Mereja.Forum

Inside Development/ European Union
Exclusive: Internal report shows EU fears losing Africa over Ukraine

By Vince Chadwick

https://www.devex.com/news/exclusive-in ... NI.twitter

22 July 2022


Photo by: European Union

With Europe and Africa increasingly split over the war in Ukraine, European diplomats have argued in a confidential report for a more “transactional” approach to foreign aid that would tie funding for African countries to their willingness to work

based on common values and a joint vision.

The five-page document, overseen by Birgitte Markussen, the head of the European Union delegation to the African Union, with input from the heads of mission from EU countries in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, was circulated to diplomats in Brussels this week and seen by Devex.

It provides a candid assessment of how those on the ground see the EU losing the battle for hearts and minds in Africa over the conflict — and what to do about it.

On the one hand, the report calls for

understanding and empathy for African challenges, and willingness to help find concrete solutions.

But it also underlines that Europe is

the main indirect victim of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s war of aggression,

citing

dramatic consequences in all aspects (security, economic, financial, social, migration - 7 million refugees, unemployment).

And it opens the possibility of calibrating foreign aid from Europe according to Africa’s stance.

Becoming more transactional in our approach, we should be clear about the fact that the willingness of Europeans (governments and taxpayers) to maintain higher levels of financial engagement in African countries will depend on working based on common values and a joint vision,

the report reads.

Despite billions of euros pledged to Ukraine, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... IP_22_4264 EU officials have so far said publicly that African countries will get the same amount of development assistance from the EU institutions as that initially agreed in their 2021-2027 country plans. https://international-partnerships.ec.e ... ramming_en

However, the latest report points out that

it is clear that the longer the war will last, the less resources there will be.

‘Critical juncture’

Now is a “critical juncture” to improve the EU’s public and private messaging on the war, the report states, noting that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will travel to Addis Ababa from July 26-27 to meet with the AU Commission and AU member states, and to

prepare for a possible second Africa-Russia Summit in November.

After a long-delayed summit between EU and AU leaders https://www.devex.com/news/the-eu-s-sum ... ica-102661 in mid-February, relations between the two continents have cooled in recent months amid concerns from some African leaders that EU sanctions against Russia in response to Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine are exacerbating the global food crisis. https://www.politico.eu/article/african ... ine-grain/

Top EU officials have labored to dispel that idea.

This food crisis is not caused by the European restrictive measures,

EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell said https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/g20-spe ... -energy_en at a meeting of the Group of 20 nations in Indonesia earlier this month.

The agricultural sector in Russia is not targeted. Our sanctions do not prohibit the import of Russian agricultural goods, or fertilizers, nor payment for such Russian exports.

But the latest report from Addis Ababa makes clear diplomats’ view that this message is not getting through.

The effects of EU sanctions on third countries need to be carefully assessed by experts, and factual information should be shared with diplomats,

the report states.

It is not enough to say that ‘EU sanctions are not responsible for the food crisis’, we need more substance and sharper LTTs [lines to take], including from EU Headquarters. Not only on sanctions, but also on cases where we have been accused of double standards and on the fact that the longer the war takes, the more our resources are going to be stretched.

Friction between the two continents was evident again Friday as a spokesperson for AU Commission Chairperson Moussa Faki tweeted that a deal https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... de5710bda8 to allow the export of grain from Black Sea ports was

the result of a direct appeal by the @_AfricanUnion at a … [meeting] with President Putin in Sochi. To which many disagreed at the time.

‘Drifting further away’

The diplomats’ report cites the Sochi meeting in early June as part of

a trend which seems to indicate that the AU and its Member States may be drifting further away from our position,

at least publicly.

The EU’s reputation as being a mediator, a peacemaker, is eroding due to the Union’s military assistance to Ukraine,

they write.

In Africa, the EU is seen as fuelling the conflict, not as a peace facilitator.

Many AUMS [AU member states] do not identify an interest in taking sides in what they perceive as an ‘East-West’ conflict,

the report states.

The colonial and post-colonial legacies, including historical ties of a good range of countries with the Soviet Union and subsequently Russia, strongly influence mindsets and positions, as do perceived Western double standards. Furthermore, AUMS are concerned about Russian pressure on them.

However, the diplomats write that African countries are

seriously concerned by the impact of the war on food security incl. supply of fertilisers, energy and financial systems – i.e. stability in their countries - and are thus calling for a review of sanctions and negotiations towards a political solution to the war.

Against this backdrop, the report goes on to outline how to make the EU’s outreach to the AU and its member states on the consequences of the Ukraine war more

targeted, audible and effective.

‘Lecturing should be ‘banned’’

African partners sometimes have the impression that the EU is lecturing them on values,

the diplomats write.

Lecturing should be ‘banned’. We must instead highlight that the defence of our values is of utmost importance, but also humbly acknowledge that it is at times complex, i.e. defending moral values vs. economic interests.

In addition, the diplomats write that

special attention should be given to African countries’ relationship not just with Russia, but also with China.

Relations with China are an important factor for some African countries, and they may pay extra attention to the way the war in Ukraine is viewed in Beijing.

For all its candor, the report contains at times contradictory messages.

EU Headquarters should provide clear data on the EU’s support and the weight of Europe-Africa relations,

the report advises.

Elsewhere, it states,

We should pass frank messages to break free from being perceived mainly as a money provider.

Similarly, it warns of

the potential negative fallouts of being perceived as pressuring Africans to take sides, or prescribing them what to do,

while later advising on the need to

stress that if Africa has ambitions to become an important global player, including in the UNSC [United Nations Security Council], it has to discuss and take positions on non-African affairs.

For now, the report gives the impression that European diplomats would just be happy to be heard, given the risk the diplomats note that

focusing on Russia/Ukraine only will make Africans ‘turn down the volume’ and stop listening to us.

Listening to each other in mutual respect is what close friends and strategic partners do,

the report states.

Although it is unlikely that EU and AU positions will converge on Ukraine at this point in time, all communication channels must remain wide open to foster mutual understanding and respect.

Vince Chadwick is the Brussels Correspondent for Devex. He covers the EU institutions, member states, and European civil society. A law graduate from Melbourne, Australia, he was social affairs reporter for The Age newspaper, before moving to Europe in 2013. He covered breaking news, the arts and public policy across the continent, including as a reporter and editor at POLITICO Europe.

Why Doesn’t the U.S. Want Peace?

By Susan Banaszewski

https://maintrendnews.com/news/why-does ... want-peace

7/19/2022



As the holder of the world reserve currency, a leader on the world stage, the de-facto commander of NATO, and a self-avowed enforcer of a ‘rules-based international order,’ the United States is in the best position to bring peace and prosperity to Ukraine. If he wanted to, U.S. President Joe Biden could take the lead in peace negotiations and exert his tremendous leverage over the Kiev regime to reach a settlement. US congress-people, who claim to be against war and foreign intervention, could begin to vote against the billions of dollars in military aid that have only prolonged and exacerbated the conflict. So why is it that, apart from some libertarian and ‘America First’ Republicans, our so-called representatives have voted almost unanimously to pump more and more weapons into Ukraine? Why do they continue their inflammatory rhetoric toward Russian president Vladimir Putin? And why have they waged an all-out economic war that is now backfiring and wreaking havoc on economies in the collective West?

Provocation

The U.S. establishment spent years provoking the current conflict by crossing a bright red line with its 2008 announcement to expand NATO to Ukraine and later orchestrating the 2014 Euromaidan color revolution and coup d’etat. Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Amy Klobuchar met in 2017 with Ukrainian soldiers, including prominent neo-Nazis like Azov battalion founder, Andriy Biletsky. In a video taken during the meeting, Graham assures the soldiers,

Your fight is our fight – 2017 will be the year of offense. All of us will go back to Washington and we will push the case against Russia.

Upon his return, he did just that.

When Russia began its special military operation in February 2022, Graham openly called for Putin’s assassination. Ukraine, there is bipartisan consensus. Throughout the Trump administration, Democratic congressman and purveyor of Russiagate Adam Schiff had also called for military aid to the Kiev regime

so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.

Despite repeated warnings from the U.N. Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) in the years leading up to Russia’s special military operation that supplying weapons to Ukraine would only result in continued civilian suffering and human rights violations, the “aid” not only continued – former president Trump was even impeached for delaying some of it. The steady influx of arms worked against the implementation of the Minsk agreements. The U.S. knew that these weapons shipments would only hinder implementation of the Minsk agreements. Indeed, former president Petro Poroshenko recently admitted in an interview to Germany’s Deutsche Welle television that the Minsk Accords were merely a ploy to buy more time to build up Ukraine’s military. Meanwhile, there remains a consensus in Washington to deploy Ukrainians to fight a proxy war against Russia, to safeguard “democracy” and the “liberal world order.” Following the money, however, reveals the real motives.

Profiteering

With the approval of Biden’s 15th military aid package since the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, the U.S. has now provided another $7 billion in aid – bringing the total to almost $60 billion. The conflict has been a boon to arms industry stakeholders. While the larger stock market struggles amidst a growing recession, Northrup Grummon stock has shot up 20% since the beginning of the year; Lockheed Martin, 17%; and Raytheon, 11%. Those in Congress and other powerful positions who own arms industry stocks are reaping the benefits: Business Insider reports that at least 20 members of Congress or their families own stock in Raytheon Technologies or Lockheed Martin. Some own up to $250,000 in stock, such as Senators John Hickenlooper (D) and Roy Blunt (R). According to an analysis by Public Citizen, defense sector companies donated over $10M to members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees who are up for reelection in 2022. Recipients of campaign donations from the defense industry have every incentive to ensure those profits keep increasing. In addition to these elected officials who are subject to greater oversight, less visible but still influential government employees and advisors are also presumably reaping the war profits.

Economic Warfare

Intensifying conflict with Russia has provided the pretext for the U.S. to force its allies to pick sides and distance themselves from Russia economically. For years, the U.S. energy sector and its friends in government have used sanctions and lawsuits to prevent the opening of the completed Nordstream 2 pipeline, which was set to bring from Russia to Germany. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, had promised on January 27th:

If Russia invades Ukraine one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.

At a press conference, President Biden later unilaterally ruled out opening the pipeline in front of Germany’s new leader, chancellor Olaf Scholz. The cancellation of Nordstream 2, a project Germany had itself proposed to a skeptical Russia, has meant renewed European reliance on more expensive American liquefied natural gas (LNG), pushing up prices. Other aggressive, anti-Russia sanctions continue to make would-be neutral countries more reliant on the U.S., and Washington has threatened to blacklist and sanction any country that doesn’t join in the economic and proxy war against Russia.

This strategy has resulted in increased energy prices, discussions about energy rationing, and record-breaking inflation in the U.S. and Europe, as contributed to a looming global food crisis. This, while the Russian ruble is in fact trading at its strongest level since 2015.

As long as the war in Ukraine rages on, U.S. arms manufacturers, energy tycoons and western elites will continue to benefit. Each nation on the international stage is now being forced to either cut off trade with Russia and subject themselves to U.S. hegemony, or else risk the penalties incurred by cutting off trade with the U.S. and its allies. Until the U.S. is no longer allowed a stranglehold on bodies of international law and is forced to deal with Russia as a sovereign nation, the Ukrainian people will remain pawns of U.S. imperialism and working and peace-loving people of all countries will continue to suffer.

This article was originally published in Minneapolis-based Anti-War Committee’s “Ukraine Report” and has been updated with current information.