Connect with us

Europe

Countering Russia in Bulgaria

Published

on

When Antonio Tajani, European Parliament President, visited Bulgaria earlier this week, the country’s political leadership was keen to project the image of unwavering commitment to the EU.

During the visit, Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Boyko Borissov even claimed that Bulgarians are among the least Eurosceptic in Eastern Europe. But as is the case with most things in the Balkans, the country’s position in the EU is not so clear-cut. As Russia is making increasingly assertive moves to spread its influence across Eastern Europe, whether Bulgaria will stand steadfast has become a matter of debate.

Over the years, surveys have revealed that Bulgarian public opinion toward the EU often hangs in a precarious balance. The most recent Eurobarometer of September 2017, for example, revealed that 55 percent of respondents had a positive image of the EU. Although this result is indicative of a mild upward trend compared to the previous year, such a razor thin margin hardly means that Sofia’s European path is set in stone.

Having always had one foot in the West and the other in the East, Bulgaria has been performing a particularly delicate balancing act between the EU and Russia. Incumbent President Rumen Radev has hedged his bets in both directions, positioning himself in favor of maintaining friendly relations with Russia, while repeatedly stressing his Euro-Atlantic inclinations. While this leaves his true stance on the EU ambiguous, foreign diplomats ultimately found it unlikely that Radev would avert Bulgaria’s pro-EU course.

However, times have become more complicated and the carefully maintained balance is at risk to come undone. With the EU going through its arguably most difficult time since its inception, and with US President Donald Trump eager for better ties with Moscow, the EU is rapidly losing its role as the anchor fastening Bulgaria to the West. Russia was quick to jump on this opportunity to turn Bulgaria – as well as other Eastern EU members – away from Brussels, and draw Sofia closer into its orbit.

At the same time, rising nationalism with strong anti-European currents is increasingly weakening Radev’s hand. There is little doubt that the flames of nationalism are stoked by Russia. Between 2013 and 2016, the number of Eurosceptic and anti-NATO/US publications per year increased 16-fold and 34-fold, respectively. Meanwhile, availability of Russia-friendly propaganda increased 144 times, giving Bulgaria’s media landscape a distinctly pro-Russian touch.

The effects of this subversive campaign were clearly felt in the 2017 parliamentary elections, where Bulgaria’s government came to include far-right nationalist parties for the first time. They are opposing sanctions against Russia and have threatened to topple the government if it supported retaliatory measures against Moscow. In the 2016 presidential race, Krasimir Karachakanov, running on a conservative platform of nationalism and Orthodoxism, came in third place. Coupled with Bulgaria’s sizable Russian population, his party remains a potential vehicle for Russia to induce a decidedly anti-Western tone in public debates.

Even if the elections ultimately saw Radev emerge victoriously, his room for strategic action against Russia is critically restrained: Bulgaria is highly vulnerable to Russian pressure, owing to the fact that Russian companies own the Bulgarian energy market. Gazprom is the only natural gas player in the country, and controls the infrastructure to deliver half of the country’s gas resources. Lukoil is similarly positioned in fuel production and distribution, owning the only oil refinery and 50% of the wholesale fuel market.

Not only is Bulgaria’s energy security already shaky, but the problem could get worse. Moscow’s recently offered to provide the necessary funding for the modernization of Bulgaria’s energy sector. If this ambition came to pass, Russia would succeed in firmly entrenching itself further and pose an energy threat to Europe at large. Russia’s sway over the industry could see it potentially repeat the 2009 gas cut-off in Bulgaria and in Southeastern European countries depending on Bulgarian supply.   

However, this is precisely where Brussels has the chance to step in and loosen Moscow’s chokehold. Through its Energy Union instrument, designed to improve the EU’s energy security through supply diversification, it possesses a potent means to counter Russian investments with European ones. The EU’s support and guidance is definitely needed to offset Bulgaria’s structural energy problems, including delays in building critical energy infrastructure – a gap Russia is only too eager to fill. As an added benefit, the Energy Union adds legal weight to the push-back on Russian energy firms like Gazprom, which the EU is investigating for abusing its market position by charging excessively high gas prices in Bulgaria.

More positive engagement with Bulgaria through the Energy Union could help reduce shortfalls in other areas crucial for reducing dependence on Russia, especially as the regulatory environment and trustworthiness of the authorities are concerned. Arbitrary enforcement of the rule of law is constantly cited as a primary reasons by investors to avoid the country. A clear commitment to help Bulgaria tackle its problems through the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CMV) would go a long way to encourage reforms that make the Bulgarian market more attractive to Western investors.

And that cooperation with the Energy Union yields positive results is more than wishful thinking. Lithuania managed to overcome its crippling dependency on Russian energy by diversifying its supply with the EU’s help. It began importing Scandinavian gas in 2014, opened an LNG terminal in Klaipėda, and inaugurated an electric grid link with Poland and Sweden in 2016. In fact, the EU’s engagement has already reduced Bulgaria’s reliance on Russia as well, as the Energy Union is slowly undermining the monopoly of Russian energy companies.

The EU has a chance to shine by providing positive examples of its actions in the country and thereby counter Russia’s battle for Bulgarian’s minds. Though closer engagement through the Energy Union and the CMV can only be a part in a broader strategy of improving conditions in Bulgaria, they are important steps in increasing economic and social opportunities through Western participation, rather than Russia’s.

Europe

New Concept for Europe: Sustaining European leadership and values into the 21st century

Published

on

Europe’s leaders must embrace a bold and innovative programme of reform across the policy agenda to secure a peaceful, prosperous and stable future. This is the finding of a new research paper, New Concept for Europe, published today by the World Economic Forum.

The paper is the result of a six-month consultation with leaders from business, government, academia and civil society and young people aimed at building a vision for a stronger, modern and resilient Europe. One of the key findings of the paper is that Europeans, especially younger people, believe that a core set of European values, based on inclusion and equality, openness and diversity, democracy and inclusiveness and sustainable growth are coming increasingly under threat.

To preserve these values for the future, the paper outlines a number of innovative ideas aimed at addressing the region’s challenges. These suggested interventions are spread across five major policy areas: human-centric economy; security and defence; migration and borders; democracy and governance; and energy and sustainability. Collectively, these themes cover more than two-thirds of the policy areas where most Europeans say they want greater intervention by the European Union.

Among the ideas put forward by the group are:

Universal Right to Learn (URL): A major training and reskilling effort aimed at building creative, entrepreneurial and technological skills for the Fourth Industrial Revolution

European Technological and Human Ethical Commission (ETHEC): A multistakeholder body to anticipate threats and opportunities posed by Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies

Vote at 16: Building on successful experiences in Scotland and Austria to broaden the base of democracy

Secure Cities: Strengthening city diplomacy through a network that connects cities in the fight against terrorism, crime and violence

European Security Force: To augment national defence systems as well as provide new roles such as coastguard and border patrols

Common digital identity for refugees and asylum seekers: To better manage migration flows and improve integration of immigrants

Opening access to energy data: To give consumers better choice and enable more sustainable energy supply

Zero-emission new buildings by 2030: Improving efficiencies in buildings, which account for 36% of carbon emissions in the EU

“2018 will be a decisive year for Europe’s future. What we need is a narrative which is innovative, comprehensive and responsive to the expectations of Europe’s citizens and particularly Europe’s young generation,” said Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum.

The recommendations highlighted in the paper will be shared with leaders from Europe during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2018 this month.

Driving Europe’s Innovative Potential

A second paper, released today by the World Economic Forum, finds Europe’s economy at risk of losing ground to other regions in the world if it does not leverage the respective strengths of start-ups and corporates in order to forge stronger connections and create value. The paper, Start-ups and Corporates – A Practical Guide for Mutual Understanding, aims to help Europe develop more world-class technology companies by providing a blueprint for greater collaboration between the two worlds.

Continue Reading

Europe

Scotland – 45 years in the European Union

Alina Toporas

Published

on

The possibility of Scotland leaving the UK is looming large the closer we get to March 2019. This comes despite all the immediate defense and prospective EU membership concerns the country is facing. All warnings aside, Scottish PM Nicola Sturgeon seems to believe that ‘no Brexit is preferable to no-deal’ amongst news of a NO DEAL Brexit Minister to take form. In the same vein, a recent poll showed that almost half of Scots said they would leave the Union (with the UK) if a second referendum were to be granted by Westminster. However, even if Theresa May gets compassion for Holyrood, this vote cannot take place before the UK officially exists the EU, which makes for a long wait for those 49% anti-unionists. A word of caution, almost half is not even half which means that predictions cannot possibly make for an accurate portrayal of the feeling/temperature in Scottish rooms, not to mention a conjuring of a post-Brexit scenario.

Nevertheless, the reality remains that we have now officially entered the last full year of the UK – and hence, Scotland – enjoying membership in the EU. Therefore, I found it appropriate to sketch a brief picture of the Scottish-European relations throughout time.

The year of 1295 brought with it the signing of the Auld Alliance, a treaty between Scotland and France through which France became Scotland’s closest ally, both being united by the hatred they carried for the English. From the 1295 until the 1707 Union with England, Scotland enjoyed close relations with a number of European nations, namely Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Ireland, Italy and Poland, having a notable mercantile presence in Copenhagen, Bergen and Danzig.

Fast forward to the 1970s when Europhile UK PM Edward Heath decides to apply for European Economic Community (EEC) membership. While a majority of Scottish MPs did vote against entry in the House of Commons vote, seven Scottish Tory politicians published an analysis named Scotland and Europe: seven viewpoints, supporting entrance into the EEC. After the accession treaty was signed in 1972, four Scots were sent to Brussels to represent the UK, amongst which the noteworthy mentions would be Scottish MP George Thomson, who was one of the founders of the European Regional Development Fund and Lord Mackenzie Stuart who was appointed to the European Court of Justice.

In terms of EEC funding, Scotland has received more than twice the national average per head of population in the form of grants and loans throughout the 70s. The money was routed via the Coal and Steel Community, the European Social Fund, the European Investment Bank and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The funds also helped with the inexorable population decline the Highlands region was suffering from which could not have been easily bypassed. This downward spiral was stopped in its tracks three decades later when the EU transitional support funds came through and helped boost local business and SMEs. Everything from infrastructure, financial services and biotech up to culture, lifestyle and tourism benefited from the transfer of knowledge both ways, namely from local to international markets and vice versa.

In June 1978, on the occasion of the first direct elections to the European Parliament Winnie Ewing from the SNP – who later began contributing to the development of the Erasmus programme-  became the first of Scotland’s ‘appointed’ Members of the European Parliament to win a democratic mandate. With her election, 21 million pounds were given through the ERDF to Scotland. The money was used in the construction of harbours, roads, water infrastructure and sewerage in both the Islands and the Highlands. In 1983, Scotland received another 4.5 million pounds to modernise its fishing fleet and create fish farms. What is more, Scotland benefited from many other types of European grants so that by 1984, Scotland was receiving more than twice the EEC’s average rate of financial assistance. Apart from the fishing industry, EEC funding went into training Scottish workers, into the gastronomy industry of Glasgow (through a 2 million-poundloan for a pie and sausage factory), into modernising airports around Scotland and into art festivals (e.g. Pitlochry Festival Theatre). Research has showed that for every 40 pence Scotland put into European aid, they got 1 pound back.To put it into perspective, in 1983, Scotland has contributed 325 million pounds to the EEC and has received funds worth 410 million pounds.

Secessionist thoughts were wondering through Scottish minds even in the 80s when MSP Jim Sillars published a pamphlet called Moving on and moving up in Europe. This movement only gained traction when in 1988 the SNP’s annual conference was carried under the motto ‘Independence in Europe’ which became SNP’s official policy as well.

A year later, in the 1989 EP elections, Scottish politician David Steel became the first British politician to campaign and deliver a party political broadcast in another European country, in this case, Italy. While he did not become MEP, he did make history through his vicious attacks at Thatcher, calling her a ‘woman out of step with others’.

Starting with the entrance in the new decade, the entrance of the European Union into Scotland became gained just as much significance. Between the 1990 and 1992, Ian Lang – the Secretary of State for Scotland –made his political life’s missions to emphasize the role of Scotland into the ‘Europe of the regions’. He underscored the part Scotland Europa plays in promoting Scotland’s business across EU bodies and focused attention on the European Central Support Unit’s Scottish office. In December 1992, the European Summit took place in Edinburgh, also named the ‘Athens of the North’. The Summit was hugely successful and truly memorable having played the part of putting the Community back together and put us all back on the track for recovery’ according to PM Sir John Major. Apart from the Scottish Chamber Orchestra playing ‘Ode to the Joy’, a 25.000-strong march through Edinburgh also took place during EU’s leaders’ meeting at Holyrood Palace. Alex Salmond, SNP leader at the time and future Scottish PM, had seen the manifestations as ‘a chance to tell the world that the solution to the Scottish question is independence in Europe’.

Later on, Scotland directly benefited from the creation of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) which included five Scottish members directly nominated by Scotland’s main political parties. Not long after, on June 1999, three Labour MEPs and two Conservative MEPs were elected. Back in Scotland, a European Parliament office was established in Edinburgh as one of the six regional offices of the EU. Its first head, Dermot Scott, believed that ‘the more closely the two parliaments work together, the better Scottish interests will be represented in Europe’. Edinburgh, alongside Glasgow, also became part of the Eurocities network and could ‘twin’ themselves with cities across the EU.

With the creation of the single market, 61% of Scottish exports went into the EU, while Scotland was an exporter on branded personal computers (35%), banking machines (65%), workstations (80%) and electronic notebooks (51%). These Scottish exports increased to the point whereScottish Development International created an office in Dusseldorf. The European Elected Members Information and Liaison Exchange (EMILE) forum was later established by future Minister Jack McConnell where Scotland’s 8 MEPs, members of the CoR and the European Committee met twice a year. A Scottish European Green Energy Centre (SEGEC) aimed at exploiting Scotland’s potential on the European energy market was also established.

Regardless of the 2008 financial crash which affected the EU budget just as much as the United States, various projects from Scotland continued to be beneficiaries of the 2007-2013 structural funds. These funds have in the past supported the construction of the Fife’s Ferrytoll park and ride scheme and the Falkirk Wheel. Apart from the Structural Fund programme, many Scottish students continued to benefit from Erasmus placements (e.g. 1243 Scots in 2010-2011), while Scottish universities have managed to attract a great deal of investment used for the purposes of research.

In conclusion (and potentially in contrast to the tone of the article), it is important to note, as mirrored in the beginning of this article, that ‘the EU is founded on the treaties which apply only to Member States who have agreed and ratified them. If part of the territory of a Member State woukd cease to become part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the treaties would no longer apply to that territory’. In other words, this newly independent state would become a third country in relation to the EU. This segment of EU law is particularly noteworthy as talks of further devolution to the point of independence keep the headlines in Scotland. Nevertheless, no matter the outcome, Scotland has very much laid its path towards a central role in the EU.

The numbers are taken from the Scotsman, the Aberdeen Press and Journal and the booklet Scotland: 40 years in the European Union.

Continue Reading

Europe

Brexit Second Referendum: Will Britain Have a Sudden Change of Heart?

Published

on

The Brexit referendum results provoked an unprecedented upheaval and political meltdown in the United Kingdom; as a result, in March 2017, the United Kingdom became the first country in history to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union and in setting the exit of this organisation in motion. It was only last week, though, that Nigel Farage, of the drivers and strong supporters behind the country’s decision to leave the EU, spoke in favour of holding a second referendum. This is now an entirely new idea, as it is something was first proposed by the Liberal Democrats just days after the results of the June 2016 referendum became public. The difference lies in the motivation to hold this second referendum, while for the Liberal Democrats is to give citizens another chance to stay in the EU, for people like Nigel Farage and the millionaire Aaron Banks the second chance would confirm the support for a clean break with the European organisation.

Is a second referendum even likely to happen? This is a very hard question to answer as it is only the Parliament who can authorise it after a proposal has been put forward by the government itself or by a coalition of opposition parties. This is a highly politicised decision with too much at stake and judging by the political conditions prevalent in the United Kingdom at present, I do not see any politician willing to play this game.

Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have ruled out such a possibility as this would mean a breach of trust with the citizens, and the United Kingdom might see itself engulfed in a “neverendum”, first coined by Quebec, where ever since the province has had two referendums to break away from Canada, the campaign for independence has not stopped. Allowing a second referendum in Britain may well reinforce the idea that the establishment will just keep holding referendums until they get the result they want. Therefore, it is highly unlikely Britain political establishment will agree to hold another referendum.

Regardless of what the people feelings on the result are, this was the vote of most of the population in Britain and as such, it deserved to be respected. Attempting to reverse the exit process by calling to a second referendum would further wound the state of democracy in Britain. Democracy is, by definition, the rule of the people, even if the Leave Campaign had been won with just one vote, the results still stand. The victory, however, was carried out with over a million votes, in one of the largest voting turnouts in contemporary British history, and it would be a travesty to disregard such a difference as unimportant. Holding a second referendum would be making a mockery of the democratic exercise and the mandate the people gave their rulers on that day. It would further split the country and weaken Britain’s negotiating stance with the EU as if the result does not change, this would shatter all their hopes for a Soft Brexit deal.

It is also important to remember that there is no evidence whatsoever that supports the notion that if a second referendum is held this year or early next year at the latest, the outcome would be any different. Citizens are becoming more and more sceptical of Brexit talks and of the ability of the establishment to deal successfully with the exit deal, this does not mean, however, that Brexiteers have in any way changed their mind.  There was also a very clear age division in the results of the referendum, 75% of the elderly voted to leave, while 75% of the young adults voted to remain. There is no evidence as well that either of these age groups have changed their minds. Therefore, should a second reference even take place, the result may stay the same. Such a division also poses an important dilemma: democracy is the greatest social equaliser in contemporary societies. Placing a weight on someone’s vote that accounts for their age, income level, education, social status, geographical location, etc. will eventually destroy this sense of equality and with it, democracy itself.

The reality is that there is very little support for a second referendum to even be considered seriously by the Parliament. The only ones who has publicly voiced their support for it are the Liberal Democrats, who have nothing to lose since they are only a minor factor in the House of Commons with 12 seats. It is also unclear if such a process could even be reversed. There are two likely scenarios: All EU members would have to agree to Britain’s revocation of the Article 50, although one vote would be enough to veto this process; and secondly, Britain could unilaterally withdraw the Article 50 notification and take its case to the European Court of Justice, both scenarios would take the country and the whole continent into completely unchartered territories.

Overall the one that has been hurt the less has been the EU, while it is true that Brexit has weakened the EU, the panic and shock have been greater than the actual damage. Many predicted several countries following suit and triggering Article 50. However, it had become evident that the lack of planning and complete disarray shown by the British government has served as a crude example to those that in the past were considering leaving the organisation.  The disintegration of a political system does not necessarily start with the desire of leaders to do so, but rather with their own mediocrity and inability to pull themselves out from the swamps of their own political waste and mess.

Continue Reading

Latest

Americas5 hours ago

US diplomacy of re-engagement continues: From ‘intent’ to withdrawal from Paris Agreement to ‘COP23’

In a major setback decision taken by Trump administration on June 1, 2017, showing his intention to withdraw in future...

Europe6 hours ago

New Concept for Europe: Sustaining European leadership and values into the 21st century

Europe’s leaders must embrace a bold and innovative programme of reform across the policy agenda to secure a peaceful, prosperous...

Newsdesk6 hours ago

Brand Africa and biodiversity focus of the 9th edition of INVESTOUR

Nearly 30 African Tourism ministers convened at INVESTOUR to debate and exchange experiences on the development of the sector in...

Economy6 hours ago

Radiation Processing Enables Small Businesses to Enter Global Value Chains in Malaysia

In today’s globalized world, becoming part of an international supply chain is key to the prospering of small businesses and...

Central Asia1 day ago

Religious buildings in Kazakhstan to be labeled 16+

New restrictions on religious activities are emerging in Kazakhstan. Will they help to fight extremism? According to the Government bill...

Intelligence1 day ago

What Role Should Criminology Play in Government Policymaking?

At this very moment in time, there is not much agreement over what the role of criminology should be in...

Intelligence1 day ago

Iranian Intelligence response to the new security challenges in the West of Asia

During the years after the Islamic Revolution of Iran, national security considerations have undergone various changes. Changes have been conducted...

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy