By Herbert Wulf
DUISBURG, Germany, Jan 11 2023 – If our societies are to become resilient and sustainable, our priorities must change towards de-escalation, including in diplomacy and economy.

Putin’s war against Ukraine has not only damaged the international cooperative security architecture, it has permanently destroyed it. The Helsinki Act of 1975, the Charter of Paris of 1990 and the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 created a basis for security cooperation in Europe – even ‘a new era of democracy, peace and unity’, as the Charter of Paris was euphorically titled. At least, that is how the heads of state saw it in the decade after the end of the Cold War.

Today, the war in Ukraine casts a long shadow over European and global security. Cooperation and collaboration have been replaced by military confrontation. Economic cooperation has been shattered, fear of dependency in the energy sector has led to a turning point and the concept of the positive effect of economic interdependence (‘change through trade’) has proven to be a misperception not only in the case of Russia but also with respect to the relationship of the USA and its Asian and European allies against China.

On the contrary, the turn towards confrontational, essentially military-based defence policies can be felt all over the world. Global military spending is at an all-time high of over two trillion US dollars.

Given the budget announcements for the next few years, this sum will continue to rise rapidly in the future. Nuclear weapons have come back into focus. After Russia’s surprising attack, which was hardly considered possible, it is understandable that now – as a first reflex – arms are being upgraded, that economic dependencies are being reduced and, of course, there are concerns about critical infrastructure.

It is not only about traditional military threats. The boundaries between war and peace have become blurred. Hybrid warfare, the use of mercenaries, cyber warfare, destruction of critical infrastructure, undermining social cohesion with disinformation campaigns and election interference, sanctions and other measures of economic warfare have become the standard of international conflict.

De-escalation on three levels

Is there a way out of the constant political, economic and above all military escalation? Despite the apparent hopelessness of an end to the power struggle with Putin, despite the escalated situation in East Asia, despite the many now less noticed wars and conflicts – be it Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan or Mali – it is necessary to think about the possible end of these wars. This should happen in parallel on three levels: security, diplomacy and economy.

With all understanding for the hectic procurement of new weapons now being commissioned in the sign of the turn of the times, it should be noted that security policy is more than defence with weapons. Even if there is currently no path in sight for a negotiated solution to the Ukraine war, such a solution should still be considered.

Ultimately, this war can only be ended through agreements at the negotiating table. Even though Russia started the war in Ukraine in violation of international law and is obviously committing war crimes, in the long term there can be no peace in Europe without Russia and certainly not against Russia.

Respect for Russian security interests, however difficult this may be because of Russian aggression and Putin’s fantasy ideas of Russia, is a prerequisite for de-escalation and serious negotiations.

Geopolitics that maximises only one’s own advantages leads to a dangerous dead end: the clash is pre-programmed.

Many countries rely on a militarily supported geostrategic foreign policy. China’s assertive military, foreign and economic policies are rightly viewed with concern. But the EU also wants to become militarily autonomous.

The US is trying to find partners for its policy conducted in competition with China. Other powers such as Australia, Japan or India are also positioning themselves in rivalry to China.

Instead of focusing on geopolitics, it is necessary to focus on values (democracy, human rights) and binding rules (international law), even if Putin is blatantly violating international law and ‘democracy’ is a foreign word in China. It is necessary to change the narrative significantly.

‘The West’, which demands rule of law and democracy with rigour, has all too often emphasised these values and principles in a know-it-all manner – ‘the West against the rest’. Often enough, double standards were applied and these values were not observed by ‘the West’ itself, such as in the so-called war on terror and the war in Iraq.

If these principles and projects for democracy and against autocracy are to be convincing, then one must completely abandon the concept of ‘the West’ and try to cultivate partnership-based – and not Euro-centric (or ‘Westro-centric’) – relations with democratic countries. In short, geopolitics that maximises only one’s own advantages leads to a dangerous dead end: the clash is pre-programmed.

Is the sole answer of ‘the West’ to keep the upper hand in the geopolitical competition by military means? Economically, it makes sense to reduce dependencies and diversify supply chains. This cannot be done through radical decoupling, but must be done gradually.

Obviously, the shock of the pandemic, but above all Russia’s possibilities to blackmail by stopping energy deliveries, have changed the priorities a little. But by no means all priorities. At no time since the early 1990s has the military burden on global income been as high as it is today: well over two per cent with a trend towards further increases.

The need for timely disarmament

Should the new era (Zeitenwende) consist only of a return to old-fashioned patterns of the military-supported use of force? Arms control is not taking place at the moment. The United Nations and other arms control forums have been pushed to the side. But arms control and de-escalation must already now be considered, even if the Kremlin is still opposed to them and the Chinese leadership is hardly responsive to them at present.

The continuation of the current course leads globally to a situation that is becoming more dangerous than the confrontation in the heyday of the Cold War, since the world is now also seriously endangered by the climate crisis.

Almost all arms exports are accounted for by the G20 and 98 per cent of nuclear warheads are stored in their arsenals.

Although the risks of climate change and armament are well known, there is currently no reversal of this trend in sight. The two crises are heading towards a seemingly unavoidable catastrophe. After the old-world order – with a halfway functioning multilateralism, compromises and give-and-take – was replaced by nationalist aspirations, which then led to a breach of international law in the case of Russia, by an emphasis on nuclear weapons and by the pursuit of supposed self-interest, the goals of the climate agreements are being missed and arms control treaties are being ground down.

Geopolitically ambitious powers such as China, India, Turkey, Brazil, South Africa or Saudi Arabia must be integrated into arms control efforts. Almost ‘naturally’, the G20 summits offer themselves as a forum for this.

The G20 initially focused their talks primarily on macroeconomic issues, but have since also negotiated on sustainable development, energy, the environment and climate change – but not seriously on global security policy.

However, the G20 member countries are responsible for 82 per cent of global military spending. Almost all arms exports are accounted for by the G20 and 98 per cent of nuclear warheads are stored in their arsenals. Today’s military-based arms efforts are concentrated in the G20.

Since the members of this exclusive G20 club are also the main perpetrators of climate change, they bear the main responsibility for the two current catastrophic trends.

Moreover, there are links between climate and arms policy that are most clearly reflected in the wars and violent conflicts of the last decades, the movements of refugees, migrant flows and corresponding counter-reactions.

If our societies are to become more resilient and more ecologically sustainable, then priorities must be changed, and then such a large share of resources cannot be permanently poured into the military – without any prospect of de-escalation. Our current shift must therefore contain more than the present rearmament.

Since the members of this exclusive G20 club are also the main perpetrators of climate change, they bear the main responsibility for the two current catastrophic trends. So, it is time to remind them of their responsibility and urge them to turn back. Perhaps the fact that India is chairing the G20 this year can be used to put security policy prominently on the forum’s agenda.

After all, India has refused to adopt Western sanctions against Russia, citing its own interests. In doing so, the government in Delhi – similar to some other countries in the G20 group (Brazil, South Africa and Turkey) – has kept an open door for potential talks. In order to enable a turning point towards a global security order and cooperation in the climate crisis, more is needed than the current clear military positioning of ‘the West’ in confrontation with Russia.

It is to be hoped that the leading powers of the Global South will strive for a rules-based, multilateral world order within the framework of the G20 talks. That there are possibilities for a security order that looks beyond Europe, as hinted at by Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar, when he confidently stated: ‘Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s.’

Herbert Wulf, Director of the Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC) from its foundation in 1994 until 2001, is currently a Senior Fellow at BICC and an Adjunct Senior Researcher at the Institute for Development and Peace, University of Duisburg/Essen where he was previously a Deputy Director.

