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. This website uses cookies. 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 (if different), and our use of cookies as described in our Cookie Policy.
Yau Abdul Karim lives and works in Garin Mai Jalah, located in the Yobe State of northeastern Nigeria. Essential to his work raising cattle is reliable access to water, yet environmental degradation has led to fewer water sources, severely impacting communities like his that depend on livestock. In 2019, with the help of FAO, Eni installed a special solar-powered well in Yau's town that provides water during the day as well as light at night.
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. And I thought I'd talk a little bit today about the latest in Israel, Palestine. It's obviously been driving headlines all week. And of course, on social media, there's no topic that we all get along and agree with each other more than Israel, Palestine. It's an easy one to take on. Yeah, I know I'm completely full of crap on that. But I thought I would give you some sense of what I think is actually happening where we're going. So first point, massive fight, big conflict between Hamas in Gaza and the Israeli defense forces. Not only that, but also more violence and a lot of violence breaking out between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews. Extremists on both sides taking to the streets and fairly indiscriminate violence, in this case, worst since 2014.
Having said all of that, not a lot of international response, and there are a few reasons for that. One is that this is a much lower priority for President Biden, Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East, broadly. Let's keep in mind that when Biden was vice-president, Secretary of State then, John Kerry, spent his first almost two years prioritizing trying to come to a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. Well, today he's in cabinet again, John Kerry. He's focused on climate. No one's making a top priority out of Israel, Palestine. President Trump gave some focus to the issue, but the big win wasn't about that. It was actually the Abraham Accords, which normalize diplomatic relations between Israel and a number of countries in the region, Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco. Having said all of that, the relationship today between the United States and Israel is still very strong. By far America's most important ally in the region is Israel. That was true under Trump. That is true under Biden.
The Palestinians, a little more sympathy from the Biden Administration, certainly than you would have seen in the Trump Administration, but not exactly a priority. And then Congress as well. You've got people like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, I mean, a very small number of outliers on this issue that strongly condemn Israeli actions and support the Palestinians. They get a lot of attention. They are outliers. Overwhelmingly in Congress, just like among Democrat and Republican administrations, you see strong, strong support for Israel, America's top ally in the region. And does not feel like trying to come to resolution on Israel, Palestine is a significant priority. This is the same government wants to end the fighting by 9/11 in Afghanistan, that's trying to get back into the JCPOA, the Iranian nuclear deal, so that they can pay less attention to that.
The focus is China. The focus is the quad. The focus is Asia. It is not Israel, Palestine. But also, the fact that the Gulf States are now engaged in much, much closer relations with the Israelis, even those that didn't sign the Abraham Accords, are engaging informally with the Israelis. The Arab street cares about the Palestinians, but the governments in the region really do not. And so, as a consequence, you're certainly going to see a whole bunch of statements that say, we want everyone to calm down. We oppose what the Israelis are doing. But Israel is in a much better geopolitical position today than they have been at any point in the last 10, 20, 30 years. They know that. So there's not a lot of pushback internationally, not a lot of consequence that makes the Israelis feel like they have to come to a ceasefire. They have to bring this conflict to an end, or else.
At home, you also have a number of reasons why both sides have wanted to escalate. In the case of Israel, no government. They were right about to put together a new government. This is Naftali Bennett, leading the anti-Netanyahu opposition, it would have been an incredibly narrow coalition majority. They would have needed to be in coalition with an Israeli Arab party. And they almost were there. They were within certainly days, maybe even hours when the violence broke out of getting an agreement and having a new prime minister. Netanyahu would be out of power. And not only that, he faces these massive corruption cases, could have ended up in jail or in exile. Instead, now that Netanyahu and others in Israel have escalated following the initial Hamas rocket strikes from Gaza into mainland Israel, you have that coalition talk falling apart.
You've got a fifth Israeli election coming up. And Netanyahu, still prime minister. So he's happy. Hamas also had reasons to escalate. They were incredibly angry that the first Palestinian wide elections that were going to be held in a decade suddenly got postponed, postponed by the head of the Palestinian authority, ostensibly, because they weren't sure how they were going to actually get ballots done in East Jerusalem. The Israeli government hadn't provided specificity around that. But the reality was they postponed them because they knew that they were going to lose, lose to Hamas. Hamas was angry. This created a greater sense of patriotism among Palestinian saying, how dare we not get our vote. And not only that, but also how dare the Israelis engage in all sorts of significant escalation around demonstrations that were going on in Jerusalem led to hundreds of people injured.
