Mediaboss Marketing

Another European Union summit for the Western Balkans is set to take place in Zagreb in May 2020. Officially speaking, the European Council's decision in October on EU accession for North Macedonia and Albania was only a postponement. The veto from French President Emmanuel Macron backtracked on an earlier promise and was met with shock in the region and around the EU. Germany was particularly critical, saying the hasty rejection cost the bloc essential leverage to support pro-Western reformers in southeastern Europe's six non-EU states.

The hope, no matter how dim, is that the May summit in Zagreb can undo the decision in October. The summit is being prepared by the new European Commission, whose report is the responsibility of new Enlargement Commissioner Oliver Varhelyi. Varhelyi is a steadfast backer of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his support for EU enlargement towards the southeast. However, Orban's agenda is quite different from Germany's. Rather than concern for Balkan democracy, Orban saved North Macedonia's corrupt and authoritarian ex-prime minister from prison. The more Hungary advocates for the Balkans, the more skepticism is likely to grow in France, the Netherlands and even Germany. They fear that Hungary is using the Western Balkan states to create its own zone of influence, in part to keep refugees at bay.

Read more: 'Little Schengen' Western Balkan nations agree to boost ties for EU bid

North Macedonia: Zaev goes all in on EU, and loses

North Macedonia goes to the polls on April 12. Reformer Prime Minister Zoran Zaev has positioned the country towards the EU, going as far as to support changing his country's name. He went all in on the EU and appears to have lost to the French veto. If Zaev loses the election to the more authoritarian, nationalist and pro-Russian opposition, it will deal a major blow to pro-European voices in the region. "Accession for reforms" is a promise they are having difficulty showing they can keep, and it would be ironic if the Zagreb summit pushes ahead with accession talks after a win by anti-European forces.

Albanaia's Rama, Serbia's Vucic and North Macedonia's Zaev face different paths to EU accession

Serbia: Eternal elections, public mobilization

Serbia is also likely to face elections in 2020, as it did in 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017. For the country's strongman president, Aleksandar Vucic, eternal elections are an effective means of keeping the public mobilized and the opposition on its heels. France's accession veto gave Vucic an opportunity to relativize Serbia's position with the West and keep his people on a permanent tightrope between the EU, Russia, China and a host of foreign investors. That is a logical consequence of EU retreat. There's little further reason for either side to rush accession talks.

It's the same for Montenegro. Like its Serbian neighbor, the small country has been in accession talks for seven years, ignoring mild EU admonishments regarding corruption and intimidation of journalists and the opposition.

Read more: Doctors flee hopelessness, nepotism in Western Balkans

Albania: What now after EU's empty promise?

No one can say if Albania can overcome crisis in 2020. It's been locked in stalemate since a local election boycott and the opposition's withdrawal from parliament. Prime Minister Edi Rama has taken on his country's crime networks, confronted the drug trade and earned the EU's respect. But he is lacking international support, both due to the obstacle now in the path to EU accession and the desire by some EU countries, namely the Netherlands, to stick with the opposition.

Rama is no stranger to power and is unlikely to yield. He could, like Serbia's Vucic, veer away from the EU and its broken promises.

Albana PM Rama faces significant obstacles in his country's path to EU accession

The least likely development in 2020, meanwhile, is Bosnia-Herzegovina waking up from its political coma. As regional hopes decrease, emigration increases, something Germany's own skilled worker immigration law is bound to exacerbate when it comes into force in March.

Read more: EU's 'no' to Western Balkans could spark conflict

Kosovo: A rebel against corruption

Where Kosovo goes is the exciting wild card in 2020. It has a new kind of leader with the victory of Albin Kurti in October. He's a rebel promising a concentrated effort against corruption and nepotism, pitting him against powerful networks, some of which are unafraid to use violence. Unlike his fellow Balkan reformers, the EU is more a part of the problem than the solution for Kurti. Previous leaders' show of loyalty to Brussels has been a cover for their own personal, usually financially motivated, agenda. That support has received the thanks of Western governments, but this time the West is holding back, including the US, which often doesn't hesitate to interfere. Washington is working on a new strategy for the Balkans. The details remain unclear, though as the warring years of the 1990s show, it's the Americans who step in when the Europeans are at an impasse.

Norbert Mappes-Niediek lives in Graz, Austria, and works as a southeastern European correspondent for a variety of German-language newspapers.

See the original post:
EU's broken promises in the Balkans lead to rocky road in 2020 - DW (English)

WASHINGTON Though not a NATO member, Sweden is very much in the Western European sphere, as an active member of the European Union and a reliable military partner for the Pentagon. The nation expects to complete a new defense funding agreement in the coming year, which should set the tone for military modernization through 2025.

During a recent visit to Washington, Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist shared his thoughts on the security situation in the region and what the next few years may bring.

You signed the trilateral agreement with the U.S. and Finland roughly 18 months ago. What has come out of it so far?

Its a strong platform for the cooperation that we have now and that well have in the future. What we have seen during this time is that we have exercised together, shared information and we are in a development process where we build stability in our part of Europe. Its very important [to have] U.S. presence in northern Europe because of the security situation and because of what we can see has happened in Russia. We have a history of Russian aggression against Europe, annexation of Crimea, ongoing war in Ukraine and upgrading of Russian military capabilities, and also behavior on the Baltic sea that from time to time we see as provocative.

Finland and Sweden are two nonaligned countries, but we cooperate inside the NATO partnership and we also cooperate directly with different countries on a bilateral and multilateral basis. We both see that the trans-Atlantic link is very important for the stability and threshold in our part of Europe.

Are exercises the biggest deliverable from the agreement?

Its a combination. Exercises and training is one thing. And exercise and cooperation to create interoperability, possibility of interoperability. When you are planning for exercises like this, you also share information. We have also our own relationship, our own materiel, so there are many things that [impact] each other, so we cannot talk only about one topic.

You mentioned information sharing, which has been a challenge for U.S. partners and allies in the past. How would you characterize info sharing among the three nations?

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

Subscribe

Enter a valid email address (please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Thanks for signing up!

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

I think we have a good relationship. From the Swedish side, we have high-level competence about our region, and what has happened in that region. So I think that can be also something that is very interesting for the United States. The information is also connected to what [we are doing].

What is your assessment of Russia right now? Same as the last few years, getting calmer or becoming more aggressive?

I can only see that they are ready to use military power to fulfill political goals. Thats No. 1. I also see a development, all these years, that they invest more and more in military capabilities. And I can also see that they exercise and operate in more and more complex levels. And they have an interest in the Arctic region and operate there with their resources they have in the Navy.

What is your impression of the security situation in the Baltics?

I think its very, very important for the Baltic states that the [NATO] Enhanced Forward Presence is represented there and working there. I think its very important for them, the U.S. participation in these countries. And I think that they also feel the pressure around different sorts of information operations from the Russian side. The threshold is very important for them and its very important for all the region because we are all in the same geographical area, and if something happens in the wrong place, it affects all of us.

Many of the nations in the region have talked about a constant barrage of cyberattacks. Where is Sweden on its cyber capabilities?

We are working on that. We have 100,000 activities toward Sweden in the cyber arena each year. That comes from private persons, that comes from organizations and also state actors. Its authorities, companies, governmental organizations. We [are developing] the organization to defend ourselves. We have a decision in parliament that in the defense forces [we] should develop active cyber.

But more and more we train ourselves to follow all this information operations and disinformation operations, and we are now preparing to build up an authority for local defense, a state authority for local defense.

How much of that mission falls under the Ministry of Defence?

Its not decided yet. We are only prepared for that. It has not been decided in which ministry that will be responsible. Everything about cyber in defense is under our ministry. We have reactivated conscription service, and some conscripts will do their service in cyber defense.

American officials have raised a number of concerns about the EUs Permanent Structured Cooperation program, or PESCO, in particular over how it could impact NATO planning and non-EU firms. As a non-NATO country, how do you look at PESCO?

I think that around PESCO we have a very clear position: We say that we do not want any discrimination of companies that are owned by, for example, the U.S. or U.K. interests. We have those sort of companies in Sweden, and we try to fight for regulations that do not discriminate. There is no final solution about how to deal with this in the European Union, but we have our position and we try to get some sort of respect for it. So we are in that process now, but we have no suggestion that we can agree upon, all of us.

How effective are you finding PESCO?

Its a possibility for different countries and companies to cooperate around material projects that can be useful inside the European Union. I think that can be, from a point of view, good and interesting, but then you need rules. You [should] not have any discrimination of companies that work in different countries for many, many years, and are rooted in these countries and also are part of their defense industry, with direct connection to their own forces in that country.

So from our perspective, we will have no discrimination around this. We are in an early stage. If you want to go somewhere, you must start somewhere, so it is a process we can develop in the coming years.

What are your thoughts on the idea of an EU military force?

We have a agreement between NATO and the EU that we are going to cooperate around hybrid and cyber, and we should be complementary to each other. And I think that is a good agreement, so we have to work from that position. We are not competitors.

Do you think everyone in the EU agrees with that? The idea seems to pop up consistently.

That is the agreement that we have. Form time to time it is popping up that the European Union should build some sort armed forces, but it is not what we have said in the agreement between the countries. So in an open arena you can have your ideas, you can express them. But that is not the same as the organization accepting it. You see these sort of ideas from time to time, but what is agreed upon is that we have to cooperate and be complementary to each other.

While the U.S. National Defense Strategy identifies both Russia and China as competitors, the actions and statements of defense officials show a prioritization of dealing with China. Does it make you nervous that the U.S. is shifting focus eastward?

I think we need to handle both of these challenges. I think Russia will not change. Its very important to uphold the European Union sanctions because of what is happening in Crimea, and to be clear when we see upgrading of their military capability and their activities, I think this is something we have to handle for many years now. So I dont see any major change in anything. The weapon systems they have equipped last year and in the coming years, it is weapon systems they can use for many, many years in the future. So I think they are upgrading their military capabilities in our part of Europe, and I think what we are doing now with a deeper cooperation between the countries in Scandinavia and the Baltic states and Poland the United States, Great Britain, it is a way to balance and a way to also make the threshold higher. So we must continue with what we are doing today.

But are you worried that the U.S. will shift attention and resources away from Europe and toward the Pacific?

What I know is that there are deliverances from the U.S. side to Europe. New bases there. So today there is deliverance to Europe. From my perspective, I dont see any debate about if the U.S. is not ready to support Europe because what we see until now and also we see in the plans for the future, we see deliverances. You can always discuss different sort of levels and everything, but I see the relationship with the Pentagon, the armed forces of the United States we see deliverances.

Looking to 2020, are there any major milestones or issues for Swedish defense on which you need to keep an eye?

I think its very important for us to get an agreement and decision about defense, a defense decision, for 2021 until 2025. We have also a big amount of money for that. So I think we can have a defense decision that guarantees developing new military capability between 2021 and 2025, and we will be better in 2025 than we were in 2020, and in 2020 we are better than we were in 2015. So we are in a trend of upgrading military capability, and we are ready to invest in that.

What are those investment priorities?

I think we need a bigger organization, we need more soldiers in the Army, for example. We also have technological challenges [around cyber], and soon we enter a new generation of Gripen, deliverances of new submarines, deliverance of the Patriot system. We need to have more conscripts, we need to develop the brigades in the Swedish Armed Forces, we need to invest more in the island of Gotland.

Gotland has been a focus for a few years. How is that development going?

Weve taken the first step. We have inaugurated a regiment there, and its a mechanized company, a tank company, air defense capabilities. I think we need to invest more and develop that. Thats very important because the island of Gotland is very central from a military [perspective].

See the original post:
Sweden's defense minister on relations with America, Russian threats and the European Union - DefenseNews.com

Rupert Lowe, Brexit MEP for the West Midlands, says the only thing that is propping up the EUs sclerotic economy and Euro currency is the European Central Banks quantitative easing programme. QE, as it is known, is when a Central Bank prints money and pumps it into the economy to stimulate growth and job creation. Since 2015, the European Central Bank has bought around 2.1 trillion (1.8 trillion) of assets in a bid to boost Europes ailing economic activity.

In an exclusive interview with Express.co.uk, Mr Lowe said: The EU was failing so they rammed the Euro in.

The Euro is destined to fail and would have failed by now but for massive Central Bank quantitative easing.

It is the sort of thing third world dictators used to do shortly before they descended into chaos and that is so far what weve all got away with.

Quantitative easing is basically getting high on your own supply. I think but for that, the European Union would have collapsed, the Euro would have collapsed and it is destined to be an absolute catastrophe when it does go.

Describing the EU as a protectionist entity created by socialists, the former owner of Southampton FC argued that Britain had absolutely nothing to fear and everything to gain from a no-deal Brexit.

He explained: I dont see any problem myself with leaving on World Trade Organisation rules.

The whole of the Establishment machine has frightened everybody into thinking that we have to have some form of trade deal signed and sealed before we can leave, but its nonsense.

Our trade is growing with countries like India, Uzbekistan and other developing countries and we dont have a trade deal with them.

JUST IN:Its the New Year and the future is bright for us all, says FREDERI...

The Brexit MEP described it as lunacy not to do so, although he did concede that Britain should still trade with Europe.

He was confident that Michel Barnier and his chums would agree a trade deal with the UK, given that the EU benefits to a far greater extent from commerce with the UK than the UK does with Europe.

He said: We have a 100 billion trade deficit with Europe. If we dont reach a trade deal with Europe, they lose. It is so simple.

As a committed free-marketeer, Mr Lowe sees Brexit as a unique opportunity to unleash the buccaneering spirit of British entrepreneurialism, which must not be constrained by an interfering British state.

DON'T MISS:How Juncker and EU allies stropped over uncomfortable chairs(LATEST)Toxic Corbyn savaged by former Labour adviser for poor election(UPDATE)NHS at its worst since records began tough winter ahead for Brits(ANALYSIS)

He said: I am a free-marketeer, I do not believe in the state getting anything right. If you look at history, the state always gets things wrong.

We want an economy with a minimal state; it encourages entrepreneurial behaviour and now is the time for entrepreneurship.

Look at how things are changing. We cannot have this sort of historical cloth-cap view of how life should be lived.

We have to let entrepreneurs and the people drive where we go, not the state.

Boris Johnson has declared that the UK will leave the EU by January 31 2020 and that the transition period, in which both the UK and EU will attempt to reach a trade deal, will not be extended beyond the current deadline of December 31, 2020.

Should both sides fail to reach an agreement, the UK will leave without a trade deal and conduct its future trade with Europe on WTO terms.

See more here:
EU on the brink: Brexit Party MEP warns of imminent Euro catastrophe and Brussels collapse - Express

Chairman of think tank British Influence and EU law specialist, Peter Wilding spoke to Express.co.uk about the current state of the Brexit process. Mr Wilding is credited as the man responsible for coining the term Brexit. He was appointed by former Prime MinisterDavid Cameronas Media and Policy Director of the Conservative Party in the EU.

He revealed the top thing he would change about the EU to give it a much more coherent direction.

He said: The EU is a bit like Birmingham in the 19th century.

Birmingham had about 100 gas companies and things like that.

It had an alphabet soup of competing organisations, and then Joseph Chamberlain came along and put them all under one roof and unified it.

READ MORE:Farage reveals surprising confession from Juncker in private call

Mr Wilding continued: The European Union has got the European Union, the European Economic Area, the Council of Europe, the European Security and Defence Counsel, a lot of organisations.

You probably didnt know that MPs can sit in the NATO General Assembly, they sit in the Counsel of Europe, they sit in the European Security and Defence Council.

My view was Britain could say lets bring all of these under one roof.

Lets have a European Security Council, and the big five countries sit on that Security Council.

Go here to read the rest:
EU expert who coined Brexit reveals the ONE thing he would change about the trade bloc - Express

BRUSSELS The end of the year is a time for closure and new beginnings. As 2019 winds down, that is certainly the case with Brexit. Following the victory of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Tories in the general election this month, it is now clear that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31.

For many, including me, the occasion will be tinged with regret. But it also represents an opportunity to forge a new U.K.-EU partnership. And besides, things could have been much worse. Owing to the withdrawal agreement that was concluded this past October, a destructive hard Brexit has been averted.

Since the beginning of the Brexit negotiations, we on the EU side the 27 member states and the European Parliament have not strayed from the blocs core interests nor lost sight of the need for unity and solidarity.

