Young Diplomats

Japanese military normalization and collective self-defense under a Trump Presidency

Understanding the pacificst charater of the Japanese Constitution

When the constitution of Japan came into effect in 1947, it marked the end of a remarkable period of Japanese history. Less than a century before, Japan was an isolated feudal state under the military dictatorship of the Tokugawa Shogun. In 1853, American warships forced the end of Japan’s isolationist foreign policy. The emperor of Japan emerged victorious from a civil war with the Shogunate and within a few decades, Japan rapidly westernized itself and became an imperialist great power. It aggressively expanded in Asia after 1930 and at its height held or dominated Korea, Manchuria, Indochina and South-east Asia. After fighting alongside Germany in the Second World War, it surrendered to the United States after nuclear weapons were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Fisher 187-190). After a short period of American occupancy, Japan gained independence again and its new constitution marked Japan’s rebirth as a modern, democratic country.

This backstory is necessary to understand the pacifist character of the Japanese constitution.

This backstory is necessary to understand the pacifist character of the Japanese constitution. It does not permit the building and maintenance of a military and does not extend the right to self-defense to the Japanese state: “In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as another war potential, will never be maintained.  The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized” (Constitution of Japan). In light of the uncompromised pacifism of Article 9, it is thus a peculiar situation that Japan maintains the world’s seventh-most effective military (as of 2016, according to the Global Firepower Index).

After Japan entered a bilateral alliance with the United States in 1951 and the systemic rivalry of the Cold War became obvious, the United States needed a rearmed Japan to counter the communist bloc from the east. Between 1950 and 1954 Japan gradually rebuilt military potential and in 1954, the Japanese Self-Defence Forces were officially established as Japan’s de facto army and navy (Simpson).

The attacks on the World Trade Center accelerated Japanese military normalization

The attacks on the World Trade Center accelerated Japanese military normalization:  After October 2001 the Japanese navy was allowed to support (but not defend) US-American warships in the Indian Ocean and in 2003 Japan despatched a contingent of non-fighting soldiers to Iraq (Kido 124-125, Hirata 132). In March 2016 PM Abe Shinzo’s government reinterpreted the pacifist Article 9 to allow for collective self-defence alongside Japan’s allies (Mason).

Japan Geopolitical Environment in 2017 

At the end of 2017, Japan’s situation in its regional environment is uncertain. It is embroiled in territorial disputes with Russia, the Koreas, the Chinas and the alliance with the US can no longer be viewed as a dependable centrepiece of Japanese security policy:  Japan was shocked by Donald Trump’s critical comments on the burden-sharing of the security treaty as well as his suggestion of a possible nuclear rearmament of Japan (Basu). Although Japan’s fears were alleviated when the president-elect met with Shinzo Abe on November 17^th 2016 and reaffirmed the Japanese-American partnership, the future of US-American unconditional defence of Japan and Japanese interests remains unclear under a Trump presidency (Basu). When the president visited Japan on his Asian tour, he reiterated his demand for an increased share of the burden for Japan .

Three credible scenarios for the future of the Japanese-American alliance

There are three credible scenarios for the future of the Japanese-American alliance: The best-case scenario (for Japan) would be a continuation and affirmation of the US commitment to defend Japan without any adjustments, as just recently professed in the Joint Statement of the Security Consultative Committee meeting in April 2015 (Basu, US Department of State). A second, less beneficial scenario would be a continuation of the security treaty including a renegotiation of financial and military burden-sharing. This scenario is likely due to Trump’s apparent dissatisfaction with the asymmetry of the alliance (Johnson). The worst-case scenario would be a retraction of the US commitment to defend Japan or even a dissolution of the Japanese-American security treaty. Although the dissolution of the 56-year old alliance seems highly unlikely, Trump’s disparaging comments on the treaty and his political inexperience make his future foreign policy incalculable and hard to predict (Mie March 2016).

Japanese military normalisation and the adoption of collective self-defence is a necessary step to ensure Japanese security

This essay argues that regardless of the scenario that occurs, Japanese military normalisation and the adoption of collective self-defence is a necessary step to ensure Japanese security. It presents three arguments in favour of this: First, assuming that Trump follows through with his re-examination of the burden-sharing within the security treaty, Japan needs to be able to assume more responsibility alongside the United States. Second, irrespective of president Trump’s actual future policy concerning Japan and the bilateral treaty, Japan needs to have full access to its military without being hampered by its own constitution. Third, Japan must normalise itself to defend its contested territorial claims and deter potential attackers.

Trump and Japan

During President Trump’s time as candidate, he made several remarks that challenged the current asymmetry between the US and its allies in the NATO as well as Japan and he continued this rhetoric as president. He criticised both the continental allies in Europe and Japan for putting the onus of defence and military spending on the US, even going so far as saying that Japan “doesn’t have to do anything” according to their alliance (Ryūichi). Yet despite the softening of Trump’s position following his meeting with PM Abe in New York, concerns continue to be voiced in Japan (and South Korea, for that matter) concerning the future of the alliance. Former Japanese minister of defence Ishiba Shigeru opined that “Japan can’t just sit back and do what it’s told to do by the United States.” (Shorrock)

Japan can’t just sit back and do what it’s told to do by the United States.”

So, in the wake of questioning of the status quo, Japan needs to make itself indispensable as a security partner for the United States. Financially, the burden is almost equally shared by both partners: Japan pays 48.3% of the cost of stationing US troops on Okinawa and the Japanese mainland and even contributed to the cost of relocating 4.000 US soldiers to the US base of Guam (Basu). Yet Trump (as candidate) was critical even of that Solomonic apportionment of cost, demanding that Japan foots the whole bill for US deployment in Japan (Johnson). Although this election campaign rhetoric will probably not translate into policy, it is not clear how the security treaty will evolve under a Trump administration. Possibilities include allocating a greater portion of the cost to Japan or withdrawing some troops from bases in Japan to delegate some defensive responsibility to the Japanese Self-Defence Forces (Deb).

In late December 2016, the Japanese diet adopted guidelines governing the application of collective self-defence in so called “grey zone security situations” that “do not amount to armed attacks” (The Japan News). Although these guidelines stop short of permitting the defence of allied vassals against attacks, they are an important stepping stone towards actual collective defence and reflective of Japan’s acceptance of a change in its alliance with the United States: Japan needs to strengthen and enhance its attractivity as a security partner for the USA, and part of that process is collective self-defence.

Marian Blok

Marian Blok is a member of Tel Aviv University Model United Nations. A Young Diplomats Partner.

Since the very beginning of the European construction, the questions of defense and security have been generally put aside. In 1954 French people decided to follow this path by voting no for the European defense community. More than half a century later, the geopolitical context is far from similar and the European defense remains an issue for European policymakers.

Potentialities and strength

In 2017 the European Union counts 28 countries since the United Kingdom remains in the Union. The simple addition of every military troop allows Europe to dispose of more than 1.4 million soldiers which throws the EU at the same rank as the United States. Besides this much too simple and quantitative observation, out of the 28 EU members, 22 are part of NATO. The article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty, the Washington treaty, establishes the principle of collective defense. This article stipulates that « an attack against one ally is an attack against all Allies ». NATO plays the role of a shield capable of protecting Europe’s borders. In 2017, NATO plans less than 30 military exercises in the Baltic states. To assure European defense, France, and the UK take the lead of the nuclear deterrence. Having a nuclear arsenal gives the EU a much more important role on the international scene.

The role of France has to be emphasized. Even if French military policy is first and foremost nationally oriented, its outcomes are positive for the whole of Europe. Since 2012, less than 4000 French soldiers fight to prevent an Islamist establishment in West and Central Africa. Such an establishment would pose a serious threat to every European nation.

The European Union faces increasing threats and weaknesses

The first weakness is a gap between the governments and the public opinions. On the one hand, governments are reluctant to implement a common defense because they have different strategic orientations and diplomatic views. It has to be said States lost an important part of their sovereignty. However, they have full power on their military structures and are not eager, for the moment, to mutualize their respective armies. On the other hand, according to a recent report published by the European Commission, 80% of European citizens are in favor of a common defense. The same report expresses some signs of progress on this issue. Yet, no major achievements seem reachable on the short or middle run.

As we put the light on the strength of France, we should mention its weaknesses. Indeed, budget constraints seem more and more harmful to French armies, which led to the resignation of the Head of armies in July 2017. In the same way, many European countries face high levels of debt. Investing in their defense is getting more and more complicated. The Brexit should challenge this unstable equilibrium. Even if the non-European UK would never stop paying attention to Europe’s defense, an effective Brexit means that France would pay for one-quarter of the military expenditures in the European Union.

Besides these weaknesses within the European Union, Trump’s foreign policy focuses more or less explicitly on America. Many observers doubt the ability of the USA to economically assume the leading of NATO.

The need for a solid European defense grows as the threats towards the EU increase. The situation in Ukraine is not stabilized. The Minsk agreements are far from implemented, and Russia has definitely imposed its sovereignty on Crimea. Islamic terrorism and Turkish complacency are two important sources of tension.

These constitute a real necessity for Europe to focus on defense. This continent has more than 500 million inhabitants. Europe can be a military superpower if and only if it understands this demographic asset. Europe, no matter the States or the EU, should consider this reality before anything else.

Noam Hakoun

Huntington’s mind 20 years later

« This is not a clash of civilizations because these murderers don’t embody any” claimed François Hollande in front of the French Congress a few days after the terrorist’s attacks in Paris in November 2015. If the former French president needs to specify that there isn’t any clash of civilizations it means this issue is still part of the conversation. Yet, Samuel Huntington published his article The Clash of Civilizations in Foreign Affairs on summer 1993. More than 20 years later, the debate is ongoing! No article Foreign Affairs has ever published made the noise this article has made.

The main idea of Huntington

What was the main idea of Samuel Huntington?  Has this main idea made such a noise? Or all that went with his main idea was responsible for it? Diplomats should be made aware the main theory of Huntington. His idea is that geopolitical actors have to take into account their membership in a broader civilization. The post-Cold War World order will give up the ideological rhetoric of the Cold War to adopt a civilizational one. According to him, international organizations and national governments have to follow the civilizational set they belong. Clashes shall appear between civilizations or inside a few number of countries. To take his own words, some countries are « cleft » countries or « torn » countries between two civilizations. Why is this theory controversial? Why did it create controversy whereas some thinkers like Fernand Braudel who adopted a more or less similar framework didn’t make any voices raise?

Critics don’t target the main idea

Many have blamed the title of the article. A « clash of civilization » can’t be real and is far too simple. Huntington did simplify the world. He interprets the world through the prism of the civilizations and he gives a lot of credit to religion. The latter and particularly Islam is seen as a factor of conflict. Graham E. Fuller in A World Without Islam (2011) argues that a clash of civilizations has always been a fantasy. For him, religion doesn’t matter and if Islam didn’t emerge the conflict between the West and the Middle East would still exist. Many thinkers blame the strike of Huntington on Islam.  Indeed he wrote, « Islam has bloody borders ». Noam Chomsky saw this theory as a way for the US to justify their interventionist policy. Edward Said pointed out this theory as a parody of « Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims » (From Oslo to Iraq and the Road Map 2004).

A specific World Order

These critics mainly focused on Islam and on the simplicity of the title of its book. As a matter of fact, he had to clarify his opinion 4 years after he wrote the article. The book the Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order is much more comprehensive. Huntington describes a clash of Civilizations but he doesn’t clearly say that civilizations will fight the one with the others. He marks some countries as “torn” countries. This is, for instance, Turkey, split between its western and Islamic sides. Others are situated between two civilizations, they are “cleft” countries. The case of Ukraine is the best example. Deeply explained by Huntington 20 years prior the outbreak of the conflict in 2014, Ukraine was already split. Conflicts will take place according to this terminology. They will erupt in such countries then they shall concern the core states of each civilization. This core state is supposed to shield the other states from the same civilizations.

Diplomats have to see beyond the Clash of Civilizations

Philosophers, sociologists, and Historians might analyze the world in another way. The diplomat has to understand every theoretical prism in order to act. At all times, civilizations have played a role. This role has sometimes been veiled by other factors such as economy or ideologies. One could easily questions Huntington’s geography, arguing civilizations are too broad and far from accurate. However they do exist and are taken into account by many actors. French diplomats and foreign ministers insist on the role of France towards Eastern Christians. In doing so it follows its Christian legacy and a certain vision of what is French civilization. Many other states play the role of “core states”. A factor explaining the reluctance of European states towards Turkish entrance in the EU might relies on the civilization. Indeed, Turkey, as a descendant of the Ottoman Empire doesn’t traditionally belong to Europe. The issue of civilization is relevant in international relations. Admit this observation doesn’t necessary lead to only consider the civilizational aspect of every conflicts or geopolitical disorders

In 1901, Rudyard Kipling published a novel in which he clarifies the « Great Game ». This expression deals with the rivalry between European powers for the leadership of Asia. 

