Sunday, October 31, 2021

Blinken with CNN Oct.31, 2021

Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Dana Bash of CNN State of the Union

10/31/2021 10:39 AM EDT

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

Via Teleconference

QUESTION: Joining me now from Rome is the Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for joining me. I want to start by what happened here in the U.S. President Biden went to Capitol Hill. He asked for a deal before he left for COP26. And Speaker Pelosi told House Democrats not to, quote, “embarrass” President Biden on the world stage. But as you know, the President is arriving there with no major climate plan signed into law.

So in the words of Speaker Pelosi, is he going to be embarrassed arriving in Scotland without a deal in hand?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, look, happily I don’t do politics in my job, but let me say this: What I’m seeing here in Rome is a deep appreciation for American re-engagement, American leadership, and it’s making a huge difference on issues that are actually going to have an impact on the lives on Americans.

We’re here at the G20, the world’s largest economies, and with this American leadership, with this American engagement, we’ve struck dramatic progress. We have a global minimum tax agreement. That’s an incredibly big deal; it’s something we’ve been working on for a long time. We’ve gotten that over the finish line. That means that instead of having this race to the bottom where companies are moving to the countries that are offering the lowest tax rates and taking jobs out of the United States, we’ve now got a level playing field around the world. That’s a product of our engagement, our leadership. Secretary Yellen and her team have done an amazing job on that.

We’ve got significant progress, too, on getting – ending a dispute between the United States and our closest Europeans partners where we were engaged in a tariff war over steel and aluminum. That’s now gotten resolved. That, too, is going to help American workers, help American businesses, help American consumers. American icons like Harley-Davidson are now not going to be subject to retaliation from Europeans, and we’re now on the same page with our closest allies and partners.

We – and across the board in areas that are really making a difference. There’s an agreement now not to finance coal projects around the world. This is one of the largest drivers of emissions. And going into Glasgow, again, as a result of American engagement and American leadership, we’re getting that over the finish line, and that means we’re going to make more progress on climate change.

QUESTION: So Mr. Secretary, let’s talk about climate change, because you know that the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin – they’re not even going to go to the climate summit in person. So how do you meet your goals at this summit when two of the world’s biggest polluters aren’t even showing up?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, two things, Dana. First, here at the G20, they’re not here either. We are. President Biden is. And that in and of itself is making a difference in driving forward our agenda, driving forward the issues that we care about.

QUESTION: Yeah, and I understand that, but does it –

SECRETARY BLINKEN: In terms of Glasgow – so in terms of Glasgow —

QUESTION: But the climate is a global thing where everybody has to agree to bring the crisis down.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: It is. It is. And I think it’s ultimately going to be up to China, as now currently the world’s largest emitter, to decide whether it is going to do the right and important thing for its own people but also for everyone around the world. Because it’s – you’re right. Unless we’re all in this together in making the – taking the steps necessary to keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, then it’s going to be a problem.

And ultimately, I think what you’re going to see in Glasgow is most of the major emitters in the world coming together, raising their ambitions in terms of the commitments they’re making to combat climate change – the United States not only doing that, but also putting in the funding necessary to help countries that need help with adaptation, with resilience, to do that.

Beijing is going to have to decide whether it’s going to live up to its responsibilities, starting with its own people who are affected directly by climate change.

QUESTION: So you mentioned the 1.5 degree goal. That’s what the Paris Climate Agreement says that global warming needs to keep under that.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: That’s right.

QUESTION: The UN said just this week that the world is on track to hit a calamitous 2.7 degrees warmer by the end of the century. So is it fair to say that the world is not going to keep warming under 1.5 degrees?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Look, right now we’re not on track to do that. That’s why Glasgow is so important, and we’re going to see what emerges from Glasgow in terms of the commitments that countries make. But it’s not just Glasgow. This is a critical moment, but it’s also a jumping-off point going into next year to continue to do everything possible.

What President Biden has talked about is seeing this as a decisive decade between now and 2030. Because whatever goals we set for 2050, including making sure that we keep warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, if we’re not taking the steps over the next eight to ten years to actually do that, we won’t hit the target. But Glasgow is a critical milestone, but there’s going to be a lot of work following from Glasgow.

QUESTION: President Biden said at CNN’s town hall last week that the U.S. would come to Taiwan’s defense if China invaded. Your spokesperson said there is no change in U.S. position. So I just want to clarify: Has the U.S. committed directly to the Taiwanese government that it will come to Taiwan’s defense if China invades?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: There is no change in our policy. We’ve had a longstanding commitment that, by the way, then-Senator Biden strongly supported when he was in the United States Senate, a longstanding commitment pursuant to the Taiwan Relations Act to make sure that Taiwan has the means to defend itself, and we stand by that. The President stood by that strongly, and we want to make sure that no one takes any unilateral action that would disrupt the status quo with regard to Taiwan. That hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: You are the Secretary of State, and that was very, very perfect diplo-speak, so I just wanted – for people who don’t speak that language, can you clarify what that exactly means? Are you now saying that the United States would not come to Taiwan’s defense if attacked? Can you be specific, yes or no?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Dana, again, what I can tell you is that we remain committed, resolutely committed, to our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act, including making sure that Taiwan has the ability to defend itself from any aggression.

QUESTION: Okay. Just one more follow on that. The President said specifically that the U.S. would. That’s not what you’re saying, correct?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: The President has for a long time, including when he was a senator voting for the Taiwan Relations Act, made clear that we will do everything necessary to make sure that Taiwan has the means to defend itself.

QUESTION: Okay, let’s talk about Iran. The G20 is also addressing the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons this week ahead of renewed negotiations about the nuclear deal in Vienna. So is the U.S. prepared to increase pressure on Iran to get them back to the table? And if so, what does that pressure look like?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, two things. First, President Biden got together here in Rome with his German, his French, and his British counterparts. We are absolutely in lockstep together on how we’re approaching the challenge of getting Iran back into compliance with the nuclear agreement, and that’s new because we had actually been at odds in recent years over that when the United States pulled out of the agreement. We’re now fully coordinated and working on this together.

QUESTION: What is that lockstep? What does it look like?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: So, two things. We continue to believe that diplomacy is the best way to deal with the challenges, the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, in particular – particularly, unfortunately, the steps it’s taken since we pulled out and in recent months to make that program increasingly dangerous. There’s still a window through which Iran can come back to the talks and we can come back to mutual compliance with the agreement, and that would be the best result. But it really depends on whether Iran is serious about doing that.

All of our countries – working, by the way, with Russia and China – believe strongly that that would be the best path forward, but we do not yet know whether Iran is willing to come back and to engage in a meaningful way and get back into compliance. If it isn’t, if it won’t, then we are looking together at all of the options necessary to deal with this problem.

QUESTION: I also want to ask about Afghanistan. I want you to listen – our viewers to listen to what you said two months ago about Americans still in Afghanistan: “We believe there are still a small number of Americans – under 200, and likely closer to 100 – who remain in Afghanistan and want to leave.”

