European Union

Just like I predicted it, Fidesz’s Viktor Orban recorded a landslide victory in last week’s elections, crushing the opposition political parties’ short-lived confidence.

Winning 134 of the 199 seats, Orban guaranteed a super majority in the Hungarian parliament, which would allow him to make any constitutional change he sees necessary.

Upon losing the elections, leaders of the opposition political parties including Áikos Hadházy of the LMP, Gyula Molnár of MSZP, and Gábor Vona of Jobbik have all resigned from their positions.

Emerging pictures of the long queues of people from the polling stations on the day of the elections have had raised hopes of the many that this time the opposition political parties would increase their share of seats in the parliament, hence deny Fidesz a super majority. However except in some districts of Budapest, in small Hungarian towns and in rural parts of the country Orban’s party polled best.

Not only Fidesz’s populist anti-immigration rhetoric, but also the failure of the opposition political parties in forming a united front against Fidesz, as well as Orban’s handling of the economy could explain why more than %49 of the Hungarians have once again opted for Orban.

However what is more striking are the developments that have been taking place post-elections both in Hungary and at the European Union level in relation to the newly elected Hungarian government.

The uncertain future of the opposition  media outlets in Hungary, dilemma of the European Party Groups’ in whether to congratulate Orban on his success and the European Parliament’s draft report on the state of rule of law and democracy in Hungary are some of which I could point to.

Right after the elections Magyar Nemzet, Hungary’s major opposition newspaper and its sister radio station Lánchíd Rádió announced their closure. It is suggested that Orban’s withdrawal of all the government advertising has contributed to this end. And what is more is that a pro-government weekly Figyelo published a list of 200 people who work for NGOs that included as Amnesty International, refugee advocates, and investigative journalists and are described as George Soros’s mercenaries, aiming to topple the government and open the country to immigrants. Both the closure of the opposition media outlets and the use of pro-government newspapers against the opposition point to the state the media has come to in Hungary. Like in any other illiberal democracy, for instance Turkey, media in Hungary no longer functions in the way we know in the Western liberal democracies. It is controlled and utilised as propaganda machines by the ‘democratically elected’ governments to maintain the popularity of their policies among the crowds at the cost of free media.

Since Fidesz is part of the European People’ Party group in the European Parliament, it was only normal for the leader of the EPP, Manfred Weber, and the president of the EPP, Joseph Daul, to congratulate Orban on his electoral success. However others like Bavarian MEP Markus Ferber and Gunnar Hökmark (MEP) from Sweden expressed their concern about the anti-Semitic rhetoric adopted by the leadership of Fidesz during the elections, and quiet rightly demanded Weber and Daul to stand up for the core values of the EU. Some even expressed dismissing the Fidesz MEPs from the EPP. Whereas Udo Bullmann, the newly elected leader of the European Parliament’s Socialist bloc also criticised the EPP for not directly confronting Orban and Philippe Lamberts, co-president of the Greens demanded that the EPP does not prioritise party friendship above fundamental rights and democracy. What is best under these circumstances is that instead of isolating Fidesz, Members of the European Parliament, regardless of their party group, should act like a critical friend to Fidesz and Hungary by constantly reminding them of the core values of the EU. And they should keep the Hungarian government accountable to the European Parliament, using the available legal mechanisms.

In fact in May 2017 the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs was instructed to examine the situation in Hungary after serious concern was raised about the situation in Hungary. Last week Thursday the committee recommended triggering disciplinary proceedings that could result in Hungary losing its voting rights in the European Council. The draft report found that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government “time and time again … has undermined the independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press and the fundamental rights of its citizens.” This draft report was not well received by the leadership of Fidesz, denying all the criticisms that have been put forward. The timing of this report is however perfect for there has been a new election, and Fidesz has gained a new term in office, which gives the Hungarian government a new chance to make a fresh start and work on some of the points that have been raised in the report.

Overall there seems to be pressure building on the freedom of media in Hungary. Critical voices seem to be facing a risk of closure or shutdown. However the newly elected government might change its position in the way it treats media and the opposition. It is only healthy that the electoral success of Fidesz is a cause of contention among the party groups of the European Parliament. If the interests of the party groups could be left aside, different mechanism of the European Parliament could be utilised to influence the way things are done in Hungary. Having Fidesz MEPs in the centre-right EPP is an advantage and must be utilised for the greater good of the EU.

As for the next couple of months, the European Parliament’s draft report will go to a vote in committee in June and to the full Parliament in September. If the Parliament approves the proposal, the matter would move to the European Council. Thus I will be keeping an eye on this.

 

The post Post-elections in Hungary— Fidesz, failed opposition and European Union! appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

International Space Station. Photo: ESA

Nicolas Rüffin

Science diplomacy has attracted a lot of attention during the last decade. Actors as different as the US State Department, the European Commission, the Royal Society, UNESCO and a great many of other intermediary organizations have adopted the term to rebrand their activities, programs, and agendas. The contexts in which the term science diplomacy emerges are just as diverse as the actors. It almost seems like science has become a panacea for most of the problems in public policymaking. For instance, when looking through the volumes of the journal Science & Diplomacy, we encounter topics like the global challenges, health diplomacy, issues of security and proliferation, international mega-science projects, and trade policies, not to mention regional priorities like the Arctic, Africa, the Middle East, or East Asia.

