Transcript
MCMAHON:
In the coming week, jailed Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny receives a final verdict. South America’s Amazonian nations hold a summit. And, Israel struggles with political upheaval. It’s August 3rd, 2023, in time for The World Next Week. I am Bob McMahon.
ROBBINS:
And I’m Carla Anne Robbins.
MCMAHON:
Carla, let’s begin in Russia. Tomorrow, a Russian court is going to issue what’s being termed a final verdict for Alexei Navalny’s case dealing with extremism, or so-called extremism. As one of Putin’s most prominent opponents, Navalny has been in prison in this latest iteration since 2021. He’s serving a combined sentence of eleven and a half years. Are we basically bracing for a harsh decision at this point Carla?
ROBBINS:
Yep. After Zelensky and the Wagner group’s Prigozhin, Navalny may be the man that Putin most fears. His investigations gave the light of Putin’s claims of asceticism. His group revealed Putin’s billion dollar palace, and lots of other sins. He’s also probably the only person can mobilize people across the country to demonstrate against the government, which is a very rare thing in Russia, which is why Putin has been so determined to, as they say, neutralize him.
Navalny was thrown in jail in 2021, as you said, as he was getting off a plane from Germany where he’d gone to recover after being poisoned with Novichok, a nerve agent that it’s a particular favorite of the Kremlins. And at the time he was tried and sentenced, or as in Putin’s Russia, it’s more like the Red Queen sentenced first verdict afterwards, to two and then another nine and a half years for parole violations, alleged fraud, contempt of court. And in mid-June of this year, he was put on trial again for a host of more serious charges, including inciting and financing extremism, as well as rehabilitating Nazism, a favorite term also for Ukraine. And the indictment was nearly 4,000 pages, which Navalny and his defense team said they were not given enough time to review before the trial. And tomorrow, August 4th, he’s going to hear the verdict in this case. And if he is found guilty, and I don’t think there’s any question about this, he could get another twenty years added to his sentence. He’s predicting eighteen years, a “Stalinist sentence” as he puts it.
And no one expects justice to be done here, not least because the government’s been jailing local leaders of his group in the last few months. Lilia Chanysheva, the head of Mr. Navalny office in the central Bashkortostan region was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison recently. In late July, Vadim Ostanin who has run Navalny’s headquarters in the Siberian city of Barnaul was sentenced to nine years in a Russian prison for participating in an extremist community. And I read these names just as a reminder that it’s not just Navalny who’s suffering from this. And beyond Navalny’s group, there’s lots of other people in Russia’s civil society who are feeling Putin’s boot these days. They’re increasingly criminalizing being gay, and any effort to speak out against the Ukraine war is subject to especially harsh punishment. The rights group OVD-Info estimates that since the Russian invasion, nearly 20,000 people have been detained for opposing the war, and more than 500 people have been charged with criminal offenses. And just this week, Vladimir Kara-Murza, a human rights campaigner and a former top aide to murdered opposition leader Boris Nemtsov lost his appeal to his twenty-five-year sentence for treason and spreading false information after he spoke out against the war on CNN, and in a series of speeches including one to the Arizona House of Representative.
And finally, let’s not forget that the government is also holding two American citizens, Wall Street Journal reporter whom we’ve spoken about before, Evan Gershkovich, who’s been detained since March 29 just for doing his job, and Paul Whelan. And there had been some hope, Bob, that the U.S. government had been able to do some sort of swap, like the one that led to the freeing of Brittney Griner. But last week, we learned that the Brazilian government is so far refusing a request from Washington to extradite an accused Russian spy who was seen as a possible swap. But so far, no hope there. Pretty grim times in Russia.
MCMAHON:
So as you spelled out, this ongoing move towards really from Putin and the regime digging in aspect, also we’ve seen reports, Carla, of threats from the right or the two nationalist side of the coin in Russia where we’ve seen Putin cracking down on some of the more outspoken voices, or at least one in the recent period. So it seems to really point to a climate of fear. That word gets overused sometimes, but this seems to be the case, yeah?
ROBBINS:
Well as they say, tyrants are short of breath. Putin is obviously a very uncomfortable man right now, and he doesn’t trust anybody, and he’s more and more cut off from reality around him. He’s denying anybody the ability to speak out, and it’s a sign that the war is not going well for them. But he seems also being in charge, the ability to silence pretty much any critic.
MCMAHON:
You mentioned the outside influence. This goes a little bit beyond Navalny, but there’s going to be a meeting it looks like in Saudi Arabia of countries, not including Russia, to talk about an end phase potentially to the Ukrainian war. Do you see that having any leverage, especially if we get any sort of a contribution from China in that effort?
ROBBINS:
Yeah, we don’t know who’s going to come to this meeting. And there is a certain irony to it when you think about it. When you talk about pariah states, MBS, of course, crown prince of Saudi Arabia, why is he doing this? He’s clearly trying to rehabilitate himself, but this was a Ukrainian idea. This is to discuss a Ukrainian peace plan which would guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine. And we’ve talked also about the fact that the Global South has been sitting on the fence. So if you can get more Global South countries to show up, and if you can get the Chinese to show up, and unlike this will be the second meeting, there was one in Copenhagen, that one, they could not get an agreed on statement afterwards. If they can get any agreed on statement that commits to the territorial integrity of Ukraine, that’s going to certainly up the pressure on Putin. It would be great if the Chinese showed up and signed onto that. They may show. I am skeptical they would sign onto that, but watch that space.
MCMAHON:
And meanwhile, Putin continues to be weaponizing food supplies, doubling down on that policy. We talked previously about the Odesa attacks now attacking Danube ports where other grain was allowed to depart. That’s got to worry the Global South, in addition to many other people, and has also raised the question of should there be some sort of an convoy that protects this grain from Russian attacks?
ROBBINS:
And yes, there’s certainly tensions as there were before from the Poles. There’s the interest of Polish farmers and all, but the U.S. and the Europeans have vowed that they’re going to get that grain out. The Russians have also been vowing to the African states that they’re going to give them some sort of cut rate deal on grain, or they’re going to give them the grain itself to take the pressure off. But countries that have been sitting on the fence are going to see their food prices go up, probably not as much we’ve said this before, not as high as it was after the war itself started, but it’s not going to be great for food prices. And using food as a weapon, Americans have been pushing that. They’re chairing the meeting at the UN Security Council right now pushing that idea itself. And I would suspect if that meeting goes off in Saudi Arabia, that is going to be one of the focuses that the U.S. will be pushing and the Ukrainians will be pushing, because that’s very compelling, and one more argument why people should not be sitting on the fence.
The Russians aren’t just doing this to the Ukrainians. They are violating a fundamental rule of international law. You don’t change borders by force. And countries who say, “Well what about Iraq? What about all these other times you guys have done it,” what the Russians are doing right now is having an impact all across the Global South with food. There’s a lot of reasons why people have to choose sides in this. So we’ll see what happens in that meeting.
MCMAHON:
And again, a war of attrition, and a further doubling down on domestic dissent.
ROBBINS:
And an incredible number of violations of the most fundamental international humanitarian law, that destruction in Odesa, and what’s happened to children, what’s been happening to civilian infrastructure. This is a war that violates the most basic sets of rules again and again. For me, it’s very hard to see why any country would sit on the fence. We’ll see what happens in that meeting.
So Bob, let’s move over to another meeting, this one in South America. Next Monday, the leaders of eight Amazon region countries, members of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization will meet in Belem in Brazil to discuss rainforest conservation. Is this climate conference going to produce real progress? Columbia and Brazil now have two leftist leaders who say they’re committed to preserving the Amazon, or is it just going to be another climate talk shop?
MCMAHON:
Really good question. As you say, Columbia and Brazil appear to be taking the leadership role here in trying to galvanize some sort of action. And what also might be happening as this meeting convenes is a very unusual heat dome in the Southern Hemisphere. So we are seeing temperatures over a hundred and some parts of the region at a time of year when it’s supposed to be like the February of the Southern Hemisphere. So a very odd set of occurrences. They don’t need any reminders obviously in the region about the climate impacts, but also what the outsized role the Amazon plays as one of crucial forest areas in the world. But this is also about self-interest, and how can these countries maintain a sustainable approach to not exploiting their very rich biodiverse forests, and instead find another way forward that still addresses their needs.
Brazil, it plays a huge role, and sometimes it plays it could be an exaggerated role. It’s undeniable that Lula has made an immediate difference since returning to office earlier this year in slowing down the exploitation, and the development, and the deforestation of the Amazon. The numbers are clear. You can trace them through satellite photos and so forth. He’s also planning to come up with what the Financial Times says is a really bold plan, potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars that could be a signature environmental policy that includes carbon trading as well as clever ways of developing its bioeconomy. And this is a package that’s important for Brazil, but could have a real demonstration effect for the whole region for other countries to take note of as well.
So it’s going to be important to see how the other countries respond. Brazil has lost about a fifth of its forest cover in the last fifty years. That was accelerated under Bolsonaro, but also countries like Bolivia have seen really a rapid deforestation, and we’re seeing it in Peru to some extent as well. These are countries with some governance challenges to say the least. So it’s this combination of can they sign on to something that they can then follow through on? And talking shop is the concern at a time when you really want to see action, especially in these stewards of this really important forest.
ROBBINS:
So much of the discussions in Paris and in the following meetings in Paris have been about the responsibility of the Global North. We are the people who created the problem to begin with, and in Paris, they did finally come to acceptance of the notion that this can’t be solved of just the wealthy countries commit to doing something. You’ve got to have countries like Brazil. You have to… countries like China and India where you’re not going to solve the problem. And then a lot of these meetings of course once again devolve into, “You guys do it. You guys made the problem. You guys have to fix it.” So the fact that they’re taking responsibility, talking about it is a hopeful thing. At the same time, they can’t do it alone. They need money. They’ve been promised money. Is Kerry going to show up at this meeting? Are the wealthy countries going to step up and make a commitment in this? At least try to support them in some way?
MCMAHON:
It’s a really good point. It’s been reported that John Kerry, who’s the special climate envoy for the U.S. is supposed to attend. There also has been talk of Emmanuel Macron attending on behalf of French Guiana, which is one of the eight countries in this treaty organization. That would obviously bring quite a bit of heft, as well as an ability to have some back and forth with the wealthier industrialized countries that, as you say, are accused of getting this problem generated in the first place. Certainly, it can lay the seeds for some further discusses and promises at this year’s COP meeting. So last several years have all ended in a COP meeting, a global meeting on climate, and is a really important meeting to set agenda and then try to find some ways of making commitments binding. And part of that is financing for poorer countries.It’s providing things like funds to arrest deforestation or preserve rainforest. All of that is really important. Lula actually went to the last COP before he even came back into office to show his interest, and that he wanted to indicate Brazil will be at the table.
So again, I think his leadership is going to be really important. Brazil is trying to chart this independent foreign policy. You cited its role on the Ukraine front for example and on the Russian front. But it can certainly play a really positive role potentially as it relates to this group, as it relates to the Amazon. So it’s going to be a very intriguing meeting that you do have these carbon efforts, these efforts to show that not deforesting or reducing carbon emissions because again, a lot of these countries also have energy reserves and fossil fuel reserves but not exploiting those. There can be an alternative. The only problem being is that also a lot of these countries have elements that can be used for renewables, and sometimes that involves mining, which means building roads into untapped forests and so forth. So there’s got to be a reconciling of what’s involved here, and a path, and I think that’s what everybody’s looking for, certainly everybody concerned about the rain forest.
ROBBINS:
Well I suppose the heat dome, which is just one more reminder of this extraordinary time we’re living in, and a lot of talk about this being a tipping point. And it’s upon us, so maybe motivated by that, this news about arctic ice. And these are really scary times we’re living in, so maybe it will be more than a talk shop one can hope.
MCMAHON:
Yeah, and it’s been a summer of not just regional woes on the weather front, but it’s everywhere. These are types of meetings where you could look for some sort of traction.
And Carla, while there might be some traction gathering in the Amazon, it’s not clear whether on the political front in Israel there’s going to be any sort of reconciliation going on. For the past six months, Israel has been rocked by protests over what look to be impending changes to weaken the country’s Supreme Court. The question is at this point, can Israel overcome these divisions, or are these becoming irreconcilable?
