This paper suggests that "scenario building" offers methodology for understanding the forces which are crucial for ESDP development. Author analyzes such driving forces of ESDP as EU integration tendencies, threats & demands on crises management operations, defense potency & NATO transformation success, as well as the US attitude towards ESDP. After the driving forces are examined, four scenarios are constructed: creation of European security & defense union, integration of ESDP into the broader system of euroatlantic cooperation, ESDP as a project of "core" states, & ESDP as capabilities & operations of "coalition of willing." All this is done in order to find a scenario, which is most suitable for the small states of the EU. Almost all of them are participating in the activities of ESDP, however, their interests & arguments are different. At last three groups of small EU states may be recognized regarding the European security & role in international sphere. Their preferences mostly depend on the leaders in each scenario: pro-European eurocontinentalists support France & Germany & euroatlantists support those scenarios, where UK is leading. Traditionally "neutral" countries seek the realization of scenarios, which would enhance their structural power inside the EU. So, none of the approached scenarios is supported by the majority of the small EU states. For Lithuania most appropriate, of course, is the one, which withholds the US in Europe. No doubt, this is scenario of integration of ESDP into the broader system of euroatlantic cooperation. Adapted from the source document.
There are three main geopolitical actors whose interests & specific actions may have impact on Ukraine's geopolitical drift towards the East or the West. From such actors Russia must be named first. Yet author of the article is more interested in two others -- the United States & the European Union. Although in the Huntington's scheme they represent supposedly united Western civilization their interests in Ukraine or towards Ukraine are rather different. For the United States Ukraine is quite an important country, especially for security reasons. Those reasons are related both to containment of Russia -- the USA seeks to contain not only enemies but partners as well -- and to the implementation of national security strategy which treats the Wider Middle East as likely the most important for the USA -- from security point of view -- region of the world. Ukraine borders with this region in which the USA has few reliable partners. Ukraine may became such a partner -- more reliable than Turkey. From the first view the EU is more close to Ukraine than the USA. Yet the EU is more close to Ukraine only from geographical point of view. The EU, especially its core states, so called "old" Europe, treats Ukraine as peripheral country & regards development of closer ties with it as unnecessary or even harmful. One of the many reasons -- Ukraine may become a new Trojan Horse of the USA inside the EU. Different EU countries look at EU neighborhood policy with different eyes. Most of the new members of the EU give priority to the eastern direction but many older -- rather to the southern one. Moreover, for most of the new members Ukraine is more natural candidate for EU membership than Turkey creating much less problems for the European identity of the EU. However, Ukraine's possible accession to EU & NATO will depend not only upon position of the major geopolitical players but on the will of Ukrainians themselves. Ukraine is extremely heterogeneous country. Religious, historical & cultural divides create political ones & at the moment it is not clear which way -- leading towards the East or the West -- the country may choose. In such situation an external encouragement & support is vitally needed -- development of relations with Ukraine must become a priority not only for the USA but for the EU also. Adapted from the source document.
The article deals with the impact of globalization on social security & social exclusion in Lithuania for the first time in Lithuanian social sciences literature. The article consists of 5 parts: in the first part "globalization risk" & related non-traditional methodology is examined, in the second part the relation between globalization & glocalization is analyzed, in the third part of the article the changes of Lithuanian macrosocial indicators are examined, in the fourth part the role of libertarian ideology & practice for social exclusion development is shown & the fifth part reveals the positive & negative shifts in Lithuanian state social security. The author relies on Lithuanian macrosocial data & tries to prove that parallelly with globalization its antipode -- glocalization -- is thriving in the social processes. Globalization impact on social exclusion may be understood not only in its narrow sense -- as marginalization of different "traditional" social risk groups but also in the wider meaning because globalization is raising risks for many life spheres & even for entire society. Globalization often positively influences the social position of the "winners" & enables their better self-realization. But globalization often negatively influences the situation of the "losers" when they are imprisoned in glocalization for the longer or shorter time without any clear perspectives to rise. Among social security backwardness & the reasons of social exclusion formation were: a) the lack of financial resources, b) accelerating globalization & transformation rates -- when the system could not "develop into deepness" but was forced to chase headlong perfunctory all the time accelerating processes. The strife was followed not against the reasons but against the separate negative social consequences. The preventive activities were very limited, c) the lack of new progressive administrative theories & decisions, d) insufficient development of social policy, social security & social exclusion research, e) frequent confinement of social administration agents on barely theoretical solutions & solving problems "on paper," f) unfavorable international & native influence of ideology & practice of extreme liberalism. The article shows that globalization had influenced the distinctive administrative reforms & measures in Lithuania, which have given controversial results (New Public Management, private pensions funds reform, development of social services). The conclusion is possible to make that characteristic contradiction in Lithuanian social security is between organizational maturity & scarcity of real results after implementation of social security measures. Adapted from the source document.
The aim of this article is to explore the bargaining process of the EU Financial Perspective 2007-2013 & to provide the conceptual explanation of the particular result of this bargaining. Although quite a number of drafts have been discussed among member states, three of them characterize the most important turns of the bargaining: Commission's Proposal, the Luxemburg's Compromise & the Decision of the European Council. Andrew Moravcsik's Liberal Intergovernmental Approach has been applied as the methodological tool for the analysis of the EU Financial Perspective 2007-2013. Moravcsik assumes that European bargaining is a two level game. A two level game is a metaphoric concept describing how the interaction between the domestic pressure groups & decision makers formulates national preferences & how political leaders on the European level represent those national preferences. On both levels pragmatic economic interests are the driving factors of different actors. It should be emphasized that states are the main players in EU arena, whereas supranational institutions play a supporting part. Five different groups or informal coalitions could be found in the recent bargaining for the Financial Perspective. The key interest of rich member states (UK, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, & France) was to decrease EU spending -- to cut the contributions to the EU budget. Phasing out states (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece) as former major beneficiaries of EU structural policy strived to diminish financial losses in the new Financial Perspective. Poorer Central European countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic & Hungary) fought for the structural funds. Finally, the UK was alone against the rest of member states which called for the radical review of the British rebate. The comparative statistical & qualitative analysis of those proposals revealed two important trends in the bargaining. First, the EU spending was cut in every turn. Second, the funds for the rich member states were redistributed at the expense of the poorer member states. Certainly, such redistribution did not change the fact that the older member states remained the net contributors & the poor Central European countries gained more benefits compared to the previous Financial Perspective 2000-2006. Besides these two main tendencies the phasing out states succeed to increase the funds for their undeveloped regions & the final Decision of the European Council offered for the UK the most favorable mechanism counting the British rebate. The article reveals the weaknesses of the popular geopolitical interpretations which were proposed in order to explain the strong clashes between member states. The geopolitical & ideological discourse was aimed at neutralizing the domestic pressure. The economic logic to pay less & get more was the dominant thinking in the bargaining for the European financial pie. The asymmetrical interdependence which was the main source of bargaining power during the previous intergovernmental negotiations on Common Market is obsolete in explaining the modalities of redistributional policies. The effect of relative power was limited to the bargaining strategy, however it did not make a remarkable impact to the final agreement. On the contrary, the typical net recipient is a small & poor member state. The author has to come to the conclusion that the poor Central European countries states were forced to support the cuts of the budget & suffered a relative defeat in the bargaining, since they were the main beneficiaries of the common EU budget. It means that the poor Central European countries were the most interested to reach an agreement as soon as possible in order to avoid the risk of facing the EU financial turbulences. For this reason their bargaining power was very weak. Adapted from the source document.
