Search

Begin New Search Topic Geopolitics Political Geography Europe

191. Confettis d’empire ou points d’appui? L’avenir de la stratégie française de présence et de souveraineté

Author:
Élie Tenenbaum, Morgan Paglia, and Nathalie Ruffié
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
France is one of the few nations in the world to benefit from a permanent global military presence. With more than 10,000 military personnel from all three services, deployed across the five continents and the three main oceanic basins, it benefits from the second largest network of prepositioned forces in the world. This global military posture is structured around five “presence forces”, based in Senegal, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Djibouti and the United Arab Emirates, as well as five “sovereignty forces” in the dependent overseas territories of the Antilles, French Guyana, Southern Indian Ocean, New Caledonia and French Polynesia. Over the past twenty years, this unique force posture has been hit by a series of deep budgetary cuts, translating into staff reductions and persisting delays in equipment delivery. As a result, the current military presence is under serious strain, as some capability are now weighing on the ability of these prepositioned forces to contribute as much as they could to the five strategic functions reiterated in the 2017 Strategic Review. These considerations are all the more important given the coming demographic, climatic, economic, geopolitical, and of course military challenges that will dramatically constrain the operational environment of the French forces in the coming years.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Armed Forces, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, France, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific

192. Under Pressure: Can Belarus resist Russian coercion?

Author:
Anaïs Marin
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
Belarus is traditionally considered to be Russia’s closest ally, and their alliance is a cornerstone of post-Soviet integration projects, both military (the Collective Security Treaty Organisation - CSTO) and economic (the Eurasian Economic Union - EAEU). But bilateral relations have entered a different and more conflictual phase. The paradigm shift started in 2014, when Belarus invoked its constitutional neutrality pledge to refuse to side with Russia in its ongoing conflict with Ukraine and the West. Playing this card allowed President Lukashenka to appear as a security guarantor both in the eyes of Belarusians and the West. Irritated by such autonomy, Moscow indicated that it now wants more for its money. Russia is no longer ready to subsidise the Belarusian economy in exchange for its neighbour’s fleeting geopolitical loyalty. In linking, in 2018, the resumption of economic privileges to ‘deeper’ political integration within the Union State that the two countries nominally established 20 years ago, Russia stepped up the pressure. Yet Vladimir Putin made Belarus an offer he knew Aliaksandr Lukashenka would refuse: the Belarusian president had repeatedly stated that Belarus’s sovereignty was ‘not for sale’. Given its dependence on Russia and current economic hardships, Belarus might not be able to resist Moscow’s ‘coercion to integrate’, however. Its capacity to uphold its sovereignty is being challenged from outside, while Lukashenka’s regime survival is under stress from within: in the wake of the 9 August presidential election, unprecedented opposition forces emerged which the Belarusian regime started cracking down on.1 Should repression intensify, leading the West to reintroduce sanctions, Minsk’s efforts of the past years towards normalising relations with Brussels and Washington would come to nothing. Yet renewed (self-)isolation of Belarus is exactly what Russia needs to reach its strategic goal of keeping Belarus in its orbit, and extract more concessions from its fragile leadership. This presents the EU with a dilemma it knows all too well: how can it support Belarus’s efforts to preserve its independence, without increasing the resilience of Lukashenka’s authoritarian regime or making Russia more assertive?
Topic:
European Union, Partnerships, Geopolitics, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Eurasia, and Belarus

193. Sovereignty Over Supply? The EU’s ability to manage critical dependences while engaging with the world

Author:
Daniel Fiott and Vassilis Theodosopoulos
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
Fears about the EU’s trade, resource and technology dependences have only grown since the outbreak of the pandemic, even though US-China trade disputes and the rolling out of 5G have played a significant role, too. Some analysts have pointed to the beginning of a ‘decoupling’ of certain supply chains away from China, and, while evidence suggests that some ‘reshoring’ has taken place since at least 2011, there are debates about whether the production of certain technologies should be relocated back to Europe after decades of de-industrialisation. Decoupling and/or reshoring are a reaction to geopolitically risky dependences, with the fear being that certain products, technologies or raw materials will be unavailable during times of crisis or that a reliance on third-party supplies will limit political freedom. In the digital age – where data dominates – there are also concerns that dependences may lead among other things to espionage or a curtailment of personal rights and freedoms. Despite the fact that decoupling is unfeasible, save perhaps for in very specific critical technology domains, the threat perception surrounding critical supplies has given rise to a different vocabulary and EU communiques and strategies are today replete with references to ‘technological sovereignty’, ‘open strategic autonomy’ and ‘digital sovereignty’. Yet, in conjunction with this rhetoric has come a raft of new policy initiatives. In February 2020, the European Commission released a bundle of strategies on data, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the digital future, which stressed the importance of reducing technological dependences in strategic areas. This is why the Commission is to invest €8 billion in supercomputing and help leverage €20 billion per year for AI. In March, a new ‘Industrial Strategy for Europe’ was published that stated that critical raw materials are ‘crucial for markets such as e-mobility, batteries, renewable energies, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, defence and digital applications’. It will be much harder for the EU to develop supercomputers and batteries without secure supplies of raw materials. To this end, on 3 September a ‘Commission Action Plan on Critical Raw Materials’ was released along with an updated List of Critical Raw Materials and a foresight study looking at strategic technologies and dependent sectors over the 2030-2050 horizon. This bundle of initiatives has made the case for the EU to diversify resource supplies, especially in an era of digitalisation that demands increasing amounts of strategic resources found outside of the Union’s territory.
Topic:
Climate Change, Science and Technology, Sovereignty, European Union, Geopolitics, Supply, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

