The day that I came to know that Kenya is going to be my county of residence for the next foreseeable future, a plethora of feelings hit me: pleased and terrified. Pleased, since living overseas is in my bucket list but at the same time I am terrified due to the fact that things will change as I will be dragged away from my comfort zone I called home. Am I strong enough to leave my family behind? Believe me, this question lingered around long enough without any realized answer.
The reality remains, leaving my baggage behind is the sacrifice I need to take as I take this leap of faith.
Fast forward to almost three years of living in Kenya, surprisingly, I came to realize that this momentous change brought with it a new perspective on life and along with it comes a valuable lesson.
The biggest benefactor in this social endeavor I put myself in, is my family. I was raised in a family steeped in traditional eastern values: no shoes in the house, eat with your bare hands, daily diet of chili sauce and thick chili paste, among others. My current reality permits my children to be raised in a global setting, where cultural appreciation is celebrated monthly, be it at school, in the community we live in, and at the various diplomatic gatherings they are invited to.
Little did I know, the global setting my children are exposed to, cultivate their own cultural identity. Surprisingly, these early exposures for cultural appreciation create a conducive environment or my children to be acclimated to our own customs and traditional practices.
My biggest baggage I left home is my career. I was a trained educator, with the freedom to set my own curriculum in my class, was also responsible to lead a team of fellow educators with the task to make education fun for eager learners. That all changed when I was told I would be a travelling spouse for the next foreseeable future. But as an educator, I stick with the mantra that all educators were trained to repeat, “education never really stops, it evolves”. My present reality could not be more relevant to my training. If before I was trained to educate others, now it is my turn to educate myself. Un-learning what you knew, and re-learn new skills indeed filled my time as a travelling spouse.
Truly, as a travelling spouse leaving your baggages behind is a norm, and acquiring new set of skills is a must. But one aspect that must never be left behind and holding on to for as long as possible is one’s identity. Be proud of your traditional heritage, be noble in projecting your national image, and forever be humbled in the world of diplomacy.
Today at a broader diplomatic and strategic level, the BRI has become a symbol of China’s growing importance in international affairs, changing regional dynamics in geographical areas close to or even within Europe. At the most basic level, the strategic implications of expanding China’s policy in the EU stem not so much from a set of projects with a single link, but from its comprehensive nature.
China-related initiatives, such as the AIIB and the BRI, – it is ample clear – have already changed the global financial development landscape. Similarly, in the sphere of security relations, there is a need to protect assets and citizens abroad leading to the “securitization” of Chinese BRI participation abroad, which is likely to significantly change China’s role in the regions of European interests. Within Europe, and in conjunction with sub–regional “mini-initiatives” in China, such as CEE 16 + 1, the BRI also contributes to changes in the policy-making landscape in Europe and China.
When analyzing China’s relations with CEE countries in the framework of the BRI initiative, it should be noted that the initiative was put forward with the principle of mutual complementarity of economies, taking into account the differences between China and neighboring countries, as well as taking into account all existing shortcomings in the infrastructure of all prospective participants in this economic project. Such complementarity provides an important basis for long-term business cooperation between China and neighboring countries, and even the creation of the Eurasian Union could not affect the complementarity of the economic systems of China and neighboring countries, because only in the process of joint efforts to create the “Silk Road Economic belt” will it be possible to fully overcome the underdevelopment of infrastructure in this region.
The Chinese government emphasizes that the “One belt, One road” initiative “complements” existing national and European plans (for example, the so-called “Junker plan” or plans promoted by individual EU member States) to develop infrastructure and expand connectivity in Europe and beyond. Most of the ambassadors in European countries note the importance of the BRI and its significance for the development of relations between China and European countries.
Analyzing the role of CEE countries in the implementation of the Chinese “One belt, One road” initiative, it can be noted that the specifics of the region’s countries are the potential for market development and geographical advantages. An important role is played by projects to create continental and Maritime transport routes that can transport goods between China and Europe. In developing cooperation, first of all, it is necessary to focus on market requirements, follow the principle of “first simple – then complex”, avoid political risks, give enterprises a guiding role and take into account the leading role of important projects.
It should also be underlined that in the format of the initiative, there are equal partnerships between all countries, it does not have strict mechanisms, and its structure allows for multi-level, multi-layered cooperation that covers all areas of collaboration, including politics, economy and humanitarian exchanges. This multi-functional format is useful for promoting bilateral relations between China and the CEE countries, and it can also play a stimulating role in the development of China – Europe relations. At the same time , when building ties between within the 16 + 1 format and China – EU cooperation, a number of questions arise that cause concern in the EU government circles about the role played by the PRC in the region.
Today the CEE region is located at the junction of the “Economic Belt of the New Silk Road” and the “Maritime Silk Road of the 21st century”. Both routes connecting the markets of Europe and Asia – sea and land-pass through it; it performs an important function of ensuring the passage of commodity flows. The CEE region has the advantage of location; through it, cargo is sent overland from Western China via Russia or Central Asia to Western Europe. China gains a strategic advantage from redistributing some of its Maritime supplies, reducing the use of the Strait of Malacca. In addition, there are commercial considerations: in terms of time, this overland route speeds up transportation twice as compared to the usual way of delivery by sea with reloading to the railway, and at a price it is much more profitable than air transportation.
The sea route from China to the Greek port of Piraeus for the delivery of goods to the Balkan Peninsula, which lies at the intersection of transit communications in Europe, Asia and Africa, has great prospects. Currently, 80% of cargo from China to Europe goes through the Atlantic ocean to the ports of Northern Europe. The sea route through the Arabian sea and the Suez canal to the Balkans will reduce the transport time by 7 – 10 days: this is the shortest sea route from China to Europe. However, to do this, CEE needs to build transport infrastructure, which the region has a huge need for. This is especially true for the Balkan Peninsula, which has entered a period of stable development after riots and wars that caused serious damage to infrastructure.
