PenzaNews

PenzaNews. Bulgaria’s presidential and parliamentary elections have drawn a line under the rule of Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, who has led the country’s government almost permanently since 2009.  

The incumbent President Rumen Radev, who won the second round, will remain in office for another five years. The majority of the seats in parliament went to anti-government parties.

For example, We Continue the Change coalition headed by Kiril Petkov and Assen Vassilev became the leader of the race with 25.67% of votes. The party received 67 mandates in the People’s Assembly. The Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) in coalition with the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) was in second with 22,74% of votes and got 59 seats. They are followed by the Movement for Rights and Freedoms with 13% of votes and 34 mandates.

The new parliament also includes the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), which received 10.21% of votes (26 seats), There is Such a People party with 9.52% of votes (25 seats), the Democratic Bulgaria alliance, which won 6.37% (16 seats), and the Vazrazhdane (Revival) party, which received 4.86% (13 seats).

In total, representatives of 27 parties and coalitions fought for 240 seats in the 47th convocation of the Bulgarian National Assembly, while the election activity was record low: 40.23% of voters took part in the voting.

The last elections were already the third in less than a year, since none of the parties was able to form a government based on the results of the April and July elections.

The deputies of the new convocation took up their duties on December 3. At present, consultations with the parties represented in the parliament are being finalized regarding the formation of a new Bulgarian government. Many observers are confident that this time the political forces will be able to come to agreement.

Analyzing the current situation in Bulgaria, Andrius Tursa, Central & Eastern Europe Advisor, Teneo Intelligence, called the reelection of the head of state quite logical.

“As expected, incumbent Rumen Radev achieved a convincing victory in the second round of presidential elections held on 21 November. Radev received 66.7% of votes, coming ahead of his rival Anastas Gerdzhikov with 31.8%,” the expert reminded.

He noted that the second term of Rumen Radev will begin on 22 January 2022.

“Although the presidential powers are limited, Radev is expected to facilitate the formation of the new government by giving sufficient time for negotiations between potential coalition partners before appointing a prime ministerial candidate. The election winner We Continue the Change party started talks with the center-left Bulgarian Socialist Party, the populist There is Such People as well as the reformist Democratic Bulgaria concerning a potential coalition agreement. The four-party coalition remains the most likely outcome, but negotiations […] could reveal the main fault lines in terms of policy positions,” Andrius Tursa suggested.

According to Vincent Henry, expert of Paris-Est University and Babes-Bolyai University in Romania, Bulgaria is going through one of the most difficult periods in its post 1989 history.

“It is one of the European countries most affected by the health crisis and it has been in a deep political, institutional and I would say moral crisis for several years. This crisis is that of the GERB in power since 2009. GERB and its leader Boyko Borissov […] have long presented themselves as the guarantors of Bulgaria’s modernization. Today they are the image of the corruption […] and the promises that have been broken,” he said.

In his opinion, the political forces of Bulgaria will manage to form a coalition, but at the same time it will be “fragile” because the political landscape is now highly versatile.

Vincent Henry added that the rise of centre-right anti-corruption parties or personalities is becoming a fairly common phenomenon in Central and Eastern Europe: in their discourse, corruption is designated as the cause of their country’s backwardness but the fight against corruption does not make a political programme on its own.

“If these parties succeed in reducing corruption, it will not magically improve the lives of voters. Bulgaria or Romania entered the European Union with the idea that they would be transformed by EU membership. However, they have poorly transformed. […] The standard of living has risen, but the institutions have remained weak, the rules poorly enforced and the undeniable economic growth terribly unevenly distributed,” he explained.

From his point of view, in order to catch up with the level of other European countries, to be part of Europe, “they need to respect the law and the rules.”

In turn, Parvan Simeonov, a political analyst for Gallup International, believes that the situation around the series of elections in Bulgaria this year was actually a consequence of the “Borisov’s decade.”

“Now Bulgarian society did show will and willingness for the continuous change of the model, the style, the mode and fashion of government. So the change continues. The new party created by the two Harvard graduates reflects this even with the name of their party,” the expert said.

According to him, there was a hypothesis in Bulgaria that due to the crisis, due to inflation, due to COVID-19 and many other things people prefer something familiar, something from Borisov’s decade again.

“It was supposed that they would ask Borisov back on stage. But actually it did not happen this way. People in Bulgaria voted for continuing the change. So now we have a kind of materialization of the protests. The pro-Western liberal network called Democratic Bulgaria – one of the main political forces – and nostalgic post-Communist Bulgarian Socialist Party and revolving populist movements – these were all against Borisov’s style,” Parvan Simeonov said.

At the same time, according to him, these parties “had awful relationships.”

“This was not an easy coalition or even an easy cooperation at all. But now it actually happened. And now these forces are maybe not united but synchronized. And now they have an umbrella organization called We Continue the Change,” the analyst stressed.

In his opinion, Bulgarian citizens clearly demonstrate the desire and hope for the formation of a new cabinet of ministers.

“So this is the societal demand and the possible motivation for those negotiations that will take place. Still I believe there could be some trouble and problems and I hope that here will be some government. That is what logic says,” Parvan Simeonov said.

Petar Bankov, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, noted that the re-election of Rumen Radev together with the electoral success of We Continue the Change confirmed the popular demand for a decisive break with the economic mismanagement and political decay.

“Radev has been a consistent opposition to GERB during his first term, […] with his outspoken support for the anti-government protests. This seems to have played a decisive role [at the voting] that overshadowed Radev’s indecisive foreign policy positions or his failure to call for a decisive action against the pandemic,” he suggested.

In his opinion, the failure of the previous coalition talks among the parties that aim at reforming the political and economic system of Bulgaria brought these parties to the realisation that they need the support from some of the established parties who also opposed GERB.

Moreover, according to him, the emergence of We Continue the Change and its electoral success based on a centrist electoral platform brought the pro-reformists and the socialists at the table.

“Third, the socialist party is in deep crisis, both internally and externally, so its participation in the coalition talks is recognition of its diminished political clout and also an effort of its leader, Korneliya Ninova, to resolve the mounting internal criticism against her,” Petar Bankov said.

In his opinion, now there is every reason to believe that intensive negotiations to agree on a government program will be successful.

“Bulgaria suffers from a mounting social inequality, so in the medium term it is vital that the government addresses this. So far, however, there is little indication this would happen. The four parties seek to rather optimise the political and economic system, rather than seeking a substantial reform that fosters social cohesion,” the expert said.

In his opinion, it would be interesting what the dynamics would be among the emerging coalition.

“Despite their shared desire for reform and dismantling the GERB legacy, the four parties have significant disagreements that may threaten the stability of this potential coalition, so the following four years may prove challenging in keeping it together,” Petar Bankov concluded.

Photo: Parliament.bg

PenzaNews. The meeting between US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping that took place in video format in mid-November, was the first since the inauguration of the American head of state in January 2021. Prior to this, the two leaders exchanged messages and phone calls.

Joe Biden and his team gathered in the White House conference room (Roosevelt Room) when it was Monday evening, November 15 in Washington. Xi Jinping was in one of the rooms of the Great Hall of the People in Beijing – it was already Tuesday morning in the capital of China.

In total, the negotiations lasted about three hours and a half.

During the open part of the meeting, Joe Biden said that the leaders’ task is to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict and expressed the hope for a convergence of positions on issues of “honest competition” and “common-sense guardrails.” Xi Jinping, in turn, stressed that humanity is facing many problems, so “the United States and China need to increase communication and cooperation.”

“It seems to me our responsibility as leaders of China and the United States is to ensure that our competition between our countries does not veer into conflict, whether intended or unintended, just simple, straightforward competition,” Joe Biden said and explained that they could work together where interests intersect, on such issues like climate change.

Xi Jinping expressed his readiness to work with President Joe Biden to build consensus and take active steps to move China-US relations forward in a positive direction.

According to information posted on the White House website, during the negotiations, Joe Biden raised concerns “about the PRC’s practices in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, as well as human rights more broadly,” expressed the need to protect American workers and industries from the PRC’s unfair trade and economic practices, and stressed the importance of a free and open Indo-Pacific. On Taiwan, the US President underscored that the United States remains committed to the “one China” policy and strongly opposes unilateral efforts to change the status quo or undermine peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. In addition, it follows from the text that the leaders discussed key regional problems, “including the DPRK, Afghanistan and Iran.”

According to the statement of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, “the two sides exchanged views on Afghanistan, the Iranian issue, the situation on the Korean Peninsula, and other international and regional issues of mutual interest.” No other details are provided.

“The two Presidents agreed that their meeting is candid, constructive, substantive and productive. It helps increase mutual understanding, adds to the positive expectation of the international community for this relationship, and sends a powerful message to the two countries and the world,” says the document published on the website of the ministry.

It also adds that the two sides agreed to maintain close communication in different forms and steer relations back on the right track of sound and steady development.

Analyzing the results of the past negotiations, Lak Chansok, Lecturer and Research Fellow, Department of International Studies, Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) in Cambodia, Expert at Democracy Promotion Center, Ritsumeikan Center for Asia Pacific Studies, Ritsumeikan APU in Japan, said that the two leaders have remained firm to defense their positions although they have acknowledged that the great power rivalry has had the adverse impact on the global stability.

“Despite no substantial outcomes, this first US-China virtual meeting has laid the groundwork for two leaders to re-establish the high-level communications to frankly discuss important issues, gradually build strategic trust, and maintain the global peace,” the expert said.

He reminded that the rapid rise of China amidst the relatively declining US power has been perceived by the American leaders as “the greatest threats to the US security and the existing liberal international order.”

“In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jiping made it clear that China would continue to pursue all-encompassing development. [...] Externally, Xi has revived the Silk Roads, promoted the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and increasingly engaged in regional and global organizations. China’s military modernization with an ambition to be the ‘world class army’ by 2049, its rising strategic cooperation with Moscow and its growing military presence in the South China Sea and in a wider Indo-Pacific have been viewed by the US and its stalwart allies and partners as challenges to the regional and global stability,” Lak Chansok said and added that the Trump administration started trade war with Beijing, increasing the US military engagement in the South China Sea.

From his point of view, the two countries’ relations have deteriorated because of the ongoing US politicization of some issues, including the COVID-19 origin and human rights issues.

“The US-China relations will remain competitive in years to come. […] The US under the current administration has made a comeback with its strong position to promote the US liberal order that have strategically put China’s interests in jeopardy,” the analyst said.

Meanwhile, Frank von Hippel, Professor of Public and International Affairs emeritus at Princeton University, who served the Assistant Director for National Security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, believes that the US–China relationship is currently extreme competition with the potential for military conflict.

“The most important result was to make clear that both sides want to avoid war and recognize that the situation has gotten bad enough to be dangerous. There appear to be few concrete results but […] there will be strategic stability talks similar to those with Russia, hopefully setting the stage for some self-restraint on both sides and eventually some nuclear arms control agreements,” the expert noted.

At the same time he suggested that there won’t be any reboot in the foreseeable future.

“Both sides see this a struggle for dominance in the global system, i.e. China trying to overthrow the US as the leader in setting the rules. Competition and reducing mutual vulnerabilities will be the main focus. I hope, however, there can be cooperation on climate protection and on reducing the risks of military and, especially, nuclear, conflict. This is somewhat like the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union but with much more mutual economic dependence,” Frank von Hippel said and added that both sides will try to reduce interdependence.

“I think it […] should be a stabilizing force. Hopefully also, so should the millions of Chinese students – children of the elite – who have studied in the US and Europe. The resulting mutual knowledge should reduce the dangerous demonization of the other to the degree that happened between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War,” he explained.

Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution and an author of several publications for the National Interest magazine, expressed the view that tense relationships between the US and China in general are stable at the moment.

“Both sides are aware of the stakes. The main task of the two countries is to restore a common understanding, as much as possible, on the Taiwan issue. That is the main thing that could lead to war, which we must all seek to prevent as much as possible,” Michael O’Hanlon said.

According to him, there will be no reboot in relations between the two countries.

“We are in the new normal now. That will continue until china has effectively stabilized its position as another superpower, and until the Taiwan issue has somehow been resolved, if possible,” the expert stressed.

In turn, Douglas Paal, Distinguished Fellow, Asia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that he is not optimistic for strategic stability.

“I don’t believe the US team yet understands what that would constitute. For the moment, however, we are experiencing some efforts to find stability. […] Biden sent a message of reduced hostility toward China in areas that might precipitate unwanted conflict. Xi noted Biden’s assurances on Taiwan, while issuing a warning that suggested Xi does not fully trust Biden’s assurances. The two agreed on what appear to be different notions of how to commence a dialogue on strategic stability,” the analyst said.

In his opinion, it is difficult to draw unambiguous conclusions about the development of the situation.

Douglas Paal drew attention to the events that took place before the meeting of the two leaders. In particular, he mentioned that prior to it there were new Chinese contracts for American natural gas and potential agreement for Boeing aircraft; it also became known that an agreement has been reached between the United States and China on media visa issuance.

“If these steps are followed by other concrete achievements, over time they may reduce tensions slightly. But there are upcoming events and US legislation that may actually increase tensions as well,” the expert noted.

Meanwhile, Denny Roy, Senior Fellow at East-West Center, expert on Northeast Asian international security issues, reminded that the US–China relations have for decades followed a cycle of highs and lows, but the situation today is fundamentally different.

“Until recently there was a large gap in the relative power and influence between the two countries. The US government had a relatively relaxed attitude toward US–China competition because the possibility of China being a serious economic and military threat to the US was far distant. US policy-makers could indulge in the hope that China would become more liberal […] and globally cooperative as it became wealthier. That cushion, however, is now gone. China has closed the power gap enough that it can do significant harm to US military and economic interests, and China’s intentions appear unfriendly. Therefore US–China relations are locked into a state of high tensions for the foreseeable future. Deep and lasting rapprochement is no longer possible,” Denny Roy said.

In his opinion, the Xi–Biden virtual summit was constructive as an expression of the desire of both governments to reduce bilateral tensions; however, both sides restated their support for the positions that bring them into conflict.

“For example, China as usual called on the US to respect China’s sovereignty and political system, which is code for demanding that the US stop supporting Taiwan and stop criticizing China over human rights. […] Intense economic and security competition will continue, with partial decoupling and a slow arms race proceeding alongside US–China trade and investment, which remains massive,” the analyst concluded.

Photo: CGTN

PenzaNews. From November 1, Russia has suspended the work of its official mission to NATO in Brussels, and also terminated the activities of two NATO structures in Moscow – a military liaison mission and an information bureau established at the Belgian embassy.

This decision was made by the Russian authorities in response to the unfriendly policy of the North Atlantic Alliance towards Moscow. On October 6, NATO announced a reduction in the number of the Russian mission in the organization from 20 to 10 people: eight diplomats had their accreditation revoked, and two more vacancies were abolished. The alliance asked Russian diplomats to leave Brussels until the end of October. At the same time, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the decision to expel diplomats was not related to specific events.

“This decision is not linked to any particular event, but we have seen over some time now, an increase in Russian malign activity, and therefore we need to be vigilant, and we need to act when we see that members of the Russian delegation to NATO conduct activities which are not in line with their [diplomatic] accreditation, and therefore the accreditation is withdrawn,” he told a news conference in Brussels after a meeting of the NATO Council.

In turn, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, following a meeting with participants in the 18th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, stressed that Russia had never initiated the deterioration of relations “with NATO, the European Union, or any other Western country or any other region of the world ”and proceeds from the assumption that the North Atlantic Alliance must take the first step to improve ties with Moscow.

He recalled that the alliance countries themselves “simply ‘buried’ the basic principle that underlies the creation of the Russia-NATO council, namely, the need to urgently consult in crisis situations.”

“[…] And as concerns the attitudes to our forces response step that are voiced in NATO capitals: it was a response to three of NATO’s steps because they reduced our mission three times. And, what is more important, they don’t let us work,” the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.

He also drew attention to the fact that “[...] all contacts between the military have been cut off.”

“Then, what kind of a loss of a possibility for dialogue are we talking about? Two years ago, our Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov suggested drills be moved to a certain distance from the contact line between Russia and NATO and an agreement be reached on minimal distances not to be violated by warplanes and warships. We suggested many other things. And there was a wall of silence [in response],” Sergey Lavrov noted.

On October 31, following the summit of the G20 countries in Italy, the Russian Foreign Minister told reporters that NATO does not want any interaction with Russia.

“We rely on facts, and the facts are as follows: NATO does not want any contact with us. When our representatives were still there, and the Russia-NATO Council was active, all they wanted was to lecture us, demanding to convene the Council every time they felt like discussing Ukraine. Their entire interest was to whip up propaganda and put pressure on Russia. The question is closed. If NATO has any reason to contact us, the Russian Ambassador to Belgium is there, who is responsible for bilateral relations. We have informed the North Atlantic Alliance that, if necessary, they can send signals through that diplomat,” Sergey Lavrov said.

Analyzing the current situation, Pal Steigan, Norwegian politician, publisher, writer, independent entrepreneur in the field of culture and information technology, expressed understanding in connection with Moscow’s decision to terminate the work of its permanent mission to NATO.

“It was absolutely over ripe for Russia to finish this charade. This system was never seriously meant from NATO’s side. It was just another trick to contain Russia,” the expert said and added that it was high time to pull the plug on this so-called partnership.

He stressed that throughout history Russia has never attacked Europe.

“Russia has vast resources and doesn’t need Europe. Even when I was a boy they spoke about the ‘evil Soviet Union,’ but it was the Western powers that started most of the wars and killed millions of people since 1945. The specter of the ‘Russian threat’ is a tool to keep the population in the Western countries at bay and make them accept even more thousands of billions to the military-industrial complex,” Pal Steigan explained his point of view.

According to him, from the day the Soviet Union collapsed he West have been plotting to take over the remains of the Soviet bloc.

“Imperialism has a ‘horror vacui,’ fear of the power vacuum. There never was a ‘peace dividend.’ Instead we had the wars in the Balkans, the Kuwait war, the Iraq war, the war on Libya and Syria. These missiles will increase the danger of war, but if there were a war they would not help a lot. The new Russian missiles and weapon systems have made the NATO-weapons obsolete,” the analyst noted.

In his opinion, there is a split in the Western establishment.

“Some military people understand very well that it would be too dangerous for them to take on Russia. It could lead to a breakdown of NATO. Macron had a seldom flash of insight when he said: NATO is brain dead. It is, as is the Norwegian ‘head’ of the alliance,” Pal Steigan added.

In turn, Fernand Kartheiser, Luxembourg Parliament member for the Alternative Democratic Reform Party (ADR), stressed that the latest crisis between NATO and Russia shows above all, that it is time to put an end to the current tensions.

“For years, NATO countries have established sanctions against Russia and vice-versa without the slightest positive result. NATO countries are pushing Russia into an aliance with China, which again is harmful to them and clearly counter-productive. The situation in Ukraine turns progressively into a frozen conflict and current attempts to put more military means in the hands of Ukraine are not conducive to any reasonable and peaceful settlement. In addition, Western countries need long term and reliable gas supplies from Russia,” the politician said.

According to him, it is really time to look for a new, constructive and honest relationship between the West and Russia.

“This must include a new look at the post-Soviet conflicts, which are not to be interpreted as Russian aggressions or expansionism but rather as an indication that the fast collapse of the Soviet Union has created a number of situations that have to be resolved in order to bring more stability and order to the former Soviet-controlled area,” Fernand Kartheiser explained.

From his point of view, the dialogue should cover a wide range of topics, including strengthening security in Eastern Europe and reestablishing mutual confidence, avoiding a new weapons race, including in the nuclear field, and reciprocal ending of all sanctions.

“The parties should negotiate a global settlement on Ukraine including the final status of Crimea [Crimea became a Russian region after a March 2014 referendum in which the overwhelming majority of residents voted for reunification with Russia; despite the convincing results of the referendum, Kiev refused to recognize Crimea as part of Russia], taking into account minority rights in Ukraine and Crimea, promoting the decentralisation and democratisation of Ukraine and recognizing the strategic interests of Russia in the Black Sea. They should reevaluate the current situation in Moldova, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh and other areas of conflict in the former Soviet area,” Luxembourg MP said.

At the same time, Russia, in his opinion, should support a democratic transition in Belarus, and Western countries – reintegrate Russia in international fora and accept Russia as a partner.

Meanwhile, Frank von Hippel, Senior Research Physicist at Princeton University, who served the Assistant Director for National Security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, commented on what exactly the Western countries are putting into the concept of the “Russian threat.”

According to him, there are two perceived Russian threats to NATO countries, and one of them is “potential seizure of portions of NATO countries populated by Russian speakers.”

“The primary concern for NATO countries is in the Baltic States. In Estonia and Latvia, about one quarter of the populations are ethnic Russians who immigrated during Soviet times,” the expert said and added that some feel discriminated against by the national majorities, creating local dissatisfactions.

“The second concern is hackers based in Russia have carried out attacks on Baltic energy infrastructure as they have in Ukraine,” he explained.

From his point of view, dialogue and the reduction of threats is “always the best option.”

“The Soviet Union feared and Russia still fears that NATO could become and aggressive rather than defensive alliance and would much prefer non-NATO buffer states to its West. It has that in Belarus and Ukraine at the moment. NATO has formed from states that feared Soviet expansionism and the East European countries that joined NATO after the Cold War still fear Russian expansionism,” Frank von Hippel said.

“At the end of World War II, there were similar fears in Poland of West Germany trying to get back the territories that the Soviet Union gave to Poland after the end of World War II in exchange for the Polish territories […] Fortunately, the ‘Ost-Politik’ movement won within Germany. Germany and Poland reconciled and the militaries within Germany and Poland do not worry about each other. There needs to be a similar reconciliation process between Russia and Ukraine and Russia and Georgia. Then, perhaps, Ukraine and Georgia will no longer feel a need to join NATO and NATO-Russia tensions could fade away,” former White House adviser suggested.

Edward Lozansky, American political scientist of Russian origin, President and Founder of the American University in Moscow, believes that the existence of NATO was called into question after the collapse of the USSR and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.

“Well, all the reasons for the continued funding of this alliance, which was created to protect the West from communist expansion, have disappeared. Nevertheless, NATO not only did not dissolve itself, but also began to actively expand from 16 members in 1991 to 30 at present, plus three more that declared their aspirations to NATO – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine,” the expert reminded.

In his opinion, the main reasons for this development of events were the economy and geopolitics. The economic reason, in his opinion, was best explained back in 1987 by the former US Ambassador to Moscow George Kennan, who was called the architect of the Cold War.

“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy,” he quoted the American diplomat.

As for geopolitics, according to Edward Lozansky, the United States does not want to give up the hegemonic role of the world leader and regards NATO as an instrument to maintain it.

“Dialogue, of course, is necessary, and it seems that some steps in this direction are being taken after the June meeting of Putin and Biden in Geneva. However, the so-called ‘Washington swamp’ in every possible way prevents this and continues to incite anti-Russian hysteria in Congress, the media, against Nord Stream 2, as well as using Ukraine for the same purposes,” the political scientist concluded.

Photo: Jim Garamone, Wikipedia.org

PenzaNews. The Welsh Government has established the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, which will consider the issue of the region’s independence in the context of future relations with the rest of the United Kingdom.

According to the message published on the Cabinet website on October 19, the Commission will be co-chaired by Professor Laura McAllister and former Archbishop Rowan Williams and will consider and develop options for “fundamental reform of the constitutional structures of the United Kingdom, in which Wales remains an integral part and all progressive principal options to strengthen Welsh democracy and deliver improvements for the people of Wales.”

At the same time, Laura McAllister stated that everything is supposed to be on the table.

“So it would be ludicrous to remove any options at this stage. Independence means different things depending on different contexts,” she said.

The Commission was created on the initiative of the ministers of the Welsh government who are members of the Labor Party. The Nationalist Party noted that the new body will allow for a broad conversation about the future of Wales, and said they intend to cooperate with the commission to discuss the issue of independence. Welsh conservatives have called this topic irrelevant.

At the same time, in another administrative-political part of the United Kingdom – Scotland – the issue of independence is more acute. In September, Scotland’s first minister, head of the Scottish National Party, Nicola Sturgeon, announced her intention to hold a new independence referendum by the end of 2023, despite strong opposition from London.

“As we emerge from the pandemic, choices fall to be made that will shape our economy and society for decades to come. So we intend to offer the choice. We will do so only when the COVID crisis has passed but our aim, COVID permitting, is that it will be in the first half of this Parliament – before the end of 2023,” she said, presenting the Scottish MPs with the government’s agenda for the coming year.

The situation in Northern Ireland is also not easy, where people are increasingly beginning to think about the idea of uniting the island. According to a trade agreement between the EU and the UK in December 2020, Northern Ireland, which left the EU as part of the kingdom, remained a member of the community’s customs union. The dual status avoided the emergence of a border between Ulster and Ireland, which is an EU country, but required control procedures in ports for the transport of a number of goods from other parts of the United Kingdom. Due to bureaucratic difficulties, the supply of British products to Northern Ireland was significantly hampered, and this caused discontent among the population. The European Union insists on maintaining the de facto customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in the Irish Sea.

In June, the first minister of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster was forced to resign due to pressure from party members. They criticized her for fulfilling the Northern Ireland protocol negotiated under the Brexit agreement. According to the politician’s opponents, the authorities of the region were unable to convince London that the document in its current form would only lead to increased tensions in Northern Ireland.

According to some experts, the European Union has no reason to provide Scotland and Northern Ireland with exclusive preferences in the framework of relations between the UK and the EU. Some observers believe that the only way for these territories to maintain trade and economic ties with the EU and keep up its living standard is to secede from the UK. In addition, they believe that London, in principle, is not interested in the state of the economy of Scotland and Northern Ireland, since its priority is to solve its own problems and realize its ambitions.

Analyzing the situation in Wales, Kent Matthews, Professor of Banking and Finance at Cardiff Business School, noted that the existing arrangement suits both Westminster and Cardiff despite the often crying from Cardiff that Westminster does not provide sufficient resources to Cardiff to meet its policy objectives.

“Despite the calls for independence, the Cardiff administration knows that in the present arrangement, they hide behind the cover of central government austerity for failing to produce the ‘cradle to the grave’ socialism of ‘old Labour’ policy. Any attempt to enhance the fiscal attractiveness by lowering taxes for businesses or income tax will have an immediate effect on revenue and the current fiscal rules will not allow the government to borrow in the capital markets to income smooth. Similarly a rise in taxes will increase revenue in the short term but the Treasury will reduce its contribution one-for-one,” Kent Matthews said.

Thus, in his opinion, the rules favour the status quo.

“Greater devolution will only create more responsibility to the Cardiff without necessarily the fiscal means to follow through,” the experts stressed and added that the only alternative for Wales, if it wishes to become a dynamic and prosperous economy is independence and to create the fiscal conditions to attract FDI and English businesses to relocate in Wales.

“Wales contributes about 3% to UK GDP. It is history and nostalgia that keeps the union together. In the current political thinking, Wales will not sacrifice short term pain for long term gain, in the way Singapore did when it was forced out of the Malaysian Federation. It will be better to be dependent on Westminster and complain about their meanness rather than be independent. The public sector is Wales is larger than anywhere else in the UK. The room for the private sector is low and a capitalist type free economy is the last thing the political classes in Wales will want for independence. Wales has the potential but its dreams are too modest,” Kent Matthews explained.

Meanwhile, Peter Taylor-Gooby, Professor of Social Policy at the University of Kent, expressed the opinion that the constitutional commission created in Wales is primarily aimed at discussing the internal problems of the Welsh.

“I think this is really about more local self-government. The group calling for independence is quite small in Wales,” the expert said.

He recalled that both Scotland and Northern Ireland opposed leaving the EU during the Brexit referendum, but nevertheless cannot work out a common position on the issue of being a part of the UK.

“About half in Scotland want independence, fewer in Northern Ireland,” Peter Taylor-Gooby stressed.

Commenting on potential changes in London’s policy, he ruled out the possibility of increasing control over Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In his opinion, these parts of Great Britain, on the contrary, may receive slightly broader powers in the sphere of self-government, but they will not achieve independence.

“Some English regions may get more self- government too,” he added.

In turn, Iain Begg Professorial Research Fellow at the European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science, believes that questions about the relationships between the four nations of the UK re-opened by Brexit have been further exacerbated by the different approaches of the regions to dealing with the pandemic.

“Therefore, it is no surprise that Wales has decided to examine its position and, given there is a movement and a political party – Plaid Cymru – in favour of independence, it is bound to be one of the options,” the analyst said.

At the same time, in his opinion, independence is very much a live issue in Scotland.

“The ruling Scottish National Party is keen to have a second referendum on the matter. In Ireland, the issue would be unification, not independence, but it is politically very difficult because of the antagonism between the two 'tribes' there. Northern Ireland was created 100 years ago because the protestant population was against being part of an independent, Roman Catholic Ireland, and the conflicts of the late 20th century illustrated the extent of the divisions,” Iain Begg reminded.

According to him, to counter the appeal of independence, London may agree to transfer additional powers to the territories.

Oliver Morrissey, Professor of Development Economics at School of Economics, University of Nottingham, expressed the opinion that including independence as an option for constitutional discussion in Wales is a warning to Westminster of the need to respect the devolved government there.

At the same time, in his opinion, independence is a more serious prospect for Scotland where in the course of the Brexit referendum the preponderance of the supporters of the European Union was quite significant – 62% versus 38%.

“It is not obvious that a majority would vote for independence when they next get the opportunity but it will remain a live issue,” the expert stressed.

Northern Ireland, from his point of view, is even more complex and divided.

“While a majority voted to remain in the EU, a large minority want to remain part of the UK while another large minority would prefer a united Ireland,” Oliver Morrissey said.

Analyzing the likely response of the British government, the expert shared the opinion that London may cede more autonomy to the regions.

“It would be dangerous for London to try and increase control over the devolved regions as that would increase support for independence in Scotland and for Northern Ireland wanting unification with the Republic. A more likely response of London is to cede more autonomy to the regions to preserve the UK. I’m not sure anybody knows what UK sovereignty means – interpretation will differ in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales,” Oliver Morrissey added.

Matt Qvortrup, Professor of Political Science at Coventry University, believes that the issue of independence is formally on the table.

“In my forthcoming book ‘I Want To Break Free: The Art of Creating a New State,’ Manchester University Press, 2022, I analyse this in considerable detail, and my conclusion is that the push for independence only occurs if the government in the mother country tries to resist it,” the expert said.

“Boris Johnson would like to use the EU as a way to divert attention from other pressing problems – including COVID-19. He is trying to stir up a row with the EU because he knows it plays to the nationalists in his party. The problem is that Support for independence in Scotland is linked to the EU – a majority of the Scots did not want to leave the European Union. […] However, there is no indication that the majority of Scots uniformly want independence. The last three polls have ‘no’ to independence ahead,” Matt Qvortrup explained.

At the same time, according to him, Boris Johnson would like to keep the issue alive as it weakens Labour – without winning Scotland, Labour cannot get back into power.

“Nicola Sturgeon – the Scottish First Minister – knows that a ‘no’ in a second referendum would end the dream of Scottish independence forever just like the second referendum in Quebec […]. She knows she might lose, but the referendum plays to the nationalists in her party. So, both Johnson and Sturgeon have an interest in keeping the issue alive, and not having a referendum. So party politics, has trumped the interest of the UK,” the expert concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/67305-2021

PenzaNews. The next EU-Ukraine summit held in Kiev did not bring any breakthrough results. Its most significant outcome is considered to be the signing of the agreement on the Common Aviation Area, on Ukraine’s participation in the Horizon Europe research and innovation program, as well as in the Creative Europe program.