The « Great Game » should invoke rules and laws. Who would be the players? In a globalized world, the players are numerous: multinational firms, States and their leaders, Intergovernmental Organizations, military alliances, Transnational Groups. Every diplomat has to deal with these players. Once in a while, a player plays out of the game. A leader decides not to play by the rules and follow a specific guideline.

The rules of the game 

Geopolitics of the 21st century follow a certain amount of rules. First, States are supposed to play by the rules established by a 70 years old system after the Second World War. Those organizations are NATO, the UN, the international trade organizations, and the European Union. Then, a second rule is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to limit the number of aggressive policies. They are rules because the majority of the other players deem those behaviors as disrespectful. And the most important rule is that leaders set the rules.

The Audacity 

A diplomat has to manage players who don’t play by the rules. The big mistake of any policymakers is to underestimate an outsider. Between the two world wars Hitler was that outsider. in 6 years, from 1933 to 1939, he left the League Of Nations, remilitarized the Rhine region, invaded Austria and occupied the Sudetenland. Hitler redistributed the cards and the other players let him bend the rules. The best Hitler and Nazism historian, Ian Kershaw, clearly explains that this audacity made Hitler be the strongest personality in Europe. From/Between the fall of the Berlin Wall to/and the current war in Ukraine, Russia left the game. The audacity of Vladimir Putin either in Ukraine or in Syria allowed him to get back in the game. In the years to come, it has to be said that China could be bold especially about a certain number of islands Chinese leaders claim to be in their possession.

How should the diplomats react to boldness? 

The diplomats have to think beyond themselves. They have to understand that they are part of the game. Antagonizing their enemies is a normal reaction but the diplomat must be aware that the outsiders need audacity because they don’t belong to the game. The outsiders use the most primitive way to rebalance power relations: violence. Each player has to be ready to face it, each player has to deal sooner or later with violence. No policymaker should be surprised of such behaviors. Machiavel warned us 500 years ago « men have two options to fight with the others: law and violence. When law is non-efficient, men often use the other option »

YOUNG DIPLOMATS’ Africa Regional Director Idriss Zackaria delivered this keynote address Tuesday, November 28, 2017 during an inaugural event in N’Djamena-Chad. These are his remarks, as prepared for delivery for our Africa Bureau:

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, members of media, members of the diplomatic corps, members of educational institutions, traditional leaders, distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It gives me great pleasure to extend to you all a very warm welcome on behalf of Young Diplomats. I would like to express my gratitude to all of you, who so generously helped us make this event come together smoothly. We couldn’t have done it without you!

Today, by opening our first regional bureau in Africa; we celebrate the potential and power of young people around the world; to shape the future of our increasingly interconnected world. With Young Diplomats; young generations will find the solutions to some of our most difficult global challenges.

YOUNG DIPLOMATS is a unique magazine and association headquartered in France bringing together young people from all over the world. An African representation is created in Chad to cover the Africa region.

Young Diplomats is committed to providing opportunity for young people to ensure they are not only the leaders of tomorrow, but also change agents of today.  We also want to make sure that boys and girls have equal access to education, building skills to strengthen youth leadership in: diplomacy, civil society, business and academia.

Today; our world is more connected, more developed. However, young people are facing more challenges; the young generations have been left behind with many unanswered questions…. Diseases challenges, security and peace challenges, high level of unemployment, War and terror, to the independence of Kurdistan, Catalonia independence, Brexit, or the Rohingya crisis, Civil war in Syria and Central African Republic. Imagine a world where people are being sold in “slave markets” in Libya. We have problems; and now is the time to start developing our responses.

Young Diplomats exists to tackle these kinds of challenges and beyond.

We exist to:

• Support programs that represent the interests of young people and professionals in the world in general and Africa in particular.
• Provide a direct channel of communication between students and businessmen. Through: training, conferences, research and publications, analyzes and reports at different levels.
• To find partnerships for students and actors in different fields: culture, commerce, education, energy and environment.
• We improve an in-depth understanding of the different scenarios of global business issues in order to understand enhance and appreciate diplomatic channels in conflict resolution.
• We also increase engagement in international relations issues and encourage sharing of research and analyses on different aspects of global affairs and diplomacy-related issues.

In today’s gathering; I would like to focus on our magazine and association Young Diplomats. Since its founding in 2014, Young Diplomats has been the leading forum for serious discussion of global affairs. It is now a multiplatform media association with a mobile site, a website, various apps and social media feeds and more.

