Search

Begin New Search Topic International Relations Publication Year within 5 Years Publication Year within 25 Years Publication Year within 10 Years

461. The New British Colonialism: British Policy of Influence in the Arab Gulf States after the Withdrawal (1971-1991)

Author:
Selin M. Bolme and Mevlut Cavusoglu
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:
This paper aims to analyze Britain’s relations with the former colonies in the Gulf after the termination of the British protectorate in the Persian Gulf and discuss how the British colonial ties influenced the post-colonial relations with the Arab Gulf States. Archive documents, official papers and secondary sources were used in order to determine and compare the relations in pre/post withdrawal periods and the results were analyzed in frame of the Post-colonial theory. The main argument of this study is that the British colonial relations and ties, which had been constructed in political, military, economic and institutional spheres in the colonial era, were significant determinants in reshaping the new British foreign policy towards the Arab Gulf States. Britain, who successfully adopted the colonial relations in the new term, managed to preserve its interests after the withdrawal and even extended some of them in certain fields such as the oil sector.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, History, and Colonialism
Political Geography:
Britain, Europe, and Persian Gulf

462. China, Africa and the WHO : a challenge for post covid19 multilateralism

Author:
Valerie Niquet
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Japan Institute Of International Affairs (JIIA)
Abstract:
China plays a significant role in Africa, particularly in Ethiopia, where the current Director-General of the WHO was Minister of Health and then Minister of Foreign Affairs. This opaque influence and the support given by Beijing to Dr. Tedros seems to have weighed on the positions taken by the WHO in the face of the Covid 19 crisis. The consequences of these decisions are now being felt worldwide and contribute to undermining the credibility of a fragile multilateral system.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, United Nations, World Health Organization, Multilateralism, Soft Power, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Africa, China, and Asia

463. THE HISTORY OF BRICS’ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (2009-2019): DISCOURSES, INNOVATION AND SENSITIVITIES

Author:
Thiago Gehre
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Institution:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Abstract:
The BRICS is a group of countries formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa that began to operate formally in 2009 as a legitimate, efficient and durable agent of governance in the world order (ACHARYA 2016: 1-27). Scholars all over the world –many of them cited here in this article –have painted the image of the BRICS as an ‘economic colossus’, assuming an underdeveloped intra-bloc cooperation restricted to economic issues. Nonetheless, from an economic starting point, the BRICS has evolved in the last years expanding its cooperation capabilities to a huge array of issues that encapsulates innovation and sensitivity.
Topic:
International Relations, International Affairs, Geopolitics, and Innovation
Political Geography:
Russia, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil

464. Beyond International Relations Theory

Author:
William Smith
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Humanitas
Institution:
The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
Abstract:
Theories of American foreign policy are somewhat arbitrarily divided into two opposing camps: idealism and realism. Idealism involves constructing a world we hope would exist, such as freedom and democracy sweeping the globe, and then recommending foreign policy prescriptions based on this imaginary world. While realism is more firmly grounded in the world as it actually exists, it can suffer from a form of nihilism, sometimes positing that foreign policy is exclusively found in the domain of power politics and does not involve morality. The great Harvard professor Irving Babbitt refused to concede that these two lenses were the only way to view world affairs. As a fierce critic of the Romantic movement, Babbitt was particularly alarmed by the tendency of Western leaders to offer policies that were based on chimeras conjured up in their idealistic imaginations. Babbitt refused to accept an amoral realism, however, because he believed that sound statesmanship was determined by the character of statesmen and that the choices they made would not simply be matters of prudence but also a matter of character. Power may be the operative principle…
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Hegemony, Leadership, and Ideology
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

465. Israel-Africa Relations: What Can We Learn from the Netanyahu Decade?

Author:
Benjamin Augé
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
Since he came to power in 2009, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not made Israeli-African relations a priority in his foreign policy. After they broke off diplomatic relations with Israel following the Yom Kippur War in 1973, most African states – besides Malawi, South Africa (apart from between 1975 and 1979), Swaziland and Lesotho – finally resumed relations with the Jewish state during the 1980s and 1990s and more recently for some others. The resumption of diplomatic ties was gradual, as peace efforts were initiated regarding Palestine. Israel now enjoys diplomatic relations with more than 40 sub-Saharan African states, but only has 12 embassies throughout the entire continent, including in Cairo. The last ones to be opened were in Kigali (Rwanda) in 2019 and Accra (Ghana) in 2011. The Israeli government today views Africa either as a longstanding sphere of influence (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Cameroon, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Uganda and for the last two decades Rwanda) that needs to be strengthened, or as a new sphere of influence to be developed (the Sahel countries, central Africa, etc.) These relations operate through various conventional channels, including some that have been significantly weakened by Benjamin Netanyahu when he was Israeli prime minister between 1996 and 1999 and since 2009. This is particularly true for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its counterpart, Mashav, responsible for development cooperation. However, the security and intelligence sectors (Mossad), controlled by the Prime Minister’s Office, are strong drivers of Israeli foreign policy, hence Benjamin Netanyahu’s dominance over foreign affairs in general, and Africa in particular. The objective of this paper is to explain how political, economic and security relationships between Africa and Israel have developed in practice during the decade 2009-2020. The aim here is to go beyond a mere account of the history of these relationships. Since 2009, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – still in power at the time of writing – has frequently talked about his country’s return to the African stage, without necessarily providing his government with the financial resources to achieve this.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, International Affairs, and Benjamin Netanyahu
Political Geography:
Africa, Middle East, and Israel

466. Ukraine’s European Integration: The Russian Factor

Author:
Hanna Pashkova and Halyna Balanovych
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
National Security and Defence
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
The pace and effectiveness of Kyiv’s European integration course depends on many internal and external factors. The key ones being the political will of Ukrainian government, ability to implement and dedication to real pro-European changes in the country that would be tangible for Ukrainian citizens. This is the internal factor that is the main issue on the path to integration into the European community. That being said, European integration is a two-way street. The quality and level of Kyiv-Brussels relations to a great extent depend on the position and engagement of the European side, including EU’s internal processes and trends, which are rather complex, controversial and sometimes centrifugal in their nature at the moment. We are talking about an increased sentiment of restoring partnerships with Russia in the “business as usual” format inside the EU’s business and political circles. Russian hybrid aggression is a dangerous factor. For the Russian leadership that views post-Soviet countries as its zone of “privileged” interest, an independent Ukraine headed towards Europe and NATO is both a challenge and a threat. Firstly, Kyiv’s successful European integration is an incentive for other post-Soviet countries to step up, which means a failure for Russia’s plans of “forced” reintegration of Eurasian countries. Secondly, Kyiv achieving success in its European project is a model for Russian citizens and a convincing evidence of the inability of Russia’s authoritarian regime to offer an attractive democratic model of social development. This is why the Russian regime is using all of its available “hybrid warfare” to prevent Ukraine from integrating into Europe – from political and diplomatic pressure, economic blockade, information warfare to military intervention – occupation of Crimea and Donbas. Currently, Ukraine is a training ground and a testing area for Russia’s massive purposeful expansion into the EU territory. In particular, this includes discrediting the unifying European values and institutions, disorienting public opinion, interfering with elections, formation of pro-Russian lobby within the European establishment, support of radical movements, etc. The goal of this influence is to disintegrate the EU, reform Europe’s political system in line with the Russian scenario. An important factor is the EU member states’, institutions’ and other countries’ assistance and solidarity with Ukraine, as well as sanctions introduced by the West. Regrettably, over the period of almost six years, the sanctions have failed to stop Russia’s war against Ukraine, failed to change the nature of Kremlin’s aggressive foreign policy. Yet it is certainly crucial that the EU and other countries uphold a common course of conduct in regard to Russia, maintain and strengthen the “sanctions frontline”. At the same time, assessing the current confrontation in the notional Ukraine-EU-Russia “triangle”, it is worth noting that these problems have been temporarily overshadowed by the global COVID-19 pandemic. On the one hand, the pandemic has affected internal and external priorities of different countries, has shaken the global economy. On the other – it has “hit the pause button” for Ukraine’s European integration, made adjustments to EU-Ukraine Association Agreement implementation plans. Obviously, the problems that have been temporarily postponed will later resurface again – this time in the new circumstances and in the new form.
Topic:
International Relations, European Union, Conflict, Regional Integration, and Integration
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

