Dr Jeremy Alan Garlick is an Associate Professor of International Studies and International Relations. Currently, he is the Director of the J. Masaryk Centre of International Studies at Prague University of Economics and Business. His research focusses on the Belt and Road Initiative, China's relations with Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), China-Middle East relations, and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). He is the author of books, “Reconfiguring the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: Geo-Economic Pipe DreamsVersus Geopolitical Realities” published November 2021 and “The Impact of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: From Asia to Europe” published December 2019. He has also authored various book chapter, peer reviewed articles, book reviews and conference papers. He is also member of the editorial board of the Journal of Current Chinese Affairs since 2018.
In this interview he talks about his recent book "Reconfiguring the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor" and explains how CPEC may not be such a game-changing endeavour for the region as originally hoped. He explains how almost all projects are centred within Pakistan instead of being cross-border in nature. He also highlights the security risks among other factors within Pakistan that have repeatedly hindered development of the CPEC Projects.
Interviewing Team: Sandra Watson Parcels and Carlotta Rinaudo.
In this session, Mariela Noles Cotito - Professor of Political Science, Discrimination and Public Policy at the Universidad del Pacifico, Peru and Editor of the Book Mas alla del Bicentenario: Tareas Pendientes Alexandra Arana Blas - PhD Candidate at the University of Pittsburgh Author of the Chapter “Sensibilidades y Subjetividades”; and Julia Hodgins - Master’s Candidate at King’s College London, co-author of the Chapter “El Peru a Través de Nuestros Ojos,” and our valued colleague and member of the ITSS Verona Culture, Society and Security Team.
Interviewing Team: Sofia Staderini and Leigh Dawson.
By: Elena Bascone, Michele Mignogna, Miguel Jiménez and Sofia Dal Santo.
Holiday seasons often trigger unexpected crises, as the last two years proved: after the 2020 pandemic, a new global threat is on the rise - a global energy crisis. This new emergency is so severe that even Kazakhstan, the biggest central Asian country and one of the major producers of fossil fuels, was unable to escape it. At the beginning of January, the price per liter for liquified petroleum gas (LPG) more than doubled, increasing from 50 to 120 Tenges (about $0.27), and violent protests exploded in the country. LPG is mainly used for vehicles, but even for cooking and warming up during the severe Kazakh winter, making it a primary necessity. Energetic scarcity then fostered the explosion of violent protests all over Kazakhstan. Resulting in the death of 225 people, these demonstrations are unprecedented. The outbreak took place in Zhanaozen, in the southwest of the country, known as the capital of oil and gas, and spread all over the country in a few days. Peaceful demonstrations soon escalated into violent aggressions such as dangerous attacks on government buildings and clashes against police officers. However, rising energy prices are only the tip of the iceberg.
The Roots of the Protests
The country can attract millions of dollars of foreign investment due to its apparent political stability. Nevertheless, this political stability has been characterized by an authoritarian government led for three decades by Nazarbayev, eventually substituted by the current Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, by most regarded as his hand-picked successor. The relationship between them is confirmed by the fact that the latter appointed the former president as Head of the Security Council, and declared him Yelbasy, i.e., “the Father of the Nation.” This lack of democracy, combined with the over-rising income inequality due to a drop of GNI and further worsened by the pandemic, explains the protests’ origins. As of now, a quarter of the central Asian republic’s population is considered chronically poor.
This is ironic since, as a significant oil and gas producer, Kazakhstan produces much more LPG than its less than 19 million inhabitants can consume. However, existing domestic energy companies prefer to export it rather than sell it to the domestic market. Accordingly, the country’s authorities have tried to increase the supply of LPG through purchases from Russian companies, which sell it at prices 3-8 times higher than the domestic ones. Moreover, these gas supply contracts with the Russian companies are undisclosed and untransparent, thus encouraging corruption and the enrichment of the Kazakh and Russian elites.
The Government Response
All in all, given the growing anti-Nazarbayev sentiment, it is understandable why the song “Old man, go away!” soon spread among the protestors. Even the bold concessions given by Mr. Tokayev, such as the removal of his predecessor from his place as Head of the Security Council and the acceptance of the government’s resignation, substituting it with an ad-interim administration, has not proved to be sufficient to calm down the protestors. Moreover, the absence of pluralism and the intolerance of opposition in the political life of Kazakhstan prevents protestors from finding representation on an institutional level. This lack of opposition allows Mr. Tokayev to blame, although without evidence, “foreign-trained terrorist gangs” for the protests to justify a punitive response; notwithstanding, while the use of force may crush protests, it can only amplify the underlying anger.
