Search

Begin New Search Topic Regional Cooperation Political Geography Mediterranean

21. Israel and the Mediterranean Basin Amid the Coronavirus Crisis

Author:
Mitvim
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
This paper focuses on the impact of the coronavirus on Israel’s relations with the Mediterranean Basin. It is based on the main points raised at the sixth meeting of the research and policy group on “Israel in the Mediterranean” held on May 14, 2020 at the initiative of the Mitvim Institute, the Hebrew University’s Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations and Haifa University’s National Security Studies Center. The paper highlights the key insights emerging from the Eastern Mediterranean’s handling of the coronavirus epidemic, including the importance of regional cooperation for Israel’s national resilience, the strengthening of Israel’s alliance with Greece and Cyprus, the economic importance of the Mediterranean for Israel, the energy crisis and its impact, and Israel’s ties with Arab states. The paper does not reflect agreement among all the meeting participants.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Economy, Coronavirus, Pandemic, and Resilience
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Mediterranean

22. Israel’s Relations with the Middle East, Europe and the Mediterranean

Author:
Roee Kibrik, Elie Podeh, Moran Zaga, Maya Sion-Tzidkiyahu, and Gabriel Mitchell
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
The 4th Annual Conference of the Mitvim Institute on Israel's regional foreign policies, Held in cooperation with the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 28 October 2020. Israel’s Relations with the Middle East, Europe and the Mediterranean: Dr. Roee Kibrik, Director of Research at the Mitvim Institute; Prof. Elie Podeh, Board Member at the Mitvim Institute; Dr. Moran Zaga, Policy Fellow at the Mitvim Institute; Dr. Maya Sion Tzidkiyahu, Director of the Program on Israel-Europe Relations at the Mitvim Institute; Gabriel Mitchell, Director of External Relations at the Mitvim Institute.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Mediterranean

23. Israel’s Policy in the Eastern Mediterranean

Author:
Michał Wojnarowicz
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The significance of the Eastern Mediterranean for Israel has increased in the last decade, an outcome of interlocking factors associated with the civil war in Syria, the deterioration of relations with Turkey, and discoveries of new gas fields. The effectiveness of Israeli policy, especially in energy issues, depends on strengthening relations with the states of the region, such as Egypt or Cyprus. Hence, regional cooperation will deepen, which may have a positive impact on Israel-EU relations.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Energy Policy, Regional Cooperation, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Cyprus, and Mediterranean

