Mediaboss Marketing

Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!, said former President Porfirio Diaz about Mexicos uncomfortable relationship with its much stronger neighbor, the United States of America (US). Following Mexicos defeat in the Mexican-American War (1846 1848), Mexico ceded 1.37 million sq. Km (529,000 sq. miles), over half of its entire territory, to the US in exchange for $18 million. Earlier in 1845, Mexico lost 1.01 million sq. Km (390,000 sq. miles) when the US annexed Texas. Sharing a fence with a bully certainly has its price.

Just as Mexico suffered at the hands of the US 173 year ago, Ukraine has, since 2014, been bullied by Russia. Like the US did to Mexico, Russia too has been dismembering Ukraine, and still wants more of Ukrainian territory.

The on-going Russian invasion of Ukraine is not the first time the two Slavic neighbors have clashed. The two countries history have been intertwined as far back as 879 CE when the Kievan (Kyivan) Rus federation was founded, with Kiev (now officially, Kyiv) as its capital for all but three of its 361 years of existence before it fell to the Mongols in 1240.

Following the collapse of the Mongol Empire, some former Kievan Rus lands were later united with Poland. In 1648 Hetman (military leader) Bohdan Khmelnytsky led a Cossack rebellion against Catholic Poland, leading to the creation of the Hetmanate. In 1654 the Hetmanate signed the Treaty of Pereiaslav for the Orthodox Russian Tsar to protect them from Poland, but in 1764, Catherine II abolished the Hetmanate, ending Ukrainian autonomy.

Following the overthrow of the Russian monarchy in 1917, the Russian Provisional Government granted Ukraine autonomy. The Bolsheviks, who won the Russian Civil War, refused to recognize Ukrainian sovereignty, but appeased Ukrainians by creating the Soviet Ukrainian Republic, later called the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, a founding member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) or Soviet Union in 1922, and the United Nations (UN) in 1945.

Ukrainians suffered immensely from Soviet leader Joseph Stalins collectivization policies which killed an estimated 10.8 million people in the 1932-1933 Great Famine (sometimes called the Holodomor [to kill by starvation]) which some term a Genocide.

Ironically, Russian Tsars, and the Soviet Union handed over a lot of territory to Ukraine. In September 1939, Stalin annexed 201,015 sq. Km (77,612 sq. miles) of Eastern Poland, and incorporated them into the Lithuanian, Byelorussian, and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics (SSRs). At the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences in 1945, the Allies allowed the Soviets to retain the annexed Polish lands, in exchange for part of East Germany.

In 1944, the Soviet Red Army captured and occupied parts of Carpathian Ruthenia (of the then Czechoslovak Republic) which were ceded to the Soviet Union in June 1945 and became part of the Ukraine SSR in January 1946. In 1954, the Soviet Union controversially transferred Crimea to the Ukraine SSR, to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereiaslav, and appease Ukrainians.

Following the abortive coup in August 1991 against President Mikhail Gorbachev, the Ukraine SSR declared independence. In December 1991, Ukrainians voted for independence from the USSR, and Ukraine, Russia and Belarus signed the Belavezha Accords, which ended the Soviet Union, and the US recognized Ukraine. The USSR was formally dissolved on December 21, 1991, following the signing of the Alma-Ata Protocol which also transferred the USSRs membership of the UN and its Security Council to the Russian Federation.

Following the collapse of the USSR, the Ukrainian, Russian and US presidents signed a statement in January 1994, reaffirming Ukraines commitment to transferring its strategic nuclear warheads to Russia and, with US assistance, dismantling strategic nuclear weapons launchers in its territory. Furthermore, Ukraine was to be provided security assurances following its accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In February 1994, Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO), Partnership for Peace, and following its accession to the NPT, signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in December, 1994, along with Russia, the UK, and the US. All of them committed to respecting Ukraines territorial integrity and sovereignty, and promised not to threaten, or use force against it. In 1997, NATO deepened its relationship with Ukraine by establishing the NATO-Ukraine Commission, and Russia signed a Treaty on Friendship with Ukraine, which recognized their existing borders, and mutual commitment not to invade, or declare war on each other.

Following presidential run-off elections marred by fraud and voter intimidation in November, 2004, nationwide protests called the Orange Revolution resulted in fresh elections in December, 2004. The pro-Europe candidate Viktor Yushchenko, defeated the pro-Russia candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, upsetting Russia, coming shortly after the 2003 Rose Revolution which overthrew the pro-Russia government in Georgia, Russias neighbor and former Soviet Republic.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia raised the alarm in February 2007 in his Munich Speech at the Munich Security Conference, warning about the dangers of a unipolar world and unilateralism. He also spoke against NATOs expansion, which he said would not ensure security in Europe, and was a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.

Despite this, Ukraine requested in January 2008 to join NATOs Membership Action Plan (MAP), but President Putin opposed it, telling US President George W. Bush that Ukraine was not a real nation-state. NATO debated Ukraines request at its Bucharest Summit in April 2008, but because France opposed it, could only promise Ukraine that it would join later.

In February 2010, Viktor Yanukovych was re-elected President of Ukraine, and promptly abandoned Ukraines plans to join NATO. Yanukovych was later accused of political witch-hunting when charges were filed against his pro-European opponent, delaying the finalization of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.

Although the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraines parliament, overwhelmingly supported the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement in February 2013, the Ukrainian government under Russian pressure, decided in November 2013 not to sign it, and sought to join the Russia-led Eurasian Customs Union. Ukrainians immediately protested Yanukovychs decision, and launched the Euromaidan protests or Maidan Uprising; later called the Revolution of Dignity.

The Euromaidan protestors also called for the resignation of President Yanukovych, and an end to government corruption. The government violently dispersed protesters and introduced harsh anti-protest laws. The protests, which started in Kyiv spread across the country, and climaxed in February 2014, with 130 people killed.

Although an agreement was reached between the opposition and President Yanukovych to form an interim unity government, Yanukovych and other government officials fled to Russia in February 2014. In a controversial vote Yanukovych called a coup, Parliament impeached him and installed an interim government.

Following the overthrow of Yanukovych, protests and counter-protests broke out in Crimea, with Russophile nationalists, pitted against pro-Ukraine Crimean Tatars. Unidentified Russian soldiers called Little Green Men entered Crimea on February 26, 2014, and organized a controversial referendum in which 97 percent of voters supported Crimea joining the Russian Federation.

In contravention of the UN Charter, the 1991 agreement among former Soviet Republics accepting their borders when the Soviet Union collapsed, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances for Ukraine, and 1997 Russian-Ukrainian Treaty on Friendship, Russia formally annexed Crimea and Sevastopol on March 21, 2014.

In early 2014, pro-Russian protests started in Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts (Regions), which are predominantly Russian-speaking, and collectively form the Donbas area of southeastern Ukraine. The demonstrations quickly turned violent and armed Russia-backed separatists declared the Donetsk Peoples Republic (DPR), and Luhansk Peoples Republic (LPR).

Ukraine launched a counteroffensive in April 2014, and by August 2014, had considerably reduced the separatist-held territory. In response, Russia invaded the Donbas in late August 2014 with artillery, personnel, and what it called a humanitarian convoy.

As a result, the Ukrainian government lost much of the territory it had captured from separatists in its April 2014 counteroffensive. The Ukrainian government was thus forced to sign, in September 2014, a ceasefire agreement known as the Minsk Protocol with Russia, the DPR, and LPR. The agreement was however violated many times by both sides and collapsed by January 2015. A new ceasefire, called Minsk II, was agreed to in February 2015, although fighting quickly resumed.

At the Munich Security Conference in February 2017, the US Vice President Mike Pence said the US would hold Russia accountable in Ukraine, and demanded its adherence to the Minsk Agreements. In reply, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused NATO of sparking unprecedented tensions in Europe because of its expansion, and President Putin tightened the screws on Ukraine by recognizing official documents (birth certificates, identity documents, etc.) issued by pro-Russian authorities in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

In January 2018, the Ukrainian parliament passed a bill to regain control over the separatist-led areas of Donbas and Luhansk, calling them temporarily-occupied territories. Russia condemned the bill, which came after the US announced its readiness to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine, calling it preparations for a new war, and a violation of the Minsk Agreement.

In April 2018, Ukraine replaced its Anti-Terrorist Operation in the Donbas with a Joint Forces Operation signifying it was protecting Ukraines territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence and fighting the Russian military, not separatist militants. On the same day, the US confirmed the delivery of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine.

Although the Javelin missiles were to be kept away from the frontline, Russia had expressed its displeasure when the deal was announced in December 2017, claiming it would encourage the resumption of large-scale bloodshed in Donbas. Sure enough, all three ceasefires agreed to between June and December 2018 failed, with each side blaming the other for their collapse.

Another ceasefire was entered into in March 2019, although there was not much hope for its success. Against this background, Ukraine held its 2019 presidential elections without the participation of parts of Donbas occupied by Russia or pro-Russia separatist. Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy won the elections on an anti-establishment and anti-corruption platform and became President of Ukraine in May 2019. Zelenskyy also called for unity between Russian- and Ukrainian-speakers, and promised to end the conflict with Russia.

The exclusion of parts of Donbas from the presidential elections prompted the Russian government to consider easing the provision of Russian passports to residents of DPR and LPR, and toward that end, published three Decrees between April and July 2019, calling them humanitarian and practical measures which did not violate the Minks Agreements.

The European Council considered this passportisation of the Donbas by Russia a contravention of the Minsk Agreements, and the EU Commission issued a guidance for member states to reject such passports. Nevertheless, naturalizations increased about 85 percent to 497,817, and the proportion of Ukrainian applicants for Russian passports almost doubled to 60 percent, between 2018 and 2019.

In October 20019, Russia, Ukraine, DPR, LPR, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) signed the Steinmeier Formula which envisaged free elections in the LPR and DPR, followed by their integration, with a special status, into Ukraine. Following the signing of the Steinmeier Formula, Ukraine and separatist withdrew their troops, and Russia exchanged prisoners with Ukraine. In addition, presidents Putin and Zelenskyy, French president Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel resumed the Normandy Format peace talks in December, 2019.

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic worsened living conditions in the conflict zone, and by March 2020, fighting escalated. The 29th ceasefire since the war started in 2014 came into in July 2020, and this largely held until November 2020.

2021 got off to a bad start, with 25 Ukrainian soldiers killed in the conflict zone, compared to 50 soldiers being killed in 2020. Tensions increased around early April after Russia moved thousands of military personnel as well as large quantities of arms and materiel into Crimea and its border with Ukraine. The UK and EU expressed their concern about Russias military buildup and promised their unwavering support for Ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity.

On their part, Russia said some of its troops were deployed to practice fighting enemy drones and that the military movements posed no threat to Ukraine. However, a Russian official added that an escalation of the conflict in Donbas would mean the the beginning of the end of Ukraine. Chancellor Merkel asked Putin to reduce the Russian troop buildup, while US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his German counterpart emphasized the importance of supporting Ukraine in the face of Russias provocations.

Tensions increased in April 2021 when Ukraine flew its Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 military drones over Donbas for the first time. A week later, President Putin warned that any country which takes Russias good intentions for weakness or indifference, and crosses its red lines should know that Russias response will be asymmetrical, swift and harsh.

In early October 2021, eight members of the Russian mission to NATO were expelled because they were undeclared Russian intelligence officers. Russia accused NATO of duplicity, and in retaliation, closed its mission to NATO, which it declared was not interested in equitable dialogue and joint work.

On October 19, 2021, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in Kyiv that Russia was an obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine. In clear reference to Russia, he added that no third country could veto NATOs membership decisions. Secretary Austin also discussed with Ukrainian authorities the implementation of the US-Ukraine Strategic Defense Framework which underlines US support for Ukraines right to decide its own foreign policy, its desire to join NATO, as reaffirmed in the June 2021 NATO Summit Communique.