467. The Logic of Geopolitics in American-Russian Relations

Author:
Allen C. Lynch
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
One of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s first requests as President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor in 1977 was to ask the Pentagon for its plans – including targets – for nuclear war against “Russia”. Brzezinski was outraged when he was presented with the plan for nuclear war against the Soviet Union. He could not believe that the U.S. military had no plans to spe- cifically weaken the Russian core of the Soviet empire. For the Pentagon planners, Russia and the Soviet Union were one and the same.1 I begin with this anecdote because it reflects well an enduring geopolitical logic to American-Russian relations: American policy toward Russia, whether it be in the Tsarist, Soviet, or post-Soviet period, has not been based on opposing a strong Russian state per se. (That state married to communist ideology was something else altogether.) In the after- math of the Russian Civil War, for instance, the United States delayed recognition of Baltic independence until 1922, two years after Soviet Russia had recognized the independence of Estonia in the Treaty of Tartu, on the grounds that Polish and Finnish independence apart nothing should be done to call into question the territorial continuity of the Russian Em- pire.2 Indeed, American officials seldom viewed the Soviet Union as an empire, as the Pen- tagon war plans just cited illustrate. Historically, the logic of geopolitics i.e., the influence of organization in space on international political relationships has often tended to frame American-Russian relations in terms of complementarities of interest. Of course, geopolitics is not the only logic in AmericanRussian relations; ideology, domestic politics, as well as vested institutional interests all play their role in varying degrees under varying circum- stances. But historically, insofar as geopolitical factors have prevailed, American-Russian relations have generally been harmonious, if also remote and indirect in nature. (By indirect I mean that each sees the other mainly in terms of other powers or processes, e.g., the state of the balance of power in Europe and/or Northeast Asia.) Let us recall that Russia, whether it be under Imperial, Soviet, or post-Soviet auspices, is an essentially continental Eurasian power. Its primary state interest for centuries has been to build and consolidate a trans-continental, multi-national and imperial state while also man- aging international power politics with a series of powerful adversaries throughout Asia and Europe. Above all, Russia sought to ensure that no powerful coalition of external (and in Eu- rope technologically superior) powers could unite to challenge the Russian Empire’s territorial or political integrity. Russian diplomats and rulers thus learned to play the European balance of power with considerable finesse (e.g., the Treaty of Nystadt, 1721, under Peter the Great; the Congress of Vienna, 1815, under Alexander I; the Treaty of Rapallo between Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany, 1922; the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, 1939; the Grand Alliance with the United States and Great Britain, 1941–45; and the Helsinki Final Act, 1975, to name just a few instances). As with Great Britain, maintaining a favorable European balance of power has been central to Russian statecraft.3 The United States, by contrast, is functionally an insular power (albeit on a continental scale) with respect to the rest of the world, surrounded as it is by two great oceans and militarily weak and isolated neighbors (i.e., Canada and Mexico). America’s primary foreign policy concern throughout most of its history has thus been, like Russia’s, to prevent the emergence of a hostile European hegemon that could threaten the country’s expansion in North America and its own hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Once the United States had stabilized its independence from Britain after the War of 1812, U.S. and British geopo- litical interests tended to coincide.4 In this context, American and Russian interests have more often been complementary than antagonistic. It has been primarily the intrusion of ideological elements, reflecting for example Americans’ global democratic aspirations or the Soviet Union’s ultimate objec- tive of the triumph of communism worldwide, that have rendered the bilateral relationship intransigent and even dangerous.5
Topic:
International Relations, Cold War, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Hegemony, Post Cold War, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Soviet Union, North America, and United States of America

468. On the Value of Nuclear Dialogue with China

Author:
David Santoro and Robert Gromoll
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
This paper was written by Dr. David Santoro, Vice President and Director for Nuclear Policy at the Pacific Forum, and Dr. Robert Gromoll, former Director of the Office of Regional Affairs at the US Department of State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; Dr. Gromoll is now retired. Both Drs. Santoro and Gromoll participated in numerous dialogue rounds, and Dr. Santoro was a co-organizer. The paper is based primarily on the contents of the dialogue’s written reports, several of which were authored or co-authored by Dr. Santoro. By and large, the paper draws directly from these reports and reviews how the topics addressed in the dialogue were approached and discussed by the US and Chinese sides over time. (A list of these reports is included at the end of the paper; some have been published, others have not.) The paper is also based on the authors’ broader experience in participating in the Track-1.5 dialogue; the conversations they have had with US and Chinese participants on these issues over the years, both during the dialogue and on the margins; and their own personal research. This paper represents the views of the authors and not those of Pacific Forum or the US State Department.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
China and Asia

469. Armenia's Foreign Policy: Where values meet constraints

Author:
Alexander Iskandaryan
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI)
Abstract:
The official foreign policy doctrine of Armenia is called "complementarism"; the idea at the core of this approach is that various foreign policy dimensions can and should complement each other and need not be perceived as mutually exclusive.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Politics, and Complementarism
Political Geography:
Russia, Caucasus, and Armenia

470. Challenges and Opportunities in US-Taiwan Relations

Author:
Bi-khim Hsiao
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University
Abstract:
On October 6, 2020, newly appointed Representative of the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the United States, Bi-khim Hsiao discussed the challenges and opportunities in US-Taiwan relations with Professor Tom Christensen. Representative Bi-khim Hsiao assumed her position as Taiwan’s Representative to the United States in July 2020, after serving as a Senior Adviser to the President at the National Security Council of Taiwan. Representative Hsiao previously served four terms in the Taiwan Legislature, representing overseas citizens for the first term, and then the constituents of Taipei City and Hualien County through different terms. For many years she was ranking member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and previously the chair of the USA Caucus in the Legislative Yuan. She began her political career serving as Director of the Democratic Progressive Party International Affairs Department. After Taiwan’s first democratic change of government in 2000, she became an Adviser in the Office of the President, and was international spokesperson for all DPP presidential elections between 2000 and 2012. Representative Hsiao has taken on numerous leadership roles in international organizations. She was the Chair of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), an organization representing Asian democratic political parties. Between 2005 and 2012, she was elected Vice President on the Bureau of Liberal International (LI), a London-based global political party organization. She is also a founding Board Member of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. Born in Kobe, Japan, Representative Hsiao grew up in Tainan, a city in southern Taiwan. She has an MA in Political Science from Columbia University in New York and BA in East Asian Studies from Oberlin College, Ohio.
Topic:
International Relations, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

471. At a Crossroads? China-India Nuclear Relations After the Border Clash

Author:
Toby Dalton and Tong Zhao
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
While both countries may think the situation is under control, dismissive attitudes and misperceptions could end up fueling a dangerous competition. On June 15, 2020, a lethal military conflict over disputed territory in the Himalayas shook the edifice of China-India relations. The clash in the Galwan Valley along their shared border is the gravest military confrontation the two nuclear powers have faced in fifty years. This event and ongoing tensions focus attention on the long-standing but tempered competition between China and India. One of the most interesting puzzles of that relationship is why nuclear weapons, which both possess, have not played a more important role. With the potential for a major reset in China-India ties after the Ladakh crisis, are Beijing and New Delhi finally approaching a long-anticipated crossroads in their nuclear relations? The findings reveal that while Indian security analysts give serious attention to China’s nuclear policy and capabilities, Chinese analysts maintain a dismissive attitude about the relevance of nuclear weapons in China-India relations. The attitude stems from a widely held view that India’s indigenous military technologies are significantly behind China’s and that China will continue widening the gulf between the two countries’ conventional and nuclear capabilities. However, Chinese analysts do not appear to fully appreciate the long-term destabilizing implications of this growing gap. India may feel pressure to build out its nuclear arsenal, and this could further threaten the fragile stability between India and Pakistan. Chinese experts tend to underestimate the role Beijing may have in shaping New Delhi’s threat perception and nuclear strategy.
Topic:
International Relations, Nuclear Weapons, Military Affairs, and Borders
Political Geography:
China, South Asia, India, and Asia

472. R2P and the Pluralist Norm-shapers

Author:
Mikelli Marzzini and L.A. Ribeiro
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Contexto Internacional
Institution:
Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Abstract:
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) brought about new challenges for research on norms in International Relations, mainly due to the actions of emerging powers. These states have exhibit- ed complex behaviour towards norms. Rather than classifying them as simple norm-rejecters or norm-takers, current literature on norms in International Relations has classified them as norm- shapers. In their behaviour, emerging powers seek to shape the norm from various angles. In this sense, the need arises to theoretically frame these types of engagement. This essay aims to analyse the action of normative shapers through the lens of the English School of International Relations, combined with constructivism. After presenting the norm-shapers and characterising them theoret- ically, a new concept is introduced, called pluralist norm-shapers.
Topic:
International Relations, Norms, Pluralism, and Emerging Powers
Political Geography:
Global Focus

473. The Fundamental Conceptual Trinity of Cyberspace

Author:
Bruno Pauli Medeiros and Luiz Rogerio Franco Goldoni
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Contexto Internacional
Institution:
Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Abstract:
This article is based on the premise that the increasing human interaction in cyberspace elevates it to the level of a strategic domain and, as such, raises theoretical and practical challeng- es for International Relations. It is founded on an epistemological reflection on the fundamental assumptions of the paradigms that permeate International Relations. The main objective is to con- ceptualise cyberspace as the strategic domain in the 21st century, as well as to develop an analytical framework that will both provide evidence and investigate the resilience of the foundations of cur- rent International Relations, these being specifically, the following precepts: i) sovereignty based on territoriality, ii) state monopoly of power, and iii) accountability between international actors. With this in mind, the approach refers to defence documentation and scientific sources in order to reach a definition that will characterise cyberspace, considering its technical, scientific and strategic aspects. At the same time, the bibliographic work underpins the development of the analytical tool known as the Fundamental Conceptual Trinity of Cyberspace, based on the characteristics of the cyberspace domain: i) deterritoriality, ii) multiplicity of actors, and iii) uncertainty.
Topic:
International Relations, Accountability, Monopoly, Cyberspace, and Territory
Political Geography:
Global Focus

474. Israel and the European Union: Enemies, A Love Story

Author:
David Walzer
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
Israel and the European Union (EU) have built a special, strategic relationship over decades, since the 1960s. Following centuries of war, two world wars, tens of millions dead and destruction across the continent, the EU can be declared as the most successful expression of Europeans’ aspiration for peace and prosperity. With a population of 450 million, the EU is not only Israel’s biggest trade partner, it is also the biggest and most generous aid donor to the Palestinian Authority (PA), without which Israel would be forced to allocate extensive budgetary resources for the PA’s preservation and its commitments. Moreover, a large part of the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora has its roots in Europe. Many Israelis aspire to the continent’s standards of moral and cultural values and to its political systems. At the same time, many in Europe see Israel and the Israelis as members of the European family. Agreements on economic, trade, science, and other matters of vital value to Israel have been signed over the years within the framework of the special relationship that has developed with the EU.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, European Union, Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

475. Israel and the Environment in the Mediterranean Basin

Author:
Mitvim
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
This paper focuses on climate change in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin and the challenges and opportunities which it presents Israel. It is based on the main points raised at the fifth meeting of the research and policy group on “Israel in the Mediterranean” held at the IDC School of Sustainability in Herzliya on February 13, 2020 at the initiative of the Mitvim Institute, the Hebrew University’s Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations and Haifa University’s National Security Studies Center. The paper highlights the vulnerability of the Eastern Mediterranean Basin to the climate change crisis, the key challenges it poses to different aspects of life in the region, as well as the opportunities for Israel and for regional cooperation in tackling it. The paper sums up the discussions and presentations at the meeting and does not reflect agreement among all participants.
Topic:
International Relations, Climate Change, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Economy
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Mediterranean

476. Israel's Relations with Key Arab States in 2019

Author:
Yitzhak Gal, Haim Koren, Moran Zaga, Einat Levi, and Ronen Zeidel
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
Israel-Jordan: Continued Deterioration / Yitzhak Gall Israel-Egypt: Strategic Warming, Civilian Coolness? / Dr. Haim Koren; Israel-UAE: Warming Relations, Also in Civilian Affairs/ Dr. Moran Zaga; Israel-Morocco: Warming from the Bottom Up / Einat Levi; Israel-Iraq: Security Challenges and Civilian Warming / Dr. Ronen Zeidel
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, Public Opinion, and Civilians
Political Geography:
Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Arab Countries, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and UAE

477. Israel’s Relations with the Middle East, Europe and the Mediterranean

Author:
Roee Kibrik, Elie Podeh, Moran Zaga, Maya Sion-Tzidkiyahu, and Gabriel Mitchell
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
The 4th Annual Conference of the Mitvim Institute on Israel's regional foreign policies, Held in cooperation with the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 28 October 2020. Israel’s Relations with the Middle East, Europe and the Mediterranean: Dr. Roee Kibrik, Director of Research at the Mitvim Institute; Prof. Elie Podeh, Board Member at the Mitvim Institute; Dr. Moran Zaga, Policy Fellow at the Mitvim Institute; Dr. Maya Sion Tzidkiyahu, Director of the Program on Israel-Europe Relations at the Mitvim Institute; Gabriel Mitchell, Director of External Relations at the Mitvim Institute.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Mediterranean

478. Israeli Diplomacy in Muslim and Arab States

Author:
Nimrod Goren, Haim Regev, Haim Regev, Ksenia Svetlova, Ehud Eiran, and Yael Ravia Zadok
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mitvim: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies
Abstract:
The 4th Annual Conference of the Mitvim Institute on Israel's regional foreign policies, Held in cooperation with the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 28 October 2020. Israeli Diplomacy in Muslim and Arab States Dr. Nimrod Goren, Head of the Mitvim Institute; Haim Regev, Deputy Director General for Middle East, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Former MK Ksenia Svetlova, Director of the Program on Israel-Middle East Relations at the Mitvim Institute; Dr. Ehud Eiran, Board Member at the Mitvim Institute; Yael Ravia Zadok, Deputy Director General and Head of the Economic Diplomacy Division, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Arab Countries

479. The Implications of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor for Pakistan–European Union Relations

Author:
Agnieszka Nitza-Makowska
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Nowa Polityka Wschodnia
Institution:
Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń
Abstract:
The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) holds the potential to transform Pakistan along with its turbulent regional environment. In the short run, the multiple networks of infrastructure that the project provides will eventually improve Pakistan–European Union (EU) trade. Moreover, while the CPEC is unlikely to bring an immediate strategic shift in the bilateral dialogue, which is particularly lacking in political dynamics, its long-run promises can help to foster such dynamics. The project, if successful, can help Pakistan to establish a peaceful domestic environment and subsequently promote the country’s fresh image to reverse its soft power losses in Europe and beyond. This paper investigates contemporary Pakistan–EU relations, which have so far attracted little attention from international relations scholars. It presents the bilateral dynamics in the context of the CPEC, which is an unprecedented investment by China in Pakistan. The paper concludes by shedding light on the differences between China’s and the EU’s strategies vis-à-vis Pakistan. Despite the fact that the study focuses on one particular South Asian state, it can serve as a case study for the comparative analysis of China’s and the EU’s presence in third countries, especially those that, like Pakistan, have joined the Belt and Road Initiative.
Topic:
International Relations, Economics, European Union, and Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
Political Geography:
Pakistan, China, Europe, South Asia, and Asia

480. Ukraine’s Response to the Political Crisis in Belarus

Author:
Maciej Zaniewicz
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Alexander Lukashenka has so far been seen in Ukraine as a guarantor of Belarus’ independence from Russia. Therefore, the Ukrainian authorities initially avoided condemning the electoral fraud to avoid weakening the Belarusian president. That have since tightened their positions in response to Lukashenka’s accusation that Ukraine helped initiate the protests. However, Ukraine will not become actively involved in resolving the crisis in Belarus and will limit itself to reacting to Belarusian provocations and supporting EU policy towards that country.
Topic:
International Relations, Crisis Management, and Political Crisis
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, and Belarus