Search

Begin New Search Topic European Union Political Geography Europe

2011. Mission to the Middle East 2017: The Plight of the Displaced

Author:
Kevin Appleby
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
From February 23, 2017 to March 6, 2017, His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, California; His Excellency Silvano Tomasi, c.s., delegate secretary for the Holy See’s Dicastery on Integral Human Development; and Kevin Appleby, senior director of international migration policy for the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) and the Scalabrini International Migration Network (SIMN), joined in a mission to Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Greece to examine the situation of refugees and the displaced in these states. The visit came against the backdrop of several actions and events which could adversely impact these populations in the immediate, near, and long-term future: (1) the proposed reduction in the number of refugees to be admitted by the United States from 110,000 to 50,000 a year, including a 120-day shutdown of the US refugee program; (2) the one-year-old agreement between the European Union and Turkey to halt Syrian and other refugee groups from migrating to and entering Europe; (3) the ongoing war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), most notably in the fight for the city of Mosul and surrounding villages in northern Iraq; and (4) the ongoing persecution of religious minorities in the region, including Christian groups. Overall, the delegation found that, despite heroic work by international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and agencies in the region, including refugee protection organizations, the humanitarian need of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) far outweigh the support given to them by the international community. In fact, the world community appears to be withdrawing its support, rather than increasing it.1 The following findings and recommendations from the mission are based on the delegation’s conversations with actors in the region, including refugees and displaced persons, care providers, representatives of the Catholic Church, their aid agencies, and United Nations (UN) officials.
Topic:
Migration, Religion, Refugee Issues, European Union, ISIS, Displacement, NGOs, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Europe, Iran, Turkey, Israel, and Syria

2012. Alexander Van der Bellen, President of Austria

Author:
Alexander Van der Bellen
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Columbia University World Leaders Forum
Abstract:
His Excellency Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen, Federal President of the Republic of Austria, addresses the Columbia University World Leaders Forum in Low Library.
Topic:
Climate Change, Human Rights, International Cooperation, International Affairs, and European Union
Political Geography:
New York, Europe, Austria, and European Union

2013. Andrej Plenković, Prime Minister of Croatia

Author:
Andre Plenković
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Columbia University World Leaders Forum
Abstract:
His Excellency Andrej Plenković, Prime Minister of the Republic of Croatia, addresses the Columbia University World Leaders Forum at the Casa Italiana.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Affairs, European Union, and Brexit
Political Geography:
Europe, Croatia, United States of America, and New York

2014. Brexit -- What Does It Mean for Ireland?

Author:
John Bruton
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Transatlantic Relations
Abstract:
Testimony by CTR Distinguished Fellow and former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton at the Seanad Special Select Committee on the UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union on Thursday, April 27 2017.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, Border Control, European Union, and Brexit
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Ireland, and European Union

