Geopolitics

The game of technology is on the chessboard. The game is technological around the environment, energy efficiency, and emissions because today, it is a question of identifying the production and consumption standards to use tomorrow. Whoever guesses today the line of future development is assured of market supremacy. It is not a coincidence that many countries, research centers, and companies invest simultaneously in various conflicting technological lines: synthetic fuels, batteries, electricity, the recovery of resources from waste, methane, nuclear power in its changing forms, biofuels, CO2 capture, energy efficiency, circularity and so on. An example for all: we invest in the future of hydrogen nuclear power, and at the same time, we invest in research to overcome the inefficiencies of the electric batteries available today.

That is the thought underlying the projects presented in mid-September by the president of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. The 225 billion that the New Generation Eu allocates to the environment (more than a third of the overall plan) or the Recovery Fund allocations want to shift the axis of production and consumption of Europe towards technologies that could be dominant tomorrow.In other words, Europe wants to get out of the economic crisis – which combine with the heavy economic brakes induced by health rules – by pushing the environmental lever to return to the position of the world’s technological engine.

For example, this had already happened when Europe identified the GSM technology standard for telephones, which was then adopted by the whole globe. Or with the Euro directives on car emissions. All manufacturers in the world have adopted the evolution standards imposed by Europe, standards that thus became common even outside Europe.

It seems easy, but there is a problem: in targeting the future, each part gives a different prediction. Each country has its favourite forecast of the future. Pressure groups, lobbies, governments, multifaceted public opinion are pushing towards divergent paths.An example? The automobile of the future. There is a lot of talk about electric cars. The additional contribution of CO2 could be eliminated immediately if non-fossil fuels were used on ordinary cars, such as biofuels, alcohol, new biodiesel, or hydrocarbons obtained by synthesizing hydrogen and carbon from CO2 removed from the air.

Second example? The electricity production. Atomic energy has many defects and arouses fear, but it does not emit a wisp of smoke, and it is not fossil energy. Nuclear France has emissions of carbon dioxide of human origin lower than those of Indonesia or Mexico, and a 40 billion recovery plan confirms the atomic choice. Germany has a powerful 130 billion plans, but it is ambiguous. It has decided to close important coal plants to reduce emissions. But Berlin has also chosen to close nuclear stations that could alleviate emissions. And to run implants, it will have to do use of renewable sources and on furious consumption of other Russian methane pumped from afar through the new Nord Stream 2.

What is green Europe most willing to finance? The abandonment of coal, the promotion of nuclear power, the thrust of methane? The electric car or zero climate impact fuels? And why does Italy, despite the 587 projects presented for the Recovery Fund, intend to continue penalizing climate-neutral biofuels with the same disincentives that hold back petrol and diesel?

Outside Europe, the confrontation is between countries. The United States is divided: there is the push to sell methane obtained from fracking around the world, but California gives up nuclear power.China has made a clear choice. The technology of the future will be in every business segment, starting with electric cars.And Russia? Like a spider in the center of the web of energy and emissions, Moscow offers the world solutions of every colors and nuance: gas, oil, nuclear technologies. They have immense forest biomass. And if the climate changes, the infinite spaces of Siberia will become arable, and the short polar route between the Americas and Asia will be navigable.

FinCEN files, a name that has gained lot of fame in past few days, but for controversial reasons – the FinCEN files leak – that has rocked the financial world and leading governments. The FinCEN (US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) files are collection of over 2,500 documents, majority of which are the files that raise concerns and were sent by various banks to US authorities between 2000 and 2017. It would be safe to say that these documents have some closely guarded secrets of the international banking sector. These files however are not a proof of some crime or wrongdoing but only a red flag of suspicious activities of banks’ clients. These files were leaked by Buzzfeed News to a group of investigative journalists group from across the world. It was then shared with 108 news organizations in 88 countries. These journalists have since been scrutinizing the dense documentation trying to uncover activities these banks would want to keep away from public knowledge.

The FinCEN group at US Treasury is aimed to combat financial crime. Any concerns regarding transactions made in US dollars, even if taken place outside US, are sent to FinCEN. Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are to be filled out by bank if it raises concerns regarding a client’s transactions, and then is to be sent to authorities.

The dealings are an indication of money laundering – a criminal way of processing dirty money. The leaking of these documents has led a direct spotlight on leading banks across the world rocking the financial industry. The cache of leaked documents has linked corruption, fraud and money laundering charges to these banks which handled these transactions over the years. The leak has revealed money laundering of over $2 trillion done through banks that were flagged by their compliance officers in over 2100 filings done with US Treasury’s FinCEN.  

Who have been named?

At least 90 financial institutions have been named in the leaked documents, including many world’s leading banks. HSBC allowed millions of dollars of stolen money moved across the world through its branches, even after it US investigators informed of scheme to be a scam. JP Morgan is another big name that allowed a firm to move over $1bn through London account without account owner’s information. The owner was later discovered to be a fraudster who is on FBI’s 10 most wanted list.

Another strong revelation that came to light was of close associates to Russian President Vladimir Putin using Barclays bank’s London branch to avoid sanctions that were imposed to avoid him from using financial services in the West.

UK has been called a “higher risk jurisdiction” when compared to Cyprus by FinCEN’s intelligence division. Over 3000 UK companies have been named in the FinCEN files, which are more than any other country.

FinCEN files leak is more high profile and names large number of banks across the world. This makes it different from many other big financial leaks like 2016 Panama Papers, 2015 Swiss Leaks and 2014 Lux Leaks.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly, China tried to polish up its tarnished image. Speaking remotely through a video link, Chinese President Xi Jinping showed it off that as a nation they were committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2060.

Jinping also focused on the impacts of Covid-19 and the importance of a sustainable economic recovery, setting goals to peak China’s CO2 emissions before 2030. China has not been sending out the right signals anywhere in the world.

Its movement at the South China Sea is showing its mad need for power control over smaller nations. Its domination over the India chapter at skirmishes at the Line of Actual Control isn’t palatable either; and then the whole controversy around the pandemic and the way it sailed through it while many nations are still trying to get a grip over the increasing number of cases.

According to the United Nations climate reports, it is necessary that at least there should be 45 percent reduction globally by 2030 on the carbon emission rates, for any possibility of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.

But China has not shown any clear evidence in terms of showing a sense of responsibility and commitment towards reducing carbon emission rates. In fact, its meteoric economic rise has shown otherwise- and continues to be, fueled by extraordinary resource extraction and exploitation.  There have been guidelines by the UN climate reports on limiting the activity of fossil fuel extractions and culling of green cover to maintain the oxygen levels and limiting CO2 levels.

China now uses more concrete than the United States did in the entire century. The former now also emits nearly twice the amount of CO2 as the United States each year, though it emits far less per capita. As a nation, it has always walked its own tune, giving a nod to environmental initiatives only when its economy has shown signs of health.

All this time, it has been funding coal plants through its Belt and Road Initiative. Its soft stance at the UN Council meeting is only to show that it cares about nature, when it fact it isn’t serious to show anything in action. The two major emitting countries are the United States and China. Both are facing consequences of human displacement and climate led catastrophes in their inner circles.

Undeniably, China is responsible for nearly a third of the world’s CO2 emissions. So, with even a little reduction on its part, the rest of the world will be substantially better off. China does not have a good reputation- it cannot project one either. First has been its dubious handling of the pandemic and then its stance of trying to show off a ‘wolf warrior strategy’ to get back at nations on the social media. Both do not suit it as a powerful nation. Putting down its guard and actually trying to play on level ground for the sake of humanity for once, might make the UN members take it seriously.

Geopolitics and security, economy and development, civil society, and culture. The Mediterranean as an immense cemetery? Or an exciting means of communication between peoples, opportunities for Ulysses, that is, individuals moved by the ardour of knowledge? Maybe a theatre of travels in search of beauty and not about escape. Yes, for this to be the case, first of all, we need to sort out a few situations here and there for Africa and the Middle East.

