Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
Mexico is privileged by geography. It is a country with a dual North American and Latin American identity that can serve as a bridge between the two regions. Mexico stands to gain from the current global geopolitical context that involves economic competition between the US and China, armed conflict in the Middle East and in Ukraine, and a desire for many companies to be close to the largest and most dynamic economy in the world, the United States. What Mexico does not have is a clearly articulated strategy to take advantage of the nearshoring opportunity, which, by definition, will not last forever. Given its geographical location and its vertical integration with the US and Canadian economies, enshrined under the USMCA, Mexico is by far the most obvious place to relocate manufacturing or service operations from China, but it is not the only option either. Various states in the US, and other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, and South East Asia will also be making their pitches to investors. Given the commercial and security tensions that exist with China, some authorities in the US realize that they need to up their game to consolidate relationships with other Western Hemisphere countries, which is why a group of both Republican and Democratic senators have put together the Americas Act. This legislation, which was introduced in early March, would establish programs to promote greater trade, investment, and people-to-people ties throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, potentially expanding the USMCA. "At its core, the Americas Act is a multi-billion-dollar job creation tool for the U.S. and its allies in Latin America and the Caribbean," said Representative Adriano Espaillat (D-NY). "With its reshoring and nearshoring loans, tax benefits, and other targeted grant assistance for workers at home and in our Western Hemisphere partner countries, the Americas Act will bring jobs and investment back to our Hemisphere and stem the root causes of migration by putting more money into the pockets of working families."While the idea of expanding the USMCA beyond North America might be an attractive idea for boosting regional competitiveness from a US perspective, it would erode the privileged trade advantages that Mexico currently enjoys in its relationship with the US and Canada, something the next presidential administration in Mexico should consider as plans are developed to push forward to proactively attract nearshoring foreign direct investment (FDI). As it stands, Mexico's FDI numbers sound encouraging. But of the $36 billion dollars registered in 2023, only $5bn were new investments [1], which means nearshoring may be happening, but the tide is bringing in soft waves, not the desired tsunami. Creating the optimal ecosystemPresident Andrés Manuel López Obrador issued an executive order on October 11th, 2023 that provides for fiscal incentives for particular industries, including the agricultural sector, auto parts manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and the film industry, among others, as well as incentives for worker training. [2] This decision gained little attention, and while it is better than nothing, it is too little too late. Given Mexico's geographical comparative advantages, fiscal incentives are not the core of what companies want when they analyze whether to locate their operations in the country. Rather, investors need a business and public policy ecosystem that allows them to optimize opportunities and minimize risks over long periods of time, something that Mexico's next government can do a lot to improve. Creating a winning nearshoring strategy for Mexico implies a complex series of considerations and a reinvigorated investment promotion strategy globally, something that fell apart with the elimination of ProMexico —a federal agency that had been charged with promoting foreign trade and investment— at the beginning of the AMLO administration. While the former ProMéxico's operations surely could have been optimized, eliminating the organization completely and leaving promotion to the already overly taxed embassies was a mistake. As a result, Mexico has lost precious time and valuable relationships, and the country now needs to interrupt its leisurely walk and start sprinting. Below are reflections on the core issues that should be addressed to create optimal conditions for attracting and retaining foreign investment. Embrace the energy transitionIn order to be able to receive significant new amounts of investment, Mexico will need to produce both larger quantities of energy and ensure that it comes from cleaner sources. Global companies that consider Mexico as a place to invest long term need access to low-emission hydrocarbons, as well as renewable energy, and Mexico is lacking in both. Given Mexico's complex history that views oil as a fundamental part of the country's sovereignty, embracing the energy transition from a political perspective has posed challenges. AMLO did all he could to roll back the opening up of the energy sector to private sector participation that began in 2014, and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds to prop up the ailing national oil monopoly, Pemex. He also strengthened the monopoly of the national electricity company, CFE, making it harder for companies to generate their own electricity resources or explore renewable options. Suffice it to say that instead of developing Mexico's comparative advantages in wind, solar, and geothermal renewable energy, in recent years Mexico has invested in the energy resources of the 20th Century, not the 21st. While highly frustrating from both a pragmatic energy production and climate change abatement perspective, it is not too late to make adjustments that can boost supply and offer lower emission hydrocarbons and renewable energy to the Mexican population. A good place to start to increase energy efficiency and security, would be to capture the methane emissions (natural gas) stemming from Pemex's oil production facilities. Based on their own scientific studies, the Environmental Defence Fund estimates that by capturing the emissions from Nuevo Pemex alone, Mexico could fill 50% of the country's residential demand for natural gas. At the moment, instead of capturing these emissions, Pemex burns the methane; the state-owned company's laser-focused aim is to produce oil. Foolhardy. Consistency in regulation and the rules of the gameI use the turn of phrase "consistency in regulation and the rules of the game" so as to avoid the also much-needed but more theoretical term, "rule of law." Businesses need to know that when they make a decision that will affect the long-term sustainability and profitability of their organizations, they are making a co-investment with the country where they have decided to do so. In fact, this is perfectly in line with the idea of attracting investment that will add to the well-being (bienestar) of the Mexican communities where these investments will be made. The investment needs to be good for both sides with a long-term view of success. As a result of the setbacks in the opening up of the energy sector and the suboptimal situations in which companies like Constellation Brands found themselves in recent years, yellow flags have been raised, making some in the private sector weary. Companies will be waiting to see how the next government views its own role in establishing a trustworthy business environment. Science and innovationGlobally we need to embrace science as a fact-based tool for providing the solutions that will allow our species to continue surviving on this planet. And Mexico is no exception. Taking a science-based approach is critical for issues like climate change, which is intimately tied to the energy sector mentioned above, and is also linked to urban planning, infrastructure investment, and human health. It is through science and innovation that we will find the solutions that can provide well-being for the communities that make up our nations and regions. In Mexico, the regulatory framework approach to issues like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and cybersecurity, tends to be short-sighted and focused on providing the government with the tools of control, which in this day and age is an exercise in futility. New trends in technology do need to be regulated to prevent threats to national security and critical infrastructure, ensure respect for human rights and to maintain market conditions that are competitive. Doing so requires ensuring the active involvement of the private sector, which understands these tools and their implications best. If the goal is to encourage more investors to see Mexico as a viable nearshoring hub, a policy of support for science and innovation is critical. Increase public investment In general the Mexican state needs to invest more in public goods and services across the board in areas like health, education and infrastructure. Mexico is the OECD country that invests the least, with a rate of public sector investment of 1.3% in 2020, 0.7% below the 2007 rate. Public sector investments lag because Mexico's public revenue generation is the least effective in the OECD and one of the lowest in the region. Mexico's tax-to-GDP ratio in 2021 stood at 16.7%, below the Latin America and Caribbean average of 22% and far below the OECD average of 34%. [3] A serious look at public finances is required to make the investments needed to decrease poverty and increase equality. Spurring investment in public goods and services will be a challenge for the next federal government given that Mexico faces a sizable budgetary deficit, which is forecasted to reach 5.9% of GDP in 2024 —a historic high according to the most recent official figures and an increase of 1.6% percentage points relative to 2023. [4]Human capital While the same could be said for many countries - the US included - Mexico's public education system is deficient, a fact that creates great social inequities as well as challenges for companies looking for talent. The most recent results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) showed that the knowledge and skills of 15-year-old students in mathematics, reading and science has declined, with Mexico ranked 51st out of 81 countries analyzed.[5] Analysts tend to focus on the number of engineers in Mexico given its manufacturing base, and while their talents are certainly needed, there are other soft skills —effective communication, as well as analytical and creative thinking— that need to be emphasized more in Mexico's educational system if we intend to successfully integrate our economy into global supply chains and take advantage of emerging technologies. It must be okay to think innovatively and question the status quo, something that is still a rarity in the work culture of Mexico. Further, Mexico needs to consider female gender empowerment a cornerstone of its economic policy; a country cannot excel by leaving 51% of the population to languish in the informal sector. Mexico has one of the lowest workforce participation rates in Latin America (below Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica) because women shoulder the burden of care from birth to death.[6] This has to change. On a positive note, the feminist movement is stronger and better organized than ever in Mexico and is advocating for government programs that will provide assistance with the burdens related to family care. Oxfam has done particularly valuable work in this regard.[7] Invest in Infrastructure via PPPsAccording to some estimates, Mexico needs to invest around 5% of GDP[8] a year in infrastructure to meet the needs required for optimal competitiveness, a very tall order given that Mexico currently invests only 1.5% of GDP. Given limited public resources, embracing Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) provides an excellent option. PPPs help enable financing under long-term risk-sharing arrangements and are something that Mexico should utilize in order to attract nearshoring dollars that can establish valuable infrastructure assets for years to come. Foreign policy as a domestic policy toolThe administration of AMLO has been fond of saying that the best foreign policy is a domestic one, without explaining very clearly how that might work. What is clear, however, is that a wise foreign policy can significantly add to domestic policy goals, such as job creation. Mexico's incoming administration would do well to use Mexico's size and relevance to at the very least punch at its weight, something it has stopped doing globally over the last five years. Mexico needs to develop a strategy with respect to China and not just let things happen without intention. And that is not to say that Mexico has to adopt the same policies of the US, on the contrary. It may be in the best interests of Mexico to adopt a conscious strategy of "non-alignment," but at the moment we have a non-strategy, which makes us vulnerable to the long-term strategies of other countries that, without a doubt, are doing their own planning. Teamwork is goodAttracting nearshoring dollars should be viewed as a team effort in Mexico, with the public and private sectors communicating and strategizing together. The goal is to work as a team to encourage investment that will bring jobs, economic growth, new technologies and improved well-being. Like many societies globally, Mexico has been divided against itself in recent years. A team that has no clear plan and that mistrusts its own players, rarely wins. Loving one's country is about caring about the people who live in it. When that kind of solidarity is emphasized, it shows and leads to victories. The North American PowerhouseMexico, Canada and the US already have economies that are vertically integrated in many sectors, from the automotive industry to the agricultural sector. Given the complexities of current geopolitics, renewing the commitment to work together as a region behooves all three countries. The USMCA will be reviewed in 2026 and instead of seeing this as a moment to challenge the agreement's value, it should be viewed as an opportunity to strengthen the agreement for mutual benefit. The US economy has proved incredibly resilient in the wake of both the pandemic and global economic turbulence, something that is a big advantage for its neighbors to the north and the south. Further, the US has achieved energy independence over the last decade, and together with Canada and Mexico North America can build the next generation of energy solutions based on a transition toward multiple renewable energy solutions. This will indeed make North America the ideal place for investment for decades to come and a true global energy powerhouse. Opportunities do not last forever Mexico would do well to understand that opportunities do not last forever. As a nation, we need to hit the ground running in 2025, work together, and create a prosperous future that is in the interests of all citizens within and without the national borders. Between 30 and 40 million Mexicans live beyond the nation's borders and nearshoring opportunities will also provide them with the possibility of joining a team focused on achieving sustainable prosperity. Regional footnote: An exciting time to celebrate North America will take place the same year as the review of the USMCA, the World Cup 2026. The opening game will take place in the Azteca Stadium, a perfect moment to display the size, importance, and cultural significance of the Mexican nation, together with our North American counterparts. My hope is that via this celebratory event, more North Americans of the US, Canada, and Mexico will embrace a regional identity, making future cooperation more ambitious and politically viable. [1] Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad (www.imco.org.mx ). [2] Diario de la Federación, 11 de octubre de 2023: DECRETO por el que se otorgan estímulos fiscales a sectores clave de la industria exportadora consistentes en la deducción inmediata de la inversión en bienes nuevos de activo fijo y la deducción adicional de gastos de capacitación. [3] https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-mexico.pdf [4] Pre-criterios Generales de Política Económica 2025", Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público, https://www.finanzaspublicas.hacienda.gob.mx/work/models/Finanzas_Publicas/docs/paquete_economico/precgpe/precgpe_2025.PDF [5] https://www.oecd.org/publication/pisa-2022-results/country-notes/mexico-519eaf88/ [6] The women's labor force participation rate in Mexico continues to be one of the most lagging in Latin America, at around 49%, well below the OECD average of 65% and 58% for the region.[7] https://oxfammexico.org/trabajo-de-cuidados-y-desigualdad/ [8]https://www.cnec.org.mx/blogs/post/declaración-de-méxico-sobre-la-importancia-de-la-infraestructura-y-su-planeación-a-largo-plazo-para
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
Mexico is privileged by geography. It is a country with a dual North American and Latin American identity that can serve as a bridge between the two regions. Mexico stands to gain from the current global geopolitical context that involves economic competition between the US and China, armed conflict in the Middle East and in Ukraine, and a desire for many companies to be close to the largest and most dynamic economy in the world, the United States. What Mexico does not have is a clearly articulated strategy to take advantage of the nearshoring opportunity, which, by definition, will not last forever. Given its geographical location and its vertical integration with the US and Canadian economies, enshrined under the USMCA, Mexico is by far the most obvious place to relocate manufacturing or service operations from China, but it is not the only option either. Various states in the US, and other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, and South East Asia will also be making their pitches to investors. Given the commercial and security tensions that exist with China, some authorities in the US realize that they need to up their game to consolidate relationships with other Western Hemisphere countries, which is why a group of both Republican and Democratic senators have put together the Americas Act. This legislation, which was introduced in early March, would establish programs to promote greater trade, investment, and people-to-people ties throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, potentially expanding the USMCA. "At its core, the Americas Act is a multi-billion-dollar job creation tool for the U.S. and its allies in Latin America and the Caribbean," said Representative Adriano Espaillat (D-NY). "With its reshoring and nearshoring loans, tax benefits, and other targeted grant assistance for workers at home and in our Western Hemisphere partner countries, the Americas Act will bring jobs and investment back to our Hemisphere and stem the root causes of migration by putting more money into the pockets of working families."While the idea of expanding the USMCA beyond North America might be an attractive idea for boosting regional competitiveness from a US perspective, it would erode the privileged trade advantages that Mexico currently enjoys in its relationship with the US and Canada, something the next presidential administration in Mexico should consider as plans are developed to push forward to proactively attract nearshoring foreign direct investment (FDI). As it stands, Mexico's FDI numbers sound encouraging. But of the $36 billion dollars registered in 2023, only $5bn were new investments [1], which means nearshoring may be happening, but the tide is bringing in soft waves, not the desired tsunami. Creating the optimal ecosystemPresident Andrés Manuel López Obrador issued an executive order on October 11th, 2023 that provides for fiscal incentives for particular industries, including the agricultural sector, auto parts manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and the film industry, among others, as well as incentives for worker training. [2] This decision gained little attention, and while it is better than nothing, it is too little too late. Given Mexico's geographical comparative advantages, fiscal incentives are not the core of what companies want when they analyze whether to locate their operations in the country. Rather, investors need a business and public policy ecosystem that allows them to optimize opportunities and minimize risks over long periods of time, something that Mexico's next government can do a lot to improve. Creating a winning nearshoring strategy for Mexico implies a complex series of considerations and a reinvigorated investment promotion strategy globally, something that fell apart with the elimination of ProMexico —a federal agency that had been charged with promoting foreign trade and investment— at the beginning of the AMLO administration. While the former ProMéxico's operations surely could have been optimized, eliminating the organization completely and leaving promotion to the already overly taxed embassies was a mistake. As a result, Mexico has lost precious time and valuable relationships, and the country now needs to interrupt its leisurely walk and start sprinting. Below are reflections on the core issues that should be addressed to create optimal conditions for attracting and retaining foreign investment. Embrace the energy transitionIn order to be able to receive significant new amounts of investment, Mexico will need to produce both larger quantities of energy and ensure that it comes from cleaner sources. Global companies that consider Mexico as a place to invest long term need access to low-emission hydrocarbons, as well as renewable energy, and Mexico is lacking in both. Given Mexico's complex history that views oil as a fundamental part of the country's sovereignty, embracing the energy transition from a political perspective has posed challenges. AMLO did all he could to roll back the opening up of the energy sector to private sector participation that began in 2014, and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds to prop up the ailing national oil monopoly, Pemex. He also strengthened the monopoly of the national electricity company, CFE, making it harder for companies to generate their own electricity resources or explore renewable options. Suffice it to say that instead of developing Mexico's comparative advantages in wind, solar, and geothermal renewable energy, in recent years Mexico has invested in the energy resources of the 20th Century, not the 21st. While highly frustrating from both a pragmatic energy production and climate change abatement perspective, it is not too late to make adjustments that can boost supply and offer lower emission hydrocarbons and renewable energy to the Mexican population. A good place to start to increase energy efficiency and security, would be to capture the methane emissions (natural gas) stemming from Pemex's oil production facilities. Based on their own scientific studies, the Environmental Defence Fund estimates that by capturing the emissions from Nuevo Pemex alone, Mexico could fill 50% of the country's residential demand for natural gas. At the moment, instead of capturing these emissions, Pemex burns the methane; the state-owned company's laser-focused aim is to produce oil. Foolhardy. Consistency in regulation and the rules of the gameI use the turn of phrase "consistency in regulation and the rules of the game" so as to avoid the also much-needed but more theoretical term, "rule of law." Businesses need to know that when they make a decision that will affect the long-term sustainability and profitability of their organizations, they are making a co-investment with the country where they have decided to do so. In fact, this is perfectly in line with the idea of attracting investment that will add to the well-being (bienestar) of the Mexican communities where these investments will be made. The investment needs to be good for both sides with a long-term view of success. As a result of the setbacks in the opening up of the energy sector and the suboptimal situations in which companies like Constellation Brands found themselves in recent years, yellow flags have been raised, making some in the private sector weary. Companies will be waiting to see how the next government views its own role in establishing a trustworthy business environment. Science and innovationGlobally we need to embrace science as a fact-based tool for providing the solutions that will allow our species to continue surviving on this planet. And Mexico is no exception. Taking a science-based approach is critical for issues like climate change, which is intimately tied to the energy sector mentioned above, and is also linked to urban planning, infrastructure investment, and human health. It is through science and innovation that we will find the solutions that can provide well-being for the communities that make up our nations and regions. In Mexico, the regulatory framework approach to issues like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and cybersecurity, tends to be short-sighted and focused on providing the government with the tools of control, which in this day and age is an exercise in futility. New trends in technology do need to be regulated to prevent threats to national security and critical infrastructure, ensure respect for human rights and to maintain market conditions that are competitive. Doing so requires ensuring the active involvement of the private sector, which understands these tools and their implications best. If the goal is to encourage more investors to see Mexico as a viable nearshoring hub, a policy of support for science and innovation is critical. Increase public investment In general the Mexican state needs to invest more in public goods and services across the board in areas like health, education and infrastructure. Mexico is the OECD country that invests the least, with a rate of public sector investment of 1.3% in 2020, 0.7% below the 2007 rate. Public sector investments lag because Mexico's public revenue generation is the least effective in the OECD and one of the lowest in the region. Mexico's tax-to-GDP ratio in 2021 stood at 16.7%, below the Latin America and Caribbean average of 22% and far below the OECD average of 34%. [3] A serious look at public finances is required to make the investments needed to decrease poverty and increase equality. Spurring investment in public goods and services will be a challenge for the next federal government given that Mexico faces a sizable budgetary deficit, which is forecasted to reach 5.9% of GDP in 2024 —a historic high according to the most recent official figures and an increase of 1.6% percentage points relative to 2023. [4]Human capital While the same could be said for many countries - the US included - Mexico's public education system is deficient, a fact that creates great social inequities as well as challenges for companies looking for talent. The most recent results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) showed that the knowledge and skills of 15-year-old students in mathematics, reading and science has declined, with Mexico ranked 51st out of 81 countries analyzed.[5] Analysts tend to focus on the number of engineers in Mexico given its manufacturing base, and while their talents are certainly needed, there are other soft skills —effective communication, as well as analytical and creative thinking— that need to be emphasized more in Mexico's educational system if we intend to successfully integrate our economy into global supply chains and take advantage of emerging technologies. It must be okay to think innovatively and question the status quo, something that is still a rarity in the work culture of Mexico. Further, Mexico needs to consider female gender empowerment a cornerstone of its economic policy; a country cannot excel by leaving 51% of the population to languish in the informal sector. Mexico has one of the lowest workforce participation rates in Latin America (below Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica) because women shoulder the burden of care from birth to death.[6] This has to change. On a positive note, the feminist movement is stronger and better organized than ever in Mexico and is advocating for government programs that will provide assistance with the burdens related to family care. Oxfam has done particularly valuable work in this regard.[7] Invest in Infrastructure via PPPsAccording to some estimates, Mexico needs to invest around 5% of GDP[8] a year in infrastructure to meet the needs required for optimal competitiveness, a very tall order given that Mexico currently invests only 1.5% of GDP. Given limited public resources, embracing Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) provides an excellent option. PPPs help enable financing under long-term risk-sharing arrangements and are something that Mexico should utilize in order to attract nearshoring dollars that can establish valuable infrastructure assets for years to come. Foreign policy as a domestic policy toolThe administration of AMLO has been fond of saying that the best foreign policy is a domestic one, without explaining very clearly how that might work. What is clear, however, is that a wise foreign policy can significantly add to domestic policy goals, such as job creation. Mexico's incoming administration would do well to use Mexico's size and relevance to at the very least punch at its weight, something it has stopped doing globally over the last five years. Mexico needs to develop a strategy with respect to China and not just let things happen without intention. And that is not to say that Mexico has to adopt the same policies of the US, on the contrary. It may be in the best interests of Mexico to adopt a conscious strategy of "non-alignment," but at the moment we have a non-strategy, which makes us vulnerable to the long-term strategies of other countries that, without a doubt, are doing their own planning. Teamwork is goodAttracting nearshoring dollars should be viewed as a team effort in Mexico, with the public and private sectors communicating and strategizing together. The goal is to work as a team to encourage investment that will bring jobs, economic growth, new technologies and improved well-being. Like many societies globally, Mexico has been divided against itself in recent years. A team that has no clear plan and that mistrusts its own players, rarely wins. Loving one's country is about caring about the people who live in it. When that kind of solidarity is emphasized, it shows and leads to victories. The North American PowerhouseMexico, Canada and the US already have economies that are vertically integrated in many sectors, from the automotive industry to the agricultural sector. Given the complexities of current geopolitics, renewing the commitment to work together as a region behooves all three countries. The USMCA will be reviewed in 2026 and instead of seeing this as a moment to challenge the agreement's value, it should be viewed as an opportunity to strengthen the agreement for mutual benefit. The US economy has proved incredibly resilient in the wake of both the pandemic and global economic turbulence, something that is a big advantage for its neighbors to the north and the south. Further, the US has achieved energy independence over the last decade, and together with Canada and Mexico North America can build the next generation of energy solutions based on a transition toward multiple renewable energy solutions. This will indeed make North America the ideal place for investment for decades to come and a true global energy powerhouse. Opportunities do not last forever Mexico would do well to understand that opportunities do not last forever. As a nation, we need to hit the ground running in 2025, work together, and create a prosperous future that is in the interests of all citizens within and without the national borders. Between 30 and 40 million Mexicans live beyond the nation's borders and nearshoring opportunities will also provide them with the possibility of joining a team focused on achieving sustainable prosperity. Regional footnote: An exciting time to celebrate North America will take place the same year as the review of the USMCA, the World Cup 2026. The opening game will take place in the Azteca Stadium, a perfect moment to display the size, importance, and cultural significance of the Mexican nation, together with our North American counterparts. My hope is that via this celebratory event, more North Americans of the US, Canada, and Mexico will embrace a regional identity, making future cooperation more ambitious and politically viable. [1] Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad (www.imco.org.mx ). [2] Diario de la Federación, 11 de octubre de 2023: DECRETO por el que se otorgan estímulos fiscales a sectores clave de la industria exportadora consistentes en la deducción inmediata de la inversión en bienes nuevos de activo fijo y la deducción adicional de gastos de capacitación. [3] https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-mexico.pdf [4] Pre-criterios Generales de Política Económica 2025", Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público, https://www.finanzaspublicas.hacienda.gob.mx/work/models/Finanzas_Publicas/docs/paquete_economico/precgpe/precgpe_2025.PDF [5] https://www.oecd.org/publication/pisa-2022-results/country-notes/mexico-519eaf88/ [6] The women's labor force participation rate in Mexico continues to be one of the most lagging in Latin America, at around 49%, well below the OECD average of 65% and 58% for the region.[7] https://oxfammexico.org/trabajo-de-cuidados-y-desigualdad/ [8]https://www.cnec.org.mx/blogs/post/declaración-de-méxico-sobre-la-importancia-de-la-infraestructura-y-su-planeación-a-largo-plazo-para
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
(This post continues part 1 which just looked at the data. Part 3 on theory is here) When the Fed raises interest rates, how does inflation respond? Are there "long and variable lags" to inflation and output? There is a standard story: The Fed raises interest rates; inflation is sticky so real interest rates (interest rate - inflation) rise; higher real interest rates lower output and employment; the softer economy pushes inflation down. Each of these is a lagged effect. But despite 40 years of effort, theory struggles to substantiate that story (next post), it's had to see in the data (last post), and the empirical work is ephemeral -- this post. The vector autoregression and related local projection are today the standard empirical tools to address how monetary policy affects the economy, and have been since Chris Sims' great work in the 1970s. (See Larry Christiano's review.) I am losing faith in the method and results. We need to find new ways to learn about the effects of monetary policy. This post expands on some thoughts on this topic in "Expectations and the Neutrality of Interest Rates," several of my papers from the 1990s* and excellent recent reviews from Valerie Ramey and Emi Nakamura and Jón Steinsson, who eloquently summarize the hard identification and computation troubles of contemporary empirical work.Maybe popular wisdom is right, and economics just has to catch up. Perhaps we will. But a popular belief that does not have solid scientific theory and empirical backing, despite a 40 year effort for models and data that will provide the desired answer, must be a bit less trustworthy than one that does have such foundations. Practical people should consider that the Fed may be less powerful than traditionally thought, and that its interest rate policy has different effects than commonly thought. Whether and under what conditions high interest rates lower inflation, whether they do so with long and variable but nonetheless predictable and exploitable lags, is much less certain than you think. Here is a replication of one of the most famous monetary VARs, Christiano Eichenbaum and Evans 1999, from Valerie Ramey's 2016 review: Fig. 1 Christiano et al. (1999) identification. 1965m1–1995m6 full specification: solid black lines; 1983m1–2007m12 full specification: short dashed blue (dark gray in the print version) lines; 1983m1–2007m12, omits money and reserves: long-dashed red (gray in the print version) lines. Light gray bands are 90% confidence bands. Source: Ramey 2016. Months on x axis. The black lines plot the original specification. The top left panel plots the path of the Federal Funds rate after the Fed unexpectedly raises the interest rate. The funds rate goes up, but only for 6 months or so. Industrial production goes down and unemployment goes up, peaking at month 20. The figure plots the level of the CPI, so inflation is the slope of the lower right hand panel. You see inflation goes the "wrong" way, up, for about 6 months, and then gently declines. Interest rates indeed seem to affect the economy with long lags. This was the broad outline of consensus empirical estimates for many years. It is common to many other studies, and it is consistent with the beliefs of policy makers and analysts. It's pretty much what Friedman (1968) told us to expect. Getting contemporary models to produce something like this is much harder, but that's the next blog post. What's a VAR?I try to keep this blog accessible to nonspecialists, so I'll step back momentarily to explain how we produce graphs like these. Economists who know what a VAR is should skip to the next section heading. How do we measure the effect of monetary policy on other variables? Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz kicked it off in the Monetary History by pointing to the historical correlation of money growth with inflation and output. They knew as we do that correlation is not causation, so they pointed to the fact that money growth preceeded inflation and output growth. But as James Tobin pointed out, the cock's crow comes before, but does not cause, the sun to rise. So too people may go get out some money ahead of time when they see more future business activity on the horizon. Even correlation with a lead is not causation. What to do? Clive Granger's causality and Chris Sims' VAR, especially "Macroeconomics and Reality" gave today's answer. (And there is a reason that everybody mentioned so far has a Nobel prize.) First, we find a monetary policy "shock," a movement in the interest rate (these days; money, then) that is plausibly not a response to economic events and especially to expected future economic events. We think of the Fed setting interest rates by a response to economic data plus deviations from that response, such as interest rate = (#) output + (#) inflation + (#) other variables + disturbance. We want to isolate the "disturbance," movements in the interest rate not taken in response to economic events. (I use "shock" to mean an unpredictable variable, and "disturbance" to mean deviation from an equation like the above, but one that can persist for a while. A monetary policy "shock" is an unexpected movement in the disturbance.) The "rule" part here can be but need not be the Taylor rule, and can include other variables than output and inflation. It is what the Fed usually does given other variables, and therefore (hopefully) controls for reverse causality from expected future economic events to interest rates. Now, in any individual episode, output and inflation and inflation following a shock will be influenced by subsequent shocks to the economy, monetary and other. But those average out. So, the average value of inflation, output, employment, etc. following a monetary policy shock is a measure of how the shock affects the economy all on its own. That is what has been plotted above. VARs were one of the first big advances in the modern empirical quest to find "exogenous" variation and (somewhat) credibly find causal relationships. Mostly the huge literature varies on how one finds the "shocks." Traditional VARs use regressions of the above equations and the residual is the shock, with a big question just how many and which contemporaneous variables one adds in the regression. Romer and Romer pioneered the "narrative approach," reading the Fed minutes to isolate shocks. Some technical details at the bottom and much more discussion below. The key is finding shocks. One can just regress output and inflation on the shocks to produce the response function, which is a "local projection" not a "VAR," but I'll use "VAR" for both techniques for lack of a better encompassing word. Losing faithShocks, what shocks?What's a "shock" anyway? The concept is that the Fed considers its forecast of inflation, output and other variables it is trying to control, gauges the usual and appropriate response, and then adds 25 or 50 basis points, at random, just for the heck of it. The question VARS try to answer is the same: What happens to the economy if the Fed raises interest rates unexpectedly, for no particular reason at all? But the Fed never does this. Ask them. Read the minutes. The Fed does not roll dice. They always raise or lower interest rates for a reason, that reason is always a response to something going on in the economy, and most of the time how it affects forecasts of inflation and employment. There are no shocks as defined.I speculated here that we might get around this problem: If we knew the Fed was responding to something that had no correlation with future output, then even though that is an endogenous response, then it is a valid movement for estimating the effect of interest rates on output. My example was, what if the Fed "responds" to the weather. Well, though endogenous, it's still valid for estimating the effect on output. The Fed does respond to lots of things, including foreign exchange, financial stability issues, equity, terrorist attacks, and so forth. But I can't think of any of these in which the Fed is not thinking of these events for their effect on output and inflation, which is why I never took the idea far. Maybe you can. Shock isolation also depends on complete controls for the Fed's information. If the Fed uses any information about future output and inflation that is not captured in our regression, then information about future output and inflation remains in the "shock" series. The famous "price puzzle" is a good example. For the first few decades of VARs, interest rate shocks seemed to lead to higher inflation. It took a long specification search to get rid of this undesired result. The story was, that the Fed saw inflation coming in ways not completely controlled for by the regression. The Fed raised interest rates to try to forestall the inflation, but was a bit hesitant about it so did not cure the inflation that was coming. We see higher interest rates followed by higher inflation, though the true causal effect of interest rates goes the other way. This problem was "cured" by adding commodity prices to the interest rate rule, on the idea that fast-moving commodity prices would capture the information the Fed was using to forecast inflation. (Interestingly these days we seem to see core inflation as the best forecaster, and throw out commodity prices!) With those and some careful orthogonalization choices, the "price puzzle" was tamped down to the one year or so delay you see above. (Neo-Fisherians might object that maybe the price puzzle was trying to tell us something all these years!) Nakamura and Steinsson write of this problem: "What is being assumed is that controlling for a few lags of a few variables captures all endogenous variation in policy... This seems highly unlikely to be true in practice. The Fed bases its policy decisions on a huge amount of data. Different considerations (in some cases highly idiosyncratic) affect policy at different times. These include stress in the banking system, sharp changes in commodity prices, a recent stock market crash, a financial crisis in emerging markets, terrorist attacks, temporary investment tax credits, and the Y2K computer glitch. The list goes on and on. Each of these considerations may only affect policy in a meaningful way on a small number of dates, and the number of such influences is so large that it is not feasible to include them all in a regression. But leaving any one of them out will result in a monetary policy "shock" that the researcher views as exogenous but is in fact endogenous." Nakamura and Steinsson offer 9/11 as another example summarizing my "high frequency identification" paper with Monika Piazzesi: The Fed lowered interest rates after the terrorist attack, likely reacting to its consequences for output and inflation. But VARs register the event as an exogenous shock.Romer and Romer suggested that we use Fed Greenbook forecasts of inflation and output as controls, as those should represent the Fed's complete information set. They provide narrative evidence that Fed members trust Greenback forecasts more than you might suspect. This issue is a general Achilles heel of empirical macro and finance: Does your procedure assume agents see no more information than you have included in the model or estimate? If yes, you have a problem. Similarly, "Granger causality" answers the cock's crow-sunrise problem by saying that if unexpected x leads unexpected y then x causes y. But it's only real causality if the "expected" includes all information, as the price puzzle counterexample shows. Just what properties do we need of a shock in order to measure the response to the question, "what if the Fed raised rates for no reason?" This strikes me as a bit of an unsolved question -- or rather, one that everyone thinks is so obvious that we don't really look at it. My suggestion that the shock only need be orthogonal to the variable whose response we're estimating is informal, and I don't know of formal literature that's picked it up. Must "shocks" be unexpected, i.e. not forecastable from anything in the previous time information set? Must they surprise people? I don't think so -- it is neither necessary nor sufficient for shock to be unforecastable for it to identify the inflation and output responses. Not responding to expected values of the variable whose response you want to measure should be enough. If bond markets found out about a random funds rate rise one day ahead, it would then be an "expected" shock, but clearly just as good for macro. Romer and Romer have been criticized that their shocks are predictable, but this may not matter. The above Nakamura and Steinsson quote says leaving out any information leads to a shock that is not strictly exogenous. But strictly exogenous may not be necessary for estimating, say, the effect of interest rates on inflation. It is enough to rule out reverse causality and third effects. Either I'm missing a well known econometric literature, as is everyone else writing the VARs I've read who don't cite it, or there is a good theory paper to be written.Romer and Romer, thinking deeply about how to read "shocks" from the Fed minutes, define shocks thus to circumvent the "there are no shocks" problem:we look for times when monetary policymakers felt the economy was roughly at potential (or normal) output, but decided that the prevailing rate of inflation was too high. Policymakers then chose to cut money growth and raise interest rates, realizing that there would be (or at least could be) substantial negative consequences for aggregate output and unemployment. These criteria are designed to pick out times when policymakers essentially changed their tastes about the acceptable level of inflation. They weren't just responding to anticipated movements in the real economy and inflation. [My emphasis.] You can see the issue. This is not an "exogenous" movement in the funds rate. It is a response to inflation, and to expected inflation, with a clear eye on expected output as well. It really is a nonlinear rule, ignore inflation for a while until it gets really bad then finally get serious about it. Or, as they say, it is a change in rule, an increase in the sensitivity of the short run interest rate response to inflation, taken in response to inflation seeming to get out of control in a longer run sense. Does this identify the response to an "exogenous" interest rate increase? Not really. But maybe it doesn't matter. Are we even asking an interesting question? The whole question, what would happen if the Fed raised interest rates for no reason, is arguably besides the point. At a minimum, we should be clearer about what question we are asking, and whether the policies we analyze are implementations of that question. The question presumes a stable "rule," (e.g. \(i_t = \rho i_{t-1} + \phi_\pi \pi_t + \phi_x x_t + u_t\)) and asks what happens in response to a deviation \( +u_t \) from the rule. Is that an interesting question? The standard story for 1980-1982 is exactly not such an event. Inflation was not conquered by a big "shock," a big deviation from 1970s practice, while keeping that practice intact. Inflation was conquered (so the story goes) by a change in the rule, by a big increase in $\phi_\pi$. That change raised interest rates, but arguably without any deviation from the new rule \(u_t\) at all. Thinking in terms of the Phillips curve \( \pi_t = E_t \pi_{t+1} + \kappa x_t\), it was not a big negative \(x_t\) that brought down inflation, but the credibility of the new rule that brought down \(E_t \pi_{t+1}\). If the art of reducing inflation is to convince people that a new regime has arrived, then the response to any monetary policy "shock" orthogonal to a stable "rule" completely misses that policy. Romer and Romer are almost talking about a rule-change event. For 2022, they might be looking at the Fed's abandonment of flexible average inflation targeting and its return to a Taylor rule. However, they don't recognize the importance of the distinction, treating changes in rule as equivalent to a residual. Changing the rule changes expectations in quite different ways from a residual of a stable rule. Changes with a bigger commitment should have bigger effects, and one should standardize somehow by the size and permanence of the rule change, not necessarily the size of the interest rate rise. And, having asked "what if the Fed changes rule to be more serious about inflation," we really cannot use the analysis to estimate what happens if the Fed shocks interest rates and does not change the rule. It takes some mighty invariance result from an economic theory that a change in rule has the same effect as a shock to a given rule. There is no right and wrong, really. We just need to be more careful about what question the empirical procedure asks, if we want to ask that question, and if our policy analysis actually asks the same question. Estimating rules, Clarida Galí and Gertler. Clarida, Galí, and Gertler (2000) is a justly famous paper, and in this context for doing something totally different to evaluate monetary policy. They estimate rules, fancy versions of \(i_t = \rho i_{t-1} +\phi_\pi \pi_t + \phi_x x_t + u_t\), and they estimate how the \(\phi\) parameters change over time. They attribute the end of 1970s inflation to a change in the rule, a rise in \(\phi_\pi\) from the 1970s to the 1980s. In their model, a higher \( \phi_\pi\) results in less volatile inflation. They do not estimate any response functions. The rest of us were watching the wrong thing all along. Responses to shocks weren't the interesting quantity. Changes in the rule were the interesting quantity. Yes, I criticized the paper, but for issues that are irrelevant here. (In the new Keynesian model, the parameter that reduces inflation isn't the one they estimate.) The important point here is that they are doing something completely different, and offer us a roadmap for how else we might evaluate monetary policy if not by impulse-response functions to monetary policy shocks. Fiscal theoryThe interesting question for fiscal theory is, "What is the effect of an interest rate rise not accompanied by a change in fiscal policy?" What can the Fed do by itself? By contrast, standard models (both new and old Keynesian) include concurrent fiscal policy changes when interest rates rise. Governments tighten in present value terms, at least to pay higher interest costs on the debt and the windfall to bondholders that flows from unexpected disinflation. Experience and estimates surely include fiscal changes along with monetary tightening. Both fiscal and monetary authorities react to inflation with policy actions and reforms. Growth-oriented microeconomic reforms with fiscal consequences often follow as well -- rampant inflation may have had something to do with Carter era trucking, airline, and telecommunications reform. Yet no current estimate tries to look for a monetary shock orthogonal to fiscal policy change. The estimates we have are at best the effects of monetary policy together with whatever induced or coincident fiscal and microeconomic policy tends to happen at the same time as central banks get serious about fighting inflation. Identifying the component of a monetary policy shock orthogonal to fiscal policy, and measuring its effects is a first order question for fiscal theory of monetary policy. That's why I wrote this blog post. I set out to do it, and then started to confront how VARs are already falling apart in our hands. Just what "no change in fiscal policy" means is an important question that varies by application. (Lots more in "fiscal roots" here, fiscal theory of monetary policy here and in FTPL.) For simple calculations, I just ask what happens if interest rates change with no change in primary surplus. One might also define "no change" as no change in tax rates, automatic stabilizers, or even habitual discretionary stimulus and bailout, no disturbance \(u_t\) in a fiscal rule \(s_t = a + \theta_\pi \pi_t + \theta_x x_t + ... + u_t\). There is no right and wrong here either, there is just making sure you ask an interesting question. Long and variable lags, and persistent interest rate movementsThe first plot shows a mighty long lag between the monitor policy shock and its effect on inflation and output. That does not mean that the economy has long and variable lags. This plot is actually not representative, because in the black lines the interest rate itself quickly reverts to zero. It is common to find a more protracted interest rate response to the shock, as shown in the red and blue lines. That mirrors common sense: When the Fed starts tightening, it sets off a year or so of stair-step further increases, and then a plateau, before similar stair-step reversion. That raises the question, does the long-delayed response of output and inflation represent a delayed response to the initial monetary policy shock, or does it represent a nearly instantaneous response to the higher subsequent interest rates that the shock sets off? Another way of putting the question, is the response of inflation and output invariant to changes in the response of the funds rate itself? Do persistent and transitory funds rate changes have the same responses? If you think of the inflation and output responses as economic responses to the initial shock only, then it does not matter if interest rates revert immediately to zero, or go on a 10 year binge following the initial shock. That seems like a pretty strong assumption. If you think that a more persistent interest rate response would lead to a larger or more persistent output and inflation response, then you think some of what we see in the VARs is a quick structural response to the later higher interest rates, when they come. Back in 1988, I posed this question in "what do the VARs mean?" and showed you can read it either way. The persistent output and inflation response can represent either long economic lags to the initial shock, or much less laggy responses to interest rates when they come. I showed how to deconvolute the response function to the structural effect of interest rates on inflation and output and how persistently interest rates rise. The inflation and output responses might be the same with shorter funds rate responses, or they might be much different. Obviously (though often forgotten), whether the inflation and output responses are invariant to changes in the funds rate response needs a model. If in the economic model only unexpected interest rate movements affect output and inflation, though with lags, then the responses are as conventionally read structural responses and invariant to the interest rate path. There is no such economic model. Lucas (1972) says only unexpected money affects output, but with no lags, and expected money affects inflation. New Keynesian models have very different responses to permanent vs. transitory interest rate shocks. Interestingly, Romer and Romer do not see it this way, and regard their responses as structural long and variable lags, invariant to the interest rate response. They opine that given their reading of a positive shock in 2022, a long and variable lag to inflation reduction is baked in, no matter what the Fed does next. They argue that the Fed should stop raising interest rates. (In fairness, it doesn't look like they thought about the issue much, so this is an implicit rather than explicit assumption.) The alternative view is that effects of a shock on inflation are really effects of the subsequent rate rises on inflation, that the impulse response function to inflation is not invariant to the funds rate response, so stopping the standard tightening cycle would undo the inflation response. Argue either way, but at least recognize the important assumption behind the conclusions. Was the success of inflation reduction in the early 1980s just a long delayed response to the first few shocks? Or was the early 1980s the result of persistent large real interest rates following the initial shock? (Or, something else entirely, a coordinated fiscal-monetary reform... But I'm staying away from that and just discussing conventional narratives, not necessarily the right answer.) If the latter, which is the conventional narrative, then you think it does matter if the funds rate shock is followed by more funds rate rises (or positive deviations from a rule), that the output and inflation response functions do not directly measure long lags from the initial shock. De-convoluting the structural funds rate to inflation response and the persistent funds rate response, you would estimate much shorter structural lags. Nakamura and Steinsson are of this view: While the Volcker episode is consistent with a large amount of monetary nonneutrality, it seems less consistent with the commonly held view that monetary policy affects output with "long and variable lags." To the contrary, what makes the Volcker episode potentially compelling is that output fell and rose largely in sync with the actions [interest rates, not shocks] of the Fed. And that's a good thing too. We've done a lot of dynamic economics since Friedman's 1968 address. There is really nothing in dynamic economic theory that produces a structural long-delayed response to shocks, without the continued pressure of high interest rates. (A correspondent objects to "largely in sync" pointing out several clear months long lags between policy actions and results in 1980. It's here for the methodological point, not the historical one.) However, if the output and inflation responses are not invariant to the interest rate response, then the VAR directly measures an incredibly narrow experiment: What happens in response to a surprise interest rate rise, followed by the plotted path of interest rates? And that plotted path is usually pretty temporary, as in the above graph. What would happen if the Fed raised rates and kept them up, a la 1980? The VAR is silent on that question. You need to calibrate some model to the responses we have to infer that answer. VARs and shock responses are often misread as generic theory-free estimates of "the effects of monetary policy." They are not. At best, they tell you the effect of one specific experiment: A random increase in funds rate, on top of a stable rule, followed by the usual following path of funds rate. Any other implication requires a model, explicit or implicit. More specifically, without that clearly false invariance assumption, VARs cannot directly answer a host of important questions. Two on my mind: 1) What happens if the Fed raises interest rates permanently? Does inflation eventually rise? Does it rise in the short run? This is the "Fisherian" and "neo-Fisherian" questions, and the answer "yes" pops unexpectedly out of the standard new-Keynesian model. 2) Is the short-run negative response of inflation to interest rates stronger for more persistent rate rises? The long-term debt fiscal theory mechanism for a short-term inflation decline is tied to the persistence of the shock and the maturity structure of the debt. The responses to short-lived interest rate movements (top left panel) are silent on these questions. Directly is an important qualifier. It is not impossible to answer these questions, but you have to work harder to identify persistent interest rate shocks. For example, Martín Uribe identifies permanent vs. transitory interest rate shocks, and finds a positive response of inflation to permanent interest rate rises. How? You can't just pick out the interest rate rises that turned out to be permanent. You have to find shocks or components of the shock that are ex-ante predictably going to be permanent, based on other forecasting variables and the correlation of the shock with other shocks. For example, a short-term rate shock that also moves long-term rates might be more permanent than one which does not do so. (That requires the expectations hypothesis, which doesn't work, and long term interest rates move too much anyway in response to transitory funds rate shocks. So, this is not directly a suggestion, just an example of the kind of thing one must do. Uribe's model is more complex than I can summarize in a blog.) Given how small and ephemeral the shocks are already, subdividing them into those that are expected to have permanent vs. transitory effects on the federal funds rate is obviously a challenge. But it's not impossible. Monetary policy shocks account for small fractions of inflation, output and funds rate variation. Friedman thought that most recessions and inflations were due to monetary mistakes. The VARs pretty uniformly deny that result. The effects of monetary policy shocks on output and inflation add up to less than 10 percent of the variation of output and inflation. In part the shocks are small, and in part the responses to the shocks are small. Most recessions come from other shocks, not monetary mistakes. Worse, both in data and in models, most inflation variation comes from inflation shocks, most output variation comes from output shocks, etc. The cross-effects of one variable on another are small. And "inflation shock" (or "marginal cost shock"), "output shock" and so forth are just labels for our ignorance -- error terms in regressions, unforecasted movements -- not independently measured quantities. (This and old point, for example in my 1994 paper with the great title "Shocks." Technically, the variance of output is the sum of the squares of the impulse-response functions -- the plots -- times the variance of the shocks. Thus small shocks and small responses mean not much variance explained.)This is a deep point. The exquisite attention put to the effects of monetary policy in new-Keynesian models, while interesting to the Fed, are then largely beside the point if your question is what causes recessions. Comprehensive models work hard to match all of the responses, not just to monetary policy shocks. But it's not clear that the nominal rigidities that are important for the effects of monetary policy are deeply important to other (supply) shocks, and vice versa. This is not a criticism. Economics always works better if we can use small models that focus on one thing -- growth, recessions, distorting effect of taxes, effect of monetary policy -- without having to have a model of everything in which all effects interact. But, be clear we no longer have a model of everything. "Explaining recessions" and "understanding the effects of monetary policy" are somewhat separate questions. Monetary policy shocks also account for small fractions of the movement in the federal funds rate itself. Most of the funds rate movement is in the rule, the reaction to the economy term. Like much empirical economics, the quest for causal identification leads us to look at a tiny causes with tiny effects, that do little to explain much variation in the variable of interest (inflation). Well, cause is cause, and the needle is the sharpest item in the haystack. But one worries about the robustness of such tiny effects, and to what extent they summarize historical experience. To be concrete, here is a typical shock regression, 1960:1-2023:6 monthly data, standard errors in parentheses: ff(t) = a + b ff(t-1) + c[ff(t-1)-ff(t-2)] + d CPI(t) + e unemployment(t) + monetary policy shock, Where "CPI" is the percent change in the CPI (CPIAUCSL) from a year earlier. ff(t-1)ff(t-1)-ff(t-2)CPIUnempR20.970.390.032-0.0170.985(0.009)(0.07)(0.013)(0.009)The funds rate is persistent -- the lag term (0.97) is large. Recent changes matter too: Once the Fed starts a tightening cycle, it's likely to keep raising rates. And the Fed responds to CPI and unemployment. The plot shows the actual federal funds rate (blue), the model or predicted federal funds rate (red), the shock which is the difference between the two (orange) and the Romer and Romer dates (vertical lines). You can't see the difference between actual and predicted funds rate, which is the point. They are very similar and the shocks are small. They are closer horizontally than vertically, so the vertical difference plotted as shock is still visible. The shocks are much smaller than the funds rate, and smaller than the rise and fall in the funds rate in a typical tightening or loosening cycle. The shocks are bunched, with by far the biggest ones in the early 1980s. The shocks have been tiny since the 1980s. (Romer and Romer don't find any shocks!) Now, our estimates of the effect of monetary policy look at the average values of inflation, output, and employment in the 4-5 years after a shock. Really, you say, looking at the graph? That's going to be dominated by the experience of the early 1980s. And with so many positive and negative shocks close together, the average value 4 years later is going to be driven by subtle timing of when the positive or negative shocks line up with later events. Put another way, here is a plot of inflation 30 months after a shock regressed on the shock. Shock on the x axis, subsequent inflation on the y axis. The slope of the line is our estimate of the effect of the shock on inflation 30 months out (source, with details). Hmm. One more graph (I'm having fun here):This is a plot of inflation for the 4 years after each shock, times that shock. The right hand side is the same graph with an expanded y scale. The average of these histories is our impulse response function. (The big lines are the episodes which multiply the big shocks of the early 1980s. They mostly converge because, either multiplied by positive or negative shocks, inflation wend down in the 1980s.) Impulse response functions are just quantitative summaries of the lessons of history. You may be underwhelmed that history is sending a clear story. Again, welcome to causal economics -- tiny average responses to tiny but identified movements is what we estimate, not broad lessons of history. We do not estimate "what is the effect of the sustained high real interest rates of the early 1980s," for example, or "what accounts for the sharp decline of inflation in the early 1980s?" Perhaps we should, though confronting endogeneity of the interest rate responses some other way. That's my main point today. Estimates disappear after 1982Ramey's first variation in the first plot is to use data from 1983 to 2007. Her second variation is to also omit the monetary variables. Christiano Eichenbaum and Evans were still thinking in terms of money supply control, but our Fed does not control money supply. The evidence that higher interest rates lower inflation disappears after 1983, with or without money. This too is a common finding. It might be because there simply aren't any monetary policy shocks. Still, we're driving a car with a yellowed AAA road map dated 1982 on it. Monetary policy shocks still seem to affect output and employment, just not inflation. That poses a deeper problem. If there just aren't any monetary policy shocks, we would just get big standard errors on everything. That only inflation disappears points to the vanishing Phillips curve, which will be the weak point in the theory to come. It is the Phillips curve by which lower output and employment push down inflation. But without the Phillips curve, the whole standard story for interest rates to affect inflation goes away. Computing long-run responsesThe long lags of the above plot are already pretty long horizons, with interesting economics still going on at 48 months. As we get interested in long run neutrality, identification via long run sign restrictions (monetary policy should not permanently affect output), and the effect of persistent interest rate shocks, we are interested in even longer run responses. The "long run risks" literature in asset pricing is similarly crucially interested in long run properties. Intuitively, we should know this will be troublesome. There aren't all that many nonoverlapping 4 year periods after interest rate shocks to measure effects, let alone 10 year periods.VARs estimate long run responses with a parametric structure. Organize the data (output, inflation, interest rate, etc) into a vector \(x_t = [y_t \; \pi_t \; i_t \; ...]'\), then the VAR can be written \(x_{t+1} = Ax_t + u_t\). We start from zero, move \(x_1 = u_1\) in an interesting way, and then the response function just simulates forward, with \(x_j = A^j x_1\). But here an oft-forgotten lesson of 1980s econometrics pops up: It is dangerous to estimate long-run dynamics by fitting a short run model and then finding its long-run implications. Raising matrices to the 48th power \(A^{48}\) can do weird things, the 120th power (10 years) weirder things. OLS and maximum likelihood prize one step ahead \(R^2\), and will happily accept small one step ahead mis specifications that add up to big misspecification 10 years out. (I learned this lesson in the "Random walk in GNP.") Long run implications are driven by the maximum eigenvalue of the \(A\) transition matrix, and its associated eigenvector. \(A^j = Q \Lambda^j Q^{-1}\). This is a benefit and a danger. Specify and estimate the dynamics of the combination of variables with the largest eigenvector right, and lots of details can be wrong. But standard estimates aren't trying hard to get these right. The "local projection" alternative directly estimates long run responses: Run regressions of inflation in 10 years on the shock today. You can see the tradeoff: there aren't many non-overlapping 10 year intervals, so this will be imprecisely estimated. The VAR makes a strong parametric assumption about long-run dynamics. When it's right, you get better estimates. When it's wrong, you get misspecification. My experience running lots of VARs is that monthly VARs raised to large powers often give unreliable responses. Run at least a one-year VAR before you start looking at long run responses. Cointegrating vectors are the most reliable variables to include. They are typically the state variable that most reliably carries long - run responses. But pay attention to getting them right. Imposing integrating and cointegrating structure by just looking at units is a good idea. The regression of long-run returns on dividend yields is a good example. The dividend yield is a cointegrating vector, and is the slow-moving state variable. A one period VAR \[\left[ \begin{array}{c} r_{t+1} \\ dp_{t+1} \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & b_r \\ 0 & \rho \end{array}\right] \left[ \begin{array}{c} r_{t} \\ dp_{t} \end{array}\right]+ \varepsilon_{t+1}\] implies a long horizon regression \(r_{t+j} = b_r \rho^j dp_{t} +\) error. Direct regressions ("local projections") \(r_{t+j} = b_{r,j} dp_t + \) error give about the same answers, though the downward bias in \(\rho\) estimates is a bit of an issue, but with much larger standard errors. The constraint \(b_{r,j} = b_r \rho^j\) isn't bad. But it can easily go wrong. If you don't impose that dividends and price are cointegrated, or with vector other than 1 -1, if you allow a small sample to estimate \(\rho>1\), if you don't put in dividend yields at all and just a lot of short-run forecasters, it can all go badly. Forecasting bond returns was for me a good counterexample. A VAR forecasting one-year bond returns from today's yields gives very different results from taking a monthly VAR, even with several lags, and using \(A^{12}\) to infer the one-year return forecast. Small pricing errors or microstructure dominate the monthly data, which produces junk when raised to the twelfth power. (Climate regressions are having fun with the same issue. Small estimated effects of temperature on growth, raised to the 100th power, can produce nicely calamitous results. But use basic theory to think about units.) Nakamura and Steinsson (appendix) show how sensitive some standard estimates of impulse response functions are to these questions. Weak evidenceFor the current policy question, I hope you get a sense of how weak the evidence is for the "standard view" that higher interest rates reliably lower inflation, though with a long and variable lag, and the Fed has a good deal of control over inflation. Yes, many estimates look the same, but there is a pretty strong prior going in to that. Most people don't publish papers that don't conform to something like the standard view. Look how long it took from Sims (1980) to Christiano Eichenbaum and Evans (1999) to produce a response function that does conform to the standard view, what Friedman told us to expect in (1968). That took a lot of playing with different orthogonalization, variable inclusion, and other specification assumptions. This is not criticism: when you have a strong prior, it makes sense to see if the data can be squeezed in to the prior. Once authors like Ramey and Nakamura and Steinsson started to look with a critical eye, it became clearer just how weak the evidence is. Standard errors are also wide, but the variability in results due to changes in sample and specification are much larger than formal standard errors. That's why I don't stress that statistical aspect. You play with 100 models, try one variable after another to tamp down the price puzzle, and then compute standard errors as if the 100th model were written in stone. This post is already too long, but showing how results change with different specifications would have been a good addition. For example, here are a few more Ramey plots of inflation responses, replicating various previous estimatesTake your pick. What should we do instead? Well, how else should we measure the effects of monetary policy? One natural approach turns to the analysis of historical episodes and changes in regime, with specific models in mind. Romer and Romer pass on thoughts on this approach: ...some macroeconomic behavior may be fundamentally episodic in nature. Financial crises, recessions, disinflations, are all events that seem to play out in an identifiable pattern. There may be long periods where things are basically fine, that are then interrupted by short periods when they are not. If this is true, the best way to understand them may be to focus on episodes—not a cross-section proxy or a tiny sub-period. In addition, it is valuable to know when the episodes were and what happened during them. And, the identification and understanding of episodes may require using sources other than conventional data.A lot of my and others' fiscal theory writing has taken a similar view. The long quiet zero bound is a test of theories: old-Keynesian models predict a delation spiral, new-Keynesian models predicts sunspot volatility, fiscal theory is consistent with stable quiet inflation. The emergence of inflation in 2021 and its easing despite interest rates below inflation likewise validates fiscal vs. standard theories. The fiscal implications of abandoning the gold standard in 1933 plus Roosevelt's "emergency" budget make sense of that episode. The new-Keynesian reaction parameter \(\phi_\pi\) in \(i_t - \phi_\pi \pi_t\), which leads to unstable dynamics for ](\phi_\pi>1\) is not identified by time series data. So use "other sources," like plain statements on the Fed website about how they react to inflation. I already cited Clarida Galí and Gertler, for measuring the rule not the response to the shock, and explaining the implications of that rule for their model. Nakamura and Steinsson likewise summarize Mussa's (1986) classic study of what happens when countries switch from fixed to floating exchange rates: "The switch from a fixed to a flexible exchange rate is a purely monetary action. In a world where monetary policy has no real effects, such a policy change would not affect real variables like the real exchange rate. Figure 3 demonstrates dramatically that the world we live in is not such a world."Also, analysis of particular historical episodes is enlightening. But each episode has other things going on and so invites alternative explanations. 90 years later, we're still fighting about what caused the Great Depression. 1980 is the poster child for monetary disinflation, yet as Nakamura and Steinsson write, Many economists find the narrative account above and the accompanying evidence about output to be compelling evidence of large monetary nonneutrality. However, there are other possible explanations for these movements in output. There were oil shocks both in September 1979 and in February 1981.... Credit controls were instituted between March and July of 1980. Anticipation effects associated with the phased-in tax cuts of the Reagan administration may also have played a role in the 1981–1982 recession ....Studying changes in regime, such as fixed to floating or the zero bound era, help somewhat relative to studying a particular episode, in that they have some of the averaging of other shocks. But the attraction of VARs will remain. None of these produces what VARs seemed to produce, a theory-free qualitative estimate of the effects of monetary policy. Many tell you that prices are sticky, but not how prices are sticky. Are they old-Keynesian backward looking sticky or new-Keynesian rational expectations sticky? What is the dynamic response of relative inflation to a change in a pegged exchange rate? What is the dynamic response of real relative prices to productivity shocks? Observations such as Mussa's graph can help to calibrate models, but does not answer those questions directly. My observations about the zero bound or the recent inflation similarly seem (to me) decisive about one class of model vs. another, at least subject to Occam's razor about epicycles, but likewise do not provide a theory-free impulse response function. Nakamura and Steinsson write at length about other approaches; model-based moment matching and use of micro data in particular. This post is going on too long; read their paper. Of course, as we have seen, VARs only seem to offer a model-free quantitative measurement of "the effects of monetary policy," but it's hard to give up on the appearance of such an answer. VARs and impulse responses also remain very useful ways of summarizing the correlations and cross correlations of data, even without cause and effect interpretation. In the end, many ideas are successful in economics when they tell researchers what to do, when they offer a relatively clear recipe for writing papers. "Look at episodes and think hard is not such recipe." "Run a VAR is." So, as you think about how we can evaluate monetary policy, think about a better recipe as well as a good answer. (Stay tuned. This post is likely to be updated a few times!) VAR technical appendixTechnically, running VARs is very easy, at least until you start trying to smooth out responses with Bayesian and other techniques. Line up the data in a vector, i.e. \(x_t = [i_t \; \pi_t\; y_t]'\). Then run a regression of each variable on lags of the others, \[x_t = Ax_{t-1} + u_t.\] If you want more than one lag of the right hand variables, just make a bigger \(x\) vector, \(x_t = [i_t\; \pi_t \; y_t \; i_{t-1}\; \pi_{t-1} \;y_{t-1}]'.\) The residuals of such regressions \(u_t\) will be correlated, so you have to decide whether, say, the correlation between interest rate and inflation shocks means the Fed responds in the period to inflation, or inflation responds within the period to interest rates, or some combination of the two. That's the "identification" assumption issue. You can write it as a matrix \(C\) so that \(u_t = C \varepsilon_t\) and cov\((\varepsilon_t \varepsilon_t')=I\) or you can include some contemporaneous values into the right hand sides. Now, with \(x_t = Ax_{t-1} + C\varepsilon_t\), you start with \(x_0=0\), choose one series to shock, e.g. \(\varepsilon_{i,1}=1\) leaving the others alone, and just simulate forward. The resulting path of the other variables is the above plot, the "impulse response function." Alternatively you can run a regression \(x_t = \sum_{j=0}^\infty \theta_j \varepsilon_{t-j}\) and the \(\theta_j\) are (different, in sample) estimates of the same thing. That's "local projection". Since the right hand variables are all orthogonal, you can run single or multiple regressions. (See here for equations.) Either way, you have found the moving average representation, \(x_t = \theta(L)\varepsilon_t\), in the first case with \(\theta(L)=(I-AL)^{-1}C\) in the second case directly. Since the right hand variables are all orthogonal, the variance of the series is the sum of its loading on all of the shocks, \(cov(x_t) = \sum_{j=0}^\infty \theta_j \theta_j'\). This "forecast error variance decomposition" is behind my statement that small amounts of inflation variance are due to monetary policy shocks rather than shocks to other variables, and mostly inflation shocks. Update:Luis Garicano has a great tweet thread explaining the ideas with a medical analogy. Kamil Kovar has a nice follow up blog post, with emphasis on Europe. He makes a good point that I should have thought of: A monetary policy "shock" is a deviation from a "rule." So, the Fed's and ECB's failure to respond to inflation as they "usually" do in 2021-2022 counts exactly the same as a 3-5% deliberate lowering of the interest rate. Lowering interest rates for no reason, and leaving interest rates alone when the regression rule says raise rates are the same in this methodology. That "loosening" of policy was quickly followed by inflation easing, so an updated VAR should exhibit a strong "price puzzle" -- a negative shock is followed by less, not more inflation. Of course historians and practical people might object that failure to act as usual has exactly the same effects as acting. * Some Papers: Comment on Romer and Romer What ends recessions? Some "what's a shock?"Comment on Romer and Romer A new measure of monetary policy. The greenbook forecasts, and beginning thoughts that strict exogeneity is not necessary. Shocks monetary shocks explain small fractions of output variance.Comments on Hamilton, more thoughts on what a shock is.What do the VARs mean? cited above, is the response to the shock or to persistent interest rates?The Fed and Interest Rates, with Monika Piazzesi. Daily data and interest rates to identify shocks. Decomposing the yield curve with Monika Piazzesi. Starts with a great example of how small changes in specification lead to big differences in long run forecasts. Time seriesA critique of the application of unit root tests pretesting for unit roots and cointegration is a bad ideaHow big is the random walk in GNP? lessons in not using short run dynamics to infer long run properties. Permanent and transitory components of GNP and stock prices a favorite of cointegration really helps on long run propertiesTime series for macroeconomics and finance notes that never quite became a book. Explains VARs and responses.
Technical Report 2018-08-ECE-138 Technical Report 2002-09-ECE-007 Enterprise Engineering - A Transdisciplinary Activity: Mapping IT to Core Competency Rajani S. Sadasivam Urcun J. Tanik Murat M. Tanik This technical report is a reissue of a technical report issued December 2002 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Alabama at Birmingham August 2018 Technical Report 2002-09-ECE-007 Enterprise Engineering- A Transdisciplinary Activity: Mapping IT to Core Competency Rajani S. Sadasivam Urcun J. Tanik Murat M. Tanik TECHNICAL REPORT Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Alabama at Bi1mingham December 2002 ENGINEERING OF ENTERPRISES: A TRANSDISCIPLINARY ACTIVITY Mapping Information Technology to Core Competency Contributors: Murat M. Tanik, Rajani S. Sadasivam, lJrcun J. Tanik 1. ELEMENTS Qli' INTERNET ENTERPRISE ENGINEERING 1.1) Uusiness Language Structure Before any e n gin~ring takes place, the requirements of the project must be identified in as much detail as possible to satisfy the customer. Hence a customer-driven system is created, with the goal of ensuring that the end product is profitable. Business analysts should be able to accurately assess customer needs and break them down into manageable pieces for the technology analysts and engineering team, and that analysis can be effectively done on common ground with an object-oriented design language called Unified Modeling Language (UML). Introduced in November 1997, UML has quickly become the standard modeling language for software development, later adapted by business analysts to systematically design business processes [15]. UML has a business model approach that provides a pJan for engineering an orchestrated set of business functions. It provides a framework by which business is to be perf01med, allowing for changes and various improvements in the process. The model is designed to anticipate changes in business function and adapt software implementation accordingly in order for a business to maintain a competitive edge. One of the advantages of modeling in UML is that it can visually depict functions, relationships, and paradigms. UML is reconunended for business analysts to breakdown a large-scale business operation into its constituent parts for restructming and design. 1.2 Strategic Guidance One innovative approach to safely guiding an lEE venture through unce11ain waters is the Cosmos model, proposed by Yeh [10]. It is a model designed to assist a business manage change through holistic, three-dimensional modeling. One of the important aspects of this model is that it should be noted that three dimensions exist interdependently, as each dimension behaves as an enabler and an inhibitor to the other dimensions. The Cosmos model provides a conceptual tool for managers to guide their company along the best possible path by providing a structure for effective decision-making, while navigating from one point of an organizational situation to another over . time. The managerial decision made at each point in the path detetmines the future course of the company and the most optimum tradeoff's along the way. 1.3 General Business Types and Characterizations The Enterprise Maturity Model is introduced in the beginning of Chapter 2 to serve as a general reference for business and technology analysts working together to build an Intemet enterprise riO]. This model helps to accurately define the objectives for the specific type of organization they wish to build with respect to the maturity level of the organizational structure. In order to characterize a business in terms of its level of maturity, focus, activity, coordination, and infrastructure, these various faclors are covered explicitly. It is very helpful to understand the maturity level of a given organization in order to apply the most appropriate management techniques according to enterprise type. 1.4 Online Business Model Selection and Analysis An enterprise business model is one of the most important aspects in the construction of a viable business initiative. The combination of a company's policy, operations, technology, and ideology defines its business model [16]. Entrepreneurs who wish to launch e-businesses need to be aware of these models and how to implement them effectively. An array of business model types are provided that have proven profitable for actual enterprises in operation today, including the storefront model, auction model, portal model, and dynamic pricing model [11]. The case study is used as an example for online business model selection and analysis. 1.5 Online Financial Transactions In financial transactions, it is critical to have a reliable method to collect payment. Since the scope of this thesis covers lEE systems, this thesis describes those that would be relevant to Cyberspace operations. There are various methods and mechanisms that merchants online use to collect income through electronic transactions. The types of transactions covered include credit card, ewallet, debit card, digital currency, peer-lo-peer, smartcard, micropayment and ebilling mechanisms [11]. 1.6 Online Legal Contracts In order for proper oversight of monetary operations, legal issues must be addressed for lEE projects, so the concept of the online contract is introduced. An online contract can be accomp.lished through the use of Digital Signatures [1 1]. These electronic signatures are the electronic equivalent of written signatures. The ";Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000" (E-sign Bill) was recently passed into law [ 1 I, 4]. This technology was developed for use in public-key cryptography to solve the problems of authentication and integrity. The purpose of a digital signature is for electronic authentication. The U.S. govemment's digitalauthentication standard is called the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) [1 1]. The U.S. government also recently passed digital-signature legislation that makes digital signatures as legally binding as hand-written signatures. This legislation is designed to promote more activity in e-business by legitimizing online contractual agreements. 1.7 OnUne Security For centuries in human society whenever something of value was transferred, a method to protect that shipment or trade had to be established. Naturally, this subject is discussed to illustrate the measures taken by current security agencies to protect value on the Internet. For example, Netscape Communications developed the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol, developed as a non-proprietary protocol commonly used to secure communication on the Internet and the Web. SSL is designed to use public key technology and digital certificates to authenticate the server in a transaction and to protect private information as it passes f1·om one party to another over the Internet. Secure Electronic Transaction (SET) protocol was developed by Visa International and Mastercard and was designed specifically to protect e-commerce payment transactions [11, 12]. SET uses digital certificates to authenticate each party in an e-commerce transaction, induding the customer, the merchant, and the merchant's bank. 1 . 8 Online Business Prototyping Technologies and Development In order for technologists to satisfy the requirements set forth by the business analysts expressed in a language such as UML, various high-level tools are needed to develop an accepta~le solution. One such tool, Macromedia . Drumbeat 2000, recently released by Elemental Software, is capable of accepting and delivering complex information and functionality through a Web-interface [20). This technology is introduced as a recommended tool for building a professional enterprise through rapid prototyping. The tool aids a visually skilled Web designer to competitively build a website without necessarily having to do any coding. It is a sophisticated tool that interacts with the back-end database by building user-friendly client-side applications with Active Server Page (ASP) Web technology. 1.9 Government Initiatives in Cyberspace An enterprise planning for the future should consider the overall development of the global Internet infrastructure. It is important to understand the territory in which an Internet enterprise is to be launched. In addition to the current Intemet environment, a new government initiative is in the works, entitled The Next Generation Internet (NGI). This multi-agency, national U.S. research and development program began on October 1, 1997 with the partidpation of the following agencies: DARPA, DOE, NASA, NJH, NIST, and NSF. These agencies are charged with the responsibility of developing advanced networking technologies, developing revolutionary applications that require advanced networking, and demonstrating these capabilities on test beds that are 100 to 1,000 times faster th
Threats To International Peace And Security. The Situation In The Middle East ; United Nations S/PV.8233 Security Council Seventy-third year 8233rd meeting Saturday, 14 April 2018, 11 a.m. New York Provisional President: Mr. Meza-Cuadra . (Peru) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Llorentty Solíz China. . Mr. Ma Zhaoxu Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu France. . Mr. Delattre Kazakhstan. . Mr. Umarov Kuwait. . Mr. Alotaibi Netherlands. . Mrs. Gregoire Van Haaren Poland. . Mr. Radomski Russian Federation. . Mr. Nebenzia Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Ms. Pierce United States of America. . Mrs. Haley Agenda Threats to international peace and security The situation in the Middle East This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-10891 (E) *1810891* S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 2/26 18-10891 The meeting was called to order at 11.10 a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. Threats to international peace and security The situation in the Middle East The President (spoke in Spanish): In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to participate in this meeting. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to warmly welcome His Excellency Secretary-General António Guterres, to whom I now give the floor. The Secretary-General: I have been following closely the reports of air strikes in Syria conducted by the United States, France and United Kingdom. Last night at 10 p.m. New York time, the United States President announced the beginning of air strikes with the participation of France and the United Kingdom, indicating they were targeting the chemical-weapons capabilities of the Syrian Government to deter their future use. The statement was followed by announcements from Prime Minister May and President Macron. The air strikes were reportedly limited to three military locations inside Syria. The first targets included the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre at Al-Mazzah airport in Damascus, the second an alleged chemical-weapons storage facility west of Homs and the third an alleged chemical-weapons equipment storage site and command post, also near Homs. The Syrian Government announced surface-to-air missile responsive activity. Both United States and Russian sources indicated there were no civilian casualties. However, the United Nations is unable to independently verify the details of all those reports. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, it is my duty to remind Member States that there is an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations, and with international law in general. The Charter is very clear on these issues. The Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. I call on the members of the Security Council to unite and exercise that responsibility, and I urge all members to show restraint in these dangerous circumstances and to avoid any act that could escalate matters and worsen the suffering of the Syrian people. As I did yesterday (see S/PV.8231), I stress the importance of preventing the situation from spiralling out of control. Any use of chemical weapons is abhorrent, and the suffering it causes is horrendous. I have repeatedly expressed my deep disappointment that the Security Council has failed to agree on a dedicated mechanism for ensuring effective accountability for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. I urge the Security Council to assume its responsibilities and fill that gap, and I will continue to engage with Member States to help to achieve that objective. A lack of accountability emboldens those who use such weapons by providing them with the reassurance of impunity, and that in turn further weakens the norm proscribing the use of chemical weapons, as well as undermining the international disarmament and non-proliferation architecture as a whole. The seriousness of the recent allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Douma requires a thorough investigation using impartial, independent and professional expertise. I reaffirm my full support for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and its Fact-finding Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic in undertaking the required investigation. The team is already in Syria. I am informed that its operations plan for visiting the site is complete and that the Mission is ready to go. I am confident it will have full access, without any restrictions or impediments to its performance of its activities. To repeat what I said yesterday, Syria represents the most serious threat to international peace and security in the world today. In Syria we see confrontations and proxy wars involving several national armies, a number of armed opposition groups, many national and international militias, foreign fighters from all over the world and various terrorist organizations. From the beginning, we have witnessed systematic violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international law in general, in utter disregard of the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. For eight long years, the people of Syria have endured suffering upon suffering. They have lived 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 3/26 through a litany of horrors, atrocity crimes, sieges, starvation, indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, the use of chemical weapons, forced displacement, sexual violence, torture, detention and enforced disappearances. The list goes on. At this critical juncture, I call on all States Members to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including the norms against chemical weapons. If the law is ignored, it is undermined. There can be no military solution to the crisis. The solution must be political, and we must find ways to make real progress towards a genuine and credible political solution that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people to dignity and freedom, in accordance with resolution 2254 (2015) and the Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex). I have asked my Special Envoy to come to New York as soon as possible to consult with me on the most effective way to accelerate the political process. The President (spoke in Spanish): I thank the Secretary-General for his valuable briefing. I shall now give the floor to those Council members who wish to make statements. Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): Russia has called this emergency meeting of the Security Council to discuss the aggressive actions of the United States and its allies against Syria. This is now our fifth meeting on the subject in a week. President Putin of the Russian Federation made a special statement today. "On 14 April, the United States, with the support of its allies, launched an air strike on military and civilian infrastructure targets in the Syrian Arab Republic. An act of aggression against a sovereign State on the front lines in the fight against terrorism was committed without permission from the Security Council and in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles of international law. Just as it did a year ago, when it attacked Syria's Al-Shayrat airbase in Syria, the United States took a staged use of toxic substances against civilians as a pretext, this time in Douma, outside Damascus. Having visited the site of the alleged incident, Russian military experts found no traces of chlorine or any other toxic agent. Not a single local resident could confirm that such an attack had occurred. "The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has sent experts to Syria to investigate all the circumstances. However, a group of Western countries cynically ignored this and took military action without waiting for the results of the investigation. "Russia vehemently condemns this attack on Syria, where Russian military personnel are helping the legitimate Government to combat terrorism. "The actions of the United States are making the already catastrophic humanitarian situation in Syria even worse, inflicting suffering on civilians, for all intents and purposes enabling the terrorists who have been tormenting the Syrian people for seven years, and producing yet another wave of refugees fleeing the country and the region in general. The current escalation of the Syrian situation is having a destructive effect on the entire system of international relations. History will have the last word, and it has already revealed the heavy responsibility that Washington bears for the carnage in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya." Russia has done everything it could to persuade the United States and its allies to abandon their militaristic plans threatening a new round of violence in Syria and destabilization in the Middle East. Today, and at the Council meeting we called yesterday (see S/PV.8231), the Secretary-General expressed his concern about how events are developing. Washington, London and Paris, however, preferred to let the calls for sanity go unheard. The United States and its allies continue to demonstrate a flagrant disregard for international law, although as permanent members of the Security Council they have a special duty to uphold the provisions of the Charter. It was a disgrace to hear an article of the United States Constitution cited as justification of this aggression. We respect the right of every State to honour its own fundamental law. But it is high time that Washington learned that it is the Charter of the United Nations that governs the international code of conduct on the use of force. It will be interesting to see how the peoples of Great Britain and France react to the fact that their leaders are participating in unlawful military ventures that invoke the United States Constitution. These three countries constantly lean towards neocolonialism. They scorn the Charter and the Security Council, which they attempt, shamelessly, to use for their own unscrupulous purposes. They do no serious S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 4/26 18-10891 work in the Council. They refuse to consult with us, while falsely assuring everyone of the opposite. They are undermining the Council's authority. The alleged use of chemical weapons in the Syrian city of Douma has been cited as the excuse for this aggression. After an inspection by our specialists, Russia's representatives stated unequivocally that no such incident took place. Moreover, people were found to have taken part in staging the incident, which was inspired and organized by foreign intelligence services. After the matter emerged, the Syrian authorities immediately invited experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to try to establish all the circumstances through a field mission to Douma. The visa formalities were dealt with quickly and security guarantees given. As the air strikes began, the specialists were already in Syria and preparing to begin their work. I would like to remind Council members and everyone else that on 10 April (see S/PV.8228), when our draft resolution (S/2018/322) on ensuring the security of the work of the OPCW's special mission was blocked, we were assured that there was no need for such a document. They said that no additional effort on the part of the Security Council was necessary to ensure that the mission could reach Douma and conduct an investigation of the chemical incident. Now, however, we can see that we were absolutely right. Yesterday, some of our colleagues — some out of naivety and others out of cynicism — told us that this situation had allegedly arisen owing to the lack of an independent investigative mechanism. The aggression today has shown, as we said, that this had nothing whatever to do with it. The OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mission (JIM) was in place during last year's attack on the Al-Shayrat airbase, but that did not stop the United States from launching a missile attack. After that, the JIM spent six months tailoring its conclusions to justify the strike. We have said over and over again that they do not need any investigations. They did not need them then and they do not need them now. The organizers of the aggression did not even wait for the international organization that is authorized to establish the basic facts to do so. Apparently they had established and instantly identified the perpetrators, after disseminating rumours about them through social networks with the help of the militias they sponsor and the non-governmental organizations that are their clients. This was backed up by mythical secret intelligence. Their masks — or rather the White Helmets — have come off once again. We have become accustomed to the fact that their efforts to achieve their dubious geopolitical aims, the aggressor countries deliberately blame the so-called Assad regime for every evil. There has been a trend recently to shift the blame onto Russia, which, as they tell it, has been unable to restrain Syria's so-called dictator. All of this goes according to a tried-and- true formula, whereby a provocation results in a false accusation, which results in a false verdict, which results in punishment. Is that how these people want to conduct international affairs? This is hooliganism in international relations, and not on a petty scale, given that we are talking about the actions of key nuclear Powers. Several missiles were aimed at the research centre facilities in Barzeh and Jamraya. There have been two recent OPCW inspections there with unrestricted access to their entire premises. The specialists found no trace of activities that would contravene the Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria's scientific research institutions are used for strictly peaceful activities aimed at improving the efficiency of the national economy. Do they want Syria to have no national economy left at all? Do they want to kick this country — only a few years ago one of the most developed in the Middle East — back into the Stone Age? Do they want to finish whatever their sanctions have not yet accomplished? And yet they still contrive false breast-beating about the sufferings of ordinary Syrians. But they have no interest in ordinary Syrians, who are sick of war and glad about the restoration of the legitimate authorities in the liberated territories. Their aggressive actions merely worsen the humanitarian situation that they claim to care about so deeply. They could end the conflict in Syria in the space of 24 hours. All that is needed is for Washington, London and Paris to give the order to their tame terrorists to stop fighting the legitimate authorities and their own people. The attacks were aimed at Syrian military airfields that are used for operations against terrorist organizations, a highly original contribution to the fight against international terrorism, which, as Washington never tires of saying, is the sole reason for its military presence in Syria, something that we are extremely doubtful about. Rather, it is becoming increasingly clear that those in the West who hide 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 5/26 behind humanitarian rhetoric and try to justify their military presence in Syria based on the need to defeat the jihadists are in fact acting in concert with them to dismember the country, a design confirmed by the categorical refusal of the United States and its allies to assist in the restoration of the areas of Syria that have been liberated by Government forces. Their aggression is a powerful blow and a threat to the prospects for continuing the political process under the auspices of the United Nations, which, despite the real difficulties, is moving forward, albeit at varying speed. Why do they bother endlessly pinning all their hopes on the Geneva process when they themselves are driving it straight towards yet another crisis? We urge the United States and its allies to immediately halt their acts of aggression against Syria and refrain from them going forward. We have proposed a brief draft resolution for the Council's attention on which we request that a vote be held at the end of this meeting. We appeal to the members of the Security Council. Now is not the time to evade responsibility. The world is watching. Stand up for our principles. Mrs. Haley (United States of America): I thank the Secretary-General for his briefing today. This is the fifth Security Council meeting in the past week in which we have addressed the situation in Syria. A week has gone by in which we have talked. We have talked about the victims in Douma. We have talked about the Al-Assad regime and its patrons, Russia and Iran. We have spent a week talking about the unique horror of chemical weapons. The time for talk ended last night. We are here today because three permanent members of the Security Council acted. The United Kingdom, France, and the United States acted not in revenge, not in punishment and not in a symbolic show of force. We acted to deter the future use of chemical weapons by holding the Syrian regime responsible for its crimes against humanity. We can all see that a Russian disinformation campaign is in full force this morning, but Russia's desperate attempts at deflection cannot change the facts. A large body of information indicates that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in Douma on 7 April. There is clear information demonstrating Al-Assad's culpability. The pictures of dead children were not fake news; they were the result of the Syrian regime's barbaric inhumanity. And they were the result of the regime's and Russia's failure to live up to their international commitments to remove all chemical weapons from Syria. The United States, France and the United Kingdom acted after careful evaluation of those facts. The targets we selected were at the heart of the Syrian regime's illegal chemical-weapon programme. The strikes were carefully planned to minimize civilian casualties. The responses were justified, legitimate and proportionate. The United States and its allies did everything they could to use the tools of diplomacy to get rid of Al-Assad's arsenal of chemical weapons. We did not give diplomacy just one chance. We gave it chance after chance. Six times. That is how many times Russia vetoed Security Council resolutions to address chemical weapons in Syria. Our efforts go back even further. In 2013, the Security Council adopted resolution 2118 (2013), requiring the Al-Assad regime to destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons. Syria committed to abiding by the Chemical Weapons Convention, meaning that it could no longer have chemical weapons on its soil. President Putin said that Russia would guarantee that Syria complied. We hoped that this diplomacy would succeed in putting an end to the horror of chemical attacks in Syria, but as we have seen from the past year, that did not happen. While Russia was busy protecting the regime, Al-Assad took notice. The regime knew that it could act with impunity, and it did. In November, Russia used its veto to kill the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, the main tool we had to figure out who used chemical weapons in Syria. Just as Russia was using its veto (see S/PV.8107), the Al-Assad regime used sarin, leading to dozens of injuries and deaths. Russia's veto was the green light for the Al-Assad regime to use these most barbaric weapons against the Syrian people, in complete violation of international law. The United States and our allies were not going to let that stand. Chemical weapons are a threat to us all. They are a unique threat — a type of weapon so evil that the international community agreed that they must be banned. We cannot stand by and let Russia trash every international norm that we stand for, and allow the use of chemical weapons to go unanswered. Just as the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons last weekend was not an isolated incident, our response is part of a new course charted last year to deter future use of chemical weapons. Our Syrian strategy has not changed. S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 6/26 18-10891 However, the Syrian regime has forced us to take action based on its repeated use of chemical weapons. Since the April 2017 chemical attack at Khan Shaykhoun, the United States has imposed hundreds of sanctions on individuals and entities involved in chemical-weapons use in Syria and North Korea. We have designated entities in Asia, the Middle East and Africa that have facilitated chemical-weapons proliferation. We have revoked the visas of Russian intelligence officers in response to the chemical attack in Salisbury. We will continue to seek out and call out anyone who uses and anyone who aids in the use of chemical weapons. With yesterday's military action, our message was crystal clear. The United States of America will not allow the Al-Assad regime to continue to use chemical weapons. Last night, we obliterated the major research facility that it used to assemble weapons of mass murder. I spoke to the President this morning, and he said that if the Syrian regime should use this poison gas again, the United States is locked and loaded. When our President draws a red line, our President enforces the red line. The United States is deeply grateful to the United Kingdom and France for their part in the coalition to defend the prohibition of chemical weapons. We worked in lock step; we were in complete agreement. Last night, our great friends and indispensable allies shouldered a burden that benefits all of us. The civilized world owes them its thanks. In the weeks and months to come, the Security Council should take time to reflect on its role in defending the international rule of law. The Security Council has failed in its duty to hold those who use chemical weapons to account. That failure is largely due to Russian obstruction. We call on Russia to take a hard look at the company it keeps, live up to its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Council, and defend the actual principles the United Nations was meant to promote. Last night, we successfully hit the heart of Syria's chemical weapons enterprise, and because of these actions we are confident that we have crippled Syria's chemical weapons programme. We are prepared to sustain this pressure if the Syrian regime is foolish enough to test our will. Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): These are uncertain times and today we deal with exceptional circumstance. Acting with our American and French allies, in the early hours of this morning the United Kingdom conducted coordinated, targeted and precise strikes to degrade Al-Assad's chemical weapons capability and deter their future use. The British Royal Air Force launched Storm Shadow missiles at a military facility some 15 miles west of Homs, where the regime is assessed to keep chemical weapons in breach of Syria's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. A full assessment has not yet been completed, but we believe that the strikes to have been successful. Furthermore, none of the British, United States or French aircraft or missiles involved in this operation were successfully engaged by Syrian air defences, and there is also no indication that Russian air defence systems were employed. Our action was a limited, targeted and effective strike. There were clear boundaries that expressly sought to avoid escalation, and we did everything possible, including rigorous planning, before any action was undertaken to ensure that we mitigated and minimized the impact on civilians. Together, our action will significantly degrade the Syrian regime's ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons and deter their future use. The United Kingdom Prime Minister has said that we are clear about who is responsible for the atrocity of the use of chemical weapons. A significant body of information, including intelligence, indicates that the Syrian regime is responsible for the attack we saw last Saturday. Some of the evidence that leads us to this conclusion is as follows. There are open source accounts alleging that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7 April. The opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials coordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7 April. No other group could have carried out this attack. Indeed, Da'esh, for example, does not even have a presence in Douma. The Syrian regime has been killing its own people for seven years. Its use of chemical weapons, which has exacerbated the human suffering, is a serious crime of international concern as a breach of the customary international law prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and that amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity. Any State is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 7/26 take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The legal basis for the use of force for the United Kingdom is humanitarian intervention, which requires that three conditions to be met. First, there must be convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief. I think that the debates in the Council and the briefings we have had from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and others have proved that. Secondly, it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved. I think that the vetoes have shown us that. Thirdly, the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering. It must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim. I think we have heard both in my intervention in Ambassador Haley's how that has also been met. The history of the Syrian conflict is a litany of threats to peace and violations of international law. The Security Council has met 113 times since the Syrian war started. It was therefore not for want of international diplomatic effort that we find ourselves in this position today. After a pattern of chemical-weapons use since the outbreak of the conflict, Al-Assad defied the international community in 2013 by launching a sarin gas attack on eastern Ghouta, which left more than 800 people dead. Despite the adoption of resolution 2118 (2013) and despite four years of patient engagement, Syria continues to use chemical weapons against its people and has failed to answer a long list of serious questions. The only conclusion we can reach is that Syria has not declared or destroyed all of its chemical weapons, despite its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. This is not assertion on our part but a matter of record, and I draw the Russian Ambassador's attention to his points about Barazan and Jimrya. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) still has unanswered questions and discrepancies. He knows this. We all know this. The Council was briefed by the OPCW Director-General. Resolution 2118 (2013) decides in the event of non-compliance to impose measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. Yet on 28 February 2017, when the United Kingdom together with France, proposed a draft resolution (S/2017/172) taking measures under Chapter VII short of the use of force, Russia vetoed (see S/PV.7893). The very least the Security Council should have been able to do was to follow up on the findings of the report of the Joint Investigative Mechanism by extending its mandate. Yet four times Russia vetoed different proposals from different Council Members to do just that. The Syrian regime and it supporters are responsible for the gravest violations of international humanitarian law in modern history. They have used indiscriminate weapons, notably barrel bombs and cluster munitions, against civilians, and they have deliberately targeted medical facilities and schools, as well as humanitarian personnel and civilian objects. They have used sieges and starvation as methods of warfare, accompanied by attacks on opposition-held civilian areas. The regime has persistently obstructed humanitarian aid and medical evacuations. Tens of thousands of people have been illegally detained, tortured and executed by the regime. This is one of the most serious challenges to the international non-proliferation regime we have ever faced. A State party has violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, it has defied the Security Council, and it has broken international law. Repeated attempts over several years to hold them to account have been met with Russian obstruction and resistance. In the Security Council, we have repeatedly attempted to overcome this obstruction without success. We are faced with a litany of violations, no sense of guilt, no sense of regret, no sense of responsibility, a shameful record, wrapped in a mix of denial, deceit and disinformation. I would invite those like the Russian Ambassador who speak about the Charter to consider the following. It is hard to believe that it is in line with the principles and purposes of the Charter to use or condone the use of chemical weapons, and in the United Kingdom's view it cannot be illegal to use force to prevent the killing of such numbers of innocent people. I will take no lessons in international law from Russia. Despite all the foregoing, we would like to look forward. The United Kingdom, together with France and the United States, will continue to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian crisis. My French colleague will say more about our work in a few moments. We believe that it must comprise four elements. S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 8/26 18-10891 First, Syria's chemical weapons programme must be ended and the chemical weapons stockpiles destroyed once and for all. Secondly, there must be an immediate cessation of hostilities and compliance with all Security Council resolutions, including those that mandate humanitarian access. Thirdly, the regime must return to the Geneva talks and agree to engage on the substantial agenda put forward by the United Nations Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. Fourthly and finally, there must be accountability for the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes in Syria. The Secretary-General rightly highlighted the political process. We propose that, as we members of the Security Council will all be together next weekend in the retreat with the Secretary-General very kindly hosted by Sweden, we use that opportunity to reflect on next steps and the way back to the political process. And with our allies, we stand ready to work with all members of the Security Council towards this end. Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): A week after the chemical massacre in Douma and a day after last night's strikes, I want to say again straight away to those who pretend to wonder that France has no doubt whatsoever about the responsibility of the Al-Assad regime in this attack. This morning we made public a notice comprising information collected by our intelligence services. We dismiss those who try once again to challenge what is obvious and to disguise the facts before the world. For years now, Bashar Al-Assad, with the active support of his allies, has been devising a strategy of destruction designed to crush any opposition with contempt for the most basic principles of humanity and at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Syria. We saw it in Aleppo, in Homs, in eastern Ghouta. For years, the Syrian regime has used the most terrifying weapons of destruction — chemical weapons — to massacre and terrorize its civilian population. We had another demonstration of this in Douma, as we had seen before in Khan Shaykhun, Sarmin, Telemens and Qaminas, where its responsibility was clearly established by the Joint Investigative Mechanism of the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). No one can say he or she did not know. For years, the Syrian regime has systematically and repeatedly violated all its international obligations. The list of such violations is long; it is overwhelming. We all know them: violations of all international chemical-weapons obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Syria has been a party since 2013, and the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the use of such weapons against civilians; violations of the very foundations of international humanitarian law, namely, the principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality; violations of successive Security Council resolutions 2118 (2013), 2209 (2015) and 2235 (2015) and, by the same token, of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations; finally, the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations constitutes a war crime within the meaning of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. In August 2013, the Secretary-General even described the use of chemical weapons as a crime against humanity. In view of the repeated and proven violations by the Damascus regime of all the rules on which our security is based, France has consistently called for strong action by the international community. We have made every effort to ensure that these horrors do not remain without consequences at the United Nations and the OPCW and that they are stopped. The Security Council had undertaken by successive resolutions 2118 (2013), 2209 (2015) and 2235 (2015) to impose coercive measures within the meaning of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations in the event of new violations. It has been prevented from acting in conformity with its commitments because of the vetoes systematically used by Russia. By making such systematic use of its veto in the Security Council, Russia has betrayed the commitment it made to the Council in 2013 to ensure the destruction of the Syrian chemical arsenal. The Security Council's blockade of the mass atrocities committed in Syria is a deadly and dangerous trap from which we must escape. When it ordered the 7 April chemical attack, the Syrian regime knew exactly to what it was exposing itself. It wanted to once again test the international community's threshold of tolerance and it found it. In the face of this attack on the principles, values and rights that are the basis of United Nations action, silence is no longer a solution. We cannot tolerate the downplaying of the use of chemical weapons, which is an immediate danger to the Syrian people and to our collective security. We cannot let the deadly genie of proliferation out of its bottle. We had clearly warned Al-Assad's regime and its supporters that such a transgression would not remain without reaction. We have acted in 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 9/26 accordance with our role and responsibility. We have done so in a controlled, transparent framework, taking care to avoid any escalation with the actors present on the ground. The President of the Republic and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France have spoken on this subject. Some who for years have flouted the most elementary rules of international law now assert that our action is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. I would remind them that the Charter was not designed to protect criminals. Our action is fully in line with the objectives and values proclaimed from the outset by the Charter of the United Nations. The Organization's mission is "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained". This action was indeed necessary in order to address the repeated violations by the Syrian regime of its obligations — obligations stemming from the law, treaties and its own commitments. Finally, our response was conceived within an proportionate framework, with precise objectives. The main research centre of the chemical weapons programme and two major production sites were hit. Through those objectives, Syria's capacity to develop, perfect and produce chemical weapons has been put out of commission. That was the only objective, and it has been achieved. My country, which knew at first hand the devastating effects of chemical weapons during the First World War, will never again allow impunity for their use. We will never stop identifying those responsible, who must be brought to justice. That is the purpose of the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, which we launched last January. Allow me to stress this point: last night's strikes are a necessary response to the chemical massacres in Syria. They are a response in the service of law and our political strategy to put an end to the Syrian tragedy. To be more specific, we have four imperatives on the Syrian issue that are in the immediate interest of Syrians, but also in the interest of the entire international community, as the Secretary-General reminded us, and I want to thank him for his briefing. Let me recall those four imperatives. First, the Syrian chemical-weapons programme must be dismantled in a verifiable and irreversible way. We must spare no effort to establish an international mechanism for establishing responsibility, to prevent impunity and to prevent any repeat attempts to the Syrian regime to use chemical. Secondly, terrorism must be eradicated by permanently defeating Da'esh. That is a long-standing commitment that still requires genuine effort to ensure a definitive victory. Thirdly, there must be a ceasefire throughout the Syrian territory and humanitarian access to the civilian populations, as required by Security Council resolutions. We need full and unhindered humanitarian access in order to help people in need, in accordance with resolution 2401 (2018). In particular, it is essential and urgent that humanitarian convoys safely reach eastern Ghouta on a daily basis. Fourthly, we need a crisis-exit strategy, with a lasting political solution. We can sustainably resolve the Syrian crisis only through an inclusive political solution on the basis of the full implementation of resolution 2254 (2015). We have been calling for that for seven years. It has never been so urgent to implement it and to relaunch genuine negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations with a view to achieving a political transition in Syria. Only that road map will allow us to finally emerge from the Syrian impasse. France is ready to tackle it, as of today, with all those who are ready to put all their efforts to that end. In that spirit, at the initiative of France and in line with President Emmanuel Macron's statement tonight, we will submit as soon as possible a draft resolution on those different aspects with our British and American partners. Today I ask Russia, first and foremost, to call on the Damascus regime to enter into a plan for a negotiated solution so that the long-lasting suffering of Syrian civilians can finally be brought to an end. Mr. Ma Zhaoxu (China) (spoke in Chinese): I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. Just yesterday we were gathered in this Chamber for a meeting on the situation in Syria, during which China made clear its position on the issue of Syria, expressed profound concern about the further escalation of the tensions in Syria and made a clarion call for a political solution to the issue of Syria (see S/PV.8231). I would like to restate the following. S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 10/26 18-10891 China has consistently stood for the peaceful settlement of disputes and against the use of force in international relations. We advocate respect for the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of all countries. Any unilateral military actions that circumvent the Security Council contravene the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, violate the basic norms enshrined in international law and those governing international relations, and would hamper the settlement of the Syrian issue with new compounding factors. We urge all the parties concerned to refrain from any actions that may lead to a further escalation of the situation, to return to the framework of international law and to resolve the issue through dialogue and consultation. China believes a comprehensive, impartial and objective investigation of the suspected chemical-weapons attack in Syria is necessary in order to arrive at a reliable conclusion that can withstand the test of history. Until that happens, no party must prejudge the outcome. There is no alternative to a political settlement in resolving the Syrian issue. The parties concerned in the international community should continue to support the role of the United Nations as the main mediator and should work together unremittingly towards a political settlement of the Syrian issue. I would like to restate that China stands ready to continue its positive and constructive role in the efforts to achieve a political settlement of the Syrian issue in the interests of peace and stability in the Middle East and in the world at large. Mr. Umarov (Kazakhstan): Kazakhstan expresses its serious concern about the sharp escalation of the situation in Syria. We call on all parties to prevent further military escalation and take effective steps aimed at restoring confidence and establishing peace and ensuring security in the long-suffering land of Syria on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. We called yesterday and the day before yesterday, and every time when we have observed increasing tensions, in this Chamber for responsible action in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Who else, if not Council members, should show the world an example of compliance with the principles and provisions of the Charter? We are telling others to strictly follow international law and order, but sadly, yesterday we witnessed a different example. Whatever action taken under whatever good pretext cannot and will not justify the military use of force. Violence carried out against violence will never bring about peace and stability. Kazakhstan's position has always been, and continues to be, that military action is the last resort, to be used only in cases approved by the Security Council. There was no approval by the Council of the military strikes that took place yesterday. "Humanity hoped that the twenty-first century would herald a new era of global cooperation. This, however, may turn out to be a mirage. Our world is once again in danger and the risks cannot be underestimated. The threat is a deadly war on a global scale. Our planet is now on the edge of a new cold war that could have devastating consequences for all humankind." (S/2016/317, annex, p.2) That is an exact quote from the manifesto of my President, entitled "The World. The Twenty-First Century", of 31 March 2016. Just yesterday Secretary- General António Guterres confirmed, to our regret, that the Cold War is back with a vengeance (see S/PV.8231). Kazakhstan appeals to the parties to adhere to both the Charter of the United Nations and international law. We think that the time has come for serious talks encouraging the United States and the Russian Federation, given their standing as the co-Chairs of the International Syria Support Group and their respective influence on the parties, to move actively in the direction of finding middle ground and a political settlement to the conflict in Syria. The United Nations has a vital role to play in convening those negotiations and helping the parties resolve their disputes. My delegation is also extremely concerned about recent developments and the lack of unity among Security Council members with regard to the chemical attack in Syria. From its early days of independence, through a series of practical steps, Kazakhstan has consistently promoted peace initiatives in the international arena to achieve disarmament, non-proliferation and the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, and strongly condemns their development, testing and use. I repeat: Kazakhstan strongly condemns the use of chemical weapons. 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 11/26 It is important to conduct a thorough, objective and impartial investigation into all aspects of the alleged chemical attack in Douma so as to enable the international community to render a fair verdict against the perpetrators, in full compliance with international law. The Government and other parties must thoroughly execute their obligations to comply with the relevant recommendations made by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations by accepting designated personnel, while providing for and ensuring the security of the activities undertaken by such personnel. We would like to remind the members of the Council that Kazakhstan's principled position is not only to condemn in the strongest terms the use of weapons of mass destruction by anyone, in particular against the civilian population, but also to resolve conflicts exclusively by peaceful means. President Nazarbayev stressed in his manifesto that the main tools for resolving disputes among States should be peaceful dialogue and constructive negotiations on the basis of equal responsibility for peace and security, mutual respect and non-inference in the domestic affairs of other States. Preventing the escalation of conflict and ending wars are the most challenging tasks; there are no other reasonable options. World leaders must treat such tasks as the highest priority on the global agenda. We must also respect the sovereignty of States Members of the United Nations and the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter. We urgently need a political solution. Only a political, diplomatic approach, dialogue and confidence-building measures in the spirit of the Charter and Security Council documents on preventive diplomacy and sustaining peace can bring about proper results. We therefore call upon the international community to show political will to overcome differences and resume negotiations, in the belief that only a United Nations-led political transition in accordance with resolution 2254 (2015) can end the Syrian conflict, which, in turn, can advance only if the Council is united. There is great need to continue to support the aims of the Astana talks and further the Geneva negotiations in order to see positive results. All parties at the international, regional and Syrian levels should support an immediate ceasefire and seriously and objectively move forward without any preconditions within the framework of the International Syria Support Group, under the auspices of the United Nations Office in Geneva. We believe that the Syrian people are capable of determining their own future. However, achieving their aspirations for democracy, reconstruction and stability is impossible without genuine international support to contain the negative impact of spoilers and to help Syrians combat terrorism and build their State on a firm and stable foundation. Kazakhstan has always stood for dialogue and the resolution of international conflicts. All parties must ensure that the situation does not further deteriorate. Military means will not work; only political solutions will succeed. My President warned that there will be no winners in any modern war, as everyone will be on the losing side. He proposed to work towards the total elimination of war and a world without conflict. Finally, we again call upon all relevant parties to persist in diplomatic efforts, seek political solutions, engage in dialogue and support the United Nations as the main mediation channel. Kazakhstan is ready to work with all colleagues to preserve peace and security on the basis of mutual understanding, goodwill and determination to make the world a safer place. Mr. Radomski (Poland): I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. Poland views the recent events in the context of repeated chemical-weapons attacks against Syria's civilian population as a consequence of the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators so far. The lack of an appropriate response encourages a greater number of attacks with the use of weapons that are both banned under international law and blatantly inhumane. In such circumstances the international community cannot remain passive. It should take all the necessary measures to prevent such attacks from being repeated in the future, in particular against a defenceless civilian population. At the same time, the competent international bodies should take decisions that will enable the perpetrators to be identified and brought to justice. We fully understand the reasons behind the action taken last night by the United States, the United Kingdom and France against Syrian chemical-weapons capabilities. We support that action, as it is intended to deter chemical-weapons attacks against the people of Syria. Let me underline that it is the primary responsibility of the Security Council to set up an S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 12/26 18-10891 investigative mechanism to examine the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In that context, we reiterate our disappointment with the politically motivated Russian veto on the proposal for establishing an independent, impartial investigative mechanism on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Poland will continue its international efforts aimed at the complete elimination of chemical weapons. The use of such weapons is unacceptable and should be prosecuted vigorously in every instance and location in which they are used. Poland calls for refraining from actions that could escalate the situation. Mr. Skoog (Sweden): I thank you, Sir, for convening today's important meeting. I also thank the Secretary- General for his briefing. The conflict in Syria is now in its eighth year. That is longer than the Second World War. President Al-Assad is responsible for one of the worst and most enduring humanitarian disasters of our time. From the beginning of the crisis, we have witnessed terrible violations and violence and a flagrant lack of respect for international law, in particular by Syrian Government forces. We must also never forget the atrocities committed by Da'esh. As the Secretary-General stated yesterday, we have witnessed "systematic violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international law tout court — in utter disregard for the letter and the spirit of the United Nations Charter". Indeed, there are numerous and flagrant violations of Security Council resolutions, international protocols and conventions Chemical weapons have been used repeatedly in Syria. The Joint Investigative Mechanism concluded that the Syrian authorities were responsible for four chemical-weapons attacks, and Da'esh for two. The use of such weapons is abhorrent, intolerable, a war crime and a crime against humanity. That is why, as has been noted here before, the international community banned their use in the international armed conflict more than a century ago. Subsequent developments have confirmed the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons as a norm of customary international law. We will spare no effort to end the use and proliferation of chemical weapons by State or non-State actors anywhere in the world. Those responsible for such crimes must be held accountable; there can be no further impunity. The Security Council has the primary responsibility to act in response to threats to international peace and security. It is our joint responsibility to uphold the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons in armed conflict. It is our common legal and moral duty to defend the non-proliferation regimes that we have established and confirmed. That is best done through true multilateralism and broad international consensus. In that regard, we welcome the deployment of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon's Fact-finding Mission to Syria and we look forward to its findings. It is regrettable that the Council was unable to come together and agree on a timely, clear and unified response to the repeated use of chemical weapons in Syria. We regret that Russia, again this week, blocked the Council from setting up a truly impartial and independent attribution mechanism. That has contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves now. The use of chemical weapons is a serious violation of international law and it constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Deterrence and prevention of their use is the concern of the entire international community. We therefore share the rage and anger and are appalled by the repeated use of such weapons in Syria. It is necessary to rid Syria of chemical weapons once and for all, and hold those responsible accountable. At the same time, as the Secretary-General said in his statement yesterday, there is an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations, and international law in general. We are at a dangerous moment. We call for restraint and for avoiding any acts that could escalate, or further fuel, tensions. We need to avoid the situation spiralling out of control. Over the past few days, we have tried to ensure that all peaceful means to respond are exhausted. We worked tirelessly so that no stone was left unturned in efforts to find a way for the Council to shoulder its responsibility in accordance with the Charter. We have shared a proposal with Council members to achieve that objective by inviting the Secretary-General to come back to the Council with a proposal. In order to be successful, diplomacy needs to be backed by clear demands. The Secretary-General called on the Council to take action, but regrettably the Council could not unite. It was indeed a missed opportunity, but we stand ready to continue those efforts. 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 13/26 In the light of all that has now happened, it is more critical than ever to avoid an escalation and revert to the track of diplomacy for a political solution in line with resolution 2254 (2015). We reiterate our total support for the United Nations-led political process, which urgently needs to be reinvigorated, as well as the efforts of Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura and the full implementation of resolution 2401 (2018) for the cessation of hostilities. Humanitarian access can wait no longer. A sustainable political solution is the only way to end the suffering of the Syrian people. Let us all then rally around that objective. Let us redouble our efforts and put an end to the long, brutal and meaningless conflict once and for all. Mrs. Gregoire Van Haaren (Netherlands): I would like to begin by thanking the Secretary-General for his briefing today. Both yesterday and today, he spoke of the litany horrors that the Syrian population has experienced in the past seven years, of which the chemical-weapons attacks are among the most gruesome. The world hardly needs reminding of the unspeakable suffering that countless Syrian men, women and children have endured. It is a suffering that comes at the hands of Al-Assad and his allies. The Syrian regime has left the world no doubt as to its willingness to unleash terror on its own population. The repeated use of chemical weapons counts as the most cynical expression of that campaign. Just a week ago, the world was yet again confronted with reports of chemical-weapons use — that time in Douma. All the while, the Russian Federation has made clear to the world its readiness to stand by Al-Assad every step of the way. It has blocked draft resolutions in the Council that could have stopped the violence. I call upon all members of the Security Council to support a collective, meaningful response to the use of chemical weapons. But even if the Council fails to act, it should be clear to the world that the use of chemical weapons is never permissible. Against the background of past horrors and the unabated risk of recurrence, the response by France, the United Kingdom and the United States is understandable. The response was measured in targeting a limited number of military facilities that were used by the Syrian regime in the context of its illegal chemical-weapons arsenal. The action taken by those three countries made clear that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Last night's response was aimed at reducing the capabilities to execute future chemical attacks. But do not let the Syrian regime and the Russian Federation think for a moment that we will waver in our pursuit of full accountability for the perpetrators of past chemical attacks. We will not settle for anything less than an independent, impartial attribution mechanism, so that the culprits of those heinous attacks can be identified and held accountable. We call on the Russian Federation to stop opposing that. The use of chemical weapons is a serious violation of international law and may constitute a war crime or crime against humanity. The Kingdom of the Netherlands strongly believes that the international community must fully uphold the standard that the use of chemical weapons is never permissible. Impunity cannot, and will not, prevail. However, should the Council continue to suffer from the paralysis inflicted by a single permanent member, we must not forget that the United Nations is bigger than the Council alone. We have strong leadership at the top of the United Nations Organization, and we have a powerful General Assembly. Both have to consider all instruments to advance accountability for the use of chemical weapons. The Kingdom of the Netherlands welcomes every option to establish an independent and impartial mechanism, whether within the framework of the United Nations framework or of other relevant international organizations, as long as it results in a mechanism that can establish who is responsible, so that the perpetrators can subsequently be held to account. Any new mechanism should build upon the important work of the Joint Investigative Mechanism and the ongoing Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-finding Mission. It is therefore crucial that the Mission have complete and unhindered access to all information and sites it deems necessary to conduct its investigations with regard to the attack with chemical weapons in Douma last weekend. The international norms against the use of chemical weapons must be respected, and the Syrian people must be relieved from the violence, hardship and injustice that has haunted them for so long. To that end, we call for a political solution and an immediate cessation of violence, as agreed upon earlier by the Council, as well as full, unhindered and immediate humanitarian access. We reiterate our determination to achieve justice for the victims. The need to collectively stand up for the fate of the Syrian people is now more apparent than ever. Mr. Llorentty Solíz (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): My delegation would like to thank the Secretary-General for his presence and participation S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 14/26 18-10891 in this meeting. Bolivia would also like to thank the Russian Federation for its initiative in convening this emergency meeting of the Security Council. Today is a dark day in the history of the Council. Three permanent members have made the decision, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, to take unilateral action against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another State Member of the Organization. Bolivia would like to clearly and categorically express its condemnation of the use of chemical weapons or the use of chemical substances as weapons, as it is unjustifiable and criminal wherever and whenever it happens, by whomever, given it constitutes a serious crime against international law and international peace and security. Those responsible for committing such terrible and criminal acts must be identified, investigated, prosecuted and punished with the utmost rigour. Bolivia continues to demand a transparent and impartial investigation to determine who the culprits are. Aside from that topic, the purpose of this meeting is linked to the fact that, as I stated, three permanent members of the Council have used force in breach of the Charter. It is impossible to combat the alleged violation of international law by violating international law. Bolivia is surprised by the fact that, given that, they have a greater a greater responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, the permanent Council members bypass the United Nations when it suits them. They advocate for multilateralism as long as it serves their purposes and then simply discard it. When multilateralism is no longer in their interest, it no longer concerns them. This is not the only case in which, sadly, unilateral action has been used. We recall, and will not tire in recalling, such use in Iraq in 2003 and in Libya in 2011. Any such action must be authorized by the Security Council under the Charter of the United Nations. All unilateral actions run counter to international law, as well as to the values and principles of the Charter. Bolivia rejects the use and the threat of the use of force. Unilateral actions not only respond to the specific interests of those who carry them out, but are also measures that are — allow me to use the word — imperialist. It so happens that the empires that we mentioned earlier consider themselves morally superior to the rest of the world. They consider themselves exceptional and indispensable, and therefore believe that they are above the law and international law, but in reality the interest of those who unilaterally use force and violate the Charter is not to advance democracy or freedom or to combat the use of chemical weapons. Their goal is to expand their power and domination. What we have witnessed over the past few hours is an attack on the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, which has not begun the work that was scheduled to begin today. A unilateral attack is an attack on multilateral organizations, such as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It is an attack on the Council and its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. It is an attack on the Charter, and it is an attack on the entire international community. I wonder, with regard to the permanent members that used force just a few hours ago, how much money have they invested in arming and training the armed groups in Syria? What natural resources are they after? With what moral authority will they be able invoke the Charter in the future? Sadly, the history of violating the purposes and principles of the Charter is a long one. We mentioned Libya and Iraq, which were recent cases. The unilateral decision concerning Jerusalem also sent another absolutely clear signal of the lack of respect for international law. Who are the ones selling weapons to those who are bombing civilians in Yemen? Who are the ones who rejected the Paris Agreement on climate change? Who are the ones who stepped away from the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration? Who are the ones who build walls? We nevertheless believe that it is also important to talk about history over the long term. Above all, we have been experiencing the consequences of the havoc wreaked by some of the colonialist Powers and of their disdain for international law in the Middle East that dates back over 100 years. We are currently reliving the same scenario in Syria, characterized by total disregard for international law. To a certain extent, we relived it, for example, when the United Kingdom refused to return the sovereignty of the Malvinas islands to Argentina or when the Chagos Archipelago issue was not resolved. I hope that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning that matter will be respected. In other words, we are talking about a whole range of policies that are detrimental to international peace and security. 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 15/26 The Permanent Representative of the United States said that the United States, her country, has its finger on the trigger — "locked and loaded". Of course, we clearly heard her words with a great deal of concern and sadness. We know that the United States has aircraft carriers, satellites, smart bombs and an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and we also know that it has nothing but scorn for international law. But we have this — we have the purposes and principles of the Charter, and ultimately, as history has shown time and again, those principles will prevail. Mr. Alotaibi (Kuwait) (spoke in Arabic): At the outset, we thank Secretary-General António Guterres for his briefing at the beginning of this meeting. The State of Kuwait believes in and is committed to the Charter and principles of the United Nations, respect for the sovereignty of States, non-interference in the internal affairs of other States, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations confers upon the Security Council the responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, whereby it can act on behalf of Member States to carry out that mandate. Article 25 stipulates that the Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. What we have witnessed in the Syrian crisis is an impasse concerning the international community's efforts and the flagrant violation of its resolutions. We have followed very closely and with great concern the dangerous developments in Syria relating to recent military operations in response to the use by the Syrian authorities of chemical weapons prohibited by international law. We underscore that those developments are the result of the impasse in the international community's efforts embodied by the Security Council to reach a political settlement to the bloody conflict in Syria, which has gone on for more than seven years. It has led to hundreds of thousands of casualties and millions of displaced Syrians and resulted in the major destruction of civilian infrastructure in several cities. The chemical weapons issue long enjoyed a unified approach in the Council, which condemned the use of all chemical weapons in Syria regardless of who uses such weapons. Moreover, the Security Council adopted resolution 2118 (2013) unanimously, imposing measures under Chapter VII of the Charter in case of the non-compliance of various parties with its provisions or the continued use in Syria of chemical weapons, which, as we have said, are internationally banned weapons. In order to ensure the implementation of that resolution, in August 2015 the Security Council adopted resolution 2235 (2015), established the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism to determine those responsible for any crime involving the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In fact, the Mechanism identified the perpetrators of such crimes on several incidents. The unfortunate divide in the positions of the Council encouraged the parties to the crisis to continue their violations of resolutions of international legitimacy, international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as well as relevant Security Council resolutions. The most recent resolution 2401 (2018), adopted unanimously, is another example of resolutions being violated. It calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities in order to allow for humanitarian access to the besieged areas. Unfortunately, that humanitarian resolution was not implemented, as we know. The State of Kuwait regrets this escalation and calls on members to overcome their differences within the Security Council and to restore the unity of the Council so that it can shoulder its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. We also call on members to bridge the existing gap by establishing a new, independent, impartial and professional mechanism to investigate the use of any chemical weapons in Syria and to determine who is accountable for such crimes. We reiterate our full readiness to participate in any effort aimed at achieving a compromise among the positions of members of the Council so as to ensure that those who are responsible for these crimes will be held accountable and punished, and to preserve the non-proliferation regime. It is certain that there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis. Intensive efforts must be made to spare the Syrian people further suffering. We reiterate our principled and firm position regarding the Syrian crisis, which is in line with the position of the League of Arab States calling for the preservation of the unity, sovereignty and independence of Syria; putting an end to acts of violence and the killing; avoiding bloodshed; saving Syrian lives; and reaching a peaceful settlement under the auspices of the United Nations on the basis of the 2012 Geneva First Communique, and resolution 2254 (2015), through a process of political transition S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 16/26 18-10891 with the involvement of all Syrian parties so that the Syrian people can achieve their legitimate aspirations. Mr. Alemu (Ethiopia): I would like to thank the Peruvian presidency for responding quickly to the request for the holding of this meeting, and we would like to express our appreciation to Russia for making the request. It would have been a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the Council if it had failed to meet in the light of what transpired yesterday. We also thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and his presence today. For those of us who are elected members of the Security Council, the responsibility is indeed extremely heavy, to the point of being unbearable. Let us not forget that we are here representing 193 countries, to which, like permanent members, we have made solemn promises that are generally encapsulated in the Charter of the United Nations. For those of us who are members of the African Union, an organization that for obvious historical reasons attaches huge importance to scrupulous adherence to the principles of the Charter, the obligation that we have to tell the truth and to stand up and be counted for peace is also enormously heavy — all the more so when the parties involved, from our own national perspective, are friends. It was only yesterday that the Secretary-General urged Member States to act responsibility in these dangerous circumstances and stressed the need to avoid the serious situation from spiralling out of control (see S/PV.8231); indeed, he repeated the same sentiment today. We have also been repeatedly expressing our concern that the dynamic in Syria could lead to devastating consequences not only nationally, but regionally and internationally. No doubt, the strike undertaken by the three countries yesterday appears not to have led to the situation spiralling out of control. We do not take that lightly, even though it might be difficult to be consoled by that fact in the light of the potential danger we still face. That is why we call for maximum restraint, the exercise of wisdom and a quick return to dialogue among the major powers that have enormous influence on the current situation in Syria. As we stressed yesterday and previously, it is absolutely vital to resume the path of diplomacy. The alternative is without a doubt catastrophic beyond our imagination. We hope that no one wants to see that happen, but it could if we do not act together with a huge sense of urgency to defuse the current tension and reduce further military escalation. By no means do we overlook the genesis of this tragedy we are facing. It has to do with the alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma. At least, that is what ratcheted up the tension, leading to what took place yesterday, which is difficult to defend as being consistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. But there is also one point that makes it difficult for us to understand what took place yesterday. The Fact-finding Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is arriving, or, as just said by the Secretary-General, has already arrived in Syria to investigate the alleged use of chemical weapons, which is the cause of all this tension. In the light of that, you must excuse us, Mr. President, if we were a little perplexed. While the priority of the time is clearly to avert the further escalation of the latest development, we are not underestimating the importance of ensuring accountability for any confirmed use of chemical weapons in Syria. In that regard, the OPCW Fact-finding Mission should be allowed to conduct a thorough investigation to establish the facts related to the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma. The sustainable way to end impunity, which we believe is extremely important, to deter and stop the use of chemicals as weapons is through united and concerted action, including through an attribution mechanism that the Council could and must set up. That has become all the more critical now, when, as we all know, truth is becoming very difficult to establish. An opportunity has been created for parties and even individuals to claim the veracity of their own facts. We know that we are all disappointed by the current deadlock, but that should not justify overlooking the obligation to adhere to the principles of the Charter. Let me conclude by referring to what the Secretary-General said yesterday. I wanted to refer to it again because it reflects the truth and is, therefore, worth repeating: "[T]he Cold War is back with a vengeance — but with a difference. The mechanisms and the safeguards to manage the risks of escalation that existed in the past no longer seem to be present." (S/PV.8231, p. 2) That is why we must appeal to the members of the Security Council, especially the Permanent Five, to help create a situation where diplomacy would have the upper hand and the primacy of politics will be our guide for coming out of what is a troubled moment in our 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 17/26 recent history. The Geneva process and Special Envoy de Mistura need the unqualified support of the Council. Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): I thank Secretary-General Guterres for his statement, which clearly illustrates the perspective of the United Nations on this issue. What took place last night was clearly not a surprise to any member of the Security Council. It remained to establish only the day and the time. In fact, as we said in our statement yesterday (see S/PV.8232), we are concerned about the rhetoric that we are hearing and where it will lead us. It has now led us to where we feared and did not want to go — military attacks against Syria. Yesterday in this Chamber, Secretary-General António Guterres spoke about the memory of the Cold War, which in fact returned with a vengeance in the early hours of the morning, reminding the peoples of the world of the conflict of interests that still exists between two blocs. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea has followed with great concern the reports on the attacks carried out by the United States, with the support of the armed forces of France and the United Kingdom. According to estimates, the coalition fired more than 100 cruise missiles and air-to-ground missiles from two United States naval ships stationed in the Red Sea, as well as from tactical warplanes that overflew the Mediterranean and B-1B bombers from another area. The coalition launched a coordinated attack on three targets, which included a scientific research centre in an area of Damascus, a facility to the west of Homs and a command post near that facility. While surgical and very selective, last night's strikes are a violation of Chapter V of the Charter of the United Nations and of the principles and norms of international law. It is important to recall that, according to Article 24 of the Charter, the Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Members of the Council must therefore refrain from creating situations of insecurity and instability. The Security Council should not highlight or disregard the fact that those strikes may have unpredictable and potentially tragic consequences for the Middle East by encouraging or justifying the development of nuclear programmes in order to prevent any further aggression. Experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are already in Douma to carry out investigations. Until we have reliable and irrefutable proof of the alleged chemical attack in Douma last week, the Republic of Equatorial Guinea is of the view that no aggression can be justified. Our delegation also reiterates that, in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter, in the case of any dispute that is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it is imperative to seek a solution first and foremost through negotiation, mediation or other peaceful means. History continues to show us that military interventions never resolves conflicts but, instead, cause them to proliferate and to continue, causing devastation and destruction. We must ensure that that does not happen again in the case of the Syrian Arab Republic. We again point out that the military intervention in Libya in 2011 and its consequences today should be a clear lesson to the international community. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea opposes the use of force in international relations. We accept its use only when it is in line with the principles of international law and the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. As we have already said, in the case of Syria, it would not bring about any substantial change in the overall situation in the country. We reiterate that political agreement is the only viable way to find a lasting solution to the Syrian problem. All the parties involved must resolve their differences through dialogue, agreement and consultation. That process requires the support of the international community. The failure of diplomacy only exacerbates the suffering of the Syrian people and is the highest expression of the Security Council's failure. Equatorial Guinea continues to believe that, in order to fully clarify the 7 April events in Douma, a thorough, impartial and objective investigation must be carried out in order to reach a reliable conclusion. We urge the OPCW Fact-finding Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic to promptly carry out an investigation and to report to the Security Council on its conclusions as soon as possible. We also again reiterate the urgent need to establish, under the auspices of the Secretary- General, a professional, independent and transparent investigative body to attribute responsibility for and identify the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons so that those responsible, whoever they are, are brought to international justice. Only in that way can that thorny issue achieve consensus and unity among the members of the Security Council. S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 18/26 18-10891 I conclude my statement by reiterating the unequivocal position of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, which is that we wholeheartedly condemned the use of chemical weapons by whomever. Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue (Côte d'Ivoire) (spoke in French): The delegation of Cote d'Ivoire would like to thank the Secretary-General for his presence and for his briefing on the latest developments in Syria following the air strikes carried out by certain members of the Security Council during the night of Friday, 13 April. Côte d'Ivoire requests all the actors involved in the Syrian conflict at the various levels to show restraint and not to further complicate the disastrous situation in which the Syrian people find themselves. Weapons and bombs have struck Syria too often in disregard for our collective action towards peace. Is it necessary to recall that, by signing the Charter of the United Nations in 1945, the founding Members sought to establish a new world order based on multilateralism and its resolve to make peace a universal common good, the maintenance of which was entrusted to the United Nations and the Security Council as its primary responsibility? The Secretary- General has just reminded us of that. In every situation in which the Charter of the United Nations has guided the action of the international community, respect for its principles has always enabled us to overcome the most inextricable challenges, thereby preventing many disasters for humanity. Based on its strong conviction in the virtues of multilateralism, my country therefore believes that resorting to force in order to maintain international peace and security must be authorized by the Security Council in order to preserve its essential legal authority and to thereby prevent any deviation or abuse. Only a Security Council that is strong and representative of our time will be able to mobilize all Member States of the United Nations in support of its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. Côte d'Ivoire would therefore like to express its deep concern over the inability of the Council to relaunch the dialogue in Syria and to sideline the supporters of a military solution. Côte d'Ivoire would like to take this opportunity to reiterate its unequivocal condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, no matter who is responsible, and we call for the establishment of a multilateral mechanism to attribute responsibility and to bring those responsible for the use of chemical weapons to justice in the appropriate international tribunals. In that context, my delegation reiterates its support for the investigation to be conducted by the Fact-finding Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in order to shed light on the allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Douma in eastern Ghouta. Côte d'Ivoire once again urges the members of the Security Council to unite with a view to putting an end to their differences and to effect the establishment of this mechanism to establish responsibility, which all the members of the Council would like to see set up. Côte d'Ivoire would like to reassert its conviction and its position of principle that the response to the crisis in Syria cannot be a military response. Quite to the contrary; it must be sought in the framework of dialogue and an inclusive political process, as envisioned in the road map set out in resolution 2254 (2015). The time has come to decisively give every opportunity for dialogue a chance and to make sure that the Council is in step with history. The President (spoke in Spanish): I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Peru. Peru notes with great concern the developments in Syria. In the face of military action, as a response to information on the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population in the country, we reiterate the need to keep the situation from spiralling out of control and causing a greater threat to stability in the region and to international peace and security. Peru condemns any use of chemical weapons as an atrocity crime. For that reason, we have supported the urgent deployment to Syria of an Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-finding Mission, as well as the establishment of a dedicated, independent, objective and impartial attribution mechanism. We regret the stalemate in the Security Council and our inability to take a decision on the issue. In that regard, Peru encourages the Secretary-General to redouble his efforts in accordance with the prerogatives entrusted to him in the Charter of the United Nations with a view to helping to resolve the stalemate in the Council and to establish the attribution mechanism. Peru believes that any response to the crimes committed in Syria, as well as a solution to the conflict in Syria overall, must be consistent with the Charter, with international law and with the Council's resolutions. 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 19/26 As the Secretary-General has reminded us, the Council is the organ with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and it is up to its members to act in unity and to uphold that responsibility. Peru joins the Secretary-General's urgent appeal to all Member States to act with restraint in these dangerous circumstances and to avoid any act that could escalate the situation and worsen the suffering of the Syrian people. My delegation reaffirms its commitment to continue working in order to achieve sustainable peace in Syria, to guarantee protection for the civilian population, to ensure that there is no impunity for atrocious crimes, as well as to help defuse the situation. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. The representative of the United Kingdom has asked for the floor to make a further statement. Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): I should like to respond to the remarks made by the Ambassador of Bolivia about the United Kingdom. We have no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas. Successive British Governments have made clear that sovereignty will not be transferred against the wishes of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islanders voted overwhelmingly to maintain their current constitutional arrangements with the United Kingdom. Turning to the Chagos archipelago, the United Kingdom is participating in the proceedings before the International Court of Justice, even as we disagree with jurisdiction in that case. The President (spoke in Spanish): The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has asked for the floor to make a further statement. Mr. Llorentty Solíz (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): I will be very brief and limit myself to reading out what it says in the special declaration on the question of the Malvinas Islands, signed by all the Heads of State and Government of Latin America and the Caribbean. The Heads of State and Government: "Reiterate their strongest support for the legitimate rights of the Argentine Republic in the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas and the permanent interest of the countries of the region in the Governments of the Argentine Republic and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland resuming negotiations in order to find — as soon as possible — a peaceful and definitive solution to such dispute, pursuant to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations .". That would include in particular General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX). The President (spoke in Spanish): I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. Mr. Ja'afari (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): I welcome the presence of the Secretary- General at this very important moment in the history and the work of the Security Council. In his important statement yesterday, the Secretary-General warned that the Cold War had returned (see S/PV.8231). That is exactly right. We all agree with the relevance of this remark. I take this opportunity to recall those who relaunched the logic of the Cold War. Of course, we all remember, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, that a number of philosophical books were published here in this country, including The End of History and the Last Man, by Francis Fukuyama. Another author, American thinker Samuel Huntington, wrote an essay entitled The Clash of Civilizations. Those two works marked the return of the Cold War logic. Indeed, the message of those two books was as follows: To the people of the world, you must take the American approach and surrender to the American will or we will attack you. "My way or the highway", as the American saying goes. That marked the return of the Cold War philosophy. Lies serve no purpose. They serve the person who lies once and only once. Lies deceive only once. When a lie is repeated it becomes exposed and exposes the person who is lying. My colleague the Ambassador of France announced that the aggression of his country, along with the United States and the United Kingdom, was carried out on behalf of the international community. If that is the case, I wonder which international community my colleague the French Ambassador is speaking of. Is he speaking of a real international community that S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 20/26 18-10891 actually exists? Has the international community that he represents authorized this tripartite aggression against my country? Did their Governments obtain a mandate from this international community to attack my country? My American, French and British colleagues claimed that they have bombarded centres for the production of chemical weapons in Syria. If the Governments of these three countries knew the actual location of these production centres that they claim to have bombarded, why did they not share that information with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)? Why did they not share this information with the Fact-finding Mission in Damascus before attacking my country? It is just a question I am putting to the Security Council. Furthermore, I would like to assure Council members that the OPCW investigation team arrived today at noon. Obviously, the team was delayed for a full day getting from Beirut to Damascus before the attack, for reasons that we do not know, as though the team was asked not to go to Damascus until after the bombing took place. But the team did reach Damascus today at noon and will hold a meeting in two hours, at 7 p.m., Damascus time, with the local authorities. My Government will, of course, provide every support to the team so that it may carry out its mission successfully. The facility of the Barzah Research and Development Centre, the building that was targeted by the tripartite aggression, was visited twice last year by experts from the OPCW. They inspected it, after which they gave us an official document stating that Syria had complied with its obligations under the OPCW and that no chemical activities had taken place in the inspected building. If the OPCW experts gave us an official document confirming that the Barzah Centre was not used for any type of chemical activity in contravention to our obligations with respect to the OPCW, how do Council members reconcile that with what we have heard this morning? How do they reconcile that with all the accusations and claims that the aggression targeted a chemical-weapons production centre? My American colleague said that the time for discussion is over — that it was over yesterday (see S/PV.8231). If that is so, then what are we doing today as diplomats an ambassadors at the Security Council? Our mission here is to speak, to explain what happened, to shed light on all the issues. We are not here in the Security Council simply to justify an aggression. How can we state that the discussion is over? No, the discussion is continuing in this Chamber, if the idea is to put an end to aggressions or to implement the provisions of the Charter and international law. That is why we are here. My British and French colleagues spoke of a plan of action and have invited the Secretary-General to implement it before the Council and the Syrian Government have agreed to it. Their plan of action is in fact a very strange one. But I would like to present on behalf of my Government a counter plan of action, which, I assume, should have been presented today. First, we should read the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and define and recall the responsibilities of the three States in maintaining international peace and security, rather than threatening it. I happen to have three versions of the Charter, two in English and one in French. Perhaps these three States should read what the Charter actually states. Secondly, these three States must immediately stop supporting the armed terrorist groups that are active in my country. Thirdly, they should put an end to the lies and fabrications being used to justify their aggression against my country. Fourthly, these three States should realize that, after seven years of a terrorist war that was imposed on my country, Syria, a war carried out by these three countries and their agents in the region, their missiles, airplanes and bombs will not weaken our determination to defeat and destroy their terrorists. This will not prevent the Syrian people from deciding their own political future without foreign intervention. I will repeat this for the thousandth time — the Syrian people will not allow any foreign intervention to define our future. I promised yesterday that we will not remain inactive in the face of any aggression, and we have kept our promise. I will explain how we have kept our promise. Allow me now to address those States that remain committed to international law. I would tell them that the Syrian Arab Republic and its many friends and allies are perfectly capable of dealing with the brutal aggression that my country has had to face. But what we are asking the diplomats and ambassadors today who are committed to international legitimacy and the Charter to call on the United States, Britain and France to read the provisions of the United Nations Charter, in particular those pertaining to respect for 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 21/26 the sovereignty of States and to the non-use of force in international relations. Perhaps the Governments of these three countries will realize, if only once, that their role in the Security Council is to maintain international peace and security rather than to undermine it. As I just said, I have three copies of the Charter, and I would ask the Council's secretariat to distribute them to the three delegations so that they might enlighten or awaken themselves from their ignorance and their tyranny. In flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter, the United States, Britain and France, at 3:55 a.m. on Saturday, 14 April, Damascus time, attacked the Syrian Arab Republic by launching some 110 missiles against Damascus and other Syrian cities and areas. In response to this terrible aggression, the Syrian Arab Republic has exercised its legitimate right in line with Article 51 of the Charter to defend itself, and we have defended ourselves against this evil attack. Syrian air defences were able to intercept a number of rockets launched by the tripartite aggression, while some of them reached the Barzah Centre in — not outside — the capital Damascus. The Centre in that location that includes laboratories and classrooms. Fortunately, the damage was only material. Some of those modern, charming and smart rockets were intercepted, while others targeted a military site near Homs, wounding three civilians. The Governments of these three States prepared for this evil attack by issuing aggressive statements through their senior officials, saying that their only excuse for preventing the advance of the Syrian Arab Army against armed groups was these allegations of the use of chemical weapons. Indeed, in a race against time, the armed terrorist groups did receive instructions from those aggressors to fabricate this charade of the use of chemical weapons in Douma. They found false witnesses and manipulated the alleged crime scene as they did before, which served as the pretext for this scandalous aggression. This can only be explained by the fact that the original aggressors — the United States of America, Britain and France — decided to interfere directly in order to avenge the defeat of their proxies in Ghouta. In fact, those who fabricated the charade of the chemical attack in Ghouta were arrested and admitted on television that it was a fabricated attack. We have a video of that if the presidency wishes to see it. I would like to draw the attention of those who align themselves with the Charter of the United Nations and international legitimacy to the fact that this evil aggression sends another message from those three aggressors to the terrorist groups that they can continue using chemical weapons in the future and committing their terrorist crimes, not against Syrian civilians only but in other countries. There is no doubt about that. In 146 letters we have drawn the Council's attention to the plans of the terrorist groups to use chemical weapons in Syria. There are 146 letters that have been sent to the Council and the Secretariat. Today, some Council members are suddenly reinventing the wheel. The Council knows that this aggression took place just as a fact-finding team from the OPCW was supposed to arrive in Syria at the request of the Syrian Government to examine the allegations of a chemical attack in Douma. Obviously, the main message that these aggressors are sending to the Council and to the world is that they are not actually interested in the Council's mandate and that they do not want a transparent and independent investigation. They are trying to undermine the work of the investigative mission and anticipating the results. They are trying to put pressure on that mission to conceal their lies and fabrications, just as happened six years ago, in 2013, when Mr. Sellström went to Khan Al-Assal from Damascus, as I have explained in a previous statement to the Council. This morning's attack was not just an attack on Syria, as my dear friend, the representative of Bolivia said; rather, it was an attack against the Charter, the Council, international law and 193 members of this Organization. The attempt by Washington, D.C., London and Paris to ensure the failure of the United Nations working groups and fact-finding missions is systematic. While those three States boast of their support for these bodies, behind the closed doors of the Organization they pressure and blackmail them not to carry out the mandates for which they were established. We recall what took place with the investigative missions in Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia and Africa. No investigative mission can be successful if it is subjected to political blackmailing. It cannot succeed. Of the three aggressors, I say they are liars. They are compulsive liars. They are hypocrites. They are attempting to ensure the failure of any action of the Organization that does not serve their interests. Ever since the Organization was established, they have tried to undermine the efforts of international investigative bodies. They have tried to exploit them. I need only mention Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, and Africa. The aggressors exhausted the Council agendas for decades S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 22/26 18-10891 with their attempts to divert its attention from its role in the maintenance of international peace and security. They used the Council to pursue their aggressive policy of interference and colonialism. Yesterday, in the press of the United States and of the West, the main theme was lying in the context of a campaign that was claiming success, but they know it was a lie. While these three Governments were launching their evil aggression against my country, Syria, and while my country's air defence system was countering the attacks with a great deal of bravery — one hundred missiles were destroyed and did not reach their target — the American Secretary of Defense and the Army Chief of Staff were before the American and international press in an outrageous surrealist scenario. They were not actually able to answer objective questions. Millions of television viewers must have pitied those two men because they were like dunces, repeating phrases without any meaning, and were unable to respond to the legitimate questions of a journalist about their attempts to target chemical weapons facilities and the danger that posed to civilians if the alleged chemical weapons were to spread. They did not respond. They were also unable to respond to a journalist who asked the Secretary of Defense, "You said yesterday that you had no proof that the Syrian Government was responsible for the attack in Douma. What happened in the past few hours? What made you change your mind?" His answer was that he received confirmation from intelligence services. The Syrian Arab Republic condemns in the strongest terms this tripartite attack, which once again shows undeniably that those three countries pay no heed to international legitimacy, even though they repeatedly say they do. Those countries have revealed their belief in the law of the jungle and the law of the most powerful even as they are permanent members of the Security Council, an organ entrusted with maintaining international peace and security and with stopping any aggression, in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Charter. The Syrian Arab Republic is disgusted by the scandalous position of the rulers in Sheikhdom of Qatar, who supported this Western colonial tripartite aggression by allowing planes to take off from the American Al Udeid air base in Qatar. It is not surprising that the little boys of the Sheikhdom of Qatar took that position. They have supported terrorist gangs, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and others, in a variety of ways in order to destabilize Arab countries, including Syria. The Syrian Arab Republic is asking the international community, if it exists — we have heard a new definition of the international community today — and the Security Council to firmly condemn this aggression, which will exacerbate the tensions in the region and which is a threat to international peace and security throughout the world. I call upon those who are committed to international legitimacy to imagine with me the meeting in which the United States National Security Council decided to carry out this attack. I cannot help wondering what was said. "We have no legal basis for attacking Syria. We have no proof that a toxic chemical weapons attack took place in Douma, but let us set that aside. We did not need international legitimacy or any legal argument to conduct military interventions in the past." I am just imagining the discussion that might have taken place among them yesterday. "This military action is necessary for us and for our allies in order to distract public attention in our countries from the scandals involving our own political elite and ensure that the corrupt system in some Gulf States pays the price of such aggression. Most important is how to protect the terrorism that we have sponsored in Syria for years." The President (spoke in Spanish): Members of the Council have before them document S/2018/355, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by the delegation of the Russian Federation. The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Russian Federation Against: Côte d'Ivoire, France, Kuwait, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 23/26 Abstaining: Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Peru The President (spoke in Spanish): The draft resolution received 3 votes in favour, 8 against and 4 abstentions. The draft resolution has not been adopted, having failed to obtain the required number of votes. I now give the floor to those Council members who wish to make statements after the voting. Mr. Skoog (Sweden): We voted against the draft resolution submitted by the Russian Federation (S/2018/355) because we believe that its language was unbalanced. It was not comprehensive and failed to address all of our concerns about the current situation. At the same time, we agree with the Secretary-General that actions must be consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and with international law in general. In our national statement delivered earlier today, we explained our view on the current situation in Syria and condemned the use of chemical weapons and the many other flagrant violations of international law in Syria. We also underscore the importance of a sustainable political solution. As members of the Security Council, we reiterate that we must unite and exercise our responsibility with regard to the situation in Syria. If there is any encouragement today, it is that it appears that everyone around the table insists on a sustainable political solution as the only way to end the suffering of the Syrian population. We therefore reiterate our full support for the United Nations political process, which must now be urgently reinvigorated, including through strong support for the efforts of Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. Mr. Alemu (Ethiopia): We would like to explain why we abstained in the voting on the draft resolution proposed by Russia (S/2018/355). We abstained not because the text does not contain a great deal of truth — indeed it does — or because it does not adhere to principles to which we should all adhere; it does. We abstained on the grounds of pragmatism. We know that even if it had received nine votes, it would have been vetoed. Therefore it would have had only symbolic value. Nonetheless, that is not unimportant. However, for us, it is critical to defuse tensions and prevent the situation from spiralling out of control. We would like to play a constructive role in that regard. Mr. Umarov (Kazakhstan): Kazakhstan abstained in the voting today on draft resolution S/2018/355 because we believe that all disputes among States should be resolved through peaceful dialogue and constructive negotiations on the basis of equal responsibility for peace and security. As I mentioned in my statement earlier today, we call for all parties to refrain from actions that could aggravate tensions and cause the situation to spiral out of control. Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): Our abstention reflects the frustration of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea with regard to the failure to adopt a resolution to establish an attribution and accountability mechanism to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons. We reiterate our call for a consensus-based resolution that would establish that mechanism and prevent a repeat of the action we witnessed yesterday. In that regard, we recall that the Swedish initiative was endorsed by the 10 elected members of the Council. We could introduce the required changes into the draft resolution to enable its adoption by consensus, which would allow the mechanism to be established under the auspices of the Secretary-General. Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): The draft resolution submitted by Russia (S/2018/355) has just been categorically rejected. The result of the voting sends a clear message that the members of the Council understand the circumstances, reason for and objectives of the military action taken yesterday. The Council understands why such action, which has been acknowledged as proportional and targeted, was required. No one has refuted the fact that the use of chemical weapons cannot be tolerated and must be deterred. That is the key point. It is important that we now look towards the future. As I have just said, the air strikes were necessary and served to uphold international law and our political strategy to end the tragic situation in Syria. It is for that reason that, together with our American and British partners, France will work with all members of the Security Council to submit a draft resolution on the political, chemical and humanitarian aspects of the Syrian conflict with a view to devising a lasting political solution to the conflict. Mrs. Gregoire Van Haaren (Netherlands): The Kingdom of the Netherlands voted against the draft resolution proposed by the Russian Federation S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 24/26 18-10891 (S/2018/355) because the text does not provide for the urgent action that the Security Council must take in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It ignores the very essence of the action that must be taken by the Council. It should condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria, protect its people and hold accountable those responsible. Today's draft resolution does none of the above. Mr. Alotaibi (Kuwait) (spoke in Arabic): Kuwait voted against draft resolution S/2018/355. At the time when the State of Kuwait reiterates its adherence to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which prohibits the threat or use of force as a means to settle disputes and requires them to be settled by peaceful means, yesterday's use of force was the result of efforts to disrupt the will of the international community, specifically by hindering the Security Council in its determination to take measures at its disposal to end the ongoing use of internationally prohibited chemical weapons in Syria. That is a flagrant violation of resolution 2118 (2013), which unequivocally expresses the Security Council's intention to act under Chapter VII of the Charter when one party or several parties fail to comply with its provisions or in the case of the continued use of chemical weapons in Syria. The Council must once again show its unity and bear its responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, in accordance with the Charter. It must agree on a new independent, impartial and professional mechanism for investigating any use of chemical weapons, bring those responsible for such crimes to account, and ensure that they do not enjoy impunity. We call for intensified efforts and a return to the political track, under the auspices of the United Nations, with the aim of reaching a peaceful settlement to the crisis based on the first Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex) and resolution 2254 (2015). Mr. Ma Zhaoxu (China) (spoke in Chinese): China has always opposed the use of force in the context of international relations. We advocate for respecting the sovereignty, independence, unity, and the territorial integrity of all countries. Any unilateral military action bypassing the Security Council runs counter to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, violates the principles of international law and the basic norms governing international relations and, in the present case, will further complicate the Syrian issue. Based on that principled position, China voted in favour of draft resolution S/2018/355, proposed by the Russian Federation. I would like to emphasize here that a political settlement is the only viable pathway to solving the Syrian issue. China urges the parties involved to remain calm, exercise restraint, return to the framework of international law and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiations We support the role of the United Nations as the main channel for mediation, and we will spare no effort to reach a political settlement of the situation in Syria together with the international community. Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): Today is the day when the Security Council and the world community should raise their voices in the defence of peace, security, the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Every delegation in this Chamber is a sovereign country, and no one should attempt to pressure or dictate to any of us how to interpret international law and the Charter of the United Nations, or how to consult our own consciences. We have never hesitated to vote in accordance with the dictates of international law, the Charter, our conscience and truth. Today's meeting confirms that the United States, Britain and France, all permanent members of the Security Council, continue to plunge world politics and diplomacy into a realm of myths, myths that have been created in Washington, London and Paris. That is dangerous work, representing a kind of diplomacy that traffics in myths, hypocrisy, deceit and counterfeit ideas. Soon we will arrive at the diplomacy of the absurd. These three countries create these myths and try to force everyone to believe in them. We counter their myths with facts and a true picture of what is going on. But they do not want to see or hear. They simply ignore what they are told. They have come up with a legend about Russia as a constant wielder of the Security Council veto whom they purposely provoke into using the veto so as to then present themselves in a favourable light, especially right now. They are distorting international law and replacing its concepts with counterfeits. They are unabashedly hypocritical. They demand an investigation, and before the investigation has even started they name and punish the guilty parties. Why did they not wait for the result of the investigation that they themselves all called for? The Security Council is paralysed because of these countries' persistent deceptions both of us 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 25/26 and the international community. They are not only putting themselves above international law, they are trying to rewrite it. They violate international law and try to convince everyone that their actions are legal. The representative of the United Kingdom gave three reasons justifying the missile strikes based on the concept of humanitarian intervention. They are trying to substitute them for the Charter. That is why we and other countries did not support it then and do not support it now, because we do not want it to become the justification for their crimes. We demand once again that that they halt this aggression immediately and refrain from the illegal use of force in the future. Today we once again showed the whole world how we play our underhanded games. In Soviet times there was a pamphlet entitled Where Does the Threat to Peace Come From? that described Washington and the NATO countries' military preparations. Nothing has changed. The threat to peace comes from exactly the same place. Look at what they say and listen to the war drums that they are beating in Washington today in the guise of hypocritical concern for democracy, human rights and people in general. The five-minute rule in the latest presidential note's rules of procedure (S/2017/507) will not allow me to list them, because the list is too long. I could cite other examples, as for example how the President of France showed interest in a conversation with President Putin in an investigation in Douma and was ready to send French experts there when that idea suddenly disappeared. Because a different algorithm was put forward. That is obvious. Today is a sad day. It is a sad day for the world, the United Nations and its Charter, which has been blatantly violated, and the Security Council, which has shirked its responsibilities. I should like to believe that will not see another day as bad as today. The President (spoke in Spanish): I shall now make another statement in my national capacity. Peru abstained in the voting because we believe that the draft resolution did not adequately reflect the need to guarantee due accountability for the use of chemical weapons throughout Syrian terrority and because its language is imbalanced and would not help to restore the Council's unity, which is critical to addressing the events in Syria in a comprehensive manner. I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. The representative of the United Kingdom has asked to make another statement. Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): I think it is obvious why we voted against the draft resolution. We support completely what the French representative laid out about next steps and we will work tirelessly to that objective, along with partners on the Council. The Russian Ambassador referred to myths. These are not our myths. The way forward in the Council has been blocked. The second of our own criteria for taking this action on an exceptional basis must be objectively clear. There is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved. In the 113 meetings of the Council on Syria, I think that has been demonstrated absolutely crystally clear. The United Kingdom believes that it cannot be illegal to prevent the use of force to save lives in such numbers as we have seen in Syria. The reason we took this action — our legal basis — was that of humanitarian intervention. We believe that that is wholly within the principles and purposes of the United Nations. The President (spoke in Spanish): The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic has ask for the floor to make a new statement. I now give him the floor. Mr. Ja'afari (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): I apologize for requesting the floor once again. The scene that we have just witnessed is quite sad. There are those in the Council who prefer to overlook an enormous elephant that we have spoken of before. The elephant is the direct American military occupation of one-third of my country's territory — a direct American military occupation of one-third of the Syrian Arab Republic territory. However, there are those who speak of minor details which they believe to be pivotal. No, the political scene is far more dangerous than that. We are a State whose sovereignty has been facing a direct military violation by a permanent member of the Council. That is the true scene, and not the allegations and the film prepared by the terrorist organization known as the White Helmets established by British intelligence. We need to focus on the main scene here. Some would claim that they are fighting Da'esh in Syria and Iraq. However they have given air cover to Da'esh. Whenever the Syrian Arab Army makes advances against Da'esh, United States, British and French war planes bombard our military sites. Why? To prevent our decisive victory against that entity. However, they failed S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 26/26 18-10891 and we were able to achieve victory against Da'esh with our brothers in Iraq in three years and not in thirty, as former President Obama predicted. We understand that the capitals of the three countries that launched the aggression against my country are frustrated. Some colleagues who voted against the Russian draft resolution (S/2018/355) claim to support a political settlement. We tell them now, after their shameful vote against the draft resolution, that those who voted against it are no longer partners of the Syrian Government in any political process. The British Ambassador explained things about the Malvinas Islands. That testimony reveals the facts about the imperialistic policies of Britain. I am actually the Rapporteur of the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) and I work under the agenda of the United Nations and the Secretary-General. My task and that of my colleagues in the C-24 is to end colonialism throught the world. The Malvinas are on the list of territories that do not enjoy self-governance. We are working in accordance with the United Nations agenda to end the British occupation of the Malvinas. As for my colleague the Ambassador of Kuwait, I remind him — although he and his Government are well aware of it — that when my country participated in the liberation of Kuwait, we did not justify our principled position to the people of Kuwait. Our position was a principled one. We did not need draft resolutions, meetings or any tripartite aggression. We did not look into the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations or undermine our national obligations to our brothers in Kuwait, nor did we join any bloc that was hostile to Kuwait. We fulfilled our national duty towards our brothers in Kuwait. The Ambassador of Kuwait will also recall that my country could have played a different role at the time and could have negatively impacted the peace, safety and security of Kuwait, but we chose not to do so. We acted pursuant to a national principled position that was not subject to negotiation or discussion. The meeting rose at 1.50 p.m.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
Venture capital and military startup firms in Silicon Valley have begun aggressively selling a version of automated warfare that will deeply incorporate artificial intelligence (AI). Those companies and their CEOs are now pressing full speed ahead with that emerging technology, largely dismissing the risk of malfunctions that could lead to the future slaughter of civilians, not to speak of the possibility of dangerous scenarios of escalation between major military powers. The reasons for this headlong rush include a misplaced faith in "miracle weapons," but above all else, this surge of support for emerging military technologies is driven by the ultimate rationale of the military-industrial complex: vast sums of money to be made.The New Techno-EnthusiastsWhile some in the military and the Pentagon are indeed concerned about the future risk of AI weaponry, the leadership of the Defense Department is on board fully. Its energetic commitment to emerging technology was first broadcast to the world in an August 2023 speech delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks to the National Defense Industrial Association, the largest arms industry trade group in the country. She used the occasion to announce what she termed "the Replicator Initiative," an umbrella effort to help create "a new state of the art — just as America has before — leveraging attritable, autonomous systems in all domains — which are less expensive, put fewer people in the line of fire, and can be changed, updated, or improved with substantially shorter lead times."Hicks was anything but shy about pointing to the primary rationale for such a rush toward robotic warfare: outpacing and intimidating China. "We must," she said, "ensure the PRC [People's Republic of China] leadership wakes up every day, considers the risks of aggression, and concludes, 'today is not the day' — and not just today, but every day, between now and 2027, now and 2035, now and 2049, and beyond."Hick's supreme confidence in the ability of the Pentagon and American arms makers to wage future techno-wars has been reinforced by a group of new-age militarists in Silicon Valley and beyond, spearheaded by corporate leaders like Peter Thiel of Palantir, Palmer Luckey of Anduril, and venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz.Patriots or Profiteers?These corporate promoters of a new way of war also view themselves as a new breed of patriots, ready and able to successfully confront the military challenges of the future.A case in point is "Rebooting the Arsenal of Democracy," a lengthy manifesto on Anduril's blog. It touts the superiority of Silicon Valley startups over old-school military-industrial behemoths like Lockheed Martin in supplying the technology needed to win the wars of the future:"The largest defense contractors are staffed with patriots who, nevertheless, do not have the software expertise or business model to build the technology we need… These companies built the tools that kept us safe in the past, but they are not the future of defense."In contrast to the industrial-age approach it critiques, Luckey and his compatriots at Anduril seek an entirely new way of developing and selling weapons:"Software will change how war is waged. The battlefield of the future will teem with artificially intelligent, unmanned systems, which fight, gather reconnaissance data, and communicate at breathtaking speeds."At first glance, Luckey seems a distinctly unlikely candidate to have risen so far in the ranks of arms industry executives. He made his initial fortune by creating the Oculus virtual reality device, a novelty item that users can strap to their heads to experience a variety of 3-D scenes (with the sensation that they're embedded in them). His sartorial tastes run toward sandals and Hawaiian shirts, but he has now fully shifted into military work. In 2017, he founded Anduril, in part with support from Peter Thiel and his investment firm, Founders Fund. Anduril currently makes autonomous drones, automated command and control systems, and other devices meant to accelerate the speed at which military personnel can identify and destroy targets.Thiel, a mentor to Palmer Luckey, offers an example of how the leaders of the new weapons startup firms differ from the titans of the Cold War era. As a start, he's all in for Donald Trump. Once upon a time, the heads of major weapons makers like Lockheed Martin tried to keep good ties with both Democrats and Republicans, making substantial campaign contributions to both parties and their candidates and hiring lobbyists with connections on both sides of the aisle. The logic for doing so couldn't have seemed clearer then. They wanted to cement a bipartisan consensus for spending ever more on the Pentagon, one of the few things most key members of both parties agreed upon. And they also wanted to have particularly good relations with whichever party controlled the White House and/or the Congress at any moment.The Silicon Valley upstarts and their representatives are also much more vocal in their criticisms of China. They are the coldest (or do I mean hottest?) of the new cold warriors in Washington, employing harsher rhetoric than either the Pentagon or the big contractors. By contrast, the big contractors generally launder their critiques of China and support for wars around the world that have helped pad their bottom lines through think tanks, which they've funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually.Thiel's main company, Palantir, has also been criticized for providing systems that have enabled harsh border crackdowns by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as "predictive policing." That (you won't be surprised to learn) involves the collection of vast amounts of personal data without a warrant, relying on algorithms with built-in racial biases that lead to the systematic unfair targeting and treatment of people of color.To fully grasp how the Silicon Valley militarists view next-generation warfare, you need to check out the work of Christian Brose, Palantir's chief strategy officer. He was a long-time military reformer and former aide to the late Senator John McCain. His book Kill Chain serves as a bible of sorts for advocates of automated warfare. Its key observation: that the winner in combat is the side that can most effectively shorten the "kill chain" (the time between when a target is identified and destroyed). His book assumes that the most likely adversary in the next tech war will indeed be China and he proceeds to exaggerate Beijing's military capabilities, while overstating its military ambitions and insisting that outpacing that country in developing emerging military technologies is the only path to future victory.And mind you, Brose's vision of shortening that kill chain poses immense risks. As the time to decide what actions to take diminishes, the temptation to take humans "out of the loop" will only grow, leaving life-and-death decisions to machines with no moral compass and vulnerable to catastrophic malfunctions of a sort inherent in any complex software system.Much of Brose's critique of the current military-industrial complex rings true. A few big firms are getting rich making ever more vulnerable huge weapons platforms like aircraft carriers and tanks, while the Pentagon spends billions on a vast, costly global basing network that could be replaced with a far smaller, more dispersed military footprint. Sadly, though, his alternative vision poses more problems than it solves.First, there's no guarantee that the software-driven systems promoted by Silicon Valley will work as advertised. After all, there's a long history of "miracle weapons" that failed, from the electronic battlefield in Vietnam to President Ronald Reagan's disastrous Star Wars missile shield. Even when the ability to find and destroy targets more quickly did indeed improve, wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, fought using those very technologies, were dismal failures.A recent Wall Street Journal investigation suggests that the new generation of military tech is being oversold as well. The Journal found that small top-of-the-line new U.S. drones supplied to Ukraine for its defensive war against Russia have proved far too "glitchy and expensive," so much so that, irony of ironies, the Ukrainians have opted to buy cheaper, more reliable Chinese drones instead.Finally, the approach advocated by Brose and his acolytes is going to make war more likely as technological hubris instills a belief that the United States can indeed "beat" a rival nuclear-armed power like China in a conflict, if only we invest in a nimble new high-tech force.The result, as my colleague Michael Brenes and I pointed out recently, is the untold billions of dollars of private money now pouring into firms seeking to expand the frontiers of techno-war. Estimates range from $6 billion to $33 billion annually and, according to the New York Times, $125 billion over the past four years. Whatever the numbers, the tech sector and its financial backers sense that there are massive amounts of money to be made in next-generation weaponry and aren't about to let anyone stand in their way.Meanwhile, an investigation by Eric Lipton of the New York Times found that venture capitalists and startup firms already pushing the pace on AI-driven warfare are also busily hiring ex-military and Pentagon officials to do their bidding. High on that list is former Trump Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. Such connections may be driven by patriotic fervor, but a more likely motivation is simply the desire to get rich. As Ellen Lord, former head of acquisition at the Pentagon, noted, "There's panache now with the ties between the defense community and private equity. But they are also hoping they can cash in big-time and make a ton of money."The Philosopher KingAnother central figure in the move toward building a high-tech war machine is former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. His interests go far beyond the military sphere. He's become a virtual philosopher king when it comes to how new technology will reshape society and, indeed, what it means to be human. He's been thinking about such issues for some time and laid out his views in a 2021 book modestly entitled The Age of AI and Our Human Future, coauthored with none other than the late Henry Kissinger. Schmidt is aware of the potential perils of AI, but he's also at the center of efforts to promote its military applications. Though he forgoes the messianic approach of some up-and-coming Silicon Valley figures, whether his seemingly more thoughtful approach will contribute to the development of a safer, more sensible world of AI weaponry is open to debate.Let's start with the most basic thing of all: the degree to which Schmidt thinks that AI will change life as we know it is extraordinary. In that book of his and Kissinger's, they asserted that it would spark "the alteration of human identity and the human experience at levels not seen since the dawn of the modern age," arguing that AI's "functioning portends progress toward the essence of things, progress that philosophers, theologians and scientists have sought, with partial success, for millennia."On the other hand, the government panel on artificial intelligence on which Schmidt served fully acknowledged the risks posed by the military uses of AI. The question remains: Will he, at least, support strong safeguards against its misuse? During his tenure as head of the Pentagon's Defense Innovation Board from 2017 to 2020, he did help set the stage for Pentagon guidelines on the use of AI that promised humans would always "be in the loop" in launching next-gen weapons. But as a tech industry critic noted, once the rhetoric is stripped away, the guidelines "don't really prevent you from doing anything."In fact, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and other good government advocates questioned whether Schmidt's role as head of the Defense Innovation Unit didn't represent a potential conflict of interest. After all, while he was helping shape its guidelines on the military applications of AI, he was also investing in firms that stood to profit from its development and use. His investment entity, America's Frontier Fund, regularly puts money in military tech startups, and a nonprofit he founded, the Special Competitive Studies Project, describes its mission as to "strengthen America's long-term competitiveness as artificial intelligence (AI) [reshapes] our national security, economy, and society." The group is connected to a who's who of leaders in the military and the tech industry and is pushing, among other things, for less regulation over military-tech development. In 2023, Schmidt even founded a military drone company, White Stork, which, according to Forbes, has been secretly testing its systems in the Silicon Valley suburb of Menlo Park.The question now is whether Schmidt can be persuaded to use his considerable influence to rein in the most dangerous uses of AI. Unfortunately, his enthusiasm for using it to enhance warfighting capabilities suggests otherwise:"Every once in a while, a new weapon, a new technology comes along that changes things. Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt in the 1930s saying that there is this new technology — nuclear weapons — that could change war, which it clearly did. I would argue that [AI-powered] autonomy and decentralized, distributed systems are that powerful."Given the risks already cited, comparing militarized AI to the development of nuclear weapons shouldn't exactly be reassuring. The combination of the two — nuclear weapons controlled by automatic systems with no human intervention — has so far been ruled out, but don't count on that lasting. It's still a possibility, absent strong, enforceable safeguards on when and how AI can be used.AI is coming, and its impact on our lives, whether in war or peace, is likely to stagger the imagination. In that context, one thing is clear: we can't afford to let the people and companies that will profit most from its unbridled application have the upper hand in making the rules for how it should be used.Isn't it time to take on the new-age warriors?This article has been republished with permission from Tom Dispatch
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
2023 was a year marked by devastating conflicts from Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine to Hamas's horrific terror attacks on Israel, from that country's indiscriminate mass slaughter in Gaza to a devastating civil war in Sudan. And there's a distinct risk of even worse to come this year. Still, there was one clear winner in this avalanche of violence, suffering, and war: the U.S. military-industrial complex.In December, President Biden signed a record authorization of $886 billion in "national defense" spending for 2024, including funds for the Pentagon proper and work on nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy. Add to that tens of billions of dollars more in likely emergency military aid for Ukraine and Israel, and such spending could well top $900 billion for the first time this year.Meanwhile, the administration's $100-billion-plus emergency military aid package that failed to pass Congress last month is likely to slip by in some form this year, while the House and Senate are almost guaranteed to add tens of billions more for "national defense" projects in specific states and districts, as happened in two of the last three years.Of course, before the money actually starts flowing, Congress needs to pass an appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2024, clearing the way for that money to be spent. As of this writing, the House and Senate had indeed agreed to a tentative deal to sign onto the $886 billion that was authorized in December. A trillion-dollar version of such funding could be just around the corner. (If past practice is any guide, more than half of that sum could go directly to corporations, large and small.)A trillion dollars is a hard figure to process. In the 1960s, when the federal budget was a fraction of what it is now, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen allegedly said, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." Whether he did or not, that quote neatly captures how congressional attitudes toward federal spending have changed. After all, today, a billion dollars is less than a rounding error at the Pentagon. The department's budget is now hundreds of billions of dollars more than at the height of the Vietnam War and over twice what it was when President Eisenhower warned of the "unwarranted influence" wielded by what he called "the military-industrial complex."To offer just a few comparisons: annual spending on the costly, dysfunctional F-35 combat aircraft alone is greater than the entire budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2020, Lockheed Martin's contracts with the Pentagon were worth more than the budgets of the State Department and the Agency for International Development combined, and its arms-related revenues continue to rival the government's entire investment in diplomacy. One $13 billion aircraft carrier costs more than the annual budget of the Environmental Protection Agency. Overall, more than half of the discretionary budget Congress approves every year — basically everything the federal government spends other than on mandatory programs like Medicare and Social Security — goes to the Pentagon.It would, I suppose, be one thing if such huge expenditures were truly needed to protect the country or make the world a safer place. However, they have more to do with pork-barrel politics and a misguided "cover the globe" military strategy than a careful consideration of what might be needed for actual "defense."Congressional FolliesThe road to an $886-billion military budget authorization began early last year with a debt-ceiling deal negotiated by President Biden and then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. That rolled back domestic spending levels, while preserving the administration's proposal for the Pentagon intact. McCarthy, since ousted as speaker, had been pressed by members of the right-wing "Freedom Caucus" and their fellow travelers for just such spending cuts. (He had little choice but to agree, since that group proved to be his margin of victory in a speaker's race that ran to 15 ballots.)There was a brief glimmer of hope that the budget cutters in the Freedom Caucus might also go after the bloated Pentagon budget rather than inflict all the fiscal pain on domestic programs. Prominent right-wing Republicans like Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) pledged to put Pentagon spending reductions "on the table," but then only went after the military's alleged "woke agenda," which boiled down to cutting a few billion dollars slated for fighting racism and sexual harassment while supporting reproductive freedom within the armed forces. Oh wait, Jordan also went after spending on the development of alternative energy sources as "woke." In any case, he focused on just a minuscule share of the department's overall budget.Prominent Republicans outside Congress expressed stronger views about bringing the Pentagon to heel, but their perspectives got no traction on Capitol Hill. For instance, Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, perhaps America's most influential conservative think tank, made the case for reining in the Pentagon at American Conservative magazine:"In the past, Congress accepted the D.C. canard that a bigger budget alone equals a stronger military. But now, facing down a record debt to the tune of $242,000 per household, conservatives are ready to tackle an entrenched problem and confront the political establishment, unaccountable federal bureaucrats, and well-connected defense contractors all at once in order to keep the nation both solvent and secure."Even more surprising, former Trump Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller released a memoir in which he called for a dramatic slashing of the Pentagon budget. "We could," he argued, "cut our defense budget in half and it would still be twice as big as China's."Ultimately, however, such critiques had zero influence over the Pentagon budget debate in the House, which quickly degenerated into a fight about a series of toxic amendments attacking reproductive freedom and LGTBQ and transgender rights in the military. Representative Colin Allred (D-TX) rightly denounced such amendments as a "shameful display of extremism" and across-the-board opposition by Democrats ensured that the first iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024 would be defeated and some of the most egregious Republican proposals eliminated later in the year. In the meantime, virtually all mainstream press coverage and most congressional debate focused on those culture war battles rather than why this country was poised to shove so much money at the Pentagon in the first place.Threat Inflation and the "Arsenal of Democracy"Perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that the strategic rationales put forward for the flood of new Pentagon outlays don't faintly hold up to scrutiny. First and foremost in the Pentagon's argument for virtually unlimited access to the Treasury is the alleged military threat posed by China. But as Dan Grazier of the Project on Government Oversight has pointed out, that country's military strategy is "inherently defensive":"[T]he investments being made [by China] are not suited for foreign adventurism but are instead designed to use relatively low-cost weapons to defend against massively expensive American weapons. The nation's primary military strategy is to keep foreign powers, and especially the United States, as far away from its shores as possible in a policy the Chinese government calls 'active defense.'"The greatest point of potential conflict between the U.S. and China is, of course, Taiwan. But a war over that island would come at a staggering cost for all concerned and might even escalate into a nuclear confrontation. A series of war games conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that, while the United States could indeed "win" a war defending Taiwan from a Chinese amphibious assault, it would be a Pyrrhic victory. "The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of servicemembers," it reported. "Taiwan saw its economy devastated. Further, the high losses damaged the U.S. global position for many years." And a nuclear confrontation between China and the United States, which CSIS didn't include in its assessment, would be a first-class catastrophe of almost unimaginable proportions.The best route to preventing a future Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be to revive Washington's "One China" policy that calls for China to commit itself to a peaceful resolution of Taiwan's status and for the U.S. to forswear support for that island's formal independence. In other words, diplomacy, rather than increasing the Pentagon budget to "win" such a war, would be the way to go.The second major driver of higher Pentagon budgets is allegedly the strain on this country's arms manufacturing base caused by supplying tens of billions of dollars of weaponry to Ukraine, including artillery shells and missiles that are running short in American stockpiles. The answer, according to the Pentagon and the arms industry, is to further supersize this country's already humongous military-industrial complex to produce enough weaponry to supply Ukraine (and now Israel, too), while acquiring sufficient weapons systems for a future war with China.There are two problems with such arguments. First, supplying Ukraine doesn't justify a permanent expansion of the U.S. arms industry. In fact, such aid to Kyiv needs to be accompanied by a now-missing diplomatic strategy designed to head off an even longer, ever more grinding war.Second, the kinds of weapons needed for a war with China would, for the most part, be different from those relevant to a land war in Ukraine, so weaponry sent to Ukraine would have little relevance to readiness for a potential war with China (which Washington should, in any case, be working to prevent, not preparing for). The Disastrous Costs of a Militarized Foreign PolicyBefore investing ever more tax dollars in building an ever-expanding garrison state, the military strategy of the United States in the current global environment should be seriously debated. Just buying ever more bombs, missiles, drones, and next-generation artificial intelligence-driven weaponry is not, in fact, a strategy, though it is a boon to the military-industrial complex and an invitation to a destabilizing new arms race.Unfortunately, neither Congress nor the Biden administration seems inclined to seriously consider an approach that would emphasize investing in diplomatic and economic tools over force or the threat of force. Given this country's staggeringly expensive failures in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in this century (which cost trillions of dollars), resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, and leaving staggering numbers of American veterans with physical and psychological injuries (as extensively documented by the Costs of War Project at Brown University), you might think a different approach to the use of your tax dollars was in order, but no such luck.There are indeed a few voices in Congress advocating restraint at the Pentagon, including Representatives Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Barbara Lee (D-CA), who have proposed a $100 billion reduction in that department's budget as a first step toward a more balanced national security policy. Such efforts, however, must overcome an inhospitable political environment created by the endlessly exaggerated military threats facing this country and the political power of the arms industry, as well as its allies in Washington. Those allies, of course, include President Biden, who has labeled the U.S. an "arsenal of democracy" in his efforts to promote a new round of weapons aid to Ukraine. Not unlike his predecessor, he is touting the potential benefits of arms-production investments in companies in electoral swing states.Sadly, throwing more money at the arms industry sacrifices future needs for short-term economic gains that are modest indeed. Were that money going into producing green jobs, a more resilient infrastructure, improved scientific and technical education, and a more robust public health system, we would find ourselves in a different world. Those should be the pillars of any American economic revival rather than the all-too-modest side effects of weapons development in fueling economic growth. Despite huge increases in funding since the 1980s, actual jobs in the arms manufacturing industry have, in fact, plummeted from three million to 1.1 million — and, mind you, those figures come from the arms industry's largest trade association. The United Auto Workers, one of the unions with the most members working in the arms industry, has recognized this reality and formed a Just Transition Committee. As noted by Spencer Ackerman at the Nation, it's designed to "examine the size, scope, and impact of the U.S. military-industrial complex that employs thousands of UAW members and dominates the global arms trade." According to Brandon Mancilla, director of the UAW's Region 9A, which represents 50,000 active and retired workers in New York, New England, and Puerto Rico, the committee will "think about what it would mean to actually have a just transition, what used to be called a 'peace conversion,' of folks who work in the weapons and defense industry into something else."The UAW initiative parallels a sharp drop in unionization rates at major weapons makers (as documented by journalist Taylor Barnes). To cite two examples: in 1971, 69% of Lockheed Martin workers were unionized, while in 2022 that number was 19%; at Northrop Grumman today, a mere 4% of its employees are unionized, a dip that reflects a conscious strategy of the big weapons-making firms to outsource work to non-union subcontractors and states with anti-union "right to work" laws, while exporting tens of thousands of jobs overseas as part of multinational projects like the F-35 program. So much for the myth that defense industry jobs are more secure or have better pay and benefits than jobs in other parts of the economy.A serious national conversation is needed on what a genuine defense strategy would look like, rather than one based on fantasies of global military dominance. Otherwise, the overly militarized approach to foreign and economic policy that has become the essence of Washington budget-making could be extended endlessly and disastrously into the future, something this country literally can't afford to let happen.This story was republished, with permission, from Tom Dispatch
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
Italy and Germany share relevant similarities and challenges in the energy domain. They are both large energy consumers (145 and 270 million tonnes of oil equivalent, respectively)[1] with large populations (60 million and 80 million, respectively), high GDP per capita (43,788 US dollars Italy, 53,560 US dollars Germany)[2] and energy-intensive sectors – such as steel, cement, glass, refineries and metallurgic industries. Likewise, they face common challenges regarding the energy trilemma (energy security, affordability and sustainability). In the current context, navigating the energy trilemma requires coordinated policies to steer a successful European energy transformation. Energy security remains a crucial consideration for both Italy and Germany. Major concerns over high energy prices and their impact on competitiveness have necessitated a new approach in terms of demand curtailment or energy subsidies at the EU and bilateral levels in order to prevent detrimental intra-European competition. Meanwhile, the EU has not cooled down its climate ambitions, it has instead further enhanced them through the crisis. Therefore, Italy and Germany need to find ways to reconcile energy security and climate objectives set by national and European legislation. In this context, the complementarities between the two countries provide some relevant opportunities for a more coordinated approach towards these multiple issues. Joint efforts, further cooperation and deeper dialogue would yield positive results for their economies and energy systems, as well as for the entire EU. To achieve that, the two countries will need to overcome domestic and bilateral constraints and leverage their similarities to shape the future of their energy transformations.Different policy drivers for the transition At first glance, the political drivers and ambition towards energy transition in Italy and Germany seem to differ considerably. For Italy, the main driver has been the EU climate and energy legislative framework. Furthermore, the current government headed by Giorgia Meloni, compared to the Draghi government, has expressed less enthusiastic support for the energy transition, prioritising energy security and affordability as illustrated by the name-change of the Ministry for Ecological Transition (Draghi) to the Ministry of Environment and Energy Security (Meloni). In this context, some political parties argue that the development of nuclear energy is an avenue for reconciling security with climate objectives, although some major challenges remain.[3] In Germany, the main political driver of climate policy ambition is a member of the coalition: the Green Party. The Party has strongly pushed for expanding renewable capacity and climate policies, while advocating for a phase-out of coal and nuclear power plants, which resulted in the last three remaining of the latter being shut down in April 2023. However, Germany's political preferences are quite fragmented in terms of energy transition and decarbonisation strategy. The Green Party's ambitions have, in the past, clashed with the objectives of another coalition party, the liberal FDP, on the issue of financing the transition. This tension has intensified following the German Constitutional Court's recent ruling holding that the government acted unconstitutionally by reallocating 60 billion euros in emergency loans to a climate fund.[4] Its constitutional and budgetary implications for Germany's approach to the energy transition are uncertain, as the government now needs to find alternative ways to fund its climate action beyond already announced policies. Italy and Germany have also experienced strong debates over increasingly ambitious climate policies at the EU level. The most notable examples of such debate are the phase-out of sales of internal combustion engine cars,[5] the phase-out of fossil fuel heating systems,[6] and energy efficiency improvements in the building sector.[7] More generally, the two countries are embracing diverging strategic thinking regarding the transition. Germany has encapsulated the concept of energy transition (Energiewende, which dates back to 2010) into its energy policy. In Italy, the development of the energy transition has unfolded through different phases, especially depending on the availability of generous subsidies, without putting forward long-term strategies. At the same time, political dialogue and energy cooperation are spurred by the reconfiguration of energy flows caused by the decoupling between Europe and Russia. Italy seeks to seize this opportunity to become an energy hub and an energy bridge between Europe and Africa thanks to its position in the Mediterranean. From this perspective, Italy could contribute to enhancing diversification and energy security in Central and Eastern European countries as well as Germany. However, while doing so, Italy will also need to take into consideration future gas demand in the EU and coordinate with potential importing EU countries, such as Germany. Indeed, Berlin has drastically expanded its liquefied natural gas (LNG) import capacity, potentially lowering its import needs from the south.Coordinating economic transition and investments There is a strong economic case for closer energy cooperation between Italy and Germany. The perhaps best-known similarity between the two countries is their traditionally strong automotive manufacturing industry. In absolute terms, Germany ranks first among vehicle-producing countries in the EU by some distance, with 3.7 million units produced in 2022, with Italy sixth with 783,000 units.[8] Germany is by far the most important trade partner for Italy in terms of automotive parts accounting for nearly a quarter (23.7 per cent) of all Italian exports of this kind in 2022.[9] Given such deep economic and trade interconnections, dialogue and coordination between Italy and Germany on how the transition towards net-zero will unfold and impact EU industry will be important to facilitate mutually beneficial adjustments. This is especially true for industrial strategy, although Germany tends to be ahead in developing a long-term strategy.[10] Italy's industrial strategy, instead, has usually been more short-term due to constraints regarding cost and promotion of growth along the entire supply chain. Furthermore, the diverging fiscal capacity of the two countries may lead to markedly different outcomes in their industrial transitions. Italy's fiscal weakness undermines the ability to invest in new solutions and transformation. Given the challenges, EU funding will be required, while Italy needs to prove that it can actually spend the existing resources in a timely and efficient manner. The implementation of Italy's revised Recovery and Resilience Plan, which has been positively assessed by the European Commission on 24 November 2023 and which would see 39 per cent of its value of 194.4 billion euros allocated to Green Deal objectives, will be an important indicator in this regard. Despite these differences, Italy and Germany need to work jointly to explore ways in which to leverage their economic similarities and interconnections into more efficient climate action. Both countries should continue to promote communication of Green Deal policies as an opportunity rather than an obstacle to economic advancement, which however is becoming more difficult as Green Deal law and policy are increasingly perceived to be in conflict with industrial competitiveness.[11] In this context, it is vital for both countries to address the question of just transition to try to compensate those communities that will be disadvantaged by the decarbonisation process.Cooperation through infrastructure Infrastructure plays a critical role for both energy security and transition. However, the expansion of energy infrastructure entails domestic and European challenges. Regarding the energy transition, one of the key issues for both countries is to build adequate network infrastructure to bring energy to the main consuming hubs. In the case of Germany, the bulk of energy demand is located in the southern regions, while renewables – especially offshore wind – are and will be produced in the North. Instead, Italy is rich in renewables in the South, while its main consumption is in the northern regions. Local opposition and long permitting processes may hinder the pace of the required infrastructure network expansion. The challenge of infrastructural development also holds for gas infrastructure, which Italy would need to expand in order to achieve its ambition to become an energy hub. Furthermore, the country needs to carefully assess the future gas demand both in Italy and in Europe to avoid the risk of lock-in effect and stranded assets. In parallel, Italy and Germany could cooperate in the development of hydrogen, given the relevance of hard-to-abate sectors. Italy is seeking to become a transit country for cheap low-carbon hydrogen from North Africa, leveraging on its position, existing infrastructure and positive relations with key countries. Given its industrial capacity, Germany is set to become a key demand centre for hydrogen as the decarbonisation process unfolds. To maximise the potential of hydrogen trade, however, the two countries need to expand North-South cross-border infrastructures within Europe. An initial step is the SoutH2 Corridor project which aims to bring 4 million tonnes of hydrogen from Algeria to Italy, Austria and Germany. Lastly, given the complementarity of renewable potential (solar in Italy and wind in Germany), there is room for synergies over flexibility in the power system infrastructure, both on electricity and hydrogen.Contribution to EU decarbonisation objectives National initiatives in Germany and Italy, and cooperation between the two countries, are crucial to pursuing the objectives of the European Green Deal, as well as meeting the EU's energy security targets in an efficient way. The achievement of the EU's overarching target of achieving a 42.5 per cent share of renewables in gross final energy consumption by 2030 is a key challenge. German-Italian cooperation may result in considerable added value by helping efficiently meet the European Green Deal's targets, particularly by addressing the infrastructural challenges mentioned above. The signature of an Action Plan between Germany and Italy on 22 November 2023, finalising a process initiated under the Draghi government, provided a clear signal of intent to collaborate more closely, including on energy. Though not providing a detailed roadmap, the Action Plan promises greater coordination in involving the private sector to meet EU climate targets, as well as greater cooperation on energy market issues, including at the European level.[12] Notably, a more formalised bilateral programme of action could also strengthen trilateral cooperation with France.Looking ahead In the context of the energy transition and amidst the current debate on energy security, there is much at stake, not just for Italy and Germany, but for the entire EU. Political cooperation and dialogue are strongly required to overcome misunderstandings and misperceptions, such as fragmented interests within the government coalition in Germany and decreasing enthusiasm towards decarbonisation as well as fiscal weakness in Italy. A priority for German-Italian energy cooperation should be to ensure coherence between gas diversification strategies and to coordinate on the associated infrastructure for interconnection between both countries. This needs to go beyond the SouthH2 Corridor to involve broader strategic considerations, also at the EU level, as to how European energy security should best be guaranteed. Coordination on decarbonisation and competitiveness of the Italian and German industries should not only aim to ensure that the energy transition in one country does not hurt the economy of the other; this partnership should also enable joint strategic thinking about other objectives of the Green Deal Industrial Plan, such as, for example, the strengthening of supply chains for critical raw materials. Given a host of complex interdependencies, continuous, deeper dialogue will be key as Italy and Germany, along with the rest of the EU, pursue a sustainable and secure energy future.Max Münchmeyer is Researcher of the Energy, Climate and Resources Programme at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI). Pier Paolo Raimondi is Researcher of the Energy, Climate and Resource Programme at IAI and PhD Candidate of the Catholic University, Milan. This commentary presents some of the key issues discussed during a workshop organised by IAI, which brought together energy policy experts from both Germany and Italy. The event is part of a broader IAI project, "An Italian-German Dialogue on Energy Security and Transition amid Russia's War on Ukraine", supported by the German Federal Foreign Office.[1] In 2022. see Enerdata, "Total Energy Consumption", in World Energy & Climate Statistics – Yearbook 2023, 2023, https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html.[2] World Bank Data, GDP per Capita PPP (constant 2017 international $) in 2022, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD.[3] Pier Paolo Raimondi, "Italy and Norway: Perspectives for a Further Energy Cooperation", in IAI Papers, No. 23|18 (July 2023), https://www.iai.it/en/node/17342.[4] Maria Martinez and Christian Kraemer, "German Court Deals 60 Billion Euro Budget Blow to Scholz Government", in Reuters, 15 November 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-court-make-key-ruling-budget-manoeuvre-2023-11-15.[5] Philip Oltermann, "German Government in Crisis over EU Ban on Car Combustion Engines", in The Guardian, 23 March 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/p/ntkx4.[6] Sören Amelang, "Q&A – Germany Agrees Phaseout of Fossil Fuel Heating Systems", in Clean Energy Wire, 11 September 2023, https://www.cleanenergywire.org/node/12040. These sometimes very public tensions between the coalition partners have also contributed to a general dissatisfaction with the government among German voters, see Julian Wettengel, "Public Discontent with Government Risks Slowing Germany's Climate Efforts", in Clean Energy Wire, 10 August 2023, https://www.cleanenergywire.org/node/12341.[7] Crispian Balmer and Valentina Za, "Italy Gets Cold Feet over EU Greener Buildings Plan", in Reuters, 3 February 2023, https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/italy-gets-cold-feet-over-eu-greener-buildings-plan-2023-02-03; and Nikolaus J. Kurmayer, "Germany Industry Launches Last-Minute Bid to Salvage EU Buildings Law", in Euractiv, 10 October 2023, https://www.euractiv.com/?p=1990439.[8] European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA), Motor Vehicle Production in the EU, by Country, 1 May 2023, https://www.acea.auto/?p=1306.[9] Trade Map website: List of Importing Markets for a Product [8708] Exported by Italy, accessed on December 2023, https://www.trademap.org/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx?nvpm=1|381||||8708|||4|1|1|2|2|1|2|4|1|1.[10] The most recent German Industrial Strategy, presented on 24 October 2023, can be accessed here: Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Minister Habeck Presents Industrial Strategy – Industrial Policy in Changed Times, 24 October 2023, https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2023/10/20231024-minister-habeck-presents-industrial-strategy.html.[11] This is reflected, for example, in the recent, heated debates in the European Parliament on the Nature Restoration Law. See Louise Guillot, "EU Nature Law Fight Ends in Pyrrhic Victory for Green Deal Defenders", in Politico, 10 November 2023, https://www.politico.eu/?p=3842718.[12] Germany and Italy, Piano di Azione italo-tedesco per la cooperazione strategica bilaterale e nell'Unione europea [Action Plan to strengthen cooperation at both bilateral and European level], 22 November 2023, https://www.governo.it/en/node/24362; Deutsch-italienischer Aktionsplan für strategische Zusammenarbeit auf bilateraler und EU-Ebene, https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/975228/2244468/dc5441c1b7497c5855a723c87ffbf3a8/2023-11-22-dtitaktionsplan-data.pdf.
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
Russia's most recent invasion of Ukraine is fast approaching its two-year anniversary, with no end in sight. Russia continues to put on a brave face on this military and economic quagmire,[1] with Prime Minister Mishustin recently claiming that many countries still want to pursue business, trade, and investment in Russia.[2] Such bravado does not do justice to President Putin's ambitious foreign policy. He is contemplating no less than a new global security architecture, downgrading the U.S. and Europe while pursuing what he obliquely terms the new "multipolar world." In the process, Putin has lost sight of Russia's traditional allies and partnerships in the post-Soviet space, revealing major fault lines in current Russian foreign policy.More BRICSMishustin's sunny presentation of Russia's international portfolio primarily relies upon Russia's leading role in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). Not only does BRICS represent a major share of the world's economy and population, but Mishustin also emphasized the recent expansion of the BRICS (Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Argentina) as emblematic of Russia's rising global stature. With the additional members, Russian diplomats claim that the world is a step closer to ending Western dominance of international trade rules and the U.S. dollar as the primary currency of exchange.The BRICS started out as a singular BRIC in 2001, designed as a marketing ploy by a Goldman Sachs banker. It expanded to include South Africa and then morphed into a genuine organization, complete with yearly summits and its own infrastructure bank. Russia views the BRICS as a potential rival to the West and uniter of the global south. It even has proposed creating its own internet. [3] Such grand plans, however, require the resolution of several structural obstacles, including the question of what currency will unite the organization and how to create an internal payment system.[4]What the new members bring to the table, aside from oil wealth from a few countries, is unclear. Iran was the most sanctioned country in the world until Russia surpassed it. Both countries unilaterally renounced the use of the dollar,[5] which Russia views as a weapon of the U.S. [6] The new president of Argentina, however, immediately deviated from the BRICS playbook by pledging to abandon the peso in favor of the dollar. Russia has bet its global reputation and economic future on the BRICS. It recently assumed the leadership of the organization, although the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that a formal strategy will not be introduced until 2025.[7] Perhaps the most notable sign of potential weakness in Russia's bet on BRICS concerns restrictions on Putin's international travel. Putin was unable to attend the summit in South Africa because of an outstanding warrant from the International Criminal Court. President Lulu of Brazil issued a similar warning if Putin decided to travel to Brazil for the upcoming G20 meeting. [8]Russia's Cacophony ofPartnershipsWhile the BRICS aspires to be a global player, most of Russia's long-standing pacts and associations are more regional in focus. The oldest of these groups is the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), an improvised attempt to somehow keep the post-Soviet states aligned after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not much has been heard from the CIS since the early days of its founding. Although its most recent gathering occurred on October 13, 2023, it seems that membership remains in a state of confusion, with three countries (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia) disavowing membership.[9] Putin still has great hopes for the CIS. He wants the security services of each member state to act collectively to ensure the social stability and cultural values of the region.[10]One of the most promising post-Soviet initiatives (on paper) was the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). This coupling of former Soviet states began its existence as a customs union and emerged in 2014 as a coalition to encourage free trade among its members (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia). Yet the EEU has never lived up to expectations, and the most recent meeting in August 2023 showed an organization adrift.[11] The original incentive for joining the Union centered on providing its members with favorable access to the Russian market. But at this recent gathering, several members highlighted the need to become an economic bloc that deals with transfers of technology, pharmaceuticals, machine construction, and so forth. Other countries wanted to discuss the new economic reality of the region, most notably how the imposition of sanctions against Russia had affected the Union.[12] Finally, members called for new institutions to be built, like a single system of credit ratings and regional financial regulations. But no concrete reforms emerged from this meeting; instead, members agreed to kick the can down the road and create a new strategy to be implemented between 2030 and 2045.[13]One other problem hangs over these regional affiliations. The lingua franca of the EEU and CIS has always been Russian, the language of the former imperial power. Mishustin wants this to continue to remain the case.[14] A new law in Kyrgyzstan, however, recognized two state languages: Russian and Kyrgyz, which Mishustin considered problematic for the region's overall economic integration. Putin subsequently weighed in to reinforce the use of the Russian language in the post-Soviet space.[15]The Shanghai Cooperation Agreement (SCA), a Eurasian security, economic, and defense organization, similarly has fallen short of expectations. Its membership includes Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, and the nations of Central Asia (excluding Turkmenistan). The cohesion of this organization, however, remains in doubt. India has long considered Pakistan a sponsor of terrorism, while there is a growing rift between China and India because of the latter's increased ties with the U.S. The group has not weighed in on Russia's continuing aggression in Ukraine. Indeed, Russia's most recent contribution to the SCA was a visit by Russian procurator Igor Krasnov to organize increased cooperation between prosecutors in Russia, China, Iran, and Mongolia (a candidate member of the SCA), with a distinct whiff of revived Soviet legal practice.[16]In many ways, Kazakhstan stands as the bellwether for all of Russia's regional configurations. Over the long months of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Kazakhstan has emerged as one of the weakest links in the Western sanctions regime, primarily through soaring parallel imports entering Russia via Kazakhstan.[17] values Kazakhstan as a firm ally and assisted its government during recent unrest.[18] But Kazakhstan has publicly agreed to observe Western sanctions.[19] Other Central Asian countries have promised to follow suit.[20] The most recent public meeting between Putin and President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev did not end well. Putin flubbed Tokayev's name four times, prompting the Kazakh president to finish his speech in Kazakh, a clear diplomatic slight against President Putin.[21]Armenia Opts Out If the EEU and the SCA are struggling, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is on life support.[22] The CSTO's members include Russia, Armenia, and several Central Asian states, and it serves as a counter to NATO, without the mutual Article 5-style security guarantees. The main internal dispute within the CSTO concerns Armenia in the aftermath of Azerbaijan's assault on and capture of Nagorno Karabakh. Armenia's Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinian, accused Russian peacekeepers of not fulfilling their responsibility (in his eyes) to prevent Azeri aggression. Armenia's reaction was swift and decisive. It has offered humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, skipped the November 23 meeting of the CSTO in Minsk, and boycotted a meeting of the CIS.[23] Even more egregiously, Armenia recently ratified the Rome statutes, thereby placing itself under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Thus, like Russia's BRICS partners South Africa and Brazil, Armenia is required to detain Putin if he enters Armenian territory.[24] Russia's Ministry of Internal Affairs announced that Armenia's decision would have negative consequences for bilateral relations.[25]The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan did not end with the defeat of Nagorno Karabakh. The Azeris are demanding the return of several international border crossings to an Azeri enclave that Armenia is currently blocking. Azerbaijan declares that this obstruction is damaging prospects for peace.[26] So the possibility of Russia being further dragged into this dispute is real. And Pashinian has only increased his rhetoric against Russia, accusing Russian television of destabilizing his country.[27] Even positive developments, like Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu's recent announcement that the joint CSTO air defense system has been all but completed, does not change the perception of an organization in free fall.[28]With Friends Like This??? Russia's most important diplomatic relationship remains its partnership with China. Plenty of ink has been spilled analyzing both the threats and potential consequences their relationship represents. Both Russia and China consistently and confidently proclaim that a future multipolar world awaits global governance.[29] They further have declared that there will be "no limits" to the Russia-China relationship, and Beijing has surreptitiously aided the Kremlin's war effort.[30] Nevertheless, Putin's recent trip to China to mark the 10-year anniversary of China's Belt and Road initiative did not go well for the Russian president. He procured no new trade deals on energy or agriculture.[31] Oil and gas exports from Russia are up, although China is allegedly receiving these products at a sharp discount. Russia has grand designs for the relationship, including increasing trade in yuan while pursuing a global policy of de-dollarization.[32]President Xi remained circumspect when talking about future bilateral relations with Russia. He mentioned that the two leaders have formed good relations and a personal friendship. But one Russian analyst admitted that China "always acts in its own interest,"[33] confirmed by a recent meeting between the EU and China.[34]Putin's trip to China also reinforced the impression of Russia's junior partner status in this relationship, a fact brought home by the recent China-U.S. summit in San Francisco. Xi proclaimed that the world was big enough for two powers.[35] He made no mention of a third. Finally, from Russia's standpoint, the most stable international pact remains the Union State of Russia and Belarus. This pact dates back to the 1990s and was signed by Russia's Boris Yeltsin and Belarus's Alexander Lukashenko. The nature of this agreement (a commonwealth, confederation, a supranational state) has always been rather murky. After 24 years of existence, Prime Minister Mishustin just announced that a joint tax committee is almost in place.[36] Nevertheless, Belarus has been Russia's staunchest supporter during the war in Ukraine, while Russia has long been Belarus's main trade and energy partner. These longstanding ties, however, have not stopped Lukashenko from demanding compensation from Rosatom for the delay in the construction of a nuclear power plant, although the plant was only built thanks to a $10 billion loan from the Russian Federation.[37] Belarus also appears to be pursuing its own China policy, so even Russia's most loyal partner seems willing to play international powers against Russia itself.[38] ConclusionRussian foreign policy and its parade of confusing acronyms continues to churn. Moldova officially announced that it would no longer be a part of the CIS.[39] In a surprise move, Prime Minister Pashinian agreed to be head of the EEU, with the proviso that it remains a purely economic and not a political organization.[40]The UAE, the newly appointed member of BRICS that was theoretically to help lead the BRICS' (and Russia's) overture to the global south, refused to open a bank account in the country for Rosneft to facilitate energy payments to India.[41] Finally, Argentina announced it would not in fact be joining the BRICS.[42]Putin's revolving door of coalition partners, however, cannot distract from his disastrous invasion of Ukraine. Putin finds itself in a war of attrition while trying to mobilize new troops just to keep this stalemate going. Putin may have scratched the imperial itch and annexed Ukrainian territory, but he must now defend a 600-mile front that is grinding down his military forces. His annexations in Ukraine have only added to Russia's demographic crisis, since it has not added a younger population but merely a new crop of pensioners. In addition, his actions have alarmed his neighbors and, with Finland's accession to NATO, more than doubled Russia's border with the NATO alliance.Putin still possesses substantial sources of revenue from gas and oil, but without the top prices that European customers previously paid. Instead, Russia has been forced to limit its exports of benzine and diesel, to stabilize the domestic market.[43] Even more disturbing, Russia has been forced to accept energy payments from India in rupees, a non-convertible currency that does not improve Russia's balance sheet. Finally, the Russian economy has begun to feel the effect of global sanctions, with a host of problems (inflation, high interest rates, low investment, labor shortages, lack of access to Western technology and spare parts) that will eat at the Russian economy for years to come.[44] The impact of sanctions can also be swift and severe. On November 28, the U.S. imposed sanctions on the St. Petersburg stock exchange. The exchange immediately spiraled downwards and declared bankruptcy. .[45]Criminal indictments are most likely to follow.[46] International law may catch up to Putin as well, on such charges as war crimes and reparations.[47]Russia still has resources to prop up its economy and keep the war effort going. How wisely Putin uses them remains an open question. Since the war (and before), Putin's economic program can be summarized in the idea of "economic sovereignty."[48] Moreover, in terms of domestic spending, Putin appears to be focused on several grand projects and potential boondoggles, such a new railroad from Murmansk to the Amur district [49]and from Lugansk to Donetsk.[50] Putin professes the need to support small and medium-sized business, but only through a centralized national project.[51] Putin also likes to promote Russian technology, although the IT sector is facing a steep decline in wages[52] and significant brain drain.[53]To counter these economic and geopolitical challenges, Russia must rely on a disparate group of partners cobbled together through past historical links, empty slogans, and long-standing resentments. Moreover, all of the problems confronting Russia—economic, military, social—are linked and have the potential of cascading into each other during any crisis. Alas, the West has no time to gloat, since the test of all these global alliances—both in Russia and the U.S.—lies just around the corner. If the U.S Congress decides not renew aid for Ukraine in early 2024, it will invariably weaken the Euro-Atlantic alliance while giving Putin a golden opportunity to increase the pressure on Ukraine. Moreover, there will be no second chances if Ukraine becomes a casualty of Western division and Putin's aggression. We may not be sleepwalking into a major crisis; the facts are there for anyone who wants to see them. But if we don't want to find out what Putin's vision of a multipolar world actually looks like, we must support Ukraine now. The opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author and do not reflect the views of the Kennan Institute.[1] "В Кремле заявили о готовности жить под санкциями еще десять лет" [In the Kremlin, readiness was declared to live under sanctions for another ten years], The Moscow Times, October 24, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/10/24/v-kremle-zayavili-o-gotovnosti-zhit-pod-sanktsiyami-esche-desyat-let-a110957. [2] Дмитрий Гончарук [Dmitry Goncharuk], "Мишустин: Очень многие государства хотят с нами вести дела, торговать, инвестировать в Россию" [Mishustin: Many countries want to do business, trade, invest in Russia], Российская газета (rg.ru), October 19, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/10/19/znaj-nashe.html. [3] The Moscow Times, Telegram post, November 10, 2023, https://t.me/moscowtimes_ru/16935. [4] Анастасия Швецова [Anastasia Shvetsova], "Putin продолжит работу BRICS" [Putin will continue working with BRICS], Ведомости [Vedomosti], August 24, 2023, https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/2023/08/24/991672-putin-prodolzhit-rabotu-briks. [5] Jai Hamid, "Russia, Iran finally dump the US dollar for good", Cryptopolitan, December 27, 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/russia-iran-finally-dump-the-us-dollar-for-good/ar-AA1m7fSH?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=87129b6eeb504d87a2fdc44b5a46913e&ei=61 [6] Александр Ленин [Alexander Lenin] "Лавров: США используют доллар в качестве оружия" [Lavrov: The US is using the dollar as a weapon], Российскаягазета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], November 27, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/11/27/lavrov-ssha-ispolzuiut-dollar-v-kachestve-oruzhiia.html?ysclid=lqy89mzo5c127104876[7] Иван Сысоев [Ivan Sysoev] "МИД: Партнеры по БРИКС поддержали планы председательства РФ в организации" [MFA: BRICS partners supported the plans of the Russian Federation's chairmanship in the organization], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], December 3, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/12/03/mid-partnery-po-briks-podderzhali-plany-predsedatelstva-rf-v-organizacii.html [8] "Бразилия отказалась гарантировать Путину, что его не арестуют на саммите G20" [Brazil Refused to Guarantee Putin That He Won't Be Arrested at G20 Summit], The Moscow Times, April 12, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/12/04/braziliya-otkazalas-garantirovat-putinu-chto-ego-ne-arestuyut-na-sammite-g20-a115163. [9] Айсель Герейханова [Aysel Gereyhanova], "Putin высказался про Грузию, Украину и Молдавию, которые числятся в СНГ" [Putin Spoke About Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, Which Are Part of the CIS], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], October 13, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/10/13/putin-vyskazalsia-pro-gruziiu-ukrainu-i-moldaviiu-kotorye-chisliatsia-v-sng.html.[10] The Moscow Times, Telegram post, November 8, 2023, https://t.me/moscowtimes_ru/16875. [11] Evgeny Troitskiy, "The Eurasian Economic Union: Five Great Expectations and Hard Times," The Russia File, Kennan Institute, January 14, 2020, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/eurasian-economic-union-five-great-expectations-and-hard-times. [12] David Pierson, Anatoly Kurmanaev, and Sameer Yasir, "Putin, Xi and Modi Meet at Shanghai Summit," The New York Times, July 4, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/04/world/asia/putin-xi-modi-shanghai-summit.html. [13] "Главы стран ЕАЭС провели итоговое в этом году заседание" [The heads of the EAEU countries held this year's final meeting], Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], December 25, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6426560. [14] "Кому — второй родной, кому — первый иностранный" [For Some, It's the Second Nature, for Others, the First Foreign], Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], October 27, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6298863?from=main. [15] Владимир Кузьмин [Vladimir Kuzmin], "Путин призвал страны СНГ решить практические вопросы работы международной организации по русскому языку" [Putin Called on CIS Countries to Resolve Practical Issues of the International Organization for the Russian Language], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], December 18, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/12/18/putin-prizval-strany-sng-reshit-prakticheskie-voprosy-raboty-mezhdunarodnoj-organizacii-po-russkomu-iazyku.html. [16] Иван Егоров [Ivan Yegorov], "Игорь Краснов провел переговоры об укреплении сотрудничества с Китаем, Ираном и Монголией" [Igor Krasnov Held Talks on Strengthening Cooperation with China, Iran, and Mongolia], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], November 7, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/11/07/igor-krasnov-provel-peregovory-ob-ukreplenii-sotrudnichestva-s-kitaem-iranom-i-mongoliej.html. [17] Rahimbek Abdrahmanov and Kamshat Zhumagulova, "How Kazakhstan Helps Russia Bypass Western Sanctions," The Diplomat, October 25, 2023, https://thediplomat.com/2023/10/how-kazakhstan-helps-russia-bypass-western-sanctions/. [18] "Отношения России и Казахстана проверены временем и развиваются по восходящей" [Relations Between Russia and Kazakhstan Have Been Tested by Time and Are Developing on the Rise], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], November 8, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/11/08/putin-otnosheniia-rossii-i-kazahstana-provereny-vremenem-i-razvivaiutsia-po-voshodiashchej.html.[19] Токаев: Казахстан будет следовать санкционному режиму в отношении России [Tokayev: Kazakhstan will follow the sanctions regime against Russia], September 28, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6239653. [20] "Торговля есть торговля: в Киргизстане заявили, что Бишкек соблюдает санкции против РФ по возможности" [Trade is Trade: In Kyrgyzstan, They Stated That Bishkek Observes Sanctions Against Russia as Much as Possible], The Moscow Times, July 12, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/12/07/torgovlya-est-torgovlya-v-kirgizstane-zayavili-chto-bishkek-soblyudaet-sanktsii-protiv-rf-po-vozmozhnosti-a115558. [21] Nick Mordowanec, "Putin Struggling to Pronounce Ally's Name Raises Eyebrows," Newsweek, November 9, 2023, https://www.newsweek.com/putin-struggling-pronounce-ally-name-raises-eyebrows-1842404.[22] "Участники министерской встречи констатировали плачевное состояние ОБСЕ" [Participants of the ministerial meeting noted the deplorable state of the OSCE], Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], December 1, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6378375?from=main. [23] The Moscow Times, Telegram post September 6, 2023, https://t.me/moscowtimes_ru/15513.; "Пашинян не будет участвовать в саммите ОДКБ в Минске" [Pashinyan Will Not Participate in the CSTO Summit in Minsk], The Moscow Times, November 14, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/11/14/pashinyan-nebudet-uchastvovat-vsammite-odkb-vminske-a113089 . , "Армения ждет помощи с дальше" [Armenia Awaits Assistance from Abroad], Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], September 7, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6199536?from=main. [24] Максим Цуланов [Maxim Tsulanov], "Парламент Армении ратифицировал Римский" [Armenian Parliament Ratifies the Rome Statute], Ведомости [Vedomosti], October 3, 2023, https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2023/10/03/998478-parlament-armenii-ratifitsiroval-rimskii. [25] Юрий Когалов [Yuri Kogalov], "МИД: Ратификация Арменией Римского статута будет иметь негативные последствия для отношений" [MFA: Armenia's Ratification of the Rome Statute Will Have Negative Consequences for Relations], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], September 28, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/09/28/mid-ratifikaciia-armeniej-rimskogo-statuta-budet-imet-negativnye-posledstviia-dlia-otnoshenij.html. [26] The Moscow Times, Telegram post November 9, 2023, https://t.me/moscowtimes_ru/16916. [27] "Пашинян обвинил российское телевидение в попытке дестабилизировать Армению" [Pashinyan Accused Russian Television of Attempting to Destabilize Armenia], The Moscow Times, November 24, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/11/24/pashinyan-obvinil-rossiiskoe-televidenie-v-popitke-destabilizirovat-armeniyu-a114182. [28] Анастасия Селиванова [Anastasia Selivanova], "Сергей Шойгу сообщил о создании объединенной системы ПВО стран-членов ОДКБ" [Sergei Shoigu Announced the Creation of a Unified Air Defense System for CSTO Member Countries], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], November 26, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/11/26/sergej-shojgu-soobshchil-o-sozdanii-obedinennoj-sistemy-pvo-stran-chlenov-odkb.html.[29] Айсель Герейханова [Aysel Gereyhanova], "Путин: Россия и Китай выступают с единых позиций формирования многополярного мира" [Putin: Russia and China Advocate Unified Positions in Shaping a Multipolar World], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], September 20, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/09/20/reg-szfo/putin-rossiia-i-kitaj-vystupaiut-s-edinyh-pozicij-formirovaniia-mnogopoliarnogo-mira.html. [30] Office of the Director of National Intelligence. "Assessment of China's Support to Russia in the Aftermath of the Invasion of Ukraine." House Intelligence Committee. July 2023. https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/odni_report_on_chinese_support_to_russia.pdf. [31] Pyotr Kozlov, "As Putin Leaves China Empty-Handed, Russian Propaganda Hails Triumph Over the West," The Moscow Times, October 19, 2023, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/10/19/as-putin-leaves-china-empty-handed-russian-propaganda-hails-triumph-over-the-west-a82816. [32] Hugo von Essen, "Russia-China Economic Relations since the Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine," Swedish Institute of International Affairs, July 5, 2023. https://www.ui.se/globalassets/ui.se-eng/publications/sceeus/russia-china-econ-relations.pdf. [33] Елена Мухаметшина [Yelena Mukhametshina], Владимир Кулагин [Vladimir Kulagin]. "Путин провел переговоры с Си Цзиньпином" [Putin Held Talks with Xi Jinping]. Ведомости [Vedomosti]. October 19, 2023. Accessed [Access Date], https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2023/10/19/1001383-putin-provel-peregovori-s-si-tszinpinom?ysclid=loxfvhy735636543627. [34] "Си Цзиньпин встретился с руководителями ЕС" [Xi Jinping Met with EU Leaders]. Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta]. December 8, 2023., https://rg.ru/2023/12/08/si-czinpin-vstretilsia-s-rukovoditeliami-es.html. [35] Aamer Madhani, Colleen Long, and Didi Tang, "Biden and Xi to Meet at APEC in San Francisco," The Washington Post, November 16, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/15/biden-xi-apec-san-francisco/5b51f786-838e-11ee-924c-6e6807155e36_story.html. [36] Владимир Кузьмин [Vladimir Kuzmin]. "Мишустин: Практически все готово к запуску наднационального налогового комитета Союзного государства" [Mishustin: Almost Everything Is Ready for Launch of Supranational Tax Committee of the Union State]. Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta]. November 29, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/11/29/mishustin-prakticheski-vse-gotovo-k-zapusku-nadnacionalnogo-nalogovogo-komiteta-soiuznogo-gosudarstva.html. [37] Илья Лакстыгал [Ilya Lakstygal], Александр Волобуев [Alexander Volobuev]. "Лукашенко потребовал у России компенсации за задержку с АЭС" [Lukashenko Demanded Compensation from Russia for Delay with the Nuclear Power Plant]. Ведомости [Vedomosti]. November 1, 2023, https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2023/11/01/1003606-lukashenko-potreboval-u-rossii-kompensatsii-za-zaderzhku-s-aes. [38] Алексей Рыбин [Alexey Rybin]. "Си Цзиньпин предложил Лукашенко сменять систему глобального управления" [Xi Jinping Proposed Lukashenko Change the Global Governance System]. Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta]. December 4, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/12/04/si-czinpin-predlozhil-lukashenko-soobshcha-meniat-sistemu-globalnogo-upravleniia.html. [39] "Молдова объявила о планах выйти из СНГ к концу 2024 года" [Moldova announced plans to leave the CIS by the end of 2024 ]The Moscow Times, December 21, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/12/21/moldova-obyavila-o-planah-viiti-iz-sng-k-kontsu-2024-goda-a116869. [40] "Армения готовится заключить мир с Азербайджаном и возглавить ЕАЭС" [Armenia is preparing to make peace with Azerbaijan and lead the EAEU], Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], December 26, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6427329?from=glavnoe_1.[41] Nidhi Verma, "Payment woes delay supply of Russian Sokol oil to India -sources", Reuters, December 26, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/payment-woes-delay-supply-russian-sokol-oil-india-sources-2023-12-26/. [42] "СМИ: президент Аргентины Милей официально отклонил приглашение вступить в БРИКС" Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], , December 26, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6440685?from=top_main_9[43] Дарья Савенкова [Darya Savenkova]. "Ограничило экспорт бензина" [Restricted the Export of Gasoline]. Ведомости [Vedomosti]. September 21, 2023, https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2023/09/21/996417-ogranichilo-eksport-benzina. [44] Anders Aslund, "Why the Russian Economy's Luck Is Running Out," The Moscow Times, November 21, 2023, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/11/21/why-the-russian-economys-luck-is-running-out-a83165. [45] На СПБ Бирже поторговали банкротством [Bankruptcy was traded on the St. Petersburg Exchange]." Коммерсантъ [Kommersant]. November 27, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6364966?from=main. [46] ЦБ сравнил с преступлением ситуацию вокруг ложного банкротства «СПБ биржи» [The Central Bank compared the situation around the false bankruptcy of St. Petersburg Exchange to a crime] Ведомости [Vedomosti]. November 28, 2023 https://www.vedomosti.ru/investments/news/2023/11/28/1008152-tsb-spb-birzhi [47] "Страны G7 договорились не возвращать России активы без компенсаций Украине [G7 Countries Agreed Not to Return Assets to Russia Without Compensation to Ukraine]." Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], November 8, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6322464?query=G7. [48] Гринкевич, Дмитрий [Grinkevich, Dmitry], Антон Козлов [Anton Kozlov], and Ярослава Костенко [Yaroslava Kostenko]. "Как будет работать представленная Путиным новая модель развития России [How Putin's Newly Presented Model for Russia's Development Will Work]." Ведомости [Vedomosti], June 19, 2023. https://www.vedomosti.ru/economics/articles/2023/06/19/981092-kak-budet-rabotat-predstavlennaya-putinim-novaya-model-razvitiya-rossii?ysclid=lq9gx1h6dp890990133 [49] Герейханова, Айсель [Aysel Gereyhanova]. "Путин дал старт движению на новой жд линии в Мурманской области и запустил новый тоннель в Амурской области [Putin Launched Movement on a New Railway Line in Murmansk Region and Started a New Tunnel in Amur Region]." Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], December 15, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/12/15/reg-dfo/putin-dal-start-dvizheniiu-na-novoj-zhd-linii-v-murmanskoj-oblasti-i-zapustil-novyj-tonnel-v-amurskoj-oblasti.html. [50] Тулупов, Василий [Vasily Tulupov]. "Путин: строительство ВСМ в Донецке и Луганске [Putin: Construction of VSM in Donetsk and Luhansk]." Ведомости [Vedomosti], December 15, 2023, https://www.vedomosti.ru/society/news/2023/12/15/1011341-putin-stroitelstvo-vsm-donetska-luganska?ysclid=lq884l4kiw111661982 [51] Замахина, Татьяна [Tatiana Zamakhina]. "В России подготовят новый нацпроект по развитию малого бизнеса [In Russia, a New National Project on Small Business Development Will Be Prepared]." Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], October 23, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/10/23/v-rossii-podgotoviat-novyj-nacproekt-po-razvitiiu-malogo-biznesa.html?ysclid=lq9ht6td6d183683498. [52] "Российские ИТ-специалисты пожаловались на снижение зарплат и проблемы с удалёнкой [Russian IT Specialists Complained About Decreased Salaries and Remote Work Issues]." The Moscow Times, December 14, 2023. https://www.moscowtimes.io/2023/12/14/rossiiskie-it-spetsialisti-pozhalovalis-na-snizhenie-zarplat-i-problemi-s-udalenkoi-a116121. [53] Alexander Marrow, Polina Devitt "Exclusive: Fear of tech 'brain drain' prevents Russia from seizing Yandex for now, sources say", Reuters, August 10, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/technology/fear-tech-brain-drain-prevents-russia-seizing-yandex-now-sources-2023-08-10/
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
Russia's most recent invasion of Ukraine is fast approaching its two-year anniversary, with no end in sight. Russia continues to put on a brave face on this military and economic quagmire,[1] with Prime Minister Mishustin recently claiming that many countries still want to pursue business, trade, and investment in Russia.[2] Such bravado does not do justice to President Putin's ambitious foreign policy. He is contemplating no less than a new global security architecture, downgrading the U.S. and Europe while pursuing what he obliquely terms the new "multipolar world." In the process, Putin has lost sight of Russia's traditional allies and partnerships in the post-Soviet space, revealing major fault lines in current Russian foreign policy.More BRICSMishustin's sunny presentation of Russia's international portfolio primarily relies upon Russia's leading role in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). Not only does BRICS represent a major share of the world's economy and population, but Mishustin also emphasized the recent expansion of the BRICS (Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Argentina) as emblematic of Russia's rising global stature. With the additional members, Russian diplomats claim that the world is a step closer to ending Western dominance of international trade rules and the U.S. dollar as the primary currency of exchange.The BRICS started out as a singular BRIC in 2001, designed as a marketing ploy by a Goldman Sachs banker. It expanded to include South Africa and then morphed into a genuine organization, complete with yearly summits and its own infrastructure bank. Russia views the BRICS as a potential rival to the West and uniter of the global south. It even has proposed creating its own internet. [3] Such grand plans, however, require the resolution of several structural obstacles, including the question of what currency will unite the organization and how to create an internal payment system.[4]What the new members bring to the table, aside from oil wealth from a few countries, is unclear. Iran was the most sanctioned country in the world until Russia surpassed it. Both countries unilaterally renounced the use of the dollar,[5] which Russia views as a weapon of the U.S. [6] The new president of Argentina, however, immediately deviated from the BRICS playbook by pledging to abandon the peso in favor of the dollar. Russia has bet its global reputation and economic future on the BRICS. It recently assumed the leadership of the organization, although the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that a formal strategy will not be introduced until 2025.[7] Perhaps the most notable sign of potential weakness in Russia's bet on BRICS concerns restrictions on Putin's international travel. Putin was unable to attend the summit in South Africa because of an outstanding warrant from the International Criminal Court. President Lulu of Brazil issued a similar warning if Putin decided to travel to Brazil for the upcoming G20 meeting. [8]Russia's Cacophony ofPartnershipsWhile the BRICS aspires to be a global player, most of Russia's long-standing pacts and associations are more regional in focus. The oldest of these groups is the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), an improvised attempt to somehow keep the post-Soviet states aligned after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not much has been heard from the CIS since the early days of its founding. Although its most recent gathering occurred on October 13, 2023, it seems that membership remains in a state of confusion, with three countries (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia) disavowing membership.[9] Putin still has great hopes for the CIS. He wants the security services of each member state to act collectively to ensure the social stability and cultural values of the region.[10]One of the most promising post-Soviet initiatives (on paper) was the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). This coupling of former Soviet states began its existence as a customs union and emerged in 2014 as a coalition to encourage free trade among its members (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia). Yet the EEU has never lived up to expectations, and the most recent meeting in August 2023 showed an organization adrift.[11] The original incentive for joining the Union centered on providing its members with favorable access to the Russian market. But at this recent gathering, several members highlighted the need to become an economic bloc that deals with transfers of technology, pharmaceuticals, machine construction, and so forth. Other countries wanted to discuss the new economic reality of the region, most notably how the imposition of sanctions against Russia had affected the Union.[12] Finally, members called for new institutions to be built, like a single system of credit ratings and regional financial regulations. But no concrete reforms emerged from this meeting; instead, members agreed to kick the can down the road and create a new strategy to be implemented between 2030 and 2045.[13]One other problem hangs over these regional affiliations. The lingua franca of the EEU and CIS has always been Russian, the language of the former imperial power. Mishustin wants this to continue to remain the case.[14] A new law in Kyrgyzstan, however, recognized two state languages: Russian and Kyrgyz, which Mishustin considered problematic for the region's overall economic integration. Putin subsequently weighed in to reinforce the use of the Russian language in the post-Soviet space.[15]The Shanghai Cooperation Agreement (SCA), a Eurasian security, economic, and defense organization, similarly has fallen short of expectations. Its membership includes Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, and the nations of Central Asia (excluding Turkmenistan). The cohesion of this organization, however, remains in doubt. India has long considered Pakistan a sponsor of terrorism, while there is a growing rift between China and India because of the latter's increased ties with the U.S. The group has not weighed in on Russia's continuing aggression in Ukraine. Indeed, Russia's most recent contribution to the SCA was a visit by Russian procurator Igor Krasnov to organize increased cooperation between prosecutors in Russia, China, Iran, and Mongolia (a candidate member of the SCA), with a distinct whiff of revived Soviet legal practice.[16]In many ways, Kazakhstan stands as the bellwether for all of Russia's regional configurations. Over the long months of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Kazakhstan has emerged as one of the weakest links in the Western sanctions regime, primarily through soaring parallel imports entering Russia via Kazakhstan.[17] values Kazakhstan as a firm ally and assisted its government during recent unrest.[18] But Kazakhstan has publicly agreed to observe Western sanctions.[19] Other Central Asian countries have promised to follow suit.[20] The most recent public meeting between Putin and President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev did not end well. Putin flubbed Tokayev's name four times, prompting the Kazakh president to finish his speech in Kazakh, a clear diplomatic slight against President Putin.[21]Armenia Opts Out If the EEU and the SCA are struggling, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is on life support.[22] The CSTO's members include Russia, Armenia, and several Central Asian states, and it serves as a counter to NATO, without the mutual Article 5-style security guarantees. The main internal dispute within the CSTO concerns Armenia in the aftermath of Azerbaijan's assault on and capture of Nagorno Karabakh. Armenia's Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinian, accused Russian peacekeepers of not fulfilling their responsibility (in his eyes) to prevent Azeri aggression. Armenia's reaction was swift and decisive. It has offered humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, skipped the November 23 meeting of the CSTO in Minsk, and boycotted a meeting of the CIS.[23] Even more egregiously, Armenia recently ratified the Rome statutes, thereby placing itself under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Thus, like Russia's BRICS partners South Africa and Brazil, Armenia is required to detain Putin if he enters Armenian territory.[24] Russia's Ministry of Internal Affairs announced that Armenia's decision would have negative consequences for bilateral relations.[25]The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan did not end with the defeat of Nagorno Karabakh. The Azeris are demanding the return of several international border crossings to an Azeri enclave that Armenia is currently blocking. Azerbaijan declares that this obstruction is damaging prospects for peace.[26] So the possibility of Russia being further dragged into this dispute is real. And Pashinian has only increased his rhetoric against Russia, accusing Russian television of destabilizing his country.[27] Even positive developments, like Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu's recent announcement that the joint CSTO air defense system has been all but completed, does not change the perception of an organization in free fall.[28]With Friends Like This??? Russia's most important diplomatic relationship remains its partnership with China. Plenty of ink has been spilled analyzing both the threats and potential consequences their relationship represents. Both Russia and China consistently and confidently proclaim that a future multipolar world awaits global governance.[29] They further have declared that there will be "no limits" to the Russia-China relationship, and Beijing has surreptitiously aided the Kremlin's war effort.[30] Nevertheless, Putin's recent trip to China to mark the 10-year anniversary of China's Belt and Road initiative did not go well for the Russian president. He procured no new trade deals on energy or agriculture.[31] Oil and gas exports from Russia are up, although China is allegedly receiving these products at a sharp discount. Russia has grand designs for the relationship, including increasing trade in yuan while pursuing a global policy of de-dollarization.[32]President Xi remained circumspect when talking about future bilateral relations with Russia. He mentioned that the two leaders have formed good relations and a personal friendship. But one Russian analyst admitted that China "always acts in its own interest,"[33] confirmed by a recent meeting between the EU and China.[34]Putin's trip to China also reinforced the impression of Russia's junior partner status in this relationship, a fact brought home by the recent China-U.S. summit in San Francisco. Xi proclaimed that the world was big enough for two powers.