VOLUME 279 (2004) PAGES 33438–33446For Fig. 1B, the second, third, and fifth panels were mistakenly duplicated during article preparation as no yeast colonies were observed in these conditions. The corrected images are presented in the revised Fig. 1B. This correction does not affect the results or conclusions of the work. The authors apologize for the error.jbc;295/50/17382/F1F1F1Figure 1B.

Business Development in Madagascar: How to Enable Entrepreneurialism 15 November 2017 — 12:00PM TO 1:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 9 November 2017 Chatham House, London

Mugabe’s Departure Ushers in a Heady New Era for Zimbabwe Expert comment sysadmin 23 November 2017

The country is experiencing an almost unprecedented convergence, with traditional political, economic and social fault lines bridged as Zimbabweans make common cause for change.

The ecstatic scenes said it all – Zimbabweans around the world are celebrating the resignation of Robert Mugabe as president. In January 1980, hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans thronged Zimbabwe Grounds stadium in Highfields township, Harare, to welcome Mugabe back from exile. In March 1980, with reggae icon Bob Marley and Britain’s Prince Charles in attendance, thousands filled Rufaro Stadium to witness the handover from Rhodesia to the new nation of Zimbabwe. Thirty-seven years later, the largest crowds Harare has ever witnessed flooded the streets once again; not to welcome Mugabe in, but to see him out. One simple, taut phrase summed up the day’s events: ‘This is our second independence day.’

How did it come to this?

History has been put on fast-forward, and left Zimbabwe – and the world – shaken. Just two weeks ago, it seemed to be the height of folly to think that Mugabe would leave office on any but his own terms. Emmerson Mnangagwa had been sacked as vice president, and his followers had been purged. Grace Mugabe, with ringing endorsements from the women’s and youth leagues, looked set to be elevated to the vice presidency at the ZANU-PF congress in less than a month’s time.

Mugabe was expected to stay until the 2018 elections, after which he would hand over the presidency to his wife. It was the prospect of Grace Mugabe becoming Zimbabwe’s next president which brought in the military. Aware that they had three weeks or less to prevent a dynastic succession and a looming purge of the military itself, Zimbabwe’s military chose, not the audacity of hope, but the hope of audacity, and launched Operation Restore Legacy to stop the rot.

What has happened in Zimbabwe is not a people’s revolution in the traditional sense. The Bourbons in France, the Romanov dynasty in Russia, the Shah of Iran, and the autocrats of north Africa’s Arab Spring were all felled by continuous street protests which ultimately received the support of the military.

In Zimbabwe it has been the military who have been the drivers of revolutionary change. What has happened is that an internal party-factional power struggle has inadvertently led to a military-guided popular revolution and the ousting of the Mugabes. Zimbabwe’s military, often seen as the guardians of the state, became instead the guardians of the people. They are seen, for now at least, as liberators, and national heroes. This has been a very Zimbabwean revolution.

So what next?

These are heady days. Zimbabwe is experiencing an almost unprecedented national convergence, with traditional political, economic and social fault lines bridged as Zimbabweans make common cause for change. It is not quite a ‘Zimbabwe Spring’, but it is perhaps a ‘Zimbabwe Sunrise’.

Parliament, which on Tuesday had met to impeach Robert Mugabe, is now installing, through constitutional procedures, Emmerson Mnangagwa as president, who will be given the mandate to form an interim government. Mnangagwa will be further ratified at the ZANU-PF Congress in December where he will be named and acclaimed as ZANU-PF’s candidate for the next general elections, which constitutionally are due by mid-2018 (although it is unclear whether this will indeed be the case).

Mnangagwa has a full in-tray. He needs to form a government quickly and has to balance the need for inclusivity and consultation, with the undoubted pressure to reward his followers. With Zimbabwe’s economy nearing paralysis, Zimbabwe’s new president will be under pressure to deliver. Although many are nervous about his history as Mugabe’s ally and his reputation for toughness, Mnangagwa is also an astute political survivor, and has been pro-business and supportive of Zimbabwe’s ongoing re-engagement with the global community.

Zimbabwe has become a cashless society not by design, but by default; with formal unemployment at 80 per cent and with a largely informalized economy in which much of Zimbabwe’s citizenry have been reduced to penury and classic short-termism, there is plenty for Zimbabwe’s next president to think about. Activists wonder whether he will try to introduce systemic change, or merely go through the motions. He may well face a binary choice between government or governance.

And yet there are also positives. Zimbabwe’s institutions have proven to be resilient, and there is still a reservoir of dedicated and competent professionals in both public and private sectors. Although still laggardly, Zimbabwe had begun to progress in ‘ease of doing business’ indices. There is a large diaspora who have continued to engage with Zimbabwe; and Zimbabwe’s recent ‘Look East’ and de facto ‘Look West’ re-engagement policies can be built upon.

Many are urging caution and saying that Zimbabwe needs a second, truly democratic revolution. Perhaps. But right now, Mnangagwa should be given a chance. Farai, a friend of mine in Harare, said this: ‘Yes we know this euphoria may be short-lived. But even if it turns out that we were only happy for a day, let’s make it a brilliant day. Rega tifare nhasi (Let us be happy today).’

A version of this article was first published by the Guardian.

Ramaphosa Has Won the Battle. But Can He Win the War? Expert comment sysadmin 21 December 2017

Cyril Ramaphosa is taking charge of South Africa’s ruling party, the ANC, at its weakest point in post-apartheid history. Expectations couldn’t be higher.

Ramaphosa ran for the leadership of the ANC on a platform of party renewal, economic recovery, and building the capacity of the state. But Jacob Zuma remains the President of South Africa and, under the constitution, can stay in office until elections in 2019. Therefore, meeting expectations on economic recovery will depend on Ramaphosa taking the presidency – and he has a number of political battles to face before that becomes reality.

To begin with, Ramaphosa and his supporters did not win a total victory at the elective conference. The presidency was only one position in the senior cadre – the co-called ‘top six’ – that was elected. This body is now split evenly between Ramaphosa and his allies, and those that supported his opponent Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma - Jacob Zuma’s preferred successor. This creates two centres of power in the ANC, limiting what Ramaphosa will be able to achieve from within the party.

Although there is significant pressure from the electorate to remove Zuma from national office, actually doing so will be difficult. Zuma’s predecessor Thabo Mbeki was removed from the national presidency before his term was up when the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party recalled him from office following Zuma’s assumption of party leadership. But this option may not be available to Ramaphosa. The split within the ‘top six’ and new NEC will make it difficult to present an ultimatum to Zuma. His loyalists will not want a witch hunt within the party.

Corruption and elitism within the party

Much of the tension centres on questions of corruption, the dominant political issue in South Africa at the moment. In the build up to the elective conference Gwede Mantashe - now national chairperson - admitted that “The biggest challenge from where we’re sitting is the image and the reputation of the ANC. The ANC is seen as equal to corruption and looting.” Ramaphosa made anti-corruption initiatives a centrepiece of his campaign, including the establishment of a judicial commission and rapid action to investigate and prosecute the guilty.

But the split within the party may undermine the credibility of these promises. Ramaphosa’s problem is that some of the new ‘top six’ - including Deputy President David Mabuza, and Secretary General Ace Magashule – would be high on the list of those the electorate want to see investigated. Party resistance may restrict the extent to which Ramaphosa can demonstrate a comprehensive break from the past.

Corruption within the party goes far deeper than the headline cases of ‘state capture’ and expropriation. At a branch level, access to political power has become the primary means of access to economic resource. It is a process of selective patronage that differentiates between those who are ‘in’ from those who aren’t. At its broadest, this type of corruption has created a mistrust of the ANC and the new economic elite that the party has created around it – including Ramaphosa himself.

Having lost out to Mbeki in the fight to succeed Mandela despite being the favourite for the job, Ramaphosa spearheaded the ANC’s deployment of cadres in business. He has become one of the country’s richest men, and a highly sought after board member by South Africa’s largest companies across mining, telecoms, and logistics.

One of his biggest challenges will be to remove the perception of elitism as his senior position within the party and economy has given rise to mistrust from a grass roots level. The political tussle at the conference was also largely driven by a small number of the party elite being able to control large groups of delegate votes. The nature of political competition within the party is symptomatic of the ANCs electoral dominance in the early days of the nation’s democracy. But this support is now far less certain, and the party cannot afford to become complacent.

Resetting the relationship with business

Ramaphosa’s business dealings may mean he has to walk a fine line in censuring his colleagues for making money from politics. But it may also be a significant opportunity for the party to reset its relationship with the private sector. Under Mbeki, relations between the ANC and business were distant, but characterized by recognition of mutual dependence.

Under Zuma this relationship deteriorated, and the President demonstrated he was willing to make decisions to boost his political power irrespective of economic consequences. Ramaphosa could, for the first time, truly align the interests of business and government, without abandoning his transformative policy agenda.

At an ANC regional economic colloquium in Johannesburg in November Ramaphosa outlined his ten-point economic plan. It would deliver the party’s adopted mantra of ‘radical economic transformation’, but through broadly neo-liberal policies on private business development and state-owned enterprise reform to allow private capital to co-invest.

He took the ethos and principles of the Freedom Charter – the 1955 statement of core ANC principles – and applied them to a modernising economy. Talk of a ‘new deal’, productive partnerships in the mining sector, and an emphasis on job creation in manufacturing will woo investors. The rand surged upon his election.

But Ramaphosa will not be able to deliver on the economic demands of the country until he is in the office of the presidency - and Zuma still holds many of the cards. Ramaphosa can promise his followers potential power and government positions in future, but Zuma can still offer them now.

Removing Zuma will require skilful internal party politicking, and Ramaphosa will need to limit the fallout – he cannot afford to further damage the credibility of the party before it faces the electorate in 2019. He has won the battle, but the outcome of the war is far from certain.

Angola Forum 2018: 30th Anniversary of the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale 23 March 2018 — 10:00AM TO 2:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 8 March 2018 Chatham House, London

Reflections on Southern Africa’s Turning Point

23 March 2018 marks the 30th anniversary of the final assault of what became known as the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.

The confrontation between the Angolan army, supported by Cuba and the Soviet Union, and the armed opposition UNITA, supported by the South African Defence Force, is the largest land battle to have taken place in Africa since World War Two.

The battle was a watershed in Angolan and southern African history, but its significance continues to be contested. Today, although the battlefield has a monument and museum, it remains one of the most landmine-contaminated parts of Angola and this hinders development plans for international tourism.

This event brings together veterans and experts to contribute towards developing a deeper understanding of the battle. Discussions will further focus on the significance of the wider events around the battle, its regional implications, as well as the legacy of the battlefield.

South Africa's Land Reform Quandary: Scenarios and Policy 10 July 2018 — 10:00AM TO 11:00AM Anonymous (not verified) 13 June 2018 Chatham House, London

Slow delivery on expectations of land redistribution in South Africa has once again put the issue at the forefront of political debate in the country. A parliamentary public consultation process will consider whether constitutional change is required to accelerate expropriation without compensation. Policymakers face dual - often opposing - pressures due to investors’ fears of negative economic impacts as well as citizens’ frustrations over persistent inequality and hardship. State land and tribal trust land remain contentious issues for rural economic development, but with two thirds of the population now living in urban areas policy responses must be as cognizant of the country’s future as it is of its past.

At this meeting, Terence Corrigan, project manager at the South African Institute of Race Relations, will discuss the current debates on expropriation and present the institute’s latest research on future scenarios of land reform in South Africa.

Attendance at this event is by invitation only.

Zimbabwe's Elections Were Meant to Start a New Era Expert comment sysadmin 14 August 2018

Emmerson Mnangagwa has been declared president of Zimbabwe amid protests and violence but Zimbabweans are now in a post-political, economy-first mood, writes Knox Chitiyo.

Before Zimbabwe’s general election on 30 July, there was a lot of talk about there being ‘landmark change’ and ‘credibility.’ But in many ways it was déjà vu. President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s ruling ZANU-PF party won the parliamentary vote, taking a majority 144 seats out of 210. The opposition MDC Alliance, a seven-party coalition led by Nelson Chamisa, won 64 seats—an improvement on their 2013 showing of 44 seats, but still falling far short of expectations.

The presidential results were much closer. After clashes on Wednesday, the incumbent Mnangagwa was declared winner early Friday morning, taking 50.8 per cent of the vote against Chamisa’s 44.3 per cent. The 21 other independent presidential candidates polled less than 5 per cent between them.

The polls didn’t quite live up to the hype. There was much that was positive: the prelude and election day were peaceful, with a minimal military presence. Opposition candidates were able to hold nationwide rallies (including in ZANU-PF’s rural heartland) without interference—an electoral first. ZANU-PF leaders and the military called for a peaceful process. Four women candidates contested the presidential vote, another first. More than 5 million Zimbabweans registered out of an eligible voting population of 7.2 million, and there was a near record 75 per cent turnout on voting day. Zimbabwe invited official observers from 46 countries and 15 international organizations, and, for the first time since 2002, observers from the EU, the Commonwealth and the US were present.

