Diplomacy & Crisis News

Cette recension d’ouvrages est issue de Politique étrangère (4/2015). Yves Gounin propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Sébastien Abis, Géopolitique du blé. Un produit vital pour la sécurité mondiale (Paris, Armand Colin/IRIS, 2015, 192 pages).

Moins médiatisé que le pétrole, le blé est lui aussi un produit stratégique. Cultivé depuis l’Antiquité, il est aujourd’hui consommé partout dans le monde. Cette consommation a crû exponentiellement depuis un siècle. Même les civilisations du riz consomment désormais du blé. La Chine en est même le premier producteur mondial ; mais les 115 Mt qu’elle produit chaque année ne suffisent plus à nourrir une population de plus en plus riche et de plus en plus urbanisée.

L’offre a réussi à s’adapter à la demande : la production du blé a été multipliée par sept en un siècle grâce à la « révolution verte », passant de 100 à 700 Mt/an. Les marges de progression semblent cependant désormais réduites : les tensions foncières compromettent l’augmentation des superficies emblavées, et les limites du progrès technique interdisent d’espérer une hausse continue des rendements. À l’horizon 2100, une population mondiale de 11 milliards d’habitants ne trouvera peut-être pas chaque année le milliard de tonnes de blé nécessaire à son alimentation.

La répartition géographique des producteurs et des consommateurs de blé soulève des questions tout aussi stratégiques. Sa culture est en effet très localisée dans des pays qui bénéficient d’avantages pédologiques, hydrauliques et climatiques. La France compte parmi ces pays-là. Elle est le 5e producteur au monde et le 3e exportateur (derrière les États-Unis et le Canada, ex aequo avec l’Australie). Les pays riverains de la mer Noire (Russie, Ukraine, Kazakhstan) ont fait un retour marqué sur cette scène internationale depuis la chute du mur. Ce heartland céréalier pourrait peser lourd dans les échanges internationaux ; mais le conflit entre Russie et Ukraine depuis 2014 obère la constitution d’un pool céréalier autour de la mer Noire.

D’autres pays, en revanche, sont des importateurs structurels. C’est le cas des pays du Maghreb qui concentrent le tiers des achats mondiaux de blé : la production y est faible (alors même que l’Algérie fut jadis le grenier à blé de la France métropolitaine), et la demande élevée (la consommation per capita y est trois fois supérieure à la moyenne mondiale et deux fois à la moyenne européenne). La question du pain y est hautement sensible. Toute tension sur le marché pouvant entraîner une rupture d’approvisionnement ou une flambée des prix y a des conséquences politiques explosives. Les émeutes de la faim du printemps 2008 le rappellent.

Le commerce international est donc nécessaire pour rapprocher l’offre et la demande. Il y est d’autant plus fait recours que le blé se transporte aisément. Entre 20 et 25 % de la production mondiale de blé s’exporte – les chiffres correspondant sont 10 % pour le riz et 5 % pour les fruits et légumes. Ce commerce est, pour l’essentiel, organisé par quelques sociétés de négoce. Archer Daniel Midland, Bunge, Cargill et Louis-Dreyfus, réunis sous l’acronyme « ABCD », sont des compagnies familiales qui fuient la publicité. Ces sociétés privées doivent composer avec des offices publics qui, dans certains pays à économie centralisée, conservent le monopole du commerce du blé, et avec des nouveaux acteurs dans les pays émergents.

Le commerce des matières premières façonne la planète. Les ouvrages consacrés à celui du pétrole abondent. On parle moins souvent de celui des céréales et du blé. Sébastien Abis répare heureusement cet oubli.

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

The month saw an intensification of deadly violence in Burundi’s capital, Bujumbura, with over 80 people killed following clashes with security forces. The African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC) made a welcome statement of intent to deploy forces to halt the slide toward civil war and mass atrocities. In Afghanistan, fighting raged between government and Taliban forces, particularly in Helmand province, while in Djibouti, Ethiopia and Niger, political tensions heightened. In a positive step forward, a peace deal was signed in Libya but uncertainties remain over the viability of the agreement. As stressed by Jean-Marie Guéhenno, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group, in today’s Ten Conflicts to Watch in 2016, it “should be seen as a beginning, not an end, to the peace process”.

Pulling together a list of the wars most in need of international attention and support in 2016 is challenging for all the wrong reasons. For 20 years after the end of the Cold War, deadly conflict was in decline. Fewer wars were killing fewer people the world over. Five years ago, however, that positive trend went into reverse, and each year since has seen more conflict, more victims, and more people displaced. 2016 is unlikely to bring an improvement from the woes of 2015: It is war — not peace — that has momentum.

In these extraordinary times of fear, anger and sense of helplessness, hate and cruelty are common human reactions. These are the times that bring out the worst, and sometimes the best in individuals, groups and states.

No wonder militarism and terrorism are on dangerously accelerated course. Both are driven by men with myopic vision, who galvanize the uninformed masses with half-truths and propaganda that are seldom exposed as such.

Left uncontested, this phenomenon is likely to set many states on fire and rip them apart in ways far beyond most of us could imagine. Already, it has wrecked many developing countries, and counterintuitively poisoned foreign policies and the rule of law in a number of Western nations.

In that context, the question of the century ought to be: “How can we stop this trend and backtrack our way to normalcy?” Meanwhile, the pendulum of radicalism swings between toxic pandering and political pandemonium.

Disinfecting the discourse

Almost a decade ago, in an article entitled Islamophobia and the Specter of Neo-McCarthyism, I wrote “…winning hearts and minds will remain a tall order so long as the neo-McCarthy windmills continue to operate in full force and generate the negative energy of fear and hate that sustain political polarization.” However, I have never in my wildest dreams fathomed that a hyper-panderer, the front-runner of the Republican Party, would be campaigning on what could only be described as a hate platform.

In order to thoroughly understand radicalism, we must not succumb to fear. We must scrutinize narratives and never give the leading actors on all sides the absolute authority to think for us and subjectively frame our perceptions. In that spirit of objectivity, in order to effectively deal with radicalism, the calculus must include U.S. foreign policy and the ever invasive Western hegemony.

Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer who led the operation to hunt Osama bin Laden has presented this argument in his books and various interviews: “None of these [terrorists] were attacking the United States because we have liberties, or elections; or because we have women in the work place.” Instead, they were outraged by “the conduct of our [interventionist] foreign policy.”

Meanwhile, the definition of terrorism still remains a political riddle of serious consequence. Therefore, the prevalent perception that often goes without any scrutiny is that terrorists are people who simply hate us for who we are and for our values. They are individuals or groups that officials in government label as such extrajudicially.

Field day for islamophobes

Exploiting the rising tide of hysteria in the U.S. and Europe, Donald Trump started to run on an anti-immigrant and islamophobic platform that advocates banning Muslims from coming to the U.S. and squeezing them out by denying them re-entry when they travel abroad.

While the tragic and indeed terrorist events in Paris and San Bernardino may have exacerbated it, the anti-Muslim hysteria of ‘they are here and we’re all going to die’ is the byproduct of strategic hate-mongering that goes back two decades.

There are various think-tanks, hate-specialist pundits and media groups such as Fox News and I Heart Media—the rebranded infamous Clear Channel. With virtually around the clock rants and raves against Islam and Muslims, the latter media group is the undisputed command center of paranoia and Islamophobia. It now owns more than 800 radio stations in over 150 markets that target certain demographics that consider jingoism a patriotic litmus test and foreign policy a road-map of who we should attack next.

In order to deny Muslims their constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and civil and religious rights, radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck repeat ad nauseam that “Islam is not a religion. Islam is a political ideology that wants to rule the world.” Presidential candidates such as Ted Cruz use that line of argument to blur the line between Muslims and violent extremists.

Most of the polls—some apparently being notoriously biased—confirm broad-based negative perception toward Islam. However, unlike their older counterparts, younger Americans regardless of party affiliation, espouse favorable perception about Islam and Muslims—especially college-aged ones. This latter trend certainly gives a sense of reassurance that the future is not as grim as many perceive it.

Turning the tide

Countering this anti-Muslim campaign, the White House has wasted no time in condemning Trump’s Muslim ban proposal. It was “totally contrary to our values as Americans” said Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Adviser.

The Congress swiftly joined the executive branch to condemn Trump’s toxic polarization. House Speaker Paul Ryan who is also Republican delivered perhaps the harshest criticism and exposed the absurdity of Trump’s anti-Muslim campaign. “Not only are there many Muslims serving in our armed forces dying for this country, there are Muslims serving right here in the House working everyday to uphold the Constitution,” said Ryan.

At the state level, speaking at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, the largest mosque in New England, Chief Justice Ralph Gants (who happens to be Jewish) told the Muslim community “you do not stand alone…You have a Constitution and laws to protect your right to practice your religion, to protect you from discrimination and the denial of your equal rights, and to protect you from acts of violence that might be committed against you because of your religion or your nation of origin.”

In the entertainment business, many Americans like Oscar-winning Michael Moore, have expressed unequivocal outrage over Trump’s proposal. Moore went the extra mile. He crossed the picket line of hate by launching a “We Are All Muslim” campaign.

In academia, many have expressed their solidarity. Larycia Hawkins, a tenured professor of political science, has been suspended and her tenure has been jeopardized for saying Christians and Muslims worship the same God and for wearing a hijab.

At a personal level, a Christian friend of mine, Dr. Robert Reber, former dean of Auburn Seminary, wrote me this: “I have felt almost sick over the anti-Muslim reactions in this country which are often spurred by political figures and uninformed, if not racist, individuals in our society and Christian communities. It makes me so sad and wanting deeply to reach out to Muslims.”

Silver lining in the sky

Routinely our collective conscience gets traumatized by terrorist attacks carried by non-state actors and wars carried by mighty states. In a knee-jerk response to such traumatic experiences, narratives of hate and extreme reactions of one kind or another develop, and they, in due course, become the accepted norm.

Though Muslims have never been under greater threat within the U.S. than today, I believe that America is already in the process of calibrating its understanding of Islam and Muslims and ostracizing merchants of hate.

Contrary to the perception promoted by extremists on both ends that we are in an existential religious war, Muslims are not out there to hunt down Christians. These two faith communities, as well as the Jewish community, have lived together and prospered for centuries. And, despite the relentless campaign to demonize mosques as breeding grounds for terrorists, these spiritual sanctuaries are morally bound to promote all that is good and to forbid all that is evil.

Recently, in Mandera, Kenya, a group of Muslim passengers that media appropriately dubbed as the Mandera Heroes put their lives on the line in order to shield their fellow Christian passengers from being executed by al-Shabaab members who raided their bus.

These acts of solidarity against evil could ultimately diminish stereotypes and break the political walls that divide us. But we need the media, especially in the West, to not exclusively focus on the negatives and to celebrate this kind of heroism.

Collective Fate

With the current trajectory of deceptions and denials, we are collectively set to pay an enormous price in lives, security, displacement, and economic loss. Hate crimes and vandalism of mosques are at an all-time high. And the more  provocations continue, the more terrorist outfits such as ISIS will effectively radicalize and gain recruits.

Radicalism justifies terrorism in the same way that demonization justifies militarism. And, as it is apparent throughout the Middle East and many other parts of the world, terrorism and militarism fuel each other.

Let us be honest with ourselves—after all, our lives and the future of humanity depend on it. Militarism and terrorism are the two sides of the same coin and anti-Western and Islamophobia are simply their reflections. Now, how can we work together for our mutual interest?

 

 

 

 

Cette recension d’ouvrages est issue de Politique étrangère (4/2015). Carole Mathieu, chercheure au centre Énergie de l’Ifri, propose une analyse croisée des ouvrages de Jacques Mistral, Le climat va-t-il changer le capitalisme ? La grande mutation du XXIe siècle (Paris, Eyrolles, 2015, 270 pages) et de Christian de Perthuis et Raphaël Trotignon, Le climat, à quel prix ? La négociation climatique (Paris, Odile Jacob, 2015, 152 pages).

Engagées voici plus de 25 ans, les négociations internationales sur le changement climatique poursuivent inlassablement un même objectif : coordonner les efforts de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) de 196 pays et empêcher ainsi toute perturbation anthropique dangereuse du système climatique. En dépit de la clarté de ce mandat et d’un large consensus sur la nécessité d’agir au plus vite, c’est sur la question des modalités d’action que les négociateurs restent divisés. La problématique est pourtant bien connue. Archétype du bien public mondial, le climat est en péril car chacun a intérêt à jouer au passager clandestin, retardant ses propres efforts dans l’espoir de percevoir les bénéfices des actions initiées par les plus allants. Pour corriger cette défaillance du marché, les économistes formulent un appel quasi unanime à donner un prix aux dommages causés par les émissions.

La science économique joue ici pleinement son rôle en orientant les décideurs vers l’option qui minimiserait le coût total pour la collectivité. Pourtant, la tarification universelle du carbone est encore une réalité lointaine, les gouvernements privilégiant jusqu’ici des initiatives fragmentées et globalement insuffisantes pour infléchir la trajectoire des émissions de GES. À l’heure de la COP21, il faut donc que l’économie pure laisse place à l’économie politique. Le rôle des économistes n’est alors plus seulement de dessiner les contours d’un modèle optimal de coopération internationale mais de trouver enfin les arguments pratiques qui permettront de vaincre toutes les réticences. Dans cette quête de réalisme, l’ouvrage dirigé par Jacques Mistral, Le climat va-t-il changer le capitalisme ?, ainsi que celui de Christian de Perthuis et Raphaël Trotignon, Le climat, à quel prix ?, nous offrent des pistes de réflexion particulièrement bienvenues. Alors que le premier explore les mutations économiques, politiques et géopolitiques que la protection du climat est susceptible d’enclencher, le second aborde la question climatique sous un angle plus resserré, se focalisant sur la COP21 et donnant à son lecteur les clés de compréhension de la négociation en cours.

[…]

Lire l’article en intégralité sur Cairn en cliquant ici.

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

Via Otrams

By Artur Kluz and Mikolaj Firlej

A currently debated topic is the impact of unprecedented advancements in breakthrough technologies on various areas of public policy. Optimists praise how technology changes our lives through enhanced communication, empowering individuals, raising awareness and spreading democracy throughout the world. Pessimists stress the repercussions of technological advancements: tottering digital security, and the rise of inequality—especially in countries exposed to progressive technologies.

In the areas of foreign policy and diplomacy, technology has brought about a tremendous amount of change. As Hillary Clinton once said during her tenure as Secretary of State: “Just as the internet has changed virtually every aspect of how people worldwide live, learn, consume and communicate, connection technologies are changing the strategic context for diplomacy in the 21st century.”

This article aims at presenting the most pressing challenges that stem from the relationship between advancing technologies and foreign affairs. In our point of view, the impact of breakthrough technologies on foreign affairs can be seen through accelerating transformation in five significant areas: security, institutions, participation, dialogue and leadership.

Security: Geopolitics online

The widely proclaimed shift from state-centric politics to non-governmental identities described as “shadowy networks of individuals” was first addressed openly by U.S. President George Bush in his 2002 National Security Strategy. It is true to some extent, that traditional underlying influences of state power are no longer the dominant catalysts at play. Indeed, the evolution of technology has empowered individuals and created new commanding media capable of challenging existing national supremacy, while directing a new world order. Although powerful-by-technology individuals play an important role, international relations are still mostly dependent on geographical variables and interests.

In the Information Age it is certain that the ever-increasing amount of global data and online storage of valuable information will bring incommensurable and occasionally conflicting value systems into ever closer contact. The proximity of country and entity online systems is increasingly hazardous.

In this era of fast information transfer, along with the rapid development of new-generation technologies, international relations among states are conflicting more so than a decade ago. However, states are much weaker and less capable of mitigating arising challenges in controlling security, popular discontent and cultural fragmentation.

The recent U.S.-China Summit on cybersecurity exposed all of the aforementioned problems. Tensions between these two countries have concerned recent cyberattacks, mainly against U.S. government computers. Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping have agreed that their governments refrain from online theft of intellectual property for commercial gain, but Obama emphasized that he might still impose sanctions if the Chinese continue to sponsor cyber-intrusions.

The Summit showed, however, that technology can bring concurring values or interests into constant confrontation without clear and sufficient evidence of particular guilt and responsibility. It also presented how individuals like Edward Snowden—empowered by technology—can bring another dimension to state relations. The notorious whistleblower overshadowed evidence of the last U.S. cyber-espionage attack against China before the Summit and thus changed the negotiating position of the U.S. government.

Institutions: Redefining actions by institutions and alliances

International organizations (IOs) and alliances such as North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) benefit hugely from data-driven technologies enabling them to deliver better service and exchange large volumes of information in real time. One may ask though, whether current IOs and alliances are prepared to tackle complex threats such as financial, development, online security and climate change challenges?

There is a growing concern that IOs founded after WWII, such as the United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund, and NATO are out-of-date, stagnant and with ineffective decision-making processes to handle arising challenges. One cannot deal with today’s war-mongering neurotics with passive and verbose institutions, only “considering sanctions” as a means of mitigation.

Many IOs are increasingly losing their ability to govern and implement necessary measures to oversee the unregulated realms that technology has created. As recently as 2 October 2015, Sushma Swaraj, External Affairs Minister of India, criticized the UN for failing effectively to address new challenges to international peace and security.

In her view, the UN needs reform, stressing the importance of new, more transparent working methods and claiming the need for permanent membership by African and Latin American countries: “How can we have a Security Council in 2015 which still reflects the geo-political architecture of 1945?” reflected Swaraj. This recent call for action is only one example of growing concern over the condition of the UN in expecting that real change will come sooner or later. 

Participation : Social media and online platforms drive profound change in foreign policies

Although many observers note how the social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter change global connectivity, the reality is that new technologies do not necessarily create democratic evolution online. Three major obstacles are identified.

First of all, new technologies empower individuals but can breed clusters of extremism, abuse, xenophobia and violence expressed on a number of online media and channels. One recent example is the enormous number of fake and distorted images of refugees with mocking memes that have circulated online as a kind of response to the widely proclaimed action of welcoming refugees (#welcomerefugees).

Secondly, authoritarians including countries and separate individualist entities benefit from technology. For instance, in Syria the internet is another weapon of war. The control of connections and website content gives the government great power during the ongoing conflict. Authoritarian governments are able to control technologies and use them to undermine social activism, thus gaining new forms of control and power.

Thirdly, the ineffective implementation of technology can be both a harmful and costly endeavor. It was the case of Healthcare.gov in the U.S., where even supporters of so-called “Obamacare” described the platform as a faulty and extremely overpriced governmental tech launch. Indeed, governments and institutions often grapple with poorly developed and protected platforms that cause more challenges than benefits.

The risks of both adapting and managing new technologies are as profound as not evolving to technological advancements. A number of countries have experienced major repercussions from either not adapting or not adequately managing technological evolution in recent times. With five billion more people set to join the digital world, these challenges shall remain on political and global agendas for years to come.

Dialogue: The art of diplomacy and international policy is not vanishing but being reinvented

Breakthrough technologies enable instant contact and thus create ease in managing diplomacy and organizing political dialogue. Referring back to traditional 18th or 19th century diplomacy, formal representatives had to wait for weeks or even months to receive relevant instructions and courses of action. As such, the points on agendas covered only the most important items needing to be addressed.

Nowadays, new technological channels have replaced outdated forms of communication. Officials have continuous access to instantaneous and live networks empowering not only organizational dialogue, but providing international communications enhancing responsiveness, action and regulation. That being said, currently most ambassadors and politicians use Twitter to interact with officials, policymakers and citizens.

So called “Twitplomacy” has been seen as a form of public diplomacy as it has been used not only by officials but also millions of citizens across the globe. “Twitter has two big positive effects on foreign policy: It fosters a beneficial exchange of ideas between policymakers and civil society and enhances diplomats’ ability to gather information and to anticipate, analyze, manage, and react to events,” writes former Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi in his preface to the book entitled Twitter for Diplomacy. Indeed, 140 characters have changed drastically the way officials communicate with each other.

Another profound example is the Virtual Embassy of the United States to Tehran in Iran. The Virtual Embassy was developed by the U.S. State Department after the closure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. This Embassy has the same status as other traditional U.S. Embassies apart from one significant detail: diplomacy operates on a virtual level.

These are only two examples, whereas in different parts of the world, so-called ‘digital diplomacy’ has grown enormously in popularity, and this trend is likely to continue. However, as significant and impactful new progressive communication channels may be, a need still exists for fostering and strengthening official communication between countries and international entities.

There is an absence of effective digital platforms that could be used to assist in critical decision-making processes between different governments. Authorities often struggle to cooperate on the most essential issues during regular summits, formal gatherings and multilateral forums. Critical information exchanged is rarely archived and translated into actionable communication. A prime opportunity presents itself here for creating sustainable and prominent platforms for dialogue and decision making to enhance global governance and responsiveness.

Leaders: The human factor is still important but more complex

Although technologies serve leaders across the world as new sources of both power and governance, they require an increasingly complex formulation of regulations and rules of conduct, which can be difficult to structure, and enforce. Political leaders constantly are critiqued and assessed by analysts and pundits on their responsiveness to new technologies. In particular, the prominence of public opinion in political domains is a significant point for discussion. New technologies add another dimension to the classical dilemma faced by politicians—how to propose and implement effective policies while mitigating public popularity.

Henry Kissinger was right when he pointed out that “the mindset for walking lonely political paths may not be self-evident to those who seek confirmation by hundreds, sometimes thousands of friends on Facebook.” In this age of new breakthrough technologies, politicians and leaders do not require simply the authoritative support of policies by respective experts. Such support also very often is advocated by prominent online influencers having little or no direct linkage to political realms: celebrities, online commentators and corporations.

In today’s world, being a politician is more than just “taking a stand and being passionate” with a sense of devotion and responsibility for personal actions as Max Weber wrote long time ago. Politicians need to be pop-stars, too. New technologies bring another dimension into classical political dilemma—how to mitigate popularity and at the same time make tough decisions. In a world that is disseminating public opinion to the masses at an increasing rate and prominence, understanding the role of technology and its importance in political popularity has never been so complex.

Technology may be seen as a driver for both power and legitimacy in the areas of foreign affairs and diplomacy. What we need today are leaders who not only understand the complexities of technology, but who also use this technology to promote a global culture of human encounter that meets the legitimate needs of all peoples.

Artur Kluz, lawyer, foreign policy advisor and venture capital investor. He is a General Partner/Founder of Kluz Ventures, the investment firm focused on breakthrough technologies and global growth strategies.

Mikolaj Firlej, Master of Public Policy student at Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University. Former Advisor and Assistant to the Secretary of State at the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland.

 

 An anti-Chinese protest in Vietnam last year. Photo: AP

The visit last month of Xi Jinping to Vietnam—the first visit of a Chinese president in 10 years—came at a crucial point in deteriorating relations, resulting from China’s construction of artificial islands and assertion of sovereignty in the disputed South China Sea (referred to as the East Sea in Vietnam). Xi’s visit was also significant coming shortly before Vietnam’s five-yearly congress in January, amid some uncertainty over whether the new leadership will lean toward Beijing or Washington.

Hanoi’s ties to Washington have grown since the Chinese parked an offshore oil rig off Vietnam’s coast in May 2014, and Xi’s visit last month was seen by many, including Carlyle Thayer, a Vietnamese expert and emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales, as an attempt to counter America’s influence. Thayer believes Xi used the visit to request a toning down by the Vietnamese side of a number of recent public comments asserting Hanoi’s sovereignty over the South China Sea.

Yet Hanoi has long been adept at playing Beijing off of Washington, as part of its “three nos” foreign policy—no military alliances, not allowing any country to set up military bases on Vietnamese territory, and not relying on any country for combating others (although an interesting juxtaposition occurred as Xi addressed the Vietnamese National Assembly while Japan’s defense minister was meeting his counterparts in Hanoi).

Despite the heated rhetoric over sovereignty issues, and the talks with Tokyo, Hanoi will be reluctant to hamper significant bilateral economic relations with Beijing.  China is Vietnam’s largest trade partner—trade and investment between Vietnam and China grew a robust 16% in the first nine months of 2015, reaching some US$60 billion. During this same period, Vietnam exported some $12.4 billion in goods to China.

During the meeting between Xi and Vietnamese party chief, Nguyen Phu Trong, the latter proposed that the two Communist nations lead the way forward in implementing the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and agree on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC). For his part, President Xi emphasized China’s economic muscle, pledging $300 million in concessional loans toward the construction of the Mong Cai-Van Don highway project in the northern province of Quang Ninh and another $250 million in preferential loans toward the Cat Linh-Ha Dong urban overhead railway project in Hanoi. Xi also promised $129 million in social welfare aid over the next five years toward construction of schools and hospitals.

Yet amongst all the announcements of Chinese economic assistance, Japan and Vietnam agreed to hold their first ever joint naval exercise, with a Japanese warship expected to visit Cam Ranh Bay, a strategic naval base in Vietnam’s East Sea.

Before Xi left Hanoi, he addressed a crowd of young Vietnamese, declaring, “China rejects that a country should seek hegemony once it grows strong,” adding, “China will deepen mutually beneficial cooperation, interconnection and interworking with neighboring countries including Vietnam, [and] will always be a close comrade with socialist countries, a reliable friend with developed countries.”

Indeed, in the face of perceived threats from Beijing, Vietnam has embarked on its greatest military build-up in decades, albeit starting from a low base following economic problems after the Vietnam War and a dwindling level of support from its weakened Cold War patron, the Soviet Union. Yet Russia is now back, providing meaningful levels of support, according to Reuters, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the International Institute of Strategic Studies and Vietnamese state media:

   NAVY

Vietnamese crews, supported by Russian advisors, operate four Russian-made, Kilo-class submarines from a purpose-built base in Cam Ranh Bay in south-central Vietnam.

Another two submarines are expected to arrive in 2016 and the entire fleet is expected to be fully operational by 2017. The Vietnamese 636.3MV Kilos are equipped with both anti-ship and land attack variants of the Klub cruise missile, heavy torpedoes and mines.

Vietnam is also acquiring Russian-designed ships equipped with anti-ship missiles and other weapons. The fleet currently includes 2 Gepard frigates, 6 corvettes and 18 fast-attack missile boats. New vessels will have enhanced anti-submarine weapons.

Less visibly, Vietnam has strengthened its coastal defenses with anti-ship artillery batteries and the mobile Bastion K-300P system, equipped with Orynx cruise missiles. The Orynx can also be fired from ships, planes and submarines.

Foreign security experts say Vietnam has made it potentially costly for China’s navy to operate within 200-300 nautical miles of its coast—an ability it did not have a decade ago.

This may be further boosted by a future deal to buy the Indian-Russian produced BrahMos missile, a supersonic anti-ship weapon that is the world’s fastest cruise missile. Chinese analysts say Beijing’s reclaimed islands in the South China Sea will give it extra protection against Vietnam’s strength from its southern coast.

    AIR FORCE

Vietnam operates an expanding fleet of 30 Russian-supplied Su-30 MK2 fighter-bombers, which patrols its military bases over the Spratlys. Hanoi also has older squadrons of Su-27s and even older Russian craft.

Though far outnumbered by China’s air force, which includes similar planes, Hanoi’s military chiefs have upgraded and expanded air defenses. It has obtained Israeli AD-STAR 2888 early warning radars and Russian-built S-300 surface-to-air missile batteries.

Vietnam had extensive experience in using earlier Russian-built systems to shoot down U.S. jet fighters and B-52 bombers over northern Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

Hanoi is also in talks with European and U.S. arms manufacturers to buy additional fighter jets, maritime patrol planes and unarmed surveillance drones.

    ARMY

Vietnam maintains a conscript-based force of an estimated 450,000 troops.

It has recently started manufacturing Israeli rifles under license, and also used Israeli and European technological help to refit up to 850 Russian T-59 and T-55 tanks.

Parliament this year passed laws lengthening compulsory military service from 18 months to two years, as well as extending deferments to allow more university students to serve after completing their studies.

