Vladimir Radunovic and Anastasia Kazakova talk about cyber diplomacy, the geopolitics of cyberspace, and the roles of state and non-state actors.
Vladimir Radunovic is Director, E-diplomacy and Cybersecurity Programmes, and Anastasia Kazakova is a Cyber Diplomacy Knowledge Fellow at DiploFoundation. This Swiss-Maltese non-governmental organisation specialises in capacity development in the field of Internet governance and digital policy.
Interviewer: Oleg Abdurashitov - Cybersecurity, Artificial Intelligence and Space Team.
Marco Bocchese is an Assistant Professor at the Webster Vienna private University specialized in international relations and law. He also got a PhD at Northwestern University in International Relations.
In this session, Dr Marco Bocchese talks about the relationship between international law and the Ukraine-Russia war, with specific reference to private paramilitary organisations and nuclear weapons. He also discusses the impact the war has had on international relations.
Interviewers: Patrick René Haasler and Eleanora Takitzi - Russia & the Post-Soviet Team
Prof. Inderjeet Parmar talks about the United States domestic and foreign policy in 2023. Parmar is a professor of international politics at the City, University of London, and co-editor of the book series "Routledge Studies in US Foreign Policy".
In this session, he discusses the future of the Republican Party and former President Trump heading towards the 2024 elections, before shifting the focus overseas. The main issues addressed are American interests in the Indo-Pacific, including discussions on India, QUAD, and Taiwan, the Ukraine war and its impact on the international order, and the special relationship between the US and the UK.
Interviewers: Giovanni Luca Catucci and Anurag Mishra - US Team
Reinhold Gallmetzer is an Appeals Counsel at the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court; and the founder and Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Center for Climate Crime Analysis (CCCA).
As of today, much of the current global CO2 emissions are either directly or indirectly linked to environmental crime, representing the 4th largest crime category in the world. Attempting to address this critical issue, Mr Gallmetzer founded the Centre for Climate Crime Analysis (CCCA), an NGO dedicated to fighting climate change by using the combined power of law, data and analysis.
In the interview, Mr Gallmetzer talks about the difficulties brought by the transnationality of such crimes to the pursuit of justice and clarifies the importance of generating and sharing information to accelerate law enforcement and significantly impact the climate crisis.
Interviewers: Camilla Cormegna, Isabelle Despicht, Shams Jouve - Crime, Extremism and Terrorism Team
“Everybody says Hambantota was ‘invaded’ by the Chinese. Well, just look around… There are probably no more than twenty Chinese people in the whole town. We definitely were not invaded by anyone. If anything, we Sri Lankans are hostages – hostages of our political class”, says Dilshan while sipping his tea. He is an ordinary man that lives in Hambantota, a sleepy town at the Southern tip of Sri Lanka - a remote place where taxis are nowhere to be found, public buses remain rudimentary, and the local residents buzz around the streets on rusty TukTuks, making a living mostly out of fishing and agriculture. Those that visit Hambantota are soon warned by a yellow signal: beware of wild elephants - they might come out of the bush and cross your way. It seems ironic that this forgotten tropical town with only 11,000 residents has recently drawn intense scrutiny from international media, becoming the epicenter of a fierce debate in academic and political circles. At the heart of this debate is a metaphorical “white elephant” – not the one that might come out of the bush - but the giant port that sits on the town’s coastline: the Hambantota Port.
Source: (A common street in Sri Lanka. Credit: Flickr)
The Hambantota Port was part of Beijing’s signature Belt and Road Initiative, and its construction was mostly funded by Chinese loans. When in 2017, the debt-ridden Sri Lankan government decided to lease a 70% stake in the port to the China Merchants Group for 99 years, Hambantota became a symbol fiercely cited by devoted proponents of the so-called ‘debt trap theory’. This narrative depicts China as a predatory investor that invites the Global South nations to join the BRI’s family and then deliberately pushes them into debt through murky loans and contracts. At this point, when the naïve, cash-strapped government is buried in debts it can’t repay, Beijing carries out its calculated master plan and forces its victim to cease its national assets. “Look what happened in Hambantota!”, is a claim that still reverberates in many political discussions, often with a prophetic tone.
Walking in Hambantota today, however, reveals a more complex reality. The discontent of the local people and the semi-abandoned buildings give away a different truth: there is another side of the debt-trap theory - one that is often overlooked. The countries that join the Belt and Road Initiative are not always led by cash-strapped, naïve, unaware politicians that happen to find themselves buried in debt, with no other choice than ceasing national assets to Beijing. Often, these might actually be corrupt politicians, blinded by megalomaniac tendencies left unchecked, that utilize Chinese loans for their own political and material gains.
Source: (The Fishing Market of Hambantota. Credit: Flickr)
For almost two decades, Sri Lanka’s political landscape has been dominated by the Rajapaksa family, a political clan that essentially ruled Sri Lanka like an autocratic family business. When Mahinda Rajapaksa was elected President in 2005, part of his political manifesto promised to deliver economic revitalization by constructing megaprojects and new infrastructure. Unfortunately, Rajapaksa failed to become the architect of Sri Lanka’s economic miracle: instead, he created a ticking bomb. First, he built the foundations of this economic revitalization on unsustainable debt, recklessly borrowing from bilateral lenders, mainly China, India, and Japan, as well as from a wide range of private investors. On this shaky ground, the government erected a wide array of megaprojects without conducting proper feasibility studies – essentially, building pieces of infrastructure that would never be commercially viable. Meanwhile, the Rajapaksa family has been accused of corruption, nepotism, bribes, and money laundering, with its members secretly transferring billions to accounts abroad. The infamous port of Hambantota, therefore, might not be the story of a Chinese masterplan. It is more of a tale of Sri Lanka’s broken politics.
In the early 2000s, many experts frowned upon the decision to build a new port in Hambantota, only 200 km away from Colombo, which hosts the 25th busiest port in the world. For a small island nation like Sri Lanka, this did not seem like a calculated, rational decision. In fact, it was a political one. Mahinda Rajapaksa is from the Hambantota district, a place where he hoped to solidify his grip on power and build a political stronghold. He thus erected a wide array of megaprojects - some of them carrying his name – in an attempt to elevate himself as the strongman that was capable of delivering economic revitalization to his native area. Today, in Hambantota, the signs of Rajapaksa’s megalomania and heavy spending are everywhere – not only in the port itself. Take the cricket stadium, built with a capacity of 35,000 people for a remote town with only 11,000 residents: largely unsuccessful, it is often used as a wedding venue to recover some profit. Alternatively, the airport sits semi-abandoned with no departures or arrivals. Moreover, the huge convention centre that barely hosts any event – at the moment, it has mostly become a playground for Sri Lankan kids, who often play cricket next to the main entrance. These white elephants are the grim legacy of a political dynasty out of touch with reality, unable to comprehend the needs of the people they governed, whom they eventually dragged into bankruptcy in 2022. “They built a port, an airport, a conference centre, and a cricket stadium, but they forgot that we in Hambantota are mostly farmers. What we really need is agricultural reform – not another empty project,” says Anaya, who used to be a teacher.
Source: (A train in Sri Lanka. Credit: Flickr)
For the much-debated port of Hambantota, China Exim Bank provided 85% of the funding at an unusually high-interest rate of 6.3%. The proponents of the debt-trap theory interpret this as yet another sign of Beijing’s plan to push Colombo into debt. Yet this might be simplistic thinking that once again fails to consider the broader context of the Sri Lankan reality. When construction of the Hambantota port began in 2007, Sri Lanka was still ravaged by one of the bloodiest phases of a decades-long civil war, struggling to generate public revenue. The government presented the port project to many investors, yet China emerged as the only country that was willing to take the risk of financing the megaproject. More than a predatory investor, China was a lender of last resort. Moreover, it demanded a high-interest rate because it essentially offered a high-risk loan to a conflict-torn country.
Once the Chinese loan was granted, the Sri Lankan government failed to plan its spending in a way that could offer quick returns. The Danish firm Ramboll recommended that, during the first phase of construction, the port should only manage the transport of non-containerized cargo, like oil tanks and cars. Once the Hambantota port generated the necessary revenue, Ramboll suggested, new parts could be constructed. Yet the Sri Lankan government took the hasty decision to request new funding and proceed with the second phase of the construction, immediately transforming Hambantota into a container port. “Experts suggested they constructed different parts of the port at different times, allowing each phase to be profitable and operational. Instead, the government preferred to build everything at the same time, although this implied more borrowing without solid revenues”, says Dilshan. Corruption and self-interest were also widespread. For instance, Ramboll forecasted that building a bunkering facility at Hambantota would cost roughly $33 million, yet the ports Minister submitted a document that demanded a $100 million loan. The extra cash was allegedly poured into the pockets of the Rajapaksa clan.
Source: (A Sri Lankan lady. Credit: Flickr)
By 2014, the Hambantota port was a fiasco and a burden to the Sri Lankan government. The Sri Lankan Port Authority found itself diverting money from the profitable Colombo port because Hambantota’s revenues were too low for the port to sustain itself. In 2016 many Western creditors were also demanding their annual repayments, and Sri Lanka found itself in need of foreign exchange. The ticking bomb created by Mahinda Rajapaksa was about to explode. And this is when Sri Lanka decided to lease out Hambantota to China Merchants Port for a 99-year concession. It was not about a predatory investor attempting to seize its debtor’s national assets: it was more about Sri Lanka getting rid of an inefficient and underperforming port to restore its foreign reserves, which had dried up after years of heavy borrowings and irrational spending.
The debt trap theory fails to consider that recipients of Chinese funding are often autocratic and corrupted leaders seeking to advance their political agenda. Visiting Hambantota and its semi-abandoned buildings suggests that, for the population of a developing country like Sri Lanka, living under these regimes might in fact be the real trap.
*For privacy and security reasons, pseudonyms are being used to de-identify those that shared information and personal opinions with the author
For the third Webinar of the 2022/2023 season, we had the pleasure to host three top experts in the field of Cybersecurity: Luca Nicoletti from the Italian National Cybersecurity Agency, Andrea Rigoni from Deloitte, and Antonello Vitale, a former Executive of the Italian Intelligence Community.
These experts explored the complex relationship between the public and the private sector in the context of cybersecurity - a relationship with countless challenges as well as opportunities. The event was chaired by our very own Martina Gambacorta, a member and researcher of the ITSS team.
Dr. Stephen J. Blank, Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, discusses power competition in the Caspian Sea region.
The European Union is searching for energy sources around the world to replace the role that Russia once played. They are looking towards Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, including Azerbaijan. A trans-Caspian pipeline would need to be built to get energy from Central Asia to Europe. However, this would be met with opposition from Russia and Iran, who would try to destroy it, making a security guarantee necessary.
Interviewers: Fabrizio Napoli & Davide Gobbicchi - Russia & the Post-Soviet Team
Ms Abeytia explores the impact of colonial antecedents on migration and asylum policy, the implications of limitations in policy formulation, and the next steps in advancing toward human-security based migration frameworks.
Anisa Abeytia is the Think Tank Coordinator of the Global Research Network and a migration researcher and policy professional specializing in digital bordering, active social inclusion, and colonial antecedents in integration policy. A leader in the field, she has worked with the United States Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and the US State Department to shape US–Syria policy, with a focus on immigration and humanitarian advocacy. Her research has been published internationally, including with the University of Cambridge, UNESCO, and The Hill, among others.
“Without truth, without trust and love for what is true, there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving private interests… resulting in social fragmentation, especially in a globalised society at difficult times like the present.” – Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate[1]
As the dawn of the New Year approached, the world lost one of the greatest theologians in history. Pope Benedict XVI, born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, died aged 95 after years of ill health. It was a “lack of strength of body and mind” that ultimately led Benedict XVI to become the first Pope in more than 800 years to resign as head of the Catholic Church in 2013.
Arguably his most significant theological contribution, the 2009 Papal Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, continues to get overlooked by international relations scholars and government bodies globally for its potential to shape future foreign policy strategy. In Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI asks: can foreign policy have a human face? Can human life be placed at the core of all government decision-making?
This article, which is based on a broader research project, contributes to the growing field of international relations scholarship by investigating the importance of religion in creating a more egalitarian global community. This is the first body of work, of which the author is aware, that investigates and applies fundamental principles of Catholic scholarship to the foreign policy strategy of a nation, in this case, Australia – a nation struggling with declining rates of Catholicism and to define its purpose amidst global pressure for action on climate change, approaches to conflict, and attitudes towards migration.
Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/Eq0LwAfwHDI
Caritas in Veritate
Delivered in Rome, Italy, on 29 June 2009 in the fifth year of his Pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI cited Caritas in Veritate as the cornerstone of his Papacy. It laid out a template by which all people could show leadership on human development in charity and truth. Caritas in Veritate, simply ‘charity in truth’, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and all of humanity.
Love drives peace. To find love, and subsequently peace, one must also find truth and defend it – only then can one become the ‘face of foreign affairs’ and begin to understand ‘the other’. Charity is at the heart of the Catholic social doctrine.
Benedict XVI recognised charity as both an authentic expression of humanity and an element of fundamental importance in human relations, including those of a public nature. He believed the meaning of charity had been corrupted by secular forces including the media, politicians, and business groups who equated charity as merely helping others in need. Caritas in Veritate is the doctrine by which this perspective shifts.
Within the backdrop of ongoing cases of religiously motivated violence, it seems fair to ask how people could possibly consider religion or religious principles, such as charity, to be a guiding light for the future Australian foreign policy?
Implications for Australian foreign policy
Australia’s foreign policy strategy is not only severely outdated but has been met with a mixed response by nations across the world. Complicating matters further, religion and politics have a long and often controversial history in Australia, most of it associated with Christianity.
Reflecting this conundrum, the 2021 Australian Census revealed a nation that is more divided than ever. For the first time in history, fewer than half of Australians identified as Christian, though Christianity remains the most common religion in Australia at 43.9 per cent of the population. The number of Australians who declared ‘no religion’ rose almost 10 per cent in five years to 39 per cent.[1] Hence, Australia is partly a Christian country, partly a multifaith country, and partly a secularist country – this makes speaking or generalising about religion in Australia complicated.
The 2017 Australian Foreign White Paper – the most recent document by the Australian Government outlining its foreign policy strategy – outlined five core objectives to deliver Australian security and prosperity – protection of a rules-based international order; environment; migration; poverty and human rights; and global business and protectionism.[2]
A major criticism of the White Paper is there are no clear directions or methodology outlining how Australia is going to achieve these goals. Australia has been scrambling to meet climate goals set out by the Paris Agreement; criticised globally for its lack of humanitarian foreign engagement; and generally seen as an unfriendly and hostile nation for welcoming refugees.
Despite Australia becoming a more secular nation, active rejection of religion in Australia has not become the norm. Australians will typically accept the religious views, spiritualities and commitments of others, if no one tries to impose their teachings on them. This is an important insight to understand if and how Caritas in Veritate could influence Australian foreign policy, and whether the Australian population would welcome this new approach.
Can ‘Charity in Truth’ shape foreign policy strategy in Australia?
In short, yes it can. And, in fact, some of the lessons learned could guide other nations across the world to make similar adjustments to their foreign policies, with the view to placing ‘the human’ at the centre of all decision-making. This point can be illustrated using three examples:
Firstly, Caritas in Veritate can help Australia achieve a rules-based international order in the Asia-Pacific and adhere to the Just War Theory all the same. Findings in the Brereton Report about the conduct of Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan across a 10-year period disclosed 39 unlawful killings by Australian defence members. The outcomes shocked a once proud defence unit – and the Australian public – to the core as these alleged crimes took place outside the heat of battle. A ‘warrior culture’ had infiltrated the Australian Special Forces raising questions about the legitimacy of the conflict, and in fact, whether it fit the Just War Tradition.
In Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI states that without a fresh moral heart, the past remains unhealed and can cause even greater harm in the future. Therefore, if charity is an act of practicality, and the quest for truth delivers authenticity and love, Australia should consider input from its returning service personnel in any future foreign policy strategy on conflict intervention.
Secondly, it can advance Australia’s climate policy substantially as policy begins to consider those across the world who are facing displacement due to drought, rising sea levels, and changing ecosystems. Caritas in Veritate states nature expresses a design of love and truth: “it was prior to us and has been given to us by God as the setting for our life”.[3] Estimates suggest that by the year 2050, up to 700 million people may be displaced because of climate change.[4] By comparison, the aftermath of the Second World War saw anywhere from 40 to 66 million people displaced. Climate change will also impact the journeys these populations will take, with rising sea levels and drought adding to the treacherous paths to freedom, which is antithetical to Benedict XVI’s desire.
Lastly, Caritas in Veritate will drive a complete rethink in Australian Government border policy towards refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants arriving in the country. Boat-turnback policy initiated by the Australian Government caused international condemnation and considerable deaths at sea of vulnerable people that could have been avoided. Caritas in Veritate reminds governments that the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is the human.
Implications for future scholarship and policy development
Some possible policy recommendations for the Australian Government to consider, which are grounded in and inspired by Benedict XVI, include:
Seek mandatory input from returned Australian Defence Force representatives on shaping policy regarding Australian involvement in international conflict that has no direct threat to national security. And, subsequently, establish a policy that vests action through international agencies such as the United Nations to seek a humanitarian response to conflict.
Australia should further its commitment to reduce carbon emissions by developing policy forcing mining companies operating within Australia that have projects in developing nations to either cease operations in those nations or deliver profound rehabilitation and financial benefits to those countries to reduce the human and environmental cost that climate change is likely to have.
Take an approach to resettlement in the regions, where community spirit and inclusion is high, and jobs are abundant. This will give refugees a chance at gaining stability in their new home country.
Foreign aid should be directed towards global projects including school construction, regenerating soils for food growth, building new roads, or enhancing industry capabilities.
Australia should establish an Office of Religion and Global Affairs to further increase an understanding of religious dynamics and engagement with religious actors, as well as ‘the other’.
Further research could apply this strategy to the rich religions of Judaism and Islam, as well as Hinduism and others, to ascertain whether a ‘new’ theory – possibly, ‘Religious Global Peace Theory’ – could become commonplace in academic scholarship and international governance.
Conclusion
People must be at the centre of all diplomatic action. If charity is love given and received as Benedict XVI intended, then charity must be of benefit, bipartisan, demonstrate reciprocity, and be from good natured intentions.
Australian foreign policy strategy needs an urgent rethink as geopolitical challenges rise in the Indo-Pacific, and globalisation exacerbates the impact of international issues in domestic affairs. Caritas in Veritate could offer guidance for Australia on how to advance human-centered leadership in foreign policy. Foreign policy can have a human face after all.
Diletta Huyskes, Head of Advocacy in Privacy Network, talks about the latest developments regarding Artificial Intelligence. In particular, this episode deals with the challenges that AI poses to the protection of Human Rights and how this issue is tackled in the upcoming AI Act.