Yesterday was a hectic day for European diplomacy committed to the crisis in the eastern Mediterranean. Two key-meetings at the end of which Greece and Turkey committed themselves to exploratory talks, the first of this kind since 2016.First, in the NATO headquarters in Brussels, the fifth meeting between the military delegations of Turkey and Greece, which ended with the announcement of a new appointment next week.  The discussions focused on the relaxation of relations between the two countries and bilateral relations between the two armies.

Then the conference call between the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the President of the European Council, Charles Michel.At the end of the works, the participants declared that “Turkey and Greece are ready to start exploratory talks” on the eastern Mediterranean, where the two countries duel for areas potentially rich in natural gas.

During the videoconference, Erdogan noted that the momentum to reduce tensions and to open channels for dialogue should be “protected with reciprocal steps.” Expressing appreciation for the German mediation efforts, the Turkish President said he believes that “a regional conference with the participation of all parties in the Eastern Mediterranean, including Turkish Cypriots, will lead to positive and constructive decisions that will benefit all.”

During the East Mediterranean Gas Forum organized in Cairo, in another videoconference, Egypt, Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Jordan, and Italy signed the agreement for the creation of an intergovernmental body that will promote cooperation and develop political dialogue on the natural gas sector.No one has escaped the significance of this officialization just as the Mediterranean is upset by the tensions between Athens and Ankara generated by exploration in the Mediterranean and fueled by Turkey choice to continue with new drilling activities and by the country agreement with Tripoli last year.

So, in the coming days, Greece and Turkey will start exploratory political talks in Istanbul. Erdogan has launched an appeal for a sincere dialogue. “The Turkish priority is to resolve conflicts through a fair dialogue based on international law,” he said. Erdogan added that his country does not tolerate any diktat, persecution, or attack, urged by an Emmanuel Macron who, from Paris, invited him to commit himself without ambiguity. Erdogan and Macron then had a telephone conversation in the evening, which would seem to indicate the willingness of all the actors to move towards a political solution.

The crisis in the Aegean, frozen pending these talks, would have been at the center of the European summit on 24 and 25 September, postponed yesterday evening, by October, due to the quarantine of Charles Michel. The meeting had to discuss the French proposal for sanctions against Turkey. The resumption of these talks on the delimitation of maritime zones, suspended since 2016, has been welcomed as a positive signal by observers.

As Erdogan also pointed out to Angela Merkel, how to handle this dispute will be fundamental to restore or not relations between Turkey and the EU. Both Brussels and Ankara understood that. Not surprisingly, the announcement of the resumption of talks took place a few days before the EU summit, which instead should probably have decided on sanctions against Turkey.

Geopolitical power is with the nation that has global leading in certainty with trade. There are two well established notions with trade globally, each of which makes sense individually, but when combined the result is not the desired one. The first idea or notion is that since forever now the EU and US have been battling to have their regulatory model as the accepted one globally across varied range of economic sectors. In this battle EU seems to be clearly winning. The second idea suggests that individual countries can use their own regulatory power to extend their foreign policy and expand their strategic influence. Keeping this equation in mind it might seem natural that EU, which has long been trying to develop its foreign policy should be able to use its powerful status to project its interests in trade and regulation globally. However, this theory is just a proposition.

The theory of using both notions and ideas is a proposal welcomed by policymakers of the European Union. The likelihood to acquire traditional tools of running effective foreign policy is a far-fetched idea for EU for now, so the amalgamation of the ideas seems like the best plan available. The required tools to showcase one’s global leadership are considered to be military or political standing, ability to dispense other governments or possessing a central intelligence service. These tools are essentially lacking when it comes to EU. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has expressed her plans of making the commission a “geopolitical commission”, for which she has full intentions to make a reality.

“Brussels effect” has been quite helpful in winning regulatory battles for EU with the US – the effect lets European rules and standards to be exported through governments and companies.

EU’s chemicals, cars and other products safety regulations are more widely accepted across the world as compared to their American counterparts. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the closest single model for data privacy that has been adopted by many countries.

Reality check! Why US can predominantly establish its influence is because of the use of dollar payment system in many countries. This is conducive of US’s power globally and thereby increasing its economic governance. EU on the other hand has power to enforce trade sanctions but not in as powerful and discriminatory manner as the US. The power that US President Donald Trump showcased when imposing sanctions on Iran and when he went after Huawei for breaching sanctions, in most likelihood, will not be matched by the Union. But the wide use of GDPR gives EU a definite satisfaction but is not a concrete geopolitical tool that can be used by EU to strengthen its global power.

