On July 17, nearly one year after it was signed in Istanbul, Russia decided to not renew the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) that allows Ukraine to export agricultural goods to global markets. As underlined by the secretary-general of the UN, this initiative has been “a beacon of hope in a world that desperately needs it.”
Before Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, a critical global food supplier, a fifth of the world’s barley came from Ukraine, as well as a sixth of the corn and an eighth of wheat. After Russia invaded Ukraine, attacking grain fields and silos and blocking Ukrainian ports, global food prices spiked to record levels and endangered much needed food supply for many importer countries. The BSGI aimed to re-establish a vital route for agricultural exports from Ukraine and to lower global food prices.
Despite many challenges, it achieved its key purpose. Since August last year, the export of almost 33 million tonnes of grains and food from Ukraine to 45 different countries played an instrumental role in reducing global food prices by some 25 percent since the record high reached shortly after Russia’s attack. As public trade data show, over half of the grain, including two-thirds of the wheat, went to developing countries.
FOOD CRISIS
In addition, the BSGI ensured continued access to grain for the World Food Programme (WFP). This year, Ukraine supplied 80 percent of the wheat procured to support humanitarian operations in the most food insecure countries like Afghanistan, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Without the Black Sea route, the WFP has to get its grain elsewhere at higher prices and with a longer lead-time at a time when the world is facing an unprecedented food crisis.
Russia’s decision was taken despite the UN secretary-general’s renewed proposals to work to address its concerns. In order to shift blame, Russia claims that its own agricultural exports were not sufficiently facilitated. This is not borne out by publicly available trade data, which show that Russia’s agricultural exports are thriving. Russia gained also important benefits from the memorandum of understanding with the UN on fertilizer exports, which had been brokered in parallel to the BSGI. The UN has worked relentlessly to clarify regulatory frameworks and engage with the private sector to find dedicated solutions across banking and insurance sectors. These efforts have been conducted in close collaboration with the EU and its partners.
PROPAGANDA
Contrary to Russian propaganda, the EU has indeed ensured that our sanctions have no impact on global food security. There are no sanctions on Russian exports of food and fertilizer to third countries and the EU has provided extensive guidance to economic operators, clarifying that these transfers to third countries are permitted. We have also worked with the UN to allow related payments.
Despite these well-known and verifiable facts, Russia decided to pull out of the BSGI, using food as a weapon and endangering the global food supply. Hours after withdrawing from the initiative, Russia started also to destroy Ukraine’s grain storage facilities and port infrastructure with daily targeted attacks, not only in the Black Sea itself, but also in the Danube. As an immediate reaction, wholesale wheat and corn prices saw their biggest increase since the start of Russia’s war of aggression. The increased food price volatility is likely to persist while Russia puts global food supply under deliberate stress, aggravating the global cost-of-living crisis and most acutely for food-insecure people in import-dependent countries. This is unacceptable and should be resolutely condemned.
As the world deals with disrupted supplies and higher prices, Russia is now approaching vulnerable countries, notably in Africa, with bilateral offers of limited grain shipments, pretending to solve a problem it created itself. This is a cynical policy of deliberately using food as a weapon.
ROUTES
In response to Russia’s irresponsible actions, the EU is active along three main lines. First, we will continue to support the tireless efforts of the UNs and Turkiye to resume the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Second, we continue to strengthen our “Solidarity Lanes” as alternative routes for Ukrainian agricultural exports to reach global markets through the EU. These lanes have allowed the export of more than 41 million tonnes of Ukraine’s agricultural goods so far, and we are increasing this as much as possible to mitigate the consequences of Russia’s termination of the BSGI. Third, we increased our financial support to countries and people most in need, providing 18 billion euros (US$19.8 billion) to address food security until next year.
We call on the international community and all countries to step up their own assistance in support of global food security. We ask all our partners to urge Russia to return to negotiations as the African Union already did, as well as to refrain from targeting Ukraine’s agricultural infrastructure. With a clear and unified voice, we can get Russia to resume its participation to the BSGI. The world has a shared interest in responsible stewardship of global food security. We owe it to the people most in need.
Josep Borrell Fontelles is high representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and SecurityPolicy and vice-president of the European Commission.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and