By H.E. Mr Selim Yenel, Ambassador  of the Republic of Turkey to the European Union. I have been in Brussels since December 2011, as Turkey’s Permanent Delegate to the EU. When I first came I saw my job as to prevent the relationship from sliding any further backwards. This was the case until summer of 2015. However the last year was totally different as the migration crisis was an opportunity for improving relations. Accession to the EU is still considered as the central pillar of Turkey-EU relations. To date, only 16 Chapters out of the 35 are opened. The process is politically stalled, mainly because of the Cyprus issue. I remain optimistic that a resolution to this long standing conflict is in sight. Without diminishing its significance, I have to underline that Turkey-EU relations encompass more than accession. Turkey and the EU are vital partners in political and economic spheres. We have established High Level Political, Economic and Energy Dialogues. Work is underway to start upgrading the Customs Union next year. EU remains Turkey’s primary trade partner, constituting around 50% of our foreign trade volume. The Netherlands is among the top foreign investors in Turkey. Regarding recent events the migration crisis instigated the unprecedented three Turkey-EU Summits in just 4 months. Despite many skeptical voices, the Agreement curbed the irregular flow of migrants (mainly from Syria) to the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. The numbers prove it. Whereas in October 2015 average daily crossings were 7.000, after the 18 March Agreement it drastically reduced to an average of 50 per day. Even in the aftermath of the 15 July coup attempt in Turkey, which was a shocking and unprecedented event with potential catastrophic consequences for Turkish democracy, the Turkish Coast Guard did not falter in its operations and saved more than 2.000 lives at sea. Most importantly the death toll decreased. Turkey has lived up to its end of the deal. It is only fair that EU also delivers on its commitments, including visa liberalization for Turkish citizens. Among the remaining benchmarks for visa liberalization, the most contentious one is changing the anti-terror law. Given Turkey’s ongoing fight against terror groups such as PKK, DAESH and FETÖ, any change which would weaken Turkey’s fighting capacity is not possible. However, Turkey has not closed the door on the issue and we are willing to work together for a mutually agreeable solution. The European Union has been hard hit with crisis after crisis. It still has not fully recovered from the Euro crisis. Brexit is looming. Schengen is in danger. All its past successes, such as the enlargement, are being tested. The EU cannot continue business as usual. Considering the many challenges in our immediate neighborhood and beyond, we need a strong EU. And the EU needs a strong and ever-closer Turkey. We will be celebrating the 93^rd anniversary of our Republic on 29 October. I sincerely hope that before our 100^th Anniversary, we’ll witness a much more deepened Turkey-EU partnership, whichever form it takes.  

By Dr. Peter Jankowitsch. Revisiting and rethinking Europe recently, prof. Anis Bajrektarevic asked: “… is the EU the world’s last cosmopolitan enjoying its postmodern holiday from history? Is that possibly the lost Atlántida or mythical Arcadia– a Hegelian end of history world? … a post-Hobbesian (yet, not quite a Kantian) world, in which the letzte Mensch expelled Übermensch?” Yet another take on the most critical EU debate comes from Austria, this time from the long time insider into the rocky European policy-making. ————————– The narrow result of the UK referendum to leave the European Union was not the catalyst for the increasingly pressing question of whether the concept and practice of European integration, which has defined the course of European history since the end of the Second World War as well as enabled prosperity, security and the advancement of the continent, are now exhausted and should be replaced by other models. Ever since France and the Netherlands voted against a European constitution, there have been more and more signs of Europe becoming less appealing in its current form. This is also evident in the growing number of election victories of ‘Eurosceptics’ to ‘anti-European’ parties within the founding states of the Union. Some of these factions have already managed to gain seats in the European Parliament. Public support of the EU, regularly recorded by the Eurobarometer, is falling in nearly all 28 Member States (MS). It has only remained high in a few candidate countries such as those of the Western Balkans. Despite all of its undeniable progress in the field of all-civic participation, in strengthening the European Parliament or the increased application of the subsidiarity principle, the Lisbon Treaty – this last attempt to create a Europe based on firm ideals, did not enable a true fresh start nor fuel enthusiasm or a positive attitude of citizenry towards the European project. On the contrary, Europe’s response to major crises in the last few years, ranging from the world economic crisis, the Euro crisis to the current refuge crisis that is still unsolved, is often regarded as hesitant and has visibly shaken the citizens’ confidence in the EU edifice an its ability to control the fate of Europe. The most common response by some member states was to return to policies that only serve national interest and disregard the European standards and rules of European solidarity agreed upon. This has contributed to the EU institutions such as the EU Commission and the EU Parliament losing more of their authority and ability to act. It would probably be too simple and superficial to just regard personal factors, and in some respects an undeniably weak leadership at an EU and national level, as the prime or single cause of such a trend. Starry names, visionary personalities such as Jacques Delores, Sicco Manshold or Sir Leon Brittan no longer exist in the European theatre. Even the leadership of the German-French axis, which was predominant during the era of Conrad Adenauer and Charles De Gaulle; or Kohl and Mitterand for that matter, has grown weaker , although the collaboration of this duo has remained essential to the present day. Yet the reasons why European ideals are fading away and the desire for unlimited national autonomy has been revived have to be analysed very carefully without reducing them to the obvious factors – for example, the growing (alienation of) Brussels bureaucracy or their unrealistic decrees. This also includes the so called democracy deficit; a not uncommon phenomenon of many EU citizens feeling powerless at a national or supranational level, no longer expecting political processes to solve their daily problems – especially those administered by Brussels. This residual feeling intensifies when populist forces, such as was the case during the Brexit campaign in the UK, blame Europe for old and new, related and unrelated, problems. However, it is debatable whether the uneasiness many European citizens feel towards national and EU/European policies could be overcome simply by strengthening national sovereignty ab dismantling the EU (or even pan-European) bodies and institutions. Many of the causes have an authentic national origin, such as a fear of the future due to an increase in social inequality, environmental degradation or threats to public safety and security, regardless of whether they are real or only felt. Slogans such as ‘More Europe’ or ‘Less Europe’ are, therefore, not suitable for getting to the bottom of the causes. In fact, a sensible combination of national and the EU/European measures is needed to be able to restore the confidence of European citizens in their joint project – for overall prosperity and safety. National and supranational measures are also necessary to secure our common social model, the European welfare state. Only a strong EU/Europe can protect its citizens from the consequences of unrestrained globalisation. Hence, MS (Member States) have to ensure social justice within their own borders. Such a deliverables have no alternative. The call for more autonomy and civic participation requires not only national but also all-European action. Democratic deficit have not only been unveiled in the European Union, whose institutions certainly need a surge of democratic ideas and practices, but also in many of the EU 28 MS (Member States). The limitations of a dismal representative democracy come to light when they only partially and incompletely portray the will of the citizenry. If it is possible to adopt these kind of measures in a targeted manner and fulfil the true needs and concerns of the citizens accordingly, then it is also possible and manageable to continue the promised work of the EU integration in the best interest of European family of peoples. Of course, it will have to take national particularities, diversities, which make up the firm characteristics of Europe, into account to a much higher extent then it is the case now. A reinvigorated EU will also have to exist under the banner of this diversity and it can remain the Union of the four fundamental freedoms and all other civilizational accomplishments, which defined its historical cause and will define the lives of its citizens today. ———————————- From the German original translated by the Cercle Diplomatique Austria team. Dr. Peter Jankowitsch, ambassador -Secretary General of the Austro–French centre; joined the Austrian Foreign Ministry in 1957, was a close collaborator of the legendary leader of the Austrian II Republic, Bruno Kreisky for decades; country’s Foreign Minister in 1980s and the State Secretary for the EU Integration in 1990s.