During Chinese President Xi’s visit to Vietnam last month, he invoked the Golden Rule during his parting speech, saying, “Chinese people advocate such belief, do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.” While Vietnamese may have appreciated the fine rhetoric emanating from the Chinese leader, paraphrasing a quote from Confucius, Hanoi’s leadership appears not to be so taken in, given the extensive military buildup as outlined above.

Politique étrangère est présente sur Cairn, le portail des revues francophones, depuis plusieurs années maintenant. Un nouveau record a été établi grâce à vous, chers Lecteurs, avec plus de 375 000 articles en accès libre consultés en 2015 ! Découvrez en exclusivité la liste des 10 articles de la revue les plus lus sur Cairn cette année !

* * *

10e  place : Jean-Louis Triaud, « La Tidjaniya, une confrérie musulmane transnationale »

9e place : David M. Faris, « La révolte en réseau : le « printemps arabe » et les médias sociaux »

8e place : Cheikh Ibrahima Niang , « Ebola : une épidémie postcoloniale »

7e place : Abdou Diouf, « Afrique : l’intégration régionale face à la mondialisation »

6e place : Boris Eisenbaum, « Négociation, coopération régionale et jeu d’influences en Asie centrale : l’Organisation de coopération de Shanghai »

5e place : Pierre de Senarclens, « Théories et pratiques des relations internationales depuis la fin de la guerre froide »

4e place : Alice Ekman, « Asie-Pacifique : la priorité de la politique étrangère chinoise »

3e place : Thierry Kellner, « La Chine et la Grande Asie centrale »

2e place : Stanley Hoffmann, « Raymond Aaron et la théorie des relations internationales »

1ère place : Pierre Jacquet, « Les enjeux de l’aide publique au développement »

Tous ces articles sont accessibles gratuitement sur Cairn. N’hésitez pas à les lire ou à les relire en cliquant directement sur les liens !

* * *

Merci à tous nos abonnés et lecteurs pour leur fidélité et bienvenue à tous les futurs abonnés et lecteurs de Politique étrangère !

Pour vous abonner à Politique étrangère, cliquez ici et découvrez nos nouvelles offres d’abonnement pour 2016 !

/ Allemagne, Développement, Inégalités - Europe / Allemagne, Développement, Inégalités - Europe

/ Proche-Orient, Défense, Géopolitique, Sécurité, Pétrole, Religion, Relations internationales - Proche-Orient / Proche-Orient, Défense, Géopolitique, Sécurité, Pétrole, Religion, Relations internationales - Proche-Orient

Welcoming the Security Council&#39s unanimous adoption of a blueprint for peace in Syria, a senior United Nations official has called on all sides to immediately stop using sexual violence as a tactic in the fighting tearing the country apart.

Voicing deep concern at the continuing escalation of violence in Burundi, the United Nations Security Council today called for urgent acceleration of mediation efforts by East African States and urged all Burundian stakeholders to fully cooperate with a proposed African Union (AU) peace-keeping mission.

Long before Donald Trump’s demonizing of Muslims, the Founding Fathers debated whether Islam should be defended.

The best stories from around the world.

Crisis Group welcomes yesterday’s bold decision of the African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC) authorising the deployment of an African Prevention and Protection Mission in Burundi (MAPROBU) to halt the slide toward civil war and mass atrocities. The humanitarian situation in the country is increasingly dire. More than 200,000 refugees have fled across its borders, and each dawn reveals fresh corpses in the streets of the capital, Bujumbura. UN officials warn that without immediate action the situation risks descending into “catastrophic violence”.

As United Nations-sponsored consultations on Yemen continued today, the UN envoy facilitating the talks expressed deep concern at numerous reports of violations of the three-day-old ceasefire and urged the parties to respect that agreement and allow access to the country’s most-affected districts.

In its first resolution to focus on the politics of ending Syria’s five-year-long war, the Security Council today gave the United Nations an enhanced role in shepherding the opposing sides to talks for a political transition, with a timetable for a ceasefire, a new constitution and elections, all under UN auspices.

The Russian leader has been stirring the pot from Crimea to Syria — but to what end?

A doctor on trial for comparing President Erodgan to Gollum is only the most visible example of Ankara's growing crackdown on freedom of expression.

President Obama likened the search for lone-wolf terrorists to finding mass shooters.