194. Arctic Stress Test: Great power competition and Euro-Atlantic defence in the High North

Author:
Simona R. Soare
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
The Arctic is again becoming a region of strategic focus. For three decades after the Cold War, when the region was at the centre of great power competition, successful cooperation transformed the Arctic into a ‘low tension’ zone and consolidated the perception of ‘Arctic exceptionalism’, the sense that the region is uniquely cooperative and immune from broader geopolitical tensions. For the eight Arctic states that comprise the Arctic Council – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the US – there has been hope that regional dynamics can be insulated from global geopolitical shifts. However, two phenomena are challenging the notion of Arctic exceptionalism and testing the limits of regional governance. First, climate change is accelerating the melting of polar ice at a historically unprecedented pace. Ever larger swathes of the Arctic are becoming accessible, and with them the region’s untapped natural resources, raising the prospect of increased human activity. Second, great power competition between the US, Russia and China in and for the Arctic is intensifying, changing regional power dynamics and exposing the region to ‘spillover’ effects from competition in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. These changes are accentuated by the erosion of the rules-based international order which underpins Arctic governance, the dismantling of the arms control regime, and the rapid proliferation of advanced military capabilities. Physical presence and ownership of infrastructure are becoming vectors of influence, as evidenced by President Trump’s offer to ‘buy Greenland.’ Meanwhile, Russian bombers regularly approach European and North American airspace and Russian submarines are increasingly present in the Norwegian and North Seas, constantly probing the agility of Euro-Atlantic defences. The growing Chinese presence in the region creates economic and financial dependencies. Consequently, what happens in the Arctic affects more than just regional actors. What does great power competition for access to and control of the Arctic mean for Euro-Atlantic security? In answering this question, this Brief argues that the Arctic will be a strategic stress test for European defence and for the transatlantic bond. The paper is structured in three parts. The first part outlines the security challenges and the drivers of geopolitical change in the Arctic. The second part examines the features of great power competition in this region and the implications for European and transatlantic defence. The final section of the Brief offers policy considerations for European and transatlantic decision-makers on how to mitigate the negative consequences of these regional dynamics.
Topic:
European Union, Geopolitics, Strategic Competition, and Power
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Arctic, and United States of America

195. Migraciones, deportaciones, colonización y geopolítica durante las guerras dácicas de Trajano (101-106 d.C.) (Migrations, Deportations, Colonization and Geopolitics during Trajan’s Dacian Wars (101 -106 AD))

Author:
David Soria Molina
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
Las guerras dácicas de Trajano (101-106 d.C.) implicaron múltiples movimientos de población por parte de todos los contendientes, que afectaron al desarrollo y desenlace del conflicto, condicionando muchas de las decisiones de las potencias implicadas. Del mismo modo, la intensidad y escala de la conflagración, que se extendió a lo largo y ancho de la Europa danubiana y póntica, se saldó con cuantiosas pérdidas de población, consecuencia directa e indirecta de los enfrentamientos armados. Finalmente, el proceso de consolidación del poder romano en Dacia tras la conquista y sus particularidades supusieron la deportación y desplazamiento intencional de grupos de población nativa, migraciones hacia zonas libres de la ocupación romana y otros problemas de orden sociopolítico y demográfico resueltos por el Imperio romano mediante una colonización planificada del nuevo territorio y toda una serie de arreglos diplomáticos concluidos en 119 d.C. En este artículo abordamos, a través de las fuentes literarias, epigráficas, numismáticas, arqueológicas e iconográficas disponibles, estos procesos demográficos, las realidades derivadas de los mismos y sus consecuencias en el marco de las guerras dácicas de Trajano, procesos que condicionaron la situación geopolítica de la región y, por lo tanto, la futura configuración de la Europa del Este.
Topic:
Migration, War, History, Geopolitics, and Deportation
Political Geography:
Europe and Eastern Europe