Young Diplomats is non-profit membership association dedicated to improving the understanding of foreign policy and international affairs through the free exchange of ideas.

This is the place to remember that the articles in Young Diplomats Magazine will deal with questions of international interest today. They will cover a broad range of subjects, not only political; but historical and economic. We insist on tolerance and reject all forms of discrimination of religion, nationality, gender and race.

The articles in Young Diplomats Magazine will deal with question of international interest today. They will cover a broad range of subjects, not only political, but historical and economic, and they will be accompanied when it is desirable, by maps and diagrams. Technical articles will be left to more special magazines.

As Young Diplomats; we are big today, we exist everywhere in the world. We have five regional offices around the world (in Asia, Europe, India, Latin America and Africa). We also have 26 ambassadors in different African states for the moment, and we are working to increase the number, to be 52 ambassadors in Africa, by next June 2018.

Even though we exist everywhere; there are still people asking us frequently questions, one of the interesting messages that I have received just last night on Facebook – actually it’s a question that has been asked over and over and over.

A young lady in Kazakhstan sent me an email saying “My name is Milana Baha. I love Young Diplomats’ programs on the website. I want to join Young Diplomats and want to change the world, but the problem is that I am not African and I didn’t study diplomacy or political sciences. I am a student of economy”

The answer is pretty easy young lady; as I am sure that you would be watching this video on our website – If you are in Astana, or Canberra, Sofia, Bujumbura, Havana, Jakarta, Vienna, Tirana, Bangui, Paris, Bamako, Cairo, Ohio or in any corner of the world; and you’re interested in making change, make sure that there is always a place for you at Young Diplomats, even if you didn’t study diplomacy or IR.

I am telling you this, because my mother has never been to school, but when I first told her about Young Diplomats as a project; she said; I would join you too! So I asked her: what’re you going to do? She answered: I will help you preparing your stuff, or at least I’ll be praying for you.

And one day when I told her that I wanted to leave Young Diplomats for some reasons; you know what she told me? She said “Son! Please don’t die before your death!”

So Ms Milana Baha; if you see me standing before you here today, that’s because of the woman that has never been to school, and I believe you could do better too.

I know a lot of you will have your own stories just like this. A change in the world that seems so clear you’re sure someone else will do it. But they won’t. You will.

But it’s not enough to have purpose yourself. You have to create a sense of purpose for others. And that’s why Young Diplomats exists for you and others.

Ladies and gentlemen, I do hope you enjoy our event – we are very grateful to you for taking time from your busy schedule to help us celebrate our first meeting in Africa.

Thank you. God bless you and God bless Africa.

On October 16-19, 2017, the Valdai Discussion Cub hosted its main annual conference in Sochi, Russia, bringing together experts on Russia from all over the world. These conferences also serve as a platform for Russian politicians to deliver messages to the international system. As in previous years, President Vladimir Putin appeared at the event – along with several senior members of his government – and used the opportunity to present his political doctrine.

The value of Technology

As Putin sees it, the greatest future value lies in technology, rather than land or assets. This requires suitable preparation, which is also necessary in view of the increasing competition and growing tensions between countries, peoples, and systems. In addition, special preparation is required given the balance in the international system that has been upset and the unrestrained struggles to promote interests. These have led to a deterioration of order and increased terror in the global space and undermined international security.

Putin claimed that the United States and Europe show signs of a harsh anti-Russia trend. Notwithstanding Russia’s efforts to draw closer to the West after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the West exhibited hostility and worked to promote its own interests with no consideration of Russia. This approach is the basis of the current conflict between Russia and the West. In this context, the United States was criticized widely for its negative, and according to Putin, unfair attitude, reflected in its attempts to undermine Russia and take advantage of Moscow’s past openness in matters of arms control. Putin said that this is the background to the gradual reduction in cooperation between Russia and the United States, and its complete halt in recent years. In his eyes, the internal criticism in the United States regarding the election of Donald Trump to the presidency is simply an expression of this anti-Russian trend, which is designed to undermine any rapprochement between the countries. Trump himself was presented in a fairly positive light in Putin’s speech, as someone with strong personal skills and good intentions regarding cooperation with Russia. For its part, Putin said, Russia welcomes the attempt to improve its relations with the United States, described as the strongest and most important country in the world.

Separationist trends

Russia is gradually gaining a leading position in the international arena

In contrast, Europe and NATO were accused of a whole range of negative actions with respect to Russian interests and various international areas of crisis. Putin described the Ukrainian crisis as the result of subversive European activity, carried out with American backing. The crisis in Spain over the Catalonia issue was also presented as a result of European encouragement of various separationist trends. Putin stressed that creating single-nation states is not a solution but a problem, and that Russia itself is worried about separationist tendencies, partly for fear that Muslim populations in its territory or in its areas of influence – the former Soviet Union – will adopt them. The original sin, according to Putin, is the case of Kosovo. He included incidents of harsh and ineffective intervention in various places in the Middle East in this category. In addition, Putin blamed pressure and threats by the West for the complications around the issue of North Korea.

Leaning Position 

However, Putin argued that notwithstanding economic and political pressure, Russia is gradually gaining a leading position in the international arena; its status is growing stronger and its relations with many important countries, including China and India, are good. He also stressed Russia’s good relations with all countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar, and its interest in cooperation in the region as a substitute for the West. As for the talks and the attempt to resolve the crisis in Syria, Putin described the situation as difficult, but progressing. His advice to all the local actors in Syria, and to the relevant regional and international actors, is to join forces in order to stabilize the country. At the same time, Putin maintained that even if the struggle against terror in the Middle East is successful, the violence will continue because Western influence has entrenched its roots in certain societies.

Israel and Russia

Israel received positive mention in Putin’s speech

Israel received positive mention in Putin’s speech. According to a senior minister in the government who was at the conference, Israel, which is friendly with Russia and has a large population of immigrants from Russia and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, is important globally and is a key country in the Middle East. It is true that Israel has built its status as a military power in the region, a natural process in the challenging reality it faces. However, according to this minister, the risks Israel faces from its neighbors have declined, and there is no justification for exaggerated fears regarding Hezbollah, for example. He also stated that it may be a mistake on the part of Israel to see its enmity with Iran as a challenge, particularly since a change of the Iranian regime may not necessarily benefit Israel; he argued that it cannot be that Israel is not aware of this. The minister also mentioned the existence of a Sunni coalition with Israeli cooperation, adding that a solution of the Palestinian issue is essential, because the lack of a solution reinforces violence in the region. He advised Israel to take Russia’s considerations into account, declaring that for his part he supported Russia’s taking Israel’s considerations into account.

The Military Aspect of International Relations

Putin himself talked at length about the military aspect of international relations, both current and future. While accusing the United States of the breakdown of the arms control and disarmament process that began soon after the breakup of the Soviet Union, he claims that it is possible and desirable to return to disarmament efforts, including relating to nuclear weapons. True, Putin accused the United States of developing advanced weaponry that he described as no less powerful that nuclear weapons (he was possibly referring to the global missile deployment referred to as Prompt Global Strike, or PGS), and which in his opinion might be used against North Korea, but he pointed out that Russia’s capabilities in this area are currently no less than those of the West. As evidence, he stated that its achievements in the war against terror in Syria surpass those of the West: Russia has innovative missile arrays equal to those of the United States, and their capabilities were demonstrated in the war in Syria (Putin was apparently referring to the cruise missiles that were launched from distant platforms at sea).

In Putin’s view, standard tools for handling crises are becoming outdated, while new ones are not yet available, and all this, he claimed, is due to Western conduct that promotes political tendencies and ideologies that are not acceptable or liked in various parts of the world. He said that the best solution for all the challenges is to shape a world order based on a change of attitude, built on a look to the future and a bridge of current disputes between Russia and the West. The West should stop its threats and the use of what Putin calls excessive force. In his view, the best way is through dialogue and taking account of the parties’ sensitivities, with the broadest possible international cooperation and unity between the various independent positive forces in the international system. In this context, Putin contended, there is no good alternative to the United Nations.

Assessment

Expectations of a sensational speech from Putin were not met. The Russian President did not present any new or revolutionary claims, but focused on familiar allegations – mainly complaints against the West over its attitude to Russia and its creation of crises that undermine the international system. There were also messages that Russia has effective solutions to improve the situation.

