The Environment

COP 21: WHY CLIMATE FINANCE WILL MAKE IT A SUCCESS

U.S. ELECTIONS & CLIMATE ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES & THEIR DUTIES TO FUTURE GENERATIONS SECURITY: IS AIR POWER ENOUGH?

SCIENCES PO & THE REFUGEES CRISIS VOLUME 10 | ISSUE 1 | FALL 2015

278,000 480 320 6 1

STUDENTS REACHED BY OUR PUBLICATIONS

ARTICLES PUBLISHED ANNUALLY STAFF MEMBERS WORLDWIDE

CONTINENTS REPRESENTED

NETWORK LINKING FUTURE WORLD LEADERS

DISCOVER THE NETWORK

WRITE FOR THE PERSPECTIVIST

www.perspectivist.com

The Paris Globalist is part of Global21 – a student-run network of international affairs magazines Yale University, University of Toronto, Institut de Sciences Politiques, Bowdoin College, University of Cape Town, Peking University, University of Sydney, University of South Australia, the London School of Economics and Political Science, IBMEC University, University of Oxford, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, ITESM, University of Zurich, Singapore Management University

www.global21online.org

THE PARIS

GLOBALIST Contents CONTENTS on the cover

COP21 WHY CLIMATE FINANCE WILL MAKE IT A SUCCESS

14

U.S. ELECTIONS

& CLIMATE

17

ON DEVELOPING

THE ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 10 | ISSUE 1

FALL 2015 featured

8 COP21: QUELS DÉFIS POUR LA COMMUNAUTÉ INTERNATIONALE 11 ENVIRONMENT AND CAPITALISM: A DEATH BY NATURAL CAUSES

COUNTRIES & THEIR

24 ARCTIC GOVERNANCE

SECURITY:

36 GEOPOLITICS AND NAVAL POWER: A SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP

DUTIES TO FUTURE GENERATIONS

IS AIR POWER

21

ENOUGH?

31

SCIENCES PO & THE REFUGEES

CRISIS

46

29 BLOODLINES: POLITICS IN THE WILD

39 ONE BELT ONE ROAD: XI JINPING’S STRATEGIC MOVE ON ENERGY IN IRAN 42 ET TU BURUNDI? THEN FALL CAESAR! 49 TÉMOIGNAGE DE CES SCIENCES PISTES QUI VIENNENT EN AIDE AUX RÉFUGIÉS

4

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

PHOTO CREDIT: SARAH VALLﾃ右

Editorial EDITOR-IN-CHIEF We all live in a bubble. Working and studying in an environment where everyone everywhere seemed to be speaking of COP21 convinced me that the whole world knew about it. Posters in the metro, in the university, radio and television episodes and opinionated interviews…my ears were open to anything dealing with The Conference that could limit the rising temperatures and – put rather dramatically – save the world.

Country leaders had negotiated for months in order to obtain a consensus, over 1350 companies had registered on the online NAZCA platform and made a commitment for the environment, and not even the terrorist attacks of the 13th of November could prevent us from gathering to plan for a cleaner planet.

Until I had a drink with a barman friend and realized that – to my utter disbelief – he did not know about COP21. Neither did my brother, nor some of my best friends.

And I soon realized it was not them being ignorant, it was me being over-informed and involved compared to a majority of others going about their routine. Some of us don’t pause to figure out what COP21 posters in the subway entail, don’t go to Sciences Po where COP21 is a common topic of conversation in many classes, and some of us just don’t have the time nor the desire to know about something which – many told me (sighing once again at my idealism)– probably won’t work. Had I not learnt my lesson with Coppenhagen ? It was impossible for countries to agree on anything more than empty political statements, and even less believable to imagine these countries implementing any said agreement into practise.

In this new issue of The Paris Globalist, a couple of our most talented writers strove to give you their original perspective on COP21 and on the geopolitics linked to the environment, whether on the relations between capitalism and sustainable development, our relationship with the wildlife, the geopolitical implications of the Arctic melting or the implications of the upcoming US election on the environment. The objective is not only to give a new angle to the subject for the well-informed readers but also to spark curiosity and interest in those who haven’t had the patience to research or think about the conference, or about its possible impacts.

Will COP21 be a success ? At the time this editorial is written, one – and especially one believing in the evolution and transformation of the world – can only hope so. And if COP21 does fail to meet our expectations, nothing is lost – if politics cannot do its job, change may come from the bottom-up. Who can believe otherwise after reading our two final articles, shedding light on those who, leading the lives of busy students, find the time to stand by refugees and support the needy? They, and those with them, are key in establishing the solidarity we need to face the upcoming challenges.

Solange Harpham

SOLANGE HARPHAM

PRESIDENT SARAH VALLÉE

VICE PRESIDENT ELIZABETH WALSH

EDITORS

LIKHITA BANERJI GEMMA COLEMAN LUCY LEVINSON JIA LIU CRISTINA ORSINI LILY PURQURIAN REBECCA ROSMAN EMINA ŠADIĆ JILL TIPTON

CONTRIBUTORS

DAISY ALPHONSO MARTIN DE BOURMONT MANON DUBOIS SEBASTIAN HICKS KHALIL JANBEK JESSICA LEE CHARLES -HUGO LEREBOUR CAMILLE LOUBIGNAC VINAYAK RAJESEKHAR SABA SADRI COLETTE M. TALBOT ELIZABETH WALSH

COVER LAYOUT ARTIST ISABEL ARGOTI

(UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, USA)

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

5

« La jeunesse, c’est une ivresse continuelle, c’est la fièvre de la raison, c’est la confiance dans la vie, c’est la certitude non pas que tout vous est dû, mais que tout vous est offert, c’est l’allégresse d’avoir en soi quelque chose de sacré et envers quoi, quelque usage que l’on en fasse, on ne peut être sacrilège. » -Sacha Guitry, Béranger (1920)

6

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

Se souvenir du 13 novembre 2015, devant la Bonne Bière, rue de la Fontaine au Roi. credit : Gaël Lombart (Flickr/CC)

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

7

COP 21 quels défis pour la

communauté internationale ?

Du 30 novembre au 11 décembre 2015, la France accueille à Paris la 21e Conférence des Nations Unies sur le Climat (Conference of the Parties en anglais, ou COP). Qu’est-ce que la COP21, et en quoi cette conférence représente-t-elle un réel défi pour la France et la communauté internationale ? (Cet article est écrit à la veille de la COP21).

LA CONVENTION-CADRE ET SES COP Les conférences COP réunissent chaque année 196 parties — 195 pays et l’Union européenne, signataires de la ConventionCadre des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques (CCNUCC). Adoptée en 1992 lors du Sommet de la Terre de Rio, cette convention a pour mission de coordonner l’action internationale afin de stabiliser les émissions anthropiques de gaz à effet de serre à un niveau qui ne dérègle pas le système climatique. Les COP représentent l’organe exécutif de la CCNUCC — elle-même dépourvue d’engagement juridiquement contraignant. Depuis 1995, les parties se rencontrent chaque année pour examiner leurs engagements contre le réchauffement climatique, et les renforcer. Ces engagements suivent le principe d’une “responsabilité commune mais différenciée”, s’adaptant ainsi aux moyens individuels de chaque partie.

UNE COMPRÉHENSION DES DANGERS DU RÉCHAUFFEMENT CLIMATIQUE La CCNUCC a été créée sous l’impulsion du premier rapport du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat, ou GIEC, paru en 1990. C’est un organisme scientifique créé en 1988 par le Programme des Nations Unies pour l’Environnement (PNUE) et l’Organisation météorologique mondiale (OMM). Le GIEC a pour mission de “présenter au monde l’état actuel des connaissances scientifiques sur les changements climatiques et leur incidence potentielle sur l’environnement et la sphère socio-économique” (site internet du GIEC).

Dans les années 1990, les scientifiques ont commencé à mesurer précisément l’impact des activités humaines sur le climat ainsi que les risques liés à ces changements. De nouveaux instruments ont permis d’observer une stabilité et cyclicité dans les climats du passé, mais aussi des ruptures sans précédent au cours des quelques dernières décennies. Le dernier rapport du GIEC (2013/2014) démontre une forte corrélation entre réchauffement climatique et émissions anthropiques de gaz à 8

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

PAR CAMILLE LOUBIGNAC

effet de serre depuis la période industrielle.

En effet, l’accumulation des gaz à effet de serre dans l’atmosphère entraîne une perturbation du bilan radiatif de la planète. Afin d’éjecter de son atmosphère l’énergie en surplus, la Terre émet un “rayonnement obscur” qui augmente la température globale : c’est l’effet de serre. Cet effet accélère la fonte des glaces et l’évaporation des océans, et favorise l’intensification d’événements extrêmes tels que les typhons, moussons, ou sécheresses. Par ailleurs, la végétation et les océans saturent en absorption de gaz à effet de serre, qui provoquent désertification et acidification des eaux. Ces perturbations du naturel et du vivant entraînent l’aridité des sols, des inondations, la salification des eaux douces et des évènements climatiques extrêmes qui menacent directement la survie des espèces, dont l’homme, de par le problème d’accès à l’eau et à la nourriture. La montée du niveau des mers, que les prévisions établissent à un mètre d’ici 2100 si le réchauffement continue au rythme actuel, menace directement 400 millions de personnes vivant sur les littoraux.

HISTORIQUE DES ENGAGEMENTS INTERNATIONAUX Prenant conscience de ces dangers, et suite au deuxième rapport du GIEC (1995) qui démontre l’influence certaine de l’activité humaine sur le climat, le premier accord-cadre de la CCNUCC est adopté lors de la COP3 de 1997, à Kyoto. Il s’agit du Protocole de Kyoto, entré en vigueur en 2005. Il est aujourd’hui ratifié par presque toutes les parties, à l’exclusion remarquée des Etats-Unis. Ce Protocole fixait des taux juridiquement contraignants de réduction des gaz à effet de serre pour les pays industrialisés à l’échéance 2012 : entre -8% et +10% par rapport aux niveaux individuels de 1990, chaque pays ayant un engagement adapté à sa situation et ses moyens, pour une réduction globale fixée à -5.5%. Trois instruments furent mis en place pour atteindre ces objectifs : le commerce d’émissions, le mécanisme de développement propre (crédits acquis par le soutien à des projets d’énergie propre dans les pays en développement) et l’application conjointe (crédits acquis par des projets communs). Cependant, seuls les pays industrialisés s’engagèrent à des réductions; certains pays alors non-industrialisés tels que la Chine, l’Inde ou encore le Brésil n’étaient donc pas concernés, alors qu’ils comptent désormais parmi les principaux émetteurs de gaz à effet de serre — c’est le paradoxe qui découle de ce “système à deux échelles”. Ainsi, avec l’absence des Etats-Unis, les pays concernés par Kyoto ne

Protocole de Kyoto : engagements et objectifs individuels, 2008-2012 Le protocole de Kyoto vise à réduire, entre 2008 et 2012, d’au moins 5 %, les émissions de 6 gaz à effet de serre (GES) par rapport au niveau de 1990 (année de référence).

Il se traduit pour les États parties de l’annexe B par des objectifs individuels de réduction ou de limitation d’émissions de GES, ramené à une quantité attribuée d’émissions à ne pas dépasser.

Pour les aider à atteindre ses objectifs en dehors des mesures nationales les États parties disposent de 3 mécanismes de transfert ou d’acquisition de quotas d’émissions : le commerce d’émissions, le mécanisme de développement propre et l’application conjointe.

Le graphique ci-dessous se concentre sur les seules émissions de GES.

Quantité attribuée Quantité émise

16 617 6 000 1 000 100 1

Écart par rapport à l’objectif individuel (en %) non atteint

Ukraine Lettonie Roumanie Lituanie Estonie Bulgarie Hongrie Russie Slovaquie Pologne Rép. tchèque Suède Grèce Royaume-Uni France Australie Belgique Portugal Finlande Monaco Allemagne Croatie Irlande Pays-Bas Italie Slovénie Norvège Danemark Suisse Japon Espagne Liechtenstein Autriche Luxembourg Nouv.-Zélande Islande

objectif

Objectif individuel... (en % de l’année de référence)

dépassé

...de réduction

57 48 48 48 47 45 36 33 29 23 22 19 13 10 10 9 7 7 5 4 3 3 2 0

-8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -6

...de limitation 0

0 -8 -6 -8 4 25 -12,5

0 8

-7,5 27

0 -8 -21 -5 13 -6 -6,5 -8

-2 -5 -6 -6 -7 -7 -9 - 10 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 29

1 -21 -8 -6 15 -8 -13 -28 0

En gris : États parties de l’annexe B dits « en transition »

10

© FNSP. Sciences Po - Ceri et Atelier de cartographie, 2014

Émissions de GES entre 2008 et 2012 (en millions de tonnes équivalent CO2)

Source : Convention-cadre des Nations unies sur les changements climatiques, http://newsroom.unfccc.int, consulté le 8 décembre 2014.

Originally published in CERISCOPE Environnement, 2014

représentaient donc qu’un tiers des émissions globales de gaz à effet de serre.

En 2009, la COP15 de Copenhague devait créer un nouvel accord-cadre, pour remplacer le protocole de Kyoto qui devait expirer en 2012. Ce fut un échec : les parties ne parvinrent pas à s’accorder, notamment en raison du différend entre les pays développés, responsables historiques du réchauffement climatique qui souhaitaient cependant un engagement de tous, et les pays émergents, qui refusaient de limiter leur croissance.

Par ailleurs, les Etats-Unis, la Chine et la Russie s’opposèrent à

tout accord contraignant. Néanmoins, l’objectif fut fixé de limiter le réchauffement climatique dû aux émissions anthropiques à deux degrés d’ici 2100, par rapport au niveau pré-industriel du milieu du XIXe siècle. D’autre part, les parties s’engagèrent à créer un fonds (le “Fonds Vert”) destiné au financement public et privé de projets d’adaptation des pays en développement ; et se fixèrent pour objectif d’atteindre un total de 100 milliards de dollars annuels de dons et prêts consacrés au climat d’ici à 2012.

Comme les objectifs de Kyoto n’étaient pas atteints en 2012, le protocole fut prolongé au dernier moment jusqu’en 2020, lors

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

9

de la COP18 à Doha. Le système “à deux échelles” inchangé, les pays concernés ne représentent aujourd’hui que 15% des émissions de gaz à effet de serre dans le monde. De plus, aucun accord ne régit la communauté internationale pour l’après-2020.

OBJECTIFS DE LA COP21 En raison de l’importance de la COP21, la France fut le seul pays candidat pour la recevoir, prenant le risque de porter un éventuel échec des négociations. Deux principaux objectifs sont donc fixés pour la COP21 :

1) RÉDUCTION DES GAZ À EFFET DE SERRE :

Les parties doivent s’engager sur un accord chiffré contraignant pour l’après-2020 (après Kyoto) afin de limiter le réchauffement global à deux degrés d’ici à 2100 par rapport à l’ère pré-industrielle (un objectif fixé à Copenhague), et définir les moyens d’y parvenir. Cet accord devra élargir le cadre et la portée de Kyoto, qui ne concernait que le tiers des émissions mondiales (phase 2005-2012), puis seulement 15% (phase 2013-2020). Le nouvel accord devra abandonner le système à deux échelles de Kyoto (action seule des pays industrialisés) afin d’inclure tous les pays par des engagements différenciés.

La dimension contraignante sera particulièrement épineuse, car certains pays, comme les Etats-Unis, s’opposent à la prééminence du droit international sur le droit national.

OBJECTIFS RÉALISABLES? Pourtant, dans son dernier rapport (2013/2014), le GIEC se montre sceptique sur les mesures mises en place par les pays pour atteindre l’objectif ambitieux de limite du réchauffement à 2°C : celui-ci fixe un plafond d’émissions cumulées en gaz à effet de serre à horizon 2100. Or, les deux tiers des émissions du taux plafond ont déjà été émis aujourd’hui. Cet objectif implique donc aujourd’hui de diminuer les émissions de CO2 par personne à 0.5 tonne, ce qui équivaut à diviser par 4 les émissions moyennes d’un Européen et par 10 celles d’un Américain. De plus, si l’on considère que la population aura augmenté d’un tiers d’ici 2100, la division montera jusqu’à 13.

PNUE émet en 2010 un rapport dénonçant le fossé entre les objectifs et les directions prises au niveau des émissions.

Selon ce rapport, les gouvernements doivent accentuer le contrôle de la mise en œuvre des engagements et limiter les failles dans la comptabilisation des émissions (comme par exemple la comptabilisation trop “souple” des émissions issues de l’exploitation des terres) et dans la répartition des crédits de pollution. Le PNUE rappelle que plus les mesures seront retardées, plus elles seront onéreuses.

Les engagements de 2015 seront donc essentiels pour tenir nos objectifs à 2100, et devront être non seulement ambitieux — tout en demeurant réalisables — mais, surtout, mis en œuvre par chaque partie.

2) FINANCEMENT SOLIDAIRE :

Les parties doivent valider les premiers projets du Fonds Vert, qui a rassemblé plus de 10 milliards de dollars depuis son entrée en vigueur en 2014. Par ailleurs, les parties devront définir les moyens d’atteindre l’objectif de 100 milliards de prêts et dons annuels d’ici 2020 (objectif de Copenhague). Une option évoquée pour l’Union Européenne est la mise en place d’une taxe européenne sur les transactions financières.

La COP21 est en préparation depuis 2011, date à laquelle une plateforme de négociation visant à préparer un accord-cadre contraignant pour l’après-2020 a été mise en place lors de la COP17 à Durban, en Afrique du Sud. Les parties ont rendu, fin 2015, le détail de leur contributions individuelles prévisionnelles pour la lutte contre le changement climatique (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions en anglais ou INDCs) auprès de l’ONU. Toutes ces contributions, compilées dans un rapport de synthèse, permettront d’évaluer l’impact global des efforts différenciés sur la limitation du réchauffement climatique.

Les 28 membres de l’Union européenne, la Chine, l’Inde, la Russie, les Etats-Unis et le Japon, qui comptabilisent 85% des émissions mondiales de gaz à effet de serre, ont déjà déposé leurs contributions, qui peuvent être consultées librement en ligne.

10

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

CAMILLE LOUBIGNAC EST ÉTUDIANTE EN MASTER 2 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MANAGEMENT À PSIA, SCIENCES PO. SPÉCIALISÉE EN ÉTUDES EUROPÉENNES, ELLE EST ACTUELLEMENT EN SEMESTRE D’ÉCHANGE EN ALLEMAGNE. ELLE AIME VOYAGER, PARTIR À L’AVENTURE, ET PRATIQUE DE NOMBREUX SPORTS D’EXTÉRIEUR.

GLOBALISATION VS THE ENVIRONMENT: A DEATH OF NATURAL CAUSES Rising Above the Rust Belt, Flickr/CC/Matt Niemi

Every society functions on the assumption that resources are finite, but the reality remains that some areas are much better endowed with resources than others, which automatically leads to inequalities with regard to the distribution and consumption of resources. Moreover, the economic policies of some states, often among the richest, are much more permissive of ecological exploitation — and this takes a serious toll on the environment.

The fact that the problem of environmental degradation is a part of the discourse around environmental conservation, and is among a series of initiatives to contain environmental threats was acknowledged by the Bruntland’s report (World Health Report 2003: Shaping the Future). The multiplicity of institutional activity regarding environmental degradation and climate change, however, only demonstrates the lack of consensus between world players and their weak commitment to engage in these initiatives. In fact, far from bringing about the necessary change, the current global system shows evidence of the permanent worsening of environmental conditions. No doubt, all eyes are now on Paris as the COP21 represents another attempt to accommodate environmental conservation into the global

BY DAISY ALPHONSO agenda, but an important question hasn’t been raised enough: Is the current global economy even compatible with environmental conservation?

Not only are economic globalisation and the environment intimately linked to each other, they can even be seen as having a symbiotic relationship with each other. The current capitalist global economy purports the exploitation of natural resources, which in turn are used in production and later contribute to the flow of finances. Therefore, globalisation creates new patterns of environmental change, but environmental change is also an instrument in globalisation. This relationship outlines other paradoxes — the finances to be allotted to the cause of ecological preservation are raised through the very activities that precipitated this widespread degradation. Therefore, even though institutions aimed to reconcile environmental causes with economic regimes, it can be assumed that these two concepts are incompatible, and that for economic growth and environmental sustainability to develop hand in hand, a revolution is needed, in both the fields of economic and environmental governance.

The popular discourse around globalisation is that of an

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

11

uncontrollable, inevitable process. Peter Newell, Professor of International Relations at the University of Sussex, in his “Globalisation and the Environment” seeks to disprove this theory. According to him, globalisation is a political process, guided by the actions and nonactions of decision makers. It is thus a completely controllable process, albeit skewed in the favour of those with power. The political economy of today is structured to severely disadvantage a weaker actor that chooses not to engage with the financial market, and so, even if integration is technically voluntary, many countries that do not have as much power as the richest or most powerful are obliged to enter the world markets which are often engineered to their disadvantage.

Moreover, with regards to the policies that guide environmental diplomacy, environmental protection is grounded on the basis of the promotion and maintenance of the liberal economic order, a phenomenon that Political Science author Steven Bernstein calls the “compromise of liberal environmentalism”.

Climate change is a worldwide phenomenon that necessitates a joint response. Ecological sustainability contributes a great deal to improving the standard of living, and it is for this reason that the environmental agenda should be included in the overall development agenda, instead of being seen as an issue that is disconnected from development as a whole. However, while the question of whether capitalism and trade liberalisation can be complementary to ecological preservation remains debatable, the issue of sustainable development itself can be questioned.

While the World Trade Organisation has measures in place to limit environmental degradation by trade, this does not translate into protectionism or restriction on trade. Is it really possible, then, for ‘sustainability’ and ‘development’ to go hand in hand?

To understand the sources of environmental change or come up with solutions for environmental preservation, outlining the existing organisation of power and distribution of resources in the global system is crucial. It is evident that the resources on which modern capitalism have been based are finite, which has lead to the creation of, or at least, the attempt to create, mechanisms for global environmental governance. Proponents of the existing system may argue that these institutions and mechanisms prove that a liberal economy does, in fact, facilitate ecological conservation. However, most measures that have been taken have been either ineffective or insufficient, if they have not worsened the situation. Does this imply the individual failures of each measure, or a reflection of the incompatibility of environmental protection and capitalism?

One way of answering this question is by examining the way in which the current environmental governance structure is set up, and how this relates to capitalism. Writers such as Achim Brunnengräber, Professor of Political and Social Sciences at the Freie University of Berlin, claim that climate change reflects

a “crisis of the capitalist mode of production.” The expansion of contemporary globalisation is a function of capitalism and endowments, and much of the history of this expansion is explained through them: the Industrial Revolution was prompted by the use of oil and coal, facilitating the emergence of Britain and the United States as leaders in the world economy. The abundance of oil in the Middle East has doubtlessly played a huge role in the worldwide flow on finance, with a direct implication on loans to developing nations. Capitalism is constantly adapting to changes in production methods — as Marx said: “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the means of production.”

What does this have to do with the environment? As production increases, so does consumption. A direct consequence of this increased production and consumption is the widespread destruction of the environment. This destruction, then, changes according to the ever-changing modes of production, which in turn changes as capitalism adapts to modifications in the system, creating a seemingly never-ending cycle. Natural resources are finite, and therefore, once production is no longer possible in a particular area, it moves to another one.

It comes as no surprise, then, that the evolving geographies of production and consumption reflect the changing nature of environmental degradation. This was facilitated by the de-industrialisation of richer countries, leading to the industrialisation of poorer ones. This has a serious implication on the ecology: China’s CO2 emissions, which amounted to 407 million tonnes in 1980, rose to 1,665 million tonnes in 2006, while India’s went from 95 million tonnes in 1980 to 411 million tonnes in the same period. Pooled with lax environmental policies, weaker labour unions, and cheaper labour compared to wealthier countries, patterns of production changed once again, although the target consumers remain in the wealthier countries.

This prompts the question: who is ultimately responsible for the pollution that these products embody?

“Climate change reflects a crisis of the capitalist mode of production.”

12

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

It is this phenomenon that necessitates environmental regulation. However, the current system is, simply put, a function of the neo-liberal structures in place. Not only does it perpetuate the disparities between the wealthier and poorer countries, but the responses to this crisis only seek to perpetuate the capitalist structure, rather than respond to the need for reform within the structure – something that is essential to respond to these environmental crises. Newell calls this the ‘marketization of environmental governance:’ the structure is so intrinsic to the world market that Ministries of Trade have internalised these preferences, and choose to regulate for businesses instead of the regulation of businesses. Responses to these crises are seen as a failure of implementation rather than a failure in approach, exemplified in the World Bank’s 2003 World Development Report: “Those [poverty and environmental problems] that can

be coordinated through markets have typically done well; those that have not fared well include many for which the market could be made to work as a coordinator.”

What now, though? It is important to locate solutions that will allow a greater degree of control over the forces of globalization, solutions that are inclusive and equitable. There are two broad trends among those calling for a response to the environmental crisis: the ‘green economy’ or sustainable development approaches, and the political ecology approaches. The sustainable development approaches have been criticized as being believed to be universally applicable, and not placing enough emphasis on deep-rooted structural anomalies like the top-down approach to environmental governance, capitalist monopolies, and disparities in distribution.

In contrast, the political ecology approach, by locating the flaws of the dominant economic and political system, suggests agendas that, while diverse, challenge the belief in unbridled growth and the prevailing notions of development. There are already a massive amount of initiatives pushing for socio-ecological transformation, and many of these can form the basis for transformational politics, potentially leading to bottom-up approaches based on communal solidarity and the involvement of civil society. These notions may be flawed, and could be dismissed as radical and unrealistic — but they are not impossible. As the current system continues to fail and disappoint, the search for meaningful alternatives must continue.

DAISY ALPHONSO IS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE MASTER’S DEGREE IN INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AT THE PARIS SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, WITH CONCENTRATIONS IN HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT.

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

13

COP 21

WHY ‘CLIMATE FINANCE’ WILL MAKE IT A SUCCESS

BY KHALIL JANBEK (THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN ON THE EVE OF THE COP21)

What relates investments in renewable energy to the “green bonds” market, to the billions raised throughout the world for poor countries to be climate-resilient, or to the carbon tax? The answer is simple: each of these are different aspects of what the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change) calls ‘Climate Finance.’

Climate Finance refers to “any kind of investment carried out towards a low-carbon economy” (according to the World Resource Institute). On the eve of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nation Framework on Climate Change (COP21) this December, which aims at achieving an international agreement to meet the objective of keeping global warming below 2°C, Climate Finance may be the clincher for reaching this necessary global agreement.

The main issue to be discussed by political representatives this December is how

Ban Ki Moon at the Climate Summit 2014, Flickr/CC/United Nations Photo 15

necessary funds for implementing global climate protection policies 70 billion dollars in 2015. Investors are also said to express will be raised. While NGOs point out the problem of “how much” “increasing concern around the activities of carbon-intensive — Ceres (NGO) claims that a total of 1000 billion dollars are assets and companies:” initiatives such as the Portfolio needed to “re-green” our planet — and while political elites raised Decarbonization Coalition — a group of investors whose aim the question of “how” at Lima’s COP20, Climate Finance might be is to reduce the assets of carbon-intensive industries in their the most successful answer to these two questions. portfolio — prove that Climate Finance is definitely gathering The question of “how” to collect the necessary funds has been momentum. Finally, companies are increasingly using internal discussed in depth at Lima’s COP20 summit in 2014. Political carbon prices (their number was multiplied by three in representatives reached an agreement in implementing the Green 2014), and Standard & Poor’s expects roughly a thousand Climate Fund, an institution multinational firms to introduce an internal investment in solar carbon price within two years. through which developed and in According to the London-based NGO E3G, countries would annually technology provide 100 billion dollars wind grew 25% and a 90 trillion dollar investment in infrastructures to the poorest States to to be deployed throughout the world by 11% respectively since is2030. finance their transition Undoubtedly, this global momentum 2013, and electrified towards climate-resilient called “Shifting the trillions” has been engaged: economies. While NGOs transport rose 10% investment in sustainable development recommended that this over the same period. infrastructures has been significantly rising over envelope should be at least the past five years. Bloomberg New Energy 50% composed of public funds, political representatives highlighted Finance data show that global “clean energy investment” the difficulty of raising such a sum only with public funds. This is reached 310 billion dollars in 2014: investment in solar when Climate Finance began to come up as the solution. technologyand in wind grew 25% and 11% respectively since Indeed, the private sector plays a pivotal role in Climate Finance. 2013, and electrified transport rose 10% over the same While Development Banks have pledged last year to commit 15 period. This success proves one point: it makes no doubt that billion dollars annually to climate investment, an additional annual Climate Finance can be an indispensable tool for supporting 62 billion dollars have been secured by the private financial sector subsequent climate protection policies. through leverage effect in barely eight months. This is proof that Finally, carbon pricing measures have already been tested, the fundraising power of the financial sector is an effective tool and have proven to be effective: the Republic of Ireland, having for policymakers. In December, political representatives can rely implemented the Carbon Tax in 2009, succeeded in reducing on this aspect of Climate Finance, which has proven its ability to 15% of its carbon emission, while experiencing a strong play a significant role in supporting efforts made towards climate economic growth over the past decade — thereby enabling protection. it to collect and reinvest one billion euros over the past three The action of the financial sector and ‘Climate Finance’ extends years. Hence, it is empirically correct to claim that Carbon Tax is far beyond the sole aim of raising these 100 billion dollars: this more of a help than a hindrance for economic growth. sector is currently undertaking reforms aiming at supporting the It makes therefore no doubt that decision-makers can rely world’s transition towards a global energy-smarter economy. on ‘Climate Finance’ to support the global Climate Protection On the 8th October 2015, the United Nations Environment policies, as its astonishing success, both at a private and Program (UNEP) issued a report detailing how the World financial public level, has proven that it can play a significant role in system should be reformed, so as to align its activity on sustainable that matter. In this sense, ‘Climate Finance’ may be the decisive development principles. The interesting point is the following: this factor for the world leaders to reach the historic universal report highlights that many of these measures have already been climate agreement this December. implemented by financial sector’s decision-makers. The financial sector has therefore initiated a very significant change, which shows the success of Climate Finance.

Indeed, Ban Ki-Moon details the key-factors of the success of Climate Finance in the private sector in his report Trends in ‘Private KHALIL JANBEK IS A MASTER’S sector Climate Finance’ (2015). As he puts it, “the finance community DEGREE STUDENT IN INTERNATIONAL is emerging as a partner in the challenge of responding to climate ECONOMIC POLICY, AT SCIENCES PO’S change,” especially in the aftermath of the 2014 Climate Summit.

PSIA. WITH A STRONG INTEREST IN This report sums up the main features proving the deep shift in the ECONOMICS AND THE MENA REGION, HE INTENDS TO PURSUE A CAREER IN global financial sector towards Climate Finance.

AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION More than the fundraising of 60 billion dollars by the financial OR AN NGO, WORKING ON POSITIVEsector to the Green Climate Fund, capital markets witnessed the IMPACT FINANCE OR ON ECONOMIC expansion of the ‘green bonds’ market, whose issuance has reached DEVELOPMENT OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

“

”

HOW THE 2 0 1 6 U.S. ELECTIONS W I LL A F F ECT GLOBAL EFFORTS TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE

BY SABA SADRI

With the Paris COP 21 conference fast approaching, world leaders are contemplating, negotiating, and deciding what steps they are ready and willing to take in order to tackle the issue of climate change. President Obama has adopted an increasingly more proactive and aggressive stance throughout his two terms with policies such as setting emission standards on power plants, opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline, and boosting investments towards renewable energy sources.

Although he has also, in a controversial and somewhat hypocritical move, given the green light to Shell Oil’s Arctic drilling projects, the sense of urgency and seriousness he has demonstrated, particularly in his address at the GLACIER Conference in Alaska in September, suggests that he wholeheartedly wants the United States to take a position of leadership in curbing the effects of climate change.

However, Obama is nearing his final year in office and whatever course he wishes to set for the world’s largest economy and second largest emitter of carbon gases will have to be carried out — or not — by his successor. Therefore, the 2016 Presidential Elections are of immense importance, as besides the usual global significance of determining who will be the leader of the world’s largest economy and most powerful and advanced military forces, they will also determine if the United States will truly rise to the task of effectively combating climate change or if it will act as a spoiler and obstruct global efforts by refusing to limit its emissions.

The former is more likely under a Democratic administration, while the latter is almost guaranteed under a Republican administration.

When thinking of the 2016 elections, it is hard to ignore

the depressing and humiliating turn that American politics have taken with Donald Trump and Ben Carson leading the Republican race. For many, the apparent disarray in the Republican Party has made Hillary Clinton’s ascent to the White House almost inevitable. However, despite the chaos, the Republican Party (GOP) is not as weak as it seems for three reasons. The first is its solid hold on the House of Representatives, which it is projected to retain a majority in, despite the likelihood of the Democrats winning the Presidency and control of the Senate.

This is due to the GOP’s long-standing strategy of focusing on state and local elections, which, to the detriment of the Democrats, has been largely successful as they now fully control the state legislatures of 30 states compared to the Democrats’ 11. This is vital as those in control of the state legislatures carry out the redistricting processes and have a significant advantage in reshaping the geographic boundaries of Congressional districts, a process called gerrymandering, to include areas more heavily populated with members of their own party, while possibly splitting, or excluding areas sympathetic to rival parties. This artificially creates a longlasting and at times permanent political advantage that the Republican Party has successfully exploited.

Control of the House of Representatives will grant the GOP a foothold to continue the uncompromising and obstructive tactics they have employed during Obama’s administration, such as causing and threatening to cause government shutdowns. The problem is Republicans have managed to make climate change a partisan issue and will likely oppose legislation aimed at reducing emissions. According to a recent

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

17

poll conducted by Whit Ayres, Glen Bolgerm and Kristen Soltis Presidency, and he has until now been relatively out of the Anderson, three prominent Republican-leaning pollsters and spotlight. This has been rather advantageous as the media political commentators, 73 percent of all American voters and and other contenders have focused on attacking Donald 56 percent of voters who identified as Republicans believe in Trump and Ben Carson while Rubio has arguably coasted climate change. through the early stages of the campaign and now sits at third Despite the position of the American electorate and a place in the polls. However, since his successful performance near unanimous consensus from the scientific community, in the last Republican debate, Rubio has increasingly become the Republican Party has more or less adopted the standpoint the center of attention. Among his most obvious strengths, that even if climate change is happening, humans are neither he is young and energetic, evoking an image of a Republican to blame nor do they have any control over the matter, as John F. Kennedy; he has an inspirational success story as the previously expressed by Paul Ryan, the new Republican child of working-class immigrants; he is a very talented public Speaker of the House. While Speaker Ryan may at the very speaker; and he is from Florida, a key swing state that has least acknowledge the possibility of climate change, there are determined elections in the past. The main threat he poses others such as incumbent Republican Senator James Inhofe, to the Clinton campaign, however, is his potential to split the who notoriously brought a snowball to a Congressional Hispanic vote, generally a crucial Democratic base, due to his session to use as proof against global warming, who compose Latino heritage and ability to engage directly with Hispanic a consistent and pervasive presence of outright climate voters by speaking Spanish. change deniers within the United States Congress.

While Rubio offers the Republicans a chance to win the From the irreconcilable deniers such as Inhofe, to White House, his stance on climate change is more or less in skeptics such as Paul Ryan, and finally to those who simply line with his party and therefore worrisome. One difference prefer to sidestep and ignore the issue such as former is that Rubio is not a climate change denier, but rather he Speaker John Boehner, the common trend is support in the believes that the United States is powerless to curb its effects form of financial campaign contributions from the oil and and should not jeopardize its economic growth and well being gas industries and big polluters such as Koch Industries. by attempting to limit emissions. At the Republican debate in In addition to tens of millions of dollars spent lobbying Boulder, Colorado, this past September, Rubio reaffirmed Congress and funding research to disprove climate change, his stance stating: “We’re not going to make America a harder Charles and David Koch, the two brothers at the head of Koch place to create jobs in order to pursue policies that will do Industries, have spent equal sums of money effectively buying absolutely nothing, nothing to change our climate,” which he politicians through more than generous contributions via followed up by saying “America is not a planet.” their various conservative political organizations such as the Not only is this mindset dangerous and close-minded, Super PAC Americans for Prosperity. With this influence, the it is also ignorant. In addition to being the world’s largest Koch brothers have managed to push about 140 members economy, the United States has the world’s second highest of the House of Representatives, level of emissions and the highest Rubio is not as well as several Republican emissions per capita. The influence a climate change Senators and Presidential the United States can have on curbing denier, but rather hopefuls, to sign a pledge climate change is immense, and the fact he believes that committing to vote against any that a Presidential candidate can choose the United States legislation regarding climate to overlook that is dangerous. It is worth change that will result in an is powerless to noting that Rubio is a signatory to the increase of government revenue, curb its effects Koch brothers’ anti-climate tax pledge and should not a scheme that will take policies and is a consistent recipient of campaign such as a carbon tax off the table. jeopardize its contributions from Koch Industries, With relatively sound control of economic growth which will likely skyrocket should he win and well being by the House of Representatives the Republican nomination. and solid financial backing which attempting to limit The third Republican advantage is emissions. is set to increase in the coming the current conservative ideological tilt election as the Koch brothers of the 9-member United States Supreme have announced their intention to contribute an astonishing Court. While the court’s 5-4 split is certainly not a definitive $889 billion to Republican Presidential and Congressional advantage, due largely to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice campaigns, the GOP’s second advantage is Senator Marco Kennedy’s tendency to sometimes side with their more liberal Rubio. colleagues, as they both did in the ruling on “Obamacare” and Senator Rubio is the most viable chance the Republican Justice Kennedy did on same-sex marriage, the conservative Party has of challenging Hillary Clinton and winning the tilt revealed its stance on climate change in a ruling against

“

”

18

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

Rally to stop fracked gas export, Washington DC, 2014, Flickr/CC/Stephen Melkisethian

Obama’s attempts to curtail emissions from coal-burning power plants this past summer. However, the Supreme Court is at a crucial moment as four of its Justices are nearing retirement.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are 82 and 77, respectively, while Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia are both 79. The next President of the United States will likely have the chance to nominate four Supreme Court Justices and significantly alter the ideological composition of the highest court in the United States for years to come.

Finding an effective response to climate change is a cause that truly has the potential to unite the world, and the buzz surrounding the Paris COP 21 Conference is testament to that. And yet, the unwillingness and outright opposition of the Republican Party to accept the realities of a threat that the Pentagon itself marked in a report this past summer as having “wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests” raises the possibility that the United States will not only refuse to take the lead in this international undertaking, but will also hinder global efforts to reduce emissions and limit climate change.

SABA SADRI IS AN EXCHANGE STUDENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA WHERE HE IS FINISHING A BACHELOR’S DEGREE IN HISTORY AND GLOBAL AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES. AFTER GRADUATION HE HOPES TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL IN ORDER TO PURSUE A CAREER IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

19

20 Rush hour, Bandra station, Mumbai, by Jérémy Lereau Colonna

ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND THEIR DUTIES TO FUTURE GENERATIONS

DO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES HAVE A MORAL DUTY TO MITIGATE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE?

BY JESSICA LEE The earth is undergoing critical changes in its climate.

As stated in the latest report by the International Panel on Climate Change, the warming of the earth’s climate is “unequivocal…many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and the sea level has risen.” It is now “virtually certain” that climate change is driven by increased greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity. Changes in climate have already had negative impacts on humanity and continue to pose a serious threat to future generations.

The question is no longer whether we should take action to reduce carbon emissions. Climate mitigation is a moral imperative. Rather the question is how this should be done; more precisely, who should do what?

The aim of COP21, held in Paris in December this year, is to negotiate between countries as to how emission reduction targets should be attained. Arguably one of the most contentious issues in the negotiations concerns the fair allocation of mitigation responsibility. Who should take on this economic burden? A popular argument put forward states that developing countries, whose citizens live below the poverty threshold, ought to be excused. Faced with momentous tasks of poverty eradication, developing countries have enough complex issues to deal with and should focus their resources on the needs of current generations, handing over responsibility to richer countries instead. Others claim that we cannot afford to excuse any players. The future state of the climate is desperate; it is crucial for all countries participate. I would like to consider

21

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

21

this argument further. Why might we think that developing when we apply his argument to the case of developing countries ought to be excused? countries its weaknesses become apparent. I will discuss Let me begin with a caveat: I am a philosopher, not these weaknesses and then provide instead a simpler, an economist. I am not going to espouse an economic more rational argument as to why it is that developing justification for mitigation; arguing that developing countries have a responsibility to mitigate. countries might benefit economically from going green. I In developing countries the situation is different. don’t deny that this may well be the case, however, this Let’s take South Africa as an example. 20.2% of the article has a narrower focus. I aim to address a more population lives below the poverty line. Yes, mitigation fundamental philosophical concern. Climate change is an actions undertaken now will protect the rights of future issue of intergenerational justice. generations. Nevertheless, it is important to note I believe It concerns our moral obligations that developing that any resources spent on mitigation results to future generations. I believe countries have in less being available to current generations, that developing countries have a who desperately require them in order to have a responsibility responsibility to future generations their own rights met. What distinguishes poorer to future and thus a responsibility to act on developing countries from developed countries generations climate change. is that the former face a conflict of rights. and thus a Before presenting my argument What would Caney make of this? Recall let us discuss why — morally responsibility to that according to Caney we cannot discount speaking — we agree that act on climate someone’s rights simply because they are in the change. developed countries have a duty future. Let me run you through another thought to mitigate. Following this we can turn to developing experiment to make the implications of this argument clear. countries. Simon Caney, an Oxford Political Philosopher, Imagine, walking out of your office, you are confronted espouses such an argument. He justifies such duty by by a starving child on your doorstep. You have a choice, appealing to the notion of human rights. either you can take 20 euros and save this child from her A few things are salient. Flying to the Bahamas six imminent death, or you can place it in a bank account to times a year on holiday is no longer the acceptable status be given to a starving child 100 years in the future. On quo. Not when doing so means that the rights of future Caney’s account it is not only morally permissible for you generations will be violated. Why? Because, satisfying the to do this; but it would be morally wrong to favour one desires of one person, when doing so undermines the child simply because she is here now. This seems strongly basic rights of another person, is morally unacceptable. In counterintuitive. I think that most of us would agree that philosophical terms we might say that rights have lexical we should save the child on our doorstep. But why is this? priority over other moral values such as desires and Why does it intuitively feel right to save a child now over a preferences. Furthermore, as Caney argues, rights should child in the future? not lose priority simply because of their location in time.

We must begin by asking ourselves then under what Rights form the basic standards that any person is entitled conditions is it acceptable to favour one person over another. to. It matters not whether we exist now or in the future, Why is it, for example, acceptable to save your own child we cannot discount the rights of a person simply because from a fire over a child you do not know, but unacceptable they are located further from us in time. We can conclude to save one child over another because of their race? The then, that wealthier developed countries, whose citizens answer does not lie in the genetic relationship. Firstly, and have their basic needs met, and who emit large volumes of most obviously, because that would justify racial partiality. greenhouse gases simply to satisfy desires and preferences Furthermore, this would require that you save a distant need to reduce their emissions to protect the rights of cousin over your adopted child, simply because you share future people. genes. The reason is provided for by English philosopher Caney’s argument is clear, and has, for the most, John Cottingham. We should save our child over a child part very intuitive practical implications for developed we do not know because of love. Cottingham argues that countries. I agree that rights hold lexical priority and cannot philophilic partialism, partiality for those we love, is not be sacrificed in order to satisfy desires or preferences. Can simply a case of arbitrary favouring such as sexism or we then apply Caney’s argument to developing countries, racism. Its ethical plausibility stems from the fact that love is using it as a moral justification for their duties to act on a necessary condition for human welfare. Special concern climate change? I argue that we cannot. Rather I think that for human beings is essential to the functioning of close

“

”

22

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

relationships, which are a “major source of psychological enrichment” and are necessary for human flourishing.

In sum, Cottingham argues that were we to disallow special concern for those we love and for whom we care, the necessary ingredients of love and friendship would be eradicated and we would not be able to form meaningful relationships, in turn inhibiting our ability to achieve happiness. It is on this basis that favouring the rights of those closer to us in time is morally justified. We choose to help the starving child in the present because showing love and care to those around us will foster relationships that are necessary to human welfare. We ought to favour those who are temporally close to us because we can form meaningful relationships with current people. We cannot form relationships with future people. To conclude then, and in opposition to Caney, when faced with a conflict of rights, one party of which is located in the future, and all things being equal, I ought to favour the party closer to me in time.

So where does this leave us? Are developing countries excused? I still maintain that they are not, however I do not think that Caney’s argument is the correct one. Rather I suggest a simpler argument. Climate change is projected to affect the lives of a vast number of people. In fact, the sheer quantity of people whose rights will be violated in the future by climate change within those developing countries, far exceeds the number of rights that are currently being violated. This is a result of three contributing factors: Firstly,

due to the very nature of climate change, contemporary problems such as disease and famine will only increase, worsened by the effects of global warming. Secondly, the population is increasing, meaning that there will be more people on the planet with the potential to suffer from these impacts. Lastly, we must consider the aggregation of time.

The future is longer than the present. The present contains a fixed number of people who can be helped, whereas the future holds a number of generations, all of which have the potential to suffer the effects of climate change. I argue therefore that even though we ought to discount the rights of future generations, the amount of rights being violated in the future far outweighs the number of rights currently being violated, rendering the discount rate impotent. We should therefore adopt policies that will protect the rights of the largest number of people.

Determining the role of developing countries in climate change action is a highly contentious debate. Canvassing the moral terrain that underpins these policy decisions is important; we ought to undertake the right action for the right reasons.

JESSICA LEE IS AN EXCHANGE STUDENT IN PSIA’S ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROGRAMME, CURRENTLY COMPLETING HER MASTERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL HUMANITIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN. HER RESEARCH INTERESTS LIE IN THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN CLIMATE POLICY AND SCIENCE WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS ON DEVELOPMENT, INTERPRETATION AND COMMUNICATION IN CLIMATE MODELLING.

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

23

BY COLETTE M. TALBOT 24

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

THE FUTURE OF ARCTIC GOVERNANCE GEOPOLI T I CA L M OT I V ES BE H I ND COMPE T I NG T E R R I TOR I AL CLA I MS TO T H E A RCT I C O CE AN, AND T H E ROL E OF T H E ARCTIC COU N C IL: GO O D I N T E N T I ONS, BUT TOO FE W T E E T H ?

BY COLETTE M. TALBOT The accelerated shrinking of Arctic sea ice due to climate change has exposed a growing area of ocean rich in fossil reserves, and attracted increasing international interest in the region.

Denmark’s new territorial claim to a larger portion of the Arctic Ocean, including the North Pole, in December 2014 is the latest in a series of such assertions as Arctic states vie for greater control over the polar ocean. These claims are primarily driven by two factors: opportunities of access to natural resources, and the possibility of new shipping routes opening due to reduced seasonal ice cover.

Denmark’s claim, filed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), rests on the assertion that the underwater Lomonosov ridge is an extension of the Greenland shelf, and as such, it wishes to exercise exclusive rights to the exploitation of resources over a larger area than it currently controls. The five Arctic coastal states, or A-5: Russia, Norway, Denmark (via Greenland), the United States, and Canada,

© Marc Herzberger

The TheParis ParisGlobalist Globalist| |Vol. Vol.108 Issue Issue 12

25

each have sole exploitation rights over all natural resources found within their respective Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). In a move to assert sovereignty over parts of the polar region that extend beyond their existing EEZs, Norway, Russia, Canada, and Denmark have filed new official claims and ratified UNCLOS in 2006, 2007, 2013, and 2014, to enlarged areas of offshore territory in the Arctic Ocean.

Russia, Canada, and Denmark have each based their competing claims on the assertion that the underwater Lomonosov ridge, which runs under the North Pole, is an extension of their respective

continental shelves.

The Ilulissat Declaration of 2008 was designed to smooth out such cases of competition between Arctic states. It saw the A-5 pledge to reach an orderly settlement of overlapping territorial claims to Arctic sovereignty, and handle collaborative governance with respect to global interests in the protection of the Arctic biosphere. The presence of thick ice cover for much of the year had previously limited the scope of resource exploitation and maritime activity in the Arctic Ocean, and this factor perhaps contributed to peaceful negotiations

Frontières et espaces maritimes contestés... et négociés, janvier 2015 °

20

RUSSIE Mer de Barents

2010

NORVÈGE D

rs

Svalbard (Norvège)

o

160° E

al

ed

e Lo mon os

0°

ov

Jan Mayen (Norvège)

2006

1998

ISLANDE

80°

180°

2012

0

Détroit de 199 Béring 70°

0°

16

ALASKA (États-Unis)

Îles Féroé (Danemark)

GROENLAND (Danemark)

Océan Arctique

19

97

197

3

Mer de Beaufort

40

°

100°

Pays

Canada

60°

80°

Danemark

Norvège

Russie

(revendiquée de 2009 à 2014)

(revendiquée en 2006)

(revendiquée en 2001)

États-Unis*

Islande

Lignes de base proclamées Limite des 200 miles marins (ZEE) Plateau continental étendu revendiqué ou potentiel Limite potentiel du plateau continental Limite revendiquée du plateau continental

(revendiquée en 2009)

Frontières négociées Ligne d’équidistance potentielle Litiges sur l’île de Hans, Canada-Danemark

* Ligne de base non précisée; tracé de la limite de la ZEE induit à partir des côtes.

Réalisation : Département de géographie, Université Laval, 2015

CANADA

Originally published in CERISCOPE Environnement, 2014

26

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

in delineating territorial boundaries between polar states.

However, this ice cover may soon be nothing more than a memory. The Arctic has recently seen temperatures rise around twice the global average: data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre showed that in 2015 ice cover reached only 14.5 million km2, compared to the 1981-2010 average of 15.6 million km2. This represents the smallest maximum winter ice coverage since satellite records began in 1979. A study from the polar Science Centre of the University of Washington also found that the average Arctic sea ice thickness decreased by 65% between 1975 and 2012.

The results of climate change are also more dramatic in the Arctic than elsewhere: solar rays hit the polar region at a sharper angle during summer, and white, heat-reflective sea ice becomes dark open water as it melts, which absorbs far more solar radiation and accelerates further melting. These drastic changes have seen renewed claims for greater areas of Arctic water. Among a number of motives for this, two are particularly influential: •

•

ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES. Melting sea ice has made historically inaccessible northern areas such as the Bering Strait available to commercial fisheries. Additionally, according to the United States Geological survey and Norwegian Statoil, the polar region harbours an eighth of the world’s untapped oil, and perhaps a quarter of its natural gas. According to Ebinger and Zambetakis in “The Geopolitics of Arctic Melt” (International Foreign Affairs, November 2009), the Northern Sea Route, along the Russian Arctic coast, has seen less sea ice than in previous years, allowing Russia greater access to Siberian resources.

COMMERCIAL TRADE ROUTES. In 2007 and 2008, the retreat of the dense perennial sea ice that has long been an obstacle to shipping opened up the Northwest Passage trade route between Europe and Asia for the first time.

Further thinning of this ice, and longer ice-free periods, will mean that Arctic waters will become more navigable year-round with the use of icebreakers, providing shorter alternatives to existing shipping routes. The desire to exert sovereign control over opening sea-routes may be the primary driver to competing claims to the Arctic territory. Canada and Russia have sought to strengthen their authority over the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route, under the special provisions of Article 234 by UNCLOS which allows coastal states to enforce measures to restrict marine pollution in ice-covered waters within a state’s EEZ.

Overlapping claims to the Arctic between Canada, Russia, and Denmark have led to tensions between polar states that have traditionally committed themselves to orderly settlement of the Arctic territory. Denmark’s claim competes with Canada’s pre-existing claim to expand its sea boundary to encompass the North Pole, filed under UNCLOS in 2013, and with Russia’s updated claim to an additional 1.2 million km2 of Arctic Ocean, reaching over 350nmi from its shores.

This unease has been exacerbated by Russia’s military activities in the Arctic region. Russia’s defence ministry has announced plans to have

14 operational military airfields in the Arctic by the end of 2015, as well as increasing its special forces presence in the region by over 30% to ensure strategic command and control of the region.

In March 2015, Russia carried out military drills in its Arctic region involving 45,000 troops, as well as warplanes and submarines, in a move that has been interpreted as a show of force as the state vies for influence over the Arctic region. Meanwhile, the Barents Sea is under surveillance by Russian fighter jets, consequently stretching tensions between Russia and Norway. Russia’s actions may stem from concerns of a Western Bloc formed by other Polar nations, all of which are members of either NATO or the EU, and of these two organisations subsequently becoming more involved in affairs concerning the Arctic.

As the largest Arctic state by population, Russia’s militarization of the Arctic zone has done little to maintain peaceful relations with its polar neighbours. Tensions flaring between Arctic states present difficulties in settling overlapping claims to disputed territory. If the UN Comission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UNCLCS) concludes that several polar states can claim the same area of Arctic territory on the basis of their continental shelves under UNCLOS, it will be up to the states to come to an agreement on the governance of the contested territory.

THE ROLE OF THE ARCTIC COUNCIL IN PROMOTING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT The Arctic Council was formally established in 1996 as an intergovernmental forum to ‘promote cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States.’ Member States include the A-5 and three Arctic states that do not border the Arctic Ocean: Finland, Iceland, and Sweden. The forum also involves six indigenous peoples’ organisations as Permanent Participants in the Council. The Council produces assessments, guidelines, and recommendations to Polar states for the sustainable management of the Arctic environment, and lists the ‘central role of business and development in the Arctic as a motive for international cooperation and sustainable activity.’ The Council provides a space for dialogue between Arctic states, and involves indigenous communities, constituting approximately 400,000 people in issues affecting the Arctic.

Indigenous peoples, especially those that depend largely on fishing, reindeer herding, and hunting on sea ice for their livelihoods, are more directly affected by the effects of climate change in the Arctic than other social groups. Climate change has put traditional fishing and hunting grounds at risk, and shifted the movement and migration patterns of native land and marine species. A warming Arctic also threatens the security of native communities; coastal communities along the Chukchi and Bering coasts, for example, have had to be relocated due to melting permafrost and coastal erosion.

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

27

Decisions made by Arctic powers on the exploitation of resources in the Arctic will shape the future of the territory and its peoples, and the effects of polar development will be far-reaching.

If long-term protection of the Arctic environment and the sustainable management of its resources is to be ensured, action must be taken immediately to prevent further damage to the Arctic biome and to promote peaceful collaborative control of the region. While the Arctic Council issues non-binding protocols on its Member States, it cannot enforce the guidelines, assessments, or recommendations it provides to Arctic states, nor issue binding agreements. There have been two exceptions: the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement in 2011, and the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic in 2013.

One argument in the debate on Arctic governance has centred on creating new multinational frameworks that incorporate powers beyond the A-5. The European Union considers Arctic policy a matter affecting European security, and has advocated an international treaty on the protection of the Arctic. The EU is a major destination of goods and resources from the Arctic region, and has formed its own Arctic policy to address issues and challenges facing the Arctic and its stakeholder groups. The European Parliament has expressed the desire for specific EU Arctic policies to increase its role, but as of yet it has not been granted Observer status on the Arctic Council (linked to a dispute with Canada over the seal fur trade). In 2013, the applications of China, Italy, India, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore for Observer status in the Council were approved. Observer nations may listen in on meetings, but they may not directly raise issues for discussion, and they have no influence in Council matters. The interest of these nations in obtaining Observer status is a clear sign of their growing geopolitical interest in the melting Arctic. China, for example, has already made it expressly clear that it wishes to carry out mineral extraction activities in Greenland. Meanwhile, according to Olav Shram Stokke, Professor at the University of Oslo, in his article ‘Environmental security in the Arctic: The case for multilevel governance’ (International Journal, 2011), the EU argued that challenges facing the Arctic may be better handled with the inclusion of broader and global institutions. However, the A-5 made it clear in the Ilulissat Declaration that they opposed the formalization of a comprehensive legal regime on Arctic governance by non-Arctic nations, wishing to handle responsible management of the Arctic among themselves as stewards of the polar environment.

The realities of climate change and impact from human activity have spurred new dialogues on how the Arctic should be governed; a sense of shared responsibility over the Arctic region between all states is necessary for effective governance. However, the A-5 coastal states will be the pivotal actors in shaping future development of the Arctic region. The most recent claims to the Arctic leave UNCLOS to lay the groundwork for negotiations, which could take years. But for successful and sustainable economic development to take place, territorial boundaries in the Arctic Ocean will have to be agreed upon, and relations between Arctic nations favourable, in order to produce the environment needed for investment. Intergovernmental cooperation and mutual respect are essential in promoting responsible environmental stewardship, sustainable resource

28

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

exploitation, and the implementation of successful strategies to respond to and mitigate climate change. Furthermore, awareness of the rights of indigenous populations, and their inclusion in policy formation over the governance of resources will be instrumental in the development of policies that encourage collaborative and sustainable management of the Arctic.

As long as the Arctic Council is prohibited from forming major agreements on Arctic governance, it remains unable to act as a major decision-making body, and is consequently a toothless organisation.

It is also unable to fully address issues of security should they arise from territorial conflicts between polar states. In order for the Council to have substantial effect in promoting peaceful and effective governance of the Arctic region, and ensure that all economic development there is sustainable, it needs the power to act as a decision-making authority and formulate binding agreements between states on prescient issues. In effect, the Council must transition from its current status as an intergovernmental forum to that of an international organisation, with a treaty sanctioned by its members, a permanent secretariat, a budget, and an autonomous mandate. Only then will it be able to play a crucial role in the future of the Arctic.

COLETTE M. TALBOT IS A STUDENT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MASTERS PROGRAMME AT PSIA. SHE GRADUATED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SAINT ANDREWS, AND HAS PREVIOUSLY WORKED AT OXFORD UNIVERSITY’S WILDLIFE AND CONSERVATION RESEARCH UNIT. ASIDE FROM POLAR AND MARITIME POLICY ISSUES, SHE IS INTERESTED IN ENERGY TRANSITIONS AND HYDROELECTRICITY IN CHILE.

BLOODLINES: POLITICS IN THE WILD Last November, a Mongolian government official invited me to hunt wolves in the valleys of Mongolia’s Khovd province. At first I was interested. Wolves play a complex role in Mongolia’s national mythology; they are simultaneously feared as dangerous predators and revered as the heroic creatures that inspired the battle strategies of Genghis Khan (Chinggis Khan). Witnessing a wolf hunt, I thought, might at the very least provide me with some insight into the Mongolians’ relationship with this highly symbolic animal.

My enthusiasm for the hunt, however, quickly dissipated.

“What kind of gun do you use?” I asked the official as we sipped beers in a freezing dumpling restaurant. “We don’t use guns,” he replied. “We use cars.”

He and his friends would find and pursue a wolf with four Land Cruisers, which they would then use to surround the fleeing animal. With the wolf trapped, one of the SUVs would veer to the side and hit the wolf with its bumper, killing, or at least crippling it. The wolf’s body, claimed the official, would still be in a good enough condition to salvage its fur, teeth, and claws for sale just across the border in China. If not, he could at least impress his friends in Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, with pictures of a dead wolf. As a man engages in the cut-throat, hyper-masculine world of Mongolian politics, he must demonstrate his “manhood”- the more explicitly the better.

One of the most overlooked aspects of humanity’s relationship with other animals is its political nature. In Wolf Totem, Lü Jiamin’s autobiographical novel about a Chinese intellectual living among Mongolian nomads during the Cultural Revolution, the wolf comes to stand for all that is in harmony with nature, independent, and virile. Wolves represent a defiant warrior spirit doomed to yield to the mindless “development” imposed upon Inner Mongolia by the Chinese government just as the region’s steppe will soon recede before the rapidly advancing Gobi desert. Today the book is a global success, especially in Mongolia, where it did much to rekindle wolves’ importance as symbols of the nation’s hardiness and warrior past.

Photo Credit: Martin De Bourmont

BY MARTIN DE BOURMONT Animals can also come to stand for the strength of one powerful man or woman. The Amur, or Siberian tiger, remains one of the most fearsome and endangered animals in the Far East. “There are fewer than 450 Siberian tigers left in the taiga of Russia’s far east,” writes Andrew Jacobs of the New York Times, in an article dated from December 2014. “Across the border in China, illegal hunting has reduced their numbers to fewer than 30. Much of the demand comes from the Chinese side, where the tiger parts are prized for their perceived medicinal value and a single carcass can fetch $10,000.”

The tigers maintain an image of stealthy, patient predators with a reputation for dispatching intruders in brutal ambushes.

What better animal for Vladimir Putin, thug-prince of Moscow, to take up as a cause? In his mission to conserve the Amur Tiger, Putin made sure to portray himself as more than just another valiant guardian of yet another endangered animal, but as a warrior and a hunter equal to the formidable predator in courage, skill, and sheer sang-froid.

In a now-notorious public relations stunt, Putin allegedly “saved” a Russian TV crew from a tiger attack, as described by Miriam Elder in an article for the Guardian in 2012: “Putin’s fabled tiger encounter was PR stunt, say environmentalists.” The message was clear: even nature’s most fearsome predators find their match in a man with enough coldblooded intelligence and endurance to escape the grimy alleyways of a hooligan youth for the polished halls of the Kremlin.

Animals do not always stand for raw power. They also serve as diplomatic tools. The Chinese, for instance, have long used pandas as a conduit for diplomacy. “Panda diplomacy” began during the Tang dynasty when the Empress Wu Zetian sent the emperor of Japan two pandas. Today panda diplomacy persists as a symbol of trust in new economic relationships.

What unites these examples of animals at the service of political causes is anthropocentrism, or the belief that human beings are the most important species on the planet. In all of these cases, animals are used to demonstrate the wealth or

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

29

vitality of a particular nation, individual, or people. Even in Mongolia, a country known for the “lightness” with which its pastoral herders live on the land and their ostensible “harmony” with nature, the wolf’s animal qualities are used to edify a group of people and their history.

We dominate, capture, kill, and display animals to better flaunt our riches and strengths. Animals serve as instruments of seduction and intimidation in very much the same manner that women become the trophies of playboys, and palaces the greatness of dictators. Yet, could it be that another dimension of our relationship with animals remains unexplored by human civilization?

Chuck Bowden begins to uncover this radical new paradigm in his book of meditations on ecological collapse, Some of the Dead are Still Breathing. “I am part of a species where many find it forbidden to cross religious lines. Or race lines,” he writes.

“I want to cross bloodlines. I want to risk my life for another organism, I want to shed my culture and join another culture, to meld with the beasts, to destroy the notion of parks and zoos and reserves and flow in a river of blood off some Niagara and be pounded into another life in the red pool below, the pool that churns and roars with spray and licks one’s being with an overwhelming undertow.”

What precludes us from crossing these lines, to view other species as equals, worth sacrificing our own lives for?

Our pride in humanity’s achievements leads us to think that we have escaped an ignorance we believe to be inherent to the lives of other animals. We — humans — have been taught by centuries of religious, philosophical, and scientific dogma to believe that only we can find meaning in the world, that only we are capable of understanding the universe, of discovering the secret order underpinning the chaos that awaits us each morning when we rise from our beds.

In my opinion, the remedy to our human arrogance can not be found in vegetarianism. Animals devour one another.

What sort of blessed beasts are we to consider ourselves above the violent cycles prescribed by nature? This is not to say that vegetarianism may not someday become necessary in developed countries where the animal agriculture industry contributes to the ravages of climate change. Nevertheless, whatever moral satisfaction we derive from vegetarianism will do little for our attempts to rid ourselves of our anthropocentrism.

Instead we should seek opportunities to find ourselves in intimate contact with other animals. Only then will we truly come to understand the immensity of the world beyond our limited human perspective.

Few people understand the value of close contact with wild animals as did John Aspinall, a British gambler, casino owner,

and conservationist who died of cancer in 2000. Aspinall used his gambling profits to fund two animal parks.

What made Aspinall’s animal parks so special was their emphasis on encouraging human contact with the animals under his care, in spite of the risks they might pose to human beings.

While Aspinall claimed this policy would improve animal welfare, we might also consider the potential benefits to human beings. Close contact with wild animals, even dangerous ones, could serve as an important reminder of our belonging to the natural world.

This idea is by no means original. Not only was it the implication of Aspinall’s unorthodox zoo keeping policies, but it is also the impetus behind an ecological conservation movement known as “rewilding”, which aims to restore habitats’ natural state.

“Rewilding,” explains the writer and activist George Monbiot in an article “Lost in the 21rst century” written in February 2015, “should involve reintroducing missing animals and plants, taking down the fences, blocking the drainage ditches, culling a few particularly invasive exotic species but otherwise standing back. It’s about abandoning the biblical doctrine of dominion which has governed our relationship with the natural world.”

By restoring habitats and reintroducing missing animals, we expose ourselves to more than just the natural world, but to an experience liberated from mediation by technology, governments, and the social norms of our peers. Confronted with wild animals in territories no longer under the complete control of human beings, we will be forced to adapt to new situations in which we cannot delude ourselves into thinking we are in complete control of our fate, whether as individuals or a species, in both the present and the distant future.

Acknowledging our kinship with animals and deliberately seeking to restore and preserve habitats is a deeply political endeavor. It means forcing ourselves to recognize that we are no more masters of our own fate than we are at the top of an evolutionary hierarchy from which we can decide the planet’s destiny. More importantly, it means refusing to lend legitimacy to economic and political systems that understand the Earth as a place to pillage, and desolate in the name of one rapacious species and its dreams of wealth and progress.

“ Our pride

in humanity’s achievements leads us to think that we have escaped an ignorance we believe to be inherent to the lives of other animals. ”

30

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

MARTIN DE BOURMONT IS A MASTER STUDENT IN HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN ACTION AT SCIENCES PO’S PSIA. HE IS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN EAST ASIAN PROBLEMATICS AS WELL AS GLOBAL RISKS.

IS AIR POWER ENOUGH?

Highway of Death “Kuwait Basra” 26 February 1991, Flickr/CC/samer

BY SABA SADRI Since the start of the latter half of the 20th Century, most advanced nations — notably the United States — have increasingly focused their attention on perfecting their use of air power. However, with the increasing propensity of asymmetric warfare, is the reliance on air power effective in winning today’s wars? The short answer is no. Despite an immense degree of technological superiority, the wars that Western powers have fought in recent decades demonstrate that air forces alone cannot win wars.

Writing in 1997, John Warden, a U.S. Air Force Colonel and military theorist, laid out his assertion that “air power, when measured in terms of output per dollar or life invested, is the cheapest, most effective method of fighting in human history.”

Warden was writing at the end of a century during which

the utilization and capabilities of air power had increased exponentially from the first introduction of bi-plane fighters during World War I to supersonic jet engine fighter-bombers carrying out missions over Iraq and Bosnia. Throughout most of this evolution however, Robert Pape, an American political scientist and a critic of Warden, argues that air power arguably functioned as “the ‘hammer’ to ground power’s ‘anvil,’ with the anvil usually doing most of the work,” and that advancements in precision guided weapons have simply allowed the “hammer” to do “more work for the anvil.” This perspective brings into question the widely accepted fallacy that air power alone can win wars.

The First Gulf War demonstrated the merits of air superiority with relatively short and low casualty operations, The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

31

but events on the ground played a significant role in securing victory. In Iraq, the United States and its allies adopted a systematic and calculated approach to defeat Saddam Hussein and drive his forces from Kuwait. This included a separation of Iraq into “five rings” categorized as central leadership, production, infrastructure, population, and military forces that the coalition would methodically target to weaken Saddam Hussein. From the launching of Operation Desert Storm on January 17, 1991 until the declared ceasefire on February 28, 1991, coalition forces bombed Iraq in accordance with the “five ring” system, but it was the launching of the ground offensive on February 24th that succeeded in liberating Kuwait. The hammer and anvil analogy finds validation in this situation as tactical air support, the hammer, was so effective in weakening Iraqi forces that ground troops, the anvil, suffered no more than 147 combat fatalities and were able to liberate Kuwait in an offensive that lasted 100 hours. With over approximately 1200 coalition air missions a day, air power was instrumental in weakening Saddam’s regime and military capabilities, but despite this overwhelming projection of force, it was the initiation of the ground offensive that won the war.

