Number of results to display per page
Search Results
52. Germany-U.S. Relations: A Return to the Strategic Partnership
- Author:
- Lidia Gibadło and Mateusz Piotrowski
- Publication Date:
- 07-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- The Polish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- Since Joe Biden’s presidency began, Germany’s relationship with the United States has improved. The U.S. made significant concessions, primary among them agreeing to the construction of the Nord Stream 2 (NS2) gas pipeline. This is a new opening for the U.S. in the bilateral relations and sets the foundations for the reconstruction of the strategic partnership with Germany that Biden sees as necessary to implement U.S. policy towards a post-Brexit Europe. However, the possible reluctance of the next German government to adopt a more confrontational policy towards China could be a challenge to that goal.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Partnerships, and Nord Stream 2
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Germany, North America, and United States of America
53. Europe and Africa. The Long Search for Common Ground
- Author:
- Giovanni Carbone
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
- Abstract:
- Ayear and a half after the new Strategy with Africa proposed by the European Commission was made public, the new partnership between the two continents is still being defined. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic with Africa’s first economic recession in 25 years and a sharp rise in poverty and debt has created new challenges for the two continents’ agenda, highlighting new gaps to address on the way forward. With the European Union-African Union summit scheduled for February 2022, the definition of the new partnership is once again gathering momentum, while both sides are still trying to define common positions. Will these two “natural partners” be able to tackle the most urgent challenges and turn them into opportunities for collaboration and engagement? What are the priority issues, and which ones are potentially most divisive?
- Topic:
- European Union, Partnerships, African Union, and COVID-19
- Political Geography:
- Africa and Europe
54. The missing anchor: Why the EU should join the CPTPP
- Author:
- Peter Draper and Naoise McDonagh
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Lowy Institute for International Policy
- Abstract:
- The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is a twenty-first century trade accord that aims to secure a level playing field and rules-based trade environment in the Indo-Pacific. Yet in the absence of the United States, it risks underachieving on this goal. The European Union (EU) is the only global actor with the trade preferences and requisite economic heft to provide a similar anchoring function for market-orientated trade as was envisioned for the United States in the CPTPP. An EU accession bid to the CPTPP would require overcoming major hurdles and reservations, not least in Brussels. The gains in surmounting them, however, would be considerable. Any EU accession process should avoid jeopardising the possibility of a return of the United States to the multilateral trade agreement. An equivalence regime for regulations where CPTPP members are not in alignment with EU standards could in principle open the possibility of the EU and the United States eventually co-habiting within the CPTPP, however remote or delayed the prospect. Australia should use its status as a founding CPTPP member to advocate for EU accession to the trade agreement. Engaging Europe on the future of the multilateral trade architecture in Asia presents a key area of potential convergence between Brussels and Canberra, following a setback in strategic ties caused by the Australian cancellation of a French-led submarine contract.
- Topic:
- European Union, Partnerships, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Trade
- Political Geography:
- Europe, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific
55. The Eastern Partnership: Three dilemmas in a time of troubles
- Author:
- Bob Deen and Wouter Zweers
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
- Abstract:
- In early 2021 a new Eastern Partnership (EaP) Summit will take place between the European Union and the six countries in its eastern neighbourhood: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. After over a decade, the ambitious objectives of the EU’s Eastern Partnership policy to deliver ‘stability, security and prosperity’ to the region remain far from reality. Democratization and good governance reforms have been stalled by vested interests in Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, while Azerbaijan and Belarus have remained outright autocratic, and the latter faces sustained domestic protests. The EaP faces geopolitical pushback by an increasingly assertive Russian Federation and the region is further affected by multiple protracted and ongoing conflicts, including the recent bitter war over Nagorno-Karabakh. But despite its shortcomings, the EaP is not without successes, especially but not only in the economic sphere. The EU has also managed to keep the door open for conversation, spurred lower-level reform and provided civil society support. As such, the EaP has an important role to play in the policy of the Netherlands towards the region, especially in light of recent requests by the Dutch Parliament to formulate an Eastern Europe strategy. But many thorny questions remain in the run-up to the summit. This report assesses three policy dilemmas that need to be considered by the Netherlands and the European Union in order to make the EaP more effective. First, the EU needs to reconcile its geopolitical interests with its normative aspirations. Second, the added value of the EaP’s multilateral track should be deliberated with consideration of the differentiation in bilateral relations with EaP countries. Third, the EU will need to consider how to deal with protracted conflicts, hybrid threats, and other security challenges in the EaP region.
- Topic:
- Democratization, Governance, Authoritarianism, Reform, European Union, and Partnerships
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Belarus
56. Rule of Law Diplomacy: Why the EU Needs to Become More Vocal in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine
- Author:
- Laura Gelhaus, Pavel Havlíček, and Stefan Meister
- Publication Date:
- 07-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
- Abstract:
- Supporting the rule of law has been central to the EU’s Eastern Partnership (EaP) policy since 2009. There has been very limited success in this, however. The EU’s core problem is what is usually its strength: addressing a highly politicized area through a technical approach. EU policymakers need to acknowledge that their political silence is permitting ruling elites in EaP countries to block progress in the rule of law and that the EU is failing to call out pervasive systems of informality there.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, European Union, Partnerships, and Rule of Law
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and United States of America
57. The AUKUS Partnership: A Wake-up Call for Europe
- Author:
- Gabriele Abbondanza
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Abstract:
- Now that some dust has settled over the surprise announcement of AUKUS on 16 September, it is possible to analyse the implications of this partnership not just for its members, but for Europe as well.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Politics, European Union, Partnerships, Maritime, and Institutions
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Asia, and Asia-Pacific
58. Europe-India: new strategic challenges
- Author:
- Karine Lisbonne de Vergeron
- Publication Date:
- 12-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
- Abstract:
- The most recent India-EU summits, held on 15 July 2020 and 8 May 2021, significantly enhanced the strategic dimension of the bilateral relationship. India was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with the European Union when representatives of the then EEC met with several Indian diplomats based in Europe in 1961. But it was not until much later that the first high-level summit between India and the EU took place in Lisbon in June 2000, marking the real beginning of meaningful bilateral relations. It was followed in 2005 by the launch of a “strategic partnership” between the two parties. The push to deepen bilateral cooperation in recent years is all the more important and necessary given that economic and political relations between Europe and India have long been better defined with individual Member States, rather than with the European Union as a whole. This has been reinforced by a certain inertia in the intensity of the bilateral link over the years, as EU-India bilateral summits, although annual in principle, were blocked between 2012 and 2016 and the negotiations launched in 2007 for a Free Trade Agreement are still ongoing. The strategic strengthening of Indo-EU dialogue over the past three years therefore marks an important turning point and underlines a clear commitment to move forward on major issues of common interest to move beyond piecemeal politics and give the bilateral relationship a more strategic, long-term focus.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, European Union, and Partnerships
- Political Geography:
- Europe and India
59. From the Barcelona Process to the Programme for the Mediterranean, a fragile partnership with the Pierre MIREL European Union
- Author:
- Pierre Mirel
- Publication Date:
- 06-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
- Abstract:
- In Barcelona in 1995, the European Union and its southern partners[1] committed to making the Mediterranean basin an area of dialogue, exchange and cooperation, ensuring “peace, stability and prosperity.” Twenty-five years later, the southern shore of the Mediterranean faces immense challenges: governance, corruption, migration, terrorism, security, environment and climate, in addition to conflicts, geopolitical competition and external interference. This is the bitter assessment of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of the European Commission[2] in their Communication on a new programme for the Mediterranean. The civil wars in Algeria, Lebanon, Syria and Libya cannot, of course, be used to describe the EU's policy since 1995 as a failure. This would imply that the EU's policy has played a role that was not possible given the underlying forces at play in these regions. However, this policy has not lived up to the hopes it first raised. The Union has taken a succession of initiatives over the past twenty-five years, but the 'partnerships', 'privileged status' and other 'strategic agreements' have not been able to mask the shortcomings and lack of financial resources. Will the new programme, presented as 'ambitious and innovative', be able to respond to the challenges set?
- Topic:
- European Union, Partnerships, Arab Spring, and Regional Integration
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Middle East, and Mediterranean
60. The AUKUS agreement, what repercussions for the European Union?
- Author:
- Elie Perot
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
- Abstract:
- On 15 September, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States announced the formation of a partnership called "AUKUS", with the aim, among other things, of providing the Australian Navy with nuclear-powered submarines over the next few decades. This trilateral agreement, presented by US President Joe Biden as responding to "the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term", serves the unstated but obvious purpose of counterbalancing an increasingly powerful, and sometimes aggressive, China in its neighbourhood and on the international scene. As such, the AUKUS agreement is not in itself fundamentally opposed to the objectives and interests of the European Union and, in particular, of France - the Member State that had been until now most strongly engaged in the Indo-Pacific in response to the Chinese challenge. Yet the announcement of the trilateral partnership between Canberra, Washington and London led to a particularly severe crisis with Paris, with France losing a major deal it had had with Australia since 2016 for the supply of 12 conventionally powered (dieselelectric) submarines. With the telephone exchange between Presidents Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron on 22 September, during which it was acknowledged that "the situation would have benefitted from open consultations among allies on matters of strategic interest to France and our European partners", it is possible that the worst of this diplomatic crisis is now over. The question now is whether this sequence, which at first sight was played out at the bilateral level between France and the three AUKUS states, could have wider and longer-term repercussions at the EU level. With this in mind, this paper first proposes to understand the new AUKUS agreement in its proper perspective, since above all it signifies a reinforcement of military industrial cooperation between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States rather than a true diplomatic revolution with regard to China. The paper then looks at the French response to this new partnership, emphasising that it was first and foremost the secrecy surrounding the formation of AUKUS, and not so much the resulting breach of the Franco-Australian submarine contract, that led to such high levels of diplomatic tension. Finally, this paper seeks to assess the extent to which France succeeded in bringing this crisis to the European level, with what consequences, but also what limitations.
- Topic:
- Treaties and Agreements, European Union, and Partnerships
- Political Geography:
- United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia