Connect with us

Europe

Is the Defiant Giant Disintegrating the EU?

Published

on

Since its accession to the EU in 1973, Britain was a defiant member state-reluctant to agree on most of the EU norms, yet picking and choosing what it deemed suitable for its own interest.

Driven by economic interests, it joined the EU—it refused to be at the table at Messina when it realized that the Six founding members wanted more than a ‘free trade area’ for the EEC in 1975; UK also applied for EC membership several times in the 1960s for no other reason than that the Six original members were registering high rates of economic growth, while it was suffering from ‘British Disease’—it soon realized its colonial leadership to be threatened predominantly by the Franco-German alliance that was running the wheels of EU’s vision for a collective European Community- a set up seeking to ensure peace and reconciliation among its European neighbours through economic and political integration. While most of the member states shore up EU’s vision and stood in solidarity despite extraordinary economic crisis that hit hard the continent, and hold exit as the last resort, Britain showed its detachment to any such commitment.

The reason behind this detachment towards EU’s vision and commitment lays down mostly in Britain’s historical state of eurosceptic and imperialistic tendency that always kept it aloof from its European neighbours. Initial traces of this eurosceptic tendency can be traced back to 1985 to the articles of British newspapers which put forth vociferous statements of then conservative party that was increasingly opposing EU’s new phase of integration. For about 40 years, this eurosceptic tendency has constantly been fuelled by various political groups and its leaders—Harold Wilson’s Labour government in 1975 sought to opt out from the EU after it failed to bring reforms in the common agricultural policy(CAP), however, Britain chose to remain with 67% votes favoured to stay in the EEC. Furthermore, Britain’s general citizens; the media; the conservative party; the UK independence Party (UKIP)—-all have been deeply suspicious of the EU’s functional role of being a ‘value based’ and ‘normative’ actor in the rest of Europe and to the world and fear that EU’s supranational norms may jeopardize Britain’s sovereignty and that it will need to make too many adjustments if it follows lead of other European states. Euro-scepticism therefore had a profound impact and it represents a formidable challenge to the ideology of ‘Europeanism’ to an extent of weakening the process of EU integration. Stephen George(2000) correctly claims that Britain was not simply ‘an awkward partner’ but should be considered a ‘Euro-sceptic state’.

While elements of euro-scepticism and imperialistic tendency continued to influence Britain’s decision of ‘staying in’ /‘opting out’ throughout, the terrifying step of Brexit on June 23, is induced through a mixture of social, political and economic reasons that Britain is instantly grappling with. The existential problems like terrible shortage of homes; an impossibly precarious job market and an ever increasing immigrant population pose serious challenges to Britain’s socio-cultural-economic set up. In addition to this, emergence of parallel eurosceptic forces within the conservative party; rise of UK independence party (UKIP) giving impetus to nationalist jingoist feelings; as well Conservative Party’s victory in the 2015 election—all gave thrust to the cold resentment and seething anger waiting to burst out its outright hatred towards non-Britons. David Cameroon’s disturbing speech in January 2013 only have triggered that sentiment spotting the tumultuous relation between EU/UK which finally reached to its zenith at Brexit point.

However, in the constant persuasion of prioritizing its national interests over collective one, what Britain lacking was a perspective to look beyond EU’s role as an economic entity. What it loses to see is an ‘idea’ that precedes the existence of the EU. For various reasons, most precisely for its complexities and blemishes, the EU appears mysterious to its member states and to the outsiders and is very often projected as a bloc of nation states only, which it is not. The idea of the EU is more than that. To demystify the EU, one needs to have a holistic understanding of structural, functional and punitive aspects of the EU that define its overall purpose and capabilities. The EU is exclusive and indispensable for its own member states for various reasons: (i) ever since its inception, the EU has grown into a global actor influencing the world politics as well as its member states through its soft and hard sticks. It flourishes with time showing its member states that they still could overcome their colonial greed, become a global power if united and can create a world of peace where resurgent of war is a distant reality; (ii) the EU eliminates traditional borders and teaches its member states to redefine their notion of ‘nation’ and ‘nationhood’—-that does not build upon imaginary territories/lines, but is made with people sharing common goals and objectives; (iii) the EU through its normative values, treaties and regulations put a check on member states and oblige them to comply with its wider goals and objectives; (iv) the EU has been consistently competing and contributing —(it is world’s largest donor of foreign aid: the EU and its member states contribute 60% of all official development assistance (ODA), benefiting 160 countries)—to the world with its single continental economy—keeping ‘euro’ as world’s second largest currency and also competing with the superpowers like China and USA; (v) as a value based entity, the EU pro-motes values of human rights, social justice etc. within and outside its borders. Despite neoliberal challenges, it reinforces the need of welfare commitments towards its member citizens and encour-age member states to shape their welfare policies accordingly; (vi) as an ever-growing global actor, it encourages countries to go for cooperation in economic, political, legal, social, educational, environmental and other domains to have a sustainable future together and therefore provides leadership to the global order—following the foot lines of its values and objectives, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa came together to form BRICS as a reflection of institutionalised peace and mutual respect; (vii) the EU acts as an indomitable shield to protect its borders and its member states through its security provider NATO. It also engages intensively in resolving emerging global security threats like transnational crime and terrorism; spread of weapons of mass destructions (WMD); environmental degradation and various other humanitarian disasters that accompany pandemics, collapsed states, civil wars, forced migrations, genocide, ethnic cleansing, natural disasters etc. Above all, what makes the EU exclusive for its member states is its process of ‘integration’—an everlasting institutional arrangement that continually expands to accommodate more diversities and differences and create a model peace and reconciliation. Though it faces some difficulties in such arrangements sometimes, nonetheless, the EU has been able to justify its purpose of existence over the time and it sustains quite successfully for more than 60 years now with 27 nation blocs housing more than 500 million people who learn stay together with their differences. This is the strength of the EU.

The EU member states understand the nature of this beast, without which, if each acted alone, they may face the wrath of polarisation and political chaos in contemporary world and would not be able to cope in a world that’s shifting its economic dominance towards the East. With assertive China and Russia putting an alarming situation in the global politics, members states if act alone may not make a secure and safe future. In short, the EU is a necessity for its member states and without its presence, individual countries will enter into a future which is bleak and unprotected. While Brexit is seen as a symbolic challenge to EU’s vision of integration process and poses threats to the very nature of its peaceful political project, speculations around its disintegration can be ignored on the ground that the EU has an innate capacity to evolve in a demanding world order as it connects to the world thorough its values—which are essential for continuation and sustainability. However, Brexit has reminded the EU that it should resolve the ‘democratic deficit’ oozing out from within and that it now needs to initiate some reforms through which it can regain the trust of its member states. This may be possible by making it more democratised and shedding those layers of bureaucratisation and authoritative characteristics for which it is often seen in a bad light. This may save the beast from other giants to hijack its visionary goals.

The defiant giant—Britain—may not anticipate what’s coming its way, but what still may be help-ful for it is those lessons and values that it received from the EU while dealing with any uncertainty. For now, speculations are mounting up on the ground that, cutting its ties with the EU may unleash economic tantrum and reactionary forces in the British economy predictably tightening the screws of austerity everywhere and end up favouring the resurgence of xenophobic sidekicks.

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

From Davos to Munich

Published

on

An overview of the views and attitudes of European officials during the Davos and Munich Conference and their comparison with each other suggests that the security, economic, and political concerns of European countries have not only not diminished but are increasing.

During the World Economic Summit in Davos, the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France both gave a significant warning about the return of nationalism and populism to Europe. This warning has been sent in a time when Far-Right movements in Europe have been able to gain unbelievable power and even seek to conquer a majority of parliaments and form governments.

In her speech, Angela Merkel emphasized that the twentieth century’s mistake shouldn’t be repeated. By this, the German Chancellor meant the tendency of European countries to nationalism. Although the German Chancellor warning was serious and necessary, the warning seems to be a little late. Perhaps it would have been better if the warning was forwarded after the European Parliamentary elections in 2014, and subsequently, more practical and deterrent measures were designed. However, Merkel and other European leaders ignored the representation of over a hundred right-wing extremist in the European Parliament in 2014 and merely saw it as a kind of social excitement.

This social excitement has now become a “political demand” in the West. The dissatisfaction of European citizens with their governments has caused them to explicitly demand the return to the twentieth century and the time before the formation of the United Europe. The recent victories of right wing extremists in Austria, Germany and…, isn’t merely the result of the nationalist movement success in introducing its principles and manifestos. But it is also a result of the failure of the “European moderation” policy to resolve social, security and economic problems in the Eurozone and the European Union. In such a situation, European citizens find that the solutions offered by the moderate left parties didn’t work in removing the existing crises in Europe. Obviously, in this situation “crossing the traditional parties” would become a general demand in the West. Under such circumstances, Merkel’s and other European leaders’ warnings about the return to the twentieth century and the time before the formation of the United Europe simply means the inability of the Eurozone authorities in preventing the Right-extremism in the West.

These concerns remain at the Munich Security Conference. As Reuters reported, The defense ministers of Germany and France pledged to redouble their military and foreign policy cooperation efforts on Friday, inviting other European countries to participate if they felt ready to do so.
In a speech to the Munich Security Conference, German defense minister Ursula von der Leyen said Europe’s countries would not be able to respond nimbly enough to global challenges if they were stymied by the need to decide joint foreign policy approaches unanimously.

“Europe has to up its pace in the face of global challenges from terrorism, poverty and climate change,” she said. “Those who want to must be able to advance without being blocked by individual countries.”

Her French counterpart Florence Parly said any such deepened cooperation would be complementary to the NATO alliance, which itself was based on the principle that members contributed differently depending on their capacities.

“The reality has always been that some countries are by choice more integrated and more able to act than others,” she said.

The push comes as Germany’s political class reluctantly concedes it must play a larger security role to match its economic pre-eminence in Europe, amid concerns that the European Union is unable to respond effectively to security concerns beyond its eastern and southern borders.

But in their deal for another four years of a “grand coalition” government, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives and the Social Democrats have agreed to boost spending on the armed forces after years of post-Cold War decline.

The deal, which must still be ratified by the Social Democrat membership, comes as Germany reluctantly takes on the role of the continent’s pre-eminent political power-broker, a role generations of post-war politicians have shied away from.

Days after U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis reiterated President Donald Trump’s demand that European countries spend more on their militaries, Von der Leyen pledged to spend more on its military and the United Nations, but called in return for other countries not to turn away from mulitlateralism.

The pledges come as the EU seeks a new basis on which to cooperate with Britain, traditionally one of the continent’s leading security players, after its vote to leave the EU.

Earlier on Friday, the leaders of the three countries’ security services said close security cooperation in areas like terrorism, illegal migration, proliferation and cyber attacks, must continue after Britain’s departure.

“Cooperation between European intelligence agencies combined with the values of liberal democracy is indispensable, especially against a background of diverse foreign and security challenges,” they said.

First published in our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Europe

Election Monitoring in 2018: What Not to Expect

Alina Toporas

Published

on

This year’s election calendar released by OSCE showcases a broad display of future presidential, parliamentary and general elections with hefty political subjecthoods which have the potential of transforming in their entirety particularly the European Union, the African Union and the Latin American sub-continent. A wide sample of these countries welcoming elections are currently facing a breadth of challenges in terms of the level of transparency in their election processes. To this end, election observation campaigns conducted by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the Council of Europe, the Organisation for American States (OAS), the United Nations Electoral Assistance Division, the National Democratic Institute, Carter Center and even youth organisations such as AEGEE and Silba are of paramount importance in safeguarding the incorruptibility of election proceedings in fraudulent and what cannot be seen with the naked eye type of fraudulent political systems, making sure elections unfold abiding national legislation and international standards.

What exactly does an election observation mission supposed to accomplish?   

An election monitoring mission consists of operational experts and analysts who are all part of a core team and are conducting their assignments for a period of time varying between 8 and 12 weeks. Aside from the core team experts and analysts, there can be short-term or long-term observers and seconded observers or funded observers. Joining them, there is usually a massive local support staff acting as interpreters and intermediaries. Generally, an election observer does not interfere with the process, but merely takes informative notes. With this in mind, it is imperative of the observer to make sure there isn’t any meddling with votes at polling stations by parties and individual candidates; that the people facilitating the election process are picked according to fair and rigorous benchmarks; that these same people can be held accountable for the final results and that, at the end of the day, the election system put in place by the national and local authorities is solid from both a physical and logical standpoint. Oftentimes, particularly in emerging democracies, the election monitoring process goes beyond the actual process of voting by extending to campaign monitoring.

In practical terms, the average election observer needs to abide by certain guidelines for a smooth and standardised monitoring process. Of course, these rules can vary slightly, depending on the sending institution. Typically, once the election observer has landed in the country awaiting elections, their first two days are normally filled with seminars on the electoral system of the country and on the electoral law. Meetings with candidates from the opposition are sometimes organised by the electoral commission. Talking to ordinary voters from builders to cleaners, from artists to businesspeople is another way through which an election observer can get a sense of what social classes pledged their allegiances to what candidates. After two days in training and the one day testing political preferences on the ground, election day begins. Since the early bird gets the worm, polling stations open at least two hours earlier than the work day starts, at around 7am. Throughout the day, observers ask voters whether they feel they need to complain about anything and whether they were asked to identify themselves when voting. Other details such as the polling stations opening on time are very much within the scope of investigation for election monitors. Observers visit both urban voting centres and rural ones. In the afternoon, counting begins with observers carefully watching the volunteers from at least 3 metres away. At the end of the day, observers go back to their hotels and begin filling in their initial questionnaires with their immediate reactions on the whole voting process. In a few weeks time, a detailed report would be issued in cooperation with all the other election observers deployed in various regions of the country and under the supervision of the mission coordinators.   

Why are these upcoming elections particularly challenging to monitor?  

Talks of potential Russian interference into the U.S. elections have led to full-on FBI investigations. Moreover, the idea of Russian interference in the Brexit vote is slowly creeping into the British political discourse. Therefore, it does not take a quantum physicist to see a pattern here. Hacking the voting mechanism is yet another not-so-classic conundrum election observers are facing. We’re in the midst of election hacking at the cognitive level in the form of influence operations, doxing and propaganda. But, even more disturbingly, we’re helpless witnesses to interference at the technical level as well. Removing opposition’s website from the Internet through DDOS attacks to downright political web-hacking in Ukraine’s Central Election Commission to show as winner a far-right candidate are only some of the ways which present an unprecedented political savviness and sophistication directed at the tampering of the election machinery. Even in a country such as the U.S. (or Sweden – their elections being held September of this year) where there is a great deal of control over the physical vote, there is not much election monitoring can do to enhance the transparency of it all when interference occurs by way of the cyber domain affecting palpable election-related infrastructure.

Sketching ideational terrains seems like a fruitful exercise in imagining worst-case scenarios which call for the design of a comprehensive pre-emptive approach for election fraud. But how do you prevent election fraud? Sometimes, the election observer needs to come to terms with the fact that they are merely a reporter, a pawn which notwithstanding the action of finding oneself in the middle of it all, can generally use only its hindsight perspective. Sometimes, that perspective is good enough when employed to draft comprehensive electoral reports, making a difference between the blurry lines of legitimate and illegitimate political and electoral systems.

Continue Reading

Europe

Can Europe successfully rein in Big Tobacco?

Published

on

Photo by Mateo Avila Chinchilla on Unsplash

In what looks set to become the ‘dieselgate’ of the tobacco industry, a French anti-smoking organization has filed a lawsuit against four major tobacco brands for knowingly selling cigarettes with tar and nicotine levels that were between 2 and 10 times higher than what was indicated on the packs. Because the firms had manipulated the testing process, smokers who thought they were smoking a pack a day were in fact lighting up the equivalent of up to 10, significantly raising their risk for lung cancer and other diseases.

