DOCSLIB.ORG

The UN Security Council, the Dilemma for Estonia, and the Evolving International Disorder E-MAP Foundation MTÜ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The UN Security Council, the Dilemma for Estonia, and the Evolving International Disorder E-MAP Foundation MTÜ ISSN: 2560-1601 Vol. 35, No. 4 (EE) December 2020 Estonia external relations briefing: Estonian External Relations in 2020: The UN Security Council, the dilemma for Estonia, and the evolving international disorder E-MAP Foundation MTÜ 1052 Budapest Petőfi Sándor utca 11. +36 1 5858 690 Kiadó: Kína-KKE Intézet Nonprofit Kft. [email protected] Szerkesztésért felelős személy: CHen Xin Kiadásért felelős személy: Huang Ping china-cee.eu 2017/01 Estonian External Relations in 2020: The UN Security Council, the dilemma for Estonia, and the evolving international disorder Remarkably, during the pandemic-raged 2020, the United Nations (UN) was one of the least ‘visible’ international organisations in Estonian media, when it would come to the context of global fight against the COVID-19. Certainly, one may argue that, during the pandemic, the role of the UN is ‘substituted’ by one of its agencies, the World Health Organization (WHO), which is assigned to be specialised on different issues related to international public health. At the same time, since the WHO-associated positive publicity deserves plenty of improvements for a number of obvious reasons, the UN’s image is suffering because of that as well. It was the year, however, when Estonia started its high-level international ‘journey’ having become a non- permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC) for a two-year term and for the first time in the country’s history. Back in June 2019, Estonia was awarded this position, having won the vote of the UN General Assembly, and, on 1 January 2020, the country’s President Kersti Kaljulaid decided to hoist the UN flag in front of her Office in recognition of Estonia’s new status in the international stage. On the day, the President noted: Estonia will be at the world’s hardest diplomatic negotiating table for the next two years. […] We are an equal country in a complex and fragile international family. But it comes with an obligation and responsibility to understand and to speak up on difficult issues that at first sight do not seem to concern us directly. We will help stand for a value-based and international law-based world order, without which we and many other countries and nations would have no place in the world.1 Contextualising a broader discussion with Estonia’s participation in the UNSC’s every- day work, International Centre for Defence and Security (ICDS), which is perhaps the most reputable think-tank in the country, published a notable material in April 2020, arguing that “European cooperation in the UNSC has increased, […] [and] Estonia has taken an active role in shaping the joint positions of EU states in the UNSC, for example on issues related to the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP), Ukraine and Syria”2. At the same time, as the argument 1 Kersti Kaljulaid as cited in ‘Estonia starts term as member of UN Security Council’, ERR, 1 January 2020. Available from [https://news.err.ee/1019301/estonia-starts-term-as-member-of-un-security-council]. 2 Kristi Raik, ‘Estonia in the UN Security Council: The Importance and Limits of European Cooperation’ in ICDS, April 2020. Available from [https://icds.ee/en/estonia-in-the-un-security-council-the-importance-and-limits-of- european-cooperation/]. 1 goes further, “[t]he international environment, meanwhile, is becoming increasingly challenging for multilateral cooperation and a rules-based global order”, while “[t]he COVID- 19 pandemic has underscored the lack of global leadership, previously provided by the US, and inability of the UNSC to mobilise international cooperation”3. Therefore, such a volatile situation, in both conceptual and policy-making terms, places Estonia (and the whole EU as well) in front of a challenging dilemma – “how to work to maintain the rules-based order while simultaneously adapting to its erosion and change”4. This particular factor can frame the following brief on Estonia’s external relations in 2020. It appears to be that ‘the rules-based order’ starts for Estonia in the region of the Baltic states. Without establishing a proper as well as solid level of trust-bound communication with Latvia and Lithuania, it would be hard to imagine Estonian foreign policy. Therefore, it was not a surprise to learn that in May 2020, the Baltic trio decided to open their internal borders and allowed free movement for their citizens and residents, in order to establish the so-called ‘Baltic bubble’5. This framework had to be adjusted for a few times as the process went on, but when international cooperation in the peak of the crisis was resembling a total disarray, the Baltics managed to exhibit a credible ability to quickly establish a common ground. In addition, on the UNSC platform, the EU-bound coordination was also picking up its pace – as noted, “six joint stakeouts issued in February concerning Myanmar, the MEPP, Libya, Ukraine and (twice) Syria”, and Estonia was very active in “taking the initiative to make a joint stakeout, on Ukraine and Idlib/Syria”6. On Ukraine, for example, a stakeout by Estonia, Belgium, France, Germany and Poland, posted on 18 February 2020, supported “the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders”, while demanding that “Russia must in particular end its financial and military support to the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Donetsk and Luhansk”7. In a significant addition, the document stated that “[b]y the use of force against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, Russia is clearly violating the fundamental principles of international law”8. 3 Raik. 4 Raik. Emphasis is ours. 5 ‘‘Baltic Bubble’: Rules for traveling from Estonia to Latvia and Lithuania’ in ERR, 15 May 2020. Available from [https://news.err.ee/1090243/baltic-bubble-rules-for-traveling-from-estonia-to-latvia-and-lithuania]. 6 Raik, p.6. Available from [https://icds.ee/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ICDS-EFPI-Analysis_Estonia-in-the- UNSC_Kristi-Raik_April-2020_cor.pdf]. 7 ‘Stakeout on Ukraine by Estonia, Belgium, France, Germany and Poland’ in Permanent Mission of Estonia to the UN, 18 February 2020. Available from [https://un.mfa.ee/stakeout-on-ukraine-by-estonia-belgium-france- germany-and-poland/]. 8 ‘Stakeout on Ukraine by Estonia, Belgium, France, Germany and Poland’. 2 In general, losing no time in the process of getting accustomed to its high-profile role in the UNSC, Estonia ended up being in the epicentre of crisis diplomacy for the first time. Portraying itself as what it is in reality – a small but highly innovative country – Estonia managed to bring the politically sensitive theme of cybersecurity to the discussional table at the UNSC. Considering the whole year, the Estonian delegation 1) convened 7 informal UNSC meetings; 2) attended 425 meetings in total; 3) took part in the process of adopting 58 resolutions and negotiating 45 press statements; 4) together with like-minded countries, composed and made 31 joint press statements9. On a more concrete note, in March 2020, Estonia, the USA and the UK “officially raised the cyberattacks against Georgia in October 2019”, and “[i]t was the first time specific cyberattacks were officially discussed at the [UN] Security Council”10. Furthermore, during an informal meeting held on 22 May, the UNSC discussed the issue of stability of cyberspace as a separate subject, for the first time in the body’s history, underling that cyberspace is “not different from other domains where international law is applied”11. As for the process of adapting to the rule-based international order’s erosion and change, the Estonian delegation at the UN had plenty of opportunities to experience it first-hand – different powers have different visions on how to see and operationalise the actuality, and that is why an Estonia-drafted statement that was calling for “greater international cooperation in tackling the pandemic, which ‘may constitute a threat to international peace and security’”12 was blocked. Back at home in Europe, in the second half of the year, the country’s Foreign Ministry spent plenty of time on discussing the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean and the heightened tensions in Nagorno-Karabakh. For example, in September, Foreign Minister Urmas Reinsalu (Pro Patria) approached his Cypriote and Turkish colleagues, correspondingly Nikos Christodoulides and Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, over the phone – the major theme of the discussions was associated with “Turkey’s drilling activities”13. Both countries are Estonia’s partners in different geo-strategic frameworks, and the destabilisation in the Eastern Mediterranean is never in any positive plans for the future. Since Turkey also became a major strategic stakeholder in the process of solving the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis, it was important for Estonia 9 ‘Estonia in the Security Council: the first year’ in Permanent Mission of Estonia to the UN. Available from [https://un.mfa.ee/estonia-in-the-security-council-the-first-year/]. 10 ‘Estonia in the Security Council: the first year’. 11 ‘Estonia in the Security Council: the first year’. 12 Raik, pp.8-9. 13 ‘Foreign Minister Reinsalu discussed the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean and Nagorno-Karabakh with the foreign ministers of Cyprus and Turkey’ in Välisministeerium, 30 September 2020. Available from [https://vm.ee/en/news/foreign-minister-reinsalu-discussed-situation-eastern-mediterranean-and-nagorno- karabakh]. 3 to deliver a particular message to the Turkish side that there was an urgent “need for Armenia and Azerbaijan to return to the negotiating table to resolve the issue”14. Reflecting on yet another destabilising factor of international significance, in October, Prime Minister Jüri Ratas (Centre) participated in the European Council’s extraordinary meeting, during which the leader of the EU’s Member States and key bodies approved sanctions against some 40 Belarusian officials who were/are “deemed responsible for election fraud and the violent suppression of peaceful protests after president [Alyaksandr Lukashenka] was re- elected for his sixth term in elections largely deemed rigged and undemocratic”15.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Baltic States
    A comparative review of socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) in the Baltic States 2020 Table of Contents 1. The uneven geography of the crisis: economic effects in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania .... 3 2. Key factors in overcoming the crisis and the potential long-term economic impact ......... 8 3. The bright side: opportunities arising from the crisis ...................................................... 14 4. Possible coordinated actions of the three Baltic States to build back better .................. 16 This review is a joint work of Foresight Centre of Parliament of Estonian, LV PEAK of the University of Latvia and Government Strategic Analysis Center (STRATA) of Lithuania. The review was finalized in October 2020. 2 Introduction and aims The COVID-19 crisis has been a true black swan – an unexpected event that is having enormous consequences on virtually every aspect of our daily life. Next to the 1918 flu pandemic that occurred in a very differenc socio-economic context, there are no historical parallels close to the current crisis, which makes forecasting and future prediction a tough task. Due to the global scale of the crisis, the collaboration and joint efforts are at the heart of solutions to the COVID-19 situation. Close cooperation is especially important in the Baltic region with highly interconnected economies and societies. This paper aims to provide a comparative picture of the effects of the crisis and describe the key factors and uncertainties affecting the recovery. Despite the sharp recession, there are also some opportunities arising from the situation, which are discussed in the third section of the paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Covid-19 and Social Work: a Collection of Country Reports
    COVID-19 AND SOCIAL WORK: A COLLECTION OF COUNTRY REPORTS Edited by Lena Dominelli, Timo Harrikari, Joseph Mooney, Vesna Leskošek and Erin Kennedy Tsunoda Contributors are members of the COVID-19 Social Work Research Forum July 2020 ii Disclaimer This compilation of Country Reports of the COVID-19 pandemic provides a snapshot of the situation in particular countries at a moment in time. It has not been peer reviewed, although it was edited several times to clarify the usage of the English language which is not the first language of a number of the authors, and to ensure uniformity of style and referencing. The authors of each Country Report are wholly responsible for the content and accuracy of the data and views expressed therein. Thus, neither IASSW nor the editors, individually or collectively are accountable for their work. The editors and IASSW are simply facilitating access to people’s country narratives. Sharing Information This document should be easy to use and provide comparable information which we trust will be useful for research purposes in social work around the world. The contributors to this first edition of the collection are members of the COVID-19 Social Work Research Forum. However, not all members of the Forum have contributed to it in the short timeframe we had available. We would urge those who would like to contribute their country report to contact Lena Dominelli at [email protected] and she will facilitate access to the contributions already on the IASSW website. Future intention There is an intention to turn this collection into a book at some point in the near future, but we felt it was important to record the positions of various countries now, briefly and quickly.
    [Show full text]
  • European Cooperation During the Coronavirus Crisis
    POLICY BRIEF IN SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH: EUROPEAN COOPERATION DURING THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS Pawel Zerka July 2020 SUMMARY ECFR research into how EU member states and institutions worked together – or failed to – at the height of covid-19 confirms Germany was the bloc’s undisputed crisis leader. Germany made a shaky start in showing solidarity on the pandemic, but regained other member states’ trust on the health and economy fronts. The Netherlands, however, paid a reputational price as the leading ‘frugal’ state opposing greater financial burden-sharing. EU institutions won few plaudits but policymakers still look to it for post-crisis economic leadership. France emerged at the head of a strengthened ‘southern’ grouping of member states, while the Visegrad platform was invisible during this crisis. It will fall to Germany and France to close the north-south divide, building coalitions on major policies. But they should not forget that closing the east-west divide remains an important goal. Introduction This strange summer will start late. Europe’s policymakers cannot yet hit ‘out of office’ and close their laptops – they still need to attend at least one more European Union summit on the post-covid-19 recovery fund. As they prepare, they should take a long breath and reflect on what has worked well, and what has not, over the past couple of months. This will help them understand what they are in for. They already know that the coronavirus crisis has been a moment of profound trauma for European citizens, as the European Council on Foreign Relations documents in a recent report drawing on a specially commissioned public opinion survey in nine EU countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article
    European Research Studies Journal Volume XXIII, Issue 4, 2020 pp. 107-122 Mitigating Risk of the Tourism Sector in the European Union Member States During the COVID-19 Pandemic Submitted 21/08/20, 1st revision 19/09/20, 2nd revision 10/10/20 accepted 30/10/20 Anna Bera1, Karolina Drela2, Agnieszka Malkowska3, Anna Tokarz-Kocik4 Abstract: Purpose: The article presents, in a multidimensional perspective, the instruments applied in EU member states to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the tourism sector. Design/Methodology/Approach: Research conducted in the article was based on secondary data. Research methods applied in the paper include critical review of literature, method of comparative analysis and secondary data analysis. Findings: The outcome of the article is the identification of actions undertaken in EU member states to support the tourism sector and original elaboration on the scheme of instruments used by EU authorities and countries in order to limit the epidemic risk in tourism. Practical Implications: The analysis and evaluation carried out in the article demonstrated that risk management in EU member states’ tourist sectors at the time of pandemic requires integrated protective measures. The results may be used to develop a long-term strategy for the EU’s tourism sector and programmes for prevention of crisis outcomes in other sectors of the economy as well. Originality/value: In the perspective presented herein, issues related to the epidemic risk in the tourism sector, discussed in the article, have not been the subject of scientific analyses in domestic or foreign literature. Keywords: Risk, risk management, tourism, financial instruments, operational instruments, pandemic, COVID-19, European Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Zero Covid Roadmap 2
    Roadmap to Eliminating COVID-19 in 5-6 Weeks Through the Zero Covid Strategy Introduction Towns, cities, provinces, and countries can eliminate coronavirus in 5-6 weeks through the Zero Covid strategy, even without the completion of mass vaccination campaigns. The goal is to return to normal social and economic activities safely: gatherings with family and friends and opening of schools, restaurants, bars, theater, sports events and business activities without special precautions. The key to the actions required to achieve this is that the time over which they are needed is short, the shorter the better, so that extraordinary actions can and should be done with this goal in mind. Travel restrictions, isolation facilities, financial and other support for vulnerable individuals, and short and strict lockdowns are indispensable elements of this approach. The Zero Covid strategy is being piloted in Europe and has already virtually eliminated the virus in Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, China, Taiwan, Mongolia, and the Atlantic provinces of Canada. See this Lancet article for an overview of why the Zero Covid strategy is the optimal approach to containing coronavirus, as well as maintaining social/economic activities. This roadmap lays out six steps that countries or sub-national regions can take to eliminate COVID-19 in 5-6 weeks through the Zero Covid strategy: 1. Define protected zones 2. Implement Zero Covid messaging campaign 3. Implement five week lockdown, along with strong protective and supportive measures 4. Convert hotels and other facilities into managed isolation and quarantine facilities 5. Quarantine incoming travelers in designated hotels 6.
    [Show full text]
  • How Did the Nordic-Baltic Countrieshandle the First
    978-9934-564-32-1 HOW DID THE NORDIC-BALTIC COUNTRIES HANDLE THE FIRST WAVE OF COVID-19? A STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS ANALYSIS Published by the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence ISBN: 978-9934-564-32-1 Principal Investigator & Editor: Prof.Neville Bolt Authors: Iselin Engebretsen, Elīna Lange-Ionatamishvili, Miranda Karin Michélsen Forsgren, Rakin Sayed Project manager: Elīna Lange-Ionatamišvili Design: Kārlis Ulmanis Riga, July 2021 NATO STRATCOM COE 11b Kalnciema Iela Riga LV1048, Latvia www.stratcomcoe.org Facebook/stratcomcoe Twitter: @stratcomcoe This publication does not represent the opinions or policies of NATO or NATO StratCom COE. © All rights reserved by the NATO StratCom COE. Reports may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or publicly displayed without reference to the NATO StratCom COE. The views expressed here do not represent the views of NATO. Table of contents: Introduction . 6 What is this Project? . 6 Why a Strategic Communications Lens? . 6 Methodology . 7 Which Key Areas are Explored? . 8 Which Strategic Communications Questions are Raised and Why? . 9 CHAPTER 1. The Nordic-Baltic Eight and Crisis Cooperation . 10 The Nordic-Baltic Format: Regional, EU, and NATO Cooperation . 10 Nordic-Baltic Cooperation in Times of Crisis . 12 CHAPTER 2. How the Nordic-Baltic Eight Responded to the First Wave of the Pandemic: Country Case Studies . 16 Sweden . 17 Estonia . 24 Finland . 34 Denmark . 42 Iceland . 50 Norway . 58 Latvia . 66 Lithuania . 74 Disinformation in the Baltics . 82 Conclusion . 85 Endnotes . 90 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 This publication captures key points of political debate which framed policy decisions during the first wave of the pandemic in the Nordic-Baltic region.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Or Download the Book
    Published by: China-CEE Institute Nonprofit Ltd. Telephone: +36-1-5858-690 E-mail: [email protected] Webpage: www.china-cee.eu Address: 1052, Budapest, Petőfi Sándor utca 11. Chief Editor: Dr. Chen Xin ISSN: 978-615-6124-49-4 Cover design: PONT co.lab Copyright: China-CEE Institute Nonprofit Ltd. The reproduction of the study or parts of the study are prohibited. The findings of the study may only be cited if the source is acknowledged. An Overview of Central and Eastern Europe Development in 2020 Chief Editor: Dr. Chen Xin CHINA-CEE INSTITUTE Budapest, April 2021 Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................... 5 Part I Review of Political Development ................................................ 7 Albanian politics in times of uncertainties ..................................................... 8 BiH in 2020: Governing under COVID-19 .................................................. 13 Overview of the Political 2020 year for Bulgaria ......................................... 18 A summary of 2020 key political events in Croatia...................................... 24 Dynamics of the Czech Political Model in 2020 .......................................... 29 2020 for Estonia: A year to forget, the year to remember ............................. 34 Greek Politics in 2020 ................................................................................. 40 Covid-19 as the great divider in 2020 Hungarian Politics ............................ 45 Latvian major
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 and the State of Global Mobility in 2020
    COVID-19 and the State of Global Mobility in 2020 Meghan Benton Jeanne Batalova Samuel Davidoff-Gore Timo Schmidt The opinions expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the report do not imply expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries. IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental organization, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to: assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration; and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to improve immigration and integration policies through authoritative research and analysis, opportunities for learning and dialogue, and the development of new ideas to address complex policy questions. MPI is an independent, nonpartisan policy research organization that adheres to the highest standard of rigor and integrity in its work. All analysis, recommendations and policy ideas advanced by MPI are solely determined by its researchers. This publication was made possible through support provided by the German Federal Foreign Office. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the German Federal Foreign Office. Publisher: International Organization for Migration Publisher: Migration Policy Institute 17 Route des Morillons 1400 16th St NW P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Forecasts in the Baltic States
    Editorial Team: Beata Surmacz (Director of ICE), Tomasz Stępniewski (Deputy No. 308 (5/2021) | 08.01.2021 Director of ICE), Agnieszka Zajdel (Editorial Assistant), Aleksandra Kuczyńska-Zonik, Jakub Olchowski, Konrad Pawłowski, Agata Tatarenko ISSN 2657-6996 © IEŚ Marlena Gołębiowska New restrictions and new (better) economic forecasts in the Baltic States The increase in COVID-19 infections in the Baltic States in recent weeks has resulted in a number of restrictions, but the second lockdown will not affect the economies of the Baltic States as anticipated. Forecasts indicated that the recession in 2020 in Lithuania and Estonia would be one of the lowest in Europe. However, the most recent restrictions – such as the ban on moving between municipalities in Lithuania or the curfew in Latvia – could already have an impact on economic performance in 2021. The bursting of the “Baltic Bubble” and new restrictions. Most of the measures implemented by the Baltic States’ authorities in the face of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020 did not, in particular, deviate from the solutions adopted in other countries of the Central and Eastern Europe region (“IEŚ Commentaries”, no. 152). These countries quickly implemented a number of restrictions to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. On 26 February, the Lithuanian Government implemented the State of Emergency and established the national quarantine period from 14 March to 16 June. In Latvia, the State of Emergency was in force from 13 March to 10 June; in Estonia from 13 March to 18 May. These decisions have led to numerous restrictions for citizens and for foreigners.
    [Show full text]
  • Estonia External Relations Briefing: a 'Baltic Bubble' and Experiences Of
    ISSN: 2560-1601 Vol. 29, No. 4 (EE) May 2020 Estonia external relations briefing: A ‘Baltic Bubble’ and experiences of the UN SC rotating presidency E-MAP Foundation MTÜ 1052 Budapest Petőfi Sándor utca 11. +36 1 5858 690 Kiadó: Kína-KKE Intézet Nonprofit Kft. [email protected] Szerkesztésért felelős személy: CHen Xin Kiadásért felelős személy: Huang Ping china-cee.eu 2017/01 A ‘Baltic Bubble’ and experiences of the UN SC rotating presidency There is a strong terminological cliché existing in the field of international relations – many scholars and practitioners visibly enjoy generalising on the Baltic states, quasi-unifying Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the geo-strategic as well politico-economic one. Quite often, such generalisations are made for no reason, in a ‘by the way manner’. In reality, these countries are uniquely different, and there is a high number of serious studies that evidently prove that particular point. However, it does not deny the trio’s ability to quickly establish an unbreakable bond of regional solidarity to challenge any crisis (together) and come out from any tough times (also together). Even though each of the Baltics chose its own way to tackle the pandemic, the conversation had always been on, and the plans on recovery had been discussed to make it in a seamless fashion. As a result, from 15 May, the Baltic states decided to open their internal borders restoring free movement within the countries for residents of the trio. In an ERR-issued summary, the decision was featured by the following elements:
    [Show full text]
  • Dominik Wilczewski New Normality in the “Baltic Bubble”
    Editorial Team: Beata Surmacz (Director of ICE), Tomasz Stępniewski (Deputy No. 191 (94/2020) | 22.05.2020 Director of ICE), Agnieszka Zajdel (Editorial Assistant), Aleksandra Kuczyńska-Zonik, Jakub Olchowski, Konrad Pawłowski, Agata Tatarenko ISSN 2657-6996 © IEŚ Dominik Wilczewski New normality in the “Baltic Bubble” The Baltic States are recording their first successes in stopping the spread of the novel coronavirus. Although it is too early to pinpoint exactly the actions that have contributed to such an effect, the swift decisions taken to introduce restrictions and the readiness of societies to comply with the relevant measures were certainly of key importance. Maintaining the intensity of disease spread at a similar level in all three countries allows for the gradual lifting of restrictions and for the restoration of the free movement of persons across the internal borders. Crossing borders without restrictions. On May 15, 2020, decisions regarding the lifting of restrictions on passenger traffic for inhabitants of the Baltic States entered into force. Citizens and residents of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania may cross internal borders without being obliged to quarantine for two weeks, as long as they have not been outside the Baltic States within the last 14 days, have not been subjected to isolation with someone who has tested positive to coronavirus, and do not reveal symptoms of respiratory infection. On the same day in Riga, the Foreign Ministers of Estonia – Urmas Reinsalu, Latvia – Edgars Rinkēvičs, and Lithuania – Linas Linkevičius, have signed a memorandum of understanding providing closer coordination of activities as well as consultation and exchange of information on the organisation of the movement of persons across the internal borders.
    [Show full text]
  • The COVID-19 Pandemic and Latvia–Russia Relations: Landscape for Desecuritization Or Further Securitization?
    social sciences $€ £ ¥ Article The COVID-19 Pandemic and Latvia–Russia Relations: Landscape for Desecuritization or Further Securitization? Maris¯ Andžans¯ * and Una Aleksandra Berzin¯ , a-Cerenkovaˇ Department of Political Science, Riga Stradins University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This article revisits the traditionally jittery Latvian–Russian relations during the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of securitization. Though the pandemic might have offered less space for confrontation and possible prospects for differentiation of (de)securitization vectors, the mutual securitization processes have continued in the vein of previous years. Furthermore, they have showed no signs of easing as not only have the traditional issues remained securitized but new thematic areas both related and unrelated to the pandemic have taken center stage. All in all, the pandemic has opened new avenues for securitization, though it had no fundamental impact on the established securitization trends. Keywords: Latvia; Russia; securitization; COVID-19 Citation: Andžans,¯ Maris,¯ and 1. Introduction ˇ Una Aleksandra Berzin¯ , a-Cerenkova. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted every country and every bilateral and mul- 2021. The COVID-19 Pandemic and tilateral engagement format in one way or another. Borders even between countries Latvia–Russia Relations: Landscape exemplifying nothing but mutual trust and amity have been subject to closures. The for Desecuritization or Further quest for COVID-19 vaccines and the related vaccine diplomacy have brought about an Securitization? Social Sciences 10: 323. additional competitive dimension to international affairs. Failures and success stories in https://doi.org/10.3390/ socsci10090323 containing the pandemic and developing cures have changed the images of states.
    [Show full text]