GLOBSEC Magazine 1/2018

Page 1









North Korean leader Kim Jong Un speaks with South Korean President Moon Jae-in at Peace House of the border village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone, South Korea JJ Korea Summit Press Pool via AP





⊲⊲ Joseph S. Nye, Jr by Lucia Husenicová



⊲⊲ Active Cyber Defense: Beyond ‘Hacking Back’ by Anushka Kaushik ⊲⊲ Multilateralism and Innovation: Going Forward and Back to Basics by Miroslav Lajčák

Guy Fawkes masks, often associated with the hacker group Anonymous, are displayed in a saection about hacking at SPYSCAPE in New York. JJ AP Photo/SethWenig





⊲⊲ E-mobility is not the only way towards Sustainable mobility by Nolan Theisen ⊲⊲ Technology’s role in mitigating climate change by Andrej Nosko



⊲⊲ 100 Year anniversary of Czechoslovakia by Rastislav Káčer

A pipe fitter lays the finishing touches to the replacement of Enbridge Energy’s Line 3 crude oil pipeline stretch in Superior, Minn JJ Richard Tsong-Taatarii/Star Tribune via AP, File







⊲⊲ European Integration and the Western Balkans: Is there a Light at the End of the Tunnel No. 2025?

by Ján Cingel



⊲⊲ France and Germany on the future of the Eurozone by Orsolya Raczova President of the Slovak Republic Andrej Kiska at the opening speech of the Czech-Slovak / Slovak-Czech exhibition at the Bratislava Castle. JJ SITA/Diana Černáková



EDITORIAL SOŇA TROJANOVÁ Editor-in-Chief growing pool of “ The software applications

as well as information and communication technologies enables efficiency and flexibility of production, marketing, financial services and administrative activities in the private and public sectors.

These applications offer incredible opportunities to increase industry competitiveness, business profits, small and medium-sized enterprise integration, and to improve the services of financial firms. Global changes in material and non-material flows facilitate digitization. The information and communication technology networks allow access to information and therefore are undoubtedly an important catalyst for the process of globalization. Technology not only fosters trade, it also simplifies communication by deepening mutual interdependence between people. In fact, technology is getting deeper and deeper underneath our skin, which is the reason why serious and widespread security incidents are now becoming more frequent.

It is predicted that the number of intense attacks will grow exponentially. Secure networks are a crucial prerequisite for the development of the EU’s digital agenda, which is supposed to be the engine of the economy for the old continent in the years to come. Data protection strategies are becoming outdated and unused. Experts admit that predicting further development is demanding. The area of cyber security is addressed in a number of international fora. Cybernetic security is at a different position in the North Atlantic Alliance. While the EU highlights economic aspects, NATO perceives the cyber space as an extension of the battlefield. In fact, this means that the defence plays a dominant role of its own when it comes to information and communication tools, and critical infrastructure. In this issue of our magazine, we bring you insights not only into technology and cyber security affairs but also a prognosis on further developments on a global level. We are honoured to present you not only the opinions and new projects of our Globsec Policy Institute experts, but also opinions of most renowned experts on topics relevant to these issues. Dear readers, allow me to welcome you on the pages of this special edition of the Globsec magazine which closely resembles the list of topics of this year’s GLOBSEC Bratislava Forum conference. This time, we thematically revolve around the notion of a “New Technology Era”. I am thus honoured, on behalf of our entire editorial board, to present you the work of some of the most esteemed experts in the field. Remember to keep up with Globsec Magazine on Facebook! ■




The logo for Facebook appears on screens at the Nasdaq MarketSite in New York’s Times Square JJ AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before members of Congress on 10 and 11 April 2018. On the first day, he faced questions from 44 senators. The interview came after a prevailing scandal, when a significant amount of Facebook data was bought by the British company Cambridge Analytica, which used it for profit in various spheres of business, but mainly in political marketing. Facebook’s CEO was answering the questions before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committee hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building. After the introductory remarks of the members of the commission and the speech of Zuckerberg, who repeatedly apologized for the mistakes of his company, direct questions were raised by senators. To certain public unease, the hearing indicated that many senators unfortunately do not understand the functioning of social networks. Most of the questions were focused on finding out the extent and depth of the data used for commercial purposes. Zuckerberg defended himself maintaining that his company did everything to protect users’ data. In addition to this line of questioning, both Senators and Congressmen were also curious about Facebook’s attitude towards false news reports and the company’s efforts in


solving the issue. Zuckerberg has spoken of many security measures Facebook had put into place in recent months in efforts to prevent the spread of false news. He also talked about the possibility of using artificial intelligence, which will be fully automated to prevent potential threats on the social network towards its users. The summary of two days of the hearing in the Congress displayed the considerable shortcomings in the understanding of the issue on part of legislators, who largely failed to reflect the current pitfalls and possibilities of the digital world, as well as the limitations of Facebook’s understanding of its responsibility for change in the contemporary society. ■



MASS EXPULSION OF RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS It was reported earlier in March that a former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned in the UK. Prime Minister May reported that this deliberate attack was conducted using a novichok nerve agent produced in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. Subsequently, she has accused Russia of doing so in an act of revenge for the fact that Skripal had betrayed dozens of Russian agents to British intelligence years earlier. The poisoningis taken seriously by the UKand the relationship with Russia has significantly worsened. The UK also decided to expel Russian diplomats and, consequently, more than 20 states decided to follow the UK in solidarity and expelled diplomats too. Among them were the United States which expelled 60 diplomats and also closed the Russian Consulate in Seattle.

Russia expressed regret over poisoning but firmly denies any involvement in it, calling for a proper and impartial investigation. At the same time, it regrets the disruption of bilateral relations. Based on information from a laboratory in Spiez, Switzerland, the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov recently claimed the poison used in the attack was not novichok nerve agent but another toxic chemical possesed also by both the United Kingdom and the United States as well as other NATO countries. Further investigations will hopefully clarify who is behind the attack and the situation will be resolved. Currently, Skripal is still recovering from the attack and his daughter was already released from a hospital. ■

Russian ambassador to the UK Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko speaks during at a news conference at the Russian Embassy in London JJ Kirsty O’Connor/PA via AP



North Korean leader Kim Jong Un speaks with South Korean President Moon Jae-in at Peace House of the border village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone, South Korea JJ Korea Summit Press Pool via AP

NORTH KOREA SOFTENS ITS TONE A new course of positive events has recently taken place regarding North Korea and its leader Kim Jong Un amid rising tensions related to its nuclear and missile program. In early February he invited the president of South Korea for talks in Pyongyang. The two leaders met in March after more than ten years of absence of meetings.


According to South Korean politicians the meeting with was productive, securing a number of key commitments. They also encouraged North Korea to hold talks with the United States. Although both had expressed willingness to meet, North Korea had been reluctant to the condition of a meeting aimed at its denuclearization as it sees nuclear weapons as a vital deterrent against the United States. Moreover, Kim Jong Un also met president Xi Jinping in China later in March in what was to be his first known trip overseas. China says Kim Jong Un pledged to denuclearization and to meet with officials from the United States. President Donald Trump confirmed he planned to hold talks with Kim Jong Un in May or early June and expressed his hopes that this meeting would ultimately lead to abandoning of the nuclear weapons program of North Korea. Even though these events seem to be a major change in the North Korea’s policy, the world has yet to know what Kim Jong Un means by denuclearization. So far, he announced that the North Korea agreed to suspend all nuclear and missile tests, which is certainly a good sign. ■



President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Baltic leaders in the Cabinet Room of the White House JJ AP Photo/Evan Vucci

SUMMIT OF BALTIC STATES AND THE USA On April 3, 2018, the three heads of statesfrom Baltic republics met with US president at the White House. President Donald J. Trump, Dalia Grybauskaite of Lithuania, Raimonds Vejonis of Latvia, and Kersti Kaljulaid of Estonia discussed mainly the topic of US-Baltic cooperationin defence and security of the Baltic region, along with other topics like energetics, economy, corruption and education. Additionally, the summit was held to celebrate the 100 years anniversary of independence of Baltic republics. The presidents agreed that support of USA and main European powers is crucial for securing the independence of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia,considering the strategic ambitions of Moscow. Both recent and earlier history of security in wider region came into discussion, specifically the annexation of Crimea and the troubled past of Baltics in relation to the Soviet Union. The main issue of the summit however, was the defence budget of Baltic countries. All three of them fully supported the 2% GDP benchmark in defence already in the past, despite their small budgets. Lithuania and Latvia reached defence budget beyond 1,7% of GDP in 2017, while Estonia already met its 2% GDP commitment and is now exceeding this target. Even though each of Baltic states is still depended on US

military support, it is clear that they can already offer much more than simply being the NATO’s frontline states. However, military budget and power are not all that matters in their defence and security. A sizeable part of the challenge rests upon issues of cyber security, as the region represents vulnerable loop for cyberattacks from abroad. To e n h a n c e t h e d e f e n c e s i t u a t i o n i n Balticcountries, the three headsof states asked president Trump for more American soldiers in their countries,seeking to also effectively contribute to defence of NATO’s Eastern borders. In the earlier days of Trump administration, his attitude towards Russia was rather conciliatory, which left the Baltics quite uneasy. This has, however, shifted towards a more firm approach towards Moscow recently. At the end of the conference a joint declaration of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and USA was issued, celebrating 100 years of independence of the Baltics as well as therenewed partnership. The document contains following principles and ideals to guide the further development ofrelations between stakeholders: Principles of Partnership, Security Cooperation, Economic Cooperation and People to People Contacts. ■




Joseph S. Nye, Jr. is University Distinguished Service Professor, Emeritus and former Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of the National Intelligence Council, and a Deputy Under Secretary of State. His recent books include Soft Power, The Power Game: A Washington Novel, The Powers to Lead; The Future of Power; Presidential Leadership and the Creation of the American Era; and most recently Is the American Century Over?. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the British Academy, and the American Academy of Diplomacy. In a recent survey of international relations scholars, he was rated the fifth most influential over the past 20 years; ranked as the most influential scholar on American foreign policy, and in 2011, Foreign Policy named him one of the top 100 Global Thinkers. He received his bachelor’s degree summa cum laude from Princeton University, won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, and earned a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard. He is co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group. As the topic of our interview revolves around the question „Is technology evolving faster than our ability to adapt?“ let’s begin with a generally formulated question and then continue with a couple more specific ones: The discussions about the influence of technology on social realities are nothing new; as a matter of fact they were part of western discourse ever since the industrial revolution. Today we are talking about the Industrial revolution 4.0as in recent years we are experiencing even more dynamic growth in everyday use of technology. We are talking about AI and the increasing dependency of people on a small device in their pockets. You have been, together with professor Keohane, writing about the mutual interdependence as the reality of international relations. This interdependence has been significantly deepened by the growing capacity for information sharing. The first question would thus be: How does information technology change the international relations in general, and how did it impact them in last 20 years specifically,since your article Power and Interdependence in Information Age was published? Knowledge is power and more people have access to more information than at any previous time in history. Gutenberg’s information revolution had transformative effects, but it played out over centuries. The current information revolution


that can be dated from Moore’s Law and Silicon Valley in the 1960s is playing out much more rapidly. The major change is not the speed of information exchange. That occurred with the trans-Atlantic cable in the 19th century. What is revolutionary is the reduction in cost of information and the diminishment of entrybarriers. Look at cyberspace: in 1996, 1 per cent of the world’s population connected to the Internet. Today more than half of it does. And with the Internet of Things, there will be tens of billions of Internet connections in a few years. Big data and machine learning will expand enormously. The complexity of the system has increased exponentially. Our understanding and institutions lag behind. To address a more specific issue, how does technology change the state? In the past there were different authors who have expected the decline of the state due to everwideningchannels of communication between individuals. However, this did not happen, and the state is still here. How are states adapting internally to the ongoing technological revolution both institution and security-wise? The state remains the most powerful institution, but the stage on which the state performs is now crowded with many more actors, ranging from transnational corporations,virtual communities to terrorists. Once the Internet became the substrate for social and economic interdependence, vulnerability increased, and states have responded to the resulting insecurity by new assertions of sovereignty. The utopian libertarian view of the information technology that was popular in the 1990s is long gone. For all of its transnational nature, the Internet rests on an infrastructure that is anchored in the jurisdictions of sovereign states.


democracies must “ And not just “inoculate

themselves against malign authoritarian influence” but also “take a far more assertive posture on behalf of their own principles.”

How does the technology change the social realities within particular states, primarily within liberal democracies? The imminent access to information, ability of people to select among the amounts of information they can easily access, the phenomenon of influencers – how does all of this transform the world we are all living in? The threat to democracy and civil liberties has changed. When Orwell wrote 1984, he feared that Big Brother would surveil us constantly from a big screen. Now most of us voluntarily put Big Brother in our pockets and live in a world of biometrics, cameras, cell towers, and constant surveillance. The low cost of data storage and computing power makes big data available to governments and the criminals in ways that were unthinkable in the past. We need to update our thinking and rules about privacy and surveillance. Social media are particularly influential these days; their impact on social stability is interesting to look at not only in liberal democracies, but also in more authoritarian regimes. In this case there are two widely diverging examples: one of how social media can be used tochallenge the regime (the Arab Spring) and on the other of how they can be used by the regime to further its own goals (Chinese control over local social media). However, in last few years we are witnessing the phenomenon of states using social media to manipulate populations of other states – how does this impact international relations? Over the past decade, Beijing and Moscow have spent tens of billions of dollars to shape public perceptions and behavior around the world—using tools new and old that exploit the asymmetry of openness between their own restrictive systems and democratic societies. The effects are global, but in the United States, concern has focused on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and on Chinese efforts to control discussion of sensitive topics in American publications, movies, and classrooms. A National Endowment for Democracy report calls this “sharp power,” which “pierces, penetrates, or perforates the political and information environments in the targeted countries.” This is in contrast with “soft power,” which harnesses the allure of culture and values to enhance a country’s strength. And democracies must not just “inoculate themselves against malign authoritarian influence” but also “take a far more assertive posture on behalf of their own principles.”

JOSEPH S. NYE, JR. ⊲ INTERVIEW You are known for introducing the concepts of“soft power” and “smart power”. Let’s focus on the soft power for a moment: did your definition and understanding of the concept evolve in the recent years, especially in relation to social media, and the ability of countries to use them for their interests? Power in general is the ability to affect others to get the outcomes you want, and you can do it through either coercion and payment or attraction and persuasion. Intangibility or the use of words is not the measure of soft power, so it should not be confused with propaganda or information warfare. The ability to get what you want through attraction without coercion and payment is soft power. The use of social media does not change that. Recently you have been involved in the discussion about the so-called “sharp power” on the side of China and Russia. Could you, for those who did not read your article inForeign Affairs, elaborate on the meaning of this term?And how can we react and/or protect ourselves against such power? The challenge posed by Chinese and Russian information warfare is real. Yet in the face of that challenge, democratic governments and societies should avoid any temptation to imitate the methods of our adversaries. That means taking care not to overreact to sharp power in ways that undercut our true advantage which comes from wielding soft power. Our best protection is openness and disclosure that help inoculate the majority of the public against this manipulation. Governments and companies will have to find ways to better identify and disclose the sources of reports and advertising that are manipulated. For example, if it is true that two-thirds of links on Twitter are created by bots, we should remember that machines do not enjoy First Amendment rights. Last but not least, to answer the question in the title: are we adapting well to the changes brought about by technology in terms of economy and international politics? What is already being done, and what do you recommend that needs to be done in future? Societies and institutions take time to learn the implications of new technologies, and to develop appropriate norms and laws. This is doubly true at the international level. A few years ago I wrote an article that pointed out that it took two decades after Hiroshima before the first nuclear arms control agreement was signed (the Limited Test Ban Treaty). If we date the problem of cyber security not from the development of the Internet in the 1970s, but from the commercialization of the Web in the late 1990s, then we are approaching a two decade mark with regard to the core technology of the current information revolution. Time to learn! ■



Guy Fawkes masks, often associated with the hacker group Anonymous, are displayed in a saection about hacking at SPYSCAPE in New York. JJ AP Photo/SethWenig

ACTIVE CYBER DEFENSE: BEYOND ‘HACKING BACK’ KK Anushka Kaushik Research Fellow with the Cyber Resilience Program at the GLOBSEC Policy Institute

The concept of Active Cyber Defense (ACD) has been around for much longer than one would have thought, given that it hasn’t been widely adopted and for the most part, has been on the back burner within the realm of cyber strategies. 10 ⊲ GLOBSEC MAGAZINE

Its origins can be traced back to the 1980s when the United States Department of Defense (DoD) used the word ‘proactive’in the context of risk management; as the word suggests, the idea was to take initiative and actively thwart threats as opposed to simply reacting to them as they manifested. With the rapid evolution of information warfare in the 90s, proponents of the ACD strategy argued for taking interventionist measures to actively seek out malicious intrusions and minimize an attackers’ capabilities through specific tools that directly engaged with the perpetrators. The absence of a strong emphasis on the strategy coupled with no uniform definition has meant that misconceptions around the concept abound. Primarily, ACD is equated to the aggressive strategy of hacking back where victims of malicious hacking attempt to disrupt attacks or access their attackers’ computer systems including breaking in and stealing the stolen data. However, ACD is a deeply layered concept which entails techniques and tools with varying


ACTIVE CYBER DEFENSE: BEYOND ‘HACKING BACK’ ⊲ IN DEPTH degrees of severity for specific purposes which operate below the interventionist/engagement threshold as hacking back.

LESSONS FROM THE UK The most recent and successful application of ACD has been carried out by the UK government’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) with the intention of making the UK an attractive target to cyber criminals by increasing the risk and involved in carrying out a cyber-attack and reducing the return on investment. The government’s aim, clearly stated in their analysis of the program, is to tackle the high-volume commodity attacks that affect people’s everyday lives rather than focusing on highly sophisticated and targeted attacks. ACD tools are deployed to automate protection at the national scale and make it as tough as possible for a cybercriminal to be successful.

A prison guard walks outside a court room during an appeal by Yevgeniy Nikulin from Russia who faces charges of hacking computers of American companies, in Prague, CzechRepublic. JJ AP Photo/Petr David Josek

For example, one of the interventions of the strategy is the take down service which works by requesting that hosting providers remove malicious content related to the UK government, mainly focused on phishing sites. According to government estimates, 64% of the 18,067 phishing sites that pretended to be a UK government brand in 2017 were taken down within 24 hours. Another efficacious example by the NCSC is using DMARC (Domain Message Authentication, Reporting and Conformance), an email authentication tool, to illustrate what a legitimate email from a government domain should look like. An average of 44.1 million messages failed verification and around 4.1 million of those failed to reach users. While these are major successes, it’s critical to see this use of the ACD strategy as one necessary facet of a broader strategy to protect daily systems against cyber-attacks and instil awareness about such processes.

is a deeply layered “ ACD concept which entails

techniques and tools with varying degrees of severity for specific purposes which operate below the interventionist/ engagement threshold as hacking back

COMMON ACD TOOLS As the UK case indicates, there are a variety of tools that can fall within the aegis of an ACD strategy. One such example is the use of white worms which are computer viruses deployed by a defender to destroy intruders and can act like anti-virus software. They can also be used to identify perpetrators through their real-time analysis. Their strength lies in the fact that they are always active which enables identification of the threat and rapid neutralizing before damage occurs. Another example are honeypots which are essentially decoys placed in a defender’s network. They act as fake or artificial targets with the advantage that any activity carried out on them can be recorded and tracked. Other tools like address hopping can also be utilized under ACD; however, it’s vital to address the various drawbacks that often provide a case against using these tools. In the



solutions “onPolicy-oriented ACD will be inextricably

linked to the developments within AI and AI-enabled tools used to identify wrong actors, review content, and disarm them.

case of white worms, not only is it difficult to control once they’re released in the network but in the event of a leak, adversaries can analyse the worm’s code, enabling possible countermeasures which was visible in the case of the Stuxnet virus. Honeypots tend to be extremely resource-intensive and depending on specific application, a cost-benefit analysis renders their use unfavourable.

WHAT NEXT? With ACD tools and the technique of hacking back, challenges to their application and widespread use arise on numerous levels. There are legal ramifications of employing such methods since there’s no uniform international law and ethical concerns continue to grow given the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools.

tools are deployed “ ACD to automate protection

at the national scale and make it as tough as possible for a cybercriminal to be successful.

The devastatingly high and relentless number of cyberattacks on companies have given rise to the debate of the private sector adopting ACD tools. Depending on the specific technique, it can carry significantly risks to the people deploying them as well as third parties and the interplay between the private and public sector in the context of ACD is important. Given the use of bots to spread rapid misinformation currently in the online sphere and attacking democratic processes like elections, there are calls to respond through the use of ACD. However, these tools must be deployed with careful consideration of the defined objectives as well as its applicability in the specific context. Policy-oriented solutions on ACD will be inextricably linked to the developments within AI and AI-enabled tools used to identify wrong actors, review content, and disarm them. ACD tools also must be seen as one part of a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy which can address these legal and ethical challenges while retaining their operational effectiveness. ■ Employees watch electronic boards to monitor possible ransom ware cyber attacks at the Korea Internet and Security Agency in Seoul, South Korea. JJ YunDong-jin/Yonhapvia AP, File




So technology “ and innovation

are not as foreign to the United Nations as many may think.

Miroslav Lajcak, president of the 72nd United Nations General Assembly, talks to the media, during a press conference, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. JJ Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone via AP

MULTILATERALISM AND INNOVATION: GOING FORWARD AND BACK TO BASICS KK Miroslav Lajčák Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Slovak republic It is a fact: technology is moving faster than us.All over the world we are bending and shaping the pillars of our society to fit into the rapidly changing contexts around them. This is true for our constitutions, laws, institutions and norms; and it is true for the United Nations. Rather unsurprisingly though, the UN Charter, agreed upon in 1945, is silent on innovation and technology. Indeed, these may not be issues we readily associate with our main global body. Diplomats in suits sitting in UN conference rooms are not expected to be thinking outside the box.It is time, however, to challenge these perceptions astechnology and innovation are fast transforming the United Nations.

TECHNOLOGY AND THE UN: AN UNLIKELY BUT GROWING UNION Many of the images we have of the United Nations - for example aid workers distributing boxes of food - have been outpaced by the realities. These days the United Nations’ people on the ground are creating virtual learning platforms to train health workers,replacing food aid with e-vouchers, exploring how drones can bettersupport specialised development initiatives and using virtual reality to allow people to experience daily life in UN refugee camps.



Photo provided by the United Nations, Miroslav Lajcak, center left, President of the 72nd session of the U.N. General Assembly, walks with Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Margot Wallstrom at U..N. headquarters. JJ Rick Bajornas/United Nations via AP

We must look beyond “military responses and

explore the role for innovation and technology in preventing conflict.

At its New York headquarters the rate of innovation has beenarguably slower. Nevertheless, some change has been taking place, one important indicator of which is that the great glass tower in East Manhattan now opens its gate to visitors from the public. Another example is the newly established transparency of the selection process for the United Nations Secretary-General. For years it was shrouded in secrecy: no one even knew the names of candidates running for the world’s top diplomatic job.However, in 2015, all of this changed. It was announced that for the first time public interviews with candidates for Secretary-General would be broadcast live around the world. And again, for the first time, those outside the United Nations could actively contribute, through online platforms and surveys.This may not have made frontpage news. But,


in the words of one senior diplomat, it was a “quiet but very real revolution”. This quiet revolution has two major catalysts: One is the determination of UN’s most representative body - the General Assembly - to increase transparency; the other:technology, which made calls for change from around the world louder.

INNOVATION FOR PEACE? So technology and innovation are not as foreign to the United Nations as many may think. However, turning to the issues on the agenda of this year’s GLOBSEC, we need to ask: what difference can this make in terms ofits peace efforts? To start, technology has undeniably been a game changer for peacekeepers in recent past. The first armed UN peacekeeping mission was deployed in 1950. Initially, these operations did as their name suggested: they tried to keep tentative, newly established peace from falling apart. Very quickly however, their mandates began to evolve, expanding to areas such as election support and human rights training. These daysthe UN peacekeeping missions have radically diverged from their original shape and form – a change, in which new technology has played a major role.Armoured vehicles and helicopters often


MULTILATERALISM AND INNOVATION: GOING FORWARD AND BACK TO BASICS ⊲ IN DEPTH operate alongside unarmed, unmanned aerial vehicles - drones. Intelligence has moved from pens and papers to sophisticated collection cells,and UN blue helmets are now reaching out to local communities through smartphones.

It is no secret that multilateralism is under attack, and as the world’s foremost multilateral body so are the United Nations. Technology cannot act as a silver bullet against this trend. We need to go back to basics.

UN peacekeeping missions must be adapted to the increasingly complex environments they operate in. This is the emergent and crucial job of the United Nations Security Council. But it is not enough. All too often, these missions are deployed in cases where there is no peace left to keep. That is why I believe we should broaden our perspective. We must look beyond military responses and explore the role for innovation and technology in preventing conflict.

The United Nations is the world’s most objective, representative and legitimate actor. It can provide a space for any disagreement to be worked out - or for a response to any challenge to be found. But it is up to us to use this space. That is why we need more dialogue, more diplomacy, and more cooperation - even with those who do not share our ideals or positions.This is crucial in preventing conflicts. But it is also essential if we want to ensure that our multilateral system, which we have spent over 70 years building up, is not eroded from beneath our feet.

Some interesting questions are already being asked. For example, can online platforms make our early warning systems stronger? How can we better harness ICT to prevent violent extremism? And how can the technology used to track development gains also provide us with data on conflict prevention? There are many more questions like these. And we have only scratched the surface in answering them. That is why we need more discussions, more investment, and more focus.

STEPS TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH What then for the future?

There is no time to waste. The greatest challenges to our future are global: from international terrorism to climate change - no one country, or any other political entity, can come up with a lasting solution alone.We do need to think outside the box. We need more innovation – particularly for peace. But we cannot overlook the importance of the box itself. The United Nations hold all the tools we need to secure a brighter future for this planet and the people living on it. If we fail to use them, we - and not the United Nations - will be to blame. ■

There are some tangible steps we can take - not only for conflict prevention, but also to strengthen the growing link between the United Nations and innovation and technology. First and foremost, we can build stronger partnerships. There is no use in the same people talking about how things should be different. Yet, that is all too often exactly what happens. I have now been at the United Nations for seven months. Every day, I meet with diplomats, dignitaries or UN officials. However, I have only been at a handful of events or meetings in which technology entrepreneurs or executives have participated. This needs to change. More engagement with young people is also essential. They are often the most passionate champions of the United Nations’ ideals - including peace. Yet, they struggle to carve outa space. If we want to innovate and evolve, we need the ideas and solutions of young people.

GOING BACK TO BASICS However, none of this can distract us from another, very real need, which is to strengthen our fundamentals. The United Nations was founded on very simple ideals: That we are stronger together, than on our own. That rules should not be set by only those with power and might. That reckless pursuit of our own agendas can lead to immediate benefits for one party, but will put all of our futures at risk.

United Nations General Assembly President Miroslav Lajcak, of Slovakia, addresses the 72nd meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, at U.N. headquarters. JJ AP Photo/Richard Drew



E-MOBILITY IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY KK Nolan Theisen Head of the Energy Programme at GLOBSEC Policy Institute Last May, the European Commission’s ‘towards sustainable mobility’communication (known colloquially as the Mobility Package) could have been mistaken for ‘towards e-mobility.’ The text focused almost entirely on facilitating transportation and technology–electrification through grid modernization, smart digital technologies, batteries and alternative fueling points. Furthermore, the Commission, never shy to set ambitious goals, established a soft target of converting 35% of vehicles used in EU into electric alternatives (EVs) by 2030. This would be a necessary midterm target for the 2050 low carbon roadmap, but it frankly seems rather unrealistic. Although electric vehicles are ultimately crucial to sectorial decarbonization and mobility transformation,they are not the only option, nor the most cost-effectiveone. The Mobility Package seems to eschew an underlying strategic bias in Brussels that infringes on the principle of technology neutrality. Following the lead of the Commission, significant state resources are pouring into the uptake and integration of electric and hybrid vehicles while incremental technologies that might be more cost-effective are given less consideration. Within the EU framework it is especially

Commission “ The sets European EU-level obligations and issues directives so that Member States have flexibility in setting and reaching national targets, meaning national policies within the EU regulatory framework will be the real drivers of sectoral emissions reductions.


A pipe fitter lays the finishing touches to the replacement of Enbridge Energy’s Line 3 crude oil pipeline stretch in Superior, Minn JJ Richard Tsong-Taatarii/Star Tribune via AP, File



In this photo cars wait in line for gas as a station in Miromar Lakes, Fla JJ AP Photo/David Goldman, File

It would be sensible to promote incremental technologies that improve this situation; namely reducing emissions per car with advanced biofuels and reducing number of cars with ride sharing and improved public transportation systems and logistic.

important to assess the efficacy of these national policy measures as they apply to underlying country-level characteristics. In other words, EVs might provide less value in Bratislava or Warsaw than in Copenhagen or Berlin per euro spent. Transportation is the only sector in the EU to record an increase in GHG emissions since 1990 (by 20%). Road transport is responsible for 70% of this while also the leading contributor of NOx, so it is justifiably in the crosshairs of stricter EU policies for both GHG emissions and air quality. Municipalities with older vehicle fleets and less efficient industrial, power and building stocks are particularly vulnerable. It should not come as a surprise then that the EU localities registering the lowest air quality tend to be concentrated in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), where infrastructure remains underinvested and outdated. As a non-Emissions Trading Scheme (non-ETS) sector, transportation falls into the European Commission’s proposal for binding sector-wise GHG emission reduction targets for the 2021-2030 period known as the ‘Effort Sharing


OP-ED ⊲ E-MOBILITY IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY Regulation.’ In this manner the European Commission sets EU-level obligations and issues directives so that Member States have flexibility in setting and reaching national targets, meaning national policies within the EU regulatory framework will be the real drivers of sectoral emissions reductions. In theory, electrification is the holy grail of sustainable mobility, eliminating GHG and local air pollutants in road transportation while serving as a centerpiece to smart cities and grids. In reality, accomplishing such a systemic overhaul requires a long-time horizon at best, and similar to the broader energy generation transition from fossil fuels to RES, Member States will advance at different speeds according to their (mostly financial) abilities. New EV sales are the cornerstone of this transition and for now EV sales are highly correlated with the level of direct state subsidies. From a consumer standpoint the mainadvantage for new EVs relative to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in total cost of ownership (TCO) is fuel cost savings, especially in countries like Hungary and Poland where electricity prices are low. Even as technological gains reduce EV component costs to and below parity with new ICE vehicles,in CEE new EVs will be competing with the secondary ICE market which will absorb waves of ICE vehicles as a result of faster growing new EV purchases in Western Europe. In other words, new EV sales in Western European could indirectly dampen new EV sales in CEE, where already there is less available state financing and lower incomes. If there are more secondary ICE vehicles on the road longer, it would be sensible to promote incremental technologies that improve this situation; namely reducing emissions per car with advanced biofuels and reducing number of cars with ride sharing and improved public transportation systems and logistic. Brussels’ bias towards electrification risks overshadowing the development of these and othercompetitive and complimentary technologies that might be more costeffective (if not simply effective) in the short and medium termfor ‘secondary’vehicle markets. At the moment Visegrad Group governments are eagerly promoting e-mobility as a pillar of their low carbon energy strategy and competingto attract foreign investment and EU financing for charging infrastructure. Hungary is emerging as a leader building on its central location and seven shared borders and marketing itself as a regional hub for interstate charging infrastructure. At the same time, this year state owned oil and gas company MOL opened a ride sharing fleet in Budapest that will in a few years consist entirely of EVs, and Finnish utility Forum agreed on a strategic partnership with Hungarian NKM national utilities to develop charging infrastructure throughout the country. With what are already much older vehicle stocks in CEE perhaps becoming more entrenched with the wave of second hand vehicles from Western Europe, fuel quality can have more immediate impact with existing vehicles, and in fact the Visegrad Group is above the EU average towards meeting


is important for the “ ItCommission to push

for ambitious goals in transportation, perhaps more so than any other sector

the 10% biofuel target by 2020. Still, national policies should perhaps go beyond the EU framework to advance second generation biofuels as a core method of decarbonization given the circumstances. Despite the enthusiasm of policymakers in CEE, the lingering questions of cost-effectiveness andaffordability remain. Indeed it is difficult to imagine the Commission’s integrated e-mobility utopia sweeping across urban areas of the region anytime soon due to underlying systemic challenges – not only the vehicle purchase price point (new vs used) but the nature of national energy mixtures and the state of grid networks.There has always been a chicken and the egg challenge for EV deployment, as consumers need to be confident in available charging infrastructure while infrastructure developers need to know that their installations will be used; in CEE it seems that public-private infrastructure initiatives will outpace EV sales for some time. It is important for the Commission to push for ambitious goals in transportation, perhaps more so than any other sector, but the approach should be multi-dimensional and technologically neutral, not only allowing Member States the flexibility to pursuea range of practical measures but also to encouraging a balance of technologies that fit the profile of the country. Similar to the idea that the best source of electricity is that which is not consumed (efficiency gains), the first priority should be reducing the use of light passenger vehicles by improving public transportation logistics and operations - the low hanging fruit. While electrification unfolds it is important for governments to continue to work towards efficiency and focus on cost-effective investments because from an environmental and sustainability standpoint trading out ICE vehicles for EVsis not going to solve the problem. ■



TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE KK Andrej Nosko Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences and International Relations, Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

“When the moment comes to choose between economic growth and ecological stability, politicians, CEOs and voters almost always prefer growth.” quipped Yuval Noah Harari, in his inspiring book Homo Deus. When reading about energy policy priorities, one will often find that security, environment and economic perspectives are often presented in contrast, and a good energy policy as an aptbalancing act choosing the most beneficial, or the least detrimental trade off among them. Our civilization is currently dominantly fueled by burning fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal, biomass) or nuclear fission, all of which produce negative externalities. Should these externalities remain unmitigated, there is a credible risk that it could eventually lead to the self-destruction of human civilization on Earth. There is a consensus that humans cannot continue on the current path without irreversible consequences and lethal risk to the future of human civilization on the planet. There are numerous conceivable paths to mitigate the problems related to exploitation of natural resources, and negative externalities related to environmental pollution, and adverse anthropogenic global climate change. Nonetheless, mainly because of sunk costs, tragedy of (local as well as global) commons and relatively unhindered ability to internalize profits while externalizing costs to the environment, there is only a limited progress visible. One often mentioned solution is global governance. Nonetheless, to be effective,it would sooner or later collide with the local or national polities’ preference for economic welfare and economic growth. And another much more dangerous trade-off would ensue: local or national democracy vis-à-vis effective global governance. The other promising solution, often looked at almost with a messianic hope, is technology. This technological optimism often leads to conclusion that we should not worry too much about mitigation,or governance, because we will get out of the current problems through technologic obsolescence. There certainly are cases for hope, as the old adage “the stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones” puts it, and there are also much more specific examples how technology helped mitigate negative externalities on environment: In the late 1800s, majority of world’s large cities faced a serious transport, environmental, and health crisis,

A customer pumps gas at a Mobil station in Alameda, Calif JJ AP Photo/Ben Margot,File

energy system of “ The near future will be much

more decentralized with the division between production and consumption much less discernible


