not the host State Z that, instead, assigns its future profits derived from international State-to-State trade to the aforementioned multinational or state-owned company of State Y.
Furthermore, there is almost no evidence of land investment creating jobs, as most projects were export-oriented. The British aid organisation Oxfam confirms that many land acquisitions took place in areas where food was being grown for the local population. Since local smallholders are generally weak and poorly educated, they can hardly defend themselves against the grabbing of the land they use. Government officials sell or lease it, often without even paying compensation.
Land grabbing is also present in ‘passive’ Europe. Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania and Bulgaria are affected, but also the territories of Eastern Germany. Funds and agricultural enterprises from “active” and democratic Europe, i.e. the West, and the Arab Gulf States are the main investors.
We might think that the governments of the affected countries would have the duty to protect their own people from such expropriations. Quite the reverse. They often support land grabbing. Obviously, corruption is often involved. In many countries, however, the agricultural sector has been criminally neglected in the past and multinationals are taking advantage of this under the pretext of remedying this situation.
No let-up in Indian farmers’ protest due to subconscious fear of “crony capitalism”
The writer has analysed why the farmers `now or never’ protest has persisted despite heavy odds. He is of the view that the farmers have the subconscious fear that the “crony capitalism” would eliminate traditional markets, abolish market support price and grab their landholdings. Already the farmers have been committing suicides owing to debt burden, poor monthly income (Rs. 1666 a month) and so on.”Crony capitalism” implies nexus between government and businesses that thrives on sweetheart deals, licences and permits eked through tweaking rules and regulations.
Stalemate between the government and the farmers’ unions is unchanged despite 11 rounds of talks. The farmers view the new farm laws as a ploy to dispossess them of their land holdings and give a free hand to tycoons to grab farmers’ holdings, though small.
Protesters allege the new laws were framed in secret understanding with tycoons. The farmers have a reason to abhor the rich businesses. According to an a January 2020 Oxfam India’s richest one per cent hold over four times the wealth of 953 million people who make up the poorest 70 per cent of the country’s population. India’s top nine billionaires’ Inc one is equivalent to wealth of the bottom 50 per cent of the population. The opposition has accused the government of “crony capitalism’.
Government has tried every tactic in its tool- kit to becloud the movement (sponsored y separatist Sikhs, desecrated Republic Day by hoisting religious flags at the Red ford, and so on). The government even shrugged off the protest by calling it miniscule and unrepresentative of 16.6 million farmers and 131,000 traders registered until May 2020. The government claims that it has planned to build 22,000 additional mandis (markets) 2021-22 in addition to already-available over 1,000 mandis.
Unruffled by government’s arguments, the opposition continues to accuse the government of being “suit-boot ki sarkar” and an ardent supporter of “crony capitalism” (Ambani and Adani). Modi did many favours to the duo. For instance they were facilitated to join hands with foreign companies to set up defence-equipment projects in India. BJP-ruled state governments facilitated the operation of mines in collaboration with the Ambani group just years after the Supreme Court had cancelled the allotment of 214 coal blocks for captive mining (MS Nileema, `Coalgate 2.0’, The Caravan March 1, 2018). Modi used Adani’s aircraft in March, April and May 2014 for election campaigning across the country.
“Crony capitalism” is well defined in the English oxford Living Dictionaries, Cambridge and Merriam –Webster. Merriam-Webster defines “crony capitalism” as “an economic system in which individuals and businesses with political connections and influence are favored (as through tax breaks, grants, and other forms of government assistance) in ways seen as suppressing open competition in a free market
If there’s one”.
Cambridge dictionary defines the term as “ an economic system in which family members and friends of government officials and business leaders are given unfair advantages in the form of jobs, loans, etc.:government-owned firms engaged in crony capitalism”.
A common point in all the definitions is undue favours (sweetheart contracts, licences, etc) to select businesses. It is worse than nepotism as the nepotism has a limited scope and life cycle. But, “crony capitalism” becomes institutionalized.
Modi earned the title “suit-boot ki sarkar” when a non-resident Indian, Rameshkumar Bhikabhai virani gifted him a Rs. 10 lac suit. To save his face, Modi later auctioned the suit on February 20, 2015. The suit fetched price of Rs, 4, 31, 31311 or nearly four hundred times the original price. Modi donated the proceeds of auction to a fund meant for cleaning the River Ganges. `It was subsequently alleged that the Surat-based trader Laljibhai Patel who bought the suit had been favoured by being allotted government land for building a private sports club (BJP returns ‘favour’, Modi suit buyer to get back land, Tribune June21, 2015).
Miffed by opposition’s vitriolic opposition, Ambani’s $174 billion conglomerate Reliance Industries Ltd. Categorically denied collusion with Modi’s government earlier this month. Reliance clarified that it had never done any contract farming or acquired farm land, and harboured no plans to do so in future. It also vowed to ensure its suppliers will pay government-mandated minimum prices to farmers. The Adani Group also had clarified last month that it did not buy food grains from farmers or influence their prices.
