No. 284, JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2021
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 284, JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2021 Motto:”Opinions are free, but not mandatory“ I.L.Caragiale 1 CONTENT Geostrategic Pulse, No 284, January - February 2021 EDITORIAL 29 Achim HURRELMANN : THE WESTERN BALKANS “The EU’s own history shows 3 A Promising Start that economic and political 49 Zlatko HADŽIDEDIĆ: th, cooperation across borders can “All major wars in the 19 promote peace and prosperity” th st 20 , and 21 centuries have been generated by nationalism. On the global geopolitical level, nationalism was also the main tool for the transformation of the entire Constantin IACOBIȚĂ world, for the dissolution of large mercantilist empires and INTERNATIONAL SITUATION 31 Decisive Moments in their transformation into a Romania’s History number of nation-states” 4 NATO and Emerging Security Chalenges Ion I. JINGA THE MIDDLE EAST Michael RÜHLE 33 Romania and the System of 53 Interview with Christopher DAVIDSON on Treaties of Versailles 9 A New Wave of Investment the Current and Future State of Protectionism: Characteristics, the Middle East Politics Determinants and Country Alexandru GHIŞA Experiences THE BLACK SEA Iulia Monica OEHLER-ȘINCAI EUROPEAN UNION 45 Angela GRĂMADĂ: “At this point, Maia Sandu cannot completely change the 25 European Defence substance of the bilateral Cooperation in Times of Crisis dialogue with Russia, however, ________ she can steer it in the right direction” 56 About the Authors Jiří ŠEDIVÝ 26 Monika HOHLMEIER: 47 Crimea Platform: Ukraine’s "The EU budget is a symbol of Initiative to Raise the Costs of solidarity and common Russia’s Occupation interests and it benefits every single Member State" Vladimir SOCOR 2 Geostrategic Pulse, No 284, January - February 2021 www.pulsulgeostrategic.ro Motto: “Opinions are free, but not mandatory” - I.L.Caragiale EDITORIAL A Promising Start Constantin IACOBIȚĂ President Joe Biden’s first foreign engagements seem promising, even if they are limited to the online environment because of the restrictions imposed by a pandemic whose causes, manifestations, effects, and duration are yet to be entirely known. During his online appearances at the G7 Summit and the Munich Security Conference that took place late last week, the new American president emphatically stated that the USA was returning as a global leader, and as a trusted partner for its allies. Joe Biden’s messages probably included everything the allies of the USA have been waiting for four years – he reconfirmed the transatlantic link and the USA’s commitment to NATO, the values of democracy, as well as the economic, security and environment cooperation. In short, America’s return to multilateralism. The new American president also announced a change in Washington’s approach and attitude with regard to Russia (which he called a destabilizing factor on an international level), in contrast with his predecessor, Donald Trump; however, he also indicated a certain continuity as far as China was concerned. Beyond their reassuring nature, though, the messages of the new US President should be viewed from a realistic point of view. Thus, on one hand, the intention to reposition America as a global leader and to recommit it as a multilateral player was announced, last week as well, through two relevant actions: •The Munich Security Conference was also used as an opportunity by the Biden Administration to announce the US rejoining the Paris Agreement. •Three days before, an official with the Health Department announced that the USA was to transition from observer, to member of the COVAX Council, an initiative co-chaired by the World Health Organization whose objective was the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines globally (the USA has allotted 4 billion USD worth of funds for this global effort). On the other hand, it remains to be seen to what extent America will succeed in being what its president committed to. And the most edifying tests in this respect could be two of the issues the Biden Administration has already voiced about. The first is climate change, where a position and especially a collective commitment to countering them internationally are very difficult to imagine without the cooperation of America’s adversaries – China (most of all, since this country is the number one producer of carbon monoxide in the world) and Russia. The second is represented by the Iranian nuclear programme. Secretary of state Antony Blinken suggested, the day before the two international events mentioned above, that the USA would return to the negotiating table on the Iranian nuclear programme; however, according to the official transcripts of the phone call President Joe Biden had (the very same day) with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the terms of the US’ re-engagement in the process would also depend on Israel. 3 www.pulsulgeostrategic.ro Geostrategic Pulse, No 284, January - February 2021 INTERNATIONAL SITUATION Michael RÜHLE integral part of any military campaign. Similarly, while the effect of politically motivated terrorist In 1948, some of the brightest minds in the US, attacks against critical energy infrastructure may be Canada, and Western Europe got together to create a largely symbolic, state-sponsored attacks can also novel transatlantic defence pact. Their goal was to have the goal to undermine a country’s ability to draft a treaty so simple and clear that even “a build up a coherent conventional military defence. milkman in Omaha” would understand it. The Disinformation can be used as a tool to de-stabilize a diplomats succeeded. The Washington Treaty, state, yet it can also be part of a “hybrid warfare” signed on 4 April 1949, required only 14 articles to approach, intended to prepare for (and then mask) a outline a transatlantic defence community that was direct military aggression against a neighbouring entirely different from the short-lived alliances of state. Climate change, in turn, can increase the convenience that had been the curse of European number and scale of natural disasters, with the history. The Treaty, which soon turned into a fully- military often being the “first responder”, but it can fledged organization called NATO, described a also aggravate conflicts between states or generate community of destiny between two continents – a new migration pressures. While it appears unlikely community that would last much longer than its that the future will see “resource wars”, as founding fathers ever dared to dream. propounded by some sensationalist authors, it is However, over seven decades of successful clear that oil, gas and other natural resources (e.g., transatlantic defence cooperation say little about “rare earths”) will affect international security NATO’s future. After all, the Washington Treaty policy: an oil discovery in a region claimed by two was written at a time when security was largely states; a dam project in a water-scarce region that understood as state-centric, focused on the defence further limits the scarce supply of water to a of borders and territory against an aggression by neighbouring country – such scenarios are not only another state. Today, these traditional notions of imaginable but likely. Finally, the number of security are increasingly giving way to a complex “virtual” nuclear weapons states is not only growing mix of military and non-military threats that can due to more countries mastering the full nuclear fuel affect societies also from within. These range from cycle, it is also growing due to the targeted manmade threats, such as cyberattacks or commercialisation of proliferation, for example the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to through the emergence of a “black market” for broader phenomena, such as climate change or sensitive technologies. resource scarcity. For NATO, which is based on traditional notions of defence against an “armed attack”, who’s founding Treaty even defines the specific territory that is eligible for collective protection, this rise of “de-territorialized”, non- kinetic threats create a whole series of challenges. How well NATO addresses them will determine its future as an effective security provider for almost one billion citizens. The Interaction of Traditional and Non- Traditional Security Challenges The return of great power competition, notably Russia’s revisionism and China’s more assertive foreign policy, is a stark reminder that the increase of non-traditional threats does not spell the obsolescence of traditional security challenges, such www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_78170.htm as inter-state wars. On the contrary, traditional and non-traditional threats increasingly interact. Cyberattacks, for example, have long been a tool for The Need to Adapt industrial espionage, yet they also have become an This emerging security landscape challenges 4 Geostrategic Pulse, No 284, January - February 2021 www.pulsulgeostrategic.ro NATO on several levels. On the institutional level, ranging from then security implications of Artificial the new threats challenge the centrality of NATO, as Intelligence to the strategic consequences of many of them are non-military in nature and thus do Bitcoins. not lend themselves to purely military responses. On the political level, the fact that these threats offer Countering Hybrid Challenges little or no early warning, are often anonymous as Russia’s use of hybrid tools in its assault on well as ambiguous, and, above all, non-existential, Ukraine in 2014 forced NATO to not only re- creates dilemmas of attribution as well as of emphasise its core task of collective defence, but solidarity