24. Who Owns What? – Free Trade Policies, Migration Management and the Ambiguity of “Joint Ownership”

Author:
Sherin Gharib
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
The concept of joint ownership has become a buzzword since the 1990s not only in strategies of international organisations, such as the United Nations (UN), the WorldBank (WB) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but also in European Union (EU)foreign policy (Ejdus, 2017). Since the launch of the European Neighbourhood Policy(ENP) in 2004 joint ownership has been defined as one of its main principles.Accordingly, the EU states that “joint ownership of the process, based on the awareness of shared values and common interests, is essential. The EU does not seek to impose priorities or conditions on its partners” (European Commission, 2004, p.8). It continues by holding that there “can be no question of asking partners to accept a pre-determined set of priorities. These will be defined by common consent and will thus vary from country to country. The endorsement of these plans by the highest instance of the agreements in place will give added weight to the agreed priorities for action” (European Commission, 2004, p. 8). Thus, EU policies should be set within a partnership relation between the EU, and its counterparts and priorities should be defined by common consent. The EU aims to engage “governments and all leading local stakeholders, including national parliaments” (European Commission, 2010c cited in Jonasson, 2013, p. 47). The importance of joint ownership was reconfirmed within the revised ENP in 2015,where the EU has declared that “differentiation and greater mutual ownership will be the hallmark of the new ENP, recognising that not all partners aspire to EU rules and standards, and reflecting the wishes of each country concerning the nature and focus ofits partnership with the EU” (European Commission, 2015a, p. 2). The goal, as the EUhas claimed, is to increase cooperation with neighbouring countries to an eye-to-eye level and to follow an approach based on “both partners’ needs and EU interests”(European Commission, 2017). The revised ENP again acknowledges the importance of involving relevant members of civil society as well as social partners in consultations(European Commission, 2015a, p. 3). Despite the appearance of joint ownership in several EU documents and its use as an example of an inclusive approach, the definition offered remains quite vague. Thus, it is unclear to what extent governments, local stakeholders, civil society and social partners should co-own certain policies. Whose considerations should count and should joint ownership be operationalised within the decision-making or implementation process?How can the operationalisation of the concept be evaluated? This policy paper critically investigates the EU’s concept of joint ownership. Drawing on two case studies, namely free trade policies and migration management, the paper 7PAPERSIEMed. Who Owns What? – Free Trade Policies, Migration Management and the Ambiguity of “Joint Ownership” analyses the implications and limitations of the EU’s partnership relation with its southern neighbourhood. The paper focuses mainly on the Egyptian, Tunisian and Moroccan cases. Due to the vague definition of “joint ownership” and in order to be able to analyse the two case studies, the paper suggests, based on EU documents, two types of ownership: 1) governmental ownership and 2) societal ownership. Using this conceptualisation, the paper analyses the involvement of different stakeholders and the main beneficiaries of EU free trade policies and migration management. It argues that there is a lack of governmental as well as societal ownership within the two EU tools, Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTAs) and Mobility Partnerships (MP) as it is mainly the EU that sets priorities, norms and standards to be adopted by partner countries. Government representatives and civil society actors from Mediterranean Partner Countries (MPCs) perceive their relationship with the EUas asymmetric rather than based on an eye-to-eye level (personal communication with Tunisian and Egyptian officials and civil society actors, 2016-2017). The perceived reluctance to fully engage MPCs – government officials and social actors – in the implementation of EU policies has led to their growing mistrust of the EU. If ownership is applied at all, then it is often reduced to a state-centric approach even though the EU is rhetorically attached to the inclusion of actors going beyond the government. The lack of “societal” ownership becomes evident as consultative mechanisms suggested and applied by the EU to include grassroots organisations have in most cases no implications for policy-drafting processes. Thus, there seems to be a gap between what the EU refers to in official documents and the implementation on the ground. In this case, both MPs and free trade policies might exclusively serve the interests of the government and linked elites in the region – this depends on their ability to “own” certain policies rather than addressing the needs at the grassroots, such as poverty reduction or the creation of job opportunities. In this respect, the legitimacy and sustainability of EU policies is at risk (Ejdus, 2017;Dworkin & Wesslau, 2015). The paper proceeds as follows: the first part investigates the concept of ownership,illustrates several dimensions of its ambiguity, and analyses the EU’s operationalisation of the concept. Subsequently, the paper sheds light on the limits of ownership in the realm of free trade policies in general and DCFTAs in particular.The following section investigates the concept of migration management and MPs. The analysis is based on primary and secondary literature review as well as interviews conducted by the author with Egyptian and Tunisian officials and civil society actors, as well as with EU representatives in 2016 and 2017.
Topic:
Migration, Regional Cooperation, and Free Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, Tunisia, and Mediterranean

