Security

Ukrainian attack damages Kerch Bridge

Wagner moves soldiers to Belarus following apparent disbandment in Russia

Wagner vehicle columns are seen driving from Voronezh to Belarus

Tracking narratives

Russian officials and state media change their tune about the Kerch Bridge attack after Kremlin announces terror investigation

Media policy

FSB colonel alleged to be behind popular Telegram channel detained for extortion

International response

Wagner continues to advertise its services in Africa

Wagner troops arrive in Central African Republic ahead of critical referendum

Lavrov to replace Putin at BRICS summit

Ukrainian attack damages Kerch Bridge

Russia accused Ukraine of conducting a drone strike against the Kerch Strait Bridge on July 17. The bridge, also known as the Crimean Bridge, connects Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula with Russia’s Krasnodar region. The bridge is used for civilian movement and as an essential logistical route for the Russian army.

Explosions were reported at around 3:00 a.m. local time. Footage of the aftermath indicates that a span of the bridge’s road had collapsed while another suffered damage but remained intact. Traffic reportedly resumed several hours after the explosion, but in the interim, occupation authorities asked civilians to consider alternate evacuation routes. Russian Telegram channels reported extensive traffic jams in Crimea’s Dzhankoi area and in the occupied Kherson region towards Melitopol. 

Ukraine defense intelligence spokesperson Andrii Yusov told Suspilne News that damage to the bridge could create logistical difficulties for Russian forces, but said Kyiv would not comment on the cause of the explosion. CNN, citing a source in the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), reported that the attack on the bridge was a joint operation of the SBU and Ukrainian naval forces. Ukrainian media outlet LIGA also reported that the SBU and Ukrainian naval forces were responsible for the attack, citing sources in the SBU. LIGA also noted that the strike was likely conducted with surface drones. The SBU said that information about the incident would only be revealed once the war ended. Some Russian military bloggers, including former Russian officer and pro-war nationalist Igor Girkin, stated that Russian authorities had focused too heavily on road security and not enough on maritime security. Alexander Kots, another prominent blogger and Kremlin-appointed Russian Human Rights Council member, also blamed Russian authorities for focusing too much on land security.

Natalia Humeniuk, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s Southern Operational Command, speculated without evidence that the attack may have been a provocation by Russia amid talks on prolonging the Black Sea Grain Initiative. The grain deal, brokered by Turkey and the United Nations in July 2022, has been essential for stemming a global surge in food prices. The agreement, necessitated after the Russian navy blocked all Ukrainian ports, permits Ukraine to export products. It has has been prolonged several times, with the last extension expiring on July 17. The Kremlin announced on July 17 that it had suspended its participation in the initiative but claimed that the decision was unrelated to the bridge attack. 

Meanwhile, about twenty-four hours after the attack on the Kerch Bridge, explosions were heard in Odesa in southern Ukraine. Unconfirmed reports claimed the explosions were a response from Russia. The attack on Odesa continued for a second night on July 19, described by Ukrainian officials as “hellish.” Odesa is an essential port for Ukrainian exports and was allowed to remain open under the conditions of the grain deal.

—Ruslan Trad, resident fellow for security research, Sofia, Bulgaria

Wagner moves soldiers to Belarus following apparent disbandment in Russia

The Wagner Group appears to have disbanded its operations in Russia and relocated to Belarus, according to footage reviewed by the DFRLab documenting the movements of Wagner military columns in the days following the mutiny through July 18. Additionally, satellite imagery captured the entry of troops and equipment at the Tsel military camp, located near the Belarusian town of Asipovichy.

On July 17, a video shared on Telegram depicted Wagner soldiers taking down the Russian flag and the Wagner flag at the group’s original military base in Molkino, Krasnodar Krai, Russia. In another video published on July 19, Prigozhin addressed Wagner fighters as they left the Molkino base, describing the situation on the front as “a shame.” In addition, he declared that the group is relocating to Belarus and will focus on its activities in Africa. For the time being, he said, Wagner soldiers are no longer participating in Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, although they “will perhaps return to the special military operation at the moment when [they] are sure [they] will not be forced to shame ourselves.”

Shortly after the mutiny ended, Russian authorities conducted raids on Wagner’s accounting divisions in Saint Petersburg, according to information purportedly shared by the wives and mothers of Wagner fighters in an online forum. Additional raids took place on Prigozhin’s residence. The movements of Prigozhin’s private jet also indicate frequent travel to Belarus over the past three weeks.

An investigation by Belarusian opposition media outlet Motolko.help revealed a photograph of a man resembling Prigozhin in his undergarments allegedly at the Tsel military base, where he reportedly spent the night on July 12. According to flight data posted on the online portal Radarbox, Prigozhin’s personal Embraer Legacy 600 jet, registration number RA-02795, completed four round-trip flights between Belarus’ Machulishchy air base and Russia.

Radar imagery acquired on July 17 also shows the tents where Wagner fighters appear to be housed and several places for vehicles parked inside the military base.

—Valentin Châtelet, research associate, Brussels, Belgium

Wagner vehicle columns are seen driving from Voronezh to Belarus

On July 16, several videos emerged on Telegram documenting Wagner vehicles departing Voronezh Oblast along Russia’s M-4 Don highway. Utilizing social media footage, the DFRLab determined the location of the vehicles and identified forty registration plates. At least two-thirds of these vehicles displayed military registration plates from the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republic. However, the Belarusian monitoring project Belaruski Hajun reported that many other vehicles used tape to cover their registration plates.

The columns are composed of various buses and trucks, of which only a few could transfer construction equipment. Most of the convoys consist of UAZ Patriot pickup trucks, Ural vans, and Lada cars. No heavy military equipment was observed at the time of writing.

Another video shared on the Russian Telegram channel VChK-OPGU revealed a Wagner convoy of soldiers entering Belarusian territory. According to a post by Belaruski Hajun, at least sixty vehicles entered Belarus through Mogilev Oblast in the early hours of June 15 using the R-43 and M-5 roads. A photograph on Telegram showed the Russian and Wagner Group flags flying at a border outpost.

According to Belaruski Hajun, since July 14, nine distinct military convoys have entered Belarusian territory. They are likely located at the Tsel military camp near Asipovichy. The camp is home to military unit 61732 and was previously identified by Verstka Media as a potential site to accommodate Wagner soldiers. Further, the Belarusian military TV channel VoyenTV posted a video on July 14 showing Wagner soldiers arriving in Belarus and training local forces. According to updated estimates from Belaruski Hajun, as many as 2,500 Wagner members may have relocated to the Tsel military camp since last week.

—Valentin Châtelet, research associate, Brussels, Belgium

Russian officials and state media change their tune about the Kerch Bridge attack after Kremlin announces terror investigation

In the immediate aftermath of the July 17 attack on the Kerch Bridge, Russian officials and state media were relatively mild in their initial language addressing the incident, referring to it as an “emergency.” However, once Kremlin agencies began referring to the attack as a “terror act,” state media and officials began changing their language to follow the Kremlin.

“Traffic was stopped on the Crimean bridge: an emergency occurred in the area of the 145th support from the Krasnodar territory,” Sergei Aksenov, the Russian-installed head of occupied Crimea, wrote on his Telegram channel at 4:21 a.m. local time. Notably, Aksenov did not use the words “explosion,” “attack,” or “terror” to describe the destruction of the bridge. Two subsequent posts, made at 5:03 a.m. and 6:59 a.m., also avoided these terms. It wasn’t until 1:51 p.m. that Aksenov used the phrase “terror act” to describe the attack.

In between Aksenov’s posts, Russia’s National Antiterrorism Committee reported at 10:04 a.m. that they had assessed the Kerch Bridge explosion as a “terror act,” according to Kremlin-owned news agency TASS. Several minutes later at 10:07 a.m., Russia’s Investigative Committee announced that it would open a criminal case investigating the “terror act” on the Kerch Bridge. 

Several Kremlin-owned Russian media outlets, including RIA Novosti and TASS, also used the term “emergency” (“чрезвычайное прошествие” or ЧП) to first describe the bridge explosion before later pivoting to using “terror act.” Neither outlet referred to the destruction of the Kerch Bridge as a “terror act” prior to the official announcements from the Investigative Committee and Antiterrorism Committee. In the case of RIA Novosti, they published a story using the word “emergency” in the headline at 11:41 a.m., more than ninety minutes after the terror investigation announcement, while TASS used the term as late as 7:31 p.m., even though it had already published a report on the investigation. Similarly, many other Kremlin-controlled media outlets, like Komsomolskaya Pravda, Gazeta.ru, RBC, Lenta.ru, and Izvestiya used both “emergency” and “terror act” in their publications throughout the day interchangeably.

—Nika Aleksejeva, resident fellow, Riga, Latvia

FSB colonel alleged to be behind popular Telegram channel detained for extortion

According to Russian media outlet RBC, former Federal Security Service (FSB) Colonel Mikhail Polyakov, the purported administrator of the Telegram channel Kremlevskaya Prachka (“Kremlin Laundress”), was detained for suspected extortion. The press office for the Moscow court released a statement that said Polyakov is “suspected of extorting 40 million rubles [around $440,000] from JSC Lanit, the leader of the Russian industry of information technology.” 

“According to the prosecution, from 2020 to 2023, Polyakov received a large sum of money from a group of IT companies for not publishing information (the so-called ‘negative block’) that could cause significant harm to the rights and legitimate interests of Lanit JSC and the management of Lanit JSC,” the Moscow court continued. The “negative block” is a guarantee that a channel will not mention a particular person or a company in a negative light in exchange for money; this is reportedly a popular practice among Russian Telegram channels.

The independent Russian media outlet Vazhnyye Istorii (“Important Stories”), citing a source close to Russian intelligence services, reported that Polyakov was behind the Kremlevskaya Prachka Telegram channel. According to the outlet, Polyakov supervised an unnamed service at the FSB’s Office for the Protection of the Constitutional Order. In addition, he reportedly oversaw pro-government Telegram channels and was engaged in promoting the Kremlin’s agenda via media and social networks. According to Important Stories, he worked in coordination with Vladimir Putin’s deputy chief of staff, Sergey Kiriyenko.

Important Stories noted that the Telegram channel 112 also named Polyakov as Kremlevskaya Prachka’s administrator, along with the Telegram channels Siloviki, Nezigar, and Brief, which are not as staunchly pro-govern cited by Kremlin propagandists and proxies.

Kremlevskaya Prachka has not posted since the evening of July 13, corresponding with the reported detainment of Polyakov.

—Eto Buziashvili, research associate, Tbilisi, Georgia

Wagner continues to advertise its services in Africa

On July 16, the Wagner-affiliated Telegram channel REVERSE SIDE OF THE MEDAL posted an advertisement offering Wagner’s services to African states. The post included an image from the Prigozhin-funded film, Granite, as well as an email address, seemingly for interested African countries to communicate with Wagner. 

In French, the advertisement reads: “PMC Wagner offers its services to ensure the sovereignty of states and protect the people of African from militants and terrorists.” The fine print emphasizes that “various forms of cooperation are possible,” as long as the cooperation does not “contradict Russia’s interests.” Russia’s interests are not specified.

While the Telegram channel claimed the advertisement was replicated on African social media channels, the DFRLab has not found additional evidence to support this claim.

—Tessa Knight, research associate, London, United Kingdom

Wagner troops arrive in Central African Republic ahead of critical referendum

Alexander Ivanov, director of the Officer’s Union for International Security (COSI), released a statement on COSI’s Telegram channel regarding the recent arrival of dozens of Wagner operatives in Central African Republic. According to US authorities, COSI is a front company for the Wagner Group in Central African Republic.

In the statement, Ivanov confirmed the Wagner troop rotation while stressing that the new personnel have no contract with Russia’s Ministry of Defense. He reiterated that both in CAR and across the continent, “security work is carried out by private companies that enter into contracts directly with the governments of sovereign states,” and that these private companies have nothing to do with official Russian state entities. Ivanov also indicated that this staff rotation should not impact the activities of Russia in Ukraine, and he claimed to have been in contact with Yevgeny Prigozhin. 

Notably, Ivanov stated that despite the recent changes in the structure of Wagner’s “African business,” Prigozhin “intends not to curtail, but to expand his presence in Africa.” This is somehow consistent with what some analysts are observing: Wagner appears to be trying to expand its presence in West African coastal states increasingly threatened by a spillover of the jihadist insurgency from the Sahel, or possibly taking advantage of upcoming elections in several fragile African countries. 

Although Ivanov has often remarked on Wagner activities in CAR and Africa in the past, this statement, coupled with other recent comments, suggest that the COSI director might be now exercising a wider role as spokesman for all Wagner activity in Africa, as Wagner reorganizes its structure in the wake of last month’s failed mutiny. 

The statement comes as a U-turn in recent communications over Wagner’s presence in CAR. In past weeks both CAR and Russian officials stated that the African republic had an agreement with Russia and not with a private military company. Ivanov seems to be returning to earlier narratives in which Wagner claimed that the CAR government signed an agreement with the PMC and not the Russian government. This narrative seems to confirm DFRLab reporting in the June 30 edition of the Russian War Report, in which we noted that denying direct links to Wagner’s actions in Africa has become more difficult for the Kremlin after recent events damaged the principle of plausible deniability, which had previously been a key aspect of Wagner’s success in Africa. However, Russia does not want to waste the network of influence built by its state proxy forces and is now attempting to reorganize, rebrand and develop a new narrative around Wagner and the Kremlin’s ability to conduct hybrid warfare.

The arrival of dozens of troops from Russia’s Wagner in CAR comes at a critical time as the country prepares to hold a constitutional referendum on July 30 that would eliminate presidential term limits and allow President Faustin-Archange Touadéra to extend his term. The CAR government stated earlier this month that Wagner operatives will help in securing the referendum. This could be seen as a strong signal from Moscow to reiterate the strategic importance of its influence in CAR and reassure local partners of its continued support, while sending a message of continuity and strength to other countries in the region where Wagner operates.

—Mattia Caniglia, associate director, Brussels, Belgium

Lavrov to replace Putin at BRICS summit

The Office of South Africa’s Presidency announced on July 19 that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov would replace President Vladimir Putin at the upcoming Summit of BRICS Nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) “by mutual agreement.”

In Russian media, pro-Kremlin and opposition news outlets alike posted articles claiming that Russia had refused South Africa’s proposal to send Lavrov as head of the country’s delegation on July 14. Quoting an interview with South Africa’s deputy president, the Russian pro-Kremlin news outlet RTVI suggested that “negotiations are still ongoing.”

Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged war crimes committed during Russia’s war in Ukraine. A warrant for the arrest of both the Russian president and Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova alleges that they were involved in organizing and participating in the deportation of Ukrainian children. As a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, South Africa would have been obligated to arrest Putin had he attended the BRICS Summit in August. 

South Africa’s largest opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, took to court in a petition to force the government to arrest Putin if he did attend. In a responding affidavit, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa stated that Russia would view South Africa arresting Putin as a “declaration of war.” 

The Kremlin denied claims that Moscow had threatened South African authorities. However, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on July 19 that “it is clear to everyone in the world what an attempt to encroach on the head of the Russian Federation means.”

—Tessa Knight, Research Associate, London, United Kingdom and Valentin Châtelet, Research Associate, Brussels, Belgium

The post Russian War Report: Wagner is still in business in Africa appeared first on Atlantic Council.

South African officials will likely be relieved by Putin’s decision to skip the summit. For months, they have sought to prevent a potential confrontation with the Kremlin over the issue, with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa even reportedly requesting permission from the International Criminal Court for some form of exemption in order to avoid arresting Putin during the summit. with tensions mounting ahead of the summit, South Africa Deputy President Paul Mashatile admitted in a July 14 interview that the best option would be for Putin to stay away. “The Russians are not happy, though,” he commented. “They want him to come.”

Subscribe to UkraineAlert

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

• Name
  First Last
• Email*
• 
  
  
• Email
  This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Moscow’s earlier eagerness for Putin to attend the summit is easy to understand. Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia’s relationship with the Western world has reached its lowest point since the Cold War. The Kremlin has sought to counter perceptions of mounting international isolation by emphasizing continued engagement with non-Western nations such as the BRICS grouping, which brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. With this in mind, Putin’s attendance of the August summit was seen as an important signal that Russia could not be isolated and remained a major force in global affairs.

With Russian prestige at stake, Kremlin officials reportedly pressed their South African counterparts hard over the issue. Indeed, in a court affidavit made public earlier this week, President Ramaphosa claimed any attempt to detain Putin could lead to war between Russia and South Africa. “I must highlight, for the sake of transparency, that South Africa has obvious problems with executing a request to arrest and surrender President Putin,” he said. “Russia has made it clear that arresting its sitting president would be a declaration of war.”

Russia’s efforts to pressure South Africa clearly failed, leading to the July 19 announcement that Putin would not be attending. This exercise in damage limitation makes perfect sense. Speculation over Putin’s possible arrest in South Africa was rapidly becoming a PR disaster for the Kremlin, drawing attention to his status as a suspected war criminal and undermining his strongman persona. Meanwhile, headlines claiming Moscow had threatened South Africa with war if the country dared to arrest Putin for war crimes did little to enhance Russia’s reputation as a credible partner. With South African officials unwilling or unable to provide the necessary assurances, the only remaining option was to cancel the visit entirely.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, July 20, 2023 • 8:00 am ET

After Vilnius: What’s next on Ukraine’s path to NATO?

Eastern Europe NATO Security & Defense Ukraine

This forced cancellation is the latest in a series of very public humiliations for Putin, who is struggling to maintain his authority as the full-scale invasion of Ukraine continues to unravel. The March 2023 ICC decision to charge him with war crimes dealt a powerful blow to Putin’s standing at a time when unprecedented sanctions and revelations of Russian atrocities in Ukraine had already made him a toxic figure. Weeks later, he was forced to cancel traditional Victory Day parades in cities across Russia amid rumors of shortages in both troops and tanks due to heavy losses in Ukraine.

Putin’s most humiliating moment came in late June, when units of Russia’s state-funded paramilitary Wagner Group staged a mutiny and briefly threatened to seize control of the country. The Wagner uprising ended as suddenly as it had begun, but not before mutinous troops had captured one of Russia’s largest cities without a fight and marched virtually unopposed to within 200 kilometers of Moscow. The mutiny exposed the fragility of the current regime and the lack of popular support for Putin himself; while crowds of ordinary Russians flocked to cheer Wagner rebels, nobody rallied to defend the country’s current ruler.

The Wagner episode may have played a role in this week’s decision to miss the forthcoming summit in South Africa. With Putin looking weaker than at any point in his 23-year reign, there is widespread speculation that it is only a matter of time before he faces fresh domestic challenges. Coups are often staged when dictators leave the security of their capitals and few in Moscow will have forgotten the failed KGB coup of 1991, which took place in August while Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was in Crimea.

The Kremlin’s inability to find a way for Putin to attend next month’s BRICS summit in South Africa is a clear indication of Russia’s declining influence on the global stage. Ten years ago, Putin was a respected statesman and the leader of a G8 nation. Today, he must plan his international travel based on the likelihood of being arrested for war crimes. Commenting on Putin’s canceled South Africa visit, US State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller said there was “no better illustration” of Russia’s vastly diminished standing in the world. “President Putin can hardly leave his own borders now,” he noted. “He’s an international pariah who can barely leave his own borders for fear of arrest.”

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jun 21, 2023

Putin’s nuclear threats will escalate as Ukraine’s counteroffensive unfolds

By Diane Francis

As Ukraine’s long-awaited counteroffensive gets underway, there are fears that Russia’s deteriorating military predicament could lead to an escalation in Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats, writes Diane Francis.

Conflict Disinformation

UkraineAlert Jun 12, 2023

Beyond the counteroffensive: 84% of Ukrainians are ready for a long war

By Peter Dickinson

84% of Ukrainians reject any compromise with Russia and are ready for a long war if necessary in order to fully de-occupy their country. Most simply see no middle ground between genocide and national survival, writes Peter Dickinson.

Civil Society Conflict

UkraineAlert Jul 13, 2023

After Wagner: Could the Russian army now turn against Putin?

By Mercedes Sapuppo

With dozens of senior Russian officers reportedly detained following the Wagner revolt and a senior commander dismissed this week for criticizing the conduct of the Ukraine invasion, could Putin face a mutiny within the Russian army?

Conflict Crisis Management

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post “Pariah” Putin forced to cancel travel plans over fears of war crimes arrest appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In this edition of the Global Sanctions Dashboard, we walk you through existing sanctions against the Wagner Group, limitations around enforcing them, and what more Western allies can do to counter Wagner’s influence in Africa. Moreover, we identify gaps in beneficial ownership information as the key vulnerability in enforcing sanctions against Russia, including in the case of the oil price cap.

The Wagner Group is heavily sanctioned but keeps making money

The Wagner Group, its affiliates, and leadership are the targets of Australian, British, Canadian, European Union (EU), Japanese, and US sanctions for human rights abuses and serious crimes, among other illicit activity, and for participating in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. There are proposals and discussions in play within the EU and UK governments to designate the group as a terrorist organization. The United States redesignated the Wagner Group as a transnational criminal organization in January 2023. While these types of organizational designations may appear symbolic, they pave the way for more significant sanctions and actions such as prosecution of group members and affiliates pursuant to terrorism or criminal charges, which carry significant penalties. Terrorist organization and transnational criminal organization designations also send a strong signal to foreign governments that they may want to reconsider their relationships with these groups.

Shortly after the Wagner Group’s attempted mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership, the United States issued designations targeting the Wagner Group’s illicit gold activity and affiliated entities in the Central African Republic (CAR), United Arab Emirates, and Russia, exposing Prigozhin’s network and mining operations. Concurrently, the United States issued a twenty-nine-page joint advisory on Wagner’s illicit gold trade in sub-Saharan Africa, encouraging industry participants to apply enhanced due diligence to avoid the risks potentially facilitating the violation of economic sanctions or money laundering. 

Despite sanctions and efforts to curtail the Wagner Group’s illicit activity, the group has successfully evaded financial sanctions through a series of facilitators and front companies around the world and by taking advantage of lack of beneficial ownership to obscure operations and avoid identification. The Wagner Group has made more than five billion dollars since 2017, according to a Forbes assessment, mainly from mining, illicit gold trade, and forestry business in Africa, as well as funding from the Russian state. 

The restructuring of Wagner Group’s command and control creates new opportunities in Africa

Despite the mutiny, Russia is likely to continue using the Wagner Group as an irregular or “gray zone” instrument of foreign policy and regional influence across Africa, although some rebranding and restructuring of the organization is expected. The Kremlin could change the Wagner Group’s name but will likely keep the existing security contracts with African authorities and continue using the group for disinformation operations. Reportedly, the Kremlin has already begun the “corporate takeover” of the Wagner Group, with Russian law enforcement authorities seizing computers from companies connected to Prigozhin. 

Nevertheless, the Wagner Group’s organizational restructuring in Russia will likely impact the group’s operations in Africa as the Kremlin moves to assert greater control over Wagner Group operations and personnel and demonstrate that Putin is still in power. For example, around six hundred Wagner Group mercenaries left the CAR following Prigozhin’s failed rebellion, however the reason for their departure remains unknown. Russian government officials have been traveling to Africa and the Middle East in recent weeks to reassure regimes that Wagner Group will be able to meet their existing contract requirements under new command and control. In a visit to Damascus on June 26, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin assured Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that Wagner forces would continue operations under the control of the Kremlin. In the CAR and Mali, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov offered similar assurances. 

The Kremlin’s attempts to save face and assert control provide Western allies with an opportunity to counter the Wagner Group’s influence and position, particularly in African countries such as CAR and Mali. The United States and its allies can take a “demand-side economics” approach and introduce positive inducements for regimes currently contracting with the Wagner Group, such as diplomatic, economic, and security cooperation that meet the needs of African countries while swaying them away from their reliance on the Wagner Group and ultimately Russia. 

The United States could leverage its designation of the Wagner Group as a transnational criminal organization to share information with foreign partners about the Wagner Group’s criminal activity, human rights abuses, and illicit financial activity to encourage partners to open investigations within their jurisdictions and prosecute Wagner Group personnel as criminals. These prosecutions could be brought to international organizations such as Interpol, to issue Red Notices and engage law enforcement around the world to bring criminals to justice. Further, if the United Kingdom and EU designate the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization, it may deliver a reminder to African governments that terrorism remains a priority and that the West is willing to cooperate with African governments on internal national security threats. A terrorist designation would also allow the EU and United Kingdom to bring terrorism charges against Wagner Group personnel within their jurisdictions and create the ability to further sanction the group and its network, disrupting their financial activity and ability to travel.

Additionally, Western allies can seize the opportunity to raise awareness about Wagner’s lack of success in places like Mozambique and Libya, human rights abuses in African countries, and exploitation of natural resources, to emphasize that their services come at a high cost. Western countries can partner with civil society organizations and African governments to track and identify the complex ownership structures of the Wagner Group-connected companies that enable sanctions evasion, share intelligence on these companies among partners, and take steps to freeze and seize assets of the Wagner Group that run counter to the interests of African countries. 

Identifying a key vulnerability in Russia sanctions enforcement: Beneficial ownership 

The key to understanding who is behind the shell companies and complex ownership structures of companies facilitating the Wagner Group’s activity is identifying the real human beings or organizations that control shell companies. They are called “beneficial owners.” 

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the international body responsible for setting global anti-money laundering standards, has called on its members to implement tougher global beneficial ownership standards and give competent authorities adequate information on the true owners of companies. Several countries, including the United States and United Kingdom, have passed legislation and developed or are in the process of developing regulations to bring their countries’ anti-money laundering and countering-the-financing-of-terrorism regimes up to FATF standards on beneficial ownership. 

The FATF and the international Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) can collaborate to ensure FATF regional bodies representing African countries and FIUs across the continent have the information they need and the capacity to understand and identify the risks the Wagner Group’s activities present to their respective domestic financial systems as well as the global financial system. 

Lack of knowledge on beneficial ownership also played a key role in obstructing the enforcement of the oil price cap against Russia. The United States and Group of Seven (G7) allies imposed a sixty-dollar cap on Russian crude oil in December 2022, with the goal of keeping oil flowing out of Russia while reducing the revenue stream into Moscow. The effectiveness of the price cap strategy depends on Russian oil exporters and importers accessing maritime services, such as insurance of oil tankers, provided by G7 countries that have sanctioned Russia. If Russian oil importers and exporters want to use these maritime services, which make up 90 percent of the market, they have to comply with the price cap. In response, Moscow built up a shadow fleet of oil tankers whose real owners are unknown. 

Why Russia’s shadow fleet is so dangerous

In February 2023, Russia’s shadow fleet was worth more than two billion dollars and consisted of around six hundred vessels. The fleet includes tankers previously used for Iranian and Venezuelan oil shipments and European tankers sold to Middle Eastern and Asian owners since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began. The tankers operate without Western insurance and are not up to Western safety standards for oil tankers. Most of them are owned by offshore companies based in countries such as Panama, the Marshall Islands, and Liberia.

A third of Russia’s shadow fleet tankers are more than fifteen years old, which poses heightened risks of oil spills and environmental disasters. Normally, tankers should be demolished when they are around fifteen years old. The average age of the shadow fleet is twelve years and many of them will surpass fifteen years in the coming years. 

Fortunately, Asian nations have strengthened monitoring and inspection of old tankers. For example, Singapore held a record thirty-three tankers for failing safety inspections. Even Chinese port authorities in Shandong province have held at least two tankers older than twenty years for safety checks. Ships under detention for safety violations will have to re-apply for certificates and it’s unclear how long it will take them to get back to the ocean, if at all. 

How to prevent the growth of the shadow fleet

Last year, the number of undisclosed buyers of tankers more than doubled compared to 2021. Buyers of most of these tankers were located outside of G7 countries or the European Union. Specifically, London-based company Gibson Shipbrokers estimates that around one hundred fuel tankers were sold to companies outside of the G7. The undisclosed buyers of European ships most likely were shell companies or individuals acting on behalf of Russian beneficial owners of the shadow fleet tankers. This development is alarming and demonstrates a common theme in the challenges associated with enforcing sanctions against Russia including the oil price cap—beneficial ownership. 

Following FATF’s recommendation to its member states on making the identities of true owners of companies available to competent authorities could make it more difficult for sanctions evaders and money launderers to facilitate transactions for sanctioned Russian companies. It could also help sellers of tankers to identify whether the ultimate benefactor is a Russian entity or an individual. In the meantime, greater information sharing between partner nations on illicit Russian financial activity and the shell companies that are involved will help close this gap in sanctions enforcement and increase global understanding of Russia’s reach.   

Kimberly Donovan is the director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative within the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center. Follow her at @KDonovan_AC.

Maia Nikoladze is the assistant director at the Economic Statecraft Initiative within the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center. Follow her at @Mai_Nikoladze.

Ryan Murphy is a young global professional at the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center.

Castellum.AI partners with the Economic Statecraft Initiative and provides sanctions data for the Global Sanctions Dashboard and Russia Sanctions Database.

Global Sanctions Dashboard

The Global Sanctions Dashboard provides a global overview of various sanctions regimes and lists. Each month you will find an update on the most recent listings and delistings and insights into the motivations behind them.

Explore Here

At the intersection of economics, finance, and foreign policy, the GeoEconomics Center is a translation hub with the goal of helping shape a better global economic future.

Learn more

The post Global Sanctions Dashboard: Sanctions alone won’t stop the Wagner Group  appeared first on Atlantic Council.

This month’s topline events

Putin in Peril. Russian President Vladimir Putin faced the most serious challenge to his authority since taking office, as the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary organization, mounted an insurrection against the Kremlin’s military leadership. With heavily armed mercenaries seizing the city of Rostov and moving within a few hundred miles of Moscow, a looming conflict was averted as Yevgeny Prigozhin, the group’s chief, agreed to stand down and go into exile in Belarus. But Prigozhin’s whereabouts remained in doubt, as Putin sought to reassert control over the Wagner Group and consolidate his grip on power.

• Shaping the order. The sudden rebellion by Prigozhin, a longtime close ally of Putin, suggests that the war in Ukraine is placing serious strains on Russia’s political leadership. Though Putin appears safe for now, the insurrection could open the door to future challenges to his rule, with the potential to shake the global order. Moscow appears to be struggling to gain control over Wagner, which has provided a crucial source of funding for Russia’s operations in Ukraine and helped the Kremlin expand its influence across the Middle East and Africa.
• Hitting home. The fall of Putin could ultimately lead to a more peaceful Russia, but political instability inside the Kremlin could also pose new risks to US security interests.
• What to do. With Putin forced to shift his focus to domestic challenges, Washington should use this opportunity to accelerate weapons support for Kyiv as Ukrainian forces push forward with their critical counteroffensive.

Blinken in Beijing. US Secretary of State Tony Blinken met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang in Beijing, on a trip intended to “stabilize” relations between the two nations. While China refused a US request to resume military-to-military contacts, both sides appeared to view the talks as productive. But Chinese officials reacted bitterly to President Joe Biden’s subsequent reference to Xi as a “dictator,” calling the comments “extremely absurd and irresponsible.”

• Shaping the order. While it may temporarily help improve the atmospherics surrounding the US-China relationship, Blinken’s visit is unlikely to lead to a shift in the overall trajectory. Tensions will remain high in light of Beijing’s threats against Taiwan and other attempts to undermine the global order, as the US pursues efforts to shift supply chains in critical industries away from China, as part of a new “derisking” strategy.
• Hitting home. Seeking to maintain stable relations with the world’s second largest economy may be beneficial for the American people, but this will also require sustained efforts to defend against potential threats.
• What to do. The Biden administration should continue to coordinate with allies on strategies to counter Beijing’s assault on the global order, even as it tries to establish guardrails in the US-China relationship.

Modi’s State Visit. President Joe Biden hosted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the White House, as the administration sought to bolster economic and geopolitical ties with India. Amid media criticism of India’s backsliding on democracy, Modi was given a White House state dinner – only the third of Biden’s presidency – and invited to speak before a joint session of Congress. The two nations agreed to strengthen defense and technology cooperation, including building GE military jet engines in India and launching joint initiatives on semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and other areas.

• Shaping the order. Washington’s warm welcome for Modi reflects a desire to cultivate a stronger relationship with India in the context of strategic competition with China. While joint concerns over China appear to be propelling the relationship forward, it remains unclear whether the two nations can reach a more meaningful strategic partnership, especially given New Delhi’s refusal to condemn Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. In addition, Modi’s targeting of religious minorities and crackdown on political dissent have raised questions about the future of the relationship.
• Hitting home. A stronger US relationship with India could generate new business opportunities for US companies seeking to reduce supply chain dependencies on China.
• What to do. While seeking to build on the positive momentum coming out of Modi’s visit, Washington should also make clear that it sees a shared commitment to democratic norms as the foundation for closer ties between the world’s two largest democracies.

Quote of the Month

“Democracies must now rally together around not just our common interests, but also our shared values. Preserving and protecting the freedoms that are essential to peace and prosperity will require vigorous leadership…”
– US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in New Delhi, India, June 5, 2023

State of the Order this month: Unchanged

Assessing the five core pillars of the democratic world order    

Democracy (↓)

• Guatemala’s ruling government sought to overturn the results of the country’s presidential elections after the results indicated that Bernardo Arévalo, a reformist candidate, gained enough votes to qualify for a run-off. The State Department warned that undermining the election results would constitute a “grave threat to democracy.”
• With the support of Pakistan’s ruling government, the country’s military began implementing a broad crackdown against the media and political opposition, in the wake of national protests following the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan.
• As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a high-profile visit to Washington, US concerns over democratic backsliding in India appeared to take a back seat in an effort to cultivate closer relations between the two nations.
• Overall, the democracy pillar was weakened.

Security ()

• Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the paramilitary Wagner Group, mounted an insurrection against Russia’s military leadership, but agreed to stand down after his heavily armed mercenaries came within a few hundred miles of Moscow.
• China and Cuba reached a secret agreement to allow Beijing to establish a surveillance facility on the island targeting the United States, and are in the process of negotiating a deal to establish a new joint military training facility.
• A contingent of leaders from seven African countries, including South African president Cyril Ramaphosa, met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Putin, in a bid to initiate peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, though neither side accepted the African proposal.
• In a further indication of Seoul’s tilt toward a harder line on China, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol directly criticized China’s ambassador in Beijing for his comments critical of South Korea’s joining US-led initiatives.
• On balance, the security pillar was unchanged.

Trade (↑)

• The US and Britain issued the Atlantic Declaration, a new economic framework aimed at enhancing cooperation on critical and emerging technology, supply chains, clean energy, and other issues, as a potential counterpart to the US-EU Trade and Technology Council.
• The US and thirteen other members of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework reached an agreement on supply chains – one of the framework’s four core pillars – that will result in several new bodies focused on advancing supply chain resiliency.
• On balance, the trade pillar was strengthened.

Commons (↑)

• The United Nations adopted the world’s first treaty aimed at protecting the high seas and preserving marine biodiversity in international waters, which constitute over two-thirds of the ocean.
• The US announced plans to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in an effort to counter China’s growing sway in multilateral fora. After the Trump administration withdrew the US from the organization in 2017, China became one of its largest donors.
• On balance, the global commons pillar was unchanged.

Alliances ()

• French President Emmanuel Macron expressed opposition to a proposal by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to open a NATO liaison office in Japan, suggesting that the alliance should stay focused in the North Atlantic region.
• On his first trip to the White House since taking office, British prime minister Rishi Sunak met with Joe Biden, as the two leaders committed to closer cooperation on a range of political and economic issues.
• US-India relations appeared to enter a new chapter as Prime Minister Narendra Modi joined President Joe Biden for an official state visit in Washington.
• On balance, the alliance pillar was unchanged. 

Strengthened (↑)________Unchanged ()________Weakened (↓)

What is the democratic world order? Also known as the liberal order, the rules-based order, or simply the free world, the democratic world order encompasses the rules, norms, alliances, and institutions created and supported by leading democracies over the past seven decades to foster security, democracy, prosperity, and a healthy planet.

This month’s top reads

Three must-read commentaries on the democratic order     

• Lucan Ahmad Way, in Foreign Affairs, contends that revolutionary autocracies have demonstrated remarkable staying power, even in the face of mounting challenges.
• Hal Brands, in Foreign Policy, suggests that Russia, China, Iran, and to some extent North Korea constitute a bloc of adversaries more cohesive and dangerous than anything the United States has faced in decades.
• Sumit Ganguly and Dinsha Mistree, in Foreign Affairs, argue that in the face of Chinese aggression, a policy of continued non-alignment will not serve India well.

Action and analysis by the Atlantic Council

Our experts weigh in on this month’s events

• Fred Kempe, in Inflection Points, contends that Ukraine deserves NATO membership, as well as more robust weapons support.
• John Herbst and Dan Fried, in the Washington Post, suggest that the key to a Ukrainian victory in its war against Russia may lie in a successful advance to retake Crimea.
• Patrick Quirk and Caitlin Dearing Scott, writing for the Atlantic Council, argue for a fully developed foreign aid strategy to help the US succeed in strategic competition with China and Russia.
• Peter Engelke and Emily Weinstein, writing for the Atlantic Council Strategy Paper series, set forth a comprehensive strategy for the US and its allies to retain its technological advantage over China.

__________________________________________________

The Democratic Order Initiative is an Atlantic Council initiative aimed at reenergizing American global leadership and strengthening cooperation among the world’s democracies in support of a rules-based democratic order. Sign on to the Council’s Declaration of Principles for Freedom, Prosperity, and Peace by clicking here.

Ash Jain – Director for Democratic Order
Dan Fried – Distinguished Fellow
Soda Lo – Project Assistant

If you would like to be added to our email list for future publications and events, or to learn more about the Democratic Order Initiative, please email AJain@atlanticcouncil.org.

The post State of the Order: Assessing June 2023 appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Below, Atlantic Council experts answer four pressing questions about what just happened and what to expect next.

1. Why did Russia pull out of the deal?

Moscow’s notification to the UN, Kyiv, and Ankara that it was suspending participation in the grain deal and would not renew the deal further is part of a negotiating strategy to loosen sanctions and gain more freedom of maneuver. Russian standard practice is to make humanitarian measures conditional upon concessions that serve its military, economic, and political interests—as it has with earlier negotiations on the grain deal and numerous times over relief and aid deliveries in Syria. 

Specific demands in this case include readmitting the Russian agricultural lender Rosselkhozbank back into the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) mechanism, allowing Russia to import repair parts for agricultural machinery, and unfreezing other assets. Moscow claims that the deal, known as the Black Sea Grain Initiative, has not delivered on points that were to benefit Russia, but this round of pressure is certainly about more than the letter of the deal; it is about easing sanctions pressure.

—Rich Outzen is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council IN TURKEY and a geopolitical analyst and consultant currently serving private sector clients as Dragoman LLC.

2. What’s the next move for Ukraine and its Western partners?

In October 2022, Russia left the grain deal, actually suspended its participation, and there were only three parties left: the UN, Turkey, and Ukraine. The grain corridors at that time functioned well, in part because the Russian inspectors had been disrupting the grain deals from inside. The most rational way to react to this withdrawal is to proceed in the trilateral format with the UN, Ukraine, and Turkey. I don’t think Russia has a lot of options now. In the northwestern part of the Black Sea, Russia lacks capacity to inflict any major damage. Since Ukrainian armed forces retook Snake Island last year, the maritime area has been largely controlled by the Ukrainian side. So there is little possibility for a major disruption by Russian vessels in this part of the Black Sea.

Russia could say that continuing the deal in a trilateral format crosses a “red line.” But if Russian forces attack a vessel transporting grain, it could trigger a major reaction that Moscow would not want to face, depending on which country the vessel belongs to, who is the owner, and who the sailors are. I would not be surprised if after a meeting or phone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the next few weeks, Russia rejoins the grain deal.

Meanwhile, messages from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have been very clear that there has been no deal between Ukraine and Russia. The deal is among Ukraine, Turkey, and the UN. What Putin undermines now is his agreement with the UN and Turkey, not with Ukraine. Russia’s halt of its participation in the deal will likely further increase insurance costs, but in June the Ukrainian government approved a maritime compensation scheme so that vessels calling at Ukrainian ports will be compensated if they are damaged due to Russian military activity. So, from the Ukrainian side, there is readiness to proceed with the deal.

While trying to keep the grain corridors functioning, it’s also important to step up efforts to restore freedom of navigation in the Black Sea, a basic principle of international law. Crimea must be de-occupied and should not become a bargaining chip in negotiations with Moscow, because Russia will continue to use Crimea to threaten security in the Black Sea and global food markets for as long as it is allowed to do so.

—Yevgeniya Gaber is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council IN TURKEY and a former foreign-policy adviser to the Ukrainian prime minister. 

In practice, the deal had pretty much collapsed some time ago when ships started to disappear from the horizon off of Odesa’s Black Sea coast. Normally, up to a dozen bulk carriers are waiting to be loaded; in the past couple weeks, one or two at best—indicating things weren’t working well at the joint clearance center in Istanbul. (Ukrainians have blamed Russian inspectors for deliberately slowing down clearance procedures.) 

So what happens next? The UN and Western nations should not succumb to the Kremlin’s blackmailing tactics. Russia should not be given another chance to weaponize food—nor be given sanctions relief in exchange for allowing ships carrying food to sail through international waters.

A global food emergency should be declared and, as I told BBC World News this morning, arrangements made for ships to sail under armed escort through the Black Sea. Of course, such a measure would never get past Russia’s veto in the UN Security Council. So creative diplomacy is required, perhaps with the European Union taking the lead.

In the near term, Ukraine should also be assisted with moving grain transport onto alternative arteries such as the Danube River and onto trains and trucks. Poland can play a key role by alleviating the days-long waits truck drivers currently face entering Poland from Ukraine. 

—Michael Bociurkiw is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center based in Odesa, Ukraine.

3. What are the prospects for getting the deal back, and what could the UN and Turkey do right now?

The deal will likely survive because Ukraine, Turkey, and Europe more broadly, as well as a number of developing nations, benefit from it, which likely makes modest concessions to the Russian position acceptable to the leaders of those countries. Given the disinclination of either the Turks or NATO to directly intervene in the conflict, it is unlikely that there will be direct military escorts for grain ships rather than a negotiated deal. Nor do the Russian forces appear ready for a major naval escalation in the Black Sea, so there is a fair chance they will settle in the end. The reputational and economic costs of a prolonged end to grain shipments will hurt Russia, too, so I do not expect a prolonged or permanent cancellation of the deal.

—Rich Outzen

4. What impact does this have on the developing world?

The threat to global economic landscape and food security—especially in Africa and other developing regions—is hard to overstate. While once soaring food prices amid pandemic supply chain disruptions and Russia’s war had begun to stabilize, thanks in large part to the more than thirty million tons of wheat exported from Ukraine under this deal, the situation remains volatile. Down from its peak of 160 in March of 2022, the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Price Index was at 122 in June, still a third higher than June 2020, when it was 93. Globally, food price inflation remains higher than 5 percent per year in more than 60 percent of low-income countries and nearly 80 percent of lower-middle-income and high-income countries. Real food inflation is as high as 80 percent in Zimbabwe, 30 percent in Egypt, and 14 percent in Laos. And within countries, women and already vulnerable communities tend to be hardest hit. In just the last two weeks, the World Bank reported that wheat prices had decreased by 3 percent globally—gains Monday’s announcement are all but certain to reverse.

—Nicole Goldin is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center and global head, inclusive economic growth at Abt Associates.

The post Russia just quit a grain deal critical to global food supply. What happens now? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

For about ten days, an estimated seven hundred people were stranded in no man’s land between the southeastern Tunisian and Libyan borders, with a further two hundred still stranded in similar circumstances along the western border with Algeria. Tunisian authorities recently resettled most of the migrants stranded on the Libyan border. However, their response remains inadequate, mainly due to the absence of guarantees that this situation will not recur. This is a significant possibility, given local demands for African migrants to be removed from the town of Ben Guerdane, the Tunisian smuggling capital near the Libyan border, where many were resettled, and the aforementioned hundreds that are still stranded at the Algerian border.

Additionally, international organizations remain prohibited from providing crucial humanitarian assistance, and fear dominates the sub-Saharan migrant community. Thus, communication with victims is limited to voice notes and messages from smuggled phones. This means conditions could be even worse—and the numbers of those stranded even greater—than currently reported. And what is known of the conditions is already bad enough; with dwindling food and water and temperatures climbing to over 104 degrees Fahrenheit, victims have reported horrific stories of pregnant women dying in labor and people being driven by thirst to drink seawater.

This catastrophe is brewing against the backdrop of increasing authoritarianism in Tunisia under President Kais Saied and a severely deteriorating economy. Since February, when Saied re-appropriated a local version of the far-right great replacement theory, Tunisia’s president has used Black and migrant communities in Tunisia as a populist scapegoat for the country’s problems. This has stoked mass anti-Black hysteria that is now manifesting as active hostility wherever migrants are settled, as seen with the response in Ben Guerdane.

President Saied has also utilized harsh counter-migration policies to leverage financial support from Europe—specifically Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni—creating an incentivization structure and aura of impunity that have fed into the current crackdown.   

The situation on Tunisia’s borders is not only a humanitarian catastrophe that could cause the death of hundreds of innocent people—it could also catalyze political, criminal, and diplomatic issues across the broader region. Mass arbitrary expulsions and violent abuse incited by inflammatory speeches of Tunisia’s president have already boosted the numbers of sub-Saharan refugees fleeing to Europe across the Mediterranean Sea since February. Systematic and abusive government crackdowns will exacerbate this fear and could trigger a panicked, mass exodus as Tunisia becomes palpably unsafe for Black Africans, creating a new migration crisis for Europe.

This development also bolsters the already burgeoning business of human traffickers, helping them to entrench and expand other criminal activities. Additionally, it could strain relationships between Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria, as no country wishes to claim these stranded peoples, and Tunisian authorities continue ejecting them into sensitive border zones.

It’s imperative for Europe, and especially the United States, to act to avert this catastrophe—not only for humanitarian reasons but also to protect regional stability and defend key regional interests. The United States has invested more than $1.4 billion in Tunisia’s democracy since 2011 and is invested in promoting democracies to counter China and Russia’s authoritarian systems. As a result, the United States is financially, ideologically, and diplomatically invested in supporting its European allies to stabilize an issue of extreme importance in the central Mediterranean.

A Western policy response should focus on the short-term imperative of providing protection and assistance to the stranded while stopping further expulsions. Additionally, medium-term policies to build structural safeguards can prevent this from re-occurring and perhaps even result in a healthier ecosystem for migrants and migration diplomacy in Tunisia.  

Short-term solutions

In light of this ongoing crisis, European and US stakeholders have the opportunity to collaborate in preventing further deaths while simultaneously establishing a solid foundation for holistic and enduring resolutions to the migration predicament in Tunisia.

A first response should come through immediate public statements by senior officials that condemn the crackdown, highlighting Tunisia’s contravention of international conventions it has joined, such as the United Nations and African Refugee Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All of these accords explicitly forbid the practice of refoulement and forcibly returning or expelling individuals to countries where they may be subjected to torture, threats to their lives or freedom, or other severe forms of harm.

Furthermore, Western governments should call on Tunisian authorities to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross/Crescent (ICRC) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to aid the stranded.

Given that the aforementioned suggestions are immediately actionable, uncontroversial, and the most direct way to end the humanitarian crisis, they should be prioritized and enacted as soon as possible. For maximum effect, this could take the form of a joint statement made by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union (EU), which could be supplemented by senior level phone calls between leaders who have a good relationship with President Saied, like French President Emmanuel Macron.

To create an atmosphere of maximum pressure reflecting the dire situation, further statements condemning the developments and proposing steps forward, such as allowing aid to the stranded, could be issued by the US Congress and the European Parliament—particularly committees such as the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs (LIBE) and the Subcommittee on Human Rights (DROI).

The United States and EU can also provide capacity assistance to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to help conduct voluntary resettlement for stranded Africans who had been working or studying in Tunisia and no longer feel safe, as well as those who were hoping to migrate onwards but would now rather return home. In addition, Western countries can support the home countries of these migrants by helping them provide consular assistance. In many cases, their embassies lack the personnel and resources required to respond to a crisis of this size.

The United States and EU have strong relationships with Tunisia’s defense ministry and interior ministry, respectively, and they should be leveraged. Given the difficulties of directly influencing the infamously intransigent President Saied—and that Tunisia’s security services are perhaps the only institutions retaining significant influence over the president and are the main implementers of these policies—capitalizing on these relationships represents the West’s most practical means of influencing the situation.

As a last resort, the US should communicate that by facilitating these crackdowns in violation of international conventions—the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the United Nations (UN) and African Refugee conventions, the Convention against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—that Tunisia’s security services may end up excluding themselves from further funding programs. Meanwhile, Europeans can threaten to revoke the privileges that the Tunisian interior ministry’s officer class enjoys from their close partnership with Europeans to encourage Tunisia’s security services to uphold the law, cease their participation in egregious human rights abuses, and allow humanitarian organizations to tend to the stranded. This could be further communicated in bilateral conversations between European interior ministers who have recently visited Tunisia to meet with their counterparts.

Medium-term solutions

Since February, the African Union (AU) and countries whose citizens have been victimized by the racist crackdowns incited by President Saied have condemned the situation. They also remain better placed to provide diplomatic accountability measures to try and disincentivize Saied’s regime from continuing this course of action.

Alongside the AU’s responses, the EU could provide support to replicate mechanisms trialed elsewhere—such as the EU-AU-UN Tripartite Taskforce on the Situation of Migrants and Refugees in Libya—to develop and oversee sustained policy responses to help ameliorate the worsening situation of migrants and refugees in Tunisia, and build a working relationship with Tunisian authorities that could help avert such scenarios from reoccurring.

On June 11, when announcing the new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Europe and Tunisia, European Council (EC) President Ursula Von der Leyen claimed that the migration part of the comprehensive package would be implemented in full respect of human rights and would become a model for migration deals with other countries. Considering the developments since, there should be clear stipulations added to the MoU to prevent mass arbitrary expulsions and violent abuse from being repeated, including accountability measures.

Alongside making a more focused, robust, and safeguarded migration pact, the European Parliament should more effectively leverage its role in budgetary scrutiny and oversight over EC spending to not only ensure the future deal is effectively implemented, but also look over existing funding packages given to the Tunisian border police. It is rumored that border guards are disgruntled that additional EU funding has yet to reach them in terms of increased salaries or new equipment and accuse the state of simply repurposing that money to its general budget. In this scenario, border guards are more inclined to accept money from traffickers and thereby enable trafficking instead of policing it. Moreover, this dynamic neutralizes any leverage or incentive this financing could provide to ensure that humanitarian standards are upheld. So, it behooves the European parliament to more closely scrutinize how its existing migration funding is being spent.  

The importance of Tunisia’s migration policy—especially given its ability to feed into other delicate issues, such as people smuggling and general regional stability—and its relationship with European migration policy should be routinely highlighted when European and US delegations visit Tunisia. Upcoming visits by European Parliament committees are a prime opportunity to initiate conversations on migration management practices, which can be followed up by identifying robust safeguards to prevent the reoccurrence of such situations.

