European Union

Old definitions of power and security are no longer valid in a globalised and connected world. Previously neglected actors contribute to international political processes and wield the power to disrupt agreements imposed from the top. Rather than merely consulting these individuals and groups, 21st century diplomacy must embrace the collective wisdom to establish more stable and peaceful international relations.

Power has long been based on the number of available guns, missiles, aircraft carriers and the strength of armies. Security policy was decided behind closed doors by serious-looking men in suits or uniforms using acronyms and intricate lingo. Now with cheap, instantaneous communication even in remote regions and live reporting on events via news websites and blogs, this is no longer the case.

“Gone are the days of top-down arrangements”

In today’s multipolar power structure and globalised world economy, security is as much about renewed tensions between NATO and Russia or the ongoing fighting in Syria as it is about cyber warfare, climate change, pandemics and migration. Access to natural resources, not least water, will shape the conflicts of the 21st century. Global warming is already giving rise to tensions in the Arctic, while natural disasters of increasing intensity are escalating pressure on local, regional and national first-responders as well as on NGOs. Climate change is exacerbating existing threats, and requires decisive changes in how political leaders tackle the subject and how governments and organisations manage risk. Military and civilian infrastructure (power grids) are vulnerable to cyber attacks.

The goal of security policy must be to create resilient societies, able to withstand disaster, foreign propaganda or radicalisation, while the disastrous effect of pandemics on international security, societies, political systems and economies has yet to be fully comprehended. Demographics and migration must be looked at on a global scale, avoiding the inconsistent and poorly coordinated reactions that have characterised most European nations’ response to the refugee crisis.

Security will require not only whole-of-government but whole-of-society approaches. Our 21st century security will be inclusive, or there will be no security at all. Gone are the days of top-down arrangements; local, regional and national authorities must work closely with international organisations, NGOs and civil society organisations. The 2015 Nobel Peace Prize anchored the recognition of non-governmental actors in peace processes. The empowerment of citizens through social media initially had a positive impact in enabling the Arab spring uprisings, but the fallout turned out to be messy and dangerous.

“Citizens must be listened to, inspired and empowered to develop and be part of creative solutions”

I will not join the chorus of those prophets of doom heralding a dark age of chaos. The radical changes in who contributes to the global security discussion, who decides and who is held accountable are achievements of recent years. More women are now at the table as well as on the frontlines. The aspirations of youth are being heard, as are their ideas for a more stable world. The rise of regional actors including Iran and an increasingly assertive China may seem threatening but will keep established world leaders on their toes and force a rethink of the global security architecture.

Our 21st century security requires a new type of leadership with vision, courage and tenacity. Citizens must be listened to, inspired and empowered to develop and be part of creative solutions that can bridge divides durably. As the European Union leads consultations on a new Global Strategy, NATO is gearing up to its next summit in Warsaw and the debate on reforming the UN Security Council rages on, it is time for a global conversation on security.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Herman Van Rompuy

The post Collaborative diplomacy for 21st century security appeared first on Europe’s World.

This is Wednesday’s edition of our Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.

Merkel, right, with CSU chief Horst Seehofer, her most high-profile critic on migration policy

Did Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, engineer her surprise summit deal with Ankara to bolster her chances of winning three key regional elections this weekend? That was the question some of the more cynical European diplomats were asking themselves yesterday as they licked their wounds from what one called a “brutal” 12 hours of summit negotiations, where Ms Merkel essentially rammed through a bilateral deal she reached with her Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu, on the gathering’s eve.

If Ms Merkel had hoped the unexpected agreement – which would have Turkey take back potentially thousands of refugees washing up on Europe’s shores in return for €6bn in aid and a visa-free travel scheme – would be hailed at home and win her political points before the Sunday vote, then she appeared headed for disappointment. Horst Seehofer, head of Ms Merkel’s Bavarian CSU sister party and her most prominent migration critic, was cool to the plan and other nominal allies were even more critical. Marcel Huber, a prominent CSU leader and secretary of the Bavarian regional government, said the visa liberalisation scheme would face “massive resistance” and was “not a matter for consideration”. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung notes the criticism even came from within Ms Merkel’s own Christian Democratic Union.

Read more

AfD supporters march in Saxony-Anhalt, one of the German regions with elections Sunday

Germany’s anti-immigrant Alternative für Deutschland party found itself without a home in the European Parliament on Tuesday after the assembly’s European Conservatives and Reformists group, the political home of Britain’s Tories, gave them a firm push out of the door.

In the tersest of one-sentence statements, the ECR confirmed it had “invited” its two AfD members to leave. Just in case they didn’t get the message, it went on to say that, if they choose to stick around, “a motion will be tabled to expel them” at the next meeting of the group’s executive on April 12.