 

The rise of the concept of science diplomacy

Science diplomacy thus is first and foremost a new umbrella term to characterize the role of science and technology in numerous policy fields that have an international, boundary-spanning, component. As a matter of fact, a number of examples and documents illustrate that considerations regarding science and technology (S&T) have played a role in international policymaking before (e.g. Neureiter & Turekian, 2012). For instance, policy instruments like bilateral science and technology agreements (STAs) have been used at least since the 1950s (Rüffin & Schreiterer, 2017). These STAs formed a global network of legal commitments long before any remarks on a strategic use of science diplomacy emerged.

 

However, the scope and number of S&T related policies have increased over time. For instance, we are witnessing the emergence and differentiation of agencies explicitly dedicated to matters of international science policymaking (Flink & Schreiterer, 2010; Rüffin, 2018). Several countries, including Germany, the UK, Switzerland, and Denmark, have established S&T outposts abroad in order to access new markets, buttress their innovation capacities, and to foster bilateral relationships. In addition, non-state actors like academies or research associations pursue their own objectives in terms of international science policy. They maintain offices overseas, conclude collaboration agreements, and some even establish joint research laboratories (e.g. the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique or the German Max-Planck Society). The idea of science diplomacy, then, provides a new, more strategic and—more or less—coherent framework to integrate existing instruments in international S&T policymaking. Actors use the concept to propel their own agenda regardless of policy field or research area.

 

From my point of view, there are two items on the current research agenda regarding science diplomacy: The aspirations for the meaningful, “optimal” use of the concept (Van Langenhove, 2017) and the scholarly reflection on its role in a broader context.

 

Future directions for science diplomacy

There are several well-known and often cited examples of successful science diplomacy. For instance, physicists were the trailblazers in establishing diplomatic relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and Israel in the 1950s. The Pugwash conferences provided venues for low-key exchanges between scientists and policymakers from Western and Eastern countries during the Cold War. International research organizations like the European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, or the International Space Station, ISS, illustrate the opportunities that emerge if international partners join forces to pursue daring and high-quality big science research.

 

But aside from these famous examples, we know that the systematic implementation of the concept of science diplomacy faces serious challenges. Sometimes, scientists and officials from research organizations even are reluctant to use the term, stating that they would rather prefer to stay “under the radar” of politics. It is true that science diplomacy, as a type of track 2 diplomacy, always constitutes a balancing act between governmental interests and scientific autonomy. A strategic use of science diplomacy must take these concerns into account. Moreover, questions arise from the tension between competition versus collaboration of different actors.

 

In Europe, both the European Commission and a great number of Member States are engaging in science diplomacy, yet the relations between the different players, the division of labor as it where, often remains unclear. Propelling European science diplomacy thus means that the stakeholders must define the domains of (shared) responsibility, explore areas of common interests, and coordinate joint programs where advisable. Hence, scholars should investigate the subjects where science diplomacy can contribute to the peaceful and sustainable coexistence, increased scientific collaboration, and eased tensions between countries across the globe. But they should also continue to examine the limitations of the concept and how it might play into increasingly tough economic competitions and races for innovation. Overall, researchers should be aware that they contribute to the evolution of the concept by introducing new tools, structuring established instruments, and by identifying new applications.

 

Contemplating the nature of science diplomacy

However, it is important to remember that science diplomacy is only one expression of a broader “elusive transformation” of policymaking (Skolnikoff, 1993). We need to put science diplomacy into perspective by drawing connections to other mega-trends in science policy like the turn towards innovation and the increasing importance of the global challenges. This strand of research could include historical studies on the origins of the concept, analyses of coalition building, or in-depth case studies of how foreign affairs and S&T interact.

 

Luckily, the community of researchers engaging with science diplomacy—both in substantial and in reflexive ways—is growing. Already, scientists from many countries are contributing to this endeavor, and within Horizon 2020, there are a number of projects that advance the study and implementation of science diplomacy (e.g. EL-CSID, InsSciDE, and S4D4C).

 

After all, science diplomacy is a moving target and it will be interesting to watch which directions, trajectories and shapes the concept will take in the future.

 

Nicolas Rüffin is Research Fellow of the President’s Project Group at the WZB Berlin Social Science Center. He joined the WZB in 2016, after receiving a master’s degree in science studies from the Humboldt-University of Berlin, and a bachelor’s degree in business psychology from the University of Bochum. Before moving to Berlin, he had worked as Programme Manager at Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, a joint initiative of companies and foundations for the advancement of education, science, and innovation in Germany. His research mainly focuses on issues of international science policy, the politics of intergovernmental big science projects, and science diplomacy.

 

References

Flink, T., & Schreiterer, U. (2010). Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: towards a typology of national approaches. Science and Public Policy 37(9), 665–677.

Rüffin, N. (2018): Science and Innovation Diplomacy Agencies at the Nexus of Research, Economics, and Politics. EL-CSID Working Papers 10. Brussels: Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Rüffin, N., & Schreiterer, U. (2017): Science and Technology Agreements in the Toolbox of Science Diplomacy. Effective Instruments or Insignificant Add-ons?. EL-CSID Working Papers 6. Brussels: Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Skolnikoff, E. B. (1993). The Elusive Transformation: Science, Technology, and the Evolution of International Politics. Princeton, NJ: University Press.

Turekian, VC; Neureiter, NP (2012) Science and Diplomacy: The Past as Prologue. Science & Diplomacy. A Quarterly publication from the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy. March, 2012; http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2012/science-and-diplomacy

Van Langenhove, L. (2017). Tools for an EU Science Diplomacy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

 

The post Science diplomacy – a catch-all concept in public policy? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The next AFET meetings are scheduled to take place on:

Monday, 23 April 2018, 15:00-19:00, room JAN 2Q2, Brussels
Tuesday, 24 April 2018, 09:00-12:30, room JAN 2Q2, Brussels
Tuesday, 24 April 2018, 14:30-18:30, room JAN 2Q2, Brussels

Further information
Information for visitors
Draft agendas
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

From January 1, 2019, the Russian Volga will cease providing AN-124 capacity for EU and NATO states under NATO's heavy military air transport program SALIS (Strategic Airlift Interim Solution), which includes 17 European member states and Canada. The loss is sensitive: Under Salis, Antonov and Volga have each had an AN-124 permanently stationed at Leipzig-Halle Airport since March 2006, with additional uplift available at short notice.

Unfortunately, the SALIS Program Office did not succeed in overcoming the Russian withdrawal, despite the long negotiations. The move comes just over a year after the Russian freighter operator announced the end of the near-decade-long Russlan collaboration to market AN-124 capacity with Ukraine’s Antonov. A move thought to be in response to western sanctions on Russian companies. Negotiations conducted by the Salis steering board last week failed to avert the withdrawal. After Volga-Dnepr subsidiary AirBridgeCargo lost about half its 21 landing slots at Schiphol last year, Russia reportedly threatened to ban Dutch carriers from its airspace. Shortly after, KLM struck a deal with ABC over additional slots.

The ending of the Salis contract puts pressure on NATO and the EU, which need access to the world’s largest commercial cargo aircraft. This is a serious loss of capacity: the Ukrainian An-124s of Antonov's air transport industry are only flying 900 flights per year - the largest fleet with two Russian aircraft has been available to SALIS's designers for up to 2300 hours per year.

There is always the possibility that the withdrawal is part of a larger play by Volga-Dnepr president Alexey Isaikin, who is looking to set up a German cargo airline, with AN-124s registered in Germany, at Leipzig. By registering an AN-124 to a German company, the Volga-Dnepr group would no longer be caught in the crossfire of political skirmishes between Russia and elsewhere, which includes problems with Antonov maintenance. And as an EU company, it might get preferential treatment for military shipments over Ukraine’s Antonov. It also adds pressure on Germany, which is keen to develop Leipzig-Halle as a freight airport, to OK the new airline’s AOC and aircraft registration. (Although as one source told The Loadstar, Lufthansa Cargo was unlikely to welcome a new freighter airline on its doorstep, and would “go ape-shit”.)

Tag: SALISVolga-Dnepr

AMENDMENTS 1 - 268 - Draft report European Parliament recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the negotiations on the EU-Azerbaijan Comprehensive Agreement
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union and of the Member States, of the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Uzbekistan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Jozo Radoš

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/41513930951_0e8e35800f_k_thumb_169_1523952519_1523952519_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The Informal Meeting of the EU Ministers responsible for employment and social affairs takes place on 17 and 18 April at the National Palace of Culture in Sofia. The two-day meeting discusses the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights and how they can be applied in order to improve workforce skills and qualifications and ensure equal opportunities and access to the labour market.

Download this video here.

In an address to the EU Parliament French President Macron has warned against a further rise of authoritarianism and called for speedy reforms to the EU. Paris is taking over the role as Europe's leader from Berlin, commentators observe. But not all are convinced that the other EU states will play along.

The US has hailed the airstrikes it carried out in Syria together with Britain and France as a success, claiming that they have considerably reduced the Assad regime's ability to produce chemical weapons. Journalists speculate on what comes next - with Iran in particular in mind.

Poland is banned from logging in the ancient Białowieża Forest, the European Court of Justice has ruled, upholding a complaint filed by the EU. The court concluded that the country had broken EU environmental laws with its large-scale logging, which it argued was necessary to protect trees from an outbreak of bark beetle. Warsaw has said it will respect the ruling. Commentators find it noteworthy that this time a major confrontation appears to have been avoided.