ACE

Category: Europe

  • Introduction to the Australia-United Kingdom-United States Partnership

    Introduction to the Australia-United Kingdom-United States Partnership

    AUKUS Partnership Outline

    The AUKUS Partnership was one of the first major foreign policy actions of President Biden’s Administration. On September 15, 2021, AUKUS partners released a joint statement announcing the agreement. The goal of the partnership is to promote information and technology sharing, and integrate security and defense measures by increasing cooperation on a variety of capabilities, with a focus on the Indo-Pacific Region.  

    The AUKUS Partnership has three pillars 

    1. Provide Australia with “conventionally armed, nuclear powered submarine capabilities (SSN)”. Prior to this agreement, this technology was limited to six nuclear capable states (U.S.,UK, France, Russia, China, and India). The U.S. previously shared SSN technology with the UK, and AUKUS now extends this to Australia, a non-nuclear state. As such, this partnership is set to revolutionize Australian naval capabilities, which have struggled to travel longer distances due to limitations of electrically powered submarine fleets. 
    2. Advance military capabilities “to promote security and stability in the Indo-Pacific Region”. The AUKUS partnership outlines objectives to expand and develop technologies, such as: AUKUS Undersea Robotics Autonomous Systems (AURAS, the development of robotic undersea technologies), AUKUS Quantum Arrangement (AQuA, development of quantum technologies), cooperation on Artificial Intelligence (AI), collaboration on hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities, and the development of cyber capabilities and security measures. 
    3. Commit to information exchange. As of February 8, 2022, The Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement (ENNPIA) came into effect, resulting in AUKUS partners sharing nuclear propulsion intel trilaterally, the first agreement to do so with a non-nuclear capable state.

    U.S. Favorability of UK Partnership 

    Prior to the introduction of the AUKUS Partnership, the UK had limited influence or presence within the Indo-Pacific Region, with the only formal international agreement being their membership in the Five Eyes security alliance. However, this new partnership indicates a significant shift in UK foreign policy , confirming the UK’s intention to align with U.S. foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific.

    Figure showing the Overlap of Defense, Intelligence, and Security Groups in the Indo-Pacific Region.

    The AUKUS Partnership presented significant political fallout in U.S.–Europe relations, because it prioritized the UK security partnership over a broader European security pact.

    France was the most affected by the establishment of the AUKUS partnership as Australia withdrew from a previously agreed Franco-Australian Submarine deal to join AUKUS. This led to an increased strain on the U.S.–France Relations, due to both the loss of a multi-billion Euro agreement and the creation of a new security alliance formed without major European allies. Following the announcement of the AUKUS partnership, the new alliance took significant attention away from the European Union’s (EU) own policy plans for the Indo-Pacific Region. Given the contentious relations between the UK and the EU in a post-Brexit Europe, this partnership highlighted a perceived favoritism of U.S.–UK relations as loyal security partners, over a united Europe. In addition, with the introduction of the AUKUS Partnership, the agreement has strengthened an EU-independent UK as the only European state with significant security partnerships within the Indo-Pacific region.

    Ramifications of the AUKUS Partnership

    The response to the AUKUS partnership has been mixed. As discussed, the pact strained U.S.-French relations, and distanced the U.S. from Europe in terms of Indo-Pacific cooperation. Some believe this may lead to the EU pursuing its own independent security strategy when dealing with contentious U.S. and China relations, a position that has been publicly supported by French President Emmanuel Macron.

    The AUKUS partnership, however, will have the most on-the-ground impact within the Indo-Pacific region. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) reactions have been divided on the new security partnership present in the region. Recent analysis shows that 36.4% of ASEAN respondents say AUKUS would help “balance China’s growing military power”, yet 22.5% say the deal could spark “a regional arms race”. Overall there is a worry of what the broader consequences of agreements such as AUKUS may be, and their effects on the stability of the region.   

    A major concern of the AUKUS Partnership is the potentially dangerous precedent an agreement of this nature could set for nuclear proliferation. While all three partners emphasized their commitment against nuclear proliferation, this agreement is the first to allow a non-nuclear capable state to access nuclear technology. In addition, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires non-nuclear states to declare all nuclear material, with the IAEA verifying the material is not being used for weaponry development, thus acting as a deterrence for nuclear proliferation. However, the NPT relies on states to self-monitor naval nuclear reactors because of practical issues with access. Australia is setting a precedent as the first non-nuclear weapons state with nuclear materials the IAEA is not monitoring. It could be dangerous if other countries follow this path, and derail the current global nuclear nonproliferation system. While Australia may not prove to be an exploitive threat to nuclear weapons development through the AUKUS partnership, a future agreement of this nature could serve as the perfect cover for potential would-be-proliferators to advance nuclear development programs under the guise of access to nuclear material through naval reactors, no longer checked by the IAEA. 