Speaking of the EU membership, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky noted that Ukrainian society does not have a sufficient understanding of when the country will reach the home stretch in the process of European integration.

“Our society [...] and the leaders of the country lack the understanding that we are following the same path, about where the finish line on this path is and whether there is one, because we really believe in it and do everything along the way, we do everything to come to that finish in the near future,” he said after the talks at the summit.

Meanwhile, in Europe, criticism is increasingly heard in connection with the low efficiency of the reforms being carried out in Ukraine. Thus, the previously published report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) on the results of the audit of assistance to Kiev, says that the EU’s support for reforms in Ukraine was ineffective in fighting grand corruption.

“While the EU has helped to reduce corruption opportunities, grand corruption remains a key problem in Ukraine. Judicial reform is experiencing setbacks, anti-corruption institutions are at risk, trust in such institutions remains low, and the number of convictions resulting from grand corruption is small,” the report says.

Another negative trend, which, according to some experts, is at odds with the EU position, is connected with the attempts to close dissenting mass media and political parties that express different points of view. Many observers note that instead of pluralism of opinions, state propaganda is being imposed in the country, especially in part of Crimea. At the same time, the Crimean Platform summit, initiated by the Ukrainian authorities, in their opinion, failed since it was initially aimed at Western partners as another game for the audience in order to enlist their support but not to search for real solutions.

Meanwhile, a possible second presidential term for Volodymyr Zelensky is being discussed in Ukraine now, though he denied the likelihood of such a decision during his pre-election period. In particular, such a statement was recently made by Oleksiy Arestovich, the adviser to the head of the office of the President of Ukraine.

“This promise [to run for only one presidential term] was made by a presidential candidate, and now he is the head of state and the question is: not to fulfill this promise alone or a whole series. It’s not even about promises, but about changing the country. If by the end of a term you have not kept what you have planned, then you have to sacrifice your image as a person who keeps his promises and go to satisfy others,” he told the Nash TV channel.

At the same time, according to a sociological survey conducted by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, the rating of Volodymyr Zelensky fell from 33.3% in September to 24.7% in October, but he still remains the leader of electoral sympathies. In addition, the party of the ex-head of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, European Solidarity, for the first time surpassed the pro-presidential Servant of the People party in the ratings, 15.7% and 15.5% of the voters respectively are ready to vote for them.

According to Alexey Mukhin, Director General of the Centre for Political Information, the results of the last Ukraine-EU summit recorded the fact that Brussels is still monitoring the situation around, but not inside Ukraine.

“To put it simply, the EU is going to buy the problem off and, if possible, shift it to the US and the Russian Federation. Unfortunately for Volodymyr Zelensky, he let the rapid development of Nazism take its course in the country; moreover, he himself partly integrated into the process of the Nazification of Ukraine at the highest level. For European countries, especially for Germany, this is unacceptable, but the Ukrainian side does not notice this,” the political scientist said.

In his opinion, the issue of the potential re-election of Volodymyr Zelensky will be discussed with Washington.

“Zelensky will discuss his second term not with the EU, but with the United States. At the same time, the notorious ‘deoligarchization’ is just a formal offer to large owners to negotiate with the team of Volodymyr Zelensky before his probable re-election. He has almost started his election campaign, despite the rhetoric about the lack of intentions to run earlier. And this is a fact. If the US refuses to support his candidacy, he will try to ‘sell’ his refusal to run at a higher price, but will present it as if he is following his earlier promises,” Alexey Mukhin suggested.

In turn, Vincent Henry, expert of Paris-Est University and Babes-Bolyai University in Romania, believes that the latest Ukraine-European Union summit did not dispel Volodymyr Zelinsky’s doubts.

“The issue of Russian gas dominated the summit at a time when energy prices are rising throughout Europe. The government in Kiev is very concerned about the upcoming commissioning of the Russian-German Nord Stream-2 pipeline, which would allow supplies to Europe bypassing Ukraine. The delivery of gas by this new route is now only waiting for a green light from the German regulator. Nord Stream risks depriving Ukraine of lucrative transit rights estimated at more than one billion euros per year, but may even threaten its energy security. At the final press conference, Zelensky said that Nord Stream poses a major new problem for his country in addition to the many it already faces,” the analyst reminded.

According to him, officially, Ukraine is still hoping for an acceleration or clarification of its prospects for EU or even NATO membership, but it is receiving only endless encouragement for “reforms” and the “fight against corruption.”

“At the last summit, EU leaders added reassuring words about Ukraine’s energy security with the possibility of supply via Slovakia, if necessary. These words obviously did not reassure President Zelensky, who could not hide his disappointment at the final press conference,” Vincent Henry said.

At the same time, he stressed that he would not dare to say that it is a lack of real will or competence that do not let to fight corruption in the country.

“The problem that Zelensky faces is the one that all leaders elected with the promise of fighting corruption in the ex-Soviet space and to a lesser extent in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including those that are members of the EU, have had to face. […] Corruption in these countries is not only a legacy of the socialist period, it is often a much longer history and is also the result of a failed capitalist transition. Corruption is perceived as deviant behavior in relation to a system, but in the countries that emerged from the Soviet Union and experienced a brutal transition, corruption is the system. It will therefore take a long time not to fight it, a time that is rarely available to those who are elected on this promise,” the expert explained.

“Volodymir Zelensky, at the time of his election, stated that he wanted to exercise one and only one mandate. Today, he seems to be less assertive but a number of factors leave him hesitant. The latest polls seem to show that a majority of Ukrainians do not want his re-election. His image as an anti-corruption fighter was recently tarnished by the publication of his name in the Pandora Papers,” Vincent Henry added.

Meanwhile, Viktor Mironenko, head of the Center for Ukrainian Studies at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, expressed the opinion that the process of political positioning of Ukraine has become irreversible.

“Taking into account the totality of events – from the anniversary events in August to the Ukraine-EU summit in October – it can be stated that relations between Ukraine and the EU [...] have elevated to a new stature. They consider themselves members of the same political family, and now the problems of Ukraine are also the problems of the EU, and the problems of the EU are also the problems of Ukraine. Their mutual economic and political sprouting into each other is taking place,” he said.

“President Zelensky, the Servant of the People party and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine are quite consistently carrying out the promised reforms: decentralization, digitalization, as well as land and judicial reforms, separation of politics and big business. Overall, I would rate the results of their efforts as satisfactory. They could be better if they did not affect the interests of influential financial groups and their political representations at the high and at the local levels,” the expert said.

At the same time, according to him, the country lacks “think tanks” capable of generating new political ideas.

“Apparently, the regime of the Third Ukrainian Republic, established after 1991, has exhausted its capabilities and needs a radical reboot. The need for this is becoming more and more obvious. The President and his party still have the opportunity to produce it, but they do not dare to do it,” Viktor Mironenko suggested.

In turn, Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), former Ambassador of the EU to Russia, said that the summit was characterised by a warm cooperative spirit, and covering a huge landscape of issues.

“It was stocktaking over work in progress to a large extent. The existing association agreement, signed in 2014, contains many detailed economic regulatory chapters aligned on EU law. However EU law is constantly changing, so it was important for the summit to welcome the corresponding updating of the agreement in this respect. New steps included signing a Common Civil Aviation Area agreement, and important high-level dialogues on Ukraine's alignment on the EU’s Green Deal climate policies, and over Cyber-security. Overall the picture is one of Ukraine’s European orientation becoming more deeply and extensively ingrained into its economic and governmental structures,” the expert said.

According to him, Ukrainian politics is a complex mix of competing stakeholder interests, with strong civil society and international partners sustaining the pressure for both de-corruption and de-oligarchisation.

“Zelensky’s performance has been mixed but not zero. Some institutional moves for the rule of law are positive. Notable also has been his refusal of oligarch Igor Kolomorsky’s attempts to get compensation over the state takeover of the failing Privatbank,” the expert said.

Meanwhile, Helmut Geuking, a member of the European Parliament for Germany, representing the Family Party of Germany, and a member of Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Association Committee, expressed confidence that the EU and Ukraine have embarked on a path that will be very long.

“On the whole, the results of the summit are quite unsatisfactory, have little future orientation and, in fact, are taken for granted by the partners. The decisions indicate that everything will continue as it is, but this cannot be so any longer. People in Ukraine have the right to security, peace and stability, including in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The Crimean Platform [...] should have been initiated in an appropriate way – correctly and strongly. Inviting Russia to long-overdue negotiations and rejecting NATO as a basis of trust – that would be a good start for talking not about each other, but with each other,” the MEP said.

Analyzing the preliminary results of the Ukrainian leader’s rule, Helmut Geuking stressed that great hopes were pinned on Volodymyr Zelensky.

“Mr. Zelensky [...] still has to give answers to many questions. He clearly used pre-existing structures in his work, which was a big mistake. More was expected of him,” the politician said.

Answering the question about the difficulties in combating corruption and fighting the oligarchy, he noted that he cannot judge this from a distance.

“Since 2017, Europe has transferred about 20 billion euros to Ukraine. Needless to say, it expects to see support for core European values in the country, [...] as well as a long-needed anti-corruption program,” Helmut Geuking added.

“The necessary positive process of general social development can be initiated, accelerated and implemented only by the government of the state. The foundation of such development is the rule of law, respect for human rights and freedom of the press, which should be reflected in existing laws. In this, President Zelensky simply did not live up to expectations,” the MEP concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/67297-2021

PenzaNews. The creation of AUKUS – a new security partnership between Australia, Great Britain and the United States, which led to the breakdown of the defense contract between Canberra and Paris for the supply of 12 Barracuda-class attack submarines totaling more than 50 billion euros, received mixed assessments.

As part of the agreement, Australia plans to build at least 8 nuclear submarines using American technology, as well as re-equip its armed forces with American cruise missiles. In Paris, Australia’s decision was called a “stab in the back” and betraying.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian noted that the start of trilateral cooperation on nuclear submarines “gravely undermines regional peace and stability, aggravates arms race and impairs international nuclear non-proliferation efforts.”

According to Christoph Heusgen, a former German ambassador to the UN, the emergence of the new alliance has led to a “big loss of trust” in the Biden administration.

Meanwhile, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida expressed his approval for AUKUS, while Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia has raised a number of questions with the United States in connection with the creation of the alliance and will also present them to colleagues from Australia and Great Britain.

Earlier, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne stated that the AUKUS partnership was created for the exchange of technology and is not a military or security alliance.

Analyzing the creation of AUKUS and its prospects, independent researcher Murray Hunter pointed out that the factual information provided on the new partnership is not yet sufficient to draw clear conclusions.

“At this stage there is very little detail about the actualities of AUKUS. The Australian subs will take a decade to go online into service. […] Australia today has little ability to militarily project itself, except for some naval ships more in Aux roles. [...] I see AUKUS more as a regeneration of the ANZUS agreement with the UK taking New Zealand’s place,” the expert said.

According to him, on paper today, the AUKUS alliance makes no strategic difference in the Indo-Pacific – the only tangible issue so far is the intention of Washington and London to transfer nuclear submarines to Australia on a long-term lease and to give to Australia technology for their construction.

At the same time, the prospects for the development of cooperation, in his opinion, remain unpredictable.

“It will completely depend upon the next US presidency. Nothing can happen much in the next few years, except for some exercises. […] However, AUKUS will not replace any defense policy. It’s not a policy, just some undefined intentions,” the analyst said.

He added that there are some adverse effects – other than France – coming out.

“Singapore is not enthusiastic to the idea, but accepting it, Malaysia is critical that it may promote an arms race in the region. Indonesia is the most critical – it reminded Australia to observe treaties,” Murray Hunter said, stressing that the South East Asian response hasn’t been positive for Canberra.

In turn, Clive Williams, Visiting Fellow at the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, expressed the opinion that AUKUS is intended to contain China’s growing military capability.

“The AUKUS agreement covers cooperation on artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, underwater capabilities, and long-range strike capabilities. It will also include assistance with establishing nuclear support facilities, probably to be located near Adelaide in South Australia. AUKUS will focus on military capabilities, differentiating it from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance that includes New Zealand and Canada,” the expert said.

“Under the AUKUS agreement, the US and UK agree to help Australia to develop and deploy nuclear-powered submarines as Australia’s major contribution to the AUKUS military presence in the Indo-Pacific region. Australian submarines will not be equipped with nuclear weapons but will probably instead carry Tomahawk Cruise Missiles with conventional warheads,” Clive Williams added.

According to him, the deal represents a long-term security arrangement between the three countries.

“Australia is expected to acquire at least eight nuclear-powered submarines. Over the next 18 months, Australia, the UK, and the US will be planning the way forward, with expected delivery of the first submarine in the 2040s. In the meantime, Australia is looking at a leasing arrangement to familiarise the Royal Australian Navy with operating nuclear-powered submarines,” the analyst said.

From his point of view, the development prospects of AUKUS will depend largely on China’s actions.

“The AUKUS security partnership should ensure that the US, UK, and Australia are the dominant military actors in the Indo-Pacific during this century,” Clive Williams stressed.

Meanwhile, Grant Newsham, retired US Marine Colonel, said that the AUKUS deal is good from both a military operational and a political standpoint.

“The sharing of nuclear submarine technology with Australia is a big deal and a clear sign of commitment. But now the Americans and the British and the Australians need to make something happen – and fast. Get a sub or two to Australia quickly – the Americans have some spares available — and get the training and infrastructure going. Don’t wait ten years. It is needed now,” the expert said.

He also stressed that AUKUS is not just a submarine deal.

“It calls for cooperation in a range of areas including AI, advance technologies, and even missile systems. So there are plenty of other areas for cooperation beyond AUKUS’s ‘nuclear submarine’ part that gets most of the attention,” Grant Newsham explained.

“As for the French, they had to know the sub deal was on thin ice. The deal had become the equivalent of a mafia gang squeezing huge amounts of money out of somebody unwise enough to sign a legitimate seeming ‘deal’ with them. […] That said, this should have been handled better diplomatically,” the expert said stressing that the Biden administration showed its unprofessionalism in this situation.

In his opinion, the US will need extra effort to convince its partners of its own serious intentions for cooperation, since “AUKUS will not be enough by itself.”

“How serious is the US when Wall Street, Boeing, Apple, et al are pouring billions into the PRC and begging the administration not to anger the Chinese Communists? Letting that Huawei lady Meng Wanzhou go scot-free [her release was the result of a deal struck after lengthy negotiations between Chinese and American diplomats] will undercut AUKUS more than one imagines. All the Chinese have to do is scream, threaten, and pound the table, and the Americans will often back down, it seems,” the ex-diplomat said.

Meanwhile, Anthony Glees, The University of Buckingham, said that, according to British Prime Minister, nuclear powered submarines will allow Australia to “keep silent watch,” “observe,” undetected, Chinese movements in the Indo-Pacific region.

“It will have been negotiated with the US and Australia over many months, perhaps since Dec 2019, even before and, of course, this was done in secret and behind the backs of France, even though France had a contract to build diesel submarines with Australia, and unlike the UK, France is, genuinely in territorial terms, an Asia-Pacific power and has always been a close strategic partner of the UK, perhaps closer at times even than the US,” the expert said.

From his point of view, the exclusion of France was a major strategic error by the UK and by the US president Joseph Biden who seems not to have focused on the implications of deceiving France.

At the same time, Anthony Glees reminded that the UK’s national security adviser, Sir Stephen Lovegrove said AUKUS was “the most significant capability collaboration anywhere in the world in the past decade,” which means it is really a big deal that might be much more than just an 18 month collaboration.