EU can move to the role of world leader if it procures enough tools and tangible power like guns, intelligence agencies and money; or if all the member countries start working collectively. This is genuinely the higher probability route for EU to become a geopolitical force.

The month of July was about to end when the Ecuadorian naval authorities identified a fleet of 340 Chinese fishing boats near the Galapagos archipelago, a real army that proceeded with the fishing activities to the maximum allowed in an area protected. Today these vessels are still present in the region and have reignited the debate on the practice of overfishing – the overexploitation of fish resources in a given area by the Chinese industry. Activists and environmental protection bodies were very outraged by the massive presence of industrial fishing vessels that threaten the ecosystem with the killing of excessive quantities of fish and shellfish, as well as leaving behind a mass of waste that surfaces on the beaches and in the local fishing nets. The Galapagos case is not isolated.

 At the beginning of September, the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) fishing lobby denounced the arrival of about twenty Chinese fishing vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of the provinces of Sindh and Baluchistan. The group indicated how intensive fishing has reduced fish stocks by 72% compared to last year. Similar cases have been repeated over the last decade in the waters around Timor Leste, the Philippines, New Zealand. All solved with little fact, if not the complaint and reporting of the companies involved, which got away with the amount of a late payment or removal from the affected areas to return later with altered identifiers and logbooks to preventrecognition.

China is not the only nation to monopolize fishing in international waters, even if the number of hegemonic states in the sector is incredibly low: six. According to research published in Science Advances, China, Taiwan, Japan, Spain, Indonesia, and South Korea hold about 80% of the vessels for international fishing on the high seas. These data reveal a rapidly growing trend, consistent with the growing purchasing power of Asian citizens. An Asia Research and Engagement (ARE) report on protein consumption in Asia predicted a 78% growth in meat and fish purchases by 2050.

Among these, China is the country of concern. Its demographic weight and ample political and economic resources allow Chinese companies to maintain a significant presence in the fisheries sector in international waters. That is counting a fleet of at least 3,000 industrial fishing boats, according to the limits imposed by the thirteenth five-year plan, the biggest in the world. The measures taken by the Chinese government to limit the damage to the image due to multiple international complaints are claims that circumvent the problem. An example is the recent seasonal ban on squid fishing in certain waters between the Pacific and South Atlantic. The restrictions define periods and areas where neither China nor other countries fish for squid because useless: “It is as if China has put a fishing ban on the moon,” the activists replied on Twitter. The lack of effective international measures to counter these activities, coupled with the political instability of most of the countries involved, makes it difficult to counter a phenomenon that will only grow in the coming decades and risks putting Asian and South American nations into one against the others.

In its annual analysis of the state of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the Pentagon highlighted the rapid development of China military technologies in the aviation and navy fields, also paying attention to the phenomenon of the militarization of Chinese industrial fishing boats. Civilian involvement in the South China Sea takes place through the Chinese practice of advancing a militarized fleet on state-owned civilian ships. The People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia (PAFMM) is a civilian reserve coalition that routinely operates by chartering civilian boats. A factor that makes the nature of some industrial expeditions off the coast of China and is highly strategic points in the chessboard of the Sea increasingly ambiguous. South Chinese and the Pacific. The presence of well-equipped ships and exploratory missions, in particular for detecting submarine oil and gas fields, also reinforced the suspicions around the atolls and small islands historically contested by the Chinese government.

 Living in a technologically advanced world that is connected through internet has innumerable advantages – getting news as it happens in any corner of the world, staying in touch with people in every nook of any country. But there is also a darker side of the internet that can’t be denied. The far-right extremist groups are taking advantage of the networking system to spread their racially divisive ideas, hate and mistrust. The “cyber-racism” is a real entity which is responsible for creating widespread violence and bigotry across the world.

Even the inventor of World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee admits that he may have unleashed an untamed technology which has potential to cause massive damage. He once said, “Humanity connected by technology on the web is functioning in a dystopian way. We have online abuse, prejudice, bias, polarization, fake news, there are lots of ways in which it is broken.”

