Category: 2- EU institutions (Page 2 of 2)

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.

Question 1) In Foreign Policy, does Austria follow the lead of France, Germany, the UK, or Spain?

Given their shared history, culture, and ethnic identity, it should come as no surprise that Austrian foreign policy has trended to mirror German foreign policy.  For much of modern history since the end of the Second World War, Austria has sought to maintain an image of neutrality in the wake of their shared participation in the Nazi War Machine (FOREIGN RELATIONS).  Hoping to strike themselves as a friendly and docile neighbor to both the Communist countries to the east and the N.A.T.O. alliance to the west.  Their attempts to strike a balance between east and west has often drawn the ire of each side who see Austria’s attempts at outreach as duplicity (Gehler, Wilson Center)Seeking to be left to their own devices, Austria has been hesitant to engage in international debates beyond those issues that might directly effect themselves.  Therefor, they’ve engaged with the European Union for the purpose of their own economic advancement while avoided being the vanguard of the integration project.  As they lack the foreign policy authority to have the authority of its larger neighbors, Austria has often gone along with German politics in areas such as engagement with Russia, the economy, and migration politics.

Germany, like Austria, has gone on the charm offensive in the last several decades to repair its image in the east and west.  Recognizing that in the event of a European land war between N.A.T.O. and the Russian Federation, they would face occupation and annihilation, Germany sought to balance the interests of the United States and Russia with its policy.  The status of Germany as a reluctant leader has meant that the German government has been less then willing to take the reigns of control and assert European policies on the international stage (Welsh, 2015).  Meanwhile, their Ostpolitik engagement with Russia has drawn the ire of other European countries who feel that German hesitancy risks enabling future threats.  This has been something they’ve had to remedy as the role of the United Kingdom and France has declined on the international stage and other regional powers have tilted towards Germany due to their economic prowess.

Question 2) How does this choice appear as part of the EU-wide negotiations about Refugee politics?

During the initial stages of the 2015 Refugee Crisis, Austria’s policies reflected those from Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition in Germany.  Adopting a welcoming stance towards thousands of refugees, Austria was one of the first countries to open up their borders and settle refugees as they were halted at the Hungarian border and redirected.  Having settled the equivalent of 1% of their entire population in the country and granting generous government funded care packages to ease their transition into their new lives, Austrian society has witnessed cracks in their society between those who believe in taking in refugees and those who see refugees as a threat to their national identity (Kurz, 2017).  While Austria had followed through with the greater European communities wishes to pass liberal policies regarding refugees, they’ve recently caved to far-right political pressures and limited the help given to refugees.  Namely, the Austrian government has stripped refugees of their cellphones, large quantities in cash, and placed holds on citizenship applications, much to the chagrin of human rights watchdogs and their European neighbors (Bell, 2018).  This has presented conflicts with the European bureaucracy as some have interpreted Austria’s actions as standing in direct violation of the Union’s open borders policies which prohibit the restrictions on who can and cannot enter member nations.

Sources:

Austria – FOREIGN RELATIONS. Accessed October 23, 2018. http://countrystudies.us/austria/128.htm.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/austria-german-unification-and-european-integration-brief-historical-background

Europe Today: A Twenty-First Century Introduction

http://time.com/5068561/sebastian-kurz-austria-chancellor-migrant-crisis/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43823166

Albania and the Refugee Crisis

For the most part migration in the context of Albania usually refers to emigration of citizens to other nations rather than immigration into the country. Albania regularly sees a positive net migration rate. But recently, Albania has felt the effects of the refugee crisis more so than many other nations in its area. The Balkans have become a popular route for those seeking asylum in Western Europe. “Interception of migrants and refugees in Albania increased by 15 percent in 2017, leading to 1,047 people caught at the border, while asylum requests increased by 27 percent to 309 people” (United Nations, 2017). Albania lacks a coherent policy on migration and has been accepting these refugees but failing to monitor or control their movements. This has caused conflicts within the region, specifically with Montenegro who has tried repeatedly to send back refugees to Albania, despite the fact that there is not proof that they came from Albania. In addition, Italy has been sending some of its migrants to Albania which the EU is upset about, but Italy continues to send them because Albania isn’t turning them away. There has been discussion of establishing migrant centers in various countries in the Balkan region in an effort to reduce the effects of the migrant crisis and “curb new arrivals”.  Albania would be one of the nations where these centers would be located but the Prime Minister has rejected this proposal (Sputnik, 2018).

