We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
A member of the Carabinieri gestures towards migrants outside the hotspot, on the Sicilian island of Lampedusa, Italy, September 16, 2023.
Migration makes strange bedfellows of Germany and Italy
German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier said during a visit to Italy that both countries had reached the “limits of [their] capacity” to accommodate migrants, and called for “fair distribution” of the burdens of migration across the European Union.
The background. In just the last week, over 11,000 people have landed on the Italian island of Lampedusa. They’re part of the 127,000 migrants who have landed in Italy in 2023, more than double the number who had arrived by this point in 2022.
Under current EU asylum regulations, migrants are required to apply for asylum in the member state to which they first arrive. Should they, say, leave Italy to try their chances with Germany’s relatively generous system, they’re to be deported back.
But Rome has recently been refusing to accept back asylum-seekers who leave, citing the disproportionate influx. That caused a row with Berlin, which announced last week it would suspend a voluntary agreement to take in 3,500 asylum seekers who had landed in Italy — before suddenly reversing course.
The European Union received over 519,000 asylum requests between January and June, a 28% year-on-year increase and the most since 2016. Germany fielded 30%, about as many as France and Spain combined. That’s not counting over a million Ukrainian refugees whom Germany hosts, far and away the most in Western Europe.
So when Meloni says the rest of the bloc needs to share the burden, it resonates in Berlin. It’s also in the SPD’s interest to be seen taking a more proactive anti-immigration stance, as their conservative rivals have recently revived the idea of a national migrant cap. It’s part of a larger shift on migration politics in Germany, as even SPD’s left-wing allies in the Green party call for tougher migration standards faced with the ascendance of the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland.
Convincing the rest of the bloc to step up will be difficult. Since migration to Europe from Syria spiked in 2015, the EU has struggled to find consensus on bloc-wide immigration policies due to conflicting pressures in the politics of each member state.
Can the US be a global leader on human rights?
Is it difficult to be a global leader on human rights when the US is facing such a challenging and divisive political environment?
GZERO World sat down with US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield at UN headquarters in New York ahead of the US taking over presidency of the Security Council for the month of August.
Ian Bremmer asked the ambassador about her priorities during the presidency, as well as how domestic issues in the United States impact her job as an international diplomat. Is it difficult to be a global leader on human rights when the US is facing such a challenging and divisive political environment?
“If we’re not talking about human rights around the world, no one else will,” Thomas-Greenfield said in an interview from the floor of the Security Council chamber, “I know that others appreciate that they can depend on the United States to be the voice of the people.”
While acknowledging the US is not perfect, Thomas-Greenfield says that when the US wasn’t sitting on the Human Rights Council during the previous administration, “people missed us, they needed us.” That gives her a clear path to make sure America’s voice is heard on things like human rights and humanitarian assistance.
“The United Nations is an important part of our history,” Thomas-Greenfield emphasized, “But it’s also an important part of our futures.”
Watch the full interview: Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld and on US public television. Check local listings.
- Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy ›
- UN official: Security Council Is “dysfunctional” - but UN is not ›
- Did the UN accomplish anything in Xinjiang? ›
- Women in power: Chile’s Michelle Bachelet ›
- Podcast: UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, human rights, & the Security Council presidency ›
Swedish NATO bid caught in Erdoğan reelection effort
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective from Stockholm, Sweden.
How is the process of accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO going?
Well, it's green light for Finland. After ratification by Hungary and Turkey, they've been playing some games, but now green light. Good, excellent. Sweden, they are still holding out. I think President Erdoğan sees this as an asset in his election campaign. There have been some issues with Sweden. I think they have been sorted out, but now it's a question of the politics of Turkey. President Erdoğan, of course, faces an extremely critical election May 14, first round his entire regime's up for grab, and he's holding Sweden hostage in a way that is not entirely good for the security of Europe.
What’s happening in the Mediterranean with refugees?
Well, that's a worrying situation. There have been three times as many refugees, migrants arriving across the Mediterranean to Italy the first few months of this year as last year. There's talk of 900,000 coming this year on planes and trains. There's a very disturbing and difficult situation in Tunisia, both in economic and political terms. Many are coming from Tunisia, but many are coming through Tunisia as well. Clearly it's an unsustainable situation. Can things be done in order to get things better on shape in Turkey? Can there be more solidarity in the European Union helping Italy? These are important question that needs answers.
- Finland’s next step ›
- What We’re Watching: Israel’s mass anti-corruption protests, Sweden’s NATO own goal, Germany's mixed signals ›
- What We’re Watching: Blinken’s Middle East chats, Erdogan’s bid to split Nordics, Peru’s early election, China offers baby incentives ›
- Europe plays the blame game over asylum-seekers ›
- What obligations do rich nations have when it comes to refugees? ›
What obligations do rich nations have when it comes to refugees?
The recent tragedy of the migrant boat that sunk off the coast of Italy and killed 64 people raises an important question: are European leaders taking the right approach to prevent migrants from risking their lives in the first place? On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer and David Miliband, the President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, discuss the complex and urgent nature of the migrant crisis and the need for effective solutions.
Miliband notes that migration is not just a European issue but a global one, with people “on the move more than ever before” due to persecution, war, and disaster. He emphasizes the need to “balance fairness with humanity” and “fulfill legal as well as moral obligations for people who have been driven from their homes.”
To address this challenge, Miliband outlines four key elements to fair, humane migration: fast processing of asylum claims, proper integration of those allowed to stay, addressing criminal elements that exploit the lack of legal migration routes, and creating legal routes for asylum-seekers and migrants to travel safely.
Miliband predicts that migration will be one of the biggest challenges for the rest of this century, as people in countries with a per capita income of less than $7,000 will continue to seek a better life elsewhere.
Watch the GZERO World episode: Challenge of survival/Problem of governance: Aid for Turkey & Syria
- The Graphic Truth: How many refugees does the US let in? ›
- No exit from Afghanistan ›
- Hard Numbers: UK-France migration deal, Amazon layoffs, Gabon's carbon credit mega-sale, North Korean crypto windfall, Lake's loss ›
- Europe plays the blame game over asylum-seekers ›
- The Graphic Truth: Migrants reach Italy by sea ›
- Swedish NATO bid caught in Erdoğan reelection effort - GZERO Media ›
Europe grapples with insecurity, instability, and proxy war: Davos 2023
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody, Ian Bremmer here from Davos. We're just kicking off the annual forum in Switzerland, its 53rd Annual Meeting. And here I am in the cold, but not absolutely frigid, to talk with a bunch of global leaders and 52 heads of state showing up. 2,700 world leaders are going to be here for the week, and that means that you can get a hell of a lot of work done in a relatively short period of time.
Big issues to be discussed. Well, first and foremost, we are in Europe, and that means they are feeling a lot more negatively about the geopolitical environment than we are across the Atlantic. Why? Because the Russian invasion is affecting them directly. It's the permanent end of a 30-year long peace dividend for Europe. It means they are all dramatically ramping up their security spend. They think they're going to have to for the foreseeable future. It means that energy prices, even though they've managed to do a lot on that and they're lower than people expected, they're still a lot higher for the foreseeable future than they would otherwise want. And also, of course, because there are massive numbers of refugees that are being hosted in Europe still from Ukraine, and the concerns about insecurity, instability, what it means to be fighting a proxy, hot war against the world's largest nuclear power right across the border, that's something that people are still trying to grapple with on the mountains here.
Beyond that, a lot of talk about the fragmentation of globalization, about what it means that we're going to have multi-speed recession, some deep, some shallow, some not at all, all over the world this year. Technology companies, after they've been expanding for 10 years, some of them shedding employees. They're all still here, but not splashy in the way that they were, say last May. Post-COVID, as the world comes out of that, you don't see the same level of, "We are masters of the universe," for all of these tech companies. A little bit more caution there.
The Chinese are here, but of course, they're much more interested in big global fora that they are setting the standards of, that they are running, and that's very different from the precepts of globalization that have been driven by the World Economic Forum for the last 53 years. In that regard, talking about a fragmented world and can you find cooperation, which is the theme for this year's annual forum, is one that's very challenging. Can you find global cooperation if people don't do global anymore? I mean, there are a lot of global things of course, climate change is very global, but the advanced industrial economies are focusing mostly on their own populations. They're not spending a lot of money trying to take care of the poorest in the world. And in fact, on the back of the pandemic, on the back of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and on the back of growing climate change, the biggest challenge that we see as a global order is a growing gap between West and South. The fact that human development indicators have actually been worsening now for three years after 50 years of consistent improvement from globalization.
That's a message that should be front and center for every CEO that's attending the World Economic Forum this week. But of course, it won't be. Why? Because the difference between globalization and globalism is real. And the fact of free market capitalism continues to be not only driving a lot of wealth and growth, but also a distributional challenge for a majority of the 8 billion people now living on the planet. It's a challenge that the WEF is certainly trying to grapple with, a challenge we'll see to what extent the attendees actually are interested in talking about. That's it for me. I'll talk to y'all real soon.
- Ian Bremmer: Russia's war in Ukraine makes Davos "discomfiting" ›
- Join us live from Davos on January 19th ›
- Is the world coming apart? Drama at Davos ›
- China is open for business: Chinese Vice Premier at Davos - GZERO Media ›
- US protectionism could trigger "war of subsidies" with Europe - GZERO Media ›
- Live From Davos 2023: Risks and Rewards of AI ›
- A world in need of music therapy: Renée Fleming at Davos - GZERO Media ›
- Russia's tragic brutality and the humbling of the West - GZERO Media ›
- Davos 2023: We're in polycrisis - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Davos, meet humility: grappling with Russia & egregious violations of international law - GZERO Media ›
Restoring ties with Venezuela is a no-brainer for Colombia's new president
One of Gustavo Petro's first moves after becoming president of Colombia was to restore diplomatic ties with neighboring Venezuela.
Why? Petro says that closing the border between two countries who share the same blood has led to an economic "catastrophe."
What's more, he tells Ian Bremmer in an exclusive interview with GZERO World, globalization at its purest is about trade between neighbors like Colombia and Venezuela, which the previous government destroyed "to the point of stupidity."
Rebuilding ties with the Venezuelans is a priority for Petro, who sees it as an important step toward restoring the human rights of those on both sides of the border.
- Colombia's new president Gustavo Petro: Biden team aware the war ... ›
- Will Colombia really elect a leftist? - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: Venezuela's sprawling LatAm exodus - GZERO ... ›
- The Graphic Truth: Global hunger hotspots in 2021 - GZERO Media ›
- New Venezuela talks: Maduro won, so what's there to talk about ... ›
Ukrainians in Berlin and Kyiv tell their stories
Hour after hour, day after day, trains from the East arrive at Berlin's main station, each carrying hundreds of refugees from the war in Ukraine.
Since Russia's invasion began three weeks ago, close to 3 million Ukrainians have fled, in the largest displacement of Europeans since the Balkan wars of the 1990s. And so far, more than 120,000 of them have made their way here, to Germany.
The refugees are overwhelmingly women and children, since all Ukrainian men between the ages of 18 and 60 are required to stay behind to fight the Russians.
So far, the German government and people have rolled out the red carpet. Loudspeakers at the station broadcast welcome messages in Ukrainian, while dozens of local volunteers have turned up to help comfort and orient the refugees as they arrive -- dazed, grateful, and apprehensive.
"Our main purpose is to let people know that they’re welcome here," said Matilda, 26, a German citizen volunteer who declined to give her last name. She and her colleagues guide the arrivals to essential services like bathrooms and food and rest areas, while handing out toys to the many children who have arrived on the trains as well.
One of the first things that the Ukrainian refugees must do upon arrival is get Covid shots. Even before the war, barely one in five Ukrainians was vaccinated, due to a combination of botched vaccine procurement by President Volodymyr Zelensky's government, and traditionally high vaccine hesitancy in the country more broadly.
To get the jabs, recent arrivals lined up at the Ukrainian embassy in Berlin, where some of them shared harrowing stories of escape from the war.
"We walked for 7 hours with a pregnant woman who was 5 months pregnant," one woman who preferred to remain anonymous told us, holding back tears. "After she stayed in Poland in a hospital she said “I can’t feel my child.” It’s crazy."
The refugees in Berlin are relieved to be safe, but they also worry about their relatives back home. "Our men are strong, our army is strong," said one woman, "but they need help. Please close the sky."
Meanwhile, speaking to us from a makeshift bomb shelter in the Kyiv metro, Ukrainian journalist Kristina Berdynskykh told us that while she had debated leaving too, she decided to stay to tell the story of Ukrainians' resistance to the Russian assault.
As the modern European city she once knew was transformed overnight into a depopulated warren of barricades, sandbags, and Czech hedgehogs, she says, "I felt how strongly Kyiv would fight for itself, and I want to be here so that as a journalist I can tell that story. I believe that Kyiv, and all of Ukraine, will win – and I want to be in Kyiv when that happens."
With Vladimir Putin's armies stepping up their attempts to besiege and conquer the Ukrainian capital, she had a warning. "If they enter the city," she said, "it would be a huge battle, a sea of blood, a sea of death. Kyiv won’t surrender, the people won’t flee, they will defend it until the end."
Don't bet on Russia backing down
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody, Ian Bremmer here. And a happy Monday, such as it is to all of you around the world. It is, of course, day 12 of the Russian invasion in Ukraine. The third round of negotiations between the Russians and the Ukrainians on the Belarus border. All sorts of international efforts and intermediation. We've seen it from the Israelis, from the French, from, I mean, you name it. The Turks, they're talking to the Russians and the Ukrainians to hope to see if there's any possibility of a climb-down. So far, I absolutely don't see it. Feels to me that President Putin is hellbent on removing Zelensky from power and capturing Kyiv.
And it is important to recognize that the Ukrainian government has won the information war. And that means that the information that is getting out about the war is overwhelmingly being portrayed and pushed out by Ukrainian sources. That makes the Ukrainians look brave and courageous, and also makes the Ukrainian fighters look like they're pushing back the Russians to a greater degree. And frankly, that's a useful thing given the alternative, but it's also important to understand that on the ground, the Russians are indeed getting closer to encircling and taking Kyiv. They are taking a lot more territory in the south, and along the coast towards Odessa, the largest port city of Ukraine.
And while it is true that some Russian fighters have laid down their arms, those numbers do not look large. And certainly the Russians are also moving towards more destructive, and also less accurate weapons, which means more danger to the Ukrainian citizens. I think if you're making a bet here, it is not a Russian climb-down. I don't see anything in the recent statements from the Kremlin that say that if the Ukrainian government gets rid of Crimea, recognizes its Russian, as well as the expanded territories that the Russians have declared as independent in the Donbas, other than there would be a cease fire. I don't buy it. And even if it was a cease fire, I think it would be temporary until the Russians had more troops on the ground, and then they'd continue. But it seems very clear from everything the Russians are actually doing that the intention is not to look for an escape route. It's not to look for a negotiated settlement. It's rather to remove Zelensky, and it's to overthrow the government and to take Kyiv.
It is certainly true that this conflict is getting massively more attention than what we've seen in Yemen, or Afghanistan, or Libya, or Palestine. And I've seen in the media, a lot of people saying, "Why is that? It's because we only care about white Europeans. We don't care about what's happening in the developing world. We don't care what's happening with the poorest countries in the world." I am sympathetic to that view, but I think it's overly simplistic. In fact, I think that the view holds most effectively in the opposite way, in the sense that there are already a million and a half refugees from Ukraine streaming into Europe. And that's, frankly, not as much of a story as what's happening on the ground in Ukraine and the implications for NATO, for the global economy, and even for direct confrontation between the US and Russia. If those 1.5 million people were coming into Europe from Africa, or from Central Asia, or from the Middle East, it would be a much bigger story.
Why is that? Well, because first of all, very few men, mostly women and children, and perceived as Europeans, rightly or wrongly. The fact that these are overwhelmingly white, and Christian, and culturally seen as similar, makes more Europeans more willing to welcome them and integrate them. It doesn't say great things about humanity, but I do understand that reality, and I think we should point it out. And so even when we talk about five or 10 million Ukrainians leaving Ukraine in the coming weeks, and those are the numbers we're thinking about at the high level, you're talking about a crisis that would lead one of four Ukrainians to flee their homes, their land. And what kind of disaster would have to befall your country for you to even consider that? It's almost unimaginable. And yet that's not the biggest part of this crisis, because 500 million Europeans will find a way to take care of and integrate those Ukrainians.
No, the reason that this is getting so much attention is because of the impact it's going to have on the global economy, and at some level, because of the impact it's going to have on the future of the global order. When you have the largest grain producer in the world attacking the fifth largest grain producer in the world, when you have a country that has some of the biggest oil and gas reserves that is now being cut off from the advanced industrial economies, the impact on everyone in the planet is so much greater than if you have poverty, and death, and deprivation for a whole bunch of kids and women in Yemen, or in Afghanistan. Doesn't take away from their suffering, but it makes it completely understandable why everyone in the world would say, "Oh my God, grain prices are doubling. Global starvation is going to go way up."
I mean, the impact on poor people around the world from this crisis is going to be a hell of a lot greater than any of the other individual crises we've seen in those countries. And I think we have to recognize that. We have to understand. So yes, we should be paying more attention to Ukraine. Not only because it's 44 million Ukrainians who are being unjustly invaded and having their civilians unjustly targeted by the Russian military, but also because the impact of this for people around the world. And not for rich people who will be just fine, but for poor people who won't, and poor nations who won't. That is the reason we should be paying so much more attention to Ukraine.
And then of course, finally, the fact that this is a nuclear power. Russia, 5,000 nuclear warheads. The potential for regime change, even if low, and the incredible amount of uncertainty as to the disposition of those nuclear forces, if that were suddenly to happen, if Putin were to be removed, immense existential question mark for all of us living in the world. Or the impact of what happens if we have direct fighting between Russia and NATO. Right now, we have a proxy war. We have indirect fighting. We have the Russians fighting in Ukraine, and then we have all the NATO countries sending advanced weapon systems. I mean the best sniper rifles they have, the best air defense they have, jet fighters, increasingly being sent over to Ukraine to fight and kill the invading Russians.
It's perfectly legitimate for NATO countries to do that. I'm not suggesting it's a bad idea. I'm simply suggesting it's a dangerous reality because increasingly you have NATO fighting against Russia. And the idea that, well, as long as it's not NATO troops directly in battle that somehow it's okay. Well, I mean, maybe you can justify it to yourself that way, but the Russians won't see it that way. Putin won't see it that way. And the potential that we have, significant escalation, cyberattacks, economic warfare, asymmetric, disinformation attacks, even terrorism against NATO countries from Russia, seeing that as perfectly fine in an environment where acts of war are being committed against them. It is an incredibly dangerous environment. And one that implies a reprise of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. One where you have major nuclear powers in a showdown against each other.
I'm not in any way predicting World War III. I don't think it's imminent. I don't even think it's all that close, but I recognize it's possible. And so, again, it would be inconceivable for me not to spend most of our time focusing on this crisis as a consequence of that, given the implication.
So anyway, a few of my thoughts this week as we get kicked off and what's clearly going to be a brutal, and depressing, and challenging week for us all, but all the more reason to do our best, and try to make a difference. Hope everyone's well, and I'll talk to you soon.
For more of Ian Bremmer's weekly analyses, subscribe to his GZERO World newsletter at ianbremmer.bulletin.com