By Joanne T Brooks, Chargé d’affaires, Embassy of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Brussels (accredited to the Benelux countries, the EU, the OPCW, the ACP, Spain, France, Switzerland and the Holy See) In today’s fast changing globalised world small states face significant challenges in order to achieve their foreign policy objectives. Small states generally lack the visibility in the foreign public and struggle to put themselves on the radar of international attention. Like medium size and large states, they must also overcome a plethora of issues, many of which are multidimensional and exogenous, and beyond the capacity of any one state to overcome on its own. As a result the practice of modern diplomacy by small states must be innovative, active and strategic. Embassies of small states must overcome challenges relating to human and financial resource capacity, multiple accreditations both bilateral and multilateral in nature, as well as immigration, consular and diaspora engagement on a daily basis. In order to be successful, small states must therefore take a strategic approach to selective engagement. In this regard, they must prioritise those issues inextricably linked with domestic policy and developmental goals, for example issues relating to trade, investment, security and climate change. For example, Trinidad and Tobago quickly responded to the internationalisation of the work of specialised/expert Ministries by installing International Relations Divisions in key Ministries with sectors relating to trade, international cooperation and global governance. Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs remains central to foreign policy formulation, coordination and information dissemination, collaboration between key Ministries enable small states to deal with issues in a more holistic which combines policy and technical expertise. Small States must also project their voices and values in the global arena through support for multilateral institutions  and regional organisations. An example of this is the important role Trinidad and Tobago played in the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) through one of the organisation’s founding fathers H.E. Arthur Robinson, former Prime Minister and later President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. As a testament to his contribution to the establishment of the ICC, the main courtroom is named in his honour.

More recently, Trinidad and Tobago also played a significant role in the establishment of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a multilateral Treaty that regulates the international trade in conventional weapons. Participation in regional and international fora also provides opportunities to build alliances around thematic priority issues, as recently seen at the annual conference of parties (COP) 21 in Paris, where small states and their global partners created new norms of a legally binding global agreement on climate and proposals for adaptation and mitigation. New forms of engagement such as public diplomacy are modern tools in the arsenal of small states. Country branding, which is the cornerstone of public diplomacy could be effectively used in furtherance of foreign policy goals. Malta, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Norway are all examples where effective niche branding has been used to influence international public opinion and allow the country to punch above the weight of their relative small size. The shrinkage of space and the onset of a multitude of social media portals, together with the rapid speed with which news is transmitted and events unfold, have also created a space for virtual diplomacy to permeate the world of diplomatic relations. Using social media, small states are able to communicate with active civil society and Diaspora communities in countries where there is no formal representation. Information dissemination has become not only easier but takes place at a rapid speed. This reality levels the playing field and allows small states to respond to global issues with the same alacrity as medium and large states. In this regard states can no longer afford chose their officers in the traditional way, but instead must seek to employ candidates with various skills sets including those from the private sector and civil society organisations. It is instructive that many senior diplomats easily transition into the private sector at some stage in their careers but inflows from the private sector into the diplomatic corps are still rare. It may be timely for recruitment practices to be adjusted in order to capture not only those candidates steeped in academic theory but those who possess the skill set needed for the modern diplomat. Communication has and will always be the cornerstone of diplomacy both written and verbal. However, the modern diplomat must also possess networking skills, take a creative approach to problem solving, and be able to strategically network, lobby, influence and negotiate. For small states active, multi faceted engagement is the key. There is no doubt that the current international environment has presented many challenges for small states as they seek a broader understanding of the specificities of the obstacles they encounter. However, in a globalised, multipolar, interconnected world there are also unique opportunities based on evolving modern diplomatic practices where the challenge of small size can be overcome in order to achieve a more effective diplomatic engagement.  —————— Photography by Curtis Chase.