Of the case study countries discussed in the textbook, Albania’s policies on migration seem to most closely resemble that of Germany. Although the volume of refugees that Germany took in greatly surpasses that of Albania, the two countries both share more open borders to migrants than other nations on the continent. That being said, Albania is currently trying to gain membership to the European Union and migration is currently a very polarized topic among EU members.  Albania needs to tread carefully before it passes or implements new policies regarding refugees because this could have a profound impact on its status of gaining membership.

Albania and EU Institutions 

Albania was granted candidate status by the European Union in 2014. Because the nation is not yet a member, it’s negotiations with the EU revolve mostly around its relations with nations that are in the EU and its accession for membership.  The road to membership is still underway and as a result of this status, the country has received more attention from the various institutions within the EU. The European Parliament was supportive, and therefore extremely influential in the visa liberalization process for the citizens of Albania (Likmeta, 2010). This process increases the mobility of Albanians for travel within the Schengen nations of the EU, by allowing them to travel without a visa.  The next step in the process toward visa- free travel was approval from the Council which was granted in late 2010. This marked a huge milestone for Albania and its desire to be a part of the integration of Europe.

Another important interaction between Albania and an EU institution came earlier this year at an EU Summit in Sofia (Herszenhorn, 2018). The European Commission recommended the start of membership talks with Albania considering the progress the nation has achieved over the past few years. Each year the Commission publishes a working document to showcase and analyze progress Albania has made toward meeting the Copenhagen criteria. The report also recommends steps for further improvement. According to Herszenhorn, Albania is “under pressure to crack down on organized crime and illegal migrants” and as a result the decision and negotiations on its accession have been postponed for another year so it can make progress on these reforms specifically. The Prime Minister of Albania expressed his frustrations about this statement because he claims that the EU is increasing the number of conditions the country must meet before membership talks are even allowed to begin. At a later summit in Brussels, the General Affairs Council adopted various conclusions on the “EU- Western Balkans stabilization and association process”, which includes Albania.  The European Council later responded positively to the progress made by Albania in meeting the established criteria and endorsed the conclusions as a means for beginning negotiations concerning membership in June of 2019.

In terms of specific policies that the European Union focuses on, Albania recently made an agreement with the EU concerning border management. The agreement promotes cooperation between the two parties as a means to control migration patterns in the country. Joint operations will take place. This agreement needs to be ratified by the European Parliament before it takes effect (Huertas Cerdeira, 2018).

Works Cited

Herszenhorn, David M. “5 Takeaways from EU’s Big Balkan Get-together.” POLITICO. May 23, 2018. Accessed October 21, 2018. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-western-balkans-sofiasummit-takeaways-membership-talks-enlargement/.

Huertas Cerdeira, Verónica. “Border Management: EU Signs Agreement with Albania on European Border and Coast Guard Agency Cooperation.” European Council: Press Release. Accessed October 21, 2018. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press               releases/2018/10/05/border-management-eu-signs-agreement-with-albania-on european-border-and-coast-guard-agency-cooperation/.

Likmeta, Besar. “European Parliament Backs Albania, Bosnia Visa Liberalisation.” Balkan Insight, October 07, 2010. Accessed October 21, 2018. http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/european-parliament-backs-albania-bosnia-visa-liberalization.

Sputnik. “Albania Refuses to Host EU Migrant Reception Centers – Prime Minister.” Sputnik International. June 27, 2018. Accessed October 22, 2018. https://sputniknews.com/europe/201806271065818205-albania-migrants-eu-statement/.

United Nations. “Progress Report 2017.” ROGRAMME OF COOPERATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2017-2021, 2017, 1-85. http://www.un.org.al/sites/default/files/GoA-UN Progress_Report-2017_1.pdf.

What is Europe? Where are its Boundaries?

Europe is a geographical term apart of Earth’s continent in the northeastern quadrant.  Throughout history there have been a variety of ways to describe Europe and explain where its boundaries are.  Through politics, culture, and geographical locations Europes identity has changed over the years.  Europe’s identity is very different than Asia’s.  My case study nation is Greece and interestingly enough the ancient Greeks wanted to differentiate themselves from their neighbors, the Persians.  Taken from an ancient Greek myth the term Europa was derived to gain the name Europe for the continent (Glencross, 14).  This idea is very important because it is used to show distinctness and separateness from Asia.  

The EU contains twenty eight nation states currently and there certainly are other countries in Europe that are not apart of the European Union.  For example there is the Council of Europe which includes forty seven countries.  Europe has clear boundaries to the west from the Atlantic Ocean, to the south with the Mediterranean Ocean, and to the North with the Arctic Ocean. In order to define Europe with specific geographical boundaries is difficult.  For example The Caucus mountains and the Urals in Russia create controversy because it will not include Turkey and it will divide Russia.   Their boundary to the east, however, causes confusion leaving the question of which countries are allowed to be apart of the European Union.  Countries like Russia and Turkey who both have territory in Asia and Europe will remain unclear whether or not they are allowed to be apart of the European Union.  History has shown interesting aspects of what Europe is.  The Mediterranean sea was a space shared by North Africa and the Levant culturally and economically.  During the Roman Empire they called this body of water mare nostrum meaning “our sea” (Glencross, 15).  This resulted in Morocco not being able to join the European Economic Community in 1987 (Glencross, 15).  This is very important because it shows the European Union most likely will not expand south of the Mediterranean Sea.  Throughout history Europe experienced ambiguous treaties that were the foundation of Europe all together.  The treaties did not provide specific details regarding which countries could be potential EU members or which countries are considered European.  The EU’s borders to the East remain the most problematic.  Many countries would love to be apart of the EU in order to gain economical and political power.  

The Idea of Europe: Greece 

When Greece joined the European Union it ended their dictatorship and started to incorporate democracy into their society again.  Greece wanted to become a member of the EU because they wanted the community to gain the stable institutional framework used to better their  political system along with their institutions.  Greece also wanted to develop relationships with countries other than the United States.  This would strengthen their independence regionally and internationally.  One of Greece’s main goals was to develop and modernize their economy and society.  Greece wanted to further help the development of European integration as a whole.      

The European Commission was optimistic about letting Greece join the EU.  Greece had a weak economy which in turn could end up harming other member states.  German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt was extremely worried because Greece had trouble for example collecting taxes from their most prestigious citizens.  It was not until Konstantinos Karamanlis’ argument about Greece offering a cultural import towards the European Union that the European leader found reasonable to let Greece join the EU.  Konstantinos Karamanlis was a prestigious political figure in Greek history.  Two years after joining the EU they joined the euro as well furthering their integration into Europe.  However, interestingly enough Greece is extremely close to withdrawing from the euro today because of their recession and debt.  

Bibliography 

“Greece’s Course in the EU.” Culture: Greek Customs. Accessed October 01, 2018. https://www.mfa.gr/en/foreign-policy/greece-in-the-eu/greeces-course-in-the-eu.html.

Glencross, Andrew. The Politics of European Integration: Political Union or a House Divided? Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2014.

James Angelos, Bayer AG, Polish Electricity Association, and VELUX Group. “Why on Earth Is Greece in the EU?” POLITICO. June 22, 2015. Accessed October 01, 2018. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-is-greece-in-the-eu-grexit/.

A) In foreign policy, does your case study country follow the lead of France, Germany, the UK, or Spain (as described in our textbook and assigned readings)? If so, why?

B) How does this choice appear as part of EU-wide negotiations about a specific policy, such as Brexit or migration? Please include in the analysis how the case study country has approached/negotiated with two of the EU’s institutions, such as the Commission, Council, Parliament, and the Court.

Upload due: Oct. 23, review: Oct. 25, final: noon Oct. 29

(10 points)