Connect with us

Europe

Times of Europe

Veni Mouzakiari

Published

on

Six decades after the first thought of creating a Union of European countries, the dominant debate on the supranational and intergovernmental EU structuring and virtue, seems to return and to push to policy differentiation.

UK has always been an opponent toward the discussion about the supranational structure of EU. Since 1949, when Winston Churchill started the discussion about the Union, the position of Britain was prompt and opposed to federalism and supranationality.

In recent years, Europe, at the United Europe level and not just the eurozone, had to face political and economic financial crisis that threatened national economies of the EU. Building the solution, Commission and European Central Bank pioneered and evolved to the main pillars, forming a European support mechanism. This mechanism has taken economic decisions with a political formula, which were, first, entitled by the Commission and European Parliament and then were become state law on all EU national parliaments. The German vision of political integration, till federal integration, in EU and of transferring powers to democratically elected bodies such as the Commission (election of the President) and the European Parliament, began routed in a way.

Last summer (June 2015), when at the EU Summit, the third Memorandum and the bailout on Greece was discussed, the British side expressed clear disagreement with respect to the obligation of UK to contribute to this loan. Moreover, European Central Bank is autonomous and the central policy planning for the next period is the consolidation of the European banking system. Although UK does not have adopted the euro, the European System of Central Banks include both the European Central Bank and all the national central banks of the countries in EU, which leaves little room for the British side not to accept the side or main effects of bank consolidation on eurozone.

In other words, the political integration seems to start in a way, slowly and steadily, as slowly and steadily, eurozone and EU have evolved throughout the years.

For Britain, “Brexit” does not seem to be the rational choice in this negotiation between UK and EU. For this reason, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, came to the European Council, which is the European institution which Britain recognizes as the body from which each European political decision must be expressed and be routed, to negotiate. The most important pledge he received is the right national parliamentaries to veto a European policy, coming from Commission and European Parliament. This veto gives the power Britain to abstain from policies that promote the political integration of the Union, or simplier, this veto gives British the right to transform any European policy that is contrary to British virtue for the EU intergovernmental structure.

Under what Britain won, Cameron tried to form an unattractive setting for all new employees, not British ones, who wish to settle in the UK. In the same direction is also the position of Britain on the refugee issue, on which the small controlled influx of refugees in Britain is the Cameron official position.

Apart from the conservative political position of Cameron, his policy in relation to Europe, is moving to get the part of voters who are opposed to the thought of Europe, and who, if Cameron was not strict with Europe, will be capitalized by nationalist political parties and groups in the UK. In other words, towards constructing the conservative Yes for the upcoming referendum, Tories, that will vote Yes, could not exclude the euroscepticism from their agenda. Rather, they must upheld euroscepticism. As paradoxical as it may sound, no one should ignore that euroscepticism is a structural, inherent element in the international identity of the United Kingdom.

All of what was described above constitute the most important battle, which EU has to give in the near future. Donald Tusk collaborated with David Cameron, in order Britain’s Prime Minister to hold in his hands a narrative, which will declare that “we, as Britains, have to stay in EU, but with our terms.”

It is doubtful even how many were convinced by Cameron’s effort and under what arguments the Yes and No will be expressed. And you know, there will be a further discussion on the Yes of Tories and the Yes of Labour.

Finally, one would wonder all this time, what is the German position in all of this issue. Germany developed a hegemonic political figure in the last decade in the EU. Essentially Germany pioneered at making a political platform for the management of fiscal crisis and they will accept with political peace and anticipation the next step of the banking union. Angela Merkel had reacted negatively to the initial signs of Cameron, in autumn of 2015, on his demands about restrictions on the movement of people in the EU. The decision, however, Cameron to join the part of Yes, basically makes him her ally.

Moreover, the intensity with which UK seeks restrictions on the movement of people in the EU, the reduced influx of refugees in the country and their detachment from the continuous external bail outs in deficit economies, are all elements of an agenda, which is not at all unattractive by her political opponents inside her party, and to extra right-wing parties in Germany. It would be wrong not to recognize that the package that was given to Cameron has the Merkel seal, the Merkel legitimacy and that it is not one of her moves. What her opponent express, she pushes it to Britain in order they to stay in Europe. Merkel is fighting on three fronts, on the economic situation of the euro zone, on the proper management of the refugees and on her ever decreasing popularity in Germany.

The central and possibly northern Europe, except from Sweden, in the majority, appear to be opposite and to promote their national agendas over Europe. The European south seems to be her ally, in an attempt to distract further economic benefits as well. EU institutions, such as the European Commission, is under the control of Merkel. In this picture, Merkel could not have conflicting agendas with British Prime Minister, as regards question of “Brexit”. The involvement of NATO, and, here, the additional presence of the US, is to dress up the situation that is at stake, and to facilitate Merkel in refugee issue.

In security issues, ΝΑΤΟ has the absolute legitimacy of all its members, especially in central-eastern Europe, which is the current opponent of Merkel at this point on the refugee issue, and its presence in the Aegean sea is about to act as a catalyst. First reassuring the insecurity, which is pushing to the construction of the wall and the closure of borders between EU countries and second requiring a control system in the flow of refugees from the coast of Turkey.

This picture of the moment in these times of Europe.

Phd Candidate at the department of International and European Studies, University of Macedonia. Political consultant

Europe

China and US keep a close eye on Greenland

Published

on

Greenland is mulling independence. While enjoying wide autonomy within the Kingdom of Denmark with its own parliament since 2009,. Greenland still faces two serious economic problems standing on its way to full-fledged sovereignty, namely the need to make itself less dependent on financial assistance from Copenhagen ($620 million), and reduce its overdependence on revenues from shrimp and halibut fishing.

These two problems are closely intertwined. Greenland is a world leader in terms of per capita volume of marine resources, with 25 percent to 50 percent of its working-age population engaged in fish and seafood production, which account for at least 87 percent of the island’s exports, 89 percent of which go to Denmark.

Greenland’s lopsided economy is unable to fully ensure the islanders’ financial viability as almost half of the local government’s social expenses are subsidized by Denmark.

With the island’s foreign, defense and economic policy being steered by Copenhagen, the only way to diversify the local economy is to expand foreign economic activity and develop additional industries. The Greenlandic authorities believe that the involvement of foreign partners could help develop the local mining sector, but they are hamstrung by Denmark, which has a final say in choosing such partners.

The Greenlandic government in Nuuk (the capital of Greenland) sees the export of land resources as holding the economic key to the island’s future independence, with China viewed as the most promising partner willing to develop the local mining and transport sectors.

China sees itself as a “Near-Arctic State” and its experts believe that the emergence of an independent Greenland on the world map over the next decade is a likely prospect.

Nuuk and Beijing have reached an agreement on China upgrading the airports in Nuuk, Ilulissat and Qaqortoq and the development of the Kvanefjeld deposit with an estimated 200,000 tons of uranium ore.

However, this gives rise to a certain contradiction between the right to use land resources granted to Greenland by Copenhagen, and Denmark’s right to determine the island’s defense policy. Meanwhile, Nuuk and Copenhagen are trying to figure out whether proposed uranium mining and airport modernization by Chinese investors is economic or defense-related.

Greenland has a strategic importance as a source of rare earth metals and a gateway to the Arctic. Denmark remains an Arctic power as long as it owns Greenland. Therefore, in its effort to enlist US support, Copenhagen emphasizes that Greenland is part of the North American continent.

Greenland is built into Washington’s security architecture as an element of perimeter defense, which, besides Greenland proper, also includes Canada. Washington’s 1948 offer to buy Greenland for $100 million (declined by Denmark) underscores the island’s geopolitical significance for the United States.

Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland ensures the security of the northeastern flank of the United States and Canada, while simultaneously allowing Canada to “break free” from US “encirclement,” which facilitates the US-Canadian dialogue on Arctic-related issues and strengthens Ottawa’s negotiating position. While officially favoring Denmark’s continued sovereignty over Greenland, Washington may still be mulling, albeit tacitly, the possibility of interacting with the authorities of the would-be independent Greenland. In the latter case, Washington hopes that, unable to establish full-fledged law enforcement agencies of its own, the local government in Nuuk would entrust its defense to the Pentagon.

Just like Iceland, whose defense capability is guaranteed by NATO, Greenland could eventually gravitate towards rapprochement with or even membership of NATO. This prospect will hardly sit well with Canada, which wants to expand its footprint in the Arctic and would hate to see the emergence of competitors building up ties with Greenland as a pretext for their presence in the region.

Advocates of Greenland’s independence favor the introduction of military conscription in the coast guard, rescue services and patrol units. However, even if, taking cue from Denmark where 0.43% of the population serves in the army, Greenland calls up a similar number of conscripts, its armed forces will still not exceed 250 people. Therefore, the lack of a defense-demographic potential is seen as a serious hurdle on the way to the island’s hypothetical independence.

That being said, the clock is still ticking in favor of Greenland’s eventual independence from Denmark, with global warming accelerating ice loss on the island, opening ice-free areas to potential mining projects.

Greenland is also important in terms of meteorological studies as the island’s climate impacts weather forecasting in Europe, the United States and Canada.

This means that foreign countries may want to use weather monitoring as well as the study of climate change and its impact on Arctic ecology, flora and fauna as a pretext for their presence on the island.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Europe

Will the political face of France change?

Mohammad Ghaderi

Published

on

Political and social equations are wrapped up in France! Protests against President Emmanuel Macron continue. Most analysts from European affairs, however, believe that Macron will not have a chance to survive in the presidential race in the next presidential election.

On the other hand, many analysts believe the likelihood of a nationalist presence at the Elysees Palace is high! Le Pen is now trying to remove Macron from power through holding an early election; “It is necessary to implement proportional representation and dissolve the National Assembly in order to hold new proportional elections.”

Simultaneously, she attempts to attract the attention of French citizens to herself as France’s next president. “We believe that the way out of the crisis is essentially political. This decision excludes any use of violence that only adds chaos to adversity,” Le Pen said in a letter published on the party’s website.

Le Pen also emphasized that the political solution to the recent crisis depended on the French officials while uttering that French President Emmanuel Macron “is deprived of sympathy for the people, constrained by arrogance and indifference of the elites.”

As the French National Front can make its way to power, the EU and Euro area equilibrium will change: a matter that many European and French politicians have warned about.

In 2014, the President of the French National Rally political party, Marin Le Pen was able to shine exceptionally well in the European parliamentary elections and overcome other French political parties. In the 2017 general election, Le Pen was able to reach the final round of the presidential competitions for the first time since the establishment of the French National Rally. However, at that time, Le Pen couldn’t act against the broad opposition of the Socialist and Conservative parties. But the equation seems to have changed now!

The French president is not in good shape now! Polls conducted in France suggested a decline in the popularity of Emmanuel Macron as the country’s president. This is while only 21 months have passed since Macron’s presence at Elysee Palace. Under such circumstances, Le Pen and her companions will naturally try to change the French citizen’s mind to the benefit of the French National Rally. This is a very good time indeed, as many of the French citizens no longer trust Macron and his promises for making economic, social reforms in France.

The main question is whether the French National Front will succeed in achieving its goals? It is not clear, however, that Le Pen’s calculations would all come true. The French National Rally President opened a special account on Macron’s former supporters to change their minds, and as a result, their votes to her benefit! This is while some of these votes may turn into silent votes or white votes.

Also, it’s quite possible that France political atmosphere in 2017, would once again repeat in 2022, or during the country’s possible early elections. In this case, to right-wing extremists of French National Rally are going to lose the elections again. Therefore, Le Pen is really cautious about her positions right now, though she believes that Macron’s incapability provided the ground for her political and social success in Paris.

First published in our partner MNA

Continue Reading

Europe

Europe has changed its mask

Published

on

Face” of peaceful and friendly Europe has changed. Europe even does not try any more to wear a mask of past tolerance. Tensions are constantly increasing. Unrest like wildfire is sweeping across Europe. Though riots caused by different events and decisions, political convulsions make Europeans feel uncomfortable. People are tired of being unheard by the authorities.

Misunderstanding between ordinary people and authorities is more clearly visible, especially in the so-called “old Europe”. Once prosperous countries, France and Italy, actively resist the new world order. Social instability, deterioration of living standards on the background of militarization has led to unprecedented unrest. All attempts to reduce tensions have not brought about results.

Democracy has plaid a dirty trick with all of us. Freedom allows people to go on the streets and introduce their position. On the other hand, delegated powers give the authorities the possibility to “calm” the riots, to suspend the activities, to ban meetings, even using police.

French political movement for economic justice, the so-called “yellow vests”, went beyond the country and caused diplomatic crisis between France and Italy.

German workers also expressed solidarity with “yellow vest” protests in France. Workers in Germany share the same grievances and recognize they also confront policies that favour the rich.

Another irritating thing is militarization of the region, NATO expansion. Many Europeans link the fact of increasing national defence expenditures with deterioration of life. That is why anti-NATO and anti-war campaigns on the Internet gain momentum. Among them are: no-to-nato.network, notonato.org, no2nato2019.org, popularresistance.org/no-to-nato-spring-actions-in-washington-dc. The more so, “Stop Air Base Ramstein” campaign in Germany started October 5th, 2008, gains more popularity and organizes protests in Germany and abroad. It has its representatives in the US, Austria, Australia, Poland, Ireland, France, Japan and the UK. The international network No to War – No to NATO calls for broad actions against NATO in Washington DC and worldwide.

The next occasion for such organizations to become more active is the signing an agreement with Macedonia on February, 6 allowing the country to become the military alliance’s 30th member. This particular step could become the catalyzer for more violent protests and political disobedience. It brings chaos to Europe, raises tensions and leads to the loss of trust in Peace and Democracy.

Continue Reading

Latest

Reports2 hours ago

Responsible investment and sustainable development growing priority for private equity

Responsible investment – involving the management of  environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues – is an increasingly significant consideration for...

EU Politics4 hours ago

PES Europe Ministers call for a European Budget that rises to the challenge

Europe needs ambitious short- and long-term planning, the Ministers of European Affairs from the PES agreed today during their discussion...

Russia6 hours ago

Standing for Everything Evil against Everything Good: Russia’s Hostile Measures in Europe

In late January, researchers from the renowned U.S. research centre RAND Corporation made their contribution to maintaining anti-Russian sentiments by...

South Asia8 hours ago

Breaking Down the South Asian Dynamic: Post Pulwama attack & Saudi Prince’s visit

The political and strategic activities of the South Asian region have been on a high for the past week or...

Reports10 hours ago

Turkey needs to step up investment in renewables to curb emissions

Turkey will see its greenhouse gas emissions continue their steady rise of recent years without concrete actions to improve energy...

EU Politics12 hours ago

Migration and asylum: EU funds to promote integration and protect borders

MEPs backed on Tuesday increasing the EU budget for migration and asylum policies and to reinforce borders. The Civil Liberties...

Intelligence14 hours ago

Content in New Media as an instrument of interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign States

Over the recent years we have observed a significant increase in the use of ICT-instruments to disseminate specially prepared content...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy