Number of results to display per page
Search Results
282. Redefining the EU-China economic partnership: beyond reciprocity lies strategy
- Author:
- Tobias Gehrke
- Publication Date:
- 02-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- The EU-China economic relationship is transitioning to a new era. Years of soaring Chinese investments in Europe are increasingly met with unease by EU leaders. Beijing’s influence on the activities of its global economic actors have resulted in economic security concerns about critical infrastructure and national security on the continent. A hectic debate about security risks of Chinese technology companies and a new EU regulation on a common investment screening regime are evidence of an ongoing policy response to perceived growing risks from economic interdependence. Europe is right to acknowledge these risks. But Europe is also divided. Lacking common priorities for action makes individual policies vulnerable and insufficient. A new EU strategy on China must start at home. Of course, Member States’ political expediency is the Union’s eternal handicap. This policy brief offers three lines of action in which policy reform can support Europe’s resilience and reinforce the foundation of an EU strategy on China
- Topic:
- International Cooperation, European Union, Investment, Economic Cooperation, and Transition
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, and Asia
283. European Strategic Autonomy: Which Military Level of Ambition?
- Author:
- Jo Coelmont
- Publication Date:
- 03-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- The EU Global Strategy is crystal clear on the EU’s political level of ambition yet remarkably silent on the corresponding military level of ambition. But strategy without capabilities is just a hallucination. Recent developments in the EU make it possible, however, for the Member States to agree on an appropriate and affordable military level of ambition. The aim: to conduct autonomous crisis management operations and to contribute substantially to territorial defence within the NATO framework. We should not forget that the European countries have the primary responsibility for the territorial defence of their own continent.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- Europe
284. Europe in a multipolar missile world – Why the EU and NATO should not try to salvage the INF Treaty
- Author:
- Bruno Hellendorff
- Publication Date:
- 04-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- On 1 February 2019, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that his country had suspended its compliance with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty, and would withdraw from it within six months. The INF Treaty, little known outside of arms control and disarmament circles, was a landmark Cold War agreement between the United States of America and the USSR – the first to ban an entire category of weapons (ground-based medium- and intermediate-range missiles). The US withdrawal, announced in dramatic terms by President Donald Trump in October 2018, followed the claim that Russia had recently developed and fielded a missile with performances forbidden by the INF Treaty. The end of this little-known treaty is not anecdotal. Not only will it further strain the US-Russia relationship and antagonise allies, it will also contribute to the erosion of what is left of the global arms-control architecture and incentivise arms-race behav- iours among great powers. In a world where security is increasingly less a question of multilateral deliberation and rules-based interactions, the end of the INF Treaty is a further signal that missile technologies are again becoming a venue for competition between great powers: only this time, at least three are playing the game (United States, China and Russia) rather than two (United States and USSR). Additionally, missile technology proliferation has turned into a major dimension of contemporary battlefield realities, and missile programmes of countries such as Iran and North Korea continue to pose important diplomatic and non-proliferation challenges. Meanwhile, Europe is, by and large, left watching as its regional security architecture erodes. Welcome to what US National Security Advisor John Bolton recently termed ‘a multipolar missile world’. The EU should not try to salvage the INF Treaty. Its diplomatic capital might be better spent in areas where it could potentially make a difference, rather than in a treaty to which it is not even party. Existing multilateral regimes and agreements with the EU or its Member States as parties are already in dire need of reinforcement in the face of technological progress, a volatile diplomatic environment and self-centred, competitive political narratives. These include, inter alia, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) framework (including its Structured Dialogue), multilateral export control regimes (MECR) like the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), transparency and trust-building mechanisms like the Hague Code of Conduct against missile proliferation (HCoC), and nuclear-related frame- works like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or ‘Iran deal’) or the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Process. These, however, may simply fail to meet the challenge of a multipolar missile world. Renewed efforts, both conceptual and in the realm of capabilities, are needed in a NATO framework to reinforce the linkage between deterrence and diplomacy. NATO-EU dialogue and cooperation on defence issues could be further enhanced, and European countries should work more with like-minded partners at both bilat- eral or multilateral levels on the challenges of non-proliferation and disarmament in the twenty-first century. The demise of the INF Treaty should therefore re-energise the debate on European strategic autonomy, help support collective capability building – not least in NATO – and prompt new discussions on stronger multilateral rules on missile development, use and proliferation.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, Arms Control and Proliferation, Treaties and Agreements, Military Strategy, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North Atlantic, and North America
285. Autonomy and Strategy: What Should Europe Want?
- Author:
- Jolyon Howorth
- Publication Date:
- 04-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- Europe wants autonomy and it wants a strategy. Semantically, of course, “wants” has a double meaning. First, it means “lacks”. Europe lacks autonomy and it lacks a strategy. The second meaning of wants is “desires”. Here, we have a genuine question. How many EU member states genuinely desire autonomy for the EU? How many are genuinely in favor of a grand strategy – as opposed to the EU’s default practice of just muddling through? And there is also a third meaning behind wants: “needs”. In my view, the EU needs strategic autonomy. But having said that, all I have done is set a point of arrival. How to get there?
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, European Union, and Autonomy
- Political Geography:
- Europe
286. The End of the INF-Treaty: Context and Consequences
- Author:
- Didier Audenaert
- Publication Date:
- 07-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- On 2 August both the US and the Russian Federation will no longer be restrained by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987). Early this century it gradually became clear that Russia wanted to step out of the Treaty, by which it felt itself to be solely restrained. European nations should now take up a greater share of the burden of missile defence, which should get a broader mission than it has today. The debate on EU strategic autonomy can be an instrument in this endeavour. Because of the worsening security environment NATO’s non- strategic nuclear capability becomes even more important. European NATO allies and EU member states may very soon be confronted with difficult and fundamental choices for a future without the INF Treaty, which need to be communicated and explained to their national population.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, European Union, and INF Treaty
- Political Geography:
- Russia and Europe
287. Security Aspects of Connectivity
- Author:
- Tomas Ries
- Publication Date:
- 09-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- Published in October 2018, the European Commission’s joint communication Connecting Europe and Asia – Building Blocks for an EU Strategy offers a good outline of the principles underlying the European Union’s (EU) connectivity interests. However, the document does not address the security implications of connectivity: it merely notes that “’flow security’ matters”. This Policy Brief attempts to cover that gap and expand on the notion of flow security. Security challenges should not be seen as an intrinsic obstacle to connectivity itself, or to its development. What we call “connectivity” today is part of a deeper trend whereby societies and economies are increasingly tied to each other, and most developed economies now bid on a further deepening of this trend, as is apparent in discussions over the “internet of things” (IoT) or “Industry 4.0”. Still, connectivity entails specific and dynamic challenges that require dedicated attention
- Topic:
- Security, Regional Cooperation, Science and Technology, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- Europe and Asia
288. Spitzenkandidaten: A debate about power and about the future development of the EU
- Author:
- Jim Cloos
- Publication Date:
- 09-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- In 2014, the European Parliament staged a small 'coup' when it imposed the EPP "Spitzenkandidat" Jean-Claude Juncker as the new Commission President, on the basis of a rather innovative reading of the Treaty. In 2019, the attempt at renewing this operation failed, because of some of the inherent flaws in the concept, and because the conditions were no longer the same. The European Council was quick to reclaim its prerogatives as set out in the Treaty. This may however not be the last word and a revised version of the Spitzenkandidaten could possibly emerge from the upcoming conference on the future of the EU. But any such move towards a more federal Europe requires an informed and transparent debate and cannot be introduced via the back-door.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, European Union, and Centralization
- Political Geography:
- Europe
289. High expectations. Interregional agendas on global security challenges: East Asia, Europe and Latin America
- Author:
- Manuel R. Torres Soriano
- Publication Date:
- 12-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
- Institution:
- Brazilian Center for International Relations (CEBRI)
- Abstract:
- Interregionalism has been increasingly used to advance cooperation on regional and global security challenges. This study examines three interregional dialogues comprising East Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Each interregional security agenda reflects specific concerns and different evolving paths. Insights from ‘multilateral security governance’ approaches can reinforce the analysis of how security agendas emerge and change, and how their related norms and practices evolve.
- Topic:
- Security, International Affairs, Governance, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- Europe, East Asia, and Latin America
290. The refugee ‘crisis’ in Greece: politicisation and polarisation amidst multiple crises
- Author:
- Angeliki Dimitriadi and Antonia-Maria Sarantaki
- Publication Date:
- 04-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
- Abstract:
- The European refugee “crisis” of 2015 first and foremost unfolded in Greece at a critical period for the country and its place in the EU. Amidst the threat of Grexit and domestic political turmoil, the arrival of the refugees raised to the forefront questions of responsibility and burden sharing between Greece and its EU partners. Drawing from de Wilde’s analytical framework, this paper tried to explore whether the question of responsibility became an issue of politicisation in Greece as well as polarisation and whether it resulted in policy change on migration. The analysis draws from three types of sources: online media, parliamentary debates & party announcements, and public opinion polls. Two periods are investigated: the discussion on relocation from May 2015 to November 2015 and the discussions on the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016. Politicisation of migration pre-existed the crisis and acquired further salience during 2015-2016. Polarisation, in contrast, featured less in 2015, due to the focus on Grexit, but acquires salience in 2016 following the EU-Turkey Statement. Nonetheless two common themes underscore both periods. There is convergence (with varying degrees of intensity) in blaming the member states for failing to adhere to their responsibility and for showing little solidarity. Similarly, there is a broad convergence that migration policy is designed by the European Union and its institutions, with Greece only responsible for the implementation. Thus, the polarisation of 2016 over migration focuses more on the government’s poor implementation and less on the policies initiated at the EU level.
- Topic:
- European Union, Refugee Crisis, Asylum, and Polarization
- Political Geography:
- Europe and Greece