[35] He made no mention of a third. Finally, from Russia's standpoint, the most stable international pact remains the Union State of Russia and Belarus. This pact dates back to the 1990s and was signed by Russia's Boris Yeltsin and Belarus's Alexander Lukashenko. The nature of this agreement (a commonwealth, confederation, a supranational state) has always been rather murky. After 24 years of existence, Prime Minister Mishustin just announced that a joint tax committee is almost in place.[36] Nevertheless, Belarus has been Russia's staunchest supporter during the war in Ukraine, while Russia has long been Belarus's main trade and energy partner. These longstanding ties, however, have not stopped Lukashenko from demanding compensation from Rosatom for the delay in the construction of a nuclear power plant, although the plant was only built thanks to a $10 billion loan from the Russian Federation.[37] Belarus also appears to be pursuing its own China policy, so even Russia's most loyal partner seems willing to play international powers against Russia itself.[38] ConclusionRussian foreign policy and its parade of confusing acronyms continues to churn. Moldova officially announced that it would no longer be a part of the CIS.[39] In a surprise move, Prime Minister Pashinian agreed to be head of the EEU, with the proviso that it remains a purely economic and not a political organization.[40]The UAE, the newly appointed member of BRICS that was theoretically to help lead the BRICS' (and Russia's) overture to the global south, refused to open a bank account in the country for Rosneft to facilitate energy payments to India.[41] Finally, Argentina announced it would not in fact be joining the BRICS.[42]Putin's revolving door of coalition partners, however, cannot distract from his disastrous invasion of Ukraine. Putin finds itself in a war of attrition while trying to mobilize new troops just to keep this stalemate going. Putin may have scratched the imperial itch and annexed Ukrainian territory, but he must now defend a 600-mile front that is grinding down his military forces. His annexations in Ukraine have only added to Russia's demographic crisis, since it has not added a younger population but merely a new crop of pensioners. In addition, his actions have alarmed his neighbors and, with Finland's accession to NATO, more than doubled Russia's border with the NATO alliance.Putin still possesses substantial sources of revenue from gas and oil, but without the top prices that European customers previously paid. Instead, Russia has been forced to limit its exports of benzine and diesel, to stabilize the domestic market.[43] Even more disturbing, Russia has been forced to accept energy payments from India in rupees, a non-convertible currency that does not improve Russia's balance sheet. Finally, the Russian economy has begun to feel the effect of global sanctions, with a host of problems (inflation, high interest rates, low investment, labor shortages, lack of access to Western technology and spare parts) that will eat at the Russian economy for years to come.[44] The impact of sanctions can also be swift and severe. On November 28, the U.S. imposed sanctions on the St. Petersburg stock exchange. The exchange immediately spiraled downwards and declared bankruptcy. .[45]Criminal indictments are most likely to follow.[46] International law may catch up to Putin as well, on such charges as war crimes and reparations.[47]Russia still has resources to prop up its economy and keep the war effort going. How wisely Putin uses them remains an open question. Since the war (and before), Putin's economic program can be summarized in the idea of "economic sovereignty."[48] Moreover, in terms of domestic spending, Putin appears to be focused on several grand projects and potential boondoggles, such a new railroad from Murmansk to the Amur district [49]and from Lugansk to Donetsk.[50] Putin professes the need to support small and medium-sized business, but only through a centralized national project.[51] Putin also likes to promote Russian technology, although the IT sector is facing a steep decline in wages[52] and significant brain drain.[53]To counter these economic and geopolitical challenges, Russia must rely on a disparate group of partners cobbled together through past historical links, empty slogans, and long-standing resentments. Moreover, all of the problems confronting Russia—economic, military, social—are linked and have the potential of cascading into each other during any crisis. Alas, the West has no time to gloat, since the test of all these global alliances—both in Russia and the U.S.—lies just around the corner. If the U.S Congress decides not renew aid for Ukraine in early 2024, it will invariably weaken the Euro-Atlantic alliance while giving Putin a golden opportunity to increase the pressure on Ukraine. Moreover, there will be no second chances if Ukraine becomes a casualty of Western division and Putin's aggression. We may not be sleepwalking into a major crisis; the facts are there for anyone who wants to see them. But if we don't want to find out what Putin's vision of a multipolar world actually looks like, we must support Ukraine now. The opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author and do not reflect the views of the Kennan Institute.[1] "В Кремле заявили о готовности жить под санкциями еще десять лет" [In the Kremlin, readiness was declared to live under sanctions for another ten years], The Moscow Times, October 24, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/10/24/v-kremle-zayavili-o-gotovnosti-zhit-pod-sanktsiyami-esche-desyat-let-a110957. [2] Дмитрий Гончарук [Dmitry Goncharuk], "Мишустин: Очень многие государства хотят с нами вести дела, торговать, инвестировать в Россию" [Mishustin: Many countries want to do business, trade, invest in Russia], Российская газета (rg.ru), October 19, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/10/19/znaj-nashe.html. [3] The Moscow Times, Telegram post, November 10, 2023, https://t.me/moscowtimes_ru/16935. [4] Анастасия Швецова [Anastasia Shvetsova], "Putin продолжит работу BRICS" [Putin will continue working with BRICS], Ведомости [Vedomosti], August 24, 2023, https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/2023/08/24/991672-putin-prodolzhit-rabotu-briks. [5] Jai Hamid, "Russia, Iran finally dump the US dollar for good", Cryptopolitan, December 27, 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/russia-iran-finally-dump-the-us-dollar-for-good/ar-AA1m7fSH?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=87129b6eeb504d87a2fdc44b5a46913e&ei=61 [6] Александр Ленин [Alexander Lenin] "Лавров: США используют доллар в качестве оружия" [Lavrov: The US is using the dollar as a weapon], Российскаягазета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], November 27, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/11/27/lavrov-ssha-ispolzuiut-dollar-v-kachestve-oruzhiia.html?ysclid=lqy89mzo5c127104876[7] Иван Сысоев [Ivan Sysoev] "МИД: Партнеры по БРИКС поддержали планы председательства РФ в организации" [MFA: BRICS partners supported the plans of the Russian Federation's chairmanship in the organization], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], December 3, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/12/03/mid-partnery-po-briks-podderzhali-plany-predsedatelstva-rf-v-organizacii.html [8] "Бразилия отказалась гарантировать Путину, что его не арестуют на саммите G20" [Brazil Refused to Guarantee Putin That He Won't Be Arrested at G20 Summit], The Moscow Times, April 12, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/12/04/braziliya-otkazalas-garantirovat-putinu-chto-ego-ne-arestuyut-na-sammite-g20-a115163. [9] Айсель Герейханова [Aysel Gereyhanova], "Putin высказался про Грузию, Украину и Молдавию, которые числятся в СНГ" [Putin Spoke About Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, Which Are Part of the CIS], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], October 13, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/10/13/putin-vyskazalsia-pro-gruziiu-ukrainu-i-moldaviiu-kotorye-chisliatsia-v-sng.html.[10] The Moscow Times, Telegram post, November 8, 2023, https://t.me/moscowtimes_ru/16875. [11] Evgeny Troitskiy, "The Eurasian Economic Union: Five Great Expectations and Hard Times," The Russia File, Kennan Institute, January 14, 2020, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/eurasian-economic-union-five-great-expectations-and-hard-times. [12] David Pierson, Anatoly Kurmanaev, and Sameer Yasir, "Putin, Xi and Modi Meet at Shanghai Summit," The New York Times, July 4, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/04/world/asia/putin-xi-modi-shanghai-summit.html. [13] "Главы стран ЕАЭС провели итоговое в этом году заседание" [The heads of the EAEU countries held this year's final meeting], Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], December 25, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6426560. [14] "Кому — второй родной, кому — первый иностранный" [For Some, It's the Second Nature, for Others, the First Foreign], Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], October 27, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6298863?from=main. [15] Владимир Кузьмин [Vladimir Kuzmin], "Путин призвал страны СНГ решить практические вопросы работы международной организации по русскому языку" [Putin Called on CIS Countries to Resolve Practical Issues of the International Organization for the Russian Language], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], December 18, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/12/18/putin-prizval-strany-sng-reshit-prakticheskie-voprosy-raboty-mezhdunarodnoj-organizacii-po-russkomu-iazyku.html. [16] Иван Егоров [Ivan Yegorov], "Игорь Краснов провел переговоры об укреплении сотрудничества с Китаем, Ираном и Монголией" [Igor Krasnov Held Talks on Strengthening Cooperation with China, Iran, and Mongolia], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], November 7, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/11/07/igor-krasnov-provel-peregovory-ob-ukreplenii-sotrudnichestva-s-kitaem-iranom-i-mongoliej.html. [17] Rahimbek Abdrahmanov and Kamshat Zhumagulova, "How Kazakhstan Helps Russia Bypass Western Sanctions," The Diplomat, October 25, 2023, https://thediplomat.com/2023/10/how-kazakhstan-helps-russia-bypass-western-sanctions/. [18] "Отношения России и Казахстана проверены временем и развиваются по восходящей" [Relations Between Russia and Kazakhstan Have Been Tested by Time and Are Developing on the Rise], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], November 8, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/11/08/putin-otnosheniia-rossii-i-kazahstana-provereny-vremenem-i-razvivaiutsia-po-voshodiashchej.html.[19] Токаев: Казахстан будет следовать санкционному режиму в отношении России [Tokayev: Kazakhstan will follow the sanctions regime against Russia], September 28, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6239653. [20] "Торговля есть торговля: в Киргизстане заявили, что Бишкек соблюдает санкции против РФ по возможности" [Trade is Trade: In Kyrgyzstan, They Stated That Bishkek Observes Sanctions Against Russia as Much as Possible], The Moscow Times, July 12, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/12/07/torgovlya-est-torgovlya-v-kirgizstane-zayavili-chto-bishkek-soblyudaet-sanktsii-protiv-rf-po-vozmozhnosti-a115558. [21] Nick Mordowanec, "Putin Struggling to Pronounce Ally's Name Raises Eyebrows," Newsweek, November 9, 2023, https://www.newsweek.com/putin-struggling-pronounce-ally-name-raises-eyebrows-1842404.[22] "Участники министерской встречи констатировали плачевное состояние ОБСЕ" [Participants of the ministerial meeting noted the deplorable state of the OSCE], Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], December 1, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6378375?from=main. [23] The Moscow Times, Telegram post September 6, 2023, https://t.me/moscowtimes_ru/15513.; "Пашинян не будет участвовать в саммите ОДКБ в Минске" [Pashinyan Will Not Participate in the CSTO Summit in Minsk], The Moscow Times, November 14, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/11/14/pashinyan-nebudet-uchastvovat-vsammite-odkb-vminske-a113089 . , "Армения ждет помощи с дальше" [Armenia Awaits Assistance from Abroad], Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], September 7, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6199536?from=main. [24] Максим Цуланов [Maxim Tsulanov], "Парламент Армении ратифицировал Римский" [Armenian Parliament Ratifies the Rome Statute], Ведомости [Vedomosti], October 3, 2023, https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2023/10/03/998478-parlament-armenii-ratifitsiroval-rimskii. [25] Юрий Когалов [Yuri Kogalov], "МИД: Ратификация Арменией Римского статута будет иметь негативные последствия для отношений" [MFA: Armenia's Ratification of the Rome Statute Will Have Negative Consequences for Relations], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], September 28, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/09/28/mid-ratifikaciia-armeniej-rimskogo-statuta-budet-imet-negativnye-posledstviia-dlia-otnoshenij.html. [26] The Moscow Times, Telegram post November 9, 2023, https://t.me/moscowtimes_ru/16916. [27] "Пашинян обвинил российское телевидение в попытке дестабилизировать Армению" [Pashinyan Accused Russian Television of Attempting to Destabilize Armenia], The Moscow Times, November 24, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/11/24/pashinyan-obvinil-rossiiskoe-televidenie-v-popitke-destabilizirovat-armeniyu-a114182. [28] Анастасия Селиванова [Anastasia Selivanova], "Сергей Шойгу сообщил о создании объединенной системы ПВО стран-членов ОДКБ" [Sergei Shoigu Announced the Creation of a Unified Air Defense System for CSTO Member Countries], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], November 26, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/11/26/sergej-shojgu-soobshchil-o-sozdanii-obedinennoj-sistemy-pvo-stran-chlenov-odkb.html.[29] Айсель Герейханова [Aysel Gereyhanova], "Путин: Россия и Китай выступают с единых позиций формирования многополярного мира" [Putin: Russia and China Advocate Unified Positions in Shaping a Multipolar World], Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], September 20, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/09/20/reg-szfo/putin-rossiia-i-kitaj-vystupaiut-s-edinyh-pozicij-formirovaniia-mnogopoliarnogo-mira.html. [30] Office of the Director of National Intelligence. "Assessment of China's Support to Russia in the Aftermath of the Invasion of Ukraine." House Intelligence Committee. July 2023. https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/odni_report_on_chinese_support_to_russia.pdf. [31] Pyotr Kozlov, "As Putin Leaves China Empty-Handed, Russian Propaganda Hails Triumph Over the West," The Moscow Times, October 19, 2023, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/10/19/as-putin-leaves-china-empty-handed-russian-propaganda-hails-triumph-over-the-west-a82816. [32] Hugo von Essen, "Russia-China Economic Relations since the Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine," Swedish Institute of International Affairs, July 5, 2023. https://www.ui.se/globalassets/ui.se-eng/publications/sceeus/russia-china-econ-relations.pdf. [33] Елена Мухаметшина [Yelena Mukhametshina], Владимир Кулагин [Vladimir Kulagin]. "Путин провел переговоры с Си Цзиньпином" [Putin Held Talks with Xi Jinping]. Ведомости [Vedomosti]. October 19, 2023. Accessed [Access Date], https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2023/10/19/1001383-putin-provel-peregovori-s-si-tszinpinom?ysclid=loxfvhy735636543627. [34] "Си Цзиньпин встретился с руководителями ЕС" [Xi Jinping Met with EU Leaders]. Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta]. December 8, 2023., https://rg.ru/2023/12/08/si-czinpin-vstretilsia-s-rukovoditeliami-es.html. [35] Aamer Madhani, Colleen Long, and Didi Tang, "Biden and Xi to Meet at APEC in San Francisco," The Washington Post, November 16, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/15/biden-xi-apec-san-francisco/5b51f786-838e-11ee-924c-6e6807155e36_story.html. [36] Владимир Кузьмин [Vladimir Kuzmin]. "Мишустин: Практически все готово к запуску наднационального налогового комитета Союзного государства" [Mishustin: Almost Everything Is Ready for Launch of Supranational Tax Committee of the Union State]. Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta]. November 29, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/11/29/mishustin-prakticheski-vse-gotovo-k-zapusku-nadnacionalnogo-nalogovogo-komiteta-soiuznogo-gosudarstva.html. [37] Илья Лакстыгал [Ilya Lakstygal], Александр Волобуев [Alexander Volobuev]. "Лукашенко потребовал у России компенсации за задержку с АЭС" [Lukashenko Demanded Compensation from Russia for Delay with the Nuclear Power Plant]. Ведомости [Vedomosti]. November 1, 2023, https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2023/11/01/1003606-lukashenko-potreboval-u-rossii-kompensatsii-za-zaderzhku-s-aes. [38] Алексей Рыбин [Alexey Rybin]. "Си Цзиньпин предложил Лукашенко сменять систему глобального управления" [Xi Jinping Proposed Lukashenko Change the Global Governance System]. Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta]. December 4, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/12/04/si-czinpin-predlozhil-lukashenko-soobshcha-meniat-sistemu-globalnogo-upravleniia.html. [39] "Молдова объявила о планах выйти из СНГ к концу 2024 года" [Moldova announced plans to leave the CIS by the end of 2024 ]The Moscow Times, December 21, 2023, https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2023/12/21/moldova-obyavila-o-planah-viiti-iz-sng-k-kontsu-2024-goda-a116869. [40] "Армения готовится заключить мир с Азербайджаном и возглавить ЕАЭС" [Armenia is preparing to make peace with Azerbaijan and lead the EAEU], Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], December 26, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6427329?from=glavnoe_1.[41] Nidhi Verma, "Payment woes delay supply of Russian Sokol oil to India -sources", Reuters, December 26, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/payment-woes-delay-supply-russian-sokol-oil-india-sources-2023-12-26/. [42] "СМИ: президент Аргентины Милей официально отклонил приглашение вступить в БРИКС" Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], , December 26, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6440685?from=top_main_9[43] Дарья Савенкова [Darya Savenkova]. "Ограничило экспорт бензина" [Restricted the Export of Gasoline]. Ведомости [Vedomosti]. September 21, 2023, https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2023/09/21/996417-ogranichilo-eksport-benzina. [44] Anders Aslund, "Why the Russian Economy's Luck Is Running Out," The Moscow Times, November 21, 2023, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/11/21/why-the-russian-economys-luck-is-running-out-a83165. [45] На СПБ Бирже поторговали банкротством [Bankruptcy was traded on the St. Petersburg Exchange]." Коммерсантъ [Kommersant]. November 27, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6364966?from=main. [46] ЦБ сравнил с преступлением ситуацию вокруг ложного банкротства «СПБ биржи» [The Central Bank compared the situation around the false bankruptcy of St. Petersburg Exchange to a crime] Ведомости [Vedomosti]. November 28, 2023 https://www.vedomosti.ru/investments/news/2023/11/28/1008152-tsb-spb-birzhi [47] "Страны G7 договорились не возвращать России активы без компенсаций Украине [G7 Countries Agreed Not to Return Assets to Russia Without Compensation to Ukraine]." Коммерсантъ [Kommersant], November 8, 2023, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6322464?query=G7. [48] Гринкевич, Дмитрий [Grinkevich, Dmitry], Антон Козлов [Anton Kozlov], and Ярослава Костенко [Yaroslava Kostenko]. "Как будет работать представленная Путиным новая модель развития России [How Putin's Newly Presented Model for Russia's Development Will Work]." Ведомости [Vedomosti], June 19, 2023. https://www.vedomosti.ru/economics/articles/2023/06/19/981092-kak-budet-rabotat-predstavlennaya-putinim-novaya-model-razvitiya-rossii?ysclid=lq9gx1h6dp890990133 [49] Герейханова, Айсель [Aysel Gereyhanova]. "Путин дал старт движению на новой жд линии в Мурманской области и запустил новый тоннель в Амурской области [Putin Launched Movement on a New Railway Line in Murmansk Region and Started a New Tunnel in Amur Region]." Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], December 15, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/12/15/reg-dfo/putin-dal-start-dvizheniiu-na-novoj-zhd-linii-v-murmanskoj-oblasti-i-zapustil-novyj-tonnel-v-amurskoj-oblasti.html. [50] Тулупов, Василий [Vasily Tulupov]. "Путин: строительство ВСМ в Донецке и Луганске [Putin: Construction of VSM in Donetsk and Luhansk]." Ведомости [Vedomosti], December 15, 2023, https://www.vedomosti.ru/society/news/2023/12/15/1011341-putin-stroitelstvo-vsm-donetska-luganska?ysclid=lq884l4kiw111661982 [51] Замахина, Татьяна [Tatiana Zamakhina]. "В России подготовят новый нацпроект по развитию малого бизнеса [In Russia, a New National Project on Small Business Development Will Be Prepared]." Российская газета [Rossiyskaya Gazeta], October 23, 2023, https://rg.ru/2023/10/23/v-rossii-podgotoviat-novyj-nacproekt-po-razvitiiu-malogo-biznesa.html?ysclid=lq9ht6td6d183683498. [52] "Российские ИТ-специалисты пожаловались на снижение зарплат и проблемы с удалёнкой [Russian IT Specialists Complained About Decreased Salaries and Remote Work Issues]." The Moscow Times, December 14, 2023. https://www.moscowtimes.io/2023/12/14/rossiiskie-it-spetsialisti-pozhalovalis-na-snizhenie-zarplat-i-problemi-s-udalenkoi-a116121. [53] Alexander Marrow, Polina Devitt "Exclusive: Fear of tech 'brain drain' prevents Russia from seizing Yandex for now, sources say", Reuters, August 10, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/technology/fear-tech-brain-drain-prevents-russia-seizing-yandex-now-sources-2023-08-10/
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
Electronic hardware has been vulnerable to malign cyber activities since the dawn of digital networks. However, the widespread adoption of the so-called Internet of Things (IoT) has led to a multiplication of cyber vulnerabilities in goods and pieces of infrastructure that were previously considered safe from digital threats.[1] The European Union witnessed this first-hand, with a significant increase in the number of cyberattacks to its hardware and software products in the last few years.[2] Interconnectedness has been a boon to product efficiency, business opportunities and standard quality. Yet, it has also opened new avenues for malign activity, not only of the criminal kind. There are multiple examples of consumer goods bearing critical vulnerabilities, from webcams to pacemakers.[3] Amidst growing international tensions, such products will likely remain a playing field for state-sponsored and politically minded cyber actors. Since Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, the EU has observed a peak of attacks targeting digital service providers.[4] As a result of the conflict, cyberspace overall has registered an increase in offensive operations such as destructive malware, phishing campaigns and influence operations. Cyber risks associated with the IoT are current, growing, cogent and critical – especially in the private sector and for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Recent reports have shown that 87 per cent of the companies affected by ransomware attacks in Europe are SMEs with under 50 employees. Such companies are becoming progressively more connected; yet, each technological advancement entails an increase in vulnerabilities. Even though one of the main concerns lies with unmanaged devices, also devices that have been diligently managed can pose challenges, due to the lack of available patches for numerous known vulnerabilities. Inadequate authentication and unresolved vulnerabilities hold particular significance, as IoT devices can be exploited for activities such as bitcoin mining. This could be done, for instance, with hackers installing malware on a device or creating networks of compromised devices, also known as botnets. The exposure of IoT devices and connected goods has to be contextualised within a broader trend, which sees overall cybersecurity risks becoming endemic. The European Repository of Cyber Incidents reports 1,634 total politically relevant cyber incidents since 2015, with 2023 marking a peak of 486 recorded incidents.[5] Fifty-three per cent of attacks in this timespan were directed against government and political institutions, 39 per cent against critical infrastructures and the others against commercial actors, private citizens, social groups, media and other non-state actors. The political and strategic ramifications of such actions can be far-reaching, as recently exposed by the 2021 attack against Colonial Pipeline in the US, when a hacker group identified as DarkSide hit the infrastructure with ransomware.[6]A fraught public-private relationship The international debate has long pointed towards some forms of public-private partnership as the pillar of future cybersecurity governance, recognising the outsized role played by major businesses in shaping the digital commons and the supposed ease with which they could identify and act upon vulnerabilities in their products.[7] Yet, the divergence of interests between the state and private actors has been identified as a major shortcoming of this model, which rests on the assumption of an implausible dedication of private companies to implement costly self-regulation and monitoring.[8] The proliferation of state-sponsored cyber actors and bustling criminal activity on the one hand, and the reliance on privately owned, operated or produced infrastructures on the other, has led to an intense debate regarding who bears the responsibility for guaranteeing the safety and security of connected products. This discussion is becoming ever more important considering that critical vulnerabilities and zero-day exploits – namely, a vulnerability that is only discovered once exposed – are more and more in the crosshairs of malevolent state-sponsored actors, both as a way to compromise operational technologies and to penetrate networks violating office routers or VPNs.[9] As a result, the policy debate seems to have decisively moved towards a stronger role of public authorities, both at the national and international levels. In the conclusions on the EU's Cybersecurity Strategy for the Digital Decade, the Council emphasised that cybersecurity is vital for the "functioning of public administration and institutions at both national and EU level and for our society and the economy as a whole".[10] In the US, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency recognised that "For too long, we have sacrificed security for features and speed to market, leaving us increasingly vulnerable, with the burden of security placed on those least able to bear it."[11] In an attempt to create a positive cooperation between the public and private sectors, the upcoming EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), which proposes some new measures specific to product vulnerabilities, can become a landmark for this approach.The EU's Cyber Resilience Act The CRA was first announced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in the State of the Union address in September 2021, as part of the EU's toolbox towards a European Cyber Defence Policy.[12] Subsequently, the Council conclusions of May 2022 on the development of the European Union's cyber posture stressed the need for "a horizontal and holistic approach that covers the whole lifecycle of digital products, as well as existing regulation, especially in the area of cybersecurity".[13] Thus, the Council invited the Commission to propose common and horizontal cybersecurity requirements for all products with digital elements by the end of 2022. On 15 September 2022, the Commission adopted the proposal for a Regulation aimed at mandating cybersecurity requirements for hardware and software products "with digital elements whose intended or reasonably foreseeable use includes a direct or indirect logical or physical data connection to a device or network".[14] The focus of such requirements would include the products' design, development, production and availability on the market. At the same time, the CRA also complements the EU cybersecurity framework established by the EU Cybersecurity Act (Regulation (EU) 2019/881)[15] and referred to in the Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive 2,[16] which already includes measures to "introduce more stringent supervisory measures and stricter enforcement requirements, including harmonised sanctions across the EU".[17] The Council has made several changes to the Commission's CRA proposal, concerning the scope, the support measures for SMEs, the declaration of conformity and the reporting obligations of manufacturers. With regard to the latter, the manufacturers shall notify any actively exploited vulnerability contained in the product and any incident having an impact on the security of the product with digital elements that they become aware of. For example, changes include a shift in the recipients of cybersecurity information, as manufacturers shall notify the designated national Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRTs) and not the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), as in the Commission's draft. In addition, a two-step reporting process has been introduced. It involves an initial early warning notification to be made "without undue delay" and in any event within 24 hours of becoming aware of the actively exploited vulnerability or incident impacting the security of the product. The early warning is followed by a second notification within 72 hours, aiming to update the information already provided and indicate any available information about either the status of remediation or any corrective or mitigating measures taken. The CRA also provides for a sanctions regime for non-compliance with the essential cybersecurity requirements, that may have fundamental implications for those involved. The potential maximum fines for non-compliance could be either from 5 to 15 million euro or from 1 to 2.5 per cent of annual global turnover, whichever is greater. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the issues at stake, there have been several moments of discussion between EU member states to find a compromise. The representatives of the member states (Coreper) finally reached a consensus on horizontal cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements on 19 July 2023, allowing the Council to start negotiations with the European Parliament on the final version of the proposed legislation.[18]A difficult balance The CRA draft touches upon a diverse set of issues that need to be tackled to modernise and adapt Europe's cybersecurity governance. For the foreseeable future, this will likely remain a multilayered, complex affair which relies on two potentially fractious relationships: that between national cyber authorities and the ENISA, and that between cyber authorities and the private sector. ENISA acts as an interface between the national and the European level: it promotes and participates in European working groups, it contributes to studies on practices at member state level meant to elaborate common guidelines, and it works to raise awareness on cybersecurity amongst European SMEs. ENISA also endures some undeniable difficulties stemming from its role as an EU organisation. For instance, it faces obstacles in maintaining an operational capacity to investigate and react to threats in real time, especially when political considerations are brought into the equation. Each member state has its own national position on cyber security and defence. Similarly, different national Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSRITs) have different approaches in dealing with cyber vulnerabilities and responding to emergencies. Their respective approaches largely depend on their internal security culture, both in terms of human resources and organisational habits. The third protagonist to be factored in is, as mentioned, the private sector. The European information and communication technologies (ICT) industry does not seem to be inherently opposed to the CRA, but requires certain conditions to be met. The CRA mandates that all manufacturers have resources and procedures in place to mitigate vulnerabilities in products with digital elements and to ensure that vulnerabilities in their products can be addressed through security updates. Article 11 in particular sets a series of requirements that manufacturers have to comply with concerning the reporting of exploited vulnerabilities to the competent authority.[19] Such a development should significantly improve the cybersecurity of products placed on the market in the EU and elsewhere. At the same time, increasing the responsibility of manufacturers by obliging them to provide security support and software updates to address identified vulnerabilities may "undermine the security of digital products and the individuals who use them".[20] Yet, the CRA is horizontal to almost all sectors of the economy: every product, device or software application that contemplates connection to a network falls within the scope of the Act. It affects industry sectors that are less accustomed to the digital sphere and which will have to go through a number of procedures for the certification of conformity of their products. As a consequence, the wider industrial sector is asking for some time to adapt and get acquainted with the legislation and its implications. An additional argument put forward by the industrial players concerns the security of information. By sharing details on their products' cyber vulnerabilities, they worry they would unintendedly be feeding malevolent actors with information on ways to exploit such vulnerabilities. Moreover, whilst sharing information about significant cybersecurity incidents is deemed crucial to support collective defence actions, exchanging data about unpatched vulnerabilities before effective countermeasures are available can divert the attention of responders, as becoming aware of the presence of a vulnerability may compel those concerned with user protection to take hasty action rather than trying to identify the root cause of the incident and elaborate a structured response.Looking forward The adoption of the CRA represents a significant milestone in the EU's journey towards becoming a global leader in setting cybersecurity standards. Over the years, the cumulative effect of past initiatives at both EU and national levels had resulted in a somewhat fragmented legislative landscape within the internal market, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive and global perspective. Legal developments such as the drafting of the CRA aim to standardise cybersecurity practices and certifications across the EU, thereby contributing to a more harmonised and robust cybersecurity landscape. Such legal efforts, however, must be complemented by other actions in order to achieve comprehensive digital security. As known, cooperation and information sharing are key in order to prevent threats, also in the cyber domain. The adoption of a standardised vocabulary for threat intelligence – that is, evidence-based knowledge about existing cyberattacks or emerging cyber threats – would facilitate the sharing of threat intelligence both internally and externally, and both between public and private entities.[21] As the virtual landscape exposed to cyber risks continues to expand, it is crucial to promote a corresponding increase in cyber awareness. A positive step in this direction is demonstrated by an increasing focus on coordination and information sharing by public and private actors working in cyber defence, as also stipulated by the CRA. Furthermore, these efforts must be accompanied by a broader cultural shift. It will be important to promote an action of cultural mentoring to facilitate the transition of private companies, and especially SMEs, to the digital realm, ensuring that they not only meet compliance requirements but also become proactive contributors to the broader cybersecurity ecosystem. By combining regulatory measures, threat intelligence standardisation, enhanced cyber awareness and a cultural mentoring approach, the EU is better positioned to fortify its cybersecurity posture and foster a more resilient digital landscape.Ottavia Credi is Researcher in the Defence and Security Programmes at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI). Michelangelo Freyrie was a Junior Researcher in the Defence and Security Programmes at IAI. Federica Marconi is a Researcher in the Multilateralism and Global Governance Programme at IAI. The authors would like to thank Paola Tessari (IAI) for her valuable contribution to this commentary. For the fruitful exchange of view, the authors would like to thank Anitec-Assinform, the Italian National Cybersecurity Agency (Agenzia per la cybersicurezza nazionale, ACN) and Microsoft. The views expressed in the commentary are those of the authors' only.[1] Elizabeth MacBride, "The Dark Web's Criminal Minds See Internet of Things as Next Big Hacking Prize", in CNBC, 9 January 2023, https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/09/the-dark-webs-criminal-minds-see-iot-as-the-next-big-hacking-prize.html.[2] Javier Espinoza, "EU to Impose Tough Rules on 'Internet of Things' Product Makers", in Financial Times, 7 September 2022, https://www.ft.com/content/cfa2e2be-8871-4b56-b7bf-c5d2c55e8ed5.[3] Harold Kilpatrick, "5 Infamous IOT Hacks and Vulnerabilities", in IOTSolutions World Congress, 3 October 2018, https://www.iotsworldcongress.com/5-infamous-iot-hacks-and-vulnerabilities.[4] European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), ENISA Threat Landscape 2022, November 2022, https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisa-threat-landscape-2022.[5] European Repository of Cyber Incidents, Cyber Incident Dashboard, last updated on 30 October 2023, https://eurepoc.eu/dashboard.[6] Sean Michael Kerner, "Colonial Pipeline Hack Explained: Everything You Need to Know", in Whatls Features, 26 April 2022, https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/Colonial-Pipeline-hack-explained-Everything-you-need-to-know.[7] See, for instance: Kristoffer Kjærgaard Christensen and Karen Lund Petersen, "Public–Private Partnerships on Cyber Security: A Practice of Loyalty", in International Affairs, Vol. 93, No. 6 (November 2017), p. 1435-1452, DOI 10.1093/ia/iix189; Raphael Bossong and Ben Wagner, "A Typology of Cybersecurity and Public–Private Partnerships in the Context of the European Union", in Oldrich Bures and Helena Carrapico (eds), Security Privatization. How Non-security-related Private Businesses Shape Security Governance, Cham, Springer, 2018, p. 219-247, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-63010-6_10; Daniel R. McCarthy, "Privatizing Political Authority: Cybersecurity, Public-Private Partnerships, and the Reproduction of Liberal Political Order", in Politics and Governance, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2018), p. 5-12, https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i2.1335.[8] Madeline Carr, "Public–private Partnerships in National Cyber-Security Strategies", in International Affairs, Vol. 92, No. 1 (January 2016), p. 43-62, DOI 10.1111/1468-2346.12504, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/ia/INTA92_1_03_Carr.pdf.[9] ENISA, ENISA Threat Landscape 2022, cit., p. 22-23; and ENISA Threat Landscape 2023, October 2023, p. 22-23, https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisa-threat-landscape-2023.[10] Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on the EU's Cybersecurity Strategy for the Digital Decade (6722/21), 22 March 2021, point 2, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6722-2021-INIT/en/pdf.[11] Jen Easterly and Tom Fanning, "The Attack on Colonial Pipeline: What We've Learned & What We've Done Over the Past Two Years", in CISA News, 7 May 2023, https://www.cisa.gov/node/18129.[12] European Commission, 2021 State of the Union Address by President von der Leyen, 15 September 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_21_4701.[13] Council of the European Union, Cyber Posture: Council Approves Conclusions, 23 May 2022, https://europa.eu/!6VvGNk; and Council Conclusions on the Development of the European Union's Cyber Posture (9364/22), 23 May 2022, point 4, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9364-2022-INIT/en/pdf.[14] European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation on Horizontal Cybersecurity Requirements for Products with Digital Elements… (COM/2022/454), 15 September 2023, Art. 2(1), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0454.[15] European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2019/881 of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on Information and Communications Technology Cybersecurity Certification… (Cybersecurity Act), http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/881/oj.[16] European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of 14 December 2022 on Measures for a High Common Level of Cybersecurity across the Union…, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2555/oj.[17] Maria del Mar Negreiro Achiaga, "The NIS2 Directive: A High Common Level of Cybersecurity in the EU", in EPRS Briefings, February 2023, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2021)689333.[18] See the steps of Procedure 2022/0272/COD: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2022_272; and European Parliament, Legislative Train Schedule: Horizontal Cybersecurity Requirements for Products with Digital Elements, as of 20 October 2023, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-europe-fit-for-the-digital-age/file-european-cyber-resilience-act.[19] To read the text of Art. 11, see European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation on Horizontal Cybersecurity Requirements for Products with Digital Elements, cit.[20] Tony Anscombe et al., Joint Letter of Experts on CRA and Vulnerability Disclosure, 3 October 2023, https://www.centerforcybersecuritypolicy.org/insights-and-research/joint-letter-of-experts-on-cra-and-vulnerability-disclosure.[21] Boning Feng, "Threat Intelligence Sharing: What Kind of Intelligence to Share?", in Concordia Blog, 20 August 2021, https://www.concordia-h2020.eu/?p=5655.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
A collection of posts from this blog will be published as a book soon from Mayfly books. I am posting the introduction as well as the table of contents below. "…no philosopher has held any interest for me as long as I was aware only of hid ideas, and not of his practice." – Etienne Balibar There is too much to read. Too many hot takes, blogposts, etc. The last twenty plus years have completely transformed the attention economy of writing. The digitalization of text, combined with the dissemination of social media has led to a proliferation of texts and takes. Every moment from politics to popular culture generates more tweets, blogposts, and comments than anyone can read. There is a fundamental transformation of the attention economy in which it seems that there are more writers than readers. How can any justify contributing to such a deluge. Does the world really need more takes on Snowpiercer, Breaking Bad, and Trump? Why write such things, and we reprint them here and now. In short, why blog?I started the blog Unemployed Negativity in the summer of 2006. I was in JFK airport waiting for an overdue connecting flight to Portland, Maine. I started it during a brief swell in philosophical blogging. I won't list all of the blogs here, and someone should write the history of that period, but for a while it seemed like a new blog was forming every month, and most were being updated repeatedly.
