Search

Begin New Search Topic Alliance Political Geography Europe

51. Burning ambition: Egypt’s return to regional leadership and how Europe should respond

Author:
Hafsa Halawa
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
After a decade of domestic turmoil, Egypt is looking to regain its former role as a major regional player. Growing stability at home, improving economic prospects, and recent détente across the Middle East have boosted Cairo’s feelings of self-assurance. In particular, Egypt is distancing itself from the anti-Islamist alliance it had joined with the UAE and Saudi Arabia and is engaged in dialogue with former adversaries Qatar and Turkey. Major threats along Egypt’s borders, including water security concerns to its south and the war in Libya, have prompted Cairo to re-engage with its European partners – which it expects to help on these issues. American and European fears that Egypt is “too big to fail” further boost Cairo’s confidence. The Egyptian regime has become somewhat more open to discussing matters such as human rights than Western capitals sometimes assume. Europeans should seize this opportunity as part of a wide-ranging engagement addressing European regional interests as well as ongoing concern about the domestic situation in Egypt.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Economy, Political stability, Alliance, Regional Integration, and Regional Power
Political Geography:
Europe, North Africa, and Egypt

52. Ambiguous alliance: Neutrality, opt-outs, and European defence

Author:
Clara Sophie Cramer and Ulrike Franke
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
EU member states that are neutral or militarily non-aligned, or that have an opt-out from common defence, are often overlooked in discussions about European defence. The existence of these special status states not only creates uncertainty about the EU’s ambitions to become a fully fledged defence union but also calls into question the functionality of the mutual defence clause, Article 42.7, in the long run. The special status states fall into three groups according to the challenges they pose to the EU: the “non-aligned in name only” (Finland and Sweden); the “odd one out” (Denmark); and the “strategic schnorrers” (Austria, Ireland, and Malta). The EU’s work on its Strategic Compass should include debates on the special status states’ future role in European defence, as well as discussions on the operationalisation of the union’s mutual defence clause.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Alliance, and Neutrality
Political Geography:
Europe

53. #NATO2030: Towards a NATO China Strategy

Author:
Una Aleksandra Bērziņa-Čerenkova
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
NATO’s search for a common, cohesive strategy towards China is among the challenges most likely to reveal deep fractures between the positions of the Allies. In the second of our series of policy briefs intended to shed light on some of the issues related to the Alliance’s further adaptation, Una Aleksandra Bērziņa-Čerenkova of the Latvian Institute of International Affairs examines the Allies’ public statements on China to find the common ground that might form the backbone of a NATO Strategy for China, and the differences between them that still need to be addressed.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, and Alliance
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

54. Turkish drones, Greek challenges

Author:
Antonis Kamaras
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
This paper analyses the evolution of Turkey’s capacity to conduct drone-led warfare, an evolution driven by its assertive national security and foreign policy. It connects this feature of Turkey’s war-fighting capability to the debate on the impact drones have on the modern battlefield and on conflictual interstate relations. The paper attributes the underdevelopment of Greece’s drone and counter-drone capacity to the country’s fiscal crisis and to the civilian leadership’s unwillingness to make use of Greece’s alliances, geographical position and R&D ecosystem to develop such capacities. The analysis identifies the factors and processes that can accelerate the speed at which the Greek armed forces ready themselves to meet the evolving challenges—including drones—posed by their assertive neighbour.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, Drones, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Middle East, Greece, and Mediterranean

55. Trilateral Cooperation Between Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia

Author:
Dr. Richard Weitz
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
Since the breakup of the So­viet Union, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia have achieved unprecedented levels of economic and security collabo­ration. Through this expanding cooperation, the three countries have established themselves as a collective hub of Eurasian energy extraction and multi‑model trans­portation. Their growing ties have accelerated since the opening of the Baku‑Tbilisi‑Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline in 2006 to extend to the construction of additional pipe­lines, the launching in 2017 of the Baku‑Tbilisi‑Kars (BTK) railway, the holding of regular trilateral mil­itary exercises, and the convening of frequent high‑level leadership meetings. The South Caucasus remains one of the world’s most complex geopolitical regions, with several external powers competing for regional influ­ence.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Hegemony, Alliance, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Asia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, North America, and United States of America

56. NATO and the future of arms control

Author:
Dominik P. Jankowski
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
The crisis of arms control1 is obvious and broadly discussed among states, within the world’s expert community and to a lesser extent the media. This crisis has at least three building blocks: Russia continues to violate or undermine key arms control treaties and commitments; China rejects to join the existing arms control architecture; and both countries heavily invest in the modernization of their armed forces, including development of the nuclear arsenals. In the current highly competitive environment, arms control is more difficult to achieve and is likely to accomplish less than what was optimistically anticipated a generation ago. The growing pressure to “save arms control at all cost”, often expressed by the Western expert community, further complicates the situation. The excessively aspirational and ideological approach to arms control – in which arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation (ADN) become a silver bullet solution – is as dangerous as security and defence policies which entirely exclude ADN. As James Cameron rightly points out, “history should teach policy-makers to look beyond formulae for strategic stability to other ways in which arms control can help to contain disruptive challenges to the balance of power and minimize the chances of war”.2 This Research Paper analyzes the past, present, and future of arms control in the Euro- Atlantic region, through an examination of what arms control actually does well, and what it does not do. It puts an emphasis on the role of NATO Allies in this regard, based on the Alliance’s past experience and taking into consideration current multilateral and multi- domain environment. The paper is based on three assumptions. First, arms control is not dead and its goals remain valid. Second, arms control is a policy tool, not an end in itself. In practice, for NATO Allies it means that any decisions on arms control must reflect the requirements of the Allies’ strategy of deterrence and defence. Third, in their approach o arms control, NATO Allies should be guided by the principles of security, stability, and verification.3
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Military Strategy, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Europe and North America

57. Partners Across the Globe and NATO’s Strategic Concept

Author:
Gorana Grgic
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
NATO’s history is one of continuous adapta- tion in the aftermath of critical junctures both 1 during and after the Cold War. The most recent push to transform the Alliance is embodied in laying out the groundworks towards the new Strategic Concept and the institutional campaign “NATO 2030” which calls for the Alliance to become more political- ly active and global in reach, along with strengthening its military power.2 Among the issues this effort has spotlighted are NATO’s global partnerships which at the moment include Afghanistan, Australia, Colombia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan, i.e. NATO’s Partners Across the Globe (PAG). This Policy Brief assesses the value of NATO’s Part- ners Across the Globe in light of the new security challenges and argues that preserving the status quo vis-à-vis global partnerships is not advisable since it is incompatible with the changing strategic goals. In pro- viding the recommendations moving forward, it argues the Alliance has two options. First, the Alliance could overhaul the PAG grouping and distinguish between the types of partners with whom it can establish deeper cooperation. Namely, this would involve elevating the Asia-Pacific Four into an institutionalised grouping, rather than having it remain an informal platform for cooperation. Alternatively, NATO could do away with the existing PAG nomenclature and keep the partner- ships flexible and issue specific. It could thus follow the “NATO 30+n” model, which would include working with a set group of partners on different issues.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Alliance, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Europe and North America

58. Thirty years of Visegrád Group

Author:
Ivan Iliev
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
In February 1991, at a meeting of the Czechoslovak, Polish and Hungarian presidents, the decision to create an alliance of three Central European countries was made. In 1993, the division of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republics and the establishment of in 1335, attended by King of Bohemia, King of Hungary and King of Poland. Hundreds of years later, former Communist-bloc countries in Central Europe desired to overcome historical animosities between states and nations in this region, believing that joint efforts of relatively small countries would make their goals more achievable. The V4 was also established because post-Communist countries realized that they the independent Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic transformed the tripartite cooperation into a four-party alliance - V4. The name refers to a meeting, which took place near Budapest (at the castle in Visegrád), Hungary, could together boost the socio-economic transformation and join the European Union. Indeed, the V4 has accelerated cooperation and boosted the friendship among the Central European states throughout the years. Today, V4 is a regional structure of four EU and NATO member states that in general share similar economic, cultural and social values. V4 members recognize it as the alliance that strengthens the coordination mechanism to find similar positions on European policy, foreign policy, economic or cultural cooperation, and regional development. Visegrád Group, or shortly called the V4, marks 30 years of existence this year. This unique sort of cooperation has achieved some crucial goals but also failed in reaching cooperation on some EU topics. In the following lines, we will look at these achievements and failures, but will also explain where Visegrád is today and what should be done in order to make this alliance of Central European countries functioning better.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Europe, Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic

59. AUKUS Security Pact: Setting the Rivalry with China in the Indo-Pacific

Author:
Krševan Antun Dujmović
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
The announcement of the trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, known by the acronym AUKUS, intended to enhance cooperation between the three countries in the Indo- Pacific region in defense and security, has sent shockwaves throughout the world, especially the UK for the Royal Navy of Australia. The nuclear fueled submarines will be armed by conventional weapons, the number of acquired vessels will be at least eight, and as a typically Australian request, part of the vessels will be constructed in Australia’s naval shipyards. So far, the US, the UK, Russia, China, France in China and Europe. The key element of the AUKUS pact, signed on 15th September 2021, is the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines from the US and and India are the only six countries that have commissioned nuclear-powered submarines. Furthermore, before signing the AUKUS pact, the UK was the only country in the world with which the US was sharing the nuclear propulsion technology, under the Mutual Defense Agreement signed back in 1958. The supply of Australia with British and American nuclear-powered attack submarines, as the most delicate part of the AUKUS pact, attracted by far the most of media attention and provoked China’s aggressive reaction. Even more, the three nations security pact, which is in principal intended to bring “enhanced trilateral security partnership for the 21st century”, has made Beijing particularly worried as China fears that this triple alliance is pointed directly against it. The three countries intend to step up their cooperation in the security and defense sector, and apart from cooperation in industrial production of new military equipment, AUKUS also envisages a broad cooperation in the fields where the three countries feel particularly threatened by China’s staggering growth, and they include cyber security, quantum computing and artificial intelligence.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Alliance, Conflict, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
United States, China, United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, and Indo-Pacific

60. Israel Should Maintain its Mediterranean Alignment, Despite Signals from Ankara

Author:
Eran Lerman
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
It should be made clear to Israel’s partners in the eastern Mediterranean that any (unlikely) improvement in Israel’s relations with Turkey will not come at their expense. Despite some recent positive signals, Erdogan’s basic orientation as an Islamist is bound to remain hostile.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Alliance, and Strategic Stability
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Middle East, and Israel