But shortcomings included late public access to the imperfect biometric voters roll and controversies about the ballot papers. There were also misogynistic social media attacks and threats against female candidates and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) chair Justice Priscilla Chigumba.

The three-day wait for presidential results saw a further decline in public trust in the ZEC, and the opposition’s premature announcement of a Chamisa victory only fanned the political flames.

On Wednesday, six unarmed civilians were shot dead by soldiers in Harare, with dozens more assaulted. A Joint International Observer Mission statement promptly condemned the violence and called for restraint.

The election process was a boon for democracy, but ironically the result has entrenched the two-party parliamentary system and marginalized alternative voices. Mnangagwa has been conciliatory in his post-election statements, saying that Nelson Chamisa has a ‘crucial role to play’ and calling for unity to ‘build a new Zimbabwe for all.’

But Chamisa’s MDC Alliance has refused to accept the results, calling them ‘fake’ and a ‘scandal.’ The MDC has raised genuine transparency concerns and will likely challenge the results in court, but much of this may be cosmetic—with little chance of a 2017 Kenya-style presidential re-run. There is no critical mass of opposition parties to sustain a challenge, nor is there a popular appetite for a protracted political feud.

Zimbabwe’s democracy agenda may be heading into the slow lane, and Chamisa may be pressured by his coalition partners to make a political accommodation with Mnangagwa. Nevertheless, despite setbacks, Zimbabwe’s opposition and civil society has a long history of resilience under pressure and the struggle for democracy will continue.

Mnangagwa has a full in-tray. He has to unite a fractious ZANU-PF and manage internal civil-military and generational faultlines. Beyond that, he may need a public reconciliation with Chamisa—similar to how in Kenya and Mozambique, similar incumbent-opposition quarrels were mended by public rapprochements.

But Zimbabweans are now in a post-political, economy-first mood. Resolving the cash crisis is crucial. Few Zimbabweans can withdraw more than $50 a day from banks or ATMs—and much of this is paid out in unpopular ‘bond coins.’ The formal sector has contracted to only 20 per cent of the economy, and the informal sector lacks the capacity to push an economic renewal.

Zimbabwe’s new internationalism is premised upon the 2015 Lima process economic reform pathway for debt arrears clearance. (The country has a $10 billion foreign debt.) There has been a modest increase in foreign and diaspora investment, but the big-money Chinese, Russian and other pledges are long-horizon projects. What Zimbabwe needs is a short-term economic stimulus—to support small and medium-sized businesses.

For this to happen, Mnangagwa has to stay the course on economic reform, ease of doing business and the anti-corruption agenda. The pivot from reform to transformation in Zimbabwe will require all hands on deck, including civil society, the opposition, Zimbabwe diaspora and foreign investors, in a partnership for development.

A positive global verdict on the elections could supercharge investment, but time will tell whether these polls have been a deal-maker or a deal-breaker.

Zimbabwe’s elections often split the global south and the global north, and this could be the case again. The EU will have to decide whether to continue their incremental rapprochement with Zimbabwe, or accelerate to the reciprocity-based, ‘Re-Engagement 2.0’ approach currently favoured by the UK although the US is unlikely to lift statutory sanctions anytime soon.

Zimbabwe’s possible return to the Commonwealth could also be divisive, given the broader global context of the perceived existential clash between beleaguered liberal democracy and the rise of populist—and popular—autocracies across the globe.

President Mnangagwa—along with South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, Mozambique’s Filipe Nyusi and others—belong to a pragmatic new wave of regional economic reformers nudging liberationism away from ideology. He now has an electoral mandate to lead a divided country. For sisters Chipo and Tendai, both businesswomen based in Harare who voted for Mnangagwa and Chamisa respectively, the future needs to come now. ‘There is too much talk,’ they said, ‘we live every day between hope and despair. We need cash and jobs. We are tired of being tired.’

This was originally published in TIME.

South Africa’s 2019 Election: Polling Data and Party Prospects 13 March 2019 — 12:30PM TO 1:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 7 March 2019 Chatham House, London

On 8 May 2019, South Africans will vote in their sixth national election. Incumbent President Cyril Ramaphosa is leading his ANC party campaign, which promises inclusive economic growth and social transformation, including through a sustainable land reform programme. However, public frustrations with the party’s record of service delivery and government corruption after 25 years in power could threaten the ANC’s electoral dominance especially in urban areas.

At this meeting, Professor David Everatt, head of the Wits School of Governance and political pollster, will present polling data and discuss the prospects and strategies of the main parties and their leaders ahead of the May election.

Attendance at this event is by invitation only.

Mine Action in Angola: Clearing the Legacies of Conflict to Harness the Potential of Peace Other resource sysadmin 14 June 2019

This publication draws on and updates the briefing note published following a meeting of the All- Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Angola on 26 April 2017. It also incorporates insights from a Chatham House Africa Programme conference session on the legacies of the Angolan Civil War, held on 23 March 2018; and draws on the Africa Programme’s research into conservation-driven development models in Southern Africa.

Almost two decades after the end of its civil war, Angola remains one of the most heavily landmine-contaminated countries in the world. The Angolan government has committed to clearing its landmines by 2025, and there is constructive collaboration between the government and mine clearing agencies in this endeavour, but the target will be achievable only if a decline in funding from international donors is reversed. International funding for mine clearance in Angola fell by more than 80 per cent between 2005 and 2017, and this sharp drop in external support has compounded the impact on domestic funding for national clearance efforts as a result of the downturn in prices for Angola’s main export commodities.

The national mine action agency, the Comissão Nacional Intersectorial de Desminagem e Assistência Humanitária (CNIDAH), is supported by the Mines Advisory Group (MAG), Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) and the HALO Trust. By 2017, 15 years after the end of the civil war, these organizations had collectively helped clear 56 per cent of known landmine-contaminated land. State-led demining has focused principally on clearing areas designated for infrastructure projects. Now, it is critical that humanitarian demining in largely agricultural and conservation areas is prioritized to bring to an end the daily threat to Angola’s rural poor – as well as to the country’s livestock and wildlife – of injury or death as a result of landmine accidents.

Angola has some of the world’s most important remaining wilderness, including the tributary system for the unique Okavango Delta, and the country has the potential to host one of the most diverse wildlife populations on the continent. However, the presence of landmines and other remnants of the civil war render large areas of the country unsafe both for wildlife and for the local people, whose ability to derive a sustainable livelihood from their natural environment is fundamental to its protection.

Wildlife and tourism provide important economic opportunities for diversification beyond an oil-dominated economy. Critically, Angola’s economic diversification and development objectives can only be achieved if the landmines that prohibit access to land for agriculture, mining, tourism and wildlife are cleared.

There are economic opportunities for released land in the most heavily mined provinces of Cuando Cubango and Moxico. Already, some new funding for mine action in Angola, if upscaled or matched by international donors, could be transformative for its people, and for the conservation of the region’s vital biodiversity.

Webinar: South Africa's Economic Recovery Beyond COVID-19 27 May 2020 — 1:00PM TO 2:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 18 May 2020

Webinar: Finding Solutions to Insecurity in Cabo Delgado 16 June 2020 — 3:00PM TO 4:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 9 June 2020

Mozambique’s Peace and National Reconciliation Agreement: One Year On 6 August 2020 — 2:30PM TO 4:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 29 July 2020 Online

August 6, 2020 marks one year since the Peace and National Reconciliation Agreement was signed in Maputo. The agreement, signed by the President of Mozambique Filipe Nyusi and RENAMO leader Ossufo Momade, and witnessed by regional and international political and religious leaders, ended the return to conflict that started in 2013.

It also paved the way for Mozambique’s national elections in October 2019. Since the agreement, the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO) won a landslide victory in the elections, weakening RENAMO, and a splinter group has conducted targeted armed violence in Manica and Sofala provinces. Yet, the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) process has made progress.

At this event, senior figures reflect on the peace agreement and the key factors of its success. The event also draws upon insights from the authors of recent publications on the latest peace agreement in the context of longer term trends of democratization and peace-building in Mozambique.

A Chatham House Africa Programme research paper published in August 2019, Prospects for a Sustainable Elite Bargain in Mozambique: Third Time Lucky?, examined how the deal was achieved. The Portuguese version includes the full text of the peace accord. Read the research paper in Portuguese or English here.

South Africa’s ANC party policy conference 2022: Outcomes and prospects 10 August 2022 — 1:00PM TO 2:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 4 August 2022 Online

Paul Mashatile, Treasurer-General of the African National Congress (ANC), discusses the outcomes of the 6th ANC Policy Conference 2022.

The African National Congress (ANC) recently concluded its 6th National Policy Conference in Johannesburg, in the year that the ANC has declared ‘The Year of Unity and Renewal to Defend and Advance South Africa’s Democratic Gains’. The conference was a precursor to the party’s 55th National Elective Conference to be held in December.

The conference has come less than a year after municipal polls in which the ANC garnered less than 50 per cent of votes, its lowest since 1994. Many believe internal factionalism is impeding party reform and hampering its ability to address unemployment and entrenched inequality.

At this webinar, Paul Mashatile, Treasurer-General of the ANC, will discuss the outcomes of the ANC Policy Conference 2022, including measures to accelerate inclusive growth, job creation and a just energy transition.

This event will also be broadcast live on the Chatham House Africa Programme’s Facebook page.

War on Ukraine: The state of the global response 17 October 2022 — 6:30PM TO 7:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 3 October 2022 Chatham House and Online

Implications of the war for the future of multilateralism.

Russia’s war on Ukraine has tested the capacity for a unified global response to grave violations of the UN Charter. The world is in unchartered territory as a nuclear member of the United Nations Security Council attacks a non-nuclear country. 

Multilateral institutions that were born out of an effort to prevent war are struggling to prove their relevance in the face of growing existential threats to humanity. The war is exacerbating divisions within the global community, disrupting food and energy supplies worldwide and contributing to a profound crisis of multilateralism.

The longer these divisions last, the longer the war in the middle of Europe and the harder it will be to respond to the interconnected global crises that threaten everyone.

This discussion offers a unique insight into the macro-geopolitical questions in relation to the war in Ukraine with members of the Elders and other experts:

The panel considers:

• How can a more united global response to Russian aggression be built?

• What stands in the way of an effective multilateral response based on international norms?

• In what ways are divisions between UN member states influencing the trajectory of the war or prospects for peace?

• How is the conflict changing geopolitics and the ability of the multilateral system to address global challenges?

As with all members events, questions from the audience drive the conversation. This event is organised in partnership between Chatham House and The Elders, the group of independent global leaders founded by Nelson Mandela who work for peace, justice and human rights.

Read the transcript.

War on Ukraine: The energy crisis and Europe’s impending long winter 2 November 2022 — 5:00PM TO 6:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 4 October 2022 Online

Can Europe remain unified over the long winter?

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the global community has been responding to significant price shocks, especially energy. As Europe heads into a particularly difficult winter, policymakers are grappling with the costs, both political and economic, required to make sure Russian energy blackmail does not succeed.

Retaining a unified front against Russia and providing continued support to the Ukrainian government will be great challenges. As the cold begins to bite, war fatigue may accelerate among the populations of Europe. Providing their people with adequate heat will not come cheaply for governments across the continent at a time of economic uncertainty.

At this critical moment of Russia’s invasion, experts discuss:

• Have European preparations been sufficient to stave off an energy crisis this winter?
• What will be Russia’s reaction during and after the winter period, particularly if Europe avoids energy market failures?
• How will this ‘energy crisis’ ensure future dependencies on single state actors of goods and services do not occur in the future?

Read the transcript. 

Advanced technologies in the face of war 24 October 2022 — 1:00PM TO 2:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 5 October 2022 Online

How is NATO strengthening its technological edge?

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought with it a heavy focus on technology and weaponry, particularly as casualties mount and large numbers of equipment are lost on both sides. The conflict has highlighted how states and their militaries seek technological superiority and how access to advanced capabilities can help shape the course of the war.

Aiming to sharpen the Alliance’s technological edge, NATO is working to support the development of emerging and potentially disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous systems, biotechnologies and quantum technologies that are seen as presenting both risks and opportunities for the Alliance.

As part of this work, NATO’s newly formed Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA), hosted by both the UK and Estonia, brings together academia, industry and government to support the development of critical technologies to deter and defend against existing and future threats.

Key questions to be considered by the panel include:

• How will the technologies that form the focus of DIANA’s efforts strengthen the Alliance and prepare it to better deal with threats to peace and security across the region?

• How will these technologies be applied and used in war?

• To what extent can a war be won by technology?

• Is Ukraine, and other future conflict zones, in danger of becoming a testing ground for emerging technologies?

• What has the war in Ukraine taught NATO about modern warfare and how should the Alliance respond to this?

• After the commotion of AUKUS, how will the Alliance manage the sharing of technologies and IP among member states?

As with all members events, questions from the audience drive the conversation.

Read the transcript. 

Russia's war on everybody 6 December 2022 — 5:00PM TO 6:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 14 October 2022 Chatham House and Online

Experts discuss the methods Moscow has employed to exert influence around the world over recent decades.

Russia’s assault on Ukraine has reminded the world about the threat it faces from Moscow. But that’s not the only war that Russia has been fighting and Ukraine is not the only target.

Long before February 2022, Russia was already engaged in semi-covert campaigns across Europe and around the world, using any means possible to expand its power and influence and leaving a trail of destruction along the way.

In his new book Russia’s War on Everybody, Chatham House associate fellow Keir Giles examines what this longer war means for us all. Instead of talking only to diplomats, politicians and generals, Giles has looked instead at the effect of Russia’s ambition on ordinary people.

Interviewing 40 eyewitnesses from four continents, he has tried to tell the stories the world doesn’t hear about the impact of Russia’s hostility on individuals and societies that may not even realize they are a target.

At this event, Giles introduces the book at Chatham House. He is joined by experts to talk about the human impact of Russia’s campaigns waged through leveraging corruption and cyber offensives respectively.

As with all members events, questions from the audience drive the conversation.

Read the transcript. 

What’s next in UK monetary policy? 4 November 2022 — 4:00PM TO 5:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 19 October 2022 Chatham House and Online

A panel of leading experts discuss the future direction of UK monetary policy.

The UK’s so-called ‘mini-budget’ on 23 September led to a severe market reaction and a wave of criticism at home and abroad that ultimately forced the sacking of UK chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng and contributed to the downfall of Liz Truss’s government.

The new chancellor Jeremy Hunt is due to deliver what will essentially be an entirely new budget in mid-November, with a full assessment from the Office of Budget Responsibility. This will follow the meeting of the Bank of England’s interest rate setting Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) on Thursday 3 November.

Given rising inflationary pressures worldwide, it seems highly likely that the MPC will increase interest rates once again, but by how much and how far there will have to be an additional premium linked to the government’s fiscal strategy is far from clear.

Chatham House’s Global Economy and Finance programme is pleased to partner with Fathom Consulting to host a special session of Fathom’s Monetary Policy Forum.

A presentation of Fathom’s latest economic outlook, fully updated to take account of the previous day’s MPC decision, will be followed by a discussion among four of the MPC’s original former external members. Key questions will include:

• How far has the government been able to restore its fiscal credibility?
• Did the MPC make the right decision on 3 November?
• What is the likely pace and extent of monetary tightening in the UK going forward?
• What will be the long-term consequences for the UK economy of the past month’s policy experiment?
• What are the international implications?

As with all members events, questions from the audience drive the conversation. 

This event is in partnership with Fathom Consulting.

A new nuclear order 7 February 2023 — 6:00PM TO 7:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 26 January 2023 Chatham House and Online

In conversation with Rafael Mariano Grossi.

For more than half a century, the global nuclear non-proliferation framework has supported international security and facilitated the expansion of the many peaceful applications of nuclear science and technology. 

What is happening today in Ukraine, Iran and North Korea, not only challenges the way we deal with the existential threat of nuclear weapons, but also the impact it could have on addressing another existential threat – climate change.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the biggest test to global resolve both in avoiding nuclear conflict and in ensuring the safety of one of the biggest nuclear power programmes in Europe.

Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency discusses key questions on global nuclear cooperation including:

• The impact of the war in Ukraine and issues with Iran and North Korea on countries’ risk assessment with regards to nuclear non-proliferation.

• What the IAEA’s on-the-ground presence and the director general’s missions to Ukraine, particularly the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, tells us about what is necessary – now and in the long term – to ensure the safety and security of nuclear material under all circumstances.

• The role of ensuring nuclear energy can play its vital part in mitigating climate change now and in the future.

As with all member events, questions from the audience drive the conversation.

Read the transcript.

Who gains from artificial intelligence? 27 February 2023 — 5:30PM TO 6:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 6 February 2023 Chatham House and Online

What implications will AI have on fundamental rights and how can societies benefit from this technology revolution?

In recent months, the latest developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have attracted much media attention. These technologies hold a wealth of potential for a wide range of applications, for example, the recent release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a text generation model, has shed light on the opportunities these applications hold including to advance scientific research and discovery, enhance search engines and improve key commercial applications.

Yet, instead of generating an evidence-based public debate, this increased interest has also led to discussions on AI technologies which are often alarmist in nature, and in a lot of cases, misleading. They carry the risk of shifting public and policymakers’ attention away from critical societal and legal risks as well as concrete solutions.

This discussion, held in partnership with Microsoft and Sidley Austin LLP, provides an expert-led overview of where the technology stands in 2023. Panellists also reflect on the implications of implementing AI on fundamental rights, the enforcement of current and upcoming legislation and multi-stakeholder pathways to address relevant issues in the AI space.

More specifically, the panel explores:

• What is the current state of the art in the AI field?
• What are the opportunities and challenges presented by generative AI and other innovations?
• What are some of the key, and potentially most disruptive, AI applications to monitor in the near- and mid-term? 
• Which applications would benefit from greater public policy/governance discussions?
• How can current and future policy frameworks ensure the protection of fundamental rights in this new era of AI?
• What is the role of multi-stakeholder collaboration?
• What are the pathways to achieving inclusive and responsible governance of AI?

• How can countries around the world work together to develop frameworks for responsible AI that upholds democratic values and advance AI collaboration across borders?

As with all member events, questions from the audience drive the conversation.

Read the transcript.

From Iraq to Ukraine: What did governments learn? 20 March 2023 — 12:00PM TO 1:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 6 March 2023 Chatham House and Online

What were the main lessons for today’s conflicts from the way in which the war in Iraq played out?

This March marks the 20th anniversary of the US and UK-led invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. Based primarily on unfounded fears Iraq’s WMD (weapons of mass destruction) capability was buidling up in the absence of UN inspection and constraints on the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards, the decision to go to war has reverberated throughout the Middle East, the intelligence communities, and Western political decision-making ever since.

In the 2002–03 period when UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq, Hans Blix, chairman of UNMOVIC (UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, were at the centre of a storm in which they were put under huge pressure to agree with the US/UK narrative on the ‘missing’ WMD.

Their problem was that the evidence they were uncovering did not support the claims, but the war went ahead – and Saddam was overthrown – despite these UN findings.

Much has changed since 2003. As the geopolitical landscape has shifted, so have geopolitics and capabilities. Today’s Russia’s war against Ukraine which includes WMD threats, cyberattacks, and an assertive disinformation campaign has opened up new ways of thinking about communicating information from open source and government intelligence analysis.

