Month: October 2018 (Page 1 of 2)

Since Croatia’s independence from Yugoslavia, its foreign policy goal was dominated by gaining  EU membership, and Croatia achieved this goal in 2013. Croatia therefore currently still faces challenges defining its contemporary foreign policy goals today. However, Croatia’s has turned its foreign policy direction to align with the European Union’s foreign policy goals. The Croatian Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs adopted the Strategic Plan 2017-2019 which is its latest strategic document focusing on Croatia’s foreign policy goals. The Strategic plan 2017-2019 states that its mission is to promote stability in its country, promote and protect the interests and safety of Croatians abroad, develop strong economic ties with Croatian and other countries abroad, and preserve and develop procedures for unity and stability within the EU. Croatia is also focused on establishing and maintaining bilateral and multilateral relationships and cooperation in the world. Croatia wishes to strengthen its position in Central Europe in order to keep common values and economic trade relations stable. Additionally, Croatia’s foreign policy aims include the preservation and strengthening of peace between countries including establishing stable relationships with neighbors as well as important countries of the world. Although Croatia is committed to these goals, it continues to fall short of it foreign policy expectations and realities due to its late ascension and the internal struggles it continues to face as a result.

Croatia’s foreign policy most resembles that of Spain’s foreign policy goals. Similar to Croatia, Spain, a medium-sized country, easily becomes overlooked and outbalanced from the rising influences in the EU, such as Germany. Spain foreign policy priorities, following the death of dictator in 1975, also focused on removing itself from diplomatic isolation and entering the European community through the European Union. With Spain’s new administration, and it being granted EU membership, it wishes to represent a total break with its past and move towards having stronger ties and with the EU and its partners. Spain has underperformed on the international scale, just as Croatia, but still wishes to embrace numerous plans to deepen European cooperation, especially on security matters. Its main agenda is to regain economic strength, like Croatia, and work more efficiently alongside EU members. Spain also adopted a multilateral approach to reach international stability. In 2013, through its National Security Strategy, Spain also places national security in a global context to create a national and international safe environment, and sees European integration as providing greater regional security. The new Spanish government also recognizes the central value of European foreign policy coordination that aligns with the EU. Spain, just as Croatia, defends and supports the involvement of the EU in democracy and peace. Both Croatia and Spain recognize the importance of becoming more involved in the EU and its foreign policy goals, but have not successfully found a way to flourish as other EU members have.

Croatia’s foreign policy choices appear as a part of EU-wide negotiations about migration. Migrants from Middle East and central Asia, trying to reach wealthier EU states, typically cross into Croatia from Bosnia undeclared and unidentified. Therefore, Croatia has experienced a 30% increase in unauthorized migrants. As a result, Croatia, like other EU countries, has been working on having stricter flow of migrants and border controls. Previously when crossing Croatia’s borders, only documents and license plate numbers were only for suspicious people. It will now be that all documents and all vehicle license plate number will go through a special scanner for all Croatian citizens, citizens of non EU-countries, and citizens of the Schengen zone. Th The police also warned that the waiting times at the border crossing will begin to take longer. This change will occur due to the increased terrorist attacks in Europe. Croatia is not yet a member of the Schengen crisis, although moving closer to becoming a member, and as a result Croatia citizens and migrants will feel the effects.

The European Commission is also working towards negotiations with Croatia to have it within the Schengen area. Once Croatia meets the technical criteria for the of the EU’s Schengen zone, the European Commission will assess if Croatia is ready to join. Croatia hopes will occur before the next elections for the European Parliament. Croatia hopes to join by 2020 as it is one of the six european union members not part of the passport-free Schengen zone. The free movement of people would benefit Croatia’s economy, specifically in its tourism sector which makes up about 20 percent of Croatia’s GDP. However, the Council of Europe continues to urge for Croatia to launch investigations concerning reports of police violence and theft against migrants. The Commissioner of the Council of Europe addressed a letter to the Croatian Prime Minister revealing the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, has received reports of 2,500 migrants being pushed back from Croatia since the beginning of 2018 and 1,500 people being denied to asylum procedure which includes 100 children. In addition, more than 700 people have experienced violence and theft by Croatian officers. However, Croatian officials have denied such claims. As a result, until Croatia recognizes such claims and implements investigation will the European Commission allow for Croatia to be within the Schengen zone. Despite this, Croatia continues its negotiations with the EU in hopes of achieving its foreign policy goals.   

Al Jazeera. “Council of Europe Urges Croatia to Probe Police Abuse Allegations.” News | Al Jazeera. October 05, 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2018/10/council-europe-urges-croatia-probe-police-abuse-allegations-181005104405894.html. Accessed October 21, 2018.

“Contemporary Croatia.” croatia.eu.http://croatia.eu/article.php?lang=2&id=24. Accessed October 21, 2018.

EU Agenda Team. “National Backgrounders – European Foreign Policy Country Profile – Spain.” EU Agenda. December 2015. https://euagenda.eu/publications/national-backgrounders-european-foreign-policy-country-profile-spain. Accessed October 22, 2018.

Knezović, Sandro, and Nani Klepo. “Croatian Foreign Policy in 3D.” IRMO, 2017, 1-42. http://www.irmo.hr/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/3D.pdf. Accessed October 21, 2018.

Pavlic, Vedran. “Stricter Controls Coming to Croatian Border Crossings.” Total Croatia News. April 1, 2017. https://www.total-croatia-news.com/lifestyle/17852-stricter-controls-coming-to-croatian-border-crossings. Accessed October 21, 2018.

Reuters, Tickers. “Croatia on Course for Schengen Zone Entry in 2020 – Government Official.” SWI Swissinfo.ch. October 16, 2018. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/reuters/croatia-on-course-for-schengen-zone-entry-in-2020—government-official/44478100. Accessed October 21, 2018.

“Spain as a Template for European Foreign Policy?” Carnegie Europe. http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/53614. Accessed October 29, 2018.

The Netherlands has always been an active member within the EU.  However, the Dutch have a specific approach to foreign policy within the EU which can be most paralleled with the French approach to the EU.  The two countries are very similar because in the past they have positively benefited from a strong and flourishing EU.  With both countries being founding members, from a historical standpoint they have experience and clout within the organization.  France and The Netherlands have traditionally supported EU policy like the Maastricht Treaty and Schengen Agreement, both encouraging a more integrated and prosperous Europe.   However, The Netherlands is a geographically smaller country naturally limiting the natural resources and population as opposed to larger countries like Germany.  This emphasizes the importance they hold for the EU Council in representing their interest.

However, in the past 20 years, both countries have come to a certain realization that the EU may not be as beneficial today as it was when it was formed.  While France is disheartened with the violent consequences of the immigration crisis, The Netherlands are dissatisfied for their own reasons.  The Dutch have lost a significant amount of faith with the EU council and this is only growing with the new far right party emerging and galvanizing this EU distaste.  The EU council is supposed to promote each countries interest, but according to the Dutch, they see the EU as now a federal body that is trying to expand its power through adding new members and different financial regulations.

The Netherlands has also had a unique relationship to the Brexit movement, and they ae certainly not looking away from the option.  Britain’s precedent to leave the EU was unheard of and previously not seen as an alternative.  However, growing EU distaste spurred on by the Dutch has been on the rise for a variety of reasons.  The EU’s immigration policy has caused quite the stir within the country as anti-Islam sentiment has taken root with the rise of the right wing.  Additionally, The Netherlands had to be a creditor to the countries that suffered economically in the European debt crisis.  This didn’t sit well with the Dutch, who believe strongly in financial security and responsibility.  By taking these factors compounded with the precedent that Britain set, it is not unreasonable to believe that The Netherlands won’t leave the EU.

Works Cited

• Glencross, Andrew. The Politics of European Integration: Political Union or a House Divided?Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
• Kortweg, Kem. “How the Dutch Fell Out of Love With the EU.” Carnegie Europe. March 2, 2017. Accessed October 26, 2018.
• Chopin, Thierry. “European Issues and Interviews.” Emmanuel Macron, France and Europe “France Is Back in Europe”: On Which Terms ?[1]. May 18, 2018. Accessed October 26, 2018.

Lithuania and Germany have a long lasting history, as Germany occupied Lithuania in 1915 during World War II. During this time, Germany saw their occupation of Lithuania as a strategic means, as they could garnish a stronghold in the Baltic Sea, use Lithuania as a source of agriculture, while attempting to cut off Russia. After this occurrence, in 1917 Lithuania wanted to gain their independence from Germany, as these two countries signed a declaration of independence, which allowed the countries to enter into diplomatic relations.

One historic day in both of these countries histories took place during the NATO summit in 2016. This can be seen as a historic day for not only the security of the Lithuania, but for the Baltic region as a whole. On this day, the NATO summit accepted the deployment of a 1000-strong multinational allied battalion to each of the Baltic States and Poland. Lithuania’s Battalion was lead by Germany, to help protect Lithuania through deterrence and defense, while enhancing involvement of NATOs forces in this region. President Dalia Grybauskaitė took this as a strong sign of allied unity as Germany wanted to strengthen relations with Lithaunia. This summit also had a joint EU-NATO declaration signed, which helped Germany and Lithuania as both of these countries are members of these organizations. This is part of the alliance`s deal of “enhanced Forward Presence”, as both countries look continue strong ties.

One way that Lithuania followed the lead of Germany is through their military. According to President Grybauskaitė, she believes that these two countries bilateral relations are at an all time high and through their military cooperation, Germany and Lithuania will continue to seek each other’s best interests to benefit their respected countries. Unlike when the German forces came to Lithuania during World War II when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Lithuania’s welcomed German forces to help protect against an increasingly aggressive Kremlin behavior in 2017. Military cooperation will continue to enhance the bilateral relations between these two countries and with a common goal of pushing back Russia, they have the opportunity to drive their foreign policies.

Lithuania and Brexit:

When analyzing the effects of Brexit on Germany and Lithuania, it is evident that their were two major differences on the impact of the UK to leave the European Union. From an economic standpoint, Lithuania is using this decision to help elevate their economy and grow a global fintech hub, as Germany is being forced to deal with the mess that Brexit has left, as they are expected to pay 15 billion Euros extra a year to fill the void the UK left. Germany already pays 30 Billion to the EU, which is the bloc`s largest contributor

On the other hand, Lithuania sees Brexit as an opportunity to expand and build their economy. Invest Lithuania state that 117 Fintech companies were not operating in Lithuania and in 2017 alone, 35 new businesses were registered. One of the main draws that Lithuania is using to entice businesses to invest in Lithuania is that being in the eurozone gives them the same status at every other big country, but it wont cost their business as much due to the benefits of cheaper living costs.

The European Commission, which is represented by Michel Barnier, who is the Chief Negotiator for the EU countries is responsible for the negotiations that took place between Brexit and the EU. The commission`s job promote what is best for the EU`s general interest and by passing Brexit, allowing the UK to leave the EU was in the EU`s best interest based off the commission. Along with the commission, the Parliament played a major role in determining Brexit, as this group of elected officials vote on legislation. The Parliament is the group that helped pass Brexit and without this group, it would have been unobtainable.

https://www.lrp.lt/en/press-centre/press-releases/cooperation-between-lithuania-and-germany-the-most-successful-ever-in-the-history-of-bilateral-relations/30861

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1035684/brexit-news-germany-uk-eu-budget-contribution

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu’s-role-brexit-negotiations

https://www.businessinsider.com/lithuania-fintech-brexit-2018-2

https://www.politico.eu/article/lithuania-nato-russia-baltics-germany-sleep-peacefully-thanks-to-german-troops/

Due to its external position relative to the EU, the foreign policy of Turkey most closely follows that of the post-Brexit United Kingdom.  Since the decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, they have reached a negotiation standoff. The tension has manifested itself in the form of the political party UKIP, which led the campaign with a series of populist declarations and sentiments.  UKIP benefitted from the perception of an anti-UK bias within the EU, which persisted despite several concessions, such as the rebate on contributions to the EU budget (Zimmerman and Durs 2016, 251). Turkey and the UK both maintain close trade relationships with the EU, although both have struggled to rationalize and preserve it.

The UK and Turkey experienced slow withdrawals from their relations with the EU, culminating in singular acts of defiance which shook their respective relationships to the core.  The Turkish government slowly embraced authoritarianism beginning with the faux Ergenekon investigation in 2007 (Jenkins 2009, 9). Not long after, the ruling JDP party continued to slide away from democracy with state-influenced elections and voter intimidation, particularly in the snap elections of 2015.  Turkey’s smaller-scale acts of domestic rebellion preceded a decisive split in 2017, when President Erdogan eliminated hopes of joining the EU by destroying the parliamentary system in Turkey and replacing it with a presidential system without checks on his power.

The UK began with small-scale acts of rebellion as well, such as testing the EU’s tolerance for dissent with their opt-outs on banking unions and migration policy (Zimmerman and Durs, 251).  In 1992, they successfully rejected the replacement of the pound for the euro (Zimmerman and Durs, 251). These acts of rebellion culminated in the Brexit campaign of 2016, when rising anti-EU sentiment in rural areas handed a victory to the Leave campaign. Between Brexit and the referendum, the new challenge for the UK and Turkey is to negotiate for the survival of their economic relationships with the EU.

In both cases, the perception of unfair EU policies played a role in the decisions to separate from the EU.  According to The Brookings Institute, “anti-Western sentiment that has risen in Turkey” due to the “perception that the West is continually carrying out operations against Turkey” damaged popular opinion of the EU.  Similarly, the members of the Leave campaign accused the EU of attempting to impose a tax on all financial transactions (Sked, 261). Sked attributed the tax impropriety to the EU’s desire to “undermine the success of the city of London” (Sked, 261).  Turkey and the UK confronted the perception of bias with rebelliousness, which amplified over time into full-scale defiance of EU membership and values.

Institutional Perspective:

As the UK has attempted to negotiate with the European Council regarding the terms of its exit, it has encountered a number of internal and external problems.  The government of Theresa May, perhaps as a result of its diminished strength following the snap elections of 2017, has failed to reach a compromise. Segments of the far right and far left within the UK claim to desire a hard Brexit.  The prospect of no-deal by March 2019 has provoked the UK to begin stockpiling food and supplies. The possibility of no-deal warrants their concern, considering Ottaviano et al. discovered that Brexit would cause anywhere from a 1 to 3% drop in GDP as a minimum, reason enough for 84% of the business community to support UK membership in the EU (Zimmerman and Durs 2016, 257).

For comparison, Turkey regards the EU as an antagonistic but necessary partner for economic relations.  Both Ankara and Brussels have struggled to sustain the pretense of membership negotiations, but according to Al Jazeera, the EU foreign ministers have declared the negotiations “a standstill.”  The European Commission has met with Ankara in Brussels to discuss the terms of their trading relationship. However, the two sides failed to reach an accord with regards to the state of membership in Turkey’s future.  

Turkey stands to lose a large proportion of trade valuation if relations with the EU further plummet; the EU accounted for 36.4% of Turkey’s imports and 47% of its exports in 2017, according to The Independent.  Earlier this month, the European Parliament canceled an earmarked payment of 70 million euros in pre-accession funds to Turkey, due to a scathing report from the European Commission. With such strong economic ties, the slide towards authoritarianism has not deterred Turkey’s desire to remain economically close to the EU, despite charging it with acts against the JDP regime. The UK and Turkey have difficult EU relations in common, as both rely upon them economically, yet carry disdain for the perceived slights against their sovereignty. The question remains: Can the UK negotiate a decent trade relationship with the EU in spite of its internal animosities?  Similarly, can Turkey uphold its trade relationships in the face of increasing political divide between the ideological expectations of the EU and its ruling JDP party?

1. Italy, France, and Spain

In many ways, Italy has followed the lead of Spain and France in foreign policy. Both Spain and Italy’s first measures after emerging from a fascist dictatorship were to rejoin the European Community ie the European Union. Italy and Spain also share similarities in that they are both Catholic countries and are therefore more conservative than other countries in the European Union. Italy, Spain, and France are all a part of the Schengen Agreement which eliminated passport controls between its European member states and mandated rigorous controls for persons arriving from non-member states. But, Italy is most similar in foreign policy to France and their more nationalist take on foreign policy.

Italy is similar to France in foreign policy because France’s foreign policy is more nationalistic and central to the French identity which is what Italy has been following lately, especially with current events surrounding migration. Spain is also located in the Mediterranean region so it shares similar interests of migration with Italy. Spain is not as xenophobic as Italy due to the fact that the fascist dictatorship of Franco is more present in the minds of Spanish than the fascist dictatorship in Italy that ended 20 years earlier than Franco’s. But, Spain could become more nationalist in the future if it continues down a path many European nations are taking. 

Italy has recently been more focused on state sovereignty in terms of migration policy and wants EU policy to benefit their own state needs of migration more than the EU as a whole. This is similar to France’s approach of nationalism in foreign policy and the fact that the country wants to look after its own interest. After Italy democratized in the 1950s, it was mostly focused on the European Community and not as much on foreign policy until quite recently. Until the 1980s, Italy was a country of emigration which then changed by the 1990s when economic growth transformed the country into a host country for migrants. Due to this new status and more migrants arriving in Italy, racism emerged in the country and the Italian government began taking a more nationalistic approach to foreign policy. This recent change in foreign policy also demonstrates how Italy has been working with the EU and it’s institutions recently.

2. Italy and Migration Policy

Italy has always played a role in EU institutions since it has been a member state since the inception of the EU and the European Community. An Italian has been President of the Council of the EU twelve times since 1959 with the most recent presidency being in 2014. So, Italy has always been involved in the functions of the European Union and its institutions.

Italy is located on the Mediterranean so it plays a large part on the frontier aspect in migration, especially as it is part of the Schengen agreement. Italy has recently had many issues with migration especially concerning the European migration crisis that is still ongoing. Italy has been looking out for itself more in foreign policy because they do not want more migrants coming into Italy. Italy has threatened the European Commission to withhold funding from the EU if other member states do no accept migrants. The Commission says. “The EU operates on rules, not threats” (CNN) and that Italy and the EU must work constructively to fix this issue. The migration crisis has hit Italy especially hard so it is making threats instead of working with the institutions to try to get a deal with other member states. This demonstrates how tensions have been rising between Italy and EU institutions, specifically the European Commission in order to come to a consensus. 

The Italian government has also had tensions with the EU and the European Commission over the budget deficit. Italy wants to break the deficit rule to help out poor Italian citizens. This would mean an increase in spending on tax cuts, more benefits spending, and a lower retirement age and would break the 2.4 percent target set by the EU for 2019. The Commission is not exactly willing to budge on this, and have expressed serious concern, and Italy knows that increasing their deficit is against EU rules. The Commission is unlikely to support the Italian increase in their budget which means that Italy will need to re-submit a budget proposal. This ongoing issue of the budget deficit, along with the migration policy issues, demonstrate how Italy is trying to express sovereignty and have the rules bent or benefit their country. But, EU institutions are not willing to let Italy go against EU rules and be an exception to these rules. Threats will not help Italy get what they want but instead, working with the institutions that they have long been a part of could benefit them to come to a consensus and enact a useful migration policy and financial plan.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-22/italy-set-to-tell-eu-it-won-t-back-down-on-2-4-deficit-target

https://www.britannica.com/place/Italy/Immigration-and-foreign-policy

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-hits-back-hard-at-italys-budget-threat-in-migration-row/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/europe/eu-italy-migration-intl/index.html

Glencross, Andrew. 2014. “EU Policy-Making in Action.” The Politics of European Integration.

In the broader view, Hungarian foreign policy follows the centers of European power in Germany and France. Over the course of several decades, Hungary has embraced European integration, the NATO alliance and Atlanticism. However, the government of Viktor Orban has diverged from these goals and has embraced the politics of another country on the European periphery: the United Kingdom. Hungary has followed the practice of England in one key paradigm: wanting benefits from membership in the European Union without accepting the costs and responsibilities inherent to membership in the block. Both England and Hungary exist on the physical periphery of Europe (albeit on opposite ends) but they also share an ideological distance from the heart of the European project and a recalcitrance to either fully accept or fully reject European integration, an embrace, in other words, of “selective integration” (Zimmerman and Durs 208)

Britain’s embrace of “a la carte” EU membership, in which it not only rejects the holistic package of traditional membership, but rejects the specific costs associated with specific benefits has caused friction during EU negotiations over Brexit. The referendum itself, at least as fought by the ultimately victorious Leave campaign, was replete with this incoherent view of obligations and benefits. The infamous bus adverts that promised “£350 million a week for the NHS” in diverted EU funds is emblematic of this misunderstanding. Current British policy is premised on taking for granted the benefits, subsidies and trade advantages of EU membership while viewing the costs obligations and loss of sovereignty resulting from the EU’s pooled sovereignty model. Both British politics more broadly and the Brexit fight involved chafing at the perception that the EU was subsuming Britain’s once vaunted role on the world stage. This combined one-sided acceptance of integration and feared loss of sovereignty is mirrored by Hungary.

Hungary follows England in the general premise of this policy outlook and sometimes in specific policy conflicts. The Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó declared his government’s deep regrets about Britain’s exit from the European Union because he contended that the UK was a natural ally for Hungary’s resistance to aspects of the European Union’s policy consensus. In addition to this direct alignment in rejecting further integration, Hungary has mirrored the UK’s opposition to accepting EU membership as a holistic unit.

The Hungarian economy is substantially dependent on EU subsidies, in fact to an even greater extent than England’s. The Hungarian government in particular has dispensed subsidies to political allies (likely corruptly). Yet Hungary has chafed at EU attempts to dictate Hungarian policy on a range of issues. Hungary has strongly resisted attempts by the European Commission and European Court of Justice to reign in potentially anti-democratic abuses of the country’s recent re-writes of its constitution. Similarly, it has resisted EU attempts to force Hungary into accepting (relatively minute) quotas of refugees and asylum seekers.

Walls and Moats

There is a surprising and unique symmetry in Britain and Hungary’s position on immigration: their reliance of physical barriers over more traditional tools of immigration policy; this reliance has led to similar conflicts with the institutions of the European Union and fellow European nations. The barrier employed by the UK is natural, the English Channel, and has long been an important feature of European immigration policy. Refugee and migrant camps across the channel in Calais, France have long featured as a humanitarian crisis in Europe, the Channel, which can only be crossed by the Chunnel trains or ferry, provides a clear blockage point for migrants trying to enter the United Kingdom. Hungary, on the other hand, has constructed its barrier, a 500-kilometer long, 4 meter tall border fence on its southern border. This fence has, according the Hungarian government, contributed to a 99% drop in illegal immigration to Hungary.

The conflicts that this has caused Hungary with the institutions of the European Union are sharp and clear. The most direct confrontation on this issue area has been with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the subject of migrant rights and Hungary’s obligations to asylum seekers. The ECJ process is the final stage of a process initiated by the European Commission in 2015. The formal complaint argued that Hungary kept migrants in “transition zones” for excessively long periods and failed to provide proper legal representation.

Hungary’s confrontation with ECJ is mirrored by ideologically parallel conflicts with the European Commission. The commission has complained  (Furedi 2017) that Hungary has not met its obligations under the various EU treaties which govern member states. Specifically, Hungary has refused to honor EU requests for it to take its quota of asylum seekers – a measure developed to relieve border state like Italy and Greece of a disproportionate burden in resettling refugees (especially given the standard in international law that asylum seekers must be processed in the country where they first arrive).

These dual conflicts with two of the key institutions of the EU provide a mirror image of Britain’s conflicts during the Brexit negotiations. While Hungary conflicts with the EU from within, and Britain will so do so from outside the block, they both share a politicized and conditional acceptance of European integration. Both countries have also embodied the dual legacies of “technocracy (from the EU) and populism (in reaction to it) (Zimmerman and Durs 218).

Bibliography

Szijjártó, Peter. ‘Migration Is Not a Fundamental Human Right’ Interview by Amanda House. Breitbart, July 2nd of 2018

Zimmermann, Hubert, and Andreas Dür, eds. Key controversies in European integration. Macmillan International Higher Education, 2016.

Furedi, Frank. Populism and the European Culture Wars: The Conflict of Values Between Hungary and the EU. Routledge, 2017.

1.

Since my case study country is Portugal, I would think it is safe to say that the country that it follows the lead of would definitely be Spain. While this is based off of first thought, there really is a lot of information that backs up this notion. From a geographical standpoint, they are next-door neighbors and in terms of land Portugal completely borders Spain; in fact, the only country Portugal truly borders is Spain. Historically speaking, when the Christopher Columbus and the Spanish went to the New World they were the first to do. Under Prince Henry the Navigator, the Portuguese invested heavily in the endeavor of exploring the world because the clear trade advantages they saw in it. The Portuguese followed the lead set by Columbus and the Spanish by sending out explorers of their own, such as but not limited to, Vasco de Gama, Ferdinand Magellan, and Bartolomeu Dias.

In terms of foreign policy, the answer to what country Portugal follows the lead of is a bit more murky. As stated earlier, the easy answer based upon shared history and geographic location the easy answer to pick would be that Portugal follows Spain. However, in terms of clout with the European Union, Spain certainly punches below its weight in participation. However, despite this fact, the equally view each other as important partners to one another. Portugal has always been a fanatical supporter of the European Union and has tried to participate in it as much as it can. In terms of commitment towards the European Union, according to ECFR surveys Portugal is extremely similar to France in terms of commitment to the EU. Additionally, Portugal has a close bond with the United Kingdom because of their mutual interest in being apart NATO. Because of this Germany has wanted to use Portugal as a country to try to get the United Kingdom to not exit the European Union. All in all, its logical to make connections to both the United Kingdom, Germany, and France but it is quite clear due to the fact that Portugal is on the periphery of the European Union that they would naturally follow the Spanish in terms of what country they follow the most.

2.

As stated above, Portugal is one of the most involved countries in the European Union as a whole. Despite being a rather small country, Portugal certainly punches above its weight in terms of participation and clout in the European Union. Speaking general, I think it would be quite easy to make the argument that Portugal has a lot of clout as a part of European Union wide negotiations. A primary reason for that is Portugal’s history of past leadership within the European Union. For example, Jose Manuel Barroso was the President of the European Commision from 2004 till 2014. Another example of the Portuguese showing leadership within the European Union was when Antonio Vitorino was the European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs. Additionally, one of the biggest treaties to occur in European Union was the Lisbon Treaty.

In terms of policies like migration, Portugal has typically been very pro-migration. Unlike many other European countries within the European Union, who are trying to get out of taking more migrants, Portugal has currently been looking to gain more immigrants because currently it has a declining population. According to article by the Straits Times, current Portuguese Prime Minister, Antonio Costa has said that Portugal needs at least 75,000 new migrants every year to maintain a healthy working population. So while it is advantageous economically for the Portuguese to be accepting of migrants, they have done a good and active job trying to help them.

In terms of actual negotiations with different sectors of the European Union, when it comes to migration policy, Portuguese Prime Minister, Antonio Costa has spoken to the European Council advocating for refugees and wanting the European Union to be more accepting of migrants. On the whole, we can typically see the Portuguese hold weight with the various sectors of the European Union. This is due in part to the past history of Portuguese leadership within the European Union and their ability to work well with other countries.

References

http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/pm-calls-for-eu-migration-system/47220

https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_portugal_a_good_european_in_search_of_friends

https://www.politico.eu/article/portugal-foreign-minister-augusto-santos-silva-no-prospect-of-sufficient-progress-in-brexit-talks-eu-uk/

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/country-resource/portugal

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/portugal-the-european-country-that-wants-more-migrants

Czech Republic foreign policy is the most similar to the foreign policy of the United Kingdom.  When the European Economic community was established in 1957, the United Kingdom decided not to join and focus on their colonies and relationships across the Atlantic. When the Czech Republic become free of Soviet control, they also had a buffer period until joining the EU.  Like the United Kingdom, they focused on their own domestic economic and political institutions. Ever since the financial crisis, there has been significant Euroscepticism. This was highlighted when the UK decided not to join the Eurozone. The country enjoyed their own economic prosperity and didn’t want to be associated with the stagnant economies of Italy, Germany and France. While the Czech Republic plans to join the eurozone, it is unreasonable to compare their economic status.  However, what is similar is their feelings toward Euroscepticism.  The Czech Republic is often regarded as one of the most Eurosceptic member states. While a majority of Czech citizens view the EU in a positive light, it is important to recognize the minority group. The book highlights how Tony Blair, the former British Prime minister, steered British foreign policy to align more with President Bush’s “war on terror” mentality than to those policies within Europe.  In addition, Britain has been a country that has been impacted by the migrant crisis. The British Social Attitude survey stated that 77 percent of respondents wanted a reduction in the total number of migrants.  Similarly to the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic has been hard on closing its boarders and reducing the population of migrants.  The political elite of the Czech Republic has vehemently been against the EU migrant policy.  The ideas of Euroscepticism and opposition of the migrant crisis are both crucial points in the foreign policy within the UK and the Czech Republic.  Even though they are two very different countries economically and politically, they have been able to implement these policies in relatively the same context.

The Czech Republic has made headlines regarding their migration policy, but not because of the number of migrants they are allowing to enter, but because of the harsh tones of islamophobia and anti-immigration.  The Czech Republic has had significant criticism toward the EU migration policy.  They have placed focus on resisting compulsory quotas on the relocation and resettlement of refugees, supporting stronger border protection.  The Czech government, however, has tried to appease the EU and the commission.  They initially accepted the quota proposed by the commission and began allowing refugees to enter the country.  However, it wasn’t until after that they opposed the quotas.

The Czech Republic and EU institutions have had a relatively strained relationship when dealing with migration.  The Czech Republic has been brought before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) twice in the past four years.  The first stemmed from their opposition to the quota system in 2015.  The ECJ ruled in opposition of the Czech Republic, highlighting the fact they were under the European Social Charter and they had to comply with the commission’s proposals in times of crisis.  Once again, in December of 2017 the European commission referred the Czech Republic to the Court of Justice for not cooperating with their legal obligations on relocation of migrants from Italy and Greece.  The new EU migration policy created this year, categorized as “Rome’s shared responsibility plan”, was put in place as a way for multiple member states to welcome immigrants.  It was first put into practice in July, when a ship of 630 migrants came to Italy, Germany, France, and Malta.  Each of these countries took at least 50 immigrants, while the Czech Republic took zero. The Prime Minister labeled it as a “road to hell”.  In addition, just before this move, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic skipped an EU summit on migration in protest of the new EU policies.

The Czech Republic has had an interesting relationship when it comes to domestic foreign policy colliding with EU foreign policy.  The neo-liberal ideas that are being spread by the EU are in contrast with the conservative voices that are starting to become customary in the Czech Republic.  It is also interesting to see how regional politics are impacted by the Visegrad Four, or V4, which focuses on key policies across the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.  Although their mission states that it was not created as an alternative to the all-European integration efforts, it does seem like they have formed a smaller group, which competes with the existing structure.  If nations continue to vocally oppose the EU, what options can the EU use to promote cooperation?

Sources:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5654013/True-scale-Britains-immigration-crisis-revealed.html

https://www.mzv.cz/jnp/en/foreign_relations/policy_planning/concept_of_the_czech_republic_s_foreign.html

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-5002_en.htm

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/21/europe/hungary-slovakia-poland-czech-skip-migration-summit-intl/index.html

1. Bulgaria and Germany

As countries which were both part of the Soviet bloc, Germany and Bulgaria share a historical connection. Following World War II, Bulgaria and East Germany were dependent on the Soviet Union for security through membership in the Warsaw Pact. In addition, they were largely isolated from the West economically, with the large majority of trade occurring within other Soviet bloc countries. Even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and fall of communism, these countries have maintained a strong tie with Russia. In recent years, Putin has pushed to strengthen alliances with the two countries. Bulgaria is seen as a means to keep the Black Sea under Russian dominance and as an energy linkage from Russia to the west (Bugajski 2014). Additionally, Germany’s strong economy plays a large role within the EU, making it a key market for Russia which establishes a powerful and tactical bond. Although it was not carries out, in 2011, Bulgaria even signed an investment agreement with Russia for construction of the South Stream Pipeline, just as construction of the Nord Stream pipeline began in Germany this past May (Noack 2018). However, both countries must be careful to balance their alliances to Russia with their alliances to the West. Bulgaria found itself at odds with the European Union in its commitment to the South Stream Pipeline and Germany is finding itself in a similar position today. With their economic and historical ties to Russia and their membership in NATO, both Bulgaria and Germany play a significant role in peacekeeping between the two. For example, in 1999 during NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, Bulgaria denied Russian forces overflight rights.

2. Bulgaria and the Refugee Crisis

Although Bulgaria may be similar to Germany within international relations, it takes a very different approach in regards to migration and the refugee crisis. Following the 2015 refugee crisis, Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition declared that Germany would take in one million refugees so as to lessen the burden of the Mediterranean states such as Greece, Italy, and Spain. It was thought that other European Union member states would take a similar approach, but populist backlash did not allow this to happen.