Like Modi, both Adani and Ambani hail from the western Indian state of Gujarat, just, who served as the state’s chief for over a decade. Both the tycoons are reputed to be Modi’s henchmen. Their industry quickly aligns its business strategies to Modi’s nation-building initiatives. For instance, Adani created a rival regional industry lobby and helped kick off a biannual global investment summit in Gujarat in 2003 that boosted Modi’s pro-business credentials. During 2020, Ambani raised record US$27 billion in equity investments for his technology and retail businesses from investors including Google and Face book Inc. He wants to convert these units into a powerful local e-commerce rival to Amazon.com Inc. and Wal-Mart Inc. The Adani group, which humbly started off as a commodities trader in 1988, has grown rapidly to become India’s top private-sector port operator and power generator.
Parallel with the USA
Ambani and Adani are like America’s Rockefellers and Vanderbilt’s in the USA’s Gilded Age in the second half of the 19th century (James Crabtree, The Billionaire Raj: a Journey through India’s New Gilded Age).
Modi government’s tutelage of Ambanis and Adanis is an open secret. Kerala challenged Adani’s bid for an airport lease is. A state minister said last year that Adani winning the bid was “an act of brazen cronyism.”
Threat of elimination of traditional markets
Farmers who could earlier sell grains and other products only at neighbouring government-regulated wholesale markets can now sell them across the country, including the big food processing companies and retailers such as WalMart.
The farmers fear the government will eventually abolish the wholesale markets, where growers were assured of a minimum support price for staples like wheat and rice, leaving small farmers at the mercy of corporate agri-businesses.
Is farmers’ fear genuine?
The farmers have a logical point. Agriculture yield less profit than industry. As such, even the USA heavily subsidies its agriculture. US farmers got more than $22 billion in government payments in 2019, the highest level of farm subsidies in the last 14 years, and the corporate sector paid for it. The Indian government is reluctant to give a permanent legal guarantee for the MSP. In contrast, the US and Western Europe buy directly from the farmers and build their butter and cheese mountains. Even the prices of farm products at the retail and wholesale levels are controlled by the capitalist government. In short, not the principles of capitalization but well-worked-out welfare measures are adopted to sustain the farm sector in the advanced West.
Threat of monopsonic exploitation
The farmers would suffer double exploitation under a monopsony (more sellers less buyers) at the hands of corporate sharks. They would pay less than the minimum support price to the producers. Likewise, consumers will have to pay more because the public distribution system is likely to be undermined as mandi (regulated wholesale market) procurement is would eventually cease to exist.
Plight of the Indian farmer
The heavily indebted Indian farmer has average income of only about Rs. 20000 a year (about Rs. 1666 a month). Thousands of farmers commit suicide by eating pesticides to get rid of their financial difficulties.
A study by India’s National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development found that more than half of farmers in India are in debt. More than 20,000 people involved in the farming sector died by suicide from 2018-2019, with several studies suggesting that being in debt was a key factor.
More than 86 per cent of India’s cultivated farmland is owned by small farmers who own less than two hectares of land each (about two sports fields). These farmers lack acumen to bargain with bigger companies. Farmers fear the Market Support Price will disappear as corporations start buying their produce.
Modi sarkar is unwilling to yield to the farmers’ demand for fear of losing his strongman image and Domino Effect’. If he yields on say, the matter of the farm laws, he may have to give in on the Citizenship Amendment Act also. Fund collection in some foreign countries has started to sustain the movement. As such, the movement may not end anytime soon. Unless Modi yields early, he would suffer voter backlash in coming elections. The farm sector contributes only about 15 per cent of India’s $2.9 trillion economy. But, it employs around half its 1.3 billion people.
Witnessing Social Racism And Domestic Terrorism In Democratic America
With just less than two weeks away from President-elect taking the office, the United States of America witnessed the worst...
Sustainable infrastructure can drive development and COVID-19 recovery
Zimbabwe has long struggled with crippling power outages, some of which can last up to 18 hours a day. The...
Japan Launches Circular Economy Collaboration with WEF
Achieving a circular economy will require transforming policy and business. It will also require a new approach to collaboration. To...
Europe Future Neighbourhood – Disruptions, Recalibration, Continuity
On 8 March 2021 International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES organizes together with partners in Vienna international...
900 suspects detained with the help of Moscow Metro’s face recognition system
Since the beginning of September, about 900 suspects have been detained in Moscow with the help of face recognition, said...
China in the Middle East: Stepping up to the plate
By defining Chinese characteristics as “seeking common ground while reserving differences,” a formula that implies conflict management rather than conflict...
Can financial institutions invest in ocean health?
New, pivotal guidance published today by the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) provides a market-first, practical toolkit for...
Europe3 days ago
The Present Battle over Greece’s Past is Seeding New Battles in its Future
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Biden administration’s policy towards Vietnam, and the South China Sea
Middle East3 days ago
Beyond the friendship diplomacy between Morocco and Mauritania
Economy3 days ago
The phenomenon of land grabbing by multinationals
New Social Compact3 days ago
The Only Wealth, There’s in Man
Terrorism2 days ago
Despite acknowledging strict measures, Pakistan has to stay on the grey-list in FATF
Defense2 days ago
India – The US Promote National Defense – Security Cooperation
Diplomacy2 days ago
Cutting Distances with a Cricket Stump