Punitive responses immediately occurred: from the shutdown of the internet to the president’s public declaration addressing the special forces to “fire without warning”, as reported by BBC news. This declaration triggered the critics of the international community, from the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the chairman in office of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Polish lawyer Zbigniew Rau. Overwhelmed by demonstrators, President Tokayev, following the soviet style of dealing with civil unrest, made a formal request for assistance to the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a military alliance headquartered in Moscow.
The peacekeeping mission was speedily approved. Alongside Russia, even Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan sent contingents to Kazakhstan for a total of almost 3000 soldiers. The mission has been defined by Andrei Kortunov, head of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), a Kremlin-linked think tank, as “less an armed intervention than a police operation.” As it is common knowledge, it is always risky to welcome home foreign troops, especially considering the assertive policy perpetrated by Russia on the European side. Nevertheless, the paratroopers made their way back as soon as the order was re-established. Still, it is essential to highlight the significance of this intervention for the future of international relations in Asia, considering the growing influence of China and its resulting possible conflict of interest with Russia.
Conclusion
The intervention of the CSTO led to a stabilization of the protests, at least for the moment. Moreover, according to The Guardian, Mr. Tokayev said that the ad interim government would re-introduce a price cap of 50 tenges per liter on LPG in Mangistau province, considering that it is a socially necessary consumer good. In addition, it is essential to bear in mind that it is likely that this crisis will have consequences in the context of future relations between Russia and Kazakhstan. The intervention of Russia might undermine the hard-won independence of the central Asian republic. However, we will have to wait to see the long-term effects of these events on the power dynamics of Central Asia. One thing remains certain: this region is crucial now more than ever. Indeed, as Alexander Cooley indicated, this region, which used to be disputed between Russia and the UK, is now at the center of a new “great game” - a power contest that sees the US, Russia, and China involved.
By: Filippo Grassi, Sarah Toubman, Maria Chiara Aquilino
This past September, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi introduced measures to reduce gas and electricity bills this winter by three billion euros, as power prices soar across Europe.
The new energy crisis affecting Italy and the European Union is largely connected to the current situation in Ukraine. Military tensions in Eastern Europe have deteriorated relations between Russia, Europe’s largest gas exporter, and the EU. In the face of rising tensions with NATO, Russia cut off several gas pipelines into Europe, with flows into Germany and Poland restricted. This has further encouraged the EU’s transition to renewables and strengthened its energy partnership with the United States.
Recently, the European Union has adopted a two-pronged approach which includes decarbonisation processes and the diversification of energy market partners. This is aimed to reduce the Union’s dependency on Russian gas and to shift towards a low-carbon future by phasing out fossil fuels.
Italian Prime Minister Draghi has himself argued that there is the urgent need for Europe to diversify energy supplies and strengthen the bargaining power of purchasing countries to help curb power and gas price rises. Nevertheless, despite its declarations and intentions, Italy is struggling to keep up with other major EU economies and their actions to fully decarbonise the EU electricity system by 2035, aligning with1.5°C, and to diversify its energy partners.
While many nations aim to use renewables for 75% or more of their electrical consumption by 2030, Italy has set a target of only 55%. The country is also behind in its 2030 wind and solar target, and Ember’s Global Electricity Review 2020revealed that Italy’s retired coal generation is instead being replaced by fossil gas. Consequently, Italy could potentially reach one of the highest shares of fossil gas in its generation mix by 2030, accounting for 38% of its electricity production.
However, the need for a greater supply of backup energy generation, also known as a capacity mechanism, in Italy, has led to this further investment in natural gas. Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power plants are offered up to €70 per kW each year, as a result incentivizing often uneconomical gas companies and discouraging clean energy production. The recent crisis in energy supplies and costs has only reconfirmed that the European Union cannot solely rely on imported fossil fuels--in the past year, electricity prices in Italy have nearly tripled.
Recently, ENI, Italy’s National Hydrocarbons Agency and largest oil and gas company, has committed to a Climate Strategy with the aim of reducing the impact of its oil production projects and enhancing a low-carbon economic transition. In particular, Italian strategy is oriented towards the exploitation of natural resources, especially liquefied natural gas, present in the Arctic. Indeed, according to the estimates of the United States Geological Survey the region is expected to hold 15% of the world's remaining oil deposits, 30% of its natural gas deposits and around 20% of its liquefied natural gas. Consequently, a number of Italian producers, including ENI, Saipem, and Nuovo Pignone, are contributing to the development of the Arctic-LNG 2 and Yamal LNG projects to extract gas in northern Siberia. Although these are technically private business ventures, with Russian corporation Novatek owning 60% of the shares of Arctic-LNG 2, they remain deeply linked to Russian state interests, rendering the effort to reduce energy dependence futile. Indeed, Gazprom, the Russian state energy organization, owns 10% of Novatek. Additionally, the Italian National Agency for Electricity (ENEL) is currently helping build the Kolskaya wind plant in Russia’s Murmansk region, which would be the largest wind power plant in the Arctic Circle. Thus, while Italy is clearly making an effort to divest from some forms of fossil fuels, it remains reliant on natural gas and even renewables from Russia. To ensure energy security resilience against events like the Russia-Ukraine crisis in the future, Italy would have to further diversify its energy sources, and the countries from which they are obtained.
Nevertheless, Enel, Italy’s largest power utility (and the world’s second largest), recently announced a 2040 fossil gas phase-out, ten years ahead of schedule. This is a clear signal that it recognises the future lies in greater electrification powered by renewables. Overall, Italy’s energy policy is pro-renewables. In 2017, Italy passed an updated National Energy Strategy, subsequently ratified in 2020, through which it is committed to attaining Europe’s environmental and decarbonisation targets by 2030 in sustainable ways, in line with the targets set by COP21. Thus, in recent years, the country has successfully integrated renewable generation into its electricity system, especially improving discrepancies in the infrastructure between north and south. Still, more work clearly would be needed to successfully transition Italy away from fossil fuels and diversify energy sources.
Image Source: https://www.iea.org/countries/italy
Italian
La politica energetica italiana e il suo ruolo nell'Artico
Lo scorso settembre, il primo ministro italiano Mario Draghi ha introdotto misure per ridurre le bollette di gas ed elettricità di tre miliardi di euro, mentre i prezzi dell'energia salgono in tutta Europa.
La nuova crisi energetica che colpisce l'Italia e l'Unione europea è in gran parte legata alla situazione attuale in Ucraina. Le tensioni militari nell'Europa orientale hanno deteriorato le relazioni tra la Russia, il più grande esportatore europeo di gas, e l'UE. Di fronte alle crescenti tensioni con la NATO, la Russia ha bloccato diversi gasdotti verso l'Europa, limitando i flussi verso la Germania e la Polonia. Ciò ha ulteriormente incoraggiato la transizione dell'UE verso le energie rinnovabili e rafforzato il partenariato energetico con gli Stati Uniti.
Recentemente, l'Unione europea ha adottato un duplice approccio che comprende i processi di de-carbonizzazione e la diversificazione dei partner del mercato energetico. L'obiettivo è ridurre la dipendenza dell'Unione dal gas russo e orientarsi verso un futuro a basse emissioni di carbonio, eliminando gradualmente i combustibili fossili.
Lo stesso Primo Ministro italiano Draghi ha sostenuto che l'Europa ha urgente bisogno di diversificare gli approvvigionamenti energetici e rafforzare il potere contrattuale dei paesi acquirenti per contribuire a frenare l'aumento del potere e dei prezzi del gas. Nonostante questo, nonostante le dichiarazioni e le intenzioni, l'Italia sta lottando per tenere il passo con le altre principali economie dell'UE e le loro azioni per de-carbonizzare completamente il sistema elettrico dell'UE entro il 2035, allineandosi all'1,5 C, e per diversificare i suoi partner energetici.
Mentre molte nazioni puntano ad utilizzare le rinnovabili per il 75% o più del loro consumo elettrico entro il 2030, l'Italia ha fissato un obiettivo di appena il 55%. Il paese è anche in ritardo nel suo obiettivo 2030 eolico e solare, e Ember Global Electricity Review 2020 ha rivelato che la produzione di carbone in pensione in Italia è invece stata sostituita da gas fossile. Di conseguenza, l'Italia potrebbe raggiungere una delle quote più alte di gas fossile nel suo mix di generazione entro il 2030, rappresentando il 38% della sua produzione di energia elettrica.
Tuttavia, la necessità di una maggiore fornitura di energia di riserva, nota anche come meccanismo di capacità, in Italia, ha portato a questo ulteriore investimento nel gas naturale. Le centrali a turbina a gas a ciclo combinato sono offerte fino a 70 euro per kW ogni anno, il che incentiva le aziende a gas spesso antieconomiche e scoraggia la produzione di energia pulita. La recente crisi degli approvvigionamenti energetici e dei costi ha solo riconfermato che l'Unione europea non può contare unicamente sulle importazioni di combustibili fossili: nell'ultimo anno i prezzi dell'elettricità in Italia sono quasi triplicati.
Recentemente, ENI, l'Agenzia Nazionale degli Idrocarburi e la più grande società petrolifera e del gas, si è impegnata in una Strategia per il Clima con l'obiettivo di ridurre l'impatto dei suoi progetti di produzione petrolifera e di favorire una transizione economica a basse emissioni di carbonio. In particolare, la strategia italiana è orientata allo sfruttamento delle risorse naturali, in particolare del gas naturale liquefatto, presente nell'Artico. Infatti, secondo le stime dello United States Geological Survey, la regione dovrebbe detenere il 15% dei giacimenti petroliferi rimanenti del mondo, il 30% dei suoi giacimenti di gas naturale e circa il 20% del suo gas naturale liquefatto. Di conseguenza, alcuni produttori italiani, tra cui ENI, Saipem e Nuovo Pignone, stanno contribuendo allo sviluppo dei progetti Arctic-LNG 2 e Yamal LNG per l'estrazione di gas nella Siberia settentrionale. Sebbene si tratti di imprese tecnicamente private, con la società russa Novatek che detiene il 60% delle azioni di Arctic-LNG 2, rimangono profondamente legati agli interessi dello Stato russo, rendendo inutile lo sforzo di ridurre la dipendenza energetica. Infatti, Gazprom, l'organizzazione statale russa per l'energia, possiede il 10% di Novatek. Inoltre, l'Agenzia Nazionale Italiana per l'Elettricità (ENEL) sta attualmente aiutando a costruire la centrale eolica di Kolskaya nella regione russa di Murmansk, che sarebbe la più grande centrale eolica del Circolo Polare Artico.
Così, mentre l'Italia sta chiaramente facendo uno sforzo per disinvestirsi da alcune forme di combustibili fossili, rimane dipendente dal gas naturale e persino dalle energie rinnovabili provenienti dalla Russia. Per garantire la resilienza alla sicurezza energetica di eventi come la crisi Russia-Ucraina in futuro, l'Italia dovrebbe diversificare ulteriormente le proprie fonti energetiche e i paesi da cui sono ottenute.
Tuttavia, Enel, la più grande utility elettrica d'Italia (e la seconda al mondo), ha recentemente annunciato un'eliminazione graduale del gas fossile nel 2040, dieci anni prima del previsto. Questo è un chiaro segnale che riconosce che il futuro risiede in una maggiore elettrificazione alimentata da fonti rinnovabili. Nel complesso, la politica energetica italiana è a favore delle energie rinnovabili. Nel 2017 l'Italia ha approvato una Strategia Energetica Nazionale aggiornata, successivamente ratificata nel 2020, attraverso la quale si impegna a raggiungere gli obiettivi ambientali e di de-carbonizzazione dell'Europa entro il 2030 in modo sostenibile, in linea con gli obiettivi fissati dalla COP21. Così, negli ultimi anni, il paese ha integrato con successo la produzione di energia rinnovabile nel suo sistema elettrico, in particolare migliorando le discrepanze nelle infrastrutture tra nord e sud. Tuttavia, sarebbe necessario un maggiore impegno per riuscire a portare l'Italia lontano dai combustibili fossili e a diversificare le fonti energetiche.
Natalie Dobson, assistant professor at Utrecht University on international law and climate change law, explains the rise of 'climate litigations' and its ties to human rights and constitutional law. The expert discusses the contribution that this kind of litigation can bring to the ongoing debate on climate change.
Human security is conditioned by a variety of external factors - like war or famine - and personal characteristics - such as gender, ethnic identity, or sexuality. These intersecting realities lead to rapidly evolving patterns of threats to human dignity across the globe. Indeed, humanitarian crises or large scale natural disasters serve to reconfigure the lives of those affected and exacerbate already existing social vulnerabilities. In this line, it becomes important to explore how recent political and social developments have notably worsened the conditions of one particular collective of people: migrants.
Recent estimates suggest that over 281 million people are migrants - amounting to about 3.6 % of the global population. Yet in spite of the significant increases in people flows across national boundaries, migrant groups continue to be politically, socially, and economically targeted and discriminated against. Migrant communities routinely face difficulties in accessing basic services and often see their identities become instrumentalized for political propaganda. As those seeking refuge, fleeing violence, or attempting to find a better future are confronted with rising political polarisation, stricter border control, and worsening social protections. We must reflect on the barriers to movement that affect this collective and the trends that have come to act as drivers of migration flows. Only then can we understand the severity of the conditions migrants face today.
Trends
Economic trends are significant drivers of migration today. Economic divergence has been growing between countries, highly impacted by the global recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Available instruments of developing economies aiming at tackling such challenges are much more limited than the ones of advanced economies, which leads to a bifurcated economic recovery. Another longer lasting global challenge to be faced is climate change. Similarly to the pandemic, it impacts countries unevenly: some are going to be more resilient thanks to their more fortunate economic situation and/or geographical location than others.
Adaptation to climate-related changes are going to have socio-economic consequences for individuals. Unskilled workers, for instance, are going to be vulnerable to industrial transformations — for instance, in carbon-intensive, heavy industries—, and may decide to migrate to countries in which their skills can still be used, in the hope of opportunities of economic advancement.
Climate change and countries’ various responses to it can cause not solely voluntary economic migration in the future, but also large-scale involuntary migration. This falls into the category of societal global risk, influencing numerous countries and industries negatively. Climate action failure is one of the potentially damaging risks that are going to contribute to involuntary migration on a global scale. Extreme weather, biodiversity loss, livelihood crises, and social cohesion erosion are also listed by the latest Global Risks Report of the World Economic Forum. Climate action failure and extreme weather are the most influential factors.
Climate change contributes to natural disasters, too. Because of such disasters, internal and cross-border displacement is going to occur. Interestingly, it is not necessarily the direct effects of such disasters that are going to affect migration, but the worsening economic conditions they will cause. This means that links between migration and disasters caused by the accelerating climate change are rather indirect, manifesting in migration caused by decreasing incomes, worsening livelihood opportunities, and changes in food security.
Violence, conflict and persecution are still going to play a role in the future when it comes to migration or displacement, however, data on recent trends indicate that disaster related internal displacement is more common, and, at the same time, more volatile than internal displacement related to the previously mentioned factors.
Another factor to take into account when observing voluntary or involuntary migration, is the lack of possibility to migrate, caused by environmental change. People without assets to move can be trapped in certain areas, which can lead to more defenselessness against environmental change. Meanwhile, these trends are further creating many barriers to migration which need to be addressed simultaneously.
The barriers to migration are very complex, interlinked, and multifold. The recentGlobal Risks Report 2022 by World Economic Forum has identified several contemporary barriers to migration which include national level barriers, such as the movement restrictions related to the COVID-19, financial pressures in advanced economies, and greater focus on domestic priorities. The report has also identified three potential barriers to the cross-border migration; which include post-pandemic effects on international mobility, future employment trends, and increased national interest postures of several countries.
Movement restrictions because of the COVID-19 have interrupted several migration flows. These restrictions are temporary, but as the post-pandemic economic rebound demands more labour, creating furtheropportunities for migrants, Western policymakers need to be prepared to address a new influx of migrants and be able to explain to their residents why welcoming this labour forcewould not diminish their employment opportunities, as well as why certain post-pandemic employment opportunities would need a migrant labour force to fulfil them. Failure to do so may cause further rise in anti-immigrant sentiments in resident populations.
National interest postures are increasingly becoming a world-wide phenomena where nations are actively reframing their migration policies to exclude migrants from basic financial and healthcare services, asChile and Peru have done recently. Another such example are the restrictive policies of the United Kingdom andUSA, which originally were implemented because of public health concerns, but have sustained and are causing a decline in the issuance of visas to migrants.
Apart from these issues, the nature of public discourse anddisinformation campaigns are making the migration issue worse. Migration has increasingly become a controversial issue in Western countries, generating right-wing and nationalist reactions. The media has played a very important role in this by ‘normalizing discriminatory labels used to describe migrants’, whereas disinformationcampaigns against migrants portray them as a threat to public health, security, and the economy of host countries are fuellinghate speech andviolence against them. These two issues make a crucial impact on the voting behaviours of host countries and the governments they choose to elect, who usually have an anti-migrant stance when framing and implementing the migration policies in their respective countries.
Conclusion
The worsening socio-economic conditions and global trends we have explored have served to notably increase the risks migrants face. Whether it be to emergency displacements, worsening social retribution, or economic push and pull factors, migration is not only becoming a more pronounced phenomenon, but one subject to expanding threats to human dignity.
As the world reopens its borders and struggles to manage the after-effects of a global pandemic, policy and assistance efforts need to look towards the plight migrants face and provide the resources, social networks, and institutional support necessary to protect the human security of one of the world's most politicised collectives.
Barbara Tomassini [Barbara Tommassini is a Biomedical Engineer, CTO at BIOVERSE srl, currently volunteering in the Civil Service program in Tanzania.
Interviewing Team: Alessandra Gramolini, Rebecca Pedemonte, and Michele Tallarini.
What is the health situation in Tanzania? What impact did COVID-19 have? Tanzania is making major progress in the health sector leading to a continued increase in life expectancy for Tanzanians at birth. Despite this, there are still several issues such as the lack of adequate infrastructures and human resources. The impact of HIV/AIDS represents one of the most dramatic realities. The management of COVID-19 in Tanzania has gone hand in hand with politics. After a long period of official denial that coronavirus exists in Tanzania, the government has completely changed course in early 2021, after the death of the previous president. The country, however, is still facing major challenges to obtain vaccines and to overcome hesitancy amongst the population, which has only got more confused by these several changes. Now the situation is quite stable: there are no restrictive measures even if the epidemic is still going on, but, at the same time, hospitals are not overcrowded. In similar contexts, the situation and the decisions to be taken are even more delicate, and it’s necessary to find a balance between the containment of the epidemic and the maintenance of a stable social situation.
What are the opportunities for the development and application of new biomedical technologies in Tanzania? Why did you choose to bring your project to Tanzania?
In Tanzania, there are a lot of needs but few resources and infrastructures available in the country. The healthcare sector is full of opportunities for the development and application of new biomedical technologies, but we should always keep in mind the specific contexts and needs, to design more appropriate and useful technologies.
Indeed, the biggest mistake made so far with these countries has been to give them technologies that are unsuitable for the context, not economically sustainable, without staff training and spare parts available locally.
The new medical device I’m developing together with a colleague of mine (we are both biomedical engineers), is about the treatment of severely burned patients (TBSA> 20%) up to 5 years of age, and it is specifically designed for low-middle income countries. We chose to bring our project to Tanzania for epidemiological and personal reasons: every year 11 million severe burns occur from open flames and boiling liquids alone. 95% of the victims occur in low-middle-income countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and 70% are children less than 5 years of age. Furthermore, the idea was born during a past trip in Tanzania, during a visit to a rural hospital.
In your opinion/based on your experience on the field,what is the role of Italian ONGs in Tanzania? Since Tanzania is a peaceful and not high-priority country, Italian NGOs in the country play a role in supporting government institutions for the creation of developed systems adaptable to local contexts for improving the existing ones. This support takes place, supporting the activities and training the local staff, to achieve long-term sustainability and local autonomy, with no need of foreign help anymore.
How do you think Italy-Tanzania cooperation in the healthcare system will develop in the future? Which are the most important fields that need external support to be developed? I think healthcare system in Tanzania in the coming years will need external support in the area of Emergency management, with in-depth analysis of national and international guidelines, for improving the knowledges of local staff and training it, as well as the management and purchase of appropriate medical devices in terms of accessibility, availability of spare parts, ease of use and training of personnel on use and maintenance. There should be a strong cooperation between NGOs themselves and manufacturing companies, to have more appropriate and effective devices.
Sergey Markedonov is an Associate Professor at Russian State University for the Humanities based in Moscow (Russia). From May 2010 to October 2013, he was a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, DC, USA). In April-May 2015 he was a visiting fellow at the Center for Russia and Central Asia Studies, Institute of International Studies (IIS), Fudan University (Shanghai, China).
He shares his insights on Georgia's political and social polarisation; its use as a field for NATO-Russian confrontation and its key role in the Caucasus region.
Interviewing Team: Igor Shchebetun, Fabrizio Napoli and Davide Gobbicchi.
With the letter delivered to Moscow the dialogue on the guarantees linked to security put forward by the Russian Federation, we enter the difficult task of keeping open a channel that should aim at a decrease in tensions on the Russian-Ukrainian border.
For Moscow now it is necessary time for Russian President Vladimir Putin to carefully analyze all the documents received from both the United States and NATO; but Russian foreign minister Lavrov himself said that both Washington and the Atlantic Alliance rejected Russia’s request to suspend NATO’s eastward expansion.
While both NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg and US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken have stated that they are ready for dialogue with the Kremlin, which at the moment has given no signs of reducing troops (according to some networks, almost 100,000 men and armored vehicles) near the border with Ukraine. To increase the pressure on the Russian leadership and Putin, Blinken himself stated that in the event of a Russian invasion, Washington would implement a strategy, with Berlin, to block the completion of the North Stream 2 gas pipeline. Europe. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has asked the United States to take Russian concerns seriously.
The US dilemma on the Ukrainian crisis concerns the desire to resolve it quickly to avoid bogging down the other dossiers that the Biden administration considers vital, first and foremost the internal economic situation and the internal pandemic. Other concerns the issues concerning the Indo-Pacific and that concerning the confrontation with China. It is vital for Washington to resolve the issue in Europe that it avoids engaging directly and leaving the field to the European allies of the EU and NATO. In recent days, Jens Stoltenberg declared that NATO will not send Pact troops to Kiev, a statement also accompanied by the US, a statement coming from the White House spokesman, in which it was explicitly stated that the United States does not intend to send troops in Ukraine.
In this Kiev finds itself closed by the desire to prepare for a possible Russian invasion and with only informal and diplomatic support, with economic and military aid that comes from the Baltic countries, Poland and the UK. Meanwhile, Moscow decides to keep the units near the Ukrainian border and the US has put 8,500 people on alert ready to be deployed in NATO allied countries. Another burden will concern the possible negotiations between Washington and Moscow on the "security guarantees" that the latter expects to deal with. The Kremlin aims to gain recognition of its spheres of influence from neighboring countries and opposition to the entry of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine into the Atlantic Alliance. On the opposite front, both Washington and NATO, in the documents delivered to Moscow, ask the Russians to start a diplomatic path that leads to discussing Russian requests and a possible de-escalation but rejecting the request to suspend expansion towards Eastern Europe.
The dialogue between Moscow and Washington / NATO / EU continues, but with 100,000 troops from the Russian Federation close to the Ukrainian borders.
"No ties to the East, no ties to the West, just the Islamic Republic" (Image Reference)
This motto engraved at the entrance of the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs represents Islamic Republic's ideology regarding its foreign policy. An ideal of independence mixed with a heavily ideological theme. Where do we stand 43 years after this motto was first chanted? Is the Islamic Republic an independent state from what it defined as East and West or is it becoming more and more dependent on one side in order to survive? In this article we will briefly review what pushes the Islamic Republic towards the East and what is to be expected from such pattern.
Within international relations, sanctions typically act as a tool of foreign pressure aimed at targeting the policies of other States (Marinov 2005, 564): compromises from leaders are more likely if their existence in power is threatened by an external pressure (Marinov 2005, 564). Even so, in the history of global politics, States have been targeted by sanctions, by foreign countries, according to diverse strategic rationales. In regards to the Iranian case, economic sanctions have been directed at curbing the regime’s nuclear programme, restraining its regional policy, and condemning its human rights violations.
Sanctions have acted as the preferred policy tool of the States most concerned by the development of the State’s nuclear programme (Esfandiary and Fitzpatrick 2011, 143). Though the Islamic Republic of Iran has faced sanctions since the November 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran, the first US sanctions in regard to Iran’s nuclear intentions date to 1995 with President Clinton’s issuing of the Executive Order 12957 of March 1995 and the Executive Order 12959 of May 1995. These involved US export controls banning the transfer to Iran of dual-use that could be applied for weapons purposes. The international community would universally consider the matter a decade later, with the first UN sanctions against Iran imposed in 2005 by the Security Council Resolution 1737, which mandated a ban on assistance to Iran’s enrichment programme (Esfandiary and Fitzpatrick 2011, 144). If effects of the sanctions are to be assessed, it could be said that the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions of 1996 (ILSA), for instance, whose principal purpose had been to deter foreign investments in Iran’s energy industries, penalized the Iranian companies investing annually in Iran’s oil and gas sector; the ILSA was extended and the Iranian oil production stalled, growth was hampered (Schott 2012, 190).
Iran’s regional policy has additionally been a subject of concern within global politics and for neighboring countries. The Islamic Republic boasts a geostrategic position enabling it to project its influence on Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean (Švejdová 2017, 46). Among the effects of economic sanctions relating to Iran’s regional aspirations the most significant amount to the impact of the state’s national economy. (Švejdová 2017, 47). That said, the stabbing of the economy has not haltered the regime’s resilience, which has exploited the foreign pressure by stabilizing its roots and empowering its policies, mainly through its religious ideology (Naghavi and Pignataro 2015, 3).
The last grounds on which Iran has been targeted by the U.S. and the international community are its human rights violations. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been accused of violations both traditionally tied to oppressive regimes and also related to the regime’s codification of provisions found in Shi’a jurisprudence (Mokhtari 2004, 469). But in Iranian internal politics, Iranian policy changes have far from been implemented as a result of the U.S. sanctions nevertheless, as, on the contrary, the Iranian regime has condemned the United States for self-inflicting a domestic economic distress (Schott 2012, 191).
On the Chinese side, we must investigate the reasons behind the choice of Iran as an ideal partner for Beijing. We will analyze some past choices in order to find the constant characteristics. We can take into consideration the example of Sri Lanka, where according to Ganeshan Wignaraja, *1“The pattern of Chinese investment reveals a nuanced picture of benefits and costs. Chinese multilateral policies are required to maximize the benefits and minimize any risks of its investment.” Moreover, it is not to be underestimated the role of Beijing’s influence in the political equilibrium, Jayadeva Uyangoda in fact affirms that 2* “China was using corruption as a controlling device. Chinese assistance to Rajapaksa was a means of buying his support by helping him increase his grip on the country.” Other peculiarities can be studied in the case of Pakistan, where the construction of the CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) is involving investments valued at 60 billion dollars, embedded in the wider Belt and Road Initiative. Beijing is applying a strategy that was defined by Zhao Shurong as 4* “cross-continental mercantilism, a policy that, through State Owned Enterprises (SOEs), allows China to endorse free trade aiming at the accumulation of capital, setting a new model of economic growth”. Investing in the strategic Gwadar Port could be a plastic representation of a policy that, according to Francois Godement, 3* “has a special significance for China, which considers regional connectivity as a fundamental element to rise at global level.” We can therefore individuate a pattern, also in Africa, where 5* “trade has not been fair and has been detrimental to African businesses. For example, in South Africa factories had to close because of the cheap influx of Chinese goods”. Moreover 6*“Human Rights Watch alleges that Chinese organizations have been accused of inhuman treatment of workers in Zambia.“ From what emerges, China appears to search for a weak partner, who may accept exploitative measures in order to attract unfair but still useful investments.
Even though the details of the Iranian-Chinese 25-year agreement have not been published, yet considering China's pattern to a modern form of exploitation makes it quite clear. The illusion of economic growth generates a lasting debt with China that will harm the economy on a much larger scale in the long-run. It appears that the only reason behind such shady alliance is Islamic Republic's crucial need to trade which has been frozen by the U.S. sanctions.
