Many may argue that being an and a small state will not give St. Vincent and the Grenadines any sufficient weight in the future discussions at the council to bring forward its agenda focused on and raising awareness of the impact of on small island states. However, this view dismisses the pivotal role small states play in shaping international law and upholding its tenets at the council, especially when tensions between permanent members jeopardize chances of securing resolutions.

Ranging from Malta’s introduction of the Law of the Sea, Guyana’s definition of the concept of “aggression” and New Zealand’s recent contribution to the protection of health care in armed conflict, small states actively to the defense, promotion and enhancement of principles of international law. In the context of numerous crises and turmoil at the council, the election of St. Vincent and the Grenadines is welcome, as it can demonstrate how necessary small states are to policy debates.

Spiraling into Crisis

Since the start of 2019, the UN Security Council has failed to sustain a or resolve divisions between council members on the emergencies in Yemen and Venezuela, not to mention other crises in limbo, such as Eastern Ukraine and Libya. To date, the council appears and political sparring games, especially among its permanent members. International cooperation seems to be at a low point. However, the council’s inaction, coupled with irreconcilable differences over select issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among others, risks to , undermining its broader credibility and escalating international tensions.

To address the ongoing fragmentation of UN diplomacy, the International Crisis Group that “Security Council members should preserve the forum’s utility by finding compromises where possible — such as on Sahel military missions, Libya and Venezuela — while accepting that some disputes may be intractable.” Ongoing tensions between permanent members contribute to this fragmentation. Positions taken by the Trump administration upset its traditional allies like France and Britain. Instead of focusing on joint efforts to stabilize the Sahel region and especially Mali, endlessly over the costs and goals of UN and non-UN military missions in the region, without reaching a consensus.

Last year, the United States has because it insisted on humanitarian provisions and accountability for war crimes that would limit the Saudi-UAE operations. While such tensions between the US and its traditional allies occurred in the past, especially regarding the 1956 Suez Crisis and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, current divisions demonstrate how President Donald Trump is of the UN and its usefulness to his administration. His latest decisions on moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem last year and recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory this March undermine what the Europeans have always cherished, namely that the UNSC remains an as a source of diplomatic leverage.

Let’s not forget two other worrying patterns increasingly present at the council: a climate of distrust between the Western powers, China and Russia, as well as growing tensions between permanent and elected members, especially expressed by at the council’s handling of the continent’s affairs. While China often joins Russia in abstentions, its continues to be opaque. Russia’s positions on Ukraine and Syria often bring UN diplomacy to a sudden halt.

Elected members, who have united in their with the permanent members’ management of the council in the last two decades, also remain divided. Germany is siding with France to showcase a European front. Indonesia and South Africa, on the other hand, promote a more that questions Western initiatives, and often side with China and Russia on controversial issues such as the Venezuela crisis.

While the council signals the overall poor state of , it united to impose powerful sanctions on North Korea during the and to back the in 2018. Elected members have also attempted to make the council more efficient. Sweden played a last year in shaping the peace efforts in Yemen. The success achieved by Sweden exemplifies what a small state can do without the burden of being a permanent member or a large state.

Small Voices

Small states have comparative advantages over larger states, since they can more effectively without being hampered by a large and impersonal bureaucracy, as well as focus on fewer and more specialized issues that enable them to develop expertise in areas. For instance, Costa Rica the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty, later adopted by the UN General Assembly. As a recent highlights, small states can serve as “effective champions of rules-based order” and international law in a system dominated by large powerful states.

The work of small states to push for humanitarian action in Syria exemplifies how small nations can between rival members at the council, especially among P5 members. Small states such as played a pivotal role in brokering consensus on sensitive humanitarian issues and the protection of medical care in Syria, which led to the adoption of three resolutions (2139, 2165 and 2286). While these efforts still need to be translated into reality on the battlefield, such achievements demonstrate the ability of small states to give to international issues and, in doing so, to increase advocacy and accountability.

It is in the interest of small states to safeguard and uphold international law standards, because if the system deteriorates, their global standing will likely be jeopardized and be put at risk due to their limited military capacity. The example of Kuwait illustrates this point, when the UNSC the use of military force to compel the withdrawal of an invading Iraqi army in 1990. The council is viewed by small states as a , even if the council takes what Sir Adam Roberts, a senior research fellow in international relations at Oxford University, to as a “system of selective diplomacy,” especially when a permanent member is engaged in a conflict, such as the current standoff between Russia and the US over Ukraine at the Security Council.

Jim McLay, New Zealand’s former permanent representative to the UN, stresses that small states have a strategic interest to safeguard the UN system and defend principles of international law to ensure their participation as “equal partners in global discussions.” Also, by becoming defenders of international law principles and humanitarian standards, small states enhance their credibility as well as the legitimacy of the UNSC, which should always remember its under international law.

