DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of Europe in the World, from a Portuguese Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of Europe in the World, from a Portuguese Perspective The future of Europe in the world, from a Portuguese perspective Augusto Santos Silva Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal Intervention at the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA), Dublin 9th of April 2018 EU’s external action has been - since 1993, when the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was launched - one of the most important dimensions of the project of political union that is at the foundation of the European Union's (EU). Two decisions reflect this well. On the one hand, the EU decided to conceive a global strategy; first, in 2003, with the adoption of the European Security Strategy - A Secure Europe in a Better World (revised in 2008); and most recently, in 2016, with the Global Strategy for the EU's foreign and security policy - Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. On the other hand, the Lisbon Treaty operated, in 2007, a significant organizational change, creating the European External Action Service and consolidating the position of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who is, at the same time, Vice-President of the European Commission. Consequently, and now that we are discussing the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2021-2027, there is no shortage of voices to claim that external 1 action, for which the current MFF channels 6% of the Union resources, has to be worth much more. However, what do we really mean and want to put into practice with a Common Foreign and Security Policy? How can it be built out of the soon-to-be 27 member states, where we potentially find stark differences in geo-strategic positions, historical traditions and national or regional interests? What degrees of freedom do you leave to each national foreign policy? And how can Europe benefit from a well-woven combination between the Common Foreign Policy and the various foreign policies of its Members? The 2016 Global Strategy is an obvious departure for answering the first questions. It outlines the interests shared by Europeans: peace and security; prosperity; democracy; and a rules-based international order. It expounds the principles of action: unity, commitment, responsibility and cooperation. And it sets out five main priorities: guaranteeing the security of the Union; promoting the State and societal resilience to the East ("as far as to Central Asia") and to the South ("as far as to Central Africa") of Europe; implementing an integrated approach to conflicts and crises; investing in regional cooperation, intra-European cooperation, Mediterranean cooperation, Middle East and Africa cooperation and Atlantic cooperation, as well as cooperation with Asia and on the Arctic; and it aims at making a contribution to global governance in the 21st century. Taking into account the developments that we have already witnessed in the implementation of the Strategy, we can go further. Especially with regards to the current international context and to the role Europe can play. This is what I would propose to do here, considering the five areas I believe will shape the near future of the Common Foreign Policy. The first is EU's security and defence. The second is the relationship with its neighbourhood. The third is development and cooperation policy. Fourth, the participation in multilateral fora, particularly within the United Nations system, and the leading role in the implementation of traditional multilateral agendas, such as the Sustainable Development Agenda and the Climate Agenda. And the fifth area, which somehow systematizes and summarizes all previous ones, is the geopolitics of the EU, the way it defines its place in the globalized world of today. 2 Henceforth, I will try to show, with examples from Portugal and also from Ireland, how this 27-country common framework can and should be enriched with the specific contributions of each Member State, by harmoniously coupling what is common and what is individual. This is how our core objective is pursued: to respect the sovereignty and autonomy of each State and to build a policy undertaken by all. 2. If there is a clear fact in European discussions of the recent years, it is the awareness that the EU must take seriously the area of security and defence. First, we have had the events of 2014, with the annexation of Crimea and the hybrid war in the Dombass, which forced the redefinition of the relationship with Russia. Then, the – continued - pressure from the United States so that European allies reinforce their contribution to the Atlantic Alliance has taken on a new and strange tone with the Trump Administration. With the contradictory signs of Washington's belief in NATO's value, Europeans not only had to show they were prepared for greater defence investments but they had to re-equate EU’s own and, at least partially, autonomous capabilities. Finally, the emergence of cybersecurity as one of the most strategic issues of our time requires the readjustment of guidelines and planning. The creation of the European Defence Fund, the adoption of the European Defence Action Plan and, above all, the launching, in December 2017, of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) demonstrate that the EU is taking the challenges and the additional responsibilities that lie ahead very seriously. The EU is not to be seen as a mere holder of soft power, limited to normative leadership and to leadership by example. But consequences have to be drawn, by increasing its capacity in defence and in projecting security. Surely, we face a significantly complex matter, where ambiguity should not prevail. From the Portuguese perspective, the clear enunciation of a number of principles may help. The Permanent Structured Cooperation is to be understood in its meaning: the increase in cooperation regarding equipment, capabilities and operations between independent States. It means, for the 22 countries that are simultaneously members of the EU and NATO, to strengthen NATO’s European pillar. The two organizations, 3 although of a different nature, are complementary. Their efforts must be articulated, not on the basis of divisions that have long lost any meaning (such as between soft and hard power, or perceived areas of influence), but rather for cost efficiency and converging action. Thirdly, the Permanent Structured Cooperation must be launched on a solid basis, particularly in the economic and financial field. Then, one must understand “security” in its accurate and broad sense. Today, the security of critical infrastructures, energy supply, communications networks, and large shipping areas are absolutely crucial. It would be a mistake to counteract new threats with conventional, including military, responses. Finally, the so-called Defence Union cannot exacerbate the existing asymmetries in the technological and industrial capabilities of Member States. On the contrary, European funds must be allocated with discretion, in order to strengthen the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base as a whole and that of each of its Members. For that reason, it is indispensable to take into account the projects and the potential that small and medium enterprises hold in this regard. It is obvious the correlation between security issues and neighbourhood issues. Our security border lies in the great arch that runs from the Sahel (or even from Central Africa) to Central Asia. Any instability along that arch has a direct impact on European security. Terrorist networks, human and drug trafficking, organized crime, or social turmoil that lead to the collapse of institutions and states, but also the systematic denial, by governments, territorial barons and militia, of the dignity, rights and minimum security requirements of their populations, constitute direct threats to Europe. It is clear, however, that we must not reduce the neighbourhood to security concerns. Our strategic interest in the neighbourhood relies, more broadly, on political and economic relations with regions that are geographically close to the Union, as well as on possibilities and paths for partnership. Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia are, like Turkey, EU candidates. And the EU must treat them only according to the criteria it defined in 1993 at the Copenhagen Council: the democratic nature of the State and the compliance with the rule of law; the existence of a market economy; and the acquis communautaire. In my view, no other question can explicitly or implicitly be added to this set of criteria, least of all to introduce virtual “problems” relating to religious or civilizational "disconformity": Europe is plural and is not constrained by ethnic, 4 religious or cultural requirements. The Copenhagen criteria are enough and, yes, we must be intransigent about them. In our institutional terminology, what we call the Neighbourhood Policy has to do with relations with the countries of the two regional areas that border the EU: in the East, with countries that have left the former Soviet universe, such as Ukraine and Belarus or several Caucasus States; to the South, with all the North African nations and several of the Middle East, including Israel and Palestine. On this double front, the role of the EU should not be underestimated. To this purpose, I would provide only three examples: a EU strategic dialogue with the Maghreb will be a significantly favourable element to regional integration of the Maghreb countries, which is practically non-existent; the combination of incentives and disincentives is essential for the advancement of the rule of law and the fight against corruption in Eastern and Caucasian Europe; and, thirdly, the EU continues to be the clearest voice in favour of the only peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, two states coexisting side by side, respecting each other's security and having their respective capitals in Jerusalem. I do not ignore the urgency of the issue of refugees in the southern neighbourhood, such as those fleeing the war in Syria, and the pressure they put on various countries that are EU partners in the European Neighbourhood Policy, such as Jordan and Lebanon, or are EU candidates, like Turkey.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Apples and Oranges”
    Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies “Apples and Oranges”. Prospects for the Comparative Analysis of the EU and NAFTA as Continental Systems Stephen Clarkson RSC No. 2000/23 EUI WORKING PAPERS EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE RSC 2000/23 © 2000 Stephen Clarkson All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the authors. © 2000 Stephen Clarkson Printed in Italy in May 2000 European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50016 San Domenico (FI) Italy RSC 2000/23 © 2000 Stephen Clarkson ABSTRACT* The signature by Mexico, Canada and the United States of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 established an institutionalized, continent-wide economic region roughly equivalent in size and population to the European Union. By its very creation, NAFTA opened up the possibility for scholars of European integration to add a comparative dimension to their research. Starting with the question whether the differences between North America and Europe are so great as to preclude their meaningful comparison (as implied by the expression, “apples and oranges”), this paper argues that there are enough commonalities between the two continental systems for the comparison of their differences to be analytically and intellectually fruitful. It goes on to propose many areas which Euroscholars might consider for future comparative study and offers as an example a case study by Jean Cushen of the differential impacts of the EU and NAFTA on Ireland’s and Canada’s labour markets. It would be difficult for me to list all the colleagues – scholars and students – who have helped me develop these ideas over the past few years.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's “Pivot to Asia”
    Russia’s “Pivot to Asia”: The Multilateral Dimension Stephen Blank STEPHEN BLANK is a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He can be reached at <[email protected]>. NOTE: Sections of this working paper draw on Stephen Blank, “Russian Writers on the Decline of Russia in the Far East and the Rise of China,” Jamestown Foundation, Russia in Decline Project, September 13, 2016. Working Paper, June 28, 2017 – Stephen Blank EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper explores the opportunities and challenges that Russia has faced in its economic pivot to Asia and examines the potential roadblocks to its future integration with the region with special regard to multilateral Asian institutions. Main Argument Despite the challenges Russia faces, many Russian writers and officials continue to insist that the country is making visible strides forward in its so-called pivot to Asia. Russia’s ability to influence the many multilateral projects that pervade Asia from the Arctic to Southeast Asia and increase its role in them represents an “acid test” of whether or not proclamations of the correctness of Russian policy can stand up to scrutiny. Such scrutiny shows that Russia is failing to benefit from or participate in these projects. The one exception, the Eurasian Union, has become an economic disappointment to both Russia and its other members. Russia is actually steadily losing ground to China in the Arctic, Central Asia, and North Korea. Likewise, in Southeast Asia Moscow has promoted and signed many agreements with members of ASEAN, only to fail to implement them practically. Since Asia, as Moscow well knows, is the most dynamic sector of the global economy, this failure to reform at home and implement the developmental steps needed to compete in Asia can only presage negative geoeconomic and geopolitical consequences for Russia as it steadily becomes increasingly marginalized in the region despite its rhetoric and diplomatic activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Sustainable Consumption and Production in North America: Building Legitimacy Through Roles and Responsibilities in a Beyond Compliance Operating Environment
    Canada-United States Law Journal Volume 37 Issue 1 Article 6 2012 Towards Sustainable Consumption and Production in North America: Building Legitimacy through Roles and Responsibilities in a beyond Compliance Operating Environment Stefanie Bowles Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Stefanie Bowles, Towards Sustainable Consumption and Production in North America: Building Legitimacy through Roles and Responsibilities in a beyond Compliance Operating Environment, 37 Can.- U.S. L.J. 93 (2012) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol37/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canada-United States Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION IN NORTH AMERICA: BUILDING LEGITIMACY THROUGH ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN A "BEYOND COMPLIANCE" OPERATING ENVIRONMENT Stefanie Bowles* And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it. - Barack Obama, 2008 InaugurationSpeech 1. INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE Sitting at the intersection of a number of disciplines, sustainability policy is characterized by learning and debating about what "environmental" prob- lems mean for society.' In the flux surrounding mainstream North American policy responses to the de-stabilization of global climate and socio-economic systems, a fledgling discourse coalition is emerging around the concept of a "low-carbon economy." 2 While still in the early stages, it is not the first so- The author wishes to acknowledge the direct support of the Canada-U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurasia: Playing Field Or Battle Field? Defining an Effective German and European Approach on Connec
    German Council on Foreign Relations No. 2 November 2019 ANALYSIS Eurasia: Playing Field or Battle Field? Defining an Effective German and European Approach on Connec- Dr. Jacopo Maria Pepe tivity Toward China and Russia? is a research fellow at the Robert Bosch Center for Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia Eurasia is emerging as a fluid continent where resurgent great power politics by Russia and China are marginalizing Europe and the Western liberal order. Despite diverging interests, Moscow and Beijing are linking their Eurasian integration projects, the Belt and Roads Initiative (BRI) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). To avoid the loss of Europe’s trade and regulatory power in Eurasia, the EU and Germany should adjust their Central Asia strategy: – They should focus on Greater Central Asia and Greater East- ern Europe and define an interest-driven, flexible, and regionally diversified approach toward Russia and China. – They should engage both powers with a strategic mix of cooper- ation and competition, but also cooperate with third countries. – Eurasia should be prioritized in Europe’s industrial policy, and more means committed to developing the infrastructure linking Central Europe, Central Eastern Europe, and Western Eurasia. 2 No. 2 | November 2019 Eurasia: Playing Field or Battle Field? ANALYSIS EURASIAN ORDER AND RESURGENT POWER POLITICS 4 LOSING TRACTION: EUROPEAN INFLUENCE INEURASIA AFTER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS 5 CONTENTS GAINING TRACTION: THE SINO-RUSSIAN ENTENTE AFTER THE UKRAINE CRISIS 6 BRI-EAEU COORDINATION IN A RECONNECTED EURASIA: A SINGULAR STRATEGIC CHALLENGE FOR EUROPE? 8 THE CURRENT EU CONNECTIVITY STRATEGY: A CONCEPT WITHOUT STRATEGIC GOALS 11 TOWARD A REALISTIC EURASIAN STRATEGY: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EU AND GERMANY 13 THE GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS: DEVISING ACTION IN GREATER CENTRAL ASIA AND GREATER EASTERN EUROPE 16 THE ROAD AHEAD: TOWARD A COORDINATED INVESTMENT AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY OFFENSIVE FOR EURASIA 19 CONCLUSION 20 No.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (290Kb)
    European Community News Release Background Note CANADA AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AS TRADING PARTNERS Keynote Address by Mr. Wilhelm Haferkamp, Former Vice-President, Responsible for External Relations, of the Commission of the European Community, at an International Symposium, «Trade Options for Canada: the Challenge for Public and Corporate Management» held at The Chateau Laurier Hotel, Ottawa, Ontario, on 24 - 25 October 1985 Sponsored by The International Business The Canadian Council Study Group, School of Business, & for Carleton University European Affairs Supported by The Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities, Ottawa, and others. Delegation of the Commission Qf the European Communities Press and Information Service 350 Sparks Street. Suite 1110, ori-AWA, Ontario, Canada, K 1 R ?SS/telephone: (613) 238-6~64/t.elex: ?534544 EURCOM OTT J Ladies and Gentlemen, It is a great pleasure for me to be back in Canada. This time I am not here as a trade negotiator or as a participant in the «Quadrila­ teral Trade Ministers' Meeting». The «Quadrilaterals» and their origin are a good example of Canadian involvement in significant chapters of the recent history of world trade. In 1981, the annual Western Economic Summit took place at Montebello, Quebec. Noting the achievements of the Tokyo Round, the Summit parti­ cipants instructed their representatives in the field of trade to keep under close review developments in world trade. And so we did! Canada, the United States, Japan, and the European Community instituted biannual «quadrilateral» meetings representing a useful tool to cope with threats to the world trading system. Another example of Canada's position as an important player 1n the arena of world trade: Under Canadian presidency, both the GATT Ministerial meeting in Geneva in 1982 and the OECD 1984 Ministerial meeting in Paris adopted decisions aimed at stimulating multilateral trade liberalization, such as the rollback of protectionist measures and the acceleration of the tariff reduction schedule of the Tokyo Round.
    [Show full text]
  • THE INSTITUTIONALISATION of REGIONAL INTEGRATION in NORTH AMERICA by IVÁN FARÍAS PELCASTRE
    THE INSTITUTIONALISATION OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN NORTH AMERICA by IVÁN FARÍAS PELCASTRE A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science and International Studies School of Government and Society College of Social Sciences University of Birmingham November 2013 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Current studies of regional integration in North America claim that this process is limited to the entering of intergovernmental agreements that aim to expand and enhance cross- border flows of goods and capitals between Mexico, Canada and the US. Such studies claim that the political effects of the process on nation-states are limited and constrained by the decisions of the national governments. In contrast, this thesis argues that the actions of transnational actors have increased the policy interdependence between the three countries in the arenas of environmental protection, labour cooperation and protection of foreign direct investment. Transnational actors have used, applied and interpreted the rules originally created by the intergovernmental agreements –NAFTA, NAAEC, BECA and NAALC– and have subsequently demanded additional and improved rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Introduction
    Governing regionalism in Africa: themes and debates Gilbert M. Khadiagala Policy Brief 51 Governing Regionalism in Africa Policy Brief 51 November 2008 Published by the Centre for Policy Studies, an independent research institution, incorporated as an association not for gain under Section 21 of the Companies Act. Centre for Policy Studies 6 Sturdee Avenue Rosebank Johannesburg, South Africa Email: [email protected] P O Box 1933 Parklands Johannesburg, 2121 Tel (011) 442-2666 Fax (011) 442-2677 www.cps.org.za Supported by the Royal Danish Embassy, Pretoria Governing Regionalism in Africa Introduction Regionalism is the process of building multilateral institutions to enhance political, security, and economic interaction among states. Around the world, regionalism has been built on the foundations of functional states, at the same time striving to transcend them. Thus while states are the locus of regionalism, regionalism often seeks to overcome the deficiencies of states by erecting mechanisms that diminish the states’ salience.1 This paradox relates to a number of critical dimensions of states and regionalism. The first is the question of timing. Historically, regionalism has advanced only through contested processes where states learn to cede sovereignty over long periods of interactions across a wide range of domains, in particular the functional sphere of economic co- Regionalism is the operation. Secondly, regionalism grows out of strong, not weak, states with process of building equally long experience in harnessing the gains from sovereignty. Thirdly, the multilateral institutions leadership of strong states (often hegemonic leaders) is frequently pertinent in to enhance political, setting the rules that jumpstart regionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolving Nature of Canadian Decision Making in the Afghanistan War, 2001–2014
    FEATURE Managerial Technicalism The Evolving Nature of Canadian Decision Making in the Afghanistan War, 2001–2014 ANVESH JAIN ore than 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) served in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014, operating under the aegis of three separate prime ministers, from across partisan lines.1 Measured in Mblood, treasure, and prestige, it was the costliest and most significant deployment of Canadian soldiers since the Korean War. Canadians served bravely and with great distinction in defending the nation’s interests overseas, enabling security and development for the beleaguered Afghan populace, and demonstrating to allies that Canada was a serious and dependable multilateral partner. In the name of these interests, more than 2,000 members of the CAF incurred wounds or injury over the duration of the conflict. By the end of the mission, 165 Canadians, among them seven civilians, had paid the ultimate price.2 It is in their name, their memory, and their debt to which Canada’s strategic community must faithfully and hon- estly account for why we fought in faraway Afghanistan and identify the lessons that must be learned from the nation’s lethal experience there. Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan began in the days and weeks immedi- ately after the dreadful events of the 9/11 terror attacks, with combat operations drawing to a close a full decade later in 2011. In the three years following, a contingent of Canadian advisers stayed on to train and strengthen the Afghan National Army before they too at last returned home as well. To date, there is still much lingering ambiguity as to the purpose and objectives of the Canadian war effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Avoiding a New 'Cold War': the Future of EU-Russia Relations in the Context Of
    SPECIALREPORT SR020 March 2016 Avoiding a New 'Cold War' The Future of EU-Russia Relations in the Context of the Ukraine Crisis Editor LSE IDEAS is an Institute of Global Affairs Centre Dr Cristian Nitoiu that acts as the School’s foreign policy think tank. Through sustained engagement with policymakers and opinion-formers, IDEAS provides a forum that IDEAS Reports Editor informs policy debate and connects academic research Joseph Barnsley with the practice of diplomacy and strategy. IDEAS hosts interdisciplinary research projects, produces working papers and reports, holds public Creative Director and off-the-record events, and delivers cutting-edge Indira Endaya executive training programmes for government, business and third-sector organisations. Cover image source The ‘Dahrendorf Forum - Debating Europe’ is a joint www.istockphoto.com initiative by the Hertie School of Governance, the London School of Economics and Political Science and Stiftung Mercator. Under the title “Europe and the World” the project cycle 2015-2016 fosters research and open debate on Europe’s relations with five major regions. lse.ac.uk/IDEAS Contents SPECIALREPORT SR020 March 2016 Avoiding A New ‘Cold War’: The Future of EU-Russia Relations in the Context of the Ukraine Crisis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Cristian Nitoiu PRefaCE 3 Vladislav Zubok CONTRIBUTORS 6 PART I. EU-RUSSIA RelaTIONS: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE Could it have been Different? 8 The Evolution of the EU-Russia Conflict and its Alternatives Tuomas Forsberg and Hiski Haukkala Russia and the EU: A New Future Requested 15 Fyodor Lukyanov Why the EU-Russia Strategic Partnership Could Not Prevent 20 a Confrontation Over Ukraine Tom Casier Security Policy, Geopolitics and International Order 26 in EU-Russia Relations during the Ukraine Crisis Roy Allison Member States’ Relations with Russia: Solidarity and Spoilers 33 Maxine David PART II.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Birmingham the Myth of Eurasia
    University of Birmingham The Myth of Eurasia - A Mess of Regions Smith, Jeremy; Richardson, Paul DOI: 10.1080/08865655.2016.1266276 License: Other (please specify with Rights Statement) Document Version Peer reviewed version Citation for published version (Harvard): Smith, J & Richardson, P 2017, 'The Myth of Eurasia - A Mess of Regions', Journal of Borderlands Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2016.1266276 Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal Publisher Rights Statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Borderlands Studies on 22/03/2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/08865655.2016.1266276. General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Date 2 November 2015 Speaker: Dr. Kent E. Calder, Director
    Bologna Institute for Policy Research Via Belmeloro, 11 - Bologna (Italy) +39 051 292 7811 www.bipr.eu Date 2 November 2015 Speaker: Dr. Kent E. Calder, Director, Reischaeur Center for East Asian Studies, Johns Hopkins University SAIS, Washington D.C., United States Chair: Dr. Erik Jones, Director of European and Eurasian Studies and Professor of European Studies and International Political Economy, Johns Hopkins University SAIS Europe, Bologna, Italy, and Senior Research Fellow, Nuffield College, Oxford, United Kingdom “Eurasia’s Changing Configuration in Global Political-Economic Context” Part of Europe’s Security Challenges Series Dr. Kent Calder discusses the phenomenon of “New Continentalism,” referring to strengthening Eurasian interdependence, and its implications for global international affairs. He begins with the three transformational decades between the 1970s and 1990s which set Japan, the “Asian tigers,” and China on paths towards rapid economic growth. Despite the political changes that accommodated growth, Calder highlights that geographical constancies across the continent, such as fixed resource endowments, ultimately determined and will continue to determine the limits and relative manner in which East Asian nations develop. Resource constraints, especially concerning energy resources, are shifting political linkages across the continent, which was once divided by Cold War enmity, and now held in balance by China. To understand the nuances of regional interdependence, Calder focuses on the actions of individual leaders, companies and consumers, as well as the natural and institutional constraint that bind actors’ decision-making. It is within this transnational, historically-specific, framework, that Calder views New Continentalism as a product of “critical junctures.” He deems historical events as such if they change the parameters for economic decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • Pan-Africanism/African Nationalism
    Pan-Africanism/African Nationalism PAN-AFRICANISM AFRICAN NATIONALISM Strengthening the Unity of Africa and its Diaspora Edited by B.F. Bankie & K. Mchombu The Red Sea Press, Inc. Publishers & Distributors of Third World Books P. O. Box 1892 RSP P. O. Box 48 Trenton, NJ 08607 Asmara, ERITREA The Red Sea Press, Inc. Publishers & Distributors of Third World Books P. O. Box 1892 RSP P. O. Box 48 Trenton, NJ 08607 Asmara, ERITREA Copyright © 2008 B.F. Bankie & K. Mchombu First Africa World Press Edition 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechani- cal, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher. Book and cover design: Saverance Publishing Services (www.saverancepublishing.com) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data All African Students’ Conference (17th : 2005 : Windhoek, Namibia) Pan-Africanism/African nationalism : strengthening the unity of Africa and its diaspora / edited by B.F. Bankie & K. Mchombu. -- 2nd ed. p. cm. Rev. ed. of: Pan-Africanism. 2006. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-56902-297-6 (hardcover) -- ISBN 1-56902-298-4 (pbk.) 1. Pan-Africanism--Congresses. 2. African diaspora--Congresses. I. Bankie, B. F. II. Mchombu, K. J. (Kingo J.) III. All African Students’ Con- ference (17th : 2005 : Windhoek, Namibia). Pan-Africanism. IV. Title. DT30.5.A48 2005a 320.54096--dc22 2008022490 TABLE OF CONTENts PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION | B. F. Bankie ix DEDICATION TO JOHN GARANG DE MABIOR | Dani Wadada Nabudere xi FOREWORD | Kwesi Kwaa Prah xxix Conference Opening Session 1 Opening Remarks | Elaine Trepper 3 Welcoming Address | Lazarus Hangula 5 Statement | C.
    [Show full text]