“It seems to me [British Prime Minister Boris] Johnson really does intend this to be a big project, to begin to re-establish the UK as a global, rather than a European power,” the expert added.

He also did not rule out that the agreement may contain clauses that have not yet been announced publicly.

“It is possible that Australia will agree to build a harbour for the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet, or even that Australia might have some kind of access to UK nuclear weapons, which is hard to achieve without breaking the Nuclear Arms Limitations Treaties,” Anthony Glees said.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/67275-2021

PenzaNews. Experts continue to discuss the statement by US President Joseph Biden on the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and the end of the era of major military operations to remake other countries.

In his speech, the head of the White House noted that the country turns the page on the foreign policy that has guided the nation the last two decades, and said that the US has to learn lessons from its mistakes.

“To me, there are two that are paramount. First, we must set missions with clear, achievable goals — not ones we’ll never reach. And second, we must stay clearly focused on the fundamental national security interest of the United States of America,” Joseph Biden said.

“This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries,” he stressed.

According to the American leader, moving on from that mindset and those kind of large-scale troop deployments will make the US stronger and more effective and safer at home.

“We’ve been a nation too long at war. If you’re 20 years old today, you have never known an America at peace,” Joseph Biden said.

Analyzing the statement of the head of the White House, Greg Thielmann, Board Member of the Arms Control Association and former office director in the State Department’s intelligence bureau, INR, who was specializing in political-military and intelligence issues, said that Biden’s statement reflects his long-standing scepticism about the ability of America’s military to remake countries like Afghanistan.

“However, one should recall that he was one of 77 Senators voting to authorize the use of military force against Iraq in October of 2002 and did little to press for reconsideration when evidence emerged prior to the 19 March 2003 invasion that Iraq had no active WMD programs,” the expert said.

In his opinion, it is likely that the Biden Administration will be less enthusiastic about nation-building overseas than some of his predecessors.

“But it is too early to predict with confidence how assertive the US will be to protect international law and human rights standards around the world. My expectation is that Biden will continue to sanction foreign countries for perceived violations of international standards, but will be more open to coordinating policies with US allies than President Trump and more willing to seek cooperation with competitors and adversaries in the pursuit of common interests, such as preventing climate change and nuclear war,” Greg Thielmann explained.

He also suggested that Biden is likely to prioritize his domestic agenda going into the fall, and a clear and coherent approach to foreign affairs and national security policy is unlikely to emerge until 2022.

In turn, Charles Henry, Professor Emeritus of African American Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, expressed the opinion that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan marks the end of 20 years of “nation-building” that began after 9/11 with the administration of George W. Bush.

“Obama’s attempts to do this were largely defeated by the military-industrial complex. Trump tried a kind of neo-isolationism but surrounded himself with generals and presided over an administration that was largely inept. Biden has sought to reestablish Western alliances and pivot US foreign policy toward threats from China and to a lesser extent Russia,” he said.

At the same time, according to him, the aggressive military approach remains very popular in the United States.

“Biden has also supported Congress reasserting its role in foreign policy making. His foreign policy initiatives have divided both parties. There are significant voices among both Republicans and Democrats that favor an aggressive military approach as witnessed in the recent Congressional authorization of over $700 million more in spending for the Pentagon over Biden’s request,” the expert added.

Meanwhile, Steven Pifer, US Ambassador to Ukraine in 1998–2000, ex-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, expert at Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, stressed it has been known for years that Joseph Biden believed the United States should end its military involvement in Afghanistan.

“[One of the] factors that appears to have affected President Biden’s decision is the administration’s conclusion that the main security challenge facing the United States today is no longer international terrorism, which was the number one threat for most of the post-9/11 period,” Steven Pifer suggested.

“Peer competitors – China and Russia – are now seen as the primary challenges,” he said.

Denny Roy, Senior Fellow at East-West Center, expert on Northeast Asian international security issues, noted that the decision was not sensational.

“Biden is assuring Americans that he does not plan to pursue a policy of forcible nation-building after the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact that era has been over for about a decade. No US president could get support from either the Congress or the US public today to start a long-term occupation of a defeated enemy country,” he explained.

Nevertheless, in his opinion, Biden still appears committed to the objective of the United States remaining the world’s strongest and most influential country.

“Biden is rejuvenating US alliances, trying to restore US global leadership, and seeking to strengthen America’s economic and technological base. American post-Cold War unipolar over-confidence has peaked and passed. But the USA still aspires to global primacy, and will continue under Biden’s government to sponsor and defend an international system based on liberal Anglo-American norms,” Denny Roy said.

Meanwhile, Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution and an author of several publications for the National Interest magazine, expressed disagreement with some of the statements of the American leader.

“I don’t really agree with President Biden’s quote. We didn’t decide to “remake” Afghanistan. We tried a minimalist approach in the years after 2001 and it didn’t work. The country didn’t advance much, corruption got worse, and the Taliban began to return. So that’s when we tried something more comprehensive. It didn’t work very well either—but what really didn’t work was Biden deciding to give up on the mission this past April. Those are my observations. Fortunately, most of the rest of US foreign policy is unaffected, I think,” the analyst said.

In turn, Frank von Hippel, Senior Research Physicist at Princeton University, who served the Assistant Director for National Security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said that his main concern is the US relationship with China.

“Biden has also said that the main challenge to the US is not the problems of the Middle East but the rise of an aggressive China. I worry the US is embarking on a new Cold War with China. In this Cold War, Taiwan could be the nuclear flash point as West Berlin was in the Cold War with the Soviet Union,” the expert explained.

Commenting on the changes in the US foreign policy strategy, Frank von Hippel recalled that at the end of the Cold War with the USSR, the United States saw democracy as the wave of the future, but under Donald Trump, the Republican Party has turned its back on it.

“Authoritarianism has been on the rise in other countries as well – and the structures of international cooperation are weakening at a time when we need global responses to global challenges such as climate change and COVID-19. I hope the pendulum will begin to swing the other way soon,” the expert concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/67256-2021

PenzaNews. Representatives from more than 60 countries will take part in the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in Vladivostok on September 2–4, said Yuri Trutnev, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District.

“Several thousand guests from Asia-Pacific countries, as well as representatives from large international companies will come to Vladivostok. There will be representatives from more than 60 countries taking part in the forum. Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to attend, as well as heads of other states,” the Deputy Prime Minister said at a meeting with students, who were taking part in all-Russian competition “Your Move” and “Great Change” in Primorye on Monday, August 23.

When talking to the young participants, he reminded that the purpose of the EEF is to improve economic development and let domestic and foreign investors know how business in the Far East is supported.

“We will be submitting several new proposals to the President for further Far East development consideration,” the press service of Primorye government quotes Yuri Trutnev.

The key topic of the EEF-2021 will be New Opportunities for the Far East in a Changed World. The business program is divided into four thematic pillars: ‘The New Economy: What Changes and What Stays the Same’, ‘The Far East: New Challenges and Opportunities’, ‘Our Shared Responsibility in a Changing World’, and ‘Youth EEF’.

The program features more than 70 business events, including panel sessions, round tables, business dialogues, and international conferences. In addition, the EEF 2021 will include the following business dialogues: Russia–ASEAN, Russia–Korea, Russia–Japan, Russia–China, Russia–India, Russia–Europe, and the Greater Eurasian Partnership as an effective integration mechanism. Other planned discussions include the APEC International Conference on Higher Education, and the International Conference dedicated to the Centenary of Diplomatic Relations between Russia and Mongolia.

The key event of the EEF will be the plenary session scheduled for 3 September.

The forum will be held in both online and offline format, with participation of high profile guests. All forum events will be broadcast on the EEF website. This year, special studios of the forum will function abroad: they will operate in interactive mode of teleconferences in Seoul, Shanghai and Tokyo.

Commenting on the upcoming forum, Shankaran Nambiar, Head of Research, Malaysian Institute of Economic Research in Kuala Lumpur, noted the importance of the EEF in the context of the economic downturn caused by the pandemic.

“This year may not be a particularly vibrant year for the forum. But I think productive issues will be discussed, especially relating to the pandemic and ways to overcome it. A particularly important issue would relate to how economic recovery can be managed under these difficult circumstances,” the expert said.

From his point of view, another topical issue at the EEF will be doing business in countries that are struggling to overcome the pandemic.

“Russia has contributed tremendously to the management of the pandemic, particularly by the creation of a vaccination – Sputnik V, and I am sure the forum will pay special attention to reviving the economies of Eastern businesses,” Shankaran Nambiar stressed.

According to Nobuhide Hatasa, Professor, Osaka University of Economics and Law, the EEF is one of the most important opportunities to demonstrate the presence of Russia in the Asia-Pacific region.

“Eastern Economic Forum is now becoming one of the significant events that demonstrates Russia’s initiative in facilitating economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region and its commitment to forming a close relationship with each country of East Asia,” he said.

In his opinion, many businessmen in Japan, China, and Korea pay attention to the Northern Sea route where a year-round navigation may soon become feasible.

“In addition to accessibility and cost efficiency, Suez Canal Blockage happened in March 2021 was another decisive reason that most logistics companies willing to avoid traffic disturbance and reduce risks of global supply chains started seriously and realistically looking at the Northern Sea route,” the expert explained.

In turn, Neil MacKinnon, Global Macro Strategist at VTB Capital, called the EEF an important economic forum.

“This is an important event especially this year given the challenges and uncertainties facing both the global and East-European economies,” he said.

From his point of view, trade disruption and supply chain problems are key factors facing businesses.

“Policy cooperation to help promote economic growth, investment and trade are crucial,” Neil MacKinnon stressed.

Meanwhile, Hironori Fushita, Research Fellow at Japan Institute of International Affairs, noted that the Eastern Economic Forum is traditionally a good chance for Japan to strengthen relations with Russia.

“Moreover, the EEF, which brings together the leaders of Asian states, provides the participating countries with new opportunities for multilateral dialogue and cooperation. In this respect, the forum occupies a unique position in the APR,” he said.

According to him, the coronavirus pandemic has deprived Tokyo and Moscow of direct dialogue, and the EEF could contribute to its resumption, but Japan, according to the expert, will not be able to fully realize this opportunity.

“The rapidly deteriorating COVID-19 situation in Japan after the Tokyo Olympics and the imminent collapse of the medical system in the capital and other cities in the country will likely make it much harder for Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga to visit Vladivostok. In addition, elections for the leader of the ruling LDP party and elections for the lower house of parliament are coming in autumn – Yoshihide Suga, who does not always have a solid political base, seems to have few opportunities for foreign travel,” said Hironori Fushita, also recalling the visit of the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Mikhail Mishustin to Iturup, which caused a negative reaction in Japan.

“If Yoshihide Suga does not participate in the EEF, although it is possible that he will participate online, then Japan’s presence at the forum will be significantly reduced. So far, economic cooperation between Japan and Russia has been driven by political motives, and, unfortunately, a decrease in the involvement of leaders can directly lead to a decline in economic relations between the countries,” he said.

In his opinion, it is difficult to deny that Japan and the Russian Federation have a lot of areas for the development of cooperation.

“For example, this is the fight against the pandemic, countering climate change, environmental protection, digitalization of the economy and others. The EEF should provide a good opportunity to discuss economic interactions in the aftermath of the pandemic. However, I doubt that now Japan, exhausted by the protracted pandemic, feels the need and has the potential for this,” Hironori Fushita explained.

Lak Chansok, Lecturer and Research Fellow, Department of International Studies, Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) in Cambodia, Expert at Democracy Promotion Center, Ritsumeikan Center for Asia Pacific Studies, Ritsumeikan APU in Japan, drew attention to the growing interest in the Eastern Economic Forum.

“Previous data show that the numbers of media and business participants as well as of investment agreements remarkably increased from 2017 to 2019. The total value of the signed agreements cumulated in those three years amounted to approximately 9 trillion rubles, or approximately 123 billion US dollars,” he reminded.

According to him, despite the surge of new variants of COVID-19, the EEF will face both challenge and opportunity.

“For opportunity, the EEF remains significant to revitalize Russia’s Far East (RFE) and promote international cooperation in the wider Asia Pacific. During these health and economic crises, EEF could play a crucial role in promoting regional trade and investment. Many countries including China, India, South Korea, Japan and ASEAN have also eyed Russia with hope to promote more sound business cooperation,” Lak Chansok said.

“The RFE remains potential for countries in the Asia Pacific, particularly in natural resources. Northeast Asian countries and the United States accounted for around 80% of its export and more than 60% of its import. Russia’s trade with these countries remains optimistic. In Southeast Asia, since 1996 Russia’s trade and investment with ASEAN have been seen a steady increase; however, they have remained small compared to other ASEAN dialogues partners. Hence, Russia should fasten its RFE revitalization to diversify its trading products and build more economic linkages with the Asia Pacific,” the expert concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/67231-2021

PenzaNews. The Cuban government allowed the inhabitants of the island to open small and medium-sized private business with up to 100 employees. This happened in the wake of the massive protests which took place in July in Havana and a number of major cities due to the deterioration of living conditions, including in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The State Council has approved a decree-law on micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, which facilitates their coherent insertion in the legal system as an actor that affects the productive transformation of the country,” says a note on the website of the National Assembly of People’s Power of Cuba.

Meanwhile, President President Miguel Diaz-Canel said Cuba was taking firm steps to update its economic model.

Earlier, travellers were allowed arriving in the country to bring in food, medicine and other essentials without paying import duties.

According to official information, many government supporters who took to the streets during the days of the protests to prevent provocations were injured in clashes with protesters. The Cuban authorities blamed the United States for organizing the riots.

Analyzing the situation in the country, David Jessop, the director and founder of the Cuba Initiative, Non-Executive Director of the Caribbean Council and Cuba Briefing Editor, said the protests were largely spontaneous.

“The unrest, news of which was widely spread on social media within Cuba, was a response to growing concerns about food shortages, severe power outages, the growing incidence of COVID 19, and the deteriorating ability of Cuba’s health care system to cope with rising infection rates in some provinces, all of which to a significant extent have been exacerbated by the tightening of the US embargo. These then morphed in some locations to protests against the government,” the expert reminded.

In his opinion, the Government response was initially confrontational possibly because some in the Communist Party feared that a US soft war that the leadership says it has been facing was becoming among some a US inspired direct challenge to its power.

“Cuba’s President subsequently sought to lower the tension by recognising the legitimacy of many of the concerns expressed including by ‘revolutionary people’. Since then he has moved to indicate to others in the leadership that it will be necessary to increase the space for debate in Cuban society, and to address issues with a wider group of participants,” David Jessop said.

From his point of view, this reflects in part the danger the early confrontations on the street posed to the Cuban military concept of a ‘war of all the people’ as this doctrine is felt to be the only way to repulse the US attempt at an invasion if it happens.

“Government has been undergoing generational change and implementing major economic reforms that decentralise and theoretically de-bureaucratise state decision making and encourage non-state economic development. There are divisions between conservatives and liberal reformers about the pace of and nature of such change. In my view the current tension s surrounding economic delivery and future growth and the concerns of many Cubans could be overcome if it were to liberalise and create a social market economy that emulated many of the reforms undertaken in Vietnam,” the expert said.

At the same time, according to him, only the Cuban people can decide on their own future.

“It is not up to The US, the EU Russia or anyone else to determine. The US Embargo has failed but has become a function of US domestic politics, making it harder to unravel and in the process harming the ability of the Cuban people to have a better life,” David Jessop added.

Laurence Whitehead, Senior Research Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, believes that the unrest in Cuba was “spontaneous, and a non-violent expression of social despair.”

“But there is also a broader setting. The ‘revolutionary regime’ leadership is trying to pass power to a next generation, but this rising cohort lacks the self-confidence and prestige of the founders. Hopes for a more inclusive future were stirred by Barack Obama, and by the spread of the internet, and some mild economic relaxations, then dashed by Donald Trump, COVID-19, and the collapse of tourism. The long overdue currency unification was launched under duress on Jan 1st – the worst possible timing – and has only produced inflation and empty shelves so far. Fundamentally the regime failed to promote food self-security and now lacks the means to import basic food supplies either,” Laurence Whitehead noted.

In his opinion, the US sanctions and international solidarity, including from Russia, help governmental cohesion.

“The immediate crisis seems to have passed without spinning out of control, and to my mind the authorities have exercised suitable restraint - but this is controversial with the western press screaming ‘repression.’ […] On the issue of economic scarcity it is bending to some obvious and easy but necessary and overdue concessions. But that does not restore the prestige of the regime, or compensate for the damage done. Major further reforms are essential, but extremely difficult without splitting the elite. So the danger persists of renewed and perhaps more confrontational outbursts. It remains to be seen how Havana is processing all this,” the expert said.

Commenting on inadmissibility of the intervention of external forces in solving problems in Cuba, he stressed that the question of how it is governed must be decided by the islanders.

“[…] The question at issue in Cuba is whether the US government has the right to asymmetrical intervention that it has repeatedly exercised since the invasion of 1898. The UN votes every year by about 191 to 2 (US and Israel) that such ‘plattism’ is not permissible. […] Biden knows it is not, and that there is no prospect of containing the damage if they invade again like in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.,” Laurence Whitehead explained.

“The question of how Cuba is governed must be decided basically by the islanders. My observation in 2019 is that the referendum on the current constitution did have substantial (if grudging) support. It would have to be the basis for further political innovations that are going to be essential in coming years. The protesters want ‘Patria y Vida’ rather than ‘Patria o Muerte.’ That is a powerful, but essentially reformist and national platform. Fulminating against supposed ‘totalitarianism’ is no help to the Cuban people. They need international solidarity to guide the country out of its current impasse,” he added.

In turn, Mark Jones, Professor of Political Science at Rice University, expert in Latin American Studies, shared the opinion that the situation in Cuba is increasingly problematic for the Cuban government.

“The economic downturn associated with the COVID-19 pandemic combined with the reduction in low-cost/free oil shipments from Venezuela have added almost unbearable stress to an economic system that was already broken and in dire straits,” the expert said.

“Cuban citizens have finally reacted to the Communist government’s myriad failures: a moribund economy that cannot provide for Cubans’ basic needs, a health care system that cannot protect them from COVID-19, and a repressive police state that denies Cubans even the most basic civil liberties,” he said.

Meanwhile, in his opinion, the Cuban government should be able to effectively repress these protests.

“First, as an island, it is easier for the government to prevent both access to the broader world. Second, the Cuban security apparatus is formidable and also realizes quite clearly, that if the current government falls, they and their families will lose all of their economic and social privileges and quite possibly be jailed for human rights violations,” Mark Jones explained.

Analyzing the likelihood of outside interference, he suggested that the Joe Biden administration will not go the next step of trying to overthrow the Cuban government, beyond the punitive measures such as the embargo that are already in effect.

“There are multiple reasons for this. First, intervention into another country’s internal affairs is opposed by most Democrats and many Republicans. Second, within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party there are many Democratic elites who are historic supporters of the Cuban Revolution and Cuban government, and any intervention would alienate them. Third, the last thing the Biden Administration wants is a breakdown of the current Cuban Government and the country descending into anarchy, which would possibly result in a million or more Cuban refugees arriving in Florida,” Mark Jones said.

Emily Morris, Research Fellow at University College London’s Institute of the Americas (UCLIA), drew attention to the fact that even before COVID-19 the country was suffering from the tightening of US sanctions during the presidency of Donald Trump.

“When the pandemic began, multilateral official financing institutions, led by the IMF, moved quickly to provide emergency financing facilities for countries that needed foreign exchange and fiscal support to enable them to respond to the health emergency. They knew that if they did not, there would be huge suffering and likely political upheaval. But because of US sanctions, Cuba […] has had no access to official international emergency financing. Moreover, just before leaving office in January 2021, the Trump administration introduced their most devastating measure in terms of its effect on the Cuban economy: by re-listing Cuba on the US Treasury department’s list of ‘state sponsors of terrorism’ without any plausible justification. […] This makes it extremely difficult for any Cuban entities to simply process payments for international trade, as well as finance. So Cuba not only had no access to official external financial support, but faced the pandemic amidst a sharp reduction in access to any form of international finance. No other country has experienced this,” the expert said.

“On top of all this, the Cuban government introduced a major economic reform in January 2021: currency unification. This is an important and necessary reform, but it was inevitably going to cause some economic disruption – with businesses earning foreign exchange becoming more profitable, while those with high import components becoming uneconomic – and inflation. In the context of shortages resulting from COVID-19 and US sanctions, inflation has been stronger than it would otherwise has been, creating considerable alarm among Cubans,” Emily Morris added.

According to her, the protests were certainly encouraged by the efforts of US-based organisations to stir unrest, but they also reflected real frustrations of the citizens.

“The government’s attempts to cap prices and ration distribution of increasingly scarce basic goods stimulated growing black markets and queues. With foreign exchange limited, many goods disappeared from shelves […] and were only available in hard currency stores. So politically, there was a general atmosphere of rising frustration,” the expert noted.

In her opinion, the current Cuban government is committed to economic reform, and has been moving towards greater openness and inclusion.

“It has also been remarkably competent in terms of ensuring that basic health and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable are met during this severe economic crisis, and very willing to respond to complaints and difficulties. But the reforms have been a slow process, and the messaging has been clumsy, especially in terms of reaching the young and unengaged population. President Diaz-Canel’s insistence on ‘continuity’ works for the older generation and loyal followers, and indeed may be necessary for ensuring that planned reforms have their consent, but is unattractive to this new generation. AS well as being frustrated by the loss of opportunities and dismal economic situation, they are bored with hearing the government blame problems on the ‘US blockade’ – even though US sanctions are more to blame than before – and fed up with the bureaucracy and controls,” Emily Morris said.

From her point of view, intervention, directly or indirectly, can only make the situation worse.

“The situation should be resolved in Cuba and by its people only. Indirect intervention, whether the radio or TV broadcasts, propaganda disseminated through internet, or covert support for dissidents, is entirely counter-productive in terms of its effect on the internal debate. There is a vibrant exchange of opinions within Cuba, which has the capacity to bring new thinking and concrete reforms, and a process of reform towards a more open society and economy is under way. In the short period of the Obama opening, discussion opened up; but in the context of growing US hostility, the Cuban authorities, as always – and as any government would, in the face of a perceived external threat – reacted against outside intervention by closing ranks,” the expert stressed.

“Direct intervention would be a disaster, with the resultant chaos and destruction causing suffering in Cuba and difficulties for the US. Whether or not it succeeded in its stated intention of ‘regime change’, it would be resisted by a large proportion of Cubans, and the resultant conflict would be costly in human terms,” Emily Morris concluded.

PenzaNews. Experts continue to discuss the moratorium on federal executions imposed by US Attorney General Merrick Garland who leads the United States Department of Justice.

It will remain in effect while a review of the Justice Department’s procedures and policies on capital punishment is pending.

“The Department of Justice must ensure that everyone in the federal criminal justice system is not only afforded the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States, but is also treated fairly and humanely,” Merrick Garland said.

According to the message published on the Ministry of Justice website, the previous administration made a series of changes to capital case policies and procedures. The current head of the department directed to lead a multi-pronged review of these recent policy changes, including a review of the Addendum to the Federal Execution Protocol, adopted in 2019, which will assess, among other things, “the risk of pain and suffering associated with the use of pentobarbital.” In addition, they might consider changes to Justice Department regulations made in November 2020 that expanded the permissible methods of execution. How long the review will last is not specified.

The death penalty at the federal level was not carried out in the United States from 2003 to 2020. At the same time, the state authorities could independently appoint and conduct it. The death penalty is currently banned in 23 states.

In 2019, William Barr, then US Attorney General, resumed capital punishment for federal convicted offenders. As a result, last year, for the first time in American history, the number of federal executions in a year exceeded the total for all states. So, all in all, 17 people were executed in the country, of which 10 were executed at the federal level.

Analyzing the decision taken by the new administration, Carolyn Hoyle, Director of the Oxford University Death Penalty Research Unit, drew attention to the fact that Joe Biden became the first US president to make abolition of the federal death penalty part of his presidential campaign platform.

“Even with Trump’s [the 45th US President] increase of federal executions during the last six months of his presidency, the number of death sentences imposed in the US has fallen from over 300 in the mid-1990s to only seventeen in 2020,” the expert reminded.

She stressed that she fully supports the moratorium on the death federal penalty and hopes that it is a precursor to abolition de jure.

“The past decades have witnessed growing international consensus on the limits of state punishment, particularly for those deemed to be vulnerable. Though human rights, especially the right to life, drive an abolitionist agenda, particularly in Europe, they also frame progressive restriction in the use of the death penalty, fair trial procedures for states that retain the death penalty, and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments. Evidence from the US is clear that executions there are cruel, inhuman and degrading,” Carolyn Hoyle said.

“All the empirical evidence shows that the poor, Black people, and those who are vulnerable by way of poor mental health are more likely to be sentenced to death. Furthermore, innocent people have been sentenced to death and executed even though the US has a complex and reasonably thorough post-conviction review process,” she added.

According to her, the last three decades have witnessed an unprecedented global rate of abolition of the death penalty.

“Of the 193 member states of the United Nations, 107 countries have abolished the death penalty in law for all crimes, and a further eight countries have abolished the death penalty in law for ordinary crimes. Moreover, 72% of all countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Many retentionist states point to the United States in support of their own position and so it is vital that the US leads the way in abolition,” the expert said.

In her opinion, it is clear that if the Federal Death Penalty was abolished, it would be in step with the gradual movement away from capital punishment in the US and in the world.

“Those who commit the most heinous crimes must be punished and their punishments must fit the crime to allow for retribution. However, retribution means proportionate punishments: harsh penalties for serious crimes. It does not mean ‘death for death.’ Long or life prison sentences for murder are proportionate and appropriate. Furthermore they allow for review if new evidence of wrongful conviction comes to light. However, life sentences should be discretionary, not mandatory. There should always be the possibility of review by a parole board, after a suitable period of imprisonment to meet the goals of retribution, as and when the information about the prisoner and his or her risks to society changes. In other words, I do not support the replacement of the death penalty with a mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole,” Carolyn Hoyle explained.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice leader and CRSJ Death Penalty Committee Chair Ronald Tabak, who is also Pro Bono Counsel at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates, said that he favors a moratorium on federal government executions.

“As was highlighted by the Trump Administration’s executions of 13 death row inmates in its last months in office, the federal death penalty is imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Whether the federal death penalty is sought, secured, and actually carried out in a case is less dependent on how morally culpable a defendant was than on the conduct of the prosecution and the quality or lack thereof of defense counsel,” he said.

“When one analyzes the federal death penalty in light of the ABA's February 1997 policy calling for a moratorium on executions in a jurisdiction if it fails to carry out several specified ABA policies, it is apparent that there should be a moratorium on federal death penalty executions,” Ronald Tabak added.

Moreover, in his opinion, a moratorium on executions should be implemented in all United States jurisdictions that do not abolish capital punishment.

John Quigley, Professor Emeritus, The Ohio State University in Columbus, shard the opinion that the federal moratorium should be emulated by the states.

“In the states, the governors have power to commute death sentences. In a number of states, the governors have commuted the death sentences of all the prisoners under death sentence,” the expert said.

According to him, capital punishment is not an effective penalty for crime.

“Protection of the public can be achieved just as well without capital punishment,” John Quigley stressed.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Kirchmeier, Professor of Law at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law, said the federal moratorium on executions is a good but not enough step.

“A moratorium is merely stopping executions for now, even as people remain on death row and prosecutors may still add people to death row,” he explained.

“President Biden and others have recognized the implementation of the death penalty is riddled with problems. Among such problems, the punishment is not applied fairly or equally, methods of execution can lead to excess suffering, the death penalty offers no benefits to society different from the option of imprisonment, and a government’s act of killing its citizens who no longer pose any danger to society is an outdated and inhumane concept in the twenty-first century,” Jeffrey Kirchmeier said.

From his point of view, government officials should move from just pausing executions “to abolish the federal death penalty, just as a large number of states have done in recent years.”

The expert reminded that worldwide, and across the United States, the trend in recent decades has consistently been for governments to get rid of capital punishment.

“I agree that the trend should continue and that other countries and US states that still use the judicial process for killing citizens should continue to abandon the death penalty. Often, a first step is for a government to impose a moratorium on executions, and then after seeing how unnecessary the punishment is, the government can move to get rid of capital punishment completely,” Jeffrey Kirchmeier said.

In turn, Laura Pitter, Deputy Director – US Program, Human Rights Watch, said that the moratorium is an important step in the right direction.

“But we would urge the administration of US President Joe Biden to go further by commuting all federal death sentences and incentivizing states to follow suit,” the HRW representative said.

According to her, in the US, the death penalty is inevitably plagued with arbitrariness, racial disparities, and error.

“Since 1973, 185 people have been released from death row after later being found innocent. Numerous studies over the past several decades have found persistent patterns of racial disparities in courts imposing the death penalty, with Black people much more likely to receive such verdicts, especially if the victim is white,” HRW Deputy Director said.

In her opinion, the death penalty should be abolished everywhere.

“Human rights law recognizes the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all people, including even those who have committed terrible crimes. It prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment. Human Rights Watch believes these rights cannot be reconciled with the death penalty, a form of punishment unique in its cruelty and finality,” Laura Pitter concluded.

Photo: Twitter.com/thejusticedept 

PenzaNews. The leaders of the economies of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum adopted a joint statement following an extraordinary informal meeting chaired by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and held via videoconference on July 16.

The meeting focused on tasks facing the Asia-Pacific countries and related to overcoming the global health and economic problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In APEC Economic Leaders’ Statement they recognized the role of extensive immunization against COVID-19 as a global public good and promised not only to expand vaccine manufacture but also to encourage the voluntary transfer of vaccine production technologies on mutually agreed terms. This, as Russian President Vladimir Putin reminded the meeting participants, is currently being actively pursued by Russia.

“We are actively promoting the local manufacturing of our vaccines abroad based on technology transfer. Contracts have been signed with several foreign companies, including from the APEC economies, for manufacturing the Sputnik V vaccine in a total amount of over 800 million doses a year. We believe that it is vital to continue working together to create new facilities for the production of vaccines in the Asia Pacific Region, and also to remove administrative and other obstacles that might hinder their production and deliveries,” the Russian leader said.

Moreover, the parties promised to support their economies “for as long as necessary.”

“As we move beyond the immediate crisis, we will work to ensure all our people have the opportunities and resources they need to adapt to change – no one should be left behind,” the document says.

In addition, it emphasizes the need to form “a free, open, fair, non-discriminatory, transparent and predictable trade and investment environment.”

Commenting on the summit results, Nobuhide Hatasa, Professor, Osaka University of Economics and Law, drew attention to the fact that for the first time in the nearly 30-year history of APEC, the leaders held an extraordinary meeting.

“The most important objective of this ad-hoc meeting was to deliver strong messages of the APEC leaders to the international community that they work together to overcome COVID-19 and rebuilt the devastated world economy. Pandemic of the corona viral disease has been a big threat to the global economy, and currently vaccination is the only realistic and effective solution that reduces the chance of infection and then helps bring economic activities back to normal. They consequently agreed to continuously support the voluntary transfer of vaccine and global vaccine sharing efforts,” the expert told PenzaNews.

He also expressed the view that the APEC Informal Leaders’ Retreat was a timely and perfect occasion for New Zealand to increase a sense of its presence in the Asia-Pacific region and extend its leadership in the global society.

“New Zealand is one of the honors countries that successfully combat a spread of coronavirus and minimize the number of infected citizens, and in this respect Prime Minister Ardern is highly evaluated for her skills as an administrative leader. New Zealand is an advanced country and is in the position of assisting and financing international movements of providing vaccines to all people in the world,” Nobuhide Hatasa added.

Rajiv Biswas, APAC Chief Economist, IHS Markit, highlighted among the summit outcomes a statement by APEC leaders about their commitment to improving global vaccine sharing initiatives.

“This would include the expansion of manufacturing capacity of COVID-19 vaccines across regions globally, improving sharing of vaccine supplies and facilitating transfer of vaccine production technologies. These strategies are broadly consistent with the policy goals on vaccines agreed by G7 Leaders at the June 2021 G7 Summit in the UK,” he said.

In his opinion, another key agreement reached at the APEC Summit was a commitment to APEC co-operation to strengthen the process of digital transformation, as well as digital infrastructure and technologies.

“APEC leaders also recognized the need to provide fiscal support for post-pandemic recovery, with targeted measures for job creation and building resilient supply chains. However despite the broad pledges on macroeconomic stimulus made by APEC leaders, much of the government policy support for economic recovery will be the responsibility of individual APEC governments at a national level, rather than any kind of jointly co-ordinated regional economic stimulus program across the APEC region. Nevertheless, many of the advanced economies in the APEC region are expected to provide bilateral support for the economic recovery of APEC developing countries, as well as contributing to multilateral development assistance programs through international financial institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank,” Rajiv Biswas said.

In turn, Clive Williams from the Australian National University said that the solution was seen as accelerating equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, however, he assumed that the developed APEC countries would prioritize their own populations first.

“The leaders remain committed to realizing the Putrajaya Vision of an open, dynamic, resilient, and peaceful Asia-Pacific community by 2040, but COVID-19 has been a significant bump in the road and there are other major challenges to face – such as meaningful responses to climate change, China’s assertive regional activity, government corruption, and illegal fishing,” Clive Williams added.

According to him, APEC is supposed to be working towards goals of free and open trade and investment across borders, but that has taken a significant hit with the PRC using trade and investment as levers in its political relations with other countries.

“APEC supposedly operates on non-binding commitments, open dialogue, and equal respect for the views of all participants, so it is ill-equipped to deal with rogue members or factions. The members are under no treaty obligations, unlike members of the WTO or other multilateral trade bodies. Decisions made within APEC are reached by consensus and commitments are undertaken on a voluntary basis – which sounds all very good in principle but is open to abuse and does not work so well in practice,” the expert explained and added that it is still better for the leaders to be talking to each other than not.

Denny Roy, Senior Fellow at East-West Center, expert on Northeast Asian international security issues, the extraordinary summit demonstrated the group can flexibly respond to an emergency.

“Nevertheless, US-China tensions were the inescapable backdrop for the meeting. The meeting could have been an opportunity for a first face-to-face interaction between Biden and Xi Jinping, albeit virtually and as part of a group, but Xi Jinping’s remarks to the meeting were pre-recorded. Perhaps part of the reason Xi Jinping did it this way was to retaliate for Biden not yet meeting with him since Biden became president,” the expert said.

In his opinion, even with such a technical and seemingly nonpolitical issue as pandemic response, however, cooperation between the US, Russia and China will not be easy.

Denny Roy also added that the groupings that include both the US and China are increasingly unwieldy given the stark and fundamental strategic divergences between these two great powers.

“Both China and the US found ways to indirectly raise the issues that make them strategic competitors. Xi Jinping spoke of working toward a free trade area in the entire Asia-Pacific, implicitly one in which China would play a leading role and would set the rules. Biden promoted the US notion of a ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ that is ‘values-based’ and ‘transparent,’ all of which is shorthand for a US critique of Xi Jinping’s foreign policy in the region,” the analyst reminded.

Meanwhile, Lak Chansok, Lecturer and Research Fellow, Department of International Studies, Royal University of Phnom Penh (RUPP) in Cambodia, Expert at Democracy Promotion Center, Ritsumeikan Center for Asia Pacific Studies, Ritsumeikan APU in Japan, drew attention to the fact that the APEC leaders promoted sound economic policies to create jobs, increase economic productivity and advance innovation.

“During this pandemic, trade digitalization and innovation are crucial for secure, sustainable and inclusive growth in the Asia Pacific. […] A number of pressing issues related to China were also raised during the meeting, including the origins of COVID-19, human rights violation in Xinjian and Hong Kong, as well as Beijing’s assertiveness in the South China Sea,” the expert said.

At the same time, according to him, there remain some problems connected with the ways to cope with COVID-19 and accelerate regional economic recovery.

“First, vaccine nationalism and vaccine politicization have remained troubling for not only the APEC economies but also the world to overcome the pandemic. Hence, some wealthy APEC members’ commitments to ensure the equitable access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines remain questionable. Second, due to different economic standing of the APEC members, liberalization of trade […] is challenging for the developing countries especially during this difficult time. Last but not least, the APEC leaders meeting this year became a platform for great power rivalry,” Lak Chansok explained.

“The West criticizes China for COVID-19, human rights violation and PLA’s aggressiveness in the Indo-Pacific. That is coupled with the recent US move to mulling digital trade deals aimed at countering China’s economic influence. On the other hands, China accuses the United States of adopting coercive diplomacy. If politicized, the APEC meeting might go beyond not only its theme but also the APEC pillars. It is worth noticing that effectiveness of the APEC is determined by its concrete actions and outcomes, and overcoming the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and recovering regional economy is the real and important test for all of the APEC members,” the expert added.

In turn, Sourabh Gupta, Senior Fellow at the Institute for China-America Studies in Washington, the global economy is facing challenges unlike any seen since the end of the Second World War.

“With APEC representing almost 60 percent of global GDP and with the major global vaccine producing nations represented at the table, this APEC Leaders' meeting was about as good as it can get in concertedly bringing parties together in an ‘all-hands-on-deck’ mode to rein-in the pandemic and manage its economic consequences,” he said.

“It remains to be seen if the key member states will translate their pious intentions in the main statement into deliverable action on the ground. A global pandemic is no less a global challenge than climate change in terms of requiring a concerted global solution. Yet as we have seen over the past few months, vaccine nationalism and the geopolitics of vaccine provision have veritably become an arena of ‘disaster opportunism.’ It is hoped that with the major vaccine producing nations represented at the APEC Leaders table, all parties will pull together in the same direction in terms of prioritizing equitable regional and global vaccine access, especially through World Health Organization (WHO)-based mechanisms,” Sourabh Gupta added.

He also stressed that APEC brings the US, Russia and China together on the same platform.

“This is a rare occurrence. America is no longer part of Asia-Pacific trade and investment liberalization, having dropped out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). For its part, Russia is no longer part of what used to be G7+1 grouping. And the US and China obviously are going through significant decoupling related tensions. So that global economics does not fragment on a bloc-based basis, it is essential therefore that these three countries nurture this precious institutional platform and put it to productive collaborative use,” the expert concluded.

Photo: Apec.org

PenzaNews. The conservative bloc within the Christian Democratic and Christian Social Unions (CDU/CSU) leads the German electoral rating, while the gap from its closest rival, the Union90/Greens party, is 11 percentage points. This is evidenced by the data of a survey conducted by the Institute for the Study of Public Opinion INSA from 5 to 9 July 2021, in which 1,352 people took part.

According to data published in the Bild newspaper, if the elections to the Bundestag were held on Sunday, 28% of respondents would vote for the CDU/CSU; the Greens would receive 17% and the same amount would be received by the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). The Free Democratic Party (FDP) would come in forth, according to the survey, 12% of respondents would give their votes for it. The Alternative for Germany party (AfD) would be supported by 11%; Die Linke party would get 8%.

The German federal election is expected to be held on 26 September. The winning party will have the right to form a government, and the leader of its party list will lead the cabinet after it is successfully formed.

Commenting on the pre-election situation in Germany, Michael Broening, a political analyst with the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation, a member of the basic value commission of the German Social Democrats, suggested that there will be no fundamental changes in the country’s policy.

“While the upcoming elections in September certainly deserve the monicker ‘historic’ given the departure of Angela Merkel, the outcome in all likelihood is going to be one of continuity, not revolution,” he told PenzaNews.

In his opinion, the main question today is the question of which government coalition will take office in autumn.

“The most likely outcome at this point seems to be a coalition of the conservative party with the greens with a possible inclusion of either the liberals or the center-left Social Democrats. But things are in flux as can be seen in the poor performance of the Green party candidate, which has significantly brought down support for the Greens in the last couple of weeks,” Michael Broening said.

According to him, Die Linke and the Alternative for Germany have so far failed to gain much popular traction and most observers agree that they are unlikely to be part of any new government.

“With regards to the AfD this is not a question of likelihood but of certainty. Germany’s major parties by comparison share many fundamental convictions on core questions of current politics, vis-à-vis European integration, climate change, migration and digitalization. In theory this allows for several potential coalitions but it also prevents radical change from taking over once Angela Merkel has left the stage,” he explained.

In turn, Heribert Adam, Professor Emeritus of political sociology at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, shared the opinion about the continuation of the previous course of Germany after Angela Merkel’s departure.

“CDU/CSU quarreled about her successor, but that was more a debate about style and personalities of three party candidates than alternative programs,” he stressed.

“The most recent forecasts by two renowned institutions agree that the CDU would just fall short of 30% of votes, followed by 20% for the Green Party, 15% for the centre-left social democrats (SPD), and 11% for the liberal business-oriented FDP. The two extremist parties, the right-wing, anti-immigrant AfD and the utopian orthodox “Left” are expected to receive 10% and 7% respectively. None of the other parties will invite them into an inevitable coalition government,” Heribert Adam added.

From his point of view, regardless of the outcome of the election, there are six potential coalition governments possible between the center parties.

“The results of the parties tradeoffs is any bodies guess. They will differ only in nuances and priorities, but not on fundamental issues,” the expert said.

Evgeniya Voyko, Associate Professor of the department of political science at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, also pointed to the likely party continuity and continuation of the current German policy.

“Angela Merkel’s successor, Armin Laschet, has not announced any course or ideas fundamentally different from those promoted by the current chancellor. Thus, radical changes in the country and in its foreign policy should not be expected,” the expert explained.

In her opinion, in Germany’s domestic policy there is a number of issues that need to be addressed.

“First of all, this is overcoming the consequences of the pandemic. Germany is one of those first-tier European countries that held a lockdown for quite a long time, which caused strong criticism from the population. Therefore, one of the tasks of those forces that will be in power will be to overcome the social, economic and political consequences of the pandemic. In addition, the agenda will include the problem of migration, the economy in general, and a relatively new issue of cyber threats,” Evgeniya Voyko said.

Speaking about foreign policy, she recalled that Armin Laschet is considered a moderate critic of Russia.

“According to him, the pressure of the Europeans on the Russian Federation has reached its limits and the next action can only be the rupture of diplomatic relations – a step that his party does not want to take. In addition, he does not share the harsh criticism of Moscow, which can be heard, for example, from the Greens,” the expert noted, suggesting that it would be difficult for the CDU/CSU bloc to enter into a coalition with other political forces.

Meanwhile, Patrick Sensburg, German MP from the CDU/CSU fraction, member of the Committee for the Scrutiny of Elections, Immunity and the Rules of Procedure, stressed that although there are always forecasts, it is difficult to say how the results of the election will be exactly.

“My expectancy is that the CDU/CSU of Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel will be around 35% with Armin Laschet and there will be a chance of a coalition between CDU/CSU and the Liberals or the Greens and Armin Laschet will be the next chancellor,” the German MP said.

“Laschet is already a successful Prime Ministers in North Rhine-Westphalia. In my opinion Armin Laschet has done good work in the recent years and I am sure that he will also do a good job as the next chancellor,” Patrick Sensburg added.

According to him, Angela Merkel’s departure from the post of head of the German government, which she has held since 2005, will certainly lead to inevitable changes.

“Every new chancellor brings his whole personality into this job. But there will also be lots of continuity. Armin Laschet has worked many years very good together with Angela Merkel. As Prime Minister in North Rhine-Westphalia he is already responsible for the politics of Germany. He is well known and his decision making process and his agenda is also transparent to the people,” the politician noted.

Meanwhile, Bill Davies, Associate Professor and Chair at the Department of Justice, Law & Criminology, School of Public Affairs, American University, shared the opinion that Angela Merkel will go down in history as one of the eminent Chancellors of post-war Germany, alongside her conservative predecessors Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl.

At the same time, from his point of view, as of today, there is no really strong candidate for the post of chancellor in the country.

“Armin Laschet, looks a likely winner today not because he is running away with the election, but because of the weakness of the other candidates. The Greens’ candidate, Annalena Baerbock, is bogged down currently in a scandal and it is not yet clear how she will emerge from that […]. The SPD’s campaign is barely making any waves at all, and the smaller parties – FDP, AfD, Linke – will just eat into the votes of the larger parties without posing a direct threat to them at all,” Bill Davies said.

He suggested that Armin Laschet would win the elections, but doubted that he would become the same dominant figure in the Germany’s politics as Angela Merkel.

“If Laschet wins and the CDU/CSU remains in power, we can expect more of the same from Germany. A strong focus on European integration, a continuation of Merkels’ social and migration policies, and – depending on the success of the Green campaign – a further strengthening of Germany’s credentials in leading the fight against climate change and other environmental issues,” the expert concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/67185-2021

PenzaNews. Moscow has sent to Washington a range of proposals as a follow-up to the agreements reached at the Geneva summit, Russian Ambassador to Washington Anatoly Antonov said on Monday, June 21.

“All participants [left Geneva] with the hope that Russian-US relations would stabilize. Certainly, we expect that tomorrow will be better, better not only for Russia and the US, but the entire world. That’s because the situation not only in Russia and the US but also in the entire world depends on how our presidents held talks and what agreements they reached,” he said.

“In the first hours of today we sent to our colleagues a series of proposals on the meetings, on the need to hold a serious conversation on how we will live together. We have no other option but to live without quarreling on this planet. That’s because as Russian President Vladimir Putin stated many times Russia and the US bear special responsibility for international peace and security. We should cooperate and there is no other option,” Anatoly Antonov said.

The return of the ambassadors to the capitals of the two countries became possible following the meeting between Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden. Thanks to this, the parties are ready to launch consultations on other issues of diplomatic interaction.

In addition, during the summit in Geneva, the parties announced their intention to start bilateral negotiations on strategic stability.

“The recent extension of the New START Treaty exemplifies our commitment to nuclear arms control. Today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Consistent with these goals, the United States and Russia will embark together on an integrated bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue in the near future that will be deliberate and robust. Through this Dialogue, we seek to lay the groundwork for future arms control and risk reduction measures,” US-Russia Presidential Joint Statement says.

Analyzing the results of the summit, Greg Thielmann, Board Member of the Arms Control Association and former office director in the State Department’s intelligence bureau, INR, who was specializing in political-military and intelligence issues, called it critically important to stabilizing the bilateral relationship.

“The discussions were structured in a way that provided an opportunity for frank and direct conversation behind closed doors about the causes of tensions in US-Russia relations.  At the same time, it provided reassurance to publics in both countries that meaningful high-level exchanges had been initiated,” the expert told PenzaNews.

According to him, public reaffirmation that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” was an essential guidepost for subsequent discussions.

“Commitment to ‘an integrated bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue’ implies that no serious concerns raised by either side – whether it is the strategic impact of missile defense, new nuclear-armed weapon systems, highly accurate conventional weapons, or cyber-weapons – will be ‘off the table’,” Greg Thielmann said.

In his opinion, negotiations on strategic stability will be of great importance for the establishment of bilateral cooperation between the states.

According to the ex-State Department official, such assessments of the meeting, which were voiced by the leaders of the countries, – in particular, Joe Biden said that its “tone [...] was good, positive,” and Vladimir Putin said that “the conversation was quite constructive,” – “bode well for the promised intensification of the dialogue at lower levels.”

Frank von Hippel, Senior Research Physicist at Princeton University, who served the Assistant Director for National Security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, also positively assessed the results of the meeting in Geneva, expressing hope for the expansion of interaction between the parties in the foreseeable future.

“The meeting between the leaders of Russia and the United States was constructive. I hope that we can return to cooperation on global problems,” the expert said.

He stressed that one of the most important topics for the talks between Moscow and Washington is the issue of nuclear security, which is relevant for all countries of the world.

“I hope we can begin serious discussions on establishing understandings that reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war and that put us on the track of further nuclear reductions and caps on the Chinese, French and UK nuclear arsenals,” Frank von Hippel said.

In turn, Ryan Hurl, Department of Political Science, the University of Toronto, shared the opinion that the US foreign policy to some extent is a dividing line in American domestic politics.

“How much does it matter that political partisans in the US are willing to use international politics in a cynical manner, in the never ending pursuit of political advantage? This is difficult to say, though I think it does have the effect of eroding trust in political parties, journalists, etc.,” the expert explained.

At the same time, in his opinion, it is rather difficult to evaluate the effects of the negotiations between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden, as well as any other set of talks.

“Looked at from the perspective of the American people, the goal of foreign policy in the 21st century should be to disentangle the US from foreign policy commitments and projects that threaten to disrupt the international order, commitments and projects rooted in nostalgia for the 20th century and an unrealistic assessment of the need for American primacy in the 21st century. I think there are signs that the Biden administration accepts this, and is therefore willing to pursue accommodation with Russia,” Ryan Hurl said.

Meanwhile, Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution and an author of several publications for the National Interest magazine, called the summit useful.

“In terms of specific policy ideas, limits on cyberattacks may be the most promising area of future discussion. We will see in the months to come,” the expert suggested.

He also admitted that at first he was skeptical of the talks, but changed his mind after the summit.

“I’ve decided that Biden showed a solid grasp of his agenda and also that he displayed a realistic sense of what the meeting could accomplish. And Putin was relatively non-confrontational. So that was all promising,” Michael O’Hanlon said and added that the biggest oversight of the meeting was inattention to a new security order for Eastern Europe including Ukraine.

According to Thomas Graham, Distinguished Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, the meeting marked a small step forward in alleviating the tension in US-Russian relations, which had reached dangerous levels since President Biden assumed office in January.

“Relations are not being reset, however. They will remain fundamentally adversarial for the foreseeable future. Are differences over the principles of world order, regional conflicts, and values are too great for it to be otherwise,” the expert explained.

He shared the opinion that the most important agreement was to begin separate talks on strategic stability and cybersecurity.

“These are complex issues and progress is hardly guaranteed but there will be no long-term improvement in relations without eventual agreement on arms control and a code of conduct in cyberspace. […] It is thus imperative to produce results and lessen tensions in this critical field,” Thomas Graham said.

“Otherwise, the meeting allowed the two leaders to lay out their interests, expectations, and redlines in relations. While it is clear that major differences remain, such candid talks can reduce the risk of misunderstandings and misperceptions that can lead to a conflict that neither side seeks,” the expert concluded.

PenzaNews. Increasingly frequent attempts to distort history and to revise the role played by the Red Army in the routing of Nazism are connected with the strengthening of Russia. This was stated by President of Russia Vladimir Putin at the 43rd meeting of the Russian Pobeda (Victory) Organising Committee which took place via videoconference on May 20.

“We celebrated Victory Day only recently, on May 9, but we always say that we must not forget about these issues and continue to help our veterans after May 9 as well. We will mark one more important date soon, June 22, the horrible day when the Nazis treacherously invaded out homeland. This year we will mark 80 years since the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. It claimed millions of lives, and nearly all our families remember their losses and their heroes to this day. This personal connection is what defines our people’s sincere commemoration of the war and war veterans in Russia. It is only logical that the list of amendments to our renewed Constitution, which were wholeheartedly supported our nation, includes a provision on commemorating defenders of the Fatherland and preserving the historical truth. As you are well aware, we have always paid special attention to these issues. Regrettably, the ranks of the great generation of victors are thinning out. But this is only increasing our responsibility for preserving their legacy, especially now that we are witnessing increasingly frequent attempts to slander and distort history and to revise the role played by the Red Army in the routing of Nazism and the liberation of European nations from the Nazi plague,” the head of state said.

He stated that the reasons are clear, and attempts to hamper the development of this country, regardless of its name, be it the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union or Russia, were made in different times and historical epochs and under different political systems.

“These approaches and principles remain the same. There is one principle or rather, one reason for containing Russia: the stronger and more independent Russia becomes, the more consistently it defends its national interests, the greater the striving of foreign forces to weaken it, to discredit the values uniting our society and sometimes to slander and distort what people hold dear, the things that are instilled in the younger generations of Russians and which help them acquire a strong character and their own opinions. This is why all kinds of Russophobic individuals and unscrupulous politicians are trying to attack Russian history, to promote the ideas of revising the results of World War II and to exonerate Nazi criminals,” Vladimir Putin said.

“We cannot but respond to these actions in a suitable manner. As I have repeatedly said, we will rely on facts and do everything possible to ensure the continuity of historical memory in Russian society, so that decades and centuries from now, future generations will cherish the truth about the war and display a sacred and grateful attitude towards its heroes, as well as to their ancestors,” he added.

Although large-scale and mass celebrations are essential, we have to prioritise systemic work here, President of Russia stressed.

“We have to continue to declassify new archive records and to allow researchers to use them. We must provide people with new opportunities for learning about the destinies of their relatives, as well as their combat and frontline experiences. We must expand such projects as No Statute of Limitations, which makes a substantial contribution to exposing the vile deeds of Nazi criminals against this country’s civilians and which implements important educational programmes. They must be presented more broadly at Russian schools and universities. On the whole, it is of paramount importance that we ensure well-coordinated actions, methods and positions of all state agencies and public organisations linked with studying and preserving the history of the Great Patriotic War and also dealing with education and teaching patriotic values. We must not act separately while addressing these issues, where efficiency and success depend solely on joint work and concerted efforts,” Vladimir Putin said.

Speaking of the importance for Russian citizens of such a historical period as the Great Patriotic War, Professor Martin J. Sherwin, Department of History & Art History, George Mason University, emphasized its enduring importance.

“Whether it is the Soviet Union or Russia the Great Patriotic War is an enduring monument to national historical pride,” the expert told PenzaNews.

“How will it be understood and used is the historical question. Will it be celebrated to promote democracy or dictatorship? It is essential to democracy that independent historians have the opportunity to research, write and publish their work. But a nation’s history cannot be assigned to one group and so all sorts of people will promote their views,” Martin J. Sherwin added.

Therefore, in his opinion, it is essential that the work of serious independent investigators is available to the public to counter the efforts of politicians and others to distort history in the service of their ambitions.

“A just society requires agreed upon standards of behavior. Banning fascism, xenophobia, and racism are therefore appropriate because they are forms of political behavior that undermine fairness, decency and virtue,” the American researcher said.

In turn, Lewis Siegelbaum, Jack and Margaret Sweet Professor Emeritus of History, Michigan State University, called the events of the Great Patriotic War inviolable.

“The memory of the Great Patriotic War is as close to being sacred as anything I know of in contemporary politics. It has been fostered, shaped, and reinforced by Russia’s educational system, mainstream political figures, and the legacy media. Many of the themes – patriotic heroism and sacrifice, unique dimensions of loss, bonds of camaraderie, etc. – were forged in Soviet times and have been perpetuated since 1991,” Lewis Siegelbaum said.

From his point of view, the experience of professional historians is of great importance in describing the events of the Second World War, but they should not have sole responsibility for writing the history of this period.

“Novelists, film directors, and visual artists, among others, can also evoke and make meaningful aspects of the war that historians rarely touch,” the expert explained.

At the same time, Lewis Siegelbaum noted that attempts to distort and rewrite history take place throughout time.

“There is nothing new about politicians’ attempts to rewrite history by falsifying facts. Is it happening more now than in the past? Perhaps, although I don't know how one would measure that,” the historian said and added that social media have played a role here generally not for the better.

“It is and always has been important to actively oppose any manifestation of neo-Nazism, aggressive nationalism, racism, and xenophobia. Once naively thought to be relics outdated by the enlightened practices of democratic polities, these perversities have gained new adherents owing to the dynamism of neo-liberal capitalism that has marginalized and delegitimized collective identities that made sense in the past,” Lewis Siegelbaum said.

Meanwhile, Jacques Sapir, Director of studies at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (EHESS) in Paris, Head of the Center for Research of Industrialization (CEMI-EHESS), Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that the Great Patriotic War is certainly a major fact in Russian representations today.

“It has deeply marked every family. With 26 to 28 million deaths, it is naturally a major trauma,” the historian noted but added that the significance of the Great Patriotic War varies across age groups.

Thus, according to him, the generation born in the war and post-war years, who knew the veterans well, associate the pride of Victory primarily with suffering and loss, while their today’s descendants – young people under the age of 30 – have a more abstract sense of pride.

Answering the question about the increasing attempts to distort the events of those times, Jacques Sapir stressed that history is the domain of historians.

“But, there is history and memory, two quite different things. And, the latter is invariably instrumentalized by politicians. However, any instrumentalization carries with it the possibility of a desire to rewrite history, to erase certain events, to glorify or, on the contrary, to denigrate certain actors,” he said, stressing that all the falsifications take us away from reality.

In his opinion, no country can do without a national narrative, and therefore a form of instrumentalization – turning an event into an instrument of political influence.

“But, once that is admitted, it is still necessary that this national narrative does not turn into a national novelization. If the victory of Stalingrad, and next year we will commemorate the 80 years of Operation Uranus, the Soviet counter-offensive, was brilliant, it should be remembered that it was preceded, from June 1942 to September 1942, of a series of defeats. However, not wanting to face the mistakes of the past is to condemn yourself to repeat them,” Jacques Sapir said.

Nick Cull, Professor at Master of Public Diplomacy Program, the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, shared the opinion on the inadmissibility of distortion and concealment of historical facts.

“As a historian who has looked at issues of propaganda and memory in international politics, I see great significance how events are remembered by states and their publics and great significance in the things that are allowed to slip from memory too,” he said.

“There are some countries where the Great Patriotic War, World War Two remains a central historical experience and a source of reference points which politicians regularly invoke. This is certainly the case in Russia as in the UK and USA. My wish would be that as well as remembering our own internal suffering, resolution and bravery we all would also remember the positive aspects of working together to defeat a common enemy and the sacrifices of our allies. […] I wish that Americans in particular knew more about Russia’s war. Visiting the National World War II museum in New Orleans I found it is easier to learn about the suffering of ordinary people in Germany and Japan during the war than in Russia. It is a little different in Britain. The alliance with the USSR is remembered in part because of the role of British sailors in the Arctic supply convoys and in part because it is in the nature of the British character to seek out a counterbalance to American remembering the war as a solo effort,” the historian said.

In his opinion, professional historians have a vital role to play as a reality check not allowing politicians to stray from the truth.

“But it is a perpetual struggle and not always welcome from the general public who love their myths. Historians have also to hold other historians to account as there are always some willing to distort in the name of ideology. We have seen this in the west with the few historians like David Irving who strayed into Holocaust denial,” Nick Cull explained.

At the same time, in his opinion, one role of professional historians is to remind the world that the Holocaust was not the only atrocity of that period.

“All the combatant powers have to face their own misdeeds. Britain mismanaged the Bengal famine, the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and something terrible happened in the Katyn Forest and these things too must be reckoned into history,” the professor stressed.

“My preference is not to idealize the past but rather to come together and focus on the vision of a better future. This is actually what worked during the Great Patriotic War, and helped the world come together at its end,” he added.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/67129-2021

PenzaNews. The Gazprom Arena football stadium and training facilities are ready to host European Championship matches, said the Governor of St. Petersburg Alexander Beglov following the results of a working detour of sports facilities, which will be involved during the Euro 2020 games.

According to him, the epidemiological situation in the Northern capital of Russia is better than in other cities hosting the championship matches.

“More than half a million residents have completed the full course of vaccinations. This is the basis of collective immunity,” the governor said.

At the same time, Alexander Beglov stressed that such large events require special discipline, and urged residents and guests of the city to observe all precautions.

According to the Federal Tourism Agency, foreign fans will be able to enter Russia for the matches of the European Football Championship without visas. To cross the border, they will need a match ticket, a Fan ID and a negative PCR test result for coronavirus. Entry to Russia is possible from May 29 to July 2. Fans will be able to stay on the territory of the Russian Federation until July 12. Fan ID gives them the right to cross the border several times and does not restrict fans from moving around Russia. Tournament officials and other staff will be able to apply for a simplified entry process.

“In the current difficult conditions, the movement of people has been seriously reduced, and we met the understanding of the federal authorities and were able to open the border for those who are going to come to St. Petersburg for a football holiday in the summer,” said Alexey Sorokin, General Director of the organizing committee the European Championship in Russia.

“At the same time, it is very important to understand that we intend to hold the safest tournament possible – permission to enter Russia does not cancel the rules and measures that must be followed on the territory of Russia: in particular, a negative PCR test, and so on,” he added.

The permitted occupancy of the stands at the European Football Championship matches in the St. Petersburg arena is still 50%, but it can be increased up to 75% of the total stadium capacity, if the epidemiological situation allows it.

Euro 2020, postponed for a year due to the coronavirus pandemic, will be held from June 11 to July 11, 2021 in 11 European cities. Initially, four matches of the final part of the tournament were to take place in St. Petersburg – three meetings of the group stage, including two games with the participation of the Russian national team, and one of the quarterfinals. Due to Dublin’s refusal to host the tournament matches, the Group E games planned in the capital of Ireland were moved to the city on the Neva.

Thus, seven matches will take place in St. Petersburg: Belgium – Russia (June 12), Poland – Slovakia (June 14), Finland – Russia (June 16), Sweden – Slovakia (June 18), Finland – Belgium (June 21) , Sweden – Poland (June 23), as well as the quarterfinal match (July 2).

Commenting on the upcoming event, Kirstin Hallmann from German Sport University Cologne, Institute of Sport Economics and Sport Management, reminded that St. Petersburg has already a lot of experience with hosting a world-class tournament.

“During the World Cup, they also hosted many matches. Therefore, the St. Petersburg host will deliver a high standard, despite having more matches than originally foreseen,” she said.

At the same time Kirstin Hallmann expressed regret that Ireland will not host any matches.

Answering the question about the significance of this event for football fans around the world, the expert pointed to the likelihood of two completely different reactions.

“The Euro can be an agreeable change for the people from their daily routine during the pandemic on the one hand. Many people will appreciate the diversion. On the other hand, many other people might also question the tournament as they see the athletes privileged since they can play. In contrast, the people are still unable to play sports in their club due to the pandemic – this depends on the country regulations,” Kirstin Hallmann explained.

“However, generally, mega sports events facilitate a positive atmosphere in the short term,” she added.

In turn, Christina Philippou, Director of Postgraduate Courses in Accounting and Financial Management, University of Portsmouth, noted that the decision to switch games from Dublin to St. Petersburg, is primarily beneficial for the UEFA.

“It makes sense for UEFA to use hosts that have recently held matches and where the infrastructure is already in use as this will minimise costs while ensuring that the move goes to a stadium that can handle the change at short notice. UEFA need alternative hosts for the Dublin matches to ensure that they fulfil their contracts – and therefore don't end up with costs, fines, or lost revenue – with regards sponsors and broadcasters,” Christina Philippou said.

In addition, according to her, there is mixed evidence on the economic benefits of hosting cities.

“This is further complicated by the fact that the tournament will not be held within a single country or neighbouring countries. However, the social benefits – i.e. people enjoying the game – and being able to showcase local landmarks and boost tourism are part of the reason countries and cities like to host matches,” the expert said but added that the pandemic will have some negative effects on the level of tourists attending matches.

Speaking of the decision not to host Euro 2020 matches in Dublin, Christopher Gaffney, Clinical Associate Professor, New York University, expressed the opinion that “it was likely a good decision for the people of Dublin.”

“Nearly every European city can host international football matches, so it is not a question of high standards but of the high demands that UEFA puts on the hosts for hospitality, security, blockage of city streets and other things,” he said in response to a question about St. Petersburg’s readiness to host seven matches.

“The number of matches is not important as cities usually host many more football matches in a normal month than they do during the Euro,” Christopher Gaffney noted.

Roy Hay, Honorary Fellow at Deakin University and a partner in Sports and Editorial Services Australia, drew attention to the fact that earlier St. Petersburg had successfully hosted group and finals matches at the Confederation Cup and the FIFA World Cup.

“Given the uncertainties surrounding the impacts of COVID-19 in all the countries involved there have been the most complex logistical problems encountered in preparing for this tournament. Several countries have been unable to guarantee that they could allow spectators to attend matches. This means that several matches have already had to be reallocated to other venues. It made excellent sense to switch some of these matches to cities, countries and stadia that were already hosting matches and had the capacity to add more,” the expert said.

“The St. Petersburg stadium is in an almost ideal location, three quarters surrounded by the Baltic Sea and with good air access. The extra matches should not mean overload for the stadium or the city infrastructure. The only downsides I can foresee are the length of the walk from the station to the stadium and the cost of accommodation in the area,” Roy Hay added.

He also reminded that fans have been deprived of live games for over a year and the chance to witness high quality football again will be very attractive.

“Half empty stadia would not be ideal, though [...] even small attendances can generate lots of atmosphere. If the experiment [with the holding of the championship in such conditions] is successful the long term benefits to tourism and the reopening of economic activity will be assisted,” the expert concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/67128-2021

Russian President Vladimir Putin sent greetings to participants, organizers and guests of the 24th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, which will be held in a live format at the Expoforum Convention and Exhibition Center on June 2–5, with strict adherence to safety measures to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus infection.

As he noted, according to the established tradition the key and most pressing issues facing the economies will be discussed at the forum with the participation of prominent public officials, senior executives from major corporations and financial institutions, renowned experts, and pioneering entrepreneurs.

“The need for open, constructive dialogue is particularly evident today. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all countries across the globe, and has severely restricted international ties. It is vital to work together as we forge a path to recovery. Other socioeconomic issues such as poverty relief, improving education opportunities, expanding employment and prospects for labour markets, as well as addressing violations of fair competition principles also require careful attention,” says Russian President’s message published on the Kremlin website.

“We must now endeavour to build equal, constructive partnerships between members of the global community and expand business ties on a number of levels to effectively tackle today’s critical global challenges and achieve sustainable development. We have long worked towards these ends through the Eurasian Economic Union, promoting principles of free trade, and facilitating mutually beneficial investments and common technological development. The Russian Federation is also interested in closer economic, scientific, and technical cooperation with partners in other regions. We are ready to share our experience in areas such as healthcare and digitalisation, and to work with partners to build better telecommunications, energy, and transport infrastructure. We also recognize the importance of addressing key issues facing the environment and climate,” the message says.

Moreover, in his greeting, Vladimir Putin, who is going to attend SPIEF 2021 Plenary Session in person, expressed confidence that the agreements reached at the Forum will contribute to the development of international relations and facilitate the implementation of new economic projects.

The main theme of the Forum is “A Collective Reckoning of the New Global Economic Reality.” The main business program is divided into four thematic tracks: ‘Joining Forces to Advance Development’, ‘Delivering on National Development Targets’, ‘The Human Factor in Responding to Global Challenges’, and ‘New Technology Frontiers.’

According to the information presented on the website of the Roscongress Foundation, which is the organizer of the forum, intercountry dialogues will also be held on the sidelines of SPIEF with representatives of the business communities of Africa, Germany, Italy, Qatar, Latin America, North America, Finland, France, Sweden, and Japan, and the EAEU–ASEAN dialogue will take place. The SPIEF business program includes more than 130 expert discussions and covers a wide range of topics that aim to develop various areas of the economy.

“This year’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum will be the first major business event following the forced pause in face-to-face events. We have provided support to the Forum’s foreign guests for unhindered entry into the Russian Federation. Representative delegations from numerous countries have confirmed they will attend. A significant part of the business programme is devoted to issues concerning international cooperation to advance development. Today, we have already found ourselves in a new reality in a changed world. Our job is to rebuild and to this end it is crucial to unite our efforts and build a dialogue both at the national and the international level,” Adviser to the Russian President and Executive Secretary of the SPIEF Organizing Committee Anton Kobyakov said.

Qatar is the guest country for SPIEF 2021. The Qatari delegation will be one of the largest in the history of the country’s participation in international economic forums; representatives of 50 Qatari organizations will come to the Forum in St. Petersburg. The SPIEF business program will feature discussions on the development of trade, economic, and cultural relations between Russia and Qatar. In addition, the Russia–Qatar Business Dialogue, a high-level discussion devoted to the further development of investment opportunities, will be held.

Foreign participants of SPIEF include: Total Chairman and CEO Patrick Pouyanne, Wintershall Dea GmbH Chairman of the Board and CEO Mario Mehren, Siemens Energy AG President and CEO Christian Bruch, Huawei Eurasia President Daniel Zhou, WHO Regional Director for Europe Hans Kluge, World Energy Council Secretary General and CEO Angela Wilkinson, World Economic Forum President Borge Brende, and Qatar Financial Centre Authority CEO and Member of the Board of Directors Yusuf Mohamed Al-Jaida, among others.

Commenting on the upcoming event in St. Petersburg, Neil MacKinnon, Global Macro Strategist at VTB Capital, stressed that SPIEF has a long-standing good reputation.

“It has a long-standing reputation amongst international investors and top policymakers as a key event in the financial market calendar for discussing important topics for both the global and Russian economies,” the expert said.

According to Neil MacKinnon, the event is so important that even the online format of the forum due to the restrictions associated with COVID-19 would not detract from the significance of the event.

In addition, in his opinion, the economic situation in the world is gradually improving, and the topic of international cooperation is again acquiring special relevance.

“The picture for the global economy is much more positive than it was a year ago and the major economies have put in place supportive policy measures to overcome the impact of COVID-19 and ensure a transition back to pre-pandemic growth trends,” Neil MacKinnon added.

In turn, Philip Hanson, Emeritus Professor of the Political Economy of Russia and Eastern Europe, University of Birmingham, suggested that SPIEF this year will attract fewer Western participants than usual.

“This will apply to both virtual and in person participation formats. This is partly because virtual participation gives less opportunity for informal conversations but also because of the strained relations currently between Russia and the West,” the expert explained.

In his opinion, the main interest of SPIEF is the domestic discussion of economic policy.

“This could be of particular interest this year. There are tensions over the degree of austerity in macroeconomic policy – how will the budget rule be modified? And there are related tensions between business and government over how – and indeed whether – private investment can be increased. It would be characteristic of SPIEF 2021 if these topics were aired,” Philip Hanson added.

Evgeniya Voyko, Associate Professor of the department of political science at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, noted that SPIEF is a good opportunity to restart business activities.

“The Forum will allow attracting investors and finding partners, despite the restrictions due to the pandemic, which, of course, influence the event. So, not all foreign participants have the opportunity to come to SPIEF because of their domestic rules related to the pandemic, or because of their own psychological reasons – many decided not to risk it. In addition, there are certain limits and sanitary standards, the observance of which is one of the main conditions for the forum to take place,” the expert said.

According to her, the level of relations between the Russian Federation and the Western countries is now quite low, but this does not apply to all states.

“In particular, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz confirmed his participation in the forum. Austria kept neutrality and did not support the anti-Russian rhetoric that was voiced in Europe last month,” Evgeniya Voyko said, adding that for the Russian authorities, SPIEF would also be an excellent way to once again state their position on some international issues.

Meanwhile, Oleg Prozorov, Director General of the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce in Russia, called St. Petersburg International Economic Forum the main platform for interaction between business, politics, government and the economy in the Eurasian space.

“We see the success of the forum this year in the fact that SPIEF will be the first international business event to be held [in person] after the COVID-19 pandemic,” Oleg Prozorov said.

“The Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce in Russia and its members pin their hopes and expect that the St. Petersburg Economic Forum will be the start of a new business season and open borders for the movement of the business community. We hope that the forum will demonstrate how international economic ties will develop further,” he said.

Christiane Schuchart, Regional Director, Russia, German Eastern Business Association, stressed that after a long break in face-to-face meetings, SPIEF will become an excellent platform for dialogue and views exchange, the need for which is long overdue.

“Existing relationships can also be maintained online, but establishing new contacts and relationships only through online formats is difficult and hardly possible in the long term,” she explained.

According to her, one of the important results of the SPIEF will be the agreements and contracts concluded between its participants.

“In addition to the urgently needed dialogue, a number of contracts will definitely be signed. We already know about some of the initiatives that the representatives of the German side must sign with their Russian partners,” said the Regional Director for Russia of the German Eastern Business Association.

“Thus, the forum provides an opportunity to maintain and develop a network of contacts, as well as continue activities and projects suspended since February 2020. We welcome the determination of the Russian government to resume holding the forum in person in June, despite the pandemic,” Christiane Schuchart concluded.

Russian and foreign experts are increasingly paying attention to the situation around the Svalbard archipelago, which international legal status is enshrined in the treaty of February 9, 1920, and note the non-compliance with a number of provisions of this document designed to protect the legitimate interests of all states parties to the agreement.

In their opinion, while claiming “full and absolute sovereignty” over Svalbard, Norway ignores such important provisions as the guarantees of “equal liberty of access and entry” to the archipelago and the possibility of conducting commercial and economic operations there “on a footing of absolute equality.”

Thus, the signatory states are concerned about the decision of Oslo to extend the national continental legislation of the country to Svalbard. The law on environmental protection in the archipelago, adopted in 2001, essentially establishes a permissive procedure for economic activity, and in a significant part of its territory it is completely prohibited. The Russian side fears that an even greater expansion of environmental legislation in the future may affect the work of the Arktikugol company, which ensures the operation of the thermal power plant in Barentsburg, without which the inhabitants of the settlement would have to be evacuated due to the harsh climate.

In addition, Norway considers the 200-mile zone, shelf and seabed surrounding Svalbard to be an area not covered by the 1920 treaty, and sets its own rules there, in particular by distributing concession areas to interested oil companies located within the so-called “ Spitsbergen square.” Apart from Russia, other parties to the agreement, including Great Britain, Iceland and Spain, do not agree with this state of affairs.

The most acute problem is caused by the Norwegian ban on the use of helicopters. Oslo’s position is that this kind of transport can only be used for tasks related to the coal industry. Thus, the country’s authorities artificially created a transport monopoly on Svalbard, forcing Russia to use the services of Norwegian carriers to deliver scientists or tourists to the archipelago.

In addition, in accordance with the treaty, the archipelago should not be used for military purposes, however, experts do not rule out that Oslo will attempt to revise the demilitarized status of the archipelago. Various events held in Longyearbyen with the participation of NATO representatives cannot but cause concern for the parties concerned.

Commenting on the details of the centenary agreement, Christopher Rossi, Adjunct faculty member, University of Iowa College of Law, reminded that Norway’s sovereignty is secured by a treaty in return for a number of important conditions.

“The Svalbard Treaty is an unusual document as it accords Norway sovereignty over the archipelago in exchange for equal use by other signatories to the treaty. This quid pro quo is predicated on non-militarization, which on occasion gets called into question by certain weather and safety devices that appear to Russia to have dual use capability,” the expert told PenzaNews.

He also drew attention to the unusual natural conditions of this area.

“The Arctic is a rapidly changing geospace, given climate change and a rapidly receding polar ice cap. Mineral and living resources previously entombed by the ice cap are becoming increasingly available for purposes of extraction. To prevent a coming competition over these resources, and over the waters and undersea shelf adjacent to Svalbard’s territorial sea, states will need to maintain good neighborly relations,” Christopher Rossi explained.

“This prospect could be challenging given Norway’s assertion of sovereignty over these adjacent resources and competing claims by the European Union, Russia, and other states. The Arctic is fast becoming of global interest – beyond the specific interest of the circumpolar states,” he added.

In turn, Pal Steigan, Norwegian politician, publisher, writer, independent entrepreneur in the field of culture and information technology, reminded that the Svalbard treaty was directly influenced by the First World War.

“Even the big powers wanted to limit military activity in the Arctic, so as a neutral country under the world war and a peaceful, democratic country Norway was given sovereignty, but under the condition of seeing to it that the archipelago remained demilitarized. This was a good idea then, and it remains a good idea now. It is very important that Norway remain loyal to the provisions, or else it would open a Pandora’s box of bad events,” the expert said.

According to him, the peaceful and equal presence of states in the archipelago is the only correct way of interaction.

“Potentially the Arctic could become a war zone with direct influence on three continents. This is dangerous indeed. There are rich natural resources in the high north and a rush for them without fetters could drive more conflict and war. So cooperation is the only alternative,” Pal Steigan said.

In his opinion, it is very destructive that the current Norwegian government has let US set up bases on its soil.

“It brings Norway into the crosshairs in a possible war and it damages the trust built in generations. Norway and Russia have never been enemies; neither should they be in the future,” the analyst stressed.

Meanwhile, Clive Williams from the Australian National University also called the desire of the parties to the 1920 treaty to keep the archipelago as a demilitarized territory reasonable.

“The main activities there are said to be coal mining, tourism, and academic research. The Norwegian subsidized coal mining can no longer be justified for environmental reasons, let alone economic reasons, so tourism and research seem to be the most promising sources of income for the less than 3,000 inhabitants,” he suggested.

At the same time, in his opinion, in the current conditions, it is time for the countries to start working to update the provisions of the existing treaty in the field of the peaceful development of the archipelago.

“The best outcome for both the residents and the planet would be a new international treaty that provides better protection of the area from further exploitation, including banning fishing and hunting, and the area’s preservation for future international eco-tourism,” Clive Williams said.

Rachael Johnstone, Professor of Law at University of Akureyri, stressed that all international treaties must be fully respected and upheld.

“To do otherwise is to threaten the very structure of international law and the international security that it brings,” the expert explained.

However, in her opinion, there is no immediate threat to the Svalbard Treaty as all parties are committed to its long-term success – in fact, it has endured for an entire century without significant modification.

“There are different views on how it should be interpreted and applied in the maritime areas around the archipelago – in light of changes in the law of the sea in the past century – but these are managed peacefully. Furthermore, there is no challenge to the Svalbard Treaty from non-parties – in other words, there are no third states objecting to the principles of the treaty or challenging Norwegian sovereignty,” Rachael Johnstone added.

She also reminded that the treaty prohibits the building of naval bases or fortifications and use of the archipelago for “warlike purposes” but this does not preclude any “dual use” technology as long as it is not used for “warlike purposes.”

“The Svalbard Treaty is only one part of a complex web of cooperation in the Arctic. The considerations of good-neighbourliness and [hostile] language – let alone actions- that can be interpreted as “aggressive” apply to all international cooperation. Military posturing by governments is often aimed at a domestic audience in order to win support but can have negative impacts on international cooperation. Sometimes, politicians do not think it through; but at other times, it is a calculated strategy. They will risk international trust in order to win votes at home,” the professor noted.

According to her, there is a strong will amongst the Arctic States and Arctic Peoples to keep the lines of communication open, even when there are deep disagreements on other issues.

“The Svalbard Treaty is a great example of this – something that has withstood a World War and a Cold War and now includes parties as deeply opposed on global, political and security issues as the US and North Korea,” the expert concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/67096-2021