So we now believe that there are still close to 200 Americans trying to get out of Afghanistan even after you evacuated more than 200 already. So is it acceptable to you that so many Americans are still, two months later, trying to get out of Afghanistan?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Dana, let’s be very clear about this, because I think there is a tremendous amount of confusion about this issue that’s built up in recent months. And give me just one second and I’ll try and explain it.

First, going back to March of this year, well before the President made his decision, well before Afghanistan imploded, the government and the military imploded, we started sending messages to those who had American passports in Afghanistan – 19 between March and July – urging them to leave the country. By the time the government did implode in August, there were still about 6,000 left, and there’s a good reason for that. These are people whose entire lives were in Afghanistan. Their families were there. Their extended families were there. They – that’s what they knew. And so it’s an incredibly wrenching decision to leave.

So about 6,000 left at that point. During the evacuation, the extraordinary evacuation in which we got about 125,000 people out of Afghanistan, we got virtually all of the 6,000 who remained out. There were still several hundred who had told us they – at that point that they wanted to get out who were not able to get out by the 31st. And what we’ve said was we – there is no deadline to this effort, we will continue to get them out.

Since August 31st, as of today, we’ve gotten out – of the Americans left who said that they wanted to leave – about 340. But what’s happened since is this: More people have come forward in two ways. There were some small number of Americans in Afghanistan who didn’t want to leave, who have now seen that we’ve successfully been able to get some of the few remaining Americans out, who have now come forward and said we do want to leave. And there are a couple of hundred of those who are ready to leave, and we will work to get them out.

Similarly, since August 31st, other people have come forward who had not previously identified themselves as having an American passport. They have now come forward to say that they do. We verified that, and if they say they want to come out, we will bring them out as well.

But we’ve demonstrated exactly what we said in August, which is even as we worked to get as many people out as we could before we left the airport, we were convinced that we would be able to continue to do that, and we’ve done that.

QUESTION: Secretary of State Antony Blinken, thank you so much for clarifying that and thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

SECRETARY BLINKEN: Thanks for having me. Good to be with you.

Stay connected with the State Department:

Turkey's F-16 Request May Not Stave Off the Inevitable

Turkey's F-16 Request May Not Stave Off the Inevitable

Grant Rumley and Soner Çağaptay

October 28, 2021

Brief Analysis

Washington and Ankara have significant diplomatic and security incentives for considering the deal, while rejecting it outright would likely hasten Erdogan’s drift into Putin’s orbit.

Earlier this month, Turkey submitted a request to purchase forty new F-16s from the United States, along with eighty modernization kits for its existing F-16 fleet. Estimated to cost around $6 billion, the arms request is Ankara’s most significant since Washington began the process of expelling it from the F-35 program in 2019 and imposed penalties on Turkish entities under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA)—a move spurred by the NATO member’s decision to accept delivery of Russian S-400 missile defense systems. The F-16 request is a gamble for Turkey: it needs the jets to cover gaps in its aging fleet, but Washington may deny the request given Ankara’s apparent unwillingness to give up the S-400. U.S. policymakers must now decide whether the bilateral defense relationship is salvageable and, if so, whether approving this sale is the best way to start rebuilding ties.

How Putin Widened Erdogan’s Rift with Washington

Although Turkish-Russian ties have historically been hostile, a bond emerged between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in recent years. This trend began with the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey, which Putin exploited to position himself as Erdogan’s protector and gradually peel Ankara away from Washington. While Erdogan waited in vain for President Obama and other NATO leaders to reach out to him during his darkest hour, Putin called him immediately during the coup, then invited him to Russia for consultation.

As a result, Erdogan’s first trip overseas after the coup crisis was not to Washington or Brussels, but to Russia’s imperial capital of St. Petersburg, where Putin welcomed Turkey’s sultan with regal fanfare at the tsarist-era Konstantinovsky Palace. In doing so, Putin signaled that he was willing to put the brakes on Russia’s centuries-long policy of crushing Turkish goals, most recently in Syria.

This outreach was no doubt reassuring to Erdogan, but as is ever the case, Putin’s platitudes did not come for free. In all likelihood, the St. Petersburg meeting is where Moscow first offered to sell Ankara the S-400, knowing full well that completing such a deal would fracture U.S.-Turkish ties. This strategy ultimately worked—delivery of the system was delayed for years, but once it arrived in Turkey, Washington nixed the F-35 deal and imposed sanctions.

Turkey’s Military Considerations

Turkey has been purchasing F-16s from the United States since the 1980s and currently owns one of the world’s largest F-16 fleets. It uses these jets primarily for border security missions along the Syrian frontier and long-range bombing missions primarily against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) targets in northern Iraq. According to the International Institute for Security Studies, the Turkish Air Force has over 250 F-16s, primarily of the Block 50 and Block 30 variants. The Block 50 variant was first introduced in the early 1990s and the Block 30 in the late 1980s; both are gradually being phased out in favor of more advanced variants. Indeed, much of Turkey’s fleet is reaching the end of its operational life, with some analysts estimating that most of it will have to be retired in ten to fifteen years. Earlier this year, Turkish officials announced a plan to delay this retirement by refurbishing large portions of the fleet, which could extend the lifespan of its F-16s from the standard 8,000 hours to 12,000 hours.

Previously, Ankara had expected to replace some of these F-16s with an order of 100 F-35s, so its removal from that program sent military planners back to the drawing board. One alternative already in motion was the development of Turkey’s own multirole air superiority fighter, the TF-X. Yet even under the most optimistic timeline, this aircraft is not expected to come online until the 2030s. Thus, if Washington rejects the new F-16 request, Turkish officials will have very few options for covering the gap in air capabilities between now and potential delivery of the TF-X. They could try to stretch the lifespan of their current F-16s by refurbishing airframes and reducing the amount of hours pilots spend in the air, but this would obviously diminish the air force’s operational capabilities. They could also purchase new fighters from someone else, but if they choose a party like Russia (as Turkish officials have threatened recently), they would further antagonize the United States.

Further complicating the new request is the financing angle. Turkish officials want to use the money they put toward the F-35 program for purchasing new F-16s. On October 12, Erdogan’s foreign policy advisor, Ibrahim Kalin, told a Turkish outlet that these funds total around $1.4 billion, and that Ankara should be able to transfer them to the F-16 request. Whether this option is truly feasible or not will have to be ironed out in the ensuing negotiations.