Source: Source: International Politics and Society (IPS)-Journal published by the International Political Analysis Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 11 2023 – The long-delayed salvaging of an abandoned tanker, the FSO Safer off the Yemeni coast, has been described as a humanitarian disaster waiting to happen.

The rusting vessel, according to the UN, has remained anchored for more than 30 years. But off-loading and maintenance of the vessel ceased back in 2015, following the start of a devastating civil war in Yemen.

Greenpeace International Project lead Paul Horsman told IPS: “We are staring a major disaster in the face.”

It is unacceptable, he argued, that UNDP, the UN body in charge of facilitating the Safer salvage operations, is creating delays through their internal bureaucracy, potentially adding massive increase in costs, jeopardising an agreement that took years of negotiations to reach, and putting at risk people of Yemen and the Red Sea.

For over a year, everyone has been warning of the imminent danger presented by the Safer. The solution is clear, the technology and expertise are available, ready and able, and the money is there, he added.

“If the Safer leaks or, worse, explodes, it is the UNDP that will carry the blame. They should just get out of the way and allow those who do know what they are doing to get on with the job,” declared Horsman.

Asked for a response, Russell Geekie, Senior Communications Advisor to the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Yemen, told IPS under the leadership of the UN Resident Coordinator, UNDP has been working with other UN specialized agencies and partners to urgently implement the UN-coordinated plan to prevent a massive oil spill from the FSO Safer, off Yemen’s Red Sea coast.

The salvage operation, he said, will take place within the context of the crisis in Yemen, which greatly complicates the work to prepare and implement the operation.

“The salvage operation can only begin once a suitable vessel is in place to receive the oil from the FSO Safer”.

At present, he said, the main challenge to the start of the operation is the limited availability of suitable vessels to store the oil. The price in the global market for these vessels has sharply increased – largely as a result of the war in Ukraine.

“UNDP is working with a maritime broker and other partners to find the most suitable solution, fast-tracking processes whenever possible”, he added.

At a UN press briefing last September, David Gressly, UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Yemen, said the long-delayed salvage operations can begin, now that more than $75 million had been pledged to carry out the vital operation.

The briefing, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. was co-hosted by partners in the proposed rescue effort, namely, the Netherlands, the United States, and Germany.

Gressly said that once the pledges are fully converted into cash for the initial salvage operation, with more than $77 million promised from 17 countries, an extra $38 million was still needed for phase two – the installation of safe replacement capacity to secure the one million barrels of oil on board.

The UN plan is for this to be done through transferring the oil to a secure double-hulled vessel, as a permanent storage solution, until the political situation allows it to be sold or transported elsewhere, said Gressly.

But Greenpeace International has remained sceptical because the issue of the FSO Safer, it says, should have been dealt with months ago, before weather conditions deteriorated.

Last autumn, all seemed set fair for the salvage operation, and Smit Boskalis, one of the world’s most experienced salvage companies, was all set to get the operation underway, Greenpeace said.

“But this momentum appears to have now ground to a halt as the UNDP, who are supposed to be coordinating the operation, are creating serious and more expensive delays through their internal bureaucratic processes”.

Greenpeace said it has been campaigning for over two years to get the UN to deal with the FSO Safer and avoid a devastating oil spill in the area.

“We understand the UN FINALLY has the money, but UNDP (who are supposed to be coordinating the multi-donor effort but have no expertise in the oil/shipping issue) are going through internal bureaucratic processes which are creating serious delays and more expense due to daily inflating costs,” Greenpeace said.

According to the UN, fears have grown that unless the vessel is secured, it could break apart causing a devastating oil spill and other environmental damage, which the UN estimates would cost at least $20 billion just to clear up, as well as devastate the fragile economy of war-torn Yemen – triggering a humanitarian catastrophe.

Geekie said donors have generously deposited $73.4 million for the project, with another $10 million pledged. While preparatory work has begun, additional funds are still needed to fully implement the operation, which has the support of both the Government of Yemen in Aden and the Sana’a authorities.

Ensuring that the right team of experts is in place is critical to the operation’s success.

He said UNDP has already procured all the services of relevant experts and operational partners including a top-rated marine management consultancy company, a salvage operation company, a shipbroker, a maritime legal firm, an insurance broker company and oil spill experts for contingency planning to support this crucial mission.

Other UN agencies are also providing technical support to the operation.

Given the high potential environmental and humanitarian risks, the United Nations, including UNDP, is sparing no effort to address the challenges faced off the coast of Yemen and is dealing with this situation with the utmost urgency, he declared.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Luis Brizuela and Jorge Luis Baños
HAVANA, Jan 11 2023 – Félix Morffi supports the energy needs of his home with the help of the sun, in some cases through handcrafted solutions that make the most of an alternative source that is abundant in Cuba, but still used very little.

With two tanks, glass, aluminum sheets, as well as cinderblocks, sand and cement, the 86-year-old retiree created, in 2006, a solar heater that meets his household needs.

“You build it today and tomorrow you have hot water; anyone can do it, and if they have a bit of advice, all the better,” said the retired mid-level machine and tool repair technician who lives in the municipality of Regla, one of the 15 that make up Havana.

He also designed and made a dryer that uses the heat of the sun to dehydrate fruits, spices and tubers, which he assembled mostly with recycled products such as pieces of wood, nylon, acrylic and aluminum sheets.

On the roof of his house, 16 solar panels imported in 2019 provide five kilowatts of power (kWp) and help run his small automotive repair shop where he works on vehicles for state-owned companies and private individuals, an independent enterprise that he set up next to his house.

The innovator believes that despite the economic conditions, with a little ingenuity people can take advantage of the natural elements, because “the sun shines for everyone; the wind is there and costs you nothing, but your wealth is in your brain”

In addition to covering his household needs, he provides the surplus electricity to the national grid, the National Electric Power System (SEN).

Morffi said more training is needed among personnel involved in several processes, and he cited delays of more than a year between the signing of the contract with Unión Eléctrica and the beginning of payments for the energy surpluses provided to the SEN, as well as “inconsistency with respect to the assembly” of the equipment.

Although Cuba has a national policy on renewable energy sources, “there is still a lot of ignorance and very little desire to do things, and do them well. Awareness-raising is needed,” he argued.

The innovator believes that despite the economic conditions, with a little ingenuity people can take advantage of the natural elements, because “the sun shines for everyone; the wind is there and costs you nothing, but your wealth is in your brain.”

In his backyard, a small solar panel keeps the water flowing from a well for his barnyard fowl and an artificial pond holding a variety of ornamental fish as well as tilapia for family consumption.

The construction of a small biodigester, about four cubic meters in size, is also at an advanced stage on his land, aimed at using methane gas from the decomposition of animal manure and crop waste, for cooking.

Morffi, who manages these activities with the backing of several family members, also plans to import three small wind turbines of 0.5 kWp each and a new batch of 4 kWp solar PV panels.

His vision is to turn his house into a space for the production and promotion of renewable energies in Cuba.

To this end, he has the support of the non-governmental Cuban Society for the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources and Respect for the Environment (Cubasolar), of which Morffi has been a member since 2004.

Since 2014, Cuba has had a Policy for the Development of Renewable Energy Sources and their Efficient Use. And in 2019, Decree Law 345 established regulations to increase the share of renewables in electricity generation and steadily decrease the proportion represented by fossil fuels.

According to studies, this archipelago of more than 110,800 square kilometers with an annual average of 330 sunny days receives an average solar radiation of more than five kilowatts per square meter per day, considered to be a high level that provides enormous potential in terms of energy.

The solar energy program appears to be the most advanced and with the best opportunities for growth. Over the last decade, several solar parks have been built, providing more than 75 percent of the renewable energy produced locally.

But clean sources account for just five percent of the island’s electricity generation, an outlook that the authorities want to radically transform, setting an ambitious goal of 37 percent by 2030.