▲ Protest in London in October 2018 after the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi [John Lubbock, Wikimedia Commons]

ANALYSIS / Naomi Moreno Cosgrove

October 2nd last year was the last time Jamal Khashoggi—a well-known journalist and critic of the Saudi government—was seen alive. The Saudi writer, United States resident and Washington Post columnist, had entered the Saudi consulate in the Turkish city of Istanbul with the aim of obtaining documentation that would certify he had divorced his previous wife, so he could remarry; but never left.

After weeks of divulging bits of information, the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, laid out his first detailed account of the killing of the dissident journalist inside the Saudi Consulate. Eighteen days after Khashoggi disappeared, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) acknowledged that the 59-year-old writer had died after his disappearance, revealing in their investigation findings that Jamal Khashoggi died after an apparent “fist-fight” inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul; but findings were not reliable. Resultantly, the acknowledgement by the KSA of the killing in its own consulate seemed to pose more questions than answers.

Eventually, after weeks of repeated denials that it had anything to do with his disappearance, the contradictory scenes, which were the latest twists in the “fast-moving saga”, forced the kingdom to eventually acknowledge that indeed it was Saudi officials who were behind the gruesome murder thus damaging the image of the kingdom and its 33-year-old crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). What had happened was that the culmination of these events, including more than a dozen Saudi officials who reportedly flew into Istanbul and entered the consulate just before Khashoggi was there, left many sceptics wondering how it was possible for MBS to not know. Hence, the world now casts doubt on the KSA’s explanation over Khashoggi’s death, especially when it comes to the shifting explanations and MBS’ role in the conspiracy.

As follows, the aim of this study is to examine the backlash Saudi Arabia’s alleged guilt has caused, in particular, regarding European state-of-affairs towards the Middle East country. To that end, I will analyse various actions taken by European countries which have engaged in the matter and the different modus operandi these have carried out in order to reject a bloodshed in which arms selling to the kingdom has become the key issue.

Since Khashoggi went missing and while Turkey promised it would expose the “naked truth” about what happened in the Saudi consulate, Western countries had been putting pressure on the KSA for it to provide facts about its ambiguous account on the journalist’s death. In a joint statement released on Sunday 21st October 2018, the United Kingdom, France and Germany said: “There remains an urgent need for clarification of exactly what happened on 2nd October – beyond the hypotheses that have been raised so far in the Saudi investigation, which need to be backed by facts to be considered credible.” What happened after the kingdom eventually revealed the truth behind the murder, was a rather different backlash. In fact, regarding post-truth reactions amongst European countries, rather divergent responses have occurred.

Terminating arms selling exports to the KSA had already been carried out by a number of countries since the kingdom launched airstrikes on Yemen in 2015; a conflict that has driven much of Yemen’s population to be victims of an atrocious famine. The truth is that arms acquisition is crucial for the KSA, one of the world’s biggest weapons importers which is heading a military coalition in order to fight a proxy war in which tens of thousands of people have died, causing a major humanitarian catastrophe. In this context, calls for more constraints have been growing particularly in Europe since the killing of the dissident journalist. These countries, which now demand transparent clarifications in contrast to the opacity in the kingdom’s already-given explanations, are threatening the KSA with suspending military supply to the kingdom.

COUNTRIES THAT HAVE CEASED ARMS SELLING

Germany

Probably one of the best examples with regards to the ceasing of arms selling—after not been pleased with Saudi state of affairs—is Germany. Following the acknowledgement of what happened to Khashoggi, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared in a statement that she condemned his death with total sharpness, thus calling for transparency in the context of the situation, and stating that her government halted previously approved arms exports thus leaving open what would happen with those already authorised contracts, and that it wouldn’t approve any new weapons exports to the KSA: “I agree with all those who say that the, albeit already limited, arms export can’t take place in the current circumstances,” she said at a news conference.

So far this year, the KSA was the second largest customer in the German defence industry just after Algeria, as until September last year, the German federal government allocated export licenses of arms exports to the kingdom worth 416.4 million euros. Respectively, according to German Foreign Affair Minister, Heiko Maas, Germany was the fourth largest exporter of weapons to the KSA.

This is not the first time the German government has made such a vow. A clause exists in the coalition agreement signed by Germany’s governing parties earlier in 2018 which stated that no weapons exports may be approved to any country “directly” involved in the Yemeni conflict in response to the kingdom’s countless airstrikes carried out against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in the area for several years. Yet, what is clear is that after Khashoggi’s murder, the coalition’s agreement has been exacerbated. Adding to this military sanction Germany went even further and proposed explicit sanctions to the Saudi authorities who were directly linked to the killing. As follows, by stating that “there are more questions unanswered than answered,” Maas declared that Germany has issued the ban for entering Europe’s border-free Schengen zone—in close coordination with France and Britain—against the 18 Saudi nationals who are “allegedly connected to this crime.”

Following the decision, Germany has thus become the first major US ally to challenge future arms sales in the light of Khashoggi’s case and there is thus a high likelihood that this deal suspension puts pressure on other exporters to carry out the same approach in the light of Germany’s Economy Minister, Peter Altmaier’s, call on other European Union members to take similar action, arguing that “Germany acting alone would limit the message to Riyadh.”

Norway

Following the line of the latter claim, on November 9th last year, Norway became the first country to back Germany’s decision when it announced it would freeze new licenses for arms exports to the KSA. Resultantly, in her statement, Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ine Eriksen Søreide, declared that the government had decided that in the present situation they will not give new licenses for the export of defence material or multipurpose good for military use to Saudi Arabia. According to the Søreide, this decision was taken after “a broad assessment of recent developments in Saudi Arabia and the unclear situation in Yemen.” Although Norwegian ministry spokesman declined to say whether the decision was partly motivated by the murder of the Saudi journalist, not surprisingly, Norway’s announcement came a week after its foreign minister called the Saudi ambassador to Oslo with the aim of condemning Khashoggi’s assassination.  As a result, the latter seems to imply Norway’s motivations were a mix of both; the Yemeni conflict and Khashoggi’s death.

Denmark and Finland

By following a similar decision made by neighbouring Germany and Norway—despite the fact that US President Trump backed MBS, although the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had assessed that the crown prince was responsible for the order of the killing—Denmark and Finland both announced that they would also stop exporting arms to the KSA.

Emphasising on the fact that they were “now in a new situation”—after the continued deterioration of the already terrible situation in Yemen and the killing of the Saudi journalist—Danish Foreign Minister, Anders Samuelsen, stated that Denmark would proceed to cease military exports to the KSA remarking that Denmark already had very restrictive practices in this area and hoped that this decision would be able to create a “further momentum and get more European Union (EU) countries involved in the conquest to support tight implementation of the Union’s regulatory framework in this area.”

Although this ban is still less expansive compared to German measures—which include the cancelation of deals that had already been approved—Denmark’s cease of goods’ exports will likely crumble the kingdom’s strategy, especially when it comes to technology. Danish exports to the KSA, which were mainly used for both military and civilian purposes, are chiefly from BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, a subsidiary of the United Kingdom’s BAE Systems, which sold technology that allowed Intellectual Property surveillance and data analysis for use in national security and investigation of serious crimes. The suspension thus includes some dual-use technologies, a reference to materials that were purposely thought to have military applications in favour of the KSA.

On the same day Denmark carried out its decision, Finland announced they were also determined to halt arms export to Saudi Arabia. Yet, in contrast to Norway’s approach, Finnish Prime Minister, Juha Sipilä, held that, of course, the situation in Yemen lead to the decision, but that Khashoggi’s killing was “entirely behind the overall rationale”.

Finnish arms exports to the KSA accounted for 5.3 million euros in 2017. Nevertheless, by describing the situation in Yemen as “catastrophic”, Sipilä declared that any existing licenses (in the region) are old, and in these circumstances, Finland would refuse to be able to grant updated ones. Although, unlike Germany, Helsinki’s decision does not revoke existing arms licenses to the kingdom, the Nordic country has emphasized the fact that it aims to comply with the EU’s arms export criteria, which takes particular account of human rights and the protection of regional peace, security and stability, thus casting doubt on the other European neighbours which, through a sense of incoherence, have not attained to these values.

European Parliament

Speaking in supranational terms, the European Parliament agreed with the latter countries and summoned EU members to freeze arms sales to the kingdom in the conquest of putting pressure on member states to emulate the Germany’s decision.      

By claiming that arms exports to Saudi Arabia were breaching international humanitarian law in Yemen, the European Parliament called for sanctions on those countries that refuse to respect EU rules on weapons sales. In fact, the latest attempt in a string of actions compelling EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini to dictate an embargo against the KSA, including a letter signed by MEPs from several parties.

Rapporteur for a European Parliament report on EU arms exports, Bodil Valero said: "European weapons are contributing to human rights abuses and forced migration, which are completely at odds with the EU's common values." As a matter of fact, two successful European Parliament resolutions have hitherto been admitted, but its advocates predicted that some member states especially those who share close trading ties with the kingdom are deep-seated, may be less likely to cooperate. Fact that has eventually occurred.

COUNTRIES THAT HAVE NOT CEASED ARMS SELLING

France

In contrast to the previously mentioned countries, other European states such as France, UK and Spain, have approached the issue differently and have signalled that they will continue “business as usual”.

Both France and the KSA have been sharing close diplomatic and commercial relations ranging from finance to weapons. Up to now, France relished the KSA, which is a bastion against Iranian significance in the Middle East region. Nevertheless, regarding the recent circumstances, Paris now faces a daunting challenge.

Just like other countries, France Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, announced France condemned the killing “in the strongest terms” and demanded an exhaustive investigation. "The confirmation of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi's death is a first step toward the establishment of the truth. However, many questions remain unanswered," he added. Following this line, France backed Germany when sanctioning the 18 Saudi citizens thus mulling a joint ban from the wider visa-free Schengen zone. Nevertheless, while German minister Altmeier summoned other European countries to stop selling arms to Riyadh—until the Saudi authorities gave the true explanation on Khashoggi’s death—, France refused to report whether it would suspend arms exports to the KSA. “We want Saudi Arabia to reveal all the truth with full clarity and then we will see what we can do,” he told in a news conference.           

In this context, Amnesty International France has become one of Paris’ biggest burdens. The organization has been putting pressure on the French government for it to freeze arms sales to the realm. Hence, by acknowledging France is one of the five biggest arms exporters to Riyadh—similar to the Unites States and Britain—Amnesty International France is becoming aware France’s withdrawal from the arms sales deals is crucial in order to look at the Yemeni conflict in the lens of human rights rather than from a non-humanitarian-geopolitical perspective. Meanwhile, France tries to justify its inaction. When ministry deputy spokesman Oliver Gauvin was asked whether Paris would mirror Berlin’s actions, he emphasized the fact that France’s arms sales control policy was meticulous and based on case-by-case analysis by an inter-ministerial committee. According to French Defence Minister Florence Parly, France exported 11 billion euros worth of arms to the kingdom from 2008 to 2017, fact that boosted French jobs. In 2017 alone, licenses conceivably worth 14.7 billion euros were authorized. Moreover, she went on stating that those arms exports take into consideration numerous criteria among which is the nature of exported materials, the respect of human rights, and the preservation of peace and regional security. "More and more, our industrial and defence sectors need these arms exports. And so, we cannot ignore the impact that all of this has on our defence industry and our jobs," she added. As a result, despite President Emmanuel Macron has publicly sought to devalue the significance relations with the KSA have, minister Parly, seemed to suggest the complete opposite.