With fewer resources, smaller diplomatic representations and a higher chance to be influenced by the military or economic power of larger states, small states face numerous challenges in having their on the international scene, in particular at the UNSC, since they do not benefit from having veto powers or a permanent status. The of international law by Bolivia and Sweden regarding the legality of the US, UK and French coalition airstrikes in Syria last April also showed that small states do not stand united in the application and interpretation of international law, even if small states are more “” to be defenders of such principles. Small states also face an by larger and powerful governments determined to enforce their objectives on the rest of the world.

While in principle the UN system guarantees sovereign equality, for historical reasons most of the influence lies of the permanent members. Small states need to maneuver policy debates strategically to boost their credibility in the eyes of the permanent members. The election of St. Vincent and the Grenadines gives the opportunity for small states to that “small size is no obstacle to contributing meaningfully to resolution of issues that confront the world.” Therefore, one hopes that St. Vincent and the Grenadines will be able to do exactly that as a small state defender of international law during its term as an elected member of the UN Security Council starting in September 2019.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can Small States Help Balance the UN Security Council? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

People regularly confuse Antarctica with the Arctic, thinking that polar bears and penguins cross paths. The latter is an ocean surrounded by different islands with a permanent population of about 4 million. is indeed surrounded by water, but it is the world’s highest, driest, windiest and coldest continent. However, some see climate change as an opportunity. enables ships to have access to Antarctica’s nutrient-rich waters. Polar resources there range from krill to oil and could soon be up for grabs if the Antarctic Treaty System fails to safeguard marine protected areas.

Antarctica faces dramatic, but largely unnoticed, geopolitical changes with tremendous implications for the continent. Like in the Arctic, an overt race has started. Russia and China have recently demonstrated that they are preparing to grab polar resources in Antarctica. The expansion of Sino-Russian capabilities in the region is agitating New Zealand and Australia to provide a military response. The current build-up of military and strategic capabilities in the region will soon put the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in 1959 to preserve Antarctica and protect it from economic and political interests, to the test.

In 2018 China published its first  on its Arctic policy, demonstrating its support of the international legal regime and its recognition of the sovereignty of Arctic states, following up on its 2017 to co-operation on and investment in Antarctic scientific projects and abiding by the treaty system. However, this “” received mixed responses from the eight Arctic states, and especially from Australia and New Zealand, who feel threatened by China’s expansionism.

As per  of Canterbury University in New Zealand, “China needs to clearly signal its intentions and strategic interests in the Antarctic, as other Antarctic states have done before them.” China’s use of underwater vehicles to for gas hydrates and metallic nodules in the South China Sea is a stark example of what could soon be happening in Antarctica. The journey of the Chinese ice-breaker Haibing 722 in January 2017 was a that China wants to become a “,” especially in light of its investment in a Polar Silk Route in the Arctic. With four research stations, the of the 53 signatories to the Antarctic Treaty has the presence and capabilities to assert a claim in the future.

China is not alone in the Great Antarctic Game. Russia, the great polar power of the north, has been in this region long before the Middle Kingdom. Now both of them are carving up the continent not only for the purpose of scientific research, but also for the of its resources, including large mineral deposits. Unsurprisingly, Russia has repeatedly thwarted attempts to create a protected wildlife area in Antarctica, taking its time to  to the Ross Sea sanctuary that China has  earlier; along with Norway, the two nations have blocked an attempt to create the world’s largest marine reserve in the last year.

Relying on Soviet-era bases, Russia is expanding activities in the region, from building runways and a rival to the American GPS system, to naval expeditions for the . With its strategic position in the Arctic, Russia has set eyes on Antarctica to become a polar superpower.

Naval drills held jointly by China and Russia in the and the Russian region put to question the future of Sino-Russian relations. China has been relying on Russia’s already established capabilities in Antarctica to fuel its expansion. However, China has announced that it will soon begin to build its own to support its five research bases. China has the advantage of playing with neutrality to advance its agenda. Russia relies on its capabilities left over from Soviet times and its strategic geographical positioning in the Arctic.

China is navigating the situation in both the Arctic and Antarctica very smartly by creating economic and diplomatic alliances with Russia but avoiding an economic backlash by the West for doing so. Russia benefits from its strategic geographical position, and China wants to capitalize on that by bringing the cash. The strength of Chinese foreign policy comes from its neutral standpoint, which means that it can simultaneously engage with Russia, America or Europe without the pressure of having to take a side. Chinese diplomacy has shown so far to be . But it would not be surprising if Beijing’s approach turns aggressive and provocative once China has firmly secured its airfield in Antarctica.

The Antarctic Treaty, which will be up for , is of Cold War vintage and is falling apart as “” intensifies, with the competition for natural resources, research and tourism heating up. Scientists and diplomats that the current system will fail to safeguard Antarctica from growing economic and strategic competition. After US President Donald Trump of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a new cold war could well be under way, played out in the polar regions.

New Zealand is also getting in on the game. In a recent , Wellington declared its ambition to assert in Antarctica. “It is often not known,” said New Zealand’s Defense Minister Ron Mark, that its military’s “biggest deployment is to Antarctica, consisting of up to 220 personnel and different airlift platforms.” New Zealand has a pending claim on the Ross Sea, which is not only the most important access point to the continent, but also thought to possess one of the world’s largest oil reserves.

Both Australia and New Zealand worry that China’s military activities in Antarctica are upsetting the last 70 years of peaceful strategic balance in both Antarctica and Asia Pacific. They fear the rise of the Chinese dragon and its insatiable appetite for resources. As American allies they are the bulwarks against China, the new rising global power, and Russia, the formidable bear always hungry for more. The game of alliances seems to have started within the backdrop of a future international conflict. Which one will become the great polar superpower? This remains an open-ended question.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Who Will Be Crowned the Polar Superpower? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A new revolution is on its way in the country that invented the guillotine. A new emperor, more at home at the gilded palaces of Rothschild and the winding corridors of power, is now asking his people to eat cake when they often can’t afford a simple baguette. French President Emmanuel Macron is woefully out of touch and his people have taken again to the streets as a result. Across France, a tired police force of 89,000 will be facing mobs on December 15, a fifth consecutive weekend of protests. A top police chief has declared that this level of violence is On December 5, mobs burned down a famous law firm, two high schools and several cars in Paris. They looted shops in the historic Place Vendôme and Rue de Rivoli.

The “gilets jaunes,” as the protesters have come to be known because of their high-visibility yellow vests, were joined by high school students, road transport unionists and farmers. On December 3, after students rallied to protest against the latest education reforms. Road transport unions, the General Confederation of Labor (CGT) and the Workers’ Force (FO) union syndicates have . These mass protests are testing the mettle of a feckless government.

The gilets jaunes and other protesters have united out of Some hold the view that he suffers from pervers narcissique. In simple English, Macron could best be described as a smooth-talking . When abroad, the French president conveys an image of a liberal and progressive leader who is holding back the mighty tide of populist nationalism, saving France and Europe from disaster in the process. At home, this image does not quite wash. For too many, he represents France’s out-of-touch, elite, business school-trained political upper class that can no longer hear or empathize with the people’s concerns.

Macron came to power in 2017 claiming to be an outsider. His La République En Marche! movement was supposed to liberate France from the shackles of party politics. Literally meaning “the republic on the move,” the party has now fizzled out to give way to a revolution on the march. The protests have led to a climate of fear in the country. Even though the government has caved in and withdrawn fuel tax hikes that sparked the protests, popular unrest continues. This plays into the hands of Marine Le Pen’s renamed far-right National Rally party, which now has a much better shot at the Élysée.

THE CLASH OF THE CLASSES

Once the gilets jaunes movement started, testimonies of thousands of people have been pouring out on social media. One of these has . Paul is a 40-year-old delivery driver who lives in the north of France. He earns the minimum salary of €1,184 ($1,337) a month. He has three children and a wife, who doesn’t work. They live hand-to-mouth, with no money left after food, utility bills and rent. He is not poor enough to get full state benefits and not rich enough to lead anything but a hardscrabble life. The €600 per month that Paul gets in social benefits is barely enough for his family to get by. Paul’s family may not be living in heartrending poverty seen in the developing world, but this sort of dilution of living standards goes against France’s ideals.

Macron’s reforms seem to be hitting people like Paul the hardest. Some of the ills of the Anglo-Saxon system have infected France too. The recently disgraced Carlos Ghosn, the chief executive of the leading French car manufacturer Renault, was than the lowest-paid worker at the company and remains in his job despite . It comes as no surprise that gilets jaunes are looting, , plundering and burning shops selling luxury items and cars. Muriel Pénicaud, the minister of labor, has admitted that for lower classes to make ends meet. She is planning to reverse this problem by decreasing the cost of social contributions and increasing the minimum wage.

France’s convoluted laws and infamous red tape do not help. On December 5, went to court for selling bread seven days a week. French law imposes one day off per week for all businesses, facing a €3,000 penalty if they don’t comply. The bakers argued that if they respected the law, they would have to fire two of their employees and  their shop. In light of such trying economic circumstances, restrictive laws have to go. They were once drafted with good intentions but now pave the way to a Kafkaesque hell.

Parisians from the posh 8th and 16th districts have called upon the to protect their elegant Haussmann mansions. They accuse gilets jaunes of being a disorganized mob engaged in . So far, the government has been unable to protect the wealthy neighborhoods, sparking fear among France’s elite. At heart is a clash over a vision for France. The richer sections of society want to make France more like the US and the UK. For them, the Rothschild banker is the perfect president trimming down a bloated French state à la Margaret Thatcher.

For others, this is the wrong way forward. They want to reinstate higher taxes for the super wealthy, if not the wealthy. Marielle de Sarnez challenged Macron in parliament, declaring that it is time to rewrite the in favor of the struggling masses. It is important to remember that this discontent with the government is not new. Both Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande were failed one-term presidents who fell prey to popular disillusionment. Macron rose to power exploiting that sentiment.

Ironically, he was the one who extended working hours in 2015 as minister of the economy. Emmanuel Valls, then-prime minister, relied on Article 49.3 of the French Constitution to pass the law . Macron’s new reforms aimed at attracting capital back to France to “” are old wine in a new bottle that elites have been trying to sell for years. Those not so privileged are pushing back against this very phenomenon by the proverbial French method of taking to the barricades.

END OF PROJECT MACRON

Emmanuel Macron was always overrated by the media, particularly in Britain and America. He won in the first round of elections in 2017, with Le Pen coming second with 21.3%. In the second round, the French rallied behind Macron as they did behind Jacques Chirac . On both occasions, they wanted to keep the far right from coming to power, but at the last election, Marine Le Pen did much better than her father, former National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen. Her party gained 50% more votes than it did in 2002.

By displaying a tin ear to the concerns of the gilets jaunes, Macron may have signed his political death warrant. The president treated the movement as another strike, which are common in France, but failed to realize that this time the mood was more sombre. In contrast to Sarkozy, who faced 100 days of in the outskirts of Paris in 2005, the gilets jaunes marched down the Champs Élysées and seized the Arc de Triomphe — the monument to modern France. This is a national protest of who are asking for dignity, equity and social recognition they have lost in a system dominated by the top 1%. The gilets jaunes are not typical French rioters. They are ordinary citizens pushed against a wall who have been crushed by every president since Chirac.

Macron has two ticking time bombs on his hands: social unrest because of growing inequality and economic transition due to environmental concerns. Nicolas Hulot, the former minister for ecology, tried unsuccessfully to address both these problems. He took the view that the government must reconcile “.” That is what Macron promised to do, but so far Project Macron has failed completely and irrevocably.

To understand Project Macron, one has to study modern France. La grande nation prides itself as the home of liberty, equality and fraternity. Sadly, the reality differs from this ideal. In comparison to the United States, education is almost free. However, as Atul Singh wrote in 51�Թ� last year, the top “positions are monopolized almost entirely by é�Բ�����ܱ�� [graduates of the National School of Administration] and graduates of other grande écoles, the top French schools.” He points out how between 1987 and 1996, only 5.5% of é�Բ�����ܱ�� “hailed from working-class backgrounds” in contrast with graduates of Canada’s top schools where the number was 25-30%. As per Singh, “elite French schools perpetuate ‘a tiny caste-like aristocracy of wealth and brains’ that would make inbred Brahmins proud.” Success in France is only available to a few lucky ones who manage to get into the driving seat. Consequently, they make the system serve them, and not vice versa.

Today, France offers little . It suffers from archaic elitism that is not only unjust but also thwarts innovation. The French educational system does not teach or reward critical thinking. Instead, it teaches students to mold themselves into the system and become cogs in an economy of privilege. Outsiders have little room to breathe. As a result, the French are immigrating in large numbers even to former British colonies such as Singapore and .

France has a two-tier system of higher education. Public universities comprise the first, obliged to admit everyone with a high-school diploma but offering a low standard of education. The prestigious grandes écoles form the second tier. Created in the Napoleonic age, they were supposed to foster a meritocratic elite to run the French state. Out went l’ancien régime with its inherited privilege, in came the Napoleonic men of merit.

Over time, these elite schools have ossified and created an incestuous elite of their own. They judge merit through examinations that might be rigorous but reward conformity. More importantly, alumni of the grandes écoles have a on French politics, business, finance and diplomacy. Those who attend elite schools are top jobs for their lifetime. Over 80% of top executives in France’s 40 biggest companies — including Emmanuel Macron — come from just three of these schools. That might explain his inability to relate to modern-day sans-culottes who form the bedrock of the gilets jaunes movement.

Surviving in the Desert

The gilets jaunes are protesting because they are fed up with the elite that Macron belongs to. They no longer want to be bossed about by the é�Բ�����ܱ�� and want ladders to the top echelons of French society. Macron does not understand their concerns. His knee-jerk response is to at the problem. Despite concessions to increase the minimum wage by €100, cancel taxes on extra working hours as well as the latest tax imposed on low-income pensioners, the gilets jaunes are hungry for more meaningful changes within governmental institutions and structures to allow their voices to be heard. Macron has failed to address the two main issues gilets jaunes care about: more social mobility and a sustainable minimum living wage.

There is an inherent link, historically, between anti-fiscal protests and the withdrawal of public services, according to the historian . For people living in the countryside and the outskirts of large cities, it is a daily battle to find doctors, hospitals, centers for public services such as social security or taxes, nurseries and post offices. Without a doubt, the increase in the fuel tax hit a sensitive nerve. According to a recent , 11,300 municipalities lack doctors and other medical services. They have been labeled “medical deserts.” So under the underlying anti-fiscal protests, the gilets jaunes express anger toward the disparity between what they pay in taxes and what they perceive in terms of public services — which is not much.

What is also at stake is people’s participation in the making of political decisions. For the first time, protesters voice the thorny issue that challenges directly institutions. Condemning a political class that is not representatives of its people, gilets jaunes firmly demand the creation of a — a referendum based on the people’s initiatives. Already in place in certain European countries and very popular in , this system allows parliament to review a project of law if a certain amount of signatures is reached. In addition, the gilets jaunes also demand the power to revoke a political representative or change the constitution based on a citizen-led referendum.

The debate between  goes back to the 18th century. Montesquieu and Rousseau opposed each other on the issue. The gilets jaunes’ frustration echoes what Rousseau wrote regarding the social contract, namely that citizens become the slaves of parliamentarians once elected. The demands of today’s protesters echo those made during the French Revolution and should be listened to, because they deal with the essence democracy and citizens’ rights. When the future of the gilets jaunes movement is uncertain after the terrorist attack in Strasbourg on December 11, one would hope that politicians have listened and will act accordingly. Otherwise people will flock back in the streets.

The rallying cry Tous à la Bastille! — everyone to the Bastille — that has swept social media evokes 1789, the year the royal prison fell to a revolutionary mob. The gilets jaunes are harking back to those days of resurrection. Hopefully, this time posh Parisians will not remain as out of touch as the French royalty of yore.

*[Updated: December 17, 2018 at 23:00 GMT]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The People of France Want to Be Heard appeared first on 51�Թ�.

At the held in Tromso, Norway, the Norwegian Research Council stressed that the diminishing level of Arctic sea ice hit a record low. Ironically, this dire environmental reality opens up great economic prospects. As global warming leads to the melting of ice packs, parts of the Arctic Ocean are becoming accessible to navigation for the first time. Shipping companies have been investing in vessels that are able to break through thinning polar ice, as the Northern Sea Route is considerably shorter for many trade links between Europe and Asia. For centuries, explorers dreamt of such a route, but the Arctic ice stood in the way. Now that dream has become reality.

Recently, news headlines about the recent standoff between Russia and Ukraine in the Kerch Strait have been dominating public attention, while Russia’s increasing investment in the Arctic is going largely unnoticed. Whereas US President Donald Trump questions the reality of climate change, Russia takes a more pragmatic approach. Because of rising temperatures, the is becoming accessible to ships much more quickly than the US-Canadian side.

By betting on the diminishing ice sheet, Russia has taken several steps to get ahead of the game in terms of infrastructure and partners. It has commissioned a new generation of icebreakers capable of cutting through 7-foot-thick ice sheets, upgraded its Siberian ports, built a new $27-million facility on the Yamal Peninsula, invested in the biggest Arctic liquefied natural gas (LNG) project and built a railway from the LNG plant to Sabetta Port, which to Europe, China and South Korea.

The Arctic is a promising for Russia, and the melting ice has many implications. First, it increases Russia’s access to international trade, which was limited previously by the lack of seaports. Remember, the Great Game was all about Russia’s quest for warm waters, which led to conflict with the British Empire. Second, Russia ensures its national stability by maintaining oil and gas production. With more accessible Arctic seaports, Russia might emerge as a more prosperous and cohesive state.

Third, Russia is determined to look away from the West and toward the East for not only oil and gas sales, but also growing export markets. Fourth, as global warming causes the region’s ice sheets to melt, it will help Russia’s return on the global stage. Fifth, the Arctic opportunity gives Moscow a great chance to even scores with Europe, which has sided with the US in imposing sanctions on Russia. The pipeline projects underway in the might find new sources of funding from the Arctic trade, as well as a new immediacy.

The NORTHERN SEA ROUTE

In 2017, a traveled along the Northern Sea Route in record speed, followed this year by a ship making a winter crossing of the Arctic — both without an icebreaker for the . Such achievements open up great opportunities for Russia in the East. The Northern Sea Route, which takes 19 days, is some 30% quicker than the conventional southern shipping route through the Suez Canal. The Russian government that cargo along the northern passage will grow tenfold by 2020. notes that “climate change, retreating summer ice and the prospect of shorter journey times and 40% lower fuel costs has led Russia, European governments and some industries to expect a major ice-free shipping lane to open above Russia, allowing regular, year-long trade between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans within a few years.”

Russian enthusiasm for exploring this new Arctic passage has been questioned by a from the Copenhagen Business School (CBS), which states that the Northern Sea Route would only be commercially viable by around 2040. Some scientists push the estimate still further, to 2050. Even then, the CBS , the cost per container would be about 10% higher than going via the .

This assessment has not dampened Vladimir Putin’s ambitions. Recently, the Russian president cited the 18^th-century poet and scholar Mikhail Lomonosov’s prediction that Russia would expand through Siberia, : “Now we can safely say that Russia will expand through the Arctic this and next century. This is where the largest mineral reserves are located. This is the site of a future transport artery that I am sure will be very good and efficient: the Northern Sea Route.” Yet despite Putin’s determination, the viability of the Northern Sea Route remains uncertain and its immense environmental costs unclear.

Environmentalists and scientists have expressed concerns over the opening of the Northern Sea Route. No one has any idea about what the exploitation of polar resources and increased shipping traffic in the so-far largely pristine Arctic Ocean could lead to. No environmental risk assessments have been done yet. An oil spill could be disastrous in this fragile ecosystem. Cleaning up and containment would be difficult, if not impossible, due to extreme weather conditions and short winter days, as well as a lack of search and rescue stations. Few remember that only 7% of spilled oil was in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident around Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

The EU and nine of the world’s major fishing nations announced an agreement to for the next 16 years. While most welcomed this move, environmentalists and scientists raised the alarm on the fragility of polar ecosystems. According to , “the need to preserve them instead of merely exploiting resources made newly available by melting sea ice” is a higher priority than ever. Yet few point out the irony that “the rapidly warming Arctic seas are being used as a highway for fossil fuel transport.” In the words of Sarah North, senior oil strategist for Greenpeace International, “It’s like a heavy smoker using his tracheotomy to smoke two cigarettes at once.” While climate change is helping to fuel Russia’s moves in the Arctic, of the region will contribute to rising temperatures and accelerate global warming.

The Great Arctic Game

Already, tensions are increasing worldwide. Trade wars are escalating, and so are conflicts. The melting Arctic adds to the explosive cocktail. Russia, China and the US could well find themselves embroiled in another Cold War. These three superpowers have started a race to gain influence and control in the Arctic region. At stake are as much as $35 trillion worth of untapped oil and natural gas, , including gold, silver, diamond, copper, titanium, graphite, uranium and invaluable rare earth elements that could soon be within reach as the ice recedes.

With the largest number of icebreakers and either completed, in motion or proposed, Russia is the clear leader in Arctic infrastructure development. In 2017, Rosneft — Russia’s state oil company — marked a in the search for hydrocarbons when it found the first oilfield in the Laptev Sea in the eastern Arctic. The company aims to have account for 20-30% of Russian production by 2050.

The US has entered the Arctic Great Game in earnest. In January this year, the Trump administration opened up nearly all US offshore waters to , including areas on the outer continental shelf that had been blocked by the Obama administration and, more pertinently for the subject of this article, the north shore of Alaska, a part of which is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

As warming global temperatures opens up new sea lanes and economic opportunities, the new kid on the block has also jumped in. China has announced its Polar Silk Road project despite its lack of access to the Arctic. Using its position as an outsider to disputes between Russia, Europe and the US, and relying on its financial might, the Middle Kingdom is securing access to resources it cannot obtain through territorial claims.

Not only is China a stakeholder in the Arctic, it also has growing ambitions for a connected world with this ancient nation as the hub. Tellingly, the Chinese included the Arctic in its $1-trillion global infrastructure initiative. When US sanctions jeopardized the Russian Yamal LNG facility project, in financing to finish it. And Beijing is not confining its ambitions to Russia. In November 2017, Chinese companies agreed to develop liquefied natural gas natural gas in at a whopping cost of $43 billion.