Implications for U.S. Policy

The largest obstacle to the deal remains the U.S. Congress, which instituted a de facto ban on all arms sales to Turkey after the S-400 debacle and has shown little appetite for lifting it. At last month’s Senate hearing to approve Jeff Flake’s nomination as the next ambassador to Turkey, Foreign Relations Committee chair Robert Menendez (D-NJ) noted, “I see no arm sales going to Turkey unless there is a dramatic change-around on the S-400.” The previous chair, Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), echoed this sentiment last year in comments to Defense News: “Until the issues surrounding [the S-400] purchase are resolved I cannot and will not support weapon sales to Turkey.” Congress will therefore be wary of green-lighting the F-16 request, mainly for fear of the signal it might send to other partners contemplating significant military purchases from U.S. competitors.

In addition to the strategic implications, U.S. concerns are compounded by the fact that the sale could put sensitive information and technology at risk. Turkey was kicked out of the F-35 program in large part because the security of the jet’s stealth system and other capabilities could be jeopardized if it was co-located with the S-400 or even operated in the vicinity of the Russian system. The new F-16’s radar, per its manufacturer, is intended to use technology similar to that of the F-35. Although the F-16 is an older platform that is already quite familiar to U.S. adversaries, the new Block 70/72 variant is intended to feature more advanced capabilities that policymakers may be loath to sell to a country with Russian air defense systems in theater.

At the same time, rejecting the sale may be the final straw in the bilateral defense relationship. As analyst Aaron Stein put it, the F-16 request represents the relationship’s final “defense decoupling” stage—after years of buying largely from U.S. companies, Turkey increasingly looks to its own domestic arms industry and certain other countries to meet its military needs.

Ironically, U.S. arms sales elsewhere in the neighborhood have given Turkey extra motivation to rapidly address its air capability gap. Greece recently received approval from Washington for a $270 million sale to support F-16 modernization (in addition to buying twenty-four Rafale multirole fighters from France). Athens also agreed to deepen bilateral coordination by amending the Mutual Defense Cooperation Agreement, and Greek officials have publicly declared their desire to purchase F-35s as well. Meanwhile, Israel retains the region’s most capable air force with multiple F-35 squadrons, and the United Arab Emirates may yet receive this system per the terms of its normalization deal with Jerusalem.

Conclusion

The F-16 request may turn out to be Erdogan’s way of testing Washington, perhaps in order to expose the United States as an “insincere defense partner” in the eyes of the Turkish public. Yet a smaller faction of pro-Atlanticists in Ankara are intent on not letting bilateral defense ties collapse completely—they strongly support the request as a means of preserving those ties while also addressing a very real capability crisis. If Washington denies the F-16 sale, Turkey will likely continue drifting further into Russia’s orbit under Erdogan. Accordingly, the Biden administration and Congress should note that the wording and delivery of their response to the request will carry weight in the debate over the future of Turkey’s relations with the West, even if a gradual decline in those relations proves inevitable.

Grant Rumley is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute and a former Middle East policy advisor in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Soner Cagaptay is the Institute’s Beyer Family Fellow and director of its Turkish Research Program. His latest book is A Sultan in Autumn: Erdogan Faces Turkey’s Uncontainable

Greek-U.S.-French Pact Is a Deterrent to Turkish Aggression

Greek-U.S.-French Pact Is a Deterrent to Turkish Aggression

by Burak Bekdil

October 29, 2021 at 5:00 am

The strategic part of the deal states that France will rush to Greece's aid militarily in the event of a third country attacking Greece. The clause adds that "even if the attacker is part of the NATO alliance."

One should ask the Turks why they are upset about a military deal between two NATO allies. What is the difference between Greece buying frigates from France, and Turkey, for decades, buying frigates and submarines from Germany?

At the beginning of October, Greece and France signed a strategic military accord, which states that France will come to Greece's aid militarily (and vice versa) in the event of an attack by a third country -- even if the attacker is part of the NATO alliance. That is naming Turkey without naming it. Pictured: Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (L), shakes hands with French President Emmanuel Macron at the signing ceremony for the military accord, in Paris on September 28, 2021. (Photo by Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images)

The emerging military pact within NATO that brings together the allies Greece, United States and France is bad news for Turkey -- that is, if its President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan intends to fuel tensions in the Aegean and Mediterranean seas as part of his campaign strategy before presidential elections in 2023.

In recent months, Greek diplomacy has made a number of smart moves on the difficult chess board called the Aegean. These moves, coupled with Turkey's increasingly pressing problems at home and on foreign fronts, will restrict Erdoğan's aggression to "aggressive rhetoric" only, and rule out "aggressive action."

At the beginning of October, Greece and France signed a strategic military accord by which Greece will buy from France three state-of-the-art Belharra-class frigates and three Gowind-class corvettes. Delivery of the vessels, more advanced than any other in the Greek Navy, is scheduled to begin in 2024. That is the multi-billion-euro acquisition part. The strategic part of the deal states that France will come to Greece's aid militarily (and vice versa) in the event of an attack by a third country -- even if the attacker is part of the NATO alliance. That is naming Turkey without naming it. The Greek parliament ratified the accord on October 7.

The accord rang alarm bells in Ankara. Turkey condemned the deal, along with "Greece's maximalist claims" and said the accord is a threat to regional peace and stability. Ankara did not say, however, why Turkey is never a threat to regional peace and stability when it buys frigates, submarines and other naval platforms. On the contrary, the official Turkish justification for its acquisition of the Russian-made S-400 surface-to-air missiles was that "every sovereign nation should have the liberty to buy every weapon system of its choice."

On October 16, Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias, visiting Washington, signed the renewal of the Mutual Defense Cooperation Agreement (MDCA) between Greece and the U.S. and met with Secretary of State Antony Blinken for the third round of the U.S.-Greece strategic dialogue. The new accord expands on the one signed in Athens two years ago by then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and will give the U.S. increased access to two bases in central Greece and one at Alexandroupolis near the Greek-Turkish border.

In addition to these, the U.S. also operates a permanent naval base in Souda, on Crete, a key U.S. and NATO force-projection capability in the region. In the next round of MDCA negotiations, Greek officials may convince the so far reluctant U.S. military establishment to set up bases on some of the Greek islands bordering Turkey.

The renewal of the Greek-U.S. MDCA came 17 months after one of the largest exercises by U.S. forces in Europe took place in Thrace, near the border between Turkey and Greece. The new MDCA potentially will elevate U.S.-Greek military cooperation to an unprecedented level.

But did Washington not consider a strong Turkish reaction?

"I will not be drawn into conspiracy theories of the 'the Americans were afraid of Turkey's reaction' kind," said Greece's Foreign Minister Dendias. "If the reaction of Turkey was so important, they would not have chosen Alexandroupolis for a military base, only a few kilometers away from the Evros (Greek-Turkish) border, or have a naval base at Souda in Crete, an island in the very heart of the Eastern Mediterranean."

There is proof to back up Dendias' explanation. U.S. forces are preparing for what is described as the largest-ever military landing exercise in Greece, which is scheduled for November at Alexandroupolis -- the same location that is "a few kilometers away" from the Turkish border. The U.S. military move seems to have two objectives: It builds an anti-Russian presence in the Balkans and also aims to send a message that the U.S. would protect Greece against Turkish aggression.

A large number of helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), tanks and artillery pieces are expected to reach the Greek port in the weeks to come as part of an extensive military shipment that is of unprecedented scale, according to Greek media. The shipment will be part of a NATO solidarity drill that will take place in Romania, Bulgaria, the Balkans and central Europe to increase military leverage in the Balkans.

Moreover, on October 25, Dendias co-signed a bilateral cooperation agreement with his British counterpart, Liz Truss, in London. The agreement covers a wide range of sectors including defense and foreign policy.

The Western defense shield for Greece is emerging at a time when Turkey's domestic and foreign problems are deepening. The Turkish lira, since the end of March, has depreciated by a third against the U.S. dollar. Inflation and interest rates are soaring close to 20%. There are 10 million jobless people in the country. Of those who earn a salary, nearly half are getting the minimum wage of $294 a month.

Militarily speaking, the Turkish Air Force has never been this weak in firepower. Thrown out of the F-35 fighter jet program, Ankara is vacillating between the older-generation F-16s and a Russian fighter jet option. Both are big unknowns.

The military balance in the Aegean is shifting to Greece's favor. Yes, Erdoğan will always "bark" during his election campaign. But with the new balance shaping geo-strategy, he will no longer be able to bite.

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journalists, was recently fired from the country's most noted newspaper after 29 years, for writing in Gatestone what is taking place in Turkey. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Gatestone Institute

Burak Bekdil

29 October 2021

Biden -Erdoğan meeting in Rome

Readout of President Biden’s Meeting with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey

OCTOBER 31, 2021

•

STATEMENTS AND RELEASES

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. met today with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey on the margins of the G20 Summit. President Biden underscored his desire to maintain constructive relations, expand areas of cooperation, and manage our disagreements effectively. He expressed appreciation for Turkey’s nearly two decades of contributions to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The leaders discussed the political process in Syria, the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Afghans in need, elections in Libya, the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean, and diplomatic efforts in the South Caucasus. President Biden reaffirmed our defense partnership and Turkey’s importance as a NATO Ally, but noted U.S. concerns over Turkey’s possession of the Russian S-400 missile system. He also emphasized the importance of strong democratic institutions, respect for human rights, and the rule of law for peace and prosperity.

China: A Dicey Ideological Shift by Amir Taheri

China: A Dicey Ideological Shift

by Amir Taheri

October 31, 2021 at 4:00 am

The Chinese economy has become subject to the classical rules of capitalism. This means cyclical boom and busts that do not coincide with the political needs of an ideology-based regime. It also means the emergence of a large middle class that, sooner or later, is bound to question the monopoly of power by a single party even if that party boasts some 80 million members.

Beijing uses various schemes to downgrade other ethnic identities. These include dividing larger ethnic groups into smaller and smaller communities. This is why the official statistics mention 56 different ethnic groups instead of the five broader ones accepted by most scholars.

In some notable cases, Beijing uses repressive measures to downgrade and, in time, eliminate ethnic identities.

The populist-nationalist ideological shift that Xi is seeking has another inevitable consequence: casting China as a conquering power. Putin showed the way by annexing Crimea....

In the case of China, we have already witnessed a number of similar moves, most notably the ditching of the "one-country two-system" scheme in Hong Kong and Macao and Xi's pledge in the recent party conference to regain control of Taiwan.

The populist-nationalist ideological shift that Chinese President Xi Jinping is seeking has another inevitable consequence: casting China as a conquering power. Putin showed the way by annexing Crimea. Pictured: Xi (left) delivers a speech at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on October 9, 2021. (Photo by Noel Celis/AFP via Getty Images)

Political systems based on ideology always face a challenge when they realize that real events have rendered their ideology obsolete.

This could happen at different moments in an ideology-based regime's life.

The Nazi party in Germany realized that soon after sweeping to power and decided to script socialist pretensions out of its discourse and, with the Night of the Long Knives, to promote Hitler's cult of personality as kerygma [proclamation].

In the Soviet Union, the generation of Communist leaders represented by Mikhail Gorbachev tried to return to the Social Democratic roots of their party.

Both attempts ended in failure and the collapse of the ideology-based regimes concerned: Nazi Germany through defeat in war and the USSR with systemic collapse.

The latest ideology-based regime, also born in the last century, to face the challenge is the People's Republic of China under the Communist Party.

Three generations of Communist leaders, starting with that of Hua Kuo-feng and passing by that of Deng Xiao-ping and now Xi Jinping, have faced that challenge and tried to dodge it the best they could. Almost four decades of economic growth, made possible by the adoption of a state-controlled capitalism, made that dodging possible -- until now.

What is happening now is that the current generation of leaders under President Xi is beginning to realize that dodging is no longer possible.

The Chinese Communist Party does not have a social-democratic past to dust out as an alternative ideological abode. Nor can it build a new cult of personality around President Xi to rival that of Mao Zedong in his heyday.

The party's current leadership realizes that the classical Marxist discourse, based on class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, won't sound serious when it is the new bourgeoisie that pretends to represent the proletariat. This is why reference to Marx, Engels and Lenin and such terms as Marxism is a rarity in the party's discourse. The latest resolutions from the party Politburo promises a "better promotion of socialism" but clearly point to a shift towards a populist version of nationalism.

This means that the Xi generation is trying to transform the party into the kind of political machine that Vladimir Putin created after the chaotic period that followed the collapse of the USSR. The Soviet Union was always an ideological state, not a nationalist one. Thus Putin's recipe could work only after non-Russian nations had left the empire, allowing Russians to reassert their position as a nation.

The ideological shift that Xi is looking for is expected to come in the next full session of the Communist Party's Central Committee, scheduled for 8-11 November. The annual event brings together over 400 military, political and state-corporation leaders who rule the country. Xi hopes that the session will also endorse his plan for remaining in power for another five, or even 10, more years to complete the ideological shift from Mao's version of Communism (people's democratic dictatorship, as he called it) to a populist-nationalist discourse.

In its efforts to develop a populist-nationalist discourse, the Xi generation has replaced 1949, when the People's Republic was established by Mao Zedong, with 1911, when the first republic was born under Sun Yatsen. It was no accident that at the last party conference giant portraits of Sun Yatsen had replaced those of Mao.

Trying to transform Sun Yatsen into a populist-nationalist icon, however, is no easy task. An American-educated doctor, Sun was a convert to Protestant Christianity and an advocate of Westernization, albeit with a local coloring. His wife Sun Qinling was daughter of one of China's richest men, also converted to Christianity, and a sister of the wife of Chiang Kai-shek, the nationalist leader and chief rival of Mao for ruling China. Sun Qinling was named a Vice-President of the People's Republic under Mao, when the Communist Party played the "united front" card by pretending that it shared power with a number of smaller parties. Mao also tried to maintain a semblance of ethnic diversity symbolized by the five stars on his new republic's flag.