Most of those blogs are no longer updated, lingering on now as digital time capsules of a moment that has passed. The activity has shifted to other spaces, podcasts and substacks. I have kept at it for eighteen years now, a fact that might attest to the persistence of habit more than anything else. It is an important practice for me. I can only think of my continued engagement with the blog as a particular kind of practice of philosophy. I take this term from Louis Althusser and his students, Pierre Macherey and Etienne Balibar. While there are multiple different definitions and debates about the term and what it means, the fundamental underlying it is that philosophy is a kind of activity. It is something that one does, an activity, rather something that one is, an identity. I have never really liked the idea that one who studies philosophy is a philosopher, someone who has a reservoir of knowledge and wisdom. One has to do philosophy, and that activity has to be constantly enriched and transformed by an engagement with the outside world. In other words, one has to constantly think and write about the books one reads, the films one sees, the latest news from politics, culture, and society; not just to make sense of them, or to illustrate philosophical concepts, but to put those concepts to the test. In other words, philosophy needs material, without it philosophy risks becoming a dead letter of cliches and stock phrases. It needs a matter to reflect on if it is not to collapse in an endless reflection it itself. This is perhaps always true, but it becomes increasingly so as philosophical reflection comes to us as categorized and pre-digested by all of the various introductions, guides, and articles; if we know the names of different philosophers we know that Spinoza is a rationalist, Louis Althusser a structuralist, Michel Foucault a postmodernist, all of these labels save us the trouble of actually thinking. G.W.F. Hegel outlined this problem two centuries ago: The manner of study in ancient times differed from that of the modern age in that the former was the proper and complete formation of natural consciousness. Putting itself to a test at every point of its existence, and philosophizing about everything that it came across it made itself into a universality that was active through and through. In modern times, however, the individual finds the abstract form ready-made; the effort to grasp and appropriate it is more the direct driving forth of what is within and the truncated generation of the universal than it is the emergence of the latter from the concrete variety of existence. Hence the task nowadays consists not so much in purging the individual of an immediate, sensuous mode of apprehension, and making him into a substance that is an object of thought and that thinks, but rather in just the opposite, in freeing determinate thoughts from their fixity so as to give actuality to the universal, and impart to it spiritual life. One way to free these thoughts, to remove them from their reification in so many categories, is to put them into contact with something that they could not anticipate: Snowpiercer and Althusser's ideas on ideology and repression, Covid and Michel Foucault, Spinoza and conspiracy theories. This is the first sense of what could be called the materiality of philosophical practice: philosophy needs matter in order to matter. This matter must in some ways be alien or foreign to the philosophy at hand. It is precisely because something does not fit into established categories and concepts that it becomes something worth thinking about. At the same time, in order for thinking to have any effect, any transformative relation to not only the world, but any effect on itself it must be materialized, it must be written. Writing is always a transformation of thought, even if the written text never finds an audience beyond the person who wrote it. As anyone who has reread even their journal, or tried to revise something months later, can attest to, the person who reads their own writing is not the same person who wrote it. The text, the words, stay the same, fixed in their meaning, but the thought that created it vacillates and change; or maybe our thinking stays the same, fixed on the same point, but it is the text that seems to vacillate, meaning something else. To write is always to transform what one thinks, fixing the flux of impressions and ideas into words and sentences, and in doing so one transforms oneself. This is the second sense of materiality. The materiality of the letter, of the text, undermines and calls into question the ideality of identity. The difference that one encounters in writing their own writing is nothing compared to being confronted by someone else's interpretation or reading. People read what was never intended, but these interpretations have an uncanny identity, they are both familiar and unrecognizable. These two senses of materiality, the matter considered and the materiality of the text, create difference, or two differences, the difference between the concept and its situation and a difference between the text and its interpretation. Writing is not a pure play of difference. There is, even on a blog, an attempt to connect and reconnect the observations and ideas into something that could be called a position, or point of view, I hesitate to use the word, "a philosophy." As Balibar writes, "philosophy constantly endeavors to untie and retie from inside the knot between conjuncture and writing, or if you will, it works from within the element of writing to untie the elements of conjuncture, but it also works under the constraint of the conjuncture to retie the conditions of writing." In blogging the emphasis is on the untying rather than tying, of trying to see what happens when a concept confronts the cultural or political elements of the conjuncture. This collection is an attempt to see if it ties together. A lot of blogging goes nowhere, become nothing more than a few thoughts that never cohere into an essay or even an idea. It is in part for this reason that I decided to call my blog unemployed negativity. I remember reading about the phrase in some of the discussions of Hegel's end of history brought about by Alexandre Kojéve's influential seminar on the Phenomenology of Spirit. The idea was that end of history, when the conflict and struggle for recognition that had defined most of human existence had come to end, conflict, negativity itself would be unemployed, without a use. It seemed a fitting name for a blog. It seemed to be fitting for a bunch of writings that were never conceived to be put to work. Not only were they not planned to be books or articles, they were often in areas that were outside of my official areas of expertise or training. They were posts on television shows, movies, and comic books by someone who did not study or teach on media or film. There was something of a surplus, an excess to these writings. Writing outside the boundaries of academic productive research and writing. Critical thinking, negativity, working off of the clock; thinking does not stop just because one is going to a movie or keeping up with current events. I started this blog as someone who could not imagine publishing on television or movies, leaving these thoughts unemployed, but I should mention that since I started it some of these ideas have been put to work. My book, The Double Shift: Spinoza and Marx on thePolitics of Work incorporates discussions of movies and television in its argument about representations of work. Blogging transformed the kind of writer that I am. I wrote often for my own self-clarification. It is worth noting how utterly idiosyncratic some of the posts were, posts on the political subtext of Planet of the Apes films, the economic structure of dinosaur movies. Add to this a collection of philosophical references, Marx, Spinoza, Deleuze, etc., and one has writing so idiosyncratic to almost be unreadable. Part of the appeal of blogging is in the absolute idiosyncratic nature of the writing. I wrote what I wanted. Sometimes I wrote on a film that was being discussed and debated, sometimes on some major issue like a Presidential election on an ongoing pandemic, other times I wrote a review of a book that was recently published in French and would never be translated into English. Part of the unemployed nature of the negativity is that I was not driven by revenue or clicks.
I did manage to find readers, and even translators, as posts were translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, and Farsi. This brings me to another thesis that I have written about at length in my published, or employed writing, and that is the concept of transindividuality. I do not plan to go into it here except to say that one aspect of this idea is in rethinking the very relation of the individual and community. It is not a matter of engaging the community by suppressing individuality, by trying to write in a neutral voice, but that idiosyncrasy and individuation is not the opposite of some kind of community, some kind of commonality, but its necessary condition. One of the clichés of writing is that one always imagines an audience. I am not sure if I ever did that, at least in any specific sense. However, part of the impetus for blogging came from my own experience as a graduate student and that shaped my idea of audience. First, in graduate school I developed the habit of writing a lot, a lot more than I would ever use in papers or classes. I was in a number of reading groups, groups on Marx's Capital, on Althusser, on Deleuze, and many more. In these groups we constantly read and wrote small reports for each other, building collective knowledge. Many of my blogposts are modeled on that line, reviews, small book reports to a collective that does not exist, or would perhaps exist in and through reading it. I was in graduate school before the age of blogs, but we did have listservs. These listservs were sometimes the only place that I could read about some of my interests that were outside of the standard philosophy curriculum. I learned a lot about Autonomia and Operaismo from the listserv called AUT-OP-Sy (which I believe stood for Autonomia, Operaismo, and Syndicalism), even Deleuze and Guattari were discussed more on blogs than in classes or books back then—as hard as that is to believe. These listservs made it possible for me to understand things that were not taught at my school or discussed by my peers. Graduate reading groups and listservs were a huge part of my education. They allowed me to engage with ideas and perspectives outside of the expertise of the faculty at my university, setting up lateral communications of knowledge that short-circuited the hierarchies between advisor and student. Blogging was an attempt to continue and maintain the kind of community, both face to face and virtual, that I found in graduate school.
All of this sounds rather self-important for a bunch of pieces written under the hold of insomnia, or while having a cup of coffee in the morning, but I firmly believe that philosophy has accepted the university as its natural environment at its peril. This has excluded a great many people who want to continue to think and reflect, but do not have access to classrooms or teachers, and more importantly this natural environment has proven to be ultimately quite hostile to thinking and reflection. Its focus is an accreditation and jobs training, tasks that often stand in the way of the practice of philosophy. Universities are cutting philosophy programs every year. If philosophy, if thinking the intersection of conjunctures and concepts, is going to continue to have a future, and I think it must, it will have to find new spaces and methods of communication. Blogging might not be all of that, but it is at least a start. Speaking of community, I would like to thank the editors of Mayfly books for having the idea of publishing this book, and the help of Emrah Ali Karakilic, Charles Barthold, and Jess Parker. I also would like to thank the people who took it upon themselves to translate some of these posts into French (David Buxton), Spanish (Javier Sanz Paz and Jaime Ortega), and Italian (Gigi Roggerro). They are all part of the community referred to above. The table of contents are below: every piece has been edited and revised for publication.
Under a Creative Commons license.-- Review.-- et al. ; Targeted therapies and the consequent adoption of >personalized> oncology have achieved notablesuccesses in some cancers; however, significant problems remain with this approach. Many targetedtherapies are highly toxic, costs are extremely high, and most patients experience relapse after a fewdisease-free months. Relapses arise from genetic heterogeneity in tumors, which harbor therapy-resistantimmortalized cells that have adopted alternate and compensatory pathways (i.e., pathways that are notreliant upon the same mechanisms as those which have been targeted). To address these limitations, aninternational task force of 180 scientists was assembled to explore the concept of a low-toxicity >broad-spectrum> therapeutic approach that could simultaneously target many key pathways and mechanisms. Using cancer hallmark phenotypes and the tumor microenvironment to account for the various aspectsof relevant cancer biology, interdisciplinary teams reviewed each hallmark area and nominated a widerange of high-priority targets (74 in total) that could be modified to improve patient outcomes. For thesetargets, corresponding low-toxicity therapeutic approaches were then suggested, many of which werephytochemicals. Proposed actions on each target and all of the approaches were further reviewed forknown effects on other hallmark areas and the tumor microenvironment. Potential contrary or procar-cinogenic effects were found for 3.9% of the relationships between targets and hallmarks, and mixedevidence of complementary and contrary relationships was found for 7.1%. Approximately 67% of therelationships revealed potentially complementary effects, and the remainder had no known relationship. Among the approaches, 1.1% had contrary, 2.8% had mixed and 62.1% had complementary relationships. These results suggest that a broad-spectrum approach should be feasible from a safety standpoint. Thisnovel approach has potential to be relatively inexpensive, it should help us address stages and types ofcancer that lack conventional treatment, and it may reduce relapse risks. A proposed agenda for futureresearch is offered. ; Amr Amin was funded by Terry Fox Foundation Grant # TF-13-20 and UAEU Program for Advanced Research (UPAR) #31S118; Jack Arbiser was funded by NIHAR47901; Alexandra Arreola was funded by NIH NRSA Grant F31CA154080; Alla Arzumanyan was funded by NIH (NIAID) R01: Combination therapies for chronic HBV, liver disease, and cancer (AI076535); Work in the lab of Asfar S. Azmi is supported by NIH R21CA188818 as well as from Sky Foundation Inc. Michigan; Fabian Benencia was supported by NIH Grant R15 CA137499-01; Alan Bilsland was supported by the University of Glasgow, Beatson Oncology Centre Fund, CRUK (www.cancerresearchuk.org) Grant C301/A14762; Amancio Carnero was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity, ISCIII (Fis: PI12/00137, RTICC: RD12/0036/0028) co-funded by FEDER from Regional Development European Funds (European Union), Consejeria de Ciencia e Innovacion (CTS-6844 and CTS-1848) and Consejeria de Salud of the Junta de Andalucia (PI-0135-2010 and PI-0306-2012). His work on this project has also been made possible thanks to the Grant PIE13/0004 co-funded by the ISCIII and FEDER funds; Stephanie C. Casey was supported by NIH Grant F32CA177139; Mrinmay Chakrabarti was supported by the United Soybean Board; Rupesh Chaturvedi was supported by an NIH NCCAM Grant (K01AT007324); Georgia Zhuo Chen was supported by an NIH NCI Grant (R33 CA161873-02); Helen Chen acknowledges financial support from the Michael Cuccione Childhood Cancer Foundation Graduate Studentship; Sophie Chen acknowledges financial support from the Ovarian and Prostate Cancer Research Trust, UK; Yi Charlie Chen acknowledges financial support from the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission/Division of Science Research, his research was also supported by NIH grants (P20RR016477 and P20GM103434) from the National Institutes of Health awarded to the West Virginia IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence; Maria Rosa Ciriolo was partially supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) Grants #IG10636 and #15403; Helen M. Coley acknowledges financial support from the GRACE Charity, UK and the Breast Cancer Campaign, UK; Marisa Connell was supported by a Michael Cuccione Childhood Cancer Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship; Sarah Crawford was supported by a research grant from Connecticut State University; Charlotta Dabrosin acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Society; Giovanna Damia gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions of The Italian Association for Cancer Research (IG14536 to G.D.); ; Santanu Dasgupta gratefully acknowledges the support of the University of Texas Health Science Centre at Tyler, Elsa U. Pardee Foundation; William K. Decker was supported in part by CPRIT, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas; Anna Mae E. Diehl was supported by NIH National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), the NIH National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), Gilead and Shire Pharmaceuticals; Q. Ping Dou was partially supported by NIH/NCI (1R01CA20009, 5R01CA127258-05 and R21CA184788), and NIH P30 CA22453 (to Karmanos Cancer Institute); Janice E. Drew was supported by the Scottish Government's Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division; Eyad Elkord thanks the National Research Foundation, United Arab Emirates University and the Terry Fox Foundation for supporting research projects in his lab; Bassel El-Rayes was supported by Novartis Pharmaceutical, Aveo Pharmaceutical, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, and Kyowa Kirin; Mark A. Feitelson was supported by NIH/NIAID Grant AI076535; ; Dean W. Felsher was supported by NIH grants (R01CA170378, U54CA149145, and U54CA143907); Lynnette R Ferguson was financially supported by the Auckland Cancer Society and the Cancer Society of New Zealand; Gary L. Firestone was supported by NIH Public Service Grant CA164095 awarded from the National Cancer Institute; Christian Frezza "would like to acknowledge funding from a Medical Research Council CCU-Program Grant on cancer metabolism, and a unique applicant AICR project grant"; Mark M. Fuster was supported by NIH Grant R01-HL107652; Alexandros G. Georgakilas was supported by an EU Marie Curie Reintegration Grant MC-CIG-303514, Greek National funds through the Operational Program 'Educational and Lifelong Learning of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)-Research Funding Program THALES (Grant number MIS 379346) and COST Action CM1201 'Biomimetic Radical Chemistry'; Michelle F. Green was supported by a Duke University Molecular Cancer Biology T32 Training Grant; Brendan Grue was supported by a National Sciences Engineering and Research Council Undergraduate Student Research Award in Canada; Dorota Halicka was supported by by NIH NCI grant NCI RO1 28704; Petr Heneberg was supported by the Charles University in Prague projects UNCE 204015 and PRVOUK P31/2012, by the Czech Science Foundation projects 15-03834Y and P301/12/1686, by the Czech Health Research Council AZV project 15-32432A, and by the Internal Grant Agency of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic project NT13663-3/2012; Matthew D. Hirschey wishes to acknowledge Duke University Institutional Support, the Duke Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC) Program in Aging Research supported by the National Institute of Aging (P30AG028716-01) and NIH/NCI training grants to Duke University (T32-CA059365-19 and 5T32-CA059365); ; Lorne J. Hofseth was supported by NIH grants (1R01CA151304, 1R03CA1711326, and 1P01AT003961); Kanya Honoki was supported in part by the grant from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (No. 24590493); Hsue-Yin Hsu was supported in part by grants from the Ministry of Health and Welfare (CCMP101-RD-031 and CCMP102-RD-112) and Tzu-Chi University (61040055-10) of Taiwan; Lasse D. Jensen was supported by Svenska Sallskapet for Medicinsk Forskning, Gosta Fraenkels Stiftelse, Ak.e Wibergs Stiftelse, Ollie och Elof Ericssons Stiftelse, Linkopings Universitet and the Karolinska Institute, Sweden; Wen G. Jiang wishes to acknowledge the support by Cancer Research Wales, the Albert Hung Foundation, the Fong Family Foundation, and Welsh Government A4B scheme; Lee W. Jones was supported in part by grants from the NIH NCI; W Nicol Keith was supported by the University of Glasgow, Beatson Oncology Centre Fund, CRUK (www.cancerresearchuk.org) Grant C301/A14762; Sid P. Kerkar was supported by the NIH Intramural Research Program; Rob J. Kulathinal was supported by the National Science Foundation, and the American Cancer Society; Byoung S. Kwon was supported in part by National Cancer Center (NCC-1310430-2) and National Research Foundation (NRF-2005-0093837); Anne Le was supported by Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund Grant 80028595, a Lustgarten Fund Grant 90049125 and Grant NIHR21CA169757 (to Anne Le); Michael A. Lea was funded by the The Alma Toorock Memorial for Cancer Research; Ho-Young Lee. ; This work was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (MSIP), Republic of Korea (Nos. 2011-0017639 and 2011-0030001) and by a NIH Grant R01 CA100816; Liang-Tzung Lin was supported in part by a grant from the Ministry of Education of Taiwan (TMUTOP103005-4); Jason W. Locasale acknowledges support from NIH awards (CA168997 and AI110613) and the International Life Sciences Institute; Bal L. Lokeshwar was supported in part by United States' Public Health Services Grants: NIH R01CA156776 and VA-BLR&D Merit Review Grant No. 5I01-BX001517-02; Valter D. Longo acknowledges support from NIH awards (P01AG034906 and R01AG020642) and from the V Foundation; Costas A. Lyssiotis was funded in part by the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network as a Pathway to Leadership Fellow and through a Dale F. Frey Breakthrough award from the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation; Karen L. MacKenzie wishes to acknowledge the support from the Children's Cancer Institute Australia (affiliated with the University of New South Wales, Australia and the Sydney Children's Hospital Network); Maria Marino was supported by grant from University Roma Tre to M.M. (CLA 2013) and by the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC-Grant #IG15221); ; Ander Matheu is funded by Carlos III Health Institute (AM: CP10/00539), Basque Foundation for Science (IKERBASQUE) and Marie Curie CIG Grant (AM: 2012/712404); Christopher Maxwell was supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, in partnership with the Avon Foundation for Women (OBC-134038) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator Salary Award (MSH-136647); Eoin McDonnell received Duke University Institutional Support; Kapil Mehta was supported by Bayer Healthcare System G4T (Grants4Targets); Gregory A. Michelotti received support from NIH NIDDK, NIH NIAAA, and Shire Pharmaceuticals; Vinayak Muralidhar was supported by the Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology Research Assistantship Award; Elena Niccolai was supported by the Italian Ministry of University and the University of Italy; Virginia R. Parslow gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Auckland Cancer Society Research Centre (ACSRC); Graham Pawelec was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) Grant number 16SV5536K, and by the European Commission (FP7 259679 "IDEAL"); Peter L. Pedersen was supported by NIH Grant CA-10951; Brad Poore was supported by Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund Grant 80028595, the Lustgarten Fund Grant 90049125, and Grant NIHR21CA169757 (to Anne Le); Satya Prakash was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant (MOP 64308); Lizzia Raffaghello was supported by an NIH Grant (P01AG034906-01A1) and Cinque per Mille dell'IRPEF–Finanziamento della Ricerca Sanitaria; Jeffrey C. Rathmell was supported by an NIH Grant (R01HL108006); Swapan K. Ray was supported by the United Soybean Board; Domenico Ribatti received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant agreement n°278570; Luigi Ricciardiello was supported by the AIRC Investigator Grants 10216 and 13837, and the European Community's Seventh Framework Program FP7/2007–2013 under Grant agreement 311876; Francis Rodier acknowledges the support of the Canadian Institute for Health Research (FR: MOP114962, MOP125857), Fonds de Recherche Québec Santé (FR: 22624), and the Terry Fox Research Institute (FR: 1030); ; Gian Luigi Russo contributed to this effort while participating in the Fulbright Research Scholar Program 2013–14; Isidro Sanchez-Garcia is partially supported by FEDER and by MICINN (SAF2012-32810), by NIH Grant (R01 CA109335-04A1), by Junta de Castilla y León (BIO/SA06/13) and by the ARIMMORA project (FP7-ENV-2011, European Union Seventh Framework Program). Isidro Sanchez-Garcia's lab is also a member of the EuroSyStem and the DECIDE Network funded by the European Union under the FP7 program; Andrew J. Sanders wishes to acknowledge the support by Cancer Research Wales, the Albert Hung Foundation, the Fong Family Foundation, and Welsh Government A4B scheme; Neeraj K. Saxena was supported by grant funding from NIH NIDDK (K01DK077137, R03DK089130); Dipali Sharma was partially funded by NIH NCI grants (R01CA131294, R21 CA155686), the Avon Foundation and a Breast Cancer Research Foundation Grant (90047965); Markus David Siegelin received funding from National Institute of Health, NINDS Grant K08NS083732, and the 2013 AACR-National Brain Tumor Society Career Development Award for Translational Brain Tumor Research, Grant Number 13-20-23-SIEG; Neetu Singh was supported by funds from the Department of Science and Technology (SR/FT/LS-063/2008), New Delhi, India; Carl Smythe was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research and The Wellcome Trust, UK; Carmela Spagnuolo was supported by funding from Project C.I.S.I.A., act n. 191/2009 from the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance Project CAMPUS-QUARC, within program FESR Campania Region 2007/2013, objectives 2.1, 2.2; Diana M. Stafforini was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (5P01CA073992), IDEA Award W81XWH-12-1-0515 from the Department of Defense, and by the Huntsman Cancer Foundation; John Stagg was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Pochi R. Subbarayan was supported by the University of Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) Pilot Research Grant (CTSI-2013-P03) and SEEDS You Choose Awards; Phuoc T. Tran was funded by the DoD (W81XWH-11-1-0272 and W81XWH-13-1-0182), a Kimmel Translational Science Award (SKF-13-021), an ACS Scholar award (122688-RSG-12-196-01-TBG) and the NIH (R01CA166348); Kathryn E. Wellen receives funding from the National Cancer Institute, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Pew Charitable Trusts, American Diabetes Association, and Elsa U. Pardee Foundation; Huanjie Yang was partially supported by the Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Oversea Scholars, State Education Ministry and Scientific and Technological Innovation Project, Harbin (2012RFLXS011); ; Paul Yaswen was supported by funding from the United States National Institutes of Health (ES019458) and the California Breast Cancer Research Program (17UB-8708); Clement Yedjou was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (Grant # G1200MD007581), through the RCMI-Center for Environmental Health; Xin Yin was supported by NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Training Grant T32HL098062.; Jiyue Zhu was supported by NIH Grant R01GM071725; Massimo Zollo was supported by the European FP7-TuMIC HEALTH-F2-2008-201662, the Italian Association for Cancer research (AIRC) Grant IG # 11963 and the Regione Campania L.R:N.5, the European National Funds PON01-02388/1 2007-2013. ; Peer Reviewed
CRISIS EN BOLIVIA Los enfrentamientos de civiles de la región autonomista de Pando y los partidarios del proyecto estatista e indigenista de Evo Morales suponen un nuevo peldaño en la escalada de violencia por la que asciende el país andino desde hace varios años. Desde el pasado jueves, estos enfrentamientos han dejado un saldo de más de treinta muertos, cientos de heridos y desaparecidos.Frente a esta situación de crisis, la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas: UNASUR (creada el 23 de mayo de 2008), se reunió el pasado el lunes en Santiago de Chile con miras de alcanzar una posición común para poner fin al conflicto. La UNASUR salió airosa de su primera prueba de fuego al acordar en la cumbre extraordinaria de jefes de Estado de la región una contundente respuesta de apoyo al Gobierno democrático del presidente de Bolivia, Evo Morales, y al rechazar todo intento de golpe de Estado en el país andino. Varios medios informan al respecto:"El País" de Madrid:"Evo Morales anuncia que detendrá al gobernador opositor de Pando por desacato: Los opositores advierten con romper el diálogo si hay un solo muerto más - Los fallecidos en los enfrentamientos de Pando son ya una treintena - Miles de personas marchan en Santa Cruz para pedir unidad": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Evo/Morales/anuncia/detendra/gobernador/opositor/Pando/desacato/elpepuint/20080914elpepuint_4/Tes"Evo Morales acude hoy a la cumbre regional que analizará la crisis en Bolivia: Los gobernadores rebeldes intentan sin éxito tener asiento en la cita de la UNASUR en Santiago de Chile": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Evo/Morales/acude/hoy/cumbre/regional/analizara/crisis/Bolivia/elpepuint/20080915elpepuint_3/Tes"Suramérica da un histórico apoyo a la democracia boliviana: Nueve países de la región, con Brasil al frente, respaldan Morales pero le exigen que pacte con los gobernadores rivales": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Suramerica/da/historico/apoyo/democracia/boliviana/elpepuint/20080916elpepuint_8/Tes"New York Times":"A Crisis Highlights Divisions in Bolivia": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/world/americas/15bolivia.html?ref=world"Bolivian Leader and Rival Talk in Wake of Violence": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/world/americas/14bolivia.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin"Le Monde":"Bolivie : état de siège dans le nord du pays":http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2008/09/13/bolivie-etat-de-siege-dans-le-nord-du-pays_1094846_3222.html#ens_id=1080276"Huit morts lors d'affrontements entre partisans et adversaires d'Evo Morales": http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2008/09/12/bolivie-huit-morts-lors-d-affrontements-entre-partisans-et-adversaires-d-evo-morales_1094461_3222.html#ens_id=1080276 "CNN":"Bolivian 'state of siege' declared": http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/12/bolivia.stateofseige/index.html"Bolivian president calls for ouster of U.S. ambassador": http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/10/bolivia.us/index.html"Bolivia's opposition agrees to talks": http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/17/bolivia.agreement/index.html"La Nación":"Se moviliza toda la región por la crisis en Bolivia":http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1050074"Fuerte advertencia de Chávez a los jefes militares de Bolivia: Reiteró que no se quedará "de brazos cruzados" si Evo Morales es derrocado": http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1050017"Fuerte apoyo regional a Evo Morales: Los nueve presidentes reunidos en Chile aprobaron por unanimidad un documento de respaldo; no hubo críticas a EE.UU.": http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1050381"El Tiempo" de Colombia:"Evo Morales recibe fuerte apoyo de países suramericanos, mientras diálogo avanza lento en Bolivia": http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/home/evo-morales-recibe-fuerte-apoyo-de-paises-suramericanos-mientras-dialogo-avanza-lento-en-bolivia_4532999-1"Time":"Morales Struggles to Maintain Control in Bolivia": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1841122,00.html"BBC":"Talks aim to end Bolivian crisis":http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7615485.stm"Move to tackle Bolivian turmoil: Chile has called an emergency meeting of the Union of South American Nations to help resolve the crisis in Bolivia.": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7614784.stm"MSNBC":"Bolivia's president: Unrest an attempted coup. Region's leaders meet in Chile to discuss resolution to political unrest": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26724256/"El Mercurio" de Chile:"Bachelet busca acercar posturas de Chávez y Lula con propuesta de consenso ante crisis en Bolivia´": http://diario.elmercurio.com/2008/09/15/_portada/index.htm"Bolivia despliega militares en Pando para hacer cumplir el estado de sitio": http://diario.elmercurio.com/2008/09/15/_portada/index.htm"Los Angeles Times":"South American leaders hold emergency session on Bolivia":http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bolivia16-2008sep16,0,1445392.story"Bolivia death toll rises":http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bolivia15-2008sep15,0,658958.storyAMERICA LATINA"El País" de Madrid anuncia: "La primera ayuda humanitaria empieza a llegar a Cuba: La Habana pide a EEUU que suspenda el embargo por seis meses para facilitar las compras de productos para enfrentar la catástrofe":http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/primera/ayuda/humanitaria/empieza/llegar/Cuba/elpepuint/20080915elpepuint_15/Tes"El Tiempo" de Colombia: "Los dos bombarderos rusos que están en Venezuela entrenan en cielo caribeño":http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/home/los-dos-bombarderos-rusos-que-estan-en-venezuela-entrenan-en-cielo-caribeno_4531913-1"Time" anuncia: "Behind Chavez's Anti-US Rant": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1840732,00.html"New York Times" publica: "Trial Over Cash-Stuffed Suitcase Offers Insight Into Chávez Government": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/world/americas/15venez.html?ref=world"MSNBC" informa: "Venezuelan leader orders U.S. ambassador out: Chavez gives envoy 72 hours to leave, says move is in support of Bolivia": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26665875/"Time" anuncia: "US Ambassador to Venezuela Out": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1840711,00.htmlTras crisis en Bolivia "El País" de Madrid analiza: "Brasil y Argentina temen perder su gas": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Brasil/Argentina/temen/perder/gas/elpepuint/20080915elpepiint_1/Tes"MSNBC" informa: "Police find bodies of 24 men in central México: Rural area has been hit by increasingly bloody violence between gangs": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26682413/"Los Angeles Times" publica: "Mexican officials blame organized crime for deadly blasts": http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexattack17-2008sep17,0,2057095.story"CNN" informa: "Violence mars Mexico's independence day celebration": http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/16/mexico.explosions/index.htmlESTADOS UNIDOS / CANADA"New York Times" informa: "Rescues Continue in Texas; Millions Without Power": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/us/16Ike.html?ref=us"La Nación" publica: "Dramáticas tareas de rescate tras el huracán: Lanzaron una masiva operación para hallar sobrevivientes": http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1049987"MSNBC" anuncia: "Ike victims search streets for food, water, gas: 60 survivors found on isolated peninsula; death toll at 34 in 9 states": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26695458/"Miami Herald" informa: "9/11 justice: War crimes tribunals don't engage public:": http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/681520.html"BBC" publica: "US marks seventh 9/11 anniversary": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7609636.stm"La Nación" informa: "Un golpe a la economía global: Wall Street cerró en alza tras el anuncio de la Reserva Federal": http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1050394"The Economist" analiza: "A lifeline for AIG: America's government comes to the rescue of a giant insurance company": http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12244993&source=features_box_main"China Daily" anuncia: "McCain, Obama joust over how to fix Wall Street": http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-09/17/content_7032347.htm"Time" presenta sitio con links a artículos relacionados con las elecciones estadounidenses:http://thepage.time.com/EUROPA"New York Times" anuncia: "Engine Failure Studied in Russian Air Crash": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/world/europe/15russia.html?ref=world"El País" de Madrid publica: "Un fallo en la turbina ocasiona el accidente del avión ruso en los Urales: El motor derecho se incendió en pleno vuelo debido a un "desperfecto", revela un informe preliminar": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/fallo/turbina/ocasiona/accidente/avion/ruso/Urales/elpepuint/20080915elpepuint_5/Tes"El Tiempo" de Colombia informa: "200 observadores civiles serán enviados a Georgia para garantizar retirada de tropas rusas": http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/europa/home/200-observadores-civiles-seran-enviados-a-georgia-para-garantizar-retirada-de-tropas-rusas_4530170-1"Time" analiza: "Georgia President Eager to Join NATO": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1841162,00.html"New York Times" anuncia: "NATO Envoys Will Offer Their Support in Georgia": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/world/europe/15nato.html?ref=world"El País" de Madrid informa: "La OTAN tiende la mano al ingreso de Georgia: El secretario general de la Alianza Atlántica anuncia una comisión para estudiar su incorporación": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/OTAN/tiende/mano/ingreso/Georgia/elpepuint/20080915elpepuint_11/Tes"La Nación" publica: "Naufragio en Turquía: buscan a 30 personas: Viajaban unos 150 pasajeros":http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1049988"El País": "Barroso califica de "dramática" la situación de los gitanos en Europa: Responsables europeos, miembros de la sociedad civil y representantes de la comunidad gitana discuten en Bruselas la situación de discriminación de los gitano": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Barroso/califica/dramatica/situacion/gitanos/Europa/elpepuint/20080916elpepuint_22/TesAsia – Pacífico /Medio Oriente"El País" de Madrid publica: "La investigación sobre el programa nuclear iraní queda en punto muerto: El OIEA culpa a Irán de "atascar" sus informes y cree que ha construido 3.820 centrifugadoras.- Teherán pide un cambio de enfoque": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/investigacion/programa/nuclear/irani/queda/punto/muerto/elpepuint/20080915elpepuint_10/Tes"Time" analiza: "UN: Iran Blocking Nuke Probe": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1841186,00.html"MSNBC": "IAEA: Iran stalls probe into nuclear research: U.N. inquiry into allegations of secret atom bomb efforts 'at a gridlock'": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26717979/"BBC" publica: "Suicide bombing kills 22 in Iraq": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7617606.stm"New York Times" anuncia: "Afghanistan Is in Its Worst Shape Since 2001, European Diplomat Says": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/world/asia/15kabul.html?ref=world "Miami Herald" publica: "Pakistanis reportedly fired at U.S. forces: Sources say U.S. forces staging a helicopter raid into tribal lands on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border were fired on by Pakistani troops.":http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/687977.html"CNN" informa sobre atentado en Yemen: "Al Qaeda blamed for U.S. Embassy attack": http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/17/yemen.blast/index.html"BBC" publica: "Blasts rock US embassy in Yemen": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7620362.stm "MSNBC" informa: "Thai protesters sit tight as government bickers: Prime minister's compound remains occupied; no agreement on new leader": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26724553/ "New York Times": anuncia: "As Economy Slows, China Eases Monetary Policy": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/business/worldbusiness/16yuan.html?ref=world "Time" publica: "N. Korean Leader Remains Palpably Absent": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1841239,00.html"The Economist" analiza: "Kim JongIll or Kim Jong Well?: Fresh speculation about the Dear Leader's health": http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12209348AFRICA"New York Times" informa: "Zimbabwe Rivals Sign Power-Sharing Agreement":http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/world/africa/16zimbabwe.html?ref=world"Time" analiza: "Can Zimbabwe's Shotgun Marriage Work?": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1841286,00.html "BBC" publica: "Zimbabwe rivals in historic pact": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7615906.stm"MSNBC" informa: "2 aid workers kidnapped in Somalia: 20 humanitarian workers have been kidnapped so far this year": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26707537/"BBC" anuncia: "Troops die in Mauritania ambush": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7617223.stm"MSNBC" publica: "Militants battle Nigerian forces in oil region: Foreign workers warned to leave southern delta as violence escalates":http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26688414/ECONOMIA Esta semana se sucedieron acontecimientos que marcaron fuertemente la economía mundial:"The Economist" presenta su informe semanal: "Business this week": http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12209954"New York Times" informa: "Stocks Fall Sharply Despite Aid to A.I.G.":http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/business/worldbusiness/16markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin"El País" de Madrid publica:"El Bank of America compra Merrill Lynch por 31.000 millones: La entidad se consolida como el gigante más grande del mundo tras la operación": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/economia/Bank/of/America/compra/Merrill/Lynch/31000/millones/elpepueco/20080915elpepueco_3/Tes"Lehman Brothers se declara en bancarrota: La quiebra del cuarto banco de inversión de EE UU confirma los temores sobre la estabilidad del mercado financiero del país": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/economia/Lehman/Brothers/declara/bancarrota/elpepueco/20080915elpepueco_1/Tes"Wall Street no recibe bien el rescate de AIG": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/economia/Wall/Street/recibe/bien/rescate/AIG/elpepueco/20080917elpepueco_2/Tes"La Nación" anuncia: "Lehman Brothers se declara en bancarrota y tiemblan los mercados: El cuarto banco de inversión de EE.UU. se acogió a la ley de quiebras tras fracasar en las gestiones para conseguir un comprador; la Fed y el BCE inyectan liquidez; Bank of America adquiere el Merrill Lynch; se derrumban las bolsas de Europa; se mantienen las fuertes caídas en Wall Street":http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1050112"Time" analiza: "Financial Meltdowns: How Big a Blow to the Economy?": http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1841214,00.html"CNN" publica:"Stocks get crushed: Wall Street socked by biggest crisis in years, with the Dow down over 400 points, as the Lehman bankruptcy, Merrill buyout, AIG cash scramble rattle investors.": http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/markets/markets_newyork2/index.htm"Stocks slump on AIG, housing: Wall Street retreats as Fed's rescue of insurer adds to the sense that financial market distress is far from over.": http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/17/markets/stockswatch/index.htm?cnn=yes"BBC" informa: "Lehman Bros files for bankruptcy": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7615931.stm"The Economist" analiza: "Nightmare on Wall Street: A weekend of high drama reshapes American finance":http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?source=most_commented&story_id=12231236&fsrc=nwlOTRAS NOTICIAS"El País" de Madrid publica: "El agujero de la capa de ozono ya es más grande que en 2007: La ONU señala en el Día Mundial para la Preservación de la Capa de Ozono que los científicos relacionan cada vez más su reducción con el cambio climático": http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/agujero/capa/ozono/grande/2007/elpepusoc/20080916elpepusoc_3/Tes "The Economist" analiza: "Climate change and the poor: Adapt or die. Environmentalists have long said the world should concentrate on preventing climate change, not adapting to it. That is changing":http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12208005