Research shows that propaganda of divisive ideas, both political and racial, is reinforced and influenced not just by extremist groups but also individuals who are largely unaffiliated. But the way of using internet to their advantage is different for each. Racist groups are predominantly active on many communication channels through which they achieve different strategies and goals. The effects of their propaganda are also distinctively specific. Individuals engage in cyber-racism mostly to hurt specific people who are their deliberate targets. They connect with like-minded people to confirm their racist views. They communicate primarily through blogs, forums, chat rooms and news commentary websites.

The current widespread racist fight going across the world and primarily in United States of America is spread by similar white supremacists and also individuals. The individuals’ strategies include minimizing or denying issue of racism, condescending non-whites and reframing the current news stories to support their views and inclination. Groups on the other hand prefer communication through their own channels or websites. They are strategically specific in what they wish to achieve and communicate it clearly through their websites. Websites are their portal to gather support through racist propaganda and views. They feed on manipulating information and using the rhetoric cleverly to preach a broader ‘white’ identity among followers. The path of different ethnicities argument they argue about is unavoidable and their views of ‘white people oppression’ is what delivers their propaganda. The division, mistrust and bigotry it creates is the root cause of violence and racial imbalance across the world.

The Hagia Sophia conversion into a mosque by Turkey has rekindled attention to the importance of the geopolitics of religions. It was born less than twenty years ago. The geopolitics of religions takes place with the intensification of de-secularization and de-westernization process of large areas of the world, especially Asia. The refinement of its reading skills, on different levels of spatial analysis, makes it a powerful and essential tool for understanding the most important political and social phenomena currently underway.

Yves Lacoste was the first to introduce the concept and term of “geopolitical representations.” In practice, according to Lacoste, in addition to the geopolitical situations that translate, on a given territory, the rivalries between different powers in conflict, there are also historically consolidated antagonistic geopolitical ideas, individual and collective, which we can call as “representations” in a double sense: cartographic, that is referring to the graphic representation of a given disputed territory; and theatrical, where the peoples and nations protagonists of the drama that takes place in the ground, are described as actors who play on a stage.

We can say that religious representations are the ‘mythomoteurs’ of geopolitics. Basically, in this idea, there were already the necessary and sufficient premises for the development of a specific branch of geopolitics. That concerns the study and interpretation of all those collective “geopolitical representations” that arise from the different religions. But, at the end of the twentieth century, faiths were almost completely removed from the framework of political research as they were considered as a historical and cultural phenomenon now in a phase of inexorable regression and exhaustion. Only in the last twenty years, and more precisely since 1993, has the geopolitics of religions finally emerged from its long gestation, establishing itself internationally as a sub-discipline of the sector.

At the second level of magnitude, the continental one, we find the great religions protagonists of the cultural history of Eurasia, one of which, Islam, also widespread in a large part of Africa. Mackinder already indicated them in the fateful lecture of 1904, as almost prefigured by geographical determinism: «To the east, south and west of this heart of the earth there are peripheral regions, arranged in a vast crescent and accessible to seamen. The physical conformation identifies four, and it is not negligible that, in general, each of them coincides with the sphere of diffusion of one of the four great religions: Buddhism, Brahmanism, Islam, and Christianity. The first two regions are the monsoon lands, one facing the Pacific Ocean, the other facing the Indian Ocean. The fourth is Europe, washed by Atlantic rains. These three together, while covering less than seven million square miles, have more than a thousand million inhabitants, or two-thirds of the world’s population. The third coincides with the land of the Five Seas. Also known as the Near East, mostly devoid of humidity due to the proximity of Africa and sparsely populated.

Through the colonization process that takes place between the fifteenth and early twentieth centuries, it is Christianity that is the first to spread almost all over the world. In this regard, the data relating to the planetary spread of Christianity is significant. Taking into account that the world population during the last five centuries has increased from about 426 million to the current 6 billion, the percentage of Christians, which was 19 percent in the early 1500s, reaches a peak of 35 percent in the year 1900, to decline to 33 percent in 1980, and even to 23 percent in 2000. It is useless to underline the geopolitical importance of this data. That must be integrated with that, unfortunately poorly documented, relating to the recent mass conversions of Westerners to religions such as Islam and Buddhism in the first place.