Anonymously, a government minister held it was central that MBS retained his position. “The challenge is not to lose MBS, even if he is not a choir boy. A loss of influence in the region would cost us much more than the lack of arms sales”. Notwithstanding France’s ambiguity, Paris’ inconclusive attitude is indicating France’s clout in the region is facing a vulnerable phase. As president Macron told MBS at a side-line G20 summit conversation in December last year, he is worried. Although the context of this chat remains unclear, many believe Macron’s intentions were to persuade MBS to be more transparent as a means to not worsen the kingdom’s reputation and thus to, potentially, dismantle France´s bad image.

United Kingdom

As it was previously mentioned, the United Kingdom took part in the joint statement carried out also by France and Germany through its foreign ministers which claimed there was a need for further explanations regarding Khashoggi’s killing. Yet, although Britain’s Foreign Office said it was considering its “next steps” following the KSA’s admission over Khashoggi’s killing, UK seems to be taking a rather similar approach to France—but not Germany—regarding the situation.

In 2017, the UK was the sixth-biggest arms dealer in the world, and the second-largest exporter of arms to the KSA, behind the US. This is held to be a reflection of a large spear in sales last year. After the KSA intervened in the civil war in Yemen in early 2015, the UK approved more than 3.5billion euros in military sales to the kingdom between April 2015 and September 2016.

As a result, Theresa May has been under pressure for years to interrupt arms sales to the KSA specially after human rights advocates claimed the UK was contributing to alleged violations of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. Adding to this, in 2016, a leaked parliamentary committee report suggested that it was likely that British weapons had been used by the Saudi-led coalition to violate international law, and that manufactured aircraft by BAE Systems, have been used in combat missions in Yemen.

Lately, in the context of Khashoggi’s death things have aggravated and the UK is now facing a great amount of pressure, mainly embodied by UK’s main opposition Labour party which calls for a complete cease in its arms exports to the KSA.  In addition, in terms of a more international strain, the European Union has also got to have a say in the matter. Philippe Lamberts, the Belgian leader of the Green grouping of parties, said that Brexit should not be an excuse for the UK to abdicate on its moral responsibilities and that Theresa May had to prove that she was keen on standing up to the kind of atrocious behaviour shown by the killing of Khashoggi and hence freeze arms sales to Saudi Arabia immediately.

Nonetheless, in response and laying emphasis on the importance the upholding relation with UK’s key ally in the Middle East has, London has often been declining calls to end arms exports to the KSA. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt defended there will be “consequences to the relationship with Saudi Arabia” after the killing of Khashoggi, but he has also pointed out that the UK has an important strategic relationship with Riyadh which needs to be preserved. As a matter of fact, according to some experts, UK’s impending exit from the EU has played a key role. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) claims Theresa May’s pursuit for post-Brexit trade deals has seen an unwelcome focus on selling arms to some of the world's most repressive regimes. Nevertheless, by thus tackling the situation in a similar way to France, the UK justifies its actions by saying that it has one of the most meticulous permitting procedures in the world by remarking that its deals comprehend safeguards that counter improper uses.

Spain

After Saudi Arabia’s gave its version for Khashoggi’s killing, the Spanish government said it was “dismayed” and echoed Antonio Guterres’ call for a thorough and transparent investigation to bring justice to all of those responsible for the killing. Yet, despite the clamour that arose after the murder of the columnist, just like France and the UK, Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, defended arms exporting to the KSA by claiming it was in Spain’s interest to keep selling military tools to Riyadh. Sanchez held he stood in favour of Spain’s interests, namely jobs in strategic sectors that have been badly affected by “the drama that is unemployment". Thusly, proclaiming Spain’s unwillingness to freeze arms exports to the kingdom. In addition, even before Khashoggi’s killing, Sanchez's government was subject to many critics after having decided to proceed with the exporting of 400 laser-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia, despite worries that they could harm civilians in Yemen. Notwithstanding this, Sánchez justified Spain’s decision in that good ties with the Gulf state, a key commercial partner for Spain, needed to be kept.

As a matter of fact, Spain’s state-owned shipbuilder Navantia, in which 5,500 employees work, signed a deal in July last year which accounted for 1.8 billion euros that supplied the Gulf country with five navy ships.  This shipbuilder is situated in the southern region of Andalusia, a socialist bulwark which accounts for Spain's highest unemployment estimates and which has recently held regional elections. Hence, it was of the socialist president’s interest to keep these constituencies pleased and the means to this was, of course, not interrupting arms deals with the KSA.

As a consequence, Spain has recently been ignoring the pressures that have arose from MEP’s and from Sanchez’s minorities in government—Catalan separatist parties and far-left party Podemos— which demand a cease in arms exporting. For the time being, Spain will continue business with the KSA as usual.

CONCLUSION

All things considered, while Saudi Arabia insists that MBS was not aware of the gruesome murder and is distracting the international attention towards more positive headlines—such as the appointment of the first female ambassador to the US—in order to clear the KSA’s image in the context of Khashoggi’s murder, several European countries have taken actions against the kingdom’s interests. Yet, the way each country has approached the matter has led to the rise of two separate blocks which are at discordance within Europe itself. Whereas some European leaders have shown a united front in casting blame on the Saudi government, others seem to express geopolitical interests are more important.

During the time Germany, Norway, Denmark and Finland are being celebrated by human rights advocates for following through on their threat to halt sales to the kingdom, bigger arms exporters—like those that have been analysed—have pointed out that the latter nations have far less to lose than they do. Nonetheless, inevitably, the ceasing carried out by the northern European countries which are rather small arms exporters in comparison to bigger players such as the UK and France, is likely to have exacerbated concerns within the European arms industry of a growing anti-Saudi consensus in the European Union or even beyond.

What is clear is that due to the impact Saudi Arabia’s state of affairs have caused, governments and even companies worldwide are coming under pressure to abandon their ties to the oil-rich, but at the same time, human-rights-violating Saudi Arabian leadership. Resultantly, in Europe, countries are taking part in two divergent blocks that are namely led by two of the EU’s most compelling members: France and Germany. These two sides are of rather distant opinions regarding the matter, fact that does not seem to be contributing in terms of the so-much-needed European Union integration.

ESSAY / Marina Díaz Escudero

Since 2015, Europe has been dealing with an unprecedented scale of migration from different parts of the world, mainly from MENA (Middle East and North Africa). People flee their countries due to war, bad living conditions or a lack of opportunities for wellbeing.

Although Europe characterises itself for its solidarity, liberty, values and respect for other countries and cultures, such a large flow of inmigration seriously tests the European project. For instance, the Schengen system of passport-free travel could collapse as fearful countries enhance their border controls, to the disadvantage of European citizens. “The Schengen system is being more and more questioned and most opinion polls highlight the correlation between the fear of inmigration and the distrust of the citizens of the member states towards European institutions.”1 The migration crisis is also considered a “threat for the European project’s constitutional stability and for its fundamental values” (Spijkerboer, 2016). 1  

Divisions between northern and southern EU countries, and between them and the Visegrad countries have clearly intensified due to this problem, specially after the approval, in 2015, of some quotas of relocation of refugees that were critisised and voted against by Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Due to this lack of consensus but also due to the delay of other EU countries in complying with the quotas, a treaty was signed between the EU and Turkey in March 2016 so that most refugees arriving to Europe through Greece would be inmediately returned to Turkey2. 

Understandably, EU countries are mostly concerned with the prevention of illegal inmigration and with border-control policies, as well as with the need of reaching an agreement for an egalitarian distribution of arriving migrants, most of them being asylym seekers and refugees. Nevertheless, this will probably not be enough to satisfy both the European citizens and the migrants: root causes of migration may need to be solved as soon as possible to prevent people from fleeing their homes. This gives the EU food for thought: addressing the migration problem without focusing on the prevention of migration in the countries of origin may not be a lasting, long-term solution. “The instability, insecurity, terrorism, poverty, famine and climate change besetting large parts of Africa and the Middle East are the root causes of migration, but the European Union (EU) governments have come around to this too late, engaging essentially in damage-limitation exercises at our borders.”3  

According to World Bank data, in 2017 over 8 million migrants came from “the Arab world” and from these, 6 million fleed the Syrian Arab Republic4. The war in Syria, originally between Bashar al Assad’s regime and the rebel opposition, and currently a proxy war involving various international actors, turns the country into one of the greatest sources of migrants. The fact that over a million of them live in Lebanon (currently accounting for a 30% of the population) , a country who didn’t sign the 1951 Refugee Convention and who has been trying to deport the migrants for years now, is worrying. Due to the “fuelling tensions between Lebanese host communities and the Syrian refugees” the Lebanese government has taken some more restrictive measures towards migrants, such as the banning of the construction of formal refugee camps. This for sure puts additional pressure on the EU5.

In order to comprehend the European Union’s vision and strategy on Syria, and whether the institution and its members are willing to fight the root causes of its situation, one must consider the words of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, in her discourse at the Conference of Brussels in April 2018:

“[In this conference] we had representatives of over 85 countries and international organizations, international and Syrian civil society. […] We identified common ground on at least 2 or 3 issues: one is that there is no military solution to the war in Syria and that there is a need that everyone recognizes to relaunch the political process. The second element on which I have not found any divergent view is the key role of the United Nations in leading this political process. This is extremely important for us, the European Union, because we have always consistently identified in the UN and in Staffa de Mistura the only legitimate leadership to ensure that the political process represents all Syrians in intra-Syrian talks and happens along the lines of the United Nations Security Council resolutions already adopted. The third element is the need to support Syrians inside Syria and in the neighbouring countries, with humanitarian aid, financial support but also to support hosting communities, in particular neighbouring countries”.6

The Vice-President of the European Comission basically makes three clear statements: the European institution will by no means intervene militarily in Syria, n­either will it take the initiative to start a political process or peaceful negotiation in the country (it will only support the UN-led process), but it will clearly invest economically both in the country and in its citizens to improve their conditions.

Defence of the UN-led political process

Once a solely-European military intervention has been discarded (due to a lack of consensus among countries on a common defense policy and to the already effective existence of NATO in this regard), the EU considers its role in a political solution to the Syrian conflict, which would clearly reduce migration numbers.

According to the European Council in its conclusions on Syria of April 2018, “the momentum of the current situation should be used to reinvigorate the process to find a political resolution of the Syrian conflict […] A lasting peace in Syria is the ultimate objective of the EU”.7 The Council makes clear that it will not create a new EU-led political process but that it will support the UN’s: “…any sustainable solution to the conflict requires a genuine political transition in line with UNSCR 2254 and the 2012 Geneva Communique negotiated by the Syrian parties within the UN-led Geneva process.”

The UN currently takes part in two parallel processes: inter-Syrian conversations in Geneva and the Conversations in Astaná. The first looks for a dialogue solution to the conflict and participants are the Syrian government, a delegation from the opposition and the UN Special Envoy for Syria. Until now, 9 rounds of conversations have taken place, the last focused on the elaboration of a new constitution for the country. The second process is promoted by Russia, Iran and Turkey, guarantors of the peace process in Syria. Conversations started in 2017 with the aim of consolidating the cease-fire and preparing the way for a political solution to the war. The last round of conversations took place in Sochi this past July8.

But things aren’t as easy as they seem.