2015. The European Union and Turkey in 2017: Move On or Apart?

Author:
Michael Werz
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Turkey’s efforts to negotiate for full membership in the European Union have now dragged on for more than a decade. Instead of bringing Turkey and the EU closer together, today the two are more estranged than ever before—and rapidly moving in opposite directions. While many of the relevant European countries have—albeit with difficulties—managed to stave off a wave of populist nationalism for the time being and are on a solid or at least stable growth path, the economic and political environment in Turkey continues to deteriorate. With mounting private debt, often denominated in foreign currencies, Turkey is desperately dependent on foreign direct investment—two-thirds of which comes from EU member states—and a renegotiation of the customs union.1 Even more concerning has been the profound political polarization, ethnic tensions, and sectarianism that have come to dominate public life in Turkey. The ruling party has overseen an enormous centralization of power, jailing opposition parliamentarians, reassigning thousands of judges and prosecutors, and bringing relentless political pressure to bear on Turkish civil society organizations. At last count, 15 of Turkey’s 191 universities have been closed by government decree, more than 130 journalists have been jailed, 178 media outlets have been shut down or put under government control, and 5,000 university professors from 112 universities have been dismissed.2 At the same time, a low-intensity civil war continues between the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Turkish state in Eastern Anatolia, with dozens of casualties on both sides every week.3 Cumulatively, these developments have brought the relationship between the EU and Turkey to a decision point—it is time for the EU to revisit past strategies, readjust, and devise a path forward that encompasses both elements of a hard line approach when it comes to human rights and democracy within Turkey and an even stronger emphasis on continued engagement. At times, these strategies will exclude each other, but given the current state of affairs, there is no alternative. All elements of the complex relationship are at play and should be considered assets in a redefined EU strategy, one that will increasingly have to shift from political pressures to economic quid pro quo to generate the necessary leverage. A stronger approach is not only needed to save Turkey from further deterioration; these developments also have a direct impact on Europe, given Turkey’s close ties with the continent and with large emigrant communities, especially in Germany, the Netherlands, and France. While there is consensus that the current turmoil within the European Union and in Turkey requires decisive action, EU policymakers still disagree about the best path forward. Traditional tools of policy engagement—the membership process, high-level consultations, and increased economic cooperation—more often have seemed to exacerbate problems in recent years than resolve them, and other options are lacking. Each one of these tools has become less effective the more Turkey has gravitated into a state of centralized authoritarianism. Given this current situation, a more systematic and strategic engagement with Turkish civil society is one of the few potentially productive avenues open to EU policymakers who seek to support Turkish democracy and maneuver it toward more enlightened EU-Turkish relations.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, European Union, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Europe and Turkey

2016. A New Era of EU-NATO Cooperation: How to Make the Best of a Marriage of Necessity

Author:
Kristi Raik and Pauli Järvenpää
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
The challenges confronting both the European Union and NATO today are severe and complex: e.g. terrorism, refugee and migration crisis, hybrid and cyber threats, and a Russia willing to break international law and other treaties and agreements, thus undermining the post-World War II international order. This report argues that the importance of EU-NATO cooperation, based on shared values and interests, has become more critical than ever. Hence, the report seeks to identify and analyse the most crucial and promising areas of cooperation between the EU and NATO. It is divided into three parts. The first examines the short history of EU-NATO cooperation on defence and security from 1998 up to the present day. The second part focuses on two areas of cooperation: hybrid threats and strengthening defence capabilities. The third part offers conclusions and recommendations, stressing that for EU and NATO member states there is no “business as usual“. The two areas highlighted in the report, countering hybrid threats and developing European defence capabilities, offer avenues for new and much-needed cooperation. The member states should understand that developing these capabilities is not beyond their reach, should they decide to act together.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, European Union, and Hybrid Threats
Political Geography:
Europe and Baltic States

2017. Building Capacity for the EU Global Strategy

Author:
Tony Lawrence, Henrik Praks, and Pauli Järvenpää
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
A degraded security situation, the Brexit referendum and the election of a US President at best indifferent to European security matters have led the Member States to search for new security and defence solutions and for new ways to demonstrate European cohesion. The debate on an EU defence dimension is thus livelier than it has been for many years. But, EU security and defence efforts will amount to little if the EU’s new level of ambition is not underpinned by effective military capabilities. Until very recently, European defence budgets have been in decline, and agreed capability shortfalls have not been addressed. Defence cooperation, long recognised as a necessity if the Member States are to deliver the real capability that both the EU and NATO require, is limited by political concerns over sovereignty and trust, technical issues, and the continued preference of the Member States to procure from national suppliers. The uncoordinated and inefficient use of defence budgets leads to a lack of standardisation, poor interoperability, duplication, diminished competitiveness in Europe’s defence industry, and the wasting of money. New initiatives are on the table – Permanent Structured Cooperation, the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence and the Commission’s Defence Action Plan and Defence Fund – which together can have a positive and transformative impact. They will provide the Member States with a recharged set of tools to support collaborative capability development. Historically, though, the obstacle to defence cooperation has not been the lack of tools, but the lack of political will to make use of them.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Markets, European Union, Brexit, and Defense Industry
Political Geography:
Europe

2018. The EU and Israel – Partnership and the weight of history

Author:
Toby Vogel
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:
Fifty years ago, a fierce war between Israel and its neighbours changed the map of the Middle East and transformed Israeli politics and its relations with the wider world. The effects of that Six-Day War are still being felt today. They created an enduring cycle of Israeli occupation, Palestinian resistance, terror, and Israeli repression. The Arab defeat of 1967 also led to the formation of a Palestinian national movement, at the time embodied by the Palestine Liberation Organization. The most immediate outcome of the war was Israel’s occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, all condemned in UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967. Israel later handed Sinai back to Egypt and withdrew from Gaza and some of the West Bank, but still maintains an iron grip on both territories, which have also witnessed accelerated settlement construction under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel has not only flouted countless UN Security Council resolutions, it has also committed widespread human rights violations and war crimes, notably during the war in Gaza in August 2014. David Ben-Gurion, the country’s founding prime minister, said a few months after the Six-Day War: "If I have to choose between a small Israel, without territories, but with peace, and a greater Israel without peace, I prefer a small Israel." In pursuing a hardline course, Israel’s leadership dismissed Ben-Gurion’s views as out-of-touch sentimentality. Ben-Gurion’s position was not an expression of human kindness: he was seeking to preserve Israel as a Jewish homeland, which would be impossible with a large share of Arabs on its territory. But he also understood that the permanent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank would undermine Israel’s security and its democratic institutions
Topic:
History, European Union, Partnerships, Leadership, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

2019. Democracy and its Deficits: The path towards becoming European-style democracies in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine

Author:
Ghia Nodia, Denis Cenusa, and Mikhail Minakov
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:
Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine are three participating states of the European Partnership that have chosen to conclude Association Agreements with the European Union, often at the expense of relations with their most powerful neighbour, Russia. They are also rather similar in their levels of democratic development. Within a post-Soviet space, they stand out for their relatively high level of democratic freedoms and political pluralism; none of them, however, can be considered a consolidated democracy, and most analysts describe them as uncertain or hybrid political regimes that combine features of autocracy and democracy. This paper offers a comparative analysis of the three countries’ political systems and aims to interpret both the roots of their relative success, and the nature of the deficits that prevent them from consolidating their democratic institutions. Among these deficits are problems stemming from ethnic, regional and cultural conflicts; strong and weak features in their general constitutional systems; the links between democratic development and government capacity to produce public goods; state capture (including control over the most influential media organisations) by powerful oligarchs and endemic corruption; underdevelopment of political parties and party systems; insufficient trust towards institutions of electoral democracy and a resulting propensity to use extra-constitutional means of political struggle. Civil society organisations have also failed penetrate the wider public and the anti-liberal discourse of traditionally dominant churches and anti-Western media and civil society groups is often supported by Russia. Despite these structural challenges, the commitment to European values and norms demonstrated by societies in these three countries gives hope that they can eventually consolidate their democratic institutions. It is argued that closer ties to the EU are important in explaining their relatively high level of democratic development. For this reason, the consistent and enhanced commitment of the European Union to this region is crucial to their continued success in this area.
Topic:
Democratization, Politics, European Union, Partnerships, Democracy, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia

2020. EU-Armenian Relations: Charting a fresh course

Author:
Hrant Kostanyan and Richard Giragosian
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:
The EU-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA), initialled in March 2017, presents a fresh start for the deepening of relations between the two parties in the wake of Armenia’s abortive Association Agreement and related Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA). Despite a difficult and complicated context, both the EU and Armenia have demonstrated the necessary political will to negotiate a new compromise agreement that takes into account Armenia’s commitments and limitations as a member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). CEPA retains a considerable amount of content from the sacrificed Association Agreement, as seen in the areas of political dialogue, justice and freedom, and even security. The new agreement also includes a substantial amount of the EU acquis in legally binding provisions across a range of sectoral areas of cooperation, although the effectiveness of CEPA’s essential degree of conditionality remains an open question. The issues most affected by Armenia’s EAEU membership are core trade policy elements and the consequential loss of any DCFTA. CEPA may be viewed in EU policy terms as an example of ‘differentiation’ and greater flexibility, as advocated by the 2015 European Neighbourhood Policy review, although this was prompted by Russian force majeure. The ultimate impact of CEPA remains a test of implementation, which still poses undeniable challenges for Armenia.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Regional Cooperation, European Union, and Free Trade
Political Geography:
Europe and Armenia