The membership of 11 of the 16 CEE countries in the EU is an advantage that provides “system guarantees”. EU members and candidates comply with European laws and standards, which reduces the risks for Chinese investment in infrastructure projects. According to the researcher, continuing economic growth and expanding market demand make the CEE region an ideal “target market”. Thus, political stability has bring results, and in the first decade of the XXI century many Central and Eastern European countries have gone from “transition countries” to European representatives of “new markets”. This is not only a transport corridor on the way to the core of traditional Europe, but also an increasingly important investment and consumer market in itself. It is attractive because the laws there are European, but land and labor are cheaper than in Western Europe.
Based on the analysis of China – CEE relations, it can be seen that cooperation between China, the EU and CEE countries can also contribute to the balanced development of Europe. The bilateral ties between China and CEE for 70 years have laid a solid Foundation for cooperation in the 16 + 1 format. The relationship is now entering a new era of multilateral cooperation that is not focused on a single European sub-region, but reflects Trans-regional characteristics. Thus, when analyzing the relations between China and the countries of the region, we should not limit ourselves to the regional level, but we should go to the Trans-regional and global scale.
For example, the 16 + 1 initiative is an inter-regional cooperation in which China focuses on linking its efforts with those of Europe and considers rail links, ports and foreign direct investment as the basis for ensuring balanced development and social cohesion in European countries. For example, the construction of a railway between Hungary and Serbia was far more important for both countries than obtaining short-term economic benefits. It is part of an Express route connecting land and sea from the port of Piraeus across the Balkan Peninsula to the main corridor in Europe. In the future, the Express route will be extended to cover new areas near the three seas that wash the coasts of the CEE countries.
However, the economic relations between China and the CEE countries are still underdeveloped, – as one of the most influential institutes from Eastern Europe, the Balkan-based IFIMES of Ljubljana constantly argues: “Sino-Balkans relations have a great future due to the fact that China is one of the most important investors in Europe“. Thus, it is worth noting that before the start of cooperation in the 16 + 1 format, Chinese investment and trade were not spatially balanced and were concentrated in the North – Western part of Europe. Due to the poorly developed transport infrastructure, trade between China and the CEE countries was carried out through the ports and railways of Germany, Holland and France.
More importantly, China has begun to develop cooperation with Central and Eastern European countries in the field of innovation. This is a very promising direction. At the summit in Dubrovnik in 2019, China and the CEE countries expressed the idea of building a bridge as a sign of strengthening cooperation between China and the EU, which would reflect the great potential of China and Eastern European countries as partners with the same level of development.
The projects that China is able to offer are thought out comprehensively and can be effectively implemented with the participation of state corporations. They will help countries like Croatia achieve their goals faster and more effectively. In short, the 16 + 1 Initiative will help transform this region from a marginal region of Europe to a link between Europe and China.
Cooperation in the 16 + 1 format is sub-regional in nature, but the PPI will help it become a Trans-regional way of developing connectivity on land, in the air, in the ocean, and on the Internet. Now even North Africa and the middle East can become part of this interface. Its results will be systemic in nature.
The goal of China’s cooperation with Central and Eastern European countries is not to continue to use CEE countries as a trade route, but to combine the industrial development needs of these countries with China’s large production capacity, using the potential of Central and Eastern European countries in the Chinese market. If Chinese products are close to the Central European market, it is necessary to ensure the presence of high-tech products from CEE countries in the Chinese markets.
Cooperation between China and CEE countries should reflect the future development trends. The interface includes not only traditional modes of transport, energy, labor and capital, but also digital infrastructure and data flows based on new technologies. There are huge opportunities for expanding cooperation between China, the 5G industry and service businesses. Cooperation with China is also intended to contribute to the economic revival of the Balkan region, the implementation of Internet and smart city projects. Small countries can play the role of connecting links between China and Europe.
However, despite the positive aspect of the development of relations between China and CEE countries within the framework of the BRI initiative, they also continue to face new challenges and problems.
1. The first challenge is how to balance China and CEE relations with China’s relations with the European Union. China, when developing relations with the CEE countries, now has to think about the concerns of the EU and some Western European countries. They fear that the countries of the Western Balkans that have not yet joined the EU will “choose China and reject the EU”, and the countries that have already joined the EU will “move closer to China and away from Europe”, which will lead to a split in Europe.
2. The second challenge is how long it will be possible to maintain China’s economic advantages and how to make the development of economic cooperation sustainable. Thus, today the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are showing interest in cooperation with China, and after the financial crisis they wanted to get Chinese capital. However, the indispensability of Chinese investment for CEE is not so high. Mutual complementarity in trade and economic cooperation is increasing, but at the stage of the rise of the EU – China proto-languages is also increasing. When the European and American economies recover after the crisis, there is a risk that Chinese investment in CEE will be in a state of fierce competition with investors from Europe and the United States. This is not only a question of the size and volume of investments, but also their competitiveness, degree of interdependence and attractiveness. In trade, the main partner for the CEE countries is Western Europe – their mutual complementarity and mutual dependence is much greater than with China.
3. The third challenge is the asymmetry of the strategic needs of the two sides. There are no historical problems between China and the CEE countries, and there is no serious conflict of interests. Nor do they have a strategic mutual need for each other. Thus, in fact, there is not a single important issue where CEE countries need China’s support (the problem of Kosovo is an exception for China and Serbia).
4. The fourth challenge is the issue of roads safety, caused by the unstable political situation in the Balkans, as well as the Eastern borders of CEE. Also problematic issues include the strained economic relations between the EU and the Russian Federation, which provoke difficulties in transporting goods across the borders of these countries. Central and Eastern European countries are closely monitoring China’s position on this issue. They are concerned about security and are moving closer to NATO, and the growing level of Sino – Russian relations may arouse suspicion in some EU states. In the construction of the “One belt, One road”, any traditional threats, especially security – challenging geopolitical games, can have an impact on the participants. Therefore, China’s reaction to the violation of international norms becomes an important criterion for psychological judgment in the development of CEE countries ‘ relations with China.
Thus, according to the researcher, China, as a towering large state, should pay attention to not taking a position and not making statements that can give rise to security concerns and distrust in the CEE countries.
5. As a fifth challenge, we should point to the problem of the balance of large States and external pressure on the development of China’s relations with CEE. Thus, after the end of the Cold War, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe became truly subjects of international relations with their own interests. The US does not want the deepening of CEE countries ‘ relations with China to harm their strategic interests in Europe. Russia also allegedly fears that China, relying on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, will penetrate to its Western borders and take its place there. Therefore, in some areas and issues, these countries can put pressure on China and the CEE countries.