ROBBINS:
So despite these months of massive protests and strong warnings from the United States, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and his far right coalition pushed through the first part of the so-called judicial reform plan, stripping the Supreme Court of its ability to overturn government actions and appointments it finds “to be unreasonable.” And we’ve talked about this before Bob, Israel has a single chamber parliament and no written constitution. So the court’s power really is the only check on majority rule. That’s their system of checks and balances.
And even though the legislation has passed, the constitutional crisis is far from over. The law now goes to that same Supreme Court for review. And on Monday, the court has said that for the first time, all fifteen members are going to take part in a hearing in September setting up what could be a major showdown. And the new legislation is an amendment to its basic law, and these are the laws that are quasi constitutional. And the Supreme Court has never ruled on a basic law until now, but it said it’s going to take it. And Netanyahu has been asked three times in recent days if he’s going to respect the court’s ruling. And he’s refused to even give an answer to it. And at least one member of his party is already saying that she’s not going to respect a Supreme Court ruling striking down the legislation. So crisis to come, not crisis even deferred. It’s going to be on us pretty quickly.
The protest organizing committee says it’s determined to keep up the momentum even as the Knesset was in recess until October. And we’ve talked about this as well, that a significant number of military reservists who threatened not to show up for duty apparently are following through. And that really goes to the core for Israel. You know what? This is a country that lives in a constant state of security threats, and if reservists aren’t showing up, people really are worried about it. It’s also the military is the one thing that everybody seemed to agree about in Israel.
The newspaper Haaretz reported this week that the military was retroactively canceling call-up orders for reservists who failed to report for duty as a way to portray that the impact of any protest was marginal. But they’re clearly worried about it, or they wouldn’t have been doing this. And the Wall Street Journal has a really interesting story today which says that while no one has the actual number of the reservists staying home, that in at least one recent pilot training course, almost none of the instructors showed up for duty. And the journal also reported that this week the chief of staff of Israel’s military held group meetings with every officer colonel and above to discuss how to manage political disagreements. So this division is throughout the Israeli society, not just protests in the streets, but clearly pretty fundamental polarization within the military, and that goes to the very core of what Israel is.
MCMAHON:
Yeah, as you were talking, I was thinking about all the various levers and things that have been pursued or not pursued in the past six months. And you’ve had the president trying to step in and moderate. You’ve had various U.S. interlocutors. Obviously U.S. is major supporter of Israel and hugely invested in the country, especially as a democracy, and as a stable democracy. But I think this military side of this could be one of the things that maybe causes more action, maybe causes more moderation potentially. I don’t know. I think that specter has been raised of a distracted Israel suddenly being attacked by let’s say Hezbollah or an actor like that. And maybe that causes there to be a change in this move or maybe to shelve the move towards changing the Supreme Court’s powers, although we’ve already had this vote on the reasonableness doctrine. Do you see that happening at all, or is that a bit farfetched?
ROBBINS:
Well, if you recall, the defense minister who spoke out against this stepped down, and it didn’t stop Bibi from rushing forward. Pressure from Biden didn’t stop Bibi from rushing forward. Threats from his intelligence establishment, his military establishment, which people seem to be following through with didn’t stop Bibi from rushing forward. The fact that the president of Israel, a ceremonial position, but one with great emotional import said that the country was on the verge of civil war, and it didn’t stop Bibi from moving forward. And while the Biden administration, of the president personally has spoken out about it, they seem to be now accepting this as a fait accompli. They’ve moved on, or appear to have moved on to the notion of potentially brokering some diplomatic relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which would take a lot of pressure off of Bibi. So if I had to predict, and I can’t predict any of these things, who knows if the protest movement continues, and if the military crisis continues, maybe Bibi will pause the next steps. We’ll see what happens with the Supreme Court ruling.
But a lot of the attention internationally has focused on this notion of whether there’s going to be the next big step on a diplomatic reconciliation for Israel, and that would take security pressure off of them, certainly not the pressure taken off so much that people would want to see the military split apart, but Bibi, if he gets a big win there on diplomatic opening with Saudi Arabia, a lot less pressure on him to slow this process. And he’s got a lot more steps he’s talking about, changing the control of how judges are selected, allowing the parliament to overrule court decisions. This is not the last thing he wants to get done here in this so-called reform.
MCMAHON:
And one of the offshoots of the reform or the consequences has been repeatedly noted that it could be an unchecked expansion in settlement activity on the Palestinian territories. Has that registered concern in countries like Saudi Arabia or some of the countries in the Abraham Accords?
ROBBINS:
Well, countries are concerned about it, and one of the questions about what is going to be asked of Israel if there really were this reconciliation with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis want a lot from the Americans. They want a civilian nuclear program. They want to be able to enrich uranium, why they need to enrich uranium, which is we all know you enrich uranium for civilian nuclear program and, with a little more effort, you can also enrich uranium for a bomb. Okay, I’m getting back into my nuclear nerd mode. So they want that. Up until now, they hadn’t made a lot of demands on the Palestinian front, and a lot of people have been saying that this deal would throw the Palestinians under the bus. But in the last few days, we’ve been hearing more about demands being placed on Israel as part of this deal. But yes, that’s one of the concerns is that you do away with the court’s power, and pretty much anything can happen, that more settlements, more power for the ultra-Orthodox, no Army service, two bus systems. Again, lots of civil rights being restricted there.
And then also the question of what does this mean for the corruption trial for Bibi? Does this mean that he gets a get out of jail free card? There’s lots of concerns of this. And one other pressure issue which I think is really intriguing, top economist in city yesterday reduced their estimates for Israel’s economy for ’23 and ’24 pointing to lower investment and credit ratings due to the political roiling from judicial reform. So lots of different things going on. The Americans focused taking the pressure off of now because of the different focus, but fundamental concerns from investors, from the military, this crisis continues.
MCMAHON:
Okay, so September’s going to come in roaring like a lion I guess in many ways.
ROBBINS:
Absolutely. And then when the Knesset comes back, we’ll see whether or not Bibi pushes through the next steps of this. He says he’s going to wait till November, but even that’s not all that far away when you’re talking about fundamentally ripping apart your system of checks and balances.
Well Bob, I think it’s time to pivot and discuss our audience figure of the week, which listeners can vote on every Tuesday and Wednesday at cfr_org’s Instagram story. And this week, our audience selected, “Thousands Protest France in Niger.” So if this coup is against the Niger government, why are people protesting France?
MCMAHON:
Well France in this case, Carla in some ways is a serviceable villain. It’s also though the country, until Niger’s independence 1960, was a colonial power. It has retained connections there. It’s got about 1,500 soldiers who are conducting joint operations. It’s got business ties, and France has maintained ties with a lot of its former colonies in Africa, and many cases has been encountering recent resentment. Just look nearby in Mali for example where French troops had to leave recently. There was a larger contingent there. So there is that happening, and these are protests by the way that were allowed by those who seized power. There were initially reports of other protesters on behalf of the president, and they were hushed away or shut down. So you’re seeing the selected protests, but still in all, there were a number of people who were not only shouting and demonstrating against France, but were making pro-Russia slogans and so forth.
So that raises concerns because of the continued presence of Russia’s Wagner group in a number of African countries. That’s the last thing a lot of countries, both African and Western countries would like to see happen in a place like Niger, a very large, very poor, resource rich, especially uranium rich country. This is a very dangerous time right now. What has emerged, and we’ve seen a lot of connect the dots type maps popping up since this coup happen, we just published a piece on our own website about what this poses to the Sahel, but basically you now have a connection of countries with instability and military coups that run like a jagged angry ribbon across the Sahel. And this poses a lot of problems. It poses a problem for what was supposed to be the core issue here, which is the security threat, the jihadist security threat to Niger, and Mali, and Burkina Faso, and on and on.
And it also means that you have less of any sort of a chance are these countries to build, and to try to sustain some sort of a growth, and some sort of a path to reform and growth. Now granted, the military was basically acting on some mounting resentment about the way the civilian leadership was running the country saying it was abusing its position, doing a poor job, and military was increasingly upset at what it saw as the encroachment of international powers. But again, to invite Wagner in to help out does not seem like it’s going to solve the country’s problem.
So we’re in a tricky period right now to say the least. There’s a potential for it to get worse with frictions among the group known as ECOWAS, which is a regional grouping that has mostly condemned the coup, but also, you have Western countries that still have forces there. The U.S. still has a thousand forces who are now in one city in the center of the country, and there’s efforts to try to broker some sort of a reconciliation here. But so far, the coup plotters and the coup actors have not indicated that they have any desire to bring the president back into power.
ROBBINS:
So I read that it’s the second-largest recipient of aid in West Africa after Nigeria, which has ten times the number of people. I would think that was a considered amount of outside leverage here. France, and Germany, and the EU have already suspended aid. The U.S. has not suspended aid yet probably because it’s got drone base there, and it’s this counter terrorism, but there is considerable leverage. ECOWAS has got a delegation right there, but they’re also talking potentially about a military intervention. How much can they hold out if that aid is cut off?
MCMAHON:
I think that’s the reason why in the case of Niger, unlike some of these other countries that I mentioned, you still at the end of the day could have this resolved if cooler heads prevail, and they’re able to broker, and get through to what some of the exact grievances are. Because you’re right. There’s a really important aid element here. And World Bank is also, I believe, freezing its aid, and it’s a huge recipient of World Bank Aid. And I do think there is a great deal of concern that the jihadist aspect is a real one that could grow because this is part of the fallout, the ongoing fallout back from Libya’s dissolution. By the way, Libya’s still dealing with the civil war, but also, there was this spread of jihadism, spread of weapons. And it’s still coming home to roost in this area. The U.S., and the French, and a number of other Western allies would like to see that brought under control.
But a number of Nigeriens would like to as well. Nigeria as you mentioned, that the big country in the neighborhood could have a role, and its still fairly new President Bola Tinubu could actually play a role as a broker, and bring a resolution here. And certainly the issue of leverage of aid as well as the countries in the neighborhood trying to exercise pressure, that could have an effect. The problem at this point has been a lot of rhetoric and angry rhetoric about potential military interventions, and angry responses from the military coup actors. And so if that ratchets up, it’s sort of reason goes out the window. So I think we’re going to watch really closely to see if there’s some sort of painstaking effort to bring things back because as you say, it’s so compelling, and the amount of aid dwarfs anything that could come from embracing new ties with Russia, for example.
ROBBINS:
ECOWAS has been threatening military intervention. There’s no talk about the French using their forces there to intervene. The French have a history of parachuting in there.
MCMAHON:
Yeah, the French have evacuated French nationals. They’ve been very concerned about the anti-French rhetoric, and concerns about attacks on French properties. I saw some reports that there might be plans for some sort of an anti-French demonstration at the embassy today. So we’ll have to see how that plays out. And the French will be very mindful of protecting their interests, their physical interests in the country, but no broader intervention at this point. But it bears watching, and it’s again, Niger was considered despite its pretty extensive poverty and real troubles, was still considered more of a stable place, and even touted certainly as a country on the upward trajectory by Secretary of State Blinken earlier this year. This coup, and the surprise aspect of it, and what we’re seeing play out, it just shows that there’s very little known at the end of the day about some of the domestic dynamics going on in these countries.
And that’s our look at the turbulent world next week. Here’s some other stories to keep an eye on. The UN marks the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People. U.S. Secretary of State Blinken speaks about global food security at the UN Security Council. And, Pope Francis wraps up his visit to Portugal.
ROBBINS:
Please subscribe to The World Next Week on Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and leave us a review while you’re at it. We really do appreciate the feedback. The publications mentioned in this episode, as well as a transcript of our conversation are listed on the podcast page for The World Next Week on CFR.org. Please note that opinions expressed on The World Next Week are solely those of the hosts, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.
Today’s program was produced by Ester Fang, with the Director of Podcasting, Gabrielle Sierra, and special thanks to Sinet Adous and Jiwon Lim for their research assistants. Our theme music is provided by Miguel Herrero, and licensed under Creative Commons. And this is Carla Robbins saying so long.
MCMAHON:
And this is Bob McMahon saying goodbye, and be careful out there.
