When French President Emmanuel Macron first spoke of a “European Political Community” (EPC) in May 2022, the proposal was initially met with scepticism in many places. In particular, the six Western Balkan states (WB6) – some of which have been working, albeit at different speeds, towards EU membership for nearly 20 years – were concerned that the EPC would serve as a substitute for full EU membership. Other voices criticised the discussion format, which has no founding document, as merely an ineffectual photo-op.
However, after two summits – in Prague in October 2022 and in Chişinău in June 2023 – initial scepticism is waning. Many diplomats agree that a pan-European dialogue format at the highest level of government has been lacking, especially in light of the contentious security environment that has evolved since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Summits without hierarchical structures can foster a sense of belonging. The focus on issues such as energy, security, and connectivity underscores the approach of working on overarching issues that affect EU members and non-EU countries alike. The WB6 should therefore use this new forum as proactively as possible, for example by hosting the summit after Spain and the United Kingdom or by chairing a thematic working stream.
Advantages of an agile structureCurrently, the EPC comprises 47 participants and is characterised by the following features: an agile structure that allows for ad hoc participation in summits and does not involve an institutional structure; no concrete outputs such as joint statements or declarations; a rotating chairmanship that has so far alternated between EU and non-EU countries; and summits that are to be held twice a year in the chairing country.
Meanwhile, despite the fluid set-up, certain organisational structures have emerged. For one thing, the summits leave enough time for bilateral or minilateral meetings. For example, during the summit in Chişinău, President Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and EU Council President Charles Michel met with representatives from Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as Kosovo and Serbia. The added value of diplomatic efforts and exchanges among hostile neighbours in a European context can hardly be overemphasised.
In addition, there are working streams that deal with topics of particular importance to the EPC and each is chaired by two countries. In Chişinău, for example, Poland and the United Kingdom took over the “Security” working stream; Norway and Belgium the “Energy” working stream; and Moldova and Spain the “Connectivity” working stream. The topics are prepared in advance by the respective heads of cabinet (“sherpas”). The chairing country can add new topics to the agenda before the summit. Looking at the working streams, it is noticeable on the one hand that an EU member state always cooperates with a non-EU member state on an equal footing and that synergies far beyond the EU agenda can be tapped through this cooperation. On the other hand, no WB6 country has taken over a working stream so far.
Added value of the EPC for the Western BalkansCooperation of one of the WB6 with a major EU partner such as Germany or France would be an important step symbolically and practically. Not only would Germany be showing increased political interest in the Western Balkans in times of geopolitical competition with Russia and China, among others, as with the revival of the Berlin Process in the autumn of 2022. It would also open the possibility for the respective Western Balkan country to work constructively and with increased visibility in the European context. A high-profile cooperation through co-chairing a working stream by a WB and an EU country would also eliminate the hierarchical differences inherent to the enlargement process and enable collaboration on a level playing field.
For example, at the next summit in Granada, Spain, in October, Montenegro and France could co-chair the working stream on security. After the recent change of power to a pro-European and avowedly reformist leadership, Montenegro should seize the opportunity to advance security issues in the EPC. As a NATO member, it could use the platform to work on specific cybersecurity issues. At the same time, it would shed light on the work of the “Center for Cybersecurity Capacity Building” in Podgorica, established in November 2022 by France, Montenegro, and Slovenia.
Similarly, it would be relevant for North Macedonia to co-chair a new working stream on migration with Germany, especially as the United Kingdom is likely to put this topic on the agenda in spring 2024. As an important junction for migration of all kinds, North Macedonia has been working with Frontex on a joint operation to secure European borders since April 2023. The country should therefore emphasise its role as a security partner of the EU in the EPC as well.
A potential added value for a Western Balkan country would also be the hosting of a summit. This can bring concrete benefits beyond symbolism. For example, Moldova’s ambassador to Brussels, Daniela Morari, concluded that organising the summit in Chişinău involved a steep learning curve, but that it also supplied a lot of international support. It gave the country the opportunity to present itself in a positive light internationally and to set in motion some critical processes for the country.
With all the opportunities for cooperation under the EPC, the EU must continue to communicate clearly that the EPC is not a substitute for enlargement. Especially in view of the stagnating enlargement process, which is related not only to a lack of reforms in the WB6 but also to enlargement fatigue on the part of individual EU members, the EU should not create the impression that the WB6 should forever remain in the EU’s waiting room.
Mit dem Gipfel am 17. und 18. Juli in Brüssel endet nach acht Jahren eine lange Unterbrechung der biregionalen Treffen zwischen der EU und der Gemeinschaft der Lateinamerikanischen und Karibischen Staaten (CELAC). Zwischen 1999 und 2015 fanden alle zwei bzw. drei Jahre Konferenzen statt. Seit der letzten Konferenz haben sich sowohl das internationale Umfeld als auch der regionale Kontext auf beiden Seiten des Atlantiks stark verändert. Mit der Rückkehr Brasiliens in die CELAC und den Bemühungen der neuen Regierung Lula um eine Reaktivierung der Union Südamerikanischer Nationen (UNASUR) hat die Region neue Impulse erhalten, die sich bei den jeweiligen Gipfeltreffen der beiden Organisationen im Januar in Buenos Aires und im Mai in Brasília manifestierten. Im Juni hat die Europäische Kommission eine neue Agenda für die Beziehungen der EU mit Lateinamerika und der Karibik (LAC) vorgelegt, aus der deutlich wird, dass Europa die biregionale Zusammenarbeit intensivieren will. Dies hat dann Aussicht auf Erfolg, wenn die Gipfeldiplomatie nicht im Sinne einer Wiederbelebung, sondern im Geiste einer Erneuerung aufgenommen und mit substantieller thematischer Kooperation und vitalen bilateralen Beziehungen verbunden wird.
Mit der European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI) will Deutschland die europäische Luftverteidigung und Raketenabwehr insbesondere gegen russische Flugkörper stärken. Zwar dürfte Moskau kurz- bis mittelfristig weder Anreize noch genügend militärische Mittel haben, um die Nato mit Langstreckenwaffen anzugreifen. Doch wenn Luftverteidigung und Raketenabwehr in Europa verbessert werden, lässt sich damit auch Russlands Fähigkeit reduzieren, die Nato-Staaten politisch zu erpressen. Das wiederum würde dem Zusammenhalt der Allianz dienen. Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen und das Potential der Initiative voll auszuschöpfen, müssen jedoch Fragen auf strategischer, technisch-operativer und politischer Ebene geklärt werden. Sonst könnte ESSI eher dazu beitragen, die Nato politisch und technisch zu fragmentieren.
jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-lejubp").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-lejubp").fadeIn(300);});});
Spring 2023 marked the fifth anniversary of the publication of the flagship UN-World Bank report “Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict.” The report reviewed conflict trends, drew lessons from emerging research, including growing evidence on the importance of addressing patterns of exclusion and inequality, and building on 19 case studies, identified lessons of successful national prevention efforts. The report also made recommendations for ways to strengthen the international prevention architecture, including early warning and early response. Over the past five months, the UN and the World Bank have benefited from a series of reflections from Member States, think tanks, civil society, and multilateral and regional partners on the relevance of the findings of this report.
On June 26th, in partnership with PBSO and the World Bank, IPI cohosted a policy forum entitled “Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict: 5th Anniversary of Pathways for Peace Report,” to reflect and discuss its contemporary significance and ways forward for prevention and peacebuilding in rapidly evolving global and regional contexts. During opening remarks, Farhad Peiker, Acting Special Representative to the UN World Bank Group, highlighted several noteworthy advancements catalyzed by the report. These advancements include a notable shift in the perceptions of fragility, conflict, and violence within the World Bank, UN, and other institutions. Acknowledging that these issues pose critical developmental obstacles that threaten efforts to alleviate extreme poverty in both low- and middle-income countries. The influence of the Pathways for Peace initiative has prompted the World Bank to actively incorporate and prioritize the integration of the concept of a “livable planet” into its core mission and vision, while still prioritizing the eradication of extreme poverty.
The Pathways for Peace initiative has produced a series of papers as well as consultative workshops and digital exchanges hosted by the Cairo Center (CCCPA), the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESWCA), the International Dialogue for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (IDPS), the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and the Quaker UN Office. Kavita Desai, Quaker UN representative outlined some significant opportunities to strengthen the international architecture: First is the New Agenda for Peace which presents the opportunity to enhance peacebuilding and prevention, and incorporate innovation which can help put prevention back at the heart of the UN’s work; Second is the follow-up to last year’s resolution on financing for peacebuilding which creates space to achieve more prevention-focused financing strategies that also offer the flexibility to improve evidence bases and be informed by civil society; Third is strengthening existing data tools and coordination among them, including monthly regional reviews along with recovery peacebuilding assessments, early warning mechanisms and other analytical tools.
In the second session, participants focused on identifying and addressing the shortcomings of the Pathways for Peace report, particularly with regard to issues of exclusion and inequality. H.E. Arlene B. Tickner, Deputy Permanent Representative of Colombia to the UN, drew on her academic expertise to shed light on these gaps, highlighting the case of Colombia’s peacebuilding efforts as an illustrative example. Participants also engaged in a comprehensive discussion on various approaches to peace and the different methodologies to measure it. IPI Senior Adviser Youssef Mahmoud played a crucial role in facilitating the latter part of the discussion, stressing the importance of moving beyond the restoration of norms and instead emphasizing the need for their transformation.
Overall, the event distilled some of the lessons of these reflections, identified critical outcomes for prevention and peacebuilding, and provided a hybrid space to discuss future opportunities to reinforce shared prevention and peacebuilding lessons in rapidly evolving global and regional contexts.
Welcoming/Closing Remarks:
Adam Lupel, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, International Peace Institute
Farhad Peikar, Acting Special Representative to the UN, World Bank Group
Elizabeth Spehar, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support
Asif Khan, Director of Policy and Mediation Division, UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs
Franck Bousquet, Deputy Director, Fragile and Conflict-affected States, International Monetary Fund
Speakers/Moderators:
Roselyn Akombe, Chief of Peacebuilding Strategy and Partnerships, UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs
Adam Day, Head of the Geneva Office, United Nations University Centre for Policy Research (virtual)
Richard Gowan, UN Director, International Crisis Group
H.E. Arlene B. Tickner, Deputy Permanent Representative of Colombia to the UN
Saji Prelis, Child and Youth Programmes, Search for Common Ground
Youssef Mahmoud, Senior Adviser, International Peace Institute
Discussants:
Representatives from the Cairo Center for Conflict Resolution, Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding (CCCPA), UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (IDPS), Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and Quaker UN Office
Die Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise von 2008 hat die EU-Erweiterungspolitik für den Westbalkan (WB) ins Wanken gebracht. Spätestens seit dieser Zeit ist in der Region ein stärkeres Engagement wirtschaftlicher Akteure aus Nicht-EU-Ländern wie China, Russland, der Türkei oder den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten (VAE) zu beobachten. Ihr Engagement zeigt sich am deutlichsten bei Direktinvestitionen, Handel und Energiesicherheit. Die Investitionen aus diesen Ländern können das Risiko »korrosiven Kapitals« vergrößern, das sich negativ auf Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Demokratieentwicklung im WB auswirken kann. Angesichts einer sich zusehends verschärfenden Rivalität zwischen der EU einerseits und Russland und China andererseits stellt sich daher die Frage, wie die EU auf die intensivierte wirtschaftliche Vernetzung des WB mit diesen Akteuren reagieren und ihr strategisch entgegenwirken kann.
Die Mindestlohnkommission hat heute beschlossen, dass der Mindestlohn ab dem 1. Januar 2024 auf 12,41 Euro erhöht werden soll. Dazu ein Statement von Marcel Fratzscher, Präsident des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):
Die Erhöhung des Mindestlohns von 12 Euro auf 12,41 ab dem 1. Januar ist eine bittere Enttäuschung für die mehr als elf Millionen Beschäftigten in Deutschland, die im Niedriglohnbereich arbeiten. 41 Cent, also 3,4 Prozent mehr, ist so wenig, dass die Erhöhung nicht einmal die durchschnittliche Inflation von sieben Prozent im Jahr 2022, voraussichtlich sechs Prozent 2023 und wahrscheinliche drei Prozent 2024 ausgleicht. Menschen mit geringen Einkommen haben eine individuell deutlich höhere Inflation als der Durchschnitt, da sie einen größeren Anteil ihres Einkommens für die Dinge ausgeben müssen, die sehr viel teurer geworden sind, allen voran Lebensmittel, die sich in den vergangenen 15 Monaten um weit mehr als 20 Prozent verteuert haben.