    US–UK Relations and Nuclear Proliferation

    A 2020 report by Pew Research demonstrates that nuclear nonproliferation is a major foreign policy issue in the United States; 73% of Americans perceive the “spread of nuclear weapons” as a major threat to the U.S. This position attracts bipartisan support, with both Democrats and Republicans responding in equal measure to the perceived international threat. Moreover, 80% of respondents favor state cooperation with other countries as “very important” when navigating the spread of nuclear weapons.

    The United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (UK) have a long history of alignment on foreign policy objectives towards nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear war. Much of the existing U.S.–UK agreements on nuclear cooperation between both states derive and build upon the original 1958 “Atomic Energy. Cooperation for Mutual Defense Purposes” agreement, which bound both countries in a united front against other state development of atomic weapons. As such, the Australia–United Kingdom–United States (AUKUS) Partnership is yet another foreign policy step the U.S. and the UK have taken to further their allied cooperation to address the international security threats of today.

  • The Southern Gas Corridor and European Energy

    The Southern Gas Corridor and European Energy

    This brief was originally written by Nick Griffin. Before its publication, it was updated by Arielle Romm.

    As Europe transitions away from fossil fuels and towards green energy, natural gas has filled the gap between what existing fossil fuel generators are permitted to produce and clean energy sources are capable of providing. Natural gas generates about 22% of Europe’s energy supply, of which Russia supplies 33%. Russia’s influence over Europe’s energy supply poses a security threat for the continent. The ongoing war in Ukraine and the West’s ensuing sanctions have disrupted the supply of essential fuel. Many target Russia’s lucrative energy industry, which U.S. President Joe Biden has called “the main artery of Russia’s economy” and the U.S. banned imports of Russian oil, gas, and coal entirely. As Russia becomes more aggressive, European leaders have begun to recognize the necessity of diversifying energy imports and look elsewhere for natural gas supplies. In light of this, Central Asia and the Southern Gas Corridor have become key players as a counterbalance to both Russian energy power and strategic considerations regarding China’s influence in the region. 

    The Invasion of Ukraine and Impact on Energy Supply

    After Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, the United States, Europe, and other allies imposed sanctions to punish the nation for invading and deter further escalation. Though these sanctions aim to target the Russian economy, Europe and the West face steep energy prices as a result and may have to pay exorbitant gas prices if the conflict does not end quickly. Immediately following the invasion, gas prices rose 36% due to fear of sanctions impacting the European markets’ natural gas supply. The ongoing conflict has resulted in the destruction of pipelines and threatens to disrupt the flow of energy to European homes. In March of 2022, Putin set an ultimatum to Western nations that had previously been recipients of Russian gas and resources, requiring payment for gas in Russian rubles, rather than US dollars or euros. In the aftermath of this announcement, gas prices in the West jumped even further, and governments scrambled to find alternatives. Already, Russian energy giant Gazprom has halted the flow of gas to Bulgaria, Poland, and Finland, who refused to capitulate to the demands. Damaged Russia-West relations could impact the energy supply well into the future. Germany has canceled the certification of an important pipeline, Nord Stream 2, and sanctions could persist for years. 

    Building and Expanding the Southern Gas Corridor

    The ongoing war in Ukraine has highlighted the necessity of diversifying, but plans to connect Central Asian energy with Europe have been in the works for more than a decade. In 2012, an agreement between Azerbaijan and Turkey resulted in a new, Trans-Anatolian pipeline to transport Azerbaijani gas from the Caspian Sea gas fields to European markets. Construction began in 2015 and was completed in 2018. The existing Trans-Anatolian pipeline (TANAP) was expanded to connect with Greece, Italy, and Southeastern Europe. Known as the Southern Gas Corridor, this energy source has become essential in recent weeks and could be the future of European energy. Further expansions are underway; the Gas Interconnector Greece–Bulgaria will connect to the Southern Gas Corridor pipeline in Stara Zagora. When the expansion is complete, Bulgaria is projected to import ⅓ of its natural gas from Azerbaijan.

    Understanding Europe’s Dilemma

    Although plans are currently in the works to fully transition to green energy (eliminating the need for gas pipelines altogether), Germany’s carbon emission reduction goals are currently set to a 65% reduction by 2030 and an 88% reduction in carbon emissions by 2040. The EU, recognizing the urgency of this energy shift, has pledged to spend €210 billion ($222 billion) to wean itself off Russian oil and gas through the REPowerEU plan. works to reduce its consumption of Russia’s gas by 66% before the end of this year, but may only be able to break its dependence completely before 2027 even at the best-case scenario. However, the most ambitious plans still require Europe to import natural gas at least a few more years, if not decades. Continued reliance on Russia is a security risk while changing suppliers to Turkey and Azerbaijan would shift the risk and support two regimes that have been accused of human rights violations. 

    • Azerbaijan, the source of the gas, has been called an authoritarian state by organizations like Freedom House. The leader of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, has ruled since a 2003 election that featured accusations of repression and intimidation of opposition candidates and rallies. Azerbaijan has been accused of violating its citizens’ human rights, including those of opposition leaders and journalists by Human Rights Watch. The country is also purported to have committed war crimes during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, including decapitations and mutilations of Armenian soldiers as well as the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets. 
    • Similarly, Turkey has been accused of clamping down on civil rights, limiting the free speech rights of dissidents and journalists, and criminalizing criticism of Turkish President Erdogan. Erdogan’s government has been charged with torturing political dissidents in prison.

    China’s economic presence in Central Asia has grown in recent years. Already, China poses a counterbalance to the West’s efforts to use energy as leverage against Russia. In February of 2022, Russia and China signed a 30-year contract to supply gas to China via a new pipeline, agreeing to do so in euros, and increase their relationship since the 2019 signing of the Power of Siberia natural gas pipeline between the two. Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, imports of Russian oil have risen by 55% from a year prior, taking Saudi Arabia’s place as China’s biggest oil supplier. This energy alliance is a distinct concern in the face of growing Western sanctions on Russian energy, leading to fears of a so-called “gas pivot” to China. China has also developed energy relationships with both Turkey and Azerbaijan, leading to increased fears of its growing influence in the region. The region is undergoing a geopolitical shift that continues to diminish ties to the Euro-Atlantic states and elevates China’s influence in Central Asia. Beijing and Moscow are the region’s principal economic, political, and security partners, a marker of declining U.S. influence.

    United States Role and Consideration

    The United States has long been concerned about Russia using energy supplies as a political tool to influence other nations. A recent report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations states that U.S. interests lay in “alleviating Russian gas-fueled pressure against NATO allies” and “bolstering bilateral relations in the Caspian Sea region.” U.S. diplomacy was critical in developing this project, and has opened doors for U.S. engagement in Central Asia, strengthening ties with Azerbaijan as an alternative to its relationship with Russia, and opened doors to advancing rule-of-law and climate investment issues. Even in the United States, domestic considerations have come into play as gas prices reach record highs. Although the U.S. does not import large amounts of Russian oil (and has now banned it), the lower supply caused by the conflict has prices rising as Europe seeks to find other sources, raising demand and cost globally.

  • The Euro and its impact on the European Union

    The Euro and its impact on the European Union

    This brief was originally published by Francesca Reynolds on July 15, 2021. It was updated and republished by Larissa Cursaro on June 22, 2022.

    History

    Although it took until 2002 for the Euro to become a physical currency, the idea of a common currency alongside a united monetary and fiscal policy was an ambition of the European Union since the 1960s. Then on January 17 1989, two decades later, the European Parliament declared the free circulation of goods, capital, services, and people to be the “four fundamental freedoms” of the European Union, thus officially encouraging the adoption of a single-currency. The purpose of the common currency was to support economic activity between states, stabilize economies, and enhance options for consumers.  

    The Euro is now the currency of 19 nations, leaving only 8 EU countries that use an alternative currency (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden). 

    The European Central Bank (ECB) was established simultaneously in order to coordinate monetary policy (policies relating to interest rates and money supply, used by central banks to influence the level of demand in an economy e.g. management of interest rates) between countries. This necessary measure also further integrated the economies of many EU countries, leaving national governments with only fiscal policy (policies relating to the amount spent by a government e.g. levels of taxation) to manage their country’s economy. 

    Image

    Benefits

    • The Euro enables trade to operate far quicker by removing the need and risk of currency exchanges when operating across eurozone countries. Currency exchanges cost money to complete and are a risk to businesses as fluctuations in rates lead to uncertainty about the cost of the exchange. Therefore, by removing this barrier, trade has flowed easier between countries. 
    • Having a single-currency economy also incentivizes trade between the EU and other countries. The stability of a single-currency economy is attractive to potential trade partners as it ensures a relatively consistent exchange rate. This stability, paired with prudent economic management makes the Euro an attractive reserve currency for non-Euro countries, thus giving it a more powerful voice in the global economy. Fun Fact: The Euro is the world’s second most popular reserve currency. 
    • In theory, a combined currency should also incentivise countries to support each other and thus promote greater stability. There are a few reasons for this. First, countries with larger economies tend to be more stable as they are able to spread risk. For example, a natural disaster in a small country can ruin their economy and currency. On the other hand, a natural disaster in one US state will likely have an insignificant impact on the currency. Second, more successful countries have an incentive to help out less successful countries, otherwise known as “cohesion policy”. This is because the value of the currency impacts all countries using it, so if countries want to prevent harmful impacts to their own country, they need to support others. This benefit was realized during the 2020 Coronavirus Crisis. Although there was initially insufficient support for a collective measure, the ECB consistently bought debt in severely impacted countries to keep interest rates low. Eventually, the Next Generation EU recovery plan was put in place. It is the largest stimulus package ever from the EU and is worth around €750 billion. 

    Issues

    The most significant issue facing the adopters of the Euro is the coordinated monetary policy that often fails to fit local economic conditions. The economies of the countries currently using the currency vary significantly. Germany is the world’s third largest exporter but has to use the same monetary policy as Lithuania whose export value is 67th globally. Without tailored monetary policy for each economy, countries can struggle to solve issues impacting their populations, as was the case during the eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis.

    There is also concern regarding the economies of some member states that have already adopted the Euro. In order to become a member of the eurozone, countries must meet certain economic standards called “convergence requirements”, one of which requires the country’s debt ratio to be under 60% debt to GDP.  Considering that this is a non-negotiable prerequisite to join the eurozone, many economists wonder if the European Commission should start holding current eurozone members to the same standard. Some of the largest countries in the European Union—such as Italy, France, and Spain—fail this requirement with the average percent debt to GDP in the Euro area being 100 percent. If left unchecked, they may cause the Euro to lose value, which could be devastating for the Euro area’s economy.

    Image

    Future

    • There are frequent reports of the potential collapse of the Euro, however, at least in the near future, this seems unlikely. The Euro was able to survive in Greece despite both economic and political crisis after the 2008 financial crisis, so it seems likely to continue through comparatively steadier times. 
    • The number of countries using the Euro could be set to increase. Since 1991 any country joining the EU has had to adopt the Euro and meet the “convergence requirements” (excluding Denmark). With a number of countries in the pipeline to joining the EU, it is no surprise that the eurozone is set to expand. On June 1st, 2022, the European Commission determined in its convergence report that Croatia has fulfilled the convergence requirements for the adoption of the euro on the first of January, 2023. However, many countries have been on the path to EU accession for many years without having been deemed to fulfill the convergence criteria.
  • Intro to the European Union

    Intro to the European Union

    Formation History

    As of 2021, there are 27 member states of the European Union. However, the current coalition and its structure has developed gradually throughout the latter half of the 20th century and into the present day. In 1950, French statesman Robert Schuman issued the Schuman Declaration, which called for France and Germany to pool their coal and steel production so that the economic crises that contributed to World War II would not happen again. In 1951, the European Coal & Steel Community was founded by France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. By the late 1950s, this independent economic authority had grown into the European Economic Community and through the Treaty of Rome, a common market of goods, services, and people was established. The United Kingdom and Denmark joined in 1973, followed by Greece in 1981. The Schengen Agreement of 1985 was a pivotal moment for the European Community. It eliminated border controls and passport checks within the Schengen Area, facilitating the free movement of people to travel, work, and live within the area. The European Union was created with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, and by that time Spain, Portugal and a reunified Germany had joined as well. The European Union has three pillars: the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches. It is the first truly supranational organization in modern history, where countries could be held to a greater independent authority than each of their own. Most recently, the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 increased centralization, improved regulations and introduced a new global diplomatic framework.

    The 5 Main Institutions of the European Union

    The EU has evolved into a system of government that resembles the United States, and its European relatives. There are 5 main institutions –  the European Council, European Parliament, European Commission, Council of the EU, and the Court of Justice of the EU.

    1. The European Council ensures that the highest elected officials in EU nations are represented in the European Union. It is made up of the heads of state of all EU member countries. They nominate the President of the European Council and the European Commission. This body cannot pass laws. It sets the direction of the EU’s common foreign security agenda and may request legislation to be pursued. The European Council President serves a two and a half year term, once renewable, and presides over four meetings a year in Brussels, known collectively as the EU summits. Decision-making is generally by consensus and only heads of state can vote. Additionally, the European Council participates in the Euro Summit, where the heads of state of the Eurozone, the Council President and the Commission President meet exclusively to discuss economic policy in the Euro Area.
    1. The European Parliament is the law-making body of the EU. It could be described as the body of the European citizens, with direct elections held every five years. The Parliament formally elects the Commission President and approves the Commission body, and has the power to form investigative sessions . They also undertake election observations, sending delegations to countries outside the EU, to analyze their election process and ensure democratic principles are upheld. The Parliament establishes the EU budget with the European Council and sets monetary policy with the European Central Bank.
    1. The European Commission is responsible for drafting proposals for legislation for the European Parliament. It represents the interests of the European Union as a whole, implementing its global vision for EU development and funding programs. It proposes and manages the EU budget, which is submitted to the Council of Europe and then Parliament for approval and final ratification. The Commission works with member states to execute funding projects, and acts in a supervisory and regulatory capacity. While the Commission President and commissioners are chosen by the European Council, the European Commission is intended to act as its own independent authority that does not follow a single state’s agenda. The Commission President defines the policy direction, and with the Commissioners produces an annual work programme that outlines the EU’s strategic objectives and how they are to be implemented. In its own words, the European Commission sets objectives that support and promote European values of “freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.”
    1. The Council of the EU, also known as The Council, works closely with the other branches to finalize the agenda of the European Union. They are the ‘decision-maker’ of the EU. The Council will negotiate and adopt EU laws from European Commission proposals. They are responsible for developing EU foreign and security policy with European Council guidelines, as well as adopting the annual EU budget with the European Parliament. The Council meets with other nations and international organizations to finalize agreements between them and the EU. There are no fixed members and the President serves a six month term that rotates between nations. There are ten different policy areas on which the Council meets, and each member state will send their respective minister for that configuration. For example, if the meeting is on foreign affairs, then 27 foreign ministers will attend. The decision-making process is a qualified majority system with four countries needed for a veto. For ‘sensitive topics’ such as foreign policy and taxation, a unanimous vote is necessary.
    1. As an intergovernmental organization, each nation interprets the EU’s laws in accordance with its own constitution. The Court of Justice of the EU or CJEU is responsible for making sure that EU laws are applied to member states in the same way. It is the judicial branch of the EU. It settles legal disputes between nations and EU institutions. For instance, if the European Commission or a different nation feels that a member state is failing to comply with EU law, then it is up to the courts to rule whether an infringement has occurred. On the other hand, if a member state or any institution believes that an EU act violates EU treaties or the sovereignty of the national court, it can ask the CJEU to annul the legislation. There are two courts of the CJEU, the Court of Justice and the General Court. The Court of Justice is the Supreme Court of the EU, and deals with requests for preliminary rulings from national courts seeking guidance on how to interpret EU law. The General Court is responsible for contestations to EU institution actions against its member states that violate their fundamental rights or EU treaties. It deals mainly with competition law, state aid, trade, agriculture and anti-terrorist law. First, a written statement for annulment of an EU law is submitted to the Court. A general meeting, usually with five judges, then takes place to discuss if a hearing should be held and if the advocate general is necessary. The advocate general issues official opinions on the case to the judges after the lawyers of either side present their case. Their statements are not legally binding, but greatly influence whether an action for annulment will be successful. It is General Court procedure to have most cases heard by three judges. Any EU citizen, private company, or international organization can submit a case to the CJEU.

    Current Issues Facing the EU

    Since 2015, the European Migrant Crisis has been one of the longstanding humanitarian issues for the EU, but since then there have been greater measures taken to ensure a humane migration policy. It remains a very significant global issue, and for detailed analysis read Siena Frost’s article here.

    The United Kingdom, the second largest net contributor to the EU, officially left the European Union in 2020 as a result of the controversial Brexit referendum vote in 2016. This will have wide reaching economic impacts on the United Kingdom and the European Union, and the ongoing negotiations demonstrate the intricate ties that the EU has within countries. 

    With the introduction of the Euro, came the most impactful economic mechanism of the European Union. For a breakdown of the Euro, the EU’s common currency, and its issues, read Francesca Reynolds’ article here.
    With a 2 trillion-plus stimulus package, the EU’s largest long-term budget to date will include a 750 billion euros COVID-19 recovery fund for a post-pandemic Europe. Another significant financial injection is the European Green Deal, with one third of the 1.8 trillion recovery plan going to financing its investments in building a more environmentally sustainable Europe.

  • Presidential versus Prime Ministerial Authority

    Presidential versus Prime Ministerial Authority

    The United States governmental system is a Democratic Republic with a President in the key leadership role. Alternatively, the United Kingdom has a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister. In these two different types of government, the respective leaders are chosen in different fashions and have different roles and authorities.

    The Two Systems

    The United States government is composed of three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. These branches derive their authority from the Constitution, and each has enumerated powers and responsibilities. To ensure limits on the capabilities of each branch, the framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances, which promotes cooperation among the three branches and prevents any single branch from overstepping its bounds. The Constitution also outlines the Electoral College process to select the President. “Electors,” who are appointed by the state, cast their vote by ballot for the United States President. The aim of the Electoral College is to find a balance between direct election by citizens (a popular vote), and election by a congressional vote. 

    In contrast, the United Kingdom has a bicameral Parliament (meaning that there are two legislative houses), including the House of Commons (the lower house, where most law-making activity takes place) and House of Lords (the upper house, which refines and approves laws). Unlike the United States’ written and codified constitution, the United Kingdom relies on a mix of traditions which have developed over the course of centuries and common law, which is composed of hundreds of acts of parliament and court case rulings. The monarch theoretically has the power to appoint a Prime Minister. However, in practice, the Prime Minister is chosen by the political party with a plurality in the House of Commons and the monarch simply confirms the party’s proposed candidate.

    Source: CK-12

    Roles and Responsibilities

    The President of the United States is the leader of the executive branch, as well as the head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. As such, the President implements and enforces laws written by Congress, as outlined by Article II of the Constitution. The President also appoints the leaders of the fifteen executive departments and more than fifty federal commissions, federal judges, ambassadors, and more. The Constitution also requires the President to, “from time to time” provide information to Congress by a State of the Union address. Convention has developed for the State of the Union, and the President has traditionally outlined a general agenda for the upcoming year, but the constitutional requirement may be fulfilled as the President sees fit. 

    By comparison, in the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is responsible for the policy and decisions of the government. With no formal constitution, the Prime Minister’s duties are less explicit, but traditionally the Prime Minister’s responsibilities fall under eight categories: constitutional and procedural, appointments, conduct of cabinet and parliamentary business, policy strategy and communications, organizational and efficiency questions, budget and market-sensitive decisions, national security, and special personal responsibilities. 

    One of the responsibilities of the Prime Minister is to manage the relationship between the government and the Monarch, as well as manage the relationship between the UK Government and the regional administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Similar to the President, the Prime Minister has a responsibility to appoint members of the government, including ministers, headships of security service, secret intelligence service, top appointments to the civil service, ecclesiastical appointments, academic appointments, and more. The Prime Minister is also in charge of appointing and then maintaining the Cabinet’s overall political strategy (the Cabinet is the collective term for the senior leaders of large government departments, alternatively referred to as the executive). The Prime Minister must also run weekly meetings with the National Security Council.

    Beyond constitutional duties, the President is capable of imposing their will and exploiting their power. One of the President’s greatest powers is their ability to either adopt proposed legislation by signing it into law or to veto the bills (note, however, that Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses). The President can also issue executive orders to either direct members of the executive branch, or clarify existing laws. This is a strategy that has been employed much more frequently by recent Presidents; executive orders saw a significant increase in usage beginning in the early 1900s. Additionally, as the head of the executive branch, the President oversees diplomacy with other nations. Thus, the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, though treaties require ratification from the Senate. The President can extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes. 

    Because the Prime Minister’s powers have been developed iteratively over time without a clear set of rules, they are more flexible. In addition to being able to appoint ministers, they may also dismiss ministers as they see fit, effectively giving them ultimate control over the legislative agenda. Regarding the Cabinet and its committees, the Prime Minister has the power to steer the agenda, and frequently pushes the cabinet towards the outcome they believe to be best. The PM can also decide the size of the cabinet, and may create governmental departments and executive agencies. While it is the responsibility of the PM to run National Security Council meetings, they also have the power to oversee the implementation of the general National Security Strategy. Finally, the Prime Minister serves as the representative of the UK during international meetings, and has the power to control much of the UK’s diplomacy with other countries.

    Is one better?:

    Ultimately, both the Democratic Republic and the Parliamentary system have their upsides and downfalls. The primary strength of a Democratic Republic is its system of checks and balances, which prevents any single branch from usurping power from another. However, there is often significant gridlock when the government is trying to function, resulting in slow progress.

    While the powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial are isolated in a Democratic Republic, the powers are more fluid within the Parliamentary system. This can work to the system’s benefit, because the legislative and executive powers are merged together, allowing laws to be formulated and implemented more quickly than in a Democratic Republic. However, because of the fusion of powers, the executive, or Cabinet, can have too much power over the legislature, or Houses of Parliament. 

  • Expansion of the European Union and NATO into the Former Soviet Union

    Expansion of the European Union and NATO into the Former Soviet Union

    The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) coordinate closely and often operate with similar strategic goals in mind. The two alliances also uphold similar requirements for membership. Essentially, they each require member states to have democratic institutions of government, functioning market economies, and general respect for human rights within their country. Historically, NATO has been oriented towards issues of defense and collective security, whereas the EU focuses more on economic integration and trade. These Western alliances and their respective institutions expanded in recent decades into Eastern Europe and the territories of the former Soviet Union. 

    NATO and EU expansion has had two main components: diplomatic and military expansion. Diplomatic expansion is the process of incorporating new member-states into the alliances. NATO has conducted eight rounds of enlargement since 1949, and the EU has grown from six to twenty-seven members since 1951. Military expansion involves more ambitious defense agreements and coordination with additional countries. This includes, most notably, the revamped military strategy of NATO’s Allied Land Command or LANDCOM. Since the Warsaw Summit in 2016, this military branch has adopted the Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP) initiative which created a more active security apparatus in Eastern Europe. The EU does not retain standing army units like NATO. Instead, the EU relies on member contributions and networking with regional entities to execute military operations when necessary.

    Member states in NATO and the EU are often supportive of expanding the alliances. The alliance charters established open-door policies towards aspirant countries for the sake of regional security, should they meet the general requirements. NATO states the “enlargement process poses no threat to any country (…) [it] is aimed at promoting stability and cooperation, at building a Europe whole and free, united in peace, democracy and common values.” Several nations are currently working towards membership. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine are potential candidates for NATO membership, while Serbia, Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Turkey are being considered for EU accession. Ultimately, NATO and the EU see eastward expansion as an opportunity to strengthen the organizations and promote Western-democratic reforms. 

    NATO was originally formed by the United States as a bulwark against Soviet power, so Russia remains wary about the intentions of the Western coalition. In recent years, the Kremlin has viewed expansion as a direct threat to its security strategy and key regional interests. NATO membership for Ukraine and Balkan states could decrease Russian influence in those countries. The Kremlin’s aversion to expanding Western alliances is thus rooted in legitimate fears of geopolitical isolation. A 2017 report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states: “The Kremlin charges that the West is conducting hybrid warfare through a combination of military and other means, particularly democracy promotion activities in and around Russia. From Moscow’s perspective, these activities encircle Russia with Western agents of influence, create opportunities for Western intervention, and empower groups inside Russia opposed to the Russian government.” The Russian security establishment remains entrenched in this view, making strategic concessions highly unlikely. 

    Similarly, leaders in NATO and the EU remain committed to diplomatic expansion and enhanced security initiatives. The prospects for improved relations between Russia and the alliances, therefore, seem bleak in the immediate future. Ukraine continues to make increasingly legitimate strides towards NATO accession, a move that Russia has declared it would view as a “Red Line.” It remains to be seen what developments will take place with regard to new member states, in addition to how far Russia is willing to go with a direct or indirect response. It is certain, however, that the role of alliances like NATO and the EU will continue to be a source of conflict in relations between Russia and the West.

  • EU-Turkey Migration Agreement

    EU-Turkey Migration Agreement

    The EU-Turkey Migration Agreement was a 2016 agreement made between the 28 European Union member states and the Republic of Turkey to decrease crossings on the Greece-Turkey border. The agreement is still in effect in 2021.

    Context of the Agreement

    European nations experienced an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in 2015 when hundreds of thousands of migrants traveled from the Middle East and North Africa to apply for asylum. The leading cause of this crisis was the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011. By 2015, nonstate actors and extremist groups controlled more than half of the country, so millions of Syrians fled. In addition to Syria, protracted conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the surge in asylum applications. At the peak of the crisis in 2015, 1.3 million people filed asylum applications in the European Union. The Greek-Turkey land and maritime border became a main pathway for those seeking to enter the EU.

    Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics

    The European Union has a similar asylum policy to the United States; any person with a well-founded fear of persecution on account of “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group,” can apply for protection from an EU-member state if they are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin. This definition does not automatically apply to those fleeing violence and war, so EU law includes a stipulation for “subsidiary protection,” where a person who does not qualify through the traditional pathway but can demonstrate they would suffer a real risk of serious harm if returned to their country also qualifies for protection. European Union member states granted protection through both pathways during the humanitarian crisis.

    Logistics of the Agreement

    The agreement had three main components:

    1. All new “irregular migrants” crossing to Greece via Turkey could be returned to Turkey, as well as asylum seekers in Greece whose applications were denied. In exchange, for every irregular migrant returned to Turkey, one Syrian would be resettled in the EU. “Irregular migrants” was not defined in the agreement, but it is generally accepted to mean those without visas to enter Greece, which would include asylum seekers. This was designed to incentivize displaced people to stay in Turkey, rather than cross to Greece and apply for protection there. Since the agreement came into force, 28,000 Syrians have been resettled in the EU from Turkey through the exchange agreement.
    2. The European Union would provide €6 billion ($7.1 billion) to Turkey for refugee aid.
    3. Turkey and the European Union would work to revitalize cooperation through trade agreements, visa liberalization, and Turkey’s accession to the EU.

    Since the agreement was implemented, irregular migration to Greece has decreased 97%

    European Perspective

    Arguments in support:

    1. Humanitarian concerns: as asylum seekers flooded into the Greek islands, the conditions in refugee camps and shelters deteriorated. The camps became overcrowded and unsanitary, and it was seen as vital to stem the flow of migrants for the wellbeing of those already there. In addition, many asylum seekers drowned attempting to sail to Greek islands, or else paid smugglers to transport them and fell victim to human trafficking. 
    2. Political concerns: there was a widespread perception among citizens of member states that the European Union was failing to handle the crisis. A 2016 survey found that citizens overwhelmingly disapproved of the EU response, with attitudes ranging from 60 to 80% disapproving and reaching as high as 95% disapproving among Greek citizens. Governments and citizens felt overwhelmed by the sheer number of asylum seekers, and were concerned about the economic burden and a potential strain on the social safety net. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU in 2016 (also known as “Brexit”) and the refugee issue and immigration concerns played a large role in that decision. All of these factors contributed to a desire to take immediate action.

    Arguments in opposition:

    1. Outsourcing asylum: human rights organizations and activists objected to the agreement because they felt it allowed European Union member states to abdicate their obligation to those in need of international protection. The agreement effectively created a “buffer state” blocking asylum seekers from applying for international protection. Following the Turkey agreement, the European Union came to a similar deal with Libya.
    2. Turkey as a “safe country”: recent reports suggest that Syrians and other displaced people in Turkey do not have access to resources to fulfill basic human needs. Many are homeless or living in dilapidated housing, and rely on charity or work in the informal sector. In addition, human rights organizations have documented the Turkish government forcibly relocating refugees back to Syria, violating the international principle of “non refoulement,” which means refugees should not be forced to return to a country where they will face persecution. Because of these factors, some argue that Turkey is not itself a safe country, and therefore returning refugees to Turkey also violates the non refoulement principle.

    Turkish Perspective

    Arguments in support:

    1. Improve cooperation with the EU: the agreement included a provision to discuss visa liberalization, meaning that Turkish citizens would be able to enter the Schengen Area without applying for a visa in advance. In addition, the EU and Turkey currently have a Customs Union which allows for tariff-free trade with several exceptions; part of the agreement involves updating the Union for improved trade relations. Finally, the agreement specifically mentions working towards Turkey’s accession to the European Union, however there are doubts about whether either side really believed this would come to pass. Turkey had not met the economic and political standards needed to join the EU at the time of the agreement, and subsequently experienced democratic backsliding which made joining the EU even more distant.
    2. Funding for refugee aid: as part of the agreement, Turkey received €6 billion to fund refugee aid and resettlement, relieving some of the pressure on the government.
    3. Strong lever in international negotiations: Turkey is currently working to project influence in its neighborhood by playing a larger role in the outcome of conflicts in the region. This brings it into conflict with the European Union in the protracted Cyprus conflict and the Libyan Civil War, among others. The 3.6 million Syrian refugees in Turkey make for a powerful bargaining chip in EU-Turkey negotiations. In March of 2020, Turkey opened the border with Greece and actively pushed for migrants to cross, after a disagreement over military strategy in Syria.

    Arguments in opposition:

    1. Same political concerns: although Turkey was initially welcoming to refugees, after five years, 3.6 million refugees, and no end in sight, public approval has turned decidedly negative. Refugees tend to be conservative and religious, while a large portion of the Turkish middle and upper classes are secular and more progressive, creating a culture clash. In addition, Turkey’s economy was struggling even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic’s toll on the tourism industry, which accounts for 12% of Turkey’s GDP. In the last election, the governing AKP party experienced significant losses which were largely attributed to economic and refugee issues.
    2. Costs outweigh benefits: the Turkish government estimates it has spent €35 billion on refugee resettlement and aid, far outpacing the EU commitment of €6 billion. In addition, Turkey is far from  from meeting EU accession targets and no progress has been made on the visa liberalization as of yet.

    Impact and Future Developments

    The immediate impact of the agreement was a dramatic decrease in the crossings from Turkey to Greece (97% down two years out). In the longer term, Turkey-EU relations have continued to worsen despite the immigration cooperation, due to a lack of strategic alignment on regional issues. Despite the agreement, European citizens overwhelmingly disapprove of government handling of the refugee crisis. This led to the rise of anti-immigrant parties across Europe. It is possible that without the agreement, disapproval with the government response would be even higher.

    In the future, the situation in Turkey for refugees is likely to devolve. Turkish citizens want to see progress on the issue, but Syria is still largely unsafe for refugees to return. There have been some reports that the Turkish government is deporting Syrians and returning them to unsafe areas—these reports are denied by Turkey.

  • Intro to U.S-U.K Relations

    Intro to U.S-U.K Relations

    Read this page as a PDF.

    History:

    The term “special relationship” is used as a catch-all term for the political, diplomatic, military and economic relations between the US and the UK. Although the unofficial term became popularized in a speech by the then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, in 1946, it is also widely acknowledged that the two states have enjoyed close political and military relations for much of the 20th Century. During this time the two countries were military allies in a number of wars and have often shared prioritized access and close cooperation on a range of issues.

    The relationship is not a consistent one, with the personality traits and policies of both countries’ leaders reportedly playing a significant role in determining its closeness during specific periods of time. The two countries were considered particularly close during the Clinton/Blair period, when the two leaders, as friends more than representatives, would frequently talk about the issues of the day and provide support and guidance to each other. This relationship is often thought to have been a significant factor in the decision by the UK Government to enter the Iraq War alongside the United States.

    Present:

    President Biden’s first phone call to a European leader was to the current British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and the call included a joint commitment to strengthening the relationship. However, this came not long after Biden had publicly voiced major concern about the direction of UK policy regarding Brexit. His particular focus was on the UK Government’s decision to break the Good Friday Agreement in order to deliver a Brexit deal that would leave the UK out of the European Union’s Free Trade Agreement.

    It is this disagreement—amongst other differences—that has led to less focus being given to the relationship in recent years. An example of the tension during Trump’s presidency is clear in the following passage in a briefing available to MPs and advisers in 2018:

    “Against the backdrop of increasing American isolationism, the so-called ‘special relationship’ between the United States and the United Kingdom has arguably been subject to even more intense scrutiny, particularly as the UK seeks to define its global role in light of its withdrawal from the European Union. In particular, opportunities for cooperation such as a mooted bilateral trade deal, and areas of disagreement such as the US’s stance on the Iranian nuclear agreement, have prompted a number of questions about the potential nature of future relations between the two countries, and the wider ramifications.”

    HOL Library, 2018

    Future:

    It is clear that the future of the relationship will depend largely on the personality and politics of the future leaders of both countries. The UK Government is eager to see the relationship culminating in a US-UK trade deal. However, given Biden’s recent announcement that a trade deal may not occur till 2024, it is clearly not a US priority. Nevertheless, both countries seem to remain committed to keeping at least a facade of proximity, given their shared values and their status as two of the world’s key powers, economically, militarily and diplomatically.