Due to its proximity to Turkey, Bulgaria faced a massive number of migrants and asylum seekers in 2015. Although few migrants settled in Bulgaria, there has been a significant amount of backlash against them. The Bulgarian National Movement Shipka, or BNO Shipka, has emerged as a group of anti-immigration vigilantes who patrol the border with Turkey. Migration could pose further problems to Bulgaria if it becomes part of the Schengen area. Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, who held the presidency of the Council of the EU earlier this year, had been negotiating for Bulgaria’s inclusion in the Schengen agreement. This has the potential to better Bulgaria’s economy due to the free movement of goods, services, and labor force, but it could lead to a greater influx of migrants. It seems unlikely that this will happen soon, however, for the European Court of Justice continues to cite breaches in Bulgaria’s capacity to uphold minority rights and crackdown on corruption (Grozev 2010). Conversely, Boyko Borissov also was pushing for the closure of external borders of the whole European Union and for centers in Libya and Turkey to deal with migrants before they reach Europe (Reuters 2018). This backlash against migrants is similar to that of the UK.

Due to its strong economy and as an English-speaking country, many migrants attempt to make their way to the United Kingdom. However, populist backlash against this accelerated political support for Brexit, leading to the vote to leave the European Union in 2016. The UK officially notified the European Council of its intent to withdraw from the EU in March 2017, in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. The European Council then adopted guidelines to set the framework of the negotiations and define the EU’s positions. The European Commission has coordinated all strategic and operational components of the negotiations. Michael Barnier has served as chief negotiator throughout the negotiation process through his Task Force at the European Commission.

Yonko Grozev, Daniel Smilhov, and Rashko Dorosiev. 2010. “Protecting Individuals from

Minorities and Other Vulnerable Groups in the European Court of Human Rights, Litigation and Jurisprudence: The Case of Bulgaria” In The European Court of Human Rights and the Rights of Marginalised Individuals and Minorities in National Context, ed. Dia Anagnostou. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 51-68.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/europes-border-crisis/bulgarian-vigilantes-patrol-turkey-border-keep-migrants-out-n723481

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-bulgaria/bulgaria-to-propose-immediate-closure-of-eu-borders-to-migrants-idUSKBN1JI1SK

Bugajski, Janusz. 2014.“Bulgaria: Progress and Development.” In Central and Eastern

European Politics: From Communism to Democracy, ed. Sharon L. Wolchik and Jane Leftwich Curry. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 341-71.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/11/the-russian-pipeline-to-germany-that-trump-is-so-mad-about-explained/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9ac82e25674e

United Kingdom and Ireland

Ireland has a long standing history with United Kingdom and the two countries are thought to be rather intertwined. Ireland does follow the lead set out by the United Kingdom. The two countries have a rather tumultuous history, one characterized by warfare, struggle, and negotiation. Since the two countries are so linked, both geographically and politically, the two follow similar trajectories in terms of their foreign policy. In the realm of foreign policy, the two countries have a number of agreements, which would point to Ireland following the United Kingdom’s lead. There are a number of settlement disputes, trade agreements, among other foreign policy measures. The first of these involved the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland border. One of the longest standing conflicts in the world surrounds this border, and it ended in 1997 with the Good Friday Agreement. This agreement designated the nature of both political, economic, and geographic relationships between Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, Ireland can be seen as following the United Kingdom in other economic and foreign policy deals. One of the most notable being the Schengen Area. Both Ireland and the United Kingdom are two opt outs to the agreement which aimed to ease the flow of goods and services throughout Europe. The Schengen area was established to abolish border controls and to coordinate visa and asylum procedures. However, Ireland and the United Kingdom felt it best for both of their countries, for security reasons to maintain their own discretion with the flow of people, services, and goods across the border.

Ireland and Brexit

Ireland decidedly relates to Brexit, as the Northern border is a key part of their negotiations. The Republic of Ireland, which currently remains a firm member in the European Union, is the only EU country who shares a land border with the United Kingdom. Currently, this border allows for free movement from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland. If the United Kingdom does withdraw from the European Union, however, they will likely institute border controls and stops. Checkpoints along that border have not been seen since prior to the Good Friday Agreement, which ended the fighting between the two countries. Currently, the Irish government aims to ensure as little barriers to both trade and travel between the land border. Within these negotiations, the European Union allowed the Irish government a veto over the Brexit negotiations, by requiring that the British government agree to certain guarantees regarding the trade relationship. This shows the importance of the relationship between the two countries, how Ireland has a deciding vote in the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Republic of Ireland government has already threatened to veto talks because their demands regarding the trade relationship were not met. Other European Union institutions have also threatened to veto the talks, on Ireland’s behalf, as well. Ireland has been met with overwhelming support by the European Commission, and President Jean-Claude Juncker has publicly stated that Ireland is fully backed by all 26 countries of the Commission during these intense negotiations. Additionally, the European Parliament has stated that they will veto any deal made unless current United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May adjusts her approach to the Northern Ireland/ Ireland border. The Republic of Ireland has received overwhelming support from the entire European community, and all countries have stated their intent to ensure fair terms for Ireland in the Brexit negotiations.

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44560870

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/ireland-brexit-171213121309274.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-european-parliament-veto-deal-theresa-may-irish-border-a8466406.html

Glencross, Andrew. 2014. “EU Policy-Making in Action.” The Politics of European Integration.