Connect with us

Europe

A new world order, or will globalization survive the coronavirus pandemic?

At UN Headquarters in New York, many staff have left the building in order to work at home. UN Photo/Loey Felipe

Published

on

With the number of cases of coronavirus spreading in multiple countries around the globe, the outbreak has already been labeled a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). Global economic relations have been hit hard by the virus, and demands for making the West less dependent on supplies from third countries are getting louder.

What impact could the COVID-19 pandemic have on the globalization process?

The current model of globalization took shape at the turn of the 21st century. A decade ago, the journal Russia in Global Affairs wrote that the whole concept is based on the notion that “the old market economy states will be able to simultaneously move their own production to China and maintain the economic balance of the Western system through financial transactions.” The crisis of 2008-2009 proved this approach to smoothing out “imbalances in world economic development” as being completely wrong. 

In March 2014, Time magazine noted that “over the past two years, global trade growth has been lower than global GDP growth. It’s the first time that has happened since World War II, and it marks a turning point in the global economy, with sweeping implications for countries, companies and consumers.” Shrinking possibilities for productive placement of savings coming from peripheral countries “to the Anglo-Saxon center of the global financial system” have since intensified.

The situation has forced all of the world’s leading countries to double down and work out a set of measures guarding against a possible collapse of the modern world order. The policy of sanctions and financial and economic pressure that Washington has pursued the past few years appears to be provoking some governments to look for ways to create a financial and economic system or systems that would not be dependent on the United States. New political alliances are being forged in Eurasia, Asia, and Africa, including in the form of region-wide financial institutions.

Many in the US itself, the originator of the international system existing today, were getting increasingly unhappy with what was going on. The tweets and concrete isolationist measures taken by President Donald Trump during the past three years throw in question the feasibility of almost the entire “West-centric” development paradigm. As a result, by the time the first reports about COVID-19 started coming in, the dynamics of the financial and economic processes going on in the world were largely explained by America’s trade war with China, which has been going on for several years now, taking on ever new trade and economic areas and threatening to spread to the realm of finance.

On the outside, the coronavirus epidemic, which, like a sword of Damocles, is hanging over the current architecture of world economic relations, is a testament to Trump’s and his supporters’ foresight. Indeed, in his new National Security Strategy unveiled in 2017, Donald Trump said that the world had turned into a stage of global competition. Now that literally each day brings us new evidence of how much the West and the rest of the world  really depend on supplies from China, few in America and Europe have any doubts about the need to rethink the foreign policy of the previous decades.  Above all, the idea that cooperation with rival countries, their involvement in international institutions and world trade processes to the degree of interdependence, is making them “conscientious” members of the international community and constructive partners.

By the close of 2019, Washington’s policy of “breaking down the foundations” had significantly undermined the countries’ WTO-inspired confidence in a system of rules designed to prevent trade wars. Moreover, while previously the White House referred to “national security interests” as justification for the use of restrictive measures, any country can now use the  global epidemic as a convenient pretext for resolving trade disputes outside the framework of leading international organizations, primarily the World Trade Organization. Just as The Economist put it, “Much of what has contributed to globalization at its current stage no longer matters.”

The COVID-19 epidemic thus provides a convenient opportunity to legitimize the philosophy of a world order based on “egotism and protectionism.” Faced with the prospect of mass-scale deaths caused by the epidemic, (although so far unconfirmed!), one can discard the official condemnation of unilateralism and recognize it as “the norm, a natural part of the global picture,” thus selling this new official policy to the people as “a focus on national interests.” According to critics, this is the bottom line of America’s “revisionist geo-economic project,” promoted by the current administration, which … “reflects the long-term goals of the US ruling elite even post-Trump.”

This narrative has received a further boost since, according to British media reports, not only the United States, but also a significant part of the world is critically dependent on the import of either antibiotics or communications equipment from China. Moreover, Western analysts believe that from a technological and logistical standpoint, getting rid of this overdependence would be easy because China’s dominance in many sectors of industrial and consumer goods began only 10-15 years ago. This means that the COVID-19 outbreak only threw this whole situation into harsh relief. Since the “forces of nature” are hard to predict, few people will call out the current restrictions on cross-border movement of people and goods within the framework of existing international legal procedures world trade is governed by.

But what about the political and ideological notions, according to which private companies are not told where to produce their goods when it comes to minimizing costs? How to dovetail public interests and the companies’ desire to maximize profits for their owners and shareholders? Finally, “national security”-boosting measures and restrictions imposed in the fight against a pandemic both make a breach in “the thin fabric of trade agreements,” that the whole world has been building the past decades.

Besides, the US establishment as a whole remains eager to maintain America’s leading position within the international system. In this effort, as Donald Trump’s first year in the White House clearly demonstrated, America wants more than just reaping “the benefits of bilateral trade relations, ignoring the benefits of participating in international trade agreements. Moreover, practice has shown such agreements can be worked out and implemented without the United States.” For example, right now, America is being held hostage to Saudi Arabia’s frustration with Washington walking back its commitments in the Middle East. Riyadh wants to reformat the global oil market through dumping offers, and the US shale oil industry, where booming extraction has spurred Washington’s readiness to apply sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy pressure, could find itself the first victim.

Western politicians’ and businesses’ past history of “outsourcing” all and everything could sap their desire to “quickly” reduce their dependence on China. True, the existing market configuration may come undone as the situation is getting increasingly unbalanced. Still, the search for “new equilibrium points” is already on. Changing times are always a period of searching for and finding new opportunities. And Western companies are not necessarily “doomed to success” in this race as Chinese manufacturers have repeatedly proved more able to adapt to changing market conditions than anyone else, while Western firms kept losing flexibility and ramping up development and production costs. Finally, it looks like China has already left the peak of the epidemic behind by effectively checking its spread. Chinese stock indices are on the rise. As for the Americans and Europeans, it seems that the main blow looks still ahead.

Theoretically, a possible slowdown of the current model of globalization may somewhat reduce frustration with the existing imbalances in development, but whether this deceleration is actually capable of mitigating the general structural problems that the global economy is facing today remains a question.

Optimists believe that “as the epidemic develops, its relative impact on the economy will decline.” As for the impact of the virus on the economy, it will actually prove beneficial: the growth rate will slow down, but it will be a “healthier,” natural growth. Speculative “bubbles” in the asset markets will burst in a natural way, and the leading central banks will increase the money supply. All this will allow “… leading economies to maintain their growth, albeit at a slower pace, rather than fall into recession.” This means that “a global crisis due to the epidemic is impossible.”

Critics, for their part, believe that the medical consequences of the coronavirus epidemic can prove much less destructive for global development compared with the measures that states may, if necessary, take to combat the spread of the disease. Experts at Oxford Economics are already warning that a policy of limiting communication and freedoms can only exacerbate the crisis and create additional problems in the future.

Ten years after the 2008-2009 crisis the COVID-19 epidemic is once again demonstrating to politicians, the business community and the general public the vulnerability of the current international financial and economic model. “Political pressure will be brought to bear on states and enterprises through consumers.” Many economic entities will try to reorganize production and supply lines, primarily by moving production closer to end consumers. The pandemic is sure to contribute to further “social atomization” and “online escapism.” Trade, education, medicine and the entertainment industry may finally go online.

Finally, the authorities in many countries are likely to work out measures to restore or expand domestic production in strategically important sectors, including the food and pharmaceutical industries. The policy of state support for domestic producers is gaining popularity again.

“The goal is not so much to limit international trade, but to create a reliable domestic market that will be less dependent on conflicts and the challenges posed by global trade.”

The current configuration of the world order is not just becoming ideologically unsustainable. It now appears absolutely impractical and even dangerous, in the technical sense of the word, in the event of new global upheavals, whether humanitarian, technological or climatic. Globalization will obviously continue to evolve, both ideologically and from the standpoint of application. There is no way that new contacts between people and countries can be completely prevented, but globalization will be taking on new forms, no doubt about that. The international community will have to find a new balance between the priorities of national and global development. Under the circumstances, it is imperative for Russia, just like for any other country, to keep pace with the demands of the day.  From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

Europe’s Myths

Published

on

After initially keeping a low profile during the acute military-political confrontation between Russia and the West over Ukraine, the European Union suddenly surprised the world in the latter half of June with more important decisions than the approval of yet another package of sanctions against Moscow. First, the land transit problem between the Russian mainland and Kaliningrad dramatically worsened as part of the EU economic war on Russia. Second, at a June 23 summit, the leaders of the EU countries agreed to grant EU candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova. Although neither is likely to have significant or truly dangerous consequences for the time being, these actions provide an excellent opportunity to reflect the nature of the EU, its role in Europe’s development and prospects.

This is of particular interest because European integration has become one of the most mythologised topics in international affairs. This is no surprise – the relatively stable and long-term cooperation of such a large group of states is highly unusual for international politics. But it inevitably gives rise to a number of hypotheses about the emergence of this phenomenon and its peculiarities.

In a sense, this association is indeed a marvel against the background of our entire historical experience, which is marked by competition and fierce rivalry between states.

This is why attempts to explain how it was at all possible inevitably engendered new myths and illusions that were designed to separate the phenomenon from the discussion about it.

The first, most enduring myth rests on the assumption that the EU is a peaceful project that, by its very nature, cannot be used for aggressive action beyond its borders. In effect, this is a simple extrapolation of the rules and norms of interstate relations to their relations with the outside world. Indeed, European integration did emerge at a time when a military solution to disputes between its members did not appear possible.

But the sequence is all important – the founding countries were already incapable of fighting each other before they created an association with additional opportunities for developing relations in the framework of law and institutions.

When the first institutions of European integration emerged, West European countries were still reeling from the greatest military cataclysm in history. Moreover, two of them – Germany and Italy – were not actually in charge of their domestic and foreign policy. Both countries were under full or partial foreign occupation and therefore could not even physically consider a military option one of the tools of their foreign policy as regards their neighbours. Formally one of the victorious countries in WWII, France was also dependent on the United States, which was the only country that could guarantee France’s sovereignty against the looming threat of being swallowed from the east by the victorious USSR.

Subsequently, European integration did not do anything to spread peace even among its members. The United States successfully resolved these issues inside the Western community. In the second half of the 20th century it could effectively discipline the elites of the countries under its military domination.

The only real opportunity for achieving peace between historical opponents in the framework of integration would be Turkey’s accession to the EU, which already counts its traditional foe, Greece, as a member. However, the EU has neither the ability nor appetite to make this happen, and the Republic of Turkey is now further from joining the EU than during any time since the start of their relations in 1961. Another example that some European officials also like to mention is containing the allegedly irrepressible territorial conflict between Hungary and Romania over Transylvania. However, the main deterrent here is NATO or, more precisely, US influence in Eastern Europe, which is vital to the existence of the alliance.

There is even less justification to claim that European integration was intended to improve relations with third countries via cooperation. In general, immediately after the creation of the communities, one of the main goals of their foreign policy was to restore the positions of their members in Third World countries that had just rid themselves of colonial dependence. The EEC’s first trade agreement was signed with a group of former French colonies in West Africa and was aimed at preserving the economic positions of the former parent state in this region.

Subsequently, the member countries charged their institutions in Brussels with other important tasks: oppose the USSR in the economic arena; contain the development of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) countries; coordinate formal and informal sanctions against the USSR and its allies; and ultimately undermine the CMEA’s integrity by signing separate trade agreements with its inpidual members. This is exactly why the EEC persistently opposed the signing of a general agreement with the CMEA or the USSR despite their urging until the latter half of the 1980s when the impending collapse of the Eastern bloc had become a likely prospect.

There are no grounds at all to call the EU a “peaceful project” after the end of the Cold War. In fact, the recent collision over Kaliningrad transit was one of the consequences of the EU’s activities in that historical period. After the collapse of the Soviet sphere of influence and breakup of the USSR, the West European countries began to rather aggressively establish control over Eastern Europe, while never considering the interests of Russia, their biggest partner in the East. Now nobody even conceals the fact that the EU expanded to the detriment of Russian interests, not to mention the policy the EU adopted after 2003 as regards the states that emerged along the perimeter of Russia in the western part of the former USSR. The ultimatum contained in “the EU’s peaceful project” for Ukraine in 2013 was one of the most important factors in triggering the Ukrainian crisis.

The second important myth is linked with the EU’s expansion to include new members. For a rather long time, there was a dominant view that any increase in the number of member countries was the result of a rational calculation based on an objective assessment of the ability of this or that country to meet a certain “gold standard.” But his was not the case. With the exception of the accession of Denmark and the United Kingdom to the European communities in 1973, all other waves of expansion were not based on the economic readiness of candidate members. This applies to Greece that joined the EU in 1981 and even more so, to Spain and Portugal, which became its members in 1986. It is possible to say with some reservations that the accession of Austria, Sweden and Finland to the EU in 1995 was not accompanied by any big differences in the level of socioeconomic development.

However, the following large expansion to Eastern Europe, as well as to Cyprus and Malta was a strictly political project. The preservation of economic harmony within the EU was out of the question. Therefore, it is possible to regard the granting of candidate status to Ukraine, which may not even exist in five or seven years, and Moldova, Europe’s poorest country, as the logical continuation of the road on which the West European countries embarked 40 years ago when they invited economically backward Greece to join their ranks.

Overall, we are seeing that European integration has always been aimed at resource extraction from new territories and consolidation of US influence in Europe. Brexit and Britain’s decades-long special position in the integration structure was possible owing to its much stronger bilateral relationship with the United States.

Finally, the third myth of European integration, which is widespread in Russia, concerns its legal and institutional character. Indeed, in several decades the EU has established a ramified system of its own legal standards and institutions, which creates a powerful illusion of resolving vital issues by the force of law, not by the law of force. However, we should not forget that all decisions in the EU are based on the relative power (demographic and economic) of the inpidual member countries. In this sense, the biggest countries have free rein to implement what they considered politically expedient. In other words, there can be no standards or rules in the EU that do not accommodate the interests of such countries as Germany and France first and foremost. This has become particularly clear in the past 15 years when most decisions were made directly through intergovernmental bargaining while the job of EU institutions was merely to process them legally.

To sum up, it is possible to say that the current circumstances are allowing us to see much clearer the real nature of the phenomenon to the west of our borders. Even if economic and political relations with the EU countries are restricted in the next few years, a better understanding of how their association develops will allow us to more accurately assess its historical prospects. For quite a long time, Russia, like many other countries, had no opportunity to see Europe for what it is. However, in the new historical era we will not have to recycle old myths and long-standing illusions that we often created ourselves.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Europe

European Union Could Share its Solid Economic Benefits with Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia

Published

on

European Union has, at least by territory and population, expanded as the European Council overwhelmingly decided to grant Moldova and Ukraine, with the possibility of Georgia, candidates’ status to join the bloc. Current, the European Union consists of 27 members and has an estimated total population of about 447 million. Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, all former Soviet republics, will together add approximately 50.8 million to the current population of the European Union.

As former Soviet republics, the three attained their political independence and within the international laws, must be considered with respect based on the principles of their territorial integrity and national sovereignty. While the granting them their new status after official requests from them, it has indeed sparked debates especially in the Russian Federation. 

European Union leaders have formally agreed to grant candidate status to Ukraine, as well as Moldova, although the two former Soviet republics face a long path before joining the bloc. Ukraine applied to join the bloc just days after the Russian invasion on 24 February, and the process from application to candidacy has gone through at record speed.

Undoubtedly the new status has opened wide, most possibly, better doors and a platform to spring up with economic development through integration into European Union. President of the European Council, Charles Michel, noted: “it is a historic moment, today marks a crucial step on your path towards the European Union. Our future is together.”

The official congratulated the leaders of Ukraine and Moldova. Regarding Georgia, the European Council “decided to recognize the European perspective of Georgia and is ready to grant candidate status once the outstanding priorities are addressed,” Michel said. “Congratulations to the Georgian people,” he said. “A historic moment in EU-Georgia relations: Georgia’s future lies within the EU.”

The European Commission on June 17 recommended that the summit grant a candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova. It is a “symbol of hope” to support the Ukrainians while the country had a long way to go before actual accession. A few days later, Speaker of Moldova Parliament, Igor Grosu, announced that Moldova ready to join new sanctions, mostly in finance and banking, against Russia.

“We will show solidarity with the EU, as our status and European aspirations oblige us. Of course, we will join [any new sanctions] meant to stop the military operation. We are seeking to contribute to this goal by any diplomatic means,” Grosu said following a decision by the EU.

Moldova’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicu Popescu earlier said the East European nation could not fully join anti-Russian sanctions due to its weak economy. European Union candidate status now provides Moldova with access to world’s most developed market. It offers similar new economic opportunities to bothe Ukraine and Georgia.

In one of her warm-hearted illuminating speeches at a media briefing, President Maia Sandu emphasized: “Candidate country status gives us a clear direction of our development, support on this path, and most importantly, hope. We are a small and vulnerable country, which would feel more secure when it becomes part of the European family, in which we could count on support from all members and institutions. Belonging to the EU also means access to the richest and the most developed market in the world.” 

Moldova, however, expects more support from the European Union to improve the wellbeing of its people and provide preconditions for developing the business environment. “The situation will not change overnight after candidate status has been granted, as a lot of hard work is still ahead,” Sandu said, attributing the current hardships in Moldova to the conflict in Ukraine that began late February.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky hailed the news as “a unique and historic moment”, adding “Ukraine’s future is within the EU” while the French President Emmanuel Macron said that the decision by EU leaders sent a “very strong signal” to Russia that Europeans support Ukraine’s pro-Western aspirations.

At least, they have joined the ‘European family’ that offers practical warmth for sustainable development. Ukraine has already signed an agreement with the European Union on joining its LIFE Program, an international funding instrument for the environment and climate action, whose budget on environment protection projects for 2021-2027 amounts to €5.43 billion, Ukrainian media reported with reference to the Environment Protection and Natural Resources Ministry.

Ukrainian Environment Protection Minister Ruslan Strilets and European Commissioner for Environment, Oceans, and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevicius signed the agreement.The ministry has over 15 concrete proposals to be transformed into relevant projects to be presented for consideration under LIFE Program.

“Ukraine has received great support and colossal capabilities from the European Union for restoring not only the environment but also live nature in Ukraine. This is something for which there has always been a lack of funding. LIFE is a powerful financial tool of the participating countries. This means great confidence in Ukraine,” Strilets said. “This should help us develop more new projects which local businesses could be engaged with. Therefore, we’ve made a very important step today.”

In the near future Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia have the possibility to access the benefits from the Global Gateway, a new European strategy directed at boosting smart, clean and secure links in digital, energy and transport sectors and to strengthen health, education and research systems across the world.

It is in line with the commitment of the G-7 leaders from June 2021 to launch a values-driven, high-standard and transparent infrastructure partnership to meet global infrastructure development needs. The Global Gateway is also fully aligned with the UN’s Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the Paris Agreement.

In addition, late June the he Group of Seven economic powers – the U.S., Germany, France, the U.K., Italy, Canada and Japan – made some progress in bringing their counterparts from their five guest countries closer to Western views on sanctions against Russia. The G-7 is committing  themselves to support the new members especially Ukraine. 

Ahead of his trip, Biden authorized another US$450 million in weaponry to be sent to Ukraine, bringing the total U.S. commitment to US$6.1 billion since the start of the war. Offering a concrete template, the G-7 combined are aiming to invest US$600 billion in public and private capital for infrastructure projects over the next five years, with US$200 billion of that total coming from the United States.

According to European lawmakers interviewed by local Russian media Izvestia, this step has broad support from the EU. Meanwhile, Russia views the move ambiguously. On the one hand, it sees EU membership as tantamount to striving for NATO, on the other hand, European integration is a purely economic issue and does not raise any concerns.

“We’ll see, we’ll analyze the consequences,” former Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin told Izvestia. “The context is important; it is not as harmless as it might have seemed three years ago. Decisions are being made amid a sanctions offensive and against everything Russian,” he added.

That being said, the European Union noted that obtaining candidate status is only the first step towards membership. Engin Eroglu, a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the European Parliament, in an interview with Izvestia said that the process of gaining membership to the EU does not mean automatic entry, but it means that the country has started pro-European processes and reforms, which are partially financed by Brussels.

The granting of candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova has angered other countries that have been striving to join the European Union for several years now. For example, the European Commission has so far denied this status to Georgia, the newspaper writes.

“Tbilisi, to put it mildly, was not happy about the refusal, but this will not be a reason for any deterioration in relations between the European Union and Georgia,” Head of the Department of Integration Studies at Moscow State University of International Relations (MGIMO) Nikolay Kaveshnikov told Izvestia.

Russia consistently expresses fierce opposition to this European membership over the past several years. President Vladimir Putin had declared Ukraine to be part of Moscow’s sphere and insisted he was acting due to attempts to bring the country into NATO, the Western alliance that comes with security guarantees.

Granting Ukraine and Moldova candidate status to join the European Union looks like nothing more than a scam by the West, according to Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. “Scam is such a wonderful word, seeing that the numerous decisions taken by the West are more like combination of a destructive, provocative nature, rather than well-thought-out steps,” the diplomat said, speaking to the Sputnik Radio.

“I think that’s certainly their case,” she added, “Given these maneuvers, these zigzags that we now are witnessing from the West with regards to Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia, it is no longer necessary to prove anything in terms of market conditions. There is a direct link between economics and politics. And this is exactly what they have always stood against.” She described the actions by the European Union as infringement of Russia’s territorial integrity, and as encroachment on former Soviet space and territory.

On the distinctive opposite side, Russia sees no risks for itself in the fact that Ukraine and Moldova have been granted EU candidate status, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a press conference following talks with his Azerbaijani counterpart Jeyhun Bayramov on June 24 in Baku.

“Our position has always been that the European Union is not a political bloc, unlike NATO. The development of its relations with any countries that wish to do so does not create any threats and risks for us,” Lavrov said in reply to a media question. “Of course, we will realistically consider the European Union’s behavior and monitor the real steps it takes and how the candidate countries act: whether they comply with these requirements or still try to show their independence.”

These new European Union members have some strategic significance. Moldova is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe. It shares borders with Romania to the west and Ukraine to the north. Ukraine, with a coastline along the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov to the south and southeast, respectively could be used for economic benefits by the European Union.

Continue Reading

Europe

EU-Australia Relations: Strategic Security Cooperation

Published

on

Over the last decade, security cooperation between Australia and the EU has grown. Increasing security and defence cooperation with governments outside the EU is something that the EU has looked into. Third-country participation in the “Common Security and Defence Policy” CSDP civilian and military crisis management missions and operations, as well as the exchange of sensitive information, are all examples of this.

Australia participates in CSDP missions and exchanges classified information with the EU. This emphasis on ties with other countries is a key aspect of EU Global Strategy, which asks its allies to assist promote the rule-based global order. “External partnerships” must be restructured and the EU must “engage with key partners, likeminded countries, and regional groupings” in order to share this responsibility.

Australia stated that it would work with “like-minded” friends like the European Union to address global concerns. The EU’s security mandate relies heavily on crisis management. For the EU to be seen and effective in managing crises, it must be able to draw in non-EU countries and establish links with them. Third-country participation in CSDP missions and the signing of Framework Participation Agreements on crisis management show how actors outside the EU regard the EU as a crisis management actor and validate the EU’s crisis management function.

The EU’s external measures to safeguard freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and human rights must have this external validation if they are to gain “credibility and normative significance.” To “strengthen its own ability to bear responsibility and share the cost with security and defence partners,” the EU needs the support of third countries. European Union “strategic autonomy” refers to the EU’s ability to act and collaborate with international and regional partners but also working independently when necessary, according to the EU’s Security and Defence Implementation Plan, published in November 2016. EU credibility is bolstered as a result.

Ad hoc agreements, which took a long time to draft, are now the preferred method of enabling participation, instead of the time-consuming ad hoc agreements that were previously used. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced the beginning of FPA negotiations with EU counterparts, Catherine Ashton, saying that “North Africa & Middle East have highlighted the value in Australia & EU cooperating closely to react to international crises” at the time of the announcement.

The EU and Australia, according to the FPA, share a common understanding of the threats they face and the objectives they should focus on. Australian participation in two CSDP missions has been made possible by this convergence. Some argue whether or not the European Union and Australia see each other as strategic or priority partners in the fight against global and interconnected security threats, as well as whether or not their geographical domains of interests and aims align.

In two CSDP missions, Australia’s involvement has been capped (and duration as with EUCAP Nestor). CSDP military operations are not permitted. EU crisis management will take a new step forward with participation by Australia in a CSDP military mission. The EU CSDP’s military efforts have primarily focused on developing military capabilities or deploying naval forces. As long as EU member states are unwilling to engage in large-scale military operations, this pattern will continue.

A naval operation in the Strait of Hormuz has been proposed recently by the EU as a means of protecting freedom of navigation and calming tensions between Iran and the United States. We could see Australia participating in an EU military operation as this occurs. As seen by its August 2019 decision to join the US-led mission in the Strait of Hormuz, Australia has a strategic interest in maintaining marine flow.

The EU-Australia security partnership is strengthened because to FPA. European Union and Australian cooperation will have a solid foundation thanks to the FPA, which recognizes common interests in international peace and security. Both EUCAP Nestor and EUAM Iraq have involved Australia in crisis management, but more effort is required. Both parties must agree that Australia will be invited to more than just these two missions. The EU’s CSDP missions are strengthened by its partners, who help the EU to be a responsible global actor. However, it also makes it necessary for Australia and the EU to work together more closely to identify common interests on a variety of issues.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Energy2 hours ago

Amid Russia-Ukraine Crisis, Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline Offers Hope for Europe

Europe is still looking for reliable alternative sources of energy especially gas, as its energy relations fell nosedive with Russia....

Economy5 hours ago

The Flawed Fabric of Pakistan’s Economic Policymaking

Finally, the fiscal year ended after a tortuous ride from rate hikes to regime change to near-bankruptcy. Even the end...

Africa8 hours ago

European Union vs Eurasian Union: Geopolitical and Economic Significance for African Union

Understandably the African Union, pan-African organization uniting 55 African States, has the legitimate mandate for building external relations with institutions...

Tech News8 hours ago

What is a web application and how to build it?

Web applications are so popular that an ordinary user does not always notice the difference between a website and a...

Tech News10 hours ago

Why should M-Learning be the preferred method of training?

Technology continues to progress in leaps and bounds, affecting every aspect of daily life. Mobile devices are the assets that...

Urban Development10 hours ago

Building Age-Ready Cities

Authors: Maitreyi Bordia Das, Yuko Arai and Yoonhee Kim* China needs to tackle three priorities to prepare itself better for...

Economy13 hours ago

An Assessment on China’s Inflation Trend and Outlook

In the quarterly meeting of its monetary policy committee, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) repeatedly mentioned price stabilization in...

Trending