That was not Netanyahu's move. That was a very inexperienced police chief who allowed that escalation to occur, and then created the political opening for Hamas to send rockets, not just across the border, but all through the country. Israelis hunkering down in their bomb shelters, even the airport in Tel Aviv ceasing operations while the rockets are firing. So as a consequence, politically, both Netanyahu and Hamas got what they wanted in the narrow sense. The Israeli and the Palestinian people, of course, both set back with lots of violence, civilians getting killed. Now, how do we think about all of this? What do we take away from it? Because of course, most everyone in the United States is condemning Hamas, and that's very easy to do. It's a terrorist organization. They target civilians. They use civilians as human shields. The United Nations has plenty of reports documenting that.
And their charter doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist. So it's really hard to live in a functional democracy and not condemn Hamas. But you can't stop with condemning Hamas. That's not the end of the story. Because when a majority of Palestinians in Gaza, and frankly, today, a majority of Palestinians period, increasingly support Hamas, an organization that stands for all of the things I just said, a militant organization that engages in the kind of indiscriminate violence they do, you have to ask yourself why? Who's responsible for that? And the responsibility for that is this massive economic asymmetry. I mean, Israel, as you probably known, has had one of the widest, fastest, most effective vaccine rollouts in the entire world. Palestinians not benefiting from that at all. Economically Israel is by far the most functional, transparent democracy with great rule of law across the entire Middle East, as long as you're not talking about the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
And particularly when you talk about Gaza, where you've got 50% unemployment and hunger, and you've got no educational opportunities and no ability to get out of there, well, these are people that increasingly feel like they have no future, no options. And that's why you've seen in the past years, even individual Palestinians throwing themselves at the border wall, highly defended with Israeli defense forces with orders to shoot and use lethal force for those trying to breach the border. You've got people, some of them even unarmed, completely unarmed throwing themselves at this wall. Why would they do that? And the answer is not just radicalism, it's radicalism born of desperation. And that's an enormously important thing to recognize, that until you resolve the issue of the Palestinians, until you're able to get some level of economic opportunity and equity, you're going to see incredibly large numbers of desperate Palestinians turning towards more radicalism.
Now, does that justify terrorism? And the answer in my view is absolutely not, hence willingness to condemn Hamas unreservedly, but not willingness to do so and stopping there. You remember, I'm more than happy to condemn President Trump. When he won election I thought, and I still think, completely unfit for office for so many reasons. But I didn't stop by condemning Trump. I said, wait a second. So when you have a legitimate election for the presidency of the United States and someone like Trump wins, you have to ask yourself why? What could it be? Was it racism? Sure. Some of Trump's core supporters were motivated primarily by racism. That does not define a majority of Trump supporters, in my view. I think you have to look at the fact that the United States has the greatest economic inequality of all of the G7 countries.
You have to look at the radicalizing and extremist role that social media plays in creating and fostering disinformation and tribalism in the United States. You have to look at the role that fairly widespread immigration into the U.S. has played while a lot of Americans feel like you haven't taken care of them. You have to focus in the failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on the back of the poorest segment of the U.S. You have to talk about all of those things. And unless you fix them, you are going to continue to see massive amounts of extremist, antiestablishment sentiment grow and drive more American elections than they do in Canada, or New Zealand, or Australia, or Germany, or any of the advanced industrial democracies. So when we're talking about Israel and Palestine, and by the way, the suffering that Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, presently are dealing with is so much dramatically greater than that of Americans, disenfranchised Americans can possibly imagine.
And even Palestinians in the West Bank are facing, given the levels of illegal settlement that have increasingly occurred, and given the difficulty they have in getting to their place of work, and transiting and engaging in normal commerce, this is creating much greater anger, and it has to get resolved. By the way, I'm not saying something that, it's not as if every Israeli Jew disagrees with this perspective at all. It's incredibly frustrating issue that many in Israel, and the United States and Europe have for decades recognized and tried to resolve. But we failed. And we failed in part because unwillingness of the Israelis to compromise and concede enough. In part unwillingness of the Palestinians to compromise and concede. And kleptocracy in the Palestinian authority and incompetence on part of their government.
But now, not only do you have those issues, and greater asymmetry, and economic and military power between Israel and the Palestinians, but you also have an issue that increasingly most around the world don't care very much about. And that bodes very badly for the Palestinians and bodes very badly for the future of warfare between Israeli Jews and Arabs inside Israel, and also between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the occupied territory. I'm sure everyone's going to agree with all this topic, and I look forward to seeing all of your support in the comments. And thanks very much, have a great weekend. Don't avoid so many people. You can take your mask off in the U.S. We're doing that. Be good.
More
Show less
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's first minister, says another independence referendum for Scotland is now a matter of "when not if," and that after leaving the UK, Scotland will launch a bid to rejoin the EU. But there are formidable obstacles ahead.
Getting to a vote will force a complex game of chicken with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. If a majority of Scots then vote for independence — hardly a sure thing – the process of extricating their new country from the UK will make Brexit look easy. Next, come the challenges of EU accession. In other words, Scotland's journey down the rocky road ahead has only just begun.
Obstacle 1 – Getting to a vote. Scotland can't stage a legally binding referendum without approval from the UK parliament, which can't happen without a go-ahead from Boris Johnson. Here's where the political game begins. Johnson knows an independence vote in Scotland could still go either way. Polls suggest support for independence winning by the narrowest of margins.
If Johnson says yes to a referendum, he could become the PM who lost Scotland and broke up the UK. That would likely end his political career. If he says no, he risks driving up support inside Scotland in favor of breaking away — and he knows he can't say no forever. The UK can't simply hold Scotland hostage. At least not indefinitely.
For now, Johnson can say, "Nicola, shouldn't you be focused on COVID and recovery?" To which Sturgeon will reply, "Yes, Boris, we are focused on COVID. But when it's under control, we want to vote." Johnson can throw money at Scotland and offer it more autonomy, but it's unlikely that either will change many Scottish minds on a question as large as independence.
Obstacle 2 – Winning the referendum. In 2014, Scotland voted to remain within the UK by a margin of 55-45. Much has changed since then. Though Scotland voted 62-38 for the UK to remain within the European Union in the 2016 Brexit referendum, the far larger number of votes in England carried the day, and Brexit pulled Scotland unwillingly from the EU. That's the main reason there's been a shift in Scotland in favor of independence since the first referendum.
But no one knows what might happen during a new campaign. Johnson's government will pull out all the stops to persuade Scots that independence is much riskier than they think, and he'll insist Scotland will be economically stronger inside the UK than outside. If Scotland votes to remain, even by the tiniest of margins, it will be at least a generation before another referendum can be contemplated.
Obstacle 3- Leaving the UK. Extricating Scotland from the UK will be far more costly and risky than the UK leaving Europe. After all, the UK joined the EU in 1973, while Scotland has been part of Great Britain since 1707. The legal and regulatory ties will be extraordinarily hard to untangle. The value of Scotland's exports to the rest of the UK is four times more than to the EU. That would change over time if Scotland joined the EU, but a hard border between England and Scotland would create an immediate shock and lasting damage. At least one recent study found that Scottish exit from the UK would be far more economically damaging than Brexit, even if Scotland eventually rejoins the EU.
Adding to the friction, Johnson's government, mindful of the movement for Irish reunification and independence chatter in Wales, will make everything to do with Scotland's exit as contentious and painful as possible.
Obstacle 4 – Joining the EU. This might be the easiest to surmount. After all, as part of the UK, Scotland was an EU member for nearly half a century. The process of political, economic, legal and regulatory alignment would be far easier than for any previous EU membership candidate.
That said, accession would depend on a unanimous vote of all current members. Spain, under challenge by Catalan separatists, might wield a veto to avoid setting a precedent for breakaway states. EU concessions to ease Spanish fears could smooth Scotland's path, depending on what's happening in Spanish politics at that moment.
Bottom line. Brexit reminded us that secession movements aren't driven by pragmatism. They're fueled by hope, fear, anger, and pride. Those who want an independent Scotland can overcome all these obstacles. But we shouldn't underestimate the complexity of the problems ahead, or how long it will take to solve them.
More
Show less
Cyber is a tool, and sometimes a weapon. Whether espionage for commercial gain or indiscriminate attacks on critical infrastructure, actions taken in cyber space affect you directly, potentially upending even the most mundane realities of everyday life.
Join GZERO Media and Microsoft for a live conversation on cyber challenges facing governments, companies, and citizens in a Munich Security Conference "Road to Munich" event on Tuesday, May 18.
Our guests will discuss privacy, truth, security, and the urgency of improving cyber security and establishing cyber norms globally. Joining the discussion:
- Ian Bremmer, President, Eurasia Group & GZERO Media
- Brad Smith, President, Microsoft
- Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman, Munich Security Conference
- Jane Harman, President Emerita, Wilson Center
- Juliette Kayyem, Harvard Kennedy School Professor (moderator)
This event is being held in collaboration with the Munich Security Conference as part of their "Road to Munich" series.
Beyond SolarWinds: Securing Cyberspace: Tuesday, May 18, 2021, 1pm EDT / 10am PDT
Sign up to get email alerts about this and other GZERO events.
More
Show less
Get insights on the latest news in US politics from Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington:
Who is Elise Stefanik and what does she mean for the Republican Party right now?