RELATED NEWS: Geopolitics at the time of COVID-19

European Union’s ties with China has grown cold over the last few years, particularly since 2018 when the communist nation cracked down on pro-democracy supporters in Hong Kong. The nations part of the union chose to drift away over their difference of opinion with China especially over democracy, human rights, non-transparent terms of trade and economic policy. To sum up the current state of ties between the two, Yu Jie, senior research fellow at Chatam House told CNBC, “Trust is very thin”.

Things grew worse with China’s imposition of new security law in Hong Kong, which the communist regime passed in June, just after the European officials met their Chinese counterparts and raised concern over China’s handling of pro-democracy protests. Along with Hong Kong situation, Europe also openly opposed China’s muscle flexing over Taiwan and its treatment of muslim minority community of Uighur.

“We have to recognise that we do not share the same values, political systems, or approach to multilateralism,” Charles Michel, president of the European Council, said in June after a call with the Chinese President Xi Jinping.

We want to help shape (the future global order) so that it is based on rules and international cooperation, not on the law of the strong. That is why we have intensified cooperation with those countries that share our democratic and liberal values

German foreign minister Heiko Maas

Besides, EU’s frustration over trade with China rose over the latter’s indirect tactics to keep its market closed. The EU has argued that European companies working in China do not experience same levels of transparency and fair competition as provided to Chinese firms in the European market. However, the analyst believed that the two might not be able to formalise an effective trade agreement as they had earlier planned to achieve by the end of the year.

“I don’t think we will hear any significant progress,” Janka Oertel, Asia director at foreign policy think-tank the European Council on Foreign Relations, told CNBC.

The European bloc has started to explore new trade relations beyond China, which directly puts Asian-Pacific countries in limelight. EU, specifically Germany, which has been one of the largest trading partner of China in the entire continent has adopted India-Pacific strategy over China’s political, economic and human rights issues. Besides, Germany had been growing concerned over its increasing dependence over China. “We want to help shape (the future global order) so that it is based on rules and international cooperation, not on the law of the strong. That is why we have intensified cooperation with those countries that share our democratic and liberal values,” German foreign minister Heiko Maas said on September 2.

As the world tries to come in terms of the silent destruction caused by the corona virus pandemic, terrorist groups continue to move unabated here and there. The fighters with the Al Sunnah wa Jama’ah (ASWJ) entered Mozambique in 2017 and have finally captured the strategic points in August 2020. Proclaiming their allegiance to ISIS, they have left the military handicapped. The Mozambique military are not getting their salaries as the government cannot afford them anymore. It is under pressure from the International Monetary Fund.

Surprisingly, the investors and IMF would prefer the government appoints private companies who can provide protection. On the list are names like South African Dyck Advisory Group (DAG), the Russian Wagner Group, and Erik Prince’s Frontier Services Group. According to Colonel Lionel Dyck, the head of the Dyck Group, “the Mozambican Defence Forces are unprepared and under-resourced.”

But what has come to light is the fact that these private security companies are also being employed by energy majors. French energy company Total and the U.S. energy company ExxonMobil are the main protagonists here.

The Mozambique government has already signed an agreement with both on the extraction from the gas fields in Area 1 and Area 4 of Mozambique’s Rovuma Basin. Now, these fields seem to be need security forces to keep them safe. According to a narrative fed by Total, Mozambique’s government, and the private security firms is that the conflict in northern Mozambique is authored by the Islamists, and that all measures must be taken to thwart this three-year-old insurgency.

According to political analysts, there is no war in the making but the western powers are using the radicalization as an excuse to claim control over gas reserves. People are suffering under unemployment and poverty. Drug trafficking and ruby smuggling is on the rise. But the emergence of ISIS will not see a huge Islamic state in the making because the number of Muslim population is small there. Unless the Mozambique government does not get all glee eyed over the deals being offered by the US and France, there is all the chance that there is going to be civil war, and loot by foreign powers here.