Mediaboss Marketing

The European Union finds itself in the most perilous quandary sine the immediate postWorld War II period. The risk is a split between the Central European and Eastern European member states and the majority of the others over a diverging interest. The changing U.S. world outlook, in particular, its European policy, may play a decisive role. To weather the storm five major challenges, calling for determined leadership, clear visions and statecraft must be overcome.

Brexit

The first one is to negotiate the future relationship between Britain and the EU. The EU will reject a deal with a neighboring country using low taxes, low labor standards, lavish state aids and subsidies and a soft regulatory framework for the environment, safety, etc., to enhance its competitive position. In reality, access to the single market with seven of its ten top export markets requires Britain to shadow EU rules without participating in decisionmaking. That will be hard to swallow as the obvious question is why did we leave if we have to apply the EU ruleset anyway?

Britain says prices on its products sold in the EU will go up and barriers may arise for its financial sector, which accounts for 10 percent of its total export to the EU. Concluding free trade agreements with other countries will be more difficult as they may ask for less stringent rules than applied by the EU, forcing Britain to choose between the EU rule set and what third countries demand. That is likely to happen for agriculture and food in a free trade agreement with the United States. The EU will not allow American agriculture and foods with lower standards to enter its market via Britain.

Inside Britain, devolution means that a trade deal with the EU might have to be approved by the British parliament and by the Scottish parliament. The door opens for exacting concessions about more powers to be transferred from Westminster to Edinburgh or even a second referendum about seceding from Great Britain. The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will take up time and attention. For the first time ever, nationalists got more votes than the unionists (pro-Britain) raising the prospect of Northern Ireland following the Scottish example.

Carbon Neutral and Recycling

The second one is the plan for a European green deal. The basic idea is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and not to emit more greenhouse gasses than is absorbed for all twenty-seven member states. The EU is already on its way as greenhouse gas emissions in 2018 were 23 percent lower than the 1990 level closing in on the interim target of halving emissions by 2030. Several of the Central European and Eastern European countries that depend on coal for energy supply will struggle to meet this target.

Getting there will be expensive. An additional investment of Euro 260 billion equal to 1.5 percent of EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is necessary to meet the interim 2030 target and much more looking to 2050. It is envisaged to mobilize the private sector through a forthcoming Green Financing Strategy.

There may be a repercussion on trade issues as the EU has let it be known that its energy-intensive industries might be protected against imports from other countries with less stringent emission rules by a border tax.

These ambitions do not, however, stop with a green deal. Some years ago, the EU launched a program about a circular economy, which in its first phase introduces strong incentives to recycle waste aiming at getting to a point where the EU will be able to recycle all waste or close to all waste.

Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027

The EUs annual budget follows seven years of multiannual financial frameworks. The next one covers 2021-2027. Its negotiating and approval constitutes the third challenge.

Currently, the budget amounts to about 1 percent of EU GDP. For the next MFF, the European Commission asks for an increase to 1.114 percent while the European Parliament proposes 1,3 percent. These two institutions take part in the decision process about the MFF and the annual budget, but ultimately the member states decide.

EU has cut expenditure on traditional policies with agriculture as the prime example. Its share will be reduced to 30 percent compared to 37 percent for 2019 and 70 percent in 1985. Despite economies, however, the new programs about competitiveness, economic, social and territorial cohesion and the carbon-neutral program can hardly be squeezed in without an increase of the total budget.

Basically, it is a question of how much the richer member states in Northwestern Europe is willing to pay for a reorientation of the EU. The poorer member states in Southern Europe and most of the Central European and Eastern European member states recognize that the richer member states are net contributors to the budget, but point out that they benefit much more from the single market than they do. The snag is that a net contributor or net recipient is clearly visible while the benefits flowing from the single market is much more difficult to quantify.

Common Foreign and Security Policy and Common Foreign Trade Policy.

The fourth one is to turn the embryonic Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) into a genuine common policy.