The Western fascination with air power reached a peak during the NATO operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. However, although NATO’s air strikes were essential in both conflicts, they did not definitively win either war. In Bosnia, Operation Deliberate Force proved key in turning the tide as it weakened and debilitated Bosnian Serb forces while allowing the Croatian and Muslim Bosnian armies to counter-attack. The combination of air strikes and a cohesive ground offensive advancing towards heavily Serbian populated regions brought Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Serbia, to the negotiating table and led to the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement. Later, in the 1999 Kosovo War, NATO intervened once again against Serbia on humanitarian grounds. During the 78 days of Operation Allied Force, NATO launched a bombing campaign that targeted Serbian military forces and command centers as well as specific strategic infrastructure points such as bridges, power stations, and military-industrial zones. Despite the destructive effect of air strikes which severely hindered Serbia’s military capabilities, the United States Department of Defense’s After Action Report attributed a variety of other factors to being key to Milosevic’s surrender on June 11, 1999, including his apparent political isolation from Russia; a resurgence by Kosovar Albanian military forces; and a buildup of NATO ground troops in Albania in preparation for a possible offensive. In both Bosnia and Kosovo, air power was highly effective in incapacitating Serbian

forces and making them more vulnerable to operations on the ground, once again confirming Pape’s hammer and anvil metaphor.

After the First Gulf War and the military operations in the Balkans, air power, as Colin McInnes of the University of Wales asserts, “[became] synonymous with the West’s use of force.”

The fascination, or “fatal attraction” as McInnes dubs it, of the U.S. and other Western nations with air power has granted them an extremely competitive edge that is visible in the low risk and consequently low casualty figures they have suffered in recent wars; in Kosovo, the NATO alliance operated without a single combat fatality. Furthermore, from the First Gulf War in 1991 to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, including all military operations in the Balkans as well as Afghanistan, the US sustained approximately 400 combat fatalities total. However, as the US demonstrated this indisputable superiority in the air, along with the capability to intervene anywhere in the world without committing its ground forces to a long engagement, its adversaries changed tactics in favor of more irregular forms of warfare that could exploit the weaknesses and limitations of air power.

Among the most apparent limitations of air power is the intelligence gathering required to direct precision strikes and to confirm the destruction of the intended targets without forces on the ground. During the Kosovo conflict, McInnes goes on to explain, Serb forces evaded air strikes by “exploiting natural cover and hiding military vehicles in buildings” as well as “dispersing…among civilian traffic.” The latter of these also “ensured that, even if they were detected, NATO would have a reduced ability to attack them due to fear of collateral damage.”

This tactic of hiding among civilian populations arguably neutralized NATO’s air advantage, as it was unwilling to risk high civilian casualties in most situations and foreshadowed the type of irregular war that the U.S. would later find itself in, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The War on Terror that George Bush declared after 9/11 saw the U.S. drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and topple Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, both after relatively short military campaigns that followed Pape’s hammer and anvil model of air power combined with ground offensives. However, the occupation of these countries and the respective insurgencies launched by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda resulted in prolonged irregular conflicts that the U.S. was poorly prepared to deal with. The hammer and anvil technique of overwhelming air power followed by a sweeping ground campaign was largely ineffective: the insurgents were

“ Despite an immense degree of technological superiority, the wars that Western powers have fought in recent decades demonstrate that air forces alone cannot win wars. ”

32

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

hiding among the civilian population; they employed irregular tactics such as the use of roadside improvised explosive devices (IEDs); and they rarely attacked in mass numbers that would be vulnerable to air strikes. The loose command structures and cell-like organization of these insurgencies also added a new dimension, as the conventional U.S. strategy of targeting the enemy’s leadership was ineffective. Furthermore, as David KilCullen, a former counterinsurgency advisor for the U.S. State Department, explained, many of today’s insurgents have widely different goals than their predecessors in the 1960s — they “may not be seeking to overthrow the state, may have no coherent strategy, or may pursue a faith-based approach,” all of which are very “difficult to counter with traditional methods.” The insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq were more “resistance” than “revolutionary” as they did not explicitly seek to take control of the state, but rather wanted to undermine, paralyze, and destroy it in order to deny victory to the U.S. as well as the new Western-backed secular governments. Thus, the United States found itself in need of a new counterinsurgency strategy.

Counterinsurgency has traditionally neither been the focus nor the strong point of the American military. Samuel Huntington, the prominent American political scientist, wrote in the 1980s that “the United States is a big country, and we should fight wars in a big way… Bigness, not brains, is our advantage.”

Huntington’s assertion is telling of the United States’ problems with counterinsurgency. Building on this, Kilcullen argues that a successful counterinsurgency requires a delicate and calculated approach, which “may be 100% political” and relies more on “perception and political outcome… than battlefield success.” This requires a dedicated commitment to winning the people of a country over through sincere and effective public diplomacy; controlling the entirety of the political space with a significant presence on the ground; and providing order to an otherwise “unstable and chaotic environment” in order to deny the insurgents a popular base of support as well as space to operate in. Air power in this situation perhaps has its most important use in allowing ground troops to cover more ground and control more territory through rapid transportation.

Colin Gray of the University of Redding further emphasizes that “the decisive combat occurs in and about the minds of civilians,” and that their protection must be a priority in all cases. Adding to this, he argues that the American style of warfare with its heavy use of air power and “characteristics of offensiveness, aggressiveness, seizing and keeping the initiative, and maintaining a high tempo of operations” is inherently at odds with the careful and slow process of defeating an insurgency. Even with precision weapons, a single mistake, such as the recent accidental bombing of the MSF hospital in Afghanistan, can do irreparable damage to the public perception of counterinsurgency. In fact, when taking into account the collateral damage air strikes can inflict on civilians and the arguable terror from the skies that U.S. drones have unleashed in Afghanistan and the Middle East, the United

States undermines its own counterinsurgency campaign by perhaps killing one insurgent but creating ten more out of the family and friends of innocent victims. Therefore, the American style of overwhelming air power and precision strikes to target insurgents is thus not only of little use, it can also be counterproductive by alienating the civilian population and rallying them against the U.S. The United States remains the world’s pre-eminent military power, largely due to its arguable monopoly control of the skies. In conventional wars against states and regular military forces, the air power of the United States has proved to be unmatched and decisive, but still only a complement to the right use of ground forces. However, in the irregular conflicts that the United States has found itself engaged in, air power can be detrimental to winning civilians over and cannot be a substitute to the counterinsurgency efforts on the ground.

SABA SADRI IS AN EXCHANGE STUDENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA WHERE HE IS FINISHING A BACHELOR’S DEGREE IN HISTORY AND GLOBAL AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES. AFTER GRADUATION HE HOPES TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL IN ORDER TO PURSUE A CAREER IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

33

Snow Monkey overlooking the City, Monkey Park Iwatayama, Arashiyama, Kyoto.

Photo credit : Katie Kleya-Park

G EOPOL I T I CS

A N D NAVA L POWE R: A SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP

BY VINAYAK RAJESEKHAR

The discovery of maritime natural resources, including open access to and navigation across oceanic territories, has undoubtedly given states incentive to develop well-rounded and effective militarized navies.

Oceans today hold strategic importance on the basis of the following four facts alone: 1) Over 70% of the world’s surface is covered by water; 2) Over 90% of international trade [weight and volume] travels by water; 3) The majority of the world’s urban population lies within 200 km of a coastline; and 4) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), signed on 10 December 1982, broadly establishes global guidelines for “freedom of the seas.”

A navy can be defined as “the portion of military forces that operates in the fluid mediums that humans use for information, transmission, transportation, and exchange, but cannot normally inhabit.” Its prime purpose is to ensure or deny access. A navy, therefore, has two main features: its ability to affect events of land and its ability to control use of the sea.

Naval forces’ long reach and dynamic applicability have provided an additional, more advantageous dimension to military operations. A navy may therefore exercise offensive measures by projecting force into areas beyond a country’s shores, such as attacking other navies/ports/ shore installations, or defensive measures by attempting to protect sea-lanes, ferry troops. President Barack Obama, for example, threatened to deploy naval forces to the 36

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

Mediterranean and attack Syria in 2012 when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was alleged to have used chemical weapons against civilians. Knowing such a move would be effective, Vladimir Putin prevented Obama from acting by convincing President Assad of surrendering his chemical arsenal to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. More broadly, the United States’ Fifth Fleet has been based in the Persian Gulf since 1995 (Manama, Bahrain, to be more specific) and for the early years of its existence, comprised of an aircraft carrier battle group, amphibious ready group, surface combatants, submarines, and logistics’ ships. Task Force 50, commanded by Rear Admiral Thomas E. Zelibor during 2001, conducted multiple strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Interestingly, Task Force 50 comprised of 59 ships and included 6 aircraft carriers.

Water ways hold strategic importance for states not just for its military, but also as a key medium for international trade. Merchant shipping and oil trade over the past few decades have been a key geopolitical incentive for states to keep their naval resources up-to-date and on constant alert against any threat of engagement.

THE EVOLUTION OF NAVAL WARFARE Naval warfare have evolved over the years during which the development of technology (software as well as hardware) has played a vital role. In the past few decades alone, naval capabilities have grown better, faster, and more efficient every 10 to 15 years, thus affecting tactics at sea in addition to inter-state relations. The late 20th century oversaw the introduction of carrier battle groups as a symptom of the

Flickr/CC/POA(PHOT) Sean Clee

Flickr/CC/U.S. Missile Defense Agency

arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States of America in order to boost their naval presence as well as rapid deployment of aerial resources for conducting easy and quick reconnaissance missions. Such a technological transition over ocean areas as large as the North Atlantic or Indian Oceans by the 1990s brought about a major tactical integration of oceanic areas. Further, maintaining a naval “presence” in the form of carrier battleships allows states to deploy air power into a region that would otherwise require time to arrange. The transition in naval warfare to tactical reconnaissance — a tactic employed by militaries to protect major interests in key, sensitive zones — over large bodies of water like the North Atlantic or Indian Oceans by the 1990s represented a major development that brought about tactical integration of oceanic areas. For example, in the 21st century, carrier battle groups have played prominent roles in interstate interactions, regional conflicts, and global relations.

Additionally, the expansion in size of naval vessels and their internal structural enhancement represents an evolutionary change in their public perception of military capabilities as a whole. Furthermore, upon close examination of general warfare, navies in contrast to other wings of a military setup are “sensitive to changes in technology” as weapon platforms as well as weapons themselves are necessary for effective and accurate combat at sea.

Today, the rapid development and deployment of technical resources have allowed states to exercise maritime superiority in three distinct ways. A “blue water navy” is designed to operate far from the coastal waters of its home state. Ships belonging to this category are capable of running for long periods of time in deep ocean and have a long logistical tail for added support. Scholars also talk of “green water navy” which does not sail far from the shore. Lastly, a “brown water navy” operates in the coastal periphery and along inland waterways, where larger ocean-going naval vessels cannot readily enter.

distribution of commodities. Industrialised states, notably the United States, have adopted a strategy to use military force to ensure a constant and uninterrupted oil supply by making uneasy alliances with oil producers and exporters in the Persian Gulf. The United States has spent nearly $50 billion each year on securing oil from the Middle East through the deployment of military forces to strategic ports in the Persian Gulf and patrolling waters in exchange for supplying military assistance to states in the region. The pursuit of geopolitical incentives in exchange for resources is an expensive affair.

Within the Persian Gulf, the narrow width of waterways (Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz, and Bab el-Mandeb, among others) and their proximity to politically unstable states pose significant threats to navigation, access, and use of waterways. Strategic passages can therefore be mined, blocked by sinking ships, or interdicted by naval forces, artillery, or missile systems.

The key to identifying important developments for the future is to concentrate on the synthesis of different technologies and how that synthesis can produce fundamental change in mission capabilities. At this stage, when hybrid and unconventional tactics are on the rise along with constantly evolving battlefield strategies in conflict zones around the world, navies must be more adaptable and seek to keep pace while maintaining a steady check on their capabilities.

NAVAL WARFARE AND GEOPOLITICS It may well be argued that battle fleets, a key component of developed navies around the world used for military engagements, dissuasion, and presence, are used tactically for both sustained offense and defense. For example, they were used numerous times by the United States during the mid-20th century to dissuade the Soviets from intervening in regional Middle-Eastern conflicts and the Persian Gulf, an area that today controls more than 60% of global oil trade. During the Iran-Iraq “Tanker Wars” between 1984 and 1987, the United States was forced to intervene in order to secure oil shipping lanes from the Strait of Hormuz, and their naval presence in the Asia-Pacific region from 1950 to 1958 prevented China from attacking Taiwan as well. However, petroleum has over the last century or so been the primary cause of geopolitical conflicts over the access, control, and 38

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

VINAYAK RAJESEKHAR IS CURRENTLY PURSUING A MASTERS DEGREE IN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY WITH CONCENTRATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND DIPLOMACY AT THE PARIS SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCES PO, PARIS.

Flickr/CC/Luci Harrison Photography

“ONE BELT, ONE ROAD:” XI JINPING’S STRATEGIC MOVE ON ENERGY IN IRAN

BY MANON DUBOIS By posing itself as a wise arbiter during the negotiations surrounding the deal on Iranian nuclear, China strategically moved its pawns towards the energetic success of President Xi Jinping’s titanic project “One Belt, One Road.”

It was a great “Yes.” On Thursday the 13th of October, a large majority of Iranian parliamentarians approved the deal signed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany on the 14th of July 2015, in Vienna. Not only is this historic deal the fruit of eighteen

months of fierce negotiations, it is also the light at the end of a tunnel of more than ten years of sanctioning Iran and almost two decades of suspicions regarding Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Technically called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), this deal plans to carefully monitor Iranian nuclear activities by reducing Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium by 98%, cutting off any production of plutonium linked with the Arak heavy water reactor and considerably increasing the number of verifications and intrusive inspections. In return, nuclear-related sanctions will be lifted by 2016, enabling Iran to become a full-time actor on the

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

39

economic market.

OLD FRIENDS For decades, China and Iran have been building an economic and strategic partnership, currently based on two main pillars: gas and oil. In June 2015, Iran was China’s fourth supplier in oil for the year to date, behind Russia, Angola and Saudi Arabia, with almost 12 tonnes of imported oil towards the end of 2015. This is the highest level ever seen in the historical collaboration of both countries, which traded over 50 billion dollars in 2014 (almost 20 times more than in 2001).

That is not all. Iran and China share several characteristics which have contributed in making them good friends in the international arena: both are historical civilizations eager to boost their influence, and both are intrinsically the bearers of a more or less cutting anti-Americanism. If China officially said it had desisted from providing Iran with uranium in 1992, it remained a precious security partner of the Islamic Republic for a long time, expressing its support with its veto right at the Security Council. Torn between its desire to tighten bonds in order to deal with its growing energy demand, and its desire not to displease a threatening Washington regarding States that wouldn’t reduce their imports from Iran, Beijing constantly delayed international negotiations on Iran from 2003 to 2007, when Li Zhaoxing was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In fact, before backing the sixth Security Council Resolution on Iran, China hadn’t truly entertained the idea of making its bilateral relations with Iran suffer from international sanctions. In 2005, seven Chinese firms had even been charged with selling nuclear weapons to Iran and were banned from trading with several Western countries, including the United States.

UNFROZEN ASSETS, WARMED UP PARTNERSHIPS Now that a historical deal has been approved,lifting sanctions on Iran should come with two beneficial consequences for Tehran: a fall in oil prices and a boost to domestic economy. As for China, in April, it surpassed the United States as the world’s biggest importer of crude oil. Despite a slowing economy, its demand has continued to grow over the last years. Whether Tehran wants to secure its investments with China cannot be doubted, especially when its direct competitors on the market are rivals such as Saudi Arabia and the US. A main investor in the development of Iran’s Masjed Soleyman oilfield (the oldest of Middle East) in 2011, China had already paved the way for the tightening of such links. Therefore, what impact will or could the JCPA have?

Subject to full compliance to the clauses dealing with the limitations in the enrichment in uranium and production of plutonium, Iran will be freed from the economic chains suffocating its economy since 2005, which have prevented its GDP from being at least 40% higher today. It is a start from

40

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

scratch, with $100 to $150 billion of unfrozen assets. As a direct outfall, oil prices will be rid of financial barriers and become much cheaper in 2016, allowing Tehran to make the suitable legal changes to undertake a new wave of international trade.

Doubtless, China will keep on investing in oilfields exploitation and will inflate its oil volume trade with Iran in order to solve its huge energy needs. Nevertheless, it will try to minimize the weight of Iranian importations in order to respect its motto: demand, not dependence. But cooperation could also be deepened in other sectors including infrastructures (which

“ ALTHOUGH MANY

MULTINATIONAL FIRMS HAVE PLANNED TO ENTER IRAN FOLLOWING THE OPENING OF ITS MARKET, IT WON’T BE AN EASY TASK: ISOLATED FOR MANY YEARS, IRAN HAS DEVELOPED A STRONG AND AUTONOMOUS INTERNAL MARKET WHICH WON’T LOSE GROUND EASILY TO EXTERNAL ACTORS. ” need to be modernized after 35 years of isolation), industries or transports.

Iran won’t develop in one day. The Iranian economy is weak and dependent on oil, which represents 80% of its exportation.

Although many multinational firms have planned to enter Iran following the opening of its market, it won’t be an easy task: isolated for many years, Iran has developed a strong and autonomous internal market which won’t lose ground easily to external actors. Moreover, most of Iranian facilities are old and obsolete; modernization will be time-consuming and difficult — even though the Iranian population, of which 70% lives in urban areas, is well educated. Moreover, the private sector represents only 20% of the Iranian market; the rest is government-held and won’t be reached so easily by Western actors. Thus, Iran will need help to turn the page and engage itself on the path of openness. Who other than China, the great leader of development, holds the reins of growing economies, to invest in its modernization? It is more than ready to assist Iran if it can help establish stability. Looking at the background discourses on this deal, one can indeed understand that it is not only bilateral relations at stake: the JCPA is renegotiating the whole geopolitical order in the Middle East.

ONE BELT, ONE ROAD: THE ENERGETIC STRATEGY ON IRAN China’s policy of harmony aims at gaining influence through investments in trade or infrastructures that serve its strategic interests. These are embodied in a titanic project undertaken

by President Xi Jinping, carrying the name of “One Belt, One Road.”

Facing a slowing economy, China is looking for new ways to boost its growth, while its Asian neighbours are inflating their appetite for trade and energy. The solution it found is the creation of a channel, modelled on the ancient Silk Road, which would achieve regional integration on the one hand, and establish trade and energetic agreements from Asia to Europe through the Middle East on the other. Thanks to its opening on the Caspian Sea, Iran is a major crossroads for pipelines that could allow China to avoid problem areas such as the Straits of Hormuz.

More important, the Central Kingdom is not willing to take over the Middle East. Indeed, the volatile political and security situations have dampened Chinese investors. Even in Saudi Arabia, where the political situation is rather stable, the China Railway Construction reported a loss of 4.14 billion yuan in Mecca in 2010 (US$670m), due to bureaucratic issues that considerably hindered a light rail project. The Chinese leadership in the region would also distort the One Belt One Road project if it had to be directly confronted with Washington’s interests.

True to itself, China isn’t looking for direct provocation and is much willing to stick to its guns regarding a balanced policy that protects its interests while maintaining stability. Because Iran is far from being a US ally, it is one of the only cards China can securely play, although it must act carefully in order not to tarnish its relations with Arab States for lack of deepening them. However, the whole strategy remains well calculated; with this deal, China has succeeded in finding a long-term reliable partner to satisfy its energetic interests in Middle East.

Nice shot for Xi Jinping.

MANON DUBOIS STUDIES INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY AT PSIA AND IS INTERESTED IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS AND ASIAN PROBLEMATICS.

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

41

President of Burundi Pierre Nkurunziza, Š Afrique Education

ET TU, BURUNDI? THEN FALL, CAESAR!

BY SEBASTIAN HICKS Burundi is a country you may have understandably confused with a number of other places beginning with‘B’: Benin, Burkina Faso or even Brunei. But of all the B’s, Burundi is perhaps the most interesting and problematic in the hive today. Following an unsuccessful coup in the capital Bujumbura in May, the country has been plunged into a confusing and turbulent time. But the situation is as puzzling as it is severe; the press seems to be unsure whether to call it a crisis or simply a dilemma. The problem lies in the convoluted nature of the competing factions. It is often the case that one is searching for a Caesar and Brutus

in such political maelstroms.

President Pierre Nkurunziza’s bid for a controversial (and perhaps illegal) third term may be a good place to start. His Brutus: the military officier Godefroid Niyombare who attempted a woefully under-dramatic takeover last spring. Nkurunziza could only watch the drama unfold from above as his plane from Tanzania was unable to land at the rebel-controlled airport — nothing worse than being stuck at passport control when you are trying to prevent your own overthrow.

But Niybombare hasn’t been seen since — to call it a battle between two sides seems to over simplify the situation and also make it less interesting. One might prefer to view it as a circle of ambitious Brutuses, or perhaps Brutii, surrounding a circle of Caesars of varying importance whilst Cassius looks confusedly at an upside down map of Rome desperately trying to find the centre of the action. With this frame in mind, we can begin to understand how this Burundian drama may well become a tragedy of the people.

WHO’S WHO AND WHY DO THEY ALL BEGIN WITH N? In lieu of our Roman trio, we find a Burundian triumvirate of men made up of Foreign Minister Alain Nyamitwe, Armed Forces Chief Prime Niyongabo and of course President Nkurunziza himself. Nkurunziza’s authoritarian leadership should not be taken lightly and anyone trying to give him the run around won’t get far; jogging in groups is banned as it has been deemed a tacit method of political dissent. Although high cholesterol may be a long-term consequence of this for Burundians, in the short term it presents obvious difficulties for the transfer of information or lack thereof, and sets a precedent of subservience between the Burundians in the capital and the government.

Prime Niyongabo represents an important role in the Burundian leadership and despite suffering

an assassination attempt he continues to lead a highly divided military leadership who have both opposed and supported Nkurunziza at one time or another. The police have become an ever more prevalent and powerful force under this duo: Manirakiza, a lawyer who defended hundreds of young men arrested by the police in Musaga, was in his turn beaten and jailed for 24 hours by the police.

In addition, the Imbonerakure (the government’s youth militia) play a decisive role in intimidating Burundians living in rural areas. They often harass and torture before handing people over to the Secret Service, which is responsible for most human rights abuses. Just last month, a driver employed by the chief of East African lawyers board Me Dieudonné Bashirahishize was killed in Kibenga in the south of Bujumbura on his way home.

Our final player, Foreign Affairs Minister Alain Nyamitwe, divides his time between accusing Rwanda of supporting rebels within Burundi and disagreeing over the ongoing conflict in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. It is here that the internationalised situation becomes Shakespearean in its melodrama which plays out on the unlikely stage of the transnational bus services between the two nations. Bus services have slowed down dramatically and are regularly searched to find those associated with the rebels such as the National Forces of Liberation (NFL) who may be traveling back and forth from Rwanda.

When the agendas of these three figureheads harmonize, it can result in disastrous consequences for the people on the ground. There is little alternative to this kind of opportunistic governance.

WHERE IS EVERYBODY ELSE? Rwanda is the most well-placed country to express strong opinions about the issues in Burundi. Its agenda is unclear, but the cultural and ethnic links between the two countries have a long history which highlights Rwanda’s vested interest. Rwanda differs immeasurably from a distracted Ugandan leadership which has remained fairly silent on the Burundian topic during important elections, and has often accused Imbonerakure of housing former DRC combatants who have not faced trial. It has also criticized the Nkurunziza’s third term and the government’s treatment of Rwandan travellers generally.

The East African Community and the African Union Peace and Security Council have both spoken out about the ongoing violence and have threatened to send a peace-keeping mission. The United States has come down decidedly on the side of Rwanda, and has banished Burundi from the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act which reduces import duties on American products. Whilst it may seem a clear cut case of Burundi versus the rest of the world, the tangential agendas of various international actors makes them equally dangerous to the stability of Burundi.

44

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE? When Brutus opposes Antony and speaks to the people, we see that the master orator seizes control of the masses. But in the case of Burundi it is less clear what either the leadership or the divided factions (and there are many) of the country actually want. Democracy and freedom may be high on the philosophical agenda, but it is unclear whether this is a priority for Burundi over and above effective and coherent governance. The Burundian people are in the hands of a government which only came to power after an abysmal 30% election turnout. Young Burundians have expressed confusion over the lack of information, and the situation is likely to become increasingly heated. One Burundian spoke of “automatic gunfire and grenade explosions” every night and that he found more information in international media than in local Burundian outlets.

The convoluted and divided opposition faces violent riposte from the government; armed groups in the capital were given 6 days to surrender their arms and the resultant conflict left 9 people dead. Indeed, it is particularly worrying that government officials often find the flamboyant vernacular that brought Brutus to the fore in such times. Nkurunziza stated that violent opposition would be “scattered like flour thrown into the air” — a shame that such melodious phrases are not used to advocate peace, unification and a Burundian national agenda.

As one of Africa’s youngest leaders, Nkurunziza has a huge weight to bear and his life has been one of tragedy. Of his 6 siblings, 5 have died in conflict, his father died during ethnic violence during the 1970s, and during the civil war he himself escaped the massacre of 200 people on his university campus.

What such a leader should have learned from his early life is the futility of violent response. The complexities of the political situation in Burundi as it develops, read as a country requiring control and stability but attacking the very people who can make such control a reality.

SEBASTIAN HICKS IS A UNIVERSITY OF LONDON GRADUATE, CURRENTLY STUDYING HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN ACTION AT PSIA. HE FINDS MOST TOPICS, FROM THE MOST BASIC TO THE MOST COMPLEX, DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AND FINDS WRITING ABOUT THEM OFTEN CLEARS THINGS UP.

Offre réservée aux étudiants de Sciences Po

BNP PARIBAS : Partenaire de Sciences Po BNP Paribas, partenaire de vos études à Sciences Po vous souhaite la bienvenue avec des offres préférentielles pour l’ouverture de votre 1er compte chez BNP Paribas (1) :

90 € de prime de bienvenue Vos services bancaires gratuits pendant 3 ans : -

Une carte bancaire adaptée à vos besoins Une facilité de caisse personnalisée avec un seuil de non perception d’agios Une assurance pour vos moyens de paiement L’accès gratuit à tous vos comptes 24h/24par Internet, téléphone, mobile

Agence BNP Paribas Saint Germain des Près 147 Boulevard St Germain - 75006 Paris Ouverte du Lundi au Vendredi, de 9h à 17h15 Xavier DERRE Tél: 01 40 46 74 12 Email: Xavier.derre@bnpparibas.com (1) Offre non cumulable, valable jusqu’au 30/06/2016 pour toute ouverture d’un 1er compte chèques avec «Esprit Libre»,

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

45

SCIENCES PO STUDENTS RESPOND TO THE REFUGEE CRISIS WITH SOLIDARITY

BY ELIZABETH WALSH

When we started at Sciences Po this Autumn, it was impossible to ignore the refugee crisis exploding over the media alongside our first days navigating new classes. Sara Bonyadi, a Master’s student in International Development, saw the tents at Gare d’Austerlitz in early September and felt compelled to get involved. Unfortunately, the overwhelmed organizations working on the ground were too inundated to respond to her requests to help. So she posted on the Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA) Facebook page, seeking Arabic speakers who could help her talk to refugees and assess the situation directly. Ten minutes later, she had over 30 responses. By the end of the day, she had a Facebook group with more than 300 members. Two days later, a group of students went to the camp to conduct a needs’ assessment.

The dominant story in the media has been one of Syrian refugees, particularly children. But the refugees here in Paris have a wide range of stories. Many of the people who arrived in Paris at Gare d’Austerlitz come from places as diverse as Sudan, Eritrea, Mali, Guinea, and Afghanistan, and are educated adults who had skilled careers before they were forced to leave. Sudanese refugees tend to be “double asylum” seekers — they fled Sudan to Libya in the early 2000s due to the genocide in Darfur and, like others in Libya, have since been expelled following the post-Qaddafi political crisis. Amnesty International, in an article published online the 11th of May 2015 “Libya: Horrific Abuse Driving Migrants to Risk Lives in Mediterranean Crossing,” refers to asylum seekers and refugees in Libya as among the most vulnerable in the country. One of the challenges facing those who seek to raise awareness on the plight of refugees is that their story fails to meet the mainstream narrative. People expect refugees to be tattered and destitute, a set of assumptions with a genuine stamp of White Savior syndrome that makes some reluctant to provide support. Those who focus on the education and signs of material wealth of certain refugees fail to see that this is a crisis of thousands of people who have lost their communities, careers,

46

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

First French class, Š SPRH Media Team

and countries. What they need is a bridge to self-empowerment so that they can reclaim their lives anew. Sciences Po Refugee Help (SPRH) aims to help close this very gap and ease some of the administrative and language barriers that asylum seekers face, as well as provide a sense of community in order to alleviate the burden of trauma.

The Facebook group that Sara started a few months ago now has nearly 1,000 members and 200 regular, committed volunteers. SPRH is officially recognized by Sciences Po, who has been supportive throughout the process. In a recent video, Sciences Po President Frédéric Mion urged us to play our part in helping refugees here in Paris. Professors have also provided their expertise, the Law Clinic has ensured that the group has up-to-date legal training and information, and the administration has been proactive in linking the group to resources and fundraising.

Currently, SPRH is made up of seven sub-groups that tackle functions including French lessons (they are always looking for Arabic, Farsi, and Pashto speakers!), material needs, family support, asylum aid, social activities, a welcome team, and group administration. The groups work with associations such as the Red Cross, Aurore and the Salvation Army. In addition to teaching French, they organise social activities (an important yet often overlooked need — not only do people need a sense of community and belonging, but “ability to integrate” is part of the asylum process in France) and complement the work of other organizations. For example, the asylum aid group briefs refugees on the process so that by the time they connect with a social worker, they can ask more informed questions and get through the process more efficiently. The welcome team eases the transition to Paris by providing newcomers with metro maps, emergency contacts, useful translations from Arabic, Farsi and Pashto to French, and personalized letters from Sciences Po students.

The Sciences Po Refugee Help group exemplifies our tradition of solidarity at Sciences Po. Following the 13 November attacks, Vice Dean Vanessa Scherrer wrote to the PSIA community: Sciences Po “is a strong community, of thought and of solidarity, and this has particular meaning in the tragic times we are facing.” SPRH’s work builds bridges across languages and cultures and brings people together to improve their livelihood and opportunities to start anew here in Paris. It is a story of resilience that, in the wake of current events, strikes us even more so as a universal one; in times of hardship, helping others can forge bonds that replace ignorance with understanding, and fear with hope.

ELIZABETH WALSH IS A STUDENT OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AT PSIA. PRIOR TO SCIENCES PO, SHE WORKED FOR WARNER MUSIC GROUP IN NEW YORK. SHE SEEKS TO TELL STORIES FROM NON-TRADITIONAL AND FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES, AND IS AN AVID MUSIC FAN AND YOGA DEVOTEE.

48

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

Want to get involved?

• For long term commitments of two hours per week (or more) sign-up via facebook. com/sciencesporefugeehelp or reach out to refugeehelp@sciencespo.fr • for one-time volunteer opportunities, join the SPRH Group on Facebook for real-time tasks that match your expertise.

SPRH welcomes volunteers from everywhere — not just Sciences Po! If you don’t live in Paris, don’t have the time, or wish to make a monetary contribution as well, SPRH collects funds via GoFundMe (gofundme. com/westandtogether), and posts regular updates on their activities via their official Facebook page.

Because SPRH is working on the ground, they’re able to adjust to the evolving needs of the refugees. The use of donations is very transparent, as they provide detailed budgets and regular updates to donors who want to know how their money is being used.

School collect, © SPRH Media Team

‘’UNE LEÇON DE FRANÇAIS POUR EUX, UNE LEÇON DE PATIENCE ET D’HUMILITÉ POUR MOI.’’ TÉMOIGNAGE DE CES SCIENCES PISTES QUI VIENNENT EN AIDE AUX RÉFUGIÉS

PAR CHARLES-HUGO LEREBOUR

Rue Saint Guillaume, il y a deux types d’étudiants. Les champions de l’indignation, toujours premiers à prendre un air grave pour dénoncer la misère humaine, les guerres et le feu qui brûle. Et puis, il y a des étudiants comme Anne-Sophie et Arthur, qui agissent vraiment. Les trouver fut d’ailleurs assez difficile, tant leur action se fait sans bruit, sans commentaires Facebook ni tracts en Péniche, de manière désintéressée.

Anne-Sophie est en première année de Master à l’École de Droit et elle vient d’intégrer Sciences Po cette année. Elle souhaite devenir magistrat. Arthur est aussi à l’École de Droit à Sciences Po avec pour objectif d’intégrer l’administration pénitentiaire. Tous deux sont engagés à Paris Solidaires, une association caritative de Sciences Po au service des plus démunis, créée en 2012. Ils œuvrent en partenariat avec la Jesuit Refugee Service. Ayant pour principal objectif de favoriser le bon déroulement de la demande d’asile, Anne-Sophie et Arthur y voient aussi un bon moyen de « sortir les réfugiés de la solitude ». Selon ce dernier, « la joie de cet engagement naît de la beauté de la rencontre.

Il s’agit en effet de laisser tomber préjugés et idéologies pour rencontrer l’autre. L’objectif n’est donc nullement de changer le monde mais seulement de tendre une main fébrile entre deux cours, à l’heure du déjeuner. Cette humble main tendue est aussi, à notre petite échelle, témoignage d’une tradition d’accueil chère à notre Patrie. » Par groupes de quinze volontaires, leur rôle est donc de dispenser des cours de français sur des thèmes variés comme la cuisine ou les études, pour les réfugiés qui connaissent déjà un peu notre langue, mais aussi, de donner confiance à ceux qui ne parlent pas un mot. « Certains sont en France depuis déjà un moment, et s’expriment plutôt bien, » nous explique

Anne-Sophie, « mais le hasard a fait que, le premier jour, je me suis retrouvée entre deux migrants ne parlant pas un mot de français, et il m’a fallu improviser un cours qui mélangeait français et langage des signes ! (rires) Apprendre à dire « je viens d’Afghanistan » et expliquer la différence entre hier, aujourd’hui et demain peut prendre plusieurs heures. Bref, j’ai été forcée de constater que je galérais et ne pouvais pas les aider aussi « simplement » que je le pensais ! » D’autres activités plus ludiques sont aussi organisées, comme des soirées à thèmes dans le local de l’aumônerie de Sciences Po, ou des évènements plus ponctuels comme des sorties au musée, des repas crêpes ou encore le traditionnel « Réveillon Solidaire du Nouvel An ». Étant venue principalement pour enseigner aux réfugiés notre langue, Anne-Sophie ne s’attendait pas à apprendre autant en retour. « Il n’y a pas de rapport prof-élève. D’ailleurs, ils ont eux aussi essayé de m’apprendre quelques mots en arabe ou en persan ! Lorsque l’on a finalement réussi à parler de nos études et métiers, j’ai été surprise de constater que ces jeunes hommes devant moi, totalement perdus et facilement méprisés en France, étaient étudiants, journalistes, ingénieur-mécaniciens, dans leurs pays respectifs. Le décalage entre la vie qu’ils vivent ici et le rythme de vie qu’ils avaient dû avoir, m’a soudain frappée et fait réaliser que dans d’autres circonstances, j’aurais pu être à leur place. » Après deux mois d’engagement, la motivation dont font preuve les réfugiés, de par leur assiduité et leur concentration, est devenu le principal moteur de leur action. « Se rendre compte qu’ils ont envie de revenir la semaine suivante et tous ces sourires et chaleureux remerciements, c’est hyper motivant!»

Chacun se refuse à commenter la situation géopolitique qui conduit ces hommes et ces femmes sur les routes de l’exode.

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

49

Paris Solidaires n’étant pas impliquée en politique, aucun ne souhaite parler au nom de l’association sur ce sujet. D’un point de vue personnel, Arthur pense que « les crises ne pourront être résolues tant que des intérêts économiques resteront au centre des préoccupations. » Si ces deux étudiants engagés se refusent à tout « appel à la solidarité », estimant que nul ne devrait être forcé à mener ce genre d’action, pour la bonne raison qu’il n’y aurait, selon eux, aucune sorte d’injonction morale à le faire, Arthur reconnait que si un seul appel devrait être lancé, ce serait celui du « refus de l’indifférence. » Charge à chacun, par la suite, de trouver, selon son charisme propre, où s’engager. Si Anne-Sophie reconnait qu’il y a « mille raisons pour ne pas s’engager, que ce soit par manque de temps ou parce que l’on souhaite s’engager ailleurs, » Arthur précise que « nos études rue Saint-Guillaume nous offrent une chose bien précieuse dont nous devons pleinement profiter : du temps libre. » Il rappelle, non sans une pointe d’ironie que « dans une école qui se targue d’être le temple de l’ouverture d’esprit du fait de son penchant pour la transdisciplinarité, il me semble essentiel d’oser ce genre d’expériences souvent déroutantes mais toujours passionnantes, que sont les engagements et les actions concrètes et régulières auprès du monde réel, auprès de l’humanité souffrante. » Puis, plus vindicatif, il ajoute qu’à Sciences Po, « milieu privilégié, où nous sommes bien souvent plus enclins à la discussion qu’à l’action, » il semble plus que jamais important de « s’engager hors du monde des nantis et d’oser la rencontre. S’il est facile de disserter et de se répandre en verbiages, s’engager est une autre chose. Et le risque de nos études est bel et bien de se satisfaire de la première attitude. » Lorsqu’on leur demande pour quelles raisons ils ont choisi cet engagement au service de l’autre, Anne-Sophie y voit un engagement spontané. Estimant avoir « beaucoup reçu », elle

souhaitait « donner » à son tour. « C’est un peu par hasard que je me suis retrouvée à donner ces cours de français, mais j’y ai finalement trouvé un engagement à ma mesure ! » nous confiet-elle. Arthur, de son côté, évoque une sorte de cheminement, amorcé au Centre Saint Guillaume, où il fut responsable du pôle Solidarité. Il dresse un parallèle éclairant entre la foi catholique et son engagement. « À titre personnel, mes engagements prennent racines dans l’Évangile. Il est indéniable qu’un tel engagement auprès de ce que le Pape François appelle les “périphéries existentielles” est indissociable de la foi. Si “Jésus n’a pas regardé la vie du balcon [mais] l’a vécue”, nous ne pouvons pas non plus nous contenter d’être des “chrétiens mondains”, des “chrétiens de salons confortablement installés à discuter de théologie.”

L’engagement me semble par conséquent être une exigence pour le chrétien. Et c’est ce que rappelle avec force l’Église depuis bien longtemps.»

ÉTUDIANT À SCIENCES PO ET HARVARD, CHARLES-HUGO LEREBOUR EST ACTUELLEMENT EN MASTER SÉCURITÉ INTERNATIONALE, SPÉCIALITÉ DÉFENSE À PSIA. IL EST ENGAGÉ EN POLITIQUE ET DANS LA VIE ASSOCIATIVE DE SCIENCES PO, NOTAMMENT AU SEIN DE LA CONFÉRENCE OLIVAINT (CENTRE D’ÉDUCATION POLITIQUE INDÉPENDANT DE TOUT PARTI).

Cours de français, © Paris Solidaires

50

The Paris Globalist | Vol. 10 Issue 1

THE PARIS GLOBALIST – ASSOCIATION LOI 1901 SCIENCES PO PARIS 27 RUE SAINT-GUILLAUME 75007 PARIS Responsables : Sarah Vallée, Solange Harpham, Elizabeth Walsh Directrice de rédaction : Sarah Vallée Rédactrice en chef : Solange Harpham Date de parution : Décembre 2015 Dépôt Légal : à parution N° ISSN : 1969-1297 VALEUR : distribué gratuitement, en 700 exemplaires. http://www.parisglobalist.org/

PHOTO CREDIT: KATIE KLEYA-PARK

51

Crédit photo : United Nations ; Licence Creative Commons

- NOS BUTS Sensibiliser l’opinion publique française aux objectifs de l’ONU. Rendre compte de son action et de ses réalisations. Étudier la diplomatie multilatérale.

NOS ACTIONS •

L’AFNU participe ou est le partenaire de nombreuses simulations de l’ONU, en France et à l’étranger (Harvard WorldMun, SOFIMUN, Moscow international MUN, SPNU MUN…)

•

L’AFNU propose à ses membres différents colloques réunissant des intervenants spécialistes des relations internationales ainsi qu’une liste actualisée de postes à pourvoir dans les organisations internationales, qu’elles soient gouvernementales ou non gouvernementales

•

L’AFNU Aix-en-Provence édite depuis 16 ans l’Observateur des Nations Unies.

Cette revue semestrielle accueille les contributions de doctorants et d'auteurs confirmés de tous horizons. Retrouvez dès mars prochain son dernier volume sur « Le formalisme juridique dans le droit international du XXIème siècle ».

ADHESION L’adhésion à l’AFNU est ouverte à tous. Elle peut être effectuée via notre site (www.afnu.org) ou par chèque établi à l’ordre de l’AFNU et envoyé à l’adresse de son siège :

1 avenue de Tourville 75007 PARIS • • • •

Etudiant – 10€ et plus Membre actif – 30€ et plus Membres bienfaiteurs – 80€ et plus Associations & Sociétés – 150€ et pus