Beyond the declarative level, it appears that Russia is interested in stopping the deterioration of its relations with the West. Indeed, while accusing the United States of anti-Russian activity, it appears that Putin is optimistic about the possibilities for cooperation with the Trump administration. However, although Putin presented the internal situation in Russia as positive, it has in fact been adversely affected by the various international conflicts and particularly the Ukrainian crisis, which prompted the West to impose sanctions on Russia. In this context, Russia’s anger is directed primarily toward Europe, which was accused of initiating the crisis and working to undermine any rapprochement between the United States and Russia. Putin’s references to Middle East matters show that notwithstanding the image of successful intervention in Syria, Russia is in fact still experiencing difficulty in bringing about a dramatic breakthrough to end the crisis there and reaching understandings with other regional actors regarding a settlement. Nonetheless, over the last two years Russia has become an influential element in the Middle East, demonstrating smart political conduct. Significantly, Israel is presented by Russia as a partner and a noteworthy regional actor, indicating that Russia is aware of the need to take Israel’s interests into account.

Overall, Putin’s speech expressed frustration with Russia’s international situation and the drive to improve its status. Russia proposes to work for a new world order, in which it will be recognized as an important power, with a central role in the process of shaping the future order. Putin stressed that if these objectives are not promoted, Russia already has means, including military means, to pose a significant challenge to the West. And although it is clear that Russia is still far from the optimism presented by Putin, its ability to rebuild itself as a world power while challenging the international system should not be underestimated. Russia must deal with economic gaps, internal disputes, and geopolitical challenges in its areas of interest in the post-Soviet region, but it is determined to continue striving to achieve its objectives.

Zvi Magen, Itamar Rabinovich

With 251 votes in favor and 233 against, in the evening of 25 October 2017, the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies decided to dismiss the denunciations of obstruction of justice and criminal organization against the President of the Republic, Michel Temer.

As in the case of the first complaint, filed in August, these will not be analyzed by the Supreme Tribunal Federal (STF) at least until Temer is in office (January 2019).

Temer saves, but at what price?

With this victory, Temer is likely to arrive until the end of the presidential term (end 2018), unless new and well-founded denunciations.

But at what price and under what political conditions? In order to obtain the consent of the majority of congressmen against the allegations, the government not only had to shell out billions of reais but virtually had to delegate to Parliament the management of the reform agenda and the conversion of some important decree-law into law. Despite this, the number of congressmen (251) who voted in favor of filing new complaints is lower than in August (263) and does not even represent the absolute majority of votes, since the House is made up of 513 deputies .

With this result, Temer‘s political force has been reduced: having received the presidency without being elected, with less than one year in front of the mandate, three complaints and only 4% approval in the polls, Temer can not ignore Parliament’s consent and the support of its chairman, Rodrigo Maia.

Rodrigo Maia strengthens

The President of the Chamber of Deputies was very skilled in handling the negotiations that preceded the vote on the two charges against Temer. With a weakened president, Maia is almost like a “prime minister” (a non-existent figure in Brazilian presidencialism), promoting the discussion and approval of fundamental laws and reforms for Brazil.

It remains to be seen whether Temer, released from “Damocles’ sword” of denunciations, will “bring into line” Maia and recover part of the credibility and power lost.

32.1 billion reais went away …

… in concessions and amendments to meet the demands of congressmen and carry favour with them in view of the vote. This is almost 19% of the state deficit expected for 2017.

As journalist Vera Magalhães brilliantly (and tragicomically) wrote yesterday, “the forecast of the result by which the Chamber of Deputies will file complaints against Michel Temer oscillates like stock exchange quotes, which depends on the price change of commodities, in this case the deputies. “

Games for the upcoming elections are open

It is known, and not only in Brazil, that the primary objective of the politicians in office is their own re-election. Considering that almost half of the Brazilian congressmen are being investigated for corruption-related crimes and public opinion is not exactly alongside them, there is a climate of strong concern in Brasilia.

In this situation, no one is interested, one year before the elections, to vote in favor of necessary but unpopular laws or reforms.

And now Maia appears as a “small-coaster ferryman”, capable of forming a parliamentary majority for urgent measures in the economic area and tackling delicate issues such as tax reform and pensions; but also to speed up the vote of popular (or rather, populist) law projects  in areas of public safety and health.

And now?

After the filing of the denunciations is likely a tightening of the battle between executive and legislative power, an “arm-wrestling” to decide on the agenda of reforms. Times are very tight, and there is a risk that reforms will be delegated to the government that will emerge from the polls in October 2018.

Rating agencies have already stated that the failure to reform pensions could lead to a downgrade of Brazil’s credit risk (today BB for S & P and Fitch, Ba2 for Moody’s), but the biggest risk is to stop the already timid economic recovery.

But who would be willing to take this responsibility and pay the political price? The most predictable scenario is the approval of “mini-reforms” (pensions and taxation), that will address only targeted issues, such as the increase in retirement age and the contribution period.

Article previously published on the excellent  “Update Brazil” and is available here.

Mauro Mantica

Iran’s military intervention in Syria offers Tehran another tool to promote its influence and interests in the region: the Shiite militias organized by the Iranian Quds Force and Revolutionary Guards. The most important militias of this kind are the Lebanese Hezbollah, followed by a number of Iraqi Shiite militias that Iran either established or helped set up during the Iraq-Iran War and the more recent war in Iraq.

The newer militias were constructed over the past few years, composed of Afghan and Pakistani Shiite volunteers. All these militias were assigned combat missions in Syria with the aim of rescuing the Assad regime, and from a numerical perspective, they make up the lion’s share of the forces that Iran operates in Syria.

The establishment of these militias provides Iran with another large fighting force – which in the future may be enlarged and used in other countries – that allows it to operate in a flexible manner and with reduced risks. This creates additional dangers for Israel, the United States, and other countries in the region, as Iran may attempt to leave these militias in general, and Hezbollah in particular, in the Golan Heights for the sake of establishing a new front with Israel. Addressing this threat might require US-Israeli cooperation.

By Ephraim Kam for INSS

Link : http://www.inss.org.il/publication/irans-shiite-foreign-legion/?utm_source=activetrail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Strategic%20Assessment%20Vol.%2020%20No.%203

The decision to take no further action on the complaints against Temer has virtually started the election campaign for the presidential elections of October 2018.

The polls for a moment look at a ballot between Lula and Bolsonaro, but the journey is still very long and hardly this “odd couple” will have the strength to come to the final end (also because on Lula is weighing the sentence to nine and a half years of prison imposed by Judge Sergio Moro).

Among the most recent novelties in the presidential race, appeared the candidature – still unofficial – of João Dionisio Amoêdo, the Partido Novo founder (https://novo.org.br/). Amoêdo is an engineer, business manager and, most recently, a partner of the BBA bank.

On the economic front, on 25/10/2017 at the Copom meeting, Banco Central decided to further decrease the discount rate (SELIC), bringing it to 7.5% per annum. This is the lowest value in 4 years.

The growth of public debt continues, in September reached 73.9% of GDP. This is a relatively modest level when compared with the debt of other western countries, but growing strongly due to the continuing imbalance in public accounts (mainly due to the social security deficit).

The auction for oil exploration “pre-sal” was successful. The National Petroleum Agency (ANP) estimates royalties revenue ranging from US$ 120 to US$ 180 billion between 2022 (start date of oil production) and 2054.

Let’s see some updated data:

GDP (Value added at market prices)

Growth forecasts for GDP growth 2017 are stable; slightly increased for 2018.

The market had already taken over the political crisis linked to the denunciations against Temer and this month no new signs of accelerating economic growth emerged.

Inflation and real/dollar exchange 

The inflation forecast 2017 is slightly up, back above the minimum threshold (3%) scheduled for 2017 by the Brazilian Banco Central. Stable forecasts for 2018, around 4%.

Real / dollar exchange rate forecasts have increased. in recent days the exchange rate has marked rather substantial fluctuations. The year-end change is expected at R $ 3.19, although today the dollar is quoted at 3.27, against 3.17 a month ago.

The dollar is thus recovering thanks to the good performance of the US economy, the signs of continuity in the Fed’s government and the prolongation of the “quantitative easing” announced by the ECB.

The euro is now around 3.81 reais, up from 3.73 in the beginning of October.

Interest rate

The forecasts for the discount rate (SELIC) at the end of 2017 and 2018 remained unchanged at 7%. In the last 2017 session (December 5th), Copom should reduce Selic’s other 0.5%, closing down the rebound cycle that began in 2016.

With inflation under control and economic growth in progress, for 2018 the market does not foresee further downturns.

The Brazilian stock market (Bovespa)

Still a fluctuating month for the Brazilian stock market, which still stands close to the historic 76,000 points. Today Ibovespa is around 74,300 points.

The next post, scheduled for 20/11/2017, will look more closely at Bovespa’s performance over the past 12 months.

Article written by Mauro Mantica and published on “Update Brazil”. Available here.