Diplomacy and International Institutions

International Organizations

  • Europe and Eurasia
    The Policy Implications of Hacking the Hacking Team
    The irony of Hacking Team—an Italian company that sells surveillance software—being hacked (or as Wired put it, “disemboweled”) is delicious, especially given Hacking Team’s denials it sold to governments with notorious human rights records. Hacking Team still insists it broke no laws and has behaved ethically. Whether Hacking Team survives remains to be seen, but this episode’s importance extends beyond one company. What the hack revealed touches on important policy issues. Cyber Surveillance Tools and Sanction Regimes The disclosed materials indicate Hacking Team sold its wares to the Sudanese government and a state-owned Russian company that produces military radar. Marietje Schaake, member of the European Parliament, argues that the sale to Sudan violates sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council—sanctions implemented through EU law. Schaake also states that the sale to the Russian company appears to violate EU sanctions imposed in response to Russian activities in Ukraine. Whether Hacking Team violated these sanctions I leave for others to decide, but the accusations suggest that future sanction regimes should explicitly cover the type of surveillance tools Hacking Team sold. In March 2015 correspondence, the UN Panel of Experts involved in monitoring the Sudan sanctions stated that Hacking Team’s software “may potentially” fall within the prohibited categories of “military equipment” or “assistance” related to prohibited items. This less-than-definitive phrasing invites questions about the interpretation of the UN sanctions. Such questions can be avoided in the future by including surveillance software within the scope of prohibitions imposed by UN sanctions. Wassenaar Arrangement Rules on Intrusion Software The Hacking Team disclosures focuses new attention on rules adopted in December 2013 that subjected intrusion software to the Wassenaar Arrangement, an export-control regime for dual-use technologies involving forty-one countries. As Kim Zetter noted, this change sought “to restrict the sale and distribution of computer surveillance tools to oppressive regimes,” though some argue it could chill cybersecurity research. Experts identified Hacking Team products as falling within these new rules. However, revelations that Hacking Team’s customers included countries with poor human rights records reinforce why the Wassenaar regime included intrusion software. The episode gives momentum to the Wassenaar approach of regulating cyber surveillance companies. While the momentum does not resolve the security research community’s concerns, the incident strengthens the position of governments and human rights groups interested in more regulation in this area. The Future of Lawful Hacking Hacking Team’s clients include not only repressive governments but also government agencies in democracies, including EU members and the United States, which connects the disclosures with controversies about “lawful hacking.” In June 2015, Senator Charles Grassley, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to FBI Director James Comey seeking information about the FBI’s use of spyware, their legal justification that authorizes deployment of such software, and whether the FBI has purchased spyware from, among others, the Hacking Team. The disclosure that the FBI has been a Hacking Team customer will intensify scrutiny of its use of hacking in criminal investigations. The same might occur in other countries where government agencies are listed as Hacking Team clients, such as Australia, Chile and Mexico. This trajectory will increase tensions building between government interest in exploiting digital technologies for law enforcement and advocates for privacy and other civil liberties. International Human Rights in the Digital Age The nature of Hacking Team’s products and the global scale of its sales make the leaked information important for international human rights. Concerns about the threat government surveillance poses to the use of digital technologies existed prior to the Hacking Team disclosures. But, like the Snowden leaks, these disclosures will heighten worries that governments are engaging in surveillance that violates human rights. In response to the disclosures, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression tweeted that the documents revealed the depth and extent of digital attacks on civil society and underscored the importance of encryption and anonymity. The disclosures will also be important to the work of the newly appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy. Making It Too Easy for Authoritarian Regimes Hacking Team might go out of business, but its demise would not affect how authoritarian governments behave. Much like Snowden’s leaks, the Hacking Team contretemps reinforces their perceptions of the hypocrisy of democracies. They can easily point out double standards: multiple U.S. government agencies are clients of a company that sells to a Sudanese regime accused of genocide, even after the Hacking Team has been credibly accused of doing business with Sudan and other repressive governments? And it takes another spectacular criminal act to expose gaps between rhetoric about Internet freedom and the reality of governmental and private-sector behavior? Authoritarian governments do not need the travails of democracies to harness digital technologies for repression, but the democratic world’s struggles with these disruptive technologies are giving cyber repression too much space to metastasize.
  • China
    The Risks and Rewards of SCO Expansion
    The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is expected to welcome India and Pakistan as full members at its fifteenth annual summit in Ufa, Russia. CFR’s Elizabeth C. Economy and William Piekos weigh the rewards and risks of expansion.
  • Global
    The BRICS: Three Things to Know
    Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (known as the "BRICS") are forming multilateral bodies intended to reduce Western influence over the global financial system, explains CFR’s Stewart Patrick.  
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    Nigeria Security Tracker: Weekly Update June 27-July 3
    Below is a visualization and description of some of the most significant incidents of political violence in Nigeria from June 27, 2015 to July 3, 2015. This update also represents violence related to Boko Haram in Cameroon, Chad, and Niger. These incidents will be included in the Nigeria Security Tracker. <a href=’#’><img alt=’Weekly Incident Map Dashboard ’ src=’https:&#47;&#47;public.tableau.com&#47;static&#47;images&#47;NS&#47;NSTWeeklyJune27-July3&#47;WeeklyIncidentMapDashboard&#47;1_rss.png’ style=’border: none’ /></a>   June 27: Two suicide bombers killed themselves and three others in Maiduguri, Borno. Boko Haram is suspected. June 28: Sectarian violence in Barkin Ladi, Plateau, resulted in two deaths. June 29: When Chadian police raided a Boko Haram hideout in N’Djamena, the militants detonated explosives, killing six of their own and five Chadian policemen. June 30: Boko Haram militants killed forty-eight in Monguno, Borno. June 30: Sectarian violence in Barkin Ladi, Plateau, resulted in six deaths. July 1: Sectarian violence in Barkin Ladi, Plateau, resulted in six deaths. July 1: Boko Haram militants killed ninety-eight in Kukawa, Borno. July 1: Two suicide bombers detonated in Maiduguri, Borno, but only killed themselves. Boko Haram is suspected. July 2: Two female suicide bombers killed themselves and ten others on Borno highways. Boko Haram is suspected. July 3: Boko Haram beheaded eleven of its own fighters in Biu, Borno.
  • Europe
    Yes or No, Greece Needs Debt Relief
    The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has released their most recent debt sustainability analysis for Greece and, while it doesn’t include the devastation resulting from this week’s bank and capital controls, it makes for sober reading. Its bottom line is that, even if Greece were to commit to the policies now being proposed by the creditors, and were to fully implement them, Greece will need over €50 billion in financing over the next three years (see table), and require long-term debt relief through extraordinary maturity extensions and concessional interest rates. Factor in the damage in the past week, and the likelihood of further slippage in the best of scenarios, and the message is clear:  however the referendum turns out this weekend, actual debt haircuts eventually will be needed as part of any successful reform program for Greece within the eurozone. Source: International Monetary Fund With this document, the IMF is firmly differentiating itself from Germany and Greece’s other creditors in putting “a significant debt operation” squarely on the table, while at the same time still calling for ambitious structural reforms that until now the Greek government has been unwilling to accept.  This is consistent with past IMF statements, though more powerful because it is explicit and detailed in its analysis.  The Fund also is signalling that they do not want to provide financing for any deal that doesn’t meet these conditions, though whether they can really say no to their major shareholders if it comes to that remains to be seen.  That said, given the IMF’s identification with austerity in the minds of the Greek public, a bailout without IMF money may be politically more viable within Greece than one that includes a Fund arrangement. Where does this leave us? The referendum will take place this Sunday, as scheduled. Recent polls seem to be leaning to a yes vote, but no one should feel they can predict the outcome with any confidence. If there is a no vote, most analysts see a Greek exit from the eurozone as likely. The government will see itself with a mandate to maintain a tough line, and creditor governments will be unlikely to make further concessions. The limited global market turmoil to date will further strengthen confidence that Europe can weather the contagion that results from Greek exit. If there is a yes vote, conventional wisdom is that the Greek government would fall. But the politics of any possible realignment are sharply constrained by the deteriorating domestic economy. It will take significant additional liquidity from the European Central Bank (ECB) to reopen Greece’s banks, and that presumably will require agreement on policies. I am further skeptical that the payments system will work well in the absence of physical euros, given uncertainties about whether the banks will reopen or whether deposits are safe. IOUs would allow the government to continue basic services, but would not prevent the further collapse of private activity. If this is the case, Greece may have only a short period in which to decide to take a deal that provides the basis for an ECB decision to reopen the banks, or alternatively move to introduce a new currency. Yes or no on Sunday, it is worth trying to see if the IMF framework can be agreed. Greece’s European creditors will have to overcome understandably deep resistance to debt reduction for this deal to be on offer after Sunday’s referendum. A Tsipras government with a reorganized economic team should have the capacity to accept this offer. If either side lacks the will to close such a deal, Greek exit from the eurozone will be the best option.
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    Eritrea’s Humanitarian Crisis and Mediterranean Migration
    This is a guest post by Amanda Roth, a former intern for the Council on Foreign Relations Africa Program. She is a recent graduate from the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, where she studied international security policy.  According to the International Organization for Migration, 23 percent of the 170,100 refugees that arrived in Italy by sea last year were from Eritrea. In a country of only 6.3 million, the United Nations estimates that approximately five thousand people flee every month. Eritrea has been largely ignored internationally, but increasing numbers of refugees, a growing diaspora community, and the regime’s involvement in instability in the Horn of Africa may mean that it is time to take a closer look at the police state that has been called the “North Korea of Africa.” Earlier this month, the UN released a report illuminating the country’s horrific conditions and accusing the Eritrean government of “systematic, widespread, and gross human rights violations.” The report is only the latest to condemn the government of President Isaias Afwerki, who has ruled the country without elections for more than twenty years and exerts control over nearly every aspect of daily life. One of the primary reasons that Eritreans are fleeing is the forced national service that all Eritrean men and women must complete. Citing the country’s violent conflicts with Ethiopia (from whom it gained independence in 1993) and other neighboring countries, the government maintains one of the largest armies in sub-Saharan Africa. Men and women are forced to serve indefinitely with little or no pay. One study found that the average length of service among former conscripts was six and a half years, although some served twice as long. Entire families go hungry because potential breadwinners must choose between forced conscription and fleeing the country. The UN report also outlined “widespread use of torture” and “ubiquitous” arbitrary detention. There is no free press, and Afwerki’s government operates a system of mass surveillance, with government informants everywhere. There is a severe shortage of food and basic goods. Because so much money and manpower is devoted to the military, there is very little internal capacity to meet people’s needs. Given these conditions, it is not surprising that the UN High Commission for Refugees counts more than 400,000 refugees and asylum seekers from Eritrea, approximately 6 percent of the country’s population. Even the Afwerki regime’s alleged "shoot to kill" policy on the border does not dissuade thousands from fleeing. However, even if individuals do manage to escape, they are not safe from the government’s reach. There have been reports that Afwerki supporters working as translators in Europe inform the Eritrean government about the private statements migrants make during asylum hearings. Eritrea uses extortion and threats of violence to exact an involuntary tax from the diaspora. The government also allegedly tortures and punishes deserters’ families that remain behind. As Europe continues to debate how to respond to the migrant crisis along the Mediterranean, there are repeated calls for the European Union to attempt to address the “root causes” that lead tens of thousands of migrants to flee. The UN report, which states that the Eritrean government may be guilty of crimes against humanity, casts a harsh light on some of these root causes in one of the world’s most brutal dictatorships. Countries and international organizations seeking to address Mediterranean migration should take notice.
  • Development
    Can UN Peacekeeping Enter the Digital Age?
    Peacekeeping is in trouble. More peacekeepers are in the field than ever before, and, as UN Ambassador Samantha Power noted, "we are asking peacekeepers to do more, in more places, and in more complex conflicts than at any time in history." The scale and complexity of peacekeeping have revealed serious problems, including a gap between the tasks peacekeepers are given and the resources they have to accomplish their missions. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon captured this dilemma in observing "[t]he needs are rising, and resources are chronically short." To address these challenges, the Secretary-General appointed a High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations in October 2014 to catalyze the most significant attempt to reform UN peacekeeping since the Brahimi Report appeared in 2000. Peacekeeping suffers from inadequate access to, and use of, information and communications technologies (ICTs). This problem is not new. The Brahimi Report argued that peacekeeping had to be brought into the information age: "Modern, well utilized information technology (IT) is a key enabler of many [...] [peacekeeping] objectives, but gaps in strategy, policy and practice impede its effective use." Since the Brahimi Report, UN peacekeeping operations have increasingly used ICTs, but they have not kept pace with technological innovation. In June 2014, the UN under-secretaries general for peacekeeping operations and field support appointed an Expert Panel on Technology and Innovation in UN Peacekeeping to analyze how peacekeepers can more effectively utilize technological innovations, including Internet-enabled technologies. In February 2015, the UN issued the Expert Panel’s report, which included the goal that the UN be able to deploy "digital peacekeepers." The Expert Panel asserted that, "despite the omnipresence of advanced technology and applications in our daily lives, United Nations peacekeeping remains well behind the curve [...]. [F]ew observers can argue that UN field operations manifest anything approaching up-to-date practice in the use of modern technology." The Expert Panel also argued: [E]specially in the areas of command and control, monitoring, reconnaissance and reporting, and information and communications technologies, peacekeeping operations simply do not currently possess anything approaching adequate numbers or types of technologies that militaries and police forces around the world accept not only as commonplace, but also as foundational to successful operations. This must change. The Expert Panel made recommendations designed to produce immediate impact, including better integration of interoperable, Internet-connected mobile devices, sensors, surveillance tools, information-sharing systems, and strategic communications platforms (e.g., social media). The Expert Panel also sought to be "forward thinkingeven visionaryin [...] imagining the realm of possibilities." Its vision involved military, police, and civilian digital peacekeepers equipped with the latest technologies and provided with ongoing training, review, and reach-back support. For example, the Expert Panel’s military digital peacekeeper would be equipped with "information fusion and enhanced analytic tools, fed by open source information, aerial, geospatial, and other remotely acquired data, commercial satellite imagery, and comprehensive sensor packages, support decision-making at the tactical, operational and strategic levels." To achieve these short- and longer-term objectives, the Expert Panel identified the need to have Technology Contributing CountriesTechCCsprovide technologies, expertise, and training, just as peacekeeping operations have troop and police contributing countries. In its report issued in June 2015, the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations endorsed the Expert Panel’s work. It highlighted the Expert Panel’s recommendations on "important solutions for employing systems to provide customizable, geographic information system-enabled solutions to enable better surveillance, monitoring and reporting tools to improve the safety and security of personnel as they implement their mission." Whether the Expert and High-Level Independent Panels’ recommendations to reduce the digital peacekeeping divide fare better than those in the Brahimi Report remains to be seen. The overall peacekeeping reform agenda identifies many entrenched problems that do not arise from technological deficits, including the High-Level Independent Panel’s recommendations on preventing conflict, protecting civilians, achieving rapid deployment of peacekeepers, incorporating the input of women, and integrating human rights. In such an expansive, difficult agenda, reform proposals to upgrade peacekeeping technologies could be marginalized. In addition, technological empowerment of peacekeeping forces might raise political issues that could slow or block progress towards fielding digital peacekeepers. The High-Level Independent Panel flagged this challenge in stating that "introduction and use of new technologies must be implemented with full transparency and in consultation with Member States in order to maintain a high degree of confidence in the UN’s commitment to privacy, confidentiality and respect for state sovereignty." In September 2015, the United States will host a peacekeeping summit during the annual UN General Assembly meeting. This gathering will provide an opportunity to see whether the idea of digital peacekeepers gets strategic attention or is overshadowed by problems that UN member states consider more important than the technological backwardness of peacekeeping operations.
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    The Horrors Keep Coming in South Sudan
    The United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) released a report on June 29, detailing human rights atrocities in South Sudan. The litany of abuses has now become familiar: gang rape, torture, killing, and the destruction of villages. The UN reports that the military, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), launched a major offensive in northwestern Mayom County that resulted in the displacement of over 100,000 people. Survivors claimed that women and girls were burned alive after being gang raped by soldiers in nine separate incidents. There are also reports of similar atrocities by rebels, including the recruitment of child soldiers. The SPLA denies UN agencies access to sites of the alleged atrocities, and it has not commented on the June 29 report. The current civil war started in December 2013, with a falling-out between President Salva Kiir and his former Vice President Riek Machar. A subsequent cycle of retaliatory killings has morphed into what resembles an ethnic conflict, broadly between Kiir’s Dinka and Machar’s Nuer. Since the fighting started, it is estimated that there are at least 1.6 million internally displaced persons in South Sudan.There are other conflicts between herders and farmers and over water use that are not reducible to ethnicity. There is now an overlay of warlordism. The “legitimate” government in Juba hardly appears to function, and lacks legitimacy from a significant part of the South Sudanese population. Given the intractable bloodshed, continued human rights abuses, and the apparent unwillingness or inability of Salva Kiir, Riek Machar, and the South Sudanese elites to stop the violence, there needs to be serious consideration of the revival of something like the old UN Trusteeship Council, by which an outside body could supervise the administration of South Sudan until it is fully ready for independence. Such an entity could impose an end of the killing and nurture the establishment and development of institutions of governance. This body could also be of use in other countries coping with protracted conflicts, such as the Central African Republic. Ideally, such a body would be created by a regional, multilateral institution, such as the African Union (AU). However, the AU might lack the capacity to undertake such a task. In that case, the burden reverts to the UN Security Council. There will be objections from the donors as to the cost and duration of the mission. But, the international community has already spent billions of dollars on South Sudan, apparently to no avail.
  • Europe
    Greece: Game Over?
    This is how Grexit happens. Following the collapse of negotiations between Greece and its creditors, the European Central Bank (ECB) has halted emergency liquidity assistance. Facing an intensified bank run, the Greek government on Sunday introduced banking controls and declared a bank holiday. With substantial wage and benefit payments due this week and local banks out of cash, economic conditions are likely to deteriorate quickly in Greece ahead of a planned referendum for July 5 asking Greek voters whether the government should accept a creditor-backed reform plan. Creditor governments have left the door open for an agreement, one that if fully implemented and coupled with debt relief could be transformative for Greece. But that deal never seemed close and now seems out of reach. I am skeptical that economic or political conditions exist to allow a prolonged period of controls (e.g., Cyprus). Pressures to exit the euro and monetize government spending will become acute, and could outpace the sort of political transition or realignment within Greece that would allow a deal. Where are we? First, here’s a quick review of the weekend. On Friday, the Greek government surprised creditors by rejecting their compromise proposal and announcing their intent to hold a referendum on the plan on July 5 (with a “no” recommendation from the government). Markets had rallied on expectation of a deal, and even deal skeptics thought negotiations would continue up to and after the June 30 deadline for making payments to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Eurozone finance ministers reacted sharply, announcing that negotiations had ended and that discussions had turned to “Plan B." This led several ministers (perhaps alluding to Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis’s frequent references to game theory) to suggest it was “game over." Late Saturday night, Parliament approved the referendum for next Sunday, July 5, and the proposal now goes to Greece’s president, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, for approval. Unless the vote is called off, and given the escalating rhetoric domestically against creditor governments, it is difficult to see the Greek government returning to the table before that vote. Given these developments, on Sunday the ECB suspended the provision of additional liquidity under its emergency lending facility (ELA). It is hard to fault the ECB: the additional liquidity provision (€9 billion in past week alone) had required forbearance under their rules, and had been justified by continuation of the negotiations. It is my understanding that should there be formal finding that Greek banks are insolvent, the ECB would need to end the program, but for now a freeze in access at current levels is a significant forcing event. Lastly, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras this evening announced the imposition of broad banking and capital controls. All banks--including branches of foreign banks--will remain closed for six business days, until after the referendum.  ATM withdrawals will be limited to €60 per day (foreign bank cards would be exempted, presumably as a concession to the tourism sector).  Wages can be paid online, but there will be tight controls on transfers abroad. This leaves unanswered the extent to which payments can be made electronically within the country.  The Athens stock exchange also will be closed for an indefinite period. What’s next: Four Points Banking controls and a banking holiday will cause a rapid deterioration in the Greek economy. Economic activity in Greece has already been badly damaged by arrears and a loss in confidence, and disintermediation of the banks has been reflected in greater reliance on cash-based transactions. Households reportedly have hoarded euros, but firms have been stretched by the crisis. Going forward, reduced expectations for a deal, concerns about currency redenomination, and limited availability of euros all work to trigger a cascade of business failures, rising numbers of non-performing loans, and further reduced tax compliance. Moreover, around 75 percent of Greek primary government spending is for pension, wages, and benefits, and large payments are due in coming days. Without an operating banking system, the dislocation from non-payment of these obligations will be substantial even without the panicked bank lines that formed Sunday night. External default will have a lesser effect in the near term. There is little doubt now that on Tuesday the Greek government will miss its €1.6 billion payment to the IMF, and the Fund’s board likely will move quickly to enact its normal procedures for arrears. I do expect European governments to show restraint and not call their loans in default based on the IMF move, but it will make any program in the future more difficult to negotiate and finance. A Cyprus-like extended period of capital controls and restructuring within the eurozone does not look economically or politically viable for long. In a situation of severe financial stress, the government will quickly have to decide whether to issue IOUs to cover its expenses. In this case, a de facto "dual currency" would start to circulate domestically. If there was a creditor-backed program in effect, and the ECB was providing liquidity (as for example, was the case in Cyprus), this situation could be sustained for a period of time while debt is restructured and banks recapitalized. IOUs would trade at a discount, but those in critical need of liquidity could find it. That will not be the case here, and further the existence of a primary deficit means that the government will be unable to finance high-priority social spending. There may be some useful lessons to be learned from the Argentina default, where dislocations were reduced by developing a secondary domestic payments system that allowed for transfers within the country between frozen accounts. Even in this case, the government paid a high political price for reneging on their commitment to protect depositors.  From this perspective, the focus should be on what happens in the week after the referendum, as cash balances are exhausted and when pressures to reopen the banks will be strong.  In this environment, the incentive to turn to the printing press will be substantial. Contagion will be less than in 2010, but we should still be worried. European policymakers are at least publicly sanguine that there will be limited contagion from this weekend’s developments. No doubt, we are in better position than 2008 and 2010, given European rescue facilities that have been put in place, other reforms (e.g. banking union) and the existence of the ECB’s quantitative easing program (QE). Further, there is limited bank exposure and most of the debt is owed to the official sector, limiting the risks from financial market interconnectedness. The Eurogroup and the European Central Bank have both signaled their intent to “make full use of all available instruments to preserve the integrity and stability of the euro area.” Taking a page from the U.S. crisis playbook of 2008, that indicates a willingness to bring overwhelming force in coming days. At a minimum, it suggests aggressive purchase of periphery sovereign debt (which is already allowed under the existing QE, though statements suggesting an extension of the policy may make sense), additional liquidity operations, and perhaps even the activation of swap lines. Still, I suspect markets have underpriced the risk of dislocations in coming days. In addition to poor positioning by investors that came back into risk assets on hopes of a deal and limited market liquidity, markets can now no longer avoid acknowledging that substantial loses will need to be borne on Greek assets. Questions may also be raised about debt sustainability in other periphery countries. Any sense of a loss of political resolve elsewhere in the periphery also will be a source of contagion. My expectation is that the rise in sovereign spreads will be modest, with the main contagion seen on assets the ECB does not buy under its QE program. That could include bank stocks and high yield bonds. The euro should see a significant depreciation against the dollar, reflecting expectations of extended monetary easing from the ECB with a safe-haven effect towards the United States. This safe-haven effect could be counterbalanced if markets believe the turmoil in Europe will delay the Fed’s plans for an interest rate increase. The referendum freezes negotiations, but neither a “yes” nor a “no” vote creates a clear path to a deal. Early polls suggest a small advantage for the yes position–that Greece should agree with creditors on a package—but local analysts caution against reading too much into these early reads. In particular, it may be much easier to campaign against austerity (with government support) than for tough reforms. Much will depend on the reaction to the bank controls, and opinion polls will drive markets in coming days. There is a broad consensus that a no vote on July 5 would strengthen the government’s resistance to a deal and make an eventual Grexit more likely. Even if the referendum passes on July 5, it is unclear that it would lead to rapid agreement on a new package. First, the government has rejected the terms on the table, so that trust that they would implement any agreement is low. Further, the financial package offered last week would have expired once the current program ends on June 30. Of course, creditors could offer those terms again, but that would require a new program and new parliamentary approvals, substantially raising the political impediments to a deal. In sum, time is short to avoid exit. The week after the referendum could be decisive.
  • Budget, Debt, and Deficits
    A Roadmap for Ukraine
    U.S. and European efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis seem to be finding their stride in recent days. U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter ended months of “will they won’t they?” by announcing earlier this week that the U.S. would be sending heavy weaponry into Eastern Europe, and late last week EU leaders declared that EU sanctions against Russia would remain in place through the end of 2016, quelling months of anxiety around whether EU resolve on sanctions would hold. But surely if, as Carter put it, the real test is whether the U.S. and its NATO partners deliver on commitments to “stand up to Russia’s actions and their attempts to reestablish a Soviet-era sphere of influence,” then among the strongest measures of success regarding Ukraine will be whether the country remains capable of steering its own fate economically. As we have written elsewhere, transatlantic diplomacy suffers from a muscle imbalance when it comes to Ukraine. Far too much of the focus of U.S.-European attention has been on punishing Russia and deterring future aggression; the U.S., Europe, and allies need to do much more to support Ukraine’s economy, and they need to do so soon. Further, of what little international attention has remained focused on the economic dimensions of this crisis, the overwhelming share has fixated narrowly on the negotiations now underway between the Ukrainian government and its private creditors, which remain deadlocked. This is understandable—it’s a high-profile negotiation, significant amounts are involved, and the outcome is central to the country’s fate. But without a larger U.S.-EU economic vision for Ukraine to anchor it, even the most successful outcome to the current debt negotiations will likely be forgotten to history, swallowed by an ending in which no one—neither Washington, Brussels, Kiev, nor Moscow— comes off well. What, then, to do? Clearing the fastest possible path for Ukraine to return to market access requires five basic ingredients: a credible reform plan; secure medium-term financing; a reduction of government debt to viable levels; leaders capable of delivering those reforms; and a public which is willing to go along. In the view of some analysts, the pricetag for all of this is in the range of $40–50 billion over the next three to four years—not a small sum, but hardly imposing when compared to the hundreds of billions expended on lesser strategic priorities (e.g. keeping Greece in the eurozone). If Greece and other eurozone crises teach us anything, though, it is this: finding the right ratios of these five ingredients proves to be as or more important as securing a certain topline amount of short-term external financing. To their credit, Western leaders recognized almost immediately that, as willing partners in Kiev go, it won’t get better than the team currently in place. But what they fail to appreciate is that this is not a static point: it is true that Ukraine has its most serious reform-minded economic team since it gained independence twenty-four years ago. The current government has made meaningful downpayments on its reform commitments, passing anti-corruption legislation last October, standing up a new anti-corruption agency this past spring, and curbing jaw-dropping energy subsidies—one of the greatest sources of the country’s corruption— over recent months. Yet, it’s not enough. Support at home is eroding. Local opinion polls point to sharp declines in support for the Kiev government over the past year. Whereas nearly half of Ukrainian respondents viewed the Kiev government as having a positive influence a year ago, that figure is now down to one-third. More striking, this shift is particularly strong in western Ukraine, where those who view the government as a bad influence has jumped from 28 to 54 percent. This suggests that, in calibrating the right ratios—in determining how and how aggressively to push on the debt negotiations and on the broader reform agenda—Western policymakers would do well to see their task as defined, above all, by doing what is necessary to help the current Ukrainian government shore up support. So far, the IMF appears to understand this. The Fund is hosting a rare trilateral meeting of Ukraine and private creditors’ representatives in Washington this week in a hands-on bid to bridge the gaps between the two sides. The Fund also helpfully bolstered Kiev’s negotiating position by signaling last week that it was prepared to release the next tranche of its bailout even if Kiev suspended debt servicing. And it reacted warmly to Ukraine’s offer to issue securities linked to future growth in return for private creditors accepting a writedown in debt, what IMF head Christine Lagarde softly applauded as Ukraine’s “continued efforts to reach a collaborative agreement with all creditors.” The next step is for the government itself to meet with creditors, without conditions, to move the negotiations forward. Just as the Fund is doing its part to see that Ukraine emerges from the current creditor negotiations with a sustainable debt load, so too must the United States, EU, and other Western leaders do theirs: coming together around a common, detailed roadmap that does everything possible to support and hold the Ukrainian government to its own stated priorities. These include shrinking the bureaucracy, eliminating dozens of inspection agencies, improving the caliber of civil servants, and unifying all energy prices at the market level, which would eliminate the greatest cause of top-level corruption. There is no single correct answer as to what such a roadmap must entail. We’ve compiled a few suggestions and ideas all sides might do well to consider (many of which build on recommendations contained in an excellent report by the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies): Prioritize energy efficiency reforms. The United States, the EU, and international financial institutions should triage energy efficiency and electricity sector reforms atop their various potential conditions for further assistance. Model legislation, drafted with the assistance of the European Energy Community, already exists for both reform areas (the European Energy Community had a similarly leading role in the drafting of Ukraine’s recently passed gas reforms); all these electricity and energy efficiency reforms need is the inducement of Western financing. Provide secure, multi-year financing. There is clear evidence of an emerging financing gap in the current IMF program, which should be addressed quickly. The IMF is unlikely to want to significantly expand its financial commitment, but shifting money from one year to the other or covering up the gap with optimistic economic assumptions is not the answer. Substantial multi-year financing commitments from major governments, in support of a strong reform effort, is the best way to restore confidence and stabilize the exchange rate. Do more to expose the beneficiaries of corruption and wasteful subsidies and leverage the government’s footprint in the economy for good. All sides seem to agree that financial and material assistance should be conditioned on progress in reforming the legal system, including requiring clear strategies for monitoring reform implementation. Western efforts should put more concerted focus on taxation of oligarchic assets and confiscation of illegally amassed wealth, though, as the rightful entry points for encouraging broader public tax compliance. Finally, given the Ukrainian government’s large presence in the economy, Kiev might harness its outsized procurement power to lead by example, setting new transparency and anti-corruption standards for all entities doing business with the Ukrainian government. Use government land to establish special economic zones, which might be backed by Western trade and investment preferences. To be attractive to investment, any such government-sponsored economic zone or park must provide clear ownership rights, good transport connections, abundant and reliable energy and water supply. They must also enjoy the full support of local and regional government bodies. Ukraine’s many state owned enterprises possess underutilized industrial land, which could be quickly repurposed in this way. Western governments could sweeten the inducement by lending these zones special trade and investment preferences. Revitalize the FDI agency InvestUkraine, preferably as an independent agency reporting to the prime minister. Several newer EU member states boast successful investment agencies (especially PAIiIZ in Poland and Czech Invest in the Czech Republic), which may serve as good sources of technical support to a similarly-revamped Ukrainian investment agency. Regional investment agencies in territorial-administrative units are necessary to direct investors to concrete leads and may also offer a vehicle for increasing the competence of oblasts and municipalities across the country. Catalyze public sector reforms through a salary top-up fund. Ukrainian officials are quick to note that they are not lacking in Western advice. Rather, what they need is a cohort of reliable, capable civil servants who are up to the task of translating this advice into long-term change. Western assistance dollars should strongly consider a ‘top-up fund’ where, in exchange for acting on public sector restructuring plans, the Ukrainian government would receive outside funding to help it pay the competitive salaries necessary to recruit top domestic talent. Jennifer M. Harris is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.  
  • International Organizations
    International Cooperation: Still Alive and Kicking
    The following is a guest post by Naomi Egelresearch associate in the International Institutions and Global Governance program. Earlier this month, the International Institutions and Global Governance program cohosted the Princeton Workshop on Global Governance, which brought together scholars and practitioners to assess geopolitics and global cooperation. The main takeaway: international cooperation may be messy and it may be taking new forms, but it’s not going anywhere. At first glance, global cooperation seems pretty dismal, as traditional international institutions, from the UN Security Council to the World Trade Organization (WTO), often remain gridlocked. The easy gains from international cooperation have mostly been realized, and many of today’s most pressing challenges—from combating climate change to protecting civilians in conflict zones—require difficult tradeoffs with little certainty of success. Combine this predicament with today’s geopolitical threats, including Russian aggression in Ukraine, the so-called Islamic State’s sweep through the Levant, and an increasingly ambitious China, and one might conclude that geopolitics has replaced global cooperation. In fact, international cooperation is still chugging along—it just looks dramatically different than before. Although traditional intergovernmental institutions are stagnant, the cooperation landscape is increasingly crowded with ad-hoc and voluntary initiatives, many involving partnerships among states, the private sector, and civil society. Examples range from the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations to the International Partnership for Disarmament Verification. Cooperation between foreign ministries may be sluggish, but cooperation among technical agencies, from food safety regulators to mayors, is increasing. Even in climate change—often considered an area where international cooperation has failed miserably—carbon trading schemes between substate actors (like California and Quebec) and industry self-regulation have reduced some emissions. Although such flexible partnerships have enabled the United States and others to circumvent stalled traditional international fora, these coalitions of the willing and capable leave out much of the world: the G20, for example, is often accused of making rules not only for its members, but for the other 173 UN member states. Most importantly, it is unclear whether most of these new arrangements will actually deliver results. There may be some cases where halting cooperation through traditional venues can better address the roots of a problem in a sustainable manner than quick, informal action. For example, the Millennium Development Goals—developed under the auspices of the United Nations and which thereby involve all UN member states—have led to great strides in improving livelihoods around the world. Thus, as it vigorously pursues new forms of cooperation to overcome institutional blockages, the United States must carefully consider the tradeoffs associated with these initiatives. In addition to assessing the effectiveness of alternative arrangements, the United States must weigh the short-term consequences of inaction (through stalled venues) against long-term consequences of potentially undermining widely agreed norms (by discarding traditional venues). The trick, for the United States and its partners, is to find the right balance between different forms of cooperation. Still, geopolitical challenges do not spell the end of international cooperation. Even during the Cold War, cooperation and institution-building continued, both within and between blocs. Today, China is more an aspirational than an actual global power. Though China and other rising powers may test the rules of traditional institutions and seek to build competitors (the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank being perhaps the most notable example), they have yet to provide a viable alternative to the post-World War II world order. In addition, many of their complaints about the ineffectiveness of international institutions are legitimate and may spur the United States and its partners to improve existing bodies. Moreover, China is heavily invested in the existing world order and increasingly seeks a greater role in existing institutions, from UN peacekeeping to the World Health Organization (WHO). In part, competition between the United States and China manifests itself as a competition for control of global cooperation. Russia, meanwhile, is a far cry from the Cold War Soviet Union. It is struggling for regional, rather than global influence. Though Moscow may block a more vigorous Security Council response in Syria, cooperation continues with (and sometimes without) Russia in multiple other areas, from terrorism to public health. For its part, the United States, despite its frequently voiced support for a liberal world order, has been uneven in its support of formal international organizations, often bypassing them in favor of more flexible workarounds. Examples include the stand-alone Proliferation Security Initiative and preferential trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Particularly in challenges that require an urgent, targeted response, the United States (as well as other countries) has often found that ad-hoc coalitions of the willing and capable have been more effective than large deliberative bodies—an idea reinforced by the WHO’s failure in the face of the Ebola crisis. What is not yet clear is whether this institutional experimentation will predominantly strengthen or undermine the foundations of international order over the long term. In sum, if we look only at traditional international institutions, global governance seems pitiful, particularly when faced with today’s geopolitical challenges. Yet this misses most of the action. Geopolitics will always be a global challenge and can make international cooperation, particularly in the security realm, difficult. But understanding international cooperation only through a lens of great power competition overlooks how both nonstate actors (such as civil society and private businesses) and substate actors (such as cities and provinces) are opening new doors for possible forms of global governance. Cooperation continues to thrive—just with less fanfare. View the rapporteur report for more information on the workshop discussion.
  • Europe and Eurasia
    A Full Greek IMF-Debt Default Would Be Four Times All Previous Defaults Combined
    Since the IMF’s launch in 1946, 27 countries have had overdue financial obligations of 6 months or more.*  But the amounts involved have always been small, never exceeding SDR 1bn ($1.4bn). This could all change dramatically with Greece, which will default on the SDR 1.2bn ($1.7bn) it owes the Fund next week unless its troika creditors agree to extend further financial assistance before then.  Greece owes the IMF SDR 4.4bn ($6.2bn) through the end of this year and SDR 18.5bn ($26bn) over the coming ten years.  As shown in the graphic above, this is nearly four times the cumulative total of overdue funds in the IMF’s history. Although Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras has blasted the Fund for “pillaging” Greece, the conditions it has imposed on the country have been mild by historical standards – particularly considering the size of the loans involved.  Non-payment by a European state will surely undermine the IMF’s credibility in the eyes of developing countries, and likely accelerate efforts to build alternative institutions. Next up: Ukraine . . . * “Defaults” in the post title are defined as financial obligations overdue by six months of more, or what the IMF refers to as “protracted arrears.”   Follow Benn on Twitter: @BennSteil Follow Geo-Graphics on Twitter: @CFR_GeoGraphics Read about Benn’s latest award-winning book, The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order, which the Financial Times has called “a triumph of economic and diplomatic history.”
  • Europe and Eurasia
    Greece and Its Creditors Should Do a Guns-For-Pensions Deal
    IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard has said that Greece needs to slash pension spending by 1% of GDP in order to reach its new budget targets.  The Greek government continues to resist, arguing that Greeks dependent on pensions have already suffered enough.  But it has yet to put a compelling alternative to its creditors. What depresses us is how little attention has been paid to one major area of Greek government spending that seems ripe for the ax: defense spending.  Greece spends a whopping 2.2% of GDP on defense, more than any NATO member-state save the United States and France.  Bringing Greece into line with the NATO average would alone achieve ¾ of what the IMF is demanding through pension cuts. Greece has long argued that its defense posture is grounded in a supposed threat from Turkey – also a big spender on things military.  But surely the United States and the major western European powers can keep a cold peace between NATO allies at much lower cost. So why don’t they?  German and French arms-export interests surely explain the silence on the creditor side: Greece is one of their biggest customers. With Greece sliding towards default and economic chaos, such silence is indefensible.   Follow Benn on Twitter: @BennSteil Follow Geo-Graphics on Twitter: @CFR_GeoGraphics Read about Benn’s latest award-winning book, The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order, which the Financial Times has called “a triumph of economic and diplomatic history.”
  • China
    This Week in Markets and Democracy: Climate Finance, Aid, Anti-Corruption Tech, and the ICC
    This is the fourth post of a new series on the Development Channel, "This Week in Markets and Democracy." Each Friday, CFR’s Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Program, will highlight the week’s noteworthy events and articles. Gap in climate finance The six big multilateral development banks (MDBs) released a new report on climate financing this week. In 2014, multilaterals spent $28 billion to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to help countries adapt to climate change. South Asia and Latin America received the largest share of this record outlay, up over $4 billion from last year. Still to meet the 2020 goal of mobilizing $100 billion to help developing nations cope with climate change, the MDBs are being asked to stretch their “balance sheets and crowd in more capital.” The World Bank and others are pushing to bolster low-emission investment, particularly from the private sector. And at next month’s Third International Conference on Financing for Development, public, private, and NGO sectors will focus on clean energy financing and climate resilience among other development priorities. Technology versus corruption European researchers from Cambridge and several other universities are developing a tech platform to make Europe’s public spending more transparent and easier for citizens to scrutinize. To identify corruption in public spending, the Digital Whisleblower project (DigiWhist) will collect public spending information from across thirty-four European countries, link this data to corporate information and political officeholder records, and using sophisticated algorithms, sniff out corrupt behavior. Ultimately, the DigiWhist platform will not only map risk of corrupt behavior and contracts on the national and regional scale, but also track suspicious suppliers and pinpoint individual contracts. China too is using technology, releasing an app through which citizens can anonymously submit proof of government corruption, specifically officials abusing public funds for personal consumption. Improving humanitarian aid The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ (OCHA) annual Global Humanitarian Overview Status Report revealed a huge gap in resources for humanitarian crises. With only 26 percent of the necessary $18.8 billion committed, nearly 80 million people across thirty-seven countries remain vulnerable. In the July/August edition of Foreign Affairs, David Miliband and Ravi Gurumrthy of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and Michael Barnett and Peter Walker of George Washington University and Chatham University, respectively, discuss this and other challenges facing humanitarian aid. In addition to resources, the IRC’s Miliband and Gurumrthy argue for focusing on outcomes rather then inputs—for instance measuring functional literacy not number of new schools. They also argue for reducing bureaucratic red tape, consolidating response efforts, encouraging competition among humanitarian organizations to improve delivery, and shifting the focus from international goals like the Millennium Development Goals to country-specific targets. Barnett and Walker emphasize local partnerships as the means to improve accountability and design effective programs. South Africa Ignores the ICC This week, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s again evaded arrest for the genocide and war crime charges brought against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC). South African President Jacob Zuma’s administration ignored the ICC’s request to arrest al-Bashir when he attended the African Union Johannesburg summit. This incident raises questions about the ICC’s credibility in Africa more broadly, as South Africa’s action follows Kenya’s refusal to cooperate with investigations into senior officials’ roles in inciting electoral violence in 2007 and Ugandan call for African nations to withdraw from the ICC altogether. Zuma’s choice also flouted South Africa’s High Court, which had ordered al-Bashir to remain in the country pending a judicial decision over whether to hand him over to the ICC. CFR Senior Fellow John Campbell sees Zuma’s decision as a threat to South Africa’s rule of law. Read his analysis here.
  • Europe
    Greece: Banking on Controls
    It is time for banking controls in Greece. Delay at this point will only compound the chaos. Consider the following. Thursday’s meeting of Euro-area finance ministers made no progress toward a deal. That was not surprising. What was more noticeable was the discord that followed. IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde summed it up: for a Greek deal to happen, there will have to be “adults in the room”. There will now be an emergency leader’s summit on Monday, but absent a major U-turn by the Greek government, that meeting is likely to turn to a discussion of “plan b.” Against this backdrop, there has been a rapid acceleration in outflows from the banking system, reportedly in excess of €2bn in the first three days of week. Deposit flight likely will intensify tomorrow and Monday. The ECB will hold an emergency phone call this morning to decide whether to expand emergency assistance (ELA) to the Greek banking system from its current limit of €81 billion. To keep the banks open, the ECB will need to provide a significant injection of liquidity. They should not do it. Greek banks are clearly insolvent. The crisis has caused a spike in non-performing loans, the economy is deteriorating rapidly, and with the Greek government on the verge of default to the IMF, the ECB can no longer pretend that the Greek government bonds that the banks have provided as collateral for past loans are adequate protection against loss. (Arrears to the IMF do not force other creditors’ claims into default, but the political statement of non-cooperation would be powerful unless serious negotiations are underway.) Further, ready access to central bank liquidity has disabled an important source of market discipline on the government, throws good money after bad, and creditor frustration with the continuing demands for financing make the politics of a deal all the more challenging. The Greek government is likely to resist imposing banking controls, but absent an agreement with creditors controls on deposit withdrawals and cross-border transfers look unavoidable once ECB liquidity support has been curtailed. Controls will buy some time for the government, but how much is unclear. The immediate challenge is fiscal and domestic. The government reported a sharp fall in fiscal revenue last month, reflecting a declining economy and substantial tax non-compliance. In response, it has slashed spending and delayed payments to suppliers and contractors. But large-scale arrears are causing significant payments difficulties in the broader economy, and are not sustainable for long when banks can’t lend. For this reason, I am skeptical that the government can sustain deficit spending for long through creation of IOUs, a informal secondary currency within Greece. How the government responds to these fiscal challenges will go a long way to determining whether controls are a way station to Grexit or, as elsewhere (e.g., Cyprus), breathing space to restructure and adjust within the currency union. My colleague Sebastian Mallaby has an excellent discussion of the perils for Greece of heading down this path, and he makes a convincing case that Grexit is not an easy option. The converse is also true. The international community has coalesced around the policies needed to put Greece on a sustainable path within the Eurozone. That includes additional debt relief and perhaps as much as 2 percentage points of GDP in new measures this year alone—including to pensions, wages, and taxes—measures that the Greek government has firmly rejected and that would be a major economic and political challenge to pass and implement. If Greece were to accept the deal, Europe would need to provide additional debt relief to make the numbers add up, a point recently emphasized by the IMF. Tough decisions are called for on both sides, and the prospect for bridging this gap is looking increasingly remote. While the temptation thus exists to buy time by extending the current program, trading cash for partial reforms, and putting off negotiations on a third bailout until the fall, it is a “bridge to nowhere” if it doesn’t put Greece on a credible path back to sustainable growth.