25. The Union for the Mediterranean Ten Years After Its Foundation - How to Overcome the Frustrated Ambitions

Author:
Inès Abdel Razek and Claudia Del Prado Sartorius
Publication Date:
02-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Fundación Alternativas
Abstract:
It is a busy diplomatic period among the Heads of State and Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the European Union and the Mediterranean countries. On the 24 and 25 February 2019, the EU and the League of Arab States (LAS) are set to hold their very first Euro-Arab Summit at the level of heads of state. The two regional blocks are meant to focus on “stability” and “migration”, going back to prioritising the security and stability agenda over the promotion of democracy and human rights. The aim is also to forge a new European-African Alliance, where Arab countries must play a necessary bridging role. This goal already questions whether the centre of gravity of EU-Arab cooperation is moving away from the Mediterranean to Africa. A few months back, the Conference of Mediterranean Ministers of Foreign Affairs – that includes all EU countries and 10 Arab countries – marking the tenth anniversary of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), was held on the 8th of October 2018. However, it passed almost unnoticed on mainstream media. The event could be considered as an achievement in itself given that it gathered the 43 UfM countries, with their divergent and sometimes antagonistic geopolitical agendas – including Israel, Turkey, alongside the European and Arab countries – and allowed to reaffirm a rhetorical commitment to this regional partnership that focuses more on the socioeconomic issues. The Conference did not manage to produce a formal conclusive document, but just a mere declaration signed by the co-presidents1 . The UfM Conference was followed more recently by the Meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers of the 5+5 dialogue (Western Mediterranean Forum2 ) on 18 and 19 January 2019, where parties adopted a declaration focused on reinforcing western Mediterranean ties focusing on “sustainable development, youth, migration and mobility”3 . The more “Mediterranean” format of this dialogue only composed of riparian states in the western part of the Mediterranean is attractive to its member countries as more manageable than the UfM, composed of 43 countries, including countries that are remote from the Mediterranean itself. 1 https://ufmsecretariat.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Conclusions-of-the-Co-Presidency.pdf 2 Malta, Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania, 3 http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2019-01-18/local-news/5-5-Western-MediterraneanDialogue-Foreign-Ministers-meeting-held-in-Malta-6736202278 Memorandum Opex Nº 239/2019. The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) ten years after its foundation - How to overcome the frustrated ambitions 2 In that regard, France is pushing for its initiative of the “Summit of the two shores”, announced by President Macron, that will take place on the 24th of June 2019 in Marseille. It aims to revive the 5+5 Dialogue format, with 10 of the 43 countries of the UfM, while making it more inclusive and less government-driven, including civil society and all actors of the “voices of the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue”. It proposes a new “Mediterranean policy”, hinting on the existing failures of the UfM formula4 . In this paper, the authors zoom in the UfM, today considered, within the Mediterranean countries political and diplomatic circles, as a positive forum for formal political dialogue among its 43 member-states. However, throughout the past ten years, none have passed without analysts or politicians asking for revitalisation and necessary changes in the partnership, which lacks depth and vision. If you address the 43 capitals of the UfM, you are likely to find at least 20 different interpretations of the value and meaning of this somehow forgotten partnership. The EU, on a discursive level, presents the UfM as a model for regional integration complementing its Neighbourhood policy. Southern Mediterranean countries, on their end, continue to maintain low profiles, showing their moderate interest in an organisation which has failed to become a partnership based on equal footing – one country, one vote- that would increase regional economic integration with the EU. Critical security and geopolitical issues are put on the discussion table outside the UfM’s realm, through the League of Arab States or 5+5 Dialogue. The partnership’s lack of coherence and articulation with the other forums and partnerships (Neighbourhood Policy, 5+5, EU-Arab League) contributes to its weakening. At a time when multilateralism is vilified all around the world, when the EU is internally divided and marked by the rise of nationalist populist forces and securitydriven agendas; at a time when the Arab world, all the more divided, stands far from the short-lived optimism brought by the Arab Springs, is the Mediterranean agenda going to be central to its member states’ international cooperation? Will the UfM hold a central place in the Mediterranean agenda and more broadly EU-Arab relations, or just be one of many actors? Despite all its shortfalls, the authors believe in the added value of the UfM forum to advance people-centred socioeconomic models. We argue for reinforcing its 4 Foreign Policy Speech at the « conférence des Ambassadeurs » http://www.elysee.fr/declarations/article/discoursdu-president-de-la-republique-a-la-conference-des-ambassadeurs/ Memorandum Opex Nº 239/2019. The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) ten years after its foundation - How to overcome the frustrated ambitions 3 existing institutions in order for all Mediterranean countries to advance a progressive socio-economic agenda, whether in the North or the South.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Migration, Regional Cooperation, European Union, and Political stability
Political Geography:
Europe, Mediterranean, and Southern Europe

26. Eastern Mediterranean Summitry

Author:
Eran Lerman
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
The Greek-Cypriot-Egyptian summit held last month in Crete focused on energy connectivity and Turkish threats, but it also paid lip service to Egyptian pro-Palestinian messages, which is problematic.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, Greece, Palestine, Egypt, Cyprus, and Mediterranean

27. East Mediterranean Partnership Signals an Energy Revolution

Author:
Emmanuel Navon
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Natural gas has turned Greece from a rival to an ally just as relations between Israel and Turkey started deteriorating.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Energy Policy, International Cooperation, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, Greece, and Mediterranean

28. The Next Arena of Conflict: The Eastern Mediterranean

Author:
Efraim Inbar
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Iran, Turkey, Russia and other bad actors threaten Western and Israeli security in this strategic zone.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Iran, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, and Mediterranean

29. New Realities in the Eastern Mediterranean

Author:
Eran Lerman
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
For analytical as well as practical and even political reasons, the time has come to re-define Israel’s place in the world in terms of belonging to the “eastern Mediterranean” region, not the “Middle East.”
Topic:
Security, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Hegemony
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Mediterranean

30. The Eastern Mediterranean New Dynamics and Opportunities for Cooperation

Author:
Nimrod Goren, Panayotis Tsakonas, Gabriel Mitchell, Muriel Asseburg, Valeria Talbot, and Ron Adam
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
The Eastern Mediterranean - New Dynamics and Opportunities for Cooperation: Presentation of the final results of an international working group led by the Mitvim Institute in the framework of the EuroMeSCo Network’s ENI Project. Opening Remarks and Chair: Dr. Nimrod Goren, Head, Mitvim - The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies; Collective Security Schemes in the Eastern Mediterranean: Prof. Panayotis Tsakonas, Professor of International Relations, University of the Aegean; Research Associate, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP); Regional Implications of Gas Findings in the Eastern Mediterranean: Mr. Gabriel Mitchell, Policy Fellow, Mitvim - The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies; The War in Syria and its Effect on the Eastern Mediterranean: Dr. Muriel Asseburg, Senior Fellow, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP); Ms. Valeria Talbot, Co-Head, Middle East and North Africa Centre, Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI); Amb. Ron Adam, Special Envoy on Energy, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, War, Gas, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Syria, and Mediterranean