Search

Begin New Search Topic International Cooperation Political Geography Europe

201. Alliance Reborn: An Atlantic Compact for the 21st Century

Author:
Hans Binnendijk, Julianne Smith, Daniel Hamilton, Charles Barry, Stephen Flanagan, and James Townsend
Publication Date:
01-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
We have an open but fleeting moment to forge a more effective Atlantic partnership. We must seize it now. European and North American allies have allowed their relations to become discordant, yet the times demand vigor and unity. Courageous decisions need to be taken to breathe new life and relevance into the Atlantic partnership, which must be recast to tackle a diverse range of serious challenges at home and abroad.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Border Control, and Reform
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and Atlantic Ocean

202. Forging a Strategic U.S.-EU Partnership

Publication Date:
12-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The world that created the transatlantic partnership is fading fast. The United States and Europe must urgently reposition and recast their relationship as a more effective and strategic partnership. It is a moment of opportunity -- to use or to lose. With the Cold War over and new powers rising, some say the transatlantic partnership has had its day. We disagree. Our achievements may not always match our aspirations, but the common body of accumulated principles, norms, rules and procedures we have built and accumulated together -- in essence, an acquis Atlantique -- affirms basic expectations we have for ourselves and for each other. In this new world of global connections, the transatlantic relationship is the thickest weave in the web. The deep integration of our democratic societies and economies is unparalleled and transcends neat “foreign” and “domestic” distinctions. We are literally in each other's business. North America's relationship with Europe enables each of us to achieve goals together that neither can alone -- for ourselves and for the world. When we agree, we are usually the core of any effective global coalition. When we disagree, no global coalition is likely to be very effective. The transatlantic partnership, while indispensable, is also insufficient. Only by banding together with others are we likely to advance our values, protect our interests, and extend our influence. Our partnership remains as vital as in the past. But now we must focus on a new agenda. Together, Europe and America must surmount immediate economic challenges while positioning their economies for the future; build transatlantic resilience -- protect our societies, not just our territory; continue work toward a Europe whole, free, and at peace; address conflicts more effectively; redouble efforts to halt proliferation of agents of mass destruction; reinvigorate efforts to preserve a habitable planet. Unfortunately, there is a growing mismatch between the nature of our challenges, the capacity of our institutions, and the tools at our disposal. Strong bilateral relations between the U.S. and European countries are still essential. NATO remains vital to our security. We offer views on NATO's future in a companion volume, Alliance Reborn. But we must also recast and reposition the U.S.-EU relationship. That is the subject of this report. The U.S.-EU relationship is important but not strategic. Such a partnership is possible, but it is not the partnership we have today. Given the challenges we face, such a partnership is urgent. It will require a new type of politics, not simply new kinds of process. Our central challenge is to mobilize political leadership behind a set of ambitious goals, tied to pragmatic steps forward.
Topic:
Economics, International Cooperation, and International Security
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

203. Armenia: Picking up the Pieces

Publication Date:
04-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
Armenia's flawed presidential election, the subsequent lethal crackdown against a peaceful protest rally, the introduction of a state of emergency and extensive arrests of opposition supporters have brought the country to its deepest crisis since the war against Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh ended in 1994. The situation deprives Serzh Sarkisian, scheduled to be inaugurated as president on 9 April 2008, of badly needed legitimacy and handicaps prospects for much needed democratic reform and resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict alike. Unless the U.S., EU and others with significant diplomatic leverage over the regime in Yerevan exert pressure, Armenia is unlikely to make progress on either. The Sarkisian administration must urgently seek credible dialogue with the opposition, release prisoners detained on political grounds, stop arrests and harassment of the opposition and lift all measures limiting freedom of assembly and expression. Unless steps are taken to address the political crisis, the U.S. and EU should suspend foreign aid and put on hold negotiations on further and closer cooperation.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, International Relations, Political Violence, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

204. Russia in 2008 and beyond: What kind of foreign policy?

Author:
Vadim Kononenko
Publication Date:
03-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Russia's current foreign policy should be understood as an element of the political regime that was built under Vladimir Putin's leadership. The major domestic impact on foreign policy seems to stem from the inclination among the elites and the power groups to maintain the power status quo in the country whilst profiting from the economic ties with the West. In this context the West becomes perceived as an unwanted external political factor on the one hand, and as a source of profits and financial stability for the Russian elites on the other. The current political system has given rise to a specific kind of foreign policy and diplomacy that both actively criticizes and challenges the West in rhetoric, while furthering economic ties between Europe and Russia's major business players. This contradiction is not self-evident as it is often couched in the assertive discourse of “strong state” and “national interest”. In reality, it is the “special interests” of Russia's state-private power groups and networks that lie behind the country's international standing. As long as the internal order in the country remains as it is, it is not feasible to expect any critical rethinking on foreign policy. The scope for public and expert debate has shrunk tremendously as foreign policy-making becomes increasingly bureaucratic and profit-driven. The prevailing climate of tense relations and diplomatic bickering in Russia-Western relations may linger despite the change of president. This does not mean that stabilization of relations or even engagement with Russia should be ruled out, however. Western actors should pay close attention to the domestic development in Russia, particularly the economic side. Further growth in the economy will push Russia towards a more intense (both in terms of cooperation and competition) interaction with the West. It is in the interests of the West to respond to this development in a consistent and constructive way by anchoring Russia in the rule-based economic environment.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Asia