6. Wasted or misdirected investment should be considered as a threat as well. Thus, South East Europe Transport Observatory (Hereinafter SEETO – Auth. said that the availability of Chinese funding can be an advantage and an opportunity. While the availability of Chinese funding might pose a threat on the EU financial institutions, which would have to compete with Chinese institutions for clients, alternative sources of financing might represent a positive development for the business sector or the countries accessing such sources (see Map 1 below).
Map 1.: China`s 16+1 grouping built around EU`s newer, poorer members
Source:IMF, FT research
7. The EU is also concerned at the potential dominance of rail transit by Chinese parties. The apparent implication was that this would give China market power over the EU’s trade (For example Apple, Boeing, Google and Microsoft all originated in the USA, but this does not mean that the US Government manipulates access to their products to disadvantage the EU.). A large global economy such as China will almost inevitably gain market power through its economic size and its importance as a trading partner.
8. Another challenge can be new Chinese investments in transit countries. Thus, it is suggested that Chinese companies may begin production not only in north – eastern China but also in transit countries such as Kazakhstan and Russia. This would make EU consumers more accessible to Chinese industry without making Chinese consumers more accessible to EU industry. Nonetheless, consumers in the EU would in principle benefit from wider choice or lower costs. The extent of this effect would, however, depend on the extent to which transit countries, or China itself, were open to inward investment from the EU.
9. Also there is a risk for the EU to ensure that transport infrastructure being developed not only in China but also elsewhere in Asia would meet the EU’s needs. At the same time, a supplier of rail services outside the EU suggested that the focus of the TEN-T has been building the single market, and that it has not been sufficiently outward-looking.
Thus there is an urgent need to upgrade the rail infrastructure in Belarus and Ukraine, which caters for transit traffic to and from the EU. And also conflicting views appeared on whether and how Chinese parties, and particularly contractors, would adapt to, and comply with, EU standards in areas such as construction.
A related concern was that weak legislation in rail transit countries might permit environmental damage. The EU cannot impose higher standards on the construction or operation of railways in non-EU states such as Russia and Kazakhstan. There are, however, a number of mechanisms by which the EU can encourage higher standards:
-through the terms and conditions of EU involvement in financing or supporting infrastructure projects;
-through the supply of products compliant with (high) EU environmental standards; and
-through operating, or encouraging other parties to operate, through rail services using locomotives and other equipment with a high environmental performance.
An institutional stakeholder made the point that EU standards could always be imposed and, in principle, enforced if a project was funded by the EU, but that this was less likely to be possible if the same project was funded by China.
10. One the the challenges, which causes the emergence of many contradictory and negative opinions about the Chinese initiative in European political and business circles is primarily due to Europe’s low awareness of the project, its main goals and structure. Thus, analysis found the the BRI is generally positively perceived, but differences are marked at the country level with some countries having negative perceptions.
Figure 1.: Media sentiment for most positive countries Figure 2.: Media sentiment for most negative countries
Figure 1 and Figure 2 above further report the countries with the most positive and negative sentiments towards the BRI. The first impression is that Europe and Asia both extremes of positivity and negativity. That means China`s initiative has particularly penetrated the two regions, but is evaluated very differently by different countries and regions.
Within Europe, BRI members tend to have a much worse view of China`s initiative (especially Bosnia and by Poland), compared to others, especially the Netherlands. Thus, China does not seem to be necessarily improving its image through efforts made under the auspices of the BRI projects or, at least, not when the way it is perceived in non-BRI countries. It is increasingly perceived by many on both sides of Atlantic as “opaque, imitative, assertive and ‘suddenly’ omnipresent” – as prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic detailed in his luminary work ‘The post-C-19 epilogue of Sino-American relationship’.
Thus, as a result of the analysis of China – CEE relations in the framework of the BRI project, it can be concluded that there are both positive trends and possible challenges in China – CEE relations and their role in China’s relations with the EU.
While the specific impact of the “integrity” of the BRI on European territory is still limited, new transport corridors are already emerging, and their frequency of use is growing rapidly. One is a rail link between China and Western Europe via Poland to Germany and beyond; the other is a North – North corridor between Greece and the Baltic region through Central Europe, and Piraeus as a fast–growing center in the Mediterranean, and actors in Italy are involved in expanding their profile as part of an expanding South – North logistics network. At the same time, cooperation with third countries (Ukraine, Russia, Belarus) remains at very early stages, as the degree of readiness of European companies to participate in Chinese-led infrastructure projects outside Europe remains unclear.
About the author:
Smotrytska Maria is a Senior research Sinologist, specialized in the Investment policy of China; BRI-related initiatives; Sino – European ties, etc. Distinguished member of the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists. PhD in International politics, Cental China Normal University (Wuhan, Hubei province, PR China)
Early summer days of 2020 in Vienna sow marking the anniversary of Nuremberg Trials with the conference “From the Victory Day to Corona Disarray: 75 years of Europe’s Collective Security and Human Rights System – Legacy of Antifascism for the Common Pan-European Future”. This was the first public and probably the largest conference in Europe past the early spring lockdown. It gathered numerous speakers and audience physically in the venue while many others attended online.
The conference was organised by four partners; the International Institute IFIMES, Media Platform Modern Diplomacy, Academic Journal European Perspectives, and Action Platform Culture for Peace, with the support of the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna that hosted the event in a prestigious historical setting.
Media partners were diplomatic magazines of several countries, and the academic partners included over 25 universities from all 5 continents, numerous institutes and 2 international organisations. A day-long event was also Live-streamed, that enabled audiences from Chile to Far East and from Canada to Australia to be engaged with panellists in the plenary and via zoom. (the entire conference proceedings are available: https://www.facebook.com/DiplomaticAcademyVienna )
Among 20-some speakers from Canada to Australia, talking in three event’s panels was also the well know author and Human Rights activist Dr. Lizzie O’Shea. This text is a brief reference on her highly anticipated and absorbing speech prepared exclusively for this conference.
Some argue that with the advent of the numeric age, privacy is dead and the sooner we accept it; the sooner we can all move past our frivolous concerns of personal data misuses and what is really just a reluctance on our part to change. As such, privacy decline and the related loss of control would merely constitute an inevitable consequence of the world’s digitalization.
Others seem to think that Europe is at the forefront of the fight to preserve its constituents’ privacy – GDPR, after all, is proof of that. Moreover, article 8 of the ECHR combined with the Court’s evolutionary jurisprudence on the topic are robust safeguards in place ensuring that people’s privacy remains bulletproof and a top priority.
While it is true that on the outset Europe has been conceived as a ‘leader’ for its – at the time undoubtedly ground-breaking – Data Protection Regulation Act and other national initiatives stemming from the consolidated efforts of EU institutions, such a crucial multi-dimensional and far-reaching right as privacy requires more steps from each governments, we argue here.
First, in our ever-fast-changing digital world, where privacy is threatened in more ways than we could predict, it is the States’ place to be in the first line of defence: they shall be accountable and actively responsible for the protection – or lack thereof – of their citizens’ privacy. Indeed, State obligations remains unchanged, that is to respect, protect and fulfil. Needless to say, the heavy and complex task of defending the integrity of one’s privacy, surely, cannot simply fall onto each and every individual’s shoulders.
That being said, if and when governments decide to get more involved and concerned with overall privacy challenges we face, a risk of considerable concentration of power arises and ought to be managed as well.
Lizzie O’Shea, Human Rights lawyer and writer, effectively underlines some of the shortcomings of the current EU approach to privacy in her intervention during the Vienna Diplomatic Conference of July 2020. More precisely, she hints at the dangers of the current power balance being held by Governments and the absence of a corresponding amount of accountability. She suggests that it reflects an overwhelming trust of the people in their State leading to an erosion of any culture of criticism. This phenomenon of “complacency”, as O’Sheal phrases it, whilst seemingly perhaps counter-intuitive, is not in fact desirable. Criticism of one’s own government policies and, thereby entertaining public debates on State strategies, is an essential component of militant democracies and vital contribution to checks and balances.
Even more pressing, another consequence derived from the current European States’ penchant for power monopoly in deciding privacy management is the wide door opened to state surveillance and abuses. Let us be clear: GDPR is of no help in terms of citizens’ safeguards against governmental intrusions in privacy and abusive use of personal data. This is why it is time to remind ourselves that protection of our fundamental right to privacy ought to be guaranteed against businesses, other private parties, and State actions.
Another criticism that aims to be constructive for the further shaping of our European approach to privacy is the common restricted conception of privacy as a B2C relationship. The GDPR’s architecture revolves around the assumption that privacy issues solely regard individual rights, individual situations, and individual informed consent. There is no acknowledgment of, or infrastructures related to, any type of collective dimension. And while there is no question that individual, case-by-case informed consent represents a corner-stone in privacy protection policies, it is also insufficient in view of the overall goal that is to build a global online community that respects privacy in its fullest form.
So how can we truly be content with an individualistic-only, corporates are the villains-only plan to counter and mitigate the multiplying threats to our wholesome privacies? Perhaps this will serve as food for thoughts and refuel some welcome public debate on the matter.
About the Author:
Nora Wolf
Nora Wolf, of the Kingston and of University of Geneva is a Swiss-based International Politics & Economics specialist. Her expertise includes Human Rights, Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law in an inter-disciplinary fashion for the EU and the UN-related thinktanks and FORAs.
On 26 June 1963, the then-President of the United States John F. Kennedy delivered his famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, underlining the support of the Free World for West Berlin and West Germany.
47 years later, the Special Procedure 50 of the UN Human Rights Council has issued a statement denouncing Beijing’s repression of Tibet and Hong Kong. The statement came just before the National Security Law in Hong Kong was approved by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.
The Pearl of the Orient has suddenly earned a new name, as the “West Berlin” of the New Cold War.
However, unlike in West Berlin, Beijing did not build a wall to prevent its corporations from investing in Hong Kong, nor did it ask foreigners to leave the territory. Beijing has instead always proclaimed that the National Security Law’s introduction was to provide extra assurance of the famed “One Country, Two Systems” doctrine coined by Deng Xiaoping, a leader China has long outgrown.
However, it is precisely this kind of attitude that should push the European Union to act – beyond expressing “grave concern” – and take the Hong Kong question seriously. The enactment of the National Security Law is a litmus test of the EU’s capacity to defend its interests and universal values in the context of the “Great Decoupling”.
International relations academics and EU specialists agree that contemporary EU-China relations are determined by two factors (as suggested by Michael Yahuda) First, the tyranny of distance, and second, the primacy of trade. In short, owing to the lack of geopolitical ambition of the EU and the absence of shared geographical boundaries (terrestrial or maritime), the protection and promotion of EU economic interests in China is the core driver of EU action towards China.
As a result, the European Union has long been satisfied with the current model of cooperation. In the field of trade and investment, the EU opts for a good trade agreement with the absence of a human rights clause (from the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed in 1985, to the long-awaited conclusion of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment). Unlike its “selective engagement” approach with Russia, the European Union currently does not link its business presence in China with better political development and social reform – not to mention the suspected violation of citizens’ safety in Hong Kong.
However, the new reality after the enactment of the National Security Law in Hong Kong demands exactly this. As detailed in Article 38, the Law will have extraterritorial effects, as it applies to offences committed outside Hong Kong by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region. For example, any person who joined the Martens Centre’s recent online webinar discussing the situation in Hong Kong is at risk of prosecution under Article 38, as participating can be viewed as provoking hatred, or even sanctions towards Beijing.
The National Security Law is without a doubt a threat against the fundamental rights and freedoms enjoyed by European citizens, political parties, think-tanks, or activist groups. The message from Beijing is clear: anyone who wishes to do business in Hong Kong must respect China’s concept of national security – regardless of that person’s nationality or their locality.
