DOCSLIB.ORG

Croatia External Relations Briefing: an Overview of Key Foreign Affairs Topics Which Shaped the Political Environment of Croatia in 2019 Benjamin Petrović

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Croatia External Relations Briefing: an Overview of Key Foreign Affairs Topics Which Shaped the Political Environment of Croatia in 2019 Benjamin Petrović ISSN: 2560-1601 Vol. 24, No. 4 (HR) Dec 2019 Croatia external relations briefing: An overview of key foreign affairs topics which shaped the political environment of Croatia in 2019 Benjamin Petrović 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 An overview of key foreign affairs topics which shaped the political environment of Croatia in 2019 Summary In the year of 2019, Croatia took part in a significant number of initiatives on an international scale, and its years-long activity in the same sphere resulted in its officials being awarded with positions of high responsibility in the international organizations. At the same time, it can be noted that some of the involvements in the international sphere are not well reflected on Croatian society, economics, and other pressing concerns. Hence, a questions of national interests are being raised, and whether engagement in many foreign affairs events and initiatives is anything more for Croatia than a declaration of a growing reputation in international community. Diplomatic achievement; a Croatian Secretary General of the Council of Europe The Council of Europe, situated in Strasbourg, France, is an international organization quite unfamiliar to Croatian general public. Because of such lack of recognition, improved by the chronic disinterest and apathy of Croatian citizens towards international institutions, there was far less excitement than expected when, on 26th of June 2019, Croatian Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Marija Pejčinović Burić was elected as the next Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Therefore, it is vital to note that the Council of Europe is a leading international organization in promotion of human rights, democratic values and the rule of law. Often confused with the institutions of the European Union, the Council of Europe was founded in 1949, and is much more open in regards of membership, comprising of 47 member states, including non-EU members like Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Armenia and Switzerland. Also, it has much lesser degree of impact than the institutions of the European Union with the most significant leverage of power in the European Court of Human Rights. Still, the Council of Europe is held in high regard from the perspective of progressive, modern Europe-oriented politicians, who deem it as yet another vehicle towards further integration, institutional interlinkage, and pan-European companionship. Being a clear representative of such a politician, Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković took a great deal of pride when, Pejčinović Burić, a Minister in his cabinet and a Deputy Prime Minister, was 1 elected to lead the discussed organization. Indeed, Marija Pejčinović Burić, a moderate polyglot, with a measured presentation, and multilaterally oriented, eurocratic tendencies, is an evident material to lead an organization of any stature. Her new position is a definite success in terms of recognition and branding of Croatian potential in politics and management. Moreover, her declared dedication towards preserving the importance of the Council of Europe as an effective institution, able to cope with all current and potential issues, is encouraging for various interests of European leaders who tend to rely on institutions such as that, in order to achieve a broader reach of influence. It is to be seen how the presiding over an international organization will affect Croatia, regardless of mere promotional boon. As a leader of an organization of human rights character, Pejčinović Burić has an opportunity to stress many issues that bother Croatian citizens stemming from information rights, violence against women, domestic rights, education rights, media freedom, just to name a few. Additionally, with the support of Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner, Dunja Mijatović, dealing with the matter of abuse of Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina would be possible. Taking all into account, the election of a Croatian official on a significant position in the network of international organizations can be described as a diplomatic victory only if it implies more than a bragging merit serving as another highlight in biographies of Croatian diplomats. Croatia’s ascend in the European Union hierarchy? After the election for the European Parliament concluded in May of 2019, a true tall order was in front of European officials, as the Spitzenkandidat concept, which implied that every political option should nominate their candidate for the presidency over European Commission, proved to be a failure. The European leaders, faced with clashing national interests, which unfortunately shape the outcomes of decision-making processes on the EU level, were unable to come to a swift and consensual agreement. In line with that, to avoid further disarray, the decision was made behind the closed doors. In this clear presentation of democratic deficit that is burdening the institutions of the European Union, the European People’s Party elected one of its most zealous and notable representatives among the European leaders to be its’ leading negotiator, Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković. Himself, often a target of media rumors that a heading seat of one of the EU institutions is waiting for him, Plenković is an experienced diplomat, a former Member of the European Parliament, and one of the most trusted political allies of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On the one hand, Plenković is criticized by 2 certain media, members of the Croatian opposition, and perhaps mostly, Croatian public, of putting the European interests in front of the ones of his own country. But on the other hand, those who find it to be a positive merit, find Plenković to be a perfect portrait of an educated eurocrat, leading a developing country towards political recognition. Everything mentioned above is important because of the fact that regardless of different opinions, the Prime Minister of Croatia did have one of key roles in electing the new president of the European Commission. The decision fell on Ursula von der Leyen, a former Minister of Defense of Germany, which is a valuable fact because of Plenković’s mentioned closeness with the German Chancellor. Such special relationship was confirmed when von der Leyen choose Croatia to be her third destination for an official visit after being elected. Another, more visible diplomatic success is von der Leyen’s election of Dubravka Šuica for a vice president of the Commission and commissioner in charge of Democracy and Demography sector. Leading a new sector, Šuica will have to deal with the issues of democracy and demography which can be recognized in every member state, manifested by a low interest of the citizens of the EU countries towards its’ institutions, especially noticed at the election for the European Parliament. Additional significant responsibility delegated to Šuica is the organization and running of a Conference on the Future of Europe. An event viewed as a tool to attract European citizens, aims at creating dialogue between citizens, civil society organizations, and the EU institutions, with an emphasis on the democratic process and development of confidence and trust between one another. Looking at everything mentioned, it can be declared that Croatia found a valuable ally in the new president of the European Commission, but the challenge lies within preserving a role of relevance and directing it towards the decision-making processes on a European level with a purpose of solving a vast array of issues that Croatia is facing. Questioning the participation in international peacekeeping missions In the period of late July 2019, Croatian public sentiment was shaken by a tragedy which occurred in Afghanistan, a global hot spot engulfed in a war lasting almost two decades. A young Croatian soldier, member of a contingent of Croatian military personnel deployed in NATO peacekeeping mission Resolute Support, died as a victim of a terrorist attack by a suicide bomber near Kabul. In an attack on a military convoy, another two members of Croatian Armed Forces were badly injured, but in time, managed to recover from their physical wounds. 3 A loss of life, tragedy in itself, served as an impetus for additional questioning of the purpose, necessity, and future of Croatian involvement in international peacekeeping missions, stressing NATO’s Resolute Support as the one with the highest degree of risk. Not undermining the tragic death, an array of questions came out of the event, questions that require a detailed analysis on levels of foreign affairs, military and security. Croatia, a member of NATO since 2009, is actively involved in the implementation of its decisions and missions and a true representative of a responsible and, in line with its capabilities, competent member. However, when the line is crossed by a tragic event, a matter of discounting solidarity towards allies against protecting national interest must be addressed. Yet, another source of concern stems from defining national interests. After taking a look at all the priorities a developing country, such as Croatia, must have, from national economy and trade to development and security, there is no apparent national interest that is accomplished by Croatia’s involvement in Afghanistan. The only argument of value is preserving the relations which enable continuous strengthening of integration processes with the organizations of the West. Nevertheless, being an active ally, and fulfilling the responsibilities set forth, must not be a goal in itself. Aiming at materializing tangible benefits, reaching every end of international cooperation spectrum, is what should define national interests, not a mere declaration of being loyal ally. After the media incentives, President Kolinda Grabar Kitarović, Prime Minister Andrej Plenković, and Minister of Defense Damir Krstičević, all gave laconic comments, emphasizing the tragedy. But the issue of participation in peacekeeping missions, which is based on insufficiently defined reasoning, still remains.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Understanding to Cooperation Promoting Interfaith Encounters to Meet Global Challenges
    20TH ANNUAL EPP GROUP INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE WITH CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS FROM UNDERSTANDING TO COOPERATION PROMOTING INTERFAITH ENCOUNTERS TO MEET GLOBAL CHALLENGES Zagreb, 7 - 8 December 2017 20TH ANNUAL EPP GROUP INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE WITH CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS / 3 PROGRAMME 10:00-12:30 hrs / Sessions I and II The role of religion in European integration process: expectations, potentials, limits Wednesday, 6 December 10:00-11:15 hrs Session I 20.30 hrs. / Welcome Reception hosted by the Croatian Delegation / Memories and lessons learned during 20 years of Dialogue Thursday, 7 December Co-Chairs: György Hölvényi MEP and Jan Olbrycht MEP, Co-Chairmen of 09:00 hrs / Opening the Working Group on Intercultural Activities and Religious Dialogue György Hölvényi MEP and Jan Olbrycht MEP, Co-Chairmen of the Working Opening message: Group on Intercultural Activities and Religious Dialogue Dubravka Šuica MEP, Head of Croatian Delegation of the EPP Group Alojz Peterle MEP, former Responsible of the Interreligious Dialogue Welcome messages Interventions - Mairead McGuinness, First Vice-President of the European Parliament, - Gordan Jandroković, Speaker of the Croatian Parliament responsible for dialogue with religions (video message) - Joseph Daul, President of the European People’ s Party - Joseph Daul, President of the European People’ s Party - Vito Bonsignore, former Vice-Chairman of the EPP Group responsible for - Andrej Plenković, Prime Minister of Croatia Dialogue with Islam - Mons. Prof. Tadeusz Pieronek, Chairman of the International Krakow Church Conference Organizing Committee - Stephen Biller, former EPP Group Adviser responsible for Interreligious Dialogue Discussion 20TH ANNUAL EPP GROUP INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE WITH CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS / 5 4 /20TH ANNUAL EPP GROUP INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE WITH CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 11:15-12:30 hrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sobranie: « Jean Monnet Dialogue» for Peace and Democracy
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT – SOBRANIE: « JEAN MONNET DIALOGUE» FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY PROGRAMME - 17 - 19 May 2018 Thursday, 17 May 2018 Individual Transfers/Transfer from Skopje to Ohrid organised by Sobranie 16.00 - 19.00 Bus transfer of the EP Delegation from the EUDel in Skopje to Ohrid 19.00 - 20.00 Check-in at the Inex Gorica Hotel or Laki Hotel & Spa 19.45 - 20.15 Bus transfer of participants from Laki Hotel & Spa to Inex Gorica 20.30 - 22.00 Welcome Dinner at the Inex Gorica Hotel Restaurant Keynote address: “The central role of the Sobranie in driving the EU integration and reform agenda” Commissioner Johannes HAHN, European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations (recorded message) Mr Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Member of the European Parliament and Secretary-General of the European People’s Party, on behalf of EPP President Mr Joseph DAUL Welcome by: Mr Eduard KUKAN, Mr Knut FLECKENSTEIN, Mr Ivo VAJGL, Members of the European Parliament President Talat XHAFERI, Speaker of the Sobranie 22.00 Bus transfer of participants staying in Laki Spa Hotel to the hotel Friday, 18 May 18 08.30 - 09.00 Bus transfer of participants staying in Laki Spa Hotel to the Inex Gorica hotel 09.00 - 10.00 Opening of the Jean Monnet Dialogue process: core principle consensus on pursuing a united approach to Euro-Atlantic integration for the Macedonian people and institutional strengthening of the Sobranie as the democratic pillar of all reforms. (Methodology and rules of engagement) Co-chaired by President Mr Talat XHAFERI and Mr Ivo VAJGL (3 MEPs always sitting together but rotate the Chair per session).
    [Show full text]
  • The European Parliament
    The European Parliament Kristin Archick Specialist in European Affairs Derek E. Mix Analyst in European Affairs July 22, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS21998 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The European Parliament Summary On June 4-7, 2009, the 27 member countries of the European Union (EU) held elections for the European Parliament (EP). The European Parliament is one of the three key institutions of the European Union, and the only EU institution whose members are directly elected. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) serve five-year terms. Once limited to being a consultative assembly, the EP has accumulated more power over time—it performs important functions in the EU’s legislative and budgeting processes, and exercises supervision over the two other main EU institutions, the Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) and the European Commission. Although it does not formally initiate EU legislation, the EP has “co-decision” power in about three-quarters of EU legislation, giving it the right to amend or reject proposals. The Lisbon Treaty, if ratified, would increase the EP’s role further, giving it amendment and veto authority over the vast majority of EU legislation. Moreover, supporters argue, as the only directly elected EU institution, the EP increasingly plays an important checks-and-balances role on behalf of Europe’s citizens. Supporters also claim that the EP’s influence is even growing in strictly consultative areas, such as the EU’s common foreign policy, and that the EP has become an important forum for debate on international issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Members of the European Parliament: Heavyweights Or Not?
    University of Twente Faculty of Management and Governance Bachelor Thesis The Members of the European Parliament: heavyweights or not? Supervisor: H. van der Kolk Student: Melissa van Supervisor 2: Nellestijn M. Rosema August 17, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background of the thesis . .1 1.2 Scientific and Social Relevance . .1 1.3 Research Question and Sub-Questions . .2 2 Theory 4 2.1 The Member States . .4 2.2 The Political Party . .6 2.3 Summarizing the argument . .7 3 Methods 9 3.1 Research Design . .9 3.2 Case Selection and Sampling . .9 3.3 Data Collection Methods . 10 3.4 Operationalization . 10 3.4.1 A heavyweight . 10 3.4.1.1 Coding of the individual MEPs . 10 3.4.1.2 The Reliability and Validity of the scorecard . 14 3.4.2 Region classification . 15 3.4.3 Electoral system . 15 3.4.4 Small or large Member State . 16 3.4.5 Age groups . 17 3.4.6 Small or large political party . 17 3.4.7 Comparing the variables . 18 3.4.8 Overview of identified independent variables . 18 4 Results 19 4.1 Region and heavyweight . 21 4.2 Member State size and number of incumbent members . 21 4.3 Member State size and heavyweight . 22 4.4 Political party size and heavyweight . 23 4.4.1 Party size and heavyweight score . 23 4.4.2 Gender, political party size and heavyweight . 23 4.4.3 Age, political party size and heavyweight . 25 4.5 More women is fewer heavyweights? . 26 5 Discussion 27 6 Conclusion 29 References 31 A The changed scorecard and effect on the scores for the MEPs 33 B The national political parties 36 i 1 Introduction The European Parliament has developed since the start in 1952 in to \one of the most powerful institutions of the European Union" (Hix, 2002, p.688).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Members
    Committee on International Trade Members Helmuth MARKOV Chair Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left Germany DIE LINKE. Corien WORTMANN-KOOL Vice-Chair Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Netherlands Christen Democratisch Appèl Godelieve QUISTHOUDT-ROWOHL Vice-Chair Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Germany Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands Cristiana MUSCARDINI Vice-Chair Union for Europe of the Nations Group Italy Alleanza nazionale Kader ARIF Member Socialist Group in the European Parliament France Parti socialiste Francisco ASSIS Member Socialist Group in the European Parliament Portugal Partido Socialista Daniel BAUTISTA Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Spain Partido Popular Daniel CASPARY Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Germany Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands Françoise CASTEX Member Socialist Group in the European Parliament France Parti socialiste Trevor COLMAN Member Independence/Democracy Group United Kingdom UK Independence Party 01/10/2021 1 Christofer FJELLNER Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Sweden Moderata Samlingspartiet Glyn FORD Member Socialist Group in the European Parliament United Kingdom Labour and the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party Béla GLATTFELDER Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats)
    [Show full text]
  • The European Parliament
    The European Parliament Kristin Archick Specialist in European Affairs May 19, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS21998 The European Parliament Summary Between May 22 and May 25, 2014, the 28 member states of the European Union (EU) will hold elections for the next European Parliament (EP). The Parliament is a key EU institution that represents the citizens of the EU. It works closely with the two other main EU bodies, the European Commission (the EU’s executive) and the Council of the European Union (also known as the Council of Ministers, on which the national governments of the EU’s 28 member states are represented). Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) serve five-year terms, and have been directly elected since 1979. The next EP will have 751 seats. Once limited to being a consultative assembly, the EP has accumulated more power over time. Experts assert that the EU’s latest effort at institutional reform—the Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on December 1, 2009—has increased the relative power of the EP within the EU considerably. The EP now shares legislative power with the Council of Ministers in most policy areas, giving the EP the right to accept, amend, or reject the vast majority of EU laws (with some exceptions in areas such as tax matters or foreign policy). The Lisbon Treaty also gives the EP the power to decide on the allocation of the EU budget jointly with the Council, the right to approve or reject international agreements, and greater decision-making authority on trade-related issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Seniors Standing up for Europe
    Seniors standing up for Europe EUROPEAN SENIORS’ UNION Annual Report 2019 COPYRIGHT©2019, EUROPEAN SENIORS’ UNION (ESU), BRUSSELS EDITED BY: AN HERMANS, GUIDO DUMON AND MICHELLE VERVAEKE. THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED OR USED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN INTENDED BY THE ESU. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: [email protected] Contents 1 A Common focus: the European Elections 2019_pag. 06 2 The ESU Bodies_pag.10 3 ESU Conferences _pag.019 4 Representation of the ESU_pag.024 5 Other activities and events_pag.028 6 29 April & 1 October, two days to highlight_pag.033 7 Looking ahead_pag.036 Foreword Foreword 2019 was a year full of challenges, for Europe, for the European People’s Party (EPP), for the European Seniors’ Union (ESU), for all of us. It was a year with many experiences and activities, in addition to the European Elections, and our statutory Congress. We look back with pride on 2019. The ESU, as a member association of the EPP, aims to be part of a better future for all generations. In a society of longevity, governments at all levels and actors in all areas have to cope with the gains, strengths and limitations of ageing generations. We encourage a new approach. The time has come to recognize the capabilities and know-how of older persons and value the role they play in all parts of societal live. We believe in a strong, democratic and united Europe. Despite difficulties and threats, complex challenges, nationalist and populist tendencies worldwide, we look forward to the future with hope and optimism. We stand up for Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Candidate Selection Procedures for the European Elections
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES DIRECTORATE C - CITIZENS’ RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS Candidate selection procedures for the European elections STUDY Abstract This study was prepared by the Centre d’étude de la vie politique (Cevipol), part of the Institute for European Studies (IEE) and the Faculté des sciences sociales et politiques (FSP) of the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB). It provides a systematic and thorough account of candidate selection procedures for the European elections. It covers four aspects: (1) a general overview of candidate selection procedures in the major parties of all EU Member States; (2) a detailed account of the candidate selection procedures for a sample of countries/parties, based on an analysis of the formal and informal practices; (3) an investigation into the relations between national political parties, political groups in the EP, and the European political parties; and (4) the provision of recommendations as to how to improve the democratic quality of candidate selection for the European elections. PE 519.206 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs. AUTHORS PILET Jean-Benoit VAN HAUTE Emilie KELBEL Camille RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Petr NOVAK Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: FR ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in May 2015. © European Parliament, Brussels, 2015. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranking European Parliamentarians on Climate Action
    Ranking European Parliamentarians on Climate Action EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTENTS With the European elections approaching, CAN The scores were based on the votes of all MEPs on Austria 2 Europe wanted to provide people with some these ten issues. For each vote, MEPs were either Belgium 3 background information on how Members of the given a point for voting positively (i.e. either ‘for’ Bulgaria 4 European Parliament (MEPs) and political parties or ‘against’, depending on if the text furthered or Cyprus 5 represented in the European Parliament – both hindered the development of climate and energy Czech Republic 6 national and Europe-wide – have supported or re- policies) or no points for any of the other voting Denmark 7 jected climate and energy policy development in behaviours (i.e. ‘against’, ‘abstain’, ‘absent’, ‘didn’t Estonia 8 the last five years. With this information in hand, vote’). Overall scores were assigned to each MEP Finland 9 European citizens now have the opportunity to act by averaging out their points. The same was done France 10 on their desire for increased climate action in the for the European Parliament’s political groups and Germany 12 upcoming election by voting for MEPs who sup- all national political parties represented at the Greece 14 ported stronger climate policies and are running European Parliament, based on the points of their Hungary 15 for re-election or by casting their votes for the respective MEPs. Finally, scores were grouped into Ireland 16 most supportive parties. CAN Europe’s European four bands that we named for ease of use: very Italy 17 Parliament scorecards provide a ranking of both good (75-100%), good (50-74%), bad (25-49%) Latvia 19 political parties and individual MEPs based on ten and very bad (0-24%).
    [Show full text]
  • 20Th Summit of Chairmen of EPP Parliamentary Groups in the National Parliaments of the EU and the EP
    20th Summit of Chairmen of EPP Parliamentary Groups in the National Parliaments of the EU and the EP 7 April 2014 Relations with National Parliaments EN 20th Summit of Chairmen of EPP Parliamentary Groups in the National Parliaments of the EU and the EP 2 - 20th Summit, 7 April 2014 - Relations with National Parliaments 20th Summit of Chairmen of EPP Parliamentary Groups in the National Parliaments of the EU and the EP TABLE OF CONTENTS Programme 4 Opening of the Summit 6 First session: “The European Commission: Evaluation and challenges for 2014” 8 Second session: After the Congress in Dublin: a candidate for Europe 12 Third session: The EPP electoral campaign for the European elections 24 Fourth session: Summary of the Greek Presidency 38 Final Declaration 44 Relations with National Parliaments - 20th Summit, 7 April 2014 - 3 20th Summit of Chairmen of EPP Parliamentary Groups in the National Parliaments of the EU and the EP PROGRAMME Opening of Summit Paulo RANGEL MEP, Vice-Chair of the EPP Group, responsible for relations with Parliamentary Groups of the national Parliaments, lead candidate PSD, Portugal I. “The European Commission: Evaluation and challenges for 2014” • José Manuel BARROSO, President of the European Commission : Debate II. After the Congress in Dublin : a candidate for Europe • Joseph DAUL MEP, Chairman of the EPP Group, President of the European People’s Party • Marianne THYSSEN MEP, lead candidate CD&V, Belgium • David McALLISTER, CDU lead candidate (Spitzenkandidat) to the European elections, Germany Key note address by : • Jean-Claude JUNCKER, EPP Candidate for President of the European Commission Debate III.
    [Show full text]
  • Martens Centre — Activity Report
    8 1 0 2 — Martens Centre — Activity Report © February 2019 - Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies — Martens Centre Activity Report 2018 Editors: This publication reCeives funding from Marina Bulatović the European Parliament. Ioana Lung © Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies 2019 Publication Design: www.oblique.agency The European Parliament assumes no responsibility for facts or opinions Brussels, February 2019 expressed in this publication or their subsequent use. The Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies Photos used in this publication: is the political foundation and think tank © Wilfried Martens Centre for of the European People’s Party (EPP) and European Studies 2018 is dedicated to the promotion of Christian Democrat, conservative and like-minded Wilfried Martens Centre for political values. European Studies [email protected] For more information please visit: +32 (0) 2 300 80 04 www.martenscentre.eu Rue du CommerCe 20 B-1000 Brussels —Welcome 2018 was a very special year for our organisation Communications Award 2018 for our podcast as we celebrated the frst decade of our existence. series ´Europe out loud´. In DeCember we closed We took our anniversary not just as an opportu- our four-year long #UkraineReforms series, which nity to celebrate, but also as a chance to refect. aims to support Ukraine on their rocky path to- It seemed crucial to us to set up objectives to wards democracy with an event co-organised with Counteract all political challenges for the decade Hanns Seidel Foundation about Ukraine’s reform ahead. agenda - fve years after Majdan. I am proud of the fact that we have helped in the All these remarkable sucCesses are the direct Consolidation and continuation of the European result of the dedicated and hard-working Martens project.
    [Show full text]
  • Meps As Mediators: an Emerging Trend of Parliamentary Diplomacy?
    MEPs as Mediators: An Emerging Trend of Parliamentary Diplomacy? Lorinc Redei (LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, Austin) [email protected] Paper presented at the European Union Studies Association Biennial Conference, May 2017 DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT AUTHOR’S PERMISSION Abstract: Over the past few years, the European Parliament (EP) has begun engaging in a novel form of parliamentary diplomacy: political mediation. Through three case studies (Albania, Ukraine and Macedonia), this paper explores how EP parliamentarians have sought to help find solutions to political disputes in non-EU countries. The cases evaluate these mediation efforts according to four factors: the level of MEP involvement, the role of the EP’s secretariat, the amount of cooperation with other EU actors, and the extent to which the EP arrived with a defined outcome in mind for the negotiations. The conclusion suggests that the EP’s increased institutionalization and formalization of its mediation activities through a new stand-alone Mediation Service will lead the Parliament to undertake more such missions in the future—and with higher rates of potential success. Introduction The European Parliament (EP) has long been an active participant in the external policies of the European Union (EU). It not only exercises democratic control over the EU’s more traditional foreign policy actors (the European Commission and the European External Action Service), but also engages with foreign actors on its own initiative. This activity is often referred to as parliamentary diplomacy—but the term is usually used in a narrow sense. In fact, the predominant focus of most research has been on the EP’s inter-parliamentary diplomacy: its formal role within international parliamentary fora, or its institutionalized bilateral meetings with national legislative bodies outside the EU.1 Yet the Parliament actively engages with non-EU actors in more informal ways, as well—something that scholars have begun to examine in greater detail.
    [Show full text]