Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Despite what looked like tremendous efforts by the West to deter Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the Kremlin started a full-scale military invasion across the Ukrainian border from the north, east, and south. Clarifying why these deterrence efforts did not work as expected could provide useful insights for building more effective strat­egies to stop Russia’s aggression. It would also allow for adjusting future policies of deterrence against Russia. The EU and NATO should consider their misperceptions about Russia that undermined their ability to politically and militarily discourage Rus­sia’s aggression. They also should consider what actions have fuelled Russia’s mis­perceptions about the West and emboldened the Kremlin to launch its military invasion of Ukraine.

In Syria, the immediate effects of the war in Ukraine have made an already difficult humanitarian situation even worse. Protracted violence in Ukraine or an expansion of the Ukraine war into a larger NATO-Russia confrontation would endanger multilateral cooperation on conflict management, conflict resolution and humanitarian issues in Syria. Protracted conflict in Ukraine could also disrupt the volatile status quo in Syria, potentially endangering ceasefire agreements, tilting the power balance in favour of Iran and thereby increasing the risk of military escalation between Iran and its an­tago­nists, complicating the fight against ISIS, and endangering cross-border humanitarian aid deliveries. Europeans should attempt to insulate the war in Ukraine from Syria as much as possible, double down on efforts to renew the UN Security Council resolution that allows for humanitarian access to northwest Syria and contribute to the long-term objective of an inclusive regional security architecture.

Megatrends have become ubiquitous phenomena in public policy debates. A thorough understanding of what this concept entails is often missing. We address this gap by unpacking the notion “megatrend” and tracing the significance it has for understanding the transformation of African societies.

Megatrends have become ubiquitous phenomena in public policy debates. A thorough understanding of what this concept entails is often missing. We address this gap by unpacking the notion “megatrend” and tracing the significance it has for understanding the transformation of African societies.

Megatrends have become ubiquitous phenomena in public policy debates. A thorough understanding of what this concept entails is often missing. We address this gap by unpacking the notion “megatrend” and tracing the significance it has for understanding the transformation of African societies.

The proposal by the European Union (EU) to build a “Global Gateway” to the world is potentially an important juncture in EU foreign relations. Since its official launch in December 2021, most attention has been put on the initiative’s geo­strategic implications and whether the EU can compete with China. Less attention has been paid to the Global Gateway’s implications for EU development policy in terms of strategic objectives, decision-making, thematic focus and financing. Two aspects are important in this regard. The first is whether the Global Gateway is a serious proposal that can deliver on its headline promises to massively increase European infrastructure financing in developing countries, provide partners with an alternative economic and political model to that being offered by China, and make a meaningful contribution to their efforts to realise the 2030 Agenda. The EU’s announcement that the Global Gateway will generate up to EUR 300 billion in investment by 2027 grabbed headlines, many of them sceptical. There is, however, no reason to doubt that the initiative will be adequately financed. Although the planning for the EU’s international aid budget for 2021-2027 has mostly been completed, a significant proportion remains flexible and could be spent on Global Gateway projects. As for the EU’s implementing capacity, the Gateway’s financial toolbox draws on the EU’s recent experiences with the Juncker Investment Plan and the External Investment Plan, which have both been utilised by development banks and private investors. The second aspect is whether the Global Gateway heralds a change in the EU’s motivations, objectives and modalities for cooperation with developing countries and regions. On the surface, the Global Gateway does not seem to change much. There are many thematic overlaps with existing strategic frameworks for engaging with Africa and the EU’s Neighbourhood. There is even a sense that the Global Gateway turns back the clock to the days when the EU focussed aid spending on infrastructure and emphasised its “political neutrality”. The geopolitical context in which the EU finds itself is, however, being transformed by pandemic, wars and multipolarity. The impacts of epochal events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are still playing out. The Global Gateway signals a major adjustment in the EU’s response to these transformations, particularly regarding its engagement with the “Global South”. This will create a new paradigm for EU development policy, defined by strategic interests. It is likely that the new geostrategic framework will weaken the EU’s commitment to, and observance of, core develop­ment policy principles, especially the focus on poverty, partner country ownership, open governance and the “do no harm” principle. The Global Gateway’s use of aid to cata­lyse commercial investment risks further instrumentalising EU development policy. Specific measures are therefore needed to safeguard and promote the principles that the EU and its member states have committed themselves to.

The proposal by the European Union (EU) to build a “Global Gateway” to the world is potentially an important juncture in EU foreign relations. Since its official launch in December 2021, most attention has been put on the initiative’s geo­strategic implications and whether the EU can compete with China. Less attention has been paid to the Global Gateway’s implications for EU development policy in terms of strategic objectives, decision-making, thematic focus and financing. Two aspects are important in this regard. The first is whether the Global Gateway is a serious proposal that can deliver on its headline promises to massively increase European infrastructure financing in developing countries, provide partners with an alternative economic and political model to that being offered by China, and make a meaningful contribution to their efforts to realise the 2030 Agenda. The EU’s announcement that the Global Gateway will generate up to EUR 300 billion in investment by 2027 grabbed headlines, many of them sceptical. There is, however, no reason to doubt that the initiative will be adequately financed. Although the planning for the EU’s international aid budget for 2021-2027 has mostly been completed, a significant proportion remains flexible and could be spent on Global Gateway projects. As for the EU’s implementing capacity, the Gateway’s financial toolbox draws on the EU’s recent experiences with the Juncker Investment Plan and the External Investment Plan, which have both been utilised by development banks and private investors. The second aspect is whether the Global Gateway heralds a change in the EU’s motivations, objectives and modalities for cooperation with developing countries and regions. On the surface, the Global Gateway does not seem to change much. There are many thematic overlaps with existing strategic frameworks for engaging with Africa and the EU’s Neighbourhood. There is even a sense that the Global Gateway turns back the clock to the days when the EU focussed aid spending on infrastructure and emphasised its “political neutrality”. The geopolitical context in which the EU finds itself is, however, being transformed by pandemic, wars and multipolarity. The impacts of epochal events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are still playing out. The Global Gateway signals a major adjustment in the EU’s response to these transformations, particularly regarding its engagement with the “Global South”. This will create a new paradigm for EU development policy, defined by strategic interests. It is likely that the new geostrategic framework will weaken the EU’s commitment to, and observance of, core develop­ment policy principles, especially the focus on poverty, partner country ownership, open governance and the “do no harm” principle. The Global Gateway’s use of aid to cata­lyse commercial investment risks further instrumentalising EU development policy. Specific measures are therefore needed to safeguard and promote the principles that the EU and its member states have committed themselves to.

The proposal by the European Union (EU) to build a “Global Gateway” to the world is potentially an important juncture in EU foreign relations. Since its official launch in December 2021, most attention has been put on the initiative’s geo­strategic implications and whether the EU can compete with China. Less attention has been paid to the Global Gateway’s implications for EU development policy in terms of strategic objectives, decision-making, thematic focus and financing. Two aspects are important in this regard. The first is whether the Global Gateway is a serious proposal that can deliver on its headline promises to massively increase European infrastructure financing in developing countries, provide partners with an alternative economic and political model to that being offered by China, and make a meaningful contribution to their efforts to realise the 2030 Agenda. The EU’s announcement that the Global Gateway will generate up to EUR 300 billion in investment by 2027 grabbed headlines, many of them sceptical. There is, however, no reason to doubt that the initiative will be adequately financed. Although the planning for the EU’s international aid budget for 2021-2027 has mostly been completed, a significant proportion remains flexible and could be spent on Global Gateway projects. As for the EU’s implementing capacity, the Gateway’s financial toolbox draws on the EU’s recent experiences with the Juncker Investment Plan and the External Investment Plan, which have both been utilised by development banks and private investors. The second aspect is whether the Global Gateway heralds a change in the EU’s motivations, objectives and modalities for cooperation with developing countries and regions. On the surface, the Global Gateway does not seem to change much. There are many thematic overlaps with existing strategic frameworks for engaging with Africa and the EU’s Neighbourhood. There is even a sense that the Global Gateway turns back the clock to the days when the EU focussed aid spending on infrastructure and emphasised its “political neutrality”. The geopolitical context in which the EU finds itself is, however, being transformed by pandemic, wars and multipolarity. The impacts of epochal events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are still playing out. The Global Gateway signals a major adjustment in the EU’s response to these transformations, particularly regarding its engagement with the “Global South”. This will create a new paradigm for EU development policy, defined by strategic interests. It is likely that the new geostrategic framework will weaken the EU’s commitment to, and observance of, core develop­ment policy principles, especially the focus on poverty, partner country ownership, open governance and the “do no harm” principle. The Global Gateway’s use of aid to cata­lyse commercial investment risks further instrumentalising EU development policy. Specific measures are therefore needed to safeguard and promote the principles that the EU and its member states have committed themselves to.

As a medical condition, the coronavirus, which causes COVID-19, infects everyone regardless of social status. However, the capacity to adhere to the recommended safety measures follows the contours of existing socioeconomic dynamics in which social inequality is a major determinant. This chapter addresses the socioeconomic dimension of COVID-19, paying particular attention to how people’s circumstances influence their capacity or lack thereof to practice the recommended safety measures in urban Zimbabwe. The chapter specifically discusses limited mobility, social distancing, self-isolation, handwashing/sanitizing, and wearing of masks as precautions against coronavirus infection and the practicability of these measures based on varied socioeconomic circumstances among residents in urban Zimbabwe. The chapter draws attention to the structuring of urban space in Zimbabwe and its intertwinement with socioeconomic factors in ways that render people living in economic precarity less capable of observing the recommended safety measures.

As a medical condition, the coronavirus, which causes COVID-19, infects everyone regardless of social status. However, the capacity to adhere to the recommended safety measures follows the contours of existing socioeconomic dynamics in which social inequality is a major determinant. This chapter addresses the socioeconomic dimension of COVID-19, paying particular attention to how people’s circumstances influence their capacity or lack thereof to practice the recommended safety measures in urban Zimbabwe. The chapter specifically discusses limited mobility, social distancing, self-isolation, handwashing/sanitizing, and wearing of masks as precautions against coronavirus infection and the practicability of these measures based on varied socioeconomic circumstances among residents in urban Zimbabwe. The chapter draws attention to the structuring of urban space in Zimbabwe and its intertwinement with socioeconomic factors in ways that render people living in economic precarity less capable of observing the recommended safety measures.

As a medical condition, the coronavirus, which causes COVID-19, infects everyone regardless of social status. However, the capacity to adhere to the recommended safety measures follows the contours of existing socioeconomic dynamics in which social inequality is a major determinant. This chapter addresses the socioeconomic dimension of COVID-19, paying particular attention to how people’s circumstances influence their capacity or lack thereof to practice the recommended safety measures in urban Zimbabwe. The chapter specifically discusses limited mobility, social distancing, self-isolation, handwashing/sanitizing, and wearing of masks as precautions against coronavirus infection and the practicability of these measures based on varied socioeconomic circumstances among residents in urban Zimbabwe. The chapter draws attention to the structuring of urban space in Zimbabwe and its intertwinement with socioeconomic factors in ways that render people living in economic precarity less capable of observing the recommended safety measures.

The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine is forcing Europeans into a confron­tational security order. This also makes European strategic sovereignty – in defence policy, but also in economics, technology, energy policy, and institutional framework – a more significant goal for the European Union (EU). Until now, however, a central narrative has been that the EU must be able to act autonomously without the United States (US). In the new security environment, the primary aim of strategic sovereignty should be protecting EU member states and asserting common European interests. For the foreseeable future, however, the Union remains confronted with a fundamental dilemma that can only be attenuated but not fully resolved: In Europe’s new con­frontational security order, its strategic dependence on the US is likely to grow, while America’s long-term alliance commitments remain fraught with question marks. Stra­tegic sovereignty must therefore include the pursuit of Europe’s collective defence capability in close cooperation and coordination with the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Culture’s mediation of the research interface has not received much attention; yet it is integral to ethnographic research. Culture shapes worldviews; yet in many instances of research with mobile populations, the tendency is to treat mobility as stripping people of their cultural backgrounds, leading to a corresponding imposition on them of a homogenizing, legalistic identity, conveyed through terms such as ‘refugees’ or ‘migrants’. This tendency is particularly salient in research with African migrants, whose study is normatively subsumed under historical epistemological discourses that exoticize and pathologize Africa. Cultural values play an important role, not only for the researchers in their choices and paradigmatic construction of reality, knowledge, and truth, but also for the research participants who perceive their choices, mobility, and circumstances through a cultural prism. Ethnographers of the reflexive persuasion are increasingly opening the window wider into how they position themselves or are positioned by research participants in the field. However, research with migrants, who epitomize culture in motion, calls for even more articulation of the nuances of both inter‐and intra‐cultural research interfaces. This chapter discusses the relevance of cultural sensitivity in ethnographic research with migrants, paying particular attention to its practical and epistemological implications. It argues that culture‐sensitive ethnographic research provides the researcher with a channel to restore migrants’ subjectivity at a time when disaffection with the researcher’s gaze is growing and potentially raising ethical questions. Migrants had other identities before they moved, and these identities constitute a core component of their subjectivities. Failure to acknowledge these identities and cultures feeds into the customary homogenization of diverse populations, whose commonalities may not involve much beyond the act of moving. It is only through the integration of cultural sensitivity into research that ethnographers can better interpret narratives in both inter‐and intra‐cultural research encounters.

Culture’s mediation of the research interface has not received much attention; yet it is integral to ethnographic research. Culture shapes worldviews; yet in many instances of research with mobile populations, the tendency is to treat mobility as stripping people of their cultural backgrounds, leading to a corresponding imposition on them of a homogenizing, legalistic identity, conveyed through terms such as ‘refugees’ or ‘migrants’. This tendency is particularly salient in research with African migrants, whose study is normatively subsumed under historical epistemological discourses that exoticize and pathologize Africa. Cultural values play an important role, not only for the researchers in their choices and paradigmatic construction of reality, knowledge, and truth, but also for the research participants who perceive their choices, mobility, and circumstances through a cultural prism. Ethnographers of the reflexive persuasion are increasingly opening the window wider into how they position themselves or are positioned by research participants in the field. However, research with migrants, who epitomize culture in motion, calls for even more articulation of the nuances of both inter‐and intra‐cultural research interfaces. This chapter discusses the relevance of cultural sensitivity in ethnographic research with migrants, paying particular attention to its practical and epistemological implications. It argues that culture‐sensitive ethnographic research provides the researcher with a channel to restore migrants’ subjectivity at a time when disaffection with the researcher’s gaze is growing and potentially raising ethical questions. Migrants had other identities before they moved, and these identities constitute a core component of their subjectivities. Failure to acknowledge these identities and cultures feeds into the customary homogenization of diverse populations, whose commonalities may not involve much beyond the act of moving. It is only through the integration of cultural sensitivity into research that ethnographers can better interpret narratives in both inter‐and intra‐cultural research encounters.