Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Europe Publication Year within 3 Years

2411. Breaking the Glass Chamber: Welcome from Rushanara Ali MP and Keynote Lecture by Prof Laura Beers

Author:
Lyndsey Jenkins, Rushnara Ali, and Laura Beers
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
2022 marked a series of historic anniversaries for women in British politics. Forty years since the election of Harriet Harman, the Mother of the House; thirty-five years since the election of the first Black woman MP, Diane Abbott; thirty years since the first woman, Betty Boothroyd, was elected Speaker of the House; and twenty-five years since the election of more than a hundred women MPs for the Labour Party. At its landmark Breaking the Glass Chamber conference from 15 to 17 September 2022, the Mile End Institute brought together historians, political scientists, and sociologists to explore what politics meant to and for women in the second half of the twentieth century. In this video, Dr Lyndsey Jenkins from ‪@qmulschoolofhistory4447‬ welcomes delegates, invites ‪@RushanaraAliMP‬ (MP for Bethnal Green and Bow since 2010) to open the conference, before Professor Laura Beers ‪@AUAdmissions‬ delivers a keynote lecture entitled 'Women Politicians or Women's Politics?' In her opening remarks, Rushanara Ali reflects on the Queen's example, the obstacles faced by women in public life, and the East End of London's long tradition of women campaigning, trade unionism, and suffrage activism. Professor Beers reflects on the politics of recent Conservative Prime Ministers, Theresa May and Liz Truss, before returning to the early twentieth century to explore how prominent women in Parliament campaigned and governed. She also asks whether women's political representation necessarily advances women's political interests and, conversely, whether there are times when women's interests are better served by male representatives.
Topic:
Elections, Women, Domestic Politics, and Representation
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

2412. After Corbyn: What should 'the Left' do now?

Author:
Nadia Whittome, Dan Frost, Madeleine Davis, James Schneider, Andrew Fisher, and Mary Robertson
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
In 2017, the Labour Left was on the march. Firmly ensconced in the Labour leadership after his surprise election in 2015 and his subsequent re-election in 2016, Jeremy Corbyn mobilised and inspired a diverse coalition of socialists and activists and easily brushed off internal challenges. Corbyn's Labour then unexpectedly deprived Theresa May of her majority in the general election. Five years on, however, 'Corbynism' has suffered several, seemingly fatal, setbacks. Divisions over Europe, the antisemitism crisis, and the stalling of reforms to further empower Corbynite activists were followed by the crushing 2019 general election defeat, and then by Keir Starmer's convincing victory over Corbyn's ally, Rebecca Long-Bailey, for the leadership. Today, Corbyn is suspended from the Whip and Labour's leadership consciously ditched parts of the 2019 manifesto. What now for the diverse left-wing movements that constituted 'Corbynism'? Will the Corbynite alliance hold together or fracture? Should those on the 'Left' try to control the Labour Party, or contribute to Starmer's leadership from a left position, or should they abandon it altogether? Should they instead look to trade union activism, single-issue campaigning, or direct action? On Wednesday 2 November 2022, the Mile End Institute invited a panel of Corbyn 'insiders', academics as well as the Labour MP for Nottingham East, Nadia Whittome, to reflect on these questions and the Labour Party's future after Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. In addition to Nadia Whittome, Dr Dan Frost was joined by ‪@QMPoliticsIR‬'s Professor Madeleine Davis, James Schneider, Andrew Fisher and Dr Mary Robertson.
Topic:
Reform, Domestic Politics, Labour Party, and Jeremy Corbyn
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

2413. Unmasking Our Leaders: In Conversation with Michael Cockerell

Author:
Michael Cockerell and Tom Chidwick
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
In the first MEI event ‪@QMUL‬ since the Covid-19 pandemic, the legendary broadcaster and documentary-maker, Michael Cockerell, spoke about his book, Unmasking Our Leaders: Confessions of a Political Documentary-Maker. In addition to presenting clips from across his fifty-year TV career, Michael spoke about interviewing Britain's last ten Prime Ministers and how the 24/7 media has changed British politics. He also explained how his films were made, how he has managed to lull some of the wariest people in the land into candour, and gave a compelling insight into what politicians as different as Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and Boris Johnson are really like. This event, which was chaired by the MEI Manager, Tom Chidwick, was held at QMUL's Mile End campus on Wednesday 21 September 2022.
Topic:
Media, Domestic Politics, and Prime Minister
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

2414. China, the West, and the Future Global Order By Julian Lindley-French and Franco Algieri

Author:
Julian Lindley-French and Franco Algieri
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
The primary purpose of this article is to respectfully communicate to a Chinese audience a Western view of the future world order. China needs the West as much as the West needs China. However, the West has awakened geopolitically to the toxic power politics that Russia is imposing on Ukraine and China’s support for it. China is thus faced with a profound choice: alliance with a declining and weak Russia or cooperation with a powerful bloc of global democracies that Russia’s incompetent and illegal aggression is helping to forge. The West is steadily morphing into a new global Community of Democracies with states such as those in the G7, Quads, and Quints taking on increasing importance as centers of decisionmaking.2 All three groupings reflect an emerging implicit structure with the United States at their core, European democracies on one American geopolitical flank, with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and other democracies in the Indo-Pacific region on the other American geopolitical flank. The force that is forging such a community is China as it morphs into a superpower. Specifically, China is choosing to be an aggressive putative superpower. President Xi Jinping’s aggressive worldview is of a China defined by its opposition to the United States and, by extension, America’s democratic allies and partners. A new world is being forged from within the increasingly hot cauldron of U.S.-Chinese strategic competition. However, does that mean this new world is inevitably now set on a crash course to conflict, something akin to a re-run of the collapse of pre–World War I Europe into systemic war? Or is it not too late for both sides to forge a pragmatic peace—a peace forged from respect, rather than destructive and disrespectful confrontation? On the face of it, President Xi seems to have made his choice, but in some very important respects siding with Russia in geopolitical conflict with the community of democracies seems counterintuitive when we look at China from a Western perspective (as this article does). This perspective also implies China’s “choice” might not be as firm as some would have it—a profound but essentially simple choice between siding with Vladimir Putin and confrontation with the West or continued growth, wealth, and power through collaboration with the West? The facts speak for themselves. Using the most favorable economic statistics for the combined Chinese and Russian economies—purchasing power parity—their combined economies are worth some $27 trillion in 2022. Using the same data for G7 countries, the core of the emerging Community, the total is $39 trillion.3 Add Australia and South Korea to the aggregate and the figure is $42 trillion. If nominal gross domestic product (GPD) is compared, the contrast is even more striking with the combined GDPs of China and Russia in 2022 totaling $20.2 trillion, while the combined GDPs of the G7 countries amount to $45.2 trillion, which when Australia and South Korea are added increases to $48.8 trillion.4 Critically, China’s trade with the democracies is over 10 times greater than that with Russia,5 while in 2020, China’s merchandise trade surplus with the rest of the world totaled $535 billion, with much of that figure due to surpluses with both the United States and Europe.6
Topic:
Security, Geopolitics, Strategic Competition, International Order, and Superpower
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, and United States of America

2415. Psychosocial Effects of the Pandemic. Stress and Sense of Safety Experienced by Poles During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020–2021

Author:
Robert Piec, Barbara Szykuła-Piec, Izabella Helena Grabowska-Lepczak, and Weronika Jakubczak
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
The pandemic that broke out in 2019 had a significant impact on the lives of all social groups around the world. The imposed restrictions and mandatory quarantine were crucial to limit the virus’s spread. The research comprises an analysis of the psychosocial impact exerted by the pandemic that attempted to determine the response to the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. For this purpose, a study on social resilience in the pandemic era was worked out. The study consisted of several parts: stress and the sense of safety, education, trust and defined needs and the mass media in COVID-19. The research team decided to present the study’s results in a series of articles that will contribute to forming a complete picture of the community in the context of the analysed variables. The paper is the first in this series. It contains an analysis of variables intended to determine the level of the experienced sense of safety and its constituent, i.e., stress, and the identification of socio-demographic data strongly influencing the studied variables. The study comprised 559 individuals who were surveyed between May 2020 and November 2020 with the use of an online survey questionnaire. SPSS Statistics version 21.0 and PQStat were used to conduct statistical analyses and correlate and assess the correlation of responses. Also used were Chisquare, Fisher’s test and Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient. A logistic regression analysis was carried out for dichotomous variables. The results of the study indicate that the level of experienced stress is influenced by age, place of residence, gender and job security. The sense of safety is inversely correlated with stress, i.e., as stress increases, the sense of safety decreases, indicating a need to undertake appropriate measures to reduce stress. It may be interesting to compare the level of stress with, among other things, information retrieval from different sources. These results will be presented in the subsequent studies.
Topic:
Psychology, Resilience, Community, COVID-19, Stress, and Public Safety
Political Geography:
Europe and Poland

2416. WEER 2022 | Still Without Peace (Full Issue)

Author:
Mykola Riabchuk, Olga Brusylovska, Iryna Bohinska, Julien Théron, and Anna Menshenina
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
“Still without Peace” was the title and the motto of the annual Warsaw East European conferences held in July 1-2, 2022 at the University of Warsaw under the auspices of the Center for East European Studies and with the support of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Russian war in Ukraine has largely determined the topics of that conference as well as the content of this issue of the Warsaw East European Review, partly though not exclusively based on the conference presentations. From the scholarly point of view, Ukraine has been always a bit of puzzle – partly because it was chronically understudied for years if not centuries insofar as it did not exist on the most of the mental and geographic maps, but also because many processes and phenomena in the ‘newborn’ country did not fit the established analytical paradigms, let alone the dogmas of the Russian ‘Imperial knowledge’ adopted uncritically in the West. This is why so many Westerners, including scholars and politicians, were so stunned by the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union (that had never been seen and named as ‘empire’), and probably even more surprised lately at Ukraine’s spectacular resilience under Russian all-out military invasion. In spite of the gloomy predictions and expectations, the country that had been broadly described as corrupt, dysfunctional, and internally deeply divided, appeared quite strong, institutionally robust and consolidated by civic patriotism. Ten months of the bloody, horrendous war have not brought any signs of breakdown of Ukrainian state or society. On the contrary, Ukrainians of all social brands seem to rally around the flag, united as never before. And all the state institutions, despite the persistent stress, duly provide all the services, probably even better than before the war. Why did this happen (rather than the opposite) is a big question that requires the study of many interrelated factors in their synergic interaction. The papers presented at the Warsaw East European Conference and partly collected in this volume, shed some light at the problem, in particular Anna Menshenina’s study of “Transformation of socio-political values in Ukraine: from gaining its independence till the outbreak of full-scale war”. But the problem remains too broad, multifaceted and complicated, and definitely requires further examination. Four articles of this volume examine various aspects of the ongoing war – starting from the origins of Putin’s obsession with the ‘Ukrainian question’ explored in Mykola Riabchuk’s essay, and from the early attempts to impose a disastrous implementation of Minsk agreements upon the Ukrainian government, scrutinized by Iryna Bohinska, – to the remarkable peculiarities of the Russian hybrid warfare against Ukraine, featured by Julien Théron, and to the venomous propagandistic campaigns staged by Russia against Ukraine on a global scale, as presented in a detailed case study by Oksana Nesterenko. Global ramifications of the Russian war in Ukraine and some scenarios for the future are considered in Olga Brusylovska’s article; and the cultural and political activity of displaced Belarusians in the post-war West Germany is attentively discussed by Anastasiya Ilyina. It may slightly fall out of the main topic of this volume, but it may resonate with today’s problems of Ukrainian refugees and internally displaced persons and keep, in a broader sense, all the East European nations on our radar. The Russian war in Ukraine is most likely to dominate in both the WEEC panels and the WEER pages next year but we encourage our international colleagues to explore Eastern Europe as alive and dynamic body, where various parts are interconnected and interdependent.
Topic:
International Relations, NATO, History, Displacement, Negotiation, Armed Conflict, Russia-Ukraine War, Invasion, Arms Sales, and Warfare
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe

2417. Report of the Ombudsman: A Mere Formality or a Contribution to the Rule of Law in the Process of European Integration

Author:
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP)
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP)
Abstract:
In this document, colleagues from the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights analyze the position of the Ombudsman (Protector of Citizens) from the point of view of the attitude of the National Assembly and the Government of the Republic of Serbia toward the Ombudsman’s regular annual reports. In the past ten years, Serbia has largely regressed in terms of democracy and the rule of law. Data from international and domestic organisations point to a state that has been captured by one party, the collapse of the separation of powers, and the absence of political dialogue. On the other hand, the Government of Serbia keeps emphasising the rule of law as its main priority in the accession negotiations with the European Union (EU). For the EU, the development of democratic processes is the main aspect of Serbia’s approach. In such circumstances, the attitude of the legislative and executive powers towards the report of the Ombudsman shows whether the authorities are essentially or just formally committed to the rule of law and admission to the European Union. Although there are numerous challenges in the work of the Ombudsman, this document analyses only the practice of its reporting to the National Assembly, in the context of ongoing reforms implemented for the purpose of Serbia’s accession to the European Union. We particularly stress the importance of the Ombudsman in strengthening democratic institutions and fulfilling the criteria from the negotiation Chapters 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights) and 24 (Justice, Freedom and Security), and propose solutions that contribute to political responsibility and the rule of law. If Serbia wishes to responsibly ensure the rule of law as a priority in European integration, it needs to improve the attitude of the Government and Parliament towards the report of the Ombudsman. On the other hand, decision-makers from the EU should continuously insist on this within the framework of the assessment of the state of democracy and the monitoring of reforms from Chapters 23 and 24.
Topic:
European Union, Rule of Law, and Oversight
Political Geography:
Europe and Serbia

2418. Public Perception of Serbian Foreign Policy in the Midst of the War in Ukraine

Author:
Maja Bjeloš, Luka Šterić, and Vuk Vuksanović
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP)
Abstract:
We present you the analysis of the results of the public opinion survey on Serbian foreign policy and relations with great powers. The war in Ukraine did not significantly affect the perception of the Serbian public regarding the major issues of Serbian foreign and security policy. In this context, this relates to how Serbian citizens think about the influence of great powers in their country and how the public perceives its relations with Russia and Western security institutions, the EU and NATO. The public opinion surveys also showed that the issue of Kosovo is still being perceived as a major foreign policy priority. There is a powerful cynicism in how the Serbian public views great power influences, as most respondents believe that external great powers bribe Serbian politicians and moguls to further their interests in the country. Russia and China are perceived as close foreign policy partners of Serbia, putting them in clear advantage over those who favour the EU on that front. The respondents also believed that Russia and China are sincere friends of Serbia and not players guided by their self-interest. As opposed to the study conducted by the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP) in 2020, which noted that Serbs perceived Chinese influence in the country as more positive than Russian influence, the latest survey shows that those who believe Russian influence in Serbia is positive have a slight edge over those who believe the same about Chinese influence. This is most likely the result of the fact that China has not been in the spotlight in recent months. As opposed to Russia and China, the EU is being cynically perceived as a self-interested actor. On that same front, there are more of those who perceive the EU’s policies towards Serbia as hostile than those who perceive these policies as friendly. When it comes to perceptions of the US, the spectrum is dominated by those who perceive the US as a self-interested power and those who perceive it as an enemy of Serbia. The public also treats the issue of foreign direct investments (FDI) as important for the country’s foreign policy. However, the FDI are more likely to be considered highly important among those who favour the EU membership than among those who oppose the membership. Despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the public opinion survey demonstrates that Russia is still a major vector in Serbian foreign policy. Extremely positive perception of Russia is a product of recent Serbian history but also of the radical pro-Russian narrative that was pushed for years in the pro-government media and tabloids. Serbian public largely subscribes to the Russian point of view on the Ukraine war, with the majority blaming NATO and the US for its outbreak. The majority of the Serbian public is against introducing sanctions against Russia, with the majority doing so on the ground that Serbia experienced sanctions in the 1990s. This fact demonstrates that Serbian perceptions of Russia are frequently based on historical experiences from the 1990s. Belgrade Center for Security Policy conducted public opinion survey in the period from October 3 to 17, 2022, as part of the Western Balkans Security Barometer project led by Kosovar Centre for Security Studies with the support of the National Endowment for Democracy. The survey is conducted on a sample of 1,020 citizens of Serbia.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Public Opinion, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe and Serbia

2419. The Case for Neutrality: Understanding African Stances on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Author:
Olayinka Ajala
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
Institution:
Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
Abstract:
In March 2021, Russian armed forces began deploying thousands of military personnel and equipment near Russia’s borders with Ukraine, with another contingent deployed in Crimea which was annexed by Russia in 2014. The scale of this military build-up, which represented the largest force mobilisation by Russia since its annexation of Crimea in 2014, came as a surprise to Ukraine and a source of concern to other European countries and the United States. The unexpected stance of neutrality held by many influential African countries coupled with notable abstentions in several UN resolutions have rattled their Western allies. one of the biggest surprises for the West has been the reaction and stance of several notable African countries. Having enjoyed political patronage and goodwill from most countries in Africa for several decades, the United States and its Western allies expected a robust and strong castigation of Russia by their allies from the continent but were shocked by the response of some key African countries. While many such countries were quick to condemn the invasion and toed the line of the US and other Western allies, some notable countries such as South Africa, Namibia and Senegal refused to condemn the attack with some blaming the West and NATO for the war. This article explains why African countries are taking their current stance and the implications this might have on the international balance of power at the end of the Russian-Ukraine conflict. The reasons are linked to political, economic, and strategic considerations as well as contemporary grievances relating to the recent Covid pandemic and the treatment of Africans in Ukraine at the onset of the war.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Armed Conflict, Neutrality, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

2420. How likely is it that Vladimir Putin will be able to Claim some sort of Victory in Ukraine? An Assessment based on Events from February - early November 2022

Author:
Alexander Hill
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
Institution:
Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
Abstract:
This paper provides both an outline of the war in Ukraine to date and an assessment of the likelihood that Vladimir Putin’s Russian government will be able to claim a degree of success in its special operation in Ukraine if and when there is either a meaningful ceasefire or ultimately peace agreement between the warring powers. Russian success is defined in terms of the aims of the special operation’ as stated by Russian leaders on the eve of and during the course of the operation to date. The paper concludes that in all likelihood Russia will be able to claim a limited degree of success at the end of the special operation, even if that success will have come at a high cost.
Topic:
Vladimir Putin, Military, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Eurasia