MS Risk Blog

Brazil: A weakened but resilient democracy

Democracy in Brazil does not seem to be in danger despite the upheavals of 8 January and it is highly unlikely that a coup d’état supported by the Brazilian army will take place in the coming months despite the democratic concerns expressed internationally. Jair Bolsonaro’s announcement in a newspaper on 14 February that he will return to Brazil in March, while raising fears of further splits in an already divided population, should not have a significant short or medium-term impact on Lula Da Silva’s government.

On 30 October 2022, Leftist Lula Da Silva, who had already held the post twice from 2003 to 2011, was elected for a third time President of Brazil by defeating the far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro with only 50.90% of the vote. Jair Bolsonaro had not admitted his defeat and sowed doubt in the electoral process, as his supporters demonstrated around the country. Nevertheless, he never asked the Supreme Court or Congress to intervene to overturn the results. Some time afterwards, on 26 December, the police arrested George Washington, suspected of having planted a bomb to commit an attack near Brasilia airport, a few days before the presidential inauguration. This situation worried observers who feared that the inauguration of Lula Da Silva on 1 January 2023 would be disrupted, or even that there was a deeper plot. No disruptive events were observed on that day, apart from the absence of Jair Bolsonaro himself who refused to participate in the transfer of power by flying to Florida (US) at the end of December.

Nevertheless, on 8 January, several hundred demonstrators supporting the former farright president invaded and degraded high places of power in the capital such as the Congress, the Presidential Palace and the Supreme Court. The demonstrators later asked the army to intervene because they felt despoiled by the elections. The ease with which the protesters were able to act raised fears of collusion on the part of the security services. Quickly after what happened, nearly 1,500 people were arrested by the authorities, including several high ranking officials, such as Ibaneis Rocha, the governor of Brasilia, Anderson Torres, former head of Brasília’s public security, and Colonel Fábio Augusto Vieira, police commander. On 11 February, Major Flávio Silvestre de Alencar, Colonel Jorge Eduardo Naime, Captain Josiel Pereira Cesar and Lieutenant Rafael Pereira Martins, all involved in the infrastructure security during the riots, were also arrested. Lula Da Silva had publicly attacked Jair Bolsonaro, accusing him of being involved in the outbursts. The latter denied any responsibility. The former president is known for its close relationship with the police and especially the army, which is favourable to him and has played a large role in the country’s history, and still has influence even after the end of the military dictatorship in 1985. This proximity has led to fears that the military may become involved, as some of the pro-Bolsonaro protesters asked the army to intervene. These riots shocked the international community but also the Brazilians themselves, 76% of whom said they were against these excesses. The population as a whole remains in favour of safeguarding democratic institutions. There is no indication of a possible coup, as the army has even ignored calls from protesters to intervene in the country’s politics.

On 14 February, Jair Bolsonaro indicated that he wanted to return to Brazil in March to resume politics, raising fears of a new surge of demonstrations and tension in an already politically divided Brazil. But the far-right politician should expect legal proceedings from the authorities on his return, as the Supreme Court included him in the list of suspects for its investigations into the uprisings. Moreover, the former president is accused of corruption in multiple cases, including of crime against the indigenous people, whom he did not protect during his mandate. Indeed, on 6 February, Marina Silva, Environment Minister, declared that former President Jair Bolsonaro should be investigated for genocide, while the authorities declared a state of medical emergency in the Yanomami reserve, near the border with Venezuela. Indigenous people under Jair Bolsanaro’s term have suffered from a lack of governmental security involvement that has led to an increase in violence, sometimes resulting in rape or murder from criminal gangs. These additional charges, despite his relative popularity, could well harm his ability to credibly lead an opposition to Lula Da Silva.

The shooting down of Chinese spy balloons in U.S. airspace

The recent shooting down of Chinese spy balloons that were discovered over North American airspace have led to the U.S. and Canada increasing their national security measures against China. China have responded to these shootings by challenging U.S. global influence, leading them to feel threatened. It is highly likely the Biden administration’s policy in 2022 the catalyst that has called for the shooting down of these balloons. Because of this, NORAD have recalibrated their radar scans to pick up smaller, slower moving objects, which led to the detection of these balloons. The U.S. and Canada have threatened to implement bans on the social media app TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, on government phones as a measure to increase their national security.  Since the incident China has challenged the U.S. global influence through the recent agreement between Saudi-Arabia and Iran. The U.S. has shown reluctant support for China’s diplomatic achievements, but it is highly likely that they believe their global influence is at risk. China’s upcoming talks with Russia suggest that they are going to continue to further seek to expand their global influence over the next year.

