in this issue 4
interview with Jason Stanley
In the information age we live nowadays, the computers are becoming new weapons. (Octav Ganea/Mediafax via AP)
NATO Strategic Communications: Staying Relevant in the New Information Wars by Mark Laity
face2face Public Diplomacy versus Propaganda: Who Is Winning the War?
EU insight Brexit: Some Advice to David Cameron by Charles Grant
on the map Are There Any Perspectives To Solve Crimean Problem? by Andrey Zubov
The Union flag and the European Union flag fly outside Europe House, The European Commission Representation in London. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)
Vice-President of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, during his keynote speech at TATRA Summit 2014.
GLOBSEC 10 Years One Phenomenon
A rally marking the one year anniversary of the referendum in Crimea that supported its secession from Ukraine, in Simferopol, Crimea. (AP Photo/Mikhail Mordasov)
Mikuláš Virág Editor-in-Chief George Orwell once wrote that “One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.” In propaganda the truth becomes a lie, lies become the truth, and black passes off as white. Quarter of a century since the Cold War had ended the Russian propaganda makes its comeback, and it’s more fit than ever. After the Crimea annexation, it was expected that Russia would make an attempt to justify its move. However, the hybrid warfare it unleashed in the Ukraine and the massive propaganda which accompanies it in the cyber-space has grown to take up unpreceded dimensions. Today it is safe to say that the wave of Russian propaganda we have been witnessing recently has by large surpassed its Soviet predecessor. Having changed its strategy, the focus is no longer on the glorification of the leader and the system. Its core lies in criticizing the West as an evil, hypocritical, decadent establishment, which is bound to collapse on itself. Every day, millions of people are confronted with misinformation and twisted history produced in
the pro-Russian troll factories. All that while the West idly rests in a complacent paralysis, unable to give a proper response. This is deeply troubling. None of us truly believe that the current government in Kiev is nothing but an ensemble of covert fascist figureheads appointed to office by the dissolute western powers that be. Yet if this is what people hear every day on a long term basis, it will gradually become less and less suspicious. Should people – no matter if it is in Russia, Ukraine or Germany – learn to believe what propaganda tells them to, they will not unlearn that easily, and they will act accordingly. It is also crucial to remember that young people too perceive these events sensitively. Many of the future active citizens are especially susceptible to this kind of aggressive discourse. It is right in front of our very eyes that history is being twisted, yet response is scarce. If we defer setting things right now, can we really expect the future generations to learn from the mistakes of the past? That the Russian propaganda shies away from nothing can be witnessed in the new government-funded documentary on the Warsaw Pact, featuring the occupation of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in 1968, which aired a few days ago on the Russian channel Rossiya 1. Here the invasion is depicted as an act of “brotherly aid”, intervening against the threat of fascist NATO forces. This is particularly surprising considering that in 2006, Vladimir Putin himself officially apologized for the occupation during his visit to the Czech Republic, where he claimed Russia’s “moral responsibility” for the soviet invasion. That the West is seemingly comfortable with such rewriting of the history unveils a great vulnerability and incapability of taking action on its part. Several days after the broadcast, Róbert Fico, the Slovak Prime Minister, paid a visit to Kremlin.
The history-staining propagandistic documentary as well as the memory of over one hundred victims killed during the invasion were passed over in silence. We are facing a simple question, which, however, lacks a simple answer. How do we react to the pro-Russian propaganda? The simplest - but obviously misguided – answer would be contra-propaganda. That won’t do. The first thing to really do here is to counter the misinformation and conspiracies with reason, engaging and giving space to the reliable: scholars, experts, credible politicians. At the same time, it is necessary to provide an alternative source of information to the Russian citizens and to the citizens of other Russian-speaking countries. As Ed Lucas recently remarked, it won’t be possible to penetrate Russia’s media bubble via terrestrial broadcasting – we need to focus on the Internet. With this in mind, we would like to appreciate the suggestion put forward by European Endowment for Democracy at this year’s Eastern Partnership Media Conference in Riga to establish a russophone media club, which would, inter alia, provide basis for independent newscast in Russian language. Even though this suggestion comes perhaps a little late, it is by all means a positive impulse: one which could steer the future development the right way. In any case, let us not ignore the fact that the propaganda is here, and that we have the duty not to let the truth become a lie, lies the truth, and black pass off as white. Dear readers, I am glad you found your way back to the pages of our webzine and wish that you enjoy reading the articles the editorial board of Euro-Atlantic! think.act.lead. has prepared for you. If you would like to contribute to the webzine yourself, do not hesitate to contact us. You can now also follow us on twitter @EuroAtlanticMag. Stay tuned in!
headlines Severe Migrant M a c e d o n i a Duda Edged Komorowski in POland’s Crisis Erupted Caught In Deep Presidential Election
Conservative challenger Andrzej Duda, before election an unknown candidate, has unseated the incumbent Polish president Bronisław Komorowski backed by the governing Civic Platform party. Duda, a right-wing member of the European Parliament, won in the second round with 51.55 percent of the vote. The turnout was 55.34 percent. Observers have noticed that Duda’s voters main motivation was seeking for a change after eight years of the rule of Civic Platform. The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda’s conservative Law and Justice party in parliamentary elections this autumn. The election figures have also cemented discrepancy between electorate in big cities (53% for Komorowski), and in the rural areas, which largely supported Duda (62%) as well as a sharp difference between the Eastern Poland, with Duda’s victory, and the West, where Komorowski was still the winner. Furthermore, 60 percent of voters between 19-29 years chose Duda, a higher proportion than for any other age group. The rise of Duda, a 43-year-old lawyer, have been considered as a generational shift in Polish politics. He would be the sixth president since the fall of communism in 1989, but the first who is too young to have been a major participant in the 1980s struggle between communist authorities and the Solidarity opposition movement. Whilst in the campaign Duda mostly focused on domestic issues, more visible changes are to be expected in the foreign policy sphere. His presidency is likely to be more pro-American, not putting special attention to the relationship with Germany. Duda strongly opposes joining the eurozone and, generally, follows a sceptical stance of his party towards the EU. On the other hand, in accordance with Komorowski, Duda will probably continue in pushing for a more robust response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Interestingly, he will be the host of NATO’s biennial summit to be held in Warsaw in 2016.
inSoutheast Asia Political Crisis Southeast Asia has experienced the biggest influx of migrants since the end of the Vietnam War after up to 10,000 refugees, many from Myanmar’s Rohingya minority group, were being abandoned by smugglers in open sea waters near the coast of Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak described the wave of people fleeing on boats to Southeast Asia as a humanitarian catastrophe. Myanmar’s treatment of marginalised Muslim Rohingya community is seen as one of the root causes of the surge in migrants making the perilous journey across the Bay of Bengal. Facing persecution, an estimated 120,000 Rohingya have attempted to escape from the country since 2012, often by paying human traffickers to help them. In addition, the current crisis is believed to stem from a recent crackdown on such human trafficking in Thailand, a common transit point for the migrants. Fearing arrest, some traffickers have left their human cargo in the middle of the ocean. Meanwhile, countries affected by the crisis agreed at a special meeting in Bangkok to set up an anti-trafficking task force, and they also made a commitment to address the “root causes” of the migration, including improving living conditions of those fleeing. At the session, Volker Turk, assistant commissioner for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, called for the solving of the Rohingya citizenship issue. “Among other things, this will require the full assumption of responsibility by Myanmar to all its people. Granting citizenship is the ultimate goal,” he said. Htin Linn, the acting director of Myanmar’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, countered the remarks, claiming Yangon’s sovereign right to deal with internal challenges. With regard to the topic, Aung San Suu Kyi, Burmese democracy icon and the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has come under increasing criticism for failing to speak out for the Rohingya. By many, her silence is put into the context of the upcoming parliamentary election as her party, the National League for Democracy, could risk losing the support of the country’s majority-Buddhist voters.
The European Union diplomacy has been involved in mediation talks between main two political parties in Macedonia since the country has been recently rocked by violence and anti-government demonstrations, amid accusations that Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski is becoming an authoritarian leader. One of the major negotiators, EU Enlargement Commissioner Johannes Hahn, stressed the particular importance of agreement on snap elections (as a part of any final deal). In his words, they must take place by April 2016 – in order to “keep the European, Euro-Atlantic perspective alive”. Macedonia has been in a decade-long stalemate in the process of accession to both the European Union and NATO due to a veto by Greece. Athens denies its neighbour the use of name Macedonia, claiming to have a historical right on it. The ongoing crisis was sparked by covert recordings which appear to show ministers plotting vote-rigging and the cover-up of a murder. Adding to the instability, eight police officers and 14 ethnic Albanian fighters were killed in clashes in the town of Kumanovo. Not to mention the chronic economic malaise underlying acute political crisis. Around a third of the Macedonian workforce is unemployed, the second highest rate in Europe after Kosovo. Zoran Zaev, the leader of Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), has been releasing a steady stream of recordings since February, calling for the government accountability owing to wiretapping 20,000 people, including politicians, journalists and religious leaders. Opposition parties have been boycotting parliament, accusing the governing coalition of fraud in the April 2014 election. However, long-serving Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, who has won successive elections since 2006, has repeatedly rejected all the allegations. The conservative government, in return, has filed charges against Zaev accusing him of attempts to “destabilise country while conspiring with a foreign spy service to topple the government”. This alternative narrative has been echoed by Russia that is trying to persuade Macedonian political leaders to join its new pipeline project (for more on this issue see the headline on next page).
by daniel tichý
Greece Supported Egyptian Court Cyber Attack Hit the Extension of Sought Death Millions of U.S. Turkish Stream Penalty for Mursi Federal Workers When it comes to the geopolitical aspects of energy security for EU, nothing has presumably embodied the geopolitics-energy nexus better than several projects of pipelines intended to bring natural gas to Europe. Most recently, the major attention has been given to the extension of the Turkish Stream project. The pipeline, conceived as a replacement for the abandoned South Stream, will run from Russia through the Black Sea to the Greece-Turkey border, from where it is planned to continue to the Balkan Peninsula. The pipeline is projected to have an annual capacity of some 63 billion cubic meters. While 16 bcm of it is designated for Turkey’s domestic use, the remaining 47 bcm can continue to flow to the European market via Greece, Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary, ending in the Baumgarten gas hub in Austria. Greek government representatives have already expressed the country’s willingness to participate in the project with the final deal to be signed by the end of June. Similarly to the Syrizia’s leaders enthusiasm about the new pipeline, its construction was also welcomed by the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. As for Serbia and Macedonia, both countries have been so far commenting the project in a cautious way. In what have many experts labelled as a geopolitical battlefield between the West and Russia, the US-EU objective is to gain the Western Balkans support for progressing on the Southern Gas Corridor, chiefly its part called the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). The rival pipeline project aims at transporting natural gas from the Caspian Sea and the Middle East to Europe – so as to decrease the EU’s dependence on Russia. The European Commission recently reaffirmed its commitment to that project in a strategy paper on the EU’s energy policy. In addition, another option has been put on the table by Slovak PM Robert Fico, who has introduced a gas pipeline project involving Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. Known under the name “Eastring”, the pipeline would allow for gas to flow in two directions, i.e. from the western gas hubs to the Balkans, but also allow the transport of Caspian and Russian gas ( just from Turkish Stream) to Central Europe.
An Egyptian court sought the death penalty for former president Mohamed Mursi and 106 supporters of his Muslim Brotherhood in connection with a mass jail break in 2011. Mursi and his fellow defendants were convicted for killing and kidnapping policemen, attacking police facilities and breaking out of jail during the uprising against Hosni Mubarak whom Mursi replaced as the head of the state. The Guardian has described the later downfall of Egypt’s first freely-elected president to be very fitting in terms of telling the story of the country’s chaos since the beginning of the so-called Arab spring. BBC has added that during his twelve months in power, Mursi was seen by many Egyptians as preoccupied with establishing political control rather than tackling economic and social problems. Should the conviction eventually stand, Mursi would become the world’s first ex-president to be executed since Saddam Hussein in 2006. However, as he can appeal the verdict, it is not unreasonable to expect that the process might take years before passing a final judgement. Mursi is already serving 20 years for ordering the arrest and torture of protesters during his own time in power. Top Brotherhood leaders Mohamed Badie and Mohamed el-Beltagy were among those also given death penalties. Like all capital sentences in Egypt, these sentences will be referred to its top religious authority, the Grand Mufti, for a non-binding opinion. The court decision has been condemned by the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. His governing AK Party has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. “Egypt is turning into old Egypt. The West, unfortunately, is still turning a blind eye to Sisi’s coup,” noted Erdogan. Mursi said the court was not legitimate, describing legal proceedings against him as part of a coup by former army chief Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in 2013. On the contrary, Sisi, now president, repeatedly warned that the Brotherhood poses a grave threat to national security. According to rights groups, security forces have killed about 1,000 Brotherhood supporters on the streets and jailed thousands of others in the past two years.