President Donald Trump has been busy demanding renegotiations of trade deals or launching trade wars. So far, the EU has escaped his wrath but for how long? With Boris Johnson, regarded as a political twin as prime minister of Britain and the lull in the trade war with China, there are considerable risks that Trump will shift his attention to the EU. He thrives by crisis and few things are more popular in America than blaming other countries for economic difficulties. The different attitudes towards climate change may raise a fire on trade especially if the EU implements a border tax against the United States, pointing to its less stringent environmental regulation.

EU member states are trying to confront the problem of how to react inside the framework of the Common Foreign Trade Policy. The United States will undoubtedly try to play member states against one another by introducing tariffs against sensitive sectors in some member states and keeping others out of the foresight. Those escaping tariffs will be told that the price is to stop the EU from retaliating.

The Central European and Eastern European countries may be targeted. The majority see the United States and not the EU as guaranteeing their security vis--vis Russia, who they fear still harbor dreams of reestablishing a degree of influence if not control over this part of Europe. They are not prepared to run the risk of antagonizing the United States.

After Russia annexed Crimea March 2014, the EU adopted sanctions and maintains a common attitude towards Russia but not without costs for some member states being traditional exporters to Russia.

Experience shows that over time sanctions suffer from fatigue and there are signs that some member states feel the time has come to loosen up and test whether some kind of living together with Russia is possible.

If such efforts are launched, and they probably will in the not so distant future, then solidarity will be tested. This was visible when the gas pipeline Nord Stream 2 under the Baltic Sea was negotiated. Its purpose is to transport natural gas from Russia into Europe and in particular Germany by circumventing the land routes via Central- and Eastern Europe including Ukraine. Central European and Eastern European countries fear that Russia might use the new pipeline to cut them off from traditional supplies.

Over the last five to ten years a seminal change has been visible in the U.S. stance towards China. From seeing its involvement in economic globalization as almost exclusively positive, there is now an emerging consensus that China is a competitor and a potential threat that gained access to U.S high tech on the cheapa threat that must be stopped. European leaders now voice similar concerns. Only a few days ago a plan surfaced to look into state-owned companies (read Chinese ones) investment in the EU, investigating whether they enjoy state aids.

A number of member states, primarily in Central Europe and Eastern Europe, have attracted large investments from China, which has helped stimulate economic growth. They may resist measures, whichChina will perceive as questioning the future relationship.

Deepening the Integration

The fifth challenge is to strengthen the Eurozone, a common defense, protect the external border and ensure that all member states adhere to the principles underpinning the integration.

The Eurozone is for the time being doing quite well and a considerable strengthening has taken place since the outbreak of the global financial crisis 200809. It is, however, clear that it has still not found a shape where it is beyond doubt that it can further economic growth and withstand a new financial crisis should it come.

Europe still depends on the United States for its defense as most nations only spend between 1 and 1.5 percent of GDP on defense. Whats more is that despite strenuous efforts over many years, no European structure has been built to frame a common defense.

Go here to read the rest:
Five Challenges for the European Union - The National Interest Online

BRUSSELS The European Union spent 20 million euros last year in Eritrea, hoping to help stem an exodus from the repressive African country, which is consistently one of its biggest sources of asylum seekers.

The money,about $22 million, bought equipment and materials to build a road, a seemingly uncontroversial task. The catch? Many workers on the construction site are forced conscripts, and the European Union has no real means of monitoring the project.

The decision caused outrage in human-rights circles. But that did not stop the bloc in December from deciding to give Eritrea tens of millions more, funding a system of forced conscription that the United Nations has described as tantamount to enslavement.

The additional aid, of 95 million, has not been previously reported, and is a jarring example of the quandary facing the European Union as it scrambles to drastically curb migration.

When it comes to Eritrea, a closed nation of about five million people in the Horn of Africa, the bloc has little real oversight of the projects it is funding, and it has decided not to make its aid conditional on guarantees of democratic reforms.

The money is part of a 4.6 billion European Union Trust Fund for Africa, a special fund created at the height of the refugee crisis in 2015 to address the root causes of migration.

While that plan is supported by a broad consensus, its execution has tarnished what many see as a worthy goal, even raising questions of whether it has become counterproductive.

The flow of asylum seekers out of Eritrea remains consistently high. At least 5,000 Eritreans have sought asylum in Europe every year in the past decade. In 2015 and 2016, the number peaked at over 30,000, and last year it was more than 10,000.

At least 80 percent of the requests were successful, according to Eurostat, the European Union statistics agency, meaning that European countries overwhelmingly consider Eritreans legitimate refugees.

European officials and migration experts believe that Eritreans will continue to arrive in the thousands, even as overall numbers of new migrants drop from mid-decade highs.

That drop is more to do with a crackdown at Europes Mediterranean borders, through agreements with Turkey and Libya, than with funding to Africa or the Middle East.

The European Union trust fund is a long-term approach, even as it has become an immediate part of the blocs thickening forward defense against migration as it tries to address it at its source in Africa.

Its endowment is being spent across the continent, with special focus on the countries that send the highest numbers of asylum seekers to Europe.

Since the trust was declared emergency funding, it is not subject to the stringent procurement and oversight demands that normally accompany European Union spending.

When it comes to Eritrea, European officials have switched to what they call a dual-track approach talking with the government while also giving it money, irrespective of outcomes.

In all, 200 million from the fund is earmarked for Eritrea. The hope is that the money will help lift the local economy, create jobs, keep Eritreans at home and cement the peace agreement with its erstwhile enemy Ethiopia that was reached in mid-2018.

Overlooked or ignored in the calculation, the European Unions critics say, is the appalling record of an Eritrean government that is considered one of the worlds worst human-rights abusers.

After a 30-year guerrilla war, Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1991. The two sides went to war again over their border, from 1998 to 2000, after Ethiopia refused to abide by an international ruling. Eritreas rebel-leader-turned-president, Isaias Afwerki, has maintained a state of emergency ever since.

As part of that state of emergency, a National Service program of mandatory, universal and indefinite conscription has remained in place, even after the 2018 peace agreement, a breakthrough that won Ethiopias leader the Nobel Peace Prize.

Despite the peace agreement with Ethiopia, the human rights situation in Eritrea remains dire, said Laetitia Bader, who covers the country and broader region for Human Rights Watch. The government continues to conscript much of its population into indefinite national service and hold scores of political detainees in inhumane conditions.

Eritreans are trapped within this system, and the country, since an exit visa is required to leave. Many remain conscripted into their 40s, doing civilian or military jobs for little pay.

Human-rights groups and the United Nations say that conscript work in Eritrea, which keeps the country running, amounts to forced labor. The United States has long suspended aid and development funding to the country.

The European Commission, the European Unions executive branch, said that it had been informed by the government that conscripts would be used for its road project.

The details of how this project is set up show that it has been carefully designed to ensure that the European Union is not seen to be directly paying for conscripts to work on the construction site.

The E.U. does not pay for labor under this project, the European Commission said in written replies to questions from The New York Times. The project only covers the procurement of material and equipment to support the rehabilitation of roads.

The Commission, which has contracted the United Nations Office for Project Services to manage the project on its behalf, said that both it and the United Nations agency paid particular attention to ensuring that minimum standards for health and safety of the workers involved in the road rehabilitation sites are ensured.

But the agency does not have an office in Eritrea and says it is checking on the project through visits organized by the Eritrean government.

In response to questions, it said that it was not monitoring the work either, but rather that the Eritrean government was monitoring itself. The agency is not monitoring the implementation of the project, a spokesperson said. The project is carried out by the government and progress is monitored by the Ministry of Public Works.

Asked how many conscripts worked on the project and what their salaries were, the agency said it did not have access to this information contradicting what the Commission has said about the level of detail provided to the agency.

Asked whether it saw a problem with facilitating a project that engages conscript labor in Eritrea, a practice denounced by other United Nations branches, the agency said that it respects core U.N. principles, including the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor, but decided to proceed anyway.

The European Unions change in approach to Eritrea is part of a broader coming in from the cold for the country, as world powers take an interest in the geopolitically crucial Horn of Africa and Eritreas long coastline along the Red Sea.

The United Arab Emirates in recent years set up a huge base on the Eritrean coast to support its war effort in Yemen directly across the water. The Red Sea is also a critical passage for ships carrying goods and oil to Europe through the Suez Canal.

Officials involved in shaping Europes Eritrea policy said that the bloc did not want to be left out of that unfolding game, which has become more active since the peace with Ethiopia and the subsequent lifting of longstanding United Nations sanctions against Eritrea over its links to regional armed groups.

The rapprochement with Ethiopia and removal of U.N. sanctions allow the E.U. to try to foster development of Eritreas moribund economy and coax the government away from its repressive ways through engagement and patience, said William Davison of the International Crisis Group, a research organization.

Mr. Afwerki has been remarkably successful in keeping control of the country without compromising or heeding calls to change.

Recently, however, the government has indicated that the National Service could be incrementally reduced once enough jobs open up to absorb the conscripts.

The European Union said it disapproved of Eritreas national service policy, despite the conscripts use of European-funded tools.

The E.U. does not support indefinite national service in Eritrea and continues to push for reform to the national service through its reinforced political dialogue with the government, the European Commission said.

Human rights, it added, are at the core of all of the E.U.s external actions.

Read the original post:
How Forced Labor in Eritrea Is Linked to E.U.-Funded Projects - The New York Times

Today the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, together with High Representative Josep Borrell, have met with Fayez al-Sarraj, Chairman of the Presidency Council of the Government of National Accord of the State of Libya, upon his arrival in Brussels.

President Michel expressed concerns about the worrying military escalations in Libya. He underlined that there is no military solution to the Libyan crisis, only a political process can bring peace and stability closer. Libyans should be at the heart of defining their own future. The European Union will step up efforts towards a peaceful and political solution. The European Union fully supports the Berlin process and all UN initiatives aimed at finding a comprehensive political solution to the crisis in Libya. High Representative Borrell reiterated the importance of creating the right conditions ahead of future steps as discussed during the ministerial meeting that took place yesterday.

President Michel raised the recent Turkey-Libya Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the delimitation of maritime jurisdictions in the Mediterranean Sea and expressed the European Union's position that the MOU infringes upon the sovereign rights of third States and does not comply with the Law of the Sea and cannot produce any legal consequences for third States.

President of the European Council Charles Michel also clearly condemned the recent attacks in Libya, in particular the strike against the military school in Tripoli and the attack on the Sirte airport. He also reiterated that the European Union has always and consistently supported the Government of National Accord as the legitimate government of Libya and that the EU stands ready to provide all possible support to the political process.

More here:
The European Union will step up efforts towards a peaceful and political solution in Libya - EU News

Your request will be handled by the Press Office of the General Secretariat of the Council in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data.

Your data will be stored in the database until you unsubscribe from the service.

Certain data (name, e-mail address, preferred language, media name, media type) may be disclosed to the press offices of the European institutions, the Permanent Representations of the Member States and to European Union agencies, under the conditions laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation 45/2001.

If there is data which you would not like to be stored, please let us know at: [emailprotected]

View post:
Joint Statement by the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and the High Representative on the passing of...

Heres how to immediately repair the relationship.

The transatlantic relationship has suffered a series of near-fatal blows in recent years. President Trump has openly questioned Americas Article 5 commitment to defend any attacked NATO member, dubbed the European Union a foe, and repeatedly disparaged some of Americas closest alliesfor example, calling Germany captive to Russia. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. France and Germany, instead of joining forces to chart a future course for the European project, have spent years trapped between President Emmanuel Macrons unbridled desire to lead a more assertive Europe and Chancellor Angela Merkels caution and paralysis.

Meanwhile, Russia and other adversaries have become increasingly creative in finding ways to undermine transatlantic unity and resolve. And populist forces on both sides of the Atlantic are bringing new leaders to power who lack an interest in or exposure to Europe and Americas shared history and values. While it would be premature to issue last rites to the transatlantic relationship, theres no question that it is ailing.The next U.S. president will need to revitalize this critical partnershipit serves far too many of Americas political, economic, and security interests to allow it to deteriorate further. Over the last 70 years, the United States and Europe have established the rules-based order through an array of multilateral institutions and alliances, from NATO to the United Nations, that have protected and promoted shared values. We have, at different times, tackled global challenges ranging from Ebola to climate change to Irans nuclear ambitions. While the U.S. brings the most military assets to the alliance, Europes contribution is substantial; its economic might is hefty; and it invests disproportionately in diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and other forms of soft power.Breathing fresh life into the relationship wont be easy. Electing an American president who refrains from name calling, supports the rules-based order, and brings stability to the alliance would be a good start. But that wont be enough to put the transatlantic partnership on a more sustainable and constructive course and restore Americas credibility.

There are certain steps, however, a new president could take to begin the rebuilding process. In the first 100 days, he or she should travel to Germanythe country that has been perhaps most relentlessly and unfairly criticized by Trumpand deliver a public address. The normal framing for such a speech is to tick off all the ways in which the two sides of the Atlantic can create a shared agenda. This speech needs to be different. Instead of promising cooperation, the president should redefine the transatlantic agenda around the concept of defending democratic values given the surge in authoritarianism globally. The target audience would be both Europe, which is experiencing its own illiberal slide, and China, which is increasingly brazen in its efforts to promote its political model and values.

In the longer term, the new U.S. president will need to focus on two separate tracks. The first involves fortifying the traditional building blocks of the transatlantic relationship. Inside NATO, that means issuing a promise to uphold our Article 5 commitments and bring fresh ideas to the table, such as a joint NATO-EU summitthe first of its kind. In addition, the new president will need to reassure Europeans that he or she doesnt see the EU as an enemy but as a partner.

At least some Europeans will listen to such statements with skepticism. Many Americans will too. It wasnt that long ago when President Obamaa president most Europeans adoredtried to negotiate an ambitious trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, with the EU. They never got there. Convincing both Europeans and Americans to give it another go will be challenging. Instead of opening a new front, the next president will need to arrest the deteriorating U.S.-EU trade relationship and stop the tariff wars both sides have been waging for the last few years. In doing so, the new U.S. president should remind Americans and Europeans that one of the best ways for Europe and the United States to compete with a rising China and to set global standards is to strengthen their collective hand.

Thats not to say the next administration should focus only on repairing existing damage and preventing future blows. It will also have to think about preparing transatlantic partners for the future. The president should discuss how mass migration will shape our shared agenda, future elections, and economies. He or she should explore if we need new institutions to thwart attempts to undermine our democracies, and how Europe and the United States can both harness and manage a wide array of disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence.But thats a long list, especially for a president who will be consumed with an equally long list of pressing domestic priorities. Europe will have to assist. Now would be a good time for European leaders to start thinking about where they are willing to lead and how they can help. The American people may very well put a president in the Oval Office who wants to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords and try to salvage the Iran nuclear deal, two decisions that Europeans would no doubt celebrate. But that same president will also likely ask our European allies to commit more to defense spending and to stand up to China. Europe should be prepared.When Democrats talk about revitalizing the transatlantic relationship, they arent talking about returning to the pre-Trump era. They are looking to rebalance the relationship for a new era. Lets hope were all up to thatchallenge.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really worksand how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, Ill make a donation

Read more:
What the Next President Can Do to Save Our Alliances with Europe - Washington Monthly