Ольга Кравцова - Английский язык для специальных и академических целей: Международные отношения и зарубежное регионоведение. Часть 1

Yet, Russia has never shared this view. For Moscow, the Eastern Partnership always looked like a hostile takeover. It set up a counterinitiative, a Eurasian customs union — later to become the Eurasian Union — and confronted the countries of Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus with an either-or choice. Membership in the customs union is per definition incompatible with the deep and comprehensive free trade agreements that the EU has sought to sign with Eastern states.

Still, the conflict between Russia and the EU over the neighborhood seemed to be avoidable, as Russian President Vladimir Putin's attempts to undermine the Eastern Partnership appeared to be successful. Armenia was brought into the Russian camp, apparently balking in the face of significant pressure from Russia. (One of the country's pressure points is its fear of losing Russian support in the struggle with energy-rich Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.) And in Ukraine Putin managed to push then President Viktor Yanukovych to make a U-turn in November 2013 and cancel his country's process of EU association shortly before the Vilnius summit began.

At that point it looked as if Russia had won what it defined as a geopolitical struggle. Of the six Eastern Partnership countries originally in line to sign association agreements and free trade agreements with the EU, only Georgia and Moldova would have remained on track. Whether Moscow would have interfered to prevent the signing of the agreements or would have taken a longer-term approach to undermine the Western course was an open question. Both countries are vulnerable, especially because they have breakaway regions on their territory (Transnistria in Moldova, South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia) that Russia supports. The governments' struggles with these regions suck up enormous political energy and give Moscow plenty of leverage and potential to destabilize these countries.

But then came what nobody had expected: the popular movement on the Maidan in Kiev, a huge and powerful pro-EU demonstration, pushing the country back into the Western sphere. To many Ukrainians, association with the EU held the double promise of getting rid of both predatory, corrupt elites and Russia's stranglehold. They were not ready to accept that their country's turn westward had been suddenly stopped.

This bottom-up movement set off a chain of events that ended with an open and sharp confrontation between Russia and the EU. Yanukovych was forced to leave the country. Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, then started to destabilize Ukraine's east by using proxies. The EU, massively challenged, had no choice but to take sides against Russia in a struggle for European values, provoked by a Russia that was undermining core principles of Europe's peace order. Germany acted as the primary interlocutor for the EU in a conflict that drew in both the bloc and the United States, which agreed to jointly put diplomatic pressure on the Kremlin and threaten Russia with massive economic sanctions.

The Reader

Still, the EU remains very reluctant to move with full steam toward a confrontation with Russia, for a number of reasons: economic ties are strong, especially in energy, finance, and the arms industry. Western European countries are less concerned about Russian aggression and want EU attention to instead move toward the Southern neighborhood. Some EU members fear being confronted with a Russia that appears to be driven more by emotion than by rational considerations. And European governments cannot ignore sections of the public that sympathize with Russian action (partly driven by values that they feel are supported by Russia, partly driven by the wish to balance U.S. influence by moving closer to Russia).

While leaders on the EU side face the challenge of mobilizing support for a more confrontational stance toward Russia, Moscow must recognize that its means are limited and that it cannot win against an EU even if the bloc is reluctant to engage in the competition. It has had to repeatedly lower its goals, from full control of Ukraine to spreading instability in some Ukrainian regions. Now it seems that Moscow's aim in Ukraine is to prevent the emergence of a stable liberal democracy that is firmly anchored in the EU, an outcome that would minimize Moscow's ability to influence Ukraine's political course and that would call into question Russia's own model of governance.

Beyond Ukraine, Russia has Georgia and Moldova to think about. In both countries it is unclear to what extent the Kremlin is going to use its leverage to block or undermine their attempts to build closer ties with the EU; both signed agreements with the EU on June 27.

The EU is locked into a difficult geopolitical conflict with Russia that it absolutely wanted to avoid. While a new iron curtain has not descended across the continent, it is clear now that the EU and Russia live in different worlds, a divide that is becoming ever harder to bridge.

In the struggle over Ukraine, both sides have lost illusions, about themselves and about the other. The EU understands now that it has to back up foreign policy with substantial power — in a world that is much less “postmodern” than Europeans have hoped for in the past, a world that still largely looks at the international system in the terms of classical power politics. It also understands that Russia is not interested in the kind of partnership Europeans — guided largely by Germans — have proposed for two decades.

Russia, meanwhile, has found out that it is much less attractive to states in the neighborhood, especially in Ukraine, than it had hoped. And it has learned that when faced with a vital challenge, the EU can be a much tougher opponent than the Kremlin might have expected: EU member states, under German leadership, have managed to uphold a credible threat with massive economic sanctions for months, and they have built and upheld a common approach with the United States.

The Reader

This more realistic understanding of strengths and weaknesses may over time open up the possibility for Russia and the EU of new forms of cooperation on some issues, with the two powers at the same time confronting one another on other issues. Instead of taking the form of a broad partnership and a comprehensive inclusion of Russia into Western structures, this cooperation is likely to be limited to clearly defined areas.

Has Multiculturalism Failed?

http://realtruth.org/articles/110610-001-europe.html

By Robert R. Farrell and Samuel C. Baxter

The experiment of Europeans and immigrants living side by side strains under the weight of age-old problems.

They just keep coming. Tired, hungry, poor and desperate. Wearing only the clothes on their backs, often in tiny fishing vessels crammed with 300 or more people — all seeking the kind of refuge and better lives their home countries cannot provide.

Since the beginning of 2011, more than 26,000 immigrants from North Africa have reached Lampedusa, a tiny Mediterranean island off Italy's coast, tripling its population. So many have arrived that overwhelmed authorities have allowed them to set up refugee camps along the water's edge, rather than detaining them in immigration centers.

The exodus has sparked tension between displaced immigrants and locals who are dismayed by the intrusion into their once-sleepy island. Residents have posted signs and formed human blockades in an attempt to stop the flow of new arrivals — sometimes more than 1,000 daily. Those who fled have protested the Italians' treatment of them once they arrive.

Standard operating procedure is to transport immigrants to the Italian mainland, where some are granted temporary visas and handed a 150 euro train pass. With these documents, migrants can then set out for other nations within the European Union, which has had open borders since 1985.

Many immigrants granted temporary residency head to a specific destination. A large number travel to France, where they connect with family or friends already living there.

Large enclaves of immigrants are present in virtually every large European city. These ethnic neighborhoods have their own culture, language, and often their own set of rules. This is the case in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Brussels and Oslo — where immigrants are a substantial part of populations.

For a long time, their presence was tolerated, even welcomed, adhering to the “melting pot” standard favored by democratic societies. This gave way to the concept of multiculturalism — or two distinct cultures living side-by-side within a nation.

Time has shown, however, that many immigrants have not assimilated into European cultures, thus threatening the unity EU member-states have worked hard to cultivate.

What has blocked the concept of multiculturalism from being successful?

The growing number of immigrants, combined with religious and cultural tensions, concerns about crime, slowing economies, and even the threat of terrorism, have worried natural-born EU citizens, and strained relations between countries that believe the problem should be addressed by the entirety of Europe.

The Reader

“From the start the Italian government set out to make this a European problem,” a BBC editorial stated. ". ..the Italian government issued the migrants with temporary visas, knowing only too well that with no border checks a majority of them would head to France. The Schengen Agreement, signed in 1985, created open borders among 25 countries. The UK and Republic of Ireland did not sign.

"The French saw the Italian move as cynical. They responded by stepping up border patrols and briefly stopped trains running between the two countries. The Italians were outraged. They accused France of violating one of the basic EU agreements. Then on 22 April the Elysee Palace hinted at a ‘suspension' of the Schengen agreement. Later that was qualified to mean reviewing some of the exemption clauses. The French say Europe is not about the free movement of illegal migrants.”

Over the last year, certain government leaders have spoken against the concept of multiculturalism as a whole.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said during a television interview: "Of course we must respect differences, but we do not want.a society where communities coexist side by side.”

"If you come to France, you accept melting into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that you cannot be welcome in France.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron said, "The doctrine of multiculturalism has encouraged different cultures to live separate lives apart from each other and apart from the mainstream.”

Last October, German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed problems with the "multikulti” concept and immigrants not assimilating: "We kidded ourselves a while.We said: ‘they won't stay, sometime they will be gone,' but this isn't reality.The approach to build a multicultural society and to live side by side and to enjoy each other.has failed, utterly failed.”

Immigrants coming to Europe are often viewed as political refugees fleeing harsh governments, or as victims of environmental catastrophes, and even called the downtrodden who are looking for a better life. These statements are generally accurate. But, afraid to be politically incorrect, government leaders and news outlets usually will not mention a common characteristic of these immigrants: they are Muslim. Political discussions on "multicultural” woes become a thinly veiled way of discussing Muslims in Europe.