US sanctions, which have prevented Western companies from participating in offshore Arctic projects, have also played into China’s hands. Putin is on record that Russia has to reduce its dependence on the US dollar. He has characterized the US sanctions policy as a “colossal strategic mistake” that has served to “undermine confidence in the dollar as a universal … reserve currency today.” In Russia, investors have found creative ways to circumvent US sanctions by switching to euros from dollars in the case of the Yamal LNG project. Yet in today’s world, there is only one economic power that can stand up to the US, and it is none other than China. Russia has agreed to the alternative payment systems of the Belt and Road initiative. This strengthens China’s hand not only in the Arctic, but also globally.

ANOTHER COLD WAR

When economic interests are at stake, military developments often tend to follow. Since 2012, Russia has rapidly developed its , with a focus on air and maritime technologies. Though the Arctic remains a difficult environment to operate in, Russian military presence is growing in the region. This has led to calls for increased Western military presence as a response. Russia has been coming to terms with the loss of its former vassal states since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Now, melting Arctic ice gives it a rare chance to have military superiority in a strategic theater with valuable sea lanes and rich resources.

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has said that have become attractive to many nations. Even as the US, Canada, Denmark and Norway try to assert jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic, Russia has warned of military confrontation. In 2014, the new Russian military doctrine added the in the Arctic region.

Historically, the United Nations’ Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLS) has regulated territorial disputes related to the expansion or the challenge of Arctic territorial boundaries quite successfully. In 2007-14, Denmark, Russia and Norway settled disputes and, in 2010, Russia and Norway signed a . The US has yet to the UNCLS, increasing risk of military confrontation.

The Northern Sea Route passes through Russia’s territorial waters, giving it the authority to set the rules. Recently, Russia changed the requirements for foreign warships navigating through its Arctic regions; they now have to give prior notification to the Russian Defense Ministry. While UNCLS permits the through territorial waters, the recent standoff between Russia and Ukraine in the Kerch Strait demonstrates the difficulties of applying international law in practice.

The situation in the Arctic differs greatly from the Antarctic. In the Southern Hemisphere, states have rules for cooperation and are members of an international forum. In the Northern Hemisphere, certain states have established sovereignty over parts of the Arctic region. Two of these, Russia and the US, are military giants, with China trying to muscle its way into the action through commercial, scientific and economic activities to legitimize future claims. The stage could be set for a true Cold War that may bring detrimental consequences for international security and cooperation, as well as the environment.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is a Real Cold War Heating Up in the Arctic? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Emmanuel Macron has just confirmed once again that he has the best interests of the wealthy at heart. A most recent example is the lower middle class-led that began on Saturday, November 17. Since then, demonstrators in yellow high visibility vests have been blocking roads, oil refineries, motorway tolls and major supermarket warehouses across France, especially at the periphery of major cities. The root of their discontent is not solely the new tax increase and a rise in fuel costs, which Macron justifies in the name of an ecological transition to a low-carbon economy. Instead, the French have erupted in fury and have marched down the Champs-Élysées because the latest tax hike is of the middle and lower classes.

Some analysts doubt whether the movement will gain momentum. Others believe differently. They think that the latest tax hike will rally people from various backgrounds and regions who are united by their disappointment with the president. Since his election in 2017, Emmanuel Macron has introduced or increased a variety of taxes. In March, thousands of marched through Paris in protest over higher social security taxes. While  Macron has and , he is taxing the poor more and slashing their benefits. Unsurprisingly, the former investment banker has earned the epithet “.”

Since April, Macron’s popularity has been declining. His labor-market reforms led to prolonged by railway unions. Then, the young president chose to attack the French social model for higher education. Currently, French students who pass the baccalaureate exam have the right to attend university in their area. Macron’s reform allows universities to select students on merit. broke out across the country just before the end-of-year exams. After the latest fuel hike protests, the so-called Macronmania is in free fall. Macron’s popularity has crashed to a new of 25%. It is clear that the “” is over and has been replaced by disillusionment.

TEARING UP THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Macron’s policies and reforms are informed by a simple calculus: He wants to make France more dynamic, just like the US and the UK. Curiously, he is doing so at a time when the Anglo-Saxon economic model stands discredited and weakened by the uncertainty of Brexit. No less than a fifth of the UK population now . Children and pensioners are experiencing the worst decline in living conditions in decades. UN special rapporteur, Philip Alston, found , many unable to break its vicious cycle.

Macron has decided that cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy is the best way to attract investment in France. This investment, combined with privatization of state-owned assets, should bring innovation, jobs and better growth. To achieve this, he must rip up France’s existing social contract and cut costs on its rather generous welfare state. As Owen Jones writes in , Macron’s “policies have shifted the workplace balance of power from workers to bosses.” While this comes as no surprise, voters seem to be suffering from memory loss. As economy minister under François Hollande, Macron pushed hard for aimed at unlocking economic growth. Today, as president, he is turning them into reality.

To be fair, the French social model has been under strain for a long time. The 2017 elections demonstrated deepening divisions in French society. The two candidates left standing in the final round were Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen. It was clear that the French, young and old, were willing to the system. Out went the traditional parties on the left and the right. In came two populists, one so-called centrist and the other from the far right. Macron owes his throne to the divisions in France, demonstrating that the center has moved to the right.

A VERY FRENCH SCHIZOPHRENIA

The very students who now oppose Macron were his greatest supporters who helped elect him in 2017 — he was the candidate for millennial voters from all social strata. He was young, good looking, telegenic, energetic and charismatic. The country of Napoleon likes flair, and Macron had a charming love story that sold well. His high school teacher, 25 years his senior, had fallen in love with him, abandoning her husband to marry her precocious student. This cool new Pied Piper seduced millennials with even greater ease than he had seduced his wife. For the young, Macron was their man.

Unfortunately, young French voters forgot to observe that Macron was an establishment man. He is an é�Բ�����ܱ�, a graduate of the elitist National School of Administration (). Last year, French businessman Alain Minc told the that Macron was the “perfect product of the French Republican monarchy.” This high flier graduated as an inspecteur des finances — an elite corps of the very highest-ranking graduates from ����ֱ���. At the height of the global financial crisis in 2008, Macron jetted off to Rothschild, eventually “earning €2.9m and a nickname — ‘the Mozart of finance’ — for his role advising Nestlé on its $12bn acquisition of a unit of Pfizer in 2012.” According to the Financial Times, the Mozart of finance made his fortune because he “mastered the art of networking and navigated around the numerous conflicts of interest that arise in close-knit Parisian business circles.” In other words, Macron was hardly the rebel or the outsider that French millennials imagined him to be.

Macron captures a very French schizophrenia among the young. On the one hand, they are still intoxicated by the memory of the heady days of 1968. They identify with socialist and radical culture. On the other hand, young people still imagine themselves to be important in the world. They might be disillusioned, but they still have both illusions and delusions of grandeur. It is this contradiction that made Macron attractive to them.

Macron’s image appealed to the radical counterculture of May 1968. At the same time, he was promising to modernize the country and put France center stage. His party, La République En Marche! (Republic on the Move!) change but never really defined it. He called himself a centrist, but no one asked him what that really meant. He never disclosed who funded his slick campaign. Yet what is indisputable is that Macron did run a brilliant campaign with meticulous attention to branding, marketing and messaging, which was especially successful in seducing millennials. The fact that these two impulses or desires of preserving the legacy of 1968 and of making the country hip in 2017 might ever be contradictory never occurred to Macron’s enthusiastic supporters.

��۱ʷ���鷡�������ճ���

French youngsters simply fail to realize that la grande nation is no longer the center of the world. They don’t see that time has passed France by. Paris is no London, New York, Singapore or Shanghai. France’s incestuous elite and infamous red tape continue to drive away talent. Yet most French youngsters overlook reality and stick to a perception of France that is nostalgic, wooly and even smug. They don’t think deeply, debate passionately or explore widely.

Admittedly, this situation is not unique to France. Not only the young but also the old in many parts of the world fail to discern the difference between reality and perception. Peter Isackson has written consistently about this new world of hyperreality, where image matters more than substance, where perception overrides reality. In this hyperreal world, the young have lost their ability to think critically. They no longer challenge established norms or institutions. They are ultra sensitive and shy away from debate. They fail to realize that anything meaningful or substantive is controversial, painful and unsafe.

In France and elsewhere, the young mouth platitudes to diversity, but remain slaves to conformity. There are few discussions or debates about immigration, inequality, social mobility, alternative economic models or even education. Paradoxically, as foreshadowed by the Dalai Lama in his “,” this much celebrated millennial generation has wider access to information, greater opportunities to travel and enormous potential to learn, but it is far less accepting of differences than earlier generations. Therefore, it is far more vulnerable to the hyperreality peddled by snake-oil salesmen.

Both Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron are two such salesmen. They might talk about the little people, but are to those with money. They sell dreams to their followers, but their actions undercut that very dreams they peddle. Neither Trump nor Macron have new ideas or sound policies, but their supporters still perceive them as saviors of their countries. Unless people break out of this hyperreal world and learn to think for themselves, we will have many such presidents of the rich.

Yet the tide can turn. , the most popular politician in Macron’s government and minister of ecological transition, has resigned in August over frustration with unfulfilled promises on environmental policy. Perhaps this latest tax and fuel hike could be a wake-up call, at least in France, for the people to challenge the president of the rich and create a politics based not on image, but on substance.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post For France, the Macron Honeymoon Is Over appeared first on 51�Թ�.