The National Security Law impacts European corporations as well. According to the latest implementation rules, the authorities are empowered to “freeze, restrain, confiscate, and forfeit any property related to offences endangering national security”. They also may require foreign political organisations and agents to provide information on activities concerning Hong Kong. The Law deliberately creates a dilemma and makes it clear to European companies. If a company surrenders information to the authorities, they violate their clients’ goodwill. If a company does not cooperate, its business interests in Hong Kong and mainland China will suffer. Beijing is effectively leveraging the West’s extensive business network and economic interests in Hong Kong, in order to test the European Union’s ability to balance its pursuit of commercial benefits and commitment to universal values.
From Beijing’s perspective, should European companies and EU Member States kowtow to the new arrangement in Hong Kong, Beijing will have full confidence that economic interests will always serve as good diplomatic leverage against the EU. In this case, the comprehensive investment agreement in its current form serves the foremost political interests of Beijing. Maintaining the status quo does not give the European Union any competitive edge against China’s sharp power in Europe. Only by acting in one voice and addressing the Hong Kong question seriously, can the European Union change the status quo and explore new possibilities in EU-China relations.
This article does not advocate for sanctions against Beijing, nor does it ask the EU to provide a UK-esque lifeboat policy to the citizens of Hong Kong. Instead, this thesis pleads for Europeans to act with one voice, and for the European Union to re-discover its diplomatic capacity, rooted in the commanding strength of the Common Market, and its formidable global regulatory regime. As history once showed, any hesitation would turn Europe into an ideological battlefield. Should there be a New Cold War in the 21st century, Brussels ought to utilise its structural strength to protect the very foundation of Europe’s peace, prosperity, and the well-being of its citizens.
The earlier version of this article under the name More than “West Berlin”：The EU should reclaim its diplomatic tools by Taking the Hong Kong Question Seriously was published by the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies
Increasing trust in and adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) are necessary ingredients for economic growth and the fuel for future innovations that can benefit society as a whole.
In this complex context which stimulates and promotes the use and dissemination of AI technologies, also Italy has developed its AI national strategy as part of the Coordinated Plan launched by the European Commission in December 2018. Over the period until now, the Italian government has stressed the importance of discussing about the specific approach that the country should adopt to fully benefit from the advantages of AI, while mitigating the risks that are often associated with its use.
As prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic pointed out in his report: “Artificial Intelligence is essentially a dual-use technology and its mighty implications, either positive or negative, will be increasingly hard to anticipate, frame, and restrain, let alone mitigate and regulate” (The answer to AI is intergovernmental Multilateralism, New Europe, Brussels, March 2020).
Therefore, a national strategy is more than ever essential because AI can represent the starting point for a new edge filled with economic, social and cultural prosperity for Italy. To date, the country has been struggling to keep up with the other major European economies either from the point of view of the industrial production or companies competitiveness.
To make the matter worse, the Italian economy does not seem to be heading towards an important sustainable development yet, which represents a long-standing issue for its society: the growing poverty and the inequality go hand in hand with an increasing gap between North and South and a strong need for investments in infrastructures and social and environmental policies. In sight of this, Italy is leverage the development of AI and related digital technologies to earn a golden opportunity in inaugurating a new social, economic and environmental “spring”.
The official document picturing the national strategy – performed by an experts team at ministry of Economic Development – consists of three parts: the first one shows an analytical overview upon the global market, with a focus on the European and national framework in terms of AI; the second part itemises the paramount principles of the strategy which inspired the experts in formulating the proposals: humanism (human beings at the centre), reliability and sustainability; the third and last part examines the policy to be adopted and sets out the proposals for the implementation, monitoring and communication of the Italian strategy.
In detail, the work of the experts has drawn up 82 proposals (also called “recommendations”) which take into account the peculiarities of the Italian system and tend to reconcile the international competitiveness with a sustainable development, in compliance with the European guidelines for a reliable, resilient and anthropocentric AI. These proposals/recommendations have, specifically, the purpose of “allowing Italy to start a phase of economic, social and environmental renaissance, marked by a focus on sustainability and by the digital transformation of the institutional and socio-economic business of the country”.
Below, an excerpt of the most significant proposals – in my opinion – contained in the Italian AI strategic plan.
Recommendation 3
In line with the European trends, the primacy of the human being over AI technology is affirmed and must be understood as a support to humans and not a substitute for them.
Recommendation 5
The Italian strategy puts its focus on embedded AI (as known also as “edge AI”), or those artificial intelligence systems that are present directly on the device (embedded, precisely). In the broadest terms, Embedded Intelligence is the definition of a self-referential process in which a specific system or program has the ability to analyse and refine its operations on its own.
Recommendation 10
It promotes the institution of a central body for the coordination of European initiatives and the definition of a national pattern for AI technologies development.
Recommendations from 11 to 16
Italy must invest in digital education by promoting up-to-date and qualified classes of teachers and learners on the subject of digital technologies, inaugurating new national degree courses on AI and up-skilling and re-skilling the workforce. This latter will allow an increasing number of people a job opportunity in this new technological field.
Recommendations 23 and 27
These proposals encourage information campaigns – both in Italian and English language – in order to make the national population aware of the main characteristics, opportunities and risks determined by the use of AI. In support of these recommendations, the Government will create a national platform – accessible to all citizens – as a permanent consultation/information tool on AI issues.
Recommendation 29
Italy should adopt the Trustworthy AI Impact Assessment (TAIA), currently studied at European level, as a risk assessment tool. The “actors” – those ones who use AI technologies – will perform a real risk assessment by identifying, first, the risks deriving from their activity and then indicating the strategies adopted to mitigate negative impacts.
Recommendation 38
The experts have highlighted the advantages through the creation of an Italian Institute for Artificial Intelligence (IIIA) for the research and the transfer of AI applications to companies and the Public Administration.
Recommendations 47-48
These recommendations are aimed at enhancing public tools (such as development contracts and innovation agreements) to support investments and strengthen public and private support for venture capital.
Recommendations from 55 to 68
It is a group of recommendations with a focus on data, on the optimization of their collection and subsequent management.
Recommendations from 69 to 75
These proposals are dedicated to sustainable AI, in full alignment with the European guidelines. The Government will work on a regulation which will ensure a sustainable development in support of the energy sector, disabled people and disadvantaged ranks. Another noteworthy purpose is the national prestige that Italy will straighten in the international competitiveness in terms of AI. Not by chance, several countries are making significant investments in AI, especially for military purposes, and it undoubtedly shows up how each of them is strong-willed to achieve a leadership in the AI field.
The document ends with an annex that points out the investment planned to implement the AI strategy. It counts 888 million for the first five years, in addition to another 605 million (121 per year) from private contributions.
“The disclosure of this ambitious strategic plan suggests an unprecedented and responsible use of Artificial Intelligence, lighting the way for a leap towards new levels of efficiency and sustainability for Italian businesses” said Mirella Liuzzi, Undersecretary at ministry of Economic Development. “The goal – she added – “is to gather the benefits that AI can bring to the country, with an approach that includes technology and sustainable development and always puts the individual and his context at the centre”.
However, in order to put into effect the above mentioned proposals and the overall efforts made, it is essential to better coordinate all the AI stakeholders, to distribute funding fairly and avoid waste of money.
About the author:
Cristina Semeraro, Analyst with the Rome-based Vision & Global Trends, International Institute for Global Analyses of Italy.
Cristina Semeraro, is an Analyst with the Rome-based Vision & Global Trends, International Institute for Global Analyses of Italy.
Anjana Das, Founder and Creative Director WHITE CHAMPA
By Alexandra Paucescu.
Diplomatic life often gives you the chance for memorable encounters, fine and interesting people that you will be grateful you had the opportunity to meet.
When she enters the room, you first notice her dark, sparkling eyes and her exotic beauty…then she talks, confident and relaxed.
Meet Anjana Das, born in Braunschweig, Germany from Indian highly educated parents, the pure definition of a global citizen of today. Smart, cheerful, energetic and friendly, it takes just a glance to figure out that she is really one of a kind. Within the diplomatic circle she is the supportive and full of initiative spouse… but she is so much more!
With her surprising resume she could impress anyone. She has postgraduate degrees in ‘South-Asian Studies’, ‘German Literature’ and ‘Political Science’ and co-authored a book about ‘Racially Motivated Crime in Europe’. But with her family’s first posting abroad, to India, her destiny called for a full turn-around in her career.
By Anjana Das.
‘I had the great opportunity to meet Jean-Francois Lesage, the renowned French embroiderer and we became friends’, she recalls. ‘He recognized what was in fact always inside me, my passion for design, my artistic eye and he supported and encouraged me to follow my heart’
So, she soon started working with him, designing embroidery for interiors, for almost 15 years, working from all over the world. You could say that she mastered the art of reinvention and the secret of having a portable career, what is in fact the dream to many of us, diplomatic spouses. Of course, maybe she had the chance to meet the right people along the way, to start ‘big’ from the beginning, but we all know that talent speaks often by itself… and Anjana is a monument of talent, for sure!
She did interior design for office buildings, foreign residencies, wherever her husband’s job took them on the Globe.
‘Travelling is always a privilege. I take every move as an adventure, an opportunity that not all of us have, to meet new people, discover new places, to learn more’.
Indeed, she took advantage of every new destination and made the best out of it. In Thailand she learned pattern design, in the Philippines she started creating jewelry, but it was New Delhi that inspired her to start her own company, ‘White Champa’, almost 15 years ago.
‘I was drawing my designs in my garden, under these marvelous, fragrant trees called ‘champa’. Their beautiful white flowers offered me the inspiration in choosing the perfect name for my clothing company.’
What started out of pure passion and talent, transformed into an international brand, with affiliated stores in Canada, Japan and India and worldwide distribution. She tells me candidly: ‘With each destination, I bring different elements to my designs, I get inspired. To me, clothes are more than just fashion, I look at them from a sociological point of view, I look at history and human relations.’ White Champa produces unique clothes, handmade and carefully crafted, with great attention to detail.
‘Working with passion at something of your own provides continuity in this diplomatic life of ours. But it is not easy to keep up, to manage a business from the distance and, in the same time, to fulfill diplomatic assignments. Of course, nowadays technology helps tremendously. Also, I am forever grateful to my husband for all his constant support, for encouraging me when thigs were rough and also for carefully choosing his foreign postings, so that I’d be closer to my business as well. That’s why I would give an advice to others, at the beginning of this diplomatic road: don’t think you cannot design your own life while accompanying your husbands! In fact, my company initiated BECAUSE I was abroad.’
She says that maybe she could have achieved more, she could have continued with her academic career, maybe she doesn’t have a ‘catchy’ business card, full of pompous titles, but she is certainly proud of what she has achieved, when she looks back.
‘I feel good about my life… I lived interesting times, I built a solid business and a wonderful family. In the end, I think you can judge your success in life by the impact you had on others.’
Smart words from an inspiring woman, living proof that anything is possible when passion, talent and determination are involved.
Go for it, don’t be discouraged, dream big! After all, sky is the limit!
Alexandra Paucescu- Romanian, Management graduate with a Master in Business, studied Cultural Diplomacy and International Relations.
She speaks Romanian, English, French, German and Italian. Turned diplomatic spouse by the age of 30, she published a book about diplomatic life, writes articles and also gives lectures on intercultural communication.
Having focussed on local resistance against military missions such as in Afghanistan, recent changes in domestic European affairs have caught my interest.
Sadly enough, in most communities around the globe, certain “arguments” are a way to disable a person politically and socially. The most common one in Germany is to call someone a Nazi, while most people have not seen the terrors of the Second World War first hand and are downplaying what the Fascist ideology during WWII entailed in its detail. The same counts for other extreme forms of ideologies from the right against the left and among beliefs from believer to atheist and vice versa. That which sticks out and is not liked by a group, which then aims to eliminate that voice from a debate.
While this is often the easiest and most effective way to “win” a debate. This kind of “argumentation” should be banned from all serious debates whatever the topic is because there is no progress in the debate. In order for solutions to come forth, a debate must be continuous and open to all sides of the table without deciding upfront what ideas sit there and which do not. In fact, there is no debate at all. Freedom of speech is cut off before all sides are fully heard and this cannot be a democratic understanding and debating culture.
Excluding one from the debate is an extreme means and will lead to counter-reactions of the same kind. Not letting someone speak his or her thoughts will even possibly lead to further integration into the ideology and belief of the person, where he or she is heard. We put up walls and disconnect from the other. In Germany, we had Fascism and an Anti-Fascist Protection Wall (Antifaschistischer Schutzwall), a wall that divided families, friends, and a people just because another side was not supposed to be heard.
The result of both ideologies was the snowball effect, where both sides see the necessity to reach for more extreme means step by step.
Similarly, the great powers of the post-WWII-period, the Soviet Union and the United States of America were so certain to exclude one another from regions and tables that the Cold War happened and lead to the fact that only nuclear deterrence and human morals could stop ideologies from escalation. Diplomacy was running hot 24/7 and the will to debate was the distinguishing factor among human morals that decided for a de-escalation.
However currently, we are running backwards, where all too familiar processes can be seen throughout the world again with the aid of media platforms. In the USA and Europe, a living debating culture has shaped our landscapes for centuries, which is why large fractions of the population are taking part in our democracies. Therefore, so many of us are aware of politics and see issues arising – through debate. Only a few times debate has debate stopped and war has started. It is our moral obligation to balance this vulnerable democracy which our ancestors have earned and built across the centuries.
Having looked at different forms of extremism, whether religious or political. In the end, a true democracy has to be able to cope with ideas that are not nice and do not include everyone. As long as no violence has been enforced on another person, we all have to accept that opinion. If we start to denounce certain opinions, where will we draw the line?
I argue that the self-jurisdiction of violence and its will to force something onto another one is the boundary between good and bad. For some believing in God is already too much. For some, it is too much if one does not. Who are we to judge others, but oneself? Humankind is beautiful in its diversity and it would be a shame if all were the same, if there is no difference between countries, regions, cities and villages and the life there and here. For that diversity to continue, we also need peripheral opinions and an independent judicial branch that will put justice above personal preferences and interests.
My ancestors have survived the Russian Revolution and WWI, statelessness, Nazi-Germany, concentration camp and WWII. Having heard about this side of the last hundred years, social cohesion, identity, belonging, ideologies, religion with all kinds of extremism always concern me. Of course, to all problems, we must find a solution: Society must reflect on itself, must not stay silent – disintegrate – and engage in a debate where everyone is heard on all levels and between them.
Hence, here is my contribution to the debate. The topic is a sadly very current one – Preventing Violent Extremism in Germany:
This is not just a German issue but one of our time, as we are again at a crossroad between moral values and egocentric interests and ideas. Facts and detail become less important than selling stories and giving opinions that are not researched and are subjective to such an extent that the piece tells what one group wants to hear. Due to information density, we are more occupied with its consumption and keeping up with the news than with critical thinking and taking time with understanding the issue at hand. We make an expensive trade-off for our future generations – education, listening, understanding one another and critical thinking for a fast and full life. The result is that dialogue is becoming increasingly biased.
________________
About the author:
Thanks to SIPRI and the Director of the European Security Programme, Dr Ian Anthony for his support and supervision. I am so extremely excited and grateful to have finally published my first academic publication at SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) after studying at Leiden University in The Hague – the City of Peace and Justice – and having worked at some of Europe’s most important organisations within their fields.
The last few months have roughly hit the world and especially the European continent. As countries are encouraged to close their borders in order to control the spread of the coronavirus, this decision might endanger cooperation’s efficiency. However, a quick glance at the answers that have been given to the biggest obstacles through history shows us that cooperation and multilateral decisions are essential when it comes to global problems, such as a pandemic.
April 1944. In Vienna, the battle was unavoidable. More than tens of thousands of people were killed. The destruction was incredible. The end of the war has been a long-awaited moment. People knew that this moment would only come once the German army would forfeit. It was on April 27th, before the end of the war, that a new government was built, and that the declaration of independence was published. This new chapter carried hope for the Austrian nation and especially for the ones who had suffered from the war.
This new chapter also brought, a few months later, in June 1945, the creation of the United Nations (UN) which demonstrated the will of the international community to move toward relations based on cooperation and was also the beginning of what is today the most important institution of international cooperation. A few years later, in November 1948, was published the well-known Human Rights Declaration which focused mainly on human dignity. Still there, the idea of having a common legal basis as an answer to World War II (WW2) reconfirmed the idea of cooperation as a solution to global problems. Even if, still nowadays, there is still work to do in terms of putting those words efficiently into practice, we can say that the 75 years since WW2 showed a promising evolution in terms of international cooperation.
In Europe, the idea of cooperation, more specifically economic cooperation, was omnipresent and strongly supported by great European figures. Yet, it was hard to imagine such a thing in a context where tensions between East and West were still very present, so present that they led to a war; the famous Cold War. Nonetheless, I don’t think that war has been an obstacle for cooperation’s growth on the Western side since the Treaty of Rome has been accepted between six European countries during that period. Conversely, I believe that events such as the Cold War tend to be incentives to partnerships and stronger cooperation. That said, this agreement marked the beginning of European cooperation.
The death of Stalin, in March 1953, allowed a wind of change on the Russian side. When Khrushchev took power, some reforms were made and Western countries realized that it was now possible to easily negotiate with Russia. Indeed, Khrushchev was more flexible than Stalin. In October 1955, the Russian soldiers and all other occupation soldiers left Austria. In other words, Austria was finally a free and independent country. However, this wasn’t exactly the case yet in Germany where the situation was more complicated and where antagonism was growing.
Built in 1965, The Berlin Wall became the symbol of the division of East and West. On the one side, NATO was founded as a military alliance and on the other side, the Warsaw Treaty. But the arms race was dangerous and expensive for both sides. So, in the 1970s the idea of peaceful coexistence was growing and it was a success from the 1975 Helsinki Declaration. It was a step in the direction of reducing the political tensions.
On the other hand, after the death of Mao in 1976, China obtained a leading position in the global economy and global power. A little more than a decade later, the world assisted to the collapsing of several communist regimes in Eastern Europe starting by the fall of the Berlin Wall. Then came the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Through all those changes, the economic cooperation in Europe started to enlarge. Nevertheless, the expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia was considered, for some, not so-clever as political tensions started to grow again.
What we notice from this quick historic summary is that we tend to give a bigger role to cooperation when we are undergoing a hard phase. That said, the coronavirus crisis is, without a doubt, something that could become a game changer in terms of cooperation, and above all, in terms of cooperation in Europe. Within the last few years, the European Union (EU), which is, by excellence, the institution of cooperation in Europe, have been widely criticized especially for its management of the migrants’ crisis, its uneven application of the rule of law and now for its management of the coronavirus crisis.
It seems that the EU is getting more fragile, notably with Brexit and the empowerment of non-European initiatives. Indeed, many unanswered questions are still pending and could contribute to the weakening of the EU. For example, the fact that Balkan countries (Serbia and Montenegro might join the EU by 2025) might not be accepted in the EU leaves, for those countries, an open door to reconciliation with other poles of power, such as Russia. Moreover, we observe that cooperation has taken a step back in the European priorities’ agenda. About that, Lamberto Zannier, OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities, underlined the “lack of interest of countries to invest in the frameworks like [the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe]” translated by the continually “shrinking budget” of the organisation.
During the pandemic, we detected, among members of the EU, a lack of coordination in the management of the crisis although coordination is crucial in an environment where members are dependent on each other’s effectiveness. Countries seem to have managed the crisis mostly on their own, following their own interests, and sometimes even without considering agreements made prior to the crisis. For example, Czech Republic banned Italian travelers despite the well-known principle of free travel.
That said, with President Trump, Xi Jinping, the Brexit and coronavirus, the year 2020 brings whole new perspectives and questions. The world needs to keep being successful on the fields of cooperation, disarmament, actions against the damage of our climate and democracy and democratization but, most importantly, we need to take a step back and look at the answer we gave to previous crisis.
The main point that stands out is that cooperation has always been a part of our answer. Therefore, as coronavirus is a major event, I think we should expect a reinforcement of cooperation in Europe. We can already feel that cooperation has been strengthen in some regions, such as the south of Europe, which have been particularly affected by the crisis. France could be an interesting avenue in terms of European cohesion since they have been working with countries from the south and also have a good relation with Germany. I believe that coronavirus crisis will (or, at least, should) be an incentive to move forward with the creation of coalitions, the reinforcement of the rule of law where it’s needed, the development of a coherent legal framework and the reinvestment in proactive multilateralism initiatives.
In a more global view, the sustainable development goals of the UN, supported by all of its members, are really promising in terms of positive changes for cooperation. The seventeenth goal foreshadows the increase of more-balanced partnerships between the North and the South. These partnerships are going to be crucial in order to heal from the wounds of the pandemic. Cooperation seems to have always been the key to the difficult periods of history. Consequently, if we truly have learned from wars and history, we should expect an important increase of cooperation initiatives in the near future.
John Lewis. Photography by Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call.
By Marco Pizzorno.
Another flame of civil rights has faded on earth to shine in eternity. An Activist for the dignity of African Americans, Lewis was an example of sacrifice and resilience in the pursuit of “Social Justice”.
In 1963 he was one of the Big Six who participated in the March on Washington for Work and Freedom. Then in 1965 he led 600 protesters in a march which later took the name of “Bloody Sunday” across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. On that occasion, Lewis was a victim of police brutality and suffered fractures to his skull.
In 1977 he went into politics with the Democratic Party, and was later appointed to the Carter administration before being elected to the Atlanta city council. After 1986 he ran for the Senate where he was continuously re-elected. Leader of the movement for non-violence, he became the protagonist of courageous initiatives, such as riding on segregated buses dedicated to non-black people, with the aim of fighting racial policies.
The Human Family loses a pillar in the struggle for civil rights and its commitment together with Martin Luther King, have given humanity a new perception and a renewed awareness of life. Humanity is the daughter of the same sky and breathes the same air and it is the right of every man to be able to live in peace and freedom.
Freedom is also being able to pursue happiness and guarantee one’s rights and dignity, without being persecuted or judged by color, birth, residence, religion or thought.
The difficulties and sufferings for the defense of dignity over the years are numerous . In truth it is appropriate to remember that the Human Family passes through 4 generations of human rights.
The first generation is called Blue Rights. It included the right to life, equality before the law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, property rights, the right to a fair trial, and voting rights.
Second-generation is related to equality and recognized after World War II.
Third-generation is focused on civil and social issues and known as “Solidarity human rights”.
A fourth generation of human rights is developing new rights, especially in relation to technological, information and cyberspace.
The latter will commit the whole real and virtual world to obtaining fundamental guarantees that are important for the protection of life and human dignity, in that environmental metamorphosis that goes hand in hand with technological progress. The memory of important giants like Lewis must be the support in the difficulties of the new challenges.
The tribute to this great man can only be represented with Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so that his life is an example for all of us to know how to live together one day “United also in Diversity” .
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Premier Dr. Reiner Haseloff & Ambassador Marián Jakubócy – Picture by Staatskanzlei Sachsen-Anhalt, Ines Berger.
Thursday, 1 October 2020, Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany: Saxony Anhalt’s head of government, Dr. Reiner Haseloff welcomed the Ambassador of the Slovak Republic, H.E. Ms. Marián Jakubócy, for his inaugural visit to the State Chancellery.
Both interlocutors exchanged views on current issues and expressed the expectation that the bilateral relations between the two countries could be intensified.
In 2019, companies from Saxony-Anhalt exported goods worth almost 201 million euros to Slovakia, the highest figure to date. A new record was also set last year for imports, with around 153 million euros.
Both universities in Saxony-Anhalt, all four universities of applied sciences and the Burg Giebichenstein University of Art and Design Halle maintain close relations with higher education institutions in the Slovak Republic. There are currently two school partnerships: the Ludwigsgymnasium Köthen with the Piaristen-Gymnasium “Jozef Kalazanský” in Nitra and the Geschwister-Scholl-Gymnasium Sangerhausen with the Ján-Hollý-Gymnasium in Trnava.
Six town twinnings have been established since 1989, namely: Allestedt – Vrobvè Aschersleben – Trenčíanske Teplice Halberstadt – Banská Bystrica Mücheln OT Langeneichstädt – Rudno nad Hronom Sangerhausen – Trnava White rock – Komarno. Ambassador Jakubócy was also received by the President of the State Diet (Landtag), Gabriele Brakebusch, during his stay in Saxony-Anhalt.