Secretary Austins remarks in Kyiv were criticized for reflecting US policy makers failure to accept geopolitical realities in eastern Europe, and risking drawing the US and NATO into a war with Russia. Furthermore, his remarks were said to encourage Ukraine to take a hardline against Russia, instead of accommodating Russias interests.

A few days after Secretary Austins statement in Kyiv, Ukraine destroyed a separatist artillery gun manned by Russian occupation forces in the Donbas using, for the first time, a Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drone. Although Ukraine claimed that the drone did not cross the Contact Line, the 427-Km long frontline between the government and non-government-controlled areas in Donbas, the LPR said the drone attack was in violation of the Minsk Agreements. Germanys Foreign Office expressed its concern about the drone strike, while a Russian government spokesman said the drone attack was destabilizing and would not help settle the conflict.

In a November 2021 speech, President Putin said that Russias Western partners were aggravating the situation in Ukraine by supplying the Ukrainian government with lethal weapons and conducting military exercises in the Black Sea and other regions close to Russia. In addition, Putin said, their partners ignored Russias warnings about its red lines, including NATOs expansion eastward toward Russia.

In December 2021, President Putin said that Russia wants to negotiate agreements with the US and its allies to stop NATO from deploying weapons near Russian territory, and expanding eastwards. A few days later, Ukraine claimed that Russia was sending tanks and snipers to the conflict areas.

By mid-December, Russia published draft US-Russia and NATO-Russia agreements to guarantee its security, and defuse the tension in Ukraine. The US government said some parts of the proposals were unacceptable while others saw them as a ploy by Russia to justify an invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russia had a massive buildup of over 100,000 troops along its border with Ukraine, in readiness for what many called another invasion of Ukraine.

Fighting escalated in February 2022, with the Ukrainian military reporting 60 incidents of weapons fire in one day, and about 135,000 Russian troops on the Russia-Ukraine border. On February 15, 2022, the Russian State Duma (lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia) passed a non-binding resolution asking President Putin to recognize the DPR and LPR.

A few days later, the DPR and LPR leaders requested President Putin to recognize the independence of their republics and proposed signing a treaty of friendship and cooperation (including military cooperation) with Russia. Putin signed the State Duma resolution recognizing the republics, along with their treaties on friendship, co-operation and mutual assistance with Russia.

In his address to Russia following his recognition of the breakaway republics, President Putin said that Ukraine was created by Russia, and never was a genuine state. He also said that although many European allies of the US knew of the risks of admitting Ukraine into NATO, the US forced them to carry out its anti-Russia policy. Putin concluded by saying that those in power in Kyiv should immediately cease hostilities or their conscience will be burdened by bloodshed from the conflict.

On February 21, 2022, President Putin ordered more Russian troops into Donbas for a peacekeeping mission, which the US called an invasion. Putin raised the ante on February 24, 2022 when he announced the start of a special military operation in the Donbas. The much-anticipated full-scale invasion of Russia by Ukraine was on.

The global reaction to Russias invasion of Ukraine came thick and fast, with President Biden condemning it, but adding that US will not send its troops to Ukraine to fight Russian forces. The US also provided $4.6 billion in security assistance, and $914 million in humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since Russias invasion began, and announced an additional $700 million in funding on June 1.

NATO Heads of State and Government condemned the Russian invasion, calling it brutal, wholly unprovoked, and unjustified. They also said that Russia had rejected the path of diplomacy and dialog offered by NATO and its Allies and violated international law. They vowed to continue supporting Ukraine and reaffirmed their support for its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

For its part, the EU imposed restrictive measures on Russia to weaken its ability to finance its war on Ukraine. Thus, it imposed many sanctions against Russia starting in March 2014 following the referendum on Crimeas accession to Russia. More rounds of sanctions followed Russias invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and by early June 2022, the EU had sanctioned 1,175 Russian individuals (including President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov), 101 Russian entities, and imposed its sixth package of sanctions against Russia. In addition, the EU has extended every six months, economic sanctions it imposed on Russia in 2014, and covering the finance, energy, defense and other sectors.