Xi's expected shift to a full populist-nationalist discourse could mean shedding such Maoist pretensions and promoting the Han ethnic element, accounting for some 87 per cent of the population, as the ideal version of "the Chinese man" and the dominant nation. Beijing uses various schemes to downgrade other ethnic identities. These include dividing larger ethnic groups into smaller and smaller communities. This is why the official statistics mention 56 different ethnic groups instead of the five broader ones accepted by most scholars.

In some notable cases, Beijing uses repressive measures to downgrade and, in time, eliminate ethnic identities. A notable current case is the plan to "re-educate", that is to say Hanify, the Uighurs of East Turkestan (Xinjiang) in special camps or by transferring their child-bearing women to Han-dominated parts of the country. In the case of Tibet, Hanifcation comes through state control over religious doctrine and institutions, while the card played in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia is mixed marriages and population shifts that look much like ethnic cleansing.

The populist-nationalist ideological shift that Xi is seeking has another inevitable consequence: casting China as a conquering power. Putin showed the way by annexing Crimea, while in India Prime Minister Narendra Modi, another populist-nationalist leader, cast the Ajodhya mosque as his war trophy. In the case of China, we have already witnessed a number of similar moves, most notably the ditching of the "one-country two-system" scheme in Hong Kong and Macao and Xi's pledge in the recent party conference to regain control of Taiwan.

The coming Central Committee plenum is likely to establish a clearer "roadmap" for fulfilling that pledge. And that, inevitably, would require an even greater emphasis on Beijing's military build-up which, in turn, could fuel a new arms race with the United States and its allies.

A generation ago, China's conversion to a peculiar form of capitalism was hailed as an element of stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Today, however, seeking an historic ideological shift, China may be recasting itself as a disturber or "perturbateur", as the French say, of the status quo.

Putin's experience has shown that the disturber enjoys an initial advantage but would soon find out that what is gained in domestic politics could be offset by the cost of adversarial relations with the outside world.

Will the coming plenum take all that into account? We have to wait and see.

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987.

This article was originally published by Asharq al-Awsat and is reprinted by kind permission of the author.

© 2021 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

GET FREE EXCLUSIVE GATESTONE CONTENT:

Email Address

France: Can this Journalist (Zemmour) Become President and Save France?

France: Can this Journalist Become President and Save France?

by Guy Millière

October 31, 2021 at 5:00 am

Zemmour... tells the leaders of The Republicans that his proposals are exactly those included in their party's program from 1990... close the borders, suspend immigration, provide social benefits only for the French, and fight the increasing Islamization of the country. He tells Macron that "opening up to diversity" leads to the dissolution of France. Zemmour notes that he does not want to shrink the country, but save it from destruction and will not refuse to see what Islam is and what it can do. He frequently quotes the Algerian author Boualem Sansal, that Islamic neighborhoods in France are "budding Islamic republics". He tells those who say he is a far-right Jew that he is just a conservative attached to the French republic and to all the values that made France great. He states that he is a French Jew, proud of his name, and that those who murdered Jews in France in recent years were not Jews. He rejects the charge of being an apologist for the anti-Semitic Vichy regime by pointing out that what he says about French Jews during WWII was laid out in a book, Vichy and The Holocaust: An Inquiry on a French Paradox, by Rabbi, Alain Michel, who works for the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Israel. Zemmour stresses that he does not defend the Vichy regime at all, does not say that the Vichy regime "protected" French Jews, but only cites historical facts -- and asks those who criticize him on this point if they think Rabbi Alain Michel is an anti-Semite.

When asked about the Jews murdered by an Islamic terrorist at a Jewish school in Toulouse, Zemmour says that he does not blame their families for having them buried in Israel, that he does not think their families behaved like "foreigners." He simply notes a fact: that they think that above all they are Jews, which is the right of every Jew. He says that the concept of a "great replacement" of Western Christendom by Islam is not a conspiracy theory but a reality: that demographic data show that in many places throughout history, there is documentation of people who have replaced other people after they have imported a civilization that does not have the same values as theirs. He adds that this is not an idea shared only by white nationalists, but by all those who read history and live in areas that are changing rapidly.

France is in an extremely serious situation today. There are more than 700 "no-go zones" (Zones Urbaines Sensibles) ruled by ethnic gangs and radical imams. The police can only intervene in these zones through commando operations. A new kind of disturbance, defined by sociologists as "gratuitous violence" -- violence practiced for the pleasure of injuring and killing -- has been spreading. Hundreds of assaults take place every day; police reports show that the majority of them are committed by "suburban youths"....

A recent survey showed that 14% of young people in France aged 18-30 approved of the motives of the motives of [schoolteacher Samuel] Paty's murderer. A poll conducted in November 2020 showed that 57% of Muslims in France aged 18-25 consider Sharia law to be superior to the laws of the republic.... Entire French towns are now predominantly Muslim: Roubaix, Trappes, Sevran, Aubervilliers.... Each year, 400,000 immigrants legally arrive in France, mostly from the Muslim world. In addition, each year, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, also mostly from the Muslim world, are added to that number.... the newcomers are young, and their birthrate is far higher than that of non-Muslims. A population change is taking place.... If the change continues at the present rate, France could be a predominantly Muslim country around 2050.

Zemmour is also the only presidential candidate who has dared to say that the Palestinian people were invented -- a statement long ago affirmed by former Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat -- and that Israel is a nation state that, like all states, has the right to defend itself and fight for its survival.

When Éric Zemmour's supporters are questioned at a public meeting, they unanimously say that he is the only one telling the truth: that a "great replacement" is clearly taking place and could cause France as they know it -- proud of its secularism, Judeo-Christian values and individual liberty -- to "die". Pictured: Zemmour in Budapest, Hungary on September 24, 2021. (Photo by Attila Kisbenedek/AFP via Getty Images)

September 16. Éric Zemmour's new book, France Has Not Yet Said Her Last Word, immediately book becomes a bestseller. Two of his previous books, The French Suicide and A Five-Year Term for Nothing: Chronicles of the War of Civilizations, sold more than 500,000 copies, a high number for non-fiction in France. He is an exception. All authors who write of immigration and Islam without political correctness have been ostracized by the media for years. Not Zemmour. Each time he was fired by radio and television stations, another one hired him. As the last politically incorrect talk show host, his audience consists of people weary of political correctness. He has been dragged into court countless times and ordered to pay high fines, presumably to force him to be quiet. He has paid the fines but would not be quiet.

His earlier books, extremely pessimistic about the future of France, concluded that the country was dying, and unnervingly fast. The cause of death would be the population change resulting from uncontrolled immigration and the ensuing Islamization of the country. Islam, at war with Western civilization for thirteen centuries, he wrote, is incompatible with it. The Muslim population living in France, he went on, does not assimilate, but instead creates extremist enclaves in French territory from which non-Muslims are driven out; and now France finds itself colonized by Islam. French political leaders, he added, practice willful blindness, refusing to see what happens, and slip into submission. The situation, he concluded, is irreversible.

His new book breaks with his former pessimism and shows a willingness to fight. His publisher would not publish the book, so Zemmour published it himself. The book's release was accompanied by a poster campaign from a group, "Friends of Éric Zemmour," created a few weeks earlier. The posters show his face along with the words, "Zemmour President". Zemmour is not even officially a candidate for president of the French Republic - yet. Nonetheless, he acts as if he were on the campaign trail. He has been holding public meetings in large cities and attracting thousands of supporters who seem happy to pay 20 euros ($23) to attend.

On September 13, his television program on CNews was canceled after an institution responsible for regulating audiovisual media in France, the CSA (Superior Audiovisual Council), said that it was "impossible for a presumed presidential candidate to have a television show". Immediately, Zemmour was invited on virtually every radio and television station. In early September, polls credited him with 5%-7% of the 2022 election vote. Recent polls show that, in the first round, he could get 16%-18% of the vote, thereby placing him, in the second round, head-to-head with France's current president, Emmanuel Macron. Never in the history of the Fifth Republic has a presumed presidential candidate had such a dramatic rise to power.

The leaders of The Republicans, France's leading moderate right-wing political party, can see that many of their voters are considering voting for Zemmour, so they still have not chosen a presidential candidate. When they saw that Zemmour had every chance of receiving more votes than anyone else in the party, without even participating in the primary election, they announced that votes for Zemmour would not be counted. The president of the National Rally Party, Marine Le Pen, also can see that many of her voters are turning toward Zemmour. President Macron, for his part, until recently probably assumed that in the second round he would be facing Marine Le Pen, and could again use the fear of "fascism" and the "defense of the republic" by reminding the public that she is the daughter of an unreconstructed anti-Semite, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and therefore get easily re-elected.

Macron now seems visibly anxious and has begun to attack Zemmour's positions by saying that France must be "open to diversity" and that "the identity of France was never built on shrinking the country ". His advisers know it is not possible to accuse Zemmour of anti-Semitism: he is a Jew. French Jews supporting Macron now describe Zemmour as a far-right Jew betraying the values of Judaism. Zemmour has said that the Vichy regime saved French Jews during World War II by preventing them from being sent to the death camps, so some have accused him of defending the Vichy regime and its collaboration with the Nazis. Supporters of Macron and others say that Zemmour is a "racist" and a "fascist". Articles steeped in hatred are published daily in the mainstream media, and journalists who interview him on radio and television always say, before asking him questions , that he is a dangerous man. Some commentators have described him as an "infectious agent" and as a "virus more harmful than the Wuhan coronavirus".

The defamation poured out against him has even appeared in the international press. An article on October 24 in the Wall Street Journal states that Zemmour "has drawn inspiration from former President Donald Trump, is harnessing his celebrity to explore a run for president". It adds that Zemmour "defended the leaders of Vichy France, the regime that collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II", and that

"Mr. Zemmour said that they protected French Jews while handing over foreign-born Jews to the Germans in a necessary compromise to occupation... Mr. Zemmour wrote that families of the children killed in 2012 at a Jewish school near Toulouse were behaving like foreigners for burying their children in Israel".

The newspaper added that Zemmour "has embraced a view held by white nationalists called the 'Great Replacement,' which contends that global elites are conspiring to bring non-European immigrants".

Never has a presumptive French presidential candidate been attacked so unanimously, so viciously and with so much savagery. To find similar attacks, it would be necessary to go back to the 1930s, and at the time the attacks came only from an anti-Semitic far-right press.

Zemmour responds to all criticisms and defamatory remarks. He tells the leaders of The Republicans that his proposals are exactly those included in their party's program from 1990, when, as the Rally for the Republic (RPR), it proposed to close the borders, suspend immigration, provide social benefits only for the French, and to fight the increasing Islamization of the country. He adds that The Republicans betrayed their own party by renouncing its old program.

Zemmour tells Marine Le Pen that she cannot win and she knows it, and Macron that "opening up to diversity" leads to the dissolution of France. He notes that he does not want to shrink the country, but to save it from destruction and that he will not refuse to see what Islam is or can do. He frequently quotes the Algerian author Boualem Sansal, who writes that Islamic neighborhoods in France are "budding Islamic republics". Zemmour tells those who say he is a far-right Jew that he is just a conservative attached to the French republic and all the values that made France great. He states that he is a French Jew, proud of his name, and that those who murdered Jews in France in recent years were not Jews. He says he rejects the charge of being an apologist for the anti-Semitic Vichy regime, and points out that what he says about French Jews during WWII was laid out in a book, Vichy and The Holocaust: An Inquiry on a French Paradox, by Rabbi Alain Michel, who works for the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Israel. Zemmour stresses that he does not defend the Vichy regime at all, does not say that the Vichy regime "protected" French Jews, but only cites historical facts -- and asks those who criticize him on this point if they think Rabbi Alain Michel is an anti-Semite.

Zemmour reminds those who call him a racist and a fascist that Islam is not a race, and that fascists are the enemies of democracies, while he is trying to save democracy. He adds that those who call him a "virus" remind him of those who called Jews "vermin" in the 1930s; that anti-Semites already decades ago called Jews "vermin," and that calling Jews "vermin" led to horrific consequences.

Zemmour says that he thinks that Donald Trump did great things for the United States -- he is one of the rare French journalists not to spit on Trump -- and that he, Zemmour, would have preferred not to think about running for president, but saw no one else likely to defeat Macron, and therefore has no choice.

So far, only one French politician has agreed to debate with Zemmour: Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of La France Insoumise ("France Unsubmitted"), a far-left party that includes former members of the French Communist Party. The other political leaders treat Zemmour with contempt. If he becomes a presidential candidate, and if he continues to attract a large number of voters, they will not be able to avoid debating him. They know him well, for thirty years, as a journalist and political commentator. He also knows them well -- and is a formidable debater.

Zemmour's presumed candidacy, his success, and the fury it provokes among politicians and journalists seem symptoms of the state of the country today. France is in an extremely serious situation. There are now more than 700 "no-go zones" (Zones Urbaines Sensibles), ruled by ethnic gangs and radical imams. The police can only intervene in these zones through commando operations. A new kind of disturbance, defined by sociologists as "gratuitous violence" -- violence practiced for the pleasure of injuring and killing -- has been spreading. Hundreds of assaults take place every day; police reports show that the majority of them are committed by "suburban youths" and that their victims are Caucasians. In many high schools and colleges, teachers have long since given up even mentioning the Holocaust. Since the beheading of high-school teacher Samuel Paty, who was advocating free speech, they have also given up talking about secularism. When, on October 17, 2021, a year after Paty was murdered, the French government organized a commemoration in all French schools, many violent incidents, unfortunately initiated by Muslim students, took place. A recent survey showed that 14% of young people in France aged 18-30 approved of the motives of Paty's murderer. A poll conducted in November 2020 showed that 57% of Muslims in France aged 18-25 consider Sharia law to be superior to the laws of the republic (in 2016, the figure was 47%).

Entire French towns are now predominantly Muslim: Roubaix, Trappes, Sevran, Aubervilliers. The department of Seine-Saint-Denis will very soon be predominantly Muslim. Marseille, the second-largest city in France, is 40% Muslim and will likely be a majority Muslim city in less than a decade. The population of Lyon, the third-largest city in France, is one-third Muslim.

Each year, 400,000 immigrants legally arrive in France, mostly from the Muslim world. Also each year, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, also mostly from the Muslim world, are added to that number. Hardly any of them are deported. The French population is aging; the newcomers are young, and their birthrate is far higher than that of non-Muslims. A population change is taking place. The September issue of the French monthly magazine Causeur published a detailed investigation of the subject, titled "Smile, You Are Replaced!" It disclosed that while native French women have a fertility rate of 1.9 children, women coming from Algeria have a fertility rate of 3.6 children; from Tunisia, 3.5 children, and from Morocco, 3.4 children. If the change continues at the present rate, France could be a predominantly Muslim country around 2050.

President Macron has not done anything to stop or lessen the flow of Muslim immigration into France or to act against the change in population. He has often said that he wants to fight Islamism -- and always adding that Islamism is an ideology unrelated to Islam. He only once said that "Islam is a religion that is in crisis today, all over the world", without giving a clear explanation of what he meant. Most French Muslim organizations immediately reacted by saying that he had insulted Islam. Demonstrations were launched in several Muslim countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian flew to Cairo to apologize to Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of the al-Azhar Mosque, and emphatically to underscore France's deep respect for Islam.

Macron said in November 2020 that a law to fight "Islamic separatism" would quickly be passed. A law was indeed passed in August 2021, but it does not include the words Islam or Islamism. It is called a "law confirming respect for the principles of the Republic". It speaks of a "separatist dynamic which aims at division" and says that public services should respect secularism, that civil servants should be protected from threats, and that Islamic organizations should disclose their sources of funding. It prohibits polygamy and home schooling.

However, the public services were already supposed to respect secularism; civil servants were already supposed to be protected by the French state, and Islamic organizations were already supposed to reveal their sources of funding. Polygamy was already banned in France, but it exists nevertheless; several thousand French Muslims today are polygamous. Home schooling is practiced by many non-Muslims. The law offers no way to counter the Islamization of France and radical Islam. Two or three radical mosques were closed for a few months, but each year, dozens more mosques open up. Imams calling for jihad continue to preach. Most are French citizens and cannot be expelled. Islamic bookstores continue to sell anti-Semitic books banned in other bookshops. The expression "Islamic separatism" is now used by all political leaders -- including Marine Le Pen -- and by all French journalists when they speak of "no-go zones."

"The Islamists do not want to separate," Middle East scholar Bernard Rougier states in his book The Conquered Territories of Islamism, "they want to submit and conquer". Zemmour is the only journalist not excluded from the mainstream media for speaking like Rougier, and the only presumptive presidential candidate who reminds everyone that all the Jews murdered in France over more than a decade have been killed by Islamic anti-Semites. Zemmour is also the only presidential candidate who has dared to say that the Palestinian people were invented -- a statement long ago affirmed by former Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat -- and that Israel is a nation state that, like all states, has the right to defend itself and fight for its survival.

Polls show that the French population is extremely pessimistic about the future of France, and extremely dissatisfied with the current political parties. When French regional elections were held in June, they saw an unprecedented abstention rate for France of 66.7%.

When Zemmour's supporters are questioned at a public meeting, they unanimously say that he is the only one telling the truth: that a "great replacement" is clearly taking place and could cause France as they know it -- proud of its secularism, Judeo-Christian values and individual liberty -- to "die". They almost all add that they think the France of the Enlightenment actually could "die" and that the 2022 presidential election is probably the last chance to save the republic.

The Muslim electorate, increasing in importance in France, is -- no surprise there -- hostile to him. Zemmour says Muslims need to accept criticism of Islam. However, Muslims do not, and Islamic intolerance of free speech is rapidly gaining ground in France. When a teenage girl named Mila made negative comments about Islam on social media, she received so many death threats that she had to go into hiding and still fears for her life.

In spite of articles saying that "Zemmour causes discomfort among French Jews," a large number of them seem set on voting for him: they apparently view the possibility of continuing to live in an increasingly Islamized France as compromised. They have already fled from the Islamized neighborhoods and cities en masse. Nevertheless, the main French Jewish institutions seem to be blind to the danger to French Jews represented by Islamic anti-Semitism. They continue unconditionally to support Macron. "No Jewish vote should go to potential candidate Éric Zemmour", said the president of the Representative Council of the Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF), Francis Kalifat. "The ideas of Zemmour can only inspire disgust," he added. He had never used such harsh words for French politicians who supported Palestinian terrorist organizations. Ten years ago, the then-president of CRIF, Richard Prasquier, also warmly received the Palestinians' current leader, Mahmoud Abbas, not exactly known to be pro-Jewish, in Paris.

If Zemmour decides to become a presidential candidate, he will need to do so soon, and undoubtedly knows that being elected will be difficult. He has no support from any political party or any political leader. Attacks against him by the mainstream media will not just continue but intensify.

The French, Zemmour often says, do not want France to "die". The coming weeks will show if he is right.

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

Blinken - CHC DB Wang Yi görüşmesi

OFFICE OF THE SPOKESPERSON

OCTOBER 31, 2021

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met with State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi today in Rome. Secretary Blinken underscored the importance of maintaining open lines of communication to responsibly manage the competition between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The Secretary affirmed the areas where our interests intersect and where we can work together, including the DPRK, Burma, Iran, Afghanistan, and the climate crisis. He also raised concerns about a range of PRC actions that that undermine the international rules-based order and that run counter to our values and interests and those of our allies and partners, including actions related to human rights, Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, the East and South China Seas, and Taiwan.

Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar

10/30/2021 05:16 PM EDT

Office of the Spokesperson

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met with Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on the margins of the G20 Summit in Rome to discuss efforts to deepen the U.S.-India Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership. Secretary Blinken and Minister Jaishankar discussed a range of issues, including efforts to strengthen Indo-Pacific cooperation through the Quad and expand cooperation on common regional priorities. Secretary Blinken and Minister Jaishankar also discussed cooperation on expanding global access to COVID-19 vaccines, elevating climate ambition at COP26, and reinforcing their mutual commitments to and support for shared democratic values.

Saturday, October 30, 2021

G-20 Roma Zirvesi

Dünyanın en büyük ekonomilerini bir araya getiren G20 Zirvesi'nin gündeminde ne var?