196. The end of Oslo: A new European strategy on Israel-Palestine

Author:
Hugh Lovatt
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
European policy this year saw significant wins in Israel-Palestine: helping to block Donald Trump’s ‘peace’ plan and to avoid Israel’s de jure annexation of Palestinian territory. But Europe is failing to fundamentally challenge the worsening situation on the ground, which is storing up future instability and threatens European interests. The Oslo process is exhausted and a viable two-state outcome is slipping out of reach. Instead of its rigid focus on the Oslo peace process, the EU should craft a new peacemaking paradigm based on equality and deoccupation. The absence of a two-state solution will mean Israel ensuring equal rights for Palestinians in one democratic state. The EU should also deter Israeli settlement activity and push Palestinians towards political renewal as prerequisites for a future resolution of the conflict.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Inequality, Oslo Accords, and Instability
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

197. Navigating the Regional Chessboard: Europe’s Options to Address Conflicts in the Mena Region

Author:
Erwin van Veen
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
As 2020 draws to a close, the conflicts in Syria, Libya and Yemen have been ongoing for nearly a decade. Conflict and political crisis in Iraq have alternated non-stop since 2003. The Middle East also witnesses growing tensions between the Gulf States, Iran and the US, as well as more engagement of Turkish and Russian forces. In contrast, the European Union has often been passive and divided. This has resulted in missed windows of opportunity for conflict prevention, a loss of credibility and growing externalities that reach Europe unfiltered. This wide-ranging volume by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung offers detailed analysis of conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Libya in search of options for Europe to help bring them to a close. Powerfully, it brings a rich set of regional, and some international, perspectives together to contribute to smart thinking on what Europe can do. What is in Yemen for Iran: Research associate Maysam Behravesh gives a realistic assessment of Tehran's strategic calculus in the Arabian peninsula. A time for principled pragmatism: In the volume’s analysis of the Syrian conflict, Clingendael’s senior research fellow Erwin van Veen explores possibilities for EU-Russian collaboration, together with Alexey Khlebnikov, on humanitarian aid diplomacy and fighting extremism. Although the EU and Russia are mostly at loggerheads in Syria, the authors seek to deconstruct the current political stalemate in a bid to identify the least controversial issues on which joint initiatives might be possible. In turn, this might lay a foundation for further dialogue. The alternative is ongoing confrontation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Europe, Iran, Middle East, Yemen, North Africa, and Syria

198. Dealing with China on high-tech issues Views from the US, EU and like-minded countries in a changing geopolitical landscape

Author:
Brigitte Dekker and Maaike Okano-Heijmans
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
As President-Elect Joe Biden enters the White House, what are the opportunities for EU–US cooperation in the trade, high-tech and digital domains? Together with like-minded partners, the transatlantic partners aim for deepened and renewed engagement in the bilateral and multilateral context. They need to deliver on broadening multilateralism to new areas and, in certain cases, new approaches. This Clingendael Report aims to contribute to a reorientation of the EU in the broad field of economic security, in the transatlantic context and with Japan, India and Australia. The policies of European governments and businesses in the trade, high-tech and digital domains are undergoing profound change. Stakeholders are starting to act on the awareness that some geopolitical challenges, in particular concerning China, cannot be solved within the liberal–democratic mindset alone. Still, however, they do want to uphold – and update – the basic principles of the rules-based system. This report adopts an ‘outside-in approach’ to discuss the many economic security challenges. It presents views and forward-looking suggestions by key experts from six countries: the United States, Germany, France, Japan, India and Australia.
Topic:
European Union, Geopolitics, Multilateralism, and Economic Security
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

199. 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

200. The EU’s Role in Addressing Lebanon’s Multiple Crises

Author:
Shahin Vallée
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
The Beirut Port blast (BPB) has revealed the fundamental failure of the Lebanese political system, but deep democratic reforms will take time and are fraught with risks. Given the US withdrawal and the extreme tensions in the region, the EU has a critical role to play in addressing the short-term humanitarian crisis, responding to the economic and financial situation, and providing a forum for civil society empowerment. If it fails to do so, the price is further geopolitical destabilization.
Topic:
Economics, European Union, Geopolitics, Finance, Crisis Management, and Destabilization
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, and Lebanon