On the diplomatic front, the EU cancelled the 2014 EU-Russia summit, and ended the privileged access of Russian diplomats, officials and business executives to the EU. The EU also provided humanitarian and financial assistance to Ukraine, including 355 million to help civilians affected by Russias invasion of the country.

Following Russias invasion of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy, who advocated for dialog with Russia, became a belligerent leader of Ukraines fierce resistance against Russia. Since the start of Russias invasion, Zelenskyy has addressed Ukrainians nightly, rallying them to fight, using his oratory and communications skills. Zelenskyy has also, via video link, addressed Heads of State, parliaments, and conferences around the world pleading, with little success, for more support (especially military support) for Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy has pleaded numerous times for NATO to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and provide them more lethal weapons to fight Russia. Unfortunately for Ukraine, his appeals have fallen on deaf ears because NATO said it wont risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Zelenskyy should have seen this coming, because he admitted in March 2022 that NATO had categorically told him that while they will maintain in public that NATO is open to Ukraine joining the organization, the reality was that it wont.

The war in Ukraine seems to have no end in sight because both President Biden, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said at the June 2022 NATO Summit in Madrid, Spain that NATO will continue to provide Ukraine with weapons as long as necessary. Furthermore, the US has been absent from efforts to bring peace to Ukraine if not outrightly opposed to them. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov also accused the US and its NATO allies of pouring oil on the fire in Ukraine by arming it, and increasing the risk of nuclear war.

For its part, the US said that one of its goals in the war in Ukraine was to see Russia weakened so it wont be able to conduct similar invasions in the future. Although President Biden asked his officials to tone down their position, Russians will remember former President Gorbachevs advice that the only Russia the US loves is a weak Russia.

Ukraine clearly is a proxy in the US and NATO war on Russia. What matters therefore, is not peace and security for Ukrainians, but the desire of the US (9,181 Km or 5,705 miles from Ukraine) and NATO to bring Russia to her knees. As such, a negotiated peace between Ukraine and Russia is far off, and this pathetic, needless war which has killed thousands and made millions refugees will drag on. Poor Ukraine, so far away from the United States, and so close to Russia!

Related

Read more:
The European Union Policy in the South Caucasus - Modern Diplomacy

Although Kyriakos Mitsotakis says "we have strong growth and a significant drop in unemployment of 3% since last year and 5% since 2019", Greece is still in a delicate situation. The unemployment rate was 30% at the height of the crisis, it was still 14.8% according to the World Bank in 2021 and would have fallen to 12% in 2022 (7% on average in the euro zone). The European Commission is forecasting GDP growth of 4% in 2022 (2.6% on average in the euro zone), compared with 8.3% in 2021, mainly thanks to tourism. However, at $216bn ($215.7bn) in 2021, it is still more than 15% below its 2008 level. The World Bank has indicated that inflation will rise by 1.2% in 2021.

The hole caused by the effects of the debt, which is expected to rise to 180% of GDP (97% on average in the other countries of the euro zone) by the end of 2022, will have to be filled. As well as raising wages, which are among the lowest in the eurozone. To achieve this, Athens is forced to run a series of budget surpluses.

"The Commission will continue to support Greece in this new phase of its economic development, working in partnership to carry out the reforms and investments foreseen in the ambitious recovery and resilience plan," says Paola Gentiloni. In June 2021, the European Union approved Greece's recovery plan of 17.8bn in grants and 12.7bn in loans under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).

See more here:
Greece officially freed from the European Union's tutelage - en.econostrum.info

The euro has fallen below parity with the dollar, diving to its lowest level in 20 years and ending a one-to-one exchange rate with the U.S. currency.

READ MORE: Europes central bank raises interest rates for first time in 11 years

Its a psychological barrier in the markets. But psychology is important, and the euros slide underlines the foreboding in the 19 European countries using the currency as they struggle with an energy crisis caused by Russias war in Ukraine.

Heres why the euros slide is happening and what impact it could have:

It means the European and American currencies are worth the same amount. While constantly changing, the euro has dropped just below a value of $1 this week.

A currencys exchange rate can be a verdict on economic prospects, and Europes have been fading. Expectations that the economy would see a rebound after turning the corner from the COVID-19 pandemic have been replaced by recession predictions.

More than anything, high energy prices and record inflation are to blame. Europe is far more dependent on Russian oil and natural gas than the U.S. to keep industry humming and generate electricity. Fears that the war in Ukraine will lead to a loss of Russian oil on global markets have pushed oil prices higher. And Russia has been cutting back natural gas supplies to the European Union, which EU leaders described as retaliation for sanctions and weapons deliveries to Ukraine.

Energy prices have driven euro-area inflation to a record 8.9 percent in July, making everything from groceries to utility bills more expensive. They also have raised fears about governments needing to ration natural gas to industries like steel, glassmaking and agriculture if Russia further reduces or shuts off the gas taps completely.

The sense of doom increased as Russia reduced the flows through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Germany to 20 percent of capacity and said it would shut it down for three days next week for routine maintenance at a compressor station.

Natural gas prices on Europes TTF benchmark have soared to record highs amid dwindling supplies, fears of further cutoffs and strong demand.

If you think Euro at parity is cheap, think again, Robin Brooks, chief economist at the Institute of International Finance banking trade group, tweeted Monday. German manufacturing lost access to cheap Russian energy & thus its competitive edge.

Global recession is coming, he said in a second tweet.

The euro was last valued below $1 on July 15, 2002.

The European currency hit its all-time high of $1.18 shortly after its launch on Jan. 1, 1999, but then began a long slide, falling through the $1 mark in February 2000 and hitting a record low of 82.30 cents in October 2000. It rose above parity in 2002 as large trade deficits and accounting scandals on Wall Street weighed on the dollar.

WATCH: American cities, states cant find enough workers despite an influx of federal funding

Then as now, what appears to be a euro story is also in many ways a dollar story. Thats because the U.S. dollar is still the worlds dominant currency for trade and central bank reserves. And the dollar has been hitting 20-year highs against the currencies of its major trading partners, not just the euro.

The dollar is also benefiting from its status as a safe haven for investors in times of uncertainty.

Many analysts attribute the euros slide to expectations for rapid interest rate increases by the U.S. Federal Reserve to combat inflation at close to 40-year highs.

As the Fed raises interest rates, the rates on interest-bearing investments tend to rise as well. If the Fed raises rates more than the European Central Bank, higher interest returns will attract investor money from euros into dollar-denominated investments. Those investors will have to sell euros and buy dollars to buy those holdings. That drives the euro down and the dollar up.

Last month, the ECB raised interest rates for the first time in 11 years by a larger-than-expected half-percentage point. It is expected to add another increase in September. But if the economy sinks into recession, that could halt the ECBs series of rate increases.

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy looks more robust, meaning the Fed could go on tightening and widen the rate gap.

American tourists in Europe will find cheaper hotel and restaurant bills and admission tickets. The weaker euro could make European export goods more competitive on price in the United States. The U.S. and the EU are major trade partners, so the exchange rate shift will get noticed.

In the U.S., a stronger dollar means lower prices on imported goods from cars and computers to toys and medical equipment which could help moderate inflation.

American companies that do a lot of business in Europe will see the revenue from those businesses shrink when and if they bring those earnings back to the U.S. If euro earnings remain in Europe to cover costs there, the exchange rate becomes less of an issue.

A key worry for the U.S. is that a stronger dollar makes U.S.-made products more expensive in overseas markets, widening the trade deficit and reducing economic output, while giving foreign products a price edge in the United States.

A weaker euro can be a headache for the European Central Bank because it can mean higher prices for imported goods, particularly oil, which is priced in dollars. The ECB is already being pulled in different directions: It is raising interest rates, the typical medicine for inflation, but higher rates also can slow economic growth.

Continue reading here:
What does it mean that the euro has fallen below parity with the dollar? - PBS NewsHour

The new American James Webb satellite explores the outer boundaries of the universe. Private US starts ups Space X and Blue Origin are pioneering commercial space exploration and the launch of inexpensive low orbit satellites. In contrast, the European Space Agency (ESA) seems grounded.

