At a time when the credibility and influence wielded by the fourth estate have been questioned by those in power, the mission of organizations like the United Nations Correspondents Association, which fosters good relations with reporters and members of diplomatic delegations, is especially vital. Sherwin Bryce-Pease, UN bureau chief��with the South African Broadcasting Corporation, has covered the intersection between US and��UN politics for over a decade. As president of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA), he is tasked with ensuring that the interests of the journalists in their dealings with the UN are met.

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Bryce-Pease about how access remains one of the biggest hurdles for��journalists in an organization tasked with achieving international cooperation.

Athanasios Dimadis: President Donald Trump’s adversarial relationship with the press has been well documented. He has often accused reporters of misinterpreting his words and of being biased. What is your view of the current media landscape in the United States?

Sherwin Bryce-Pease: The reality show aspect of cable news in the United States, often partisan in nature, is doing real damage to a fact-based society where opinion dominates what should be a facts-based news agenda. In other words, rather than getting the news, we are served a combination of fact, conjecture and hyperbole all at once, which doesn’t educate the citizenry or the electorate, but rather confuses them. So just like the side effects of a new drug, we are just beginning to see the negative ramifications of cable news mixed with the toxicity of social media in this country.

Dimadis: How have the priorities of the UN Correspondents Association shifted in the wake of Donald Trump’s presidency?

Bryce-Pease: From an operational point of view, not much. Our mandate is to represent our members in their dealings with the United Nations. But because the United States is the biggest funder of both the general and peacekeeping budget of the organization, what comes out of the White House and the US Mission under the outgoing Ambassador Nikki Haley has been of even greater significance to our members (from a news perspective) given President Trump’s “America First” policy and its implications on the multilateral, rules-based system. But that doesn’t necessarily change our priorities, which are to work on creating the best working environment for our journalists at the UN and facilitate their access to newsmakers.

Dimadis: What are the challenges for correspondents covering UN-related matters? What has been your most valuable learning experience��managing relations between the international press corps and the UN Secretariat?

Bryce-Pease: Access is a constant issue that we face, particularly during the high-level week, when more than 100 heads of state and government come to town. Another challenge is the inability of UN officials, in particular, to say what they think rather than what might be less upsetting to member states. Issues of sovereignty and influence (i.e. funding) often limit the ability of UN officials to speak truth to power.

Dimadis: What are your top priorities for your presidency?

Bryce-Pease: To ensure that we have a voice at the table when decisions that affect us at the UN are taken, to raise funds for the annual UN Correspondents Association Gala Awards and foster good working relations with key missions to the UN. My role is to be the voice for the journalists and to create a credible space for that voice to be taken both seriously and to be heard.

Dimadis: Each year, the UN Correspondents Association presents awards for journalists for the��best print, broadcast and online media coverage of the United Nations, its agencies and field operations around the globe. What do you and the other members of the UNCA Executive Committee take into consideration during the selection process?

Bryce-Pease: This is an independent exercise managed by an independent convenor and external judges. Because our committee members are also eligible to enter the competition, barring a few exceptions like myself and the awards gala sub-committee, the judging panel is completely independent. All our categories are about coverage of the UN through print, online and broadcast media, and this year’s winners have reported on migration, climate change and women’s empowerment, among other subjects.

Dimadis: How has the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi affected or galvanized the mission of the UNCA?

Bryce-Pease: I think Mr. Khashoggi’s horrific killing touched a nerve with all of us. While outside our mandate to specifically advocate on behalf of specific issues, our members continue to raise the Khashoggi murder and the need for accountability at the highest levels, including through a possible independent UN-led investigation.

Dimadis: You’ve been the UN bureau chief with the South African Broadcasting Corporation, covering��US and UN politics for well over a decade. How has the relationship between the two evolved over this time?

Bryce-Pease: The UN is as effective as the sum of its parts and fails dismally when national interests dominate the greater good. I think that this is true also of its relationship with the United States.

Dimadis: What, in your view, are the most crucial and pressing reforms that the UN Correspondents Association must face in the next few years?

Bryce-Pease: Unlike the UN Security Council and the Inter-Governmental Reform process, UNCA is able to respond to the needs of its members in a fluid manner. For example, we had 10 women and five men during my first one-year term, and parity was maintained during my second term. Issues of sovereignty are fortunately not something we have to grapple with when making decisions. We will always fiercely protect our independent voice at the UN even if that is upsetting to some member states.

Dimadis: You’ve interviewed such figures as��UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, South African Presidents Jacob Zuma, Kgalema Motlanthe and Thabo Mbeki, and Chile’s President Michelle Bachelet. You’ve even interviewed former US President Barack Obama at the White House. What has been the most valuable observation you’ve made as a professional journalist working in the US for foreign media?����

Bryce-Pease: What happens in the United States still matters to the rest of the world and affects people around the world in a visceral way. Alternative facts have become a reality here, spreading to other parts of the globe, and we are watching norms and standards devolve in front of our eyes.

Dimadis: It’s been suggested that climate change is the most pressing issue of our time. In fact, the World Bank estimates that climate change could displace up to 150 million people within their home countries by 2050. Millions of others are expected to flee to wealthier nations. How does the UN Correspondents Association and its members plan to respond to global warming compounding pressure on fragile states?

Bryce-Pease: One of our main awards categories is directed toward coverage of issues related to climate change. It’s our small way of shining a light on an issue that is all of our responsibility.

*[An earlier version of this article erroneously referred to the UN Correspondents Association Gala Awards as the UN General Assembly Gala Awards.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post UN Correspondents Association: Shining a Light on Global Issues appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The United Nations is often criticized for bureaucratic inefficiency, with its more passionate critics disparaging the organization’s “uselessness.” Despite this, the UN still wields a remarkable influence in its mission to promote international cooperation and to create and maintain international order.

María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, who brings more than 20 years of multilateral experience in such fields as international negotiations, peace, security and human rights, has pledged to maintain the UN’s commitment to multilateral relations while proposing a number of crucial and pressing reforms more in tune with the “needs and quests” of an ever more connected world. Her appointment comes during a time characterized by heightened political tensions and fears of global unrest, and Espinosa Garcés advocates for a solutions-based approach designed to not just maintain, but revitalize one of the world’s preeminent peacekeeping organizations during a period when the legitimacy of its mission has been repeatedly questioned.

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Espinosa Garcés about the challenges faced by the UN today, from migration and climate change, to gender inequality, racism and autonomous weapons.

Athanasios Dimadis: At a time when global politics is marked by division and rancor, many criticize the UN for its inefficiency, bureaucracy, unwieldiness and even uselessness. In your view, what are the most crucial and pressing reforms that the UN must go through in the next five to 10 years?��

María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés: Firstly, let me take this opportunity to thank you and��51�Թ���for inviting me to this interview. The theme of my presidency is “Making the United Nations Relevant to all People,” and to achieve that, the role of the media is crucial to explaining our goals and priorities.

To answer your question: One of the most recurrent topics during the General Debate, which we had in September with over 130 heads of state and government, was the strengthening of multilateralism. You used the word reform, and one of our priorities is the revitalization of the organization, by supporting the UN reform, proposed by the secretary general, under three pillars: peace and security, development, and management reform. Why? Because this is a way to make the UN more relevant, leaner, to produce efficiency, to deliver value for money, to make the real difference to people out there who count on this organization.

The United Nations does tremendous good work that doesn’t make the headlines, but that doesn’t mean that it does not exist — the work of the UN is real, and it’s out there. It promotes conflict prevention, it secures international peace and security, it assists about 80 countries with food security. The UN promotes sustainable development, tackles climate change, stands up for human rights, for gender equality. The UN and its partners vaccinate 45% of children around the world. I could go on.

The General Assembly, which I represent, is the largest democratic body of the UN. We have 193 member states, and each country — independent of size, demographics, geography — each country has one vote. I say that all countries have the same microphone to speak and the same button to vote. So, are there challenges for multilateralism? Yes, of course, and we don’t deny them, but at the same time we do not fear these challenges, we believe that diversity is actually one of our sources of strength, we see dialogue as a powerful political tool, and sometimes in political processes you will have dissent before consent —��this is fine, it is part of political processes and what makes us interesting and strong.

Dimadis: What are your top priorities for your presidency?

Espinosa Garcés: We have seven, one for each day of the week. My priority is gender equality. As you know, more than half of the world’s population is women. The days of including women in the decision-making spaces are long overdue. We need to be part of any conversation concerning us, but we also have a contribution to make to all decision-making fora. It has been already proven that when women are involved from the start, there is more chance of success and development. You will recall that I dedicated my election to the General Assembly to women in politics, to women and girls who are victims of violence. Gender equality — for me and for this presidency — is not only a trendy concept; it must be a reality to all women out there, and I firmly believe that this is also a task which involves men as real partners.

Another priority is migration and refugees. In December, the General Assembly hosted in Marrakesh, Morocco, an international conference on migration, where member states adopted the . You know, the history of humanity is the history of migration, is the history of people on the move, and this Global Compact, which was agreed upon by all 193 member states of the UN, is the result of collective action, of multilateralism, of safeguarding the rights of migrants, of addressing a transboundary issue — an issue that belongs to us all. I can safely say that nowadays most countries have experienced the phenomenon of migration directly or indirectly.

My other priorities are decent work, people with disabilities, environmental action, youth, peace and security, and the revitalization of the United Nations. These are, in fact, crosscutting priorities. When we talk, for instance, about decent work, we are also touching upon gender equality, but also on people with disabilities who need to be integrated, to have access to decent work. Work opportunities are also important to young people. If they can develop their potential, get a good education and employment, they will be more likely to positively contribute to society instead of being attracted by radicalism or other damaging ideologies.

Environmental action is a crucial priority for us as member states move to implement the Paris Agreement. We need to establish low carbon economies, to finance new, clean technologies, to reduce climate change causing emissions. And this takes collective action — this takes a strong approach to multilateralism and international cooperation. And here, my office is organizing a global campaign against plastic pollution. You know that if we do not revert the levels of plastic pollution, by 2050 there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish stocks? It’s up to us together to act now.

Dimadis: Peace in the Middle East seems to be an ever-moving horizon line. What can finally be done to reach a solution, especially after the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem and has so clearly chosen a side in this conflict once again?

Espinosa Garcés: The United Nations is fully committed to achieving lasting and sustained peace in the Middle East. You will recall that Resolution 181 was approved by the General Assembly in 1947. Since then, there have been several resolutions by the GA. And not only that; there has been active diplomatic engagement. I have publicly declared that the UN has a debt with the Palestinian people. The goal of achieving a political solution, which will make possible the creation of two states — a Jewish one and a Palestinian one — is a common goal. We cannot forget, however, that this is a process which is assisted by third parties as requested. Several member states are engaged directly in conversations and peace negotiations, as well as regional and international organizations. You will recall that the Quartet on the Middle East, for instance, had two member states and two international organizations —��the European Union and the UN itself.

And we cannot forget that the decision is made by Israelis and Palestinians, while the role of the UN is to assist as both parties require. From our past resolutions, you know that the General Assembly has positioned itself clearly in regard with recent development on the status of Jerusalem.��And I would encourage you and your readers to access these on our website to see how the discussion was conducted and what the General Assembly decided.

Dimadis: In your view, what are the biggest threats to global peace and security right now, and how can they be addressed?��

Espinosa Garcés: Instead of talking about threats, I really would like to focus on solutions. There have been different readings of threats in different times. For instance, the threat to multilateralism, which can risk gains made on peace and security. We are all now very much engaged with the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as one of our biggest threats, as well as nuclear, biological, chemical weapons. Specialists in cybertechnology have raised the issue of lethal autonomous weapons, or killer robots, and all their implications. But at the same time, we have opportunities that can be used for the good of humanity. We have more access to information and immediate access as never before. The same frontier technology that makes us consider potential damaging issues and implications opens new horizons from which young people, the present and future generations, can profit.

The strengthening of multilateralism as we have been seeing in the landmark peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea, but also in other parts of the world. Another encouraging moment and a great step for multilateralism and disarmament happened in September, when seven countries signed and four ratified, during the high-level week here in New York, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. All these steps lead us to conclude that global challenges are to be solved by global, collective actions. Multilateralism is not one of the ways to solve our challenges; it is actually the only possible way.

Dimadis: The International Organization for Migration has called migration one of the greatest political challenges in our era.��You have named finalizing the Global Compact on Migration as one of your seven key priorities. Why do you feel the urgency around this goal at this particular moment in time?

Espinosa Garcés: Because today we have a golden opportunity to show that the international community, namely the member states of the UN, is capable and willing to work together to address today’s global challenges. Managing migration is one of today’s global challenges. And member states have managed to agree this year on a Global Compact on Migration, and they now had a chance to be present in Marrakesh for the formal adoption and show the world that we are serious about ensuring that migration is safe, orderly and regular.

Dimadis: The global compact is not legally binding. How can we ensure that not only all UN members adopt the Global Impact but also take actions necessary to achieve the outlined objectives?

Espinosa Garcés: Implementation will be key.��And the Global Compact presents a series of tools that member states can choose to implement in line with their priorities.��It is also important that we are not beginning from scratch: Many of the practices described in the Global Compact are already being implemented by several member states around the world. The Global Compact allows also for exchange of best practices.

Dimadis: According to , we are witnessing the highest levels of displacement on record: An unprecedented 68.5 million people around the world have been forced from home. Among them are over 25 million refugees, over half of whom are under the age of 18. And yet at this time of record migration, we are also witnessing a rise of nationalism, nationalist and populist rhetoric, especially in the host countries in the West. Some experts believe it is the direct result of these unprecedented levels of human mobility and displacement. Therefore, how do we address this issue of cultural backlash against the “other”? How do we convince governments and the public at large of the benefits of migration?

Espinosa Garcés: While it is true that we are witnessing very high levels of mobility — of migrants, of refugees, but also of people who are displaced within their own countries — I believe that I see things differently; the atmosphere toward migrants and refugees is not predominately negative. I see many positive stories and actions throughout the world that illustrate the positive side, I see many communities acknowledging the positive contribution of migrants, I see many states all around the world actively working to facilitate the successful socio-economic integration of migrants.

However, I agree what we see are the loudest, most sensational stories that play to fears creating a negative global atmosphere.��The xenophobia, nationalism and racism often play directly into the anti-migrant and anti-refugees sentiment.��Member states — who are the United Nations — have shown their commitment to come together to address the challenges linked to migration, including xenophobia and racism. The fact that member states, in this time of heightened political tensions and debate around migration, have managed to agree on a Global Compact for Migration is a sign of hope and a sign that the ultimate multilateral institutions that are the UN are still relevant and are the best forum to address global challenges in a spirit of cooperation.

Dimadis: Since the UN’s foundation, the United States took on a key role in founding and leading the world’s preeminent organizations and treaties. Recently, however, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement and said the US will not participate in the new Global Compact on Migration. How detrimental is this rejection of globalism to UN’s efficiency in solving the world’s most intractable issues, without the full participation and commitment from the United States?

Espinosa Garcés: I am a strong believer in multilateralism, and so I believe are the member states of the UN — as was shown by the numerous heads of states and governments attending the General Debate at the UN this year (the highest-level attendance at that level at the UN headquarters since the 2005 World Summit), several of them underlining the essential role of multilateralism as the only effective way to address global challenges. This being said, as I have stated several times, the United Nations and the General Assembly are a place for dialogue, but also for dissenting dialogue.��Of course I wish that all member states supported international agreements like the Paris climate accord, and that all member states supported the Global Compact for Migration. But, again, dialogue is also about disagreeing. The important thing is to have a dialogue.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post For the United Nations, Multilateralism Is the Way Forward appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The midterm elections have largely been seen as a rebuke of President Donald Trump‘s policies, but the “blue wave” Democrats had envisioned did not materialize. Nevertheless, Democrats regained control of the House, a feat that could complicate matters for the president now that the opposing party holds the investigative power, can subpoena the administration, and move to protect Robert Mueller even in the event of a presidential firing.

Despite this, observers say Democrats could have a����in 2020, and while the outcome in certain key races have showed that Democrats and progressives came out in full force, they were ultimately boons for the president and his agenda.

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Anthony��Scaramucci, founder of Skybridge Capital, about his predictions on President Trump’s chances in 2020. Last year, Scaramucci served as the Trump administration’s communications director for falling prey to an administrative shakeup.

Athanasios Dimadis:��What are your main takeaways from the results of the midterm elections?

Anthony Scaramucci: There was no blue wave and President Trump will be extremely hard to beat in 2020. The results played out fairly consistent with polling data, with a few surprises on the margin. Bellwether national races in important swing states like Florida fell for the GOP, which is a positive sign for the president.

Democrats learned that the party’s swing far to the left isn’t likely the best path to future Senate majorities and the presidency in 2020. Moderate Democrats fared better than socialistic candidates in key races. Republicans learned that while the Trump GOP has built a strong rural and working-class coalition, the party needs to bring moderate suburban voters back into the fold in order to sustain their recent success into the next decade, given the shifting demographics of the country.

Dimadis: In a recent CNN interview, you said that Trump is saying “he’s a nationalist because he wants you to be upset about it, but he’s really not a nationalist.” Your prescription about Steve Bannon is that he a white nationalist. Do you believe that American nationalism as it takes shape today is Steve Bannon’s brand of white nationalism, or do you believe based on your comments that nationalism is not exclusively white? If so, how?

Scaramucci: The white nationalist crowd is a loud minority that, in the modern social media era, gets a lot more attention than it deserves. I think it’s possible to be fiercely patriotic without being prejudiced. I think it’s possible to be a “globalist” without thinking we should have completely open borders. Billions of dollars have been spent by political interest groups getting voters to hate the words “globalist” and “nationalist,” just as has been done for decades with the words “conservative” and “liberal.” Nuance and depth have been completely stripped out of our political dialogue, and it’s a shame.

Dimadis: Based on your political giving, Mitt Romney appears to be the only former Republican presidential candidate whom you’ve endorsed as you’ve done in his bid for Senate. Are you going to back him against the president in 2020? Should he run as speculated in 2020?

Scaramucci: Senator-elect Romney is a great person and would’ve made a tremendous president, but like many other establishment elites, he missed the desperation of the American working class leading up to the 2016 election. I did too, initially. The difference was I kept myself intellectually open-minded enough about then-candidate Trump that, when I attended my first campaign rally, I had an epiphany. His supporters by and large aren’t racists or white nationalists; they are blue-collar people like I grew up with who have been left behind and wanted an outsider to shake things up in Washington. To Romney’s credit, he has figured that out over time. Romney will be a great advocate for the people of Utah, but his window for presidential ambitions has closed.

Dimadis: It seems that in the 2016 election cycle, you gave a lot of money to Republican candidates and parties, including the Republican Federal Committee of Pennsylvania and the Republican Party of Wisconsin, and even $100,000 to Rebuilding America Now, a pro-Trump super PAC. You’ve dialed that back severely this cycle. What are your priorities in terms of political representation?

Scaramucci: I am fiscally responsible and socially inclusive, so given the polarization of today’s electorate, there aren’t many candidates who perfectly match my political fingerprint. When I’m determining my political support, I try to approximate which candidate best represents my values and the best interests of the country. Because of its more capitalistic bent, I believe the Republican Party generally does a better job of coming up with solutions to help lift people out of poverty. But I’ve also supported candidates on the Democratic side, including President Obama in 2008. My main priority in terms of political representation is someone who is going to empower people to be aspirational.

Dimadis: You launched a media venture called����in 2017, which is predominantly populated by articles published the previous year. It appears to be dormant. What happened there?��

Scaramucci: When I returned to SkyBridge, we had to shut it down for compliance reasons.

Dimadis: In a recent interview, you����that Trump’s tactics in attacking the press “helped him win the presidency” and that as the “leader of the free world, “he is the No. 1 principal, responsible person in government for all people.” You added that you would like to see rhetoric “dialed back” on both sides, and that “good leadership requires that somebody go first.” You said you would like that person to be the president. As opposed to whom? And if so, how?

Scaramucci: More than 90% of coverage about the Trump administration is negative despite the fact we have a very strong economy, historically low unemployment and deescalating geopolitical tensions around the world. President Trump has gone too far by adopting Steve Bannon’s rhetoric about “fake news” media being the “enemy of the people,” but the mainstream media has also been unfair to him. However, if he dialed back the bellicosity of his rhetoric and engaged the press in a more affable way, it would go a long way to deescalating the tension, turning the tide of coverage and boosting his approval ratings.

Dimadis: You’ve said that the president would����marijuana after the midterms. GOP insiders say that marijuana reform is in the pipeline as well. What would be the Republican Party’s focus in terms of marijuana legalization should they take the House, and how would that differ from the priorities that the Democrats have already expressed?

Scaramucci: The GOP sells itself as both the pro-business party and the party of individual liberty, so ideologically it makes sense to support marijuana legalization in some form. For Democrats, it makes sense from the standpoint of criminal justice reform, so I think there is the potential for some bipartisan consensus there. I am not a policy wonk when it comes to marijuana legalization and think the prevalence of recreational use in our society is a major negative, but believe the two sides will come together to come up with a solution that boosts the economy while reducing the number of fatherless homes in America.

Dimadis: Vice-President Mike Pence has been����this cycle as delivering the “traditional Republican message” of the GOP old guard, whereas President Trump has been campaigning in his traditional bombastic style. Which tactic do you think is effective and wouldn’t you suggest that the two stand in contrast? Is contrast opposition? Whom would you choose to stand with as anticipated they come apart?

Scaramucci: The message isn’t different as much as the way it’s delivered is different. President Trump and Vice-President Pence aren’t in opposition at all. You have to remember that before the 2016 election, many pundits were predicting a long dark winter for the Republican Party based on the electoral map and demographic changes in the country. President Trump, based largely on his own political instincts, was able to turn that completely on its head. Trump welded together a new Republican Party coalition using disillusioned GOP voters and former members of the Democratic Party’s blue-collar base. Future Republican candidates will either have to replicate that formula, which will be hard without Trump’s cult of personality, or move to the center on social issues, which today makes it difficult to win the GOP nomination.

Dimadis: If as you����on Channel 4 News on November 4, if the president is less ideologically inclined and more the traditional dealmaker that many Americans imagined him to be, then who are the losers and who are the winners in Donald Trump’s deals with the Republican Party?

Scaramucci: America is winning and enemies of America are losing. That may sound Trumpian, but it’s true. While Trump’s rhetoric often makes him a lightning rod for criticism, behind the superficiality of coverage surrounding his administration there are so many positive things going on in the country and around the world. Unemployment is at multi-decade lows, including for minority groups. Wage growth is starting to accelerate. We are engaging with North Korea and working towards denuclearization. ISIS has essentially been dismantled. We are finally confronting China on brazen intellectual property theft and trade abuses. Trump has created a new template for getting things done in Washington, and his legacy will be much more favorable than his detractors might hope.

Dimadis: The one question it seems no one has asked you: Why are you back in this arena? What is the point of resurfacing now with a book about Donald Trump?

Scaramucci: I am extremely patriotic and think it’s important for people to understand what’s going on in America. Over the past 30 years, there are people like me who have been very fortunate in their careers, but there are many more people who have been left behind by the forces of globalization and automation. While some of those forces were inevitable, our political class by and large did not do an adequate job helping American factory towns make the transition gradually. We have to find ways to reduce income inequality that mesh with American free market values. President Trump has been the first politician in 30 years to offer real solutions to these problems.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will Donald Trump Win in 2020? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

President Donald Trump’s election marked a new turn in US-EU relations. It is an environment dominated by tension, mutual suspicion and the questioning of historic ties between the two counterparts, such as in the field of EU commissioner for economic affairs, Pierre Moscovici, did not shrink from using in the past to respond to President Trump’s comments about potential EU collapse. During the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Moscovici suggested that the��isolationist tendencies inherent in Trump’s “America First” approach could be countered by what he calls a “.”

While relations with the United States might be at a , Europe itself is injected with optimism in regard to its political cohesion and economic stability. Emmanuel Macron’s election in France and the rejection of the far-right Marine Le Pen spelled good news for many Europeans. Their optimism is further strengthened as the eurozone’s , Greece, has been contained. seems to be determined to complete the fiscal adjustment��programs implemented since the 2010 crisis, and it is hopeful for a fresh start without more austerity come August.

However, these vibes of stability and positive messages for the eurozone bring concerns about the need for real ��in the currency union —��reforms��that have��stagnated over the years,��such as the creation of a banking union and of a . The question now is whether Europe is more prepared than in the past to confront a new political or financial crisis, which, despite an optimistic approach, cannot be excluded as a future possibility.

In this edition of��The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to��Pierre Moscovici, the EU commissioner for economic and financial affairs, taxation and customs,��about EU-US relations, Greek economy and the prospects for the eurozone.

Athanasios Dimadis:��What are the economic and political developments in the eurozone that make you feel optimistic, or at least more hopeful, about the short and long-term future for the currency union?��

Pierre Moscovici: In both economic and political terms, the tectonic plates have shifted in Europe over the past two years or so, opening a window of opportunity for us to reform the eurozone. Economically, we have moved from a phase of gradually strengthening recovery to one of robust expansion. Unemployment and deficits continue to fall and investment is, at last, rising in a meaningful way. In short, the sun is shining on our economy, and that is the right moment for us to get back to fixing the roof. Politically, the election of Donald Trump in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK, followed by the election of the Emmanuel Macron as president of France, have for different reasons provided a new impetus for us to strengthen our Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). But this window of opportunity to reform will not remain open forever: The moment to take the necessary ambitious decisions is now, in the coming months.

Dimadis: Almost eight years after the worst economic downturn in the eurozone’s history, what are the main lessons learned by the European political elites through this painful process of confronting and managing the debt crisis?

Moscovici:��Neither Europe nor the US was prepared for the financial crisis that hit in 2007-2008, and nor were we prepared for the sovereign debt crisis that hit the eurozone in 2010-2012. Policymakers had to act in haste, under tremendous market pressure, to address those problems. Many vital reforms were made in those years: building a more resilient, more responsible, better-supervised banking sector; strengthening the governance of the eurozone and establishing a financial firewall in the form of the European Stability Mechanism; and, at the national level, stabilizing public finances and modernizing labor markets and pension systems.

We are in a much stronger position today because of those reforms. Of course, with the luxury of hindsight, we can see what we might have done differently or better, had the political or economic conditions been different. But it is of little use dwelling on the past. Now we must look to the future and make the necessary improvements to the structures we have put in place. The banking union needs to be completed. The intergovernmental European Stability Mechanism needs to be integrated into the EU legal framework. And the focus of structural reforms in our member states needs to shift toward enhancing productivity through investment in human capital: innovation, education and research must be our priorities.

Dimadis:��Is the eurozone ready to manage similar crises in the future without the financial or technical support of third parties and external institutions such as the International Monetary Fund?��

Moscovici:��The IMF made a valuable contribution to the efforts to stabilize the eurozone during the crisis, and indeed its support was both financial (especially in the first and second Greek programs, in Ireland and Portugal) and technical. On both fronts, the eurozone today is in a stronger position. But the IMF is still an important partner and several of our member states remain attached to its involvement. Its possible role in any future crises would need to be discussed at the appropriate time. Fortunately, we are far from needing to consider this question today.

Dimadis: Since 2010��the relations between Europe and the IMF went through various stages and saw some tensions form.��Both sides had different approaches to issues such as the managing of the Greek debt. How do you see this partnership moving forward in the next years?��

Moscovici:��The European institutions cooperated smoothly with the IMF with the financial assistance programs for Portugal, Ireland, Cyprus — and, for the most part, in Greece too. Since the start of the current Greek program in August 2015, the IMF has been closely involved even if it has not been formally on board. Of course there have been difficulties over the years, reflecting the different prerogatives, constraints and cultures of our institutions. We have often differed in terms of our fiscal projections and debt; on the other hand, the IMF has been right to insist on the need to address Greece’s debt burden in a credible manner. Our cooperation in the context of the recently concluded third review of the Greek program has been very good, and I trust that this will continue to be the case up to the end of the program in August this year. It is in all our interests that Greece concludes the program successfully, as a normal member of the eurozone able to stand on its own two feet in economic terms.

Dimadis:��Is the risk of a potential Grexit off the table, or will it always remain a possibility if Greece doesn’t follow through on its commitments?

Moscovici:��I always fought against the idea of Grexit, first as French finance minister and later as European commissioner, because to me it was self evident that this would have been a disastrous outcome for Greece and also very damaging for the Economic and Monetary Union as a whole because of the precedent that it would have set. Of course, it is in Greece’s own interests to stick to its commitments in the future. But it would be wrong to characterize Grexit as a persistent shadow over the country — that is not the case. I truly believe that the threat of Grexit has now been banished.

Dimadis:��Do you share the optimism of the Greek government that has promised to the people that austerity is over once the third economic adjustment program finishes this summer?��

Moscovici:��The conclusion of the program this August will be a real as well as a symbolic turning point for Greece — there will be a before and an after. After so many years of dependence on external financial assistance, Greece will become, in economic terms, a normal European country once again. Greece’s economic policies will then be monitored through the coordination process we call the European Semester. Because many of the agreed reforms will continue to be implemented long after the program ends, and this process will need to be supported, there will need to be an appropriate type of post-program surveillance. The details of this will be agreed in due course. But let’s be clear: There will be no more “memoranda,” and, provided responsible fiscal policies and a credible growth strategy are pursued in the future, there should be no reason to fear a return to austerity.

Dimadis:��Given the recent comments by President Trump on Europe and his significantly harsher stance against America’s European partners, should the eurozone count on the support of the US leadership?��

Moscovici:��Clearly some of the decisions that the Trump administration has taken we do not agree with at all — I am thinking in particular of the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord. In my own area of responsibility, we have some concerns about whether the recent tax reform is compatible with internationally agreed anti-tax avoidance rules. We are looking into this.��However, I want to emphasize that overall we maintain a constructive dialogue with the administration. I met with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin a number of times over the past year, as well as with President Trump’s main economic adviser Gary Cohn and other interlocutors. The transatlantic economic relationship remains strong and it is in our mutual interest that it remain so.

In the meantime, the EU is pressing ahead, forging new trade agreements with key partners around the world: The Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement with Canada is being provisionally applied; we have finalized a major trade deal with Japan; and we are moving forward with talks with Mexico and Mercosur. In short, whatever choices our American friends make will not reduce our determination to reject protectionism and remain open to the world.

Dimadis: Recently, you rejected a��“Europe First” response to President Trump and suggested the so-called “European way.” What does the “European way” mean for a European Union that seems to lack cohesion among its member states?��

Moscovici:��The European way is the way of multilateralism, of open societies and open economies, of fairness and equality, of diversity and tolerance. We must stand firm in defense of our values, wherever in the world, they are questioned or challenged — and that includes within the EU itself.

Dimadis:��In this polarized international and economic environment, can the goal of deepening the eurozone be institutionally and fiscally feasible? What are the steps that need to be taken for the currency union to achieve a higher degree of convergence?

Moscovici:��As I said in answer to your first question, recent international and economic developments have provided a boost to efforts to deepen Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union. But we need to act fast because this confluence of factors will not last forever. The proposals that the [European] Commission put on the table last December aim both to improve the governance of the euro area and to boost economic convergence.��On the governance side, we aim to improve coherence and efficiency, notably through the creation of a European Monetary Fund in 2019, equipped with a €60 [$74] billion backstop for the Single Resolution Fund to strengthen the credibility of the banking union.

We have also proposed the establishment of a European economy and finance minister, who would be both president of the Eurogroup and vice-president of the commission. This is an idea that has long been close to my heart and I believe it would give a significant boost to the transparency and accountability of our decision-making.��Then, to support convergence between EMU economies, we are proposing to strengthen budgetary and financial support for technical assistance and structural reforms and crucially, to create a stabilization function to help eurozone countries to deal with asymmetric shocks.

The current discussions among finance ministers, in view of the upcoming summit of eurozone leaders on March 22, are focused on the proposals related to the backstop for the Single Resolution Fund and the reform of the European Stability Mechanism. But this must not mean that we lose sight of the other elements of the package, because we need to have a global vision of the deepening of EMU — one that goes beyond these short-term priorities.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post Tectonic Plates Have Shifted in the Eurozone appeared first on 51�Թ�.

President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy has been met with criticism both at home and abroad, not only for its perceived protectionism on economic issues, but also for heralding��a new era of American isolationism in international affairs.��The US has stepped back from multilateral accords like the Paris Climate Agreement and announced a funding cut to the UN budget.��Albeit US commitment to NATO was reconfirmed to be “,”��President Trump’s skepticism toward the alliance has created a sense of unease.��Adversaries like Russia have been emboldened, carving out new spheres of influence.��Time-honored friends and partners wonder where they stand.

Nowhere is this uncertainty about America’s place on the global stage, as well as the perception that the US is stepping back from its leadership role, felt more acutely than in the halls of the US Department of State.��Here, the Trump administration has proposed major and instituted a hiring freeze, leaving many of the senior positions unfilled.��This marginalization and hollowing-out of the institution on the frontlines of American diplomacy has, in turn, led to declining morale and a drastic mass of career diplomats.

Meanwhile, President Trump has kept up his attack on another major American institution:��the media.��This tension comes in tandem with a broader crisis of credibility for mainstream outlets as traditional news competes with proliferating social networks for consumers’ attention.

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to David D. Pearce, a career diplomat and former US ambassador to Greece and Algeria, about the importance of maintaining diplomatic partnerships, commitment to civic duty and how a changing media landscape is affecting democracy.

Athanasios Dimadis:��The strategic question that has come into focus over the past year is whether US foreign policy should maintain its high level of engagement with other countries around the world, or whether it should step back from its leadership role.��What is your view on what the role of US��foreign policy should be in the 21st century?��

David D. Pearce:��There’s been a lot of talk in the past year about this, and especially about the role of the State Department, where I worked for nearly 35 years.��Some wonder to what extent we even need diplomats in this day and age.��You will not be surprised to hear I firmly believe that US engagement abroad is vital to our national defense, prosperity and security.

Let me cite two bits of history, one old, one more recent.��First, the story of the hair of Muawiyah:��The Umayyad Caliph Muawiyah was one of the top generals of the Prophet Muhammad.��In the 7th century��he ruled��over famously fractious Syria for 40 years without discord, first as governor, and then as the leader of a Damascus-based empire that stretched from Spain to India.��He was once asked how he managed to do this.��“If there were but a hair between me and the others,” he replied, “I would not cut it. If they let go a little, I will pull. If they pull, I will let go a little.” The moral of the story for the wise leader or administrator is:��stay engaged, avoid complete ruptures with your adversaries and adjust methods as circumstances require.

The second example is World War I:��Last year was the 100th anniversary of our entry into the Great War.��When it was over, there was a new world order, a new Middle East, and the US had emerged on the world stage as a global power.��Except we didn’t want to be��— we refused to ratify the postwar treaties or even join the League of Nations.��We wanted to turn our backs on entangling alliances and overseas commitments and go back to the way we were.��Over the next 20 years, as we turned away, we saw the rise of Nazi Germany in Europe and Japanese aggression in the Pacific.��The upshot was that in World War II my dad went off to fight a war in Europe in the very same places where his father and my other grandfather had both fought, just a generation before.

The lesson is, we need to be engaged in the world, not as a favor to others, but because it is in our national interest to do so.�� We keep that hair of Muawiyah in place to advance our interests and to safeguard our national security.

Dimadis:��Many Americans I meet seem to think that, because of US dominance, other countries need America more than America needs them.����How important is it for the US to tend to its relationships with its friends and allies?��

Pearce:��Well, that is the lesson of World War I, and of World War II.��We need allies and partners.��Our allies and partners need us.��NATO has kept the peace in Europe for over 70 years.��But, like a garden, important relationships need tending, and nothing good happens if they are neglected.��You need to show up at a senior level, listen and consult. When I was the US ambassador to Algeria and to Greece, I put a very high priority on getting senior administration officials to visit and engage with the Algerian and Greek leaderships.��It’s not a one-way street.��You don’t just come when you need something.��You have to build relations when you don’t need people so they’re there when you do.

A little humility goes a long way.��We need to recognize what we know and what we don’t know.��No matter how good you think your information or intelligence is, chances are the people who actually live in a region know a heck of a lot more about it than you do. So you talk with your partners.��You listen. If you want them in on the landing, you’d better have them in on the take-off.��It’s really just common sense.��Good business.��You don’t take friends for granted.��You tend the garden, and that constant��gardening is diplomacy.

Dimadis:����You joined the Foreign Service in January 1982, meaning you have seen many changes.��What would your message be to those, especially from the younger generation, who aspire to a career in public service?��

Pearce:��We need the best candidates possible for our national security work, whether it’s the Foreign Service, or the military, or the CIA, or the Agency for International Development, or the Foreign Agricultural Service, or the Foreign Commercial Service, or the Treasury Department, or the Justice Department or the various law enforcement agencies that maintain important liaison relationships abroad.��So whenever I am asked to make some remarks or do an interview, I always make a pitch for public service, and for the Foreign Service in particular.��It is critically important that we enlist our most talented to learn the hard languages, go to the hard places and do the hard things.

Dimadis:����What is the meaning of public service today?

Pearce:�� I don’t think the essential meaning of public service changes much over time.��To me, it means a strong sense of duty, discipline and service above self.��I know of no greater honor than to serve and represent one’s country overseas.��Most of us want lives of meaning. There are lots of ways to do that, but public service is one of the very best.

Dimadis:��Some people don’t know that before becoming a diplomat and US ambassador, you had a career in journalism with The Washington Post and Associated Press.����From your perspective as a former journalist, how do you understand the significant structural changes that have taken place in the media landscape over about the last 20 years?��

Pearce:��When I began my career as a reporter in the early 1970s, there was no Facebook, no cell phones, no cable TV, no internet and no email.��Long-distance telephone calls were very expensive.��The reporting of international news in the United States was dominated by the two major wire services, a few large metropolitan newspapers, the weekly news magazines TIME and Newsweek and three national broadcast networks.��Most of these organizations maintained networks of correspondents and news bureaus overseas.��Foreign correspondents generally filed their reports by Telex.��Computers were just beginning to appear on the scene, but they were large and clunky and used mainly for word processing and data storage.

By the time I wrote��my book,��,��about 20 years later, the internet was well along on its march into the broad spaces of commerce.��Email, cell phones and computers were coming into more general use, and personal devices were getting smaller and cheaper by the year.��CNN’s live coverage of the��1990-91��Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and its aftermath signaled a profound challenge to the old journalistic order, bringing world events to consumers in real time.

As the media scene changed, advertising revenues also shifted in new directions.��Traditional revenue structures came under increasing stress, and major media outlets began to rethink the way they covered the international news.��Organizations cut back on expensive overseas bureaus.��The result:��more “parachute” coverage of events by journalists and instant experts, less expertise and analytical input from regionally-based foreign correspondents.

Dimadis:��I was impressed by your prescience in Wary Partners, written 23 years ago: “The fast-evolving communications and technology revolutionizing nearly every aspect of international relations are also reshaping the way governments do business with one another.��In this whirlwind of change, it is plain that more information than ever will be available to publics in the twenty-first century and that this will profoundly affect the conduct of international affairs.��Not only will information media and technology play a central role in the shaping of public policy, but the efficacy of diplomacy as a tool of policy will depend to a large extent on how well diplomats adapt to this reality.”��Do you have any concerns about the way information is disseminated and consumed today through social media?��

Pearce:��In the years since I wrote that, these trends have accelerated.��What I regret most is the decline of editing, and especially the blurring of the formally sacred distinction between news coverage and editorial opinion.��I have always taken it as an article of faith that the quality of a news organization’s product is a direct function of the quality of its editing.��But the atomization of information via social media effectively means that there are now comparatively fewer real gatekeepers to safeguard the quality and accuracy of what the general public sees and hears.��Today’s readers and listeners pick and choose information from a broad, ever-proliferating, à la carte menu of outlets vying for their attention.��And in many respects, this luxury of choice is a tremendous advance.��But in the marketplace of ideas, it also allows people, if they are so inclined, to hear and see only what they like.��Short form, social media and multitasking are up; long form, print media and reading are down.

Dimadis:��Is the displacement of��the old-format media and press by online and social media a positive development for the industry, the consumers and, more broadly, for democracy itself?��

Pearce:��Many will argue that this is a good thing.��Not me.��I own a 1972 book on news editing by Bruce Westley of the University of Kentucky.��Its definition of the role of the individual copy editor seems almost quaint by today’s standards.��It says the copy editor must eliminate errors in spelling, grammar, sentence structure, style, taste, fact and organization.��In addition, the editor must guard against unwarranted reportorial bias, verbosity, repetition, wearisome detail, overlooked facts, incongruities, advertising in disguise, libel, lottery, hoaxes, old news, axe-grinding and duplication.��News organizations and decision-makers alike must now contend with a social media environment that has made everyone a reporter and everyone an editor.

The practical effect of this is to flatten and atomize distribution of information in a hurtling blend of fact, error and opinion.��So the media landscape has been reshaped dramatically over the past three decades.��This has had the effect of speeding up pressure on decision-makers, reducing the time for deliberation, delegitimizing authority figures and polarizing audiences — all of which hampers the kind of careful deliberation, compromise and accommodation that is essential for the effective functioning of democratic institutions.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post Lessons in Diplomacy: We Need Our Friends and Allies appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Is 2018 going to be the year the eurozone finally leaves behind nearly a decade of financial and political instability? Projections in����are contradictory. Over the last eight years, the Europeans tended to adopt an optimistic��outlook, while the International Monetary Fund chose to keep a more pragmatic approach to Europe’s economic prospects, albeit without being overly pessimistic. This trend seems to be on course for 2018. The IMF avoids being triumphant��about the end of the eurozone crisis, ��about political and exterior risks as well as reform challenges that may arise. European leaders maintain a bright outlook about what’s next for the currency union after years of economic turbulence.

However, there seems to be a consensus that the short and long-term future of the eurozone is dependant on the ability within the European Union to eliminate potential risks at the political level by the end of the year. persists, with a stable coalition still to be voted in; raise questions about the direction the country will take; and, with its momentous debt nowhere near being resolved, the situation in continues to be of concern.

Europe also has to deal with an unpredictable US president in the face of Donald Trump, whose on NATO, Europe’s unity and his intentions on inflamed tensions between the European Union and the US.

In this edition of��The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the ,��about Washington’s perspectives on eurozone recovery, Greece, Brexit and the Trump’s administration relationship with America’s European allies.

Athanasios Dimadis:��Over the last few months, there’s been an impression of calm across the eurozone, after several years of a financial and political turmoil. Is this an illusion, or are the economic and political prospects for the currency union becoming more optimistic?

Jacob Funk Kirkegaard: The euro area is currently at around 2.5%, growing at its fastest pace in a decade and well above its potential growth rate. As a result, unemployment is falling — and overall employment is rising — which, together with the decline in immigrant numbers, helps insulate incumbent governments from populist challenges. The upswing is widespread and hence likely to be quite sustainable in the medium term. Hence current optimism is warranted.

Dimadis:��Do you agree with the view that the EU’s political recovery came much faster than expected��after the initial Brexit shock?

Kirkegaard: Early 2017 was the turning point for populism in the West. The Dutch rejected [Geert] Wilders and his Party for Freedom, and the French rejected [Marine] Le Pen. This was not unexpected by some of us, but evidently a surprise in the English-speaking press and large parts of the financial markets, in which the domino theory prevailed until May-June 2017. Merkel’s re-election was expected and did not add much to a changing political tide in Europe.

Dimadis:��What are the greatest political risks you foresee for the eurozone in 2018? Is the Greek case one of them?

Kirkegaard: The main risk for the EU and the euro area in 2018 is a failure to form a German government. This would not lead to populism in Germany, but would cause paralysis in the EU and the eurozone right at the time when the political window of opportunity for reform was open after the election of [Emmanuel] Macron and ahead of the 2019 EU elections. This would be a wasted opportunity, which could set back reform of the euro area by a decade. Greece, in my opinion, does not amount to a major risk to the euro area, as there will be next to no contagion from Greece, no matter what happens in Athens. Greek politics (and economics) is again only a risk to itself!

Dimadis:��Seeing a leftist Syriza government in Greece implement austerity measures and painful social reforms requested by the country’s creditors, does it signify an end of political ideology, as a result of the financial crisis?

Kirkegaard: In a way, Syriza had had to travel the road of all centre-left parties since 1989 and adopt a much more market-friendly and fiscally sustainable economic policy. As such, what happened with Syriza in Greece merely confirms prior similar developments in other EU countries. Political ideology, though, is not dead, but has��merely shifted from a predominantly economic axis of disagreement over the size of the state etc. to conflicts over how open to immigration and foreign economic influence countries should be.

Dimadis: The Greek government’s view is that 2018 will bring an end to the memorandums and austerity measures. Is this a narrative based in reality?

Kirkegaard: I think 2018 could well see the end of “new austerity” and the memorandums, but it will certainly not herald a return to the past for Greece. Some rollback of crisis reforms is to be expected, but the phased debt relief that the euro area will agree to will prevent material backsliding of reforms in Greece. As such, the Syriza government will predictably declare victory and liberation for Greece, but conveniently forget that it (Syriza) of course lost the political and economic reform war and was forced to implement the victors’ plans. Hence, this to me is real progress for Greece, but does not help Syriza as a political party much. They will try to put lipstick on the pig, but few of their core supporters are likely to be convinced.

Dimadis: What is the��IMF’s stance on the Greek crisis to date?

Kirkegaard: I think the IMF is quite sanguine about the need for some further reform of pensions etc. in Greece, and that the country — even with politically realistic debt relief from the euro area — will continue to face a challenge in avoiding backsliding on crisis reforms. Hence, they are probably more generally skeptical about Greece’s prospects than the euro area or many market participants. This is quite normal though, as it is the IMF’s job to be skeptical. To me it remains a mystery why the Greek government hates the IMF so much. The reality is that without the IMF, they would never have gotten any debt relief.

Dimadis:��In Washington, is there speculation about what might the next exit from the EU or the eurozone be, after Brexit?

Kirkegaard: Among the realistic Washington-based analysts (i.e. not necessarily including the Trump administration), it is generally acknowledged that there is unlikely to be any additional exits from the euro area or indeed the EU. The travails of Greece highlights how it is essentially impossible to leave the euro, while of course the UK is also making a huge mess of Brexit, proving much of the same point about exit from the EU. There are no countries lining up to leave anymore.

Dimadis:��Does the current US administration share the understanding of the Obama White House that a stable Europe means better prospects for the American economy?

Kirkegaard: In general, yes. You will not find many even in the Trump administration who support more��exits or the manner in which the British government is embracing and implementing Brexit… Even Trump himself said that he would do it differently (though his tactics would have been worse of course).

Dimadis: The tensions between the US and Europe persist and seem to affect a broad spectrum of bilateral relations between the two allies. How do you see this EU-US relationship evolving over the next few years?

Kirkegaard: I think EU leaders essentially have chosen to wait Trump out, to engage with him when they have to, but not antagonize him unnecessarily (even if it would generally play well politically for them at home). This makes the transatlantic relationship, which for 70 years has been characterized by close political collaboration, a lot less special these days than before. The West is no longer united and its ability to act together in a crisis cannot be taken for granted. This will not cause the transatlantic relationship to collapse, just degrade it to just another relationship with a large economic power. Whether this will change in the long run depends on the reaction of the UK political system and public to Trump. If he is rejected in 2018/2020, a quick��reset/return to normal is certainly possible, but if he is not, the strategic alliance we have known since the Second World War will be a hollow shell.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post Eurozone: Optimism Is Warranted appeared first on 51�Թ�.

During the World Economic Forum in Davos, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde, stressed the importance for all eurozone countries — first and foremost — to implement reforms that will bring back the prospect of sustainable growth, with lower rates of unemployment and higher competitiveness for European economies. Since the realization that Greece could default on its debt launched the eurozone into crisis in 2009, EU economy remains fragile.

Although the austerity measures imposed on indebted eurozone countries such as Greece (which received a record ��in 2010, followed by a further ), Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland over the last eight years were necessary for financial stability, showed signs of trepidation about the long-term impact these measures will have on economic growth. Greece needs growth to repay the loans, but the country’s public debt has surged to��, and have been lower than initially estimated. According to some projections,��, with external economic factors anticipated to further negatively impact the currency union.

After nearly a decade of economic and political turmoil, Europe is still struggling to regain stability. This is not simply a result of austerity measures, which proved to��be��detrimental to both the social and political cohesion of the European Union. The eurozone economy has been established in a context where political leaders in each member state promote national agendas, often neglecting their obligations to the union. After eight years of recession, the primary question about Europe’s future remains unanswered: Will the eurozone ever be able to flourish without external support? Perhaps more relevant still is the question whether the EU is prepared to operate more like a federation and less like a group of individual states with different visions and conflicting priorities. Given the current state of affairs, this seems unlikely.

I remember the conversation I had a couple of years ago with one of the top IMF executives who expressed the view that when the fund started working with Europe on the initial bailout plans for Greece, the IMF and the Europeans seemed to be on a different page. Although Greece has for many years been at the forefront of many battles between Europe and the IMF concerning, for example, the level of ��following Greece’s 2010 economic meltdown, there have been other, more significant points of disagreement. Since the beginning of the crisis, Jean-Claude Trichet at the European Central Bank (ECB), José Manuel Barroso at the European Commission (EC) and the German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble seemed unwilling to resolve immediate problems, preferring to postpone until the point where some issues have become unmanageable.

For example, who can forget when back in 2010 the three major players in the European decision-making process — the ECB, the EC and Germany — persistently rejected any discussion for possible debt relief for Greece while the IMF warned that this will be inevitable. With almost two years of delay, reality forced the European negotiators to finally adopt the IMF’s position according to which part of the unmanageable Greek debt was to be written off. But the crisis has in the meantime burgeoned not just in Greece but throughout the entire eurozone.

In January 2018, the IMF published a report of its��. The IMF cuts eurozone’s growth projections to 2.2% this year and to just 2.0% for 2019, down from 2.4% in 2017. Concurrently, the eurozone is still facing risks of political instability in countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain where national governments are confronting continued opposition to austerity measures, high unemployment rates and lack of economic prosperity. According to Bert Colijn,��an economist at the ING, political risks in the eurozone such the protracted German coalition talks and Italy’s upcoming elections could have a significant impact on the economic outlook. Analysts��also pose the question whether in France will be enough to mitigate political risk across the EU.

Economists from expect the eurozone to step onto a safe path of lesser economic and political turmoil. However, there is one crucial omission in these estimations. Over the last eight years, the eurozone has missed the opportunity to implement reforms such as creation of a banking union that could build resilience to future crises. This is despite the fact that Europe had the US by its side, with����when the eurozone was facing the possibility of an unprecedented breakdown. The former US president has been credited with helping to save the euro after on how to handle the debt crisis and avoiding the disastrous accident of a potential “Grexit.”

President Donald Trump’s position on Europe is diametrically opposite: The more Obama was trying to keep Europe united, the less Trump cares about what Europe’s future is. Trump’s alleged pick for ambassador to the EU put a , in a manner similar to President Trump having “.”

With the US taking an increasingly protectionist and antagonistic turn away from its partners in Europe, the Europeans do not have many options anymore. Europe’s leaders have to make tough decisions, including potentially shrinking the union by expelling those members who do not comply with the rules. Otherwise, the reforms that Christine Lagarde is calling for will end up becoming a call for action to avoid the eurozone veering on the edge of collapse yet again.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post Eurozone’s Economic Prospects Still in Question appeared first on 51�Թ�.

With President Donald Trump’s threat to still on course, key industry groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce have expressed their opposition and warned that the move would be bad for business. Having entered the on January 29th, the conclusion of the NAFTA negotiations is still uncertain, creating a major source of concern for businesses and trade stakeholders across America.

Simultaneously, the of retaliatory practices from and , in response to restrictive trade measures that the Trump administration has threatened to impose against them. Economists and political analysts in Washington criticize President Trump for , and this criticism grows along with major concerns for his budgetary policy and recent tax reform that is predicted to add $1.5 trillion to the US public debt over the next decade.

But the US is not alone in its worry about debt and deficit. According to the statistics, China poses the biggest threat to , its total debt having risen astronomically over the last decade. The eurozone is still trying to heal the scars of an enduring economic crisis, with Greece’s��unmanageable��debt remaining a significant problem. Europe’s slow pace in implementing decisions and enacting reforms has always been a .

In this edition of��The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Hung Tran, the executive managing director of the Institute of International Finance, about the prospects for the global economy in 2018.

Athanasios Dimadis:��What are the most significant political risks in 2018 you highlight for the developed economies and the US economy?

Hung Tran: Besides the geopolitical tension, the key political risk this year is rising trade friction as protectionist measures from the US — in addition to measures on solar panels and washing machines, there will be steps on aluminum, steel and intellectual property — meet with possible retaliatory moves by other countries, especially China. In addition to trade measures, the US is strengthening the process to screen inward direct investment projects by expanding the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US. This can slow the growth of world trade and foreign direct investments, hurting the prospects of the global economic recovery.

Dimadis:��Simultaneously, many investors have been looking for gains and opportunities in emerging markets. Do you expect this trend to continue this year?

Tran: Emerging markets have had a good performance and attracted strong non-resident capital flow last year. Such inflows to emerging markets have accelerated so far this year, as the relative undervaluation of emerging market assets versus millions of dollars in assets (specifically equities and bonds) and stronger growth in emerging markets continue to support emerging financial markets and attracting inflows this year.

Dimadis:��According to the Institute of International Finance, global debt hit an all-time high of $233 trillion in 2017. China’s total debt to GDP has risen at one of the fastest rates in the world over the past decade, from under 175% of GDP to nearly 300%. What are the risks generated from the current state of Chinese deleveraging?

Tran:�� The record volume of global debt, rising very quickly over the past decade, represents a source of headwind to growth as the necessary deleveraging occurs. In addition, high debt increases debt servicing difficulty, especially for weak sovereign and corporate borrowers, as interest rates start to rise. China is likely to engineer a soft landing combining gradual deleveraging and less ambitious growth objectives.

Dimadis:��What is the reason the global debt hit an all-time high? How worried should we be about it?

Tran:��Very low-interest rates and plentiful of central bank liquidity have led to a significant increase in debt. In particular, the search for yield has supported the growth of high-yield bond issuance. Besides becoming a headwind to future growth, very high levels of debt, especially by a weak sovereign and corporate borrowers, will create serious debt servicing problems for them as interest rates rise.

Dimadis:��How can governments be averted from over-borrowing and running into a funding crisis, particularly in countries where corruption is rife? How confident are you that in the future we won’t see other debt crises similar to what happened in Greece in 2010?

Tran: The main tool is full disclosure by the sovereign debtor, supplemented by International Monetary Fund and World Bank data on the country’s sustainable debt limits as well as full transparency in the process of incurring debt. With full transparency, market participants can price sovereign risks more accurately, and international financial institutions such as the IMF can caution the government if its debt exceeds sustainable levels.

Dimadis:��You recently expressed the view that there is a clear sense of hope that has emerged in Europe after years of stagnation, crises and now Brexit. Where is this optimism coming from?

Tran: The cyclical recovery in Europe has accelerated and spread out across countries and sectors, thus creating a window of opportunity for Europe to reform and improve its economic resiliency and performance. European leaders have indicated their intention to move forward, energized to a large extent by President Macron’s ambitious proposals.

Dimadis:��Would you characterize this emerging recovery of the eurozone as fragile, or is it more stable than it appears to be? What is this regeneration in the eurozone dependent on?

Tran: Europe’s recovery mainly results from significant monetary accommodation and a fiscal stance which had turned neutral, then modestly positive, over the past two years. As such, the recovery is still cyclical in nature and needs to be reinforced with reform measures to enhance its resiliency.��Specifically, Europe needs to construct a productive framework for a relationship with the UK after Brexit, to complete the banking union and capital markets union, and to improve the functioning of EU institutions to regain the trust and confidence of voters.

Dimadis:��What is your projection for Greece? Is the country emerging from the crisis?

Tran: Greek economy has recovered by 1.4% last year and expected to grow by a touch above 2% in 2018, with government budget in balance and current account in a small surplus (of around 0.4% of GDP). Greece is finishing negotiations with its official creditors to exit the adjustment program. With improved prospects and an upgrade by Standard & Poor’s to B from B-, Greece plans to issue an international bond of €3 billion ($3.7 billion) next month. So we can talk about the post-crisis era of the country, provided the reforms put in place during the program are maintained, and the European creditors deliver on their debt relief promises.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post Global Economy: What to Expect in 2018 appeared first on 51�Թ�.

With President Donald Trump having completed his first year in the Oval Office, the discussion on what his administration managed to achieve when it comes to the country’s economy remains heated. From the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump publicly reiterated that the thanks to his government’s economic policies, such as the tax reform bill passed at the end of 2017, predicted to add a further $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.��While there is modest evidence to support Trump’s boasting of , the question emerges whether .

Desmond Lachman, of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, doesn’t shy away from criticizing Donald Trump and expressing his skepticism about some of the president’s protectionist economic policies and isolationist decisions aligned with “America First.”��It remains to be seen whether America’s economic strength a result of Trump’s policies, or if he is riding the wave of favorable economic factors, but the president seems to reluctant to acknowledge the Federal Reserve’s contribution to boosting the economy’s performance. Lachman has raised the issue of the that, in 2009, he had highlighted as one of the significant concerning matters of Barack Obama’s economic policy. Nearly a decade later, the US budget deficit continues to be at the epicenter of criticism and scrutiny directed toward Washington’s decision-makers.

In this edition of��The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Desmond Lachman about the prospects of the US economy under President Trump and the concerns about sustainable recovery.

Athanasios Dimadis: Just over a year after��Trump’s election, is the American economy in a better place now than it was under President Obama?��

Desmond Lachman: One needs to distinguish between how the US economy is currently operating and how it might be operating in a year or two. One also needs to think how much credit should be given to the Trump administration for the US economy’s recent strong performance and how much credit should be given to the Federal Reserve’s easy monetary policy, and to a strong global economy. Over the past year, the US economy has been operating well. Economic growth has picked up, unemployment has declined to decade-long lows and inflation has remained quiescent.

However, the US economy has not been alone in performing well, as is indicated by a significant pickup in economic growth in all of the world’s major economies. Like the US, these other economies have also benefited from the extraordinarily easy monetary policies that have been pursued by their central banks. Looking ahead, there are real questions as to how long the US recovery can be sustained and whether the US economy might not be heading for an economic recession.

Dimadis: Are there any reasons for concern with respect to the sustainability of the US economy’s recovery?��

Lachman:��There are two basic reasons for concern. The first is that the very easy monetary policy by the world’s main central banks has given rise to bubbles in global equity markets, in the global bond and credit markets, and in selected housing markets across the globe. When these bubbles burst we could have serious economic setbacks across the globe. The second is that the US economy is likely to be adversely impacted by the recent large and ill-advised unfunded tax cut, which has been the main policy initiative of the Trump administration.

Dimadis: What might the implications of this tax cut be on the economy?��

Lachman:��That tax cut is estimated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to increase the budget deficit and to add $1.5 trillion to the US public debt over the next decade. An unfunded tax cut at this stage of the cycle made little sense and is likely to get the US economy into trouble. At a time that the US economy was close to full employment and growing well, the last thing that it needed was a fiscal stimulus. This would particularly seem to be the case considering that the US economy is currently receiving a strong boost from the combination of still-low interest rates, very buoyant stock prices and a slumping dollar. This has to raise the risk that the US economy will soon overheat, and inflation will return. An overheating US economy would either force the Federal Reserve to move to a more aggressive interest rate path or else bring out the bond vigilantes. Both of these possibilities risk bursting today’s global asset price bubbles with possibly untoward consequences for the global economy.

Dimadis:��Has Trump made good on any of the economic promises he made before the election?��

Lachman:��Trump’s major economic policy initiative to date has been his large tax cut. This fell far short of his many promises to simplify the US tax system, to have a tax reform program that mainly benefited the middle class, and not to increase the budget deficit. Following his tax reform, the US tax system remains extraordinarily complex, while most of the benefits of the tax cut are to be received by the wealthy. It is striking that a main focus of the tax initiative was a permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%. By contrast, the individual tax cuts are skewed to the high-income earners and are to be phased out over time. The Trump administration has also not yet delivered on its many “America First” promises to tear up trade agreements like NAFTA and to impose large tariffs on countries that take advantage of the US. That he has not delivered on these promises is a good thing and might have spared us from a global trade war. However, I am not holding my breath that he will continue to be restrained in this area.

Dimadis:��Despite all this, the stock market has hit an all-time high under Trump. Can this be a counterargument to those who predicted that his election would be disastrous for the US economy?��

Lachman:��The Trump administration is certainly placing a lot of emphasis on the 25% increase in equity prices as a vindication of how good its economic policies have been. In so doing, it glosses over the inconvenient fact that equity prices in the first year of the Obama administration increased by 35%. It is also turning a blind eye to the fact that over the past year, global equity prices have matched or more than matched the US stock market performance. One should also add that equity-market performance is a very unreliable predictor as to how the economy might perform in the year ahead, particularly if it’s in a big bubble.

Dimadis:��Trump receives criticism that he overcomes the limits of his power by attacking, for example, the Federal Reserve. How can such behavior impact confidence in the US economy?

Lachman:��There would seem to be two main areas where investors should be concerned about the Trump administration’s interference in the operation of institutions. The first would be his attempt to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve and to interfere with the Federal Open Market Committee’s interest-making decisions. That runs the very real risk of undermining market confidence in how committed the administration is to keeping inflation in check. If markets lose confidence on that score, one could see real turmoil in financial markets that would certainly have a negative impact on the economy.

A second potential area of concern is the administration’s seeming intention to skirt Congress in the area of trade policy. A move by the administration to a more restrictive trade policy runs the risk of bringing on a global trade and currency war that would certainly put global prosperity at risk.

Dimadis:��Wall Street economists warn of the idea that the Federal Reserve could introduce at least three interest rates hikes in 2018. What would that mean if the economy does not continue to show a pickup in growth?��

Lachman:��It is difficult to see how the US economy is not going to need at least three interest rate increases in 2018.�� The economy is already at close to full employment and is growing faster than its potential. Meanwhile, it is getting a big boost from the tax cut as well as from the 25% increase in equity prices and the 13% drop in the dollar over the past year. If there is a reason to be concerned it is that the Fed is already behind the interest rate increasing curve and that it will need to raise interest rates by more than three times in 2018 to keep inflation in check.

Dimadis:��Economists agree that the Federal Reserve succeeded in meeting the employment goal of its dual mandate, but inflation in the US is still a problem. Do you see the inflation to remain a wild card? What is your projection for 2018?��

Lachman:��I very much see inflation as being a wild card. It seems to me that both the Fed and the markets are underestimating the likely impact on inflation of an overheated US economy, a big slump in the US dollar and now strongly rising oil prices. We will soon see inflation at levels above the Fed’s 2% target. Two considerations make it difficult to forecast inflation for the year. The first is that one would have to know how a Trump dominated Fed would react to a pick up in inflation. The second is that one would have to know whether the global asset bubble bursts in 2018 and exerts strong deflationary pressure, as it did in the 2008-2009 episode.

Dimadis: How much are Trump’s attitude and strategy toward Europe a real concern for US-EU relations?��

Lachman:��President Trump’s remarks on Europe over the past year have not been encouraging. He seems to want to encourage other countries to follow the United Kingdom’s Brexit example and leave the European Union. He also has made noises about the costs of the euro to individual countries. This attitude is concerning as it would seem to be in the US interest to have a strong, united and economically prosperous Europe.

Dimadis:��President Trump stated in Davos that “America first does not mean America alone.” Do you interpret this statement as a step away from his isolationist stance?��

Lachman:��Yes. I was encouraged by that statement as it seemed that he is dialing back on his more protectionist rhetoric of the past. However, the proof of the pudding is not so much what he says but by what his administration does in the trade field. In that respect, the recent imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods and [Secretary of the Treasury] Steven Mnuchin’s efforts to talk down the dollar were not encouraging.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post What Does the Future Hold for Trumponomics? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Robert Ford served as the US ambassador to Syria between 2011 and 2014, an appointee of the Obama administration. Ford was criticized for his belief that working with the Syrian rebels would help US efforts to get rid of Assad. Later, Ford��that most of the insurgents backed by the US who presented themselves as moderates had been fighting alongside the Islamic State (IS or ISIS).

Before his , Ford had been recalled��from Syria due to what the US State Department described as “” to his safety. He had been a target of an intimidation campaign by the Syrian regime as a result of his speaking out against President Assad. In an op-ed for��, Ford pointed to both the Syrian government and the jihadists as the two major challenges of the US core interests in Syria.��His resignation was marked by scathing criticism against the����in Syria, saying that “” His latest comments that “” were characterized as a cynical but realistic description of the US policy outcomes in the crisis.

Following the first US direct airstrike against Syria, on the Sharyat airbase near Homs in April 2017, Ford called on President Donald Trump to “.” In order to do this, the US would have to acknowledge its mistakes over the previous years. With the war entering a new phase, the United States seems to have no good options left in Syria. As Ford stated in his most recent��, with the regime preparing to take control of the entire country, the US is going to have to abandon any hopes for a positive outcome in the region.

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Ambassador Robert Ford — now a fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, and a teaching fellow at Yale��University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs — about what went wrong with the US effort in Syria and what is next in the unresolved tragedy of the Syrian Civil War.

Athanasios Dimadis: In one of your latest interviews, you admitted that Assad won and expressed the view that he will stay in power. Was this outcome the result of political and strategic mistakes made by the US government, particularly during the period you served as the US ambassador to Syria?��

Robert Ford: Assad has won in Syria not solely because of American mistakes. The Syrian uprising didn’t start because of the United States in any way, and its course has followed a path largely — not entirely — by Syrians.��The Syrian opposition, both political and armed, could never articulate a vision for the country that rallied a great majority of Syrians to their cause. The political opposition never laid out a transition plan —it eventually became nearly as sectarian and ethnically chauvinistic as the Syrian government, and it never demonstrated a deep commitment to human rights. It did not, for example, condemn excesses by the armed opposition and its rhetoric sometimes was anti-Kurdish. The armed opposition, desperate in its fight against Assad, agreed to coordinate on the ground with extremists, particularly the al-Qaeda linked Nusra Front.

This frightened many Syrian communities. The US specifically put the al-Nusra Front on our terrorism list in December 2012 to warn the armed opposition to stay away from the al-Nusra Front. Unfortunately, they ignored us. Moreover, as early as 2011, some Syrians hoped the American military would intervene, just as we had in Iraq in 2003, to overthrow Assad. I repeatedly warned them the US Air Force would not come, but many political opposition leaders disagreed with me and said Washington would eventually intervene. This belief forestalled their thinking about greater outreach to communities in Syria still supporting the Syrian government.

Dimadis: What other mistakes did the US make?

Ford: Three other mistakes we did make.��In retrospect, it was not helpful to say that Assad should step aside. Observers did not appreciate the nuance in the American position that said that Assad’s future was for Syrians to decide, not Americans. Our expressing our opinion became understood to mean that the Americans would compel Assad to depart, and there was never any intention to do that. Instead, the Americans wanted a negotiation between the opposition, including moderate armed groups and the Assad government, to determine a transition government by mutual consent, as per Geneva I. My personal mistake was not resisting that August 2011 declaration by the president.

Our second mistake was in not enforcing the red line after the Assad government chemical weapons attacks in 2013. This might have deterred Assad from further use and given impetus to reach the Geneva negotiating table in 2013.��The State Department was on record supporting a strike but the president made his decision.

Our third mistake was in supporting Syrian Kurds linked to the PKK [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] against ISIS instead of building an Arab force over time.��We now are in the situation where our troops are stationed indefinitely in eastern Syria with enemies on all sides.��Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria will all try to foster our rapid departure and the subjugation of these Syrian Kurdish allies.��We will have seriously harmed our bilateral relations with Turkey, and [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan already is a difficult, very problematic leader with which to engage.

Dimadis: What about the role of the other players in the region, such as Russia and Iran? Would Assad have been able to stay in power without the support and contribution of foreign forces?��

Ford: Just as important to Assad’s success is the very strong intervention by Iran and Russia.��They escalated hugely, sending in far, far greater numbers of weapons, troops and airpower than the Americans and our allies ever even contemplated.��Assad won militarily because of foreign support. The world should be clear about that. Had the Americans provided more assistance to the moderate elements of the armed opposition earlier on, we might have forestalled that coordination with the extremist fighters. However, we could never have fixed the political opposition’s shortcomings.

Dimadis: One of the primary sources of you received as ambassador was that you counted on the rebel groups to overthrow Assad.��However, according to many analysts, these groups were not as moderate as they presented themselves to be and were thought to be fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. In retrospect, were your expectations around the role of these rebel groups in overthrowing Assad justified?

Ford: We did not aim to get the moderate rebels to overthrow Assad. That was never the policy. The policy was to help Syrians defend themselves against Assad and to put pressure on him to negotiate. I should note that we supported rebel fighter leaders such as Colonel Abdel Jabbar Okaidi [commander of the Free Syrian Army in Aleppo] and Colonel Afif Suleiman [leader of the Idlib Military Council]. These men and others had specifically denounced sectarianism in opposition ranks in 2012 and early 2013. However, as 2013 continued and they confronted a terrible military challenge, the Free Syrian Army started coordinating on the ground with al-Nusra.��We raised this in private and warned them off, but we offered too little, too late in terms of military aid.

It is important to note that tactical military coordination is not the same as ideological affinity.��To be sure, long civil wars are not propitious for development of moderate leaders, which is one of the reasons that we wanted peace talks in 2012 or 2013.��It took a long time to get the fractious opposition organized for peace talks and Assad, in any case, never wanted to make political concessions to secure a deal.

Dimadis: Your resignation from the State Department as a career diplomat awarded with the Secretary’s Service Award — one of the highest honors for an American diplomat — reflected about the evolving situation in Syria. You’ve suggested that the US should have put greater pressure on the Assad government. How would this greater pressure have been applied in practice?

Ford: The greater pressure on Assad would have consisted of three elements: A halt to Iranian use of Iraqi airspace to transit men and material aid from Iran to Damascus. This would have required huge diplomatic effort with Baghdad. We never did that.

Greater coordination with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to establish a single, unified Free Syrian Army command through which all aid would be funneled. Instead, every country supported its own particular clients which in turn helped keep the opposition split into factions.

Enforcing the red line sternly, as I mentioned above.

I should note here that no one, myself included, argued for a no-fly zone in 2012-2014. It was a military commitment no one wanted to make. I had spent five years trying to get the US forces out of Iraq and didn’t want to start a new US military commitment in Syria. No one in Washington wanted to repeat the Iraq experience, including trying to figure out a detailed political arrangement. We wanted Syrians to negotiate that, just as Iraqis did in 2005 and 2006.

In retrospect, we instituted a no-fly zone in late 2014 over eastern Syria, and it has worked out quite well. Even though Obama didn’t want a new US military commitment in Syria, he started one. Trump has continued it. It leads me to wonder whether we should have implemented a no-fly zone in 2012 over western Syria well before the Russians ever deployed their aircraft there. This would have stopped the aerial bombardments that killed many thousands of civilians.��I don’t know the right answer but it merits study to learn lessons.

Dimadis: Back in 2012, did the State Department and the White House predict the risks hidden behind the efforts to stabilize the situation in Syria or the current refugee crisis and its implications for European countries?

Ford: No one predicted in 2011 or 2012 the size and scope of the impending refugee crisis.��Turkey began raising the cost of refugees with us in 2012 when there were over a 100,000 refugees in the country, as did Jordan. There was always a hope that we could launch peace talks under the Geneva I communiqué and secure a halt to the fighting. Assad and extremist elements in the opposition had other ideas.

Dimadis: Was there an alternative to Assad?

Ford: First, ISIS was never going to capture Damascus.��Those extremists were not the majority of the armed opposition in 2013 or 2014, or even 2015. Had there been a negotiation, it would have led to a coalition, a national unity government. It would have been wobbly, like Iraq in 2005 or 2006, but the fighting would have decreased, if not ended, given the extremists’ presence. Some analysts say Assad would never have negotiated, that he would have died fighting.��That may be true, but he never appeared suicidal to me in my two meetings with him. Nor did many of the people around him.

Only in 2015 did Assad really have a major military defeat staring at him, and Russia’s intervention ensured he would prevail.��Perhaps our greatest mistake was in not understanding that Russia and Iran would escalate to any degree required to keep Assad in power. Had we done nothing in 2013 and 2014, the fighting would have gone on. Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia never sought US permission for their support to the opposition, and the idea that America controlled their actions is ridiculous. The US shut off aid to rebels last spring and there is still fighting in the eastern Ghouta, for example.

Dimadis: Looking forward, what is your view of the Middle East five or 10 years from now?

Ford: There is little likelihood of reconciliation or reconstruction. Assad will rule a shattered country with an iron fist. It will resemble more the economic desperation and political oppression in Pyongyang 10 years ago than the start of rebuilding/reconstruction in Lebanon 20 years ago or in Iraq in 2006 or 2007.��And the lessons other authoritarian rulers take from Syria are: It is ok to oppress ruthlessly, destroy cities and block aid long as you can keep denying any guilt and point to extremists in opposition ranks; it is ok to use chemical weapons as long as one keeps quiet about it and constantly denies and impedes investigations; Russia and China are better, more reliable military/security partners than the West. It is not an accident that the king of Saudi Arabia recently made the first-ever trip to Moscow by a Saudi monarch.

*[The Editorial Board at 51�Թ� has modified this article because the source used to describe Robert Ford was not credible. Updated: January 10, 2018.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post What Went Wrong in Syria? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

was meant to handle one of the : the refugee crisis. Well-respected in EU circles, Avramopoulos assumed his tenure in the European Commission in a period while the union’s cohesion had been intensively tested by the refugee crisis and terrorist threat, with both issues raising questions about EU border protection.

Efforts to forge a common immigration policy across Europe have been held back by����from member states. The commissioner has often stressed his view that managing migration has to be conceived��as a��. Coming from Greece, Avramopoulos is well aware of the challenges faced by countries at the frontline of immigration routes into Europe. Greece has received criticism from other European countries claiming that the government has proved incapable of protecting its own borders, meaning it failed to safeguard the gateway to the rest of the EU. As a result, the implementation of one of the cornerstone principles of EU integration, the , has been��temporarily suspended.

Is this blame game a step toward a����that some actors want to see as a��major pillar of how the EU will be operating in the coming years, with some members states left behind?

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to the EU commissioner for migration, home affairs and citizenship, Dimitris Avramopoulos, about cross-border security, the duty to protect refugees and Europe’s transatlantic relationship with Donald Trump’s America.

Athanasios Dimadis: You recently visited Washington, DC, for the . Does the US administration under Donald Trump remain fully engaged with the concept of close cooperation with the EU? Did Trump’s recent attack on the EU’s shared policies affect in any way the collaboration between Europe and the US?

Dimitris Avramopoulos: The United States remains one of our strongest allies. We both cherish the value of our historical and fundamental partnership. This partnership is a historical constant and does not change when politicians change places. The EU and US need each other to tackle the geopolitical and international challenges that we all face today: increasing security and fighting terrorism, addressing the migration challenge, improving the global economy, but also trade and energy.

Dimadis: Do the priorities of the current administration remain consistent with the previous administration’s approach on these matters?

Avramopoulos: There is strong willingness on both sides to continue and deepen our cooperation in facing shared global challenges, for the benefit, prosperity and security of our citizens. Our transatlantic relationship is a longstanding and historic one. With the current security and migration challenges that we are facing globally today, there is every reason for the US and the EU to sustain and deepen that partnership, and this was once again confirmed at our last gathering in Washington. We continue to cooperate very closely on counterterrorism, for example, where our information exchange is daily. We have more than 20 US liaison officers in our European security agency, Europol, and the cooperation couldn’t be closer. We also have international treaties to exchange financial data and passenger name records with the US — these agreements are essential to our transatlantic cooperation.

Dimadis: Counterterrorism, the refugee crisis and migration were some of the key agenda items at the meeting in DC. Terrorism remains a threat to the US and the EU.��The refugee crisis is still a controversial issue, particularly the question of how much burden each nation should bear.��Given all of that, what is the appropriate way to measure the success of the policies you have implemented in these areas?

Avramopoulos: Let me say that in the past two years, we have made a lot of progress at EU level, on both security and migration. Most importantly, it is through collective and joint efforts that we have made progress, and the United States is a key partner in these areas for us.

Regarding security, we have gradually been establishing the essential building blocks toward an effective and genuine security union, ranging from a European Counter-Terrorism Centre with Europol, to introducing systematic checks at our external borders for all who cross, as well as stronger rules to fight illicit firearms acquisition and trafficking. Recently, we have put on the table a new set of proposals in order to better protect our citizens on the ground by stepping up our support to European countries to protect public spaces. Our goal is to stop further attacks by preventing terrorists’ access to funding, weapons and other means, and by ensuring the interoperability of our information systems. I will soon be coming forward with a proposal to strengthen the interoperability of all our data systems, to make sure that all ours dots are connected. We are also working toward the creation of an EU Intelligence Unit.

At the same time, as Daesh [Islamic State] is gradually losing territorial ground, the battlefield against terrorism is increasingly shifting online. Stepping up our work in Europe and globally with the internet industry through [the] EU Internet Forum is essential to detect and remove terrorist propaganda before it even has a chance to go online.

The instability in our neighborhood has indeed also caused unprecedented refugee flows. If we look back, we have gone from uncontrolled irregular flows to a much more stable situation, which is more under control. Irregular arrivals to Europe have in total dropped by 63% compared to last year. Our collective efforts to protect our external borders through the European Border and Coast Guard, to cooperate with partner countries to tackle the root causes of irregular migration and fight smugglers, as well as our efforts to ensure protection and offer legal channels are bearing fruit. So far, more than 31,000 people have been relocated inside the EU, and more than 25,000 in need of protection have been resettled from outside the EU.

But we need to do more, in particular to address the situation in Libya. That is why I am encouraged that the African Union and the United Nations have stepped on board with us following the EU-African Union Summit to further strengthen efforts on all fronts and evacuate people from Libya, either through voluntary returns or resettlement. Whether strengthening our global aviation security, better protecting public spaces or contributing to resettlement efforts worldwide, the US is a key partner of the EU in all these endeavors.

Dimadis: Is the EU satisfied with the level of US contribution to EU efforts to deal with the large numbers of refugees arriving every day? Should the US be expected to receive a higher portion of Syrian refugees, like Canada, for example?

Avramopoulos: The United States has a longstanding tradition of welcoming and integrating migrants and refugees, being a beacon of diversity today. Both European member states and the US are signatories of 1952 Geneva Convention and are thus duty-bound to grant protection to people in need. Resettlement should be the preferred way for people who need protection, so they don’t have to revert to dangerous and irregular routes. Refugee resettlement is a global responsibility and requires the EU, the United States, Canada and the global community to keep playing a strong and leading role.

Dimadis: There is disagreement among member states as to which countries should receive more refugees. So far Greece and Germany have accepted the most. Are there countries that resist sharing the burden? How do you, as commissioner, deal with this situation?

Avramopoulos: More than the economic crisis, it was the refugee crisis that put at stake the fundamental values and solidarity upon which the EU was built. And yet if one thing became clear over the past few years, it is that we can only do this together. Erecting walls or fencing will not stop desperate people fleeing war or persecution. I know that domestic contexts are very much influencing the position of certain national leaders. But solidarity in the EU cannot be à la carte. The European Union has been built upon solidarity and responsibility. These fundamental values are not solely moral. They are legally binding principles for all member states which have co-signed and accepted the EU founding texts, in which these obligations are explicitly stipulated.

Similarly, the decisions to relocate and distribute asylum seekers in need of urgent protection across the EU are legally binding. The European Court of Justice has recently confirmed that our relocation schemes are valid. This should be an opportunity for all member states to work together and participate. Always preferring dialogue, I have encouraged member states that have been resisting to review their position. If nothing changes, the commission has the legal power and means to react.

Dimadis: I spoke recently with the former US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, who told me that the US underestimated the consequences of the civil war and didn’t anticipate such a massive flow of refugees into Europe. Did Europe underestimate the situation as well?��

Avramopoulos: It is true that when the first large migrant flows arrived in 2015, the EU was relatively unprepared. However, in the past two years, we have achieved a lot and we have gone from a scattered approach to a comprehensive and European approach that covers all the aspects of this complex phenomenon. We do our utmost to protect asylum seekers. This is why we proposed a reform of the Common European Asylum System in order to achieve a fair and harmonized process across the EU. Let me also highlight that only in 2016, the EU granted protection to 720,000 people, which is three times more than [the] USA, Canada and Australia combined. I also recently invited member states to resettle at least another 50,000 people in need of protection in the coming two years. We must provide safe and legal pathways to Europe and prevent those people from risking their lives by crossing irregularly through criminal networks.

We are also actively cooperating with partner countries to address the root causes of irregular migration. To this end, we provided over €3.1 billion through the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa to projects promoting migrants integration and economic development. Following the EU-African Union Summit, the African Union and the United Nations will join our efforts to further improve the situation on the ground in Libya, to step up voluntary returns for those who can go back home and intensify resettlements for those in need of protection. We are gradually exiting crisis mode and we are developing a long-term, comprehensive policy to manage migration in a spirit of partnership and shared responsibility, inside and outside the EU.

Dimadis: The US and EU member states have been expressing concerns about the ability of the Greek authorities to protect the country’s external borders from refugees making their way into Europe. Is the problem with the Greek government or is it that it has not received the required assistance from its EU partners?

Avramopoulos: As I explained before, we are not where we were two years ago. Particularly when it comes to external border management, we have made incredible progress. In less than six months the European Border and Coast Guard was created; now, a year later, it is already fully operational. The external border of one member state is now legally and operationally the external border of all member states. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency is actively supporting member states, and in particular Greece, in managing external borders with more than 1,400 border guard officers across the EU (and more than 700 only in Greece) deployed on the ground as we speak.

In addition, thanks to creation of the hotspots, everyone who arrives in Greece is identified, screened and fingerprinted, with the help of precisely the European Border and Coast Guard, but also Europol and the European Asylum Support Office. On top of this, everyone crossing the Schengen external borders, whether EU or third-country national, is systematically checked, and the new Entry-Exit System will also improve border management and increase security. In other words, our external borders are better managed and protected than ever before. This is not a Greek, Bulgarian or Italian responsibility. This is a joint, European one.

Dimadis: There are voices inside Europe expressing their concerns about whether or not restrictions should be applied to the Schengen Treaty, especially for countries like Greece with highly vulnerable external borders. Greek citizens who want to travel to Germany are already when they land in German airports. Is this a step toward an à la carte Schengen approach?

Avramopoulos: Schengen is one of the greatest achievements of European integration, and the absence of internal border controls is its very essence. It is a fundamental freedom and right that we must defend and safeguard. There cannot be an à la carte Schengen approach. This is precisely why we have always been working toward a coordinated and European approach, in full respect of the Schengen rules. Internal border controls can only be temporary and exceptional. Recently, we proposed to update the Schengen Borders Code to adapt the rules for the reintroduction of temporary internal border controls to the current needs, to be able to respond to evolving and persistent serious threats to public policy or internal security.

Certain member states currently have internal border controls. They have expressed their support to the goal to return to an area without internal border controls, and that the controls are targeted and limited. Regarding Germany and Greece in particular: At my initiative, a constructive trilateral exchange took place recently at expert level. We welcome the clarification from the German side, specifying that any controls will from now on take place at the gate in the Schengen area of the airport, rather than transferring passengers to the non-Schengen area of the airport. Controls are limited to a check of the identity and of the validity of the travel document.

We also welcome the clarification from the Greek side on the reinforcement of the existing exit checks at Greek airports. We will continue to work closely with both Germany and Greece. The overall cooperation between the two has been very good thus far and we will continue to facilitate and encourage this going forward.

Dimadis: Following the terrorist attacks across Europe over the past couple of years, there has arisen a broader discussion about the future of the EU. There is also the question of whether the EU should continue to support an open borders policy. Is this a cause for concern for the future of the EU?

Avramopoulos: Europe is at a historical crossroads today, where its fundamental values of unity and cohesion are at stake. Today, one of the biggest threats to the unity and future of Europe [is] the rise of populism, nationalism and xenophobia. Some governments, guided by fear, turn inward. However, we cannot increase security or address the challenges we face through isolation. The biggest challenges today are transnational, across borders. It is precisely by building bridges and alliances that we can confront them together that we can increase security and build prosperity and peace globally.

Dimadis: What is your view about the broader dialogue that is currently taking place in Europe regarding the idea of a “multi-speed” Europe?

Avramopoulos: I don’t believe in the multi-speed European Union because I don’t believe in leaving anyone behind. I believe in further building a stronger and united union. Now is a time to build bridges, to unite, to work together — not to divide or work against each other.��Europe is more than just the euro or the single market. Above all, we are a union of values, freedoms and principles. In challenges times like these, we must build on these fundaments. More than 60 years after the Rome Treaty was signed, in the aftermath of the Second World War, we must never forget and take for granted what we have achieved: more than six decades of peace, stability and prosperity. The only way is forward and together.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post Europe: The Only Way Is Forward and Together appeared first on 51�Թ�.

According to critics,��, promote self-determination and fundamental human rights, and protect fundamental freedoms. The UN has also been accused of having undermined its own goals with��. During the 72nd Session of the General Assembly in September, more than 120 countries����for reforming the UN to tackle the longstanding criticisms��the organization receives, among them lack of transparency, efficiency and accountability. There is still a question, however, of whether or not this support is just an expression of intent or a firm commitment to real change.

The president of the��72nd Session of the UN General Assembly,��,��speaking recently��about the effectiveness of the United Nations,��admitted publicly that the organization “.”

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to the president’s spokesperson, Brenden Varma, about the major issues and challenges that Lajčák faces during his tenure, such as the ongoing refugee crisis and the need for reform within the institution.

Athanasios Dimadis: What has been Miroslav Lajčák’s primary goal as president of the 72nd Session of the UN General Assembly?

Brenden Varma: President Lajčák has a number of key priorities for the 72nd session. Chief among them are peace building and sustaining peace. He believes that preventing conflict — as opposed to responding to it once it has already broken out — can save countless lives as well as billions of dollars for the international community. Another major goal of his is to finalize the first ever global compact on safe, orderly and regular migration. Right now the world is handling migration in a national and reactive fashion. But we need a global governance system. This is an urgent test for the United Nations.

Dimadis: In his , the president pointed out that “the people who need the UN the most are not sitting in this hall today. They are not involved in the negotiation of resolutions.” Why did he feel the need to stress this statement?

Varma: The president’s focus for the 72nd session people. He strongly believes that the United Nations should never forget its primary aim, which is to serve the peoples of the world. He wanted to remind member states that their success will not be measured in numbers of conferences or resolutions, but rather in how much they have improved people’s lives.

Dimadis: Does the president agree with those suggesting that the gap between the United Nations’ political elites and decision makers and the real world outside of the UN microcosm has made people around the world skeptical about the UN’s role and its ability to resolve global problems?

Varma: The president has always believed in the United Nations. That’s why he wants to see it operating as effectively as possible. It’s also why he wants the United Nations to communicate as clearly as possible to the people it is meant to serve. People need to know that the United Nations, among other things, provides food and aid to 80 million people in 80 countries; assists some 67 countries a year with their elections; and supplies vaccines to 45% of the world’s children, helping save 3 million lives annually.

Dimadis: What are the most significant challenges that the faced in regards to conflict prevention? Does the president recognize any failure on behalf of the United Nations in the process of peacemaking and preventing conflicts?

Varma: The United Nations Charter signatories envisioned a world in which disputes and differences are resolved in meeting rooms and not on battlefields — a world in which our main priority is to stop conflict before it starts, a world in which the United Nations is the global broker for peace. The president feels that not enough has been done to make this vision come true. That’s why he is looking forward to convening a high-level meeting on peace building and sustaining peace on 24 and 25 April in New York. This gathering will allow him to refocus the international community on the importance of conflict prevention. The event will be one of his legacies.

Dimadis: There is a current broader discussion about��. How close are we to the goal of building a more efficient and democratic global institution?

Varma: The president has said that Security Council decisions can mean the difference between life or death, and the council’s work is seen as one of the major indicators of the UN’s role in the world. So if member states do not answer calls for change to the council, then the continued relevance and even the very survival of the United Nations is at stake. We are approaching the 10th year of Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform. The president believes that the time for trying is up. What is needed now is real dialogue, real listening and real interaction. Without that, this process will become nothing but a statement-reading exercise, and it will feature nothing but the repetition of well known and static positions.

The president wants to see a credible and meaningful progress, as well as transparency and inclusivity. He knows that some member states are standing on opposite ends of the spectrum. But he also knows it’s possible for them to make history. He will continue to do whatever the member states allow him to do to advance the process. For his part, he appointed the new co-chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations relatively early so that the process could get underway as soon as possible for the 72nd session. The process is in the hands of the member states. But the president will work to create the conditions for the process to advance. The ultimate goal is to ensure that the council is as efficient, representative and credible as possible.

Dimadis: stated that “We all agree that the United Nations must do even more to adapt and deliver. That is the aim of the reform proposals that this Assembly will consider.” How much progress has achieved on that during the latest 72nd Annual Assembly?

Varma: On peace and security reform, the General Assembly has started an intergovernmental process and the president appointed co-chairs for negotiating the relevant resolution. Regarding development reform, member states are currently waiting for the secretary-general’s December report. Meanwhile, the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee, which handles budgetary matters, will consider the secretary-general’s management reform proposal after receiving recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.

Dimadis: Has the United Nations done what is needed in preventing or, at least, efficiently managing the current refugee crisis? What have been your priorities in this field since Mr. Lajčák assumed his presidency?

Varma: The General Assembly has been involved with Syria in a number of ways. One example is the International Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011 (IIIM). The General Assembly established that body’s mandate. However, regarding migration in general, we are tackling it in a global manner. After all, migration is not a phenomenon that only affects certain countries or regions. This global issue requires a global response.

Regarding the migration compact, over the past few months, member states and other stakeholders have engaged in a series of thematic discussions to gain a better understanding of the complex dynamics at play. To conclude this phase, Mexico will host a stocktaking meeting in early December. This meeting will be an important step in identifying building blocks for the global compact. The compact will be negotiated in the General Assembly between February and July next year. It will be adopted at an international conference in Morocco in December 2018. ��It will be the first-ever comprehensive framework to address all dimensions of migration, including the human rights, humanitarian and development aspects. For the process to be successful, it should embrace a diversity of views. At the same time, it must also be based on facts. We need to move away from misperceptions that often surround the debate around migration. The president will work with all member states to ensure that the process yields a credible outcome.

Dimadis: The president has been speaking about making the General Assembly more effective. How can this happen?

Varma: There has been steady progress over the years in the work of the Open-Ended Group on Revitalization of the General Assembly. Most importantly, it’s an ongoing effort that continuously aims to make the organization run more efficiently. The transparent selection process of the UN secretary-general is among various positive steps that have been taken to improve the working methods. Additionally, there has been more interaction and coordination between the General Assembly and member states. The president meets regularly with the chairs of regional groups to brief them on his activities and listen to their views and inputs.

There is more regular coordination among the main organs, including the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council and the Secretariat. The president has monthly meetings with the secretary-general and the heads of other organs to ensure effective coordination. In the president’s office, there has been a renewed commitment to transparency. His office practices full disclosure related to financing, staffing and travel. All such information is available on the office’s website. And President Lajčák will soon become the first president of the General Assembly to publish a summary of his financial disclosure statement online.

Dimadis: What are Mr. Lajčák major hopes and fears for the next year?

Varma: Throughout the coming year, the president hopes that member states will look beyond their national interests and engage in true dialogue, so that they can collaborate with each other effectively and find common solutions to the many challenges the world is facing. At the end of the 72nd session, the president will definitely want to know that his work in some way helped improve the lives of people across the globe.

*[Updated: December 11, 2017, at 17:25 GMT.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post UN: Global Solutions to Global Problems appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Those who believe that the shaky American economy will not be affected by the current European crisis or contend that its effects could be manageable for the Unites States, probably underestimate the risks behind a possible uncontrolled default within the eurozone. Some months before the upcoming presidential elections, the American President seems to be affected by how Republicans are reacting to what is happening in Europe and their shortsighted view to this problem. Though President Obama has often urged European leaders, especially German Chancellor Merkel, to take quick and bold decisions to resolve the eurozone crisis, the US itself has done less than expected to help Europe. There are many voices inside the American political system, coming mostly from the Republican camp, saying that the country cannot provide Europe with more capital than has already been given via the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) bail outs to Greece, Spain and Portugal. Unfortunately, the White House seems to share these views with its spokesman, David Carney, who declared many times that “Europe has the means to confront this crisis”.

Does Europe actually have the “means” to make it by itself? Unfortunately not. More and more European countries – first and foremost, Germany – are unwilling to put their hands deeper into their pockets to lend to the countries that are in trouble. Moreover, as long as the European Central Bank avoids the launch of a more “relaxed” monetary policy and agrees to print money to boost the eurozone’s economy, the firewall that European leaders are trying to build against this crisis will be weak and inappropriate in terms of what markets are expecting from them. A potential collapse in the eurozone will imply catastrophic effects for the indefensible American economy. A possible Greek default will open the way for many other European countries’ defaults. By far, nobody knows where the funds required to support much bigger economies than the Greek, like the Italian or the Spanish economies, will be sourced from, unless the IMF agrees to increase its capital exposure to the eurozone. The discussion opened at the G-20 last November remains unresolved and no decision has been made. It is time for the US to undertake a more determinant role in combating the European financial crisis by deciding to throw more capital at Europe, through the IMF.

With reference to Greece, the US has demonstrated a significant solidarity to the Greek people and recognized their efforts through the austerity measures imposed by the country’s government. At the most critical point of the negotiations between Greece and its European partners (for the new bailout package that the country needs to avoid an uncontrolled default), the Secretary of the American Treasury, Timothy Geithner, declared the US’ political support for Greece. Over the last two years, during which Greece has become the epicentre of this financial crisis, the US has always expressed in public its confidence in the country.

However, are these public statements of support the upper limit of what the US can do during these crucial moments for European economies? Undoubtedly not. As the most trusted economic and political partner of Europe, the US would be expected to draw and implement a long-term plan to boost growth in Greece similar to what happened many decades ago with the Marshall Plan to restore European economies after World War II. Despite its problems of huge deficits and sovereign debt, America is still the only economic power that could help Europe restore and stabilise its economic environment. By investing American capital in eurozone countries such as Greece, the US could contribute to European efforts at overcoming this crisis, creating growth, and reducing the high unemployment levels.

This European financial crisis will be unbeatable unless the US decides to actively get involved. In addition to publicly stating its support, the US must act on its words by helping Europe close its funding gap.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can the United States Support Europe Further? appeared first on 51�Թ�.