UN special envoy for Syria will soon be replaced by the Norwegian Geir Pedersen making future lines of action unpredictable for us. We know, however, what the starting point will be. In the ordinary UN session celebrated on the past 20th december, de Mistura stated that they had “almost completed the job of starting a constitutional commitee to write a constituional reform, as a contribution to the political process, but still have to go one more mile.”9

Such a commiteee would be composed of 150 persons, a third of which should be appointed by the Syrian regime, another third by the opposition and the last one by  UN designated persons. This last point has been repeatedly opposed by Syria. The biggest problem at the moment is that the UN is not fully comfortable with the 50-name list proposed by Iran, Russia and Turkey9.

On the other hand, the strategy of the US, a very relevant actor in this process due to its position in the UN as a permanent member of the Security Council (with veto power on resolutions), has been unclear for a long time. US Special Envoy to Syria Joel Rayburn stated in November that the objectives of the US in Syria were three: the defeat of the Islamic State, the withdrawal of all Iranian-commanded forces and “a political settlement under the auspices of the UNSC Resolution 2254 and the political process supported by the UN in Geneva.”10   

In other words, it seemed that unless the first two objectives were covered the US wouldn’t wholeheartedly compromise for a definitive political settlement in Syria and given US relevance, the UN would have it very difficult to advance the political process anytime soon. Most recently however, there was a turn of events: in December the US declared its intention of gradually withdrawing its troops from Syria. “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump presidency.”11

Does this mean that the US is finally willing to head its efforts towards the third objective? US diplomat Rodney Hunter said: “the US is ready to impulse the political process, to isolate more the regime diplomatic and economically, we are willing to do it.” 9

Although a positive answer would facilitate discussions for peace and thus, EU involvement, a reduction of violence in the region (and therefore a reduction of migration to Europe) is not assured for two reasons: the US now leaves Turks with free hands to attack Kurdish militants and, although ISIS has lost 95% of its territory, “2,500 Isis fighters remain […] The group retains the capacity to do even more damage, especially if let off the hook now.” 11

Soft power: humanitarian aid and investment

Given the fact that the EU can not really influence the military and political/diplomatic decisions regarding the Syrian conflict, it has been focusing, since the beginning of the war in 2011, on delivering humanitarian aid and development support to the country and its nationals. The next phrase from the European External Action Service summarises very well the EU’s aims on this respect: “Our objective is to bring an end to the conflict and enable the Syrian people to live in peace in their own country.”12

Although bilateral, regional and technical assitance cooperation between the EU and the Syrian government came to an end due to the violent situation that was emerging in the country, the international organization directly supports the Syrian population and its neighbours13.

Through the  European Neighbourhood  Policy (ENP), the EU worked hand in hand with its neighbours to the East and South (including Syria) with the aim of fostering stabilization, security and prosperity and achieving cooperation in key areas like the “promotion of democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights and social cohesion.”14 After the cease of cooperation between the EU and the regime, support to the ENP countries is given through the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), with a predicted budget of 15 billion dollars (2014-2020)15.

Under the financing og the ENI, the Commission approved in November a special measure “to help the Syrian population to cope with the effects of the crisis and prepare the grounds for a sustainable peace.”16 The main action has been entitled as “Preserving the prospects for peace and stability in Syria through an inclusive transition” and counts with a maximum contribution of EUR 31 million. According to the European Comission, if the Syrian situation turns into a “post-crisis state-building and reconstruction scenario,” special measures will be revised in order to suit the new needs of the population14.

The ENP is part of the EUGS or European Union Global Strategy (for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy) presented by Federica Mogherini to the EU Council in 2016, and whose main aim is to achieve an integrated approach and a “coherent perspective for EU’s external action.”15 As part of this broader strategy, the EU wishes to prevent fragile contexts from becoming serious humanitarian crises17. 

Within this, another particular strategy for Syria was developed in 2015, the EU Strategy for Syria. Some of its most important objectives are “saving lives by addressing the humanitarian needs of the most vulnerable Syrians across the country,” “promoting democracy, human rights and freedom of speech by strengthening Syrian civil society organisations” and “support the resilience of the Syrian population and Syrian society.”18 The European Council, in its Conclusions on Syria of 2018, agreed that the objectives of the “European Union Strategy on Syria” remain valid.

Although all these initiatives are well-intentioned and show that the EU is not only concerned about the end of the war but also with how it will be done and its aftermath, history has proved that Western political intervention in the Middle East is far from optimum for the region. In the 1916 the Sykes-Picot agreement between France and the UK drew an artificial political line on the territory that would later trigger the Arab-Israeli conflict and promote present ISIS action. Later on, the US-leaded intervention in Iraq in 2003 (one of its objectives being the “liberation” of the Iraqi people) has caused an increase of Sunni-Shiite tension, the rise of Al-Qaeda and the strenghtening of Iran in the region.

The point here is that the EU might be interested in helping Syria and its citizens in ways that improve living conditions and welfare opportunities without messing up with the country’s cultural, social and political system. Imposing the notion of democracy in these states, knowing that they have a completely different historical and cultural background, might not be a feasible solution.

Thus, other types of EU initiatives like the New Partnership Framework (NPF, June 2016), focused on the role of economic development in fighting the root causes of migration, might be more effective in the long-term. “It will address all aspects of this migration crisis, from its root causes to the daily tragedies that occur in the Mediterranean. These ambitions […] illustrate EU's willingness to address specific migratory challenges, but also the long-term drivers of migration.”19

Through the NPF, the EU explains how private investment can be a very useful tool for promoting the economic growth and development of Syria, which would in turn improve the living conditions of its citizens making it less necessary to flee their homes in search of a better place to be. “Instead of letting irregular migrants risk their lives trying to reach European labour markets, European private and public resources should be mobilised for investment in third countries of origin. If deployed intelligently, leveraged use of the limited budget resources available will generate growth and employment opportunities in source as well as transit countries and regions […] This should adress the root causes of migration directly, given the high impact of those investments in terms of employment and inequality reduction.” This is what the EU calls innovative financing mechanisms.

This project is called the External Investment Plan and is being organized in three steps. First, the mobilization of scarce public resources in an attractive way to attract private investment. Then, helping local authorities and private companies to be known in the international investor community. Finally, the EU would try to improve the general business government by putting a solution to some corruption issues as well as some market distortions. “The EU, Member States, third countries, International Financial Institutions, European bilateral development institutions, as well as the private sector, should all contribute.” The EU hopes to collect, through this External Investment Fund, a total of 62 billion euros.

Long story short, European countries believe in the expansion of this type of innovative financing “in those fragile and post-conflict countries which are often important for migration flows but where the potential for direct private or public investment is currently limited.”

An interesting factor to take into account in this matter is who will be the most involved international actor in the project. Will it be the US, allowing us to compare the current situation with the 20th century Marshall Plan? (where investments in infrastructure and the spread of domestic management techniques was also a key element). Or could it be Russia? As the President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce stated in March 2018,  “$200 billion to $500 billion will be needed for the reconstruction of the Syrian economy, and the first priority will, as President Bashar al-Assad has said, be given to Russian businesses.”20 What is clear is that investing in Syria will clearly give the investor country some important influence on the newly-recovered state.

Conclusions and forecast for the future

Since the beginning of the crisis in 2011, Syria has been one of the major sources of migration towards Europe. Although EU members currently need to discuss the prevention of illegal inmigration and the distribution of legally coming asylum seekers, some attention must also be given to the elimination of factors that activate migration in the country of origin.

While it is true that a definitive end to the war between the regime and the opposition would be the best and most inmediate solution for disproportionate fleeings from Syria, the EU doesn’t seem to be able to intervene more than it already does.

Not having an army of itself (and not seeming to want it in the near future) and being the “assistant” of the UN in the political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict, it can only apply its soft power tools and instruments to help to the country and its citizens.

Although humanitarian aid is essential and the EU is sparing no expense on it, the institution has come to realise that the real key to improving Syria’s situation and the wellbeing of its citizens may be investment and development. This investment could be “short-term”, in the sense that foreign countries directly invest in Syria and decide what the money will be used for (i.e reconstruction of buildings, construction of new infrastructure…) or “long-term”, in the sense that the main role of the EU is improving the country’s business governance to facilitate the attraction of private investors in the long-term.  

Regarding the last option it is very important that “the receptor countries establish transparent policies, broad and effective that propiciate an appropiate atmosphere for investment, with the consequent formation of human resources and the establishment of an appropiate institutional climate.”21 Taking this into account, Syria will be a difficult challenge for the EU, as in order to achieve an appropiate institutional climate, a diplomatic solution to the conflict and a peaceful political transition will be required, as well as the collaboration of the future government in promoting political transparency.

All in all, the EU is clearly aware of the root causes of migration and is developing feasible strategies to counter them. The rate of progress is still slow and it may be due to the fact that, in order to effectively apply many of this soft power strategies (except for the humanitarian aid), the receptor country must be stable and ready to collaborate. In other words, EU investment and development plans will most probably bear fruit when the war is over, a peaceful political transition is on the move and the general atmosphere is favourable for economic growth and innovation.

Political stability in Syria could be achieved through two scenarios: the success of the UN-led process and the drafting of new constitution for the country; or the victory of one of the sides (most probably the Syrian regime) and its establishment in power.  Meanwhile, the EU and its members will have three challenges: developping the forementioned long-term investment strategies in the view of a future peace (while mantaining already-functioning soft power initiatives), dealing with the refugee crisis at the European borders, and preserving the European project and unity by avoiding major disagreements on migration policy and an exacerbated fear of inmigration.

Moreover, one of the key issues that will need to be followed closely in the following months is the effect that the, maybe early, withdrawal of US troops can have on the region and on the power dynamic between the actors, together with the potential changes in US strategy with regards to the UN-led process.

References

1. CIDOB - «Inmigración y asilo: en el centro de la arena política». Anuario CIDOB de la Inmigración 2018. (2018). Retrieved from 

2. López, E. (2018). Refugee crisis: The divergence between the European Union and the Visegrad Group/ GLOBAL AFFAIRS, UNAV. Retrieved from

3. Tajani, A. (2018). The migration crisis threatens to destroy the EU. We must not let it | Antonio Tajani. Retrieved from

4. Refugee population by country or territory of origin | Data. (2017). Retrieved from

5. Lebanon - European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations - European Commission. (2019). Retrieved from

6. Photos and videos of the conference - Consilium. (2018). Retrieved from

7. Battu, V. (2018). Syria: Council adopts conclusions - Consilium. Retrieved from

8. Siria. Retrieved from

9. La ONU sigue atascada para una solución en Siria, mientras EE.UU. anuncia su retirada. (2018). Retrieved from

10. Elgeneidy, S. (2018). INTERVIEW: ‘We need a political settlement of the conflict’, US Special Envoy to Syria says - Region - World - Ahram Online. Retrieved from

11. Chulov, M. (2018). Has Isis been defeated in Syria, as Trump claims?. Retrieved from

12. Syria and the EU - EEAS - European External Action Service - European Commission. (2016). Retrieved from

13. Syria - European Neighbourhood Policy And Enlargement Negotiations - European Commission. (2018). Retrieved from

14. European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) - Commission européenne. (2016). Retrieved from

15. European Neighbourhood Policy - European Neighbourhood Policy And Enlargement Negotiations - European Commission. (2018). Retrieved from

16. Comission implementing decision on the special measure in favour of the Syrian population for 2018. (2018). Retrieved from

17. EUGS at 1 - EU Global Strategy - European Commission. (2019). Retrieved from

18. Battu, V. (2017). Council adopts EU strategy on Syria - Consilium. Retrieved from

19. Communication on establishing a new Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration. (2016). Retrieved from

20. "Russian business first in line for spoils of Syrian war/Subscribe to read | Financial Times. Retrieved from

21. Foreign Direct Investment for Development: Maximising Benefits, Minimising Costs. (2002). Retrieved from

[Bruno Maçães, The Dawn of Eurasia. On the Trail of the New World Order. Allen Lane. Milton Keynes, 2018. 281 págs]

RESEÑA / Emili J. Blasco

El debate sobre el surgimiento de Eurasia como una realidad cada vez más compacta, no ya como mera descripción geográfica que conceptualmente era una quimera, debe mucho a la contribución de Bruno Maçães; singularmente a su libro The Dawn of Eurasia, pero también a su continuo proselitismo ante públicos diferentes. Este diplomático portugués con actividad investigadora en Europa constata la consolidación de la masa euroasiática como un único continente (o supercontinente) a todos los efectos.

“Una de las razones por las que tenemos que comenzar a pensar sobre Eurasia es porque así es como China mira cada vez más el mundo (...) China está ya viviendo una edad eurosiática”, dice Maçães. Lo nuevo de esta, afirma, “no es que existan tales conexiones entre los continentes, sino que, por primera vez, funcionan en ambos sentidos. Solo cuando la influencia fluye en ambos sentidos podemos hablar de un espacio integrado”. La Iniciativa Cinturón y Ruta de la Seda, sobre todo su trazado terrestre, muestra que China ya no solo mira al Pacífico, sino que a su espalda contempla nuevas vías para llegar a Europa.

Maçães apremia a Europa a que adopte una perspectiva euroasiática, por tres razones: porque Rusia y China tienen una; porque la mayoría de las grandes cuestiones de política exterior de nuestro tiempo tienen que ve con el modo en que Europa y Asia están conectadas (Ucrania, crisis de refugiados, energía y comercio), y porque todas las amenazas de seguridad de las próximas décadas se desarrollarán en un contexto euroasiático. Maçães añade una razón final por la cual Europa debería implicarse de modo más activo en el proyecto de integración euroasiática: es el modo de combatir las fuerzas de desintegración que existen en el interior mismo de Europa.

De las diversas consideraciones incluidas en el libro, podrían destacarse algunas ideas sugerentes. Una es que los históricos problemas de identidad de Rusia, a caballo entre Europa y Asia –verse diferente de los europeos y a la vez sentir atracción por la modernidad de Occidente–, resultan replicados ahora en el Oriente, donde China está en camino de crear un segundo polo de crecimiento económico y de integración en el supercontinente. Si Europa es uno de los polos y Asia (China y los demás exitosos países del Extremo Oriente) el otro, ¿Rusia entonces qué es, si no responde plenatemente a la identidad europea ni a la asiática?

La Iniciativa Cinturón y Ruta de la Seda otorga importancia geopolítica a Asia central, como repasa Maçães. Así, China necesita un claro dominio de Xinjiang, su provincia más occidental y la puerta a las repúblicas centroasiáticas. La ruta terrestre hacia Europa no puede existir sin el segmento de Xinjinag, pero al mismo tiempo la exposición de este territorio de mayoría uigur al comercio y la modernización podría acentuar sus aspiraciones separatistas. Justo al noroeste de Xinjiang está la república exsoviética de Kazajstán, un extenso país de gran valor agrícola, donde los intentos chinos de comprar tierras están siendo vistos con elevada suspicacia desde su capital, Astaná. Maçães estima que si Rusia intentara reintegrar Kazajstán en su esfera de influencia, con la misma vehemencia que ha hecho con Ucrania, “China no se quedaría a un lado”.

No es solo que la costa Este (península europea) y la costa Oeste (litoral del Pacífico) se aproximan, sino que además las conexiones entre ambas mejoran las condiciones logísticas del interior del supercontinente. Ese es precisamente uno de los objetivos de Iniciativa Cinturón y Ruta de la Seda: a medida que las compañías chinas se han ido alejando de los hubs empresariales de la costa para abaratar los costes de mano de obra, más lejos están quedando de los puertos, por lo que necesitan mejores conexiones terrestres, contribuyendo así al encogimiento de Eurasia.

Pekín acelera su cambio de estrategia económica mientras Alemania intenta reinventarse como potencia manufacturera con su 'Industry 4.0'

De ser la gran fábrica de los productos más bajos en la cadena mundial de precios a convertirse en una potencia manufacturera apreciada por el valor añadido que China pueda aportar a su producción. El plan 'Made in China 2025' está en marcha con el propósito de operar el cambio en unas pocas décadas. El empuje chino pretende ser contrarrestado por Alemania con su 'Industry 4.0', para preservar el reconocimiento internacional a lo producido por la industria germana.

▲ Stand de Huawei en el Mobile World Congress 2017 [Huawei]

ARTÍCULO / Jimena Puga

“Made in China 2025” es un plan político-económico presentado por el primer ministro chino Li Keqiang en mayo de 2015. El principal objetivo de esta iniciativa es el crecimiento de la industria China, y a su vez fomentar el desarrollo industrial en las áreas más pobres de China situadas en el interior del país, como las provincias de Qinghai, Sinkiang o Tíbet. Una de las metas es aumentar el contenido nacional de los materiales básicos hasta un 40% para 2020 y un 70% para 2025.

Pero, ¿qué quiere conseguir la República Popular con esta iniciativa? Tal y como anunciaba Mu Rongping, director general del Centro de Innovación y Desarrollo de la Academia China de Ciencia, “no creo que el plan Made in China 2025 y otros planes relacionados con la industria supongan una amenaza para la economía mundial y la innovación. Estas políticas industriales dimanan de la cultura tradicional china. En China siempre que establecemos una nueva medida política o económica tenemos las expectativas altas. Así, si conseguimos solo la mitad, estaremos satisfechos. Este punto de vista ha llevado a China al cambio y hasta cierto punto, a la innovación”.

Evolución económica china

En 1978 Deng Xiaoping llegó al poder y cambió todas las estructuras maoístas. Así, desde una perspectiva económica, el Derecho se ha convertido en un elemento decisivo para resolver conflictos y mantener el orden social en China. Deng trató de instaurar un sistema socialista, pero con “características chinas”. De esta forma se justificó una economía de libre mercado y, en consecuencia, la obligación de desarrollar nuevas normas y estructuras. Además, el presidente introdujo el concepto de democracia como un instrumento necesario para la nueva China socialista. La reforma legal más importante fue la posibilidad de crear negocios privados. En 1992 se adoptó la expresión de una “economía de mercado socialista”, una etiqueta para esconder un capitalismo real (1).

El actual presidente de la República Popular, Xi Jinping, se ha manifestado contrario al proteccionismo económico y a favor de equilibrar la globalización para “hacerla más incluyente y equitativa”. También añadió un aumento en el estudio del capitalismo actual y el desarrollo del socialismo con características chinas propio del país, ya que si el partido abandonase el marxismo perdería “su alma y dirección”, además de calificarlo como “irreemplazable para comprender y transformar el mundo”.

El plan Made in China 2025 y el Industry 4.0

Durante esta última década, China ha emergido como uno de los milagros manufactureros más relevantes de la historia desde que empezase la Revolución Industrial en Gran Bretaña en el siglo XVIII. A finales de 2012, China se convirtió en un líder global en operaciones de manufacturas y en la segunda potencia económica del mundo por encima de Alemania. El paradigma Made in China ha sido evidenciado por productos hechos en China, desde productos de alta tecnología como ordenadores o teléfonos móviles hasta bienes de consumo como aires acondicionados. El objetivo del Imperio del Centro es extender este plan a tres fases. En la primera, del año 2015 al año 2025, China pretende figurar en la lista de potencias manufactureras globales. En la segunda, de 2026 a 2035, China prevé posicionarse en un nivel medio en cuanto a poder manufacturero mundial. Y por último, en la tercera fase, de 2036 a 2049, año en que la República Popular celebrará su centenario, China desea convertirse en el país manufacturero líder del mundo.

En 2013, Alemania, un país mundialmente líder en cuanto a industrialización, publicó su plan estratégico Industry 4.0. Conocido por sus marcas prestigiosas como Volkswagen o BMW, las industrias líderes del país han enfatizado su fuerza innovadora que les permite reinventarse una y otra vez. El plan Industry 4.0 es otro ejemplo de la estrategia manufacturera del país germano para competir en una nueva revolución industrial basada en la integración industrial, en la integración de la información industrial, Internet y la inteligencia artificial. Alemania es mundialmente conocida por el diseño y calidad de sus productos. El plan Industry 4.0, presentado en 2013 por el Gobierno alemán, se centra en la smart factory, es decir, que las fábricas del futuro sean más sostenibles e inteligentes; en sistemas ciberfísicos, que integran tecnologías avanzadas como la automoción, el intercambio de datos en la tecnología de manufacturación y la impresión 3D, y en las mercancías y las personas.

Ambos planes, Industry 4.0 y Made in China 2025 se centran en la nueva revolución industrial y emplean elementos de digitalización manufacturera. El núcleo del plan alemán es el sistema ciberfísico, es decir un mecanismo controlado o monitorizado por algoritmos estrechamente ligados a Internet y a sus usuarios, y la integración en mecanismos de creación de valor dinámico. El plan chino, además del plan de acción “Internet Plus Industry”, tiene un objetivo fijado especialmente en la consolidación de las industrias existentes, en el fomento de la diversidad y la ampliación del margen de actuación de numerosas industrias, realzando la cooperación regional mediante el uso de Internet para una manufacturación sin fronteras, la innovación de nuevos productos y la mejora en la calidad de los mismos.

En 2020 Estados Unidos será el país más competitivo en cuanto a manufacturación del mundo, seguido por China, Alemania, Japón, India, Corea del Sur, México, Taiwán, Canadá y Singapur. De estos diez países, seis son países asiáticos, uno europeo y los tres restantes miembros del NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).

Este nuevo giro en la estrategia industrial se traduce en una anticipación del mundo a una cuarta revolución industrial propiciada por los avances tecnológicos. China será sin duda uno de los líderes internacionales de esta revolución gracias a los planes Made in China 2025 y One Belt One Road, sin embargo, las nuevas economías emergentes como Sudáfrica, Vietnam o Hungría que han contribuido a la economía mundial en los últimos años requerirán más atención.

(1) Vid. ARANZADI, Iñigo González Inchaurraga, Derecho Chino, 2015, p. 197 y ss.

En un contexto de creciente populismo, el pulso entre Bruselas y Roma es decisivo para el futuro de la UE

En una medida sin parangón dentro de la historia de la Unión, la Comisión Europea ha desestimado los presupuestos nacionales presentados por el Gobierno populista italiano, por no tender a los objetivos de déficit marcados. Ni Bruselas ni Roma parecen tener la intención de abandonar sus posturas, por lo que un enfrentamiento institucional amenaza el horizonte europeo.

▲ Giuseppe Conte, presidente del Gobierno italiano, con los vicepresidentes Luigi di Maio (izqda.), líder del Movimiento 5 Estrellas, y Mateo Salvini (dcha.), líder de la Liga Norte [Gob. de Italia]

ARTÍCULO / Manuel Lamela

Tras siete meses en el Gobierno, la coalición formada por el Movimiento 5 Estrellas y La Liga Norte han cumplido con lo prometido e iniciado, con la presentación del presupuesto de la república italiana, un proceso de enfrentamiento y desafío con la Unión Europea (UE). Las autoridades de Bruselas acusan a Italia de romper, con sus irresponsabilidades, los lazos de confianza que forjan y dan sentido al proyecto europeo.

El pasado día 16 de octubre el ejecutivo de Giuseppe Conte presentó un presupuesto con una previsión de déficit del 2,4%; si bien es cierto que la cifra está por debajo del límite del 3% fijado por la normativa europea, triplica lo pactado anteriormente entre Roma y la UE. Además, si la deuda pública de Italia es del 131% del PIB, lo que la convierte en la segunda más alta de la Unión monetaria, solamente superada por Grecia, el nuevo presupuesto no hará más que aumentarla, ya que pretende incrementar de forma significativa el gasto público.

El aumento del gasto parece obedecer a los intereses populistas del líder de la Liga Norte y ministro del Interior, Mateo Salvini, quien no ha ocultado su intención de buscar apoyo en los sectores más fracturados de la sociedad italiana. Cultivar el victimismo frente a Europa puede dar un cierto rédito político, pero el ejemplo de Grecia nos muestra que actitudes de ese tipo suelen acabar en tragedia, debilitando sobremanera al Estado ante otra posible crisis de deuda.

La Comisión Europea rechazó a finales de octubre el borrador presupuestario italiano –devolver el presupuesto de un Estado miembro era un acto sin precedentes– e instó a Roma a enviar una versión revisada en un plazo máximo de tres semanas. La decisión no cierra las puertas al diálogo y a las negociaciones, como indica en su explicación de lo sucedido el comisario de Asuntos Económicos, Pierre Moscovici; “El dictamen adoptado hoy no debería sorprender a nadie, ya que el proyecto de presupuesto del Gobierno italiano representa una desviación clara e intencional de los compromisos asumidos por Italia el pasado mes de julio. Sin embargo, nuestra puerta no está cerrada. Queremos continuar nuestro diálogo constructivo con las autoridades italianas. Celebro el compromiso del ministro de Finanzas, Giovanni Tria, con este fin y debemos avanzar con este espíritu en las próximas semanas”.

Pero desde el Gobierno de Conte se asegura que no existe un plan B y que no hay ninguna posibilidad de que Italia dé un paso atrás. Tanto Mateo Salvini como el líder del Movimiento 5 Estrellas, Luigi di Maio, ambos vicepresidentes del Gobierno, defendieron la postura Italiana y atacaron a Bruselas alegando que es normal que esta se encuentre descontenta, ya que es la primera vez que Italia se libera de las garras del eurogrupo a la hora de decidir su política económica. También manifestaron que, con su respuesta, el colegio de Comisarios ataca directamente al pueblo Italiano. Y acusaron al presidente de la Comisión, Jean-Claude Juncker, de “solo hablar con gente embriagada”, algo que sin duda muestra poco respeto hacia las instituciones.

La táctica de simular fortaleza y determinismo, que ambas formaciones políticas italianas usaron durante la campaña electoral, se está viendo correspondida por el resto de líderes europeos con un ejercicio de poder real. La petición del ministro italiano de Finanzas, Giovanni Tria, para que Italia pueda gozar de la misma oportunidad que contó Portugal en el pasado, cuando Bruselas aceptó que el primer ministro luso, Antonio Costa, no aplicara el volumen de recortes deseado desde la Comisión, se verá ahogada por las imprudentes formas que emplean los líderes políticos de la República Italiana.

Si Italia se niega a seguir las recomendaciones dadas por la UE cabe la posibilidad de que la Comisión se plantee imponer multas, que pueden llegar a suponer un 0.2% del PIB, por el incumpliendo del pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento. Pero al margen de las sanciones la UE no posee derecho a veto ni dispone tampoco de ninguna otra competencia para evitar la entrada en vigor del presupuesto italiano. Como indican diversos expertos, será la presión de los mercados la que haga corregir la medida italiana, evitando así un enfrentamiento directo entre Roma y Bruselas que dañaría a ambas partes por igual. Los analistas de Goldman Sachs predicen que “la deuda italiana debe empeorar para ejercer la presión adecuada y obligar a que el Gobierno opte por otra retórica”.

Aunque la Comisión Europea logre evitar una confrontación con Italia, sí podrá verse expuesta a la campaña de victimismo de las agrupaciones populistas italianas, táctica que ya emplearon con éxito en las pasadas elecciones. Se trata de una táctica que no es de creación italiana, pues desde la crisis del año 2008 diversas agrupaciones y partidos surgieron con una postura claramente contraria a Bruselas, acusando a las instituciones comunitarias de todos los males que sufren las sociedades europeas. Ejemplos hay varios; quizás el Brexit sea el más sonado dada su relevancia a nivel europeo e internacional, pero no nos debemos olvidar del ascenso de formaciones como el Frente Nacional en Francia, el Partido de la Libertad en Austria o Podemos en España, partido este último que tuvo su gran lanzamiento público a raíz de las elecciones al Parlamento Europeo de 2015.

Hasta el momento en Europa no se ha conseguido encontrar la manera de evitar o neutralizar las campañas de demagogia que proliferan en la Europa actual. Aunque se están realizando ciertos avances en cuanto al poder comunicativo de la UE, es incomprensible que desde Bruselas no se consiga explicar con eficacia el proyecto europeo a los ciudadanos de la Unión. Se trata de una carencia que el proyecto europeo arrastra desde su nacimiento y que ha sido causa de muchos de los males que han afectado a la unidad regional en las últimas décadas. En este caso Europa tiene que aportar datos que resulten sencillos de comprender para el ciudadano medio italiano y que le hagan ver que las medidas adoptadas por su Gobierno serán dañinas para la sociedad italiana en un futuro próximo, por mucho que se encuentren edulcoradas por mensajes que responden a promesas vacías y políticas mesiánicas.

Otro de los factores que preocupan en el seno de la Comisión es el riesgo de contagio del virus generado dentro de la tercera economía de la UE (descontando ya el Reino Unido). En un principio puede parecer posible que otros Estados miembros se sientan atraídos a seguir los pasos de Italia; sin embargo, las autoridades europeas dicen creer firmemente que su dura respuesta a Roma reforzará la unión monetaria e incluso hará que aumente la integridad en ámbitos como la unidad bancaria. En cuanto al exterior, la decisión mostrará que el rigor presupuestario comunitario se cumple, generando confianza y seguridad en los mercados, y por último demostrando que no se da tregua a las formaciones populistas dentro de Europa.

Did the Provisional IRA lose its ‘Long War’? Why are dissident Republicans fighting now?

ESSAY / María Granados Machimbarrena

In 1998, the Belfast Agreement or Good Friday Agreement marked the development of the political relations between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Several writers, politicians and academics claimed the British had won the ‘Long War’.(1)

However, according to other scholars and politicians(2), the armed struggle has not left the region. The following paper delves into the question as to whether the war is over, and attempts to give an explanation to the ultimate quest of dissident Republicans.

On the one hand, Aaron Edwards, a scholar writing on the Operation Banner and counter- insurgency, states that Northern Ireland was a successful peace process, a transformation from terrorism to democratic politics. He remarks that despite the COIN being seen as a success, the disaster was barely evaded in the 1970s.(3) The concept of ‘fighting the last war’, meaning the repetition of the strategy or tactic that was used to win the previous war(4), portrays Edward’s critique on the Operation. The latter was based on trials and tests undertaken in the post-war period, but the IRA also studied past interventions from the British military. The insurgents’ focus on the development of a citizen defence force and the support of the community, added to the elusive Human Intelligence, turned the ‘one-size-fits-all’ British strategy into a failure. The British Army thought that the opponents’ defeat would bring peace, and it disregarded the people-centric approach such a war required. The ‘ability to become fish in a popular sea’, the need to regain, retain and build the loyalty and trust of the Irish population was the main focus since 1976, when the role of the police was upgraded and the Army became in charge of its support. The absence of a political framework to restore peace and stability, the lack of flexibility, and the rise of sectarianism, a grave socio-economic phenomenon that fuelled the overall discontent, could have ended on a huge disaster. Nonetheless, Edwards argues the peace process succeeded because of the contribution of the Army and the political constraints imposed to it.(5)

In 2014, writer and veteran journalist Peter Taylor claimed that the British had won the war in Northern Ireland. He supported his statement through two main arguments: the disappearance of the IRA and the absence of unity between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Former Minister Peter Robinson (DUP Party) firmly rejected the idea of such a union ever occurring: ‘It just isn't going to happen’. Ex-hunger striker Gerard Hodgins was utterly unyielding in attitude, crying: ‘We lost. (...) The IRA are too clever to tell the full truth of what was actually negotiated. And unionists are just too stupid to recognise the enormity of what they have achieved in bringing the IRA to a negotiated settlement which accepts the six-county state.’ They were all contested by Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams, a political fighter and defender of a united Ireland, and Hutchinson, who stated that the republicans were fighting a cultural battle to eradicate Britishness. He agreed that the war had changed in how it was being fought, “but it is still a war” he concluded.(6) Former IRA commander McIntyre disagrees, in his book he suggests that the PIRA(7) is on its death bed. So is the army council that plotted its campaign. ‘If the IRA ever re-emerges, it will be a new organisation with new people’.(8)

There is an important point that most of the above-mentioned leaders fail to address: the so- called cultural battle, which is indeed about the conquest of ‘hearts and minds’. Scholars(9) find there is a deep misunderstanding of the core of republicanism among politicians and disbelievers of the anti-GFA groups’ strength. In fact, there has been an increase on the number of attacks, as well as on the Provisional movement’s incompetence. Historical examples show that the inability to control the population, the opponent’s motivation, or the media leads to defeat. E.g.: C.W. Gwynn realised of the importance of intelligence and propaganda, and H. Simson coined the term ‘sub-war’, or the dual use of terror and propaganda to undermine the government.(10) T.E. Lawrence also wrote about psychological warfare. He cited Von der Goltz on one particular occasion, quoting ‘it was necessary not to annihilate the enemy, but to break his courage.’(11)

On the other hand, Radford follows the line of Frenett and Smith, demonstrating that the armed struggle has not left Northern Ireland. There are two main arguments that support their view: (1) Multiple groups decline the agreement and (2) Social networks strengthen a traditional-minded Irish Republican constituency, committed to pursue their goals.

In the aftermath of the GFA, the rejectionist group PIRA fragmented off and the RIRA was born. The contention of what is now called RIRA (Real IRA) is that such a body should always exist to challenge Great Britain militarily. Their aim is to subvert and to put an end to the Peace Process, whilst rejecting any other form of republicanism. Moreover, their dual strategy supported the creation of the political pressure group 32CSM.(12) Nonetheless, after the Omagh bombing in 1998, there was a decline in the military effectiveness of the RIRA. Several events left the successor strategically and politically aimless: A new terrorism law, an FBI penetration, and a series of arrests and arms finds.(13) In spite of what seemed to be a defeat, it was not the end of the group. In 2007, the RIRA rearmed itself, an on-going trend that tries to imitate PIRA’s war and prevents the weaponry from going obsolete. In addition, other factions re-emerged: The Continuity IRA (CIRA), weaker than the RIRA, was paralysed in 2010 after a successful penetration by the security forces. Notwithstanding, it is still one of the richest organisations in the world. Secondly, the Oglaigh na hEireann (ONH) is politically aligned with the RSF and the RNU. They have not been very popular on the political arena, but they actively contest seats in the council.(14)

In 2009, the Independent Monitoring Commission acknowledged an increase in ‘freelance dissidents’, who are perceived as a growing threat, numbers ranging between 400-500. The reason behind it is the highly interconnected network of traditional republican families. Studies also show that 14% of nationalists can sympathetically justify the use of republican violence. Other factors worth mentioning include: A growing presence of older men and women with paramilitary experience; an increase of coordination and cooperation between the groups; an improvement in capability and technical knowledge, evidenced by recent activities.(15)

In 2014, a relatively focused and coherent IRA (‘New IRA’) emerged, with poor political support and a lack of funding, but reaching out to enough irredentists to cause a potential trouble in a not so distant future.

Conclusion

Von Bülow predicted: ‘[Our consequence of the foregoing Exposition, is, that] small States, in the future, will no more vanquish great ones, but on the contrary will finally become a Pray to them”.(16) One could argue that it is the case with Northern Ireland.

Although according to him, number and organisation are essential to an army,(17) the nature of the war makes it difficult to fight in a conventional way.(18) Most documents agree that the war against the (P)IRA must be fought with a counterinsurgency strategy, since, as O’Neill thoughtfully asserts, ‘to understand most terrorism, we must first understand insurgency.’ In the 1960s, such strategies began to stress the combination of political, military, social, psychological, and economic
measures.(19) This holistic approach to the conflict would be guided by political action, as many scholars put forward in counterinsurgency manuals (e.g.: Galula citing Mao Zedong’s ‘[R]evolutionary war is 80 per cent political action and only 20 per cent military’.(20) Jackson suggests that the target of the security apparatus may not be the destruction of the insurgency, but the prevention of the organisation from configuring its scenario through violence. Therefore, after the security forces dismantle the PIRA, a larger and more heavy response should be undertaken on the political arena to render it irrelevant.(21)

One of the main dangers such an insurgency poses to the UK in the long term is the re-opening of the revolutionary war, according to the definition given by Shy and Collier.(22) Besides, the risks of progression through repression is its reliance on four fragile branches, i.e.: Intelligence, propaganda, the secret services and the police.(23) The latter’s coordination was one of the causes of the fall of the PIRA, as aforementioned, and continues to be essential: ‘(...) these disparate groups of Republicans must be kept in perspective and they are unlikely, in the short term at least, to wield the same military muscle as PIRA (...), and much of that is due to the efforts of the PSNI, M15 and the British Army’ maintains Radford. Thus, ‘Technical and physical intelligence gathering are vital to fighting terrorists, but it must be complemented by good policing’.

Hence, unless the population is locally united; traditional, violent republican ideas are rejected, and the enemy remains fragmented, the remnants of the ‘Long War’ are likely to persist and cause trouble to those who ignore the current trends. There is an urgent need to understand the strong ideology behind the struggle. As the old Chinese saying goes: ‘It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles’.(24)

1. Writer and veteran journalist Peter Taylor, Former Minister Peter Robinson (DUP Party), ex-IRA hunger striker Gerard Hodgins, and former IRA commander and Ph.D. Anthony McIntyre.

2. M. Radford, Ross Frenett and M.L.R. Smith, as well as PUP leader Billy Hutchinson and Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams.

3. Edwards, Aaron. “Lessons Learned? Operation Banner and British Counter-Insurgency Strategy” International Security and Military History, 116-118.

4. Greene, Robert, The 33 Strategies of War. Penguin Group, 2006.

5. Edwards, Aaron. l.c.

6. Who Won the War? [Documentary]. United Kingdom, BBC. First aired on Sep 2014.

7. Provisional IRA


8. McIntyre, Anthony. Good Friday: The Death of Irish Republicanism, 2008.

9. E.g.: R. Frenett, M. L. R. Smith.

10. Pratten, Garth. “Major General Sir Charles Gwynn: Soldier of the Empire, father of British counter- insurgency?” International Security and Military History, 114-115.

11. Lawrence, T. E. Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph. New York: Anchor, 1991.

12. ‘The 32 County Sovereignty Movement’

13. For instance, Freddie Scappatticci, the IRA’s head of internal security, was exposed as a British military intelligence agent in 2003.

14. Radford, Mark. ‘The Dissident IRA: Their “War” Continues’ The British Army Review 169: Spring/ Summer 2017, 43-49 f.f.

15. ‘Terrorists continue to plot, attack and build often ingenious and quite deadly devices’ Ibidem.

16. Von Bülow, Dietrich Heinrich. ‘The Spirit of the Modern System of War’. Chapter I, P. 189. Cambridge University Press, Published October 2014.

17. Von Bülow, D.H., l.c. P. 193 Chapter II.

18. Indeed, some authors will define it as an ‘unconventional war’. E.g.: ‘revolutionary war aims at the liquidation of the existing power structure and at a transformation in the structure of society.’ Heymann, Hans H. and Whitson W. W., ‘Can and Should the United States Preserve A Military Capability for Revolutionary Conflict?’ Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Ca., 1972, p. 5.p. 54.

19. O’Neill, Board E. Insurgency and Terrorism: From Revolution to Apocalypse. Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2005. Chapter 1: Insurgency in the Contemporary World.

20. Galula, David. Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice. London: Praeger, 1964.

21. Jackson, B. A., 2007, ‘Counterinsurgency Intelligence in a “Long War”: The British Experience in Northern Ireland.’ January-February issue, Military Review, RAND Corporation.

22. ‘Revolutionary War refers to the seizure of political power by the use of armed force’. Shy, John and Thomas W. Collier. “Revolutionary War” in Peter Paret, ed. Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1986.

23. Luttwak, Edward. (2002). Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace. Cambridge, US: Belknap Press.

24. Sun Tzu. The Art of War. Attack By Stratagem 3.18.

Bibliography

Edwards, Aaron. Lessons Learned? Operation Banner and British Counter-Insurgency Strategy International Security and Military History, 116-118.

Galula, David. Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice. London: Praeger, 1964.

Greene, Robert. The 33 Strategies of War. Penguin Group, 2006.


Heymann, Hans H. and Whitson W. W.. Can and Should the United States Preserve A Military Capability for Revolutionary Conflict? (Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Ca., 1972), p. 5.p. 54.

International Monitoring Commission (IMC), Irish and British governments report on the IRA army council’s existence, 2008.


Lawrence, T. E. Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph. New York: Anchor, 1991.


Luttwak, Edward. Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace. Cambridge, US: Belknap Press, 2002.

McIntyre, Anthony. Good Friday: The Death of Irish Republicanism, 2008.


O’Neill, Board E.. Insurgency and Terrorism: From Revolution to Apocalypse. Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2005.


Pratten, Garth. Major General Sir Charles Gwynn: Soldier of the Empire, father of British counter-insurgency? International Security and Military History, 114-115.


Radford, Mark. The Dissident IRA: Their ‘War’ Continues The British Army Review 169: Spring/Summer 2017, 43-49.


Ross Frenett and M.L.R. Smith. IRA 2.0: Continuing the Long War—Analyzing the Factors Behind Anti-GFA Violence, Published online, June 2012.


Sepp, Kalev I.. Best Practices in Counterinsurgency. Military Review 85, 3 (May-Jun 2005), 8-12.


Sun Tzu, S. B. Griffith. The Art of War. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Print.


Taylor, Peter. Who Won the War? [Documentary]. United Kingdom, BBC. First aired on Sep 2014.


Thompson, Robert. Defeating Communist Insurgency. St. Petersburg, FL: Hailer Publishing, 2005.


Von Bülow, Dietrich Heinrich. The Spirit of the Modern System of War. Cambridge University Press, Published October 2014.

WORKING PAPER /  Marianna McMillan

ABSTRACT

In appearance the internet is open and belongs to no one, yet in reality it is subject to concentrated tech firms that continue to dominate content, platform and hardware. This paper intends to highlight the importance in preventing any one firm from deciding the future, however this is no easy feat considering both: (i) the nature of the industry as ambiguous and uncertain and (ii) the subsequent legal complexities in defining the relevant market to assess and address their dominance without running the risk of hindering it. Thus, the following paper tries to fill the gap by attempting to provide a theoretical and practical examination of: (1) the nature of the internet; (2) the nature of monopolies and their emergence in the Internet industry; and (3) the position of the US in contrast to the EU in dealing with this issue. In doing so, this narrow examination illustrates that differences exist between these two regimes. Why they exist and how they matter in the Internet industry is the central focus.

Download the document [pdf. 387K]

ESSAY / Blake Bierman

The Common Foreign, Security, and Defense Policy (CFSDP) of the European Union today acts a chameleonic hybrid of objectives and policies that attempt to resolve a plethora of threats faced by the EU. In a post 9/11 security framework, any acting policy measure must simultaneously answer to a wide array of political demands from member states and bureaucratic constraints from Brussels. As a result, the urgent need for consolidation and coherency in a common, digestible narrative has evolved into a single EU Global Strategy that boldly attempts to address today’s most pressing security whilst proactively deterring those of tomorrow. In this analysis, I will first present a foundational perspective on the external context of the policy areas. Next, I will interpret the self-perception of the EU within such a context and its role(s) within. Thirdly, I will identify the key interests, goals, and values of the EU and assess their incorporation into policy. I will then weigh potential resources and strategies the EU may utilize in enacting and enforcing said policies. After examining the aforementioned variables, I will end my assessment by weighing the strengths and weaknesses of both the EU’s Strategic Vision and Reflection Paper while identifying preferences within the two narratives.

EU in an External Context: A SWOT Analysis

When it comes to examining the two perspectives presented, the documents must be viewed from their correlative timelines. The first document, “From Shared Vision to Common Action: Implementing the EU Global Strategy Year 1,” (I will refer to this as the Implementation paper) serves as a realist review of ongoing action within the EU’s three policy clusters in detailing the beginning stages of integrated approach and outlook towards the internal-external nexus along with an emphasized role of public diplomacy in the mix. On the other hand, the second document, “Reflection Paper on the Future of European Defense,” (I will refer to this as the Reflection paper) acts more so as a planning guide to define the potential frameworks for policies going forward into 2025. Once these documents are viewed within their respective timelines, a balanced “SWOT” analysis can assess the similarities and divergences of the options they present. Overwhelmingly, the theme of cooperation acts as a fundamental staple in both documents. In my opinion, this acts a force for unification and solidarity amongst member states from not only the point of view of common interest in all three policy areas, but also as a reminder of the benefits in the impact and cost of action as prescribed in the UN and NATO cases. Both documents seem to expand the EU’s context in terms of scope as embracing the means and demands for security in a global lens. The documents reinforce that in a globalized world, threats and their responses require an approach that extends beyond EU borders, and therefore a strong, coherent policy voice is needed to bring together member states and allies alike to defeat them.

Examining the divergences, much is left to be desired as far as the risks and opportunities are presented. In my perspective, I believe this was constructed purposefully as an attempt to leave the both areas  as open as possible to allow for member states to interpret them in the context of their own narratives. In short, member state cohesion at literally every policy inroad proves to be the proverbial double-edged sword as the single largest risk and opportunity tasked by the organization. I think that the incessant rehashing of the need to stress state sovereignty at every turn while glamorizing the benefits of a single market and economies of scale identifies a bipolar divide in both documents that seems yet to be bridged by national sentiments even in the most agreeable of policy areas like diplomacy. The discord remains all but dependent on the tide of political discourse at the national level for years to come as the pace maker to materialize sufficient commitments in everything from budgets to bombs in order to achieve true policy success.

Who is the EU? Self-Perception and Potential Scenarios

After understanding the external context of the EU policy areas, we now turn to the element of self-perception and the roles of the EU as an international actor. Examining the relationship between the two stands as a crucial understanding of policy formulation as central to the core identity to the EU and vice versa. In this case, both documents provide key insight as to the position of the EU in a medium-term perspective. From the Implementation Paper, we see a humbled approach that pushes the EU to evolve from a regional, reactionary actor to a proactive, world power. The paper hones in on the legal roots and past successes of an integrated approach outside EU borders as a calling to solidify the Union’s mark as a vital organ for peace and defense. The paper then broadens such an identity to incorporate the elements of NATO and the UN cooperation as a segmenting role for member states contributions, such as intelligence collection and military technology/cyber warfare. In the Reflection Paper, I think the tone and phrasing speak more to the self-perceptions of individual citizens. The emotive language for the promotion of a just cause attitude stands reinforced by the onslaught of harmonizing buzzwords throughout the paper and the three scenarios such as “joint, collaborative, solidarity, shared, common, etc.”. In my perspective, such attempts draw in the need to reinforce, protect, and preserve a common identity both at home and abroad. This formation speaks to the development of both military and civilian capabilities as a means of securing and maintaining a strong EU position in the global order while supplementing the protection of what is near and dear at home.

Policy Today: Interests, Goals, and Values

When developing a coherent line of key interests, goals, and values across three focal policy structures, the EU makes strategic use of public perception as a litmus test to guide policy narratives. In the Reflection Paper, indications clearly point to a heightened citizen concern over immigration and terrorism from 2014-2016 taking clear priority over economic issues as the continent recovers. Such a reshuffling may pave the way for once-apprehensive politicians to reexamine budgeting priorities. Such a mandate could very well be the calling national governments need to allocate more of their defense spending to the EU while also ramping up domestic civilian and military infrastructure to contribute to common policy goals. Extending this notion of interest-based contributions over to the goals themselves, I think that member states are slowly developing the political will to see that a single market for defense ultimately becomes more attractive to the individual tax payer when all play a part. As the Reflection Paper explains, this can be translated as free/common market values with the development of economies of scale, boosted production, and increased competition. In each of the three scenarios outlined, the values act as matched components to these goals and interests. Therefore, readers retain a guiding set of “principles” as the basis for the plan’s “actions” and “capabilities.” The alignment of interests, goals, and values remains a difficult but necessary target in all policy areas, as the final results have significant influence over the perception of publics that indirectly vote the policies into place. In my perspective, a lack of coherence between the three and the policies could be a potential pitfall for policy objectives as lost faith by the public may sink the voter appetite for future defense spending and action.

Making it Happen: Resources and Strategies

As the balance between the EU’s ways and means become a focal point for any CFSDP discussion, I wanted to enhance the focus between the resources and strategies to examine the distribution between EU and member state competencies. When it comes to resources in all three policy areas, individual member states’ own infrastructures become front and center. Even in the “collaborative” lens of a 21st century EU, foreign affairs, defense, and security mainly revolve as apparatuses of a state. Therefore, in order to achieve a common strategy, policy must make a concerted effort to maximize collective utilization of state assets while respecting state sovereignty. In the Reflection paper, an attempt to consolidate the two by bolstering the EU’s own defense budget acts as a middle ground. In this regard, I think the biggest opportunity for the EU to retain its own resources remains in technology. States are simply more eager to share their military tech than they are their own boots on the ground. Similarly, technology and its benefits are more easily transferrable between member states and the EU. Just as well, selling the idea of technology research to taxpayers that may one day see the fruits of such labor in civilian applications is an easier pill to swallow for politicians than having to justify the use of a state’s limited and precious human military capital for an EU assignment not all may agree with. A type of “technological independence” the third scenario implies would optimally direct funding in a manner that balances state military capacity where it acts best while joining the common strategy for EU technological superiority that all member states can equally benefit from.

Narratives and Norms: A Final Comparison

After reviewing the progress made in the Implementation Paper and balancing it with the goals set forth in the Reflection paper, it remains clear that serious decisions towards the future of EU CFSDP still need to be made. The EU Global Strategy treads lightly on the most important topics for voters like immigration and terrorism that remain works in progress under the program’s steps for “resilience” and the beginnings of an integrated approach. That being said, my perspective in this program lens remains that the role and funding of public diplomacy unfortunately remains undercut by the giant umbrella of security and defense. To delve into the assessment of counterterrorism policy as a solely defensive measure does a disservice to the massive, existing network of EU diplomatic missions serving abroad that effectively act as proactive anti-terrorism measures in themselves. At the same time, supplementing funding to public diplomacy programs would take some of the pressure off member states to release their military capabilities for joint use. In this facet, I empathize with the member state politician and voter in their apprehensiveness to serve as the use of force in even the most justifiable situations. A refocus on funding in the diplomacy side is a cost effective alternative and investment that member states can make to reduce the likelihood that their troops will need to serve abroad on behalf of the EU. The success of diplomacy can be seen in areas like immigration, where the Partnership Framework on Migration has attempted to work with countries of origin to stabilize governments and assist civilians.

Turning the page to the Reflection Paper, I think much is left to be desired in terms of the development of the three scenarios. Once again, the scenario parameters are purposefully vague to effectively sell the plan to a wide variety of narratives. At the same time, I found it reprehensible that despite the massive rhetoric to budgetary concerns, none of the three scenarios incorporated any type of estimate fiscal dimension to compare and contrast the visions. Obviously, the contributions of member states will vary widely but I think that a concerted campaign to incentivize a transparent contribution table in terms financing, military assets, diplomatic assets, or (ideally) a combination of the three would see a more realpolitik approach to what the EU does and does not possess in the  capacity to achieve in these policy areas. Ultimately, I believe that Scenario C “Common Defense and Security” retains the most to offer member states while effectively balancing the contributions and competencies equally. I think that the scenario utilizes the commitments to NATO and reinforces the importance of technological independence. As such, the importance of a well-defined plan to develop and maintain cutting-edge technology in all three policy areas cannot be overstated and, in my opinion, will become not only the most common battlefield, but also the critical one as the world enters into a 21st century of cyber warfare.

WORKS CITED

European Union. (2016). From Shared Vision to Common Action: The EU’s Global Strategic Vision: Year 1.

European Union. (2016). Reflection Paper on the Future of European Defense.

ENSAYO / Lucía Serrano Royo

En la actualidad unos 60 millones de personas se encuentran forzosamente desplazadas en el mundo (Arenas-Hidalgo, 2017).[1] Las cifras adquieren mayor trascendencia si se observa que más del 80% de los flujos migratorios se dirigen a países en vías de desarrollo, mientras que solo un 20% tienen como meta los países desarrollados, que a su vez poseen más medios y riqueza, y serían más aptos para acoger estos flujos migratorios.

En 2015 Europa acogió a 1,2 millones de personas, lo que supuso una magnitud sin precedentes desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Esta situación ha dado lugar a un intenso debate sobre solidaridad y responsabilidad entre los Estados miembros.

La forma en la que se ha legislado esta materia en la Unión Europea ha dado lugar a irregularidades en su aplicación entre los diferentes Estados. Esta materia dentro del sistema de la Unión Europea se trata de una competencia compartida del espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia. El Tratado Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (TFUE) en su artículo 2.2 y 3 se establecen que en estas competencias, son los Estados los que deben legislar en la medida en que la Unión no ejerce su competencia. Esto ha dado lugar a un desarrollo de forma parcial y desigualdades.

Desarrollo legislativo

La figura de los refugiados se recoge por primera vez en un documento internacional en la Convención sobre el Estatuto de Refugiados de Ginebra (1951) y su Protocolo de 1967. (ACNUR: La Agencia de la ONU para los Refugiados, 2017)[2]. A pesar de este gran avance, el tratamiento de los refugiados era diferente en cada Estado miembro, al tratarse su política nacional. Por ello, en un intento de armonizar las políticas nacionales, se firmó en 1990 el Convenio de Dublín. A pesar de ello, no fue hasta el Tratado de Ámsterdam en mayo de 1999, cuando se estableció como objetivo crear un espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia, tratando la materia de inmigración y asilo como una competencia compartida. Ya en octubre de 1999, el Consejo Europeo celebró una sesión especial para la creación de un espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia en la Unión Europea, concluyendo con la necesidad de crear un Sistema Europeo Común de Asilo (SECA) (CIDOB, 2017)[3]. Finalmente, estas políticas en materia de asilo se convierten en materia común con el Tratado de Lisboa y su desarrollo en el TFUE.

Actualmente, su razón de ser está recogida en el art 67 y siguientes del TFUE, donde se establece que la Unión constituye un espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia dentro del respeto de los derechos fundamentales y de los distintos sistemas y tradiciones jurídicos de los Estados miembros. Este espacio también garantizará la ausencia de controles de las personas en las fronteras interiores. Además, se establece que la UE se desarrollará una política común de asilo, inmigración y control de las fronteras exteriores (art 67.2 TFUE) basada en la solidaridad entre Estados miembros, que sea equitativa respecto de los nacionales de terceros países. Pero el espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia no es un compartimento estanco en los tratados, sino que tiene que interpretarse a la luz de otros apartados.

Esta competencia se debe analizar, por un lado, bajo el marco de libre circulación de personas dentro de la Unión Europea, y por otro, teniendo en cuenta el ámbito financiero. En cuanto a la libertad de circulación de personas, se debe aplicar el artículo 77 TFUE, que insta a la Unión a desarrollar una política que garantice la ausencia total de controles de las personas en las fronteras interiores, garantizando a su vez el control en las fronteras exteriores. Para ello, el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo, con arreglo al procedimiento legislativo ordinario, deben establecer una política común de visados y otros permisos de residencia de corta duración, controles y condiciones en las que los nacionales de terceros países podrán circular libremente por la Unión. En cuanto al ámbito financiero, se debe tener en cuenta el artículo 80 TFUE, que establece el principio de solidaridad en las políticas de asilo, inmigración y control, atendiendo al reparto equitativo de la responsabilidad entre los Estados miembros.

Además, un aspecto fundamental para el desarrollo de esta materia ha sido la armonización del término refugiado por la Unión, definiéndolo como nacionales de terceros países o apátridas que se encuentren fuera de su país de origen y no quieran o no puedan volver a él debido al temor fundado a ser perseguidos en razón de su raza, religión, nacionalidad u opinión (Eur-ex.europa.eu, 2017)[4] . Esto es de especial importancia porque estas son las características necesarias para adquirir la condición de refugiado, que a su vez es necesario para obtener el asilo en la Unión Europea.

Situación en Europa

A pesar del desarrollo legislativo, la respuesta en Europa a la crisis humanitaria tras el estallido del conflicto en Siria, junto con el recrudecimiento de aquellos que se suceden en Iraq, Afganistán, Eritrea o Somalia, ha sido muy poco eficaz, lo que ha hecho tambalear el sistema.

La decisión de conceder o retirar el estatuto de refugiado pertenece a cada autoridad interna de los Estados, y por tanto puede diferir de un Estado a otro. Lo que hace la Unión Europea es garantizar una protección común y garantizar que los solicitantes de asilo tengan acceso a procedimientos de asilo justos y eficaces. Por ello la UE trata de establecer un sistema coherente para la toma de decisiones al respecto por parte de los Estados miembros, desarrollando normas sobre el proceso completo de solicitud de asilo. Además, en el caso en el que la persona no cumpla los requisitos para ser refugiado, pero se encuentre en una situación delicada por riesgo a sufrir daños graves en caso de retorno a su país, tiene derecho a una protección subsidiaria. A estas personas se les aplica el principio de no devolución, es decir, tienen derecho ante todo a no ser conducidas a un país donde haya riesgo para sus vidas.

El problema de este sistema es que solamente Turquía y Líbano acogen 10 veces más refugiados que toda Europa, que hasta 2016 sólo tramitó 813.599 solicitudes de asilo. Concretamente España concedió protección a 6.855 solicitantes, de los cuales 6.215 eran sirios[5]; pese al incremento respecto a años anteriores, las cifras seguían siendo las más bajas en el entorno europeo.

Muchas de las personas que desembarcan en Grecia o Italia, emprenden de nuevo su rumbo hacia los Balcanes a través de Yugoslavia y Serbia hasta Hungría, ante las deficiencias de gestión y las condiciones precarias que encontraron en estos países de acogida.

Para intentar aplicar el principio de solidaridad y cooperación, se estableció en 2015 una serie de cuotas para aliviar la crisis humanitaria y la presión establecida en Grecia e Italia. Los Estados miembros debían repartirse 120.000 asilados, y todos los países debían acatarlo. El principal interesado fue Alemania. Otro de los mecanismos que se creó fue un fondo con cargo al Mecanismo para los Refugiados en Turquía, para satisfacer las necesidades de los refugiados acogidos en ese país. La Comisión destinó un importe total de 2.200 millones de euros, y presupuestó 3.000 millones en 2016-2017[6].

Ante esta situación los países han reaccionado de manera diferente dentro de la Unión. Frente a países como Alemania, que buscan una forma de combatir el envejecimiento y la reducción de la población en su Estado mediante la entrada de refugiados, otros Estados miembros son reacios a la aplicación de las políticas. Incluso en algunos países de la Unión Europea, los partidos nacionalistas ganan fuerza y apoyos: en Holanda, Geert Wilders (Partido de la Libertad); en Francia, Marine Le Pen (Frente Nacional), y en Alemania, Frauke Petry (partido Alternativa para Alemania). A pesar de que esos partidos no son la principal fuerza política en esos países, esto refleja el descontento de parte de población ante la entrada de refugiados en los Estados. También es destacable el caso de Reino Unido, puesto que una de las causas del Brexit fue el deseo de recuperar el control sobre la entrada de los inmigrantes en el país. Además, en un primer momento Reino Unido ya se descolgó del sistema de cuotas aplicado en el resto de Estados miembros. Como se confirma en sus negociaciones, la premier Teresa May prioriza el rechazo a la inmigración por encima del libre comercio en la UE.

Mecanismos específicos para el desarrollo del ESLJ

Las fronteras entre los distintos países de la Unión se han difuminado. Con el código de fronteras Schengen y el código comunitario sobre visados se han abierto las fronteras, integrándose y permitiendo así la libre circulación de personas. Para el funcionamiento de estos sistemas ha sido necesario el establecimiento de normas comunes sobre la entrada de personas y el control de los visados, puesto que una vez pasada la frontera exterior de la UE los controles son mínimos. Por ello, las comprobaciones de documentación varían dependiendo de los lugares de origen de los destinatarios, teniendo un control más detallado para aquellos ciudadanos que no son de la Unión. Solo excepcionalmente se ha previsto el restablecimiento del control en las fronteras interiores (durante un periodo máximo de treinta días), en caso de amenaza grave para el orden público y la seguridad interior.

Puesto que el control de las fronteras exteriores depende de los Estados donde se encuentren, se han creado sistemas como Frontex 2004, a partir de los Centros ad hoc de Control Fronterizo establecidos en 1999, que proporciona ayuda a los Estados en el control de las fronteras exteriores de la UE, principalmente a aquellos países que sufren grandes presiones migratorias (Frontex.europa.eu, 2017) [7]. También se ha creado el Fondo de Seguridad Interior, un sistema de apoyo financiero surgido en 2014 y destinado a reforzar las fronteras exteriores y los visados.

Otro mecanismo activo es el Sistema Europeo Común de Asilo (SECA), para reforzar la cooperación de los países de la UE, donde teóricamente los Estados miembros deben asignar 20% de los recursos disponibles[8]. Para su aplicación, se estableció el Fondo de Asilo, Migración e Integración (FAMI) (2014-2020) necesario para promover la eficacia de la gestión de los flujos migratorios. Además, en el SECA se ha establecido una política de asilo para la Unión Europea, que incluye una directiva sobre procedimientos de asilo y una directiva sobre condiciones de acogida. En este sistema se integra el Reglamento Dublín, de acuerdo con las Convención de Ginebra. Es un mecanismo fundamental y aunque este sistema se ha simplificado, unificado y aclarado, ha causado más controversias en materia de refugiados. Se estableció para racionalizar los procesos de solicitudes de asilo en los 32 países que aplican el Reglamento. Con arreglo a esta ley, solo un país es responsable del examen de su solicitud: el país que toma las huellas del refugiado, es decir, al primero que llegó y pidió protección internacional. Esto funciona independientemente de que la persona viaje o pida asilo en otro país; el país competente es aquel en el que se tomaron primero las huellas al refugiado. Este sistema se apoya en el EURODAC, puesto que es un sistema central que ayuda a los Estados miembros de la UE a determinar el país responsable de examinar una solicitud de asilo, comparando las impresiones dactilares.

El Consejo Europeo de Refugiados y Exiliados ha remarcado los dos problemas principales de este sistema: por un lado, lleva a los refugiados a viajar de forma clandestina y peligrosa hasta llegar a su país de destino, para evitar que les tome las huellas otro país distinto de aquel en el que se quieren asentar. Por otro lado, Grecia e Italia, que son los principales destinos de las corrientes de inmigrantes, no pueden con la carga que este sistema les impone para procesar las masas de personas que llegan a su territorio en busca de protección.

Casos ante el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE

El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea se ha pronunciado en varios aspectos relativos a la actuación ante la inmigración y el tratamiento de los refugiados por parte los Estados miembros. En algunas ocasiones el tribunal se ha mantenido férreo en la aplicación de la normativa homogénea de la Unión, mientras que en otros casos el tribunal ha dejado la cuestión a la discrecionalidad de los diferentes Estados miembros. 

El tribunal falló en favor de una actuación común en el caso un nacional de un tercer país (Sr. El Dridi) que entró ilegalmente en Italia sin permiso de residencia. El 8 de mayo de 2004 el Prefecto de Turín dictó contra él un decreto de expulsión. El TJUE (STJUE, 28 abril 2011)[9] falló que a pesar de que un inmigrante se encuentre en situación ilegal y permanezca en el territorio del referido Estado miembro sin causa justificada, incluso con la concurrencia de una infracción de una orden de salida de dicho territorio en un plazo determinado, el Estado no puede imponer pena de prisión, puesto que siguiendo la Directiva 2008/115, excluyen la competencia penal de los Estados miembros en el ámbito de la inmigración clandestina y de la situación irregular. De este modo, los Estados deben ajustar su legislación para asegurar el respeto del Derecho de la Unión.

Por  otro lado, el tribunal deja en manos de los Estados la decisión de enviar de vuelta a un tercer país a un inmigrante que haya solicitado protección internacional en su territorio, si considera que ese país responde a los criterios de «país tercero seguro». Incluso el tribunal falló (STJUE, 10 de diciembre de 2013) [10]que, con objeto de racionalizar la tramitación de las solicitudes de asilo y de evitar la obstrucción del sistema, el Estado miembro mantiene su prerrogativa en el ejercicio del derecho a conceder asilo con independencia de cuál sea el Estado miembro responsable del examen de una solicitud. Esta facultad deja un gran margen de apreciación a los Estados. La homogeneidad en este caso solo se aprecia en el caso de que haya deficiencias sistemáticas del procedimiento de asilo y de las condiciones de acogida de los solicitantes de asilo en ese Estado, o bien tratos degradantes.

Por una actitud más activa

La Unión Europea ha establecido multitud de mecanismos, y tiene competencia para ponerlos en marcha, pero su pasividad y la actitud reacia de los Estados miembros a la hora de acoger a los refugiados ponen en duda la unidad del sistema de la Unión Europea y la libertad de movimiento que caracteriza a la propia UE. La situación a la que se enfrenta es compleja, puesto que hay una crisis humanitaria derivada del flujo de inmigrantes necesitados de ayuda en sus fronteras. Mientras tanto, los Estados se muestran pasivos e incluso contrarios a la mejora del sistema, hasta el punto que algunos Estados han propuesto la restauración de los controles de fronteras interiores (El Español, 2017).[11] Esta situación ha sido provocada principalmente por una falta de control efectivo sobre sus fronteras dentro de la Unión, y por otro lado por una sociedad que muestra recelo ante la apertura de las fronteras por la inseguridad.

La crisis de los refugiados es un problema real y cerrar las fronteras no hará desaparecer el problema. Por ello, los países europeos deberían adoptar una perspectiva común y activa. El destino de fondos sirve de ayuda en esta crisis humanitaria, pero no es la única solución. Uno de los principales problemas sin resolver es la situación de las personas en campos de refugiados, las cuales  se encuentran en condiciones precarias y deberían ser acogidos de forma digna. La Unión debería reaccionar más activamente ante estas situaciones, haciendo uso de su competencia en materia de asilo y llegada de inmigración con afluencia masiva, recogido en el art 78 TFUE c).

Esta situación sigue siendo uno de los objetivos principales para la agenda de la Unión Europea ya que en el Libro Blanco se establece el refuerzo de la Agenda de Migración, actuaciones sobre la crisis de los refugiados y aspectos sobre la crisis de población de Europa. Se aboga por un incremento de las políticas de inmigración y protección de la inmigración legal, combatiendo a su vez la inmigración ilegal, ayudando tanto a los inmigrantes como a la población europea (Comisión europea, 2014) [12]. A pesar de estos planes y perspectivas positivas, se ha de tener en cuenta la delicada situación ante la que internamente se encuentra la UE, con casos como la retirada de un Estado con poder dentro de la Unión (el Brexit), lo que podría dar lugar a un desvío en los esfuerzos de las políticas comunitarias, dejando de lado temas cruciales, como lo es la situación de los refugiados.

WORKING PAPER / N. Moreno, A. Puigrefagut, I. Yárnoz

ABSTRACT

The fundamental characteristic of the external action of the European Union (EU) in recent years has been the use of the so-called soft power. This soft power has made the Union a key actor for the development of a large part of the world’s regions. The last decades the EU has participated in a considerable amount of projects in the economic, cultural and political fields in order to fulfil the article 2 of its founding Treaty and thus promote their values and interests and contribute to peace, security and sustainable development of the globe through solidarity and respect for all peoples. Nevertheless, EU’s interventions in different regions of the world have not been free of objections that have placed in the spotlight a possible direct attack by the Union to the external States’ national sovereignties, thus creating a principle of neo-colonialism by the EU.

Download the document [pdf. 548K]