By implementing these short-term and medium-term policy recommendations, European and US stakeholders can work towards addressing the immediate challenges while laying the groundwork for more comprehensive and sustainable solutions to the migration situation in Tunisia.

Alissa Pavia is associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs’ North Africa Program.

Tarek Megerisi is a senior policy fellow with the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

The post After Tunisia expelled 1,200 Black Africans, here’s how the West can help avoid a humanitarian disaster appeared first on Atlantic Council.

But many questions remain about whether creditors truly are prepared to meaningfully reduce debt burdens. These issues likely will be on the table in India this week (July 14 to 18) when the Group of Twenty (G20) finance ministers and central bank governors gather to discuss debt restructuring and other global economic issues.

In Zambia, which defaulted on its debts in 2021, government creditors led by China have resolved months of jostling and agreed to a restructuring of $6.3 billion of the country’s more than $8 billion of debt. The agreement extends for 20 years the country’s debt-repayment schedule and lowers its annual interest bill to one percent until economic growth recovers. Now, the country’s private-sector lenders, who hold billions of dollars of government IOUs, are talking about writing down some of their Zambia loans, and in Ghana are writing off loans and restructuring dollar-denominated bonds. Meanwhile, both classes of creditors are deep in restructuring discussions with Sri Lanka, which has requested a 30 percent haircut on some bonds.

These settlements would pave the way for assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and provide a way forward—albeit a difficult one—for dozens of low-income countries that are in or nearing debt distress. This represents progress compared with a year ago, when China and the private sector were balking at a transparent negotiating process. But there are still many issues to address—especially how far China really is prepared to go in reducing the burden of its vast lending. Unlike previous global debt episodes, notably the Latin America debt crisis of the 1980s and debt relief to low-income countries early this century, there is unlikely to be a grand bargain this time around.

While the preliminary agreement with Zambia has been heralded as “an epochal shift in global finance,” the reality is that negotiations there and elsewhere are following a well-trodden path: first the seal of approval of an IMF rescue program (which in Zambia’s case was reached in 2022), with promises of IMF money once a debt restructuring is agreed to. Then the hard bargaining with government lenders, followed by talks with private creditors. This slow progress is a far cry from late 2020 when the G20 agreed on a restructuring process for the poorest countries called the Common Framework that briefly raised hopes of a rapid succession of debt reductions—hopes that were dashed largely because of foot-dragging by China and foreign lenders.

Before the emergence of China as a major creditor to middle and low-income countries during the lending spree that accompanied its Belt and Road Initiative, debt negotiations went through the IMF and the Paris Club of advanced-economy lenders. It was arguably a simpler world, not least because private-sector lenders’ debt exposure in developing countries was marginal. That changed after 2010, when institutional investors joined China in shoveling money out the door to what became known as “frontier economy” borrowers. Between 2007 and 2020, an unprecedented 21 African countries accessed international debt markets. Today, debtors must proceed on multiple tracks—the Paris Club, the Chinese government, China’s state banks and state-controlled commercial banks, and Western fund managers and money-center banks.

Some creditors question the true nature of the debt restructuring now on offer. For example, private sector lenders and analysts say privately it is not clear whether, in Zambia’s case, China has negotiated bilateral conditions that have been concealed from other lenders. They say that this could cast doubt on assurances that government creditors have provided to the IMF about restructuring arrangements. In addition, China’s insistence on extending debt repayments for decades conflicts with the Paris Club’s track record of providing relief in the form of reductions in principal owed. That could become an issue if China pursues its approach in countries where other governments are major creditors—for example, India and Japan in Sri Lanka. In that case, the model of the Zambia agreement could quickly become a muddle.

The private sector has arguably made significant strides in recognizing their loan losses, as the situation in Ghana illustrates. Lenders such as the big four South African banks are writing off as much as $270 million of their loan exposures, which equates to a haircut of almost 60 percent. And Standard Chartered Bank has set aside some $160 million for Ghanaian write-downs. This loan-loss recognition serves two purposes. First, it is an effort to inform shareholders about the banks’ overall sovereign exposure and the steps they are taking to reduce it. Second, by setting a floor on the losses they are prepared to absorb, they have a better negotiating hand in the restructuring conversations.

Meanwhile, bondholders are likely to face increasing pressure to restructure Eurobond issues—and accept haircuts—as the repayment schedule accelerates in the next two years.

A looming issue may be the response of Western banks and bondholders to China’s success in having some of its loans by state-controlled banks exempted from the Zambia agreement and classified as commercial lending. How those Chinese loans are treated—in Zambia and elsewhere—while the real private-sector creditors negotiate settlements will be a test of China’s willingness to accept the principle of “comparability of treatment” for all creditors, a key principle that Beijing publicly insisted upon as recently as April.

There are real-world ramifications to these nuts-and-bolts issues that extend beyond the politics of the restructuring process. The human cost of the debt crisis for poor countries has been severe. The UN estimated last year that fifty-four countries with severe debt problems represented about three percent of global gross domestic product, but accounted for more than one-half of the 600 million people worldwide living in extreme poverty. That number has risen sharply since the pandemic hit in 2020.

Debt payments by these countries siphon off resources that are desperately needed for health, education, and other social programs. Defaults and restructuring only make this scarcity worse. That points to the need for new sources of funding. The World Bank is under pressure to free up more money for grants and lending. Meanwhile, the IMF has increased funding for two trusts designed to meet the needs of low-income countries, including one created to help developing countries meet the immediate and long-term challenge of climate change and pandemics. About $100 billion of new resources come, in part, from the 2021 allocation of $650 billion of Special Drawing Rights to IMF member countries.

But demand for help is rising faster than the available resources, especially for the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, a perpetually underfunded IMF vehicle that subsidizes zero-interest loans to the poorest countries. As new lending to these nations from China and private creditors dries up, the World Bank and IMF will be hard-pressed to pick up the slack. Debt restructuring that merely extends repayment for decades without any forgiveness will only entrench the imbalance between needy borrowers and lenders whose priority is to recoup their capital.

Jeremy Mark is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Geoeconomics Center. He previously worked for the IMF and the Asian Wall Street Journal. Follow him on Twitter: @JedMark888.

Vasuki Shastry, formerly with the IMF, Monetary Authority of Singapore, and Standard Chartered Bank, is the author of Has Asia Lost It? Dynamic Past, Turbulent Future. Follow him on Twitter: @vshastry.

At the intersection of economics, finance, and foreign policy, the GeoEconomics Center is a translation hub with the goal of helping shape a better global economic future.

Learn more

The post Progress on debt restructuring provides a glimmer of hope for developing countries appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In 2022, US imports of goods utilizing AGOA (or GSP) benefits was valued at $10.2 billion.  Like overall US imports from Africa, imports from AGOA beneficiaries have changed over time, driven mostly by the value of oil imports from countries like Nigeria and Angola.

Since 2000, the cornerstone of US trade policy for Africa has been the African Growth and Opportunity Act also known as AGOA.

Past work by the Atlantic Council suggests that Africa sits at the nexus of current development, climate, and security challenges. With global competition over resources, technology and influence growing, the strategic importance of establishing a new kind of relationship with Africa has become clear to the United States. With an African market of over 1.3 billion people and a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of over $3.4 trillion, expanding US-Africa trade and investment is now a clear strategic priority for both the United States and African countries.

The Atlantic Council’s Africa Center is examining trade between the US and Africa to date and the impact of AGOA, and analyzing the future of AGOA after its potential expiration in 2025.  Our work draws on a survey and interviews conducted with leaders in government, business, international organizations, and civil society. The report identifies key constraints limiting trade expansion and examines emerging challenges and opportunities that will shape its future. Drawing on this analysis, the report provides actionable recommendations for policymakers and other key stakeholders on the future of AGOA.

AGOA has come to define much of United States’ commercial relationship with Africa. With AGOA set to expire in 2025 and the shifting world economy providing new challenges and opportunities, now is the time to decide the future of US-Africa trade. The analysis in this report, as well as the findings from survey responses and interviews, suggest recommendations covering three areas:

1. AGOA itself
2. the future of US-Africa trade more broadly, and
3. the even broader future of US-Africa relations.

How to seize the moment

AGOA has symbolized the shift in US perceptions of Africa, augmenting aid with trade and commercial opportunity. Recognizing that the next ten years will shape economic trajectories for decades to come, the US must build on its narrative investment by embedding greater certainty for US and African investors.

1. AGOA should be renewed by the US Congress for at least a ten-year period as soon as possible. Doing so could allow African economies to capitalize on efforts to diversify supply chains away from China, supporting US strategic interests and a more resilient global economy. 
2. AGOA’s extension should be combined with greater certainty about AGOA eligibility, with fewer short-term eligibility decisions wherever possible. Eligibility is necessary for a country to access AGOA benefits. Doing so will boost investor confidence and support long-term economic development, which is the best way for the US to achieve its broader commercial and political goals. Greater stability in AGOA eligibility will also enhance the United States’ support for African economic integration through the AfCFTA.
3. Existing US efforts, through USAID, USTR and other agencies, should continue and ensure that support through continental level initiatives is sufficiently attuned to local contexts and barriers. Support to countries and firms in Africa is needed to ensure that the benefits of AGOA in fueling long-term development are achieved. There is a need for stronger capacity building to translate AGOA eligibility into utilization and real export capacity. Investing in re-establishing regional trade hubs could do this, while also supporting regional trade integration and direct links between AGOA and Africa’s Regional Economic Communities. USAID should ensure all regions, including Francophone Central Africa, are supported in this work.
4. To realize the benefits of AGOA for long-term development, African governments should rapidly develop and regularly update realistic national AGOA strategies and embed them in their economic planning and public investment.The US Congress should ensure sufficient funding for US agencies to support this process, including dedicated staff to work with African governments to draft the plans, if necessary. Support for these strategies could help set the United States’ interaction with Africa apart from other countries like China and India.Selecting a few countries to support early could make a big difference.  This could include eligible countries that are finding it difficult to meet the criteria such as the Central African Republic, Liberia, or the Democratic Republic of Congo. 
5. To support greater investment in export-oriented sectors within African countries, the US DFC, Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Prosper Africa initiative should align their financing and commercial facilitation with these AGOA strategies too. The future of US-Africa trade should be situated within a broader reorientation of the US-Africa relationship that builds true partnerships that not only yield economic opportunities and expanded trade but also serve longer-term social and political goals. New forms and arenas for collaboration between US and African actors could drive unique solutions in a multipolar world.  Such strategies could also include countries that are important to US-Africa trade but face eligibility constraints such as Cameroon, Ethiopia, and Somalia.

With so much written about the future of AGOA itself, the future of US-Africa trade more broadly, and the even broader future of US-Africa relations, a thorough examination of AGOA eligibility in 2023 is an opportunity to begin a longer conversation about the future of AGOA and US-Africa trade and investment.

As the United States reorients its international economic policy and African countries build new approaches to economic integration and collaboration, the future of US-Africa trade is ready to be defined. While setting the course for a renewed AGOA is important for maintaining business confidence, many of the challenges that African countries, firms, and individuals face will require deeper structural responses. In the push to achieve inclusive growth across the continent, capacity and investment constraints are particularly clear.

There are also immense opportunities. The rise of digital, financial, and creative products and services will shape African economies going forward. The expansion of economic and political links across the continent will provide more unified markets and supply chains, with greater economies of scale. The resources, ideas, and human capital needed to deliver global public goods and the green energy transition are already making Africa central to the future economy. Taking steps to broaden and deepen US-Africa trade and collaboration in these directions will provide the basis for more inclusive, sustainable growth and serve strategic economic and political goals for both sides.

Like what you read? Check back for our full report, coming soon.

Fellow

Frannie Léautier

Nonresident Senior Fellow

Africa Center

Africa Economy & Business

The Africa Center works to promote dynamic geopolitical partnerships with African states and to redirect US and European policy priorities toward strengthening security and bolstering economic growth and prosperity on the continent.

Learn more

The post In brief: The future of US-Africa trade and investment appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Already, cities around the world are facing intense heat waves. Several European and Southeast Asian countries broke records for their hottest temperatures. The southern United States has been hit by a long-lasting heat dome; parts of India have sweltered under 47°C (116°F) heat; and areas of North Africa reached temperatures of 50°C (122°F) this year.

The worse news? This summer will likely get even hotter. 

As the urgency of this issue becomes impossible to ignore, many local governments are taking action to build heat resilience. At the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center (Arsht-Rock), we work closely with cities around the world to protect the people most exposed to the dangerous impacts of climate-driven extreme heat. Here are four examples.

Seville: Naming heat waves is changing the way people understand extreme heat

Seville, Spain, has been leading the charge on naming extreme heat events. So far, Seville has experienced two named heat waves: Zoe in July 2022 and Yago in June 2023. 

Seville has named heat waves through a naming and categorization system called proMETEO. This system, piloted by Arsht-Rock in collaboration with the University of Seville and Seville City Council, monitors the weather forecast and categorizes heat waves into three tiers ranging from least (Category One) to most severe (Category Three). 

Seville is in its second year of naming and categorizing heat waves. In addition to better protecting Seville’s residents, this project is creating important social dialogue on the harmful impacts of extreme heat, and it is serving as a model for other cities to pilot similar initiatives.

Miami: The world’s first Chief Heat Officer is tackling heat head-on

Miami, where temperatures routinely hit the high 90s, was the first city in the world to appoint a Chief Heat Officer (CHO). CHOs are officials supported by Arsht-Rock’s Extreme Heat Resilience Alliance who are responsible for unifying their city governments’ responses to extreme heat. 

Miami’s CHO, Jane Gilbert, has more than thirty years of experience working in climate resilience. She has worked closely with Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava to launch the Miami-Dade County Extreme Heat Action Plan, which outlines nineteen key actions to protect people from extreme heat, including cooling schools and expanding access to shade and water.

In her role as CHO, Gilbert has implemented extensive heat season campaigns to raise awareness on the dangers of extreme heat. She also manages mobile Community Resilience Pods, which empower people to prepare for climate stressors through educational storytelling. 

Freetown: Outdoor market shade covers are providing relief for more than 2,300 women

In Sierra Leone’s capital, extreme heat is devastating for outdoor and informal workers, who spend long hours laboring in extreme temperatures. Many of these workers are women and girls, who face disproportionate health and social impacts from extreme heat.

Arsht-Rock has been working with Eugenia Kargbo, Freetown’s CHO, and a network of partners to address this. Through the Freetown Market Shade Cover project, Arsht-Rock installed shade covers over three outdoor markets, expanding the daily window for safe and comfortable shopping in hot conditions. 

The Market Shade Cover project has given more than 2,300 market women better working conditions and economic opportunities. By minimizing the health impacts, food spoilage, and financial losses resulting from extreme heat, this intervention has benefitted entire communities dependent on the market women. 

Santiago: New partnerships are protecting the most heat-vulnerable workers 

Even though Chile’s capital has a cool and temperate climate, Santiago has been scorched by extreme temperatures in recent years. Local authorities are taking a wide range of approaches to build heat resilience, from advocating for workers’ protection policies to providing air-conditioned ambulances to more than twenty-five communities. 

Santiago’s CHO, Cristina Huidobro Tornvall, partnered with the Chilean Security Association (ACHS), an entity representing more than one million Chilean workers, to promote heat safety measures among outdoor workers. Together, they are educating employers on how to recognize and respond to the dangers of extreme heat. 

The partnership’s goal is for employers to institute practices to protect their workers and provide health coverage for workers injured on the job. To this end, ACHS is planning to monitor how often workers seek medical care for exposure to extreme heat, which will help inform worker protection policies.

Cities are a crucial part of the solution

Severe heat can arrive with little or no warning. However, there are several steps cities can take in advance to prepare for extreme heat events.

• Cities can conduct baseline heat risk assessments to understand which communities and parts of the city are most vulnerable to extreme heat.

• Cities can create heat action plans that identify strategies and responsible actors in advance of extreme heat events.

• Cities can implement educational campaigns in advance of heat seasons to build public awareness of the dangers of extreme heat.

Arsht-Rock’s Heat Action Platform brings together diverse case studies of these solutions with guidance on how to plan for, finance, and implement projects into one comprehensive platform. The platform is designed to be a step-by-step guide for those starting out their heat resilience planning, as well as a reference guide and implementation resource for cities already well into the heat-planning process.

Local leaders are positioned to take these ideas and run with them. Cities have an urgent responsibility to respond to climate change. Billions of people are already living with the impacts of extreme heat, and even more will become more vulnerable as the world continues to urbanize. We already have the solutions, knowledge, and resources needed to protect people from heat—now, we just have to take action.

Kashvi Ajitsaria is a project associate at the Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center.

The post How four cities are building resilience to extreme heat appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In Season 1, Episode 5 of the Guns for Hire podcast, host Alia Brahimi is joined by two guests. She speaks with Cameron Hudson, the former US government expert on Sudan, about the mercenary pedigree of one of the two main belligerent parties, the Rapid Support Forces, and the determinative impact this has had on the current conflict in Sudan. By fighting as mercenaries in Libya, and especially Yemen, the RSF secured a cash windfall that let it recruit in numbers to rival the size of the national army, it forged regional relationships that are now central to its resupply, and it has committed crimes and abuses in the conduct of the war which represent a detached mercenary mindset.

Alia also chats with Professor Munzoul Assal of the University of Khartoum about the danger of two parallel governments emerging in Sudan along the lines of the bifurcation in Libya; the presence of RSF fighters at the Sudanese border with the Central African Republic where the Wagner Group is deeply entrenched; and the clear and alarming possibilities of a regional conflagration.

Find the Guns For Hire podcast on the app of your choice

About the podcast

The Guns for Hire podcast is a production of the Atlantic Council’s North Africa Initiative. Taking Libya as its starting point, it explores the causes and implications of the growing use of mercenaries in armed conflict.

The podcast features guests from many walks of life, from ethicists and historians to former mercenary fighters. It seeks to understand what the normalisation of contract warfare tells us about the world as we currently find it, but also about the future of the international system and about what war could look like in the coming decades.

Further reading

MENASource Jun 28, 2023

The Wagner rebellion is over—for now. But how will the events reverberate in the Middle East and North Africa?

By Mark N. Katz

The June 23-24 rebellion led by Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin—aimed, he claimed, at replacing the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov (not Russian President Vladimir Putin)—has ended. However, reverberations from it are likely to continue being felt beyond Russia, such as in the Middle East and North […]

Conflict Europe & Eurasia

MENASource Jun 1, 2023

Is Egypt planning a full-scale invasion of Sudan? 

By Shahira Amin

With the evacuation of foreigners from Sudan nearly complete, expectations are that an Egyptian military invasion of Sudan is imminent.

East Africa Middle East

MENASource May 11, 2023

Experts react: Sudan at the crossroads—where the conflict goes from here

By Benjamin Mossberg, Alia Brahimi, Thomas S. Warrick, Shahira Amin, R. Clarke Cooper

Atlantic Council experts react to the conflict in Sudan and discuss how it will impact the region and beyond.

Africa East Africa

Middle East Programs

Through our Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, the Atlantic Council works with allies and partners in Europe and the wider Middle East to protect US interests, build peace and security, and unlock the human potential of the region.

Explore More

The post Mercenary bloodline: The war in Sudan appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Watch the full event

Public Event Wed, June 28, 2023 • 3:00 pm ET

USAID Administrator Samantha Power on advancing LGBTQI+ inclusive development

AN #ACFRONTPAGE EVENT – A conversation on the United States’ efforts to advance global LGBTQI+ human rights and USAID’s commitment to global inclusion.

Human Rights Resilience & Society

The passage of Uganda’s law criminalizing LGTBQI+ identity is only one recent example of efforts to turn the global human-rights agenda “on its head,” said Samantha Power, administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). And “it’s not just happening in Uganda,” she warned.

Power spoke at a Pride Month special edition of Atlantic Council Front Page on Wednesday, where she discussed USAID’s role in advancing LGBTQI+ inclusive development globally.

She addressed some of the agency’s most difficult challenges when it comes to achieving its inclusive development goals, including anti-LGBTQI+ discrimination—legal or otherwise—that prevents vulnerable communities from receiving needed services. “Even where there’s not a law,” Power said, discrimination is “a deterrent” that often stops people from accessing care and assistance.

Power also discussed USAID’s efforts to promote the development of a more inclusive postwar Ukraine. “Ukraine’s work to liberalize and build checks and balances and build in human-rights protections”—including for LGBTQI+ rights—“has accelerated,” she said.

She also argued for prioritizing LGBTQI+ human rights on the global stage. If the United States “[goes] quiet,” she said, “I think we would really shortchange what is distinguishing about American foreign policy.”

Power also previewed a new USAID policy promoting LGBTQI+ inclusive development, which she said would be the “first-of-its-kind.”

Below are more highlights from the discussion on USAID’s efforts to advance LGBTQI+ human rights and inclusive development, moderated by Washington Post and MSNBC journalist Jonathan Capehart.

Steps back—and leaps forward

• Uganda’s recently passed Anti-Homosexuality Act “would set back not only the health of LGBTQI+ communities,” but the health of all Ugandans, Power said. The Biden administration has publicly criticized the bill, joining leaders in thirty-one other countries in condemning the Ugandan law.
• Power explained that USAID works with local actors when determining how to best oppose discriminatory laws. “It’s the communities that are going to be affected by these laws that provide cues to us on how vocal to be” against anti-LGBTQI+ legislation, the USAID administrator said. Otherwise, the United States could risk becoming the center of attention and “potentially triggering nationalism and other forces.” Such a backlash, Power said, is “just what people who would seek to repress or terrorize vulnerable communities would like to see happen.”
• Despite challenges and setbacks in some countries, there are nevertheless signs that international LGBTQI+ human-rights norms are gaining ground, Power explained: Same-sex marriage legalization, as was recently accomplished in Estonia, as well as the decriminalization of same-sex relations in countries such as Barbados and Singapore indicate that “these principles are getting traction,” she said.

Inclusive reconstruction in Ukraine

• Power explained that Ukraine has made progress on LGBTQI+ rights since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion; she said it is “remarkable that a country that’s fighting for its life and its people” has also managed to extend LGBTQI+ protections through legislative measures, regulations, and judicial vetting.
• Power argued that Ukraine’s mission to “[integrate] into Europe,” will encourage the Ukrainian legal and social ecosystems to increase their support for LGBTQI+ communities. “The criteria that Ukraine is going to need to meet, the roadmap and so forth, is going to entail much stronger protections than have existed in the past,” she said.
• The commitment to inclusive postwar reconstruction in Ukraine is in line with the Ukrainian peoples’ motivation for resisting Russian aggression, Power argued. “Part of what Ukraine is fighting for and part of what Russia is trying to squelch is liberalization, is [a] broad understanding of who human rights protections apply to,” she said.

The role of LGBTQI+ human rights in US foreign policy

• Prioritizing LGBTQI+ human rights is consistent with the United States’ economic development and foreign policy interests, Power said. “It is in our interest to fight repression,” she said. “It is in our foreign-policy interest to stand up for our values.”
• Power argued that the United States’ human-rights commitments obligate it to advocate LGBTQI+ rights in its foreign policy, leaving no room for neutrality on the issue, Power said. “Imagine the counterfactual,” she said. A US foreign policy that did not promote LGBTQI+ rights would “legitimate some of the [anti-LGBTQI+] rhetoric and actions and legal measures that are being put forward,” she said.
• Power pushed back on the criticism that promoting global LGBTQI+ human rights abroad interferes with other countries’ affairs. She said that the United States hears such complaints about interference often from Russia—even as it invades Ukraine—as well as from countries that sell surveillance technology and spread disinformation beyond their borders. “The noninterference claim is usually made in a selective way,” she said.

Daniel Hojnacki is an assistant editor of editorial at the Atlantic Council.

Watch the full event

The post Samantha Power on the status of LGBTQI+ rights globally, from Uganda to Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Security

Military camps for Wagner reportedly under construction in Belarus

Tracking narratives

Pro-Kremlin sources spreading disinformation to justify missile strike in Kramatorsk

Kremlin blames Colombian victims for the injuries they sustained in the Kramatorsk attack

Media policy

Prigozhin’s online assets reportedly blocked in Russia

International Response

Questions abound over the future of Wagner contracts and Prigozhin-linked businesses in Africa

Analysis: With Wagner mutiny, Russia’s loses plausible deniability about its involvement in Africa

Investigation sheds light on how Putin’s childhood friends allegedly evade sanctions

Military camps for Wagner reportedly under construction in Belarus

Russian independent outlet Verstka reported on the construction of camps for Wagner forces near Asipovichi, Mogilev Oblast, located in Belarus approximately two hundred kilometers from the Ukraine border. According to Verstka’s local forestry source, the area will cover 2.4 hectares (5.9 acres) and accommodate eight thousand Wagner fighters. The source also claimed that there will be additional camps constructed. Family members of Wagner fighters also confirmed to Verstka that they were deploying to Belarus. 

Radio Svaboda, the Belarusian-language edition of Radio Liberty, reviewed satellite imagery from Planet Labs that suggested signs of expansion at the Unit 61732 military camp adjacent to the village of Tsel, twenty kilometers northwest of Asipovichi. The outlet interviewed Ukrainian military analyst Oleg Zhdanov, who suggested it was “too early to tell” as to whether the military camp’s expansion is specifically for Wagner forces. “Very little time has passed to start building a camp specifically for the Wagnerites—it’s unreal,” Zhdanov told Radio Svaboda.

On June 27, in his first speech after the Wagner mutiny, Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirmed the deal that ended the rebellion on June 24 in which Yevgeniy Prigozhin would relocate to Belarus. Putin praised those Wagner fighters who did not participate in the revolt and said they could sign a contract with the Russian Ministry of Defense of other services. He added that other mercenaries who do not want to join could go either home or follow Prigozhin to Belarus.

—Eto Buziashvili, research associate, Tbilisi, Georgia

Pro-Kremlin sources spreading disinformation to justify missile strike in Kramatorsk

Pro-Kremlin sources denied Russia targeted civilians when a missile struck a crowded pizza restaurant in Kramatorsk, killing at least twelve civilians and injuring more than fifty others. According to this narrative, RIA Pizza was actually a military base hosting US and Ukrainian soldiers. To support the claims, pictures taken after the strike were published on Telegram and Twitter.

To support the claim that soldiers of 101st Airborne Division were located at the pizza “military base,” pro-Kremlin sources circulated grisly footage of the attack aftermath recorded by freelance journalist Arnaud De Decker. The clip shows a man wearing a morale patch of a US flag with the words “Always Be Ready: 5.11 Tactical.” 5.11 Tactical is a military apparel company that sells branded merchandise, including morale patches, worn to offer support to various causes and slogans but not used official unit patches. Various types of 5.11 Tactical’s “Always Be Ready” patches are readily available for purchase online.

Similarly, another post from Aleksandr Simonov’s Telegram channel that a man wearing an 101^st Airborne t-shirt was a member of the US Army division. These t-shirts are also readily available from online retailers.

—Sayyara Mammadova, research assistant, Warsaw, Poland

Kremlin blames Colombian victims for the injuries they sustained in the Kramatorsk attack

In addition to pro-Kremlin accusations that the Kramatorsk attack targeted a base housing US Army soldiers, Kremlin influencers also targeted citizens of Colombia, three of whom were injured in the attack, for being at the site of the incident. Colombian President Gustavo Petro said the attack targeted “three defenseless Colombian civilians” in violation of the protocols of war and called for the Colombian Foreign Ministry to submit a note of diplomatic protest to Russia. While the Kremlin acknowledged launching the attack, it insisted the assault struck military personnel rather than civilians.

The three Colombian citizens injured in the attack include acclaimed Colombian writer Hector Abad Faciolince; Sergio Jaramillo Caro, who previously led Colombia’s peace negotiations with FARC rebels; and Ukrainian-based journalist Catalina Gomez. According to the New York Times, Abad and Jaramillo were in Kramatorsk “collecting material” in support of their initiative, ¡Aguanta Ucrania! (“Hang On Ukraine!”), which seeks to garner support for Ukraine in Latin America.

Following the attack, Colombian influencers and officials criticized the attack through media outlets and social media accounts in Spanish. Danilo Rueda, Colombia’s current high commissioner for peace, issued a statement expressing support for the victims without mentioning Russia, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its “strongest condemnation of the unacceptable attack by Russian forces on a civilian target.” 

Gomez, who was injured in the attack, broadcast a video for France 24 from the site of the explosion. Meanwhile, Abad and Jaramillo conducted interviews with Colombian media outlets such as El Tiempo in which they described the incident.

Actualidad RT, a Russian media outlets with enormous reach in the Spanish-speaking world, insisted that the victims of the attack were mercenaries and instructors of NATO and Ukraine rather than civilians. Actualidad RT quoted statements from Igor Konashenkov, spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Defense,  and Kremlin spokesperson Dmitri Peskov, who said the attack struck “military targets” and that “Russia does not attack civilian infrastructure.” Actualidad RT promoted its claims via Twitter and Facebook multiple times on June 28.

Colombian radio station WRadio interviewed Kremlin foreign policy spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the morning of June 28. Zakharova stated that the restaurant was a Russian military target and called for an investigation into Victoria Amelina, a Ukrainian writer who was gravely injured while purportedly hosting the Colombians at the restaurant, claiming without evidence that Amelina had prior knowledge that the restaurant was a military target. Zakharova reiterated this statement after a WRadio journalist asked her to confirm the accusation. In contrast, Abad stated that it was Gomez who suggested they visit the restaurant, and that she apologized for doing so after the attack.

The Russian embassy in Colombia amplified Zakharova’s narrative later that same afternoon and evening. On Twitter, the embassy insisted that the city was “an operational and logistical-military hub, not a suitable place to enjoy Ukrainian cuisine dishes.” It also seemed to celebrate that the “reckless trip [of the Colombians] did not turn into an irreparable tragedy.”

—Daniel Suárez Pérez, research associate, Bogota, Colombia

Prigozhin’s online assets reportedly blocked in Russia

Over the course of the thirty-six-hour Wagner mutiny, the Kremlin attempted to limit information about Yevgeniy Prigozin on Russian social media and search engines, eventually blocking websites affiliated with Prigozhin. On June 24, the Telegram channel of Russian state-owned propaganda outlet RT reported that several Prigozhin-controlled media outlets including RIA FAN, People’s News, and Patriot Media Group were no longer accessible in parts of Russia. RT added that the reason for their disappearance was unknown. Similar reports appeared in Mediazona and several Telegram channels. 

The DFRLab used the Internet censorship measurement platform OONI to verify the claim and check the accessibility of RIA FAN within Russia. OONI detected signs that riafan.ru was blocked in the country. 

On June 29, independent Russian outlet The Bell claimed the Kremlin was searching for a new owner for Patriot Media Group, which includes media assets associated with Prigozhin. The following day, multiple Russian outlets reported that Prigozhin had dissolved Patriot Media Group.

—Eto Buziashvili, research associate, Tbilisi, Georgia

Questions abound over the future of Wagner contracts and Prigozhin-linked businesses in Africa

For years, Wagner has acted as Russia’s primary form of influence in Africa—spreading disinformation and propaganda, securing military contracts, and exporting natural resources to support Putin’s war effort. Following Prigozhin’s attempted mutiny, the future of Wagner’s operations on the continent has come into question. While it is highly unlikely the Kremlin would willingly abandon its influence in Africa, if Wagner is retired or its troops absorbed into the Ministry of Defense, it is uncertain who would maintain the group’s operations on the continent.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov confirmed that Russia’s work in Africa will continue. In a TV interview with Russia Today, Lavrov said, “In addition to relations with this PMC the governments of CAR and Mali have official contacts with our leadership. At their request, several hundred soldiers are working in CAR as instructors.”

A top advisor to Central African Republic President Faustin-Archange Touadéra appeared unconcerned about the weekend’s events. Speaking of Wagner’s military instructors, Fidèle Gouandjika said, “If Moscow decides to withdraw them and send us the Beethovens or the Mozarts rather than Wagners, we will have them.” In a statement released to its Telegram channel, the Officer’s Union for International Security—a US-sanctioned Wagner front company operating in CAR—claimed CAR’s defense minister had apologized for Gouandjika’s remarks. It quoted Defense Minister Claude Rameaux Bireau as saying, “The people of the CAR are grateful to the Russian instructors of Wagner, ask any Central African on the streets of Bangui or in the village of the CAR—he will confirm my words.”

In Mali, where Wagner forces have taken over responsibility for pushing back jihadists after the departure of French forces, the online outlet Mali Actu reported that the situation could dramatically impact Mali. “This situation raises major concerns about the security, stability and sovereignty of Mali, as well as the impact on the local population and counter-terrorism efforts,” it wrote.

—Tessa Knight, research associate, London, United Kingdom

Analysis: With Wagner mutiny, Russia loses plausible deniability about its involvement in Africa

While Wagner’s future in Africa remains uncertain, it is important to consider that the Wagner Group not just a paramilitary force. It is also a conglomerate of companies active in different sectors, from mining and logistics to political warfare and moviemaking, able to travel the spectrum between private entrepreneurism to state proxy. This flexibility has previously allowed Moscow to deploy Wagner to act as a force multiplier in Africa while simultaneously denying Russia’s direct presence on the continent. In Africa, Russia has used Wagner multiple times as part of a strategy to help authoritarian leaders stay in power and gain a pro-Russian military presence on the ground, all while maintaining plausible deniability. Until now, the positive outcomes of this strategy have far exceeded the costs for the Kremlin, as Russia has built a strong network of African influence with relatively little effort, securing concessions in strategic extractive industries, and expanding military-to-military relations on the continent.

However, this principle of plausible deniability, which made Wagner so successful and so useful for Moscow as an extension of its foreign policy and influence, is now damaged. As previously noted, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, as well as Putin, publicly confirmed direct links between Wagner and the Russian state apparatus.

Africa is intimately linked to Wagner: In the wake of Wagner’s involvement in Syria, Africa became the scene of the group’s expansion. Engaging in Sudan, the Central African Republic, Libya, Mozambique, Madagascar, and Mali, Wagner employed an opportunistic strategy of supplying security while taking concessions to mine natural resources. While its forces were in most cases invited to stabilize fragile states, its actions actively invited further instability, creating more opportunities and a greater demand signal for its services, ultimately granting renewing opportunities to Moscow to reinforce its footprint in the continent.

While denying direct links to Wagner’s actions in Africa might have become more difficult for the Kremlin, Russia is unlikely to waste the network of influence built by the group in recent years. Instead, Moscow will likely continue to deploy hybrid tools such as Wagner, although organized in different shapes and forms, so Russia can continue displacing Western influence, exploiting natural resources, and evading sanctions through dozens of front companies.

—Mattia Caniglia, associate director, Brussels, Belgium

Investigation sheds light on how Putin’s childhood friends allegedly evade sanctions

On June 20, the Organized Crime and Corruption reporting project (OCCRP) published a series of investigations titled “The Rotenberg Files” that shed light on the business dealings and alleged sanctions evasion attempts of Boris and Arkady Rotenberg, close friends of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The report is based on fifty thousand leaked emails and documents, examined by journalists from seventeen outlets. The OCCRP said the leak came from a source who worked for the brothers at a Russian management firm. The OCCRP investigation was conducted in partnership with the Times of London, Le Monde, and Forbes, among others.

Boris and Arkady Rotenberg are childhood friends of Putin. The billionaire brothers faced Western sanctions amid Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, but their lavish lifestyles do not appear to have been impacted. 

According to the OCCRP, the leaked documents demonstrate how the Rotenberg brothers allegedly used Western lawyers, bankers, corporate service providers, and proxies to evade sanctions. 

One of the report’s findings also alleges the brothers maintain business links to Prince Michael of Kent, a cousin of the late Queen Elizabeth II who was previously accused by the Sunday Times and Channel 4 of profiting off close access to the Kremlin. According to the latest investigation, “Prince Michael distanced himself from earlier ties to the Putin regime in the wake of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But leaked emails and corporate records show he co-owns a company with two Russian businessmen who helped billionaire oligarch and Putin ally Boris Rotenberg dodge Western sanctions.” 

Another investigation from the Rotenberg files reported that Putin’s eldest daughter regularly visited a holiday property financed by Arkady Rotenberg in an exclusive Austrian skiing destination. Documents reviewed by the OCCRP suggest that the house was purchased by a Cypriot company in 2013 with a loan from a bank then owned by Arkady, using funds invested by another company he owned. Other records suggested that the former romantic partner of Putin’s daughter is connected to the company that owns the Austrian property. Residents claim to have seen Putin himself at the Kitzbühel residence, though this has not been confirmed. 

The Rotenberg brothers and Prince Michael declined to comment to the OCCRP investigative consortium.

—Ani Mejlumyan, research assistant, Yerevan, Armenia

The post Russian War Report: Kremlin denies that it targeted civilians in a missile attack on a pizza restaurant appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Despite a long-term military counterterrorism effort, Nigeria still ranks as the eighth most-affected country on the Global Terrorism Index. Because of the persistence of the problem, Tinubu will need all the help he can get, including from the United States. Thus—especially at a time when the Sahel and coastal West Africa are embroiled in ever-worsening security crises—it may seem illogical for the US State Department to remove Boko Haram, once considered the world’s deadliest terrorist groups, from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO).

However, this action is long overdue. To designate a group as an FTO, the State Department must demonstrate that 1) the group is a foreign organization, 2) the group is engaged in, or retains the capability and intent to engage in, terrorist activity and 3) this activity threatens US citizens, interests, or national security. The US secretary of state must revoke a listing if they find “that the circumstances that were the basis of the designation have changed in such a manner as to warrant a revocation.”

Sure, the circumstances have not changed. But the circumstances never met these criteria to begin with because Boko Haram, one of Africa’s most well-known terrorist organizations, does not exist at all. Ultimately, “unlearning” this term will yield more accurate and valuable insights into the reality of the threat. Revoking the designation will set the United States and its partners on a more productive path toward finally resolving the violence in Nigeria.

The source of the misnomer

Around 2005, a fundamentalist Islamist sect emerged in northern Nigeria under the direction of Mohammed Yusuf. He began preaching a specific interpretation of the Quran, and one of his core arguments was that Nigerian Muslims should reject Western education and schools that had been introduced under British colonial rule. Because of this message, locals began calling him and his followers “Boko Haram,” which translates to “Western education is forbidden” in the Hausa language. Outsiders used this phrase as a derisive term to refer to this secretive sect, their followers, and other suspected affiliates.

In 2009, Yusuf’s sect staged an uprising across several northern states following escalating tensions with the state police. Within a matter of days, the movement was essentially eliminated by security services in a brutal crackdown (killing approximately eight hundred members in just a few days) and Yusuf was taken into custody and then executed shortly after. Since then, several movements have emerged in the region. The most active group has been Jamāʿat Ahl al-Sunnah li-l-Daʿawah wa al-Jihād (JAS), which was founded around 2010 under the leadership of Abubakar Shekau. His organization is responsible for many of the murders and violent incidents in the country over the last decade. Several factions have split from JAS, including Ansaru in 2012, which later rejoined JAS and then splintered again. In 2016, a third group emerged that called itself Islamic State-West Africa Province. They have all, at various times, been active across the region.

What’s in a name?

“Boko Haram” doesn’t really fit into that history. From the first uses of the term to describe Yusuf’s sect, locals have repurposed the name to describe suspected fundamentalist and Islamist extremism in the region. All these operations and more, including a wide array of non-terrorist criminal and gang activity, have variously been attributed to “Boko Haram” by government officials, state security forces, journalists, and locals who lacked complete information about what they were describing.

In short, the use of the name survived even as the actual insurgent organizations in the region changed affiliations, splintered, or disbanded.

Thus, since the early years of the violence, many observers believed they were witnessing the rise of “Boko Haram,” but this perception did not correspond with the activity on the ground and the constellation of terrorist organizations (none of whom used the name) in the region. The ultimate challenge, therefore, isn’t just the use of the wrong name, but what it signifies: It gives an inaccurate impression that there is a singular operational group with a clear ideology and an organizational history. Researchers and experts have analyzed the activity in the region through this lens, bringing a host of largely unrelated activity under the umbrella of the supposed entity. In late 2013, when the State Department designated “Boko Haram” as an FTO, US decision makers seemed to be influenced by what the British anthropologist Ruben Andersson has called “the Timbuktu syndrome”—the mapping of the West’s jihadist fears onto the world’s less familiar peripheries.

Why delisting matters

The State Department’s FTO designation is essentially targeting a ghost. Delisting the organization would have several tangible benefits.

Most importantly, it would streamline the resources the United States dedicates to countering terrorist activity in northern Nigeria. An FTO designation unlocks new authorities for government agencies to target terrorists, but it also requires agencies to follow through and enforce these designations. Due to the host of violence and petty criminal activity that has mistakenly been attributed to “Boko Haram,” the United States is pouring resources into addressing unaffiliated crime and issues that fall solely under the jurisdiction of the Nigerian government without realizing any stabilizing counterterrorism benefits.

Removing “Boko Haram” and instead correctly listing JAS will also benefit the national research apparatus, including academic institutions, think tanks, and government agencies. Since the early years of the violence, independent researchers have helped shape the US approach toward “Boko Haram” and informed US counterterrorism strategies, including military involvement, intelligence collection, and humanitarian assistance. Researchers and academics have had no reason to question the existence of “Boko Haram” when conducting research on the region, which has allowed for persistent uncertainty to dominate the field. As a result, attempts to analyze the confusing array of activity and operations that have been linked to “Boko Haram” have yielded weak insights and less productive recommendations.

For example in 2021, two of the most influential and long-standing leaders in the region—Shekau and Abu Musab Al-Barnawi—were declared dead. For counterterrorism officials, whom Shekau had eluded for almost a decade, this development marked a welcome shift. With the en masse surrender of fighters formerly associated with JAS, some hoped that they had finally witnessed the end of “Boko Haram.” However, many scholars and experts believe that a fundamental aspect of the “group” is its perpetual adaptability, which in fact is largely driven by the loose application of the term to violent events in Nigeria. Thus media organizations, for example, are still publishing articles on new purported attacks by the “organization.” Absent a rejection of “Boko Haram,” the reliance on the term thus ultimately invites a perpetual motion of resurgence that leaves no real end to the violence in sight.

By delisting “Boko Haram,” the State Department will serve its own interests by setting new analyses and inquiries on the right track to accurately identifying terrorist activities and trends in the region. Without this change, there are two grim yet likely consequences. Counterterrorism research projects and resulting US strategies will continue to operate based on avoidable misconceptions and incomplete information on the violence. And more concerningly, without a real reckoning over the existence of the “group,” every new instance of violence in northern Nigeria risks becoming engulfed in the thickening fog of suspected “Boko Haram” activity.

The responsibility now lies with the global collective, and with these US State Department officials in particular, to consciously and deliberately unlearn the deep-seated belief in the “organization’s” very existence.

Alexandra Gorman is a young global professional with the Africa Center and is a masters’ candidate at Johns Hopkins University in the Global Security Studies program. As an undergraduate at Duke University, she received high honors on her senior thesis, “Nigeria’s Militant Jihadism in the Mirror of the Media: the Creation of ‘Boko Haram.’”

New Atlanticist Mar 1, 2023

Experts react: As the ruling party’s Tinubu wins a contested election, what’s next for Nigeria?

By Atlantic Council experts

What went wrong with election administration and what can Bola Tinubu do to win over his critics? Atlantic Council experts, one of whom served on the ground as an election monitor, weigh in.

Africa Democratic Transitions

AfricaSource Oct 7, 2022

How Niger’s safety net helps its most vulnerable citizens thrive amid crises

By Ouhoumoudou Mahamadou and Mamta Murthi

The World Bank’s Wadata Talaka safety-net partnership program with Niger aims to empower women in the country and protect its human-capital gains in the face of overlapping shocks.

Africa Climate Change & Climate Action

AfricaSource Sep 27, 2022

Here’s what a Marshall Plan for the DRC could look like

By Jean-Paul Mvogo

The development progress the DRC witnessed in the 1970s is now lost. A massive economic assistance program equivalent to the Marshall Plan may be necessary to recover what’s been lost.

Africa Democratic Republic of the Congo

The Africa Center works to promote dynamic geopolitical partnerships with African states and to redirect US and European policy priorities toward strengthening security and bolstering economic growth and prosperity on the continent.

Learn more

The post Boko Haram is a ghost. The US needs to recognize that. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The United States has reshaped how it uses military and economic tools to compete with China, Russia, and other adversaries. The United States is increasingly adept at deploying military assets, as well as a range of financial sanctions or trade deals, to weaken China or Russia’s position and advance its own. Yet, the United States has not calibrated all statecraft tools for this competition. This includes how and where it uses foreign aid.

For more than fifty years, foreign aid has been a core form of US engagement in the developing world. To advance its interests, the United States has provided loans, technical assistance, and direct budget support to developing nations to promote economic growth and more representative forms of governance.

A fully developed strategy for using foreign aid across all sectors—economic, education, security assistance, and democracy support—can provide critical reinforcement to the military and economic pillars of strategic competition. To be sure, the United States has reorganized parts of its bureaucracy and launched new initiatives to enhance how it uses foreign aid to compete with China. The US Department of State recently launched a new Office of China Coordination, informally known as China House, to coordinate China policy. The Biden administration announced a flagship Group of Seven Plus (G7+) initiative for the advancement of strategic, values-driven, and high-standard infrastructure and investment in low- and middle-income countries. Congress initiated foreign-aid funds dedicated to countering Chinese malign influence in foreign political systems.¹ New embassies in Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, and Tonga, among other potential locations, are welcome developments that will provide the sustained presence necessary to engage governments and push back against Beijing’s influence, as well as help identify ways to use foreign aid to compete.

These changes are necessary, but far from sufficient to maximize the impact of foreign aid to compete with China and Russia. The power of foreign aid as a tool of US influence is not lost on its adversaries. The most prevalent example is China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), through which the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has spent hundreds of billions of dollars for years to expand its influence in developing nations. Recently, China has increased BRI spending and shifted from its original focus on infrastructure megaprojects to the less capital-intensive, but still impactful, fields of governance (e.g., training elected officials in Beijing’s governance model); funding for academic departments to promote pro-Chinese narratives; green-energy projects; and funding for pro-China media outlets.² Under the BRI umbrella, China uses foreign aid in these and other sectors to promote policies and politicians favorable to PRC interests. The United States is, therefore, compelled to play a game of catchup.

Fully harnessing the potential of US foreign aid in this struggle requires fundamental reforms to the congressional processes involved in overseeing aid allocations and earmarks; reforms to bureaucratic agencies tasked with spending foreign aid; improvements to US modes for delivering this assistance; and a narrowing of scope to areas most critical for advancing US interests. Needed reforms include the following.

• Realign spending to focus on allies and countries strategically important to US competition with China and Russia, including reconsidering assistance mechanisms based solely on income level, with an aim of investing in allies and partners that advance US interests.
• Make delivering for allies and shoring up democracy core pillars guiding how the United States uses foreign aid to compete with China and Russia. Investments in strong democratic institutions—such as political parties, independent legislators, independent media, and civil society—will yield dividends in countering foreign authoritarian influence.
• Invest to empower pro-democracy elements in backsliding or authoritarian countries. The United States must respond asymmetrically in countries with pervasive authoritarian capture, using foreign assistance in ways that empower individuals and institutions to expose and put pressure on the regime elements that perpetuate corruption and enable foreign influence.
• Congress should pass legislation (the Non-Kinetic Competition Act) requiring the executive to submit multiyear plans outlining the US approach—harnessing all nonmilitary statecraft tools, including foreign aid—to competing with China in select priority countries.
• Focus on geography and interests, rather than sectors, to ensure maximum flexibility, strategies rooted in country-specific needs, and longer-term planning.
• Increase spending to expand partner-nation resilience to Beijing and Moscow coercion and cooptation. Strong democratic institutions increase a country’s ability to detect, prevent, and mitigate Chinese Communist Party (CCP) influence operations. Priorities should include support for independent media, parliamentary diplomacy, and educational and technical exchanges, all of which have proven effective at building democratic resilience to foreign authoritarian influence.
• Empower the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance Resources to fulfill its mandate of aligning foreign aid with policy goals and maximizing impact. Enabling the Department of State to take the lead on foreign policy and control aid allocations will ensure that aid is appropriately leveraged to advance specific foreign policy objectives.
• Lengthen the time horizon for US foreign-aid programs and objectives from a single year to ten. Democracy, rights, and governance programming—as well as initiatives in other sectors germane to competition—requires longer-term investment to develop strong and resilient institutions, political parties, and processes. US agencies and implementing partners need longer project times to maximize impact.
• Limit branding waivers. The United States benefits from populations and governments knowing who provides aid, and its marketing needs to reflect as much.
• Focus on advancing interests, rather than “localization” targets. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) and State Department should pursue partnership approaches best positioned to achieve US interests in the target country. In most, if not all, cases, this will involve working through international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that collaborate with and, as needed, build the capacity of local partners.

With the aim of encouraging the United States to more strategically use foreign assistance to advance its policy objectives, this paper outlines why the threat posed by China and Russia requires more than a kinetic solution, and why and how foreign aid is essential to winning this competition; the current US approach to foreign assistance—where it spends, on what, and via which bureaucratic mechanisms—and its strengths and shortcomings; historical lessons from using US foreign aid for strategic competition, principally during the Cold War, that are applicable today; and recommendations for reforming the US foreign-aid infrastructure, regulations, and approach to better position the United States to compete.

I. The authoritarian threat has no purely military solution

China and Russia are often portrayed as purely military threats that warrant entirely kinetic solutions. To be sure, US military deterrence through a strong Army, Navy, and Air Force—with nuclear capabilities as a foundation—will remain essential to strategic competition. Kinetic options are necessary, but not sufficient. Competition with China and Russia is playing out not only in the sea lanes of the Indo-Pacific or Ukraine’s battlefields, but in the halls of parliaments in developing nations, in efforts to influence the post-conflict political systems of war-torn countries, and at the United Nations (UN), where both China and Russia endeavor to reshape the liberal world order.

China’s primary threat to the United States is undoubtedly a military one. It is amassing weapons sufficient to invade Taiwan, and has expanded its blue-water navy with an eye toward rivaling, if not supplanting, US capabilities. Yet, the PRC is also using political and economic tools to expand its influence in developing states at the expense of US objectives.

The CCP is increasingly using economic leverage and elite capture to exert political influence, deploying information operations, party-to-party ties, and, in some cases, export of its authoritarian governance model to create favorable conditions in other countries that enable the PRC to advance its local and global interests. This includes extracting natural resources critical to its domestic production and economic growth, expanding military basing essential to Chinese military deterrence and expanded control, and coopting politicians who serve these ends and can be counted on to vote with China at the UN on issues ranging from criticism of human-rights violations in Xinjiang to the future of the International Telecommunications Union and global internet governance. Together, these tactics are corroding democratic governance and popularizing authoritarian governance in countries the world over.

The BRI has been the crown jewel in the CCP’s global influence campaign. Nearly one hundred and fifty countries from every region of the world have signed on to the BRI, presenting a significant opportunity for the PRC to exert economic and political influence on a regional and global scale.³ According to research conducted by the International Republican Institute looking at PRC influence across country contexts, “growing trade, financial, and business ties are the foundation of the PRC’s efforts to build influence in other countries’ politics.”⁴ The CCP strategically deploys economic dependence, leverage, and coercion, in addition to elite capture, to develop pro-PRC constituencies in partner countries and advance pro-PRC policies. Thus, the BRI fits into the CCP’s broader efforts to create a world safe for the party and its interests, which Chinese leader Xi  Jinping proposes achieving via three initiatives that collectively articulate the CCP’s vision for the globe, titled the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative.⁵

The Global Development Initiative (GDI) seeks to expand the BRI to advance “people-centered” development, China’s catchphrase for its model of development that prioritizes economic advancement at the expense of human rights. The GDI—and PRC promotion of it—is explicit in its rejection of “Western” definitions of development, which incorporate human rights as a core tenet.⁶ China has been rallying countries to join the GDI, with vague promises of PRC support to help them achieve their Sustainable Development Goals for 2030, with a focus on poverty and hunger alleviation and increased access to clean energy. The PRC has established a group of “Friends of the Global Development Initiative” at the UN, which counts some sixty members.⁷ The Global Security Initiative (GSI) is the CCP’s vision for building a new global “security architecture” rooted in the CCP’s definition—and model—of security and stability.⁸ With aims to increase CCP influence at the UN through increased funding and diplomatic engagement, the expansion of PRC training programs to military and police, and an expanded role serving as an arbiter in international conflicts, the GSI signals China’s intent to return to its self-avowed rightful place at “the center for the world stage.”⁹ Without naming the United States and Europe, the CCP through GSI makes clear that it seeks to provide an alternative model of alliances or “circle of friends” to counter US interests, with a particular focus on the developing world in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Pacific islands.¹⁰

The Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) is the PRC’s new framework for promoting its governance model globally, building on the foundational work of the International Liaison Department supporting political parties around the world. Whereas such party-to-party exchanges once sought to build the legitimacy of the CCP, they are now focused on advertising the value of the PRC’s system of governance more generally. The GCI formalizes this recent trend, emphasizing the need for respect for a plurality of governance models. Speaking at the World Political Parties’ Conference, organized by the CCP in March 2023, General Secretary Xi Jinping extolled the PRC’s model of “a better social system,” noting that China’s experience has broken the myth that “modernization=Westernization.”¹¹ Implicit in the GCI, with its calls for understanding “different civilizations’ understanding of values” and models, is an attempt to popularize the CCP’s model of governance and help it realize its vision of a revised global order with a CCP-led China as the central node of globalization and global governance in the decades to come.

Collectively, these three initiatives are part of China’s overall strategy to promote authoritarian solutions to the mounting challenges facing developing democracies. They have the potential to undermine the principles of liberal democracy that buttress the extant rules-based world order. For many developing countries, PRC investment and trade are an economic necessity. They are, however, never free of conditions, despite PRC claims to the contrary. Whether the terms mandate that PRC-financed infrastructure be awarded to PRC-based companies, eschew existing environmental standards, or subvert transparency and accountability disclosure terms on the contractual arrangements, PRC entities’ business and negotiating practices often have adverse effects on the recipient countries’ finances and political systems.¹²

From a security standpoint, China’s promotion of the concept of “indivisible security,” used to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and its “aims to reshape norms of international security to be favorable to China and other authoritarian regimes while delegitimizing traditional military alliances,” as the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission has noted, are deeply worrying.¹³ Moreover, its proclivity to export repression beyond its borders poses a serious threat to developed and developing nations alike.

China has utilized “public security” as an entry point for establishing overseas police stations in fifty-three countries around the world, providing an entry point for PRC law enforcement to engage in transnational repression and crack down on dissent and political expression among the Chinese diaspora.¹⁴ In countries with large diaspora populations, the CCP has also relied upon triads, or crime syndicates, to intimidate its critics and further its objectives at the local level. Moreover, politically, China’s promotion of its authoritarian governance model undermines good governance globally, fueling democratic backsliding and legitimizing the rise of authoritarian actors from El Salvador to Belarus.

All of this has the potential to undermine US interests on everything from internet governance to human rights, while undermining US global leadership. These tactics have dire consequences for the United States, yet the United States cannot effectively address them with purely military or trade/sanctions solutions. Military responses, whether ship deployments or arms transfers, do not help strengthen the institutions and civil society needed for countries to be resilient to PRC influence operations, or to build an alliance of democracies to counter a growing autocratic threat.

Like China, Russia poses a threat to US interests that cannot be countered with armaments or economic tools alone. Russia is squarely focused on winning its illegal war with Ukraine. Even so, we can expect Vladimir Putin’s regime will continue using a range of non-kinetic means to advance its interests in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The Kremlin’s principal goal is to foster instability and undermine alliances that counter its influence regionally and globally. It deploys a mix of political, economic, and military tactics to divide and rule.¹⁵

In the political arena, the Kremlin directly interferes in other countries’ political and electoral processes. Russia tries to influence the political playing field to be more amenable to its interests, and to inject the Kremlin’s point of view into the political discourse. The Kremlin and its affiliated entities provide financial and other incentives to political parties and politicians willing to represent and advance favorable policies in national parliaments or international institutions. Such support can include legal and illicit campaign contributions, often made by organizations set up by Russia’s agents of influence, individuals linked to Russia and Russian businesses, or Russian organizations directly. According to a recent report by the US State Department, Russia has covertly given at least $300 million to officials and politicians in more than two dozen countries since 2014, with plans to transfer more.¹⁶

Russia also targets electoral processes. Russian hackers have been accused of interfering in many elections and electoral campaigns around the world. In the 2018 presidential election in Mexico, they were reportedly involved in the spread of false information aimed at discrediting candidates to stir up divisions and polarization among voters.¹⁷ Russia similarly deploys cyberattacks, internet trolling, social media campaigns, and intrusions into state voter-registration systems to undermine political and electoral processes and create confusion as people head to the polls.¹⁸

Economically, the Kremlin employs strategic corruption to coopt elites and create pro-Kremlin proxies in media, politics, and business to push its agenda. This strategy aims to influence debates, gain support, and shape legislation in the Kremlin’s favor. This tactic is particularly effective in countries with favorable views of Russia. It helps galvanize public support and weakens alliances that conflict with the Kremlin’s interests. The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a group of investigative journalists, recently revealed an expansive Kremlin operation to bribe politicians and businesspeople in Europe.¹⁹ The International Agency for Current Policy, an informal group connected to Moscow, is behind the bribes, arranged payments, and all-expenses-paid trips to luxury resorts for numerous European politicians and investors to encourage pro-Russian political and economic actions.

Militarily, the Kremlin is deploying proxy forces like the Wagner Group to support authoritarian governments or provoke low-scale conflict across Africa, including in Mali and the Central African Republic.²⁰ Wagner Group security deployments across the continent have been at the forefront of Russian efforts to influence African politics, and have been accompanied by disinformation campaigns to advance Russia’s political and security influence.²¹ The Wagner Group has also led Kremlin efforts to develop a pro-Russia infrastructure across Africa. This infrastructure includes the Internet Research Agency troll farm to conduct disinformation campaigns, captured antidemocratic political elites, coopted companies that exploit Africa’s natural resources, and front companies posing as nongovernmental organizations.

Russia’s influence efforts around the world are supported by wide-scale propaganda and disinformation campaigns to delegitimize independent, expert journalism—and the very concept of truth—in the eyes of consumers, exploit fissures in democratic societies and exacerbate polarization in conflicted ones, undermine support for democracy and the West, and advance pro-Kremlin narratives and policies. One approach Moscow deploys are Russian-funded media outlets like RT and Sputnik. RT, formerly Russia Today, is part of a state-sponsored propaganda corporation that masquerades as a legitimate, Western-looking news and opinion-making outlet that produces content in seven languages.²² With almost $400 million coming from Russian state subsidies in 2022 alone, the company has hired Western journalists to mislead its viewers, and to make its false content seem credible to legitimate media outlets around the world. Another tactic Russia uses is fake media outlets and social media accounts to dilute legitimate media reporting and inject messaging that serves Russia’s strategic objectives. Social media have been a particularly powerful tool for Russia, whose agents have been creating tailored content to influence the beliefs of groups of voters and sway them away from anti-Russia political forces. 

The contours of this challenge—from Beijing and Moscow—make clear that military and economic tools are not enough for the United States to compete and win. Kinetic efforts cannot bolster partner countries against the malign influence of the CCP and Kremlin and the associated cooptation of elites. Military tools, either security assistance or indirect effects of deterrence, cannot shape the politics and development trajectories of partner countries so that they take forms more favorable to the prosperity of their own people and US interests.

Economic-statecraft tools are more amenable to these ends—and complementary to foreign aid—but still not sufficient. Trade deals can increase US economic competitiveness vis-à-vis China by bolstering the US industrial base through opening markets to US citizens and businesses. The United States can use trade deals as an incentive for potential allies to align with US interests over those of the PRC or Kremlin and to help countries reduce their economic dependence on China and Russia. The United States can use economic sanctions to punish countries or individuals for a range of behaviors—from repressing their citizens, as in Belarus, to invading Ukraine, as with Russia—with the aim of stopping said targets from continuing these actions. Moreover, the United States can use economic measures to build a collective economic defense against economic coercion, and to deter PRC and Kremlin economic aggression.

Foreign aid is a necessary complement to kinetic and economic tools. It cannot single-handedly address all challenges listed above, but can help lead to changes—like making a country’s governance systems more resilient to foreign interference—that benefit the United States at the expense of its rivals.

II. US foreign aid: Effective tool, dated toolbox

The United States has utilized foreign assistance to advance its geopolitical interests since the end of World War II, and introduced the Marshall Plan to secure Europe’s (and Japan’s) social and economic foundations in the face of Soviet expansionism and restive communist factions.²³ The United States continued to use foreign aid as part of its strategy of containment over the next four decades, providing valuable lessons for advancing US interests in a new age of competition.

Foreign aid (interchangeably referred to as “foreign assistance”) consists of money, technical assistance, or commodities the United States provides to another country to advance a common objective. US foreign assistance can be organized into three overarching categories based on intent of spending: economic and development assistance that addresses political, economic, and development needs; humanitarian assistance that supports disaster relief and emergency operations to alleviate suffering and save lives; and security assistance, which strengthens the capacity of the military and law enforcement in other countries.²⁴

Across these three categories, foreign-aid-funded initiatives can include training rural farmers in more sustainable harvesting techniques, helping construct roadways linking peripheral towns to urban centers, or deploying specialists to advise government ministries on economic or political reform options.

The throughline connecting the three foreign-aid types—and the variation therein—is that US taxpayer dollars spent to fund these initiatives help lead to changes in the target country that benefit US interests. For instance, spending to increase the capacity and independence of government institutions can enhance transparency and provide more favorable investment conditions for US companies.

Yet, the United States spends less than 1 percent of its discretionary budget on foreign assistance, which for fiscal year (FY) 2022 amounted to$52.76 billion.²⁵ Comparatively speaking, this is a small portion of the federal budget. For the sake of contrast, it is 7 percent of the military’s FY22 $777.7-billion budget, and is nearly the exact amount the Department of Defense paid for fewer than one hundred new aircraft in FY22.²⁶

Illustrating the overall downward trend in foreign-aid spending, the United States spends roughly 50 percent less on foreign aid today, as a portion of gross domestic product (GDP), than it did during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. The similarities in the challenges the United States faced in the 1980s and today—and the disparity in resources it is marshalling to address those threats—is stark.

The United States allocates foreign aid through several departments and agencies, with the main entities being USAID and the Department of State. President John F. Kennedy established USAID in 1961 to lead the implementation of US foreign aid. Through the 1970s, USAID provided emergency food assistance that helped avert famines and helped newly independent countries establish basic governing structures. In the 1980s, USAID assistance guided economic reforms across Latin America and other regions around the world, helping stabilize economies in the face of currency and debt crises. After the Soviet Union’s fall, USAID helped new countries transition from autocracies to nascent democracies. From 2000 onward, USAID has played a central role in combatting HIV/AIDS, addressing violent extremism in fragile states, and solidifying democratic gains from the immediate post-Cold War era. In 2004, the United States expanded the agencies responsible for allocating foreign aid by establishing the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and, in 2019, the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).²⁷ These changes that foreign aid helped enable or cause have, directly or indirectly, benefited US security and economic prosperity.

What the United States has gained in scope and scale through this range of foreign-aid entities, it has lost in not having them unified by a common directive and mission for spending. The George W. Bush administration worked to address this drift by disbanding USAID policy offices, and transferred those associated oversight and policy responsibilities to a new Office of Foreign Assistance Resources at the Department of State. This change aimed to further align foreign-aid spending with foreign policymaking, which is the State Department’s purview (USAID, per a 1988 law, reports to the secretary of state). Despite this change, the United States continues to struggle with developing comprehensive strategies for issues and countries—and harnessing all elements of US foreign assistance (in tandem with other statecraft tools, like diplomacy and economic engagement) toward a common end. Some feel USAID operates too independently, and its spending is insufficiently aligned with US foreign policy objectives.

Why foreign aid is critical to strategic competition

A solid base of rigorous research shows that foreign aid is effective across a range of sectors in contributing to changes in recipient countries that favor the United States and advantage it in its competition with China, Russia, and other rivals.

Foreign aid can lead to three primary types of impact that are beneficial to strategic competition: economic development that opens markets to US businesses, which increases US economic competitiveness with China and Russia; stronger governance and political institutions, which can serve as a robust check on Russian and Chinese attempts to undermine or coopt allies or potential partners; and more favorable views of the United States by a government and/or its people, which the United States can then leverage for cooperation on mutually beneficial interests or against China and Russia.

Foreign aid supports US economic competitiveness by helping develop new economies for US businesses and trade. It does so by promoting a country’s overall development, as well as sound, transparent regulation.²⁸ Foreign assistance increases economic potential within a state, especially when developing basic industry, improving basic infrastructure, or rebuilding an area after conflict. Today, for example, eleven of the United States’ top fifteen trade partners are previous recipients of foreign aid. Access to overseas markets matters for people at home; roughly one in five US jobs is linked to international trade, and one in three US manufacturing jobs is linked to exporting US products overseas. When considering investments overseas, US businesses need predictable regulations managed by independent institutions, which, collectively, minimize risk of loss of capital. By fostering foreign markets for US goods and businesses, foreign aid can help bolster the United States’ industrial base.

Foreign aid also helps strengthen governance and democracy in countries around the world. A study of US foreign assistance focused on “democracy promotion” programs from 1990 to 2003 found that democracy assistance had “clear and consistent impacts” on overall democratization—as well as civil society, judicial and electoral processes, and media independence.²⁹ Despite a global democratic recession from 2012 to 2022, eight countries that were autocracies actually bounced back and are now democracies in 2023—with international democracy support and protection being an important factor in securing these gains.³⁰ The benefits of these changes, enabled by foreign aid, are clear. The world is safer and more secure with more—not fewer—democracies. Democracies do not launch wars against other democracies, are more reliable allies to the United States, and are far less prone to intrastate civil conflict.³¹ By strengthening independent institutions and civil-society oversight, foreign aid can help make countries more resilient to interference from foreign rivals like China and Russia. Robust institutions and vibrant civil society make it difficult for China and Russia to exert influence and coopt elites.

Finally, foreign aid can help improve citizens’ and governments’ views of the United States, often at the expense of its principal rivals. The long-term aspect is important here. Chinese and Russian foreign-assistance programs tend to favor physical projects that advance their economic interests and solidify partnerships with authoritarian actors.³² Populations, genuinely appreciative and benefiting from such investments, look favorably upon these efforts in the short term. Over time, there is growing evidence that these projects eventually begin to erode local support for Beijing and Moscow.³³ In the case of China, this is partially due to shoddy construction work, a feeling of Chinese neocolonialism and loss of sovereignty, and discomfort with authoritarian moves by parties in power. While there is much reporting on China’s BRI and Russia’s recent use of Wagner Group mercenaries in Africa, both countries’ programs lack transparency—increasingly alienating potential local partners as long-term consequences become more apparent.³⁴

By contrast, US foreign-assistance spending is transparent, involves clear conditions guiding where and how funds are to be used, and favors working with local partners to identify real needs and inform project design and implementation.³⁵ Well-implemented, effective, and large-scale initiatives focused on addressing pressing needs of populations—like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)—solve problems for local populations and generate positive perceptions of the aid provider, the United States. Several studies find that US investments in PEPFAR foreign assistance (as one example) are strongly associated with improved perceptions of the United States across the globe.³⁶ A potent mix of project transparency, exposure to US government institutional practices and customs, and an earnest desire to help recipient countries prosper underpins US foreign aid’s impact and success.³⁷

III. Looking back to chart a path forward: Lessons from the Cold War

Today’s threat landscape is not analogous to the Cold War for several reasons: China and the United States are far more intertwined economically than the United States and Soviet Union; technological advances have minimized geographical advantages; and states and citizens are more connected, with a magnitude of information access that was unthinkable in the immediate post-World War II era.

Despite these differences, the period in which the United States was grappling with a seemingly mighty Soviet Union and today’s competition with China share some similarities. Today, like then, the United States faces an array of threats across military, social, economic, and political domains from a formidable power that kinetic tools alone cannot address; as a result, the United States is looking to harness all statecraft tools to its advantage. Three key lessons from how the United States used foreign aid during the Cold War can help inform how it uses this non-kinetic tool for strategic competition today.

To maximize foreign aid’s impact, strategic patience is essential. Foreign aid can produce meaningful outcomes, but changes can take years to occur.³⁸ It took a decade for the Marshall Plan and associated US foreign assistance to transform Western European nations into the staunch democratic-minded, market-oriented partners that they are today. While US foreign aid that began in 1948 helped prevent socialist uprisings across Europe, NATO integration and rearmament took the 1950s to accomplish.³⁹ The European Economic Community only truly began to develop in the 1960s.⁴⁰ And the dismantling of European colonial empires and the move toward the US view of the liberal order took until the 1970s to be fully realized.⁴¹

Beyond Europe, US foreign assistance to African and Latin American governments highlights how approaching regions with a longer-term perspective and approach provides opportunities to augment engagement when conditions become more favorable.⁴² Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, US work in both regions haphazardly shifted between supporting anticommunist militarism, encouraging economic liberalization and development, and improving living conditions.⁴³ Moreover, post-colonial struggles in Africa and regional interference from the Cubans and Soviets in Latin America limited the overall effectiveness of US foreign-assistance programs until the 1980s.⁴⁴ Previous US engagement then allowed it to become a preferred partner as the Soviet Union began to withdraw from the “third world” and the global financial order introduced new requirements for integration and development.⁴⁵

Just as foreign assistance takes time to generate outcomes, assistance strategies should have flexibility to adapt to changes in the country or region over the lifetime of a given initiative. Identifying an end state, and methodically working toward it over the course of years or decades, allows second- and third-order effects of investments to occur.

Second, policymakers need to be realistic about what foreign aid can achieve—and avoid overpromising and under-delivering. More often than not, success has been achieved when US policymakers used foreign assistance to secure practical and realistic outcomes. While often criticized for partnering with autocrats over the course of the Cold War, the United States’ incremental investments slowly eroded the Soviet Union’s theory of victory and allowed the United States to encourage democratic progress over time.⁴⁶ US foreign assistance supported strategic aims that ultimately led to a more peaceful, prosperous, and representative world.

A final lesson is that foreign assistance works best when it is part of a broader whole-of-government strategy.⁴⁷ When the United States synchronizes foreign-aid interventions, these efforts tend to build on each other to promote long-term cultural change and alignment with US interests and policy.⁴⁸ Some clear examples of whole-of-government success are Western Europe, Colombia, South Korea, and Chile.⁴⁹ Each of these examples shares a US assistance approach and series of programs that combined security guarantees with cooperation and reform programs; economic-development packages that paired investment monies with revitalization of key industries; social initiatives intended to soften cultural cleavages while improving social determinants of health; and incentives for local governments to improve their capacity, resiliency, and responsiveness. When foreign-assistance efforts remained siloed between agencies, efforts fell short and minimized impact of taxpayer dollars.

IV. Recommendations: Maximizing US foreign aid to compete

The United States has the infrastructure and expertise to re-elevate foreign aid as a tool of statecraft and use it to help compete with China, Russia, and other adversaries. Doing so will require making changes to where the United States spends foreign assistance and on what, and reforming structures within the US government that dictate how said funds are allocated. These changes are based on lessons from the past, as well as a sober assessment of today’s threat landscape and the need to position the United States for today’s challenges.

1. Where the United States allocates foreign aid and on what

The United States should realign spending to focus on allies and countries strategically important to competition with China and Russia. Foreign aid can help lead to changes in countries that advantage the United States in that competition (e.g., by making a country’s political system more resilient to Chinese or Russian influence), as well as address other pressing challenges (e.g., by addressing causes of migration in Central America to curb flows of people into the United States). Foreign aid can also be used to help US allies or countries of strategic importance in ways that maintain or cement extant alignment of interests (e.g., via infrastructure development that benefits the government in power) or help move a country that is on the fence between cooperating with China and the United States (e.g., Pacific islands).

The current approach to, and regulations governing, allocating foreign aid is not set up to enable the United States to use funds in ways that directly and efficiently advance US interests. It forces the United States to center spending in many aid sectors on predominantly low-income countries (where the perceived greatest development needs are) and disincentivizes spending on middle-income nations (with some plans in place to phase out spending in middle-income states), disregarding how important these nations, despite their income level, might be to the United States.

The Trump administration explored realigning how the United States uses foreign assistance of all stripes—from economic aid to health assistance—to make competing with China the primary objective. This realignment did not gain traction. However, the review elements that called for revisiting stipulations to spend based on a country’s income level—and instead center decisions around a country’s importance to the United States—are welcome and worth revisiting.

The United States should make delivering for allies and shoring up democracy core pillars guiding how it uses foreign aid to compete with China and Russia. The United States has rightfully increased funding for infrastructure projects in developing nations—along and through multilateral forums—to offer an alternative to China’s BRI. These projects, from highways to hospitals, help the United States compete with China because they buy goodwill with recipient governments and—given the transparent way in which they are managed—provide important investment to support countries’ development needs. But they only address one part of the China challenge, and do not address the root causes enabling Chinese interference and influence—weak governance and political institutions.

Strong democratic institutions are the most reliable form of defense against Russian, Chinese, and other external efforts to shape a country’s domestic politics to the benefit of the external actor. Political parties channel citizens’ views into policy and law. Independent legislatures and capable executives craft and enforce legislation that makes markets favorable to foreign (and US) investment, and inhibit the type of opaque deals favored by the PRC. Independent media play a crucial role in identifying and exposing harmful authoritarian influence, while civil-society organizations (CSOs) work to push governments to take corrective action. Across borders, a diverse group of activists, media figures, religious leaders, researchers, and policymakers is collaborating to confront the challenge of foreign authoritarian influence, forming a strong and growing network of likeminded individuals committed to building democratic resilience worldwide. This network is using innovative methods to uncover and bring attention to the harmful influence of authoritarian actors, such as the PRC and Kremlin. They are devising advocacy and policy solutions tailored to the individual needs of local communities, with the goal of promoting lasting change and ensuring accountability from domestic and foreign authoritarian actors. They need US support.

Invest to empower pro-democracy elements in backsliding or authoritarian countries. In democratically backsliding or authoritarian countries, the scope and scale of elite capture by the PRC or the Kremlin—and conditions on US foreign assistance over human-rights concerns and corruption—limit the potential for political change to build democratic resilience to foreign authoritarian influence. In such contexts, it is extremely challenging to compete symmetrically with the PRC or the Kremlin, which do not impose conditions related to human rights or democracy, and routinely end up worsening both. The United States must respond asymmetrically, using foreign assistance in ways that empower individuals and institutions to expose and put pressure on the regime elements that perpetuate corruption and enable foreign influence. Ongoing investments in media, civil society, and small “d” democratic political parties and opposition movements can sustain important pro-democracy elements to effectively push back against authoritarian influence, in closed and closing countries.

2. Congressional action

Given its constitutional role of oversight and resource appropriation, Congress has an important role to play in ensuring the United States maximizes use and impact of foreign aid in its competition with China and Russia.

Congress should pass legislation (the Non-Kinetic Competition Act) requiring the executive to submit multiyear plans outlining the US approach—harnessing all nonmilitary statecraft tools, including foreign aid—to compete with China in select priority countries. Absent congressional requirements or oversight, it is unclear if the executive branch will be able to swiftly make the needed changes outlined above to where and how the United States spends aid, including ensuring whether it is part of a broader strategy for each country. To accelerate these efforts, Congress could pass legislation requiring the executive to deliver plans for select priority countries, outlining how it intends to use all aspects of US power and resources—including foreign aid, linked to diplomacy—to compete with China. The strategies should include a clearly defined goal, as well as a theory of the case. The legislation could be modeled on the Global Fragility Act (GFA), which requires the executive to deliver a strategy for preventing violent conflict and promoting stability globally, and ten-year plans for achieving these aims in select priority countries. Unlike the GFA, however, the legislation proposed here need not require the executive to publicly release plans, given the sensitive nature of the content.

Focus on geography and interests, rather than sectors. US foreign aid is largely organized around sectors (e.g., health, education) and driven by congressional earmarks. This makes it exceedingly difficult for the United States to craft geography-specific strategies (e.g., for sub-Saharan Africa) with a single source of foreign aid as an available resource. Ideally, the United States would craft a competition strategy for a given region that clearly identifies an end state, theory of the case, and associated inputs required to realize it (kinetic and non-kinetic, including foreign aid). Instead, the current system predetermines (via earmarks) how the United States spends a significant portion of foreign aid (with some exceptions), forcing planners to use aid in suboptimal ways that seldom advance country-specific strategies.

Congress, considering its increased attention to position the United States to prevail against China, should review extant earmarks, do away with as many as feasible, help the executive conduct longer-term planning, and provide greater flexibility in using foreign aid to compete. The legislation cited below could help set parameters and ensure funds are spent on the highest priorities.

Increase spending to expand partner-nation resilience to Beijing and Moscow coercion and cooptation. Strong democratic institutions increase a country’s ability to detect, prevent, and mitigate CCP influence operations, but must be coupled with other work focused squarely on detecting, preventing, and countering CCP and Kremlin interference—whether attempts by the PRC to train political parties in Kenya on the China “model” or direct Kremlin funding to political parties to influence electoral outcomes and ensure pro-Kremlin voices are voted into office. Foreign assistance in this category can fund a range of programming, from technical assistance to countries negotiating BRI deals to support for independent media in countries vulnerable to foreign influence. Priorities should include the following types of democracy, rights, and governance programming, which have proven effective in building democratic resilience to foreign authoritarian influence.

• Supporting independent media: Supporting independent journalism can be a powerful tool in countering the influence of the PRC and Kremlin in the Global South. It is a wise investment of limited US resources to empower well-trained journalists in vulnerable countries, who can provide free and unbiased reporting to expose the impact of foreign authoritarian influence. Every dollar spent in this direction can make a significant difference.
• Legislative dialogues: In legislatures throughout the world, a growing number of elected officials are committed to democratic resilience. From engaging with partners like Taiwan and Ukraine to exposing concerns around the domestic impacts of deepened political and economic engagement with China and Russia, these officials have been successful in advocating for measures to counteract foreign influence and building global democratic unity to confront it. Facilitating and supporting such dialogues, by both the US Congress and parliaments globally, is a critical and effective means to counter PRC and Kremlin influence.
• People-to-people exchanges: China is making a significant investment in people-to-people exchanges, sponsoring fellowships, scholarships, and exchanges to showcase the China model across the Global South. This soft-power initiative is an area in which the United States has a strategic advantage; it just needs to leverage it. The exchange programs sponsored by the Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs are an effective mechanism for engaging youth, students, educators, artists, athletes, and rising leaders to promote US interests—and democracy. More than 99 percent of participants in the bureau’s Sports Visitors exchange program come away expressing positive views of the United States, while its exchange programs have brought almost seven hundred officials who would go on to run their countries’ governments to the United States. However, only forty thousand international participants engage in such programming annually, given the bureau’s $777.5-million annual budget for exchanges. By comparison, in 2018, the PRC provided scholarships to sixty-three thousand students to study in China, a figure that doesn’t include party-to-party exchanges run by the International Liaison Department or journalist and parliamentary exchanges. Additional investment in this area would be a cost-effective win-win.

The United States spends a paltry amount combatting Russian and Chinese malign influence around the world, despite this being the foremost challenge of the time. The United States spends less than $325 million a year countering Chinese influence and $300 million countering Russian influence via foreign aid. In fact, the $625 million the United State spends annually on this threat from China and Russia is less than the Defense Department spends on printing each year.⁵⁰

US policymakers argue that prevailing against China is a national imperative, but have only appropriately resourced its kinetic toolkit. Foreign-aid spending focused on this aim needs to increase fourfold, to $1 billion annually. It should center on countries already exposed to CCP and Kremlin interference, at the cusp of such interventions, or likely to experience them moving forward.

3. Intra-US government structural changes

Several changes to intra-US government processes and structure would help better align foreign-aid spending with core national security interests and increase its impact in the competition with China and Russia.

Empower the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance Resources to fulfill its mandate of aligning foreign aid with policy goals and maximizing impact. US foreign-aid spending should directly align with, and advance, US interests in priority states, competing with China and Russia chief among them. This means enabling the Department of State to take the lead on foreign policy and control aid allocations in a way that concretely advances specific foreign policy objectives, rather than a development goal that might be tangentially related to US interests. The secretary of state should empower the Office of Foreign Assistance Resources to truly lead on foreign-aid coordination and alignment, deputizing its director to ensure aid spending aligns with policy goals. The USAID administrator should continue reporting to the secretary. The United States needs to maximize the impact of foreign aid for immediate political wins and incorporate foreign aid into longer-term planning.

Lengthen the time horizon for US foreign-aid programs and objectives from a single year to ten. The United States used foreign aid to significant effect during the Cold War. Flexibility in what and how to spend, as well as the time horizon on which success was measured (noting the struggle with the Soviet Union was the central objective) were extremely important. In the last 15–20 years, and in line with shorter-term goals (e.g., health), the time horizon for gauging success has shortened to 1–2 years. This is counterproductive. Democracy, rights, and governance programming—as well as initiatives in other sectors germane to competition—requires longer-term investment to develop strong and resilient institutions, political parties, and processes. US agencies and implementing partners need longer project times to maximize impact.

Limit branding waivers. Projects or initiatives funded by US foreign aid typically are branded as “from the American people,” and include the funding agency’s logo (e.g., that of USAID) to enable attribution for the work to the United States. Yet, the United States often allows organizations implementing foreign-aid projects to forego this branding requirement—thereby granting a waiver—on security or other grounds. For example, an NGO offering training to local farmers in an area contested by militias known to have anti-American views might request a waiver citing potential risk to personnel from said armed groups. Similar exceptions are granted for construction or other projects in areas perceived to be contested or at risk. Meanwhile, there are hospitals, schools, trainings, and so on in the same areas with “from China” branding readily visible. The United States benefits from populations and governments knowing who provides aid, and its marketing needs to reflect as much. The United States should only issue waivers when said branding could pose harm to implementers or beneficiaries, or when it is counterproductive to achieving results.

Focus on advancing interests, rather than “localization” targets. Under current Administrator Samantha Power’s leadership, USAID has articulated a commitment to the localization of US foreign assistance. This includes, but is not limited to, channeling a greater portion of US foreign assistance to local partners and taking additional steps to ensure US-funded projects build sustainable capacity of these local organizations. The United States has considered requiring international nongovernmental organizations that receive the “primary” grant from USAID to allocate a set percentage—up to 20 percent—to go directly to local partners. The rationale for this change, which the Barack Obama administration shared, is that US foreign assistance should help build local capacity to address needs. The intent is noble, but this arguably detracts from US foreign assistance achieving its actual and main intent—advancing US interests.

Rather than set aside an arbitrary amount of foreign aid for channeling to local NGOs, USAID and the State Department should pursue partnership approaches best positioned to achieve US interests in the target country. In most, if not all, cases, this will involve working through international NGOs that collaborate with—and, as needed, build the capacity of—local partners. Foreign aid should focus on building capacity and localizing aid, insofar as doing so advances US interests.

Conclusion

The United States’ overall approach to statecraft—how it forms strategy and uses tools to execute that strategy—has not caught up to the state of the world today. The current approach too often places bureaucratic prerogatives above policy priorities. The United States needs to be on high alert, shaping all aspects of government work toward its competition with China.

Patrick Quirk, PhD, is vice president for strategy, innovation, and impact at the International Republican Institute (IRI) and nonresident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

Caitlin Dearing Scott is the director for countering foreign authoritarian influence at the International Republican Institute.

The authors would like to thank Owen Myers for his research assistance.

The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world.

Learn more

The post Maximizing US foreign aid for strategic competition appeared first on Atlantic Council.

• Defining artificial intelligence
• How artificial intelligence works
• Machine learning
• Deep learning
• Global competition and controversies
• Dangers, myths, and misconceptions

Despite an abundance of books, articles, and news reports about artificial intelligence (AI) as an existential threat to life and livelihoods, the technology is not a grave menace to humanity in the near term. Undeniably, the comments of deep learning pioneer Geoffrey Hinton, who resigned from Google, are concerning. “I have suddenly switched my views on whether these things are going to be more intelligent than us. I think they’re very close to it now and they will be much more intelligent than us in the future. How do we survive that?” Hinton said in a recent interview. Hinton fears that AI may come to intentionally or inadvertently exert control over humanity, a hypothetical scenario known as an “AI takeover.” He is also worried about the potential spread of AI-generated misinformation or the possibility that an oppressive leader may attempt to use AI to create lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). But AI programs have no agency to act on their own. Generative AI language models currently operate only within the controlled environments of computer systems and networks, and their capabilities are constrained by training datasets and human uses.

The generative transformer architecture that is powering the current wave of artificial intelligence may reshape many areas of daily life. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has been making a global tour to engage with legislators, policymakers, and industry leaders about his company’s pathbreaking Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) series of large language models (LLMs). While acknowledging that AI could inflict damage on the world economy, disrupt labor markets, and transform global affairs in unforeseen ways, he emphasizes that responsible use and regulatory transparency will allow the technology to make positive contributions to education, creativity and entrepreneurship, and workplace productivity.

At present, however, Altman’s generative AI is most useful in improving natural language processing and machine translation. Generative transformers are flexible and scalable models that outperform recurrent neural networks—which made voice-activated assistants on smartphones possible—in certain tasks, such as capturing relationships between different words within long documents and answering questions about them. Examples include GPT, BERT, T5, and LaMDA. They do not on their own possess independent capabilities associated with artificial general intelligence or superintelligence, and it is unlikely that a truly versatile human-like cognitive AI will become a reality before 2050. Even an ultrasmart AI program may never bootstrap itself into consciousness. And there is almost zero chance that—as in the Roko’s Basilisk thought experiment—a spiteful and malicious AI will emerge that rewards those humans who assist it and punishes any who dare attempt to stop it. As Sam Altman puts it “GPT4 is a tool not a creature.”

What is certain is that AI tools and methods will be crucial for confronting a slew of slow-motion catastrophes unfolding across the world. COVID-19 has claimed almost seven million lives worldwide, and based on excess mortality likely many more. Strife, stress, and conflict endangers democracies on both sides of the Atlantic. Unschooling and remote work movements mingle with cultural and political divisions and societal disruptions. Climate change brings extremes in heat, drought, and wildfires along with melting ice caps and sea level rise. 

Machine learning (ML) is able to tackle these issues head-on. Admittedly, it has a long way to go before it’s a feasible tool for pandemic control, but AI is attaining good performance in the diagnosis, evaluation, and prognosis of infected individuals; predictions of pandemic spread; and COVID-19 drug discovery as well as vaccine development. Responsible applications of AI are strengthening communities and empowering democracies. Over the past few years, this technology played a particularly powerful role in knitting humanity together virtually amidst the spread of disease, snarled traffic, scarce fuel, and the high cost of living. AI-enabled technologies are also monitoring the world’s climate, agriculture, and economies, as well as providing solutions to feed and clothe the world without further damaging the environment. They can facilitate many paths to sustainable planet-wide development. Green AI technologies representative of the convergence of social innovation and technological change include ecobots, biodiversity and ecosystem services, and renewable energy solutions. 

Nonetheless, humanity is living in uncertain, complex, and ambiguous times. But as Sun Tzu explained in The Art of War, in the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity. It is not surprising that the current generation has invented AI and social media-fueled empathy scorecards intended to replace or supplement credit scores, prescription video games and other “calmtainments,” and AI-assisted chatbot therapists (Woebot and Wysa). AI is being brought to bear against the labor squeeze and workers’ demands for higher wages, supply chain disruptions and volatilities in manufacturing, and the omnipresent threats of wars of occupation. 

Defining artificial intelligence

The ultimate goal of AI is to emulate human-like thinking or perform tasks that normally require human activity. John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester, and Claude Shannon, in their original proposal to bring together mathematicians, cyberneticists, and information processing innovators for a formative 1956 summer research workshop on AI at Dartmouth College, contended that “every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it.” AI can be subdivided in several different ways, but the major branches are usually described as artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), artificial general intelligence (AGI), and artificial superintelligence (ASI). 

ANI is the branch where the overwhelming majority of AI-inclined developers work. ANI thereby represents the state of the art in AI. It is a category that includes all useful applications of AI to specific problems such as calculating risks and reducing errors, handling repetitive or boring tasks, making informed recommendations or decisions quickly, or automating job duties that are difficult or dangerous. ANI developers are rarely concerned about whether their AI systems are capable of true cognition, awareness, metacognition, or affectivity. Instead, they are content to regard them as models for understanding intelligent behavior and building useful tools. Common areas of activity in ANI are speech recognition, natural language processing, chatbots, search engines, recommender systems, digital assistants, computer vision, image recognition, and machine translation. Every sort of machine intelligence encountered in daily life is limited to specific tasks and knowledge domains that are not readily translated into other tasks or domains irrespective of how sophisticated they are.

On the other hand, AGI and ASI have as their shared goal the achievement of a complete or comprehensive range of human intelligence capabilities, including perhaps even consciousness. In AGI and ASI, the model is the mind; the map is the territory. Should the goal be reached, some researchers believe ASI will surpass human intelligence, with cognitive capacities well beyond those of the smartest people and in a wide variety of domains. An ASI’s “mind” would not just be different in degree from the human one; it would be different in kind. Indeed, some researchers assume that any potential candidate for ASI would require a self-modifying property. Many people, including, most famously, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, and Elon Musk, have spoken out about AGI/ASI safety and control. Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, authors of the leading textbook on AI, note that “[a]lmost any technology has the potential to cause harm in the wrong hands, but with AI and robotics, we have the new problem that the wrong hands might belong to the technology itself.” Others have been more sanguine. Neuroscientist Anthony Zador and computer scientist Yann LeCun, for example, suggest that there is no reason why a machine would develop a self-preservation instinct or evolve into a dangerous competitor. 

How artificial intelligence works

The typical AI developer writes code—sometimes employing the assistance of context-aware intelligent code-completion software like IntelliSense or Copilot. At the core of all AI systems written today are intelligent agents. The classical approach to AI is in the form of sense-think-act: agents perceive their environment using sensors, consider choices and make decisions, and react using effectors. They may be physical (robots) or virtual (software) and are often both. Agents now have all sorts of different abilities, goals, preferences, knowledge representations, and memories of past experiences. Humans themselves are considered very complex intelligent agents by AI developers, albeit biological ones. This is why it is sometimes said that the “holy grail” of AI is to understand man as a machine.

Agents are ubiquitous in everyday life. Siri, Cortana, and the Google Assistant are agents, as are tabletop smart home appliances like Amazon Echo, Google Home, Samsung Bixby, Xiaomi Xiao Ai, and Apple HomePod. Agents are also embedded in many autonomous and semiautonomous robotic devices like the Roomba vacuum cleaner, Tesla driver-assistance system, and General Atomics Gray Eagle Extended Range unmanned aerial military drone. Large, pretrained language models are the foundation of the latest—potentially disruptive and transformative—conversational agents like Google Bard, Jasper Chat, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and Microsoft’s Bing chatbot.

Practitioners of symbolic AI, a dominant early approach to simulating humanlike cognition, compared the brain to a sophisticated computer program. From the mid-1950s and continuing into the 1980s, computer scientists created general and specific problem solver programs. Software developers also created general inference engines upon which specialized rule bases could be applied interchangeably. These so-called expert systems consisted of heuristics or rules of thumb developed from direct interviews with experts and professionals (e.g., physicians, lawyers, mechanics, and chemists). Heuristic programming assumed as a given that an expert is a specialist. 

Expert knowledge, however, is rarely fixed. Indeed, it is regularly updated through new discoveries and experience. Heuristic systems struggle to keep up with all but the most predictable definitions and structured reasoning methods. AI researchers describe this as the “knowledge acquisition bottleneck.” Training an AI program to serve as a clinical decision support system, for example, is only feasible if there is a reasonably efficient way to keep up with an exponentially growing reservoir of medical knowledge and know-how. Often, the domain expert and the programmer find it difficult to maintain their systems and keep them current.

Knowledge engineers argue among themselves about whether the right approach is to carefully simulate the reasoning abilities of experts in models of human information processes or rather to discover entirely new methods for weighing evidence that can only be accomplished using computers. Ironically, as expert system prototypes proliferated, they became more specialized, limited in scope, and fragmentary. The history of expert systems has proven that machines, like humans, perform better in specialized domains. Exceptional general-purpose thinking is rare among machines, and perhaps also among human beings.

Expert systems gave way to directly mining the data of extremely large numbers of cases. Data mining requires figuring out how to represent knowledge and extract useful patterns through automatic or semiautomatic analyses so that they might be used effectively. Data mining techniques include cluster analysis, anomaly detection, and association rule mining. This movement away from the primacy of experts has been likened to the demise of the Greek Oracle of Delphi.

By the 1990s, connectionist approaches featuring artificial neural networks (ANNs) eclipsed symbolic AI in popularity. The metaphor for the connectionist approach to AI is the brain as a collection of billions of neurons that both wire and fire together. The application of neural networks to AI also dates to the 1950s but had fallen out of favor until resuscitated by Hinton, the cognitive psychologist who recently left Google, and others who described a new procedure called “backpropagation” for training multilayered neural networks. The connectionist approach became even more exciting as advances in computing hardware and schemes for handling large volumes of structured, semi-structured, and unstructured data (“big data”) made it possible to improve the efficacy of neural networks.

Machine learning

ML today is a subset of AI which relies on both the symbolic and neural network approaches. The synthesis of neuro-symbolic AI and development of hybrid architectures is relatively new. Computer scientists use ML and data analytics to train algorithms and neural networks with statistical methods to discern patterns, make classifications, predict outcomes, and uncover significant insights from available masses of information. In ML, models of learning are used to dexterously organize the capabilities of intelligent agents as they improve themselves using data extracted from online systems or the environment. ML is divided into roughly three categories—supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning.

In supervised learning, labeled data are used to train algorithms. The computer is “taught” to recognize general rules using “training data” (labeled inputs and desired outputs). Supervised learning algorithms may engage in active learning to label new data points with desired outputs, classification to organize data into relevant categories, regression analysis to investigate relationships between independent features or variables and dependent variables or outcomes, or similarity learning, where the goal is to measure the resemblance or relatedness between things. 

In unsupervised learning, the algorithm discovers structure, features, and insights from unlabeled data. Unsupervised learning is helpful where common properties of the dataset are unknown or poorly understood. Additionally, unsupervised learning is helpful in solving clustering and association-type problems. Clustering algorithms group data based on similarities and differences. Marketing companies often use clustering and demographic segmentation of customers to identify and group households that are similar to one another in wealth, buying behavior, or lifestyle. These clusters are given names like Married Sophisticates, Penny Pinchers, Skyboxes and Suburbs, Summit Estates, Shotguns and Pickup Trucks, Rolling Stones, Single City Struggles, Aging Upscale, and Timeless Elders. Association algorithms find interesting relationships between variables. Association rule learning can be useful in market-based analyses of customer purchases, allowing retailers to recognize relationships between items that customers frequently buy together and predict the likelihood of purchases of an item based on the occurrence of other items in an individual transaction.

A computer performs reinforcement learning when it learns through interaction with the environment and feedback to achieve a predefined goal or maximize a reward. In reinforcement learning, the AI improves by first making mistakes. Reinforcement learning has applications in teaching self-driving cars to avoid obstacles and stay on the road, training AI non-player characters in video games, and instructing caregiver robots on how to grasp common household objects.

Deep learning

Deep learning is a type of ML that depends primarily on ANNs and training data. The neural networks train by imitating the natural neural interconnectivity of the brain using layers of nodes and connections. These nodes are composed of various inputs and weights, a given threshold, and an output value. When the output value surpasses the predefined threshold, it “fires” like a biological neuron, activating the node and passing data along to the next layer of the network. AlexNet, one of the pioneering technologies in the field of computer vision, was designed by Hinton and his students. This deep learning tool used to analyze visual imagery is composed of eight layers—five convolutional layers, two hidden layers, and one output layer. AlexNet was trained on graphics processing units (GPUs). It outperformed all other challengers in the 2012 ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. Deep neural networks and platforms are employed in many contexts today; they promote cybersecurity (Deep Instinct), predict criminal recidivism (COMPAS Core), make early diagnoses in oncology (Behold.ai), teach next-gen driverless cars (Tesla, Waymo, Nvidia), and boost the creativity of artists (DALL-E, Stable Diffusion) and writers (GPT-4, Charisma). Generative transformer models are a prime example of deep learning, and they are revolutionary in their ability to quickly find relationships and capture context across large datasets.

Computational creativity is one subfield of AI that has been dramatically reshaped by deep learning. Computational creativity applications attempt to generate original ideas and artifacts. These “generative AI” applications are transforming our understanding of machines as helpmates to humans and altering bedrock conceptions of novelty. Is the goal to replicate human storytelling or to create new media for storytelling? Can an AI agent create a real emotional connection with a person? Can a machine have an original thought or imagination? How would an AI program recognize that something is imaginary? In a world of computational creativity, some common tropes and normative modes of seeing, hearing, and knowing may have to be unlearned. 

All sorts of possibilities are being explored with generative AI. The annual National Novel Generation Month (NaNoGenMo) contest is the brainchild of computer programmer and internet artist Darius Kazemi. NaNoGenMo is the artificial spiritual twin of the National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo), a nonprofit organization that encourages human authors to find their voices by banging out drafts of fifty-thousand-word novels in November. Programmers following Kazemi’s rules instead write code that generates fifty thousand words of machine-made fiction. NaNoGenMo provides a standard corpus of public domain lists and texts for rapid prototyping, but participants use all sorts of public domain writings to train their AIs. In the NaNoGenMo submission The Seeker, the intelligent agent is at once algorithm, agent, protagonist, and narrator. The Seeker reads differently each time because the code randomly shuffles in a new selection from its corpus to parse, deconstruct, and reconstruct. 

Today, humans and artificial intelligences have joined forces to tell prize-worthy stories like The Day a Computer Writes a Novel, which passed the first round of screening for the Hoshi Shinichi Literary Award in Japan, and 1 the Road published by Jean Boîte Éditions. The author of 1 the Road, Ross Goodwin, was a speechwriter in the Obama administration. Goodwin trained a Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Network (LSTM-RNN) with three different sets of texts (science fiction, poetry, and “bleak” writings) totaling sixty million words. 1 the Road is particularly interesting because the AI’s input is supplemented using sensors—a video camera, microphone, GPS device, and clock timer—exposed to the sights and sounds of a road trip from New York to New Orleans. Typically, large language models are trained on massive amounts of textual data and can be tens of gigabytes—even petabytes—in size. Researchers are concerned about running low on this kind of data to train models, which means that accessing data from other sources such as audio dialogue, images, spreadsheets and databases, and video clips will become increasingly important.

In this networked world exposure to content is constant. Generative AI promises to exponentially increase the amount created annually. Generative AI applications today are spiritedly responding to an apparent “creativity crisis” among human beings as measured by a thirty-year decline in scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, a prominent test for human creativity. Generative AI has manufactured all sorts of objects, discoveries, and/or performances. However, some examples of computer-aided creativity are quite old. One precedent is Alan Turing’s imitation game. Another is the general problem solver of AI pioneers Herbert Simon, Allen Newell, and John Clifford Shaw. 

In 1958, Simon and Newell wrote that “within ten years a digital computer will write music that will be accepted by critics as possessing considerable aesthetic value.” This prediction has now been fulfilled by the subfield of generative music and algorithmic composition. One of the most famous examples is David Cope’s Experiments in Musical Intelligence (“Emmy”). Emmy is an algorithmic composer capable of analyzing existing musical compositions, rearranging and recombining them, and ultimately inventing new works that are indistinguishable from those of Johann Sebastian Bach, Frédéric Chopin, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Shimon at Georgia Tech University is a marimba-playing improvisational jazz-bot musician. DeepMusic.AI, OpenAI’s MuseNet, and the Magenta Music Transformer are all online tools for creating music with deep learning and generative AI. Recently, two programmers have been trying to make music infringement lawsuits obsolete by securing copyright to every combination of eight quarter notes in the C major scale using tones generated with the Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) standard electronic music protocol. And, similar to NaNoGenMo, a song contest has sprung up that is exclusively for artificially generated music. The first AI “Eurovision Song Contest” winner, the Australian group Uncanny Valley, sampled kookaburra bird calls and koala grunting noises. Additionally, there are AI painters, Dungeons & Dragons dungeon masters, journalists, filmmakers, dancers, stunt performers, and theater players. 

Global competition and controversies

A number of countries have established national strategies, initiatives, and funding mechanisms to promote AI innovation and adoption. Former US President Donald J. Trump established the American AI Initiative by signing an executive order in 2019. The order did not allocate any direct federal funding, but it highlighted the significance of employing AI in a responsible manner and taking action to respond to significant investments made by other nations. In 2020, the US Congress passed the National AI Initiative Act. The National AI Initiative (NAII) establishes a coordinated program that spans the federal government. It is aimed at expediting AI research and development (R&D) to strengthen the country’s economic growth and national security. The act provides almost $6.5 billion in funding over five years for R&D, education, and standards related to AI. The National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Defense will jointly oversee a nationwide network of interdisciplinary AI research institutes.

The US government’s efforts are partially motivated by China’s substantial investments in AI technology. The New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan, announced in 2017, is the Chinese government’s national strategy for AI R&D. China hopes to overtake the United States by 2030 and establish the country as a global leader in the production of AI technology and talent. The major port city of Tianjin in northern China has declared its intention to establish reserves totaling ¥100 billion (equivalent to $15.7 billion) to bolster the AI industry, as well as a separate ¥10 billion fund to advance intelligent manufacturing. China passed a national law aimed at addressing ethical and regulatory concerns related to AI in 2021. In April 2023, the Cyberspace Administration of China issued regulations mandating that content generated by AI must align with the fundamental principles of socialism.