YORUMLAR

Enis Günaydın • Son güncelleme: 30/10/2021 - 11:57

METİN BOYUTUAa Aa

G20 Liderler Zirvesi bu yıl İtalya'nın başkenti Roma'da yapılıyor. İtalya'nın dönem başkanı olduğu zirvede liderler, Covid-19 salgını nedeniyle iki yıllık aradan sonra ilk yüz yüze buluşuyor.

Dünyanın en büyük ekonomilerinin devlet ve hükümet başkanları bugün ve yarın küresel çapta öne çıkan sorunları değerlendirecek.

Roma'daki Nuvola Kongre Merkezi'nde düzenlediği zirvenin açılışı, ev sahibi İtalya Başbakanı Mario Draghi'nin konuklarını karşılamasıyla yapıldı. Başbakan Draghi ve konukları, daha sonra birlikte aile fotoğrafı çektirdi.

Liderler, zirvenin ilk gününde "Küresel Ekonomi ve Küresel Sağlık" oturumunda bir araya gelecek.

Bu seneki gündem ne?

Her sene G20 Zirvesi'ne ev sahipliği yapan ülke, toplantı için bir tema seçiyor. Daha önce Avrupa Merkez Bankası Başkanı olarak görev yapan ve bir ekonomist olan İtalya Başbakanı Mario Draghi, kadınları ekonomik olarak güçlendirmeyi ön plana çıkarmayı istiyor.

Bu yılki zirvede liderlerin gündeminde şu konuların olması bekleniyor

İklim değişikliğiyle mücadele

Covid-19 salgını ve pandemi sonrası ekonomik toparlanma

Dijital ekonominin vergilendirilmesi

Afganistan

Mülteciler

Diğer dış politika konuları

Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan İtalya'da

Zirve kapsamında resmi karşılama töreninde ve G20 aile fotoğrafında yer alacak olan Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, "Küresel Ekonomi ve Küresel Sağlık" ve "Daha İyi Toparlanma için KOBİ'lerin ve Kadınların Sahip Olduğu İşletmelerin Desteklenmesi" temalı oturumlar ile çalışma yemeğine katılacak.

Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan, liderlerle ikili görüşmeler yapacak, İtalya Başbakanı Mario Draghi'nin ev sahipliğinde düzenlenecek kültürel etkinliğe iştirak edecek ve İtalya Cumhurbaşkanı Sergio Mattarella'nın heyet başkanları onuruna vereceği akşam yemeğine katılacak.

G20 Zirvesi nedir?

Yirmilik Grup anlamına gelen "Group of Twenty" 1999 yılında, dönemin G7 maliye bakanları ve merkez bankası başkanlarının kararıyla kuruldu.

G20'nin kurulmasındaki amaç gelişmiş ekonomilerle gelişmekte olan ülkeleri bir araya getirerek, dünyanın ekonomik sorunlarına daha kalıcı çözümler üretmekti.

G20 ilk kurulduğu yıllarda sadece bakanların toplandığı bir zirve olsa da, 2008'deki dünya krizi sonrasında bu toplantıya en üst düzeyde katılım yapılması kararlaştırıldı.

Bu tarihten itibaren her yıl dünyanın en büyük devletlerinin liderleri toplanarak, dünya ekonomisinin yanında, ticareti ve gelişimini de şekillendiriyor.

G-20 nüfus ve ekonomik ağırlık açısından dünyanın en güçlü yapılarından biri olarak öne çıkıyor. Üye ülkeler dünya nüfusunun yüzde 60'ını ve dünya ekonomisinin yüzde 80'ini oluşturuyor. Üyeler arasında farklılık olsa da G-20 ülkeleri uluslararası ticaretin yüzde 75'ine sahip.

G20 üye ülkeleri hangileri?

G20 üyeleri arasında 19 ülke ve Avrupa Birliği bulunuyor.

Üyeler arasında G7'yi oluşturan Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Kanada, Almanya, Japonya, Fransa, İtalya ve Birleşik Krallık bulunuyor.

Bunların haricindeki zirvede bulunan diğer ülkeler ise Arjantin, Avustralya, Brezilya, Çin, Hindistan, Endonezya, Meksika, Rusya, Suudi Arabistan, Güney Afrika, Güney Kore ve Türkiye.

Bu yılki zirveye Uluslararası Para Fonu (IMF), Dünya Bankası, Finansal İstikrar Kurulu (FSB), Ekonomik İşbirliği ve Kalkınma Örgütü (OECD), Dünya Ticaret Örgütü, Uluslararası Çalışma Örgütü ve Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) gibi uluslararası kuruluşlardan lider ve temsilciler katılacak.

Ev sahibi ülke, G20 üyelerinin haricinde istediği ülkeleri de toplantıya çağırabiliyor.

Ayrıca G20 zirvelerinde İspanya düzenli olarak "kalıcı bir konuk" ülke olarak katılırken; İtalya dönem başkanı olarak Azerbaycan, Kongo Demokratik Cumhuriyeti, Ruanda, Filipinler, Yeni Zelanda, Hollanda ve Singapur'u da zirveye davet etti.

Liderler, Roma'ya gelmeye başladı

ABD Başkanı Joe Biden ve eşi Jill Biden, bu sabaha karşı Roma’ya ulaşarak, zirve için İtalya'nın başkentine gelen ilk liderlerden oldu. Biden, gün boyu Roma'da ikili görüşmelerde bulunacak.

Hindistan Başbakanı Narendra Modi, Güney Kore Devlet Başkanı Moon Jae-in, Fransa Cumhurbaşkanı Emmanuel Macron da Roma'ya gelip temaslarını başlattı.

Zirvede, Türkiye'yi temsil edecek Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan'ın da bu akşam Roma'da olması bekleniyor.

Zirve programı

İtalya Başbakanlığının paylaştığı programa göre, liderler, "Küresel Ekonomi ve Küresel Sağlık", "İklim Değişikliği ve Çevre" ile "Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma" başlıklarında 3 oturuma katılacak.

Zirvenin ilk günün ev sahibi İtalya Başbakanı Mario Draghi, zirve için gelen bütün liderleri kongre merkezi önünde tek tek karşılayacak. Zirvede ilk oturuma geçilmeden önce liderler, aile fotoğrafında buluşacak.

İlk gün oturumunun ardından, liderler için özel kültürel program hazırlandı. İtalya Cumhurbaşkanı Sergio Mattarella da konuk liderlere Cumhurbaşkanlığı Sarayı'nda akşam yemeği daveti verecek.

G20 liderleri, zirvenin ikinci ve son gününde ise "İklim Değişikliği ve Çevre" ile "Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma" oturumlarına katılacak.

Kapanış oturumunun ardından liderler, kendi ülkelerinden gelen gazetecilere yönelik birer basın toplantısı düzenleyecek.