The threat of spy balloons over foreign airspace is not a new phenomenon. The chair and founder of Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance said that these kinds of objects have always been in U.S. airspace, but they chose to tolerate them. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) claims that because of the objects smaller and slower moving nature they were harder to spot. Previously they searched for faster, larger object such as drones and planes. It is likely due to an increase in global tension from the Ukraine war that NORAD was tasked with recalibrating their sensors to pick up these smaller, slower objects. It is also somewhat likely that NORAD had received some intelligence reporting of the balloons’ existence, however at this time we are unable to confirm this.

It is highly likely that the sudden increase for the shooting down of these U.F.Os stems from the Biden Administrations 2022 policy towards China. This policy seeks to increase U.S. competition with China economically to maintain transatlantic unity. However, this has led to increased animosity from China. The President’s tough stance on China has likely only been exacerbated with the current Republican dominated House of Representatives. It is likely that the pressures from the House of Representatives combined with the already tough stance on China increased the measures in which to counter possible threats from China in the U.S. airspace. An example of this is the threats from the Biden administration, beginning in early March until present, to ban the Chinese made social media app ‘TikTok’ on government phones if China’s stake in the company who created the app, ByteDance, is not sold. This has not only been occurring in the U.S. but other governing bodies such as the EU Commission and most recently the United Kingdom on Thursday 16 March announced plans to ban the app on government devices. The measure has been introduced due to fear of the Chinese government lifting data off cellular devices through the app, which is a concern that has been raised by American officials for years. We can expect to see further European nations follow suit due to a similar fear of security breaches from China over the course of the year.

On 5 February, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s response to the shootings of the air balloons were that it was “a violation of international practice,” expressing full dissatisfaction and protest towards the incident. China have not made any hostile moves towards the U.S. following the incident. However, since the shootings China have recently held talks with Saudi Arabia and Iran during the week of 6-10 March. The outcome of these talks brokered a deal between long-time rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran which has led to the two nations restoring diplomatic relations. The importance of this for China is that it has established themselves as having global influence that can rival the U.S. There have been no explicit statements that this move was made as a direct challenge to the U.S. resulting from the shooting down of the air balloons, however, the timing of the deal coming shortly after these incidents strongly suggest that China is pushing to challenge the U.S. as the most influential country in the world. The U.S. have shown reluctant support for China’s diplomatic achievement on March 10 in a brief public statement from U.S. officials, however this is likely to avoid an increase in tension following the shooting of the spy balloons. Their reluctance in expressing their support strongly suggest that the U.S. feels that their position is being threatened by China.

The shooting of the Chinese spy balloons, which was likely spurred on by Biden’s tough stance on China, has had a significant impact on both North America and China. We can see that the U.S. and Canada have put an increased focus on National Security, recalibrating NORAD radar scanners to detect new threats and the threats to ban TikTok on government devices, on which the European governing bodies have followed suit. In contrast China has responded by challenging the U.S. position as the leading influential power in the world, especially in the Middle East with their success in beginning the restoration of the relationship between Saudi-Arabia and Iran.

A new crisis between France and Algeria

After a period of optimism, a new crisis in French-Algerian relations was triggered this month. Algeria’s recalling of its ambassador to Paris demonstrates the continuing issues between France and its former colony, stemming from values divergences and Algerian historical resentment toward France. Declining French influence across Africa and Algeria’s development of relationships with other major powers, in the context of the Ukraine war, likely make the Algerian regime more confident in challenging Paris and asserting its interests.

On 8 February, Algeria recalled its ambassador from Paris, accusing France of orchestrating the escape of French-Algerian rights activist Amira Bouraoui. Bouraoui was sentenced in 2021 to two years in prison for “insulting Islam” and offending Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune. She was freed, however, pending an appeal, but authorities banned her from leaving the country. On 3 February, Bouraoui was arrested in Tunisia, having crossed illegally into the country while trying to flee to France, where her son lives, and faced extradition back to Algeria. French diplomatic intervention led to the Tunisian government releasing Bouraoui and finally allowing her to board a flight to Lyon. The Algerian government’s reaction was severe. Along with recalling its ambassador, Algiers called the incident “unacceptable” and said that it caused “great damage” to French-Algerian relations.

This diplomatic escalation occurred amid a general sense of improving relations between the two countries, which are heavily burdened by France’s colonial past. Just last August, French President Emmanuel Macron visited Algeria, where he and Tebboune issued a joint declaration proclaiming “a new era” in ties. With increasing high-level contacts, observers were optimistic about deepening French-Algerian cooperation in various fields, from education to economy and energy, since Algeria’s importance as a gas supplier to the European Union (EU) increased significantly with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So what went wrong this time?

The answer probably boils down to three factors: the obvious divergence between the two countries in terms of values, the Algerian government’s exploitation of historical grievances for domestic purposes, and Algeria’s increasing room for maneuver in its foreign policy.

Regarding contrasting values, Algerian authorities have cracked down on people and organizations associated with the 2019 Hirak protest movement, resulting in increasing repression within the country. Last year, numerous media outlets were shut down, while in January 2023, authorities dissolved the Algerian League for the Defense of Human Rights (LADDH), Algeria’s oldest independent rights group. In Bouraoui’s case, as a liberal democracy and EU member, Paris would be expected to intervene in support of a French citizen. Indeed, French Foreign Ministry spokesperson François Delmas said that Bouraoui is “a French national and, as such, the French authorities exercise their consular protection”. Obviously, this did not go down well with Algeria’s authoritarian government.

Furthermore, the Algerian authorities’ harsh reaction to Bouraoui’s French-facilitated escape was likely also motivated by domestic considerations. Along with the intensifying crackdown on dissent, the country faces significant economic challenges. Algeria’s oil- and gas-dependent economy is chronically plagued by corruption and growth issues, with 32% of people under 24 being unemployed. Clashing with France and accusing Paris of “interference” is probably an effective way to focus the population’s attention on external enemies and bolster the regime’s popularity. What makes France a convenient target is a strong Algerian sense of historical grievance, stemming from 132 years of French colonial rule and the brutal 1954-1962 Algerian War of Independence. Resentment came to the fore in October 2021, when Macron questioned Algeria’s existence as a nation before French colonialism and accused Algerian rulers of fomenting hatred against France. In response, Algeria accused France of having committed “genocide” and recalled its ambassador to Paris. Although normal relations were restored in January 2022, the French president has ruled out issuing any formal apology. This historical trauma, combined with complaints by the French-Algerian minority about discrimination and tensions over the issue of illegal migration from Algeria, probably makes France an appealing rhetorical target for the Algerian regime.

In terms of foreign policy, Algeria’s increased assertiveness toward its former colonial ruler is probably reinforced by the decline of French influence in Africa, and its relationships with other major powers. Paris’ influence and popularity across its former colonial possessions seem to be steadily dissipating. Continuous resentment over colonialism and France’s attempts to maintain its influence in the post-colonial period, along with the rise of a new social media-savvy generation that is increasingly questioning the status quo, have made a number of African governments more willing to distance themselves from France. Nowhere is the decline of French influence more evident than in the Sahel, where France terminated Operation Barkhane against jihadist groups and withdrew its troops from Mali in 2022, followed by another withdrawal from Burkina Faso in early 2023. In both cases, French forces were reportedly replaced by Russian mercenaries from the Kremlin-linked Wagner Group.

Algeria’s developing relationships with other major powers, which have been asserting themselves in Africa, also probably add to its confidence in challenging France. For example, Algiers maintains a long-standing close relationship with Russia, which is its main arms supplier. Algeria adopted a neutral stance on the Ukraine war and has expressed interest in joining the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). There have also been reports about Algeria financing the deployment of Russian mercenaries in Mali. In addition, Algeria has strong trade ties with China, whose overall investments in Africa are much larger than those of France. It is also cultivating a close political and economic partnership with Turkey, which is increasingly challenging French interests in North Africa and the Sahel. It is notable that during his visit to Algeria, Macron accused Russia, China, and Turkey of spreading anti-French propaganda in Africa. Furthermore, amid the war in Ukraine and the turbulence in energy markets, other European powers are paying increasing attention to Algeria. Most prominent among these has been Italy. On 22 January, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni visited Algeria and signed deals on increasing Algerian gas exports to Italy and Italian investment in Algerian gas infrastructure, aiming to reduce Italy’s dependence on Russian gas and establish Italy as a gas hub between North Africa and Europe.

In conclusion, the Algerian government likely seeks to bolster its popularity through public spats with the former colonial ruler, while strengthening its position vis-à-vis Paris by distancing itself from France’s sphere of influence in Africa and exerting pressure to achieve some form of more equal-terms relationship with France and the EU. Algeria’s ties with other major powers who are seeking footholds in Africa, combined with its increased importance in the context of the Ukraine war and the crisis in the energy market, probably make the regime feel that it has a stronger hand. Although French officials said that Paris intends to continue its efforts to deepen ties after the Algerian ambassador’s withdrawal, managing the relationship with Algeria will likely remain a challenge for France’s interests in Africa.

Elections in Israel: Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications

On 29 December 2022, Benjamin Netanyahu was sworn in as Israel’s prime minister for a sixth time after he and his allies won a parliamentary majority in the November 2022 elections.  Netanyahu’s bloc, which includes his right-wing party Likud and far-right and Ultra-Orthodox parties Otzma Yehudit, Religious Zionism, Noam, Shas, and United Torah Judaism, secured 64 out of the Knesset’s 120 seats. Having appointed ultranationalist politicians to key government positions, such as Itamar Ben-Gvir as National Security Minister and Bezalel Smotrich as Finance Minister along with a post that oversees settlements in the West Bank, Netanyahu’s latest government is considered the most right-wing in Israel’s history. This will very likely have a significant impact on the domestic political situation and the peace process with the Palestinians, and will also affect Israel’s foreign policy and relations with its major partners, particularly the US and Arab states that have opted for normalization with Tel Aviv.

Regarding domestic politics, the new government’s strongly conservative and nationalist character will likely increase polarization within Israeli society. To seal cooperation between Netanyahu and his partners, the parliament approved significant legislative amendments on 27 December 2022. These changes included allowing individuals convicted of offenses but spared jail time to serve as ministers, clearing the way for Shas leader Aryeh Deri to serve as minister despite being convicted of tax fraud, and expanding National Security Minister Ben-Gvir’s control over the police. In early January, the government also put forward a plan that would allow a simple majority in the Knesset to overturn Supreme Court rulings and give the government control over the appointment of judges. The government’s members have accused the judiciary of pushing a leftwing agenda and have framed these changes as necessary for restoring the “proper balance between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary”. But critics have asserted that they are aimed at strengthening the executive’s role at the expense of democratic institutions and enabling Netanyahu to clear himself of corruption charges against him. Furthermore, members of the coalition parties support a religious conservative agenda that is at odds with the values of more liberal Israelis. These plans have already caused sharp reactions, as around 80,000 held anti-government protests in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and other cities on 14 January, and around 100,000 protested again on 21 January, with opposition parties vowing more actions. Although Netanyahu made a concession on 22 January by removing Deri from his posts as Health and Interior Minister following a Supreme Court decision against his appointment, increased polarization and tension are likely in Israel this year, as the government will continue attempts to reform the judiciary and push its conservative agenda.

On the Israeli-Palestinian front, prospects for a two-state solution, already bleak, will likely deteriorate further. Both Netanyahu and his partners staunchly oppose the creation of a Palestinian state and support the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Ben-Gvir has previously been convicted of racist incitement against Palestinians, while Smotrich, a supporter of the settler movement, now has control over parts of the Civil Administration Agency within the Defense Ministry that administers Israeli and Palestinian affairs in the West Bank, giving him authority over the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied region. The government coalition’s guiding principles state that the government will support the expansion of settlements in “all parts of the Land of Israel” including the West Bank, “strengthen” the status of Jerusalem, and preserve the “Jewish character” of the Israeli state. In what was probably a sign of things to come, on 3 January Ben-Gvir visited the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, despite protests by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and other Arab states. In the past, Ben-Gvir has supported changing the status quo on the holy site, which bans non-Muslims from praying there. Such a move would risk a significant escalation with the Palestinians. In addition, on 6 January, the government approved a series of sanctions against the PA in retaliation for its anti-Israel campaign at the United Nations, including withholding tax revenues from the PA and freezing Palestinian construction in much of the West Bank. With violent clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants continuing in the West Bank, the Netanyahu government’s hardline stance will likely further undermine prospects for a two-state solution and increase the risk of a new major confrontation breaking out between Israel and Palestinian armed groups, such as Hamas.

As for foreign policy, continuity with previous governments is expected, although the new government’s composition will likely complicate relations with some of Israel’s partners, such as the US and Arab states that recently normalized ties with Tel Aviv, like the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. The Biden administration, despite its signaled willingness to continue cooperation with Israel, has major disagreements with Netanyahu’s government regarding the Palestinian issue and Iran. For example, in its statement congratulating the new Israeli prime minister, the White House underlined its support for the two-state solution. It has also referred to Ben-Gvir’s Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif visit as “unacceptable”. Moreover, some US legislators have expressed concerns about the inclusion of “extremists” in Netanyahu’s government. On Iran, despite the stall in talks over restoring the nuclear deal, the assertive policy against Tehran that Netanyahu has announced is unlikely to be fully backed by the administration, which is seeking to focus on challenges from Russia and China. As for the Arab states, the UAE and Bahrain reached out to the new government and indicated that they are committed to the normalization deals with Israel, which were signed under Netanyahu’s previous term as prime minister. Overall, the Iranian threat and other shared interests will likely allow Israel to keep working closely with the US and its Arab partners. But Netanyahu will likely have a hard time balancing between the maximalist demands of his nationalist allies towards the Palestinians on the one hand, and the need to avoid escalatory moves and preserve some semblance of a peace process on the other. The latter is particularly important for maintaining relations and expanding normalization agreements with the Arab states. The tension between these domestic and external priorities will likely be a major test for the new prime minister.

In conclusion, Netanyahu’s electoral win and the formation of a new conservative, nationalistic government will likely significantly affect Israel’s domestic political and security situation and have an impact on its foreign relations. The tensions between the government and the opposition will further polarize Israeli society, while prospects for a two-state solution will deteriorate as the new government will likely expand settlements and weaken the PA. Furthermore, the Israeli government will likely also seek to continue established foreign policy and strengthen ties with the US and its Arab partners. But Netanyahu’s need to preserve his coalition by satisfying his hardline partners’ demands will likely complicate foreign relations and test the prime minister’s ability to balance domestic and external priorities.

Global Business Reports Interview with MS Risk CEO, Liam Morrissey on mining industry security

Could you give us a sense of MS Risk’ main regions of activity in Africa?

In the western Sahel we have been assisting client projects for 14 years. In East Africa we have been active in places like Ethiopia where we evacuated several mining clients during the turbulence in Tigray, for example. In southern Africa the security situation has been more benign and so our work in places like Namibia and Botswana has been along the lines of due diligence, helping clients set up new projects and to ensure that end-client security and crisis plans are proportionate and fit for purpose.       

Do you think the mining industry is showing greater awareness of the issue of security?

The growing focus on ESG is pushing companies to pay more attention to security due diligence. The days of deploying contractors to a new country and not asking their client about security arrangements are closing. More companies operating in the Sahel region are insisting that their clients demonstrate security and crisis response plans exist and work. For producing mines we see new procedures becoming commonplace on convoy management, route selection and use of charter flights to move most personnel.  This signals that many companies are trying to raise their game to meet the shifting challenges.

How is the war in the Sahel evolving and what does this mean for mining companies?

The war is expanding geographically and in intensity. We now see terrorist violence in the northern regions of Togo and Benin. Pressure remains in northern Ivory Coast and it must also be building on the Ghanaian northern frontier, even if it is not yet visible. The political instability in West Africa is stimulating the war because these countries are not positioned to combat the insurgency. Despite their courage, the Burkinabé soldiers and gendarmerie take terrible casualties. To operate in the Sahel today, mining companies need to factor the direct and indirect impacts of the conflict including targeted attacks, murder, kidnapping and ambush, and with that, to have a scalable enterprise security framework ready for mitigation in such an environment. The real danger is that some companies may still want to trade off the old business model of six years ago. This example permeates across the West African theatre and is to be avoided if safety of people and protection of asset value is to be achieved.      

 West Africa has seen multiple governments toppled by military interventions. Are the new leaders gaining legitimacy after these coups?

We have seen a succession of military interventions in the last three years, including some that failed.  It is discouraging that the current political climate seems to give signals that this is the way forward.  Regional bodies such as ECOWAS have appeared inconsistent in how they approach each case. International donors such as the US and EU have severely restricted aid to new military juntas. This leads to regimes looking elsewhere for new friends and it may give encouragement to militants.           

Could you unpack the link between artisanal miners and insurgents?

Organized crime bandits and terrorists influence illegal miners and use them as a funding stream. Recent studies suggest the value of illicit gold production is between US$1.5 billion – US$5 billion annually. If warlords and terrorists can tax a percentage then we realise just how valuable this activity is to driving instability.

MS Risk has successfully supported large-scale displacements of artisanal miners from client properties many times and in different countries. These are sensitive operations with safety, legal and ethical considerations. When done inappropriately, like we have seen some untrained security forces using heavy-handed tactics that resulted in fatalities. The tensions between locals and miners grow because artisanals will not blame the army, but the western mining companies that were being protected.

Do you have a final message?

Just like the frog that does not realize it will boil while sitting in a gradually-heating pot, so is the Sahel war becoming so normalized that people do not realize the seriousness of it and think they are immune to it. A lot of people are still not confronting the reality on the ground and, because of that, are not resourcing correctly. MS Risk can help them understand the real risks, tactically, operationally, and strategically.

Reprinted from GBR.