The Russian Federation also has a National AI Development Strategy designed to bolster investment in AI research, education, and industrial development. Somewhat surprisingly, the 2019 Russian AI strategic decree does not mention national defense, though it does emphasize the importance of AI for economic development and healthcare. The decree also does not mention budget, deadlines, or enforcement mechanisms. Due to the recent military conflicts in Libya, Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Ukraine, it is anticipated that Russia will allocate significant resources toward developing AI systems for unmanned aerial drones, counter-drone technologies, and AI-powered surveillance systems. 

Significant and unheralded projects are also underway in Africa. The African Union has unveiled an Artificial Intelligence Continental Strategy for Africa, which is intended to facilitate the participation of stakeholders, initiate capacity-building efforts, and fortify regulatory frameworks for AI technology and data management. Artificial Intelligence for Development in Africa (AI4D) is a four-year initiative launched in 2020 by Canada’s International Development Research Centre and Sweden’s International Development Cooperation Agency. The objective of AI4D is to team up with Africa’s government and scientific communities to encourage AI research, innovation, and talent. The ultimate aim is to elevate the standard of living for people in Africa and beyond. African nations are particularly concerned with issues of machine bias and ethics and wary of patterns of manipulation and abuse in the form of automated imperialism, algorithmic colonialism, and digital extractivism. 

Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom also have significant national strategies to address challenges posed by a future empowered by AI. Many of these nations are worried about the likelihood of global competition in AI leading to an arms race or authoritarianism fueled by information technologies. Entrepreneurs, politicians, and engineers warn of an impending “AI Cold War.” An AI arms race to create near-autonomous weapons systems is in full swing, despite being a topic of controversy. The banning of these so-called killer robots may not even be practical. Governments around the world have developed a number of other controversial applications of AI, such as image recognition and mass surveillance, predictive policing, deepfakes and misinformation campaigns, and social credit scoring.

Dangers, myths, and misconceptions

AI can be destructive even when used as an instrument for creative discovery. One of the dangers of unleashing computational creativity tools is being submerged by a culture of automation that dampens individual creative expression and dialogue with human audiences, participants, and partners. In 2022, an AI-generated artwork took first place in a fine arts competition at the Colorado State Fair, which outraged many. Only months later, an internationally acclaimed photography competition—the Sony World Photography Awards—was won by an image generated using AI. Getty Images and established art communities are refusing to accept AI-generated masterpieces. But in general, AI is valuable because it empowers humanity with tools that extend bodies and minds and mitigates risks and perilous circumstances.

Deep learning pioneer and serial entrepreneur Andrew Ng has said that worrying about AI is like worrying about overpopulation on Mars. Artificial agents will not need to be excused or incarcerated for crimes and misdemeanors that upon analysis and reflection can be traced to human error, indifference, or greed. Whole brain emulation, artificial consciousness, technological singularity, and AI apocalypse are all well over the horizon. The threats that remain are still significant. The chief near-term dangers of AI technology are pervasive and more subtle. They include risks such as over-optimization, weaponization, deception and distraction, complexification, moral and practical deskilling, amplification of competition and conflict, job losses due to automation, and harms to human uniqueness, privacy, and accountability.

What lies behind the hype and fear of AI is a fundamental misunderstanding of current objectives, as well as severe shortsightedness. Most AI is meant to supplement human intelligence, not replace it. AI is intelligence augmentation until—and only if—humanity commits and finds ways to entirely remove human beings from the loop as creators, controllers, and decisionmakers. “Exiting the loop” will prove difficult: Humans are extraordinarily skilled at handling ambiguous situations, such as intuiting the emotional state of other drivers on the road. AI will not become human-like merely because humans anthropomorphize it either. An AI program does not try to learn (although it can improve through reinforcement learning methods); it plucks statistical patterns and distributions from training data using pipelines, algorithms, and parameters unglamorously selected behind the scenes by programmers. ANNs are not reasoning the way brains do, and adversarial ML involves no clashing of titans. Thinking about the past, present, and future of AI is imperative. When IBM said that the Jeopardy!-winning Watson AI would also revolutionize medicine, it in effect denied a century of hard-won gains in health informatics R&D (and has yet to achieve its lofty promises). It is not possible to simply wave our hands and say that quantum computing, DNA data storage, and neuromorphic chips will pave the way for an AI-infused next industrial revolution. Real progress in AI comes much more slowly, albeit with occasional surprising leaps forward, and ultimately depends on the real wants and needs of human beings.

Philip L. Frana is an associate professor in the Interdisciplinary Liberal Studies and Independent Scholars programs at James Madison University. His scholarly interests focus on the social and cultural aspects of robotics, automation, and information technology.

Related content

GeoTech Cues May 22, 2023

The regulators are coming for your AI

By Steven Tiell

The Group of Seven (G7) has lobbed the latest of three notable salvos in signaling that governments around the globe are focused on regulating Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI). The G7 ministers have established the Hiroshima AI Process, an inclusive effort for governments to collaborate on AI governance, IP rights (including copyright), transparency, mis/disinformation, and responsible […]

Technology & Innovation

GeoTech Cues Jan 25, 2023

AI generates new policy risk

By Jonno Evans

New AI tools will have a huge impact on how people work and live and can support innovation and productivity across sectors. But it is also important to be mindful of its potential for misuse. Governments, policymakers, and other stakeholders must be proactive to ensure that these tools are not exploited to cause harm.

Technology & Innovation

GeoTech Center

Championing positive paths forward that societies can pursue to ensure new technologies and data empower people, prosperity, and peace.

Explore the program

The post What policymakers need to know about artificial intelligence appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Introduction

The prominence of West Africa, and Africa as a whole, within the global disinformation ecosystem cannot be ignored. A report by the Africa Center for Strategic Studies released in April 2022 identified twenty-three disinformation campaigns targeting African countries dating back to 2014. Of these campaigns, sixteen are linked to Russia.

The listed disinformation campaigns—nine of which were identified by the DFRLab—reveal two key points. First, there has been a marked increase in the number of publicly identified disinformation campaigns in recent years. Whether this is due to an increase in the scrutiny, analytical capacity, or efforts on the part of bad actors is unclear. Second, the characteristics of each of these influence operations are distinct—these operations target a wide variety of issues, such as elections, the war in Ukraine, commercial interests, and domestic and international politics.

Further, relations between France and francophone West Africa have, following years of amicable relations built on the back of military cooperation, seen a marked erosion that was underscored by the exit of the last of the French troops from Mali in August 2022. Anti-France and pro-Russia sentiments have surged contemporaneously, with overlapping narratives positioning Russia as a viable alternative to Western aid. When French forces began their departure from Mali in June 2022, Russian private military companies (PMCs) such as the Wagner Group stood ready to fill the void.

This report examines several influence operation case studies from the West African region, with a particular emphasis on Mali, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and Niger. The narratives, actors, and contexts supporting these influence operations are summarized alongside their impact on regional stability. Russian influence plays a significant role in these case studies, an unsurprising fact considering the geopolitical history of this region.

This report also includes case studies from outside the Sahel region, consisting of thematically distinct but strategically noteworthy influence campaigns from elsewhere on the continent. For example, the Nigerian government used social media influencers to suppress citizen participation in the #EndSARS movement. Elsewhere, the Ethiopian diaspora used innovative click-to-tweet campaigns to spread international awareness of the conflict in Ethiopia’s Tigray region. In South Africa, the rise in violent xenophobic demonstrations was precipitated by a popular social media campaign that normalized prejudice against foreign nationals.

The plethora of actors, targets, strategies, and tactics make a blanket approach to studying African disinformation networks difficult. The depth and breadth of these campaigns shows that Africa is facing the same challenges as the rest of the world insofar as disinformation is concerned. Moreover, the interest shown by foreign governments attests to the region’s geopolitical significance. This combination of geopolitical importance and a vulnerability to influence campaigns makes Africa a notable case study.

Background

Africa’s information environment is not monolithic Analog channels such as radio and film are used in conjunction with digital efforts to reach audiences, but Internet penetration rates and the accompanying reli- ance on analog media differ significantly from country to country For example, as of January 2022, Morocco, the Seychelles, and Egypt maintained Internet penetration rates of higher than 70 percent, nearly ten times the rate of the country with the lowest penetration rate, the Central African Republic (7 percent).

In the countries mentioned in the table above, Facebook and Instagram maintain a leading position insofar as social media penetration is concerned This can be partly ascribed to Facebook’s Free Basics service that “zero-rates” data (including Facebook and Instagram data) on participating mobile networks. These mobile networks can then bundle Facebook and Instagram data into a consumer’s service plan without the consumer having to pay extra for that data use Considering that mobile connections outstrip desktop connections, and that mo- bile data is more expensive than fixed broadband, it is clear why this has been effective to expand Facebook and Instagram’s footprint Meta shuttered the Free Basics program in some regions at the end of 2022 as the program’s spiritual successor – Meta Discover – was being rolled out The impact this will have on the information environment remains to be seen.

Social media and internet penetration rates in some of the African countries referenced in this report

With contributions from

The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) has operationalized the study of disinformation by exposing falsehoods and fake news, documenting human rights abuses, and building digital resilience worldwide.

learn more

The post The disinformation landscape in West Africa and beyond appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post CBDC tracker cited by Statista appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Further expanding this nascent industry will require chipping away at a web of challenges facing continent-wide biofuels production and biorefining, including first ensuring crops for food security are not diverted to biofuel manufacturing. To build out the potential of the biofuels industry in Africa, it is imperative that agricultural practices modernize, and adequate infrastructure be developed to enable the storage, transport, and conversion of feedstocks and fuels.

To realize this vision, the value chain for biofuel products will require substantial support from private and public sources of investment, regulators, and local market participants. Across the continent, establishing a biofuels industry will require coordinated efforts to build a supply of feedstocks and to develop adequate market-driven mechanisms for the collection and transport of feedstock to processing or refining facilities. Expanding the industry will also require feedstock-calibrated refining capabilities and distribution systems to transport biofuels to end users. Progressing to this end state will hinge on the presence of public-private partnerships to match suppliers with demand sources, technology-sharing initiatives between African nations and other economies with large biofuel industries, and targeted efforts to de-risk investment in pioneering projects and facilities through the use of concessional finance or innovative blended-finance structures, paired with technical assistance.

While full-scale deployment of biofuels may require the synchronization of several intermediate steps, the benefits are clear. Developing the biofuels industry in African countries can partially incentivize much-needed agricultural modernization across the continent, produce valuable low-carbon fuels to meet growing domestic and worldwide demand, and promote access to clean cooking, provided that food security is addressed as a prerequisite—although such efforts may be mutually reinforcing.

Maia Sparkman is an assistant director with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center (GEC), where she focuses on energy and climate policy. She supports the GEC’s research on energy access and energy system transformation in Africa; city-level climate action; and industrial decarbonization.

Prior to joining the Council, Sparkman served in the Peace Corps as a sustainable agriculture specialist in Zambia, where she worked closely with small-holder farmers and liaised with Zambia’s Ministry of Agriculture and the US Forest Service to promote climate-smart agriculture practices and diversify household nutrition.

William Tobin is a program assistant at the GEC, where he focuses on energy and climate policy. William’s research efforts center on energy transitions in emerging markets; clean energy supply chains and critical materials; the future of oil and gas; and emerging technologies such as clean hydrogen and advanced batteries.

Tobin served previously for the US Department of State at a Regional Environment, Science & Technology, and Health Office; and for two members of the US House of Representatives. He is a graduate of the University of Florida, where he earned a Bachelor of Science in biology.

Maxwell Zandi is a former young global professional at the GEC. His research interests include the geopolitical dimensions of energy policy and the water-energy-food nexus. Prior to his time at the Atlantic Council, Zandi interned at the Wilson Center and Green Powered Technology. 

Zandi holds a master’s degree in international affairs from George Washington University with a concentration in international security and US foreign policy. He also has a bachelor’s degree in political science from Villanova University. 

The Global Energy Center develops and promotes pragmatic and nonpartisan policy solutions designed to advance global energy security, enhance economic opportunity, and accelerate pathways to net-zero emissions.

learn more

The post Building a biofuels industry in Africa appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post CBDC tracker cited by Decrypt appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Mühleisen quoted in Axios on Zambia debt restructuring deal appeared first on Atlantic Council.

One of the most glaring examples of governments’ poor performance is the egregiously low number of victims governments identify—a problem I routinely faced over the last two decades working on this issue as a federal prosecutor, nongovernmental organization leader, and US ambassador. The United Nations (UN) Protocol to Combat Trafficking in Persons is one of the most widely subscribed instruments of international law, under which governments commit to identifying the people whom traffickers exploit. According to the latest TIP report, however, governments around the world reported identifying only 115,324 human trafficking victims in the last year. This number comes from data governments provide to the US State Department about the number of victims whom law enforcement or nongovernmental organizations identify and who receive protection services. Although this number is higher than last year’s number, it is slightly lower than the high of 118,932 victims identified in 2019.

Meanwhile, the estimated number of human trafficking victims is increasing. Compare the number of victims that governments reported identifying with the UN estimate based on surveys and data modeling. The UN estimates that traffickers are compelling 27.6 million people into forced labor or sex trafficking.

If 27.6 million victims exist and governments are only identifying 115,324 victims, then the world only identifies less than half of 1 percent of the estimated victims (0.4 percent). This means that 99.6 percent of victims remain trapped by their traffickers, unable to decide where they work or who touches their bodies.

Sex trafficking dominates the discussion of governments’ lackluster victim identification efforts. Forced labor has received less attention, but in this year’s TIP report governments identified a higher number of forced labor victims than in any prior year: 24,340. This improvement, along with governments prosecuting the largest number of labor traffickers, is encouraging. However, when the victim identification statistics are isolated for just forced labor, governments are only identifying 0.1 percent of the total estimated forced labor victims.

Victim identification is made even more difficult due to state-sanctioned human trafficking. The TIP report found that in eleven countries, the governments themselves trafficked people. These offenders include Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, and China, where millions of Uyghurs are forced to work in Xinjiang reeducation camps. It is especially odious when the government charged with identifying victims is, in fact, the perpetrator.

Without effective victim identification, governments cannot hold traffickers accountable, and people of goodwill cannot offer tailored, trauma-informed services to trafficking survivors. Society cannot address what it cannot identify. Victim identification is the prerequisite to successful prosecution and prevention of this crime. Yet, governments’ rate of victim identification is appallingly low.

It is time for governments to match their rhetoric with their resources and dramatically increase funding for prevention efforts, investigators, prosecutors, service providers, and trauma-informed care. Specialized investigative units should no longer be paper tigers. Survivor leadership should no longer be an ornamental add-on. Holding companies and individuals accountable for committing human trafficking crimes should no longer be elective. Human trafficking victims should no longer be prosecuted for the unlawful acts their traffickers compel them to commit.

Improvement and success must begin with increased victim identification. There are several practical steps that concerned citizens should ask their governments to take:

• Mandate that educators and health care providers become mandatory reporters.
• Invest in specialized investigative units and prosecutors focused on stopping traffickers. 
• Create pathways for survivors to rid themselves of criminal records caused by their traffickers. 
• Ensure companies are not using forced laborers to produce solar panels, electric vehicles, apparel, tomatoes, and batteries. 
• Fund trauma-informed services for survivors. 
• Elevate and center survivors in the fight to put traffickers out of business.

Traffickers thrive in an ecosystem where mere intentions and underfunded public justice systems are their only challenges. It is time for leaders to arise and become champions for freedom. Millions of victims count on governments, civil society, and faith communities to do more than merely care about their plight, designate awareness days, and think good thoughts. Survivors need the world to accelerate its strategic investment and meaningful action to increase victim identification.

John Cotton Richmond is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, chief impact officer at Atlas Free, president of the Libertas Council, and former US ambassador-at-large to monitor and combat trafficking in persons.

The post Less than half of 1 percent of human trafficking victims are identified. That needs to change. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The initiative is rare enough to draw some sarcasm about African presidents who are seeking to stop a European war when they can’t stop wars closer to home. For those critics—who overlook the work done in an effort to end the conflict in Ethiopia last year—it is hard to remember the last time such a delegation of African presidents assembled together to respond to a war on African soil. They point to cases in Khartoum, Sudan, and Goma, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where any conflict-resolution efforts were ineffectual.

Other observers see this new delegation of African leaders as an attempt by South Africa to distract people from troubles at home. The announcement of the delegation came just days after US Ambassador to South Africa Reuben Brigety’s allegation that a Russian cargo ship stocked up on ammunition and arms at a port in Cape Town in December 2022.

The recent (albeit cautious) support from United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, Washington, and European capitals—along with the varied geopolitical positions of these African countries—lent enough credit to the initiative to give it a chance. In the United Nations General Assembly’s recent vote to condemn Russia over its invasion of Ukraine—held on February 23 this year, around the one-year mark of the full-scale invasion—thirty African countries voted to condemn Russia, twenty-two countries abstained, and two supported Russia. These African leaders, representing both countries who voted to condemn Russia and countries who abstained, form the optimal group to propose a peace plan, as several of them see this as an opportunity to justify their varied positions—including neutrality—and find a diplomatic end to the war.

What does this peace plan say? Frankly, not much—at the moment. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa spoke of vague preparations and of having separate phone calls, but avoided critical details. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he was looking forward to seeing the delegation’s “concrete initiatives.”

What African leaders are weighing

Russia’s links to the African continent date back to the Cold War and a desire to support communist regimes (in places such as Guinea, Congo, and Ethiopia) and social-democratic or socialist political movements (in places such as South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe). The Soviet Union deployed forty thousand advisers across Africa between 1970 and 1975, and, over the course of the Cold War, received about sixty thousand African students—notably at the Patrice Lumumba Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, which drew students from developing countries across the world. Some major African infrastructure projects are products of partnerships with the Soviet Union, Russia, or Russian companies. Those include the Aswan Dam in Egypt, the Capanda hydroelectric dam, and power plants planned in Congo and Nigeria. These are all countries that Putin hopes to rely on in order to find the support he lacks in the Global North.

Yet, while the USSR and, later, Russia have supported Africa in these ways, Africans are unlikely to blindly align themselves with Russia. It is impossible to ignore that previous support was more inspired by a desire to compete against the United States than by a love for freedom or Africa. Today, outside observers and African publics alike cannot ignore the humanitarian cost posed by Russia’s Wagner Group militias in the Sahel, Libya, the Central African Republic, or Mozambique. It is also difficult to see African youth seduced by the Russian way of life rather than the American dream, the latter of which has been able to increase its appeal to African youth via Netflix and Silicon Valley.

In fact, even if the West can’t see what Russians could seriously offer to Africans now, it has not been very difficult for Russia to fuel the very real African resentment towards the West. For Russia and the West, Africa is a coveted asset—one that holds 28 percent of the votes at the United Nations. In the post-Cold War period, Ukraine had neither the resources nor the geopolitical interest to engage in Africa like Russia did. That gave Russian views justifying aggression a hearing in Africa that it otherwise would not have received.

The complicated relations between African countries and also between African countries and global competitors such as Russia, the United States, and others leaves African policymakers in a bind. Those policymakers must carefully balance their economic interests and historical ties.

Further complicating the choice for African policymakers is the overwhelming US and Western support for Ukraine, in contrast to the lack of support and attention for African countries facing conflict. African countries, out of national interest, are looking to diversify their partnerships; they will need to balance their specific needs and local contexts in this geopolitical chaos.

A change in the narrative

The delegation of African presidents aiming to bring an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine offers a unique opportunity for these leaders to be a part of the solution to a global problem and no longer rest on the sidelines of geopolitics as collateral victims.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine caused a considerable increase in the price of grains, worsening food security particularly in the Horn of Africa; at the same time,it has also allowed Africa to step up as an alternative producer of some critical goods. For example in the energy sector, as Europe diversified away from Russian energy supplies, Africa helped fill the void, with Algeria now among the top four exporters of gas to Europe and with Egypt also bolstering its gas-export capacity, according to its Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources. Recent hydrocarbon discoveries in Senegal and Mozambique are set to come online in the years ahead. These significant actions show that Africa is playing a leadership role and refusing to sit on the sidelines as a victim of geopolitical fallout.  

Africa has the peace and conflict-resolution experience to put forward in ending Eastern Europe’s geopolitical crisis. Even if African efforts have not always been successful, these efforts are valuable; the leaders behind them still have crucial experience in conflict management. Some might argue that the existence of countless conflict resolution tools, demobilization programs, peace-building mechanisms, and strategic frameworks such as the Peace and Security Council of the African Union indicate that African leaders fail to settle the conflicts and wars happening in their own countries; but in reality, the existence of these initiatives shows that African leaders have created dialogue where there were voids, demobilized fighters so they could return home, and, in some cases, helped societies address the horrors of war and build a lasting peace. Several of the leaders in the African peace delegation have participated in responding to violent conflict or have worked to end conflict. That experience may be usefully applied to Russia’s war on Ukraine.

By bringing the unique peace initiative together, African presidents are attempting to advance their leadership on the global stage. This is an incredible challenge for a continent that has often been applauded for its potential, but which must now deliver.

Rama Yade is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center and a senior fellow at the Europe Center. She is a professor at Sciences Po Paris and Mohammed 6 Polytechnic University in Morocco. She was a member of the French cabinet, serving as deputy minister for foreign affairs and human rights and ambassador to UNESCO.

AfricaSource Jun 21, 2022

How Africa is responding to the war in Ukraine

For the 2022 Africa Day, the Atlantic Council was happy to host top top DC think tank voices for a discussion on Africa and the new geopolitical order.

Africa Politics & Diplomacy

AfricaSource Jun 16, 2022

The Ukraine war is giving Europe a chance to reset ties with Africa

By Rama Yade

The war in Ukraine has sent shock waves throughout the international system. For both Europe and Africa, it means a strengthened relationship is more imperative than ever.

Africa Energy & Environment

AfricaSource Aug 30, 2022

Inaction to reform the international development system is not an option anymore

By Rama Yade

Africans are looking at the United States’ focus on the war in Ukraine and on tensions in the Indo-Pacific, and they’re wondering: Will the United States truly consider African countries as strategic partners as China and Russia claim to do?

Africa International Financial Institutions

The Africa Center works to promote dynamic geopolitical partnerships with African states and to redirect US and European policy priorities toward strengthening security and bolstering economic growth and prosperity on the continent.

Learn more

The post Give Africa’s peace delegation for Ukraine a chance appeared first on Atlantic Council.

This month’s topline events

G7 Unites on China. At a G7 summit meeting in Hiroshima, Japan, President Joe Biden and other democratic leaders came together on China, pledging to “derisk” without “decoupling” from China’s economy and agreeing on a coordinating mechanism to counter economic coercion and an initiative to diversify supply chains. The G7 also called out Beijing’s militancy in the Indo-Pacific and political interference in democracies, while making clear it was prepared to “build constructive and stable relations” with China. With European allies eager to calm tensions, Biden also indicated he expected a thaw in relations with Beijing, as US officials began a new round of bilateral meetings with their Chinese counterparts.

• Shaping the order. The summit’s success in projecting a common front on China could set the table for meaningful policy coordination between the US and its allies, particularly on economic issues. The prospects of a more unified approach appear to have garnered concern in Beijing, which summoned Japan’s ambassador to rebuke the G7’s effort to “smear and attack China.” But as highlighted by French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent visit to Beijing, the US and its allies still have a ways to go to coordinate efforts on engaging with the world’s second largest economy.
• Hitting home. America’s economy will be more secure over time if the US and its allies are able to reduce dependence on Chinese products in critical industries and limit Beijing’s ability to engage in economic coercion.
• What to do. Building on the momentum generated by the summit, the Biden administration should seek to formulate a common allied strategy for how to deal with China over the longer term.

Ukraine Gets F-16’s. With Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky traveling to Japan to join the G7 leaders summit, President Biden indicated that the US had agreed to allow allies to deliver US-built F-16 fighter planes to Ukraine and will participate in a joint effort to train Ukrainian pilots. The move comes as Russian forces appeared to take full control of Bakhmut, ending a monthslong battle for the eastern city and constituting Russia’s first battlefield victory in nearly a year. But the success may be fleeting, as Ukraine prepared for the launch of a major counteroffensive operation.

• Shaping the order. Biden’s decision on F-16’s marks another major shift on weapons support that could substantially bolster the ability of Ukrainian forces to push back Russian forces, though it will be several months before Ukrainian pilots will be able to use the planes in combat. More broadly, Zelensky’s appearance at the G7 summit served as a further demonstration of democratic solidarity and an indicator for how significantly relations with Russia – once a member of the G7 (then the G8) – have deteriorated.
• Hitting home. Americans will be safer if Ukraine succeeds in standing up to Russia’s aggression and flagrant assault on its democratic neighbor.
• What to do. The Biden administration should work with allies to expedite the training of Ukrainian pilots and facilitate the delivery of the F-16’s, while also reconsidering its position on providing ATACMS, the longer range missile system that could also bolster Ukraine’s ability to succeed.

Arab League Welcomes Assad.  After years of diplomatic isolation following his use of chemical weapons and commission of widescale atrocities against civilians to crush a popular uprising, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was warmly received by Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Sultan and other Arab leaders at an Arab League Summit in Jeddah. The move comes as Assad continues to consolidate his grip on power, while Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states enter a rapprochement with Iran.

• Shaping the order. The Arab League’s normalization of relations with Assad – a murderous dictator responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians – is a demoralizing setback for efforts to advance a rules-based, democratic order. Assad’s resurrection appears to be part of a global trend of welcoming authoritarian leaders back from the cold, as Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro was invited by Brazil to participate in a South American leaders summit, sending the message to autocrats that violent repression ultimately pays dividends.
• Hitting home. The rehabilitation of autocrats like Assad undermines American values and US interests in a stable and prosperous world order.
• What to do. The US and its democratic allies should stand together in opposing Assad’s reintegration into the international community, and maintain sanctions and other efforts to ensure that Assad is ultimately held accountable for his actions.

Quote of the Month

“Russia’s aggression against Ukraine… has shaken the international order… [Japan] has a mission to uphold the free and open international order based on the rule of law, and to demonstrate to the world its determination to fully defend peace and prosperity.”
– Japanese Prime Minister Kishida, speaking at the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, May 21, 2023

State of the Order this month: Unchanged

Assessing the five core pillars of the democratic world order    

Democracy (↓)

• Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was given a warm welcome at an Arab League Summit in Jeddah, after years of diplomatic isolation following his use of chemical weapons and commission of widescale atrocities against civilians.
• After facing his biggest election challenge in over two decades, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan won re-election amidst a campaign process marred by pro-government media bias, limits on free speech, and other obstacles on the opposition.
• Venezuela’s authoritarian leader Nicolas Maduro was invited to participate in a summit of South American leaders in Brazil, as Brazilin president Lula de Silva joined Maduro in criticizing US sanctions against Venezuela.
• Overall, the democracy pillar was weakened.

Security ()

• President Biden agreed to allow NATO allies to deliver US-built F-16 fighter planes to Ukraine, while pledging US participation in a joint effort to train Ukrainian pilots.
• The US signed a new defense cooperation agreement with Papua New Guinea – the largest island nation in the Pacific – that will deepen security ties between the two nations, as Washington seeks to counter China’s rising influence in the region.
• In a show of solidarity, Chinese President Xi Jinping told visiting Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin that Beijing will maintain “firm support” for Moscow’s “core interest.”
• The US accused South Africa of secretly supplying arms to Russia, despite the country’s professed neutrality on the war in Ukraine – a claim South African leaders initially denied and then promised to investigate.
• Russia and Belarus signed an agreement formalizing the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, a move that appears intended as a warning to the West as it steps up support for Ukraine.
• On balance, the security pillar was unchanged.

Trade (↑)

• The US and its G7 partners agreed to establish a new coordinating mechanism to counter economic coercion and launch a new initiative to diversify supply chains away from China, while pledging to “derisk” without “decoupling” from China’s economy.
• The US and Taiwan reached a trade and investment agreement in an effort to liberalize and deepen economic ties between the two nations.
• China signed a free trade agreement with Ecuador, as Beijing looks to deepen its economic ties and influence in Latin America.
• G7 leaders agreed to new economic sanctions against Russia for its war in Ukraine, and the US announced a slate of new measures to restrict Russian trade. The UK followed suit, announcing a ban on Russian diamonds.
• On balance, the trade pillar was strengthened.

Commons ()

• G7 Leaders released a Clean Energy Action Plan, providing commitments across seven specific areas, including promoting clean energy technologies, with goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 and limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
• A joint report by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization and World Food Programme contends that, unless immediate action is taken, acute food insecurity will likely be exacerbated over the next six months.
• The World Health Organization declared an end to the COVID-19 global health emergency, marking an end to one of the most deadly and devastating pandemics in modern history.
• On balance, the global commons pillar was unchanged.

Alliances (↑)

• Meeting in Hiroshima, President Biden and his G7 counterparts reaffirmed their solidarity to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky joined the summit in-person. G7 leaders also came together on China, pledging to counter economic coercion and voicing opposition to Beijing’s militarization of the Indo-Pacific.
• President Biden joined leaders of the Indo-Pacific Quad – US, Australia, India, and Japan – for a summit in Hiroshima, resulting in a joint pledge to cooperate toward a region where “where all countries are free from coercion” – an indirect reference to China.
• US Secretary of State Tony Blinken traveled to Oslo for a NATO foreign ministers meeting to discuss potential security guarantees for Ukraine, including the possibility of NATO membership, though allies remain divided on the issue.
• Overall, the alliance pillar was strengthened. 

Strengthened (↑)________Unchanged ()________Weakened (↓)

What is the democratic world order? Also known as the liberal order, the rules-based order, or simply the free world, the democratic world order encompasses the rules, norms, alliances, and institutions created and supported by leading democracies over the past seven decades to foster security, democracy, prosperity, and a healthy planet.

This month’s top reads

Three must-read commentaries on the democratic order     

• Liza Tobin, in Foreign Policy, argues that US policy toward China should be reoriented to achieve what should be American’s long-term goal of a democratic China.
• Emile Hokeinam, in Foreign Affairs, suggests that Syrian president Assad has turned a weak hand into a winning one, and that the Arab embrace of Assad will only encourage more brutality.
• Soner Cagaptay, in Foreign Affairs, opines that President Erdogan’s victory in the Turkish elections could solidify Turkey’s shift from an illiberal democracy to a Putin-style autocracy.

Action and analysis by the Atlantic Council

Our experts weigh in on this month’s events

• Fred Kempe, in Inflection Points, contends that the drama of US debt ceiling negotiations underscores the enduring promise of America’s global leadership and the growing perils of its decline.
• Dan Fried and Aaron Korewa, in the New Atlanticist, explore the potential for Poland to serve as a leader in Europe amidst the ongoing political turmoil.
• Ash Jain was quoted in Foreign Policy on US efforts to win over countries in dealing with China, by not talking about China.
• Joslyn Brodfueher and Zelma Sergejeva, writing for the Atlantic Council, highlight the potential to fortify NATO’s unified front against Russian aggression as the alliance prepares for its upcoming summit in Vilnius.
• Matthew Kroenig, in Foreign Policy, suggests that even Machiavelli preferred democracy over tyranny, because democracies have stronger political institutions that provide the source for greater national power and influence.

__________________________________________________

The Democratic Order Initiative is an Atlantic Council initiative aimed at reenergizing American global leadership and strengthening cooperation among the world’s democracies in support of a rules-based democratic order. Sign on to the Council’s Declaration of Principles for Freedom, Prosperity, and Peace by clicking here.

Ash Jain – Director for Democratic Order
Dan Fried – Distinguished Fellow
Soda Lo – Project Assistant

If you would like to be added to our email list for future publications and events, or to learn more about the Democratic Order Initiative, please email AJain@atlanticcouncil.org.

The post State of the Order: Assessing May 2023 appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Chhibber, Mohseni-Cheraghlou, and Narayanan cited in ORF report on Bretton Woods and development appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Through the purchase of carbon credits, corporations can immediately reduce their global carbon footprints while also serving their long-term economic interests to expand their market bases. That is in part because, by purchasing high-quality carbon credits in voluntary carbon markets, these companies can support the sustainable growth of low- and middle-income populations in the world’s fastest-growing regions—including across the African continent.

Voluntary carbon markets allow entities like corporations and individuals to buy carbon credits entirely at their discretion to offset their emissions. These markets differ from compliance markets, which feature legally binding emissions-reduction obligations, often under cap-and-trade structures like those in the European Union and California. Carbon credits are not intended to replace corporate emissions-reduction efforts; rather, they can serve as an additional mechanism to accelerate transitions to net zero, offset unavoidable emissions, and direct capital to regions with insufficient local investment.

Although still relatively immature, voluntary carbon markets have grown considerably—in 2022, their overall value surpassed two billion dollars, a fourfold increase from 2020, and African credits have grown 36 percent on average over the last five years. However, this rapid growth coupled with a lack of underlying structure has led to various issues, including concerns about the quality and legitimacy of many carbon credits sold, which cast doubt on the credits’ actual contributions to climate-change mitigation and stall market growth. Additionally, some carbon credits, which are primarily purchased by corporations based in the Global North, have hindered development in the Global South. For example, some governments in the Global South have forced local communities to sell land for the purpose of creating carbon credits. Organizations such as the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market are working to solve the various issues related to the voluntary carbon market; in March, it released the first part of its “Core Carbon Principles,” outlining standards around carbon credits to ensure that offset efforts create verifiable impact.

Carbon-credit prices currently lack standardization, with prices being determined by the type or specific characteristics of the credits. They typically range from under four dollars per ton for lower-quality credits, often renewable energy projects, to over one hundred dollars for higher-quality credits, mainly tons removed from the atmosphere through carbon-removal technologies such as direct air capture. However, with large-scale removal technology still in development stages, removal projects accounted for just 3 percent of all projects issuing credits in 2022. In recent years, low-priced or “junk” credits have flooded the market, enabling dozens of companies to claim carbon-neutral status while only making limited environmental impact. At the twenty-seventh United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties, Kristalina Georgieva, head of the International Monetary Fund, asserted that unless carbon credits are priced on a trajectory that attains a seventy-five-dollar average price per ton by 2030, climate goals will remain out of reach. While Georgieva’s comments were likely targeted at compliance markets, pricing between the two markets is inherently connected, and there’s interest in formalizing that connection. By adopting thoughtful carbon-credit-purchasing strategies, including by supporting higher-quality credits that accurately reflect the value of a carbon ton, corporations can strengthen the voluntary carbon market and help it integrate it with compliance markets, rather than delegitimize it.

As rating agencies in the industry mature, corporations will need to take it upon themselves to work with these players and do their own due diligence to ensure that the carbon credits they purchase are high quality, as determined by key characteristics. For example, high-quality credits are “additional”: In other words, the emission reduction would not have occurred without the offset financing activity, an increasingly difficult hurdle for renewable energy credits. A high-quality credit is also quantifiable, in that it is produced by a project that can properly track resulting emissions reductions, and brings other environmental benefits such as improving air quality or enhancing biodiversity. Corporations may need to hire teams to analyze and determine the best partners to purchase credits from or work with trusted brokers with shared values. It will require collaborating with governments, banks, and other industry players to help build the necessary infrastructure and integration with compliance markets.

Thoughtful participation comes at a price, leaving open the question of why corporations should, if not mandated, participate sincerely or meaningfully in voluntary carbon markets at all. Engaging cheaply just to claim carbon-neutral status, what many call “greenwashing,” will likely become meaningless to consumers soon. While corporations may be incentivized to invest in credits to get ahead of regulatory risk or to appease investors, another often unmentioned reason is to support and grow their future consumer bases. Many opportunities for high-quality carbon credits are in the Global South, which will be disproportionately affected by climate change—and also host the largest urban centers and burgeoning middle-income populations. By the end of the century, Africa is projected to be the only continent experiencing population growth and will be home to thirteen of the world’s twenty largest urban areas. India’s population just surpassed China’s. If the Global South is not supported in its sustainable growth, achieving climate goals will become nearly impossible, and economic environments will become less prosperous.

Instead, by purchasing high-quality carbon credits, corporations can help build a sustainable future that expands economic opportunity in the Global South. For example, corporations can purchase reduction credits by supporting organizations like KOKO Networks, which developed a bioethanol cooker and fuel dispensary service in the hopes of transitioning the third of the world’s population that currently cooks on charcoal or wood (particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia) to a less carbon-heavy and less pollutive fuel source. By integrating hardware (their cookstove) with software (data collected at their dispensaries) KOKO Networks is able to properly measure its carbon impact and issue carbon credits to account for the reduction in emissions. Other such organizations are LifeStraw, which prevents carbon-dioxide emissions generated from boiling water via wood or charcoal by offering a drinking straw that filters water, and Mauto, which recently closed a five-million-dollar transaction to deploy electric two-wheelers across Africa. While more advanced technologies for carbon removal may prove fruitful in the future, corporations should not overlook the credits available today via initiatives like these that can have an immediate impact on ensuring Africa and other regions’ low- and middle-income populations grow sustainably.

Carbon-reduction credits (in contrast to carbon-removal credits) can help shift high-polluting consumer behaviors to sustainable practices in the world’s fastest-growing markets. When purchasing a bioethanol cookstove or an electric vehicle is not financially feasible in African markets, the sale of carbon credits could effectively subsidize these products and make them available to consumers at competitive prices. On the individual level, a mother in Nairobi can cook cleanly in her home, improving her family’s health, resulting in possibly lower medical costs or fewer days of missed work. On a larger scale, avoiding deforestation can help lessen the local impact of climate change because forests regulate weather conditions and help to avoid massive droughts or monsoons that can destroy crops and livelihoods. It is in corporations’ best interest to ensure African consumers are increasingly economically advantaged, a reality that is only possible through sustainable expansion, and carbon credits serve as one tool to support this growth.

By participating in the voluntary carbon market and purchasing high-quality carbon credits, corporations can contribute to sustainable development in the urban centers of tomorrow, while serving their own business interests. Rather than turning away from carbon credits due to the difficulties involved, corporations should lean in and consider which credits can best support their future customers.

Aubrey Rugo is co-president of the London Business School Tech & Media Club.

Further reading

AfricaSource Dec 2, 2022

The Africa investment imperative: Diversification and resilience amid economic downturns

By Aubrey Hruby and Guillaume Arditti

At a time when investors are faced with high risks due to a global economic downturn, African markets are a viable investment opportunity.

Africa Democratic Transitions

AfricaSource Jul 8, 2022

Europe’s Green Deal plan is Africa’s green finance opportunity

By Emilie Bel

Can natural gas and nuclear power be green? “Sometimes, and for a limited period of time,” said the European Parliament on July 6, as part of an ongoing negotiation over the EU taxonomy, a key component of the European Green Deal (EGD). The EGD is the European Union’s ambitious plan to create the first emissions-neutral […]

Africa Climate Change & Climate Action

AfricaSource Apr 23, 2021

Climate change will not be fixed without Africa

By Rama Yade

When Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi spoke at the virtual Leaders Summit on Climate this week, he had the force of the continent behind him. And his message was that developed countries must do more. As the summit comes to a close, the world still has so much to learn from Africa about how to tackle the climate crisis—if the world would only listen.

Africa Climate Change & Climate Action

The Africa Center works to promote dynamic geopolitical partnerships with African states and to redirect US and European policy priorities toward strengthening security and bolstering economic growth and prosperity on the continent.

Learn more

The post Through carbon markets, corporations have a role to play in Africa’s development. They should take it seriously. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Since the fighting erupted in mid-April, at least 259,000 people have crossed over from Sudan into neighboring countries—namely Egypt, Chad, Eritrea, and the Central Africa Republic—according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM). But Egypt—which shares its southern border with Sudan—is the worst affected.  

A primary destination for people fleeing the violence, Egypt has received more than fifty thousand people from across the border. Hundreds of thousands more are expected to cross into the country in the coming months if the fighting continues. The mass influx not only threatens to aggravate the humanitarian crisis on Egypt’s side of the border, but it also threatens to overstretch the country’s resources at a time when it faces a deepening economic crisis, which risks further disgruntling its disaffected population.   

But the Egyptian government has a lot more to worry about than rising public discontent caused by the immense economic pressure. The possible infiltration of extremist groups into Egypt is currently a prime concern for authorities. It’s a case of once bitten, twice shy.

Over the past decade, the Egyptian army and police have been the target of multiple terrorist attacks by Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)-affiliated jihadists that crossed into Egypt from the shared eastern border with the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, troops have been deployed along Egypt’s Western border with Libya to curb terrorist infiltration and a repeat of similar attacks. The recent release of pro-Muslim Brotherhood figures from a prison in Sudan has heightened Cairo’s fears of the opening of a new front in Egypt’s war on terrorism. 

Another major concern for Egypt is the Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) strong ties with Ethiopia. Egypt has sought the backing of Sudan in its ongoing dispute with Ethiopia over the downstream country’s share of Nile waters. This, following the construction and filling of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), considered by Egypt to be an “existential threat.” Should Egypt decide to use the military option against Ethiopia at any time in the future, it may have to do so unilaterally, as it would no longer have Sudan on its side.

President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has ruled out any intervention in Sudan, arguing that the Sudanese crisis was an “internal” matter. He has also pledged that Egypt would not take sides in the conflict and has offered to mediate between Sudan’s rival factions. However, skeptics suggest that Egypt is already deeply involved in Khartoum. They affirm that the Egyptian military backs the Sudanese army with which it forged strong ties following the overthrow of the Islamist-leaning former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in 2019.  

Some analysts argue that the stakes are too high for Cairo to stand idly by and watch as the situation deteriorates.

It is no secret that Cairo has long backed the Sudanese army with the conviction that it is the sole institution that can restore stability in Sudan. Egypt cemented its ties with the Sudanese army by conducting joint military exercises with Sudan after Bashir was deposed by the military in the wake of mass protests in Sudan. Egyptian authorities are looking to Abdel Fattah El-Burhan, Sudan’s de facto military leader, to quash the nascent pro-democracy movement that emerged during Sudan’s 2019 mass uprising and to restore security and stability in Sudan—moves that Cairo perceives as serving its interests. 

The capture of two hundred Egyptian soldiers—the majority of whom were air force personnel—at a military base in the northern Sudanese town of Meroe by the RSF in mid-April, as well as a leaked video showing the soldiers in a state of defeat, were perceived as an act of provocation by Cairo. The humiliating episode also provoked an outcry on social media platforms. 

The RSF believed Egyptian soldiers were siding with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) but later apologized for releasing the video. Meanwhile, in an apparent attempt to save face, Sisi insisted that the Egyptian troops were in Sudan “for training purposes” and gave the RSF a seventy-two-hour ultimatum to return the soldiers home safely. The troops were indeed sent back to Egypt on April 19, but some analysts believe that the incident has not been forgotten and are guessing Cairo may be waiting for the right moment to retaliate.      

There have been unconfirmed reports that Egypt has provided the SAF with military intelligence and tactical support. Sources have also cited unconfirmed bombings of RSF positions by Egyptian fighter jets and say Egypt is contemplating invading Sudan to fight the powerful paramilitary forces (RSF) led by Mohamed Hamdan Daglo, known as Hemetti. 

If the reports are accurate, this will this pit Egypt against the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—Egypt’s longtime ally and principal financial backer—which has thrown its weight behind the RSF. It would also pit Egypt against Libyan warlord General Khalifa Haftar,  another RSF supporter, whose forces control much of eastern Libya and who was backed by Egypt and the RSF during his failed onslaught on Tripoli in 2019.

All of this puts Egypt in a dilemma. On the one hand, it would like to see stability and security restored in Sudan for fear of violence spilling over into its territory. On the other, Sudan’s northern neighbor does not wish to risk ruffling the feathers of the UAE by overtly taking an opposing side in the conflict. Cash-strapped Egypt has been selling government-owned assets to the wealthy Gulf nation to shore up its troubled economy. Agitating the UAE may cause it to halt its investments in Egypt, denying the North African country the cash it badly needs to plug a financing gap of $17 billion over the next four years.  

It is safer for Egypt to continue to support the SAF covertly or indirectly without publicly announcing its anti-RSF position. Still, with the evacuation of foreigners from Sudan nearly complete, expectations are rife that a full-scale Egyptian military invasion of Sudan is imminent—assuming the conflict drags on. According to some analysts, invading Sudan would give Egypt an opportunity to reassert its leadership role in the region.

By brokering a truce between rival factions in Sudan, Egypt also stands to win favor with global powers—the United States in particular—which had been pinning their hopes on a  handover of power to a civilian government. A return to civilian rule had been a bone of contention between Burhan and the RSF, with the latter accusing Sudan’s military leaders of clinging to power. 

Helping end the conflict in Sudan would also allow Egypt to align its foreign policy and interests with the United States, reversing a previous trend of having conflicting viewpoints on regional issues. This would pave the way for greater cooperation between the US and its longtime Middle Eastern ally, and would undoubtedly help in defusing tensions over opposing stances on several issues, including Egypt’s backing of Haftar during the civil war in Libya and recently leaked reports of Egypt’s secret plans to supply rockets to Russia.  

Egypt’s strategic relations with Russia have irked the United States the most. It may now be the time for Cairo to show the Biden administration that Egypt’s cooperation with Russia—which has included arms deals and a contract for a civilian nuclear facility—is not an attempt to turn its back on US support, but rather, diversify its sources of support. 

Thus, while there are many complex factors that might dissuade Egypt from intervening overtly in Sudan, the possibility of an invasion cannot be ruled out. The chance to smooth over ties with the US is a juicy incentive, as are the benefits that would arise from bringing stability and security to the surrounding region. 

Shahira Amin is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and an independent journalist based in Cairo. A former contributor to CNN’s Inside Africa, Amin has been covering the development in post-revolution Egypt for several outlets including Index on Censorship and Al-Monitor. Follow her on Twitter @sherryamin13.

The post Is Egypt planning a full-scale invasion of Sudan?  appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In this edition of the Global Sanctions Dashboard, we cover:

• New sanctions packages against Russia released ahead of the G7 Summit.
• How the United States is tackling export controls circumvention and what should improve moving forward.
• The enforcement and effectiveness of the oil price cap.
• The failure of the US sanctions policy towards Sudan, and how to fix it.

New sanctions packages against Russia released ahead of the G7 Summit

The Ukrainian intelligence assessment from 2022 indicated that forty out of fifty-two components recovered from the Iranian Shahed-136 drone that was downed in Ukraine last fall had been manufactured by thirteen different American companies, while the remaining twelve were made in Canada, Switzerland, Japan, Taiwan, and China. The case revealed that it was not enough to impose sanctions and export controls on Russian defense companies. Not only was Iran providing drones to Russia, but also certain entities and individuals in countries such as Switzerland and Liechtenstein have procured materials on Russia’s behalf. This is why the United States released a new sanctions package ahead of the G7 summit, targeting a much wider international network of Russia sanctions and export controls evasion. 

Finland, Switzerland, Cyprus, United Arab Emirates, India, Singapore—these are just a few locations associated with individuals and entities included in the Treasury Department’s newest designations against Russia. Entities and individuals located in these countries have aided Russia’s circumvention efforts or provided materials for Russia’s military procurement. Among the sanctioned individuals are Swiss-Italian businessman Walter Moretti and his colleagues in Germany and India, who have sold advanced technology to Russian state-owned enterprises. Liechtenstein-based Trade Initiative Establishment (TIE) and its network of two companies and four individuals have been procuring semiconductor production equipment for sanctioned Russian entities since 2012. 

Along with the United States, the United Kingdom also imposed sanctions against eighty-six individuals and entities from Russian energy, metals, financial, and military sectors who have been enhancing Russia’s capacity to wage the war. Additionally, the European Union (EU) is developing its eleventh package of sanctions which will reportedly, for the first time, target Chinese entities facilitating Russia’s evasion efforts. Coordinating the designation and enforcing processes among the G7 allies will be key in synchronizing the targeting of Russia’s evasion and procurement networks.

Export controls circumvention: How the US is tackling it and what should improve moving forward

While sanctions aim to cut entities and individuals procuring technology for the Russian military out of the global financial system, export controls are designed to prevent them from physically acquiring components. G7 allies have levied significant export controls on Russia, but enforcing export controls is easier said than done. Third countries from Russia’s close neighborhood have stepped up to fill Russia’s technology shortages caused by other countries complying with export controls. Central Asian and Caucasus countries had a significant uptick in exports of electronic components to Russia, while Turkey, Serbia, and Kazakhstan have been supplying semiconductors to Moscow. Even if exported electronic components are not designed for military application, Russians have been able to extract semiconductors and electronic components for military use even from refrigerators and dishwashers. The sudden boost in electronic equipment exports from Central Asia and the Caucasus to Russia can only be explained by Russia’s efforts of repurposing them for military use. 

In response to Russia’s efforts to obtain technology by all means possible, the US Departments of Commerce and Justice have jointly launched the Disruptive Technology Strike Force. The goal of the Strike Force is to prevent Russia and adversarial states such as China and Iran from illicitly getting their hands on advanced US technology. The Strike Force recently announced criminal charges against individuals supplying software and hardware source codes stolen from US tech companies to China. The Strike Force embodies the whole-of-government approach the United States has been taking in investigating sanctions and export controls evasion cases. The prosecutorial and investigative expertise of the Justice Department, coupled with the Treasury’s ability to identify and block the sanctions evaders from the US financial system, will amplify the impact of the Commerce Department’s export controls and enhance their investigations and enforcement.  

The US Department of Commerce has also teamed up with Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to publish a joint supplemental alert outliniing red flags for potential Russian export controls evasion that financial institutions should watch out for and report on, consistent with their compliance reporting requirements. The red flags include but are not limited to:

• Payments for dual-use goods to companies located outside of the Global Export Controls Coalition (GECC) countries. 
• A new customer who trades in the nine Harmonized System (HS) codes, is located outside of the GECC countries and was incorporated after February 24, 2022. 
• A consumer who refuses to provide details to banks about end users or company ownership. 

Providing information to the public in the form of alerts and advisories is an effective step to increase awareness, financial institution reporting, and compliance with Western sanctions and exports controls. The Disruptive Technology Strike Force should consider issuing a multilateral advisory on export control evasion with G7 allies to bring in foreign partner perspectives, similar to the multilateral advisory issued in March on sanctions evasion by the Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs Task Force (REPO)

Regarding third-country intermediaries suspected of supplying Russia with dual-use technology, G7 allies should prioritize capacity building and encouraging political will in these countries to strengthen sanctions and customs enforcement. Building up their capacity to monitor and record what products are being exported to Russia could be the first step towards this goal. For example, Georgian authorities returned goods and vehicles destined for Russia and Belarus in 204 cases. However, registration certificates did not identify the codes of returned goods in fifty cases, and clarified that the goods were sanctioned only in seventy-one cases. Developing a system for identifying controlled goods and making the customs data easily accessible to the public could both salvage Georgia’s reputation and enhance export control enforcement against Russia.

The enforcement and effectiveness of the oil price cap

The US Department of the Treasury recently published a report analyzing the effects of the oil price cap, arguing that the novel tool has achieved its dual objective of reducing revenue for Moscow while keeping global oil prices relatively stable. A recent study by the Kyiv School of Economics Institute backs up this statement with detailed research of the Russian ports and the payments made to Russian sellers. However, Russian crude oil exports to China through the Russian Pacific port of Kozmino might be examples of transactions where the price cap approach does not hold.

In response, the Department of the Treasury warned US ship owners and flagging registries to use maritime intelligence services for detecting when tankers are disguising their port of call in Russia. Meanwhile, commodities brokers and oil traders should invoice shipping, freight, customs, and insurance costs separately, and ensure that the price of Russian oil is below 60 dollars. 

Despite China’s imports of Russian crude oil, the world average price for Russian crude oil in the first quarter of 2023 was 58.62 dollars, which supports the claim about the success of the oil price cap, at least for now. Notably, Russia’s energy revenues dropped by almost 40 percent from December 2022 to January 2023, likely in part due to the price cap combined with lower global energy prices.

Beyond Russia: The failure of US sanctions policy towards Sudan, and how to fix it.

While the world has been focused on the G7 summit, the crisis worsened in Sudan. In April 2023, President Biden issued Executive Order 14098 (EO 14098) authorizing future sanctions on foreign persons to address the situation in Sudan and to support a transition to democracy and a civilian transitional government in Sudan. The use of sanctions to support policy goals in Africa is not new. In the case of EO 14098, policymakers seek to use future sanctions on individuals responsible for threatening the peace, security, and stability of Sudan, undermining Sudan’s democratic transition, as well as committing violence against civilians or perpetuating other human rights abuses. 

Much has been written and studied about the effectiveness of sanctions programs in Africa with many programs suffering from being poorly designed, organized, implemented, or enforced. Sudan faced statutory sanctions from its designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism from 1993 to 2020 and US Treasury sanctions from 1997 to 2017 both of which produced limited results due to ineffective enforcement and maintenance of the program. A near-total cut-off of Sudan from the US financial system pushed Sudan to develop financial ties beyond the reach of the US dollar.

Sanctions in Sudan can be useful if applied in concert with more concrete action. US policymakers must elevate Sudan on their priority list and engage their counterparts at sufficiently senior levels in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere to encourage them to apply pressure on the Sudanese generals. This could be done by freezing and seizing their financial, business, real estate, and other assets in these relevant countries. Cutting off those links will impede the two generals’ ability to fight, resupply weapons, and pay their soldiers, which could force them back to the negotiating table.

Kimberly Donovan is the director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative within the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center. Follow her at @KDonovan_AC.

Maia Nikoladze is the assistant director at the Economic Statecraft Initiative within the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center. Follow her at @Mai_Nikoladze.

Benjamin Mossberg is the deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center.

Castellum.AI partners with the Economic Statecraft Initiative and provides sanctions data for the Global Sanctions Dashboard and Russia Sanctions Database.

Global Sanctions Dashboard

The Global Sanctions Dashboard provides a global overview of various sanctions regimes and lists. Each month you will find an update on the most recent listings and delistings and insights into the motivations behind them.

Explore Here

At the intersection of economics, finance, and foreign policy, the GeoEconomics Center is a translation hub with the goal of helping shape a better global economic future.

Learn more

The post Global Sanctions Dashboard: US and G7 allies target Russia’s evasion and procurement networks appeared first on Atlantic Council.

On May 17, Scowcroft Strategy Initiative Nonresident Senior Fellow Patrick Quirk co-authored a piece for Just Security on the importance of developing a US strategy towards hybrid regimes that promotes US interests whilst remaining steadfast in the US’ commitments to democratic values.

The authors go on to posit that prolonged engagements with hybrid regimes, in the long term, risks impeding upon the US’ global interests, as non-democratic regimes are less likely to uphold the US’ interests on the global stage, and may prove detrimental to the US’ posture in its strategic competition with China.

Fellow

Patrick Quirk

Nonresident Senior Fellow

Freedom and Prosperity Center Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Civil Society Conflict

The post Quirk in Just Security on adapting the US strategy towards hybrid regimes appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In recognition of this reality, the Atlantic Council’s Distinguished Leadership Awards in Washington, DC on Thursday evening honored an all-female slate of awardees who embody “the rising role of women’s leadership in shaping a better world,” as Atlantic Council Chairman John F.W. Rogers put it.  

World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is the first woman to serve in her role, leading the trade body as it has navigated unprecedented challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and global instability. US Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines is also a path-paver. As the first woman to oversee the US Intelligence Community, she has steered its work to address escalating global threats. 

Nasdaq Chair and CEO Adena T. Friedman, the first woman to lead a major US stock exchange operator, has focused her tenure on modernizing and diversifying Nasdaq. And General Laura J. Richardson, commander of US Southern Command, has used her passion for global security to promote the rule of law, human rights, and democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

Rounding out the roster are the brave Iranian women and girls who have stood up, despite enormous risks, to fight the Iranian Republic’s discriminatory laws, drawing support and attention from across the world.  

“This group is a representation of how far we have come,” Richardson said as she accepted her award, “but also a reminder of how much work there is to be done.”  

Below are more highlights from the gala. 

Laura Richardson: “A solution to these complex challenges… starts with the United States” 

• The four-star general issued a call to action for Latin America and the Caribbean: “Our partners are struggling to deliver for their people,” she warned. 
• The region, Richardson explained, is getting hit by the effects of poverty, crime, climate change, and the COVID-19 pandemic. “This desperate situation allows the Chinese Communist Party to step in,” she said, adding that China presents its Belt and Road Initiative to Latin American countries under the guise of wanting to invest. But it’s “really to extract countries’ critical infrastructure,” she explained, with China providing “its debt traps of loans, shoddy work, cost overruns, and bribery of senior officials.” 
• In addition to that, Russia’s “prolific disinformation campaign”—delivered through media companies with audiences in the tens of millions in Latin America—“only further exacerbates” the difficulties these countries face, said Richardson. 
• Solutions for Latin America and the Caribbean’s challenges start with the United States, Richardson argued. “Team USA is committed to democracies across the globe,” she said, explaining that the United States is bringing together all elements of national power to help: diplomatic, economic, military, and informational. “This region is our shared neighborhood, and good neighbors take care of each other,” she said. 
• Richardson noted that women, peace, and security—a policy framework that calls for the participation of women in peacebuilding and conflict resolution—is “a critical component of successful democracies.” Shaping the global future together will take a community, she explained. So “we must be intentional about recruitment, retention, training, and [the] advancement of women,” she said, “because if we take our eye off the ball, we risk losing an entire generation.”  

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala: “Support strategic interdependence, not overdependence”  

• Okonjo-Iweala spoke of trying to find the positives in “a world of doom and gloom.” And one place to do that is multilateral organizations such as her own. “We need places where nations can come together,” the WTO head said. “And truly interact even when they disagree—in fact, especially when they disagree.”
• Okonjo-Iweala pointed out that at the WTO, geopolitical rivals such as the United States and China can sit down and talk trade to the benefit of their citizens. “We need to shore up the multilateral institutions we have instead of taking for granted the services they provide,” she said.
• Okonjo-Iweala nodded to the many criticisms of the WTO and acknowledged that multilateral institutions “need to be reformed to be fit for purpose for the twenty-first century.” While there were job losses in recent decades, she added, not all were due to trade—technology and other factors played a role. 
• Meanwhile, Okonjo-Iweala added, “our biggest successes go almost unnoticed.” One she called out was the Information Technology Agreement, a 1996 agreement that has grown to eliminate tariffs on what Okonjo-Iweala said was nearly three trillion dollars in trade in 2021. 
• “So if we let multilateral fora wither, if we fail to preserve what they are doing well and improve what needs improving, the costs will be high,” Okonjo-Iweala said. “Support strategic interdependence, not overdependence.” 

Avril Haines: “Success of our mission depends on our ability to work with others” 

• In accepting her award, the director of national intelligence recalled how in its annual threat assessment—published in February—the US Intelligence Community identified two strategic challenges to national security: competition among great powers, rising regional powers, and nonstate actors for influence over the international system; and challenges that transcend borders such as climate change, health, and security.  
• “The intersection of these challenges [underscores] the importance of working together with partners and allies, private industry, and organizations like the Atlantic Council,” explained Haines, “which bring us together and raise the standard of our work… with the belief that through civil discourse, we can advance our common cause.” 
• That underlying common conviction, according to Haines, is “that a healthy transatlantic relationship is fundamental to the strength and quality of an international system that is capable of addressing today’s challenges.” 
• In guiding policymakers with valuable intelligence, the Intelligence Community must interact with people outside of the community who can test hypotheses, provide alternative perspectives, and challenge biases and underlying assumptions, Haines explained. “The success of our mission depends on our ability to work with others across a range of fields and disciplines,” Haines said, “and it requires us to engage with diverse voices and perspectives from all backgrounds and walks of life.” 

Nazanin Nour: “Stay the course on equal rights for all“

• Iranian-American actress and activist Nazanin Nour joined Iranian women’s rights lawyer Mehrangiz Kar and Iranian women’s rights advocate Azam Jangravi on stage to receive the Distinguished Humanitarian Leadership Award on behalf of the women and girls of Iran. (Mahnaz Afkhami, CEO of the Women’s Learning Partnership, received the award in absentia.) Despite “great personal risk,” Nour said, the women and girls of Iran “are pressing for a brighter future.” 
• Nour explained how after the 1979 revolution, new leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini banned women from holding jobs, obtaining an education, accessing contraceptives, and more. “To this day, the clerical leadership of the Islamic Republic has hinged on the repression of women,” Nour argued. “Time and again, the regime’s response to women’s calls for greater freedom has been swift and brutal. But the extraordinary women of Iran have persevered.” 
• Those women have not only persevered, Nour added, but they have also “been in the vanguard demanding change” and learning from the rest of the world about how to secure rights and freedoms. She pointed to the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, which surged following the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022. “Today, women and men are marching side-by-side in support of a revolution that was launched by women and girls,” Nour noted.  
• Nour described the movement as “modern… in its language, slogans, and approach,” as women and girls have disseminated their message worldwide by using social media. That, Nour said, has helped create “a truly global movement which, at this moment, is in dire need of collective action; and we can all agree on that.” 
• Nour encouraged the audience to “publicly condemn” the United Nations Human Rights Council’s decision to appoint the Islamic Republic of Iran as chair of its Social Forum. “The Islamic Republic and human rights is an oxymoron, and it’s a slap in the face to the people of Iran that have been brutalized, oppressed, and tortured.” 
• “It is easy for the sacrifices of the protestors to disappear from the headlines,” Nour noted. “I implore you to continue your solidarity. I implore you to support democracy. I implore you to stay the course on equal rights for all.” 

Adena T. Friedman: “When faced with global challenges, we must find global solutions” 

• In line with the Atlantic Council’s mission to advance global prosperity, Friedman noted that “markets are foundational to strong economies and to vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystems.”
• “When faced with global challenges, we must find global solutions,” Friedman said. Nasdaq, she explained, aims to use its expertise and technology to “help build trusted market infrastructure all over the world.”
• Nasdaq has a role to play not only in established markets, but in emerging markets as well, Friedman said. “We can support their efforts to bring in more foreign investment through well-functioning, high-integrity, and vibrant capital markets,” she explained. 

The global fight for freedom 

• Almar Latour, the CEO of Dow Jones and publisher of the Wall Street Journal, implored attendees in a special address to cast their thoughts to a Russian prison, where Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich remains detained six weeks after he “was unjustly arrested,” Latour said, “on false charges of espionage.”  
• But while Gershkovich is the highest-profile journalist persecuted for doing his job of late, he’s not the only one. Latour noted the kidnapping of journalist Austin Tice in Syria, the arrest of publisher Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong, and the arrest just last week of Nicaraguan journalist Hazel Zamora. “Dictators around the world are determined to stamp out independent reporting,” Latour said. “And we cannot allow them to succeed… The world is watching. It’s watching how the US and democracies around the world respond to this assault on the press. The world is watching how we in this room are responding.” 
• Russia’s war in Ukraine is “a historic inflection point of breathtaking significance,” said Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe.  “Some people say we have to separate the war in Ukraine from China and China’s challenge. I think the challenges are inseparable. This is not a time for half measures. The future of the global order is at stake. Its institutions, its principles, its values, as imperfect as they are, are worth defending. And that is what motivates the Atlantic Council.” 

Katherine Walla is the associate director of editorial at the Atlantic Council.

Daniel Malloy is the deputy managing editor at the Atlantic Council.

Watch the full event

The post The 2023 Distinguished Leadership Awards: Honoring the women shaping the global future appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Event transcript

Uncorrected transcript: Check against delivery

JOHN F.W. ROGERS: I’m delighted to be with all of you tonight as we salute the recipients of the Atlantic Council’s Distinguished Leadership Awards. Each year, we recognize a select few who represent the best pillars of our transatlantic relationship, whether as political or policy leaders, business executives, military officers, or artistic and humanitarian champions. What they have in common is that each honoree has made an indelible impact on our world, both in their personal and professional accomplishments, and in their vision for creating a better future with our friends and allies.

Tonight, as chairman of the Atlantic Council, it’s a privilege to be able to say that, for the first time in the Council’s history, we are recognizing a group of all women honorees. And we’re calling attention to the rising role of women’s leadership in shaping a better world.

Now of course, as we gather to celebrate, we do so at a time when such leadership has seldom, if ever, been as crucial as it is today. And while just last week the director-general of the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 was over as a global public health emergency, new challenges continue to emerge.

A year to the day since we awarded the people of Ukraine a special Distinguished Leadership Award, the war in the Ukraine rages on, shaping a new era of global competition, exposing fragility in international trade ties, and furthering geopolitical uncertainty. It is innocent people who pay the price for war. Their suffering must not be forgotten. What’s more what’s more, with the souring of the US-China relationship, increased tensions and potential systemic threat to world order, the post-World War II sense of stability has never been more threatened.

The task now before the Atlantic Council is not just to diagnose the geopolitical moment in which we find ourselves, but also to inspire the United States and its partners to enhance their collective efforts to shape a better, more prosperous world. As an Atlantic Council community, we can be encouraged by how our organization is rising to the moment. We have provided action-oriented solutions for protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty and freedom, and we have made clear why this war and the US-China rivalry are struggles over what forces, principles, and practice will determine our global future.

As we recognize each honoree at this evening’s historic all-female lineup, we do so in [an] era increasingly in search of role models for women and girls. So tonight, we celebrate not just what each of these extraordinary women have done individually to shape our global future, but what they have done collectively for other women to ensure a better future.

So in considering my remarks this evening and where words can sometimes fall short of the physical and the visual expression in terms of rising to the moment, I was transported to an exhibit that was unveiled a few years ago at the Venice Biennale by a Nigerian artist, Peju Alatise. She is a Nigerian artist, poet, and writer. You’ll see her exhibition here.

Now in her cultural and sculptural installation, “Flying Girls,” she has called for a more just future for girls and imbued the girls with an immense transformative ethos and power in her moving exhibit. We see a striking collection of eight life-size figures of girls united in a circle, adorned with wings, and surrounded by birds and butterflies shaping a pattern that appears to be a murmuration. That’s a large group of birds that all fly together, and then they change direction together. You’ve seen this when you look up at the skies as birds switch their line and move.

Notably, the butterflies are seen surrounding the figures on the ground, suggesting a metamorphosis as they emerge from their cocoons and prepare to take their first flight. And we seem to be witnessing a powerful collective transformation of sorts coming from within these girls and future women, preparing them for their first flight with a momentum from the ground up. Using this artistic expression to guide the future, the artist—she transports us to a future where identity is shaped rather than predetermined.

This is the same transformation that we are witnessing here tonight, a movement embracing and driven by women and girls globally. In “Flying Girls,” the murmuration is a winding upward spiral, not only enveloping the girls but also empowering them. The shape is especially significant as the paths of women in leadership roles itself, because those have never been linear—a befitting segue to the personal and professional stories of our honorees this evening.

So for tonight’s distinguished leaders, it’s not just how far they have traveled but the way they have traveled along their past, not weighted down by obstacles or cynicism about what’s possible; instead, buoyed by a single-minded resolve in their vision for what the future can be.

One of our honorees, the honorable Avril Haines, whom we are awarding the Distinguished International Leadership Award, is the US Director of National Intelligence. She is the first woman in our nation’s history to lead the US intelligence community. And given Director Haines’ and given Director Haines’ significant national-security experience obtained through her service in all three branches of government, a commitment to building a more resilient, inclusive nation through innovative intelligence, few are more deserving of our recognition.

Avril grew up in an apartment in Manhattan’s Upper West Side; her father, a biochemist. Her mother was a painter. And her mother became seriously ill when she was twelve years old. And still a child herself, she spent four years as her mother’s principal caregiver, up until the moment of her passing.

Left without her own mother as a role model, a young Avril did not let her grief defeat her. She gathered her strength. She changed directions and she deferred college for a gap year. She went to study Japanese, martial art, judo, at Tokyo’s Kodokan Institute, where she achieved an incredible feat, rising to a brown belt in just one year.

Later, as a student of theoretical physics, Avril pursued a dream project of restoring a second-hand plane and flying it into Europe. With her flight instructor, she found a 1961 Cessna and she rebuilt the navigation, communication and other electronic systems. Not long into their flight, however, they had an emergency landing. But one upside to the failed adventure at that point was that Avril found a lifelong travel companion in her flight instructor, whom she is married to today.

Our next honoree, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, whom we are awarding the Distinguished International Leadership Award, is the director general of the World Trade Organization. She is the first woman to serve in that capacity, the first African in history to serve in that role. Her more than thirty years of public service includes a remarkable career at the World Bank and serving as finance minister of Nigeria, where she navigated intense personal institutional challenges to implement far-reaching economic reforms.

I can say, on a personal note, when we started at Goldman Sachs our 10,000 Women program, it was Ngozi who herself said to us that we don’t have a program; we have a movement. And for the last fifteen years, her idea has impacted our work on behalf of women and girls across the world.

She was born in the Delta state in Nigeria, where her father was the obi, or king, of the Obahai royal family, which makes her a princess. Now, our cultures often assign a narrative that portrays women waiting for a prince to bring some kind of glass slipper to decide if they are fit. Well, she rewrote this, if not demolished that narrative for herself and future girls. She did not wait for a glass slipper. Instead she shattered the glass ceiling. And along the way, she made sure to create the same opportunities for all girls, especially those who do not come from a royal background, to have this path of economic empowerment.

Our third honoree, Adena Friedman, whom we are awarding the Distinguished Business Leadership Award, she’s the chair and CEO of Nasdaq. Adena went from working as an intern at Nasdaq to making history as the first woman to lead a global exchange. However, this path this path from intern to CEO was not a straight line. And after eighteen years of working at Nasdaq, she left to join the distinguished Carlyle Group. She became the chief financial officer and managing director, and played an integral role in taking the company public during her time there. She returned to Nasdaq three years later, served as its president and chief operating officer, and then she was named the CEO in 2017. And now she serves as chair and chief executive.

And as a student, Adena, she was educated at an all-girls private school. And given the stereotypes at the time, she didn’t see herself on a path to finance. After watching Sally Ride become her first American woman to go into space, she dreamt of flying high into space and becoming an astronaut. But closer to home, she found a role model in her own mother. Originally a stay-at-home mom, her mother later followed her own calling, and went to get her law degree, and became the first woman named at her law firm. Later in life, as a mother herself, Adena had a similar moment of awakening. And after years of taking her two sons and husband to martial arts classes, she decided to follow her interest and pursue classes herself. And similar to all our other panelists but particularly to Avril, Adena rose to a black belt in Korea taekwondo which she now credits for helping her become more fearless in business. And fearless she is. And I can tell you firsthand she’s quite fearless.

And tonight’s fourth honoree, General Laura Richardson, whom we are awarding the Distinguished Military Leadership Award.  She’s the commander of the US Southern Command.  And General Richardson became the first woman Army officer to officially hold the position of deputy commanding general of Forces Command and the only second time that a woman four-star has led a combat command. With a more than thirty-year storied career in the United States Army, her command is the largest in the US Army, responsible for training and preparing active, Reserve, and National Guard troops to meet the requirement of commanders around the globe.

And as a student, Laura was an all-American swimmer. Her path in life has seen her thrive on land and on sea and in the air, because when we talk about flying girls, General Richardson got her pilot’s license at the young age of sixteen—a literally flying girl, joining, I suppose, her copilot here tonight, Avril Haines. So between the martial arts and the air travel, we see some common central themes emerging, if not symbolic of the empowerment and the uplifting of all women and girls.

And then, finally, ladies and gentlemen, tonight we pay special tribute to the women and the girls of Iran.

We are awarding the Distinguished Humanitarian Leadership Award by honoring a delegation of Iranian female activists. The tragic death of a twenty-two-year-old, Mahsa Jina Amini, in the custody of Iran’s so-called morality police has brought the Islamic Republic of Iran’s gender discriminatory laws into clear focus, and the subsequent women-led uprising has stirred the international community.

It’s a privilege to recognize the vast efforts of the activists who will accept this award this evening: Dr. Mahnaz Afkhami, the former Iranian minister of women’s affairs and president and CEO of the Women’s Learning Partnership, who unfortunately herself fell ill and couldn’t be with us tonight; Azam Jangravi, one of the Girls of the Revolutionary Street who was arrested for protesting against Iran’s laws requiring women to wear a hijab in public; Dr. Mehrangiz Kar, Iran’s women’s rights lawyer and writer; and Nazanin Nour, Iranian actress, writer, and activist.

The bravery of Iranian women and girls in risking their safety to achieve change is unquestionable. And together, this delegation’s advocacy, utilization of their public platforms to raise awareness of the circumstances in Iran has been crucial to accountability efforts. In their honor, I wanted to offer just a closing piece, a closing art piece—intentionally using a double entendre on the word “piece” as the artistic expression is meant as a global peace offering.

The picture that you see here is by an Iranian artist, Shirin Neshat as part of a collection of black-and-white photographs of women symbolizing Iranian women’s involvement in efforts to improve women’s education, increase representation in government, securing new legal rights, and expanding their economic opportunities. In this particular detail, the women’s hand, its gesture suggests prayer. And the handwritten calligraphy on the edge of her white veil translates from Farsi: “Give a hand so I can hold a hand.”

Now, this message—“give a hand so I can hold a hand”—conveys a peaceful and powerful message of unity that symbolizes tonight’s event, its theme, and all of our women honorees. It calls out to our global community, especially poignant in this pandemic-recovery era, to reconnect our hands literally and figuratively.

So, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for all being here to celebrate these remarkable women. On behalf of the Atlantic Council, our co-chairs for this evening, I just want to take this moment to offer our hands in celebration of their honors. Thank you.

Watch the remarks

STEPHEN J. HADLEY: Avril Haines, deputy—director of national intelligence, assistant to the president and principal deputy national security adviser, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The first woman to hold each of these positions. Two decades of service in all three branches of the federal government. This is the official record of Avril Haines’ life as a public servant and her enormous contribution to the safety, security, and prosperity of our nation.

But there is another story here of a truly remarkable person. For this story, we must turn to the unofficial record of her life as contained in a Newsweek article dated June 26, 2013. The picture here is of a person with a flair for adventure, an appetite for risk-taking, and an ability to overcome adversity.

Some examples. From age twelve through fifteen, caring for a critically ill parent. After high school, as John mentioned, taking a year off to earn a brown belt at an elite judo school in Tokyo, Japan. Studying theoretical physics at the male-dominated and unwelcoming Physics Department of the University of Chicago. While in college, working as an auto mechanic helping to rebuild Subaru internal combustion engines. Fighting her way back from a serious biking accident between her sophomore and junior years of college. The following summer, taking flying lessons in Princeton, New Jersey. Rebuilding the avionics of a 1961 twin-engine Cessna 310 aircraft and outfitting it with extended-range fuel tanks. Taking off in that rebuilt airplane from Bangor, Maine, to cross the Atlantic Ocean; losing one engine, then the other to North Atlantic ice; and through fog making an emergency landing at a small airport in Newfoundland. After graduating from college, moving to Baltimore, Maryland; buying at auction an old bar in a then-transitional neighborhood; and turning it into an independent bookstore and café. Becoming a community activist and pursuing a law degree at Georgetown Law School. Graduating, clerking for a federal appellate judge, and then working in the State Department’s Legal Advisor’s Office. A two-year stint working for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under then-chair Joe Biden. And in 2011, becoming deputy legal counsel to the president for national security affairs. And, as they say, the rest is history.

An unusual route to the top, but then Avril Haines is an unusual and extraordinary person. All of this by someone described as having a sweet personality, humility bordering on shyness, and a deep empathy for others. Or, as Denis McDonough, President Obama’s then-White House chief of staff, is quoted as saying, “She is as caring and decent a person as I’ve ever had the blessing to work with, full stop.” A person of humility, intellect, integrity, judgment, and a strong work ethic.

Tonight, it is a privilege for the Atlantic Council to be able to honor the director of national intelligence, Avril Haines. Please join me on the stage.

DIRECTOR AVRIL HAINES: All right. That was utterly terrifying. I am just—Steve, it is genuinely overwhelming to be honored alongside, first of all, such an extraordinary group of female leaders by an institution that I have so much respect for and whose leadership, in the form of all of you and the many remarkable board members who are here tonight in particular, embodies the best of what I aspire to in public service. It does not feel quite real, to be honest.

I also realize that this award is really more of a testament to the work of the intelligence community that I have the privilege to represent and the many thousands of officers who, day and night around the world, relentlessly work to advance our and our allies’ national security, of which there are many, many women who are just, I think, looking out today at the extraordinary awardees who I am put up against, which I have no business to be, but nevertheless, and are inspired by them.

To the Council and the board, thank you so much for this honor. But even more so, thank you for the years of extraordinary service that all of you have engaged in, based on our common conviction that healthy transatlantic relationship is fundamental to the strength and quality of an international system that is capable of addressing today’s challenges in a way that is consistent with our values.

And Fred, you recently noted in testimony that we’re living in an inflection point in our history where US leadership alongside allies and partners will have global and generational consequences. And I quite agree with that perspective. In our annual threat assessment, we talk about two sets of strategic challenges that are intersecting with each other and existing trends to intensify their national-security implications in today’s world.

First, great powers, rising regional powers, and an evolving array of non-state actors are vying for influence and impact in the international system, including over the standards and rules that will shape the global order for decades to come; and second, challenges that transcend borders, including such issues as climate change and global health security and transnational criminal activity, are intensifying as the planet emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic.

And further compounding this dynamic is the impact that rapidly emerging technologies such as generative AI are having on governance, economies, and communities around the world. And the intersection of these challenges [underscores] the importance of working together with partners and allies, private industry, organizations like the Atlantic Council, which bring us together and raise the standard of our work on a nonpartisan basis with the belief that through civil discourse we can advance our common cause.

And much like you, we in the intelligence community are trying to understand and reflect on the world around us and to provide policymakers and operators with insights that will help them make better decisions. But we know the interactions with those outside our community, who will test our hypotheses, provide alternative perspectives, identify our biases and challenge our underlying assumptions, are absolutely critical to our success.

We know that the success of our mission depends on our ability to work with others across a range of fields and disciplines, and it requires us to engage with diverse voices and perspectives from all backgrounds and walks of life—voices and perspectives that are here tonight—as a hallmark of what the Atlantic Council represents, demonstrating the degree to which you can and do enrich our daily work.

In short, thank you for your tremendous dedication to global cooperation and for bringing together the right people to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems. And thank you again for this incredible honor. And congratulations to the other recipients, all of whom really outclass me. Thank you.

Watch the remarks

ADRIENNE ARSHT: It’s really such a pleasure to be here to present this next award to someone whose life and career have been dedicated to the protection and prosperity of each of us here tonight.

Now let me provide a bit of context for you. How and when did I meet General Richardson? I attended the change of command at SOUTHCOM in October of 2021 to celebrate the retirement of the SOUTHCOM commander, Admiral Craig Faller. And thus I met the incoming chairman—commander, Laura Richardson. And as a footnote, Craig Faller has become a distinguished fellow at the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security here at the Atlantic Council.

General Richardson has served in the United States Army for the past thirty-seven years. She leads by example, showing others—in particular, men—that it’s possible to forge a path many would deem impossible.

From an early age, General Richardson set goals that few would think achievable. She earned her private pilot’s license by the age of—I was told fifteen; John said sixteen—but you get it. Don’t you love it that two honorees were pilots before they could vote?

And if you think she spent all of her time in the air, think again. She was also an accomplished competitive swimmer, and I might say, like Christine Lagarde, who was equally a synchronized swimmer in France.

It’s easy to see why the Army was eager to recruit a person with such gumption, and it certainly makes sense that her accomplishments wouldn’t have stopped there. From commanding an assault helicopter battalion in combat in the 101st Airborne Division, to serving as the chief of Army Legislative Liaison to the US Congress, and now, as a decorated four-star general, she has consistently earned accolades for her contributions.

Obviously, it’s particularly special to me that General Richardson has had such extraordinary accomplishments across South and Central America, and the Caribbean. As you know, that’s my wheelhouse.

In addition to strengthening military relationships with our neighbors to the south, General Richardson has maintained a steadfast US presence in Latin America and the Caribbean by providing COVID-19, climate, and humanitarian crisis relief, focusing on how to impede the illicit drug trade, and prioritizing twenty-first century security challenges.

Now more than ever, General Richardson’s role in working with regional partners across the Americas will be pivotal in building a more secure, equitable, and prosperous future for the region. Simply put, she is a beacon of leadership for women and girls who wonder if a career in the military in a cockpit or in a room often filled only with men is a career worth pursuing. She is an undeniable example of leadership, integrity, and determination.

And now it is my great honor to present the Atlantic Council Distinguished Military Leadership Award to my friend, badass General Laura Richardson.

GENERAL LAURA J. RICHARDSON: Well, good evening and thank you. I’m deeply humbled to be here this evening. And I’m honored to serve this great nation in uniform and to represent the men and women of America’s armed forces.

Adrienne, thank you for introducing me tonight. I, like many others, are so grateful for your example and your life’s work in giving back. Everything you do through the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center [makes] this world a better place. Thank you for your leadership and your friendship.

To the Atlantic Council, I am enormously grateful to receive this award this evening. A special thank you to Chairman John Rogers and CEO Fred Kempe for your exemplary leadership and the amazing work the Council does day in and day out to provide in-depth analysis on overwhelming, complex issues across our globe.

As the thirty-second commander of the United States Southern Command, I can tell you that we have benefitted immensely from the in-depth analysis for six decades that the Atlantic Council provides. I’m proud to say that US SOUTHCOM will celebrate its sixtieth anniversary on the eleventh of June this year.

Latin America and the Caribbean is a vast region of thirty-one countries with twenty-eight likeminded democracies, and US Southern Command works very closely with their military and public security forces on security cooperation initiatives. All of this is based in human rights, the rule of law, and the professionalization of their forces.

But now this region requires a call to action. All of our partners are struggling to deliver for their people. There is suffering from the devastating impacts from COVID and the 170 million people that were thrown into poverty. This is a vicious cycle of insecurity and instability that transnational criminal organizations create. They are more powerful, they’re violent, and they have diversified their portfolio. They not only traffic drugs; they traffic humans. They conduct illegal mining, illegal logging, deforestation, and illegal fishing. This, combined with climate change, severe droughts, extreme storms, and seven million Venezuelans who have fled into an already-desperate Western Hemisphere, is causing people and families to leave their homes for a better life in historic numbers of irregular migration.

If that weren’t enough, this desperate situation allows the Chinese Communist Party to step in with its Belt and Road Initiative under the disguise of investment, but really to extract the country’s critical infrastructure. With its debt traps of loans, shoddy work, cost overruns, and bribery of senior officials, countries have no other choice other than to turn to the CCP to try and show some sort of progress for their people. And Russia, with its prolific disinformation campaign delivered through Russia Today Español, Sputnik Mundo, teleSUR, with over thirty-one million followers in Latin America, it only further exacerbates the situation, and especially during presidential elections.

But there is a solution to these complex challenges, and it starts with the United States because team USA is committed to democracies across the globe, bringing together all of the elements of national power in a strategic-focused effort at the same time to form team democracy and assist struggling democracies to overcome these challenges and so they don’t have to rely on a communist government such as the CCP for help. It’s diplomatic by having our US ambassadors confirmed and in the seat; economic through our private-sector investment, which we need to bring to bear and showcase; military, which I represent with US Southern Command; and informational by flooding the information space and capturing the narrative with what team democracy is doing for partner democracies in the region.

As you can tell, I’m very passionate about this topic and about this hemisphere. President Biden says that this—that in his National Security Strategy that no region impacts the United States more than the Western Hemisphere. I agree. And this region is our shared neighborhood, and good neighbors take care of each other.

I’m honored to accept this award on behalf of United States Southern Command, and on behalf of the twenty-eight democratic Western Hemisphere military and public security forces who are working overtime every day on the stopwatch to deliver safety and security for their people.

And what a privilege to be recognized tonight alongside such amazing women who have accomplished so much. This group is a representation of how far we have come, but also a reminder of how much more work there is to be done.

Tonight I stand in awe of the courage and the resilience of all Iranian women and girls.

Women, peace, and security is a critical component of successful democracies, and it’s a key part of all the engagements that I do in the hemisphere. We must be intentional about recruitment, retention, training, and advancement of women, because if we take our eye off the ball we risk losing an entire generation.

As we set out to shape the global future together, none of us can do it alone. We need a community like the Atlantic Council and everyone here tonight. I’ve been fortunate to have a great community of support made up of family, friends, and colleagues. I’d like to thank my husband, Jim, who served in the Army for forty years and spent thirty-five of it married to me—our daughter Lauren, and my granddaughter Anna who are here with me tonight for all the love and support they provide.

Thank you, Atlantic Council. And, ladies and gentlemen, I just want to thank everyone and really appreciate everything that the Atlantic Council does, Adrienne Arsht and all of you here this evening. Thank you very much.

Watch the remarks

DAVID M. RUBENSTEIN: Over the years I’ve made a number of personnel decisions at Carlyle. I hired a young man out of Harvard Business School, Glenn Youngkin, and he was OK. I don’t know what he did. He decided to leave. I hired another person out of government, Jay Powell. He decided to leave also. I don’t know what he’s doing either. But in some of my personnel decisions, I’ve made some pretty good decisions and some pretty bad decisions. I’ll let you judge whether those decisions were good.

But there was one person I interviewed once who was simultaneously the best personnel decision I made and the worst personnel decision I made, and that was Adena Friedman. And let me explain.

Carlyle was looking for a chief financial officer. And we interviewed a number of people, weren’t happy with any of the people we saw. And then I interviewed Adena Friedman, and in 10 minutes I said excuse me, I called my partners, and said: Stop all the interviewing. I’ve just spent 10 minutes with a person. This is the perfect person. She’s smart, experienced, hardworking, and she really knows finance. And perfect. And so we immediately hired her and she served as our chief financial officer at a period of great growth for our firm, and she helped us go public in 2012.

At that time, I thought she would—you know, if she stayed she would wind up probably running the company someday, and she was extremely talented. But she told me that she had an offer not too long after to go back to the place she’d previously been, Nasdaq, where once she did some interim job she would wind up most likely as the CEO, which she did in 2017. And the worst personnel decision was we let her go, in the sense that we should have said: Become the CEO of Carlyle now. The founders, get rid of us. Put her in. If we put her in, the company would be much more valuable today than it is and would be doing much more successfully than it is.

That was my worst personnel decision, is letting her go back to Nasdaq, because let me tell you what she’s done at Nasdaq. When she took over at Nasdaq, the market capitalization was roughly $11 billion. Now it’s roughly about $28 billion, so it’s up about 146 percent. Their stock is up about 144 percent, or 15 percent a year. And honestly, Carlyle has not gone up 15 percent a year. So many times at night I think about what a mistake I made to not let her be the CEO right away, but she’s done better things and she’s done a terrific job and she has a great future.

I thought she should be the secretary of treasury in the beginning of this administration. I thought and I told a number of people we should finally have a woman be secretary of the treasury.  Finally time. They found another woman who was available. And Adena was not really interested in leaving, and she was really interested in continuing to run Nasdaq. And she’s done a great job there but there are other great things in her future, there’s no doubt, because she’s so smart, talented, knows how to get along with people. And what she’s done for Nasdaq has not only increased its market value, but she’s made it more than an exchange.

Many of you who are not in the business world may think it’s like the New York Stock Exchange. It’s not. It does have an exchange element to it, but it provides enormous amounts of technology to exchanges around the world and it has technology relating to cyber technology and cybersecurity that is really second to none. So she’s really modernized the exchange, she’s made it global, and she made it one of the most-admired companies in the financial service world.

So, as I’ve said to some of you before—perhaps you’ve heard me say this—it is a strange situation that in our country, when we only had—we only had—we had about 3 million people in this country we produced George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton. Now we have 330 million people in the country. Where are the George Washingtons and the Thomas Jeffersons and the James Madisons? Well, I’ve often thought they were in private equity. But actually, there is one person who is not in private equity who is as good as the people that I just mentioned, and that is Adena Friedman.

Now, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had a president of the United States someday who would be, you know, a great financial executive, somebody who’s run a company, knows how to get along with people, very smart, respected all around the world? And so someday I think that Adena Friedman will be the first female to be president of the United States, which would be a good thing.

Now, the principal problem with that is she’s about four decades too young. You need to be about seventy-five to eighty to be taken seriously as president. So she’s got a long way to go. But mark my words. At some point we will have a female president, and I think her first name is going to be Adena.

Adena, thank you for everything you’ve done for Carlyle, and thank you for what you’ve done for our financial-service system around the world. Could you please come up and accept the award?

ADENA T. FRIEDMAN: Well, that was unexpected. Good evening, everyone. What a great honor it is to be recognized tonight as a recipient of the Distinguished Leadership Award. I am truly humbled to be among this amazing and incredible group of accomplished and groundbreaking leaders receiving this award tonight.

It’s also an honor to be recognized by the Atlantic Council, an organization that recognizes a fundamental truth about the moment that we’re living in, when, faced with global challenges, we must find global solutions. And this is, in fact, the ethos at Nasdaq. We know that markets are foundational to strong economies and to vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystems. And that’s why we’re committed to using our expertise and our technology to help build trusted market infrastructure all over the world.

In addition to serving our own markets, both in the United States, and we also own many of the markets in the Nordics, with our technology and expertise, our technology powers mission-critical operations at more than 2,300 financial institutions and 130 marketplaces worldwide. Our marketplace clients rely upon us to help them build vibrant capital markets within their countries, which then serve as the underpinning of their economies.

Additionally, our bank clients turn to us to help them eradicate criminal activity within their banking networks with our world-class anti-financial-crime technology solutions. While our technology serves many economies in the established market, such as Switzerland, Japan, Singapore, to name a few, we are very proud in the emerging markets as well. We serve markets in places like Indonesia, Thailand, Chile, just to name a few as well. We have many markets in the emerging world.

And there we can support their efforts to bring in more foreign investment through well-functioning, high-integrity and vibrant capital markets. And that kind of reach and that kind of responsibility is what makes our team at Nasdaq really excited to get up every single day, come to work, and to power markets for the future. It’s also what drives our commitment to becoming the trusted fabric to the global financial system.

So I want to thank all of you here. I want to thank John Rogers. You have been such a supporter and a friend over many years. I also want to thank my husband, Mike. And my best friend Nancy is here tonight. It’s so nice of them to join me for this. And I want to thank all of you for this great recognition.

Thank you very much.

Watch the remarks

FREDERICK KEMPE: How exciting it is to be here yet again. Avril Haines, you know, what you represent—thank you so much for mentioning my own testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. It is a historic inflection point. Our leadership as a community is absolutely to how this turns out, but thank you for your leadership.

General Richardson, we heard about a lot of your firsts from Adrienne Arsht, but I want to mention another first, which is this is the first time we’ve had an awardee who has come here with three generations of family: her daughter Lauren, her six-year-old granddaughter Anna. I met them both before we began this evening. You may be very respected—impressed by military leadership, and her leadership, but a six-year-old girl at a dinner like this, any of you who have had children, that is real leadership.

Adena Friedman and David, this is the first time we’ve had a presidential nomination at the Atlantic Council dinner.

I really want to salute our chairman, John Rogers, for his inspiration at the beginning of the evening putting all of this in context, and thank you, as well, for your leadership as chairman of the Atlantic Council.

As John said at the outset of this evening, we provided our greatest honor last year—for the first time ever collectively—to an entire people: the people of Ukraine. President Zelenskyy accepted the award by video, telling the stories—harrowing stories of several individual heroes.

Said Zelenskyy, and I quote, “Behind the courage and wisdom of our people, there are thousands of real stories, names and heroic feats.” Fifteen months later, that Ukrainian courage and historical unity of its democratic allies has held thus far. As we brace for a potentially decisive spring counteroffensive, the response to Russian aggression has been remarkable thus far. But it has thus far also remained insufficient to turn the tide.

At this historic inflection point, we stand with Ukraine.  We are resolute in our commitment to this generational fight for freedom, democracy, national sovereignty, and a global system based on the principles, institutions, and values that the Atlantic Council has defended for more than sixty years.

As we affirm our commitment to Ukraine tonight, and as we head into the dinner break, I am honored that we are joined by a remarkable Ukraine pianist, Myroslav Mykhailenko, who will perform for us as we prepare for our break. He was born in Kyiv and began studying piano at the age of six. In 2017, at age thirteen, he and his family moved to the United States to continue his studies.

In the years since, Myroslav has gone on to receive high honors and critical global acclaim. He will perform Melody, the greatest piece by the Ukrainian composer, Myroslav Skoryk. It was scored for a heavily censored Soviet war film in 1982, and the very piece of music was meant to find a way—and a better way—toward freedom.

So with that, Myroslav, it’s our honor to hear you play this remarkable piece of music.

Watch the performance

FREDERICK KEMPE: We’re about to have a special message regarding the reporter Evan Gershkovich of the Wall Street Journal, who was arrested in Russia just doing his job.

And we have here to give you that message Almar Latour, the CEO of Dow Jones, the publisher of the Wall Street Journal. I’ll say a little bit more about him in a second.

The famed American basketball coach John Wooden, who as you know is a very famous transatlanticist—that’s actually not true, but he is a famous basketball coach—but the famous basketball coach John Wooden once said, quote, “The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.” Perhaps it is Almar Latour’s character that I most admire about him. His personal decency, his integrity, his humility, his consistency of devotion to the First Amendment and to our journalistic craft has been unflinching, whether as a young reporter or as one of global journalism’s most influential executives at Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal.

Oh, yes, I think I should reveal my bias. Almar in 1995 was my intern. He worked as my intern in Brussels when I was the managing editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.

A prime case study of Almar’s character is how he is now championing the ongoing global response to the imprisonment last month of Evan, the Wall Street Journal reporter in Europe. Almar’s been on the front lines as a reporter. I’ve been on the front lines in various warzones as a reporter. If you’ve done that, you feel even more deeply that you would otherwise about what it takes to defend the First Amendment and then what it takes of all of us to respond in a moment like this.

With great pleasure, and great affection, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the stage my friend—and also an Atlantic Council Board director—Almar Latour.

ALMAR LATOUR: Well, Fred—I believe Fred made clear one thing: always be nice to the intern. So thank you, Fred, and thank you, Atlantic Council, and thank you, everybody here for your brief attention. And congratulations amazing honorees.

There’s probably no group gathered in one room together that’s as committed to freedom as all of you are. You have dedicated your professional lives to that, and I know many of you have put your actual lives on the line for freedom, so thank you.

Tonight I come to you to talk about a shared commitment to freedom. As Fred mentioned, six weeks ago, our colleague, Wall Street Journal reporter, Evan Gershkovich, was unjustly arrested in Russia. He remains today incarcerated in a Russian prison on false charges of espionage.

Ever since, we are so grateful for the outpouring of support from colleagues and partners around the world; from the US administration, including the White House and State; and from all of you here today. And just today, actually here in Washington, we saw more bipartisan support for Evan as seventy members of Congress wrote a letter to Evan directly condemning the time that was stolen from his life and vowed to continue fighting for his release.

As all of you know, there was no espionage. He was merely doing his job. Evan is an accredited reporter dedicated to explaining the evolving story of Russia to the world. Not only did Russia take away one man’s freedom, but his arrest is also an assault on a broader freedom, and that’s the freedom of the press. And as we all know in this room, there is no free society without free press.

Sadly, Evan’s case is the latest in a long and very disturbing trend. Reporter Austin Tice was kidnapped in Syria almost eleven years ago and remains missing today. More recently, publisher Jimmy Lai remains in prison today in Hong Kong, and just last week, Nicaraguan journalist, Hazel Zamora, was arrested and charged with spreading false news. She now faces up to ten years in prison.

All in all, a record number of journalists—363 of them—were imprisoned in 2022 alone, and that figure has nearly doubled since 2015. So we all know this: journalism is under attack. Like Vladimir Putin, dictators around the world are determined to stamp out independent reporting, and we cannot allow them to succeed.

Evan’s arrest is a symbolic reminder of the fight that we find ourselves in today. It’s autocrats versus the power of the pen; disinformation versus reliable information as the bedrock of free society.

The world is watching. It’s watching how the US and democracies everywhere respond to this assault on the press. The world is watching how we, in this room, are responding.

As defenders of freedom in this room, we have to form a united front. We cannot rest until press freedom is secured. We will not rest until Evan’s freedom is secured. He and others like him need to come home now.

The fight for their freedom ultimately is a fight for all of ours. So please keep Evan at the forefront of your conversations and do what you can in your position of responsibility to make sure that the strongmen the world over know that this room will not let freedom whimper away.

Thank you again for all that you are doing every single day, and God bless.

MR. KEMPE: Thank you for that, Almar. It’s an incredibly important message. There’s so much we have to do on the front lines of freedom now. I know it surprised a lot of you who know me well that Almar was my intern since we look pretty much the same age.

But thank you all for a remarkable first half of the evening. As always, thank you to Luke Frazier and the American Pops Orchestra. Big round of applause, please.  And also to the remarkable Robert Pullen and Nouveau Productions for the staging, and to the breathtaking Atlantic Council team that put all this together.

Thanks as well to Markus Dohle of Penguin Random House for the books you will see in your gift bags as you leave; Markus Dohle, a member of our International Advisory Board. He always gets a big round of applause from the crowd here.  Don’t forget to take your bags. The books are always one of the highlights here.

Most of all, thank you for gathering tonight as a community of common cause—550 of you from more than forty countries, including former heads of state, cabinet ministers, members of Congress, CEOs and business executives, civil society, media leaders, artists, and previous Atlantic Council honorees, including Adrienne Arsht, Lord George Robertson and Luis Alberto Moreno, who are all here this evening.

Thank you for being here.

It was nearly forty-three years ago this summer that I arrived in Poland at the beginning of the Solidarity strikes as a young correspondent, as a very young correspondent, covering a story that would change Europe and I believe would also change the world for the better.

I was sent to Poland by my employer at the time, Newsweek Magazine, to cover rapidly spreading national labor unrest of the Solidarity movement that united not only ten million members, but all of that country of thirty-nine million, and then millions more across the entire Soviet bloc that were looking for sparks of freedom and hope to change a long period of oppression.

I only came to appreciate the freedoms that were my American birthright, as the son of German immigrants, when I witnessed close up an entire country that was risking everything—their freedom, their jobs, their safety—to attain the freedoms that I had taken for granted. It was a time for me, at a very young age, of dark foreboding, fear of Soviet invasion and even worse oppression, but also it was a time of opportunity and ultimately would bring about the collapse of one of the most oppressive systems history has seen.

I feel that same sense of foreboding and opportunity today as we watch Putin’s war, Russia’s war, in Ukraine. I also feel a similar sense of gratitude that I felt then to the Polish people to the Ukrainian people to remind me once again of what it takes to defend freedoms we take for granted.

Yet, in Poland the trick was stopping an invasion and then ultimately attaining freedom that was not theirs. In Ukraine, it’s defeating the invader that is trying to rob the freedom that has been spreading and to reverse a period of hope that was set off by the triumph at the end of the Cold War. It is a historic inflection point of breathtaking significance.

Putin’s war in Ukraine has shone a bright light on the fragility of the post-World War II order that has sustained peace and stability on the global stage for nearly eight decades. Against that backdrop, China’s rise as a global superpower poses an even more significant challenge to that world order, which has guided our community for decades. It’s a time for common cause—not for war, not for violence; for common cause to reestablish our belief in our values and what it takes to defend them, and then to adjust to a new period of time.

Some people say we have to separate the war in Ukraine from China and China’s challenge. I think the challenges are inseparable. This is not a time for half-measures. The future of the global order is at stake. Its institutions, its principles, its values, as imperfect as they are, are worth defending.

And that is what motivates the Atlantic Council and our mission and our purpose of, quote, “shaping the global future together with our partners and allies.” And I hope that’s why many of you are here tonight.

These headwinds have produced a stronger, more relevant, and more global Atlantic Council, as our chairman, John Rogers, said earlier this evening. So, first and foremost—and this is the time of the night where we get to salute all of you who are participating in this community.

I would like to ask the following groups to stand. Atlantic Council board members, please stand. Atlantic Council international board members, please stand, and International Advisory Board members, please stand. And Atlantic Council staff, please stand. Please join me in applauding this remarkable group.  God, I’m so lucky to have my job.

As is our tradition, I also want to salute tonight’s co-chairs who are in attendance and whose generosity allows us to do our work. Please stand as I call your names, but I also ask the audience to hold its applause until I conclude.

Adrienne Arsht; John F.W. Rogers; Airbus, represented by Jeff Knittel; Blackstone Charitable Foundation; Bradley, represented by Jon Skeeters and Karl Hopkins; Georgetown Entertainment, represented by Franco Nuschese; Chevron, represented by Colin Parfitt…; Ahmed Charai; Edelman, represented by Gurpreet Brar…; FedEx, represented by Gina Adams; Hunt Consolidated, represented by Paul Schulze; Kirkland & Ellis; John and Susan Klein; KNDS, makers of the Leopard, represented by Bob Schultz and Ron Phillips; Krull+, represented by Alexander Mirtchev; Leonardo DRS, represented by William Lynn; Mapa…; William Marron; Nasdaq, represented by Adena Friedman; OneAmerica Bank, represented by George Lund; Ahmet Oren; Penguin Random House, represented by Markus Dohle; Charles O. Rossotti; SAIC, represented by Nazzic Keene and John Bonsell; Thales, represented by Alan Pellegrini; a round of applause, please, to everyone.

And finally, please applaud yourselves, 550 people from forty-one countries, for being here at this historic time to salute these remarkable honorees and to support our work. Thank you so much to all of you.

With that, ladies and gentlemen, please turn to your screens again for the next element of our program, our Distinguished International Leadership Award.

Watch the remarks

SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL: Thank you. It’s an honor to be here. I am particularly proud to celebrate the first all-women slate of Atlantic Council Distinguished Leadership Awardees.

I have had the honor of knowing Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala for over two decades. We first crossed paths when she was the finance minister of Nigeria and I was working at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and we collaborated to improve health and increase economic well-being on the continent of Africa and beyond. And since then, we’ve had the opportunity to work together on many other economic and health issues. And over the course of our friendship, I have been lucky to bear witness to her dedication to service, her incredible range of abilities and talents, and her warmth as a human being.

Ngozi and I recently sat down together for a discussion at AU School of International Service, and during our conversation she reflected on her childhood growing up in Nigeria raised in her early years by a grandmother who taught her that our worth in life is defined by how we serve our community. She shared how this belief has always led her to ask this one simple question before taking on a new task: How will this help others?

Ngozi has carried that commitment to community through her time when she first came to the United States as a teenager to go to school through to her work as a two-time finance minister in Nigeria and foreign minister—the first female in both positions.

Her twenty-five years of impact and record-breaking at the World Bank included the $49-billion International Development Association replenishment of concessional resources to assist poor countries, her contributions to United Nations and Group of Twenty commissions as chair of the Board of Gavi, her many academic achievements, and her role as a mother and grandmother, and now as the director general of the World Trade Organization.

As the leader of the WTO, she is committed to ensuring that the preeminent global trade organization works to enhance living standards, to help create employment, and support sustainable development. She is a global visionary who believes that trade can help women and other marginalized populations beat inequality and that the WTO has an important role in increasing economic wellbeing for all.

It is truly my honor to present my friend, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, with the Atlantic Council’s 2023 Distinguished International Leadership Award. Welcome.

NGOZI OKONJO-IWEALA: Well, good evening, everyone. And thank you, Sylvia. That was really beautiful. You yourself, you are a prime example of the kind of leader that women and girls look up to.

I want to start by thanking my family, because I wouldn’t be here today without their love and support. And I have today my sister Dr. Njide Udochi, my son Uchechi Iweala, and my indefatigable adviser Nicole Mensa. Thank you for being here with me today.

Chairman Rogers, President Kempe, dear Fred, thank you so much for this recognition by the Atlantic Council. Thank you for the work you do to make the world a better place. And thank you in particular for the work you are doing in Africa with Rama Yade, trying to look at the glass half full rather than the glass half empty, at the innovation, the creativity and the wellspring of knowledge in the continent.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, it’s wonderful to be here tonight. And when I see familiar faces like Luis Alberto, like Melanne, it really makes me feel at home. Thank you for this immense honor. I’m humbled to share this podium with the sterling cast of women that we’re seeing today.

I don’t know if Avril Haines remembers, but when I was competing for the job of WTO, I had the occasion to ask her for advice. I was introduced to her by someone. And she was absolutely supportive and helpful. Thank you.

We live in what feels like an era of unending crises. When I talk to young people, they’re on edge. Instead of hope, there is fear—fear for a future of uncertain jobs, climate crisis and geopolitical tensions that could escalate into catastrophe.

In this kind of world, we all need to sit up and take action. We must believe that there is still reason and room for hope, that there’s a more prosperous, more sustainable future for people everywhere. In a world of doom and gloom, we must remember the positives.

So my message to you this evening is that, in an uncertain world, we need multilateralism more than ever. We need places where nations can come together and truly interact, even when they disagree—in fact, especially when they disagree. The World Trade Organization is one such arena, a platform where nations, including the United States and China, are able to engage on the trading relationships that deliver benefits to and connect the lives of billions of people each day.

We need to shore up the multilateral institutions we have instead of taking for granted the services they provide. Yes, of course, these multilateral institutions, WTO included, need to be reformed, to be fit for purpose for the twenty-first century. But we must bear in mind the good they’ve done for three-quarters of a century. This cannot be wished away.

The WTO and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, helped deliver seventy-five years of what, by historic standards, has been an era of peace and unprecedented prosperity. Over a billion people were lifted out of poverty, not only in China but elsewhere. Trade helped deliver decades of disinflation for central banks and brought a wider selection of more affordable goods to consumers in the US and around the world.

Yes, there were job losses, but not all were due to trade. Technology played a large part, as did the failure in some countries to deploy active labor-market and social policies on the necessary scale to deal with dislocation.

At the WTO, some of our biggest successes go almost unnoticed. For instance, our Information Technology Agreement, which is very popular with the business community, especially the semiconductor industry, has eliminated tariffs on what in 2021 was close to three-trillion-dollars worth of trade in products like service, manufacturing equipment, computers and mobile phones. The physical goods and capital investment that power the digital economy would be significantly more expensive without it.

So if we let multilateral fora wither, if we fail to preserve what they are doing well and improve what needs improving, the costs will be high. From our trade perspective, some of these costs are quantifiable. For instance, WTO economists estimate that if the world economy decouples into two isolated trading blocs, it would reduce long-term global GDP by at least 5 percent from the current trend. That’s a much bigger hit to output than what advanced economies sustained after the global financial crisis. And we know how that played out. Poor countries and their development aspirations would be hit hardest.

So my message to you today is to support multilateralism. Support strategic interdependence, not overdependence. Back the WTO to complete the reforms it’s now undertaken to be fit for the twenty-first century. And the multilateral trading system, underpinned by a reformed WTO, can continue to deliver for the world. I want to thank the members of the WTO for their work, my staff in Geneva, and all of you, for making this possible today. Thank you. Thank you so much from the heart.

Watch the remarks

MELANNE VERVEER: What a glorious celebration this is this evening of women’s leadership. Thank you, Atlantic Council. And congratulations to all of the honorees.

I also want to thank the Atlantic Council for the impactful work the Council does every single day and the difference it makes around the world. And one of the many places in the world our focus needs to be is on Iran.

Last September a young Iranian Kurdish woman, Mahsa Jina Amini, died after being held by the brutal morality police for, in their eyes, wearing the mandatory hijab improperly. Her death sparked an unprecedented protest movement across Iran that continues to this day. Young women were on the front lines of the massive peaceful demonstrations, and they were quickly joined by students and university communities, by men and women of all ages from all walks of life. They joined together for an end to the repressive regime and its dictatorial rule.

They have been willing to risk their lives for a cause bigger than themselves. Thousands of protestors have been detained. School girls have been poisoned for their activism. Many others have been assaulted, imprisoned and killed, and executions are increasing.

The women of Iran continue to be catalysts for change. In fact, they have been on the front lines for decades. Their demand for woman, life, and freedom cannot be extinguished and has challenged the very foundation of the regime.

We stand in solidarity with these brave and resilient women, and many around the globe have been doing what they can to raise their voices. Some, for example, have recently joined the call to remove Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women given the regime’s draconian restrictions on women’s rights and imposing egregious limits on their freedom and human rights. Thanks to a worldwide effort, the UN vote was successful.

And tonight we stand together with the women and girls of Iran. And to accept this award on their behalf are courageous women leaders in their own right.

Azam Jangravi is a human rights advocate and former political prisoner. She is primarily known for being one of the so-called Girls of the Revolution Street during the 2017 Iranian protests against the compulsory hijab.

Dr. Mehrangiz Kar is recognized globally for her defense of women’s rights and human rights in Iran. She is truly a giant in her field, a lawyer, widely published author, scholar, and activist. And she, too, has been persecuted by the Iranian regime for her efforts to promote equality and to end discrimination against women.

And Nazanin Nour, an Iranian American who has used her platform as an actor and writer to advocate for—advocate for human rights in Iran. And she has been a champion for women and girls there, active on social media as well. And in a recent post, she wrote: I know there is an absurd and depressing amount of terrible things happening in the world at any given moment, but please don’t leave the Iranian people to fight this regime alone. And you will hear from her shortly.

May I ask the women to please come up on the stage?

NAZANIN NOUR: Good evening. Dr. Afkhami was not able to join us this evening, as she is a bit under the weather. However, I would like to read to you her acceptance remarks on our collective behalf.

Thank you to the Atlantic Council for the tremendous honor of this Leadership Award representing the women and girls of Iran who are fighting for freedom and equality. Distinguished guests, it is a privilege for me to accept this award on behalf of the millions of mothers, sisters, and daughters in Iran who, at great personal risk, are pressing for a brighter future.

The seeds of Iranian women’s liberation were planted over a hundred years ago. In 1906, Iranian women took an active part in shaping the constitutional revolution that transformed governance and political participation in the country and in the region. Over the next seven decades, Iranian women helped move Iran to a democratic, participatory system that was inclusive of religious, political, socioeconomic, and other minorities.

In 1963, Iranian women—many of whom were choosing to delay marriage, enter a profession, even attend college—were granted the right to vote. In 1966, Iranian women successfully launched one of the most influential and powerful national women’s organizations in the world. The Women’s Organization of Iran would influence Iran’s leadership at the 1968 UN International Human Rights Conference and the establishment of INSTRAW, the UN’s Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women.

In 1975, Iran passed the Family Protection Law, which remains to this day one of the most progressive and comprehensive in the Middle East and in much of the world. Among its reforms were women’s rights to divorce, guardianship of their children, and childcare for working women, among others.

In 1979, exactly two weeks after Khomeini came to power, his very first decree was to nullify the Family Protection Law. He then also banned women from many jobs and from obtaining college degrees in over forty disciplines. He banned contraceptives and brought back polygamy, forced veiling, and segregation of women and men.

To this day, the clerical leadership of the Islamic Republic has hinged on the repression of women. Time and again, the regime’s response to women’s calls for greater freedom has been swift and brutal. But the extraordinary women of Iran have persevered. From the One Million Signatures campaign in 2006, where activists went door to door gathering signatures in favor of women’s equality, to later pushes for employment opportunities and fair elections, women have been in the vanguard demanding change.

Sparked this time by the senseless death of Mahsa Jina Amini, calls for women, life, freedom are still blazing across the nation. Today, women and men are marching side by side in support of a revolution that was launched by women and girls.

And I’m going to pause right here for a second. I’m going to go off-script because of a recent development yesterday, and I would like to inform the room of this, that the Islamic Republic was appointed chair of the United Nations Human Rights Council Social Forum. This year’s theme is technology and the promotion of human rights.

This comes in the midst of the United Nations Human Rights Council fact-finding mission where they’re investigating human rights abuses and atrocities committed by the Islamic Republic against their own people from September of 2022, when this revolution began. It comes amongst internet shutdowns and throttling of internet so that the world cannot see the atrocities that are being committed by the Islamic Republic. It comes as the Islamic Republic uses technology to surveil women using facial recognition technology, to send fines to anybody that is seen wearing improper hijab. This comes among two young men, Yousef Mehrad and Sadrollah Fazeli Zare, who were executed on charges of blasphemy and apostasy for using technology and a social media app to discuss religion and atheism.

I respectfully implore everybody in this room to use platforms that you have to publicly condemn the UN’s position in appointing the Islamic Republic to this Social Forum. The Islamic Republic and human rights is an oxymoron. And it’s a slap in the face to the people of Iran that have been brutalized, oppressed, and tortured for them to sit on this forum.

This is the first revolution in history to be initiated by women and supported by men. It is the result of the work of the thoughtful, dedicated women who a century ago were open to learning from each other and from the rest of the world about rights and freedoms and how to achieve them. Their history shows a worldview that is worthy of the fact that women are half of the world’s population, and that they train and raise the children of both genders. Their unique success is based on a holistic approach that reflects the reality of the lives of the majority of the people of the world, and that allows for dialogue and interactive decision-making. The success of this revolution, which is modern in its goal and in its language, slogans, and approach, promises that with the expansion of communications technology Iranian women’s latest struggle finally brings the promise of a truly global movement, which at this moment is in dire need of collective action. And we can all agree on that.

As the protests in Iran continue, from a distance one day’s events can be hard to distinguish from those of the next. It is easy for the sacrifices of the protesters to disappear from the headlines. On their behalf and on behalf of individuals fighting for freedom everywhere, including here in the United States, I implore you to continue your solidarity. I implore you to support democracy. I implore you to stay the course on equal rights for all. In doing so, you fuel the memory of Mahsa Jina Amini and the continued dream of freedom and equality for Iranian women and girls. Thank you.

Watch the remarks

FREDERICK KEMPE: Thank you, Melanne, for that introduction. Thank you, Azam; thank you, Dr. Kar; thank you, Nazanin, for that wonderful message.

A couple of you have come up to me tonight and said: So, why did the Atlantic Council decide to do an all-women honoree cast for the first time in its history? We have a wide-ranging nomination process—many of you are involved in it. We have a selection committee that’s very discerning. The simple answer is it just turned out that way. These were the best leaders we could possibly identify.

Thank you for the honorees for inspiring us. Thank you for all of you for supporting us.

Now the breathtaking Nova Payton, internationally acclaimed recording artist, Broadway star, will bring us home. Please listen to her every note.

Watch the performance

The post Full transcript: 2023 Distinguished Leadership Awards celebrate the game-changing role of women in the world appeared first on Atlantic Council.

As the scope of fighting widens and the number of Sudanese refugees grows, neighboring countries fear the impact on their populations, potentially igniting political turbulence. While there have been diplomatic efforts to coordinate a ceasefire, it’s unclear whether it will hold and what could be done otherwise to stop the fighting.

Atlantic Council experts react to the conflict in Sudan and discuss how it will impact the region and beyond.

Benjamin Mossberg: ‘The United States must continue to prioritize the Sudanese people’

Alia Brahimi: Libya’s Haftar is resupplying the conflict in Sudan

Thomas Warrick: ‘Governance remains one of Sudan’s greatest challenges’

Shahira Amin: Sudanese are fleeing to Egypt while the country’s resources are overstretched

R. Clarke Cooper: The conflict in Sudan will have broad transregional impacts

‘The United States must continue to prioritize the Sudanese people’

The significant policy failure that the United States faces in Sudan cannot be understated. The importance of Sudan’s stability to Africa, Europe, and the Middle East is closely linked to the events inside the country as it faces ongoing fighting, the potential for a significant humanitarian disaster, and human rights abuses. While there is no easy solution to help Sudan exit this period of instability, the international community must act.

There appears to be little popular support for the violence facing the people of Sudan, as a majority of the Sudanese people face significant challenges in securing food, water, electricity, and shelter. Significant pressure must be brought to bear on General Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, the commander of the RSF, and General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the leader of the SAF, to encourage a firm cessation of hostilities and a return to negotiations over the civilian-led future of the country.

The announcement of an Executive Order—“Imposing Sanctions on Certain Persons Destabilizing Sudan and Undermining the Goal of a Democratic Transition”—on May 3 by the United States can be useful if applied in concert with more concrete action. US policymakers who do not work on Africa specifically must elevate Sudan on their priority list and engage their counterparts at sufficiently senior levels in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere to encourage them to apply pressure on the Sudanese generals. This could be done by freezing and seizing their financial, business, real estate, and other assets in the relevant countries. Cutting off these links will impede the two generals’ ability to fight, resupply their arms, and pay their soldiers, which would force them back to the negotiating table. 

The United States must continue prioritizing the Sudanese people and rely on Sudanese leaders that have support and roots in the country. While it is unlikely that either the SAF or RSF can win a decisive military victory, the United States should not abandon the country regardless. Geopolitical competition by China, Russia, and others continues to play out in Sudan and the wider Horn of Africa. It is critical that the United States continue to assert its values, communicate its interests, share its redlines consistently, and avoid the transactional nature of relationships that its geopolitical competitors value.

Benjamin Mossberg is the deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center. 

Libya’s Haftar is resupplying the conflict in Sudan

Libya is particularly exposed to developments in Sudan. The first point of vulnerability is the heavily partisan role of General Khalifa Haftar, who controls the east of Libya and large parts of the south and is a central node in the alliance between the UAE, Hemedti, and the Wagner Group. External support to the RSF ideally runs through southeastern Libya, a vast area largely in the grip of Haftar proxies. The border between Libya and Sudan, for example, is manned by Subul al-Salam, a Salafist militia in the pay of Haftar’s fourth son, Saddam. Additionally, Haftar’s 128th Brigade controls many of the transit routes in central and southern Libya. It is led by Hassan al-Zadma, who has strong personal links with Darfuri militias and has taken charge of sourcing mercenaries for Haftar from Sudan and Chad.  

Haftar’s role in the resupply of the RSF is more than a detail in this conflict—it is important to the war’s viability. There have already been documented reports of ammunition shipments, missile deliveries, and intelligence sharing. However, fuel is the critical resource for Hemedti’s Darfur-based fighters who must cross great tracts of the desert by truck to reach Khartoum. Thus, Saddam Haftar has personally overseen the effort to divert Libyan fuel towards the RSF, redirecting the refining capacity at the Sarir oil field—ten thousand barrels a day—over the border to Hemedti. 

The second point of danger is Libya’s status as an optimal rear base. Libya is a major black market logistics hub—for weapons, food, fuel, fighters, fresh dollars—and, thus, an ideal base to launch attacks into Sudan or Chad. If Hemedti retreats from Khartoum to Darfur, tribal fighting within the Darfur region and the collapse of the peace deal there threatens to pull Libya into a regional conflagration. 

The third source of vulnerability is a lesson that might be drawn from the descent into war in Sudan. The international community may rightly conclude that the strategy of dealing with warlords—empowering them as legitimate “stakeholders” in democratic transition—has been exposed as deeply flawed by Sudan. Most Libyans would agree. At the same time, Haftar will note that Hemedti was an integral part of the United Nations-approved power-sharing deal and a party to official political agreements. However, his position was ultimately insecure. Haftar and his sons may, therefore, recommit to growing their military power and leveraging their relationship with the Wagner Group to obtain a preponderance of military power in Libya. This would upend the delicate balance in Libya and portend a regional war.  

Alia Brahimi is a nonresident senior fellow in the Middle East Programs.

‘Governance remains one of Sudan’s greatest challenges’

I have two memories of Sudan. The first is in 2016, when I was just about to fly out to Khartoum to lead the first high-level US government delegation to Sudan in a decade. My boss called me into his office to give me the benefit of his experience leading such a delegation more than a decade earlier. “The people are warm and friendly towards Americans,” he recalled, “but their government has a history of disappointing them.”

My second memory is of when I was there to discuss rebuilding counterterrorism ties with the Sudanese government. They helicoptered us to an important remote base in the northwest that lay astride one of Africa’s major human smuggling routes from east Africa to southern Europe. As we flew out of Khartoum, a US official with years of experience there pointed out the two bridges over the White Nile: “You do realize that the government’s remit stops at the west end of that bridge?”

Seven years later, and after a brief period of hope, governance remains one of Sudan’s greatest challenges. The popular support for civilian leaders who came to power in 2019 was undercut by generals vying for power, each afraid that “second place” meant “last place.” Yet Sudan remains strategically important to the United States, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East because of its role at a crossroads. During the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s (ISIS) time controlling parts of Syria and Iraq, Sudan was a transit country for ISIS operatives and money transiting in and out of Libya. Human traffickers carried Ethiopians and others toward Libyan ports, taking advantage of false hopes of leaving behind drought and food crises.

Sustained pressure now needs to be brought by the Quad—the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and UAE—and others on the countries supporting the warring generals in order to reach a resolution that will benefit the Sudanese people. They deserve better than another decade of disappointment.

Thomas S. Warrick is a senior fellow and the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative.

Sudanese are fleeing to Egypt while the country’s resources are overstretched

Concerns are rising in Egypt as the fighting in neighboring Sudan rages on. Since the outbreak of the conflict in mid-April, tens of thousands of Sudanese fleeing the violence have crossed over into Egypt through a shared southern border with Sudan. The mass influx threatens to put an additional strain on Egypt, which is already facing an acute economic crisis.

But the added burden on Egypt’s already-overstretched resources isn’t Cairo’s only concern. Egyptian leadership is even more worried about prospects of a Muslim Brotherhood resurgence next door, which may, subsequently, pave the way for infiltration over the border. This follows the April 26 release of imprisoned, key figures from Sudanese ex-President Omar al-Bashir’s deposed regime. The SAF reportedly ordered the release of members of the former Islamist regime after protests by inmates broke out inside Kober prison, where they had been jailed after Bashir’s overthrow by the military in 2019. 

Egypt’s army is already stretched thin: troops have been deployed on Libya’s western border to guard against foreign infiltrators. Moreover, after more than a decade of battling an insurgency fueled by Islamic State militants—many of whom had allegedly crossed into Northern Sinai from the Gaza Strip by way of underground tunnels—the last thing the Egyptian military wants is a new front in its war on terrorism.  

The ongoing conflict also pits Egypt against its longtime ally, the UAE, which backs the RSF (the powerful paramilitary forces embroiled in a power struggle with the SAF, which is backed by Egypt). Supporting opposing sides may cause tensions between the two countries at a time when Egypt is in dire need of financial backing to shore up its ailing economy. The sale of Egyptian assets to Gulf countries, including the UAE, has provided Egypt with the lifeline it needs to avert economic collapse and a looming debt default (so far, at least).

Egypt has also relied heavily on Sudan’s support in the ongoing dispute with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), which sources say threatens to exacerbate Egypt’s water shortage challenge. There are growing concerns in Egypt that the instability in Sudan may overshadow or even derail the negotiations with Ethiopia.

While the Egyptian leadership has insisted it is not taking sides in the conflict, Cairo is watching the developments in Sudan with trepidation, as the unfolding crisis may have far-reaching implications for its northern neighbor. 

Shahira Amin is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative.

The conflict in Sudan will have broad transregional impacts

As with previous civil wars in Sudan, the collapse of security and the displacement of the population will have broad transregional impacts beyond immediate neighboring states. Some internally-displaced Sudanese may eventually return home, while others will seek permanent refuge anywhere outside of Sudan—be it on the African continent or further afield in Europe or North America. Exasperating an already fragile security environment, the disruption from the weeks-long conflict is already enabling a more permissive environment for transnational crime and illicit trafficking and terrorism.

Unfortunately, in the multilateral space, there is diminishing capacity to properly address Sudan’s increasingly dire humanitarian and security issues. War in Ukraine, earthquake recovery in Turkey, and flood relief in Pakistan already occupy significant amounts of attention and resources from United Nations agencies, various NGOs, and the national governments of the world. Still, beyond the immediate humanitarian appeal to help the civilian populous of Sudan, this latest iteration of civil conflict also requires global attention in the peacekeeping, security, and conflict resolution space. If ignored, Sudan’s humanitarian and security crisis will manifest itself elsewhere in the world well beyond the Middle East and North Africa.

Absent conflict resolution led by a group of responsible states or a multilateral body, there is an increasing risk that the conflict will become a regional war. Neighboring states have already aligned with either of the two generals and, bizarrely, in some cases, aligned with both sides. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan has the affirmed support of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The UAE, and General Haftar of Libya, however, support the RSF. As other international actors assess where to align, a united front of regional and Western states is required to stop the march toward greater conflict, and the time for such a united front is now. 

R. Clarke Cooper is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative.

The post Experts react: Sudan at the crossroads—where the conflict goes from here appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The summit and recent visits by high-ranking Biden administration officials to Africa were the culmination of an effort led by the White House to strengthen the relationship between the United States and the African continent in a wide variety of aspects.

This approach by the Biden administration is quite different from the one adopted by the Donald Trump administration, which saw the continent as a playground for superpower rivalry between China, Russia, and the United States. As part of this great power competition, the Biden administration seeks to enhance diplomatic, economic, and security cooperation to block Chinese and Russian influence in Africa.

However, one area both administrations completely ignore is Iran’s growing influence on the continent and the need to formulate a policy that will work to limit Tehran’s freedom of action in Africa.

Since the Islamic revolution in 1979—and even more so following the heavy political pressure on Tehran—Africa has become an attractive continent for the Islamic Republic. Iran views the African continent as a “battleground” for influence, power, and territory against Saudi Arabia, and has also sought to counter Western influence—particularly that of the United States—within Africa, working with elements that are opposed to colonialism and seeking to chart a more independent course.

Moreover, Iran seeks to utilize their worldwide network of religious and cultural organizations, including universities and charities, to increase its influence over the vast Shia minorities in Africa, using them for political support, fundraising, and even to recruit to terrorist cells.

But Iranian terrorist activities in Africa are not the only problem. Iran is not hesitating to interfere in the internal affairs of many African countries to preserve its interests and protect the individuals who serve its policies. A prominent example is the unprecedented Iranian involvement in 2019 to free Shia cleric Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky from his detention in Nigeria, with Iran using its control on Hausa TV to push for his release.

The Iran-West Africa Economic Summit in Tehran, which was held on March 7, is another indication that Iran is seeking to enhance its relations with African countries and strengthen its foothold, especially in the west of the continent. This is part of President Ebrahim Raisi’s vision regarding relations between West African countries and Iran, which was exemplified in his visit to Guinea-Biassau in August 2021, when he pledged to continue expanding ties between Iran and the continent. In many regards, this activity resembles the policy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Africa, which sought to improve relations significantly.

Apart from Iran’s traditional interests in Africa, several new ones have emerged that must be considered in the context of preventing Iran from consolidating its interests in the continent.

First and foremost is the campaign that Tehran is waging against US allies in Africa that dared to take part in the normalization efforts with Israel: Sudan and Morocco. In order to achieve this goal, Iran has enhanced its military and diplomatic ties with Algiers and increased military aid to the Polisario Front in Western Sahara. The latter contribution has improved the front’s ability to inflict severe damage on the Moroccan army and challenge Moroccan control over the territory. Iran is also working in Mauritania and sees this country as a priority zone for its influence schemes in the Sahara region, which is extremely important for Moroccan security.

In the case of Sudan, Iran’s bid to further its influence in the strategic Horn of Africa suffered after Khartoum joined the Abraham Accords. In order to change this negative trend, Iran is blaming Israel for causing political instability in Sudan’s domestic issues. Furthermore, Iran is still actively trying to spread its Shia doctrine in the country while conspiring to create a political vacuum in Sudan that will weaken the forces who agreed to sign a normalization agreement with Israel.

Through its actions, Tehran is demonstrating that there is a price for joining the Abraham Accords and that it can pose a direct or indirect threat to Sudan and Morocco. Iran is also conducting a powerful political campaign to prevent Israel from enhancing its relations with other African countries and improving its diplomatic presence in various African institutions, such as the African Union.

In addition to the illegal arms smuggling network that Iran managed to build in the Horn of Africa, which allows Tehran to smuggle weapons to the countries of the continent, it also appears to be planning to significantly increase its sales of Unmanned Arial Vehicles (UAVs) to the African continent. Evidence of this can be seen in Iran’s involvement in the civil war in Ethiopia and the sale of Mohajer-6 UAVs to the Ethiopian army.

Against the background of Iranian involvement in Ukraine and Tehran’s desire to increase sales of its military equipment in the war in Ukraine, Africa is a natural continent for this desire, and the transfer of these capabilities to the Polisario Front constitutes another indication of that.

Third, there is a need to pay close attention to the plots that were revealed in several African countries after the assassination of Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani in January 2020—the foiled plot to assassinate the US ambassador in South Africa, chief among them. During the past year, several plans were discovered in which Iran sought to harm American or Israeli interests in Africa or use its presence in the continent to recruit terrorists.

In order to protect its allies in Africa and preserve its interests in the continent, the Biden administration cannot focus solely on the growing presence of China and Russia. It must also consider Tehran’s deepening foothold in Africa, which is a growing challenge to US policy on the continent. The administration must prepare an orderly work plan with the cooperation of African countries—and possibly Gulf countries—that are very disturbed by Iranian expansion. The goal of this would be to reduce Iranian influence in Africa and prevent Iran from using African countries to achieve its interests.

Looking to the future, Africa will continue to be an attractive target for Iranian policy under Raisi. Without a well-thought-out action plan, the US will have minimal ability to push Tehran out of Africa and prevent it from coordinating with China and Russia, with the latter having engaged in an unprecedented rapprochement with Tehran in recent months. Thus, countering Iran’s influence in Africa must become a priority for the Biden administration sooner rather than later.

Danny Citrinowicz is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. He served for twenty-five years in a variety of command positions units in Israel Defense Intelligence (IDI) including as the head of the Iran branch in the Research and Analysis Division (RAD) in the Israeli defense intelligence and as the division’s representative in the United States. Follow him on Twitter: @citrinowicz.

The post When it comes to great power competition in Africa, one competitor is missing: Iran appeared first on Atlantic Council.

At the same time, the African continent faces a wide infrastructure investment gap, estimated at more than one hundred billion dollars annually, according to the African Development Bank.

This gap affects both the continent’s global competitiveness and many Africans’ poor living conditions. Yet Africa has great potential, with an economic-growth rate that is expected to be surpass the global average in 2023 and 2024; high renewable-energy potential; and young, dynamic, and innovative populations.

To turn Africa’s potential into reality, investing billions—from African governments, the international community, and the private sector—in infrastructure will be crucial.

Global Gateway, the European Union’s (EU) answer to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, plans to mobilize up to 300 billion euros (about $331 billion) in public and private investments by 2027, with half designated for African countries. Even though Global Gateway is providing the billions that Africa needs to harness its potential and close its infrastructure gap, success is not guaranteed. For it to be a success, several conditions must be met.

A priority partnership

Global Gateway’s prioritization of Africa is quite plain to see, even beyond the fact that half of the planned funds are going toward the continent. Global Gateway is embedded in the renewed EU-Africa relationship. In February 2022, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Senegalese President Macky Sall, who was then the African Union (AU) president, announced that the Africa-Europe program would be the very first regional plan under Global Gateway.

This announcement took place a few days before the EU-AU summit that set out to establish a renewed EU-Africa relationship based on a balanced and well-defined appreciation of interests and responsibilities of both partners. Going into the summit, the parties expected a “renewed, modernized, and more action-oriented partnership.” Global Gateway, as a partnership itself, checks those boxes.

For the EU, it is crucial to be perceived by African partners as delivering on promises made at the EU-AU summit. With Global Gateway, it seems as though the EU is making another effort to be a reliable partner that makes commitments that have concrete effects on the ground. That will be important for the EU as China and Russia continue to present competing narratives and models of international order, political organization, and values.

Aligning with Africa’s 2063 vision

For Global Gateway’s projects to have an impact and to live up to the promises of the renewed EU-AU partnership, they have to align with the goals and priorities of the AU’s Agenda 2063. The agenda, adopted in 2015, aims to develop infrastructure, improve energy access, build an integrated network of transport infrastructure, and connect the African continent to the rest of the world.

So far, Global Gateway’s initial projects seem in line with the Agenda. The EU intends to invest in particular in energy, digital, and transportation infrastructure—doing so is a real emergency in Africa. The bloc also intends to accelerate the green transition, bolster health systems, and support education and training. Projects that tackle these issues include the construction of a EurAfrica Gateway Cable, a submarine fiber-optic cable connecting Africa with the EU; a Strategic Transport Corridor between Cabo Verde, Senegal, and the Ivory Coast; and solar power plants in Niger. Global Gateway also aims to boost youth entrepreneurship by financing the launch of high-potential startups and to more generally create jobs for Africa’s growing youth population. The VaMoz Digital program, for example, plans to invest in digital literacy and skills for youth in Mozambique.

How China compares

Chinese investment always looms large, especially considering that China has mobilized over two trillion dollars for almost four thousand investment and construction projects abroad since 2005. Overall, China is far ahead of the EU in overseas investments.

But looking only at Africa, and more especially at Sub-Saharan Africa, the picture is not so clear. China signed over $303 billion in investments and construction contracts between 2006 to 2020. From this perspective, the EU’s 150 billion euros ($165 billion) over the course of only five years is certainly significant, especially considering that the investments made by EU member states outside of the Global Gateway initiative should also be added to this amount in totaling the EU’s contributions.

To reach its ambitious spending goals, the EU will need to rely on a range of financial instruments such as grants, capital investments, and guarantees; it will need to mobilize, among other tools, the European Fund for Sustainable Development+ (which is overseen by a financial tool called Global Europe: Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument) as well as the European Investment Bank.

While China gets called out for its predatory loan practices—and especially its controversial resource-backed lending model—and for neglecting environmental health or human rights in its investments, Global Gateway aims to comply with the highest environmental and social standards and to respect the EU’s democratic values. The program is rooted in EU values, and especially transparency, sustainability, and good governance.

While the program is rooted in EU values, it is not just a one-sided European idea or an investment project; it is an investment in a relationship. In this regard, Global Gateway differs from traditional development policies by placing a greater focus on embedding the project in a political and strategic relationship built on partnership principles. The initiative aims to help African partners build quality and sustainable infrastructure to strengthen their resilience and their strategic autonomy in the energy, technological, health and economic fields; in doing so, it could be the foundation of long-term African growth.

Conditions for success

Critics of Global Gateway argue that the initiative has overly long timelines, that the EU communicates poorly about it, and that the goals are difficult to discern; some critics also say that some of the funding was already mobilized for existing projects and that, in the end, the initiative amounts to no more than rebranding.

It is partly true that the EU often has difficulties in explaining its programs and initiatives, often opting for administrative jargon. It is also indeed the case that Global Gateway serves as an umbrella for some existing projects—which is understandable given that it takes more than a year to launch such infrastructure projects. However, Global Gateway scales up existing major infrastructure projects, speeds up their implementation, and provides a much-needed political impetus to unlock greater funding. African partners should take advantage of this to close the infrastructure gap in a sustainable way.

For Global Gateway to succeed, European and African partners must do the following:

• The EU must deliver on making the Global Gateway a renewed, and action-oriented partnership in line with the AU-EU summit’s objectives. The EU should nurture its relationship with African countries by delivering concrete and ambitious projects that contribute to Africa’s long-term economic growth. Both sides should recognize that this is not just a business issue: It is a political one.
• African partners must seize Global Gateway to close the continent’s infrastructure gap. But as it will be important to mobilize all investment needed—and to not come up short on funds—African partners should be more proactive in identifying their needs and on broadcasting successes to maintain the political momentum for the initiative.
• European and African partners should ensure that each project is compliant with the highest environmental and social-norms standards so that they contribute to green and resilient growth in Africa. Robust reporting will be crucial. Global Gateway projects have to be seen as an opportunity to reconcile economic development with climate-change mitigation and adaptation.
• Since Global Gateway is designed to leverage private fundings, African partners should build on this opportunity—in which the private sector is already investing in Africa—to unlock even more private-sector financing, beyond the initiative. African partners should use these investments to supplement the financing of green-growth and resilience projects.

Emilie Bel is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center and deputy to the director of public affairs and head of international affairs at the French Insurance Federation.

Related content

AfricaSource Dec 2, 2022

The Africa investment imperative: Diversification and resilience amid economic downturns

By Aubrey Hruby and Guillaume Arditti

At a time when investors are faced with high risks due to a global economic downturn, African markets are a viable investment opportunity.

Africa Democratic Transitions

AfricaSource Jul 8, 2022

Europe’s Green Deal plan is Africa’s green finance opportunity

By Emilie Bel

Can natural gas and nuclear power be green? “Sometimes, and for a limited period of time,” said the European Parliament on July 6, as part of an ongoing negotiation over the EU taxonomy, a key component of the European Green Deal (EGD). The EGD is the European Union’s ambitious plan to create the first emissions-neutral […]

Africa Climate Change & Climate Action

AfricaSource Sep 27, 2022

Here’s what a Marshall Plan for the DRC could look like

By Jean-Paul Mvogo

The development progress the DRC witnessed in the 1970s is now lost. A massive economic assistance program equivalent to the Marshall Plan may be necessary to recover what’s been lost.

Africa Democratic Republic of the Congo

The post The EU global investment initiative that could close Africa’s infrastructure gap appeared first on Atlantic Council.

On March 10, Foreign Policy published its biweekly “It’s Debatable” column featuring Scowcroft Center Vice President and Senior Director Matthew Kroenig and Emma Ashford assessing the latest news in international affairs.

In their latest column, they discuss the recent leak of sensitive government documents, the ongoing conflict in Sudan, and North Korea’s recent advancements in nuclear weapon capabilities. Specifically, in light of the developments in North Korea, the pair debate the utility and feasibility of nuclear disarmament.

Staff

Matthew Kroenig

Vice President and Senior Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

China Defense Policy

The post Kroenig and Ashford debate responses to advancements in North Korean nuclear capabilities appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Rather, international partners must increase financial pressure on the RSF, former Bashir-era government officials, and the SAF to change their political calculations at the negotiation table.

Sudan cannot be stable if there are two armies and if former regime elites/Islamists are allowed to sow discord. International partners need to put coordinated financial pressure on RSF leaders to commit to integrating rapidly into the army and on former regime leaders to stop inciting violence; international partners should also put SAF generals on notice that they must honor their pledges to hand over power.

Sudan’s long-ruling former dictator, Omar al-Bashir, was able to stay in power for thirty years by fragmenting the security services and deftly playing them against each other to prevent any one of them from becoming powerful enough to launch a successful coup. In return for their obedience, military and political leaders were allowed to gain control over large parts of the economy and accumulate great wealth. Sustained protests led to Bashir’s April 2019 ouster, a brief period of military rule, and eventually a civilian-military transitional government nominally headed by then Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, who governed in “partnership” with SAF General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and RSF General Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, the chair and vice-chair respectively of the Transitional Sovereignty Council.

International partners acquiesced to the generals taking these positions of power, thinking that it would help prevent conflict from breaking out between the two rival forces—and that competition between the SAF and the RSF would keep either from dominating the country and would allow the heavily constrained Hamdok and his civilian ministers to implement at least some reforms. While the prime minister was able to introduce some difficult but necessary economic reforms, Burhan and Hemedti launched another coup on October 25, 2021, to block a planned transfer of the Transitional Sovereignty Council chair to a civilian.

The return of military rule was roundly rejected by the Sudanese people, who held frequent protests, and donors, who paused more than four billion dollars in planned economic assistance. The coup leaders came under enormous economic and diplomatic pressure to negotiate another transition, but they occupied irreconcilable positions on security-sector reform. Burhan and his hardline generals wanted the RSF to be rapidly subsumed into the SAF, while Hemedti (backed by his supporters from the periphery) wanted to keep his independent power base and played for time. As “negotiations” dragged on, the two leaders employed different tactics to try to strengthen their own position and weaken the other’s, including importing more weapons, arming communities, trying to splinter their rival’s forces, cutting off sources of funding, allying with civilian politicians, developing bonds with foreign leaders (including Russia), and—at least according to persistent chatter in Khartoum—planning coups in case these other efforts failed to change the balance of power. Tensions waxed and waned over the past one-and-a-half years, and external actors had to intercede a number of times to prevent combat from breaking out. Unfortunately this time, with the Islamists reportedly exacerbating strife and the political negotiations seemingly about to conclude, diplomats have been unable to avert a war.

Neither the SAF nor RSF is capable of a decisive victory, particularly given Sudan’s size and its fractured political landscape. Barring decisive intervention, the most likely scenario is a long and bloody multisided civil war and a staggering humanitarian disaster, like ones seen in Somalia, Syria, or Yemen. This disaster would not be limited to Sudan; it could also destabilize the greater region and drive tens of millions of Sudanese people to flee to neighboring states, the Middle East, and Europe.

That scenario needs to be prevented in a way that ensures the political and military calculations of Hemedti, Burhan, and their supporters change when serious negotiations to restore a civilian government resume. Simply calling for ceasefires or evenly applying diplomatic pressure is not enough. This would only preserve the rough parity of military power between the RSF and SAF. This is not to suggest that either Hemedti or Burhan is “better.” Both have failed the Sudanese people and should be encouraged to move on from power. However, international partners must aim to immediately stop the fighting, bring back negotiations for a transition to civilian government, and then ensure both generals honor their public pledges to hand over power.

Thus, international and regional leaders must, in coordination, begin to strategically apply pressure by freezing Sudanese bank accounts and temporarily blocking the business activities of Sudanese leaders and their forces. This cutoff in money and revenue will impact those actors’ abilities to pay their soldiers and allies to fight and resupply. More importantly, it will impact their calculations about their willingness to return to serious negotiations and to compromise. Given the RSF is unlikely to prevail against the SAF with its heavy weapons and support from Egypt, the least bad option to stop the fighting is to first apply pressure on Hemedti’s business empire, which funds the RSF—his soldiers are loyal because they are paid better, not for any ideological reason. External actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (where, because of past Western sanctions, most Sudanese have their bank accounts and base their businesses), should freeze known RSF and Hemedti-family bank accounts and business activities until RSF leaders commit to rapidly integrating their troops into the SAF. Some of the most important assets have been identified and others are known by the Emirati and Saudi governments. Similarly, international partners must quickly freeze the assets of known Bashir-regime/Islamist leaders who are inciting violence in an effort to return to power. 

Finally, partners should identify foreign-held SAF assets and business interests for possible freezing and seizure in case the army does not honor its pledge to hand over power—or perpetuates the historic political and economic dominance of elites from Khartoum at the expense of Sudanese people living in the rest of the country. Only in this way is a sustainable ceasefire and peace possible.

Ernst Jan “EJ” Hogendoorn is a former senior advisor to the US special envoy to Sudan and South Sudan, and former deputy Africa Program director at the International Crisis Group.

The post To stop the fighting in Sudan, take away the generals’ money appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The intersection of tropical-tolerant research and demographic growth

US technology multinationals are increasingly looking to Africa for AI and other emerging technologies for a number of reasons. First, technology corporations such as IBM, Google, and others have created R&D labs in Africa (often run by African diaspora professionals). Second, building a base in Africa gives technology corporations access to innovative ideas, cutting edge startups, AI researchers and more. Additionally, the opportunity to scale R&D innovations attuned to the needs of the region is particularly important since it has a fast-growing youth population. One in five people on the planet will be African in thirty years, so if a business wants to be first to market, a local African presence is imperative.

One key reason is the opportunity to scale R&D innovations attuned to the needs of the region. Google opened its first African AI lab in Ghana. Why did Google do this? A few technology corporations, like IBM, Google, and others, have created R&D labs in Africa as they begin to understand the landscape of African research and innovation. Due to their knowledge and experience on both the local and global scales, some have hired African diaspora professionals to run these labs. IBM maintains research facilities in Kenya and South Africa, while Google operates an AI facility in Ghana. Why did they decide to reside there? They undoubtedly want to find out what fresh ideas startups, AI researchers, and other organizations are working on, as well as new trends that can be made into products. This kind of foresight is wise for business, but it will be necessary moving forward. One in five people on the planet will be African in thirty years, so if a business wants to be first to market, a local Africa presence will be essential to cater to this growing demographic market.

Utilizing AI and emerging technologies in healthcare and medicine

The tropical regions of Africa are a hotbed for many emerging diseases that pose a threat to global health. These regions also have a high incidence of poverty, which limits access to quality healthcare. As a result, there is a great need for new medical technologies that can be used to prevent, diagnose, and treat existing and upcoming diseases. AI and other emerging technologies have the potential to transform healthcare in Africa by providing early detection of disease outbreaks, developing more effective treatments, and improving access to quality care. Additionally, these technologies can help reduce the cost of healthcare delivery by automating tasks and improving efficiency.

US technology multinationals are investing in AI and other emerging technologies because they recognize the potential impact these technologies can have on global health. By commercializing and scaling R&D innovations from Africa, the private sector, technology multinationals, and academic institutions are partnering to improve the lives of millions of people across the continent and other frontier markets. Zindi, a start-up based in Cape Town, South Africa, called upon African data scientists to develop solutions to address the COVID-19 crisis when it was at its peak. Similarly, Christian Happi—a Professor of Molecular Biology and Genomics, as well as director of the ACEGID at Redeemer’s University in Nigeria—has assembled a team of data scientists who are utilizing AI and other advanced technologies to sequence the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The opportunity for US technology multinationals in Africa

Due to the continent’s variety of entrepreneurial ecosystems, particularly tech incubators, accelerators, and co-working spaces, US technology multinationals are turning to Africa and other frontier markets as a proving ground to test AI and other emerging technologies solutions. These entrepreneurial ecosystems are starting to serve as a testing ground for new ideas that, for a variety of reasons, such as a lack of base-load power or the high cost of Internet data, would not take off in a developed market. The continent also has a growing population of young people who are embracing digital technologies, which presents a significant opportunity for companies that are looking to expand their customer base and broaden their workforce.

African critical minerals used in emerging technologies

Several critical minerals, such as cobalt, lithium, graphite, platinum metals, etc., serve as essential materials for everyday tech such as consumer electronic products—thus far an untapped market for powering the global emerging technology ecosystem. Additionally, Africa’s natural resources also offer the opportunity to make the African continent a leading player in the global green transition to electric vehicles that run on batteries. This is a market that China has largely cornered, however, due to African governments realizing the potential to generate more revenue from these critical minerals, African countries have recently started to ban unprocessed raw commodities being used in emerging technologies. For instance, Zimbabwe recently instituted a raw lithium ban and other African countries are starting to realize the opportunity to navigate geopolitical competition between the world’s industrial powers to capitalize on their critical minerals for their own development–foreign direct investment, value-addition, and increased job creation.

The challenge of scaling R&D innovations in Africa

The challenge of scaling R&D innovations is that they require significant investments of time and money to bring to market, and these investments are often riskier than traditional businesses. For US technology multinationals, the opportunity to scale their R&D investments in Africa is an attractive proposition. The continent has a vast population with a growing middle class, and its resources are largely untapped. However, doing business in Africa comes with its own set of challenges, including infrastructure constraints and political instability. Nevertheless, for companies willing to invest in the continent, the rewards could be significant.

There are significant challenges associated with scaling R&D innovations in Africa, including:

• Infrastructure: Many African countries do not have the basic infrastructure required to support large-scale R&D operations. Challenges include unreliable base-load power, telecommunications, and transportation.
• Skilled labor: In many African countries, education levels are low and there is a lack of trained personnel who can work in R&D facilities.
• Political instability: There are political risks associated with doing business in Africa. These risks include instability, corruption, and government interference.

The benefits of an Afro-centric R&D innovation strategy

There are many benefits to pursuing an Afro-centric R&D innovation strategy, including the ability to scale innovations more effectively across frontier and emerging markets. By focusing on developing technologies that can be adapted to work in tropical climates, US technology multinationals can gain a first mover advantage in the African market and tap into a vast untapped customer base. Additionally, this strategy can help build long-term relationships with local partners and suppliers, which is essential for successful business operations in Africa. The natural environment in Africa, which includes semi-arid temperatures, deserts, and tropical climates, can also be a suitable testing ground for innovations that could thrive in developed markets. Moreover, US companies can position themselves as global leaders in the race to develop impactful innovations for Africa by investing in R&D of technologies relevant to the continent’s needs. Finally, by 2030 African youth are expected to constitute forty two percent of the global youth population. This is an enormous demographic who will be tech savvy, ambitious, and hungry for economic opportunity.

Conclusion

US technology multinationals have recognized the potential for scaling up Afro-centric R&D innovations in Africa. With access to a large and growing digitized population, as well as an abundance of data resources untapped for AI, this continent offers enormous opportunities for responsibly advancing AI and other emerging technologies. By leveraging local knowledge and expertise, US technology companies can develop new products and services designed specifically for African markets while also contributing to the development of innovative solutions applicable globally in emerging and developed markets.

GeoTech Center

Championing positive paths forward that societies can pursue to ensure new technologies and data empower people, prosperity, and peace.

Explore the program

The post Why US technology multinationals are looking to Africa for AI and other emerging technologies: Scaling tropical-tolerant R&D innovations appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Accra is hardly alone in its enthusiasm for gold. Since 2008, emerging-market and developing countries have more than doubled their central bank gold reserves, led by Russia, China, Turkey, and India.

The end of gold demonetization?

Developing and emerging-market countries’ growing gold purchases have reversed a selloff in gold reserves—led by advanced economies—since the 1990s.

Starting in the mid-1940s, the Bretton Woods system linked most advanced economies’ currencies to gold, so treasuries and central banks accumulated large reserves to back them. But the system’s collapse in 1971 eliminated gold’s direct monetary purpose as a guarantor of currency value. Meanwhile, central banks’ success in controlling inflation in the late 1980s suggested that gold was no longer needed to rapidly raise capital for currency market interventions. And as interventions became less frequent, it became harder for central banks to justify large reserves in the 1990s.

Consequently, advanced-economy governments (which held 85% of all government-held gold in 1990) offloaded nearly one-fifth of their gold reserves from 1990 to 2007. Some, like the United Kingdom, swapped gold for foreign currencies. Others tried to get more creative: the Swiss government proposed establishing a foundation for Nazi-era victims with sale proceeds, although they eventually filled state coffers after voters rejected the idea. Apart from additional revenue, the sales offered practical benefits like reduced holding costs and lower exposure to gold’s notoriously high price volatility.

Emerging-market and developing economies largely followed advanced economies in demonetizing gold, though they had less of it to sell. Their gold reserves grew less than 10% during this period, even as their non-gold reserves expanded 25-fold.

Emerging markets’ new gold rush

What explains emerging-market and developing countries’ increased enthusiasm for gold since then?

First, the Global Financial Crisis weakened their confidence in the dollar-backed financial system’s stability—catalyzing a trajectory shift in gold purchases. In 2009, for example, China’s State Council announced that it had quietly expanded its gold stockpile by over 70% in previous years. Although China times its disclosures strategically—sometimes years apart—the announcement signaled an accelerated purchase program that persists today.

Second, the logic of returns may explain some diversification into gold. Years of rock-bottom interest rates on advanced-economy bonds increased the attractiveness of assets like gold, which can generate meaningful long-term returns. More recently, some central banks have reasoned that gold’s scarcity preserves its value as elevated inflation erodes Dollar- and Euro-denominated assets—although past returns suggest that gold is not an effective inflation hedge over shorter horizons.

Third, some countries have sought to reduce sanctions risk with gold reserves. Transacting with gold offers key advantages for sanctions evasion: anonymity, low traceability (especially if gold is mixed into alloys), and alternatives to Western financial centers where the US and its allies can more easily restrict trade flows. For example, Russia embarked on a major gold purchase program after US and EU sanctions for its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Since then, Russian entities have conducted gold-denominated transactions through hubs like Dubai to evade sanctions. Although gold’s bulkiness makes it an imperfect medium of exchange, several heavily-sanctioned countries have followed Russia’s lead in increasing gold’s share of foreign reserves.

Greater ambitions for gold

More broadly, countries with fractious US relations trust the dollar-backed financial system less, so it is unsurprising that gold purchases increase with geopolitical distance. Grouping countries by their degree of alignment with the US (represented by votes at the UN General Assembly, where “most aligned” states are in the top quarter of countries by voting alignment, “more aligned” are the next quarter, and so forth) shows that all but the “most aligned” countries have grown their gold reserves since 2008.

An important question is whether China and Russia will employ gold in their efforts to foster alternatives to the dollar—for example, by aiding the internationalization of the Chinese yuan. Outside of China, use of the yuan is hampered by Beijing’s capital account controls; foreign investors are reluctant to hold or trade yuan-denominated contracts without firmer guarantees of its convertibility. However, gold-backed yuan contracts could promise greater convertibility without requiring China to loosen capital controls. The Chinese government has already moved to promote the gold trade, establishing a yuan-denominated gold benchmark index in 2016 that makes it easier for Chinese market participants to exchange gold and influence prices, although further steps have been limited.

For now, emerging markets’ growing interest in gold is more a feature of the existing monetary system than a seismic shift away from it. Gold reserves still make up only 7% of emerging and developing countries’ reserves, and central banks may eventually decide that its clunkiness and price volatility are not worth the trouble. Diversifiers into gold believe that they can reduce their risks, improve their returns, or both. Whether these countries keep buying after inflation subsides will offer a clue into the staying power of gold’s appeal.

Phillip Meng is a Young Global Professional with the GeoEconomics Center.

At the intersection of economics, finance, and foreign policy, the GeoEconomics Center is a translation hub with the goal of helping shape a better global economic future.

Learn more

The post Why emerging markets are stocking up on gold appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The situation is, in part, being made worse by climate change, which is increasing temperatures and changing weather patterns, compounding the hardship already caused by droughts. According to the International Monetary Fund, a third of the world’s droughts occur in Sub-Saharan Africa; meanwhile, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Horn of Africa is experiencing the longest and most severe drought on record. These conditions are weakening food systems across Sub-Saharan Africa, an area in which agriculture, forestry, and fishing make up 17.2 percent of the gross domestic product—and substantially more in countries like Sierra Leone and Chad.

But there’s more to this food insecurity trend than climate change; Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has caused uncertainty in the global food market, disrupting the production and trade of key commodities. Russia and Ukraine are significant suppliers of oil, wheat, and maize, and disruptions to the supply chain, combined with local conflicts in some countries, have caused inflation to soar, with food prices increasing as much as 55.6 percent in the Horn of Africa.

Fighting these rising levels of food insecurity requires a whole-of-nation approach. But countries in these food-insecure regions aren’t doing enough to harness the economic and agricultural potential of half their populations: women. For example, discriminatory laws that hamper women’s access to land and financial services are still in place in some countries. In order to fight food insecurity in full force, these countries must ensure that women are equipped with the exact same resources as men: both land itself and the decision-making power to determine how to use that land in the most productive way possible. Policymakers in these food-insecure countries should take the following actions:

Equalize inheritance rights

Some countries in these food-insecure regions have made significant strides recently in passing reforms that impact women’s lives in some respects—but they have faltered in passing meaningful reforms related to improving access to assets and entrepreneurship opportunities for women.

According to the Center for Global Development, agriculture accounts for 56 percent of employment in Sub-Saharan Africa, and women account for 57 percent of agricultural workers. The informal sector accounts for 50 to 80 percent of economic activity in Sub-Saharan Africa—activity that includes the sale of food. And like the agricultural sector, the informal sector is a major employer of women: In Africa, 89.7 percent of employed women work in the informal sector. Yet despite the roles that women play in these sectors, only 30 percent of women own land in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The discrepancy in land ownership extends in part from inheritance laws. In some of these food-insecure countries, inheritance plays the primary role in determining land ownership. Some inheritance laws across the region are—or were initially—patriarchal, favoring men in the division of property. There have been some signs of progress in protecting women’s rights to inherit property; for example, in Uganda, lawmakers recently amended the Succession Act to ensure equal inheritance rights between men and women.

However, Uganda’s Succession Act was the first inheritance reform implemented in Sub-Saharan Africa since Mali’s in 2011, according to the World Bank, demonstrating the slow pace of progress. More countries must follow suit by implementing their own amendments or fresh, new laws on inheritance rights.

Support women’s entrepreneurship

Owning land goes hand-in-hand with access to financial services. In countries across these food-insecure regions of Africa, farmers must have land titles in order to access the credit necessary to increase agricultural productivity by hiring workers, purchasing animals or farming equipment, and covering transportation and storage costs of their goods. Credit supports entrepreneurship, which promotes innovation and the accumulation of wealth—both of which are integral to fighting food insecurity in the region. However, just as women’s rights to own land are hindered in some countries, their rights to enterprise are sometimes hindered as well.  

According to the World Bank, 71 percent of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa do not have laws that prohibit financial institutions from discriminating based on gender, and women often face more stringent loan arrangements than men when they do access credit. Furthermore, according to the International Monetary Fund, in Sub-Saharan Africa, just 37 percent of women own bank accounts compared to 48 percent of men. If a woman must rely on a man to open a bank account, take out a loan, or register a business, she cannot fully exercise her rights as an entrepreneur to hire workers or freely determine the agricultural methods she uses with the hopes of increasing output.

All countries in these food-insecure regions of Africa should criminalize gender-based discrimination with regard to credit. Allowing women an equal opportunity to receive loans encourages entrepreneurship, leading to more production and competition in the agricultural market. Benin’s Order No. 2349-5—which was implemented in 2022 and prohibits credit, banking, and decentralized financial systems from using discriminatory practices in granting access to credit—can serve as a model for other countries.

Putting the law into practice

Laws are only part of the solution. Guaranteeing equal access to land and credit requires systemic change. Localities and financial institutions need to make a concerted effort to ensure that women are aware of their rights and encourage them to embrace the opportunities to own land or become entrepreneurs.

Activists and government officials should work with local leaders to hold seminars for women, outlining their rights to own land and offering to process land titles. In the private sector, financial institutions can create campaigns specifically marketed towards women, publishing advertisements in print, social, and broadcast media that encourage women to apply for credit.

By taking concrete steps to ensure that women have equal access to land and entrepreneurship, countries can empower their full populations, bringing major benefits for the economy, agricultural productivity, and food security.

James Storen is the program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Center.

The post Tackling food insecurity in Africa will require securing women’s rights. Here are two ways to start. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Seventy-eight years after World War II, as facts fade and fewer survivors remain, the Holocaust risks being forgotten. This natural amnesia is compounded by widespread campaigns to revise or repress Holocaust history. International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27 and Holocaust Remembrance Day (Yom Hashoah) on April 17 are important annual observances to counter these trends, but much more needs to be done year-round. Surprisingly, the Arab world may soon become a world leader in rejecting denialism to reassert “Never again!”

Present events constantly reshape the perceptions of the past and, indirectly, future outcomes. There are people in every country around the world who claim that the Holocaust never took place. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, Holocaust denial is mainly a trend among the younger generation due to a lack of Holocaust education in schools and after-school activities. For decades, the Holocaust has been a taboo subject, politicized and conflated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in official discourse. Historical truth is clouded, if not overshadowed, by key actors in the Arab world who connect Israeli state policies and the Jewish people worldwide—past and present, using them interchangeably, as if they were one. Opposition to Israel becomes resistance to the reality of Jewish suffering and injustice done to Jews in the past.

As a result, the Holocaust was absent from public consciousness until 2009, when Morocco’s King Mohammed VI became the first Arab leader to recognize the Holocaust by addressing the matter in a message addressed to the launch event of the Aladdin Project at UNESCO in Paris.

“Amnesia has no effect on my understanding of the Holocaust, or that of my people,” said the king, adding, “We must together endeavor to reassert reason and the values which underpin the legitimacy of a space of co-existence where the words of dignity, justice, and freedom will express themselves in the same way and will coexist, with the same requirements, regardless of our origins, cultures or spiritual ties. This is our interpretation, in Morocco, of the duty of remembrance dictated by the Shoah.”

Speaking at international conferences and forums devoted to the Holocaust and intercultural dialogue, King Mohammed VI and representatives of the Moroccan government have frequently emphasized the significance of denouncing anti-Semitism, instilling togetherness, and religious coexistence in Moroccan society, learning from the lessons of the Holocaust, and highlighting the crucial role that education plays in this context.

Challenges for Holocaust education in the Arab world

Past efforts at Holocaust education in the Arab world have too often suffered from a lack of context-specific sensitivity. In contrast to the king’s speech, which expresses the values and ideals of the Moroccan tradition as the basis for affirming Holocaust remembrance, others have simply translated Euro-centric Holocaust materials into Arabic, mainly from fear by civil society actors they would be blamed for “normalizing” with Israel if they tried to teach about the Holocaust. To effectively use Holocaust education as a tool for genocide prevention, the content should be tailored to Arab audiences using relevant wording, metaphors, names, and historical events.

In contrast to other areas of the world, World War II battles were fought, and Jews of the MENA region, directly or indirectly, experienced the Holocaust. Employing this little-known history in creating educational content is essential to sparking children’s imagination.

On the other hand, if this would only be a requirement, rather than a shared process of mutual development, educators would not take ownership of these materials and will lack the motivation to use these materials towards the essential goal of developing Holocaust education within the Arab world.

The power of participation

Today, initiatives all over the Middle East and North Africa try to promote Holocaust education through standard education approaches. However, teacher-to-student Holocaust education, while powerful, cannot reach the vast audience in need of this vital information and perspective. There is an increasing need to use state-of-the-art media, including those that allow for online sharing of ideas. While the hateful have exploited the Internet to spread racism, Holocaust denial, and other destructive ideologies, it can also serve as a powerful tool to educate and empower those fighting hate.

In 2011, the Kivunim Institute and Mimouna Association organized the first conference on the Holocaust in the Arab world commemorating the actions of the late King Mohammed V at Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane. An article in the New York Times praised the event as a “first of its kind in an Arab or Muslim nation, and a sign of historical truth triumphing over conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic dogma.”

The Mimouna Association and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) in 2017 jointly created the first Arabic-language Holocaust curriculum by and for Muslims. The Holocaust education material created was tailored to the specific context of the Arab and Muslim world.

The USHMM, which is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary this month, has prioritized promoting Holocaust education in the Arab world, for example, through Holocaust commemorations in Morocco in 2018 and 2022, and Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2022 and 2023. In 2022, the USHMM organized an important Holocaust commemoration in the UAE and Egypt.

In the Emirates, Ahmed Obaid Al Mansoori created in 2021 the first Holocaust memorial exhibition in the Arab world at the Crossroads of Civilization Museum in Dubai. This permanent exhibit is the first of its kind in the Arab world, and offers visitors a setting within which to begin to understand the Holocaust and fight the denial of this dark chapter of human history.

In Morocco this year, the Mimouna Association, in partnership with the Council of Jewish Communities in Morocco, the United Nations Information Centre, and the ASF, provided over 120 students from different Moroccan universities and institutes, Moroccan Muslim activists, and members of the Moroccan Jewish community with an opportunity to engage and learn more about the history of the Holocaust.

In the largest synagogue of Casablanca, 350 guests—including university students, Morocco’s Minister of Education Chakib Benmoussa, diplomats from the United States, Israel, France, Germany, Poland, The Vatican, and Spain, as well as representatives from Moroccan civil society and international organizations—packed the pews to honor King Mohammed V, savior of the Moroccan Jewish community.

Recognizing the deep convictions, moral approach, and brave policy of Sultan Mohammed V, the US ambassador to Morocco, Puneet Talwar, affirmed, “His Majesty King Mohammed V protected Morocco’s Jews from the Nazis. And His Majesty King Mohammed VI has carried on that legacy. He has spoken forcefully against the denial of the Holocaust.”

The Chief Rabbi of Casablanca, Rabbi Joseph Israel, said a customary Moroccan prayer honoring the king and his forefathers. The Muslim students also heard the Chapters of Psalms, Kaddish, Yizkor, and the Kel Malei Rachamim in memory of the Holocaust victims.

On the eve of Yom Hashoah, it is no longer considered taboo in the MENA region to promote Holocaust education and genocide prevention. The region’s youth are far more receptive to discussing the events of one of the darkest chapters of human history, despite the political, religious, and educational challenges shrouding this historic move that has been praised in some nations in the region and criticized in others.

El Mehdi Boudra is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. Follow him on Twitter: @ElBoudra.

N7 Initiative

The N7 Initiative, a partnership between the Atlantic Council and Jeffrey M. Talpins Foundation, seeks to broaden and deepen normalization between Israel and Arab and Muslim countries. It works with governments to produce actionable recommendations to deliver tangible benefits to their peoples.

Explore More

The post <strong>Safeguarding the past: The Arab world’s cure to Holocaust amnesia</strong> appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Event with Ghana’s Minister of finance and economy planning, Ken Ofori-Atta, was quoted in the New York Times appeared first on Atlantic Council.

To ensure that Sudan’s transition to democracy succeeds, its leaders must put limits on the power of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). For a successful political transformation, the SAF, led by Burhan, and the paramilitary RSF, led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, must be governed by the rule of law and work to protect democracy and human rights in Sudan. Absent meaningful reform to rein in the existing power of the security services, institutional tension between the services could spark a wider conflict that would destabilize the country and threaten the transition to democracy.

Reform of the security services will not be easy, and it is the subject of ongoing debate as the factions try to strike a deal on a transitional government. But there are steps Sudan’s leaders and those who support Sudan’s transition to democracy can take now.

The struggle for reform

Sudan’s military has played a major role in the political landscape of the country since its independence in 1956. Omar al-Bashir came into power in a military coup and, following thirty years of autocratic rule, was removed in 2019 by another military coup. Following his ouster, civilian and pro-democracy leaders called for fundamental reforms of the security sector, but Sudan continues to struggle with attempts at reform.

During the transition to democracy since 2019, the SAF and RSF have both cooperated and competed with one another for power in the country. For example, in an October 2021 coup ousting Sudan’s civilian leadership led by then-Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdock, the SAF and RSF joined forces with an array of Sudan’s armed movements and marginalized groups. At the same time, the RSF and SAF compete with each other behind the scenes to retain as much economic and political power, influence, and control as possible.

Managing the tension between the SAF and RSF will be a paramount concern for Sudan’s leadership as it seeks to avoid future conflict between the security forces that could trigger greater violence. This is a key element to establishing peace, security, and sustainable development in the country while allowing for the development and modernization of Sudan’s security institutions.

Meaningful security sector reform must address the role of the SAF and the professionalization and integration of the RSF into the SAF. It must also place the security services firmly under civilian control and oversight. In the security sector, reforms to Sudan’s legal framework must include formally establishing the role of the security forces and a single national army trusted by local communities across Sudan, especially in the conflict areas of the country.

Another critical step is untangling the military institutions from the economy. This will be very difficult and will require careful planning, as the SAF and RSF currently dominate nearly all facets of political, economic, and media power in Sudan—and work to protect this influence. Civilian authorities should seize the moment and take steps to address the challenges of security sector reform in Sudan during the transition to civilian leadership. The Bashir regime created a vast array of expensive, corrupt, and ineffective security forces accused by critics of operating outside of the law, committing human-rights abuses, and creating an economy that directly benefits the security institutions—preventing more robust economic reform and development. To set the country on a better path, Sudan’s civilian leaders must enact reforms that begin to disentangle the military from the construction, telecommunication, aviation, and banking sectors.

Steps Sudan’s military and civilian leaders should take

In concert with the new civilian leadership, the military must commit to reform that helps modernize and develop the SAF. This includes ensuring that the SAF is tasked with protecting civilians and is accountable to the country’s civilian leadership. The SAF needs to be respected and not feared by those it is assigned to protect.

Civilian and military leaders must adopt legislation that addresses the specific gaps in Sudan’s transitional documents. Using the legal framework, civilian authorities should work with the military leadership to scale down the size of the SAF, find meaningful economic opportunities for former fighters, identify core priorities for its mission, and deploy a military that is able to meet the needs of the country. Sudan’s authorities should also identify funding to create and support a broad disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration strategy that avoids a sole focus on the reintegration of militia fighters and includes appropriate financial oversight.

Outside of these efforts, civilian authorities must look for ways to reform Sudan’s economy that help to disentangle the vast array of companies linked to the security services, create opportunity to improve the business environment, and send the signal to investors, banks, and credit rating agencies that Sudan is open for business. Civilian authorities must take steps to increase transparency and accountability in the illicit gold trade to disrupt illicit financial flows to Sudan’s militias, including the RSF.

As Sudan’s economy faces uncertainty due to elevated food, fuel, and transportation prices, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank must balance the need for economic reforms in the country with the imperative to not destabilize a new civilian-led government. This government will need to walk a difficult line to implement reforms that address economic mismanagement by the SAF, the rising cost of living, and stubbornly high prices for basic goods that have further complicated efforts to secure international funding and support for the economy.

Steps the United States should take

The United States can help Sudan’s transition to democracy and help facilitate security sector reform. The 2021 National Defense Authorization Act included the Sudan Democratic Transition, Accountability, and Fiscal Transparency Act of 2020, elevating Sudan on the foreign policy agenda and sending a signal to Sudan’s new leadership that the United States is ready to support Sudan as it enacts difficult reforms. This law is an effective messaging tool, encourages a coordinated US government response to support the civilian leadership, and can direct public reporting on sensitive issues, support a sanctions regime, and show the private sector that Sudan is not open for business as usual. Policymakers can use this legislation to support Sudan’s economic reforms, stability, and oversight of the security and intelligence services in the short term while seeking to hold human-rights abusers, spoilers to the transition, and those seeking to exploit Sudan’s natural resources accountable for their actions.

Working with other countries, the United States can also play a leading role to encourage international financial institutions to carefully leverage the approval of World Bank projects, consider withholding IMF disbursements, and institute public reporting to ensure that economic and security sector reforms remain on track. The diplomatic community must continue to apply coordinated pressure on Sudan’s authorities to ensure that they follow through on their verbal commitments and work with key external actors—including the United Arab Emirates and Egypt—to encourage them to be meaningful contributors to Sudan’s democratic progress.

Sudan’s transition to democratic leadership provides another critical opportunity for security sector reform in the country. As the transitional government moves forward, Sudan’s civilian leadership can show investors, banks, and its people that greater connectedness to the global economy, a modern security apparatus, and a commitment to fighting corruption is in its long-term interest. Doing so would solidify a path toward a peaceful and democratic Sudan.

Benjamin Mossberg is the deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center. Previously, he led US Treasury Department efforts to combat corruption, money laundering, terrorist financing, and financial crimes on the African continent.

The post <strong>As Sudan’s transition to democracy accelerates, reforming the security forces must be a top priority</strong> appeared first on Atlantic Council.

After a decade of ruptured ties and simmering tensions, Egypt and Turkey are inching towards a rapprochement—a move thought unimaginable by some observers a couple of years prior. This thawing of relations was most recently symbolized by Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu’s visit to Cairo on March 18.  

However, the true turning point came during the FIFA World Cup opening ceremony in Qatar in November 2022, where Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan met each other briefly and engaged in a highly publicized handshake. This signaled the end of hostilities between the former rivals. Later in February, Egypt’s top diplomat Sameh Shoukry traveled to the southern Turkish city of Mersin to offer solidarity and support in the wake of massive earthquakes that hit southern and central Turkey and neighboring Syria, wreaking havoc and claiming tens of thousands of lives. These overtures and gestures were necessary to repair the mistrust and animosity that had grown over the years.

Relations between Egypt and Turkey soured in 2013 after the overthrow of Egypt’s former President Mohamed Morsi, who hailed from the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement designated as a “terrorist organization” by Cairo that very year. Morsi, a key ideological ally of Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), was deposed by military-backed mass protests, later condemned as “a coup” by Turkish politicians. From that point onwards, relations between Cairo and Ankara deteriorated, and the two sides continued to trade recriminations.

Tensions between the two countries escalated in 2020, threatening to blow up into a full-fledged military confrontation after Turkey intervened militarily in Libya’s civil war—a move that drew backlash from President Sisi, who perceived it as a blatant threat to Egypt’s national security. During a visit to a military base in the Western Desert close to the Libyan border on June 22, 2020, Sisi ordered the Egyptian army to “be ready to carry out any mission outside the country”—a clear message to Ankara that he was contemplating the use of military force to defend Egypt’s Western border. Sisi’s threat came after Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries who were fighting alongside forces of the United Nations-recognized Government of National Authority (GNA), succeeded in halting the eastward advance of opposing troops led by Libyan General Khalifa Haftar, whom Cairo backed. 

“Any military intervention in Libya would be a legitimate means of self-defense as Sirte is a red line for Egypt,” Sisi warned in reference to the strategic central Libyan city that serves as a gateway to eastern Libya, a region with vast oil reserves. Gaining control of Sirte, which lies 1,000 km (approximately 621.37 miles) away from the Egyptian border, would have meant access to nearby air bases, posing a direct threat to Egypt’s security.  

Egyptian media has welcomed the new era in Egyptian-Turkish relations but Cairo appears to be less enthusiastic than Ankara about restoring diplomatic ties and is treading cautiously. Thus with Turkish presidential elections slated for mid-May, the Egyptian leadership would rather wait until after the Turkish elections to move forward with normalization.  

The political standoff has not impacted economic and trade ties between Egypt and Turkey, which have remained robust throughout the past decade. Separating their economic exchanges from their political dispute has proved mutually beneficial: Turkish investments in Egypt amounted to an estimated $2.5 billion in 2021, and the volume of trade between the two countries nearly tripled in the period between 2007 and 2020, reaching $11.4 billion in 2020. Turkish companies across a wide range of sectors—such as electronics, textiles, and medical supplies—have continued their operations throughout, unfettered by the diplomatic rift. Nevertheless, expectations are rife that the warming of ties will reflect positively on the two countries’ ailing economies through the further bolstering of trade and investments.

Foreign Minister Shoukry has, meanwhile, conditioned the resumption of relations with Turkey on “real actions showing Turkey’s alignment with Egypt’s principles and goals.”

Cairo would like to see Turkish authorities clamp down on exiled Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters residing in Turkey and extradite fugitives accused of committing acts of violence against the Egyptian state. Additionally, it wants Istanbul-based media channels, fiercely critical of the Egyptian government, shut down.  

From Cairo’s perspective, Ankara has taken steps to show it is serious about rapprochement. In March 2021, Turkish officials urged hostile opposition channels to tone down their criticism of the Egyptian president. Not long afterwards, Mekameleen, a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated channel notorious for its persistent lambasting of Sisi, announced the suspension of its broadcasts from Istanbul, saying it was moving its headquarters “elsewhere.”   

Another pre-condition set by Cairo for normalizing relations is non-interference by Turkey in Libya’s internal affairs. Cairo insists on the withdrawal of Ankara-backed Syrian militias in Libya, which Egypt sees as a threat. While it is highly unlikely that Ankara will acquiesce to this demand—Turkey has turned a deaf ear to earlier calls by French President Emmanuel Macron to remove all foreign troops from Libya, including those financed by Ankara—some kind of compromise may be reached, such as keeping the Turkish military advisors that were sent to Libya at the behest of the previous GNA while withdrawing the Syrian troops which Cairo labels “extremist militia.” 

Egypt’s warming up to the new unity government in Tripoli—after years of siding with opposing forces led by warlord Haftar—may pave the way for future talks with Libya and Turkey to defuse tensions over the foreign troop presence that Cairo finds unsettling.         

There is also a need for multilateral talks to de-escalate inflamed regional tensions over maritime borders: an October 2022 agreement with the unity government in Libya allowing Turkey to explore for oil and gas in an exclusive economic zone off the coast of Libya has drawn protests from Cairo and Athens—as well as other regional governments—which slammed the deal as “illegal.” 

To the chagrin of the Tripoli-based GNU, Egypt took the bold step two months later in December 2022 by unilaterally delineating its maritime border with Libya. Some analysts said the decision was “aimed at protecting Egypt’s economic interests.”   

Enhanced energy cooperation with Egypt—which has ambitions of becoming a regional energy hub and a major gas exporter to Europe and eastern Mediterranean markets—is something Cairo would welcome. Therefore, Turkey would do well to win over regional rivals by joining the East Mediterranean Gas Forum or at least by engaging with its members—a crucial step toward ironing out its differences with Greece and the Greek Cypriots. 

Finally, the Turkish offer to mediate between Egypt and Ethiopia in the Renaissance Dam dispute may serve as an olive branch that could speed up Ankara’s reconciliation process with Cairo. Serious commitment to mediation efforts between the two Nile Basin countries may allay Cairo’s concerns over the expansion of Turkish ties with Ethiopia—in particular, the sale of Turkish armed drones to Addis Ababa, which Cairo and the US fear may be used by the Ethiopian government against rebel forces in Tigray.

While the Ethiopian parliament has removed the Tigray National Liberation Front from the country’s terrorism list after the government signed a ceasefire agreement with the leftist ethnic party ruling Ethiopia’s northern region in November 2022, tensions remain high between the government and Oromo Liberation Army, an armed opposition group seeking autonomy for the country’s largest ethnic community in the Oramia region of Ethiopia. 

With all this in mind, Turkey must turn the page on past rivalries and its quest for regional influence. It should instead build on its deep-rooted social and economic ties with Egypt and shared historical heritage to start a new era of fruitful cooperation. This would very much be in the interests of the two countries and the region.

Shahira Amin is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and an independent journalist based in Cairo. A former contributor to CNN’s Inside Africa, Amin has been covering the development in post-revolution Egypt for several outlets including Index on Censorship and Al-Monitor. Follow her on Twitter @sherryamin13.

The post Egypt-Turkey normalization: Cairo’s perspective  appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Event with Cameroon’s Minister of economy, planning and regional development, Alamine Ousmane Mey, featured in Reuters appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Thus, the various “Africa+1” summits held in 2022 placed significant emphasis on investment and trade deals. The summit between Africa and the United States, which took place in December 2022 after an eight-year hiatus, was a result of the reframing of Africa’s importance to the United States. The Deal Room at the summit struck private sector investments and partnerships worth $15.7 billion. The UK-Africa Investment Summit emphasized the role of British businesses in enabling Africa to reap the benefits of the green industrial revolution. India, the fifth-largest investor in the continent, views the green economy as a source of new opportunities. Furthermore, in March, at the second International parliamentary Conference “Russia-Africa” in Moscow, President Putin said that Russia “has always given and would continue to give to cooperation with African countries,” with an Africa summit planned in July.

Notably, Japan also stepped up. At the Eighth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) summit in Tunisia last summer, Japan made a $30 billion pledge, to be financed by both the public and private sectors over the next three years, surpassing its previous commitment made in 2019. The new Green Growth Initiative with Africa (GGA) was launched with a dedicated fund of $4 billion combining public and private financing, aspiring to steadily expand climate change mitigation and adaptation business through proactive investment. The initiative was accompanied by a series of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between Japanese and African partners.

Despite Tokyo’s political commitment to Africa, trade relations with Africa have been sluggish since the beginning of the 2010s as China and India grew as economic powers. Japan’s market share fell from seventh (over 4 percent) in 2000 to seventeenth (less than 2 percent) in 2018. In 2020, Japanese Official Development Assistance (ODA) to sub-Saharan Africa accounted for only 7.8 percent of all Japanese ODA and has been on a downward trend for the past two decades. While there has been debate over increasing ODA to sub-Saharan Africa in response to the international security environment, with the larger infrastructure gap to fill today, ODA will still remain a limited tool for the growing green infrastructure financing in Africa.

The silver lining for Japan is revamped private interest toward green growth for Africa and the more flexible role of the public in incentivizing and structuring such interests.

Japanese companies with a presence in Africa see “resources/energy” as a promising business arena, doubling the percentage for “natural gas and oil,” according to a recent survey. Major trading houses that have the most local subsidiaries in Africa among Japanese companies, such as Toyota Tsusho and Sumitomo Corporation, are actively investing in renewables and green supply chains. These companies are also exploring opportunities in the green hydrogen value chain. Toyota Tsusho Corp recently acquired SoftBank’s renewable energy unit and announced “Green Economy” agreements at TICAD. The company’s Africa-based businesses doubled their sales in the past five years, reaching 1 trillion yen in 2022. Sumitomo Corporation is partnering with Namibia’s national power utility NamPower to produce ammonia from green hydrogen, with a feasibility study anticipated to be completed by the end of 2023.

Japanese commercial banking institutions have also recalibrated their interests. These interests are incubated by Africa-based institutions such as the Africa Finance Corporation (AFC), a pan-African infrastructure solution provider with an approximately $2 billion investment portfolio and a track record of making climate change adaptation and mitigation investments. AFC secured $389 million through a samurai bond, a type of bond issued in Japan by a foreign entity and denominated in yen, which offers a way for foreign issuers to access Japan’s capital market; many Japanese megabanks participated, and the issuance “was significantly oversubscribed.” Another example is Mizuho Bank—the third-largest financier by assets in Japan and the first major Japanese lender to pledge to stop financing new coal mining projects—which joined the African Hydrogen Partnership (AHP) as its first Japanese member in 2022. Mizuho signed an MOU during TICAD with Namibian Investment Promotion and Development Board for the development of an African green hydrogen hub in Namibia. With Japan as the second-biggest hydrogen patent holder (24 percent) following the EU’s 28 percent, the hydrogen economy is becoming a new frontier platform for Africa-Japan engagement. AFC and Mizuho are in agreement to co-finance infrastructure projects in Africa, and the catalytic role of Africa’s institutional partners will be key in alleviating fears over project bankability.

While Japan still lags in the mobilization of blended financing, it is becoming a viable and strategic instrument to lower risks and incentivize private interests. In particular, the mobilization of a public insurance scheme to structure financing is a critical component of the aforementioned GGA. Egypt’s future onshore wind farms near the Gulf of Suez (announced in December 2022 and March 2023) are being co-financed by a multinational consortium of banks led by Japanese public and commercial banks. These projects are part of Japan’s LEAD Initiative and will receive the highest commercial risk insurance coverage by Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI). Japan aims to formulate 1 trillion-yen scale deals in total through the LEAD Initiative portfolio by 2025. Although the LEAD Initiative is currently limited to projects in the MENA region, it has been designed to broaden project eligibility for loans, and projects may qualify for this category regardless of whether they involve Japanese exports or investments. Acceleration of this program will help de-risk projects and catalyze investments.

With Japan’s chairmanship of the G7 sure to be defined in large part by heightened concerns over energy security after one year of war in Ukraine, it is imperative that Japan maintains the momentum generated from the promises made at the 2022 TICAD and charts a distinct course from the previous decade while building relationships with countries in Africa. Japan should catalyze mechanisms to incentivize and structure green investment, such as the LEAD Initiative as laid out in the GGA, and look to build out blending financing capabilities. While challenges remain, increased private interest and a flexible public role present a positive outlook for Africa-Japan relations in the future.

Emi Yasukawa is a member of this year’s Women Leaders in Energy and Climate Fellowship at the Atlantic Council. She is the senior researcher of congressional affairs at the Embassy of Japan in Washington, DC. The views and opinions expressed in the article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the Government of Japan.

Meet the author

Fellow

Emi Yasukawa

Women Leaders in Energy Fellow

Global Energy Center

Related content

EnergySource Mar 28, 2023

Country spotlight: Unlocking a high-energy future for Zambia

By Maia Sparkman, William Tobin

Smart private sector investment in Zambia could drive a high-energy, high-growth future as the country reforms. This could make Zambia a model for neighboring countries looking to advance their own energy transformations.

Energy & Environment Energy Transitions

EnergySource Mar 9, 2023

Sub-Saharan green hydrogen as a catalyst for development

By Daniel Helmeci

Green hydrogen has the potential to turn sub-Saharan Africa’s abundant renewable resources into fuel for a sustainable economy. If supporting infrastructure can be built to harness this potential, the entire region could see the benefits.

Africa Energy & Environment

EnergySource Feb 21, 2023

The power of renewables: Productive use appliances as climate change solutions in sub-Saharan Africa

By Sharmila Bellur

Productive use appliances can mitigate emissions while encouraging climate adaptation and resilience in sub-Saharan Africa. They can push households up the energy ladder and stimulate economic development, if managed correctly.

Africa Energy & Environment

Learn more about the Global Energy Center

The Global Energy Center develops and promotes pragmatic and nonpartisan policy solutions designed to advance global energy security, enhance economic opportunity, and accelerate pathways to net-zero emissions.

learn more

The post Green investment takes the lead: Japan’s revamped approach in Africa appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Online Event Mon, March 27, 2023 • 1:30 pm ET

Live from the Freedom Online Coalition: How the FOC works for people around the world

The DFRLab hosts the US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman along with civil society and industry experts for a discussion on the Freedom Online Coalition and how the world’s democratic tech alliance advances human rights online.

Africa East Asia Europe & Eurasia Indo-Pacific

Ahead of the Biden administration’s second Summit for Democracy, US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman gave a sneak peek at what to expect from the US government on its commitments to protecting online rights and freedoms.

The event, hosted by the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab on Monday, came on the same day that US President Joe Biden signed an executive order restricting the US government’s use of commercial spyware that may be abused by foreign governments or enable human-rights abuses overseas.

But there’s more in store for this week, Sherman said, as the United States settles into its role as chair of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC)—a democratic tech alliance of thirty-six countries working together to support human rights online. As chair, the United States needs “to reinforce rules of the road for cyberspace that mirror and match the ideals of the rules-based international order,” said Sherman. She broke that down into four top priorities for the FOC:

1. Protecting fundamental freedoms online, especially for often-targeted human-rights defenders
2. Building resilience against digital authoritarians who use technology to achieve their aims
3. Building a consensus on policies designed to limit abuses of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI)
4. Expanding digital inclusion  

“The FOC’s absolutely vital work can feel like a continuous game of catch-up,” said Sherman. But, she added, “we have to set standards that meet this moment… we have to address what we see in front of us and equip ourselves with the building blocks to tackle what we cannot predict.”

Below are more highlights from the event, during which a panel of stakeholders also outlined the FOC’s role in ensuring that the internet and emerging technologies—including AI—adhere to democratic principles.

Deepening fundamental freedoms

• Sherman explained that the FOC will aim to combat government-initiated internet shutdowns and ensure that people can “keep using technology to advance the reach of freedom.”
• Boye Adegoke, senior manager of grants and program strategy at the Paradigm Initiative, recounted how technology was supposed to help improve transparency in Nigeria’s recent elections. But instead, the election results came in inconsistently and after long periods of time. Meanwhile, the government triggered internet shutdowns around the election period. “Bad actors… manipulate technology to make sure that the opinions and the wishes of the people do not matter at the end of the day,” he said.
• “It’s very important to continue to communicate the work that the FOC is doing… so that more and more people become aware” of internet shutdowns and can therefore prepare for the lapses in internet service and in freely flowing, accurate information, Adegoke said.
• On a practical level, once industry partners expose where disruptions are taking place, the FOC offers a mechanism by which democratic “governments can work together to sort of pressure other governments to say these [actions] aren’t acceptable,” Starzak argued.
• The FOC also provides a place for dialogue on human rights in the online space, said Alissa Starzak, vice president and global head of public policy at Cloudfare. Adegoke, who also serves in the FOC advisory network, stressed that “human rights [are] rarely at the center of the issues,” so the FOC offers an opportunity to mainstream that conversation into policymakers’ discussions on technology.

Building resilience against digital authoritarianism

• “Where all of [us FOC countries] may strive to ensure technology delivers for our citizens, autocratic regimes are finding another means of expression,” Sherman explained, adding that those autocratic regimes are using technologies to “divide and disenfranchise; to censor and suppress; to limit freedoms, foment fear, and violate human dignity.” New technologies are essentially “an avenue of control” for authoritarians, she explained.
• At the FOC, “we will focus on building resilience against the rise of digital authoritarianism,” Sherman said, which has “disproportionate and chilling impacts on journalists, activists, women, and LGBTI+ individuals” who are often directly targeted for challenging the government or expressing themselves.
• One of the practices digital authoritarians often abuse is surveillance. Sherman said that as part of the Summit for Democracy, the FOC and other partners will lay out guiding principles for the responsible use of surveillance tech.
• Adegoke recounted how officials in Nigeria justified their use of surveillance tech by saying that the United States also used the technology. “It’s very important to have some sort of guiding principle” from the United States, he said.
• After Biden signed the spyware executive order, Juan Carlos Lara, executive director at Derechos Digitales, said he expects other countries “to follow suit and hopefully to expand the idea of bans on spyware or bans on surveillance technology” that inherently pose risks to human rights.

Addressing artificial intelligence

• “The advent of AI is arriving with a level of speed and sophistication we haven’t witnessed before,” warned Sherman. “Who creates it, who controls it, [and] who manipulates it will help define the next phase of the intersection between technology and democracy.”
• Some governments, Sherman pointed out, have used AI to automate their censorship and suppression practices. “FOC members must build a consensus around policies to limit these abuses,” she argued.
• Speaking from an industry perspective, Starzak acknowledged that sometimes private companies and governments “are in two different lanes” when it comes to figuring out how they should use AI. But setting norms for both good and bad AI use, she explained, could help get industry and the public sector in the same lane, moving toward a world in which AI is used in compliance with democratic principles.
• Lara, who also serves in the FOC advisory network, explained that the FOC has a task force to specifically determine those norms on government use of AI and to identify the ways in which AI contributes to the promise—or peril—of technology in societies worldwide.

Improving digital inclusion

• “The internet should be open and secure for everyone,” said Sherman. That includes “closing the gender gap online” by “expanding digital literacy” and “promoting access to safe online spaces” that make robust civic participation possible for all. Sherman noted that the FOC will specifically focus on digital inclusion for women and girls, LGBTI+ people, and people with disabilities.
• Starzak added that in the global effort to cultivate an internet that “builds prosperity,” access to the free flow of information for all is “good for the economy and good for the people.” Attaining that version of the internet will require a “set of controls” to protect people and their freedoms online, she added.
• Ultimately, there are major benefits to be had from expanded connectivity. According to Sherman, it “can drive economic growth, raise standards of living, create jobs, and fuel innovative solutions” for global challenges such as climate change, food insecurity, and good governance.

Katherine Walla is an associate director of editorial at the Atlantic Council.

Watch the full event

The post What to expect from the world’s democratic tech alliance as the Summit for Democracy unfolds appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Zambia has 2,800 megawatts (MW) of installed electricity generation capacity, with 85 percent of the electricity mix derived from hydropower, and  31 percent of the population has access to energy—the majority being in urban areas. The global disruptions to expected rainfall patterns, linked to the effects of climate change, has directly affected Zambian hydropower. Zambia’s loadshedding challenges made news this past December as their public utility, ZESCO, announced that consumers would experience up to twelve hours of loadshedding a day because of critically low water levels at the Kariba Dam, on the border of Zambia and Zimbabwe. During this time, the dam on Zambia’s side of the border could not deliver even 40 percent of its 1,080 MW capacity, crippling the country’s ability to deliver energy to consumers.

There are notable low-hanging fruits in the development of Zambia’s electricity mix. While Zambia has the potential to generate 2,300 MW of solar and 3,000 MW of wind, only 76 MW of solar has been installed and no wind power to date. And while 67 percent of the urban population has access to energy, the connection is disrupted frequently due to loadshedding and service disruption caused by aforementioned low water levels in hydropower stations. While the rains in early February assisted in shoring up water levels, climate change will continue to impact rainfall levels and create future problems in energy generation unless the energy mix diversifies.

Attracting low-capital cost investment for new energy projects has, until recently, been a challenge. President Hichilema took office shortly after Zambia became the first African country to default on its sovereign debt in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic and found that his predecessors had accumulated $30 billion in unserviceable debt. Much of Zambia’s borrowing under former President Lungu’s leadership was part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), from which Zambia received $5.23 billion in the energy sector alone. The BRI led to considerable expansion of infrastructure and nearly a two-fold increase in electricity consumption over the previous decade, but left the country unable to balance its payments. 

Recognizing the need to diversify Zambia’s energy grid, the government has been working towards securing private sector investment to deploy solar projects throughout the country to close the energy poverty gap. The government has outlined a plan to achieve universal access to energy for all Zambians by 2030 by bringing additional solar, hydro, geothermal, and thermal energy online.

While developed nations look to decarbonize, countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including Zambia, will need significantly more energy to power a high-growth society and achieve development goals. The vast majority of Zambia’s population is comprised of smallholder farmers, producing 80 percent of the country’s agricultural production. That same population is the most vulnerable to climate change impacts, as they rely on rain-fed agriculture. The process of realizing Zambia’s breadbasket potential will require a shift from traditional to modern farming practices, which will require significantly more energy to drive irrigation development and the mechanization of agricultural production. Furthermore, Zambia’s economy has the potential to expand its raw materials sector, and to bolster its GDP by adding value to its products through increased processing and smelting of minerals within Zambia’s borders. Doing this will require more power, and importantly, in continuous supply. 

Positively, Zambia has received a recent wave of investment in its power infrastructure, a result of Hichilema welcoming foreign investors and independent power producers. A few notable investments and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) have been announced by key partners from around the world, positioning Zambia as a high prospect for low-carbon energy investments and unlocking opportunities to deliver investments in 24/7 clean electricity systems necessary to power industrial activity such as minerals processing. A few weeks ago, seven British companies announced an investment commitment of $2 billion in renewable energy projects in Zambia, to produce 1,500 MW of clean energy. Earlier this year, ZESCO and the United Arab Emirates’ Masdar signed an MOU to develop solar projects worth $2 billion, meant to generate 2,000 MW. This investment, labeled a “capital injection” by President Hichilema, will nearly triple Zambia’s electric capacity in combination with the investment from the British coalition. Critically, these investments will bolster the Zambian grid’s ability to generate electricity at times when hydropower generation is low and solar irradiance is high.

Providing commitments to develop Zambia’s energy infrastructure is not a matter of aid or charity. It has the potential to bring Zambia into the fold of the global economy—a process which adds value for Zambians and Zambia’s trade partners—and provide critical inputs to the global energy transition.

Recognizing this, during the US-African Leaders Summit hosted by the Biden Administration this past December, the United States, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Zambia signed an MOU to strengthen cooperation to develop a cross-border integrated electric vehicle (EV) battery value chain. This MOU is a welcome example of the form of partnership which the United States and allies should adopt in their commercial partnerships with African nations. Notably, the MOU expresses a desire to support the DRC and Zambia in developing economic activity within the EV battery value chain from the mine to the assembly line, not solely in the extraction of raw materials. Such a partnership provides an area for the US private sector to share knowledge and provide project development services and enable local industry and capacity to grow while firming global supply for critical materials and technologies for the energy transition, a win for all partners involved. 

Zambia, as well as other countries across the continent, has held recent high-level diplomatic visits to establish a stronger relationship between the United States and Africa. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen visited Zambia in January, and Vice President Kamala Harris has just begun her tour on the continent which includes a stop in Zambia. The trips to the continent have highlighted the US’s mutual interests in strengthening Africa’s security and economic prosperity, but discussions surrounding energy development, the backbone of a prosperous future in Africa, have remained vague. While the diplomatic engagements are notable, the trips should place a heavier emphasis on opportunities for the United States to further strengthen energy development throughout the continent, a critical missing link in driving economic growth and expanding opportunity for communities in Zambia and elsewhere on the continent.

As debt-burdened African nations expand engagement with higher-income countries beyond aid, Zambia serves as an important case study on opportunities to attract investor interest in energy development. In order to keep momentum up, investment transparency and translating MOUs into action will be critical to accelerate progress on achieving sustainable development goals. Notably, the investor interest that Hichilema’s administration is attracting is a positive signal for neighboring countries by showing the outcomes that are associated with a commitment to good governance.

Maia Sparkman is an assistant director at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center.

William Tobin is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center.

Meet the authors

Staff

Maia Sparkman

Assistant Director

Global Energy Center

Africa Climate Change & Climate Action

Staff

William Tobin

Assistant Director

Global Energy Center

Africa China

Related content

EnergySource Mar 9, 2023

Sub-Saharan green hydrogen as a catalyst for development

By Daniel Helmeci

Green hydrogen has the potential to turn sub-Saharan Africa’s abundant renewable resources into fuel for a sustainable economy. If supporting infrastructure can be built to harness this potential, the entire region could see the benefits.

Africa Energy & Environment

EnergySource Feb 21, 2023

The power of renewables: Productive use appliances as climate change solutions in sub-Saharan Africa

By Sharmila Bellur

Productive use appliances can mitigate emissions while encouraging climate adaptation and resilience in sub-Saharan Africa. They can push households up the energy ladder and stimulate economic development, if managed correctly.

Africa Energy & Environment

EnergySource Jan 31, 2023

Africa and the global LNG crunch: Balancing energy security, development, and decarbonization

By Robert F. Ichord, Jr.

As Europe looks to replace Russian gas and Asia looks to switch off coal, African LNG could play a central role. Gas development in Africa could unlock new revenues and, in turn, drive development across the continent.

Africa Energy & Environment

Learn more about the Global Energy Center

The Global Energy Center develops and promotes pragmatic and nonpartisan policy solutions designed to advance global energy security, enhance economic opportunity, and accelerate pathways to net-zero emissions.

learn more

The post Country spotlight: Unlocking a high-energy future for Zambia appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Episode Seven – Dr. Nasredeen Abudlbari appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Pavia in Foreign Policy in Focus: What’s behind Spain’s about-face on Western Sahara appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Pavia in DAILY SABAH: Russia’s Wagner Group in Africa: Growing concerns of the West appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Pavia joins <em>Il Post</em> to discuss Tunisia’s democratic backsliding   appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports began on the eve of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. It aims to break Ukraine economically by undermining the country’s position as one of the world’s leading agricultural exporters. The impact of the blockade goes beyond Ukraine and is global in scale. By preventing the free passage of merchant shipping in the Black Sea, Russia deprives world markets of vital Ukrainian agricultural produce while also challenging the core principles of international maritime law.

Subscribe to UkraineAlert

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

• Name
  First Last
• Email*
• 
  
  
• Name
  This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

From the very beginning, Russia’s attack on Ukraine has always gone beyond the boundaries of conventional military operations and attempted to strike at Ukraine’s very ability to exist as a functioning state. Russian troops have systematically destroyed vast swathes of farmland and made Ukraine the most mined country in the world. For the past six months, Russia has conducted a campaign of airstrikes targeting Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure in a bid to deprive Ukrainians of access to heating, electricity, and water supplies. The maritime blockade is another element in this war against Ukrainian statehood.

The suffering inflicted by Russia’s brutal invasion is not restricted to Ukrainians. According to the country’s Ministry of Infrastructure, more than 400 million people in Asia and Africa face the prospect of mounting food insecurity as a result of Russian efforts to restrict Ukrainian agricultural exports. While the current Grain Deal goes some way to countering this threat, it offers only a partial and short-term solution. Much more is needed in order to improve global food security and reaffirm the right to free passage for merchant shipping in international waters.

It is clearly in the interests of the international community to work toward ending Russia’s Black Sea blockade. First and foremost, this would lead to dramatically improved food security for many of the world’s most vulnerable communities. The resumption of maritime trade in the Black Sea would also provide the Ukrainian economy with approximately $20 billion in additional annual revenues. This would significantly reduce the economic burden on Ukraine’s partners and international financial institutions, which are now being asked to prop up the struggling Ukrainian economy indefinitely. Renewed merchant shipping would also be good for other economies, allowing Ukraine to resume imports worth tens of billions of dollars in 2021.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, July 20, 2023 • 8:00 am ET

After Vilnius: What’s next on Ukraine’s path to NATO?

Eastern Europe NATO Security & Defense Ukraine

Ukrainians understand that there is no international appetite for any direct military intervention to break Russia’s Black Sea blockade. Nevertheless, there are numerous other tools available to the international community that could be used to pressure Moscow. The most obvious measures would include additional sanctions and restrictions targeting Russian shipping.

This approach has yet to be fully explored. At present, Russian ships are not subject to the same checks and inspections that Ukrainian vessels must undergo in line with the terms of the Grain Deal. Instead, they are free to continue their international trade unhindered. Over the past year, Russia has reportedly increased its maritime exports by more than a quarter. At the same time, there have been numerous accusations made against Russian vessels for allegedly shipping military cargoes, including in contravention of the 1936 Montreux Convention governing maritime passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits in Turkey.

By blockading Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, Russia is violating the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the UN Charter. In response, Ukraine is calling on the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to force Russia to unblock the country’s sea ports. The IMO must use its powers as a UN agency to hold Russia accountable for violating the UNCLOS, and must be ready to impose suitable sanctions measures if Moscow refuses to comply.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has created a wide range of fundamental challenges to the rules-based international order that first emerged from the ashes of World War II. This is very much part of Putin’s plan. He wishes to return the world to an era when a handful of major powers were able to dictate to their weaker neighbors.

One of the many front lines in this geopolitical confrontation is the maritime front. Putin seeks to bankrupt Ukraine and overcome international opposition to his war by weaponizing agricultural exports. He does so in clear violation of international maritime law. If he succeeds, other autocrats will take note and adopt similarly aggressive tactics, with potentially catastrophic consequences for global trade. Ending Russia’s Black Sea blockade will not be easy and will require considerable political courage, but failure to do so will lead to rising costs in the years to come.

Oleksiy Goncharenko is a Ukrainian member of parliament with the European Solidarity party.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Feb 20, 2023

‘You cannot outlast us’: Biden’s Kyiv visit sends strong message to Moscow

By Peter Dickinson

US President Joe Biden’s bold surprise visit to wartime Kyiv sent a strong message to Moscow that time is not on Putin’s side and Russia should not pin its hopes on a weakening of Western resolve to stand with Ukraine.

Conflict Freedom and Prosperity

UkraineAlert Mar 19, 2023

Putin the Pariah: War crimes arrest warrant deepens Russia’s isolation

By Anders Åslund

The ICC decision to indict Putin for war crimes is a highly consequential step that will deepen Russia’s international isolation while weakening Putin’s personal position both at home and abroad, writes Anders Åslund.

Conflict Human Rights

UkraineAlert Mar 8, 2023

Ukrainians will never surrender. How long can they count on the West?

By Serhiy Prytula

Ukraine’s remarkable resistance during the first days of the Russian invasion convinced the democratic world to back the country but with Putin now preparing for a long war, continued Western resolve is vital writes Serhiy Prytula.

Civil Society Conflict

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Russia’s Black Sea blockade is part of Putin’s war on international law appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Sullivan quoted in VOA News on the impact of the war in Ukraine on Egypt appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Fifty-three economies—including Argentina, Egypt, Pakistan, and Nigeria—are in an especially fragile condition because they have either defaulted on some of their debts, or have debt levels that the IMF considers unsustainable. Given their 5 percent share in the global economy, this may not sound alarming. However, considering the contagion phenomenon in financial markets—and the fact that these fifty-three economies are home to about 20 percent of the world’s population—debt distress, and its social, political, and economic ramifications could pose serious threats to the global economy. Acknowledging these dire conditions, the IMF has redoubled its efforts to help its member countries avoid the worst of debt crises.  

How does IMF financial assistance work? 

The IMF’s financial assistance is intended to provide financial support for countries that are experiencing or at risk of financial crises, including balance of payment (BoP) crises, banking crises, currency crises, or external/internal debt crises. The IMF’s financial assistance provides breathing space for governments to devise and gradually implement corrective policies. Hence, the IMF’s financial assistance is always associated with a set of reform policies tailored for the country in crisis. These may include monetary policy and exchange rate policy reforms, and other sets of economic-wide reforms broadly referred to as Structural Adjustments or Reforms. By implementing these reforms, the country is expected to restore long-run financial stability and growth in its economy and rebuild domestic and foreign investors’ faith in the country’s economy.  

Table 1 provides a breakdown of the IMF’s financial assistance accounts and types. Broadly speaking, IMF financial assistance can take three forms. First is lending at an interest rate determined by the average of interest rates in world major currencies. Loans extended under the General Resources Account (GRA) are of this type. Second is lending at concessional terms which are extended at very low or no interest rates to low-income economies. Financial assistance through the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) falls under this category. The third form of IMF financial assistance is through the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT). This is a debt relief grant for heavily indebted, low-income economies facing debt distress and financial turmoil. Figure 2 shows the value of all IMF financial assistance between 2020 and 2022 for each type and recipient country. More than three-quarters of all IMF financing during the 2020-22 period was through the Flexible Credit Line (58 percent of the total) and the Extended Fund Facility (19 percent of the total). 

Latin America and the Caribbean have been the IMF’s largest clients. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2022, the IMF provided $113 billion of financial assistance to twenty three of its member countries, 90 percent of which is dedicated to Latin American and Caribbean economies. Two economies in Latin America accounted for $91 billion (or 80 percent of the IMF’s financial assistance in 2022): Argentina with $43 billion and Mexico with $48 billion. FY2022 was not an anomaly in the IMF’s financial assistance pattern. As seen in Figure 3, 71 percent of all IMF financial assistance between 2020-22 (including FCL) was allocated for the Latin America and Caribbean region.

However, it is important to note that the type of financial assistance IMF has provided in the form of FCL —for example to Mexico and Columbia— is drastically different in nature from the assistance provided to Argentina in the form of EFF. In particular, FCL is designed as a crisis-prevention and crisis-mitigation credit line for countries that have strong policy frameworks and solid track records in their economic performance. Hence, the country may or may not decide to use all or even a portion of this line of credit that is allocated to them. For example, Mexico has drawn nothing from the total amount of 80.214 billion SDR made available to them through FCL facility between 2020 and 2022. In contrast, Argentina has drawn 17.5 billion SDR from the 31.914 billion SDR EFF assistance provided to them. It must be noted here that IMF extends EFF to a country facing major medium-term BoP challenges because of various structural issues that will necessitate some time to address. IMF’s lending commitments site provides updated detailed information on the type and amount of assistances IMF has allocated for each member country from its first day of inception, the amount drawn from the allocated funds, and the outstanding balances.    

After Latin America, the Sub-Saharan Africa region is the IMF’s main client. It is followed by a few countries in other regions such as Egypt in the Middle East and North Africa, and Pakistan in South Asia, which are highlighted in Figure 4.

The IMF should reexamine the uneven distribution of its financial resources.

The case in hand is the IMF’s uneven response to economies in Latin America versus those in Sub-Saharan Africa. While both regions suffer frequently from debt and BoP crises, Latin American economies tend to get larger IMF packages than African economies, even when their IMF quotas are considered. For example, Argentina’s most recent IMF package (arranged March 25 2022) was about $43 billion, which is about 1,000 percent of its quota and $950 million per capita. Moreover, program aimed to help Argentina repay its outstanding IMF debt from an unsuccessful 2018 $57-billion IMF program.  

In contrast, Zambia’s most recent IMF package (approved August 31 2022) was about $1.3 billion, or 100 percent of its quota and about $73 million per capita. A careful look at the IMF’s financial assistance history will surface many more such examples of potentially uneven treatment. Pakistan and Egypt are two other countries that have received substantial and frequent financial assistance from the IMF over the past decades while other countries in their respective regions have had less luck in that front.  While citizens and policymakers in Latin America, Pakistan, and Egypt may reject the notion that the IMF has treated them favorably over the years, a close look at other countries such Sri Lanka and Lebanon provides a glimpse of what could happen to economies in crises when IMF assistance is not immediately there to support them.  

Conclusion 

The global economy is facing multifaceted challenges that are increasingly interconnected and transnational in nature. Bretton Woods Institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank, are tasked with addressing many of these challenges—including the debt distress faced by many low income and emerging economies. However, as shown above, their responses to crises have not been equitable across different regions and countries. As firefighters of the global economy, these institutions should respond to crises on equitable terms across all their members. Otherwise, they risk being viewed as politically motivated, undermining their effectiveness and relevance in the governance structure of the global economy and financial relations.  

Recent debt relief grants allocated to many low-income economies in Sub-Saharan Africa through the CCRT and the last month’s visit of IMF’s managing director, Kristalina Georgieva, to Africa and engaging with African leaders are steps in the right direction. However, they must be followed by more favorable and creative financing schemes for debt-distressed low-income African economies, where debt vulnerabilities were exacerbated by the global pandemic and skyrocketing global food and energy prices. 

Amin Mohseni-Cheraghlou  is a macroeconomist with the GeoEconomics Center and leads the Atlantic Council’s Bretton Woods 2.0 Project. He is also an assistant professor of economics at American University in Washington DC. @AMohseniC

At the intersection of economics, finance, and foreign policy, the GeoEconomics Center is a translation hub with the goal of helping shape a better global economic future.

Learn more

The post Essential but unevenly distributed: IMF’s response to sovereign debt and financial crises appeared first on Atlantic Council.

This is not just a matter of winning UN votes and scoring political points at international forums. The reluctance of countries throughout the Global South to join Western sanctions significantly undermines efforts to isolate Russia, while providing Moscow with the financial and material lifelines to maintain the war in Ukraine indefinitely.

Attitudes in the Global South toward Russia’s Ukraine invasion are being shaped by a range of factors including economic and geopolitical interests along with widespread suspicion of American foreign policy and historic anti-Western sentiment dating back to the colonial era. Russia has skillfully exploited this post-colonial perspective by framing the invasion of Ukraine as a reaction to what it terms as yet more expansionist Western interference. As the war enters its second year, Ukraine should be doing much more to engage these non-Western audiences and make its voice heard.

Subscribe to UkraineAlert

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

• Name
  First Last
• Email*
• 
  
  
• Name
  This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Ukraine has limited experience of rallying international support and has previously focused its efforts almost exclusively on the West. In the three decades since the country regained independence, Ukrainian politicians, activists, and journalists have spent comparatively little time communicating with people in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, where awareness of Ukraine is still often minimal. Ukraine now needs to develop a strategy that can rally the nations of the non-Western world to its side.

First of all, it is absolutely crucial to keep Ukraine at the heart of the debate. Across the Global South, it is common to witness public discussions about the Russian invasion that barely address Ukraine at all. Instead, the focus is frequently on Western colonialism, globalization, and other broad geopolitical themes. Ukrainians should not hesitate to insist that conversations about their country’s plight not get sidetracked by extraneous historical grievances.

Over the past year, Ukraine’s limited efforts to influence opinion in the Global South have concentrated on highlighting the imperial ambitions underpinning Putin’s current invasion while raising awareness of Russia’s own long history of colonialism as a major European empire. This approach certainly makes some sense, but too much emphasis on Russia’s colonial past risks shifting the conversation away from today’s Ukraine.

Another important ingredient shaping the debate in the Global South is the role played by the Soviet Union as a supporter of anti-colonial liberation movements during the second half of the twentieth century. Putin’s Russia has made much use of this favorable Soviet legacy, using it to garner goodwill and to emphasize its own anti-Western credentials. This ignores the obvious imperialism of the USSR itself, and overlooks the fact that Soviet-era Ukraine also contributed significantly to liberation movements throughout Africa and Asia.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, July 20, 2023 • 8:00 am ET

After Vilnius: What’s next on Ukraine’s path to NATO?

Eastern Europe NATO Security & Defense Ukraine

While it is essential for Ukrainians to correct the historical record regarding Russian imperialism, it is also vital to stress Ukraine’s current importance for the Global South. First and foremost, this means highlighting Ukraine’s status as one of the world’s emerging agricultural superpowers and a major prewar contributor to global food security.

As Ukraine seeks to influence opinion among non-Western audiences, the country must make maximum use of its limited resources. For example, officials in Kyiv should be doing much more to engage with the thousands of professionals throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America who studied at Ukrainian universities before going on to have careers in their homelands. This pool of alumni is a potentially significant but largely untapped resource that could bring a degree of authenticity to the debate due to their personal experience of Ukraine.

Ukrainian nationals with family ties to the Global South can also contribute to greater international understanding of the issues at stake in today’s Ukraine. As one of the most prominent members of the Afro-Ukrainian community, politician and Olympic champion wrestler Zhan Beleniuk traveled to Africa in late 2022 as part of Ukraine’s fledgling outreach efforts. Others with similar backgrounds should be encouraged to speak up on behalf of Ukraine.

Ukraine’s success in shaping opinion throughout the Global South will hinge largely on the country’s ability to engage with the media. This is one area where the Kremlin enjoys overwhelming advantages. While Russia’s RT and Sputnik platforms have limited reach and minimal credibility among Western audiences, they enjoy considerable prominence and are often well-received in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Ukraine cannot hope to compete with the Kremlin’s billion dollar media budgets and must instead build relationships with existing local mainstream media. Brazil’s TV Globo is the second-largest commercial TV network in the world and can bring Ukrainian perspectives to huge domestic Brazilian audiences. Likewise, engagement with Spanish-language channels can help reach millions across Latin America. A comprehensive media strategy is needed in order to close the information gap and counter the current dominance of Russia’s narratives in the non-Western information space.

Ultimately, the truth is on Ukraine’s side. The good news it that there is very little evidence of actively anti-Ukrainian sentiment in today’s Global South. It should be entirely possible to persuade far more people that Ukraine’s cause is righteous and worthy of support. However, this will require a concerted effort that is currently lacking. Simply telling non-Western audiences that the Russians are also imperialists may be satisfying, but it is not nearly enough.

Mitchell Polman is a public diplomacy and international relations commentator.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Feb 20, 2023

‘You cannot outlast us’: Biden’s Kyiv visit sends strong message to Moscow

By Peter Dickinson

US President Joe Biden’s bold surprise visit to wartime Kyiv sent a strong message to Moscow that time is not on Putin’s side and Russia should not pin its hopes on a weakening of Western resolve to stand with Ukraine.

Conflict Freedom and Prosperity

UkraineAlert Jan 28, 2023

Poland is leading Europe’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine

By Diane Francis

Poland was the unsung hero of the recent landmark decision by Berlin and Washington to provide Ukraine with tanks as Polish leadership continues to shape the European response to Russia’s genocidal invasion.

Conflict Economic Sanctions

UkraineAlert Mar 8, 2023

Ukrainians will never surrender. How long can they count on the West?

By Serhiy Prytula

Ukraine’s remarkable resistance during the first days of the Russian invasion convinced the democratic world to back the country but with Putin now preparing for a long war, continued Western resolve is vital writes Serhiy Prytula.

Civil Society Conflict

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Ukraine must do more to counter Russian narratives in the Global South appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Summits are about announcements. In the days and months prior to these splashy events, there is always a mad dash to gather success stories and draft up new—at times purely aspirational—funding commitments. The recent US-Africa Leaders Summit in December is a case in point, featuring a large number of announcements, some new and some repackaged. It also included some sizable financial commitments to African markets, albeit with a little creative accounting that makes it difficult for even the most assiduous US-Africa policy watchers to make sense of what’s new and what is repackaged. (See one attempt in the chart below.)

Two solid successes and continued momentum

The three-day US-Africa Leaders Summit in December brought together high-level delegations from forty-nine African countries and the AU, along with business and civil society leaders. The summit was part of an overall new Africa strategy authored by Judd Devermont, the special assistant to the president and senior director for African affairs at the National Security Council. The strategy has returned US-Africa policy to the basics, including consistent high-level diplomatic engagement between US and African leaders—and US President Joe Biden pledged at the summit to continue to make that engagement a priority.

The Biden administration is thus far making good on this promise. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield have already made official visits to the continent in 2023. Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Ghana, Tanzania, and Zambia from March 26 to April 1, and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo will visit the continent this summer. Devermont has long argued for this type of consistent, high-level engagement, and it is refreshing to see it operationalized. Regular, high-level engagement has long been a staple of how the United States approaches other regions of the world and it is important that African nations continue to be integrated into the broader, day-to-day practice of US diplomacy. He reiterated this view during his recent visit at the Atlantic Council. “If we are going to solve problems in the world, if we are going to come up with creative solutions, it is going to be with our African partners,” he said. “The summit was just a kick off.”

Biden’s focus on the diaspora was another important aspect of the US-Africa Leaders Summit, with diaspora interests and concerns highlighted across sectors and in multiple fora. The African diaspora in the United States distinguishes and enriches US-Africa ties from those of global competitors and should remain a centerpiece of US policy toward the continent. The summit also served as the launching pad for the President’s Advisory Council on African Diaspora Engagement in the United States, a new initiative that follows in the footsteps of the Obama administration–established President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa. The new initiative should help ensure the diaspora has a seat at the table in shaping US policy toward the continent.

The summit also gave additional momentum to US efforts to support digitization in African markets. While hugely important and widely supported across the US-Africa policy community, Biden’s new flagship Africa initiative—Digital Transformation with Africa—simply builds on old programs such as the US International Development Finance Corporation’s Connect Africa and the US Trade and Development Agency’s Access Africa (among others with overlapping mandates). In its new form, the initiative intends to invest $350 million in the digital sector, but it will require congressional support.

Big ideas for US-Africa policy

The Biden administration’s summit could have been a launch pad for big, bold ideas, but here it fell short. Instead of repackaging existing programs, the Biden administration, working with Congress, should champion new initiatives that match US competitiveness with African opportunity while deepening US-Africa relations. Here are three ideas:

• Create a US Commercial Corps as a corollary to the US Peace Corps that would send recent graduates or retired volunteers to emerging markets to work alongside Prosper Africa embassy deal teams on commercially related engagements. The potential benefits of such a program are numerous, including advancing people-to-people diplomacy, supporting US government personnel across the continent with business acumen and commercial expertise, and creating a cadre of US business professionals with working experience in emerging markets who will enhance long-term US competitiveness on the international stage. Six decades of the Peace Corps has yielded CEOs, members of Congress, and community leaders with lasting ties and relationships across the Atlantic. A Commercial Corps could do the same for US-Africa commercial relations.
• Prioritize partnerships in the creative industries by establishing an advisory council modeled on the Presidential Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa and the newly minted President’s Advisory Council on African Diaspora Engagement. This new council would link company executives from the music, film, and fashion industries in the United States and across Africa with financiers and key US government stakeholders to drive investment into Africa’s creative industries. Building on the work of the Africa Center’s Task Force and efforts being made by Afreximbank, the council could focus on creating the linkages needed–particularly around financing growth in the sector.
• Support sustained capacity-building in climate finance. The Atlantic Council’s Millennium Leadership program runs an accelerator for climate finance leaders, for example. Additionally, the International Finance Corporation and Milken Institute are now in their seventh year of a unique training program that brings mid-career professionals from finance ministries, central banks, and stock exchanges to the United States to deepen their experience with capital markets. Since 2016, 160 professionals have participated in the program from nearly fifty countries, the majority in Africa, and strong working relationships have been created that deepen regional integration. The Biden administration could partner with them to expand the effort to focus on climate finance or bring others to the table such as Bloomberg Green, the Rocky Mountain Institute, and leading US and European universities to design a best-in-class program. African countries are home to some of the world’s most important natural assets, including the Congo Basin, and they need to ensure that their finance executives—both in the public and private sectors—have access to the best thinking and skills when it comes to ensuring sustainable growth.

The Biden administration’s return to summit diplomacy is a welcome development, and the commitment to consistent, high-level engagement with African leaders is being demonstrated month by month. Still, given the potential of the world’s youngest continent and the growing role African nations will play in global affairs in the coming decades, the United States needs to be bolder and more creative with initiatives that create lasting structural change in US-Africa relations.

A summary of key summit takeaways–some old, some new, some questions remain

The chart below is a first effort by the author to track and categorize the summit commitments in order to stimulate further discussion. 

Aubrey Hruby is a co-founder of Tofino Capital, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center, and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University.

The post The US has gotten the day to day right in Africa policy. Time to think bigger. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

World Genealogy Day is on March 11 this year, and it serves as a reminder that genealogy is important for any individual or family. Yet, it is perhaps even more important for societies and communities that have been shaped by forces that have taken them far from their roots. For global Africans, like me, genealogy is a valuable resource that can promote greater insight, connectedness, and cultural preservation.

‘Global Africa’—as defined by various academics and scholars like W.E.B. Du Bois, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Robin D.G. Kelly, and Kwame Anthony Appiah—refers to the concept of a transnational and interconnected African diaspora that exists beyond the continent of Africa. It acknowledges the cultural, economic, and social ties that connect people of African descent around the world, including those in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The term Global Africa recognizes that the history, culture, and experiences of African people have been heavily impacted by colonialism, slavery, and immigration. It also highlights the diverse contributions that people of African descent have made to various fields, such as literature, music, art, and politics, and underscores the importance of building solidarity among different communities of African descent to address shared challenges and promote mutual understanding.

If the United States truly wants to embrace the African diaspora that resides there, as stated at the US-Africa Leaders’ Summit, it must reduce the prices to access genealogy records, increase public awareness campaigns to help young people everywhere to learn about their ancestors, and foster economic ties that can grant the diaspora freedom to travel and explore their genealogy first-hand.

Journey through time

I used DNA services and genealogy platforms to trace my family lineage. Through years of research and accessing free records on websites like Slave Voyages and the Freedmen’s Bureau of the National Archives, I was able to piece together my family’s story going back six generations: from the 1700s to the present day. From my research, I discovered that my African roots go back to the Mali Empire where my distant cousins were once kings.

While the desire to know one’s family lineage is universal, each culture faces a unique set of challenges. For instance, while some Africans don’t feel as directly impacted by slavery as many African Americans, colonization left stains that persist in young African minds after many European powers had captured people, artifacts, and resources from Africa during the sixteenth to twentieth centuries. Initiatives like African Ancestry help in rediscovering roots, while others like H3 Africa—a consortium of research projects led by African scientists—are playing a significant role in researching African genetics to help people better understand whether they are at risk, through genetics or their environment, for developing specific diseases.

Countries around the world have different laws and regulations regarding access to genealogy records. While the United States is fortunate to have access to millions of historical records, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services charge high fees for access to genealogy records, creating a barrier for many everyday Americans. Gatekeepers must strike a balance between protecting privacy and making genealogy accessible to those who seek it.

And with the United States becoming the site of fierce discussion over migration and mobility, improving access to genealogy is one important way it can communicate a more welcoming message to the African continent—and a more supportive one to the African diaspora community at home.

Control of the narrative

Today in the United States, school systems are facing complex questions about what should be taught regarding African American history, how lessons should be delivered, whether interpretations of historical moments are accurate, and which students should be receiving these lessons.

For example, in my home state of Virginia, new proposed history and social-science Standards of Learning are facing criticism for avoiding and downplaying Black contributions to society. In Florida, state officials blocked a proposed advanced placement African American history course, saying it “significantly lacked educational value.” The Texas House of Representatives is considering a bill that would remove all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in state universities. The largest proportion of Black immigrants lives in Southern states where these debates about Black history and inclusion are unfolding.

What signal is the United States sending to African students who want to study in the country? This is a question that’s particularly relevant at a time when the global competition to attract African students is sharpening. Europe hosts the biggest group of Sub-Saharan African students outside the continent. But while France, which has 92,000 students enrolled according to the latest data, has long dominated in attracting African students, the United States (41,700), South Africa (30,300), and the United Kingdom (27,800) have also grown as major players in recent years.

If young people, such as students, can meaningfully engage with genealogy, they can strengthen diaspora communities by connecting together via their cultural and familial ties, which then boosts religious, social, and political connections across communities. Ultimately, this can create a heightened sense of identity and belonging across borders. Jeanine Stewart, a psychologist with expertise in inclusion and belonging, shared in a Forbes interview that, “being surrounded by other human beings doesn’t guarantee a sense of belonging.” Instead, she said, “belonging actually has to do with identification as a member of a group and the higher quality interactions which come from that. It’s the interactions over time which are supportive of us as full, authentic human beings.”

The United States’ message in attracting African students to study in the country extends beyond the education sector. Having a positive message would signify a broader commitment to diversity, globalization, and engagement with the African continent. The United States sees Africa as a vital partner in shaping the world’s future, and welcoming African students is a way to build lasting relationships and promote economic growth. Additionally, by attracting more young, talented individuals from Africa, the United States could bolster its own population growth by attracting a diverse range of perspectives and skills; it could also help make genealogical information more available, as young people from various family trees may carry their genealogical stories with them to the United States.

Genealogy awareness and access: What’s needed next

Many African societies have traditionally used oral history to pass down stories and genealogical information from generation to generation. This connective experience between the young and old is important.

At the same time, there is a need for genealogy thought leaders to collaborate with the public sector and other organizations to generate public awareness campaigns about the advances in the field. These campaigns can highlight the value of understanding one’s identity, connecting with distant relatives, and providing insights into past societies. Public awareness campaigns can also help dispel myths about genealogy and DNA to promote its legitimacy as a valuable field of study.

Institutions such as the Robert F. Smith Explore Your Family History Center—which is part of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture—is facilitating free genealogy expert consultations for those interested in tracking down their ancestry.

That said, there is still much work to be done to make genealogy and DNA records more accessible worldwide. Governments, including the United States, should create policies that promote the digitization of records and the creation of databases that are affordable and accessible to the public, especially given the fact that the genetic testing market size is anticipated to grow, reaching almost $18 billion by 2030.

Private companies currently access genealogy and DNA records to monetize direct-to-consumer DNA testing, medical research, DNA research services, data sharing and collaborations, and affiliate marketing.

Access to genealogy records can provide individuals with a sense of identity and belonging, connect them with distant relatives, and help them understand their place in the world. It can also inform understanding of past societies and help the world build more sustainable and prosperous communities.

Therefore, organizations around the world must work together to create policies that promote free access to genealogy records. Governments and institutions must work to strike a balance between protecting the privacy and providing access to history that is at the core of how families and communities have evolved over centuries.

Together, citizens of the world can ensure that genealogy remains a valuable resource for individuals and societies worldwide. By understanding the past, people can build a more prosperous and connected future.

Tyrell Junius is the associate director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center and a US returned Peace Corps volunteer of Zambia.

The post How genealogy can help restore historical ties through meaningful diaspora engagement appeared first on Atlantic Council.

As Europe drives investment into the MENA region, green hydrogen’s potential in sub-Saharan African nations like South Africa, Namibia, and Kenya risks being overlooked as a driver of needed sustainable energy and economic development. Partially due to the effects of COVID-19, the population without access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa rose in 2020 for the first time since 2013. Currently, the region accounts for 77 percent of the global population without access to electricity, up from 74 percent prior to the pandemic. Energy demand is set to rise dramatically over the next 30 years, as the region’s current population of 1.18 billion is expected to double to over 2.2 billion by 2050.

But supporting sub-Saharan sustainable energy development is not only a pressing facet of a just global energy transition; it would also be a mutually beneficial investment decision. The average long-term practical yield for a photovoltaic solar energy installation in the region is 4.34 kWh/kWp/day, significantly higher than Europe’s 3.44 kWh/kWp/day. Nearly 30 percent of the region is capable of producing over 5 kWh/kWp/day of photovoltaic output, with some of the strongest concentrations of solar irradiation in Namibia, South Africa, Botswana, and Ethiopia. Sub-Saharan wind energy potential is also strong, particularly along the coasts of Namibia, South Africa, and Kenya. If successfully developed, renewable energy capacity could produce economically viable green hydrogen in Africa under €2 per kilogram by 2030.

South Africa signaled its intention to develop green hydrogen at scale with the release of the South African Hydrogen Society Roadmap (HSRM) in February 2022. The HSRM outlined four catalytic demonstration zones designed to lay the groundwork for long-term decarbonization of industry and transportation as well as the creation of a robust export market for green hydrogen and green ammonia.

In cooperation with Hydrogen Council members Anglo American and ENGIE, South African private and public sector operators are pursuing the development of a centralized hydrogen valley known as the Platinum Valley Initiative (PVI). The valley aims to connect three hubs—Johannesburg, Durban, and Limpopo—with a projected aggregated demand of 184 kilotons (kt) of green hydrogen by 2030. The initial viability study projected that the PVI could add between $4-9 billion to South African GDP by 2050 in addition to creating between 14,000-30,000 direct and indirect jobs annually. The nine currently proposed projects would contribute to decarbonization efforts spanning the transport, industrial, and mining sectors.

In addition to HSRM and PVI, South Africa signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) agreement with France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States in November 2021. At COP27, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the endorsement of the $8.5-billion JETP investment plan. Expanding the transportation and energy potential of green hydrogen is a key component of the investment strategy.

To the west, Namibia is also expanding its development goals for green hydrogen with a focus on Southern Corridor Development Initiative (SCDI). Following the hydrogen valley model, the SCDI is a partnership between the Namibian Green Hydrogen Council and the German firm Hyphen Hydrogen Energy. The project is expected to produce 300,000 tons of green hydrogen by 2030 from 5-6 gigawatts (GW) of installed renewable energy capacity. The Namibian Port Authority (Namport) is a critical component of the SCDI scheme, already laying the groundwork with Hyphen and the Port of Rotterdam to identify needed export infrastructure.

Before an export market can develop, however, Namibia’s existing energy woes must be addressed. In 2022, only 56 percent of Namibians had access to electricity, and the nation imported 60-70 percent of its electricity demand. Hyphen says its planned projects will generate 1.5-2 terawatt-hours of surplus electricity per year, nearly equal to Namibia’s purchases from the South African Power Pool (SAPP) regional electricity network. Hyphen’s development contract is only a fraction of the 26,000 square kilometers reserved by the government for green hydrogen development. As more projects are announced, renewable energy costs will decrease, and additional electricity supply should be available to both meet domestic demand and contribute to the decarbonization of the SAPP.

Already leading the continent in geothermal energy capacity, Kenya announced a slate of investment partnerships on the sidelines of COP27 for the growth of an East African green hydrogen hub. Fortescue Future Industries (FFI), an Australian firm with a global green hydrogen and ammonia portfolio, won the rights to develop a 300-megawatt (MW) green hydrogen and ammonia plant over the next three years.

Kenya’s development of renewable energy capacity has been a blessing for the country, nearly doubling electricity access from 32 percent in 2013 to 75 percent in 2022. Kenya Electricity Generating Company’s (KenGen) geothermal infrastructure is responsible for 70 percent of that growth, and the state-owned firm announced an additional $2-billion investment in new geothermal plants in 2021. As geothermal energy continues to expand, new solar and wind projects can exclusively produce green hydrogen and its derivatives without shortchanging residential, commercial, or industrial electricity demand.

As electrolyzer costs continue to decrease and sub-Saharan Africa’s renewable energy capacity grows, developing a robust green hydrogen and ammonia economy across the region could serve as an economic and energy development boon. Before that vision can be achieved, however, the inequities between nations and energy networks within the region must be addressed through cooperation and international support. Of the forty-eight countries in the region, twenty-four have electricity grids which service less than half of their national populations; eight have grids which reach less than 20 percent of citizens. This broad range of energy system reach complicates viability assessments for green hydrogen and other sustainable energy sources when focusing on sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. Instead, development potential in specific nations like South Africa, Namibia, and Kenya should be the focus of near-term support, with the goal of expanding successful programs and investments across the region over the next 30 years.

As sustainable energy markets develop in regional leaders throughout the decade, regional partnerships like the African Green Hydrogen Alliance should expand their membership. Angola, Mozambique, Botswana, Tanzania, and Ethiopia all possess reasonable wind and solar resources and form a corridor along the southern and eastern coasts of Africa, a prime opportunity for domestic development of green hydrogen and export to Asian buyers.

Regional leaders should pursue strategies to support the expansion of electricity grids and sustainable energy in neighboring nations. Adapting previous strategies like the Mozambique Transmission Company’s (MOTRACO) cross-border interconnection project—which linked transmission networks from South Africa, Mozambique, and Eswatini for aluminum smelting—may be a way to connect large-scale utility grids, which would bolster each nation’s ability to produce cost-effective green hydrogen on a consistent basis. International financing agreements like Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) or initiatives like Power Africa should support the long-term goal of leveling electricity access and energy networks across the region, building from lessons learned from existing agreements with South Africa. While concrete strategies for developing sustainable energy in energy-insecure sub-Saharan countries remain undefined, identifying early avenues of support is a critical step in harnessing the potential 50 million tons of regional green hydrogen capacity by 2035, according to a recent report from the European Investment Bank.

Kenya, Namibia, and South Africa are well positioned to expand their production capacity over the next ten years while gradually expanding green hydrogen markets to neighboring nations and setting the foundation for future export markets to Europe and Asia. If done correctly, the African Green Hydrogen Alliance partners could set favorable regulatory environments for the region and leverage their supply on international markets. Green hydrogen has unique potential to fuel the sustainable development of the transportation networks, industrial bases, and commercial enterprises of sub-Saharan nations while also strengthening their relationship with international trading partners.

Daniel Helmeci was a Summer 2022 Young Global Professional at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center.

Related content

EnergySource Feb 14, 2023

Hydrogen in the MENA region: Priorities and steps forward

By Giampaolo Cantini

COP27 marked a major escalation in the MENA region’s hydrogen ambitions. With several international partnerships now underway, sustained support and forward-thinking policymaking will be key.

Energy & Environment Energy Transitions

EnergySource Feb 2, 2023

Realizing North Africa’s green hydrogen potential

By Daniel Helmeci

North Africa could be a global hub for green hydrogen production. Europe would be able to advance its own net-zero future while supporting North African development by promoting investment and collaboration in the sector.

Energy & Environment Energy Markets & Governance

EnergySource Jan 31, 2023

Africa and the global LNG crunch: Balancing energy security, development, and decarbonization

By Robert F. Ichord, Jr.

As Europe looks to replace Russian gas and Asia looks to switch off coal, African LNG could play a central role. Gas development in Africa could unlock new revenues and, in turn, drive development across the continent.

Africa Energy & Environment

Learn more about the Global Energy Center

The Global Energy Center develops and promotes pragmatic and nonpartisan policy solutions designed to advance global energy security, enhance economic opportunity, and accelerate pathways to net-zero emissions.

learn more

The post Sub-Saharan green hydrogen as a catalyst for development appeared first on Atlantic Council.

This evolving discourse provides an ideological framework for Sub-Saharan African migrants subjected to documented instances of racism and expulsion during their stay in North African countries by local inhabitants and authorities. This new narrative transcends the conventional motivation of seeking exile or improved livelihoods in Europe and using these countries as a route to cross the Mediterranean clandestinely. It also supports a grotesque and historically misleading account about the origins of native Amazigh people of the region being inherently non-African because of their light skin color.

Resisting racism with Afrocentrism

In a speech on February 21, Tunisian President Kais Saied claimed that Sub-Saharan migrants “threaten the country’s national identity and must be stopped,” renewing the debate regarding xenophobia and discrimination against black communities in Tunisia. The divisive comments instigated the outrage of human rights activists at the national and international levels as the Maghreb region has been overwhelmed by waves of migrants and asylum seekers looking for dignity and improved living standards for the past two decades, aggravated by the Libyan crisis.

North African countries, already migration departure nations with over 12.3 million migrants internationally, have mixed records in dealing with the Sub-Saharan migration issue ranging from mass repatriations and ghettoization to limited efforts of naturalization and integration. Soaring inflation and unemployment rates in some countries led to a growing sentiment of prejudice and chauvinistic hate speech. It’s impossible to forget the outrageous scenes of stranded migrants left to starve in the open desert between Algeria and Niger over the past few years or others beaten to death as they attempted to climb the fence surrounding the fortified enclave of Melilla.  

Sub-Saharan migrants, infuriated by decades of mistreatment by Europeans and now by North Africans, found refuge in a new Afrocentric discourse to justify their right to exist and stay in the Maghreb facing racism with reversed racism and asking Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, and Libyans to “go back to Asia” where they supposedly originated from. Afrocentric adepts even assert that the real Moorish people were black, and so were the pharaohs, and claim all civilizational glories that took place on African soil as inherently black.

The circulating social media clips and comments call to re-Africanize the Maghreb through mixed marriages and mass immigration. This movement is capitalizing on the Black Lives Matter movement, which reignited a pan-African sentiment and repositioned blackness in the political agendas in the United States and Europe to create the buzz and hide a more complex demographical and discursive phenomenon.

Historical misconceptions and racist legacies

The problem with this approach lies primarily in its erroneous historical accuracy. North Africa has always been the ancestral land of the Amazigh or Imazighen people, as proven by neolithic archeological excavations going back to at least 10,000 BC and known accounts from the antiquity encounters of Greek, Roman, and Phoenician with the Numidian, Mauri, and Libu people. Amazighs are also a distinct group anthropologically with specific genetic make, language, and culture processing ties with all of Africa, Asia, and the Mediterranean. Arab settlers from the gulf and Levant colonized the region much later and were faced with fierce resistance by the autochthones led by their queen Al-Kahina in the eighth century.

The Berber and Arab people of the Maghreb have ongoing ethno-nationalistic divergences, as some Amazighs continue to claim to be ostracized by a ruling Arab class. This was exacerbated by French colonial rule, which intentionally distinguished between Arabs and Berbers in education, local government, and laws. Certain groups, like the Kabyles in Algeria, still sustain separatist demands and even have a government in exile. Nevertheless, the truth is that centuries of intermarriages and assimilation have created an amalgamation of both communities and gave birth to today’s North African identity, where it is impossible to proclaim ethnic purity. Black Africans themselves could not be reduced today to one race or culture, and it is utterly reductionist and essentialist to say an Ethiopian is the same as a Congolese or to compare a Sudanese with a South African.

The recent tensions between Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa may be explained by the historical ties between the two regions of the continent, where the latter repetitively subjugated the first and annexed them as part of its empires. The Maghreb, additionally, has an undeniable dark heritage legacy of being slave owners and traders. In his book Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam, Arizona University professor Chouki El Hamel revisits this least-known chronicle of the region’s past, where western Africans were captured, emasculated, and used as soldiers or sold off to slave merchants and shipped to the new continent. Domestic slaves had a much grimmer faith, as they were subjected to physical violence, rape, and exploitation.

North Africa undoubtedly faces a serious migration problem that will continue to aggravate if not addressed regarding its social, cultural, and historical dimensions and root causes. The Sahara and the Sahel are already extremely precarious zones, with flourishing mercenaries and extremist groups recruiting migrants and utilizing them to destabilize the entire region. The security approach that Tunisian President Saied is preaching for would not suffice; only a more prosperous and economically integrated West Africa with its northern neighbors could provide a pathway to stabilization.

Sarah Zaaimi is the deputy director for communications at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs 

The post <strong>Afrocentrism is trending in the Maghreb. It’s because Sub-Saharan migrants are rewriting their narrative.</strong> appeared first on Atlantic Council.

This work empirically examines China’s growing footprint in Sub-Saharan Africa’s investment, trade, cultural, and security landscape over the past two decades. It highlights China’s increasing appetite for Sub-Saharan Africa’s natural resources and growing young labor force—identifying the region’s consumer market as an important destination for Chinese goods and services over the next few decades. 

The analysis identifies more than 600 Chinese investments and construction contracts in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), valued at over $303 billion, signed between 2006 and 2020. Four sectors attract 87 percent of China’s investment and construction in the region: energy at 34 percent; transport, 29 precent; metals, 13 percent; and real estate, 11 percent. This is very similar to the Middle East and North Africa Region, where the energy sector attracts close to 50 percent of China’s investment, followed by transport, 19 percent; real estate, 15 percent; and metals, 6 percent.

In terms of trade, this work shows that between 2001 and 2020, China’s merchandise trade with the region increased by a whopping 1,864 percent—surpassing SSA’s trade with both the United States and the European Union. In other words, from 2001 to 2020, China’s share in total merchandise trade in SSA rose from 4 percent to 25.6 percent, while during the same period, the shares of the United States and the EU in SSA’s total trade declined by 10 percentage points and 8 percentage points, respectively.

The report also takes a look at China’s arms trade with the region. Twenty-two percent of SSA’s arms imports are sourced from China, making China the region’s second-largest supplier of arms and military equipment, with Russia in the lead (24 percent). 

Finally, the report highlights the fact that the size of Chinese migrants in Africa is estimated at one to two million, with around one million permanently residing in the region. The largest numbers are in Ghana, South Africa, Madagascar, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.This work is the first in a series of empirical analyses that will be conducted on China’s presence in developing economies and low-income countries.

Explore the data in the Issue Brief

At the intersection of economics, finance, and foreign policy, the GeoEconomics Center is a translation hub with the goal of helping shape a better global economic future.

Learn more

The post China in Sub-Saharan Africa: Reaching far beyond natural resources appeared first on Atlantic Council.

This report is part of an ongoing partnership on the Power of African Creative Industries between The Policy Center for the New South (PCNS) and the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center.

“Critical connectivity: Reducing the price of data in African markets,” by Africa Center Senior Fellow Aubrey Hruby, analyzes the current state of the digital transformation in Africa and outlines how affordable and accessible data is imperative for further development. Finally, it provides concrete recommendations to the key actors and facilitators of the transition outlined in the Digital Transformation with Africa; a new initiative the Biden administration announced at the 2022 US-Africa Leaders Summit, which emphasizes the importance of reducing data costs in Africa to spur growth and employment.

In outlining why data remains so costly and inaccessible across Africa, Hruby profiles four main detriments: infrastructure, competition, policy, and consumption patterns. Through case studies and success stories from other developing nations who struggled with high-priced data and implemented successful mitigation measures, Hruby develops a framework for reform and showcases how key changes can rapidly reduce data costs, spur development, and transform entire industries. Her recommendations directly address the current US administration, African governments seeking to build and benefit from a digital economy, and global development finance institutions (DFIs) that are already investing and making much needed transformative inroads into African markets.

Throughout the 21st century, African markets have unleashed the globe’s most significant digital revolution, and they are poised to continue doing so over the next few decades as the world’s youngest population reaches maturity. Currently, 40 percent of the continent’s total population is under the age of 15 and represents 27 percent of the entire world population. From 2000 to 2010, the African mobile phone market grew at a rate of 44 percent per year, bringing the number of subscriptions to around 700 million, more than in both the European Union and the United States combined. For African creative and mobile industries, which are emerging at the forefront of this digital revolution, infrastructure and technological systems are critical to the sector’s continued growth. The African Continental Free Trade Area connects 1.3 billion people across fifty-five countries with a combined GDP of over $3 trillion. Digital infrastructure is a vital economic opportunity and a crucial security issue for African nations and their partners.

The African vision is increasingly shaped by the digital tools and platforms African consumers use and the new opportunities that have emerged in a growing start-up ecosystem. According to the UN, the digital economy is set to expand in Africa by 57 percent between 2020 and 2025. With projections by the Alliance for Affordable Internet forecasting that the continent’s digital economy will grow six times over by 2050 to $712 billion and the fact that African startups raised more than $4 billion in venture capital in 2021, it is clear that this sector is booming. Undoubtedly the future is digital, and Africa must be able to access this future affordably if it is to share in the benefits of this global revolution.

The Atlantic Council is the only DC global think tank to have placed African creative industries at the center of its security and prosperity work. The Africa Center’s focus on the creative industries was launched by the Africa Creative Industries Summit of Washington in October 2021 at the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art and was opened by a message from Vice President Kamala Harris. The program is now fully supported by strong sponsors and partners, from ADS Group and Afreximbank to OSF and OCP, allowing the Atlantic Council to continue its leadership in the field by hosting events such as the Sports Business Forum, held in Dakar, and the financial engineering task force for African creative industries. This work was crowned by the Africa Center’s partnership with the US Department of State and its participation in the organization of the African and Young Leaders Diaspora Forum on the first official day of the US-Africa Leaders Summit of December 2022 at the African American Museum of History and Culture in Washington.

Report author

Fellow

Aubrey Hruby

Nonresident Senior Fellow

Africa Center

Economy & Business Future of Work

The Africa Center works to promote dynamic geopolitical partnerships with African states and to redirect US and European policy priorities toward strengthening security and bolstering economic growth and prosperity on the continent.

Learn more

Related content

AfricaSource Jun 16, 2022

Better data is the key to unlocking major investment in Africa

By Tom Koch

As COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine continue to hurt the African continent, many countries will require significant investment to revitalize their economies. But a persistent attribute of many African markets will continue to be a barrier to private investment: a relative lack of data. This drives up diligence costs, creates difficulties in valuing assets, […]

Africa Digital Policy

New Atlanticist Dec 5, 2022

Can the US and Africa usher in a new era for globalization?

By Katherine Walla

US Trade Representative Katherine Tai discussed the future of US-Africa trade with the African Continental Free Trade Area’s secretary-general, Wamkele Mene, at an exclusive Atlantic Council event.

Africa Trade

AfricaSource Jul 8, 2022

Europe’s Green Deal plan is Africa’s green finance opportunity

By Emilie Bel

Can natural gas and nuclear power be green? “Sometimes, and for a limited period of time,” said the European Parliament on July 6, as part of an ongoing negotiation over the EU taxonomy, a key component of the European Green Deal (EGD). The EGD is the European Union’s ambitious plan to create the first emissions-neutral […]

Africa Climate Change & Climate Action

The post Critical connectivity: Reducing the price of data in African markets appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Security

DFRLab confirms increased Russian air force activity as Kremlin strives to achieve air dominance

Russian army continues to pressure Ukraine in Bakhmut

Tracking narratives

Volunteer Russian unit fighting for Ukraine reportedly infiltrates Bryansk

Kremlin-linked Telegram networks coordinated to spread disinformation around the world

Media policy

Report examines Russia’s decentralized approach to internet censorship

DFRLab confirms increased Russian air force activity as Kremlin strives to achieve air dominance

The DFRLab confirmed that the Russian General Staff has intensified its air power in recent weeks across airfields in Crimea and Rostov Oblast. Satellite imagery collected by the DFRLab throughout February indicates that Russian air forces have increased their aerial activity at the Saki military airbase in western Crimea. Several MiG and Sukhoi class fighter aircraft have been identified in standby positions or on the runway.

The DFRLab’s findings are consistent with those published by open-source researcher Brady Africk, who identified seven different instances of aircraft located in the south of Ukraine on Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. The European Space Agency’s satellite imagery also serves as open-source evidence of the aircraft’s direction, located in the different color bands of Sentinel-2.

In addition, explosions reported at the Yeysk military air base in Krasnodar Krai further suggest the Russian army has been increasingly intensifying its air maneuvers. Geolocated footage of a Sukhoi-25 fighter aircraft near Luhansk indicated that further maneuvers can be expected from Russia’s western air base of Millerovo. The DFRLab also assessed that air activity possibly occurred during the last week of February at a seemingly deserted airfield south of Luhansk. Satellite imagery shows that although the meteorological conditions in January and February were mostly snowy, the main runway and several pads dedicated to aircrafts and helicopters were consistently clear of snow. Satellite imagery has not yet detected aircraft at the site, however, so it is unclear what class of aircraft is currently deployed in this airfield. Nevertheless, the operation of MiG and Sukhoi class fighters could be responsible for the melting snow on the pads.  

Google Earth imagery from 2021 showed the airbase in dire condition, which could support the claim of its low military activity.

As battles intensify to seize Bakhmut, the southern air base near Luhansk could serve as a strategic advantage for the Russian armed forces as it requires less fuel and maneuvers. 

Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces continue to target strategic Russian installations on the southern front. On March 1, the Russian defense ministry claimed it had downed more than ten Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in an attack against occupied Crimea. This comes as unverified reports suggested a Ukrainian UJ-22 drone was also downed on February 28 between Moscow and Ryazan. Ukrainian presidential advisor Mykhailo Podolyak denied the accusation and said Ukraine is not launching attacks on Russian soil; he claimed the increased aerial strikes on infrastructure were the result of “internal attacks.” Open-source evidence suggests explosions near Yalta and Bakhchysarai, Crimea, could have resulted from other projectiles, not exclusively drone strikes.

—Valentin Châtelet, Research Associate, Security, Brussels, Belgium 

Russian army continues to pressure Ukraine in Bakhmut

Russian forces continue their efforts to encircle and capture the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut. Interviewed by Reuters on February 28, the commander of Ukraine’s ground forces described the situation as “extremely tense.” Russian troops, including Wagner units, are attempting to cut Ukraine’s supply lines to the city in a bid to force troops to surrender or withdraw. 

On February 28, pro-Russia sources shared a video showing Russian Su-25 fighter jets deployed over Bakhmut. The lack of adequate air support has been among the primary sources of friction between the Russian General Staff and the units fighting in Bakhmut. Footage from Ukraine’s 93rd Separate Mechanized Brigade shows fighting escalating, but Ukrainian forces appeared to be holding off the advance at the time of writing. On February 27 and 28, Ukrainian soldiers repelled more than sixty attacks, including on the villages of Yahidne and Berkhivka, north of Bakhmut. According to a pro-Russia blogger’s Telegram channel, Wagner units are advancing north of Bakhmut, but Ukraine’s army has not retreated. Amid heavy fighting, Wagner reportedly advanced on February 27 towards the AZOM metallurgical plant in north Bakhmut. 

Rybar, a Russian Telegram channel believed to be linked to the defense ministry, claimed on March 2 that Wagner’s troops had reached the western suburbs of Bakhmut and clashed with Ukrainian forces in the hills north of the area. According to Rybar, Russian troops approached the road between Chasiv Yar and Bakhmut. On March 2, The Insider reported that Bakhmut was under operative siege as Ukraine’s army repelled attacks in Orikhovo, Vasylivka, Dubovo, Khromove, and Ivanivske. 

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a Helsinki summit on February 28 that the end of the war in Ukraine “would not lead to normalization” of relations with Russia.

—Ruslan Trad, Resident Fellow for Security Research, Sofia, Bulgaria

Volunteer Russian unit fighting for Ukraine reportedly infiltrates Bryansk

Russian government figures, Kremlin media, and pro-Russia Telegram channels are heavily focused on an alleged March 2 incursion by pro-Ukraine forces in the Russian village of Sushany, Bryansk oblast, approximately one kilometer away from Ukraine’s north-central border with Russia. DW News and Radio Free Europe reported that members of the Russian RDK volunteer corps crossed into Russia and were active in the Bryansk area at the time of publishing.

According to DW News, RDK is “a unit of volunteers from Russia who have been fighting on the side of Ukraine since August 2022.” Initially, Ukrainian authorities dismissed the claims of an insurgency in the Russian village as a Russian false-flag operation. However, a video published on the official RDK Telegram channel showed fighters holding the unit flag and indicating a Russian government building behind them. In the video, and later in follow-up interviews, members of the unit adamantly denied claims spread by Russia that they had attacked the civilian population. They stated that the infiltration into Russian territory was done to sabotage Russian military targets. Additional reporting confirmed that RDK leader Denis Nikitin appeared in the video.

Russian Telegram channels and media did not distinguish that the volunteer troops are of Russian origin; instead they reported that a group of “Ukrainian saboteurs” had infiltrated sovereign Russian territory. The governor of Bryansk announced on March 2 that “saboteurs” had attacked the civilian population, killed a man, and taken hostages. President Vladimir Putin described the incident as a “terrorist attack” and condemned the alleged unprovoked shelling of a civilian vehicle. The Kremlin said it was closely monitoring the situation and continued to label the alleged insurgents as “Ukrainian militants.” It also tasked the Federal Security Service with conducting counterterrorism operations in response to the situation in Bryansk. 

Russia also suggested that the Center of the Psychological Operations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (Центринформационно-психологических операций ВСУ) may have been responsible for the “attacks on civilians and infrastructure” in Bryansk, again making no distinction between the RDK and the official Ukrainian military. Echoing the Kremlin’s “terrorism” claim, far-right nationalist State Duma member Aleksey Zhuravlyov labeled the Ukrainian military and political leadership as “terrorists” in official public statements and called for an escalation of the “special military operation” into open war. 

As the conflict along the eastern flank intensifies, escalatory narratives involving northern regions of Ukraine could serve as a critical Kremlin tool for conducting operations into the northern border, where Russian forces could tap into already stationed and mobilized Belarusian troops, military bases, and equipment, along with their own units left behind following joint military training exercises between Russia and Belarus. 

—Kateryna Halstead, Research Assistant, Bologna, Italy 

Kremlin-linked Telegram networks coordinated to spread disinformation around the world

The DFRLab recently discovered fifty-six pro-Kremlin Telegram channels that targeted twenty countries with pro-Kremlin disinformation. Three networks of similarly named accounts — Surf Noise, Info Defense, and Node of Time — targeted users worldwide, including in Europe, Asia, South America, and the Middle East. The operation primarily relied on volunteer work. It focused on translating and spreading pro-Russia disinformation, as well as amplifying reports from Kremlin media outlets, state organizations, and state actors. 

The DFRLab found clear coordination between the three networks, but the approach to capturing a global audience was unsophisticated. The DFRLab consulted its global team of researchers to examine the accuracy of translations and found that the quality of translations was poor.

—Nika Aleksejeva, Research Fellow, Riga, Latvia 

—Sayyara Mammadova, Research Assistant, Warsaw, Poland 

Report examines Russia’s decentralized approach to internet censorship

Russian digital rights organization Roskomsvaboda collaborated with the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) to publish a report examining “a year of military censorship in Russia.” The report reviews censored topics, websites, and services, as well as the legislative mechanisms used to enforce the censorship. 

According to the report, Russia blocked 494 domains over the course of 2022. These fell into twenty-eight categories, with news media representing the largest category, followed by social networks, human rights organizations, and circumvention tools. 

The report found that “more than 247,492 URLs were added to Roskomnadzor’s registry of banned websites” in the past year. However, the orders to ban content did not only come from Russia’s internet regulator. Other Russian agencies that requested websites be blocked include the federal tax service, Russian courts, and the prosecutor general’s office, among others. The report’s authors found over 3,500 instances of an entity anonymously requesting a website block. 

While blocking requests are centralized through Roskomnadzor’s registry, the implementation of internet censorship in Russia is decentralized, the report concluded. The authors found forty-eight of the 494 blocked domains were absent in Roskomnadzor’s registry. The report suggested that some internet providers in Russia can block content not listed in Roskomnadzor’s registry. 

—Eto Buziashvili, Research Associate, Tbilisi, Georgia

The post Russian War Report: DFRLab confirms increased Russian air force activity as Kremlin strives to achieve air dominance appeared first on Atlantic Council.

It was a close call. Ruling party candidate Bola Tinubu was declared the narrow winner of Nigeria’s presidential election on Wednesday after balloting delays and scattered violence, with his two closest challengers saying they will dispute the results in court. Assuming Tinubu takes office as planned in May, he will lead a nation that is at once making big strides on the world stage and reeling from crises at home. Why was the election so rocky, and what should the new president’s priorities be? Our experts share their insights.

• Constance Berry Newman: Nonresident senior fellow at the Africa Center, former US assistant secretary of state for African affairs, and official international observer of Nigeria’s 2023 elections 
• Rama Yade (@ramayade): Senior director of the Africa Center
• Aubrey Hruby (@aubreyhruby): Nonresident senior fellow at the Africa Center and co-founder of Tofino Capital

Notes from the ground

• Constance, who monitored the elections as part of the joint International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute Observer Mission, says the government did many things right in administering the election, including technological improvements and getting all political parties to commit to using only peaceful, legal means to challenge the results.
• But she says the government made several key mistakes, including long delays in opening polling sites. “This led to frustrated, often angry, voters, a limited number of whom left and a small number of whom engaged in violent activities,” Constance reports.
• Another failure, she adds, was “a seemingly ineffective and late tabulation announcement process that raised concerns about the announced results.”
• Constance attributes the surprisingly low voter turnout (27 percent) to “a belief that nothing will change anyway, a fear of violence and other intimidation factors, and a lack of an understanding of the voting procedures.”
• But she comes away most impressed with the enthusiastic young people in a country where around 70 percent of the population is younger than age thirty. “Nigeria has reason to hope for a better future because many of the youth are really engaged and understand what is right and wrong for their country.”