Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

At the 10-year anniversary of the Tunisian Revolution, which toppled decades of dictatorship and repositioned discussions about democracy across the Middle East and North Africa, the democratic transition in Tunisia is in flux, or rather at an impasse. On the one hand, Tunisia is celebrated as the lone democratic success story of the 2011 Arab Uprisings, based on multiple cycles of free and fair elections. On the other hand, serious domestic political agitation over the last decade, coupled with deep structural inequalities and a rise in public perceptions of corruption in government, has nearly derailed its course towards democratic consolidation and stability.
Democratisation in Tunisia has hinged on the widely celebrated mechanism of consensus among political adversaries in parliament, and among key political and civil society actors. Yet, instead of achieving consensus on critical political and economic-structural reforms, compromise-based arrangements have fallen apart due to intense party infighting, regular resignations of governments, and enormous public pressure resulting from a stagnating economy and lack of vision for comprehensive and equitable economic reform. The effect has been sustained infighting over economic and social policy, which in turn has resulted in diminishing public trust in political parties and new democratic institutions, an all-time low level of satisfaction with the government’s performance and a significant rise in contentious politics, particularly between 2019 and 2021. The proliferation of micro-parties (209 registered political parties for a population of 11.8 million) has resulted in confusion among the electorate, while the economic reality of a suffocating international debt crisis, which has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has rendered levels of public trust in government to an all-time low.
At this pivotal moment, Tunisia needs a clear political plan that encompasses a framework for productive political competition and a sound economic vision. To enter into the phase of democratic consolidation – defined as the moment of political, economic and societal stability when authoritarian rule begins to diminish – Tunisian elected authorities and the international community must address rising public demands, which emanate from across all socio-economic classes, for wealth redistribution and sound fiscal policy reform. More effective and transparent public spending will alleviate issues of public trust in all aspects of governance. Reconstructing trust in new democratic institutions is key and also requires a concerted effort to build democracy from the bottom up, particularly in marginal and impoverished areas where socio-economic ills are deeply entrenched, and where political contention is rampant and highest.

At the 10-year anniversary of the Tunisian Revolution, which toppled decades of dictatorship and repositioned discussions about democracy across the Middle East and North Africa, the democratic transition in Tunisia is in flux, or rather at an impasse. On the one hand, Tunisia is celebrated as the lone democratic success story of the 2011 Arab Uprisings, based on multiple cycles of free and fair elections. On the other hand, serious domestic political agitation over the last decade, coupled with deep structural inequalities and a rise in public perceptions of corruption in government, has nearly derailed its course towards democratic consolidation and stability.
Democratisation in Tunisia has hinged on the widely celebrated mechanism of consensus among political adversaries in parliament, and among key political and civil society actors. Yet, instead of achieving consensus on critical political and economic-structural reforms, compromise-based arrangements have fallen apart due to intense party infighting, regular resignations of governments, and enormous public pressure resulting from a stagnating economy and lack of vision for comprehensive and equitable economic reform. The effect has been sustained infighting over economic and social policy, which in turn has resulted in diminishing public trust in political parties and new democratic institutions, an all-time low level of satisfaction with the government’s performance and a significant rise in contentious politics, particularly between 2019 and 2021. The proliferation of micro-parties (209 registered political parties for a population of 11.8 million) has resulted in confusion among the electorate, while the economic reality of a suffocating international debt crisis, which has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has rendered levels of public trust in government to an all-time low.
At this pivotal moment, Tunisia needs a clear political plan that encompasses a framework for productive political competition and a sound economic vision. To enter into the phase of democratic consolidation – defined as the moment of political, economic and societal stability when authoritarian rule begins to diminish – Tunisian elected authorities and the international community must address rising public demands, which emanate from across all socio-economic classes, for wealth redistribution and sound fiscal policy reform. More effective and transparent public spending will alleviate issues of public trust in all aspects of governance. Reconstructing trust in new democratic institutions is key and also requires a concerted effort to build democracy from the bottom up, particularly in marginal and impoverished areas where socio-economic ills are deeply entrenched, and where political contention is rampant and highest.

At the 10-year anniversary of the Tunisian Revolution, which toppled decades of dictatorship and repositioned discussions about democracy across the Middle East and North Africa, the democratic transition in Tunisia is in flux, or rather at an impasse. On the one hand, Tunisia is celebrated as the lone democratic success story of the 2011 Arab Uprisings, based on multiple cycles of free and fair elections. On the other hand, serious domestic political agitation over the last decade, coupled with deep structural inequalities and a rise in public perceptions of corruption in government, has nearly derailed its course towards democratic consolidation and stability.
Democratisation in Tunisia has hinged on the widely celebrated mechanism of consensus among political adversaries in parliament, and among key political and civil society actors. Yet, instead of achieving consensus on critical political and economic-structural reforms, compromise-based arrangements have fallen apart due to intense party infighting, regular resignations of governments, and enormous public pressure resulting from a stagnating economy and lack of vision for comprehensive and equitable economic reform. The effect has been sustained infighting over economic and social policy, which in turn has resulted in diminishing public trust in political parties and new democratic institutions, an all-time low level of satisfaction with the government’s performance and a significant rise in contentious politics, particularly between 2019 and 2021. The proliferation of micro-parties (209 registered political parties for a population of 11.8 million) has resulted in confusion among the electorate, while the economic reality of a suffocating international debt crisis, which has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has rendered levels of public trust in government to an all-time low.
At this pivotal moment, Tunisia needs a clear political plan that encompasses a framework for productive political competition and a sound economic vision. To enter into the phase of democratic consolidation – defined as the moment of political, economic and societal stability when authoritarian rule begins to diminish – Tunisian elected authorities and the international community must address rising public demands, which emanate from across all socio-economic classes, for wealth redistribution and sound fiscal policy reform. More effective and transparent public spending will alleviate issues of public trust in all aspects of governance. Reconstructing trust in new democratic institutions is key and also requires a concerted effort to build democracy from the bottom up, particularly in marginal and impoverished areas where socio-economic ills are deeply entrenched, and where political contention is rampant and highest.

Ángel Badillo Matos. Enero de 2021

Primer estudio que revisa la situación de las relaciones culturales bilaterales de España y Japón en el cambiante escenario internacional y la nueva era Reiwa, analiza la evolución de la política cultural japonesa y sus vinculaciones con la proyección internacional del poder blando del país, y profundiza en la presencia de la lengua española en el sistema educativo nipón.

There is a case to be made for greater transparency of the United Nations’ (UN) development work at the country level. Transparency can, in the simplest terms, be defined as the quality of being open to public scrutiny. Despite improvements in recent years, UN organisations still only partially meet this standard. Only the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and, with limitations, the World Food Programme (WFP) systematically publish basic project parameters such as project documents, funding data and evaluations. Others do not even publish project lists. Only the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) publishes evaluations – a key source on performance – in an easily accessible way next to programme or project information.
Lack of project transparency constitutes not only a failure to operate openly in an exemplary way, as should be expected of the UN as a public institution with aspirations to play a leadership role in global development. It also undermines in very practical ways the development purposes that UN organisations were set up for: It reduces their accountability to the stakeholders they serve, including executive boards and local actors; it hampers the coordination of aid activities across and beyond the UN; and it undermines the learning from both successes and failures.
In principle, the UN and its development organisations (which in many cases also provide humanitarian assistance) have fully embraced transparency. All nine of the UN’s funds and programmes had joined the International Aid Transparency Index (IATI) by 2019; four of them have also set up their own transparency portals that provide information on country-level work. The UN Secretary-General has made greater transparency and accountability key priorities of his ongoing reform efforts to strengthen the UN development system (UNDS) and win the trust of governments, both as hosts and donors.
However, existing transparency arrangements in many cases fall short – either through their design or implementation – in creating a meaningful degree of transparency at the operational level of projects. It appears that both UN organisations and member states, for whom transparency comes with (perceived) downsides, have accepted improvements in project transparency in recent years as a kind of mission accomplished. Ongoing reforms focus on the level of country programmes, where they promise greater transparency on financial allocation patterns and aggregated results.
This focus on programme-level transparency should be complemented by full transparency on how the UN works and achieves results at the level of projects. The following actions are recommended:
• Member states should request full project-level transparency in the UN General Assembly and the executive boards of UN development organisations.
• Member states should, in the executive boards, review agency-specific rules and mechanisms regarding transparency and monitor compliance.
The UN Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG) should ensure that a system-wide UN transparency standard exists.

There is a case to be made for greater transparency of the United Nations’ (UN) development work at the country level. Transparency can, in the simplest terms, be defined as the quality of being open to public scrutiny. Despite improvements in recent years, UN organisations still only partially meet this standard. Only the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and, with limitations, the World Food Programme (WFP) systematically publish basic project parameters such as project documents, funding data and evaluations. Others do not even publish project lists. Only the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) publishes evaluations – a key source on performance – in an easily accessible way next to programme or project information.
Lack of project transparency constitutes not only a failure to operate openly in an exemplary way, as should be expected of the UN as a public institution with aspirations to play a leadership role in global development. It also undermines in very practical ways the development purposes that UN organisations were set up for: It reduces their accountability to the stakeholders they serve, including executive boards and local actors; it hampers the coordination of aid activities across and beyond the UN; and it undermines the learning from both successes and failures.
In principle, the UN and its development organisations (which in many cases also provide humanitarian assistance) have fully embraced transparency. All nine of the UN’s funds and programmes had joined the International Aid Transparency Index (IATI) by 2019; four of them have also set up their own transparency portals that provide information on country-level work. The UN Secretary-General has made greater transparency and accountability key priorities of his ongoing reform efforts to strengthen the UN development system (UNDS) and win the trust of governments, both as hosts and donors.
However, existing transparency arrangements in many cases fall short – either through their design or implementation – in creating a meaningful degree of transparency at the operational level of projects. It appears that both UN organisations and member states, for whom transparency comes with (perceived) downsides, have accepted improvements in project transparency in recent years as a kind of mission accomplished. Ongoing reforms focus on the level of country programmes, where they promise greater transparency on financial allocation patterns and aggregated results.
This focus on programme-level transparency should be complemented by full transparency on how the UN works and achieves results at the level of projects. The following actions are recommended:
• Member states should request full project-level transparency in the UN General Assembly and the executive boards of UN development organisations.
• Member states should, in the executive boards, review agency-specific rules and mechanisms regarding transparency and monitor compliance.
The UN Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG) should ensure that a system-wide UN transparency standard exists.

There is a case to be made for greater transparency of the United Nations’ (UN) development work at the country level. Transparency can, in the simplest terms, be defined as the quality of being open to public scrutiny. Despite improvements in recent years, UN organisations still only partially meet this standard. Only the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and, with limitations, the World Food Programme (WFP) systematically publish basic project parameters such as project documents, funding data and evaluations. Others do not even publish project lists. Only the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) publishes evaluations – a key source on performance – in an easily accessible way next to programme or project information.
Lack of project transparency constitutes not only a failure to operate openly in an exemplary way, as should be expected of the UN as a public institution with aspirations to play a leadership role in global development. It also undermines in very practical ways the development purposes that UN organisations were set up for: It reduces their accountability to the stakeholders they serve, including executive boards and local actors; it hampers the coordination of aid activities across and beyond the UN; and it undermines the learning from both successes and failures.
In principle, the UN and its development organisations (which in many cases also provide humanitarian assistance) have fully embraced transparency. All nine of the UN’s funds and programmes had joined the International Aid Transparency Index (IATI) by 2019; four of them have also set up their own transparency portals that provide information on country-level work. The UN Secretary-General has made greater transparency and accountability key priorities of his ongoing reform efforts to strengthen the UN development system (UNDS) and win the trust of governments, both as hosts and donors.
However, existing transparency arrangements in many cases fall short – either through their design or implementation – in creating a meaningful degree of transparency at the operational level of projects. It appears that both UN organisations and member states, for whom transparency comes with (perceived) downsides, have accepted improvements in project transparency in recent years as a kind of mission accomplished. Ongoing reforms focus on the level of country programmes, where they promise greater transparency on financial allocation patterns and aggregated results.
This focus on programme-level transparency should be complemented by full transparency on how the UN works and achieves results at the level of projects. The following actions are recommended:
• Member states should request full project-level transparency in the UN General Assembly and the executive boards of UN development organisations.
• Member states should, in the executive boards, review agency-specific rules and mechanisms regarding transparency and monitor compliance.
The UN Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG) should ensure that a system-wide UN transparency standard exists.

With inequality reduction now being officially and broadly recognised as a key development objective with its own Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 10), there is a need for simple, economical and quick methodologies with which to focus on this area and assess progress. This paper presents such a methodology, which allows a rough assessment of the potential impacts of development cooperation on income, consumption and wealth inequality.
This is important, as a rigorous causal analysis of the contribution development cooperation makes to reducing a partner country’s inequality is complex and costly. First, the relative contribution of targeted development cooperation programmes and projects to the economies of partner countries tends to be small (though admittedly not in all cases). Second, a myriad of factors contribute to changes in inequality in any given country, and assessing the impact of all of them is a complex, imprecise, time-consuming and resource-intensive exercise.
The proposed methodology therefore makes use of SDG 10’s focus on the poorest 40% of the population to assess whether development cooperation in a given partner country has been directly targeted at them.
This Briefing Paper presents a simple methodology to support donors or multilateral development cooperation institutions in assessing, addressing and mainstreaming inequality in their operations. The first step of the method¬ol¬ogy recommends that development agencies identify a country’s needs in terms of inequalities as a basis for providing support for policies and interventions to address them. The second step consists of making sure that inequality has been taken into account in key strategic documents. Subsequent steps aim to assess whether the design and implementation of specific programmes, projects and budget support operations targets inequalities.
In the case of projects and programmes, the recommended assumption is that if their direct beneficiaries are in the bottom 40%, then these projects and programmes can be considered to address inequality. For the sake of simplicity and practicality, this does not account for general equilibrium or indirect effects. In the case of budget support of any kind, any indication of the distributional profile of government expenditure in the area of support can be used as a proxy for the support’s distributional profile.
As a complement to this, it may be possible in many cases to analyse whether the subnational geographic allocation of funds corresponds to the location of the national bottom 40%. Despite many good reasons why funding should not always go to poorer areas, this information may provide important insights.
A key limitation of this approach is that disregarding indirect or general equilibrium effects does not establish any causal link between targeting and macroeconomic effects on inequality. Yet it does allow an assessment of the degree to which portfolios (or parts of them) are potentially addressing inequality, thereby providing important feedback for development actors.

With inequality reduction now being officially and broadly recognised as a key development objective with its own Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 10), there is a need for simple, economical and quick methodologies with which to focus on this area and assess progress. This paper presents such a methodology, which allows a rough assessment of the potential impacts of development cooperation on income, consumption and wealth inequality.
This is important, as a rigorous causal analysis of the contribution development cooperation makes to reducing a partner country’s inequality is complex and costly. First, the relative contribution of targeted development cooperation programmes and projects to the economies of partner countries tends to be small (though admittedly not in all cases). Second, a myriad of factors contribute to changes in inequality in any given country, and assessing the impact of all of them is a complex, imprecise, time-consuming and resource-intensive exercise.
The proposed methodology therefore makes use of SDG 10’s focus on the poorest 40% of the population to assess whether development cooperation in a given partner country has been directly targeted at them.
This Briefing Paper presents a simple methodology to support donors or multilateral development cooperation institutions in assessing, addressing and mainstreaming inequality in their operations. The first step of the method¬ol¬ogy recommends that development agencies identify a country’s needs in terms of inequalities as a basis for providing support for policies and interventions to address them. The second step consists of making sure that inequality has been taken into account in key strategic documents. Subsequent steps aim to assess whether the design and implementation of specific programmes, projects and budget support operations targets inequalities.
In the case of projects and programmes, the recommended assumption is that if their direct beneficiaries are in the bottom 40%, then these projects and programmes can be considered to address inequality. For the sake of simplicity and practicality, this does not account for general equilibrium or indirect effects. In the case of budget support of any kind, any indication of the distributional profile of government expenditure in the area of support can be used as a proxy for the support’s distributional profile.
As a complement to this, it may be possible in many cases to analyse whether the subnational geographic allocation of funds corresponds to the location of the national bottom 40%. Despite many good reasons why funding should not always go to poorer areas, this information may provide important insights.
A key limitation of this approach is that disregarding indirect or general equilibrium effects does not establish any causal link between targeting and macroeconomic effects on inequality. Yet it does allow an assessment of the degree to which portfolios (or parts of them) are potentially addressing inequality, thereby providing important feedback for development actors.

With inequality reduction now being officially and broadly recognised as a key development objective with its own Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 10), there is a need for simple, economical and quick methodologies with which to focus on this area and assess progress. This paper presents such a methodology, which allows a rough assessment of the potential impacts of development cooperation on income, consumption and wealth inequality.
This is important, as a rigorous causal analysis of the contribution development cooperation makes to reducing a partner country’s inequality is complex and costly. First, the relative contribution of targeted development cooperation programmes and projects to the economies of partner countries tends to be small (though admittedly not in all cases). Second, a myriad of factors contribute to changes in inequality in any given country, and assessing the impact of all of them is a complex, imprecise, time-consuming and resource-intensive exercise.
The proposed methodology therefore makes use of SDG 10’s focus on the poorest 40% of the population to assess whether development cooperation in a given partner country has been directly targeted at them.
This Briefing Paper presents a simple methodology to support donors or multilateral development cooperation institutions in assessing, addressing and mainstreaming inequality in their operations. The first step of the method¬ol¬ogy recommends that development agencies identify a country’s needs in terms of inequalities as a basis for providing support for policies and interventions to address them. The second step consists of making sure that inequality has been taken into account in key strategic documents. Subsequent steps aim to assess whether the design and implementation of specific programmes, projects and budget support operations targets inequalities.
In the case of projects and programmes, the recommended assumption is that if their direct beneficiaries are in the bottom 40%, then these projects and programmes can be considered to address inequality. For the sake of simplicity and practicality, this does not account for general equilibrium or indirect effects. In the case of budget support of any kind, any indication of the distributional profile of government expenditure in the area of support can be used as a proxy for the support’s distributional profile.
As a complement to this, it may be possible in many cases to analyse whether the subnational geographic allocation of funds corresponds to the location of the national bottom 40%. Despite many good reasons why funding should not always go to poorer areas, this information may provide important insights.
A key limitation of this approach is that disregarding indirect or general equilibrium effects does not establish any causal link between targeting and macroeconomic effects on inequality. Yet it does allow an assessment of the degree to which portfolios (or parts of them) are potentially addressing inequality, thereby providing important feedback for development actors.

Um die gesundheitlichen, sozialen und ökonomischen Folgen der Pandemie zu mindern, ist es wichtig, diese weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren. Dafür muss auch ein großer Teil der Weltbevölkerung schnellstmöglich gegen COVID-19 geimpft werden. Dies erfordert globale Solidarität: zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden sowie zwischen gesellschaftlichen Akteuren weltweit. Globale Probleme erfordern globale Lösungen. Im Fall von COVID-19 sind wir gegenwärtig weit davon entfernt.

Außergewöhnlich schnell wurden Impfstoffe von mehreren Pharma-Konzernen mit der Unterstützung von öffentlichen Geldgebern entwickelt. Frühzeitig sicherten sich reiche Staaten zum Schutz der eigenen Bevölkerung umfassende Mengen des Impfstoffes. Mit den per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherten Mengen könnte die eigene Bevölkerung um ein Vielfaches geimpft werden. Viele ärmere Staaten, etwa aus Afrika, haben aber bis jetzt das Nachsehen. Das wird die sozialen Folgen der Pandemie, wie Ungleichheit und Armut, aber auch die ökonomischen Folgen weiter verlängern. Selbst wenn die reicheren Länder bis Ende Juni 2021 eine optimale Impfversorgung ihrer eigenen Bevölkerung schaffen sollten, kann die eigene Wirtschaftsleistung um 4,5 Billionen Dollar sinken. Angebots- und Nachfragekrisen in anderen Ländern führen zu wirtschaftlichen Verlusten im Inland.

Reiche Länder sollten nun – aus globaler Verantwortung, aber auch im wohlverstandenen Eigeninteresse – solidarisch handeln. Überschüssige und per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherte Impfstoffdosen sollten bereits jetzt an ärmere Länder gespendet oder zu einem deutlich reduzierten Preis abgegeben werden. Dies wird durch die Impfstoffinitiative COVAX, die unter anderem von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ins Leben gerufen wurde, organisiert. COVAX hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, so viele Impfdosen zu sichern, dass bis Ende 2021 mindestens 20 Prozent der Bevölkerung in den ärmsten Ländern geimpft werden kann. Dafür benötigt COVAX jedoch circa sieben Milliarden US-Dollar. Bisher stehen der Initiative nur lediglich vier Milliarden US-Dollar zur Verfügung. Diese Finanzierungslücke gilt es schnellstmöglich zu schließen.

Um eine schnelle Impfstoffverteilung auch in ärmeren Ländern zu ermöglichen, ist es ebenfalls unabdingbar, die Produktion durch Hersteller in Ländern im globalen Süden zu ermöglichen. Impfstoffe können vergleichsweise einfach in Lizenz hergestellt werden. Faktische Patent-Regelungen schränken jedoch die Produktion durch andere Hersteller ein. Die Europäische Union (EU), die USA und andere Industriestaaten lehnten eine Aussetzung des Patentschutzes im Allgemeinen Rat der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) jedoch ab. Südafrika und Indien hatten den Vorschlag im Namen von mehr als 100 Staaten – darunter Kenia und Nigeria– eingebracht. Positive Beispiele für eine Lockerung des Patentschutzes sind weithin bekannt. So hat die Lockerung des Patentschutzabkommens TRIPS vor 20 Jahren bei der Bekämpfung von HIV/Aids viele Menschenleben gerettet.

Nicht nur die Produktion von Impfstoffen muss global erfolgen. Viele Niedrigeinkommensländer brauchen auch globale Unterstützung, um die Logistik für die Auslieferung der COVID-19-Impfstoffe zu bewältigen. Eine kürzlich veröffentliche Studie zeigt, dass nur 10% der Basisgesundheitseinrichtungen im globalen Süden über eine ausreichende Kühlinfrastruktur verfügen. Die technische und finanzielle Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier stark gefordert, um ihre Partnerländer bei dieser logistischen Herausforderung zu unterstützen.

Aber selbst wenn Impfstoffe im Land verfügbar sind, unterscheiden sich Menschen auch in ihrer Impfbereitschaft. So kann die Entfernung zu Gesundheitszentren ein wesentlicher Grund sein, sich nicht impfen zu lassen, da der Zugang beschwerlich und teuer ist. Studien dazu in Afrika zeigen eine große Bandbreite der Bereitschaft von 90% der Befragten in Äthiopien zu 65% im Senegal. Aufklärungskampagnen gegen die Angst vor einer Impfung und möglichen Nebenwirkungen scheinen für Risikogruppen besonders wichtig. Welche Faktoren die Impfbereitschaft konkret beeinflussen, wird derzeit im Rahmen des Projekts Soziale Kohäsion in Afrika am Deutschen Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) untersucht.

Drei Bausteine sind nun elementar, um die Pandemie weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren: die finanzielle Stärkung der COVAX-Initiative, die lokale Herstellung der Impfstoffe und die Unterstützung bei der Verteilung der Impfungen. Dies kann nur durch globale Solidarität zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden gelingen. Davon würde auch der globale Norden selbst profitieren, da bestehende COVID-19 bedingte Einschränkungen in Ländern des globalen Südens hohe Verluste für die Weltwirtschaft mit sich bringen. Die internationale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier besonders gefordert – ganz besonders in Ländern, die stark von der Pandemie betroffen sind. Gelingt es nicht, COVID-19 im globalen Süden einzudämmen, so führt dies unweigerlich dazu, dass erzielte Erfolge bei der Erreichung der Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDGs) verspielt werden.

Um die gesundheitlichen, sozialen und ökonomischen Folgen der Pandemie zu mindern, ist es wichtig, diese weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren. Dafür muss auch ein großer Teil der Weltbevölkerung schnellstmöglich gegen COVID-19 geimpft werden. Dies erfordert globale Solidarität: zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden sowie zwischen gesellschaftlichen Akteuren weltweit. Globale Probleme erfordern globale Lösungen. Im Fall von COVID-19 sind wir gegenwärtig weit davon entfernt.

Außergewöhnlich schnell wurden Impfstoffe von mehreren Pharma-Konzernen mit der Unterstützung von öffentlichen Geldgebern entwickelt. Frühzeitig sicherten sich reiche Staaten zum Schutz der eigenen Bevölkerung umfassende Mengen des Impfstoffes. Mit den per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherten Mengen könnte die eigene Bevölkerung um ein Vielfaches geimpft werden. Viele ärmere Staaten, etwa aus Afrika, haben aber bis jetzt das Nachsehen. Das wird die sozialen Folgen der Pandemie, wie Ungleichheit und Armut, aber auch die ökonomischen Folgen weiter verlängern. Selbst wenn die reicheren Länder bis Ende Juni 2021 eine optimale Impfversorgung ihrer eigenen Bevölkerung schaffen sollten, kann die eigene Wirtschaftsleistung um 4,5 Billionen Dollar sinken. Angebots- und Nachfragekrisen in anderen Ländern führen zu wirtschaftlichen Verlusten im Inland.

Reiche Länder sollten nun – aus globaler Verantwortung, aber auch im wohlverstandenen Eigeninteresse – solidarisch handeln. Überschüssige und per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherte Impfstoffdosen sollten bereits jetzt an ärmere Länder gespendet oder zu einem deutlich reduzierten Preis abgegeben werden. Dies wird durch die Impfstoffinitiative COVAX, die unter anderem von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ins Leben gerufen wurde, organisiert. COVAX hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, so viele Impfdosen zu sichern, dass bis Ende 2021 mindestens 20 Prozent der Bevölkerung in den ärmsten Ländern geimpft werden kann. Dafür benötigt COVAX jedoch circa sieben Milliarden US-Dollar. Bisher stehen der Initiative nur lediglich vier Milliarden US-Dollar zur Verfügung. Diese Finanzierungslücke gilt es schnellstmöglich zu schließen.

Um eine schnelle Impfstoffverteilung auch in ärmeren Ländern zu ermöglichen, ist es ebenfalls unabdingbar, die Produktion durch Hersteller in Ländern im globalen Süden zu ermöglichen. Impfstoffe können vergleichsweise einfach in Lizenz hergestellt werden. Faktische Patent-Regelungen schränken jedoch die Produktion durch andere Hersteller ein. Die Europäische Union (EU), die USA und andere Industriestaaten lehnten eine Aussetzung des Patentschutzes im Allgemeinen Rat der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) jedoch ab. Südafrika und Indien hatten den Vorschlag im Namen von mehr als 100 Staaten – darunter Kenia und Nigeria– eingebracht. Positive Beispiele für eine Lockerung des Patentschutzes sind weithin bekannt. So hat die Lockerung des Patentschutzabkommens TRIPS vor 20 Jahren bei der Bekämpfung von HIV/Aids viele Menschenleben gerettet.

Nicht nur die Produktion von Impfstoffen muss global erfolgen. Viele Niedrigeinkommensländer brauchen auch globale Unterstützung, um die Logistik für die Auslieferung der COVID-19-Impfstoffe zu bewältigen. Eine kürzlich veröffentliche Studie zeigt, dass nur 10% der Basisgesundheitseinrichtungen im globalen Süden über eine ausreichende Kühlinfrastruktur verfügen. Die technische und finanzielle Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier stark gefordert, um ihre Partnerländer bei dieser logistischen Herausforderung zu unterstützen.

Aber selbst wenn Impfstoffe im Land verfügbar sind, unterscheiden sich Menschen auch in ihrer Impfbereitschaft. So kann die Entfernung zu Gesundheitszentren ein wesentlicher Grund sein, sich nicht impfen zu lassen, da der Zugang beschwerlich und teuer ist. Studien dazu in Afrika zeigen eine große Bandbreite der Bereitschaft von 90% der Befragten in Äthiopien zu 65% im Senegal. Aufklärungskampagnen gegen die Angst vor einer Impfung und möglichen Nebenwirkungen scheinen für Risikogruppen besonders wichtig. Welche Faktoren die Impfbereitschaft konkret beeinflussen, wird derzeit im Rahmen des Projekts Soziale Kohäsion in Afrika am Deutschen Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) untersucht.

Drei Bausteine sind nun elementar, um die Pandemie weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren: die finanzielle Stärkung der COVAX-Initiative, die lokale Herstellung der Impfstoffe und die Unterstützung bei der Verteilung der Impfungen. Dies kann nur durch globale Solidarität zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden gelingen. Davon würde auch der globale Norden selbst profitieren, da bestehende COVID-19 bedingte Einschränkungen in Ländern des globalen Südens hohe Verluste für die Weltwirtschaft mit sich bringen. Die internationale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier besonders gefordert – ganz besonders in Ländern, die stark von der Pandemie betroffen sind. Gelingt es nicht, COVID-19 im globalen Süden einzudämmen, so führt dies unweigerlich dazu, dass erzielte Erfolge bei der Erreichung der Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDGs) verspielt werden.

Um die gesundheitlichen, sozialen und ökonomischen Folgen der Pandemie zu mindern, ist es wichtig, diese weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren. Dafür muss auch ein großer Teil der Weltbevölkerung schnellstmöglich gegen COVID-19 geimpft werden. Dies erfordert globale Solidarität: zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden sowie zwischen gesellschaftlichen Akteuren weltweit. Globale Probleme erfordern globale Lösungen. Im Fall von COVID-19 sind wir gegenwärtig weit davon entfernt.

Außergewöhnlich schnell wurden Impfstoffe von mehreren Pharma-Konzernen mit der Unterstützung von öffentlichen Geldgebern entwickelt. Frühzeitig sicherten sich reiche Staaten zum Schutz der eigenen Bevölkerung umfassende Mengen des Impfstoffes. Mit den per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherten Mengen könnte die eigene Bevölkerung um ein Vielfaches geimpft werden. Viele ärmere Staaten, etwa aus Afrika, haben aber bis jetzt das Nachsehen. Das wird die sozialen Folgen der Pandemie, wie Ungleichheit und Armut, aber auch die ökonomischen Folgen weiter verlängern. Selbst wenn die reicheren Länder bis Ende Juni 2021 eine optimale Impfversorgung ihrer eigenen Bevölkerung schaffen sollten, kann die eigene Wirtschaftsleistung um 4,5 Billionen Dollar sinken. Angebots- und Nachfragekrisen in anderen Ländern führen zu wirtschaftlichen Verlusten im Inland.

Reiche Länder sollten nun – aus globaler Verantwortung, aber auch im wohlverstandenen Eigeninteresse – solidarisch handeln. Überschüssige und per Vorkaufsrecht gesicherte Impfstoffdosen sollten bereits jetzt an ärmere Länder gespendet oder zu einem deutlich reduzierten Preis abgegeben werden. Dies wird durch die Impfstoffinitiative COVAX, die unter anderem von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ins Leben gerufen wurde, organisiert. COVAX hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, so viele Impfdosen zu sichern, dass bis Ende 2021 mindestens 20 Prozent der Bevölkerung in den ärmsten Ländern geimpft werden kann. Dafür benötigt COVAX jedoch circa sieben Milliarden US-Dollar. Bisher stehen der Initiative nur lediglich vier Milliarden US-Dollar zur Verfügung. Diese Finanzierungslücke gilt es schnellstmöglich zu schließen.

Um eine schnelle Impfstoffverteilung auch in ärmeren Ländern zu ermöglichen, ist es ebenfalls unabdingbar, die Produktion durch Hersteller in Ländern im globalen Süden zu ermöglichen. Impfstoffe können vergleichsweise einfach in Lizenz hergestellt werden. Faktische Patent-Regelungen schränken jedoch die Produktion durch andere Hersteller ein. Die Europäische Union (EU), die USA und andere Industriestaaten lehnten eine Aussetzung des Patentschutzes im Allgemeinen Rat der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) jedoch ab. Südafrika und Indien hatten den Vorschlag im Namen von mehr als 100 Staaten – darunter Kenia und Nigeria– eingebracht. Positive Beispiele für eine Lockerung des Patentschutzes sind weithin bekannt. So hat die Lockerung des Patentschutzabkommens TRIPS vor 20 Jahren bei der Bekämpfung von HIV/Aids viele Menschenleben gerettet.

Nicht nur die Produktion von Impfstoffen muss global erfolgen. Viele Niedrigeinkommensländer brauchen auch globale Unterstützung, um die Logistik für die Auslieferung der COVID-19-Impfstoffe zu bewältigen. Eine kürzlich veröffentliche Studie zeigt, dass nur 10% der Basisgesundheitseinrichtungen im globalen Süden über eine ausreichende Kühlinfrastruktur verfügen. Die technische und finanzielle Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier stark gefordert, um ihre Partnerländer bei dieser logistischen Herausforderung zu unterstützen.

Aber selbst wenn Impfstoffe im Land verfügbar sind, unterscheiden sich Menschen auch in ihrer Impfbereitschaft. So kann die Entfernung zu Gesundheitszentren ein wesentlicher Grund sein, sich nicht impfen zu lassen, da der Zugang beschwerlich und teuer ist. Studien dazu in Afrika zeigen eine große Bandbreite der Bereitschaft von 90% der Befragten in Äthiopien zu 65% im Senegal. Aufklärungskampagnen gegen die Angst vor einer Impfung und möglichen Nebenwirkungen scheinen für Risikogruppen besonders wichtig. Welche Faktoren die Impfbereitschaft konkret beeinflussen, wird derzeit im Rahmen des Projekts Soziale Kohäsion in Afrika am Deutschen Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) untersucht.

Drei Bausteine sind nun elementar, um die Pandemie weltweit nachhaltig zu kontrollieren: die finanzielle Stärkung der COVAX-Initiative, die lokale Herstellung der Impfstoffe und die Unterstützung bei der Verteilung der Impfungen. Dies kann nur durch globale Solidarität zwischen Staaten im globalen Norden und Süden gelingen. Davon würde auch der globale Norden selbst profitieren, da bestehende COVID-19 bedingte Einschränkungen in Ländern des globalen Südens hohe Verluste für die Weltwirtschaft mit sich bringen. Die internationale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist hier besonders gefordert – ganz besonders in Ländern, die stark von der Pandemie betroffen sind. Gelingt es nicht, COVID-19 im globalen Süden einzudämmen, so führt dies unweigerlich dazu, dass erzielte Erfolge bei der Erreichung der Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDGs) verspielt werden.

In the past few years decision‐making processes and the normative underpinnings of EU external relations have become subject to intense debate in the European institutions, member states and the wider public. Previous research suggests that there is variation in the extent to which individual domains of EU external relations are politicized and contested. This special issue aims to theorize further and investigate empirically this, using the example of European development policy and its relations with other external policies. We introduce two new mechanisms that drive politicization dynamics. We argue that politicization can be diffused horizontally from one policy field to another, which we call horizontal politicization. We also investigate how the politicization of EU external policies in third countries occurs and influences politicization dynamics in the EU, which we call outside‐in politicization. The introduction to the special issue presents our theoretical approach and summarizes the key findings from the special issue.

In the past few years decision‐making processes and the normative underpinnings of EU external relations have become subject to intense debate in the European institutions, member states and the wider public. Previous research suggests that there is variation in the extent to which individual domains of EU external relations are politicized and contested. This special issue aims to theorize further and investigate empirically this, using the example of European development policy and its relations with other external policies. We introduce two new mechanisms that drive politicization dynamics. We argue that politicization can be diffused horizontally from one policy field to another, which we call horizontal politicization. We also investigate how the politicization of EU external policies in third countries occurs and influences politicization dynamics in the EU, which we call outside‐in politicization. The introduction to the special issue presents our theoretical approach and summarizes the key findings from the special issue.

In the past few years decision‐making processes and the normative underpinnings of EU external relations have become subject to intense debate in the European institutions, member states and the wider public. Previous research suggests that there is variation in the extent to which individual domains of EU external relations are politicized and contested. This special issue aims to theorize further and investigate empirically this, using the example of European development policy and its relations with other external policies. We introduce two new mechanisms that drive politicization dynamics. We argue that politicization can be diffused horizontally from one policy field to another, which we call horizontal politicization. We also investigate how the politicization of EU external policies in third countries occurs and influences politicization dynamics in the EU, which we call outside‐in politicization. The introduction to the special issue presents our theoretical approach and summarizes the key findings from the special issue.

En défendant une Commission "géopolitique", la présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, a signifié que l'Union européenne était sortie de ses origines économiques et technocratiques, qu'elle était désormais prête à assumer et renforcer sa puissance, à se mesurer aux nouveaux rap...

Encadrée par des règles juridiques strictes quant au respect des droits de l'Homme, Frontex peut crédibiliser la volonté européenne de sortir l'Union de la naïveté à laquelle l'incline sa générosité naturelle, en commençant à donner une existence concrète à ses frontières extérieures qui déterminent largement son identité et le sentiment d'appartenance qui lui fait encore défaut, estime Jean-Dominique Giuliani.

Alors que les cas de Covid-19 augmentent à nouveau et que plusieurs souches plus virulentes du virus se développent, les Etats membres prolongent ou renforcent les mesures sanitaires et tentent d'accélérer la campagne de vaccination. La France a suspendu les voyages non-essentiels en provenance et à destination d'un pays hors de l'Union, l'Allemagne a interdit l'entrée sur son territoire en provenance de plusieurs pays et le Portugal a fermé ses frontières. La Fondation vous propose une synthèse des mesures sanitaires en place et des conditions de voyage à travers l'Europe. Une ressource indispensable, régulièrement actualisée, pour comprendre la situation.

La Commission a approuvé le 26 janvier les subventions conjointes de 12 États membres, à hauteur de 2,9 milliards €, pour un projet paneuropéen de recherche sur les batteries innovantes. Avec les investissements privés, l'investissement total de ce projet impliquant 42 entreprises s'élèvera ainsi à plus de 12 milliards €. Le projet a été initié par l'Alliance européenne pour les batteries en 2017 dans le but de concurrencer le monopole asiatique sur le marché.