The United States has voiced an increasingly strident tone about cyber-attacks in recent months. The latest case was revealed when Washington admitted hackers accessed the personal data of at least four million current and former federal employees, in a vast cyber-attack suspected to have originated in China. Reportedly, the goal behind the attack was to build a database of federal employees so as to use the stolen personal information to impersonate government workers. By revealing who has security clearances and at what level, the Chinese may now be able to identify, expose and blackmail U.S. government officials around the world, the experts added. The government’s personnel department – the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) – handles hundreds of thousands of sensitive security clearances and background investigations on prospective employees each year. OPM detected new malicious activity affecting its information systems in April and the Department of Homeland Security said it concluded at the beginning of May that the agency’s data had been compromised and about 4 million workers may have been affected. The agencies involved did not specify exactly what kind of information was accessed. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are said to be leading the investigation. Law enforcement officials also claimed that the hack appears to have been carried out by the same Chinese hackers who attacked Anthem Insurance earlier this year, in which information on tens of millions of customers was stolen. China has denied involvement in what could be the biggest cyber attack in U.S. history. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei pointed out that such accusations had been frequent of late. Zhu Haiquan, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington called allegations “not responsible and counterproductive.” “Cyber attacks conducted across countries are hard to track and therefore the source of attacks is difficult to identify. Without first thoroughly investigating, always saying that ‘it’s possible’, this is irresponsible and unscientific,” he stated.
interview JASON STANLEY: Propaganda Is Characteristically Part of the Mechanism by Which People Become Deceived interviewed by About How Best to Realize Their Goals Katarína Schwertnerová One of Russia´s great successes in its campaign around Ukraine has been, what Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss call, its weaponization of information. How does propaganda machine works? Is there a scheme which is followed while implementing propaganda? Is it obvious in current Russian propaganda in Europe? The method Russia seems to be employing is the systematic undermining of trust, together with a crafting of an alternative reality of Russian empire. They create a media environment in which the presuppositions are that everyone is creating realities for the purposes of national ideologies. For this reason, it’s no surprise that Russia is supporting far-right nationalist groups in Europe (beyond the obvious point that such groups undermine the EU). And they want to suggest that liberal democracy is just another ideology, hypocritically wielded to support particular nation-states marketing themselves as empires. Sadly, the US propaganda machine has fed into this, because of recent wars that do not seem to have anything to do with “spreading democracy”, being marketed under that label. The West has some complicity in its representation by Russian media. Russian propaganda is not too far off from the American Republican strategist Karl Rove’s famous comment, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”
How can we, particularly Central European governments, effectively face Kremlin´s propaganda machinery and adopt our own counter-narratives? Is it possible to fight propaganda without using counter-propaganda?
Liberal democracies should not employ counter-propaganda. It is counter-productive to use counter-propaganda against Russia, because they represent liberal democracies as hypocritical, states that engage in empire building under the façade of liberal democratic ideals. If liberal democratic states start employing propaganda to market liberal democracy, whose ideals include free and open thought, and media transparency and honesty, that just feeds into the Russian critique of the hypocritical and indeed propagandistic employment by liberal democratic states of notions like freedom, openness,
and tolerance. So hard as it may seem, liberal democracy needs to follow its own ideals in response to the propaganda attack. And this is a great thing about liberal democracy. Our ideals, in the abstract, are actually pretty amazing. When conflict in the world forces a liberal democracy to embrace its ideals in the face of bad publicity, as happened during the Civil Rights era in the United States, then we get improvement in such states. Liberal democratic states should and will find it impossible to respond to the charge that their media is just producing self-serving propaganda by producing self-serving propaganda. Either you are a liberal democratic state or you are not. One of the main sessions at the GLOBSEC Forum this year is entitled: “Propaganda: Exploiting the Underbelly of Democracy”. What is the relationship between propaganda and participatory democracy? Are democracy and pluralism more fragile when it comes to unwanted propaganda than authoritative regimes? If so, how can these flaws be redeemed? The most basic problem for democracy raised by propaganda is the possibility that the vocabulary of liberal democracy is used to mask an undemocratic reality. If so, there could be a state that appeared to be a liberal democracy. It would be a state the citizens of which believed was a liberal
democracy. But the appearance of liberal democracy would be merely the outer trappings of an illiberal, undemocratic reality. There is no corresponding existential threat for authoritarian regimes. It is utterly standard to mask the nature of an authoritarian regime with the use, for example, of revolutionary or socialist vocabulary. This is not a threat to the authoritarian nature of the regime. In contrast, masking the undemocratic nature of a state with democratic vocabulary is an existential threat to a democratic regime. But propaganda poses more specific threats to all varieties of democracies. There are distinct conceptions of liberal democracy, which correspond to distinct conceptions of liberty. For example, according to the economic theory of democracy, a policy is genuinely democratic if it is voted on by majority vote by fully rational agents who are wholly self-interested. This is supposed to be the most realistic conception of democratic legitimacy. This model presupposes that people have reliable access to their interests. But propaganda is characteristically part of the mechanism by which people become deceived about how best to realize their goals, and hence deceived from seeing what is in their own best interests. Propaganda short-circuits “economic” rationality. It is utterly common for authoritarian states to have a ministry of propaganda that is even called by that name. No democratic country has an official
ministry of propaganda, at least by that name. That tells you right away that there is a huge tension between liberal democracy and propaganda. Are there any preventive measures to be taken? Which aspects of society do we need to pay more attention to in order to prevent the public from succumbing to propaganda? Most obviously, we need schools that provide every citizen with a liberal education, the tools to make their own decisions about policy. Citizens need to be able to think about the perspectives of citizens from different backgrounds, and have
ideology arises that provides a seductive way of making sense of these gaps. And that gives rise to nationalist propaganda. You have just mentioned your recently published book entitled “How propaganda works”. What is the main message of your book? What would you recommend to the young professionals, civic organisations and also general public in order to help them distinguish between propaganda and factbased information and play a role in fighting propaganda? The main message of my book is that certain kinds of propaganda are an existential threat
“So hard as it may seem, liberal democracy needs to follow its own ideals in response to the propaganda attack.” those perspectives represented as legitimate ones in their background education. We need a press that is free, open, and devoted to the ideal of truth. We need norms that punish media when it engages in propaganda, because essentially Russian propaganda suggests that liberal democratic states are being hypocritical and dishonest. And finally, I argue in my book How Propaganda Works, that liberal democratic states also need equality, both political equality and material equality. When large divisions arise in society, when the gap in life-prospects between men and women, native-born and immigrant, start to grow, then
ason Stanley is Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. Before coming to Yale in 2013, he was Distinguished Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University between 2012 and 2013. He has also been a Professor at the University of Michigan (2000 - 2004) and Cornell University (1995 - 2000). His PhD was earned in 1995 at the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT (Robert Stalnaker, chair), and he received his BA from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1990. Professor Stanley has published four books, two in epistemology, one in philosophy of language and semantics, and one in social
to liberal democracy. I explain the nature of that threat, and identify what makes a state susceptible to the sort of propaganda that makes it a liberal democratic state in name only. We need institutions, principally schools and the media, to be responsible; they are not representatives of the ruling elite or even of the current government. They are representatives of the ideals of liberal democracy. A liberal democratic culture is one that holds our institutions responsible to these ideals. Our greatest hope against the threat we face is to make our commitment to liberal democratic ideals much more explicit and ultimately impossible to delegitimize.
and political philosophy. His first book is Knowledge and Practical Interests published in 2005 by Oxford University Press (OUP). It was the winner of the 2007 American Philosophical Association book prize. Professor Stanley’s second book, Language in Context, also OUP, was published in 2007. This is a collection of his papers in semantics published between 2000 and 2007 on the topic of linguistic communication and context. His third book, Know How, was published in 2011, also with OUP. Professor Stanley’s fourth book, How Propaganda Works, has just come out with Princeton University Press in May 2015.
in depth NATO Strategic Communications: Staying Relevant in the New Information Wars
Mark Laity: Chief Strategic Communications, NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Casteau, Belgium
“We will ensure that NATO is able to effectively address the specific challenges posed by hybrid warfare threats.... This will also include enhancing strategic communications.” Wales Summit Declaration, NATO, 4-5 September 2014 It is now stating the obvious to say the information campaign is fundamental to success in today’s conflicts and integral to an effective security strategy. At the last NATO summit the Alliance’s leaders noted both its centrality and want NATO to do better on its Strategic Communications (StratCom). This is not to say NATO has done badly but in the new security environment what we have done so far is not enough. In talking about Information Warfare we also need to address the issue of so-called ‘hybrid warfare’ of which it is a part of, and which is described in the same summit declaration as when “a wide range of overt and covert military, paramilitary, and civilian measures are employed in a highly integrated design.” Of course combining military and non-military factors to achieve effects is not in itself new. In strategic thinking the DIME approach, integrating the Diplomatic: Information: Military: Economic, has been around for years. The EU and NATO have both embraced the so-called Comprehensive Approach, a ‘whole of government’ approach taking in political, civilian and military 8
In the information age we live nowadays, the computers are becoming new weapons. (AP Photo/Octav Ganea)
instruments, with military means, although essential, not being enough on their own. Neither is the information weapon in conflict anything new – it was Napoleon who said, “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.” In the Cold War the West had bodies like Britain’s Information Research Department designed to counter Soviet propaganda. Nor should we ignore today’s Russian government is using some old Soviet playbooks. For instance in its invasion of Finland in 1940 the Soviet Union claimed one of its border posts had been shelled
the Baltic states were forced to give up their independence at the point of a tank gun after a variety of fake claims about ‘provocations’ that provided the pretext for the final ultimatums. In 1968 the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia was justified by a supposed (and unsigned) request for military assistance by the Czech leadership. In Crimea the Russian initial claims they were responding to calls for help from within Crimea have now been undermined by later admissions from the Russian leadership themselves - admitting that right from the start President Putin was looking to annex Crimea.
“While information has always mattered we are now in the Information Age, where the sheer power of information itself is transformational and revolutionary.” by Finland when in fact it was the NKVD (predecessor of the KGB) that did the shelling to provide the pretext. In 1940
What followed was an information campaign to seek to legitimise the illegitimate annexation and prevent the international
So what is actually new? community reacting decisively. ut simply, while information has always mattered we are now in the Information Age, where the sheer power of information itself is transformational and revolutionary. Where once information was a part of the mix it now increasingly dominates, forcing us to significantly re-evaluate and revise tactics, strategies, training, organisation, and doctrines. However, enduring principles remain valid – but we need to understand this new landscape and then apply them in a fresh and appropriate way. In that respect the Russians have done their homework. As noted above the broad outlines of much of their information approach and broader strategy can be seen in earlier decades. Using information for deception (maskirovka in operations), fabrication and disinformation, is not new. They have always been organised for information warfare, devoted resources to it, combined propaganda with so-called ‘active measures’, and applied and integrated the I in DIME. What is different is they have studied how to apply all this to the new information environment. So for instance the old TASS has become the new Sputnik, hundreds of millions of Euros have been spent on Russia Today (now RT), and troll farms to saturate the internet have been created.
NATO has to face challenges posed by hybrid warfare which information war is part of. (AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka)
gy against Ukraine. What is said and done is also consciously and carefully aligned to particular narratives that are tailored to resonate with different audiences, for instance patriotism for Russians, or anti-Americanism for other audiences, or economic concerns. Part of that aim is to drive wedges between EU and NATO nations in order to undermine any united response to their actions in Ukraine. Of course there are very real debates over the appropriate response to what Russia has done, but Russian information tactics are also clear.
now possibly the dominant feature of modern warfare but that it also straddles the line between peace and war. That ambiguity is part of the challenge NATO now faces with hybrid warfare. But what are the lessons – if any – from the Russian approach? There are some we definitely should not learn or apply (and do not), for instance using fabrication or disinformation. Some say the Russians have an advantage because they don’t care about the truth and this is undoubtedly so, but the main advantage is not their lies, but the fact those lies – however amoral – are not random but professionally and effectively in“Part of that aim is to drive wedges between EU tegrated into their overall effort. and NATO nations in order to undermine any united Thus, understanding narrative, culture and differing auresponse to their actions in Ukraine.” diences, applying resources, But beyond using those inThe importance Russia adapting to the impact of the struments they are not just ran- places on what it calls ‘Informa- information age, integration of domly making up lies and other tion Confrontation’ is fairly open. information into strategy are all assorted rubbish, as the content Lectures and articles by the Rus- part and parcel of an effective of what they say is an integral sian Chief of the General Staff information campaign. part of their overarching strate- state both that information is 9
in depth This is what NATO is doing now, both using what we already have but also building on it and thinking afresh to adapt to the new reality with its new information environment.
but communicating capability and resolve through increased air policing, temporary deployments of troops and an increased exercise tempo. Thus in June this year we will see the
a significant increase in socalled ‘snapex’s’, no-notice snap exercises which are the reverse of confidence-building. And of course the Russian military build-up on the border of
June 2015, Lithuania, German soldiers attend the annual multinational military exercise “Saber Strike 2015” with the participation of 13 NATO member and partner states. (AP Photo/Mindaugas Kulbis)
So the last year has been unprecedentedly busy. Ukraine highlighted like nothing else could that NATO is still needed. But, as the Alliance’s leaders said in Wales, NATO needs to adapt to the challenges, hence the Readiness Action Plan, to review and evolve for Hybrid Warfare as well as more traditional threats. Developing StratCom will be part of that, but it is also a task for NATO’s nations. As the Russians have shown it needs resources and fresh thinking. In the meantime our information effort has been primarily on supporting assurance to NATO members. This has not been just words 10
extensive ‘Allied Shield’ series of training exercises, largely in the Baltics and involving many nations operating on air, land and sea. Part of ‘Allied Shield’ will be the next stage of preparing NATO’s new interim very high readiness force. Even here though, we see a big difference between Russia’s and NATO’s exercises. NATO’s meet the criteria of confidence and security-building measures (CSBMs) in that they are extremely transparent, defensive in character, and signalled well in advance. Russia’s unfortunately often do not. The last few years have for instance seen
Ukraine was described by the Russian government as summer exercises, but proved to be cover for incursions of Russian troops into Ukraine, and cross-border artillery fire. Again, hardly confidence-building. Russia has taken to criticising NATO exercises but looking at the differences tells its own story. There are two other features that characterise NATO’s StratCom effort, teamwork and credibility. NATO is the guarantor of the security of its members but is just one part of a multinational response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. In that area one of the Alliance’s key efforts has been on exposing
the level of Russian intervention inside Ukraine, and that requires maintaining our credibility. Throughout the crisis in Ukraine the Russian Federation has consistently denied its active role. In Crimea, the early denials have been replaced by admissions of the deception but in Eastern Ukraine the denials
that when we do present evidence it is factually accurate and can be relied upon. Gaining and maintaining this credibility is a serious task. Not only is getting the information difficult in itself, but we live in a sceptical age, when publics have reduced faith in government and institutions.
NATO has to think afresh to adapt to new information environment. (Octav Ganea/Mediafax via AP)
still continue. NATO, often through SHAPE, has at times played a major role in exposing evidence of an active Russian military intervention. Although controversial when first released, it is noteworthy how more and more highly credible evidence of Russia’s actions in Eastern Ukraine has recently been published by independent media. For SHAPE and NATO our task has been to demonstrate
As journalist and author Peter Pomerantsev has so effectively argued, the Russian information machine consciously plays upon this, “The aim seems less to establish alternative truths than to spread confusion about the status of truth.” This idea is perhaps best exemplified by the now famous (or notorious) remark of Margarit Simonyan, the head of the Kremlin’s TV network, RT, “There is no objectivity – only
approximations of the truth by as many different voices as possible” This cynicism was perhaps best demonstrated by the number of often ludicrous and contradictory stories rapidly and continually propagated by Russia about the shooting down of the MH17 airliner last year. Given the evidence shows the missile that destroyed MH17 was fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists then the aim seems to have been too muddy the waters. And the point of spreading confusion is that of course it makes for indecision, and indecision about a response was what was wanted. I started my life as a journalist, so debates about objectivity were the stuff of lively argument from the day I started. We all knew our backgrounds and cultures could never be totally overcome in our work, but we knew we could much reduce bias if we tried. The output of someone trying to be objective was very different – and far more trustworthy – than someone who did not care or did not try. We also knew those who said there was no such thing as objectivity soon became careless when it came to both fairness and facts. The rejoinder to the saying, “There is no objectivity.” Is another saying, “Everyone has the right to their own opinion but no-one has the right to their own facts.” We will continue to use the facts so as to be credible, and leave the cynicism to others. The author is writing in a personal capacity, and the views expressed in this article are those of the author alone. They do not represent an official position of NATO.
“Our task has been to demonstrate that when we do present evidence it is factually accurate and can be relied upon. Gaining and maintaining this credibility is a serious task.” 11
face2face Public Diplomacy Versus Propaganda:
Who Is Winning the War? Nicholas J. Cull: Professor of Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California, United States of America
arly in Shakespeare’s tragedy ‘Macbeth’ the protagonist remarks: ‘nothing is but what is not.’ His companion – Banquo – has already noted that even accurate information may be misleading, observing: ‘And oftentimes, to win us to our harm, The instruments of darkness tell us truths, Win us with honest trifles, to betray ’s In deepest consequence.’ The feeling that the only reality is unreality of various kinds and that truth may prove treacherous is much abroad in our own time. One cannot open, tune in or log-on to the news without encountering some sort of claim and diametrically opposed counterclaim with massive political implications. These claims turn not just on nuance or opinion but on an issues of fact: there are either Russian regular troops in Ukraine or there are not; the Obama administration either lied about the details of the killing of Osama bin Laden or it did not; the Syrian government is either gassing its own people or it is not. Perhaps it was ever thus. Back in 1916 British observers noted that in wartime truth is the first casualty, and German folk culture has long had it that: ‘“Kommt der Krieg ins Land/Gibt Lügen wie Sand.” (When war comes to the land/ the lies [pile up] like sand). But there is something new in the media space today at home and abroad. It is as if the excesses of invention and distortion which characterized the Great War are back but pumped up with the steroids of the electronic age. In the century since the Great Powers traded blows and
atrocity stories in the opening rounds of the First World War political communication has evolved. While there is still a practice that we can readily recognize as propaganda -mass political persuasion, with a familiar range of tactics including 1914’s repertoire of big lies, demonizing the enemy, glorifying the leader and censoring the free circulation of opposing ideas -- in the intervening years the democracies have sought to develop the alternative approach now known as public diplomacy. Initially it began in the mid1960s as a good old American exercise in re-branding. If the US
exchanges and dialogue. Propaganda is seldom two-way. Public diplomacy is based on listening. The public diplomat listens before, during and after contact with the foreign public. Propagandists conceive of listening only to better target their one-way communication. Public diplomacy is a two-way street and as such can change both the recipient society and the sending society too. Propaganda is intended to change only the target society. Public diplomacy is flexible. Propaganda has a tight agenda. Public diplomacy is at its heart respectful of others. Propaganda
„It is as if the excesses of invention and distortion, which characterised the Great War, are back but pumped with steroids of the electronic age.“ and its allies claimed to conduct ‘public diplomacy’ that left the term propaganda free to be thrown back at the Communist Bloc. In time their empty term public diplomacy developed a benign substance and emerged as a distinct approach to advance the ends of foreign policy by engaging international opinion but without counter-productive crosscurrents and closure to dialogue that inevitably attend the use of propaganda. The nature of public diplomacy and propaganda emerge from direct comparison. Public diplomacy is based firmly on truth even when the truth is complex or uncomfortable. Propaganda is selective in its use of the truth. Public diplomacy is often two-way, working through
assumes others are ignorant or wrong. Public diplomacy is open. Propaganda is closed. Public diplomacy is ethical. Propaganda can be unethical. Considering these distinctions it is plain that public diplomacy is perpetually in danger of deteriorating into propaganda, whenever practitioners or their political masters choose to place their need to sell a point of view above the quest to identify mutual benefit and develop a genuine relationship with their interlocutor. Some US observers long ago concluded that Congress only ever wants propaganda and hence still sees public diplomacy as merely a convenient euphemism. What then should public diplomacy do when confronted
President Barack Obama speaks during Catholic Hospital Association Conference in Washington on Tuesday, June 9, 2015. Obama defended the health care overhaul just days ahead of an anticipated decision by the Supreme Court that could eliminate health care for millions of people. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
by propaganda? This has always been a problem -- analogous to the challenge of persistent violence to nonviolent resistance tactics. The temptation to give as good as the enemy and trade lie for lie can be overwhelming, but must be resisted. One interesting model for a response may be found in the responses which American social scientists working for the US Office of War Information (OWI) devised to cope with propaganda based on outrageous rumors circulated within the United States by enemies (foreign. domestic and some unwitting) during World War Two. These scholars soon recognized it was not wise to repeat and rumor and then deny it, as this often simply introduced the rumor to an even wider audience. They learned to map and track rumors carefully, collecting them systematically from those people most exposed to idle chat -- teachers, barbers, beauticians were favorite sources – and they used the information to establish what needed to be said to the public in overt and truthful government
communication. Rumors were only directly engaged in the communities where they had already become well known. OWI established a network of rumor clinics to research and counter rumors. The director of the Boston office -- Professor Robert Knapp -- published his findings in 1944, (Robert H. Knapp, ‘A Psychology of Rumor’, p.35-37) including a list of six directives for effective rumor control; 1. Assure good faith in the regular media of communication 2. Develop maximum confidence in leaders 3. Issue as much news as possible, as quickly as possible 4. Make information as accessible as possible 5. Prevent idleness, monotony, and personal disorganization 6. Campaign deliberately against rumor mongering. When combined with local rebuttal, these directives still make a lot of sense. It is however hard to see how Knapp’s proscription could be implemented today. Each
element of his recommendations flies in the face of contemporary trends. How can public diplomacy or counter propaganda prosper at a time when domestic political processes routinely 1) undermine our own media, 2) challenge the competence of leaders and institutions and leave public diplomacy so underfunded as to be unable to adequately deliver information with the 3) speed and 4) transparency required? How can it flourish when aspects of our modern life seem tailor made to promote 5) idleness and disorganization and our social media rewards rather than discourages 6) rumor mongering? This suggests that we live at an optimal moment for propaganda to flourish. For democracies the road back must begin with sustained discussion of this challenge and of the best way to rebuild a public diplomacy capacity capable of making a difference. The alternative path – inaction or simply contributing our own propaganda to the battle – is the road to a collective tragedy of Shakespearian dimensions.
face2face Public Diplomacy Versus Propaganda:
Who Is Winning the War?
Pavel Andreev Founder of the Center for Global Strategies and Communications and a Member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Moscow
casual discussion of public diplomacy and propaganda usually means a notion of positive engagement and dialogue, on one side, and a connotation with brainwashing of a target audience with lies, on the other. This simplification is also very suiting from the politicians’ point of view, as they tend to call what they do an exercise in public diplomacy, while the counteractions are invariably qualified as propaganda. However, in all fairness, we have to remember, that in essence we are talking about two sides of one coin – use of people, culture and information to influence public opinion and, subsequently, policies of other states. The question today is not whether it is public diplomacy or propaganda winning, but who is winning from the current state of public diplomacy/propaganda. Recent revolutionary development of the media and communication environment – conduits of communications, technology of content production, consumption patterns of the publics – made it possible for the public diplomacy to blossom. One no longer needed to travel to New York and London to watch the Met Opera or a play by the Royal National Theatre – they were available live in local cinemas and online worldwide. With the means of social networks people-to-people exchanges beyond national borders became more active than ever. Books, pamphlets and news were reaching the audiences around the world instantly. The world became so
connected – or hyperconnected, citing Tom Friedman – that at some point it appeared that the publics, cultures and civilizations had nowhere to run from each other. Thus a dialogue, positive engagement and value creation were expected to be the centerpiece of the global public and media landscape. Yet, this was never destined
2000s, has been applying to create well-functioning international broadcasting structures. It is also a recognition that domestic consolidation of the Russian society around its values and apprehension of the national interests produces more international appeal than disintegrated narrative of the post-Soviet Russia. And most
„The opportunities for a compromise wane and with them wave the options of public diplomacy style engagement.“ to happen. As the world has never become a place of peace, mutual trust and positive cooperation, so the means of trust and confidence-building have had to succumb to demonization and delegitimisation of the opponents. The stand-off between the West and Russia has been quite exemplary in that sense. The sense of confrontation had been growing well before the crisis in Ukraine, but it was since its President Viktor Yanukovich declined to sign a deal with the European Union in autumn 2013 and subsequent events in Kyiv and Crimea that the outright information warfare was unleashed between the West and Russia. It has been claimed by the US and European officials and some in the expert community that Russia has waged a successful propaganda campaign against the West. It is indeed a recognition of the effort which Russia, following the shortcomings of the information campaigns of the 1990s and
importantly it is a recognition that in the light of the above the West’s own propaganda has been seen by the publics as much less convincing, despite the grandstanding of the politicians and the mighty power of the mainstream media. Indeed, Russia has been merely trading a blow for blow. Since 2013 the share of negative articles on Russia in the leading media in the United States increased by three-fold, in Germany – by 2,5 times, in the UK – by two-fold. Little room has remained for neutral or middleground opinion. Selective reporting, lack of fact-checking and outright labeling of Russia and its leadership have become a norm (some objective news pieces which have been done by the foreign correspondents are noted with appreciation, but they are unfortunately too few and far between to change the overall picture). One does not need to be reminded of the front pages of Western media outlets ahead of any investigation directly
Russian President, Vladimir Putin, speaks during a presentation ceremony of state awards marking the Day of Russia in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Friday, June 12, 2015. (AP Photo/Pavel Golovkin) SITA
implying the Russian President´s guilt in MH-17 tragedy. Astonishingly, a terrible death of a Russian opposition figure Boris Nemtsov has received incomparably more coverage in the Western media, than similarly tragic and brutal killings of a Ukrainian writer and opposition journalist Oles Buzina or a former Rada deputy Oleg Kalashnikov. The Russian government effort to put under control the operations of foreign and foreign-sponsored Russian NGO’s are well in focus of the Western media, whereas illegal activities of the web-site Mirotvorec (Peacemaker), which designated publicly all “enemies” of the new Ukrainian state, have been kept out of the loop. One may continue, yet the outcome is clear – the political class has been locking itself in a narrowing pathway to a vicious circle of accusations and sabrerattling. The opportunities for a compromise wane and with them wane the options of public diplomacy style engagement. People instead of seeking a dialogue become “sofa-warriors” and contribute – most often unknowingly – to the war of words through dissemination of myths and lies of the socialmedia environment. Culture,
instead of searching creative synergies, turns to be a handy tool for defining the Other. Media, instead of educating and informing, becomes the launchpad of ideological missiles. It is not the end of the world of course – at least until public diplomacy and propaganda are substituted with guns and tanks – but it severely damages the potential of both the West and Russia to contribute to the international security. Both have much to loose, but the West is loosing more, as it has many more problems on the plate than Russia. In probably the most dangerous development of today ISIS has been using its public diplomacy/propaganda to recruit new fighters from around the world (with some from Russia, but many more from the UK, France, Germany, etc). Viral videos, social network groups and thousands of tweets are paving the way to war, deaths and sorrow. These people will come back one day and may well be bringing all of the above home. Yet the West has all the strength of its propaganda directed at Russia. China has been tremendously active in its public
diplomacy effort around the world. Russia has seen its people, business, academics increasingly engaged to find mutually beneficial solutions in projects launched by Beijing. But it is the allies of the West who feel unease about the rising might of China in the Asia Pacific. And even at home the polarization of societies in Europe and the US, rise of the left and right parties, disenchantment with liberal democratic model have also been in part an unintended outcome of the stand-off with Russia (although, of course, the primary source of these lies with domestic economic, immigration, social policies). There is little hope that this tide could be turned. Too much political capital in the West has been burnt on demonizing Vladimir Putin and restoring the image of Russia as the Other. Being a tool of policymakers, public diplomacy and propaganda also have a backlash on policy-makers, limiting their further actions to the embedded narrative. It is usually easier to go with the narrative’s flow, but sometimes it is more costly than to change its course.
Nicholas J. Cull “Be it thy course to busy giddy minds With foreign quarrels; that action, hence borne out, May waste the memory of the former days.” While I do not feel that public diplomacy and propaganda have to be ‘two sides of the same coin’ I share Mr. Andreev’s recognition that there is much unnecessary demonization going on these days and that many governments around the world seem all too happy to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels’ and media -- even when free to dissent -- seems happy to fall into line. I hold few media institutions as blameless in this regard and certainly feel that Hollywood has been too eager to fall into a revival of the Cold War mentality. To dip into specifics for a moment, did the space accident in Gravity HAVE to be caused by a Russian satellite? No. A rock would have done the job just as well. Did the conspiracy to bring a Wall Street collapse in Jack Ryan Shadow Re16
FACE 2 FACE
cruit HAVE to run from Moscow? No. We know that Wall Street is quite capable of collapsing itself. Our stories have consequences and for my part prefer to see media working to put us in other’s shoes. Mr. Andreev suggests that ISIS might be the real threat that we need to work against. I am not wholly convinced that -- brutal as they are -- ISIS are not an inconvenient distraction. ISIS strike me as a symptom of deeper problems that we all face: problems of inequality, exclusion, instability and climate change which make the religious and political extremes offered by ISIS and the current crop of nationalists around the world plausible. I hope that beneath the ‘sound and fury’ of contemporary mutual stereotyping, insults and propaganda it may still be possible to maintain dialogue and cooperation to address the problems we share, and that we can -- through the channels of public diplomacy exchange -do more and be more than we have been in past. One can but hope.
Pavel Andreev Mr Cull’s piece is an article of a distinguished scholar of public diplomacy - weighted, balanced, caring for his dearest subject. It is hard to disagree with anything that he writes. Even more so with a subdued conclusion that implies a grave threat of a failure of the forces of good from the forces of evil. As a practitioner who has devoted a great part of life to public diplomacy, I would have loved to support Mr Cull’s division of public diplomacy and propaganda. Yet my experience proves it wrong. Just when you think you run a very smart and two-way and ethical public diplomacy exercise there will be opponents who’d call it propaganda. And vice versa - their own very selective and ignorant and deceitful propaganda will be called public diplomacy. Let’s face it: both - public diplomacy and propaganda - can be smart and can be stupid, but they serve one purpose - winning hearts and minds of the target audience. Everyone does it. What matters is where it leads.
Main Institutional Partners
Brexit: Some Advice for David Cameron
Charles Grant: Director, Centre for European Reform, London
avid Cameron’s Conservative government is committed to a referendum on EU membership in 2016 or 2017, after negotiating a package of reforms to the Union. How can Cameron maximise his chances of winning? And what obstacles lie in his path?
The Union flag and the European Union flag fly outside Europe House, The European Commission Representation in London (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)
ere are five pieces of advice for Cameron. First, do not ask for the unobtainable. Many Conservatives will urge him to achieve big changes to the way the EU works. But Britain’s partners have no appetite for a new treaty, which would need ratification in 28 member-states, in some of them by referendum. Most capitals, including Berlin, view the lengthy process of changing the treaties as opening Pandora’s box. The best that Cameron can hope for is an agreement on minor treaty changes, to be ratified at some
point in the future. Second, start making the case for EU membership. Britain’s partners will not take Cameron seriously until he is willing to sell the EU to the British people. And that means making enemies in his own party. Third, take initiatives in the EU and seek to lead in areas where Britain has expertise. One reason why Britain’s influence has waned in recent years is that it has often sat on the sidelines and encouraged others to lead. Britain’s partners would treat it with more respect if it made
concrete proposals in areas such as foreign and defence policy, climate and energy, or trade and the single market. Fourth, work harder to build alliances in the EU. Cameron has few good friends; on a good day, Angela Merkel counts as one, but she and he are prone to misunderstand each other. Other leaders sometimes complain that Cameron is a very transactional politician who does not invest sufficient time in building relationships. Britain’s ties to the Central Europeans have frayed in recent years, partly
because of the Conservatives’ anti-immigration rhetoric. Fifth and final(or last), remember that clubs have not only rules but also mores. British politicians tend to forget that their rambunctious style of domestic politics – involving confrontation, bluntness and a win-or-lose psychology – goes down badly in Brussels. The EU works through long negotiations
Cameron. True, they hope Britain stays in the EU. But Cameron has nothing to offer them in exchange for their concessions. Several governments have indicated that they will not agree to his probable demands and that if the British choose to leave, that is their problem. The third worry is that a flaming row over migration during the renegotiation may
pro-Europeans may mismanage the keep-Britain-in campaign. In Britain, as in much of Europe, the EU is disliked because it is seen as a project of the rich, successful, cosmopolitan and well-travelled elite. Pro-EU forces must marshal arguments that appeal to people who never went to university. A top-down, ‘we know what is good for you’ campaign could easily fail. But if Cameron keeps
“Several governments have indicated that they will not agree to his probable demands and that if the British choose to leave, that is their problem.” and compromises that end in everyone feeling that they have got something. If Cameron banged the table and threatened to campaign for withdrawal, unless he got what he wanted, he would alienate potential allies. Cameron is an intelligent, successful and – so far – lucky politician, who will probably get some of these things right. But as the last few decades of European history show, governments often lose control during referendum
energise the No campaign. For Cameron, and many Britons, the priority will be to restrict EU immigrants’ access to in-work and out-of-work benefits. But this objective challenges the fundamental EU principle of nondiscrimination. Britain’s partners are in no mood to indulge Britain by changing the treaties on this issue. The danger is that Cameron raises the expectations of the British people and then disappoints them. A fourth risk is that the
his demands modest, works on his relationships with other leaders and uses his fine skills as a salesman to make the case for the EU, the referendum is winnable.
“The best Cameron can hope is an agreement on minor treaty changes, to be ratified at some point in the future.” campaigns. Here are five things that could go wrong. First, Britain’s highlycharged debate on Europe may damage the already tarnished British brand. In recent years, for example, sometimes hysterical press reports on EU immigrants have led many people on the continent to view Britain as a nasty country. The worse Britain’s reputation, the less likely are other governments – who all have their own domestic politics to worry about – to give Cameron what he wants. The second reason to worry is that other EU leaders may not make significant efforts to help
euro crisis turns nasty. Despite the eurozone economy’s modest improvement this year, Greece’s place in the currency union remains precarious. A Grexit could trigger panic in the financial markets and thus the need for emergency summits and improvised institutional repairs. If eurozone leaders – who are the same as EU leaders – are once again seen as economically incompetent, the EU’s image in Britain will suffer. A new eurozone crisis would also divert leaders’ time and energy from addressing British concerns. A final risk is that Britain’s
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron gestures as he unveils the Conservative party manifesto. (Peter Macdiarmid, Pool Photo via AP)
PREMIER EUROPEAN FORUM
IN CENTRAL EUROPE T
ATRA SUMMIT is a prominent annual conference on the most pressing European political, economic and financial issues with an ambitious goal – to shape the future of Europe. Founded in Bratislava four years ago, TATRA SUMMIT has made a contribution to defining challenges, solutions and actions of the regional and wider European agenda and became an indispensable meeting place of relevant EU stakeholders. Hundreds of influential po-
litical, business and academic personalities will gather to exchange views and engage in a debates that have real impact on the current European agenda. Over time, the top-guest list has already included representatives such as Gunter Verheugen, Jan Krzysztof Bielecki, Robert Fico, Enrico Letta, Maroš Šefčovič, Gordon Bajnai, JeanClaude Piris, Vitor Constancio, Lászlo Baranyay, Jorg Asmussen, Peter Kažimír, Carsten Pillath, Mateusz Szczurek, An-
ders Borg, Andrej Babiš, Daniel Křetínský and others. TATRA SUMMIT is hosted by the Centre for European Affairs (CEA), member of the Central European Strategy Council, with the support of its strategic partners - Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic and Brussels-based think-tank BRUEGEL. TATRA SUMMIT 2015 will take place 4 – 6 November, 2015 in Bratislava, Slovakia.
TATRA SUMMIT 2015 HIGHLIGHTS
• Positioned just one year ahead of the Slovak EU Presidency, TATRA SUMMIT aspires to be the key platform for pre-Presidency debates in the run up to the SK PRES in 2016; • Following the last year’s success of the TATRA SUMMIT Investment Forum, this format continues in 2015 to engage European investment community to the TATRA SUMMIT in a more proactive way; • Side events: the programme also includes closed Policy Session, roundtable debates, expert working group meetings, Young Leaders Forum, the Major Speech on Europe and many social and networking events; • Attendance of top leaders: Prime Ministers, Finance and Foreign Affairs Ministers, State Secretaries, heads of the EU institutions and top level representatives of economic and financial institutions, think-tanks and business from the whole Europe.
Vice-President of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, during his keynote speech at TATRA SUMMIT 2014.
Ambassador Ivan Korčok, Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic to the EU, giving welcome address at TATRA SUMMIT 2014.
Peter Kažimír, Minister of FInance of the Slovak Republic and Andrej Babiš, Minister fo Finance of the Czech Republic with Róbert Vass, Executive Vice-President and CEO of Central European Strategy Council at the TATRA SUMMIT Investment Forum 2014.
“TATRA SUMMIT has proven of real added value to interchanging disciplines and cross-sector perspectives on the future of Europe. We need these exchanges more than ever as the pace of change related to the economic and geopolitical situation is accelerating.’’ Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President, European Commission
As for the dominants of the TATRA SUMMIT 2015 agenda, key emphasis will be put on the assessment and perspective of the EU’s strategic agenda implementation, just one year after the new EU political cycle got its mandate. Debates will focus on fundamental pillars of this agenda – Jan Krzysztof Bielecki, Harald Waiglein, Jörg Asmussen, Enrico the Energy Union, Digital Single Market, genuine Letta, Carsten Pillath join the panel on divergent views on growth in the EU chaired by Karel Lannoo. EMU and Investment Plan for Europe.
1. BREXIT & GREXIT | New
political cycle declared to find the recipe for not loosing EU and restore EU citizens‘ already fragile trust. BREXIT & GREXIT are often considered as a crossroads to the future of the EU integration process. TATRA SUMMIT will therefore seek to provide a strategic outlook on future (dis)integration process.
4. ENERGY UNION: BOOSTING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROTECTING EU’S INTEREST | The Energy
Union means making energy more secure, affordable and sustainable. Costly and politically risky, the EU is re-thinking its energy policy in a very accurate timing, by introducing the Energy Union initiative. To this European debate, TATRA SUMMIT will contribute with the answers how we 2. UPCOMING PRESIDENCY TRIO: PRIORITIES – as a Europe with so various national interests, boost the growth and protect our strategic OUTLOOK | The 2015 edition of TATRA SUMMIT can interest at the same time. is unique as it is held only one year before the Slovak EU Presidency in 2016 and the debate on the possible programme has already been in full 5. DIGITAL SINGLE MARKET: TURNING EUROPE swing. Furthermore, the upcoming EU Presidency DIGITAL | Claims like “the new digital revolution” TRIO will unveil its political priorities, which will or “risk of changes in social structure, as after the play a role for the EU decisions for an 18 months invention of the printing press” has accompaperspective. Placing special emphasis on the re- nied the Digital Single Market project unveiling gion of Central Europe, the debate will explore in May 2015. TATRA SUMMIT will seek to provide the regional interests against the TRIO priorities, concrete proposals, how to make from Europe and how Slovakia can better support the region- a world leader in information and communicaal interests. tion technology, how to succeed in global digital economy and society, facing one of the most 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN ECONOMIC AND ambitious integration plans in Europe. MONETARY UNION | After the Four Presidents’ “diagnosis” of the EMU has been presented in 6. INVESTMENT PLAN FOR EUROPE | Successful 2012, though important progress has been made European investment strategy is the right way to in some areas, however, unfinished business still put Europe firmly on the path towards the ecoremains in other. TATRA SUMMIT will examine nomic recovery, and its formation should, first whether we are courageous enough for further and foremost, focus on the active involvement of steps towards a genuine economic coordination. the promoters, strategic project developers and Given the specific position of Slovakia as the only key decision-makers. Following the lines of the Eurozone member in Visegrad Group, TATRA European innovative approach towards the inSUMMIT will zoom in on the future of Eurozone vestment strategies, TATRA SUMMIT will engage as the view from the Central Europe – Eurozone European investment community to address for „ins“ and „outs“. the state of implementation of this strategic investment projects in Europe and debates will examine how the new financial instruments are addressing market gaps and mobilising private investments. 21
visegrad news Czech Republic Referendum on Euro Set for 2017
hungary A Retrial of Communist-Era War Crimes Convict
The Czech Finance minister Andrej Babis speaking on the topic of financing the economic growth at the Tatra Summit. Bratislava 9. November 2014. (Foto: SITA/Jozef Jakubčo)
Former Hungarian interior minister in the communist-era Bela Biszku sits in the courtroom in Budapest, Hungary, Monday, June 1, 2015. ( Tamas Kovacs/MTI via AP)
“Finance Minister Andrej Babis said he proposes holding a nonbinding public referendum in 2017 on whether to adopt the euro.”
“Biszku is the only high-ranking communist leader convicted since Hungary’s 1990 return to democracy.”
he Czech Finance Minister proposed letting the public have a say in whether the country should adopt the euro through a nonbinding referendum. The proposal caused disagreement in the cabinet of the Czech Republic. Roughly two-thirds of the population in this EU country are against giving up the national currency, the koruna. After meeting the Prime Minister, the Governor of the central bank and the country’s President at a special gathering to discuss the Czech position toward Europe’s common currency, Finance Minister Andrej Babis said he proposes holding a nonbinding public referendum in 2017 on whether to adopt the euro. The purpose of holding a referendum would be “so that citizens can express themselves, like they’ve done in Sweden,” said Mr. Babis, who himself hasn’t yet taken a position on the currency issue and is widely considered a top candidate for the Premier’s post after the next elections. Such a referendum in the Czech Republic wouldn’t break treaties but would serve as a gauge of public opinion before politicians embark on the potentially treacherous task of surrendering the national currency. Some politicians have expressed doubts about the relevancy of such a referendum, due to the fact that one of the admission conditions is the introduction of the common currency.
he Hungarian appeals court has ordered the retrial of the communist-era official convicted of war crimes related to reprisals against civilians after the anti-Soviet revolution of 1956. Bela Biszku was sentenced to five years and six months in prison in May 2014. Prosecutors appealed the sentence, asking for life in prison for the 93-yearold former interior minister, while Biszku’s defense sought the dismissal of the charges. Biszku is the only high-ranking communist leader convicted since Hungary’s 1990 return to democracy. Biszku was in the Communist Party’s ruling interim executive committee after the 1956 uprising was defeated by Soviet forces. The committee created armed militias to carry out repression, including firing indiscriminately into crowds at protests and Biszku was convicted for his responsibility in nearly 50 deaths. The Budapest Appeals Court, however, declared the ruling of the lower court void and called for a retrial with a new set of judges. Biszku proclaimed his innocence when questioned by prosecutors before the initial trial but did not testify in court. He suffers from several illnesses, sat in a wheelchair during the proceedings and appeared unfazed by the ruling. The court has also stated that it would seek the help of historians to solve some of the key questions regarding the trial.
Slovakia Poland Slovakian Borders Will Be New President May Change the Helo Deal slovakia Immovable
Slovak Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak, left, and his garian counterpart Peter Szijjarto, shake hands during press conference in the Foreign Ministry in Budapest, gary, Monday, March 30, 2015. (AP Photo/MTI, Lajos
he state borders with Hungary and the Czech Republic will be immovable along entire stretches where they are formed by rivers, the Government agreed at its session on 3 June. The measure is part of respective international agreement proposals. An immovable state border means that the border will not have to be adjusted to match the natural course of the riverbed, the TASR newswire quoted the government decision. This is expected to be of economic and technical importance, says the Interior Ministry. The border between Slovakia and Hungary is currently movable on sections where it is formed by rivers. The Czech and Slovak border is movable only along a short stretch at the confluence of the Morava and Dyje rivers where Slovakia, Austria and the Czech Republic meet. While the alteration in the character of borders between Slovakia and Hungary will be approved by parliament as a constitutional law, the change involving the border point between Slovakia, Austria and the Czech Republic is set to be debated in parliament and later ratified by President Andrej Kiska. When Czechoslovakia split in 1993, Slovakia definitely lost 16 hectares to the Czech Republic in a border area with Austria. Slovakia will soon make similar settlements on making the borders immovable with Austria and Poland.
Poland’s President-elect Andrzej Duda attends a state ceremony confirming his electoral win at the Wilanow Palace in Warsaw on 29 May 2015. (AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski)
he largely unexpected victory by opposition candidate Andrzej Duda in the second round of Poland’s recent presidential elections could shift the country’s military priorities and create more friction with Russia. Duda is set to replace incumbent President Bronislaw Komorowski from the ruling Civic Platform Party in August. Duda’s Law and Justice (PiS) Party is seen by many analysts as staunchly anti-Russian and pro-US. Duda is a promoter of a stronger NATO, and he also supports the presence of the alliance within the territory of Poland. During his campaign, Duda criticized Komorowski and his party’s government for its recent decision to award Poland’s multibillion-dollar military helicopter deal to Airbus Helicopters. He is known as being an advocate of the modernization of the Polish Army. In April the Ministry of Defense announced it selected the Caracal EC725 to replace the Polish military’s Soviet-designed Mil Mi-8, Mi-14 and Mi-17 helicopters. However, according to Duda, Poland should instead opt for Sikorsky’s Black Hawk or AgustaWestland’s AW149, as both manufacturers operate Poland-based subsidiaries — PZL Mielec and PZL Swidnik, respectively — and employ local workers. The helo procurement is estimated to be worth up to 10 billion zloty (US $2.8 billion).
“An immovable state border means that the border will not have to be adjusted to match the natural course of the riverbed.”
“According to Duda, Poland should instead opt for Sikorsky’s Black Hawk or AgustaWestland’s AW149, as both manufacturers operate Poland-based subsidiaries.”
ON the map
Are There Any Prospects for Solving Crimea?
Andrey Zubov: Professor of History, Columnist, Novaya Gazeta, Moscow
n early March 2014, Russian society and the Crimean people rejoiced, and the Russian President, Mr Putin said pompous words about the Crimean ship that has forever returned to the Russian harbour. “Crimea has always been, and once again became Russian” - these words were repeated countless times, almost like a mantra. But over the past year it has become clear, that the Crimean problem was not only solved by that quick annexation, but, on the contrary, has become an instrument of destruction of the entire system of international relations in Europe and throughout the world. The world took the annexation of Crimea by Russia as an act of unprovoked and unjustifiable aggression. “Crimea should go back to Ukraine” - Ukraine itself insists, as well as all the zealots of international law. Thus, an overwhelming majority of UN General Assembly supports it. But residents of Crimea are far from being unanimous on this issue. Some of them, mainly the Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians – are for the return to Ukraine, the majority of the population - against. Is it possible to decide the fate of the land without conforming the will of its inhabitants? We have two types of arguments in front of us: first, historical - “Crimea has always been Russian”; secondly, socio-political - most of the current residents of Crimea want the land on which they live, to be part of the Russian Federation. Let’s try to sort these arguments out. Let’s start with history. In ancient and medieval times the Crimean peninsula was owned by many states and many nations gave way to others. But Russia
Andrei Zubov, a history professor who was fired from one of Moscow’s most prestigious universities last month after criticizing Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
was still non-existent, and if Ruses and Slavs appeared in the Crimea at all, it happened in very small quantities. Yes, in the 11th Century, in Taman (now Kuban), there was the Tmutarakan Principality, which was ruled by the Rurik dynasty. It possessed apparently some part of eastern Crimea and was a vassal of Constantinople. But if the records of law and history from the 11th century are consulted, they show more in favour of Kiev than Moscow. Indeed, while the 11th Century Moscow was not in sight (the first mention recorded in the
middle of the 12th Century), Kiev was the “mother of Russian cities” and the supreme throne of the Rurik dynasty was in Kyiv. First Crimea had been seized by the Roman Empire (Byzantium), then the Mongols and then the Golden Horde. In the second half of the 13th century, the southern coast of Crimea relinquished to the Genoese who created a Gothic captaincy. In the summer of 1475, the Ottoman Empire conquered Crimea. In the steppe part of the peninsula, in the Sea of Azov, the Ottomans preserved their vassal
“We must clearly understand that the Russian Empire in the 18th and 19th Century and the modern Russian Federation are not the same state.”
Crimean Khanate ruled by a kind of Gira and incorporated the southern coast directly into their possession. The population of Crimea, at the time, was very colourful, there were lots of Greeks, Italians, Armenians, Jews, Slavs, Polovtsian, descendants of the Khazars and Normans. The steppe population was predominantly Mongoloid and the mountain and seaside Caucasoid on racial grounds. Lingua franca has gradually become a kind of
to the desert lands of the northern Black Sea coast. Many of them did not want to leave their land and converted to Islam in order to avoid deportation. Even in the 1930’s many Crimean Tatar settlements had two cemeteries, the current Muslim and a closed Christian cemetery. Young and old explained that it is necessary to take care of both, as the Christian buried there had been “our ancestors”. Russian rule in Crimea was
Crimean Tatar language, Polovtsian basically, but with many words borrowed from Turkish, Greek and Italian. Muslims, Christians of various denominations and Jews lived side by side on the peninsula. But Crimea was not Russian until the April of 1783. The annexation of Crimea by the Russian empire was without observance of legal international procedures. The conquest of the Crimean Khanate by Russia was treacherous and bloody. The indigenous population of Crimea, most of which migrated to Turkey due to religious differences and cruelty of the new government, fell five times in the late 18th Century. Russia had obtained the right to defend Orthodox Christians in Crimea, as a part of the Kuchuk Kaynarca agreement with Turkey in 1774 and forced Christians to move
by no means a blessing for the indigenous population. The Muslim Jamaat community have lost ownership of water and land, which passed to the Russian nobility or the state. From owners, the indigenous people have become tenants. The best way to evaluate the quality of governance is to track the movements of the population. When the country is free and the life in it is good, you try to get into it, not run from it. From Crimea, during a hundred years of Russian rule, from Catherine II to Alexander II, about 900-thousands of local Muslims have left. To replace the Muslims, Christian Greeks, Bulgarians and Armenians came to the vacant land. They also came from Russia and directly from Germany and Austria as colonists. Ukrainian farmers and peasants had to move to the Greatempty lands of their landlords. The
“So from all the countries controlling Crimea throughout history, the Russian Federation was the briefest owner of the territory, and so has the weakest claim to it.”
Crimean Tatars, in 1795, accounted for 87 percent of the population. In 1897 only for 35, in 1920 the number decreased to 25 and in1939 only 19 percent were left. A very similar situation played out in Abkhazia and on the Caucasian coast of the contemporary Russian Federation, where in the 19th Century, the Muslim population suffering from confessional oppression and lack of freedom, was leaving en masse to the Ottoman Empire. They were replaced by multi-tribal Christian, partly coming from Turkish Anatolia and the Balkans and in part from other provinces of the Russian Empire. At the same time, we must clearly understand that the Russian Empire in the 18th and 19th Century and the modern Russian Federation are not the same state. It was a part of the Empire, not only the current territory of the Russian Federation, but also the most of the post-Soviet space incorporating Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Caucasus, the Baltic states, Poland and Finland. All these nations have equal right to reclaim the land of Crimea, as they doused the soil with their sweat and blood. During the Crimean War of 1853-56, almost half of the Russian Crimean army consisted of Ukrainians, Belarusians, Georgians, East-of-the-ZeyaGermans, Armenians and Poles. Not only Russian blood poured from the redoubts of Sevastopol. The Russian Empire was a country of many peoples and the modern Russian Federation cannot claim any land on the grounds that it once was a part of the Romanov Empire. The Bolsheviks renounced succession to the Russian Empire, declared that they are “building a new state of workers and peasants”. They divided the territory conquered by the former Russian empire into several formally independent states, united, allegedly, in a voluntary union. The boundaries between these states have changed repeatedly, creating the new and erasing the old. The RSFSR expelled Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan from the structures, and later Karelia gave Belarus the Vitebsk and Mogilev regions. Later, Karelia was again included in the composition,
and Crimea, on the contrary, was given to Ukraine in 1954. All these
from a different world, but even in this other world, the Ottoman
Crimean Tatars, one holding Tatar flag, attend a rally inside ATR TV station, the first-ever channel dedicated to the Crimean Tatars in Simferopol, Crimea. (AP Photo/Alexander Polegenko)
manipulations formally claimed legitimacy, but, of course did not take into account the will of the people who inhabited the land. And the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine wasnâ€™t any more legitimate than the rest of the actions of the Bolsheviks on the spaces they conquered. But these are not significant territorial manipulation of the Bolsheviks, and other border republics of the USSR, however conventional they may be,
Empire controlled the Crimea three centuries, and Russian only 134 years. The RSFSR, which the modern Russian Federation declared itself to be the successor of, held Crimea from November 1920 to May 1954, that is 33.5 years The Ukrainian SSR including the present Ukraine, owned Crimea for 60 years, from 1954 to 2014. So from all countries controlling Crimea throughout history, the Russian Federation was the briefest owner of the territory
â€œthe Russian Empire was a country of many peoples and the modern Russian Federation cannot claim any land on the grounds that it once was a part of the Romanov Empire.â€? confirmed international treaties after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the independence of the Russian Federation, Ukraine and other post-Soviet states in December 1991. These treaties, like the Belovezhskoe agreement, the Grand Treaty with Ukraine and the Russian Federation, signed in 1997 and recognized all around the world, made the borders inviolable and left the Crimea to Ukraine. As for the number of years of formal ownership, the Russian and the Ottoman Empires were
and so has the weakest claim to it. But even during this short tenure of Soviet power over Crimea, they managed to commit many crimes against the indigenous Crimean Tatar people and against all the other peoples of the peninsula, including Russians. When Crimea was captured in November 1920 by the Bolsheviks, they immediately staged a massacre of the opposing forces of General Wrangel and the White Guards, who made their last stand of the bloody civil war there. After the opposition was dead, they
killed about 60 thousand civilians. Caused by the Bolsheviks, the famine of 1921 and 1922 had cost the lives of around 80-thousand people, in large part the lives of Crimean Tatars. The forceful collectivization led to the deaths and deportation of several tens of thousands of people of all nationalities. In August 1941, 61-thousand Germans were forcibly evicted from the Crimea, in January and February 1942 400 Italians followed, who were the descendants of the medieval Genoese. In May and August 1944 all the Crimean Tatars (195,000), Greeks (14 300), Bulgarians (12 100), Armenians (10,000), Turks and Persians (3500) were forcefully evicted from Crimea. Nearly half evicts died during the transit or died due to the intolerable conditions in the places of their new settlement. It was a real genocide, much like the Ottoman genocide of Armenians in 1915. The population of Crimea had reduced three times. In 1939, 1.1 million people lived on the peninsula, in September 1944 only 379-thousand were left, mostly Russians, Ukrainians (21%) and Belarusians. Crimea became populated again by the relocation of war veterans, demobilized officers of the Soviet Army, the NKVD and political prisoners. The composition of the population of Crimea changed dramatically. All its historical ethnic groups have disappeared from the peninsula. Only in the 1980s the return of exile-survivors began, although they were mostly their children and grandchildren. But their homes were inhabited by strangers, the land belonged to other owners. As elsewhere, violent conflicts between returnees and zaselentsami erupted. One can only wonder about the fact that in these circumstances, almost half of the Crimean Tatars and a number of exiles from other nations, had the courage to return to their home, which has become so bitter. The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in March 2014 made the problems worse. It transferred what was local, to the international and even global level. Without a solution to the problem of the Crimea, there is no guarantee that Europe remains stable. But is it
even possible to solve this problem? Yes, there is a solution. But it requires the rejection of unfounded claims on foreign land and the return to the sole will of the people, which ultimately determines the fate of the earth. After all that happened in 2014 and 2015, you cannot just go back to the status quo ante bellum. Crimea cannot be simply returned to Ukraine as a bag of stolen potatoes. We are talking not so much about the land but about people. Stolen potatoes can and should just return to the owner but the stolen lover only in accordance with her wishes. It is very possible that she prefers the father over the ardent friend. In Crimea, there was a referendum in March, but the form of the referendum and its results, and the political context in which it was implemented, are more than doubtful. And from the point of view of the theory of the electoral results, the Crimean referendum was very improbable, if not impossible. Such figures simply do not happen. But the fact remains that a large part of the population of Crimea, like in March 2014, wanted to become a part of the Russian Federation. But which part? To find out the real will of the people of Crimea, we need a new referendum under strict international control, respectable, not hasty but slowly and carefully prepared for several years. It should incorporate the right for all those who lived in Crimea at the beginning of the conflict, that
brutal deportation of people, with
A protester stands near to a banner with the image of Russian President Vladimir Putin, during a rally marking the one year anniversary of the referendum in Crimea. (AP Photo/Mikhail Mordasov)
all recognizable signs of genocide, a “fait accompli” and to put an end to it. It is necessary to correct the consequences of past crimes and make it impossible for them to recur in the future. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, the descendants of the deportees should be given the right of repatriation and be provided the appropriate support, both financial and legal, to settle them into their places of origin. And the children of those who moved into the abandoned Crimean houses in the late 1940s, the descendants of those who lost their paternal homes because of the arbitrary power of the Russian Federation, shall be equal in the determining their destiny.
“the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine wasn’t any more legitimate than the rest of the actions of the Bolsheviks on the spaces they conquered.” is, on February 27, 2014, to attend, but it is impossible to restrict any newcomers. Also, all descendants of residents of Crimea, forcibly evicted during the 1940’s, wherever they live, if they wish so, should be able to take part in this referendum. One cannot simply call the violent and
At the time of preparation and holding of the plebiscite in Crimea, as it was with the Treaty of Versailles, plebiscite territories should be put under international control of the United Nations. All the law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation in Crimea
should be abolished and Ukrainian ones should not be re-established. Control of the area should be provided by special international forces that are neutral to the conflict, that is, for example, the OSCE, Council of Europe or the UN. In international legal terms, Crimea should continue to be considered as a territory of Ukraine. All acts of 2014 and 2015, designed as a section of Crimea and the joining of the peninsula to the Russian Federation must be considered null and void from the beginning. The answers to the plebiscite should be three: do you want Crimea to remain a part of Ukraine; would like Crimea to be incorporated into Russia; and do you want to live in an independent Crimean state. So it was in 1955, when Saarland decided and even more recently also in Scotland. This will be an honest and constructive approach, which will not put geopolitical interests and hysterical claims of mingled nations on the top. The will of ordinary people and their right to elect their own destiny in their native land will decide the final outcome.
ON the map 27
Phenomenal GLOBSEC Journey Dear readers and the GLOBSEC Forum participants, on occasion of the landmark of the 10th anniversary of the Forum, we, the youth team, would like to share its story with you. We will introduce you to the foundations of the project and guide you through the most important moments from the very beginning. Let us reveal the background of the long journey that the founders, the followers and many others have undertaken to get here. Ján Hajdúk: Euro-Atlantic! think.act.lead.
Let us rewind the clock and go back in time to a country in the heart of Europe, to a period of change, hope and idealism, but also of many challenges ahead. This country is Slovakia back in the 1990’s, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, after the nations of Central Europe were freed of the plight of totalitarian rule. Our nation had great hopes and enthusiastic ambitions, but not everything proved to have a happy ending, due to the ill will of a few powerful individuals. It was a sad period in our history, when Slovakia, steadily progressing on the path of integration into the democratic structures, lost its way and got rejected from them. And only then a few accomplished personalities had the courage to say enough. They decided to bring Slovakia back on track, bring life to reforms that the country needed the most and uncover the great potential of this country and its peoples. They did succeed and as a result we finally joined the “democratic club” in 2004 when we became a member of the NATO and the EU. As a result the importance of youth was recognised as a source of dynamism and innovative thinking. Young people are the future as they have the potential
to bring on a change. Some of those who were determined and confident that Slovakia can do much more in the international affairs was Róbert, the founder of the GLOBSEC Forum, and his friends. He once said “As a high school student, I have sent out only a single university application because I knew that it was what I wanted to do.’ And it was not always an easy path and there were a lot of bumps along the way. Nevertheless, there were always many who were extremely enthusiastic about the project. Those who were ready to commit their energy and time to advance their vision. A vision of putting Slovakia back where it always belonged, into the heart of Europe and the European and transatlantic discussion, back on the map of the strategic policy making. They wanted to prove that our country is able to punch above its own weight. But they
his vision into a reality by establishing this conference at the age of 21. The conference gradually evolved from a small project of a few young ambitious students to the leading annual forum on security and foreign policy in the region of Central Europe. It has become a phenomenon, which moves the region from the periphery to the core of transatlantic policy shaping, giving Central Europe a respected voice in the creation of transatlantic agenda. Lacking major funding, institutional cover or support from above, the young founders were successful to realise their plans thanks to their vision, dedication and commitment. The first
“Leadership in today’s world requires courage and guts combined with the ability to take things into perspective and have a long term vision of what you want to achieve.” did not stop there, they wanted to make the world aware of the Central European region and to strengthen its active participation in the process of shaping of the global environment. While still being a student, Róbert started to convert
conference took place at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic in October 2005 and hosted about 100 guests mostly from Slovakia and surrounding countries. The conference’s 9th edition last year, hosted over 800 participants
WHAT LIES AHEAD? Photo from one of the first GLOBSEC editions back in 2007.
from 65 countries. During 10 years of the Forum’s existence it hosted a total of 3, 333 participants and 564 speakers. Although it was not always easy to find the optimal balance between the youth energy and the guidance of the seasoned experts, this combination has yet proved to be a reason for success. An irreplaceable personality behind the GLOBSEC Forum journey and the Slovak Atlantic Commission is Ambassador Rastislav Káčer, who has been a vital part of the Slovak Atlantic Commission at the very beginning and still has a major positive influence on all members of our team. As he once said, when he first met Róbert, he saw his potential, the will to go far beyond than what was expected of him and the vision, not only for today or tomorrow, but for years and decades to come. When they started to work together, their first task was to find a productive balance between the youth dynamism and the lessons of wisdom. To quote Ambassador Káčer “The seasoned veteran knows where the danger is and what can be hurtful, but the youth says I want to go there, and this is where you find a synergy which leads to a dynamic and productive alliance.” The result of this partnership was spectacular and laid the foundation of many accomplishments. It did not only help to develop a wide variety of projects and initiatives but also gathered hundreds of passionate young people under the label of GLOBSEC. It all
serve as a testimony that young generation can be the driving force of a change. As Róbert once said: “There are people who just go along with the current and try not to think about what may or may not come and there are people who have a vision and do everything they can to make this vision come true”. Róbert also stands out from the crowd in the way how he runs his non-governmental organisation. He oversees the organisation as if it was an enterprise that aims for a dynamic innovation and a constant growth. His management skills were recognised and rewarded with a nomination for the TREND magazine’s “Manager of the Year Award” last year. As Ambassador Káčer once noted “Leadership in today’s world requires courage and guts combined with the ability to take things into perspective and have a long term vision of what you want to achieve.” Róbert saw that mathematics do not apply in international relations and that one plus one does not always equal two, but it multiplies. The energy spent by one individual is multiplied by the energy of his team and partners. And after each conference, we ask ourselves if this year was better than the last, we attempt to stay cautious, not to become stagnant and we always look for improvements. The values of freedom and democracy are being severely tested these days. They are
not to be taken for granted even in the transatlantic family where we encounter a rise of populism and a decline of public trust in elites. Tensions in the Balkans, the expansion of terrorist groups and emergence of war conflicts in the EU’s direct neighbourhood make GLOBSEC a very up-to-date and needed platform. The 2015 Forum will be even more important than the previous ones. The European and transatlantic order has been under attack simultaneously from East and South as never before and Central Europe is facing an unprecedented challenge to its stability and security since the fall of Communism. GLOBSEC will focus on a number of issues pivotal to the region, the EU and the transatlantic community, including: • Responding to Russia & Helping Ukraine • Tackling the Challenge of Radical Islamists and Terrorism • Run-Up to Warsaw: Adapting Nato and European Security • Empowering Europe The SAC staff permanently introduces innovations and new formats which make GLOBSEC an exceptionally complex and multidimensional event. Today, it has progressed towards its own online television – GLOBSEC TV, its own English language daily newspaper published during the conference GLOBSEC Daily, and it runs a media centre with TV studios and satellite transmission vehicles for more than 150 journalists from all over the world. According to Róbert, there is always room to make something better, to invent something new, to better ourselves and to bring You,
our participants and honoured guests a pleasant and innovative experience. This jubilee tenth edition promises to be another milestone and we are already looking forward what another decade with the GLOBSEC Forum brings us. We would not have gotten nearly this far on our GLOBSEC journey without the support of You, our dearest participants, partners, speakers and supporters. When we see you return to the Forum, all the hard work has paid off. We are pleased to celebrate our 10th Years Anniversary and look forward to many more in the future. Archive photo of the project team from the GLOBSEC Forum 2011.
Without you, none of this would be possible - Thank you!
THEY SAID ABOUT GLOBSEC:
Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski: “In its scale, in its ambition, in its organisation, literally, a first-class global-type operation.” General John Allen: “I think that the GLOBSEC Conference is very important to this particular moment in history.” Edward Lucas: “The most important security conference in the region. It’s where you get the decision makers, the movers and shakers from all over Western and Eastern Europe and outside of Europe and from North America, discussing the way in which the European security order is under threat as never before.” Damon Wilson: ”The team that puts this together … are people that helped lead the transformation of their country and of Central Europe. They define
Project team of the GLOBSEC Forum 2014.
the debate within Slovakia and they define the debate about where their country will find its home in Europe.” Tim Judah: “The ideal conference is valuable for two reasons. Interesting panels with people with interesting ideas and for what those same people have to say in private. My experience from Globsec is that it fulfils both criteria so I am delighted to be
invited.” General Jiří Šedivý: “GLOBSEC has developed into the most important, most interesting forum of its kind in Central Europe. There is no other opportunity in our region to have this kind of discussions with incredibly wide number of excellent experts.”
The Return of the King:
Monarchism as a Security Maker
in the Post-Arab Season Realm Tiago Ferreira Lopes: Researcher, Euro-Atlantic Diplomacy Association, Portugal
et me begin this article by stating my position on this issue: I am a Monarchist. I believe in the intrinsic value of Monarchies as regimes able to merge Modernity and Tradition. I stand for Constitutional Monarchies with democratically elected parliaments from where steams the authority of governments fully responsible for Executive powers. I have no problem however in acknowledging that probably to some countries (like the United States of America, Finland, Latvia, Azerbaijan or Belarus) Monarchies have little reason to
are the safest and least uncertain path to stabilize the sociopolitical hecatomb that succeeded to the media praised social movements usually known as “Arab Season”. The self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi on 18 December 2010 in Tunisia ignited a fire that would spread from Tunisia, to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain and to a lesser extent to Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The mere fact that from the six most impacted countries with the Arab Season only one is a monarchy (Bahrain) already
The “Arab Spring” is an evidence that the huddled masses of the Middle East, like people everywhere, are simply yearning to be free.
regimes do not allow any sort of space to the emergence of a vibrant and engaging civil society. If it’s true that civil liberties are limited in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia it is also true that they were limited in Mubarak’s Egypt and Gadhafi’s Libya (both Republics) and that didn’t hold back the protestors that took consistently the streets by the thousands. More interesting is the fact that protestors and governments of Monarchic countries were able to negotiate and implement reforms to stabilize the political landscape and please the masses. In Bahrain King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa launched the Independent Commission of Inquiry (June 2011), the From left to right, Saudi Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, Kuwait´s Emir Sheik Bahrain National Dialogue (July Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah, and Bahrain´s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. 2011) and also increased social spending. Protests continued exist. says something and it’s not for some more weeks but their I will go straight to the necessarily, as some would like strength was greatly diminished. point: monarchic institutions to think, that those Monarchic Sultan Qaboos, of Oman, 32
reshuffled the government, increased social spending and established by royal decree the first Islamic Bank in Oman and the second public University. The protestors were greatly pleased and the revolutionary wave faded out. In Kuwait the electoral law was reformed, the prime-minister forced to resign and the parliament dissolved. Sabah Al-Sabah, Emir of Kuwait, avoided the “autocratic trap” during the protests of 20112012. In Jordan, King Abdullah II was quick to draft a plan of reforms to strengthen democracy: the Public Gathering Law was transformed not to curb freedom of expression and; the Electoral Law is under revision and King Abdullah II abdicated of his right to appoint Prime-Ministers and
In these cases, a Monarchic Head of State ensures not only the protection of tradition but more importantly it grants that the Head of State will stand above the “interests’ game” that creates friction amongst the different clans. A monarchic Head of State, limited by a Constitution to avoid autocracy and tyranny, is more capable to foster inter-clan dialogue and to bridge different visions for the upcoming future. One of the main problems with Yemen, Syria and Libya right now is that the Presidents are always seen as members of this or that clan; promoting this or that agenda. A Monarchic Head of State in these cases has proven to be the best solution. The Monarch, constitutionally limited, will
Crown Prince of Bahrain Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa.
simply the country descended to a path of civil war (Libya and Syria). Constitutional monarchies by themselves will not be the magical wand that will solve all problems opened and/ or deepened with the “Arab Season”. The installation of constitutional monarchies in the region will have to be followed
“A monarchic Head of State, limited by a Constitution to avoid autocracy and tyranny, is more capable to bridge different visions for the upcoming future.” cabinet members, giving that power to the parliament elected by the citizens. So why were Monarchies more able to avoid the corrosive effects of the Arab Season? It all comes down to social composition. Republics are more fitting to sociopolitical spaces in which individualism is the norm. If the basic cell of social organization is the “I” and not the “We” the idea of having a temporary-not-unbiased Head of State has lower chances to raise uncertainty and instability. Uncertainty reduction is the basic reason why we created States in the first place. However, in societies where the “We” is stronger, the idea of a temporary-notunbiased Head of State might be disruptive and potentially corrosive. Societies across the Maghreb and Middle East are still highly familiar and clan based rendering less importance to the idea of “I” and more relevant the idea of “We”.
act as a keeper of Tradition; defender of the Nation and grant of the country’s Continuity minimizing any feelings of uncertainty that generates insecurity. The management of the State is fully entrusted on the government, support by a Parliament elected by free and fair popular vote. In this manner, in case of stalemate between political actors the Monarch can intervene on a swifter and less-biased way reinstating stability by preventing the fermentation of nefarious and harmful uncertainty. This was, of course not always perfectly, what we witnessed during the Arab Season. Monarchs on Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain and even Saudi Arabia were able to introduce stability and to craft enlarged agreements to diminish uncertainty and prospects of insecurity; while Presidents were elected only to be deposed (like in Egypt), or overthrown (like in Yemen) or
by a round of negotiations to redraw borders and if necessary to give “birth” to new states. The new monarchs will have to stand committed to the principles of transparency and will have to stand against corruption and nepotism. The installation of new constitutional monarchies, able to diminish uncertainty, to introduce stability and consequently to minimize the sources for insecurity does not even go against the principles of democracy espoused by NATO and the EU. After all the Global Democracy Ranking has two Monarchies on its top-3 of most democratic countries in 2014 (1st Norway, 3rd Sweden) and four Monarchies on its top6 (1st Norway, 3rd Sweden, 5th Denmark, 6th Netherlands). And curiously there are only Republics on the bottom-5 (that is the less democratic countries) of the same Global Democracy Ranking. 33
Digital Subversion: Fusing Cyberspace and Subversion Milan Hanko: Military Analyst, Institute for Security and Defence Studies at the Armed Forces Academy of the Slovak Republic
his paper reviews how cyberspace and subversion, two vital elements of modern hybrid warfare, have fused together to provide a potent weapon in current and future international conflicts. Whereas subversion represents a tactics that has been known and used for a long time, cyberspace can be seen as a relatively new phenomenon. As NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg recently stated, “hybrid warfare combines different types of threats, including conventional, subversion and cyber threats”. An interesting question to ask is how much, or more precisely to what extent, subversion fuses with cyberspace, and what the implications are for political and military strategy. Subversion from Ancient Rome to the Arab Spring
To understand subversion means to identify past events in which it was applied and to appreciate the broader or the strategy that framed its use. Subversion itself is defined as “actions designed to undermine the military, economic, psychological, or political strength or morale of a governing authority”. Over the course of history subversion has almost always constituted an inseparable part of the strategy of any resistance movement, which is “an organised effort by some portion of the civil population
of a country to resist the legally established government or an occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability”. History is replete with examples in relation to both resistance and subversion. From the resisting slaves in ancient Rome led by the famous gladiator Spartacus all the way to World War II, which featured subversion as a vital part of resistance movements in countries as diverse as the Netherlands, France, Poland, Slovakia or Yugoslavia. These historical examples suggest that subversion was very often a precondition or facilitator for future political change, which overthrew governments, defeated occupying powers, or won a war. A new era of subversion dawned with the Arab Spring. It now continues with Russia’s efforts to restore its geopolitical power as well as with the actions of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS), a movement that is willing to engage in the most brutal and sordid forms of violence. The principles and operating concepts applied in ancient resistance and subversion activity very much resemble what we are observing today. However, the real game-changer came with the development of cyberspace. All of the actors mentioned above have heavily utilised online technologies for subversion.
A new concept The development of cyberspace is giving rise to a new concept, that of “digital subversion”. Cyberspace is more than the internet; this multi-faceted domain includes not only hardware, software and information systems, but also people and their interaction within these networks. Most recent observations of subversion strategies indicate that coverage of the broad masses is most effectively done through cyberspace. Cyberspace has become a prerequisite for successful subversion. However, one remark must be made to preface further thought. Subversion should be seen as a vehicle for the deployment and achievement of other elements, tools and objectives of hybrid warfare; these include information
Cyberspace combined with subversion became new field of war. (AP Photo/David Becker, File)
war, propaganda, sabotage, conventional warfare, and efforts to undermine the economy, weaken the government and the political system at large and dismay the population. Subversion cannot substitute for any of these efforts; rather, it functions as their enabler. Modern subversion as digital subversion If it strives to be successful, modern resistance movement and subversion must be able to leverage as much as possible with the digital media, social media and cyberspace operations. It would be too simplistic to see cyberspace operations as an exclusively military affair. According to Adm. Michael Rogers, director of the National Security Agency and head of the U.S. Cyber Command, “the source of a cyber attack can easily be disguised, and the capability to do significant damage is possessed not only by nation states but by criminal groups and individuals”. The Russians and the IS gave a new dimension to subversion in applying several lessons learned from the Arab Spring, where cyberspace had been used as a tool to help overthrow dictators. As a result, they started to use digital and proxy subversion combined. If we can assume that Russia’s strategic aim in Ukraine is to achieve political and possibly geographical dominance over the country in order to support a higher strategy (which does not necessarily have to be limited to Ukraine’s territory) then this represents the first difference to the traditional conception of subversion as exemplified in World War II. The main point is that in the Ukraine crisis, the opposing actors are states. This observation slightly derails the established formula that it is the domestic population, dissatisfied with its own government or an occupying force, who usually stands behind subversions. In other words, there are not so many Ukrainians who would be really willing to lead
Fending off cyber attacks is also part of the exercises at the United States Military Academy in West Point, NY. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)
an active resistance against their own government. This indicates another point. The Russian strategists cannot simply rely on popular discontent with the Ukrainian government. In this situation, they have two options. First, creating ambiguity and an uncertain civil environment. Second, and probably ideally, paralysing the opponent’s ability to react effectively.
its digital subversion strategy. In the digital media category, it is the satellite newscaster Russia Today (RT), which runs cable and satellite television channels as well as websites directed at audiences outside the Russian Federation. RT serves as an excellent tool for disseminating propaganda, claiming a worldwide audience of 700 million. Another important tool
“Subversion should be seen as a vehicle for the deployment and achievement of other elements, tools and objectives of hybrid warfare.” Without greater support from the Ukrainian population there is only one way ¬– using digital subversion. As already indicated, we can also call this proxy subversion. The element that has enabled proxy subversion in the 21st century is cyberspace and its online tools. Tools and elements of digital subversion Let us present a closer look at how digital subversion is used on the ground. Internet trolling provides the necessary manpower for digital subversion. Russian trolls have proven to be super proficient when it comes to the filling of digital and social media with pro-Kremlin content. Russia uses many online tools for
is the social media, which in comparison to digital media requires information that is more adjusted and stratified to the target audience. Social media is a perfect tool for digital subversion as it provides a direct cross link to social networking within the populace. On certain occasions, the situation may simply require more traditional solutions. Traditional mobile phones, used in almost every family from teenagers to pensioners, seem to be quite suitable for digital subversion. Examples from the Russian-Ukrainian conflict are revealing. Text messages have been sent to residents in Western Ukraine containing false information about the losses
of the Ukrainian army, which is fighting against Kremlin-backed insurgents in the East, seeking to sow fear, hate, and panic.
Alongside conventional battle, the IS has used digital subversion conducted through social and digital media and (to a marginal
“Social media is a perfect tool for digital subversion as it provides a direct cross link to social networking within the populace.” Most likely, these messages have come from Russian servers. A slightly different case is the Islamic State. If we suppose that the targets of IS activity relate to the long list of its enemies (the United States and its allies, the Shiites, the Salafis, the Arab oil sheiks, the governments of Iran, Iraq and Syria and their militaries, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda), then the use of subversion, and digital subversion in particular, can be very convenient. In this way, the IS can infiltrate its enemies without a need to have its own jihadists present on enemy ground. For example, videos and images of the sect’s barbaric psychopathic violence that leads to the ultimate destruction of physical infrastructure and humiliates the populations are well-suited for the political objectives of subversion, which is to undermine the strength or morale of the adversary.
extent) through operations.
How to counter digital subversion It is more difficult to defend against digital subversion than to implement it. In order to counter digital subversion it is not sufficient to look at the strategy purely through the prism of counter-intelligence operations. Given the complexity, the West needs to rethink its approach to security, as internal vulnerabilities come to the fore as a major concern. This adds urgency to inter-agency collaboration at home and inter-institutional cooperation globally. Both NATO and the EU stand on a weak footing as regards the territory of their member states. NATO has limited remit and tools for police, intelligence and other civilian agencies’ operational
Fending off cyber attacks is also part of the exercises at the United States Military Academy in West Point, NY. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)
cooperation. The EU, for its part, has no remit for military operations on the territory of its members and faces severe inter-institutional issues when it comes to combining civilian and military efforts. Making matters even worse, NATO-EU collaboration at the political level has been blocked for years now. Conclusion First, as described in this paper, current subversion techniques, embedded with cyberspace, are clearly different from what they used to be. Therefore it is high time to recast their definition as “digital subversion”, which better describes the content, possibilities and impact. Digital subversion may be defined as “actions carried out through the proxy means of cyberspace designed to undermine the military, economic, psychological, or political strength or morale of a governing authority without the need of having immediate support from the population of and physical presence in the assaulted target (state)”. However, this does not mean that subversion cannot be performed without the use of cyberspace. Second, successful digital subversion strategy does not rely on a single digital tool. Using a multitude of channels, it oversaturates the target with orchestrated information based on the same narratives. Such orchestrated campaigns create the desired result in the minds of the audience. Third, cyberspace is already regarded as a valuable wartime resource. One day, it may be used for total war. Nevertheless, recent examples provide clear indication of how cyberspace can be used and abused as an essential vehicle for digital subversion and as one of the vital elements of hybrid warfare.
quiz 1. The Winner of Poland’s Presidential Election became 44-year-old conservative _______. He was a member of the Law and Justice party, which ruled from 2005 to 2007 in a coalition with nationalists and populists.
4. UK election results, with all 650 seats declared, the Conservatives have ended up with _______ seats in the House of Commons.
7. The African Development Bank (AfDB), the biggest financier of infrastructure in Africa, appointed _______ as its new president.
a) 322 b) 348 c) 331 d) 376
a) Cape Verde’s Cristina Duarte b) Nigeria’s Akinwumi Adesina c) Rwanda’s Donald Kaberuka d) Zimbabwe’s Thomas Sakala
2. In April 2015, _______’s state-owned electric company announced that the country had gone 75 straight days using only renewable energy sources. This country is the first in the world to power itself for so long without the use of fossil fuels. It gets most of its electricity from hydroelectric plants, though it also uses geothermal plants, wind turbines, and solar power plants.
5. Iran, Iraq and Venezuela expressed their objections and called on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to reduce production by at least 5% to boost prices that have collapsed since last summer. _______ and OPEC chief Abdalla Salem el-Badri have said they would consider a production cut if non-OPEC producers like the U.S. and Russia also turned down the spigots.
8. The Colombian government and leftist FARC guerrillas will set up a truth commission once Latin America’s longest war is over, ending the more than _______ of conflict. Negotiators reached agreement despite a recent escalation of violence that has threatened the country’s peace talks, taking place in Cuba.
a) Finland b) Norway c) Costa Rica d) Panama
a) Saudi Arabia b) Libya c) United Arab Emirates d) Quatar
3. According to The Global Competitiveness Report 2014 - 2015, after the first Switzerland and the second Singapore, the third place belongs to _______.
6. The leaders of the G7, met in _______ for our annual summit on 7 and 8 June 2015.
a) Bronisław Komorowski b) Andrzej Duda c) Paweł Kukiz d) Grzegorz Schetyna
a) Japan b) Germany c) Finland d) USA
a) 20 years b) 30 years c) 40 years d) 50 years 9. In May 2015, army coup d’etat was launched in _______ to try to overthrow President Pierre Nkurunziza. His bid to be re-elected to a third term caused unrest. Thousands of people celebrated the announcement by Major General Godefroid Niyombare. However, the attempted coup “failed”.
a) Berlin b) Riga c) Elmau d) Lyon
a) Tanzania b) Chad c) Rwanda d) Burundi 10. Asia’s third-largest economy grew _______ in the three months ending in March 2015, higher than the previous quarter and above expectations.
Q U I Z
a) 7,5% b) 6,8% c) 5,9% d) 7,8
correct answers: 1B, 2C, 3D, 4C, 5A, 6C, 7B, 8D, 9D, 10A
CALENDAR June 26
The United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture
Luxemburg Presidency of the Council of the European Union
Commemoration 600 Years Since the Burning of Jan Hus 2015 is the year of Jan Hus, 600 years ago on 6 July 1415 he was burned at the stake. Jan Hus was a key contributor to Protestantism, whose teachings had a strong influence on the states of Europe on John Calvin and Martin Luther himself.
The European Conference on Sustainability, Energy and the Environment, Brighton, United Kingdom
75th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain The Battle of Britain Anniversary commemorates the 75th anniversary of the aerial battle that proved a strategic turning point in the Second World War.
20th Anniversary of the Srebrenica Massacre This year the twentieth anniversary of the massacre in Srebrenica is being observed. On 11 July, a huge spectacle will take place at the Srebrenica Memorial centre specially constructed for that purpose. It will feature the presence of most of the rather insignificant individuals purporting to be political leaders in the region and the Western-dominated world.
Euro-Asia Forum in Politics, Economics and Business 2015, Istanbul, Turkey
70th Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki On 6 August 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima by US air forces. This was the first time a nuclear weapon had ever been used. It killed up to 180,000 people and destroyed 13 square kilometres of the city. Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, killing between 50,000 and 100,000 people.
European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism 38
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS I SECURITY AND DEFENCE
editor-in-chief Project Coordinator public relations language corrections graphic design photography
Mikuláš Virág Radka Čížová ‘Katarína Schwertnerová Tomáš Grenzner, Aneta Timoranská Adam Cisár SITA, TASR
Slovak Atlantic Commission Kuzmányho 3, 974 01 Banská Bystrica Mobile: 00421 / 948 120 537 Tel./Fax.: 00421 / 2 544 106 09 E-mail: email@example.com
editorial headlines intreview in depth face2face eu insight visegrad news on the map leadership op-eds quiz calendar
Mikuláš Virág Daniel Tichý Katarína Schwertnerová Mikuláš Virág Ján Hajdúk Radka Čížová Anna Przybyll Michal Číž Ján Hajdúk Tiago Ferreira Lopes Nikola Kmecová Lea Sekanová
Issue 3/2015 Publication date: 16 June, 2015 The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and their publication does not constitute an endorsement by the Euro-Atlantic! think.act.lead. The editorial board of the Euro-Atlantic! think.act.lead. reserves the right to shorten and revise articles when necessary.
Headquarters: Klariskรก 14 811 03 Bratislava Slovak Republic Tel/fax: 00421 / 2 544 106 09 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org www.ata-sac.org