Search

Begin New Search Topic Leadership Political Geography Europe

121. 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

122. A Dangerous ‘Game’: The Pushback of Migrants, including Refugees, at Europe’s Borders

Author:
Oxfam Publishing
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Oxfam Publishing
Abstract:
People who are trying to access the EU in search of safety and dignity are being routinely abused by law enforcement officials in countries in the Western Balkans. State agents responsible for upholding fundamental rights are instead subjecting people to violence and intimidation and denying access to asylum procedures to those seeking international protection. Governments in the region must immediately end these violations and initiate processes to ensure safety and dignity for people on the move in their territories.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, European Union, Refugee Crisis, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Europe

123. In Conversation with Diane Abbott

Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
Diane Abbott talks to Professor Philip Cowley about her career and current topics happening in UK politics and the labour party.
Topic:
Governance, Leadership, Domestic Politics, and Labour Party
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

124. Hennessy Lecture 2017 - In Conversation with Lord Neil Kinnock

Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
Peter Hennessy in conversation with Neil Kinnock
Topic:
Governance, Leadership, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

125. Mile End Institute - In Conversation with John Bercow

Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
John Bercow talks to Professor Phil Cowley about why he didn't invite Donald Trump to the houses of parliament and other current issues facing British politics.
Topic:
Politics, Governance, Leadership, and Conservatism
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

126. Orbán’s Hungary

Author:
William Danvers
Publication Date:
11-2016
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The recent U.S. presidential election caught much of the world by surprise and raised a number of questions about how the new administration will govern. Was the rhetoric on the campaign trail a harbinger of things to come, was it a divisive campaign strategy to get elected, or a bit of both? Either way, there is reason for concern and dismay. Taking a closer look at the Trump campaign, there are parallels to the right-wing national populist political movements in Europe. The recent transformation of Hungarian politics—in particular, the metamorphosis of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, leader of the ruling Fidesz Party—offers a cautionary tale of what can happen when a right-wing national populist leader gets elected. Unfortunately, Orbán, who has been invited to Washington by President-elect Donald Trump,1 is only one part of a larger right-wing national populist phenomenon that has taken root in Europe. For example, he is an inspiration for Jarosław Kacszyński, head of the Polish Law and Justice Party, or PiS, which now controls Poland’s government.2 The PiS, taking a page out of Orbán’s playbook, has been trying to consolidate its power by doing such things as attacking Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, its highest court.3 The idea behind this and related moves in Hungary and Poland is to ensure that once the party is in power, it will remain there by rigging the system to make sure its leaders can get specific programs enacted and create a more favorable electoral climate.
Topic:
Nationalism, Authoritarianism, Leadership, Populism, and Far Right
Political Geography:
Europe and Hungary

127. Moscow on the Potomac

Author:
CAP National Security and International Policy
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
On October 16, 2016, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson issued an extraordinary statement, indicating that the “U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.”1 The release of this hacked information was all directed at the Democratic presidential campaign and its affiliates, with no hacked information leaked regarding the campaign of the Republican presidential nominee, and now president-elect, Donald Trump. These senior U.S. intelligence officials pointed out that Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, had used similar tactics across Europe and Eurasia to bolster right-wing nationalist parties and that “[t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.” Director Michael Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, noted, “There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s minds, this was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”2
Topic:
Security, Corruption, National Security, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

128. U.S. and Russia Relations Under Trump and Putin

Author:
William Danvers
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The detritus of the U.S.-Soviet Union relationship remains a part of the U.S.-Russian relationship. During the Cold War, U.S. policy went from containment to détente to confrontation. Today, the vicissitudes of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s engagement with the United States range from the productive—the Iran nuclear deal is one example—to confrontation—Ukraine is a good example—to doing a bit of both—Syria is an example of this. Putin wants Russia to not only have a seat at the table where decisions are made about global international issues but also wants the seat once held by the former Soviet Union.1 In other words, Putin wants a return to the great power politics of the Cold War and a free hand in the territory that was part of the Soviet Union. In this regard, Putin needs the United States as an adversary, though not necessarily as an enemy.2 This sort of dynamic allows him to maintain political support at home—he is protecting Russia from an outside threat—which allows him to avoid fixing an economy that is faltering3 and addressing the corruption that is a significant part of the political scene.4
Topic:
Corruption, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Leadership, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

129. Global Leadership: Testing Leadership Practices Inventory in Ukraine (Quantitative Case Study)

Author:
R. Boyd Johnson
Publication Date:
03-2014
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Studies of Changing Societies Journal (SCS)
Institution:
Studies of Changing Societies Journal (SCS)
Abstract:
Article examines perceptions of leadership of two different generations of Ukraine using Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI). Leadership practices accepted in certain societies correlate with the dominant culture and reflect its norms and expectations. This quantitative research project focused on adaptation of LPI and testing leadership concepts in Ukraine, a country with an interesting history and unique geopolitical location. The survey results showed peculiarities and differences of Ukrainian leadership perceptions of two different generations.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Leadership, Values, and Case Study
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, and Global Focus

130. The Return of Old Putin and the New Future of Russia

Author:
Beom-Shik Shin
Publication Date:
03-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Vladimir Putin who cautiously entered the Kremlin upon his inauguration in March 2000 is now returning to the presidential office with more craft and determination this May 2012. Going by the announcements of Russia’s Central Election Commission (CEC), Putin received 63.75% of the votes, defeating Gennady Zyuganov (17.19%), Mikhail Prokhorov (7.82%), Vladimir Zhirinovsky (6.23%), Sergey Mironov (3.85%) and others to become the next president of the Russian Federation. It had been predicted that Putin would either win by a narrow margin after the second round of voting receiving around 40% of the votes, or he would have had an easy victory receiving around 50% of the votes. His victory though was an overwhelming one, with nearly 64% of the votes. There were controversies nevertheless regarding election fraud. The international election monitoring team dispatched by Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) raised concerns over a number of issues such as questions over the neutrality of Vladimir Churov, the chair of CEC and restrictive media regulations for opposition candidates. Despite these concerns, it would be virtually impossible for opposition candidates to overturn the results. In expectation of such controversies, the Russian government made efforts to minimize criticism of election fraud by installing webcams in ballot boxes. However, rectifying the lack of a fair judgment system should be regarded as a task of utmost urgency if Russia’s election system is to develop. Still, the disputes over election fraud will go on for some time as will the street demonstrations against Putin that appeared after his victory.
Topic:
Authoritarianism, Elections, Leadership, and Rigged Elections
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe