Search

Begin New Search Topic Connectivity Political Geography Europe

1. Is there Eurasian Connectivity without Europe?

Author:
Niva Yau
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Tucked between Russia, Iran, and China, Central Asia is now desperately looking for solutions to cushion the impacts of global tension on its fragile economies, which are deeply tied to sanctions against Russia and a local production slowdown as China recovers from its zero COVID policy. While European diplomacy has come at a crucial time, its Central Asian policy is ambiguous, and commitments misplaced. Central Asia is continuously perceived by the EU as a region in need of developmental assistance, which leads to European regional policies that focus on digitalization and climate issues. What Central Asia needs is the establishment of concrete logistical connectivity that will enable efficient flow of products across Eurasia.
Topic:
Climate Change, Diplomacy, Economics, European Union, Connectivity, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Iran, Central Asia, Eurasia, and Asia

2. Comparative Analysis of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and European Union Strategy on Central Asia: Confrontation or Cooperation?

Author:
Danylo Stonis
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
In 2021, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) turned 20 years old. With “Shanghai Spirit” as its guiding principle, the scope of SCO’s activity has significantly expanded, recently adding India and Pakistan to its members. As a result, SCO policy has heavily influenced the Central Asia region. In response, in 2019, the EU launched a new strategy for Central Asia, adopting “connectivity” as its core concept. As a result, both SCO and EU strategies in Central Asia tend to conflict with each other, thus leading to uneven and inconsistent development of the region. Therefore, this paper aims to identify contradictions between SCO’s “Shanghai Spirit” guiding principle and the EU’s concept of “connectivity” by comparing the SCO and EU strategies toward Central Asia. The methodology in the paper involves a qualitative comparative method, including two qualitative case studies, represented by the SCO’s “Shanghai Spirit” and the EU’s concept of “connectivity” in their strategies on Central Asia. The article concludes that contestation between the SCO and the EU policies in Central Asia impedes stable development of the region, and therefore, a compromise between both policies in Central Asia is suggested.
Topic:
European Union, Connectivity, and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
Political Geography:
Europe and Central Asia

3. Trusted connectivity: A framework for a free, open, and connected world

Author:
Kaush Arha
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Global affairs are increasingly shaped by three important and overlapping trends: 1) the unprecedented and growing demand for trillions of dollars’ worth of global digital and physical infrastructure; 2) the ideological battle between democracy and autocracy for the best path forward to achieve peace and prosperity; and 3) the world’s response to changing climate. As democracies address the global demand for a free, open, and connected world while ensuring that local and global emissions targets are met, they need an organizing framework: the concept of “trusted connectivity.” Democratic governments and institutions function with intricate checks and balances to ensure public trust. Unchallenged aggregation of power is antithetical to democracies and instinctively distrusted by their citizens. While holding unimaginable promise, today’s advancements in digital and physical infrastructure also embody new opportunities for malign actors in general, and authoritarian governments in particular, to accumulate and wield this power. Malign influence or control over data, communications, trade routes, energy, and transportation, all of which becomes possible when countries accept infrastructure investments from authoritarian states, could open potential vectors for coercion, disruption, or attack in times of crisis or conflict. In order to deny malign actors this influence over other countries’ infrastructure, democracies need to work together to ensure that the benefits and terms for the host country in building a bridge, port, rail, road, or telecommunications network are equitable and transparent, thereby leading to greater trust and security in addition to economic prosperity. US President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., rallied the world’s leading democracies behind this cause at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in June 2021 in Cornwall, England. The G7 nations, comprising the world’s leading free economies and free societies, proclaimed that, as they aim to meet global infrastructure demand, among other goals, their efforts will be guided by shared democratic values. For China, the standard-bearer of an alternate, illiberal model, infrastructure investment serves a different purpose: to increase China’s global economic leverage for its political gain. To prevail in this competition, advance their values, and develop much-needed digital and physical infrastructure, the world’s leading democracies should adopt the principle of trusted connectivity.
Topic:
National Security, Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, and Connectivity
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America

4. Connectivity in Eurasia: Geopolitical Chances for the EU

Author:
Jacopo Maria Pepe
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
As the coronavirus pandemic fuels technological and geopolitical competition among the great powers, Europe’s relations with China and Russia are facing new challenges and risks. Still, the reconfiguration of power in Eurasia also brings unexpected opportunities for European actors in the area of connectivity. To seize them, the EU needs to reconcile its aspiration to be a globally accepted “normative-regulatory” power with both its limited financial means and its more assertive attitude to geopolitics.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Connectivity
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, and Eurasia

5. Connectivity Between Asia and Europe: ASEM Connectivity Inventory

Author:
Maaike Okano-Heijmans, Wouter Zweers, and Brigitte Dekker
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
In preparation for the 12th ASEM Summit and for taking the ASEM connectivity task forward, the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) and the Clingendael Institute prepared the 'ASEM Connectivity Inventory' for the Asia Europe Meeting Pathfinders Group on Connectivity (APGC). The Report contains enumerations and qualitative analysis of ASEM connectivity activities since 2014, and gives recommendations on structure, processes, and coordination in the ASEM connectivity mechanisms. The report was presented to the APGC and the senior officials meeting in September, 2018.
Topic:
Connectivity and ASEM
Political Geography:
Europe and Asia