The decision by the ECR to open its doors to the AfD after the party’s success in the 2014 European Parliament elections was a headache for David Cameron from the start. The move was an embarrassment at a time when the the British prime minister was trying to improve relations with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor who saw AfD as threat to her Christian Democrats on the right.

Read more

Following his ‘victory’ in Brussels, UK Prime Minister David Cameron explained outside 10 Downing Street that ‘our plan gives us the best of both worlds.’ This plan not only underlined Britain’s special status, but also that in a reformed Europe, Britain would have ‘full access to the free trade single market, bringing jobs, investment and lower prices.’ The Prime Minister argued that his newly obtained special status meant that ‘we will never join the euro, we will never be part of eurozone bailouts, never be part of the passport-free no border area or a European army or a European super state.’

Crucially, Cameron argued that ‘leaving Europe would threaten our economic and national security.’ Indeed it would. For that reason, it is remarkable that his continental colleagues did not say to him, ‘Dear David, as leaving the Union threatens Britain’s security, we are not willing to discuss a new deal. This is your problem. Full stop.’ As the final deal provides a step towards the European Union’s gradual disintegration, this would have been a better strategy for the Union as a whole. For Cameron, explaining that leaving the Union threatens Britain’s economic and national security would have been a far better strategy than a symbolic deal that cannot for its contents be defended.

“A ‘Leave’ vote suggests that the disintegrated British Empire is still ruling the globe”

Why has Cameron put Britain’s national and economic security at risk? First, for historical, cultural and geographical reasons, the British have always considered themselves special. Second, a ‘Leave’ vote suggests that the disintegrated British Empire is still ruling the globe. Less than a hundred years ago, the British Empire covered a quarter of the globe’s total land area. Beginning with the very costly Boer Wars in the late 19th century, the British saw their position erode. By the start of the 20th century, the United States had begun to challenge Britain’s position. Two world wars brought the British Empire to the verge of bankruptcy, starting the process of decolonisation. What remained was a United Kingdom and a Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Now, the United Kingdom itself is under threat. A ‘Leave’ vote will trigger a new debate on Scottish independence. What is left of the British Empire will be a rump state England.

Third, as the British think they are special, they tend to ignore the new geopolitical realities. Until recently, the rise of the United States compensated for Britain’s loss of global influence. But the power of the West as a whole is eroding, leaving nothing to compensate for Britain’s further loss of power. Britain outside the EU could focus more on the Commonwealth of Nations, especially India. But apart from having a seat at the United Nations Security Council, Britain – or the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland after Scottish independence – has little to offer.

“Almost all studies on the economic consequences of Brexit indicate a net loss to the British economy”

Feng Zhongping, the Assistant President of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, has argued that ‘from China’s point of view, we don’t think that the UK, or France, or Germany or any single European country can play a global role. But the EU is different. It is the biggest market, and China’s biggest trade partner. The EU is seen as a major power in the world. If the UK left, it would hurt the UK much more than the EU.’ Feng is right.

Due to budget cuts, the Falklands War of 1982 is a naval operation that cannot be repeated. The Iraq War of 2003 already demonstrated that Britain lacks the capabilities for credible expeditionary warfare. In addition, Brexit will most likely lead to economic stagnation. Almost all studies on the economic consequences of Brexit indicate a net loss to the British economy. As the global economy stagnates and the coming internet-of-things revolution has a negative impact on employment figures, the possible economic gains of a Brexit are likely to be nullified.

A vote to leave the EU threatens Britain’s economic and national security. As David Cameron pledged to hold the referendum during his electoral campaign, Brexit shows again that politicians are willing to put national security at risk for electoral purposes. Cameron can still win the referendum. But as Britain’s former Minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, rightly observed, no major referendum on Europe anywhere in the last 15 years has voted in favour. This is a sobering thought.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – <p&p>

The post Cameron’s referendum puts votes before security appeared first on Europe’s World.

Writing exclusively for the Daily Telegraph, London Mayor Boris Johnson said that if Britain left the EU, “we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by Brussels”.

Mr Johnson made his remarks after Michael Gove and Philip Hammond became the first two Cabinet ministers openly to support leaving the EU unless there is significant reform.

But responding in his Telegraph article, titled ‘We must be ready to leave the EU if we don’t get what we want’, Mr Johnson claimed that, “the question of EU membership is no longer of key importance to the destiny of this country”.

In his article, Mr Johnson added that he supports an EU referendum – but warned that Britain’s problems will not be solved by simply leaving the EU as many of his Conservative colleagues apparently believe.

The mayor asserted:

“If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by ‘Bwussels’, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure.”

He added:

“Why are we still, person for person, so much less productive than the Germans? That is now a question more than a century old, and the answer is nothing to do with the EU. In or out of the EU, we must have a clear vision of how we are going to be competitive in a global economy.”

Mr Johnson warned that there might be a risk that international companies could stop investing in Britain if we left the EU. He also cautioned that UK firms could be put at a “long-term disadvantage” if Britain was unable to “influence the standards and regulations in Brussels.”

There was also an argument, alerted Mr Johnson, that the EU, “is better placed to strike trade deals with the US, or China, than the UK on its own” – although this proposition hadn’t actually been tested.

Mr Johnson added that, “More generally, there is a risk that leaving the EU will be globally interpreted as a narrow, xenophobic, backward-looking thing to do.”

He wrote that there may be other good reasons for Britain to stay in the EU, “but I can’t think of them now.” On the other hand, if Britain left the EU, “we could save money… we get back our sovereignty.. we can no longer blame Brussels.”

But Mr Johnson’s article concluded that we “have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by Bwussels..”

And in a nuanced comment on the EU referendum debate, the London Mayor urged, “we need a much more informed debate about the pluses and minuses of EU membership”.

It should be noted that Mr Johnson wrote his article for The Telegraph back in May 2013.

Now, Mr Johnson is campaigning for Britain to leave the European Union. Writing exclusively for the Daily Telegraph he stated, “There is only one way to get the change we want – vote to leave the EU.”

The influential economist, John Maynard Keynes, is often quoted as saying, “When the facts change, I change my mind.”

Have the facts about the EU fundamentally changed since 2013?

No.

So why has Mr Johnson now changed his mind and is campaigning for Britain to leave the EU to ‘solve our problems’?

Your guess is as good as mine..

* Join the discussion about this article on Facebook.

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• Boris Johnson’s big blunder
  
• They want their country back, not yours
  
• Never again? It’s happening again
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

_________________________________________________

 Join and share the discussion on Facebook:

The post How Boris changed his mind on Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Greece v Commission
State aid
The Court confirms the obligation on the Greek State to recover from Greek farmers unlawful State aid of €425 million paid as a result of adverse weather conditions

This is Tuesday’s edition of our Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.

Turkey's Ahmet Davutoglu, left, at a post-summit press conference early Tuesday morning

It has become customary to assume EU summits aimed at tackling the ongoing refugee crisis produce much rhetoric but little meat. But last night’s gathering of European leaders with Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish prime minister, may prove the one that broke the rule.

In talks that went on for 12 hours, the two sides emerged with the outlines of a deal that, if finalised next week, is as sweeping in its implications as it is in its substance. The German-engineered plan would allow the EU to turn back almost all migrants washing ashore in Greece and return them to Turkey. But the price will be high: in addition to billions of additional European aid to Ankara, the EU would expedite a long-dormant visa liberalisation programme that could provide Turkish nationals visa-free travel into the EU’s passport-free Schengen zone as soon as June.

That a significant deal was in the offing was clear late last week when Donald Tusk, the European Council president, travelled to Ankara and received strong signals that Mr Davutoglu was open to a massive programme of refugee returns. But the plan now on the table is significantly more ambitious than the one Mr Tusk was considering. It was driven almost entirely by Mr Davutoglu and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, with the help of Mark Rutte, her Dutch counterpart and holder of the EU’s rotating presidency. The EU’s nominal leaders (Mr Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president) were almost entirely cut out of the deal-making, which began in earnest when the Turkish, German and Dutch leaders held a pre-summit meeting on Sunday. In her press conference, Ms Merkel acknowledged as much, saying Mr Davutoglu presented new demands at the Sunday meeting – and she endorsed them wholeheartedly.

Read more

AMENDMENTS 1 - 163 - Draft motion for a resolution on the 2015 Report on Albania
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 200 - Draft report Space capabilities for European security and defence
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

This is the Monday edition of our Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.

Ahmet Davutoglu, centre, meets with his German and Dutch counterparts ahead of the summit

EU leaders gather in Brussels today with Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s prime minister, to once again attempt to sort out a deal that could stop the massive influx of refugees crossing into Europe from Turkish shores. This time, however, rather than high-minded rhetoric, there appears to be a workable deal on the table: Mr Davutoglu has signalled his readiness to agree a scheme that would allow the EU to return tens of thousands of non-Syrian migrants trying to enter Greece back to Turkey. Add in a new Nato mission that was yesterday given the authority to operate in Turkish waters and will help Greek and Turkish authorities hunt down human smugglers, and the pieces of effective response may finally be falling into place.

There’s one small problem, however: the UN isn’t sure the plan is legal under international law, which prohibits “pushbacks” of potential asylum seekers, who under the Geneva Conventions must receive a fair hearing first. Vincent Cochetel, who is leading the UN refugee agency’s response to the European crisis, hinted EU courts would find the tactic in violation of EU laws which incorporate the Geneva Conventions. Human rights groups also question its legality.

Read more