Radical change is required. Europe must consolidate its public space agencies and encourage its private space companies to grow. This requires a harmonized and united European front on space exploration.

Established in 1975, Europes Space Agency (ESA) lacks power over the EUs national agencies. It acts as an intergovernmental mechanism allowing members to cooperate and exchange information on international and national space law. Translated from Eurospeak, this means the ESA acts as a technical and legal consultant to national space agencies, not as a coherent, centralized, strong leader. In addition, only 22 of the EUs members participate, with small states such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Slovakia, staying away.

The ESA is not part of the European Union structure, though it receives much of its funding from the European Commission. The EU has its space program, called the European Space Program, adding to the confusion.

Part of the reason behind this decentralized structure is that much space research concerns defense. Under EU law, national security remains a national responsibility, out of the EU scope.

Unnecessary duplication and slow decision-making results. Even the most ambitious ESA projects such as the Rosalind Franklin rover (headed for Mars) or Electra (a telecommunications satellite) focus on providing unmanned services and exploration research, rather than pursuing ambitious manned or defense missions.

The funding represents another challenge. The ESA budget totals a mere EUR14 billion over five years compared to the US, which spent 54 billion dollars in 2021, or China, which spent a little over $10 billion last year.

Europe needs to pool its resources to pursue ambitious projects such as the colonization of Mars, and the Moon, or defense-oriented measures such as missile defense or advanced satellite networks.

This goal could be achieved by remodeling the ESA in the spirit of NASA. In a public presentation, ESA manager Martin Born says his organization must increase flexibility and reduce bureaucracy. For example, he points out that while NASA holds weekly risk meetings, ESA requires lengthy paper risk reports. NASA conducts a streamlined three-part progress review. ESA has a five-step drawn-out review system. NASA takes direction from a single government administration, allowing it to develop and implement a coherent, and often ambitious, set of priorities. In contrast, the ESA must balance the interest of its member states.

Challenges arise concerning the role of private companies: in the US, NASA cooperates with and compliments space startups producing cheap rockets and satellites. In Europe, the ESA imposes onerous regulations on companies through stringent supply chain reporting, creating a barrier for private companies, and leaving Europes space startups struggling for finance.

Brexit presents another obstacle. When the UK pulled out of the EU, it was frozen out of the ESAs Galileo project, which is building a rival to the US GPS. Britain boasts a potentially dynamic satellite company called OneWeb, which is building hundreds of low-flying satellites. The UK has big ambitions for mass-produced small satellites.

OneWeb and Frances Eutelsat recently announced a merger to create a strong competitor to Elon Musks SpaceX. Both EU and UK antitrust regulators need to approve the deal. Investors are wary: Eutelsats shares fell by more than one-third in the two days after news of its planned deal with OneWeb emerged. Some UK politicians have expressed concerns about the deal.

Comprehensive reform of Europes public space sector remains required. When European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen took office in 2019, she called for cross-fertilization between civil, defense and space industries and focus on improving the crucial link between space and defense and security, In 2020, the Commission published an Action Plan calling for better coordination between civil, defense and space projects.

The most straightforward solution would be to give the European Commission a leadership role. Work has already been done to consolidate the two agencies, although bureaucratic infighting has hampered its progress. In 2021, the ESA and EU took new steps to guarantee that they would work in closer collaboration. The European Space Forum, scheduled for the end of October, represents an appropriate venue to launch an ambitious overhaul. Lets hope Europe doesnt miss the opportunity to blast off.

Jonathan Garraffo is an intern in CEPAs Business Development Program. Alexander Wirth is a Program Officer in CEPAs Digital Innovation Initiative.

Read more:
How Europe's Space Industry Could Blast Off - Center for European Policy Analysis

In mid-July 2022 the European Union imposed new restrictions on South African citrus imports. The new phytosanitary requirements were meant to address False Codling Moth, a citrus pest that is native to South Africa and for which there is zero tolerance in the EU.

The new regulations are a major blow to South Africas citrus industry as they will severely disrupt exports. The country is the worlds second largest exporter of citrus after Spain. The EU accounted for 41% of Southern African citrus exports by value in 2021. Locally, in 2021 citrus accounted for 25% of South Africas total agriculture exports up from 19% in 2011.

In our view, which is based on decades of engaging with EU regulations, and food exports more generally, the regulations are unfair and punitive.

Firstly, the EU gave South Africa less than a month to adapt to the new regulations. The EU measures were published on 21 June 2022, entered into force on 24 June 2022, and required that consignments arriving in Europe from 14 July 2022 onwards had to comply with the new requirements.

The South African government managed to negotiate a settlement with the EU to clear floating containers of citrus blocked at EU Ports on 11 August 2022 (3 weeks later). Nevertheless the whole process imposed additional costs on growers. At a minimum, transition measures are required. This is done to give countries time to adapt.

Secondly, since the EU first declared the False Codling Moth a quarantine pest in 2018, South Africa put in place extensive measures in line to meet the phytosanitary regulations. Its integrated pest management (systems approach) has meant significant investments in research and learning by doing to get the system right. There is evidence of success.

In our view, the new rules are de facto non-tariff barriers to trade. Non-tariff measures are imposed _de jure to protect consumers from unhealthy or low-quality products, but de facto they represent an increase in trade costs. _

We also believe that additional requirements will only mean diverting scarce resources and imposing new costs on growers, threatening the long-term sustainability of the industry.

Product and process standards are the main factors shaping the international trade regime. The ability to meet these standards is both a threat for producers (excluding them from profitable markets) and an opportunity (providing the potential to enter high-margin markets).

Phytosanitary standards are particularly important. The challenge is that they are determined solely by the buying party or country, with the producer having little capacity to challenge decisions on conformance. An added problem is that strong lobbies can push for standards to be protectionist barriers. This harms both consumers who pay higher prices as well as producers who are forced to apply new ways of processing.

The ever changing landscape in phytosanitary standards is characteristic of global trade in fresh fruit. Responding to it requires constant investments in research and technology development to keep up and to comply. However, the political nature of these issues, which require government-to-government negotiations, makes it difficult to prove compliance and the basis for such standards.

As of 12 August, the current hurdle has cost local citrus growers over R200 million in losses. In addition, growers are more than likely to receive half their expected returns on any fruit that is released, due to the fact that most containers have been standing for a few weeks, and have therefore missed their programmes due to late arrival.

Applicable from the 1 January 2018, the EU Directive listed False Codling Moth (FCM) as an EU quarantine pest and prescribed specific import requirements. This meant that South African citrus exporters who shipped to the EU market would be subject to new requirements. Non-EU countries could use cold treatment or another effective treatment to ensure the products are free from the pest.

From the 1 September 2019, exporting countries were required prior to export, to provide documentary evidence of the effectiveness of the treatment used for trade to continue.

In response to the EUs 2018 False Codling Moth phytosanitary regulations, South Africas citrus industry developed the FCM Management System as an alternative to post-harvest disinfestation (cold treatment).

South Africa is currently using integrated pest management (systems approach) - the sterile insect technique and mating disruption - in conjunction with complementary controls to ensure citrus fruits are free of the moth from the field to the packing house and shipment to the EU. A systems approach is a pest risk management option that integrates different measures, at least two of which act independently, with cumulative effect.

The False Codling Moth Management System was implemented for the first time in 2018 for citrus exports to the EU with continuos improvements over the years (p.32). Interceptions of FCM have been consistently low over the past three years.

The new regulations require orange imports to undergo further mandatory cold treatment processes and pre-cooling steps for specific periods. These have to be done at loading before shipping and subsequent importation.

Some cold stores have modern technology to cool down the fruit to stipulated temperatures. But a number of cold stores still have outdated technologies that cant.

South Africas citrus industry recognises that standards are clearly essential. It has invested in research and technology to keep abreast of changes in phytosanitary standards, and to support shared capabilities necessary to supply high-quality, pest-and disease-free fruit.

But the setting of standards can be misused. This means they need to be transparently applied and designed.

Read the original:
South African citrus: new EU rules are unjust and punitive - The Conversation