Elise Stefanik is a young member from Upstate New York. She had originally started her career as a staffer in the George W. Bush administration, but in recent years, has turned into one of the most outspoken defenders of President Donald Trump, particularly during the impeachment trial last year. She's relevant right now because it looks like she'll be replacing Liz Cheney, the Representative from Wyoming and also the daughter of the former Vice President, who has been outspoken in her criticism of President Trump since the January 6th insurrection, and probably more importantly, outspoken in her criticism of the direction of the Republican Party.
The irony here though, is that while Cheney is going down, she's being replaced by somebody who, when she came into office, was expected to be a pretty standard-bearing Bush Republican. And so this is just really indicative of where the Party is, very hard to stay on in Republican leadership if you aren't going to be a supporter of President Trump. Too many of Cheney's colleagues thought she had become a distraction and wanted her gone. Stefanik is probably a placeholder. She says she doesn't want to serve in the position long-term. She eventually wants to take over the chairmanship of a committee, and she has many years ahead of her in Congress. She is very young.
What's the outlook for the Democrats' election bill?
Well, the Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced a bill to rewrite federal election law. Traditionally, election laws have been set by the state. States are allowed to choose how to do their redistricting. They're allowed to choose how people vote. Do they do mail-in votes? Do they have no-excuse mail-in votes? How many days of early voting are they going to allow? And, the Democrats bill would append that entire regime, and create a federal standard that every state would have to meet for number of days of pre-election day, in-person voting, standards around absentee voting, how to draw districts, taking it away from partisan gerrymandering and moving it towards a commission, in most states. And, there's been a lot of opposition to it. So the Democrats argue that this bill is necessary because Republicans are passing what they think are restrictive voting laws across the country. And Republicans are saying the Democrats are trying to take over and federalize elections to increase the chances that they win future elections and hold onto their current majorities in the House and Senate. And there's truth to both claims. The bill is very unlikely to move anywhere. It has 49 Democratic Senators who support it, who are co-sponsors, and one Democratic holdout, Joe Manchin. But even if Manchin never came around and said he supported the bill, it would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, or the elimination of the legislative filibuster, so it's very unlikely to pass into law. You know this is a really big deal for the Democrats. They've given it the special designation S.1 in the Senate, H.R.1 in the House, which is a symbolic act suggesting this is their highest priority. But also, in a Rules Committee hearing earlier this week, both Majority Leader, Schumer, and Republican Minority Leader, McConnell, showed up to debate the bill in-person, debate amendments, and there've been multiple showdowns on the Floor. This is a really high-stakes piece of legislation. It would fundamentally tip the balance of power in favor of the Democrats were it to pass, which is, among other reasons, why Republicans are so opposed to seeing it get into law.
More
Show less
According to Delhi-based journalist Barkha Dutt, while the Indian government has finally started to mobilize in response to the COVID crisis, there's still a lot of denial about the severity of the ourbreak. "Our Health Minister, for instance, made a statement in the last 24 hours saying that India is better equipped to fight COVID in 2021 than in 2020. That's simply rubbish. We had India's Solicitor General telling the Supreme Court that there is no oxygen deficit as of now. That's simply not true." In an interview on GZERO World, Dutt tells Ian Bremmer that only the connection between fellow Indians, helping each other when the government cannot, has been a salve.
Watch the episode: India's COVID calamity
Listen: Ask national security experts how they view China today and they'll likely the use a term like "adversary" or "economic competitor." But what about "enemy?" How close is the world to all-out-war breaking out between United States and China? According to US Admiral James Stavridis (Ret.), who served as Supreme Allied Commander to NATO, those odds are higher than many would like to admit. In fact, Stavridis says, the US risks losing its military dominance in the coming years to China. And if push comes to shove in a military conflict, it's not entirely clear who would prevail. Admiral Stavridis discusses his bestselling new military thriller 2034 and makes the case for why his fictional depiction of a US-China war could easily become reality.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on Europe In 60 Seconds:
What's the issue with the letter in France talking about the "civil war"?
Well, I think it is part of the beginning of the French election campaign. We have some people in the military encouraged by the more right-wing forces, warning very much for the Muslim question. That's part of the upstart to the election campaign next year. More to come, I fear.
Is there any update on the EU accession for the Western Balkan countries?
There was a meeting of the EU foreign ministers the other day and they were very much in favor of the process. But we still have the question of the Bulgarians blocking off Macedonia for historical unrelated reasons that are completely unacceptable but is a fact. And we also don't know really where the French are. So we are still waiting for the important decision on that.
More
Show less
Today In 60 Seconds
GZEROMEDIA
Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal
Latest
GZEROMEDIA
Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal