Search results

Although the US has often prided itself of the status of sole interlocutor in the Middle East "conflict", it has equally gained the reputation of an interested and biased mediator. In parallel, the European Community or EC – now European Union, EU – claimed to have a 'more balanced' approach on the Middle East file, which in turn garnered Palestinians' trust. But during the current escalation, the EU has been woefully disunited. This blog argues that a more unified European voice can only come about by "walking the talk" of an Israel-Palestine policy/peace agreement based on purported basic European values.
Author information





Anna Khakee



Anna Khakee ist Associate Professor für internationale Beziehungen an der Universität von Malta und Direktorin des EMA (European MA in Human Rights and Democratisation). Zu den Forschungsinteressen von Prof. Khakee gehören Demokratisierung/Demokratieförderung und humanitäre Maßnahmen. // Anna Khakee is Associate Professor in International Relations at the University of Malta and EMA (European MA in Human Rights and Democratisation) Director. Prof. Khakee's research interests include democratization/democracy promotion and humanitarian action.

|



Der Beitrag The EU and the Israel-Palestine Test erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

Should the health, social and political blast represented by the current pandemic lead humanitarian workers to break free from the principle of neutrality? In this article, the author gives a clearly affirmative answer to this question. Anna Khakee believes that humanitarian NGOs must take a stance so as not to be exploited by only helping to return to the status quo ante. ; peer-reviewed

International democracy promotion has always been contentious – today perhaps more than ever. Examples from the European neighborhood testify to this: analysts argue that democracy promotion is one of the key reasons for the worsening of relations between Russia and the West after 2011. The successive achievements of externally promoted so-called 'color revolutions' (in Serbia 2000, Georgia 2003 and Ukraine 2004) rattled Russian President Vladimir Putin, in particular after the post-election anti-government protests in Russia in 2011-2012. Putin viewed these protests as a direct threat to the current Russian political system and, importantly, as orchestrated from the West (McFaul, 2014). In 2014 he stated that "we see what tragic consequences the wave of so-called color revolutions led to. For us this is a lesson and a warning. We should do everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia" (cited in Korsunskaya, 2014). A second example comes from the Southern Mediterranean: after the Arab uprisings Europe was roundly criticized for its lip service to democracy in the region. In fact, the European Union (EU) had combined democracy assistance programs with solid support for authoritarian leaders such as Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak and Mohammed VI of Morocco (Hollies, 2012). Štefan Füle, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), admitted as much: "We must show humility about the past. Europe was not vocal enough in defending human rights and local democratic forces in the region," he stressed in early 2011, adding that Europe should be standing with pro-democracy demonstrators and not "dictators" killing their citizens (Füle, 2011). ; peer-reviewed

The suspense-filled attempted partial privatization of the Narva Power Plants in the neo-liberal darling Estonia involved a rich cast, from trade unions and local scientists, via Estonian courts and ombudsmen to international consulting firms, major global banks and the US government. More important, a detailed single case study on the democratic decision-making process in this privatization case makes it possible to go beyond common generalizations regarding the consequences of neo-liberalism for democratic processes. It shows that purported proponents of economic neo-liberalism such as the US government sometimes use their arguments to advance the narrow business interests of politically well-connected firms. Established private firms can behave in a more rent-seeking manner than publicly owned, ex-communist companies. Liberal economic principles of open competition and a level playing-field are at times used by actors in the democratic process to question top-down, opaque economic decisions.

Democratization: A Critical Introduction offers what the title promises: a critical – but not dogmatic – introductory text to democratization in theory and practice. The book is divided into three parts: the Introduction and Chapters 1 – 3 set the stage by discussing conceptions of democracy and democratization, the historical evolution of democracy globally, and the way that theorizing about democratization has evolved over the last decades. In the second part (Chapters 4– 6), the authors delineate their own theoretical framework for understanding both the causes of democratization and why some democratization trajectories have been more successful than others. The proposed framework, centring on the role of the state, civil society, and the global context, builds on elements of previous democratization theories, and in particular historical sociology, the agency approach, and critical international political economy. Chapters 7 –11 are devoted to empirically applying the authors' theory across the main regions of the world: Europe (including both Southern Europe and the countries of the former Eastern bloc), Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East (which is defined broadly to include also the Maghreb), and Asia. The focus is thus on "third wave" democratization attempts. Throughout the book, there are a number of boxes providing more detail on specific subjects touched upon in the text: Schumpeterian democracy, "uncivil" society, corporatism and populism in Latin America, political Islam and democracy, and so on. ; peer-reviewed