Search

Begin New Search Content Type Working Paper

1911. Vienna meeting on Nuclear Energy and Proliferation Risks

Author:
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
Abstract:
There was general agreement that the JCPOA was a very positive solution to a complex issue, providing a constructive and peaceful way forward for the Middle East in particular, and the non-proliferation regime in general. The deal contained in the JCPOA is working as intended. Iran has been determined by the IAEA on multiple [6] occasions to be in full compliance with its obligations, and now has the most comprehensive safeguards and verification regime in history. World powers have followed through with some sanctions relief thereby aiding the Iranian economy. Furthermore, there have been other positive dimensions, including an effective joint commission process, greater transparency among parties, as well as communications and interactions taking place in a more positive atmosphere. At the same time, it was recognized that the deal is unstable: although the terms of the JCPOA were ring-fenced from the wider geopolitical environment of the Middle East, political manoeuvring can threaten its continued implementation. The spill-over of non-nuclear issues, often labelled under “Iranian behaviour”, should not be allowed to derail the process. It was noted in a positive sense that all the main candidates in the Iranian Presidential campaign have signalled their desire to continue with the JCPOA. However, several participants felt that some of Iran’s regional policies could undermine this, risking a negative reaction from the US and other states. Some argued that given Iran’s disputed compliance history with IAEA safeguards agreements (which even two years later remains heated) and, in general, the uneasy relations in the past between Iran and IAEA, it is important that Iran continue to strictly comply to the letter of the JCPOA. The US domestic context provides perhaps the greatest potential risk to the sustainability of the JCPOA. It was noted that President Trump may not, after all, ‘tear up’ the deal. The possibility was raised that, because many in his national security team were seen as hostile to Iran, any minor safeguards violation may be seized upon to terminate the deal. Such a hard-line approach could isolate the US from a global consensus and weaken its hand in other relevant matters. There is further danger that Congress could act alone in enacting a bill (of which many are on the table) that would be in contravention of the JCPOA. This possibility was considered unrealistic by some participants. Some details of Security Council resolution 2231 were seen as problematic in a number of ways: the explicit provisions on ballistic missiles were viewed as an unnecessarily punitive measure unrelated to the main goals of the JCPOA; equally, some of the inquiry and resolution mechanisms were seen by some as unbalanced. The JCPOA should in any case be understood as a temporary solution. Even though continuing to implement it effectively would build more confidence, ultimately trust between Iran and some Western states will likely never be high. However, the deal does hold the potential for transformative progress in Iran-US relations, pending further steps to de-escalate and normalize relations. Many of Iran’s neighbours worry that the remaining latent nuclear capacity has only delayed the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran down the road; at the same time, many regional states are also pursuing nuclear fuel cycle programs. The JCPOA should also offer the international community an opportunity to consider how to extend some measures indefinitely and extend them to other countries. Regional stability and non-proliferation could be enhanced by extending some of the JPCOA provisions to the Middle East and beyond it. As such, Pugwash should make efforts to convene and organize meetings to explore far-reaching initiatives that are in the spirit of the agreement; for example: initiatives to discuss ‘internationalizing’ the nuclear fuel cycle; forward-looking regional agreements, such as a threshold of uranium enrichment, a ban on plutonium reprocessing, or limits on stockpiles of LEU; innovative safeguards measures, such as advanced monitoring technology, enhanced access to centrifuge production facilities, or explicitly set times for snap inspections; further multilateral scientific and technical cooperation, such as the SESAME project.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Nuclear Power, and Nonproliferation
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Middle East, and Israel

1912. Sovereignist Populism - a Reaction to the Democratic De�icit of the European Union

Author:
Janko Bekić
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
Populism has been de�ined by Cas Mudde as “a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic groups, ʻthe pure peopleʼ and ʻthe corrupt eliteʼ, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté general (general will) of the people”. In the past, populist movements and parties in Europe campaigned against national political elites who, as the narrative goes, lost touch with the common people and pursued their own particular agendas in national capitals. Since the advent of the European Union in 1993 (entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty) their focus has moved to an adversary even more disconnected and physically distant from the national electorates – the unelected, bureaucratic and supranational elite in Brussels. Nevertheless, national heads of state or government remain a secondary target, as they are seen either as powerless (due to the transfer of competences to EU institutions) or in collusion with the Brussels’ “junta”. This new type of populism can be described as sovereignist, because of its advocacy of downgrading the EU back to a confederation of states, or – more radically – of dissolving it altogether. This new type of populism can be described as sovereignist, because of its advocacy of downgrading the EU back to a confederation of states, or – more radically – of dissolving it altogether. The populist objection to the democratic de�icit of the EU is not without substance. Major decisions, such as the introduction of harsh austerity measures in Greece, or the attempted imposition of obligatory migrant quotas on Hungary, have been made in the Quartier européen against the explicit wishes of the affected demoi, made clear in the Greek bailout referendum of July 2015 and the Hungarian migrant quota referendum of October 2016. Therefore, these decisions can be described as legal, according to relevant EU treaties, but not fully legitimate, as they don’t enjoy the support of the concerned populations. Even the renowned German sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas, certainly no admirer of populist parties, acknowledged in The Crisis of the European Union: A Response (2012) that the EU “has been sustained and monopolised only by political elites” and that it is showing signs of moving in the direction of “a kind of post-democratic rule”. While some argue that the creeping transition towards post-democracy is a deliberate choice by European political elites, others view it as a regrettable but unavoidable side effect of the current status of the EU which is a sui generis formation, neither a confederation of states, nor a federal state.
Topic:
Politics, European Union, and Populism
Political Geography:
Europe

1913. Hybrid Warfare

Author:
Sandro Knezović and Nani Klepo
Publication Date:
02-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
Contemporary international relations are carrying a wide range of challenges that have led to the necessity to rede�ine existing national and international strategies grounded predominantly on conventional state-based threats. Recognising vulnerability to non-conventional challenges, contemporary strategies are increasingly acknowledging the importance of the changing character of warfare. Namely, not only have the non-conventional threats become increasingly perilous, but the overlapping of different classes of threats have dramatically increased the complexity of existing challenges. This leads to a conclusion that future con�licts are very likely to be multidimensional, with blurring and combined forms of combat characterised by expanding dynamics and growing destructiveness, frequently called hybrid. Due to the fact that it includes a wide range of fairly unconsolidated categories, the term itself had received a signi�icant amount of criticism related to an alleged lack of conceptual clarity. Still, while the mainstream transatlantic security policy elites largely operate in traditional terms and only modestly use the contemporary framework of strategic thinking, the challenges and increasingly assertive opponents are following a different path.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, War, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1914. Presidential election in Serbia: A boost or setback for EU accession?

Author:
Krševan Antun Dujmović
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
As Serbia braces itself for the presidential election on 2nd April 2017, the international community �inds itself puzzled with the prospect of future political orientation of this Balkan country. The biggest republic of ex-Yugoslavia, Serbia still bears the burden of the wars in the nineties, unde�ined relations with Kosovo and NATO bombing of 1999, due to which the country is still somewhat cautious toward Euro-Atlantic integration and the United States. It seems that Serbia seeks to join the European Union (EU), and at the same time to foment its relation with its traditional ally, the Russian Federation. In that respect, the current trends of foreign policy in Serbia are also visible in other Balkan countries, namely Macedonia and Montenegro, which like Serbia have strong links to their big Orthodox patron in the East, while striving to make progress on the path to the EU. This dichotomy between pro-European and pro-Russian forces in Serbia was exacerbated to a new level with Brexit and stalemate in the EU enlargement process, growing Russian in�luence in the region and expectations in Serbia that the newly inaugurated US president Donald Trump will bring a thaw in relations with Russia and allow a regionally more dominant Serbia, while curbing ambitions of Kosovar Albanians. This dichotomy has created a division in the country torn between its Western and Eastern ambitions that is visible in many aspects of Serbian society, candidates bare hallmark, or in Obradović, the leader of the Serbian Movement Dveri (Srpski pokret Dveri) is a clear example of a pro-Russian politician in Serbia, while independent candidate SašaJanković represents the voice of a civil and pro-European Serbia. The rest of the presidential candidates are positioned on a wide spectrum dividing Obradović and Janković, thus contributing to the rather short but at the same time very electri�ied presidential campaign.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Elections, Europe Union, and Brexit
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Serbia, and Balkans

1915. Quo vadis Europa?

Author:
Doris Pack
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
There is no doubt that as it marks its 60th birthday, the European Union is in poor shape. There is persistently high unemployment in many EU countries – especially among young people; we are facing the rise of populist political parties, most of them harbor anti-EU or Eurosceptic sentiments. Such factors are complicating the EU’s ability to deal with a multitude of internal and external challenges. Among the most prominent are the June 2016 vote in the UK in favor of leaving the EU, the debt crisis and lingering concerns about the eurozone, ongoing migrant and refugee lows, the spread of authoritarianism, a heightened terrorism threat, shattering conflicts in different parts of the world, climate change and an excessive consumption of natural resources based on an economy that is not corresponding to the principle of sustainability.
Topic:
Climate Change, Terrorism, Natural Resources, European Union, and Refugees
Political Geography:
Europe

1916. Federal election in Germany: Continuation of CDU’s dominance at the helm of Europe’s biggest power?

Author:
Krševan Antun Dujmović
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
Over the course of past twelve months, Europe was holding its breath in a couple of nerve wrecking moments that were to decide the destiny of the European Union (EU). Indeed, in June last year the British cast their votes for the unimaginable and decided that the United Kingdom (UK) should leave the EU. Shockwaves battered the woozy continent sprawling from over the other side of the English Channel, and it was the President of the European Parliament, incumbent German SPD leader Martin Schulz who exclaimed in the wake of the Brexit vote that the UK should exit the EU as quickly as possible. Just four months later Europe experienced another shockwave, this time propelled from the other side of the Atlantic, as the Americans voted for Donald Trump, who was in support of Brexit during his campaign, advocating overtly against the European integration and even renouncing the fundament of Trans-Atlantic integration - NATO. The beginning of 2017 set a murky atmosphere as the EU started to brace itself for another big test in France. The victory of Emmanuel Macron in May meant that the EU would survive, albeit crippled as the Britons lead by Theresa May continued relentlessly their divorce with Europe by triggering the Article 50 in March. With the British already one foot out, and the French �irmly in the Union, the attention of the European public is shifting more to Germany which will hold the federal election on September 24th this year. After the disappointing break away decision in Britain, some Europeans seem to invoke a renewed Franco-German axis as the power engine of European integration. Since the great economic depression swept Europe like a contagion in 2008, Germany has been the best performing European economy, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel was perceived as the “savior of Europe”. Due to these facts, it is no wonder that all of Europe eagerly expects the outcome of the German federal election which will largely determine the fate of the continent.
Topic:
Elections, European Union, and Brexit
Political Geography:
Britain, Europe, France, Germany, and Western Europe

1917. Sí o no? Will Catalonia go it alone?

Author:
Janko Bekić
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
The United Kingdom and Spain have many things in common. Both countries are former empires, constitutional monarchies and parliamentarydemocracies;of�iciallytheyare unitary states, however, devolution in the UK and the model of autonomous communities in Spain make them “federations without federalism”. Furthermore, they are both plurinational, in the sense that Britishness and Spanishness serve as overarching identities for the stateless nations of the English, Scots and Welsh within the UK, and the Castilians, Catalans, Basques and others within Spain (although, one could argue that the English and the Castilians are the real “owners” of the two countries). In the past, London as well as Madrid fought minority nationalisms with violence, triggering terrorist attacks by armed separatist and secessionist groups like the IRA and ETA. More recently, the central governments of the UK and Spain have been faced with peaceful and democratic independence movements in Scotland and Catalonia, to which they responded quite differently. While London allowed the Scottish independence referendum of September 2014, and promised to honor its result, Madrid remains adamantly opposed to a similar plebiscite in Catalonia, and vows to disrupt it with all legal means at its disposal (which, ultimately, includes the use of force). The differing approaches of British and Spanish governments to secessionism within their borders are mirrored in their foreign policies: the UK recognized the Serbian breakaway province of Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state, while Spain (along with four other EU members) refuses to do so.
Topic:
Federalism, Autonomy, and Independence
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Spain, Catalonia, Scotland, and Western Europe

1918. WHAT ABOUT THE ADRIATIC ?

Author:
Sandro Knezović
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
Special bond between humans and ‘big waters’ is most probably as old as the mankind itself. Not only that the seas provided inspiration for mythology and even religions, but they also facilitated trade and commerce and connected people with different cultural backgrounds. The development of means of water transport has contributed substantially to that. People began trading with items others did not have or, in some cases, have not seen at all. Apart from cultural exchange, this prompted the economic one as well and small ports started attracting many merchants from distant places, representing cradles of capitalism. The same applies for the Adriatic, where different cultures, religions and even political systems were intertwined. It is no wonder therefore that cities like Dubrovnik and Split were actually more linked with cities like Ancona and Venice than to cities like Skopje or Belgrade, even during the time when they actually belonged to the same state together with last two. The structure and complexity of the terrain in the Balkan Peninsula obviously also contributed to that.
Topic:
Environment, Regional Cooperation, and Water
Political Geography:
Europe, Southern Europe, and Adriatic Sea

1919. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Russia - US flashpoint

Author:
Brenda Shaffer
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson described the state of current US-Russian relations as at its “lowest point since the Cold War.” This situation has potentially dangerous implications for the US, Russia and Europe, as well as a variety of regional conflicts around the globe. Among the top of this list is the Nagorno-Karabakh in the South Caucasus. In the past three years, the frequency, intensity and technological level of flare ups in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan have intensified. Adding to the propensity for danger is the fact that several regional conflicts are now linked together—Syria, Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh and the policy toward Iran—with actions in one conflict affecting developments in another.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and Ukraine

1920. Fears of War on the Korean Peninsula

Author:
Dario Kuntić
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
Abstract:
War is lurking on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea has embarked on an accelerated buildup of weapons of mass destruction and modernization of its already large conventional force. It has been consistently testing a series of ballistic and intercontinental missiles, performing nuclear tests, and accelerating toward development of a fully functional nuclear weapon that could strike the United States. The North Korean regime is now estimated to have as many as twenty nuclear warheads and could soon be able to make some to �it on the missiles necessary to deliver them. With time running out, Washington may come to the conclusion that a preventive military strike against North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs is the only way to deprive Pyongyang of capability to launch a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile on the US. On a visit to Seoul in March this year, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson left open the option of a military strike to prevent the development of nuclear weapons program from advancing too far, vowed to defend allies in the region, and ruled out negotiations with Pyongyang. As Washington and Pyongyang escalate their war of words, with both sides hinting it could end with a nuclear con�lict, the prospect of serious con�lict is stronger than ever.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Nonproliferation, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea