2. Picture a haggard and hungry 7-year-old girl
with brown eyes, brown hair and pale skin,
standing on the pavement, on a frigid De-
cember evening. Such an image is a common
place nowadays in the US with approximately
138.000 children being homeless, as stated
by the US Department of Housing. Further-
more, according to a recent UNICEF report,
children in the US have one of the lowest rates
of well being in the developed world. Addi-
tionally, 51 million or 16% of the population
lives below the poverty line, of which 1.8 mil-
lion survives on less than 2 dollars per day.
For decades, the West has been the shin-
ing beacon of hope for most countries in the
world, leading in human rights and democratic
values. However, its influence on the global
arena is diminishing slowly and many of its
national institutions are somewhat out of ser-
vice.
The general state of the US does not de-
pict a country of wealth and prosperity, but
quite the contrary. The American Dream is
no more than a dream as the poverty is grow-
ing; the wealth of the middle class as well as
the middle class itself, in the US is shrinking.
The median net worth of the US households
has indeed increased since the 1960s, from
$55,000 a year to $63,000; if one considers in-
flation, the net worth is now worth less than
what it was in 1969.
What is even more alarming is the swelling
debt. The US national debt on January 1st,
1791 was just $75 million. Today, the US na-
tional debt rises by that amount about once
in every hour. Currently it is over $17 trillion,
something the government does not seem to
be bothered by.
Similarly, the debt crisis of the PIGS is still
ongoing, though the immigration crisis has
taken the spot light recently. The immigra-
tion influx is straining the EU Member States’
economies and causing tension amongst them.
Even though more and more countries are op-
posing further immigration, be it for political
or economical reasons - they are categorically
suppressed by some countries (i.e. Germany
and Sweden), which are in favour of immigra-
tion. Thus, forcing the Hungarian government
to take the EU before the European Court, ar-
guing that the EU has no right to dictate over
sovereign Member States’ borders and force
Hungary to accept 15,000 migrants.
Whilst the naive benevolence of the ‘Refu-
gees Welcome’ supporters is admirable, the in-
flux of migrants must not be prioritised over
the welfare of the inhabitants. Furthermore,
while it is true that millions of refugees from
Syria are indeed in need of shelter and refuge,
but accepting a couple of millions is not a
sustainable solution. Rather, the focus should
lie on further aiding UNHCR financially, eco-
nomically sanctioning those countries (e.g.
Turkey, the Gulf monarchies) which support
Daesh, promoting peace development in the
inflicted areas, and most importantly, start co-
operating with the only legitimate and secular
leader in Syria, i.e. Bashar Al-Assad.
The current situation may seem dire but it
is never too late to change. What is needed is
a change for sustainable national finances, and
an aspiration for a sustainable environment.
Nonetheless, a political change is also needed,
with politicians prioritising the necessities of
the people over ideological fantasies, prioritis-
ing peace development over further military
escalations, and continuing on the path of
democracy and individual freedom instead of
further surveillance and control.
edITorIal
Haroon Bayani
22
Sourcefrontpage:Reuter
3. edITor-In-chIef
Haroon Bayani
aSSocIaTe edITorS
Jyotika Rajput Mehra
Varvara Morozova
conTrIbuTorS
Kasun Thilina
Vanessa Kasula
Haroon Bayani
Gabriela Russo Lopes
Gita Nair
The PerPeTual debT hole
oPenIng and ShuTTIng
dr hanS blIx on The WeST
TTIP’S envIronmenTal ImPlIcaTIonS
frackIng
3
The Stockholm Journal of International Affairs issued
by: Stockholm Association of International Affairs
Adress: Frescativägen 14B, 114 18, Stockholm
Publication date: 2015-11
Publisher: Haroon Bayani
redaktor@ufstockholm.se
or (+46) 700 55 69 46
ufstockholm.com
The author is responsible for signed freelance materials; his opinion
does not necessarily reflect the newspapers nor SAIA’s. This journal
was partly financied by Forum Syd and SIDA.
4. The PerPeTual debT hole
kaSun ThIlIna
In the year 1944, 44 allied countries gath-
ered in the Mount Washington Hotel
in New Hampshire to discuss the new
world outlook in the post war world. The
main focus was on rebuilding the financial
infrastructure of a world that had faced a
devastating world war and a financial de-
pression. They declared their key principles
“no more beggar thy neighbour and “con-
trol flows of speculative financial capital.”
which marked a paradigm shift in the global
economy.
The previous gold standard got replaced
with the interlaced gold reserves with US
dollar system. This system created more
flexible and efficient pipeline in the global
trade. However, this was actually creating a
mechanism that US government could send
the surplus of US economy to the rest of
the world (mainly to Germany and Japan
because they seemed very geopolitically im-
portant at that time). This was mainly facili-
tated by the consumption of Euro-Nippon
consumer goods and services and also by di-
rect investment through plans like “Marshal
Plan”. Furthermore US government wanted
stable currencies so that they would work as
shock absorbers on recession in US.
By 1970, due to war in Vietnam and oth-
er military expansion, US faced a series of
economic drama, marking its climax with
“Nixon Shock”. This was the declaration of
the US dollar as a Fiat Currency. The sys-
tem went heavily based on a currency which
was not backed by any standard, instead re-
quiring global acceptance. In order to create
acceptance of the currency in exchange for
the capital or labour, the state needs to cre-
ate some incentive procedure, in this case so
that the incentive is the aggregate demand
of the US economy.
After making the US currency a Fiat cur-
rency, they were able to gain capital unlike
any other economy. The US economy ex-
panded their deficit by tightening its interest
rates by maintaining low interest rates and
thus became a magnet for the last resort in-
vestments.
The largest portion of external debt
comes from Japan, China, Oil Exporters,
and the United Kingdom. If we consider
the net exports of these countries, the larg-
est share is from the US. In other words, in
order to keep the aggregate demand for the
net exports of these countries, they were
4
The debt crisis seems to be a never ending one. In this article the historical
events will be described and the causes analysed.
5. reluctant to keep the US economy in the
running state by fuelling its debt to maintain
the aggregate demand from the US.
While considering the EU stock markets
against the Wall Street, it is quite evident that
the EU stock markets are stagnant over the
years. They have been acting the same way
for over three decades. Profits earned by the
EU productions are unlikely invested again
in EU. These profits (with the largest por-
tion of these earnings coming from the US
market) will be invested in the Wall Street for
higher gains.
From the investors’ perspective, it is very
rational and accurate to invest in the US.
Due to this outflow of capital, the EU mon-
ey markets become stagnant and even go to
the shrinking level. When analyzed, the EU
countries which are in debt (unlike in the
US), have most of the debt towards other
countries.
The main reason for this is the EU coun-
tries’ mass outflow of capital to the US. This
is why most of the EU countries have an
alarming amount of debt accumulated with-
in its economy.
When countries spend a large proportion
of their wealth on debt, government has
to increase the taxes and cut on the pub-
lic spending. This leads to shrinking of an
economy followed by unemployment. In the
case of Greece and Spain, the unemploy-
ment rates are 25 % and 22 % respectively.
The Greek government estimates that now
there are 20,000 homeless people in Athens
- among a population of 660,000. 112,070
people declared themselves homeless in
England in 2014 - a 26 % increase in four
years. At the same time, the number of peo-
ple sleeping rough in London grew by 75 %
to a staggering 6,437.
Global debt crisis became a mainstream
topic after two major incidents – first, the
2008 money melt down in US, later on lead-
ing to a global recession even though it is
just the tip of the iceberg. Second is the
Greece debt crisis, which has put the whole
EU existence into the disintegration status.
In order to solve these problems, two major
solutions were brought in to the discourse.
First one is the austerity. However, all
the economic research is credited against the
austerity measures, as it is based on highly
dubious assumptions and procedures. Most
of the arguments set in the favour of aus-
terity are pushed by the deficit approach
where by reducing the deficit or govern-
ment spending, the national economy will be
bailed out. This ideology is highly marketed
through not by proper economic explana-
tion, not by explaining how an economy
works in a broader perspective, but highly
through explaining how domestic or indi-
vidual spending works.
In a situation of recession, governments
cut spending hard and there is a large fall in
the nominal GDP. As an example in 2011,
Greece had a fall of 6 % in GDP. This has
been driving towards shrinking of tax rev-
enues. Debt against GDP has continued
to increase. In other words, austerity has
slowed the economic growth that the bud-
get deficit has failed to improve. Also, Eu-
rozone crisis is not about deficit, it is about
lack of competitiveness with other financial
markets, creating the outflow of capital to
outside EU especially to the US.
The second alternative pushed is the dis-
integration of the EU. Disintegration was
one of the main points highlighted as a solu-
tion to the EU crisis. It was majorly high-
lighted in the UK to go for the referendum
5
7. reluctant to keep the US economy in the
running state by fuelling its debt to maintain
the aggregate demand from the US.
While considering the EU stock markets
against the Wall Street, it is quite evident that
the EU stock markets are stagnant over the
years. They have been acting the same way
for over three decades. Profits earned by the
EU productions are unlikely invested again
in EU. These profits (with the largest por-
tion of these earnings coming from the US
market) will be invested in the Wall Street for
higher gains.
From the investors’ perspective, it is very
rational and accurate to invest in the US.
Due to this outflow of capital, the EU mon-
ey markets become stagnant and even go to
the shrinking level. When analyzed, the EU
countries which are in debt unlike in the US,
they have most of the debt towards other
countries. The main reason for this is that
the EU countries mass out flow of capital to
the US. This is why most of the EU coun-
tries have an alarming amount of debt ac-
cumulated within its economy.
When countries spend a large proportion
of their wealth on debt, government has
to increase the taxes and cut on the pub-
lic spending. This leads to shrinking of an
economy followed by unemployment. In the
case of Greece and Spain, the unemploy-
ment rates are 25 % and 22 % respectively.
The Greek government estimates that now
there are 20,000 homeless people in Athens
- among a population of 660,000. 112,070
people declared themselves homeless in
England in 2014 - a 26 % increase in four
years. At the same time, the number of peo-
ple sleeping rough in London grew by 75 %
to a staggering 6,437.
7
Some say
that the EU
crisis is not only an
economic deficit but
also a democratic
deficit.
”
”
8. Recently, German border policies
have undergone many changes. This
article explains these phases. Fur-
thermore, it examines the German approach
as an ideal way to ease the refugee influx and
intervene in the migration crisis.
In August, Germany opened the borders
to Syrian refugees to resolve the migration
pressure. As it no longer mattered which
EU state they had first entered, those who
otherwise would have been suspended under
the Dublin protocol, were welcomed to stay.
Yet, due to the stable economy and social
security system in Germany, it had already
ranked high among the most appealing refu-
gee destinations. Counsellor Angela Merkel
called for European consensus. Open Door
Policy would give Germany a leading posi-
tion to construct more humane practices.
At first, Germans showed a great deal of
hospitality towards the refugees. The first
train full of refugees was welcomed by the
citizens who donated food, toys and goods
at the station. An “Airbnb for refugees” was
based in Berlin, where the citizens opened
their homes and offered a temporary accom-
modation.
Nevertheless, it did not take long before
Germany became overwhelmed with the
huge influx of refugees crossing the borders.
It has been estimated that Germany would
take in 1.500,000 asylum seekers this year.
Currently, waiting for the asylum decision
can take weeks. In Berlin, the lack of accom-
modation facilities has resulted in people not
having an accommodation during the pro-
longed asylum process. This group includes
even families with small children. Suspicions
of the real nationality have partially caused
the delays. Registration offices have faced
the refugees who have falsely claimed to be
Syrian. The registration process itself, in-
cluding fingerprinting, providing temporary
documentation and distribution across Ger-
many, can take up to few days. Previously,
Finding accommodation for the people
mass has become a problem. Now, asylum
seekers are accommodated in sports halls,
and even beer tents are considered as emer-
gency shelters. German public opinion is
afraid of what will happen. Government has
not been able to keep coherent stand fac-
ing the crisis and Merkel’s popularity has
shown a decrease. Cities such as Bavaria,
which are the main entry points for refugees,
oPenIng and ShuTTIng
vaneSSa kaSula
8
Immigration can be beneficial for both the hosting country as well the
immigrant. However, when let out of control the situation can quickly
detoriate.
9. are not able to accept more refugees. As a
consequence of the people flow, Germany
reintroduced border control along Austria.
Such actions may affect the whole Schengen
zone of passport-free travel, and challenge
the common principle of freedom of move-
ment in Europe. Furthermore, the German
policy has caused tension in relations with
the neighbouring countries if people are
continuing their journey from Germany.
Even if they are refused for an asylum or
they get frustrated facing the growing han-
dling time, majority will still likely continue
to travel. Surrounding countries have been
concerned of the consequences that the
growing migration influx may have.
The inequal displacement of refugees in
Germany, Sweden and Austria is inefficient
in the long term, due to the scale of the
crises. “We cannot take in all the refugees
alone with 28-member states in the Euro-
pean Union. No society can endure this in
the long run,” Seehofer stated. The Dublin
regulation is placing an inequal stress as the
Mediterranean states and EU Commission,
and the member states have stayed unsatis-
fied with the moderate changes. Countries,
such as Germany, have suspended their
Dublin responsibilities, in order to make the
system more humane or just to ease load of
the incoming refugees.
Growing refugee pressure is demanding
EU to react rapidly and seek broader solu-
tions than maintaining border control. The
current civil war in Syria shows still sign of
stopping, and at the same time conflicts are
worsening in Middle East and Africa. This
scale of refugee influx has not been seen
since during World War 2. The UNHCR
estimates over 224,000 refugees had come
to the Europe continent alone during the
first seven months of 2015. Different ap-
proaches of the member states have created
the growing tension, which has evidently
caused problems in sharing the responsibili-
ties. The UNHCR is among the critics of the
current EU migration. Their senior spokes-
person, William Spindler stated his opinion
to Al Jazeera of a new, potential alignment:
“In our view, European countries need to
work together rather than point fingers at
each other. In order to deal with this situ-
ation, Europe should open more legal ways
for refugees to come”.
Since Middle-European countries are
closing their borders, it has become more
common to take a risky journey over the
Mediterranean. Due to the Open Door
Policy, an increasing number of people try
to reach Germany and are forced to take a
deadly chance to cross the sea. According
to the International Organization of Mi-
gration, 335 have died while crossing from
Turkey to Greece. This being the common
routes for those travelling to Germany, the
need to open legal routes is growing.
Furthermore, changing the border control
in Europe won’t help those able to come
to the continent. Living conditions in the
refugee camps are often deficient, and don’t
meet the basic needs. In the Zaatari refugee
camp in Jordan, people live in leaking tents,
without proper heating facilities. Moreover,
among the biggest problems are the con-
stant fear of attacks, lack of education and
inability to work. Recent cuts on humanitar-
ian aid have sent an increasing number of
people to seek a better life in Europe. The
camps have strict rules, and leaving without
permission is forbidden. The dangerous
journey to Europe hinders emigration, as
staying in camps often guarantees basic aid.
Majority is afraid to leave, without a guar-
anteed asylum. However, majority of those
9
10. Source: Al-Jazeera
Source: Al-Jazeera
A village shelled by the Royal Saudi Air Force,
resulting in the death of several civilians.
Royal Saudi Air Force flying US-made Boeing F-15C’s, on their
way to Yemen.
Source: Al-Jazeera
Source: Al-Jazeera
Source: Spiegel
Source: Hungary Post
11. fleeing come from outside camps, where
circumstances are more unstable.
UNHCR calls for a better European co-
operation. EU policy making has been fo-
cused on maintaining the border control
over its continent. “The UNHCR is urging
European countries to provide more places
for refugees through resettlement programs,
family reunification, humanitarian admis-
sion, private sponsorship schemes, and work
and education visas,” as Spindler points out.
As stated earlier, the national border regu-
lations themselves are not efficient enough,
since these are placing uneven and high de-
mands. Even strong and considerably stable
economies, such as Germany, seem unable
to hold up to these demands. More diverse
European co-operation is called for, in or-
der to intervene in the smuggling business,
open safer routes and increase local aid, es-
pecially for those stuck in the conflict areas
and war zones.
11
We cannot
take in all
the refugees
alone with 28-mem-
ber states in the Eu-
ropean Union. No
society can en-
dure this in the
long run.
”
”
12. dr hanS blIx on The WeST
haroon bayanI
You’re the former foreign minister of the
liberal government. Therefore, I would
like to ask you, what does western liberal
democracy mean to you?
- Well, we should not be presumptuous, and
preach western democracy everywhere, as
there are many variations and historical tra-
ditions that lead countries in different ways.
But I think that the essence of the western
democracy is inclusiveness, having fair elec-
tions, and having a rule by the majority. In
some countries you normally have major-
ity parties and in other countries you have
minority or you have coalitions as we know.
However, democracy is not simply ruled on
majority. It is also paying attention to the mi-
norities. You cannot just use your power to
eradicate your position by law; in that case
you’re not likely to get a constitutional sys-
tem. So majority vote by inclusiveness, pay-
ing attention and respecting the rights of
minorities.
What is the role of media in a democ-
racy, according to you?
- It should always have the aspiration to re-
veal the truth, the reality. And I believe they
have a vital function to fulfil in that regard.
At least regarding corruption. I don’t think
you can’t stamp out corruption unless you
have free media everywhere. However, the
danger, the difficulty and the temptation for
media is often to be too sensationalist. They
want to sell, at least in a market economy.
They want to sell their product and may fall
for the temptation to be too infotainment or
too sensationalist. And I am somewhat pes-
simistic about the evolution.
Because the Swedish media, the printed
newspaper, they are very thin. The Svenska
Dagbladet, Dagens Nyheter were in the past
helpful, whilst nowadays they simply repeat
what the American journals say, in the politi-
cal sections at least. They should be able to
dig up some reasonably competent Swedes.
The former Minster for Foreign Affairs and ex-head of International Atomic Energy
Agency Dr Hans Blix conveys his views on current affairs of the EU and US.
12
13. However, the Internet gives you endless pos-
sibilities of sources, which is good. But what
I do not find agreeable is the lower part of
it. Mainly those sitting at home anonymously
and writing without any social filters. Whilst
we all may have outrageous thoughts occa-
sionally, we also have something to control
them and we do not burst out. That inhibi-
tion seems too often be gone in people and
they don’t see the reaction their writings can
have.
Do you have any comments on the rise of
alternative media?
- Yes, my experience in the UN is that there
is as much information as there is disinfor-
mation in the world. And in some countries
it is deliberately made while in other coun-
tries it is less consciously made.
You need diversity in this. You can never
have one single truth; you need different an-
gles at it. But I think it is disgusting when dis-
information is deliberately done. Even when
it is not as deliberate as when I was in the
Iraq affair in 2002-2003, you could feel then
how the US sources dominated and the CIA
had their [information], which they were able
to kettle to the media. There were very few
who voiced any scepticism or anyone posing
any question marks. So they have tremen-
dous power in that sense, we as international
spectres do not have big apparatus to come
out with our views.
Let us continue to the foreign endeavours
of the US. Would you say that in certain
cases, the US is above international law?
- There is sometimes hubris in the US, that
they are exceptional, that they can do certain
things. I think that any country that thinks
that they are exceptional they should begin
to examine themselves a bit more seriously.
In a democracy no one should misuse his or
her power.
I remember in the presidential election when
Kerry stood against Bush, which was during
the American invasion of Iraq during 2003.
Kerry stated that the US should seek interna-
tional endorsement or authority of invading
a foreign country.
And he was totally ridiculed, the Republicans
saying: “Should we have a slip of paper from
the Security Council?” That was the clear
expression that they should forget about the
UN, forget the rules you have. We [the US]
are the sheriffs of the world, we are excep-
tional and therefore we have wisdom.
Obama on the other hand said that it is de-
sirable that all the states follow international
norms and we will stay stronger if we do. At
the same time he said that he was the com-
mander-in-chief of the US Army and he will
not hesitate to make use of the US forces to
defend the interests of the US. Thus making
a reservation. To me it’s a central question,
which I think is a fundamental revolution
that occurred in 1945 saying that it prohibits
member states the use of threat or the use of
force against the territory, integrity or politi-
cal independence of other states.
Now that is a ban on war. Though there are
two exceptions, one is self-defence against
an armed attack until the Security Council
13
14. intervenes; the other is when the Security
Council decides that they will take force.
Which was revolutionary in 1945, but totally
obsolete in the Cold War because you had
veto.
But in 1991 there was a change, the Soviet
empire collapsed. And the US intervened in
Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. Then a hope-
ful new order emerged, although we are not
there yet. We saw the competition in Syria,
and the US pivot to China. But what has
given me hope lately is the Iraq war in 1991
and the second one was Russo-American
agreement on disposing the chemical weap-
ons of the Syrian state. The third is the nu-
clear agreement on Iran. In all these three
cases you have the P5+1 getting together as
they were planned. Which shows that this
enforcement system of collective security
can work, albeit in limited circumstances.
They all have a joint interest in other states
not having Weapons of Mass Destruction,
though they are less interested in getting rid
of their own. But at least they have interest
in others doing it.
Especially the Syrian case is very instructive
where Obama was under a very heavy pres-
sure to bomb Syria. There were pro-Israeli
interests behind it, others were morally in-
dignant, claiming that the Syrian govern-
ment has been using chemical weapons and
they must punish them. But who asked the
US to be the self-appointed sheriff of the
world and punish others. I am not sure why
he didn’t want to bomb Syria, though I don’t
think it was the UN Charter. The main ob-
jection he had was that if he would start,
he wouldn’t know where it would end. The
Russians had a strong interest in avoiding
American bombing because their strength
lies in vetoes in the Security Council. They
wanted the matter to be handled as foreseen
in international institution, which they suc-
ceeded in.
All states need a strong government as
to abate cartel formation. I was wonder-
ing, has the US government failed in
that regard, letting different lobbying
groups such as AIPAC, military industry
or banking industry dictate or even ob-
struct certain reforms or policies?
- Of course sometimes you ask yourself
whether the US is really a governable coun-
try? When they go to the brink of economic
collapse.
But of course there are many forceful lobbies
in the US, there are lobbies in every country.
It’s a part of an inclusive society that you
have influences from different groups, from
religious groups, military groups etc. But as a
liberal I’m interested in having a mixture of
these pressures.
But would say that these lobbying groups
work in the interest of the people or for
their own self-interest in juxtaposition to
the people’s interest?
- It varies. Take the AIPAC lobby, which is
working in the interest of Israel. Or rather I
should say in the interest of Likud, as they
have different opinions there. For instance,
the Israeli Atomic commission considers the
agreement with Iran acceptable.
14
15. But as both US and Russia is a nuclear
country. They learnt from the Cuban affairs
that they must not escalate. If they escalate
you don’t know where they will land.
However, there are many in this country
saying that I’m naïve and that the Russian
intention is to clearly establish the Tzar-
ist Empire. I do not think so. Look at what
happened in Georgia, where it was Sakash-
villi who started the war and the Russians
pounced upon straight away and took the
opportunity, though reacting disproportion-
ally. But nevertheless it was not they who
shot the first. Now after that when Sarkozy
went to Moscow, they agreed on withdraw-
ing. And the only thing that happened was
that Abkhazia and South Ossetia became
pseudo-independent, now in reality pawns
of Russia. But nevertheless, they did not ab-
sorb Georgia, but withdrew from Georgia.
So I am relatively hopeful that they will also
show restraint in Ukraine.
But I’m also pretty certain that they will
not touch the Baltic States. Whilst I’m a big
opponent of Sweden joining NATO, I’m
happy that the Baltics have joined NATO.
Because they are so weak and feeble, that
they live somewhat dangerously.
But is the foreign policy of the EU
then independent from the US?
- To some extent yes, but I wish they were
even more independent from the US. IIf
you take the case of the Asian Infrastruc-
ture Investment Bank (AIIB) (established by
China), you can see that the US was against
it and they wanted to have control through
the IMF bank, but now UK and other Eu-
ropean countries have joined this bank. So
there were movements of independence. But
if you take the Middle-East issues, I think
the Europeans are much less influenced by
AIPAC-type of interest, there are no lobby
organisations like that one. There we are
more independent.
When it comes to Russia, the United States
statements have sounded pretty tough but
in reality they too have some restraint, as
mentioned. On the Iraqi affair, I think that
in 2003, the Europeans were far better than
the US, and it was more loyalty that dragged
them along. For Blair it was partly loyalty, he
wanted to have special relations with the US
but at the same time he had the same ideol-
ogy as Bush about what he claimed spread-
ing democracy. Blair had taken part of the
toppling of Milosevic, and he felt that it was
the sacred duty of the ‘big boys’, including
the UK to get rid of the bloody dictators.
Which Bush was ready to realise. For the rest
of Europe it was different, the French and
the Germans were opposed. And you could
never have a NATO operation in Iraq, so
here you see the difference between Euro-
pean and US foreign policy. However, the US
is there and we have similar outlooks in many
ways but I would like to see Europe being
somewhat freer in their attitude and not so
scared of the necessity to be behind Uncle
Sam.
Should the EU abandon their aggres-
sive outlook on Russia and pursue a
more pragmatic one?
- I think we have not been sufficiently at-
tentive to Russia. I have tremendous admi-
ration for Gorbachev, I have read many of
15
16. 1616
Mossadeq in 1953 in Iran, who was ousted
by the CIA. And then they got a shah, and
an authoritarian regime and then as a reac-
tion to the shah you got Khomeini eventu-
ally. So I don’t think it has been a very wise
policy. And then you have the US siding with
Saudi Arabia in the war in Yemen. And they
did start the Mujahedin resulting in strong
jihadist movement, which spread all over
Afghanistan. Finally you have Iraq, which
US occupied. Whilst US preach democracy
it certainly doesn’t always in practice work
that way.
In that case, has the US still a role to play
in the world or would the world become
a more peaceful place without US impe-
rialism?
- No I think certainly they have a role to
play, but I think decentralisation of power
is desirable. I prefer a world in which you do
not have a uni-polar system because they will
inevitably misuse their power. And the US
does misuse it from time to time.
On to the Ukraine crisis, how did we end
up where we are?
- I think there have been errors on the side
of the EU; mainly too limited awareness of
how touchy is this issue for Russia. Ukraine
was part of the Slavic community and an in-
tegral part of the Soviet industrial empire.
Then they were encountered and absorbed
many of the thoughts and attitudes of the
Western Europe, including the market-econ-
omy with very little corruption, with legal
systems that are relatively reliable.
They [Ukraine] were also military wishing to
join NATO, without much concern of how
that would be seen on the Russian side if
they were members of NATO. And I think
that when they pushed the economic agree-
ment (drafted and signed by Poroshenko,
which also states that Ukraine will apart
from economic integration), they also had
a rapprochement to get closer to European
Union foreign and security policies. That is
a fairly big thing. And I can see that Russia
is worried very much about it. The industry
of the Ukraine was something that collabo-
rated very closely with Russia. For Russia,
Ukraine joining NATO - because they were
on the list - must have been very unappetis-
ing. There was certain amount of oblivion
to this in the Western Europe. At the same
time I have no defence for what Russia did.
But understanding is not the same thing as
condoning.
Well you can imagine from their perspective,
if Ukraine had become a member of NATO
then the Sevastopol marina base, which was
rented by the Russians, could have become
a NATO black sea base. Now I can see the
cringes in the stomach of the Russians. But
it is also true that more than 60 per cent of
the people in the Crimea would have - in a
free referendum - voted for joining Russia.
But I think on the whole the Germans have
handled it rather well. I think the economic
sanctions, which cost us a fair amount in
Western Europe and cost the Russians a fair
amount is a strong sign, that we do not ac-
cept what you have done. At the same time
they [the Germans] are backing up Ukraine
but with some restraint. And the US in the
same way, they are not sending lethal weap-
ons as they say. They send restraint, since
17. his speeches in the UN, and I think he was
extremely enlightened and ready to go very
far. Achieving by far the biggest nuclear
disarmament.
Nevertheless, in some ways we are closer
to Russia than the US. We have close his-
tory; we are neighbours from Viking times.
They have burnt our coasts and we have
been shooting and fighting against Russia.
Sometimes winning but mostly loosing. But
they are our neighbours and there are things
in Russia that are more European than what
you would find in the US. I’m of thinking
universities. In Russia there is a remarkable
respect for the academic professions, for the
academy of science and professors, etc.In
the US, on top of this scale you have the
businessman, Wall Street. So there is a dif-
ferent social outlook.
The net sum, yes we have to increase our
relations with Russia. We must have more of
our students going there and more of their
students coming here. We must have more
trade, and it should be possible. During the
communist time, trade between Russia and
the West was not very large. And now it is
limited too much to the hydrocarbons. Also,
in the nuclear field they have a very high
technology, and you can see now how they
are exporting it to Finland; the UK is buy-
ing, perhaps even the Chinese. With Russia,
we should increase our relations; both, intel-
lectually and commercially.
Thank you Dr Hans Blix
17
We
are closer to Russia
than the US
Photo: Gita Nair
”
”
18. 18
International trade is a major force
that shapes contemporary world. The
amount of merchandise exported and
imported throughout the world reached a
19-trillion dollars figure each in 2014. This
number accounts for almost half of the
world’s gross GDP.
For its enormous impact on the world
economy and the domestic production,
trade can be a significant driver of economic
development, poverty reduction and envi-
ronmental action. However, these goals are
not easily reached unless politicians foster
proper trade policies to encompass multiple
demands from the society. Trade alone will
not do the job, but it can create incentives
for important changes in the way we pro-
duce and consume.
Since Adam Smith and David Ricardo,
free-trade has been within Western great
powers’ rhetoric. In the post World War II,
these countries officially created an institu-
tional framework to promote free-trade. The
Bretton Woods agreement gave birth to in-
ternational organizations, such as the World
Trade Organization, the International Mon-
etary Fund and the World Bank.
These forums seek to promote mutually
agreed rules so that trade can prosper. But
in contemporary world there are a great va-
riety of pressure groups, actors and govern-
ments’ positions towards trade matters. This
is why consensus is not easily reached and
the multilateral forums are becoming less
able to cope with contemporary demands.
The Doha Round is the most explicit exam-
ple of that. Current negotiations have been
on the table since 2001 and the perspective
of concluding a comprehensive agreement
remains unclear in the near future. This is
why bilateral agreements have been succeed-
ing in the international arena, such as the
TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership), the TPP (Trans-Pacific Part-
nership) and the CETA (Comprehensive
Economic and Trade Agreement).
International trade has been through sig-
nificant and steady swifts in the past few
decades. New actors entered into the stage,
such as the BRICS, particularly China. New
ways of exchanging goods were created and
became the core of robust industries, such
as cross-border electronic commerce. Nev-
ertheless, some old policies remain the same,
especially subsidies for industries considered
strategic.
TTIP’S envIronmenTal ImPlIcaTIonS
gabrIela ruSSo loPeS
Gabriela Russo Lopes will dwelve into the general causes behind global
warming and how the on-going TTIP negotiations can abate the effects of
19. In addition, concerns about climate change
have been more and more influencing world
politics, international trade and consumers’
preferences. The release of IPCC’s 5th As-
sessment in 2014 - the science-based scenar-
ios of an increase in two, four or six degrees
Celsius until 2100 - draw some worrisome
conclusions for the future of Earth.
Any significant increase in Earth’s tem-
perature results in disturbances in the eco-
system services, water cycle, food security
and could lead to serious losses in the world
economy. The Stern Review concludes that:
“Based on simple extrapolations, costs of extreme
weather alone could reach 0.5 - 1% of world GDP
per annum by the middle of the century, and will
keep rising if the world continues to warm”.
The planetary temperature is highly inter-
twined with the level of greenhouse gases
(GHG) emission. Since the Industrial Revo-
lution in the 19th century, and particularly
after the Great Acceleration in the 1950s,
the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have
reached the patterns never seen before. A
significant amount of emissions can be
traced back to the fossil fuels industry that
provides energy supply for industry and
transportation. The International Energy
Agency (IEA) states that:
“Non-clean energy resources - i. e. fossil fuels -
currently account for about 80 percent of emissions
worldwide, and existing infrastructure and projects
in construction are estimated to lock-in to 2020 ap-
proximately 20 percent of those emissions”.
Notwithstanding the appalling correla-
tion between fossil fuels, CO2 emission and
global warming, the world economy still
heavily relies on subsidies to non-renewable
sources of energy. The US has the highest
level of fossil fuels subsidies in absolute
figures, followed by China and Russia, but
the EU is also a major actor in proportional
scales, correlating subsidising policies and
national emissions.
The IEA estimates that each year 500 bil-
lion dollars are spent specifically on fossil
fuels subsidies between producers and con-
sumers, while renewable energy remains not
only under subsidised but also faces scale
and bureaucratic constraints.
Even though these subsidies are environ-
mentally harmful, they fall under the green
box at the WTO - which accounts for al-
lowed subsidising policies. Besides, as fos-
sil fuels subsidies contribute to cheaper oil
prices in the international market, the WTO
Dispute Settlement Body registers very few
cases questioning subsidy policies on fossil
fuels.
At present, there are neither any WTO
negotiations on phasing out fossil fuels
subsidies nor has it tabled discussions on
promoting renewable energy. Notwithstand-
ing, the bilateral agreements that are being
negotiated nowadays are as negligent as the
multilateral system in addressing this issue.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership is a regional trade agreement
(RTA) that intends to foster economic ties
between the United States and the European
Union. The objective is to set new bilateral
rules to facilitate exports and investment
amongst its parties. The mandate for TTIP’s
negotiation came into force in 2013, after
the persisting stalemate at WTO’s Doha
Round.
RTAs pose deep challenges to the multilat-
eral arena and leave behind some important
actors that are not at the negotiation table
in the regional level. However, while this the
multilateral discussions, they could take a
real step forward in addressing shifting
19
20. and urgent demands. The environmental
problem could be dealt along with the nego-
tiations, adopting measures to reduce emis-
sions to thrive low-carbon initiatives in in-
ternational trade and investment field.
In the UNFCCC’s Conference of the Par-
ties discussions, the US and the EU fre-
quently adhere to powerful rhetoric on cli-
mate change, urging its peers to take action
on the matter. Nevertheless, for the most
part they are reticent in supporting a com-
prehensive and robust binding agreement to
forge a holistic compromise on emissions’
targets.
The US and the EU could bilaterally lead
the way in transitioning to a decarbonised
global economy. As the European Commis-
sion claim that TTIP will help to “influence
world trade rules and project our values
globally” and if the environment is a prior-
ity in Western policies, as the rhetoric usually
suggests, it should also be at the core of the
economic talks and trade negotiations.
One innovative and efficient way forward
would be to tackle fossil fuel subsidies right
away. This is an action demanded by differ-
ent groups in society and gathered in two in-
creasingly influential movements: the #End-
FossilFuelsSubsidies and the Go Fossil Free.
Together with the Stop TTIP Movement
- which collected more than 3 millions of
signatures and organized robust demonstra-
tions - civil society has been pressuring gov-
ernments and pointing out the limitations in
the agreement regarding environment,
20
The Chief Negotiators Dan Mullaney from the US
and Ignacio Garcia Bercero from the EU
Source: Picture Alliance/DPA
22. transparency and privileges to private com-
panies.
Surely trade and investment have an impor-
tant role to play in this process and the TTIP
could significantly contribute to the matter.
However, the pressing issues of CO2 emis-
sions do not seem to be a major concern of
the negotiators, once they are scarcely ad-
dressed by the tabled texts.
The three main objectives are Market Ac-
cess, Regulatory Cooperation and Rules. Un-
der Market Access, there are subjects such as
tariff reduction for goods and services and
rules of origin. Under Regulatory Coopera-
tion, there are discussions on technical bar-
riers to trade, food safety, and specific indus-
tries safety standards. Under Rules, there are
some important environment-driven con-
tents, such as energy and raw materials and
sustainable development. Yet, the language
used even in the institutional publications is
symptomatic.
In the Energy and Raw Materials section,
the European Commission affirms that “the
EU and the US should lead efforts to pro-
mote sustainability in the use of traditional
fuels and develop the new green energies of
the future”. In the position papers tabled at
the discussion, however, there is no mention
to fossil fuels subsidies at all. There is no ref-
erence to any phasing out policy negotiation
and neither is it mentioned as a problem to
be addressed in the future.
In the Sustainable Development section,
the objectives are defined as to “support
core international standards and conven-
tions for labour and the environment; keep
our right to set high levels of environmental
and labour protection and avoid any race to
the bottom; and untap trade’s potential to
advance sustainable development objectives,
for example through more trade in sustain-
ably managed natural resources or in green
goods and services”.
Once again, within trade’s potential to pro-
mote the environmental agenda, there is no
reference to subsidies that support carbon-
intensive activities.
Hence, TTIP is an opportunity for the two
major Western actors to incorporate impor-
tant environmental inputs in the bilateral
relation. On the table, there are initiatives
on fostering production and access to green
renewable energy that should be strength-
ened and put forward. Nevertheless, if the
current fossil fuels subsidies policy contin-
ues to be untouched, these initiatives shall
be significantly set aside by the paradoxical
policies. This is not only a very inefficient
way of allocating public resources, but also a
very dubious environmental policy.
When the TTIP’s negotiating governments
reinstate that most important benefits for
the people are solely “more business op-
portunities, more growth and more jobs”, it
means that the reasoning behind the agree-
ment remains attached to a traditional out
dated mind set. Along with gaps in account-
ability and transparency, the agreement ne-
glects the fundamental role of phasing out
fossil fuels subsidies in order to transition to
a low-carbon economy. This logic focuses
excessively on the short-term economic cri-
ses and fails to grasp the depth of the long-
term environmental and global challenge.
22
23. We live in a world in desperate and
in constant need of fossil fuels.
As far as we know, the renewal
of energy sources provided by the earth – a
process of great value, is practically never-
ending. However, though fossil fuels are
continuously formed, the process takes a
long time. Therefore, it is important to be
prudent and sparing in its use. Nonetheless,
there is still a great need and demand for
fossil fuels, which results in constant devel-
opment and emergence of new methods in
industrial extraction. One of those methods
is hydraulic fracturing, also known as ”frack-
ing”.
As early as in 2010, when the US had just
begun extracting their fossil fuels using the
method, the country became the world’s
leading natural gas producer, thanks to shale
gas.
Fracking is an industrial process used to
extract fossil fuels such as oil and gas. It took
off after a new technological innovation
making it possible to drill horizontally. For
example; to extract the gas, the procedure
begins by drilling through the ground, down
to the layers of shale. Once you are there,
the drilling is directed horizontally along the
shale where particles of the gas are stored
in small cracks and pores. The next step in-
volves pouring a large amount of water and
sand (approximately 15-20 million litres)
down the drilled hole, creating a large pres-
sure. The water substance break the cracks
open as the sand wedges in between them
to continue to keep them open. The gas par-
ticles are now released and they rise through
the drilled hole to the surface where they are
stored.
Nowadays, the gas can be transported in
the form of liquid, known as liquefied natu-
ral gas (LNG) by being cooled down to a
temperature of 160 degrees Celsius. The vol-
ume of the gas is 640 times less in its liquid
form as compared to the standard volume
of the same product in the gaseous form.
Because of this, the market is no longer de-
pendent on the gas pipelines, which results
in easier management when transporting the
fuel globally.
The advantage of fracking is the ability
to access the fossil fuel. For the US, it has
boosted domestic oil production, which has
led to the decreasing gas prices. This has
brought a great security for the US with a
usage of gas running up to approximately
100 years. The fossil fuel is also cleaner than
coal as the natural gas produces fewer harm-
ful particles in the air. Also, the fracking
companies argue that the industry opens up
frackIng
omITTed effecTS
gITa naIr
Fracking has caused tremendous damage, both on the environment,
but more importantly on the health of those living in the vicinity. In the
following article, Gita Nair will display fracking’s omitted effects and the
forces behind it.
23
24. valuable job opportunities.
Although the process seems quite harm-
less, the water and sand mixture contains a
large amount of chemicals that are used to
make the water flow faster, kill bacteria and
keep the pipes protected. The extraction
process has created a great deal of contro-
versy, as environmentalists are highly critical
of the side effects of the procedure.
Scientists are continuously studying the
impacts of fracking, and according to
Greenpeace, the facts from research found
to date are alarming. But, the fracking com-
panies claim that the amount of chemicals
being used is close to nothing (2 percent),
and therefore causes very little harm, if at
all. However, due to the immense amount
of fluid used, the chemicals are still worth
paying serious attention to. Supposedly, the
exact volume of the chemicals used in the
procedure is kept secret by the fracking in-
dustry. Supposedly, the exact volume of the
chemicals is kept secret by the fracking in-
dustry.
Greenpeace claims that the underground
injection wells used to dispose of the con-
taminated water, has led to the events such
as increased earthquakes. The wells do not
produce any gas or oil but play a big part in
the process. The more important aspect to
pay attention to is when large amounts of
liquid is pumped down, there is a risk that
some of it will find its way through the soil
layers and contaminate water, even if the
shale is at a much greater depth. This kind
of contaminated water has been found in
the areas where fracking companies drill.
The water has supposedly caused disturb-
ing side effects such as nose bleeds, head-
aches, breathing difficulties and more among
people drinking the water.
Some argue it is highly unlikely that the
contaminated water can even reach up to
the water supplies on the surface seeing as
how the drilling is done from thousands of
feet down in the ground. Fracking compa-
nies also claim they dispose of the water in
a safe way.
The Obama administration issued a study
that confirmed contamination of drink-
ing water wells. The study was executed by
the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) and showed they did not
find any evidence to prove that fracking had
led to any widespread impacts on drinking
water. This gave the oil and gas companies
reason to argue that the concerns regarding
contamination were unreasonable and exag-
gerated.
However, EPA officials said the study was
not meant to provide an extensive tally of
contaminations. This was due to the fact that
there was no national database or record of
the number of contamination incidents or
fracked wells, which the Congress allegedly
disregarded. Normally, federal pollution
rules would require detailed reports of such
activities.
The gas lobby has increased with indus-
try-sponsored groups such as American’s
Natural Gas Alliance and the American
Gas Association. Hundreds of lobbyists are
working to separate gas from other dirty fos-
sil fuels but as it turns out, the gas industry
has emerged as a heavy polluter. Despite of
this, agencies have shown that the industry
concerns are prioritized over public health
and safety.
According to reports, the lobby industry
provides a misleading choice between econ-
omy and environment. It is even alleged that
large oil companies have put an immense
amount of pressure on senators to allow
the drilling in exchange for votes and cam-
paign contributions. It is even reported that
the gas and oil companies spent over 700
million USD from 2001 to 2011 on lobby
policymakers. It is all a battle of the large
corporations and government against the
environment and health of human beings.
24
25. The fight for a sustainable and healthy
earth continues and to keep industries like
these from overpowering human health, it is
vital to keep researching and recording cases
to have stronger evidence against the frack-
ing industry. Fracking is something which is
going on in several countries and it is im-
portant that governments take a close look
at the industry to prevent them from, for
example, being able to hide important infor-
mation regarding contamination.
Though environmentalists and victims of
contamination have had to put up a fight,
some states in the US in the recent years
have banned fracking. Earlier this year, the
Obama administration announced new rules
for hydraulic fracking.
“Current federal well-drilling regulations
are more than 30 years old and they sim-
ply have not kept pace with the technical
complexities of today’s hydraulic fracturing
operations,” Interior Secretary Sally Jew-
ell said in a statement. “This updated and
strengthened rule provides a framework of
safeguards and disclosure protocols that will
allow for the continued responsible develop-
ment of our federal oil and gas resources.”
If the rules are maintained and followed,
the fracking industry might have a bright fu-
ture.
An even more ideal way to go about this
problem would be to find an alternative, and
a more gentle way to extract fossil fuels. Af-
ter all, it is of great importance that we pro-
tect and take care of the environment and
the people living in it – for us, and future
generations.
25
Source: WSJ
26. 2015 has been an incredible year for the
Stockholm Association of International Af-
fairs. The board has worked vigorously to
create opportunities for our members like
never before. A sneak preview of the movie
Selma, a courtesy of the US Embassy. Dip-
locafés with the Polish, French, and Brit-
ish Ambassadors. A panel discussion with
the German Minister of State of Europe
about the ongoing refugee crisis. Talks at the
Kulturhuset City Theatre with Alexandra
Pascalidou and Gina Dirawi. A visit from
the former President of South Africa, Mr.
Kgalema Molanthe. The list goes on.
It is needless to say that the work the
board has done together has garnered new,
beautiful friendships. We have learned to
work well under pressure, to support each
other, and laugh together. I have person-
ally been inspired and motivated by every
active member to work harder to generate
circumstances where young people feel they
can impact and engage in international af-
fairs. And collectively, the board has done
just that!
The SAIA Debate Club has grown
through the year, teaching members to de-
bate with confidence and convincing argu-
mentations. The Journal, lead by Haroon
Bayani, has been revamped with fantas-
tic covers and new perspectives. Our new
graphic profile and website by our talented
PR-manager Alexandra Kaktus has turned
heads! It has been a pleasure seeing the com-
mittee’s ideas coming to life.
As the year reaches its end, it is time for
the board of 2015 to pass its torch to the
new board. We are certain that the associa-
tion will continue to thrive! Thanks to every
member of the board who has made this
year unforgettable for us all.
Happy holidays!
Warm regards,
fInal remarkS
Parisa Khosravi
President
26
Rebecca Lindqvist
Vice-president
27. 1. Guantanamo Bay, still going strong.
2. Euroscepticism on the rise.
3. NSA with its permanent mass surveillance program.
4. Social unrest in Baltimore, Maryland (USA).
5. Growing obesity epidemic in the US.
6. Unemployment and poverty, the picture from Greece.
7. American consumerism.
28. become a member of STOCKHOLM ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
it includes:
free entry to lectures and debates, access to valuable contacts, opportunity for study visits in sweden and abroad and free issues of
THE STOCKHOLM JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
annual membership - 50 sek - available at our events and ufstockholm.com
This issue is partly financied by Forum Syd
