Issue 14 2015
The West The STockholm Journal
of InTernaTIonal
affaIrS
Source frontpage: Reuter
edITorIal
Picture a haggard and hungry 7-year-old girl with brown eyes, brown hair and pale skin, standing on the pavement, on a frigid December evening. Such an image is a common place nowadays in the US with approximately 138.000 children being homeless, as stated by the US Department of Housing. Furthermore, according to a recent UNICEF report, children in the US have one of the lowest rates of well being in the developed world. Additionally, 51 million or 16% of the population lives below the poverty line, of which 1.8 million survives on less than 2 dollars per day. For decades, the West has been the shining beacon of hope for most countries in the world, leading in human rights and democratic values. However, its influence on the global arena is diminishing slowly and many of its national institutions are somewhat out of service. The general state of the US does not depict a country of wealth and prosperity, but quite the contrary. The American Dream is no more than a dream as the poverty is growing; the wealth of the middle class as well as the middle class itself, in the US is shrinking. The median net worth of the US households has indeed increased since the 1960s, from $55,000 a year to $63,000; if one considers inflation, the net worth is now worth less than what it was in 1969. What is even more alarming is the swelling debt. The US national debt on January 1st, 1791 was just $75 million. Today, the US national debt rises by that amount about once in every hour. Currently it is over $17 trillion, something the government does not seem to be bothered by. Similarly, the debt crisis of the PIGS is still ongoing, though the immigration crisis has
2
taken the spot light recently. The immigration influx is straining the EU Member States’ economies and causing tension amongst them. Even though more and more countries are opposing further immigration, be it for political or economical reasons - they are categorically suppressed by some countries (i.e. Germany and Sweden), which are in favour of immigration. Thus, forcing the Hungarian government to take the EU before the European Court, arguing that the EU has no right to dictate over sovereign Member States’ borders and force Hungary to accept 15,000 migrants. Whilst the naive benevolence of the ‘Refugees Welcome’ supporters is admirable, the influx of migrants must not be prioritised over the welfare of the inhabitants. Furthermore, while it is true that millions of refugees from Syria are indeed in need of shelter and refuge, but accepting a couple of millions is not a sustainable solution. Rather, the focus should lie on further aiding UNHCR financially, economically sanctioning those countries (e.g. Turkey, the Gulf monarchies) which support Daesh, promoting peace development in the inflicted areas, and most importantly, start cooperating with the only legitimate and secular leader in Syria, i.e. Bashar Al-Assad. The current situation may seem dire but it is never too late to change. What is needed is a change for sustainable national finances, and an aspiration for a sustainable environment. Nonetheless, a political change is also needed, with politicians prioritising the necessities of the people over ideological fantasies, prioritising peace development over further military escalations, and continuing on the path of democracy and individual freedom instead of further surveillance and control.
Haroon Bayani
edITor-In-chIef
The PerPeTual debT hole
Haroon Bayani
aSSocIaTe edITorS
oPenIng and ShuTTIng
Jyotika Rajput Mehra Varvara Morozova
dr hanS blIx on The WeST conTrIbuTorS Kasun Thilina Vanessa Kasula
TTIP’S envIronmenTal ImPlIcaTIonS
Haroon Bayani Gabriela Russo Lopes Gita Nair
frackIng The Stockholm Journal of International Affairs issued by: Stockholm Association of International Affairs Adress: Frescativägen 14B, 114 18, Stockholm Publication date: 2015-11 Publisher: Haroon Bayani redaktor@ufstockholm.se or (+46) 700 55 69 46 ufstockholm.com
3
The author is responsible for signed freelance materials; his opinion does not necessarily reflect the newspapers nor SAIA’s. This journal was partly financied by Forum Syd and SIDA.
The PerPeTual debT hole kaSun ThIlIna The debt crisis seems to be a never ending one. In this article the historical events will be described and the causes analysed.
I
n the year 1944, 44 allied countries gathered in the Mount Washington Hotel in New Hampshire to discuss the new world outlook in the post war world. The main focus was on rebuilding the financial infrastructure of a world that had faced a devastating world war and a financial depression. They declared their key principles “no more beggar thy neighbour and “control flows of speculative financial capital.” which marked a paradigm shift in the global economy. The previous gold standard got replaced with the interlaced gold reserves with US dollar system. This system created more flexible and efficient pipeline in the global trade. However, this was actually creating a mechanism that US government could send the surplus of US economy to the rest of the world (mainly to Germany and Japan because they seemed very geopolitically important at that time). This was mainly facilitated by the consumption of Euro-Nippon consumer goods and services and also by direct investment through plans like “Marshal Plan”. Furthermore US government wanted stable currencies so that they would work as shock absorbers on recession in US.
By 1970, due to war in Vietnam and other military expansion, US faced a series of economic drama, marking its climax with “Nixon Shock”. This was the declaration of the US dollar as a Fiat Currency. The system went heavily based on a currency which was not backed by any standard, instead requiring global acceptance. In order to create acceptance of the currency in exchange for the capital or labour, the state needs to create some incentive procedure, in this case so that the incentive is the aggregate demand of the US economy. After making the US currency a Fiat currency, they were able to gain capital unlike any other economy. The US economy expanded their deficit by tightening its interest rates by maintaining low interest rates and thus became a magnet for the last resort investments. The largest portion of external debt comes from Japan, China, Oil Exporters, and the United Kingdom. If we consider the net exports of these countries, the largest share is from the US. In other words, in order to keep the aggregate demand for the net exports of these countries, they were
4
reluctant to keep the US economy in the running state by fuelling its debt to maintain the aggregate demand from the US. While considering the EU stock markets against the Wall Street, it is quite evident that the EU stock markets are stagnant over the years. They have been acting the same way for over three decades. Profits earned by the EU productions are unlikely invested again in EU. These profits (with the largest portion of these earnings coming from the US market) will be invested in the Wall Street for higher gains. From the investors’ perspective, it is very rational and accurate to invest in the US. Due to this outflow of capital, the EU money markets become stagnant and even go to the shrinking level. When analyzed, the EU countries which are in debt (unlike in the US), have most of the debt towards other countries. The main reason for this is the EU countries’ mass outflow of capital to the US. This is why most of the EU countries have an alarming amount of debt accumulated within its economy. When countries spend a large proportion of their wealth on debt, government has to increase the taxes and cut on the public spending. This leads to shrinking of an economy followed by unemployment. In the case of Greece and Spain, the unemployment rates are 25 % and 22 % respectively. The Greek government estimates that now there are 20,000 homeless people in Athens - among a population of 660,000. 112,070 people declared themselves homeless in England in 2014 - a 26 % increase in four years. At the same time, the number of people sleeping rough in London grew by 75 % to a staggering 6,437.
Global debt crisis became a mainstream topic after two major incidents – first, the 2008 money melt down in US, later on leading to a global recession even though it is just the tip of the iceberg. Second is the Greece debt crisis, which has put the whole EU existence into the disintegration status. In order to solve these problems, two major solutions were brought in to the discourse. First one is the austerity. However, all the economic research is credited against the austerity measures, as it is based on highly dubious assumptions and procedures. Most of the arguments set in the favour of austerity are pushed by the deficit approach where by reducing the deficit or government spending, the national economy will be bailed out. This ideology is highly marketed through not by proper economic explanation, not by explaining how an economy works in a broader perspective, but highly through explaining how domestic or individual spending works. In a situation of recession, governments cut spending hard and there is a large fall in the nominal GDP. As an example in 2011, Greece had a fall of 6 % in GDP. This has been driving towards shrinking of tax revenues. Debt against GDP has continued to increase. In other words, austerity has slowed the economic growth that the budget deficit has failed to improve. Also, Eurozone crisis is not about deficit, it is about lack of competitiveness with other financial markets, creating the outflow of capital to outside EU especially to the US. The second alternative pushed is the disintegration of the EU. Disintegration was one of the main points highlighted as a solution to the EU crisis. It was majorly highlighted in the UK to go for the referendum
5
Homeless girl in the US Source: Reuters
6
reluctant to keep the US economy in the running state by fuelling its debt to maintain the aggregate demand from the US. While considering the EU stock markets against the Wall Street, it is quite evident that the EU stock markets are stagnant over the years. They have been acting the same way for over three decades. Profits earned by the EU productions are unlikely invested again in EU. These profits (with the largest portion of these earnings coming from the US market) will be invested in the Wall Street for higher gains. From the investors’ perspective, it is very rational and accurate to invest in the US. Due to this outflow of capital, the EU money markets become stagnant and even go to the shrinking level. When analyzed, the EU countries which are in debt unlike in the US, they have most of the debt towards other countries. The main reason for this is that the EU countries mass out flow of capital to the US. This is why most of the EU countries have an alarming amount of debt accumulated within its economy. When countries spend a large proportion of their wealth on debt, government has to increase the taxes and cut on the public spending. This leads to shrinking of an economy followed by unemployment. In the case of Greece and Spain, the unemployment rates are 25 % and 22 % respectively. The Greek government estimates that now there are 20,000 homeless people in Athens - among a population of 660,000. 112,070 people declared themselves homeless in England in 2014 - a 26 % increase in four years. At the same time, the number of people sleeping rough in London grew by 75 % to a staggering 6,437.
”
Some say that the EU crisis is not only an economic deficit but also a democratic deficit.
”
7
oPenIng
and
ShuTTIng
vaneSSa kaSula Immigration can be beneficial for both the hosting country as well the immigrant. However, when let out of control the situation can quickly detoriate.
R
ecently, German border policies have undergone many changes. This article explains these phases. Furthermore, it examines the German approach as an ideal way to ease the refugee influx and intervene in the migration crisis. In August, Germany opened the borders to Syrian refugees to resolve the migration pressure. As it no longer mattered which EU state they had first entered, those who otherwise would have been suspended under the Dublin protocol, were welcomed to stay. Yet, due to the stable economy and social security system in Germany, it had already ranked high among the most appealing refugee destinations. Counsellor Angela Merkel called for European consensus. Open Door Policy would give Germany a leading position to construct more humane practices. At first, Germans showed a great deal of hospitality towards the refugees. The first train full of refugees was welcomed by the citizens who donated food, toys and goods at the station. An “Airbnb for refugees� was based in Berlin, where the citizens opened their homes and offered a temporary accommodation.
Nevertheless, it did not take long before Germany became overwhelmed with the huge influx of refugees crossing the borders. It has been estimated that Germany would take in 1.500,000 asylum seekers this year. Currently, waiting for the asylum decision can take weeks. In Berlin, the lack of accommodation facilities has resulted in people not having an accommodation during the prolonged asylum process. This group includes even families with small children. Suspicions of the real nationality have partially caused the delays. Registration offices have faced the refugees who have falsely claimed to be Syrian. The registration process itself, including fingerprinting, providing temporary documentation and distribution across Germany, can take up to few days. Previously, Finding accommodation for the people mass has become a problem. Now, asylum seekers are accommodated in sports halls, and even beer tents are considered as emergency shelters. German public opinion is afraid of what will happen. Government has not been able to keep coherent stand facing the crisis and Merkel’s popularity has shown a decrease. Cities such as Bavaria, which are the main entry points for refugees,
8
are not able to accept more refugees. As a consequence of the people flow, Germany reintroduced border control along Austria. Such actions may affect the whole Schengen zone of passport-free travel, and challenge the common principle of freedom of movement in Europe. Furthermore, the German policy has caused tension in relations with the neighbouring countries if people are continuing their journey from Germany. Even if they are refused for an asylum or they get frustrated facing the growing handling time, majority will still likely continue to travel. Surrounding countries have been concerned of the consequences that the growing migration influx may have. The inequal displacement of refugees in Germany, Sweden and Austria is inefficient in the long term, due to the scale of the crises. “We cannot take in all the refugees alone with 28-member states in the European Union. No society can endure this in the long run,” Seehofer stated. The Dublin regulation is placing an inequal stress as the Mediterranean states and EU Commission, and the member states have stayed unsatisfied with the moderate changes. Countries, such as Germany, have suspended their Dublin responsibilities, in order to make the system more humane or just to ease load of the incoming refugees. Growing refugee pressure is demanding EU to react rapidly and seek broader solutions than maintaining border control. The current civil war in Syria shows still sign of stopping, and at the same time conflicts are worsening in Middle East and Africa. This scale of refugee influx has not been seen since during World War 2. The UNHCR estimates over 224,000 refugees had come to the Europe continent alone during the first seven months of 2015. Different ap-
proaches of the member states have created the growing tension, which has evidently caused problems in sharing the responsibilities. The UNHCR is among the critics of the current EU migration. Their senior spokesperson, William Spindler stated his opinion to Al Jazeera of a new, potential alignment: “In our view, European countries need to work together rather than point fingers at each other. In order to deal with this situation, Europe should open more legal ways for refugees to come”. Since Middle-European countries are closing their borders, it has become more common to take a risky journey over the Mediterranean. Due to the Open Door Policy, an increasing number of people try to reach Germany and are forced to take a deadly chance to cross the sea. According to the International Organization of Migration, 335 have died while crossing from Turkey to Greece. This being the common routes for those travelling to Germany, the need to open legal routes is growing. Furthermore, changing the border control in Europe won’t help those able to come to the continent. Living conditions in the refugee camps are often deficient, and don’t meet the basic needs. In the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, people live in leaking tents, without proper heating facilities. Moreover, among the biggest problems are the constant fear of attacks, lack of education and inability to work. Recent cuts on humanitarian aid have sent an increasing number of people to seek a better life in Europe. The camps have strict rules, and leaving without permission is forbidden. The dangerous journey to Europe hinders emigration, as staying in camps often guarantees basic aid. Majority is afraid to leave, without a guaranteed asylum. However, majority of those
9
Royal Saudi Air Force flying US-made Boeing F-15C’s, on their way to Yemen.
Source: Al-Jazeera
Source: Al-Jazeera
A village shelled by the Royal Saudi Air Force, resulting in the death of several civilians. Source: Spiegel
Source:Source: Hungary Post Al-Jazeera
Source: Al-Jazeera
fleeing come from outside camps, where circumstances are more unstable. UNHCR calls for a better European cooperation. EU policy making has been focused on maintaining the border control over its continent. “The UNHCR is urging European countries to provide more places for refugees through resettlement programs, family reunification, humanitarian admission, private sponsorship schemes, and work and education visas,” as Spindler points out. As stated earlier, the national border regulations themselves are not efficient enough, since these are placing uneven and high demands. Even strong and considerably stable economies, such as Germany, seem unable to hold up to these demands. More diverse European co-operation is called for, in order to intervene in the smuggling business, open safer routes and increase local aid, especially for those stuck in the conflict areas and war zones.
We cannot take in all the refugees alone with 28-member states in the European Union. No society can endure this in the long run.
”
11
”
dr hanS blIx
on The
WeST
haroon bayanI
The former Minster for Foreign Affairs and ex-head of International Atomic Energy Agency Dr Hans Blix conveys his views on current affairs of the EU and US.
You’re the former foreign minister of the liberal government. Therefore, I would like to ask you, what does western liberal democracy mean to you? - Well, we should not be presumptuous, and preach western democracy everywhere, as there are many variations and historical traditions that lead countries in different ways. But I think that the essence of the western democracy is inclusiveness, having fair elections, and having a rule by the majority. In some countries you normally have majority parties and in other countries you have minority or you have coalitions as we know. However, democracy is not simply ruled on majority. It is also paying attention to the minorities. You cannot just use your power to eradicate your position by law; in that case you’re not likely to get a constitutional system. So majority vote by inclusiveness, paying attention and respecting the rights of minorities.
12
What is the role of media in a democracy, according to you? - It should always have the aspiration to reveal the truth, the reality. And I believe they have a vital function to fulfil in that regard. At least regarding corruption. I don’t think you can’t stamp out corruption unless you have free media everywhere. However, the danger, the difficulty and the temptation for media is often to be too sensationalist. They want to sell, at least in a market economy. They want to sell their product and may fall for the temptation to be too infotainment or too sensationalist. And I am somewhat pessimistic about the evolution. Because the Swedish media, the printed newspaper, they are very thin. The Svenska Dagbladet, Dagens Nyheter were in the past helpful, whilst nowadays they simply repeat what the American journals say, in the political sections at least. They should be able to dig up some reasonably competent Swedes.
However, the Internet gives you endless possibilities of sources, which is good. But what I do not find agreeable is the lower part of it. Mainly those sitting at home anonymously and writing without any social filters. Whilst we all may have outrageous thoughts occasionally, we also have something to control them and we do not burst out. That inhibition seems too often be gone in people and they don’t see the reaction their writings can have. Do you have any comments on the rise of alternative media? - Yes, my experience in the UN is that there is as much information as there is disinformation in the world. And in some countries it is deliberately made while in other countries it is less consciously made. You need diversity in this. You can never have one single truth; you need different angles at it. But I think it is disgusting when disinformation is deliberately done. Even when it is not as deliberate as when I was in the Iraq affair in 2002-2003, you could feel then how the US sources dominated and the CIA had their [information], which they were able to kettle to the media. There were very few who voiced any scepticism or anyone posing any question marks. So they have tremendous power in that sense, we as international spectres do not have big apparatus to come out with our views. Let us continue to the foreign endeavours of the US. Would you say that in certain cases, the US is above international law?
13
- There is sometimes hubris in the US, that they are exceptional, that they can do certain things. I think that any country that thinks that they are exceptional they should begin to examine themselves a bit more seriously. In a democracy no one should misuse his or her power. I remember in the presidential election when Kerry stood against Bush, which was during the American invasion of Iraq during 2003. Kerry stated that the US should seek international endorsement or authority of invading a foreign country. And he was totally ridiculed, the Republicans saying: “Should we have a slip of paper from the Security Council?” That was the clear expression that they should forget about the UN, forget the rules you have. We [the US] are the sheriffs of the world, we are exceptional and therefore we have wisdom. Obama on the other hand said that it is desirable that all the states follow international norms and we will stay stronger if we do. At the same time he said that he was the commander-in-chief of the US Army and he will not hesitate to make use of the US forces to defend the interests of the US. Thus making a reservation. To me it’s a central question, which I think is a fundamental revolution that occurred in 1945 saying that it prohibits member states the use of threat or the use of force against the territory, integrity or political independence of other states. Now that is a ban on war. Though there are two exceptions, one is self-defence against an armed attack until the Security Council
intervenes; the other is when the Security Council decides that they will take force. Which was revolutionary in 1945, but totally obsolete in the Cold War because you had veto. But in 1991 there was a change, the Soviet empire collapsed. And the US intervened in Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. Then a hopeful new order emerged, although we are not there yet. We saw the competition in Syria, and the US pivot to China. But what has given me hope lately is the Iraq war in 1991 and the second one was Russo-American agreement on disposing the chemical weapons of the Syrian state. The third is the nuclear agreement on Iran. In all these three cases you have the P5+1 getting together as they were planned. Which shows that this enforcement system of collective security can work, albeit in limited circumstances. They all have a joint interest in other states not having Weapons of Mass Destruction, though they are less interested in getting rid of their own. But at least they have interest in others doing it. Especially the Syrian case is very instructive where Obama was under a very heavy pressure to bomb Syria. There were pro-Israeli interests behind it, others were morally indignant, claiming that the Syrian government has been using chemical weapons and they must punish them. But who asked the US to be the self-appointed sheriff of the world and punish others. I am not sure why he didn’t want to bomb Syria, though I don’t think it was the UN Charter. The main objection he had was that if he would start, he wouldn’t know where it would end. The
14
Russians had a strong interest in avoiding American bombing because their strength lies in vetoes in the Security Council. They wanted the matter to be handled as foreseen in international institution, which they succeeded in. All states need a strong government as to abate cartel formation. I was wondering, has the US government failed in that regard, letting different lobbying groups such as AIPAC, military industry or banking industry dictate or even obstruct certain reforms or policies? - Of course sometimes you ask yourself whether the US is really a governable country? When they go to the brink of economic collapse. But of course there are many forceful lobbies in the US, there are lobbies in every country. It’s a part of an inclusive society that you have influences from different groups, from religious groups, military groups etc. But as a liberal I’m interested in having a mixture of these pressures. But would say that these lobbying groups work in the interest of the people or for their own self-interest in juxtaposition to the people’s interest? - It varies. Take the AIPAC lobby, which is working in the interest of Israel. Or rather I should say in the interest of Likud, as they have different opinions there. For instance, the Israeli Atomic commission considers the agreement with Iran acceptable.
But as both US and Russia is a nuclear country. They learnt from the Cuban affairs that they must not escalate. If they escalate you don’t know where they will land. However, there are many in this country saying that I’m naïve and that the Russian intention is to clearly establish the Tzarist Empire. I do not think so. Look at what happened in Georgia, where it was Sakashvilli who started the war and the Russians pounced upon straight away and took the opportunity, though reacting disproportionally. But nevertheless it was not they who shot the first. Now after that when Sarkozy went to Moscow, they agreed on withdrawing. And the only thing that happened was that Abkhazia and South Ossetia became pseudo-independent, now in reality pawns of Russia. But nevertheless, they did not absorb Georgia, but withdrew from Georgia. So I am relatively hopeful that they will also show restraint in Ukraine. But I’m also pretty certain that they will not touch the Baltic States. Whilst I’m a big opponent of Sweden joining NATO, I’m happy that the Baltics have joined NATO. Because they are so weak and feeble, that they live somewhat dangerously. But is the foreign policy of the EU then independent from the US? - To some extent yes, but I wish they were even more independent from the US. IIf you take the case of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) (established by China), you can see that the US was against it and they wanted to have control through the IMF bank, but now UK and other Eu-
15
ropean countries have joined this bank. So there were movements of independence. But if you take the Middle-East issues, I think the Europeans are much less influenced by AIPAC-type of interest, there are no lobby organisations like that one. There we are more independent. When it comes to Russia, the United States statements have sounded pretty tough but in reality they too have some restraint, as mentioned. On the Iraqi affair, I think that in 2003, the Europeans were far better than the US, and it was more loyalty that dragged them along. For Blair it was partly loyalty, he wanted to have special relations with the US but at the same time he had the same ideology as Bush about what he claimed spreading democracy. Blair had taken part of the toppling of Milosevic, and he felt that it was the sacred duty of the ‘big boys’, including the UK to get rid of the bloody dictators. Which Bush was ready to realise. For the rest of Europe it was different, the French and the Germans were opposed. And you could never have a NATO operation in Iraq, so here you see the difference between European and US foreign policy. However, the US is there and we have similar outlooks in many ways but I would like to see Europe being somewhat freer in their attitude and not so scared of the necessity to be behind Uncle Sam. Should the EU abandon their aggressive outlook on Russia and pursue a more pragmatic one? - I think we have not been sufficiently attentive to Russia. I have tremendous admiration for Gorbachev, I have read many of
Mossadeq in 1953 in Iran, who was ousted by the CIA. And then they got a shah, and an authoritarian regime and then as a reaction to the shah you got Khomeini eventually. So I don’t think it has been a very wise policy. And then you have the US siding with Saudi Arabia in the war in Yemen. And they did start the Mujahedin resulting in strong jihadist movement, which spread all over Afghanistan. Finally you have Iraq, which US occupied. Whilst US preach democracy it certainly doesn’t always in practice work that way. In that case, has the US still a role to play in the world or would the world become a more peaceful place without US imperialism? - No I think certainly they have a role to play, but I think decentralisation of power is desirable. I prefer a world in which you do not have a uni-polar system because they will inevitably misuse their power. And the US does misuse it from time to time. On to the Ukraine crisis, how did we end up where we are? - I think there have been errors on the side of the EU; mainly too limited awareness of how touchy is this issue for Russia. Ukraine was part of the Slavic community and an integral part of the Soviet industrial empire. Then they were encountered and absorbed many of the thoughts and attitudes of the Western Europe, including the market-economy with very little corruption, with legal systems that are relatively reliable. They [Ukraine] were also military wishing to
join NATO, without much concern of how that would be seen on the Russian side if they were members of NATO. And I think that when they pushed the economic agreement (drafted and signed by Poroshenko, which also states that Ukraine will apart from economic integration), they also had a rapprochement to get closer to European Union foreign and security policies. That is a fairly big thing. And I can see that Russia is worried very much about it. The industry of the Ukraine was something that collaborated very closely with Russia. For Russia, Ukraine joining NATO - because they were on the list - must have been very unappetising. There was certain amount of oblivion to this in the Western Europe. At the same time I have no defence for what Russia did. But understanding is not the same thing as condoning. Well you can imagine from their perspective, if Ukraine had become a member of NATO then the Sevastopol marina base, which was rented by the Russians, could have become a NATO black sea base. Now I can see the cringes in the stomach of the Russians. But it is also true that more than 60 per cent of the people in the Crimea would have - in a free referendum - voted for joining Russia. But I think on the whole the Germans have handled it rather well. I think the economic sanctions, which cost us a fair amount in Western Europe and cost the Russians a fair amount is a strong sign, that we do not accept what you have done. At the same time they [the Germans] are backing up Ukraine but with some restraint. And the US in the same way, they are not sending lethal weapons as they say. They send restraint, since
16 16
”
We are closer to Russia than the US
his speeches in the UN, and I think he was extremely enlightened and ready to go very far. Achieving by far the biggest nuclear disarmament.
”
Nevertheless, in some ways we are closer to Russia than the US. We have close history; we are neighbours from Viking times. They have burnt our coasts and we have been shooting and fighting against Russia. Sometimes winning but mostly loosing. But they are our neighbours and there are things in Russia that are more European than what you would find in the US. I’m of thinking universities. In Russia there is a remarkable respect for the academic professions, for the academy of science and professors, etc.In the US, on top of this scale you have the businessman, Wall Street. So there is a different social outlook. The net sum, yes we have to increase our relations with Russia. We must have more of our students going there and more of their students coming here. We must have more trade, and it should be possible. During the communist time, trade between Russia and the West was not very large. And now it is limited too much to the hydrocarbons. Also, in the nuclear field they have a very high technology, and you can see now how they are exporting it to Finland; the UK is buying, perhaps even the Chinese. With Russia, we should increase our relations; both, intellectually and commercially. Thank you Dr Hans Blix
Photo: Gita Nair
17
TTIP’S envIronmenTal ImPlIcaTIonS gabrIela ruSSo loPeS Gabriela Russo Lopes will dwelve into the general causes behind global warming and how the on-going TTIP negotiations can abate the effects of
I
nternational trade is a major force that shapes contemporary world. The amount of merchandise exported and imported throughout the world reached a 19-trillion dollars figure each in 2014. This number accounts for almost half of the world’s gross GDP. For its enormous impact on the world economy and the domestic production, trade can be a significant driver of economic development, poverty reduction and environmental action. However, these goals are not easily reached unless politicians foster proper trade policies to encompass multiple demands from the society. Trade alone will not do the job, but it can create incentives for important changes in the way we produce and consume. Since Adam Smith and David Ricardo, free-trade has been within Western great powers’ rhetoric. In the post World War II, these countries officially created an institutional framework to promote free-trade. The Bretton Woods agreement gave birth to international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These forums seek to promote mutually
agreed rules so that trade can prosper. But in contemporary world there are a great variety of pressure groups, actors and governments’ positions towards trade matters. This is why consensus is not easily reached and the multilateral forums are becoming less able to cope with contemporary demands. The Doha Round is the most explicit example of that. Current negotiations have been on the table since 2001 and the perspective of concluding a comprehensive agreement remains unclear in the near future. This is why bilateral agreements have been succeeding in the international arena, such as the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) and the CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement). International trade has been through significant and steady swifts in the past few decades. New actors entered into the stage, such as the BRICS, particularly China. New ways of exchanging goods were created and became the core of robust industries, such as cross-border electronic commerce. Nevertheless, some old policies remain the same, especially subsidies for industries considered strategic.
18
In addition, concerns about climate change have been more and more influencing world politics, international trade and consumers’ preferences. The release of IPCC’s 5th Assessment in 2014 - the science-based scenarios of an increase in two, four or six degrees Celsius until 2100 - draw some worrisome conclusions for the future of Earth. Any significant increase in Earth’s temperature results in disturbances in the ecosystem services, water cycle, food security and could lead to serious losses in the world economy. The Stern Review concludes that: “Based on simple extrapolations, costs of extreme weather alone could reach 0.5 - 1% of world GDP per annum by the middle of the century, and will keep rising if the world continues to warm”. The planetary temperature is highly intertwined with the level of greenhouse gases (GHG) emission. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, and particularly after the Great Acceleration in the 1950s, the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have reached the patterns never seen before. A significant amount of emissions can be traced back to the fossil fuels industry that provides energy supply for industry and transportation. The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that: “Non-clean energy resources - i. e. fossil fuels currently account for about 80 percent of emissions worldwide, and existing infrastructure and projects in construction are estimated to lock-in to 2020 approximately 20 percent of those emissions”. Notwithstanding the appalling correlation between fossil fuels, CO2 emission and global warming, the world economy still heavily relies on subsidies to non-renewable sources of energy. The US has the highest level of fossil fuels subsidies in absolute figures, followed by China and Russia, but
the EU is also a major actor in proportional scales, correlating subsidising policies and national emissions. The IEA estimates that each year 500 billion dollars are spent specifically on fossil fuels subsidies between producers and consumers, while renewable energy remains not only under subsidised but also faces scale and bureaucratic constraints. Even though these subsidies are environmentally harmful, they fall under the green box at the WTO - which accounts for allowed subsidising policies. Besides, as fossil fuels subsidies contribute to cheaper oil prices in the international market, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body registers very few cases questioning subsidy policies on fossil fuels. At present, there are neither any WTO negotiations on phasing out fossil fuels subsidies nor has it tabled discussions on promoting renewable energy. Notwithstanding, the bilateral agreements that are being negotiated nowadays are as negligent as the multilateral system in addressing this issue. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a regional trade agreement (RTA) that intends to foster economic ties between the United States and the European Union. The objective is to set new bilateral rules to facilitate exports and investment amongst its parties. The mandate for TTIP’s negotiation came into force in 2013, after the persisting stalemate at WTO’s Doha Round. RTAs pose deep challenges to the multilateral arena and leave behind some important actors that are not at the negotiation table in the regional level. However, while this the multilateral discussions, they could take a real step forward in addressing shifting
19
The Chief Negotiators Dan Mullaney from the US and Ignacio Garcia Bercero from the EU Source: Picture Alliance/DPA
and urgent demands. The environmental problem could be dealt along with the negotiations, adopting measures to reduce emissions to thrive low-carbon initiatives in international trade and investment field. In the UNFCCC’s Conference of the Parties discussions, the US and the EU frequently adhere to powerful rhetoric on climate change, urging its peers to take action on the matter. Nevertheless, for the most part they are reticent in supporting a comprehensive and robust binding agreement to forge a holistic compromise on emissions’ targets. The US and the EU could bilaterally lead the way in transitioning to a decarbonised global economy. As the European Commission claim that TTIP will help to “influence
20
world trade rules and project our values globally” and if the environment is a priority in Western policies, as the rhetoric usually suggests, it should also be at the core of the economic talks and trade negotiations. One innovative and efficient way forward would be to tackle fossil fuel subsidies right away. This is an action demanded by different groups in society and gathered in two increasingly influential movements: the #EndFossilFuelsSubsidies and the Go Fossil Free. Together with the Stop TTIP Movement - which collected more than 3 millions of signatures and organized robust demonstrations - civil society has been pressuring governments and pointing out the limitations in the agreement regarding environment,
21
transparency and privileges to private companies. Surely trade and investment have an important role to play in this process and the TTIP could significantly contribute to the matter. However, the pressing issues of CO2 emissions do not seem to be a major concern of the negotiators, once they are scarcely addressed by the tabled texts. The three main objectives are Market Access, Regulatory Cooperation and Rules. Under Market Access, there are subjects such as tariff reduction for goods and services and rules of origin. Under Regulatory Cooperation, there are discussions on technical barriers to trade, food safety, and specific industries safety standards. Under Rules, there are some important environment-driven contents, such as energy and raw materials and sustainable development. Yet, the language used even in the institutional publications is symptomatic. In the Energy and Raw Materials section, the European Commission affirms that “the EU and the US should lead efforts to promote sustainability in the use of traditional fuels and develop the new green energies of the future”. In the position papers tabled at the discussion, however, there is no mention to fossil fuels subsidies at all. There is no reference to any phasing out policy negotiation and neither is it mentioned as a problem to be addressed in the future. In the Sustainable Development section, the objectives are defined as to “support core international standards and conventions for labour and the environment; keep our right to set high levels of environmental and labour protection and avoid any race to the bottom; and untap trade’s potential to advance sustainable development objectives,
22
for example through more trade in sustainably managed natural resources or in green goods and services”. Once again, within trade’s potential to promote the environmental agenda, there is no reference to subsidies that support carbonintensive activities. Hence, TTIP is an opportunity for the two major Western actors to incorporate important environmental inputs in the bilateral relation. On the table, there are initiatives on fostering production and access to green renewable energy that should be strengthened and put forward. Nevertheless, if the current fossil fuels subsidies policy continues to be untouched, these initiatives shall be significantly set aside by the paradoxical policies. This is not only a very inefficient way of allocating public resources, but also a very dubious environmental policy. When the TTIP’s negotiating governments reinstate that most important benefits for the people are solely “more business opportunities, more growth and more jobs”, it means that the reasoning behind the agreement remains attached to a traditional out dated mind set. Along with gaps in accountability and transparency, the agreement neglects the fundamental role of phasing out fossil fuels subsidies in order to transition to a low-carbon economy. This logic focuses excessively on the short-term economic crises and fails to grasp the depth of the longterm environmental and global challenge.
frackIng
omITTed effecTS gITa naIr Fracking has caused tremendous damage, both on the environment, but more importantly on the health of those living in the vicinity. In the following article, Gita Nair will display fracking’s omitted effects and the forces behind it.
W
e live in a world in desperate and in constant need of fossil fuels. As far as we know, the renewal of energy sources provided by the earth – a process of great value, is practically neverending. However, though fossil fuels are continuously formed, the process takes a long time. Therefore, it is important to be prudent and sparing in its use. Nonetheless, there is still a great need and demand for fossil fuels, which results in constant development and emergence of new methods in industrial extraction. One of those methods is hydraulic fracturing, also known as ”fracking”. As early as in 2010, when the US had just begun extracting their fossil fuels using the method, the country became the world’s leading natural gas producer, thanks to shale gas. Fracking is an industrial process used to extract fossil fuels such as oil and gas. It took off after a new technological innovation making it possible to drill horizontally. For example; to extract the gas, the procedure begins by drilling through the ground, down to the layers of shale. Once you are there, the drilling is directed horizontally along the shale where particles of the gas are stored in small cracks and pores. The next step in-
volves pouring a large amount of water and sand (approximately 15-20 million litres) down the drilled hole, creating a large pressure. The water substance break the cracks open as the sand wedges in between them to continue to keep them open. The gas particles are now released and they rise through the drilled hole to the surface where they are stored. Nowadays, the gas can be transported in the form of liquid, known as liquefied natural gas (LNG) by being cooled down to a temperature of 160 degrees Celsius. The volume of the gas is 640 times less in its liquid form as compared to the standard volume of the same product in the gaseous form. Because of this, the market is no longer dependent on the gas pipelines, which results in easier management when transporting the fuel globally. The advantage of fracking is the ability to access the fossil fuel. For the US, it has boosted domestic oil production, which has led to the decreasing gas prices. This has brought a great security for the US with a usage of gas running up to approximately 100 years. The fossil fuel is also cleaner than coal as the natural gas produces fewer harmful particles in the air. Also, the fracking companies argue that the industry opens up
23
valuable job opportunities. Although the process seems quite harmless, the water and sand mixture contains a large amount of chemicals that are used to make the water flow faster, kill bacteria and keep the pipes protected. The extraction process has created a great deal of controversy, as environmentalists are highly critical of the side effects of the procedure. Scientists are continuously studying the impacts of fracking, and according to Greenpeace, the facts from research found to date are alarming. But, the fracking companies claim that the amount of chemicals being used is close to nothing (2 percent), and therefore causes very little harm, if at all. However, due to the immense amount of fluid used, the chemicals are still worth paying serious attention to. Supposedly, the exact volume of the chemicals used in the procedure is kept secret by the fracking industry. Supposedly, the exact volume of the chemicals is kept secret by the fracking industry. Greenpeace claims that the underground injection wells used to dispose of the contaminated water, has led to the events such as increased earthquakes. The wells do not produce any gas or oil but play a big part in the process. The more important aspect to pay attention to is when large amounts of liquid is pumped down, there is a risk that some of it will find its way through the soil layers and contaminate water, even if the shale is at a much greater depth. This kind of contaminated water has been found in the areas where fracking companies drill. The water has supposedly caused disturbing side effects such as nose bleeds, headaches, breathing difficulties and more among people drinking the water. Some argue it is highly unlikely that the contaminated water can even reach up to the water supplies on the surface seeing as how the drilling is done from thousands of
24
feet down in the ground. Fracking companies also claim they dispose of the water in a safe way. The Obama administration issued a study that confirmed contamination of drinking water wells. The study was executed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and showed they did not find any evidence to prove that fracking had led to any widespread impacts on drinking water. This gave the oil and gas companies reason to argue that the concerns regarding contamination were unreasonable and exaggerated. However, EPA officials said the study was not meant to provide an extensive tally of contaminations. This was due to the fact that there was no national database or record of the number of contamination incidents or fracked wells, which the Congress allegedly disregarded. Normally, federal pollution rules would require detailed reports of such activities. The gas lobby has increased with industry-sponsored groups such as American’s Natural Gas Alliance and the American Gas Association. Hundreds of lobbyists are working to separate gas from other dirty fossil fuels but as it turns out, the gas industry has emerged as a heavy polluter. Despite of this, agencies have shown that the industry concerns are prioritized over public health and safety. According to reports, the lobby industry provides a misleading choice between economy and environment. It is even alleged that large oil companies have put an immense amount of pressure on senators to allow the drilling in exchange for votes and campaign contributions. It is even reported that the gas and oil companies spent over 700 million USD from 2001 to 2011 on lobby policymakers. It is all a battle of the large corporations and government against the environment and health of human beings.
Source: WSJ
The fight for a sustainable and healthy earth continues and to keep industries like these from overpowering human health, it is vital to keep researching and recording cases to have stronger evidence against the fracking industry. Fracking is something which is going on in several countries and it is important that governments take a close look at the industry to prevent them from, for example, being able to hide important information regarding contamination. Though environmentalists and victims of contamination have had to put up a fight, some states in the US in the recent years have banned fracking. Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced new rules for hydraulic fracking. “Current federal well-drilling regulations are more than 30 years old and they simply have not kept pace with the technical
25
complexities of today’s hydraulic fracturing operations,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a statement. “This updated and strengthened rule provides a framework of safeguards and disclosure protocols that will allow for the continued responsible development of our federal oil and gas resources.” If the rules are maintained and followed, the fracking industry might have a bright future. An even more ideal way to go about this problem would be to find an alternative, and a more gentle way to extract fossil fuels. After all, it is of great importance that we protect and take care of the environment and the people living in it – for us, and future generations.
fInal remarkS 2015 has been an incredible year for the Stockholm Association of International Affairs. The board has worked vigorously to create opportunities for our members like never before. A sneak preview of the movie Selma, a courtesy of the US Embassy. DiplocafĂŠs with the Polish, French, and British Ambassadors. A panel discussion with the German Minister of State of Europe about the ongoing refugee crisis. Talks at the Kulturhuset City Theatre with Alexandra Pascalidou and Gina Dirawi. A visit from the former President of South Africa, Mr. Kgalema Molanthe. The list goes on. It is needless to say that the work the board has done together has garnered new, beautiful friendships. We have learned to work well under pressure, to support each other, and laugh together. I have personally been inspired and motivated by every active member to work harder to generate circumstances where young people feel they can impact and engage in international affairs. And collectively, the board has done just that! The SAIA Debate Club has grown through the year, teaching members to debate with confidence and convincing argu-
mentations. The Journal, lead by Haroon Bayani, has been revamped with fantastic covers and new perspectives. Our new graphic profile and website by our talented PR-manager Alexandra Kaktus has turned heads! It has been a pleasure seeing the committee’s ideas coming to life. As the year reaches its end, it is time for the board of 2015 to pass its torch to the new board. We are certain that the association will continue to thrive! Thanks to every member of the board who has made this year unforgettable for us all. Happy holidays! Warm regards,
Parisa Khosravi President
26
Rebecca Lindqvist Vice-president
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Guantanamo Bay, still going strong. Euroscepticism on the rise. NSA with its permanent mass surveillance program. Social unrest in Baltimore, Maryland (USA). Growing obesity epidemic in the US. Unemployment and poverty, the picture from Greece. American consumerism.
become a member of STOCKHOLM ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS it includes: free entry to lectures and debates, access to valuable contacts, opportunity for study visits in sweden and abroad and free issues of THE STOCKHOLM JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS annual membership - 50 sek - available at our events and ufstockholm.com This issue is partly financied by Forum Syd