Europe

Speakers included Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh, professor at the University of Jordan and well-known security and political analyst, and Dr. Edmund Ratka, designated head of the Amman Office of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The discussion was moderated by Wael Abdul-Shafi, EWI MENA program associate.

After several years of crippling economic challenges, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Jordan has become more dependent on foreign aid, with the European Union (EU) as one of its most important donors. Meanwhile,  Jordan’s traditional regional alliances are changing dramatically, shifting the political environment’s perception of threat towards both its neighbors as well as international partners. Within this framework, the briefing focussed on Jordan’s role in the region and how this reflects on its relationship with the EU. 

The discussion began with participants emphasizing that Jordan—due to its relative stability, strategic geopolitical position and moderat politics—has often been seen by the international community as a mediary for furthering relations and cooperation in the Middle East. To this end, one speaker aptly asserted that as a small country, Jordan's strategic role lies in “power of policy rather than in policy of power”; thus, Jordan has the potential to become a hub for regional dialogue. The speakers remarked that the EU, as well as individual European countries, have long considered Jordan a key partner in the Middle East. 

One speaker pointed out that because the EU prioritizes Israel’s security and is aware that there cannot be a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without Jordan, it continues to invest in Jordan’s stability. The discussants also emphasized that the EU considers Jordan an important partner, not only when it comes to cooperation on key issues such as the refugee crisis and military operations against ISIS, but also in Amman’s role as a focal point for international organizations working on the Middle East at large. 

However, one speaker observed that as regional alliances are changing, Jordan is presented with a challenging moment in its foreign policy. With a direct connection to the Gulf and Israel, and the growing potential for Iraq to emerge as a hub for regional connectivity and cooperation, Jordan risks exclusion from international efforts, including on the Palestinian issue. Augmenting this point, one speaker raised Jordan’s lack of balanced relations with its direct neighbors, specifically conflict-ridden Syria, as well as Iraq. Another participant noted that in the past several years, Jordan’s relations with Israel have deteriorated. 

In light of these developments, one discussant remarked that Jordan should reshape its foreign policy by redefining its relationship with its direct neighbors, such as Syria, Iraq and Israel, as well as the wider region, including a rapprochement with Gulf countries and renewed relations with Iran. As one speaker elaborated, having a Hashemite King who is neither Shiite nor Sunni can be an asset in developing relations with Iran. 

Concrete examples of cross-border cooperation mentioned during the briefing included Jordan’s assistance in developing regional railways, energy projects and ports. Jordan can also reactivate the Port of Aqaba  to support  Saudi Arabia’s plans to build NEOM, a cross-border city in the Tabuk Province that would combine smart city technologies and tourism. Furthermore, Jordan could also provide aid to its neighbors in coping with the COVID-19 pandemic. As one speaker noted, this would further secure continued EU interest in and financial support of Jordan. 

The discussants emphasized that the EU should not take Jordan’s stability for granted, given the multiplicity of conflicts in Jordan’s immediate neighborhood. The speakers suggested that the EU should engage Jordan as a partner in its regional diplomatic efforts. Furthermore, one speaker pointed to the role the EU could play in deterring and discouraging external actors from pushing Jordan to take sides in ongoing regional conflicts. Jordan truly has the potential to connect the entire region. As the briefing concluded, it is in the strategic interest of the EU to assist Jordan in becoming a “kitchen of solutions for the conflicts of the region.” 

About the Brussels MENA Briefings

The Brussels MENA Briefings are in-depth round-table discussions on topics of current significance in the MENA region hosted by EWI and CARPO bimonthly, the first week of every second month. As in-person-briefings are impossible due to COVID-19, EWI and CARPO have temporarily turned this series into a monthly webinar. Please note that attendance is by invitation only.

Should you be interested in being considered for the invitation list, kindly send an email to Desirée Custers mentioning your name, affiliation and geographical or thematic area of interest and expertise in the Middle East.

Dates for upcoming Brussels MENA Briefings:

Tuesday October 6, 2020: “The Economic Dimensions of the Conflict in Yemen”

Links to Reports of Previous Briefings:

How to Rescue Sudan’s Transition Process?

A New Iraqi Government in Place: Challenges and Opportunities for Iraq in its Neighborhood

The Status Quo of the Libyan Conflict: Is the Berlin Process Obsolete? 

Post-Sultan Qaboos Oman: Transition Opportunities and Challenges

Iran After Parliamentary Elections

The webinar hosted 150 attendees and 20 speakers, including Miroslav Lajcak, chief EU negotiator for the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue; Mathew Palmer, State Department Special Envoy for the Balkans; Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger; Dr. Michael Carpenter, managing director of the Penn Biden Center; Ambassador Cameron Munter; and many other experts and diplomats.

In a lively discussion, the speakers employed cautious optimism, exchanging views on the current status of the Kosovo-Serbia negotiations, as well as the troubling state of relations between the EU and the U.S. All participants argued that dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo has no alternative, and should resume as soon as possible under EU leadership, in partnership with the U.S. The panelists also unanimously agreed that the Euro-Atlantic partnership, being the key historical geopolitical alliance "which ended World War II," needs to be once again strengthened.

Following the event, multiple media reports and analyses appeared in print and electronic media across the Balkans. Numerous comments submitted to organizers after the event emphasized that continued efforts through the Balkan Dialogues will have a crucial role for the success of Serbia-Kosovo negotiations in the months to come.

The next session is slated to take place by the end of September, with several smaller discussions focused on individual elements of key importance for the sustainable agreement, organized in the meantime.

EastWest Institute has launched the Balkan Dialogues initiative in response to the urgent need for inclusive and open, high-level dialogue concerning pressing security challenges threatening the Western Balkans, aiming to increase and deepen understanding and build trust between representatives of the various geopolitical interests present in the region today. For more information on the initiative, please click here.

Media coverage from the event:

Радио Телевизија Србије (in Serbian)

Kosovo Online (in Serbian)

B92.net (in Serbian)

N1 TV (in Serbian)

The “Balkan Dialogues Security Roundtable” attracted an unprecedented number of high-level participants, more than any other side-event during the three-day conference. Although envisioned originally as a closed session between Balkans representatives—along with several representatives from the EU and the U.S.—the event quickly attracted outside interest.

Key delegates in this lively, occasionally charged, discussion included the following: Carl Bildt; former prime minister of Sweden; Boyko Borisov, prime minister of Bulgaria; Miroslav Cerar, deputy prime minister of Slovenia; Milo Djukanovic, president of Montenegro; Albin Kurti, prime minister of Kosovo; Stevo Penderovski, president of North Macedonia; Edi Rama, prime minister of Albania; Marjan Sarec, president of Slovenia; Hashim Thaci, president of Kosovo; Aleksandar Vucic, president of Serbia; and Ekaterina Zaharieva, deputy prime minister of Bulgaria. Other featured participants include Josep Borrell, EU high representative for foreign policy; Andreas Michaelis, state secretary of Germany; Phillip Reeker, assistant secretary of state at the U.S. State Department; Thomas Greminger, secretary general of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE); as well as seven ministers of foreign affairs and defense, several ambassadors—including Wolfgang Ischinger and Frank Wisner—American political scientist Professor Francis Fukuyama and Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The event took place during a “delicate moment” as two Balkan countries, North Macedonia and Albania, nervously awaited the EU Commission’s decision on a starting date for the accession process to the enter the EU. The positive messages delivered by French President Emanuel Macron at the conference, following EWI’s event, were perceived by many as a breakthrough moment for the entire region—Macron’s remarks encouraged a positive image of the EU, while inspiring much-needed political reforms throughout the Balkan region. These issues, at the top of the Balkan Dialogues agenda, demonstrate the necessity for continued efforts on two further, critical concerns for the region: reaching a Serbia-Kosovo agreement and preventing a re-emergence of conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Additionally, the “Balkan Dialogues Security Roundtable” represented the first occasion for Serbian President Vucic and newly-elected Kosovar Prime Minister Kurti to meet publicly. As expected, tensions ran high as each leader presented contrasting views on the optimal path forward for Kosovo-Serbia dialogue.

Given the visibility and reputation of the MSC conference and the level of interest for the Balkan Dialogues event, this session marked an important milestone for EWI’s ongoing efforts in the Balkans.

New technologies are influencing not only international politics and the global economy, but also the strategies and operational toolkits of state and non-state actors alike. Disruptive innovations are creating new threats, as well as opportunities for peace operations and humanitarian missions, and have complex implications for security and stability in and around Europe. Technology-driven advances create the need to adapt to challenges and new rules of engagement on land, in the air, at sea and in cyberspace. This topic is already widely-discussed in the international security policy debate. However, one area that has not been addressed significantly is the question as to whether new technologies can contribute to improve the ability and impact of European states and the EU to operate in situations of conflict and fragility.

The link between armed conflicts, peace operations and new technologies

Armed conflicts have been influenced both by the proliferation of technologies and their increasing availability to irregular armed groups. Such groups can now obtain know-how and hi-tech weapons in a relatively uncontrolled manner by, for example, making use of “civil war economies” (according to Conrad Schetter, this has been the case in Afghanistan). Militias have gained strength by using digital recruitment tools to attract fighters in internationalized armed conflicts (in particular, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Iraq and Libya). In addition, new technologies can increase the probability of conflict spillovers into neighboring states, as has been observed in Syria and Lebanon. Digital dissemination of false narratives may generate unintended effects that can escalate conflicts and endanger missions where there are substantial European troop deployments (for example, MINUSMA in Mali).

On the other hand, peace support operations increasingly rely on advanced technological solutions that may differ from those used by armed forces operating in their homelands. This includes new information and communication technologies (for example, cloud computing for military networks), innovations in areas such as command and control (navigation warfare and geo-operations), mobility (autonomous vehicles, drones) or logistics (energy storage, 3D printing).

There is no “European approach” to international crisis management

European states are becoming increasingly reluctant to supply troops to missions in high-intensity conflicts, a key example being the reticence surrounding MONUSCO in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As such, it is unsurprising that new technologies for force protection and safeguarding of civilians in hot spots with European contributions are becoming important; for example, mine-clearing robotic systems in the Western Balkans (KFOR, EUFOR Althea with substantial Austrian presence) are gaining relevance, yet, they have not been harnessed to their full potential.

European troop contributions are relatively small, though some states provide more “technologized” troops—like Austria‘s logistics contingent at UNIFIL in Lebanon—as well as military assistance, such as training and advising Malian forces in EUTM Mali. According to Joachim Klerx, the increasing “digitalization of peace operations” creates opportunities for strategic interaction (for instance with the local population), but also renders peace support activities more vulnerable to hacking, malware or other methods of information warfare.

New technologies are increasingly shaping the peace and conflict agendas

Global navigation satellite systems (GNSS)—such as Galileo, GPS, GLONASS or BeiDou—are both instruments of and subjects to a broader navigation warfare. These systems can support the mission command and enhance situational awareness but are also subject to attacks, since most of the satellite signals are unprotected.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies can support Big Data management, media monitoring and intelligence to inform better decision-making in missions. However, adversaries can make use of AI for disinformation campaigns, deepfake videos or GNSS jamming and spoofing. Missions will have to adapt to respond to this threat, in particular, by protecting their navigation systems.

Some missions, like the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, have become increasingly dependent on drones to control and monitor the area of operation. Effective use of unmanned aerial vehicles to collect information and evidence on security-related issues ensure successful mandate implementation and attract political attention. Therefore, drones are enhancing the legitimacy of the mission. This could also be the case in a prospective UN-mandated mission in Syria.

It is a myth that new technologies are decisive to improve the output and impact of missions

The relevance of new technologies for peace support is increasing as GNSS, drones, geo-information systems or social media offer multiple benefits to operations. However, it is likely that threats to UN, EU, NATO and OSCE missions currently outpace the benefits of new technologies. The decisive factor is the access to technologies and expertise, which has become easier for adversaries to obtain. Cyber attacks increasingly target missions; for example, the loss of a drone in combat or peace operations means the loss of crypto-algorithms (as was the case in Ukraine, Libya and Yemen).

New technologies can be a game-changer for future peace operations, but strategic oversight is needed to make full use of them in the field of leadership, information, mobility, protection and sustainability. The priority should be given to the most functional and time-proven technological solution. In the age of Big Data, new technologies can help to quantify risks and probability of conflict escalation and enhance early warning systems for fast response. Cross-domain expertise is crucial to institutionalize a comprehensive, situational awareness center for international crises with inputs from all “whole-of-nation-approach” stakeholders in Europe.

However, many European armed forces lack the necessary resources to invest strategically in new technologies to fulfil peace support ambitions and obligations. More collaboration and a focus on research and development, increased civil-military research cooperation, pooled funding and private-public partnerships in the field of technology may help solve this dilemma. There is no doubt that a broad spectrum of military and civilian capabilities is required to increase the impact of European contributions to international peace support and conflict management. Smart technologies are a viable part of this spectrum.

Dr. Markus Gauster is a senior researcher at the Institute for Peace Support and Conflict Management (IFK) of the National Defence Academy in Vienna, Austria. This article draws from his recently published paper in IFK Monitor International: "New technologies – new impacts on international missions of Austria?" Click here to read the article.

The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EastWest Institute

On June 4-5, 2019, the EastWest Institute (EWI) convened the fourth meeting of the Joint U.S.-Russia Working Group on Counterterrorism in Afghanistan in Vienna, Austria. Against a backdrop of dynamic changes in Afghanistan, American and Russian experts came together to assess major developments in the bilateral relationship, as well as the current security and political situation in Afghanistan, and consider the implications for joint counterterrorism efforts going forward.

Specific topics discussed also included border management concerns; methods of terrorism recruitment and the process by which radicalization takes place; and the role of economic development in contributing to a safe and stable Afghanistan. In the framework of the meeting, Ambassador Thomas Greminger, Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), addressed the Working Group, speaking on regional approaches to counterterrorism in Central Asia and Afghanistan. Representatives from the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the International Organizations in Vienna and the National Defence Academy’s Institute for Peace Support and Conflict Management were also present to share their perspectives.

Since 2017, the Working Group has aimed to generate positive momentum in the U.S.-Russia relationship and drive much-needed dialogue, specifically with respect to counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan.

Supported by Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Working Group previously convened in Moscow, Washington, D.C. and Brussels. These deliberations laid the foundation for the Working Group’s forthcoming report, a joint threat assessment, which will provide policymakers with an independent, up-to-date assessment of the terrorist threat in Afghanistan and serve as the basis for future counterterrorism cooperation. The report is expected to be released in Fall 2019.

Click here to read Ambassador Greminger's opening remarks.

Image Credit: Anna Renard-Koktysh

The Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace will hold its third meeting of 2019 in The Hague, the Netherlands, on June 16-17. The Commission meeting will take place prior to EuroDIG, being held at the World Forum in The Hague from June 19-20.

The Commission will convene in closed sessions on Sunday June 16 and Monday June 17. The GCSC meeting represents another opportunity for the Commission to discuss its proposals, to be included in the GCSC report due by the end of 2019. The conversations in The Hague will be focused on further defining the key components of the cyberstability framework, including underlying principles aimed at supporting international efforts to advance peace and security in cyberspace.

The GCSC will help kick off the EuroDIG conference by holding a Zero-Day event  on Tuesday June 18 from 14:30-16:00 (Pre 07: “Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace – Towards a Cyberstability Framework). The GCSC is focused on bringing in voices and expertise from the Internet governance, civil rights and technical communities to the traditionally state-led discussions on international peace and security. During this Zero-Day event it looks forward to engaging with the Internet governance community at EuroDIG, shedding further light on how it intends to address gaps in the international cybersecurity architecture and sharing ideas with the participants, soliciting feedback on its proposals and recommendations.

For more information on the GCSC Zero-Day event at EuroDIG on June 18, please follow this link.

For more information on the EuroDIG conference, please follow this link.

The chosen topic encapsulates well how much the international landscape has changed with Trump’s presidency and the perceived decline of American power, and the reality of China’s steady emergence as a global power in competition with the US. It also conveys that Europe should now be seen as a swing entity and not an independent power center.

That the new battleground could conceivably be China-Europe vs. America-Europe implies that Europe-US differences are becoming fundamental, that the Trump phenomenon constitutes a longer-term transformation of America and not an aberration that could pass with a change in the US presidency, and hence, Europe’s need to leverage China to counter American excesses.

This is a debatable visualization of the future. America and Europe are transatlantic allies. While Trump has questioned NATO’s relevance and bullied Europe on defense budgets, NATO is apparently functioning normally. NATO counters Russia, but with strengthening Russia-China strategic ties and America intent on curbing China’s power, a China-Europe tandem against America would put the transatlantic alliance in jeopardy, an eventuality for which Europe is unprepared.

Click here to read the full article on Metro UN (paywall).