This panel explores the experiences of people involved with decision-making at the UN and in the UK in 2003 and how things have changed today.

• What were the lessons from the way in which the war in Iraq played out?
• How has that influenced the way in which NATO has responded to Russia’s wars against Ukraine?
• How should information be communicated within governments and to the public?
• How to deal with disinformation campaigns in the days of open source information and social media?

As with all member events, questions from the audience drive the conversation.

In conversation with Ehud Barak 27 March 2023 — 12:00PM TO 1:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 21 March 2023 Chatham House and Online

The former prime minister of Israel discusses his country’s political outlook and foreign policy priorities.

On the eve of its 75th independence anniversary, Israel is at a critical crossroads. Weeks of long, intense protests surrounding judicial reforms pursued by the current government have widened the debate over the role played by the, so far independent, judiciary, notably the Supreme Court.

Supporters on both sides of the argument are fighting over different visions of Israel – a true liberal-democracy, or a much-reduced version of a democratic system. Whichever side of the argument people fall, the debate symbolizes tension in Israel’s society and decline in trust of its political and constitutional institutions.

Abroad, the situation remains intricate. Israel-Iran relations remain on a knife edge while the Abraham Accords normalized relations with parts of the Gulf. Then there are the continual issues surrounding relations with the Palestinians and their right to self-determination and statehood.

Old international challenges are now rubbing up against the new. Israel is part of a changing power dynamic in the Middle East, the result of a much-reduced US footprint. Furthermore, it must now contend with the other global superpower in China and continue to work on its response to the war in Ukraine.

Amid its domestic struggle to maintain its democratic character, fast-moving regional and international developments are in need of addressing. Friends and allies are deeply concerned with the country’s constitutional crisis, potentially re-evaluating their relations with the Jewish state.

Former prime minister of Israel Ehud Barak lays out his views on the complexities of domestic and international challenges facing Israel today.

Questions covered include:

• What are the main root causes of the current constitutional crisis, and how could it be best resolved?
• Could the current situation lead to a breakdown of the political system, even widespread violence?
• How could the current circumstances in Israel and Palestine affect relations between the two and any prospect for peace negotiations?
• How will US-Israel relations stand up against China’s influence in the region?
• What is Israel’s interpretation of the war in Ukraine and how is the country affected?

As with all member events, questions from the audience drive the conversation.

Concerns are mounting over whether the NHS can meet key performance targets this winter, NHS Providers has said, after a survey of trust leaders highlighted pressure on hospitals, ambulance services, and community and mental health teams.1Over nine in 10 of the leaders who responded (96%) said that they were extremely or moderately concerned about the effect of winter pressures on their trust and local area. The most common reasons for concerns related to financial constraints and staffing provision. The top three greatest risks to the provision of high quality patient care over winter were identified as delayed discharge (57%), social care capacity (49%), and acute care bed capacity (43%).NHS Providers surveyed 171 trust leaders from 118 trusts in September and October, accounting for 56% of the provider sector.Most trust leaders (79%) were worried or very worried about whether their trusts had capacity to meet demand for services over the next...

At a recent clinical meeting, I heard that GPs local to me are about to lose the ability to request magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for patients presenting with musculoskeletal symptoms. We’re instead advised to refer our patients to a musculoskeletal clinical assessment and triage service (CATS)—staffed largely by musculoskeletal advanced practitioners, who will assess our patients and determine whether imaging is warranted.The hope is that fewer patients will have unnecessary imaging and that this will reduce the potential harms of overdiagnosis. Radiologists rarely report musculoskeletal MRI scans as entirely normal, and it can be hard to know what to do with abnormal findings on an MRI. More often than not, patients with abnormal scans are referred to orthopaedic teams, even though there may not necessarily be a surgical target.At a population level, this is problematic on two fronts. Firstly, MRI scans are expensive and need to be used judiciously....

Q&A: Maria Kolesnikova The World Today rescobales.drupal 29 September 2021

The jailed Belarusian opposition activist says: ‘It’s worth it’

Earlier this month, the Belarusian opposition activists, Maria Kolesnikova and Maxim Znak, were sentenced to long prison terms on charges of conspiring to seize power and crimes against national security. Both Kolesnikova, a prominent musician, and Znak, a lawyer, are supporters of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who ran against President Alexander Lukashenka in last year’s election and is now in exile in Lithuania. European Union countries have called for all political detainees, including Kolesnikova, to be released, but so far these calls have fallen on deaf ears. Alistair Burnett interviewed Maria Kolesnikova.

What is your response to the verdict and the 11-year sentence handed down to you?

My conscience is clear. We didn’t break the law. We followed the law at all the stages of the electoral campaign.

After the verdict, we applauded when the judges left the courtroom. They fulfilled their despicable role in this historical process – now this decision is on their conscience.

It is impossible to take the court and the verdict in any way seriously. This is not a verdict on Maxim and me but on the authorities themselves, on the system itself.

It is evidence not only of a legal default, but of a system-wide default. I feel sorry for those who did not understand what happened and did not learn history’s lessons.

Your trial was held behind closed doors and you were charged with conspiring to seize power and crimes against national security. What can you tell us about the prosecution’s case against you?

If there had been any evidence against us, the trial would have been open.

The very existence of accusations like this denies people the potential to participate in election campaigning and in political activity generally. It also prohibits public criticism of the authorities.

Such a judgment and verdict is a Pandora’s box with far-reaching negative consequences.

After the crackdown over last year’s protests and now your sentencing, what is the state of the opposition within Belarus?

I am in prison, so it is hard for me to judge objectively people’s attempts to fight for their freedom and basic human rights. According to what I see on TV, as well as the mood of those few people I have had a chance to talk to, I can say that the authorities are scared by the people’s activism.

They understand that though they can put down protests, they can’t change people’s mindsets. I see the fear in their eyes. I also believe that even those outside of Belarus can do a lot, and it’s important to continue opposition activity both inside and outside the country.

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya has been visiting European countries and the United States to maintain their support. Has international pressure, including from human rights groups, had any effect on the Lukashenka government?

I will use this opportunity to say hi to Sviatlana: ‘You are amazing. Keep it up.’

I’m sure Lukashenka is scared. He turned from a person who meets presidents to talk about Ukraine into an outcast no one wants to shake hands with.

It is traumatic for him, but the fear will pass. He will get used to it.

That is why it’s important to think about the next step, to understand what American and European partners are ready to offer Lukashenka in return for him to change course. If they aren’t ready to offer him anything – it’s important to know how long they are ready to maintain the pressure.

It concerns Russia as well. Maybe they simply don’t understand that Lukashenka and his government are in a bad way.

To what extent do you believe the futures of the Lukashenka and Russian President Vladimir Putin are now intertwined?

Lukashenka is a famous manipulator. Almost 30 years in power has made his self-preservation instincts automatic. It’s a tactical choice. There’s nothing behind it besides the willingness to stay in power till he dies.

But a trapped person is a dangerous and unreliable partner. It won’t remain like this for a long time. His partners will sooner or later face unpleasant surprises.

What can the international community do?

Hundreds of political prisoners, thousands in exile, tens of thousands arrested, fined, subjected to violence, and the media and businesses are being destroyed. The authorities are at war with their own people and leading the country into an abyss.

The support of the international community is very important for Belarusians. We need to look for an opportunity to start a dialogue, both within the country and with international partners.

Why did last year’s protests last as long as they did? Was it the relative youth of the protesters; the use of social media; the prominence of women; and did COVID restrictions play any part?

For me, the protests aren’t the main thing. The transformation of Belarusian society is the most important thing.

Most Belarusians decided what they want to see in their county: Belarus as a free, democratic, sovereign country. And the current authorities aren’t able to provide that.

Regarding new technology, of course, it gives more opportunities for people to organize, however, social media users are still the minority in Belarus. Everything happened on a deeper level after being built up over time through people’s real-life experience.

Throughout the campaign, I have been surprised by the fact that most of the activists are middle-aged people from different professions. There were plenty of women who expressed their objection first.

Through the situation with COVID, we gained a new experience of solidarity and mutual assistance, so when the government turned against the people, we realized then how many we were.

Looking back now at the protests, would you do anything differently and have you learned lessons for the future?

We definitely have more appreciation for what we already have. We appreciate our amazing journalists, our civil society, and private businesses. And, of course, our upcoming victory.

What could we have done differently? We could have been more consistent in terms of our willingness to resolve the crisis quickly and painlessly for the country. We were calling for dialogue in August, and then we had this unfortunate period of ultimatums that damaged both sides.

The situation is different now, and everything is more complicated. The moment has gone, and I don’t think that negotiation or national dialogue in the form we expected a year ago is possible anymore.

We had to make very hard choices many times, but the most important thing is that we never deviated from our principles and values - the fairness of the law, kindness, respect and love. I believe it is the only right way.

How can you now achieve your goal of removing President Lukashenka from power?

To be a politician in Belarus nowadays means to be in prison. In this way, I can contribute to the common endeavor. It’s not our objective, though.

Our objective is a country free of current and future forms of authoritarianism.

How to free the country? On the one hand, we all have to maintain our effort, cohesion and solidarity. We should try not to lose that. On the other hand, we should focus on limiting the political space for the government. We should show that the system will have to deal with us, the Belarusians.

Thirdly, we have to think about the future of Belarus. We have to dream about it, believe in it and stay active. Everything is up to us.

You were a musician before becoming active in politics. Has music shaped your approach to political activism and have you had the chance to continue playing in detention?

The artistic path shapes the personality. Of course, teamwork, looking for unusual solutions, and the ability to stay concentrated and work for a long time in critical situations, as well as performing in public, is what I’ve been learning my whole life as a musician.

Management of contemporary art projects and partnerships with businesses, like with Viktar Babaryka, the former presidential candidate, for example, gave me even more experience.

I miss music a lot, but in Belarusian prisons, even books aren’t really allowed. I don’t have an opportunity to play.

Do you have any regrets about your decision to become involved in opposition politics?

I consider my decision to participate in the campaign the most important and responsible one of my life. I knew it would be hard, but the future of the nation is at stake. So it’s worth it. My love for Belarus and Belarusian people didn’t allow me to stay aloof.

Undercurrents: Europe's far-right educational institutions Audio bhorton.drupal 8 October 2021

In Hungary, France and Spain, new political movements from the far-right are attempting to reshape their education systems.

Under the supportive eye of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the recently established National University of Public Service seeks to embed nationalist illiberal values in a new generation of Hungarian students. Meanwhile in France and Spain, far-right public figure Marion Maréchal has turned away from the electoral politics of the Front Nationale to set up a new conservative research institute, ISSEP.

Both of these developments represent a challenge to the liberal values which underpin the existing international order. To find out more, Ben spoke with Professor Dorit Geva and Dr Felipe Santos, whose recent article in International Affairs considers the implications of this illiberal educational turn. 

How do Eurasian kleptocracies earn and use their money? 9 November 2021 — 1:00PM TO 2:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 22 October 2021 Chatham House and Online

This event explores the presence of corrupt funds from Eurasia in Western democracies, what they are used for, and how they can be constrained.

The Pandora Papers once again shone the spotlight on the UK being home to corrupt funds from kleptocracies, where the ruling elite abuse their political power for private gain.

In recent years much focus has been placed on this term, and the possible effects such money could have on Western democracies.

• How do such states create this wealth in the first place?
• How do these funds make their way to the UK?
• Is the term kleptocracy appropriate for the majority of countries in Eurasia?
• What evidence is there that such funds are ‘weaponized’ to achieve foreign policy goals?

This event discusses the term, how it can be applied, and the differences between how ’grey’ funds are used by various countries. It also highlights how the UK and the wider international community can counteract these flows, both from a legal point of view, and via other methods.

Belarus-EU border crisis reveals wider security threat Expert comment NCapeling 8 December 2021

By engineering a crisis at the Belarus border, Lukashenka is attempting to exacerbate vulnerabilities within the EU. Securitizing migration is not the answer.

When thousands of migrants began freezing to death in the forests on the Belarus border with Poland, Belarusian leader Aliaksandr Lukashenka was forcing the European Union (EU) into a tough choice – either give in to blackmail and welcome migrants whose attempts to trespass the EU border were a result of his policy of luring them to Belarus to put pressure on the EU, or keep the borders closed and declare solidarity with Poland despite its known mistreatment and illegal pushbacks of potential asylum-seekers.

Lukashenka’s action was aptly exploiting three key pressure points of the EU – as a normative power where the human dignity of migrants is overlooked while the European border and coastguard agency Frontex stands by, as a geopolitical actor seeking to externalize its migration problem by signing readmission agreements with transit countries, and as a community of values with the EU-Poland dispute over rule of law.

His approach is typical ‘dictaplomacy’ and democracies which have confronted such a ‘continuation of war by other means’ in their past dealings with dictatorships know that blackmail mostly serves to divert attention away from a rogue leader’s misdemeanours towards his own population. But if this had been game of chess the EU would have been in check.

Thankfully checkmate was avoided – so far – as a compromise was found following weeks of heightened diplomatic efforts. Lukashenka was forced to back-pedal and take care of the migrants, and no humanitarian corridor was needed as the EU sent funds and took measures to support organizations providing shelter for the migrants in Belarus, while airlines and governments in the source countries were pressured to restrict flights to Minsk and started repatriating part of the migrants.

Causing a nuisance

‘Operation Gateway’ – the outline of which was allegedly drawn several years ago and tested by Russia in 2016 at its own borders with Norway and Finland – certainly caused a nuisance, but it ultimately backfired as Lukashenka now has to manage the remaining 2,000-5,000 migrants who refused to be flown back, as well as facing increased international sanctions. However, the fact that Angela Merkel had to personally call him made it look as if Lukashenka did not back down for nothing.

The EU and NATO, including the UK, only reacted collectively to this crisis once it was already out of hand, leaving questions over whether this experience of Lukashenka’s dictaplomacy is a wake-up call to boost resilience against rogue warfare, and to upgrade strategic assessments of the ‘Lukashenka problem’ too.

Back in June, the Belarus ministry of foreign affairs (MFA) announced its withdrawal from the Eastern Partnership and the visa facilitation and readmission agreement with the EU, while Lithuania sent early warnings about a ‘hybrid attack’ at its own border with Belarus. In August, Der Spiegel reported details of an alleged smuggling scheme whereby Tsentr Kurort – a company closely linked to the Administration of the President of Belarus with offices in the Middle East – was handling the shipping, accommodation, and relocation of migrants.

The smuggling of migrants was entirely predictable as Lukashenka has hinted many times Belarus could stop ‘protecting the EU from armed migrants’ seeking to enter it illegally. He has upped his rhetoric beyond notions of hybrid warfare by saying he needs Russian nuclear-capable bombers to ‘help him navigate the migrant crisis’, even hinting Belarus could station both Russian nuclear weapons and S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems. This shows Lukashenka is feeling increasingly cornered – which could lead to more unpredictable security crises.

Russia and Belarus are deepening relations

Although there is no smoking gun pointing to direct Russian involvement in orchestrating the hybrid attack at the EU’s borders, a new step in the military rapprochement between the two countries came when Putin and Lukashenka approved a new Military Doctrine of the Union-State of Russia and Belarus – a non-public document including a joint concept of migration policy. Lukashenka has also come off the fence over Crimea by openly accepting the legality of the peninsula’s integration with Russia.

Given Russia is also sabre-rattling over Ukraine, the risk of an accidental escalation into armed conflict is increasing in what feels like a return to classic Cold War logic, with the difference that the East is now offensively using the South for confronting the West. In recognition of the threat, the UK has joined the US, Canada, and the EU in the fresh sanctions on Belarus.

Ukraine exposes Europe’s double standards for refugees Expert comment NCapeling 30 March 2022

As European governments provide swift protection assurances to those fleeing Ukraine, non-European asylum-seekers continue to face violence at the EU’s borders.

One month after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Union (EU) already faces its largest refugee crisis since World War Two, with more than ten million people having fled their homes – 6.5 million displaced within Ukraine and 3.9 million escaping to neighbouring countries.

Acting quickly and decisively, European governments have opened borders and European citizens have opened their homes in an unprecedented showing of solidarity towards refugees. But, with all eyes on Ukraine, the Greek coastguard continues to illegally push back asylum-seekers crossing from Turkey while Spanish police forcefully repel those who dare to jump the fence in Melilla.

The painful contrast exposes the double standards in the EU’s approach to refugees. With Europe’s grim history of restrictive asylum policies, it is wishful thinking that the warm welcome to Ukrainians will extend to all asylum-seekers. The EU solidarity to displaced Ukrainians illustrates the deeply politicized – and often discriminatory – nature of providing refugee protection.

However, the hope is this turning point in European history can at least set an important precedent for treating refugees more humanely. Undoubtedly, EU solidarity towards people fleeing the horrors of Putin’s war is critically important and the initial response is positive in its efforts to meet immense humanitarian needs.

Solidarity with Ukrainians

The EU activation of the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) is a significant step towards a more humane protection regime and fairer responsibility-sharing among member states. Without the need for the examination of individual applications, those fleeing Ukraine can access harmonized rights across the EU for three years – including residence, housing, medical assistance, and access to the labour market and education.

The TPD is also a move away from the strict ‘Dublin’ rules which put the pressure of hosting refugees onto the countries of ‘first arrival’. Ironically, the fiercest opponents of intra-EU solidarity, such as Poland and Hungary, are the ones benefiting from this change now but, in the case of Ukraine, geographical proximity and shared histories must be considered when analysing Europe’s response.

Eastern European and Baltic countries share a post-Soviet history and fear of Russian aggression, and Ukrainians already enjoyed 90 days of visa-free travel in the EU – with a large diaspora, many have established networks across Europe. But even considering these distinctive connections with Ukrainian displacement, the initial response still shows that European countries have both the political will and the capacity to host refugees.

Unlike the usual – often media-fuelled – narratives of refugee ‘invasions’ into Europe, the waves of women and children leaving Ukraine prompted a surge of humanitarian action but they are also a chilling reality check of Europe’s double standards.

The EU has used agreements with countries such as Turkey and Libya to prevent arrivals and outsource asylum responsibilities, while border violence, detention, and lengthy asylum procedures await the few asylum seekers who manage to enter Europe from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

These ‘fortress Europe’ legacies have even undercut the humanitarian response in Ukraine, with reports of incidents of discrimination towards people of colour at the EU borders being condemned by the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU), the media facing allegations of racist reporting, and comments from Bulgarian PM Kiril Petkov providing a stark reminder of the islamophobia, racism, and history of colonization which still pervades European asylum policies.

Foreign policy also influences how EU leaders treat the right to asylum, as the geopolitics of Europe’s efforts to create a united front against Russian aggression is an undercurrent to the prompt European response to Ukrainians. But only a few months ago, non-European asylum-seekers trapped in freezing forests at the Poland-Belarus border were used as political pawns by Belarusian leader Aliaksandr Lukashenka and then dehumanised as a ‘hybrid attack’ by EU leaders.

A turning point for asylum in Europe?

Despite entrenched discriminatory precedents, it is worth looking ahead at this moment of reckoning. Although policy changes remain far off, the unity shown over Ukraine can help reshape and refocus political efforts towards increased responsibility-sharing among EU member states – the perennial ‘hot potato’ of the EU asylum system.