Our priority was first and foremost to secure the rights of European citizens, including by finding a solution for the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland, for whom the negotiations were about peace and stability, not just trade and the economy. Throughout the process, we have protected the EU single market and its guarantees for consumers, public and animal health standards, and safeguards against fraud and trafficking. But we also did our utmost to preserve a climate of trust between the EU and the U.K., and to lay a solid foundation for a new partnership.

In accordance with its own wishes, the U.K. will no longer participate in EU institutions as of Feb. 1. But it will remain in the single market and the customs union at least until the end of 2020. And the free movement of people between the EU and the U.K. will continue, which means that it will be business as usual for citizens, consumers, businesses, students and researchers on both sides of the channel over the next year.

Moreover, with the transition period, there will be time to implement practical measures to guarantee EU and U.K. citizens rights, establish the customs and border arrangements agreed in Northern Ireland, and start to negotiate an agreement on the future relationship. But in the absence of a decision by the U.K. before next July to extend the transition period which Johnson has ruled out a deal on the future relationship will have to be concluded in less than 11 months.

That will be immensely challenging, but we will give it our all, even if we wont be able to achieve everything. Never will it be the EU that fails on common ambition.

Since it is the time for New Years resolutions, we should set three goals to achieve by this time next year. First, the EU and the U.K. must ensure that we have the means to work together and discuss joint solutions to global challenges. The U.K. may be leaving the EU, but it is not leaving Europe. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently put it, Whatever the future holds, the bond and the friendship between our people are unbreakable. From addressing climate change and promoting effective multilateralism, to defending our homelands and countering those who choose violence over peaceful solutions, we share essential interests and values.

That is why the EU will continue to engage positively with the U.K., both bilaterally and in global forums such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the Group of 20. Consider climate change. Next year, the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP26) will take place in Glasgow, Scotland. Setting ambitious targets will require a strong common position. If the EU and the U.K. cannot align on such a critical issue, there is little hope that others around the world will be able to do so.

Second, we need to build a close security relationship. Here, too, the U.K.s departure from the EU has consequences. The strong security cooperation that EU member states have put in place is linked to the free movement of people. It works because we have common rules, common supervision mechanisms and a common Court of Justice. Because we trust each other and are assured that our fundamental rights are protected, we are able to share data extensively and implement integrated solutions.

The same degree of cooperation is simply not possible with a third country that is outside of the Schengen area. But neither the EU nor the U.K. can guarantee its security without looking beyond its borders and building alliances. Tackling terrorism, cyberattacks and other attempts to undermine our democracies will require a joint effort. The lives of our citizens depend on our ability to count on each other. That is why there can be no trade-off on our mutual security. This should be an unconditional commitment from both sides. I know that the EUs high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Josep Borrell, agrees.

Third, by this time next year, we need an economic partnership that reflects our common interests, geographical proximity and interdependence. In the political declaration agreed to in October alongside the withdrawal agreement, the U.K. government made clear that it will pursue a free trade agreement with the EU and rejected the idea that it would remain in the EU customs union. That means the U.K. and the EU will become two separate markets.

The EU including its trade commissioner, Phil Hogan will engage in these negotiations in a positive spirit, with the willingness to make the most of the short time available. But, like the U.K., we will keep our strategic interests in mind. We know that competing on social and environmental standards rather than on skills, innovation and quality leads only to a race to the bottom that puts workers, consumers and the planet on the losing side. Thus, any free trade agreement must provide for a level playing field on standards, state aid and tax matters.

These are our three goals for 2020: to maintain a capacity to cooperate closely at the global level; to forge a strong security partnership; and to negotiate a new economic agreement (which, most likely, will have to be expanded in the years to come). If we achieve these three objectives, we will have made the most of the next year. As soon as we receive our mandate from the 27 EU member states, our team will be ready to negotiate in a constructive spirit with the U.K. a country that we will always regard as a friend, ally and partner.

Michel Barnier is a former vice president of the European Commission and French foreign minister. He is currently EU chief negotiator for Brexit. Project Syndicate, 2019

View post:
Three New Year's wishes for Britain and the European Union - The Japan Times