205. Opening the European Commission's Delegation in Minsk: Do EU-Belarus relations need a rethink?

Author:
Alena Vysotskaya and Guedes Vieira
Publication Date:
04-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
In the first months of 2008, the Belarusian leadership made some unprecedented declarations, demonstrating its willingness to cooperate with the EU. In contrast to similar declarations in the past, the current statements were supported by tangible cooperation-oriented steps on the part of the official Minsk, including the decision on the opening of the Delegation of the European Commission in the country and the release of several political prisoners. The recent attempts of the Belarusian leadership to establish its own terms for the fulfilment of EU demands on the one hand and the establishment of the Commission's Delegation in Minsk on the other, invite further consideration of EU-Belarus relations. Nevertheless, the existence of concessions as far as the official Minsk is concerned should not be mistaken for a fundamental change in the Belarusian approach towards the EU. As before, the official Minsk is not simply promoting cooperation with the EU, but cooperation of a very special type, namely one whereby it defines its own conditions, rather than adopting those defined by the EU, thus developing something of a reverse conditionality. The EU should clarify whether it can reward the Belarusian leadership for single cooperation-oriented steps, and to what extent such rewards can be granted. In other words, the EU needs an inventory of the instruments that are, or can be, employed in its policy towards Belarus. As far as the character of different instruments is concerned, the EU approach might appear contradictory, but this strategy is paradoxically the only way to move forward in its relations with Belarus. If the EU wants to promote the democratisation of Belarus, it should try to find synergies among its own measures and the policies of other actors. As the recent changes have demonstrated, only a combination of pressures from different sides will create a sufficient basis for EU leverage in Belarus.
Topic:
Democratization, Diplomacy, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, and Belarus

206. Is a League of Democracies a Good Idea?

Author:
Thomas Carothers
Publication Date:
05-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Although the idea of a “League of Democracies” usefully reflects the urgent need to rebuild the legitimacy of U.S. democracy promotion, it is a problematic idea. It rests on the false assumption that democracies share sufficient common interests to work effectively together in a large group on a wide range of global issues. Such a league could aggravate rather than alleviate global sensitivities about the close association between U.S. democracy promotion and the U.S. global security agenda. The next U.S. president should opt instead for more flexible, case-by-case partnerships to fit specific issues and contexts.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Organization, and International Political Economy
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

207. Building Intellectual Property Coalitions for Development

Author:
Peter K. Yu
Publication Date:
09-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
The adoption of a Development Agenda in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in October 2007 has provided less developed countries with a rare and unprecedented opportunity to reshape the international intellectual property system in a way that would better advance their interests. However, if these countries are to succeed, they need to take advantage of the current momentum, coordinate better with other countries and nongovernmental organizations, and more actively share with others their experience, knowledge, and best practices.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, International Organization, Regional Cooperation, and Third World
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

208. Democracy and Human Rights in the European-Asian Dialogue: A Clash of Cooperation Cultures?

Author:
Howard Loewen
Publication Date:
12-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Global and Area Studies
Abstract:
Whereas the European Union (EU) favors a formal, binding, output-oriented, and to some extent supranational approach to cooperation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is based on informal, non-binding, process-oriented intergovernmental forms of cooperation. This article addresses the question of whether these differences between European and Asian cooperation norms or cultures can account for interregional cooperation problems in the areas of democracy and human rights within the institutional context of EU-ASEAN and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). The author argues that a clash of cooperation cultures basically occurs in both forms of interregional collaboration between Asia and Europe, with slight differences due to the institutional context: while disagreements over the question of democracy and human rights between the EU and ASEAN have led to a temporary and then a complete standstill in cooperation, the flexible institutional mechanisms of ASEM seem, at first glance, to mitigate the disruptive effects of such dialogues. Yet informality does not remove the issues from the agenda, as the recurrent disputes over Myanmar's participation and the nonintervention norm favored by the Asian side of ASEM clearly indicate. Antagonistic cooperation cultures thus play a significant role in explaining the obstructive nature of the interregional human rights and democracy dialogue between Asia and Europe.
Topic:
International Relations, Government, Human Rights, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe, Asia, and Myanmar

209. The Impact on Domestic Policy of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports The Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Spain

Author:
Mark Bromley
Publication Date:
08-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
In the 17 years since the European Union (EU) first formulated common standards to be applied in arms export decision making, there has been a rapid expansion in the EU's role as a coordinator and generator of policy in an area that was previously the exclusive domain of national governments. Most relevant to this change has been the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (EU Code of Conduct), which was adopted by the Council of the EU in June 1998 and will celebrate its 10th anniversary in June 2008. The Code takes the form of a Council declaration— it contains political commitments but is not legally binding. Under the Code, EU member states commit themselves to set 'high common standards which should be regarded as the minimum for the management of, and restraint in, conventional arms transfers' and 'to reinforce cooperation and to promote convergence in the field of conventional arms exports' within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). It lists eight criteria that member states agree to take into account when assessing applications for arms export licences. More importantly, the Code outlines reporting procedures and consultation mechanisms intended to ensure consistent interpretation of the criteria.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Arms Control and Proliferation, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe, Spain, and Netherlands

210. The New EU Strategy towards Central Asia: A View from the Region

Author:
Nargis Kassenova
Publication Date:
01-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies
Abstract:
The German Presidency of the EU in the first half of 2007 inspired great hopes regarding the development of relations between the European Union and the states of Central Asia. In Brussels and other European capitals, it was expected that Germany, as an EU political and economic heavyweight and one of the key promoters of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, would be able to foster a coordinated Central Asian policy giving direction and coherence to European engagement in the region. It was widely hoped – within both the governments of Central Asia and the societies of the region – that Germany, which has traditionally been the most pro-active European country in the region, would elevate the relations between the EU and Central Asian states to a higher level.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Europe, Central Asia, Asia, and Germany