According to the National Committee Against Smoking (CNCT), cigarettes sold by the four companies have small holes in the filter that ventilate smoke inhaled under test conditions. But when smoked by a person, the holes compress due to pressure from the lips and fingers, causing the smoker to inhale higher levels of tar and nicotine. According to the lawsuit, the irregularity “tricks smokers because they are unaware of the degree of risk they are taking.”

It was only the most recent example of what appears to be a deeply entrenched propensity for malfeasance in the tobacco industry. And unfortunately, regulatory authorities across Europe still appear unprepared to just say no to big tobacco.

Earlier this month, for instance, Public Health England published a report which shines a positive light on “tobacco heating products” and indicates that electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risks. Unsurprisingly, the UK report has been welcomed by big tobacco, with British American Tobacco praising the clear-sightedness of Public Health England.

Meanwhile, on an EU-wide level, lawmakers are cooperating too closely for comfort with tobacco industry executives in their efforts to craft new cigarette tracking rules for the bloc.

The new rules are part of a campaign to clamp down on tobacco smuggling, a problem that is particularly insidious in Europe and is often attributed to the tobacco industry’s own efforts to stiff the taxman. According to the WHO, the illicit cigarette market makes up between 6-10% of the total market, and Europe ranks first worldwide in terms of the number of seized cigarettes. According to studies, tobacco smuggling is also estimated to cost national and EU budgets more than €10 billion each year in lost public revenue and is a significant source of cash for organized crime. Not surprisingly, cheap availability of illegally traded cigarettes is also a major cause of persistently high smoking rates in the bloc.

To help curtail cigarette smuggling and set best practices in the fight against the tobacco epidemic, the WHO established the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in 2005. The first protocol to the FCTC, the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, was adopted in 2012 and later ratified by the EU. Among other criteria, the Protocol requires all cigarette packs to be marked with unique identifiers to ensure they can be tracked and traced, thereby making smuggling more difficult.

Unsurprisingly, the tobacco industry has come up with its own candidates to meet track and trace requirements, notably Codentify, a system developed by PMI. From 2005 through 2016, PMI used Codentify as part of an anti-smuggling agreement with the EU. But the agreement was subject to withering criticism from the WHO and other stakeholders for going against the Protocol, which requires the EU and other parties to exclude the tobacco industry from participating in anti-smuggling efforts.

The EU-PMI agreement expired in 2016 and any hopes of reviving it collapsed after the European Parliament, at loggerheads with the Commission, overwhelmingly voted against a new deal and decided to ratify the WHO’s Protocol instead. Codentify has since been sold to the French firm Impala and was rebranded as Inexto – which critics say is nothing but a front company for PMI since its leadership is made out of former PMI executives. Nonetheless, due to lack of stringency in the EU’s draft track and trace proposal, there is still a chance that Inexto may play a role in any new track and trace system, sidelining efforts to set up a system that is completely independent of the tobacco industry.

This could end up by seriously derailing the EU’s efforts to curb tobacco smuggling, given the industry’s history of active involvement in covertly propping up the black market for cigarettes. In 2004, PMI paid $1.25 billion to the EU to settle claims that it was complicit in tobacco smuggling. As part of the settlement, PMI agreed to issue an annual report about tobacco smuggling in the EU, a report that independent researchers found “served the interests of PMI over those of the EU and its member states.”

Given the industry’s sordid history of efforts to prop up the illicit tobacco trade, it’s little surprise that critics are still dissatisfied with the current version of the EU’s track and trace proposal.

Now, the CNCT’s lawsuit against four major tobacco firms gives all the more reason to take a harder line against the industry. After all, if big tobacco can’t even be honest with authorities about the real levels of chemicals in their own products, what makes lawmakers think that they can play a viable role in any effort to quell the illegal cigarette trade – one that directly benefits the industry?

Later this month, the European Parliament will have a new chance to show they’re ready to get tough on tobacco, when they vote on the pending proposal for an EU-wide track and trace system. French MEP Younous Omarjee has already filed a motion against the system due to its incompatibility with the letter of the WHO. Perhaps a ‘dieselgate’ for the tobacco industry might be just the catalyst they need to finally say no to PMI and its co-conspirators.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy