You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'International' category.
Zilele acestea am avut ocazia sa ascult problema precedentului Kososovo discutată până la epuizare. Problema se pune de obicei astfel: credeţi că există un precedent? – Da. Sau: credeţi că există un precedent? – Nu. Sau, „…dar totuşi, ţinând cont că…, nu credeţi că…? Se remarcă slaba definire (operaţionalizare) a noţiunii de precedent; astfel încât se întâmplă uneori ca dintre doi-trei invitaţi fiecare să aibă, în felul său, dreptate. În textul de mai jos voi încerca să pun întrebarea despre Kosovo în mai multe feluri astfel încât să obţinem nişte rezultate viabile.
A recent article titled “A Tale of Two Allies” which was published in the American newspaper Christian Science Monitor has sparked furore in the Romanian media. In brief the article accompanied in the electronic edition of the Christian Science Monitor by an interview with A. Wess Mitchell, Director of Research at the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington D.C. analyzes the way in which the United States of America deals with its allies in Europe. The article basically argues, using Poland and Romania as examples, that the United States of America classifies its allies in two categories: mature allies-partners which do not require coaxing, as the article argues and another category (which I call it allies of opportunity, since the article fails to give a proper category) with which the United States has a relation based on reciprocity.
Hans Morgenthau, one of the most remarkable thinkers in international relations, argued that the difference between internal politics and foreign policy is not a difference of kind, but of degree. Another great theorist of international relations, Raymond Aron, argued that a political unit, meaning a state defines itself partially by being capable of external action – foreign policy. Using these two theoretical benchmarks as starting points for this article I will argue that the current crisis in Romania’s internal politics have affected its foreign policy in a negative way. This article is the third instalment in the series of articles dedicated to Romania’s foreign policy.
In urma mediatizarii presupusului delict comis de cetateanul roman Nicolae Mailat de etnie roma, aflat ilegal in Italia, opinia publica din peninsula a reactionat de multe ori prin mesaje xenophobe si rasiste, mesaje in procent ingrijorator de mare promovate de figure politice, in special apartinand dreptei spectrului politic.
Spatiul politic italian este poate unul dintre cele mai relevante exemple de cum opinia liderilor politici se reflecta aproape instantaneu asupra opiniei cetatenilor de rand. Un rol semnificativ il joaca mijloacele de informare in masa, in special televiziunile cu acoperire la nivel national: Rai 1, Rai 2, Rai 3, Rete4, Canale 5, fiecare dintre acestea favorizand un partid sau altul. O pozitie moderata am remarcat-o la televiziunile La7 si RaiNews, care cel putin deocamdata, fac nota discordanta in acest sens. Senzationalul atinge cote maxime in Italia, in senul ca sunt stiri care pe parcursul a saptamani intregi se opresc asupra unui eveniment, astfel lasand la nivelul psihicului colectiv perceptia ca evenimentul respectiv este de o importanta vitala pentru viata de zi cu zi. Din fericire o parte a cetatenilor italieni constientizeaza gradul de influenta a mass mediei in acest sens, insa nici pe departe nu reprezinta majoritatea.
This is the second instalment from the series of articles regarding Romanian foreign policy I promised I will publish on this blog. In this article I will discuss and comment the draft 10 year foreign policy strategy which has been recently published by the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Actually the word strategy does not properly describe the document – it is more a list of priorities and objectives for Romania’s diplomacy for the next ten years. In this respect the word strategy is a misnomer – but for practical purposes, I will refer to it as a strategy (the document is meant to ignite a public debate concerning Romania’s foreign policy in the next decade).
This article is the first in a series of articles that I will publish on this blog dealing with Romania’s foreign policy. In this article I will outline the major international issues Romania’s foreign policy has to deal with in the international system. I will provide a brief description of these major issues and I will comment them according to their relevance. The other articles in the series will deal with the new draft ten year foreign policy strategy which has just been published by the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and with the cohesiveness and coherence of Romania’s foreign policy – with a major emphasis on the relations between the branches of the executive and internal political conflicts. The issues are divided according to their importance, relevance and urgency.
In its basic sense the doctrine of integration argues for a global consensus or a global compact that will define the threats and the challenges of the new era and, very important, will define new rules for the management of the international system.
First the new rules regulating the post 9/11 international system should be developed around new core concepts-conditional sovereignty, responsibility to protect, responsibility to prevent, that should become the pillars of a new doctrine of international community responsibility (along the directions developed in the so-called Blair Doctrine articulated in the 22nd April 1999 speech).
The entire debate on the US post 9/11 grand strategy was generated by the necessity of proposing an alternative strategic worldview to the one articulated by George W. Bush Administration, highly influenced by the so-called neoconservative moment. The administration’s grand strategy crafted to help America to navigate in a post 9/11 security environment was the neoconservative revolution, and I will try to take a very brief snapshot of it: a neo-con America means basically a discretionary unipolar power liberated from any constraints, check and balances mechanisms; a discretionary Leviathan that enforces a global order that reflects US basic/ontological values; a neo-con America is fundamentally not a status-quo power, but a revolutionary power, an enlightened revisionist power that has the will to use its unipolar assets in order to democratize the world and alter the non-liberal status-quo; a neo-con America will naturally use coalitions of willing and will reject the formal entangling alliances that set constrains on US unipolar power.
Dezbaterea despre viitorul Europei mi s-a părut pentru multă vreme a fi un lucru oarecum neesenţial. Într-un mod destul de evident, oricât de rău ar fi fost în Europa, nu putea fi mai rău decât într-o Românie lăsată de capul ei. şi apoi, nu poţi modifica regulile unui club în care tu nu eşti parte.
Lucrurile acestea însă se schimă odată cu intrarea efectivă în Uniune, iar timpul scurs de la discutarea tratatului fost „constituţional” ar fi fost o ocazie foarte oportună de dezbatere. Dacă aşa ceva ar fi existat în societate (fie ea şi „civilă”), eu aş fi fost alături de cei care nu se entuziasmează de modul în care tratatul construieşte o Europă puternică la nivelul politicii globale.
În acest text voi discuta despre forţa UE în termeni de funcţionalitate, avantaje competitive şi, nicidecum în ultimul rând, resurse. La final voi construi o comparaţie între ceea ce eu consider că ar fi un exemplu de succes al politicii europene şi actuala stare de stagnare.
As a result of the unilateral suspension of the CFE Treaty by Russia on July 14, 2007, the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Adrian Cioroianu, was summoned by Parliament to explain how this decision will affect Romania’s relations with Russia. During his testimony in front of the parliamentary commissions, Adrian Cioroianu stated that Russia does not represent a threat to Romania. This article will analyze the validity of this statement in the light of recent courses of action and policy statements made by Romanian and Russian state officials.
After the debacle of the Soviet Union in 1991 and its dissolution, the loss of its sphere of influence in Central an Eastern Europe, the economic and political woes of the 1990’s as well as lowed failures in its foreign and security policies (the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo and the First Chechen War), Russia has begun quite forcefully to assert itself again as a great power in the international system. It has become evident that Russia under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin is no longer the sick man of Europe, but on the contrary we are now dealing with a different Russia, one that has managed to put an end to its internal instability, has become quite prosperous and has an active foreign policy that befits a great power.
The Tsar chose a heavenly kingdom,
And not an earthly kingdom,
He built a church on Kossovo…
Afirmaţiile lui Daniel Fried (Daniel FRIED, Assistent Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs din cadrul recentului summit din Croaţia, cu privire la viitorul Serbiei legat acum cu necesitate de viitorul provinciei Kosovo) sunt pe cât de categorice pe atât de iresponsabile. De fapt, acestea sunt ilustrative într-o mare măsură pentru tipul de analiză în grilă alb/negru pe care Statele Unite au practicat-o în ceea ce priveşte Serbia în anii ’90: „The question for Serbia is not whether it tries to keep a hold on Kosovo because Slobodan Milošević lost it, rather whether it wants to embrace Europe. […] The answer from us is: you are welcome, we want you.”
The announced deployment of parts of the American missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic soured relations with Russia’s, many annalists arguing that bilateral relations between the former rivals have reached their lowest point since the end of the Cold War. Besides the spat over the deployment ABM shield in Central Europe there are many other issues that have lead to the increase in tensions between Russia and the United States: American deployment of forward bases in Romania and Bulgaria, US involvement in the former Soviet space (Ukraine, Georgia, the Caucasus and Central Asia) as well as public criticism regarding Russia’s internal politics and finally the gross imbalance of power between the United States and the rest of the members of the international system. All in all Russia has many reasons to feel threatened by the United States and from its point of view the recent strategic developments in Europe are worrying.
This article will deal with the current status of relations between Romania and Russia. I will argue that although there are issues when cooperation can occur between the two states, the opportunities for conflict far outweigh them.
One thing that must be cleared from the beginning is that the relation between the two countries is and was asymmetrical. This relationship is and has been asymmetrical because it involves a great power or a medium power (depending on the timeline) and a small power. Today Russia can be catalogued as an aspiring great power while Romania remains a small power (with a good prospect of becoming a regional power).
De cateva zile pe toate siturile de stiri ni se arata situatia politica confuza a Turciei - lupta dintre sustinatorii statului laic si cei ai partidului islamist. Propunerea partidului islamist de alegere a ministrului de externe, Abdulah Gul, un islamist convins, în funcţia de preşedinte, a starnit moblizare politica a adversarilor islamismului, cat si amenintari din partea armatei ca va interveni pentru a stopa orice incearcare de schimbare a status-quo-ului. In cele din urma aceasta alegere a fost blocată de Curtea Constituţională, care a motivat că ar fi încălcată separaţia dintre religie şi politica. Opoziţia a boicotat votul din Parlament pentru a face imposibilă alegerea lui Abdulah Gul în postul de preşedinte. Criza este in curs si pentru depasirea acesteia este nevoie de alegeri anticipate in iunie.
One particular bit of news, which may very well pass unnoticed sheds some light on a possible future course of United States’ future foreign policy. The news is that the US Congress has reached an agreement with the White House over new free trade policy guidelines. This agreement could ease the ratification of trade deals with several Latin American countries. Under the new policy, countries with free trade deals with the US will be committed to adopting and enforcing laws that abide by basic international labour standards as well as internationally-agreed environmental standards of business practice. US deputy secretary of state, John Negroponte, said that the Latin American states are ”strategic elements not only to our economic relations but also to our political relations”.
In this article I will argue that EU’s relations with the Russian Federation are at a crossroads, with the latter gaining leverage while the former has trouble finding an adequate response to this challenge.
The differences between two actors stem from two quite different perceptions of world politics and diplomacy. Russia sees international politics from a realist perspective emphasising power politics and strategic cooperation while the EU is advancing a post-Westphalian agenda of international politics based on shared norms and values. These different approaches and understandings of the international system have lead to an impasse in EU-Russian relation.
Yesterday May 2, 2007, the Romanian Parliament adopted with a comfortable majority a resolution allowing for the stationing of US troops in the country. U.S. forces will use “Mihail Kogalniceanu” air base as well as several Romanian training ranges such as: Babadag, Smardan and Cincu. These troop redeployments are a part of the new basing strategy by the Pentagon which will put U.S. forces near to the theatres of operations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and will allow for far more flexible deployments for American troops around the world. The importance of these bases for U.S operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan is revealed by the forward operating bases status given to them by the Pentagon.
A new divisive issue between Russia and NATO has come to the fore: the deployment and development of ballistic missile defenses in Europe by the United States in Central Europe.
The debate regarding missile defense is not new. It dates back to the Cold War when the United States used the Strategic Defense Initiative, colloquially known as Star Wars to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Today however ballistic defenses have returned as an issue of international politics when the United States decided to retreat from ABM treaty signed in 1972 and develop this type of strategic defense in order to protect itself from countries like Iran and North Korea - the infamous “rogue states” from the “axis of evil”.
Alfred Thayer Mahan argued in his well known work The Influence of Sea Power upon History that control of the seas is important for the security and prosperity of a nation. He also argued that in order for a state to be a considered a great power it must have a powerful navy capable of keeping the sea lanes open and under its control. My article deals with the first assertion made by the famous naval historian and theorist and its relevance for Romania. As to the second assertion this is largely irrelevant to Romania as it is not in a position to be a great power. However it has a degree of relevance when it comes to the praxis of great powers in using sea power in order to achieve various political ends. In this latter case Romania has a lot to learn from great powers, especially because it shares a maritime space with Russia, a former great power with ambitions to become one once again.
Apparently Romania is faced with a stark choice in terms of its foreign and security policies since it has joined the EU: should it continue with a foreign policy that emphasizes a strong atlanticist commitment or should it take a 180 degree turn towards a foreign policy oriented towards the EU?
I will argue that making such a choice now is senseless and that the Romanian government should develop a foreign policy that will emphasize both its strong NATO commitment (especially cultivating a strong relationship with the United States) as well as trying to better coordinate its foreign policy with EU member countries under the framework of the ESDP.