OP-ED ⊲ TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE IN MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE since thousands of tons of horse manure was produced and accumulating across the cities, causing problems by its sheer amount and resulting physical, visual and effluvial inconvenience, as well as associated serious health risks. New York City tried to solve the issue through regulating and incentivizing, nonetheless the truth is that the problem was really solved only when internal combustion engine made horses obsolete as a means of transport. There is similarly lots of hope, that rather ineffectual attempts to regulate and price externalities (pollutant particles, CO2 and other greenhouse gases) to make energy sources more damaging to the environment less economically attractive or mitigating the negative externalities through different schemes, a new technology will make technology causing majority of problems for the environment obsolete. Given the sunk costs within current production cycles, vested interests of industry and governments as well as tragedy of the commons, this is the only hope we have. What are some of the most promising technologies that could make notable impact in mitigating the climate change in the mid-term? The most important will be change in the topography of energy systems. The current energy systems are by majority interconnected hub and spoke infrastructures; interconnecting large centralized power plants and individual consumers via distribution grids. The energy system of near future will be much more decentralized with the division between production and consumption much less discernible. This is what we have seen in case of information with the advent of internet, when currently the producers and consumers of information have blended into ‘prosumers’ of information, we are expecting similar development with energy, (and also logistics and transport).

The relationship between energy technology and the energy network topography is mutually reinforcing. Decentralized peer-to-peer topography requires different energy technology, and in turn different technology requires matching topography. This change will very likely take form of a (silent) revolution: a disruptive digital energy revolution. There are two aspects that help us illustrate this trend: rapid technological innovation combining energy and digital technologies and spread of renewable low-variable-cost electricity generation. The former can be illustrated through the growth of patent applications combining information technology and energy,1 and the latter through exponential increase in photovoltaic production of electricity. While the total share of photovoltaic electricity2 is relatively small, its share is rapidly increasing, with limits to its further spread being more in the grid topography (and related need for storage) rather than cost. The estimated average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)in US for plants entering service in 2022 put cost of photovoltaic electricity on pair with hydro (66.8$/MWh for solar photovoltaic and 66.2 for hydroelectric),3 McKinsey’s forwardlooking report expects costs for photovoltaic electricity to


Simone Tagliapietra and Georg Zachmann, “Reinforcing the EU Energy Industry Transformation: Stronger Policies Needed | Bruegel,” September 21, 2017, reinforcing-the-eu-energy-industry-transformation-strongerpolicies-needed/. 2 See Figure 1 3

Climate activists protest with a banner reading “Stop coal, save climate” in front of shareholders walking to the annual meeting of RWE AG in Essen, Germany. JJ AP Photo/Martin Meissner




come down close to zero by 2050.4 The cost of photovoltaic system has fallen from $75/W in 1976 to a whopping $2.48/W for module and 1.28/W for cell in (first quarter of) 2018.5 The price of large photovoltaic systems decreased more than half in the last five years, and the levelized costs are around $0.1/ kWh. Similarly, the cost of electricity storage has decreased. The cost per kWh of a lithium-ion battery dropped from $10,000/kWh in 1990’s to about $210/kWh in early 2018, with expectation of $100/kWh boundary crossed within less than next two years.6 Further improvements in energy efficiency, continued rapid growth of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles, and smartening of energy grid including decentralization of energy production, virtual power plants, demand response, and spread of curtailment service providers are likely to both further decrease overall energy consumption, as well as rapidly change the energy demand. Energy technologies will include advanced energy storage in combination with micro (and) smart grids, distributed and virtualized generation, but also advanced demand management and demand curtailment. The decrease in battery costs will allow for strategic-reserves-like management of electricity and decrease of requirements for installed peak-load capacity.

4 service/epng/pdfs/transformation_of_europes_power_system. ashx 5 6 latest-bull-case-for-electric-cars-the-cheapest-batterieseverBerckmans, Gert, Maarten Messagie, JelleSmekens, Noshin Omar, LieselotVanhaverbeke, and Joeri Van Mierlo. “Cost Projection of State of the Art Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles Up to 2030.” Energies 10, no. 9 (2017): 1314.http://www.

JJ Figure 1: Gross Solar Electricity Generation

their “ Countries governmentandshould be

particularly careful about publicly financed, or government-guaranteed large-scale long-term investments.

This disruptive7 exponential type of innovation, is likely to render number of energy technologies and investments in their deployment obsolete. This is particularly risky for utilities, and large sunk-cost infrastructural investment (such as pipelines and large power-plants). Countries and their government should be particularly careful about publicly financed, or government-guaranteed large-scale long-term investments into energy infrastructure, as these, if not carefully assessed, are likely to end-up costing their tax-payers a net loss of value, hinder innovation and in some cases, lock the countries into dependence with dire consequences for their national sovereignty and welfare. ■

7 J. L. Bower and C. M. Christensen, “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave,” Harvard Business Review 73, no. 1 (February 1995): 43–53.



Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic Peter Pellegrini, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic Andrej Babiš and President of the Slovak Republic Andrej Kiska during the opening of the CzechSlovak / Slovak-Czech exhibition at the Bratislava Castle . JJ SITA/Diana Černáková


In the modern history of Slovaks and Czechs, years ending with number eight tend to be of special significance: 1918, 1938/39, 1948, 1968, 1988/89 and even 1998 are allimportant landmarks in our history.

Out of all these milestones, 1918 marks a particularly distinct moment: not only was it the end of the First World War, a period of unprecedented cruelty, it also meant the beginning of a new political landscape in Europe. The transformation of old, multiethnic and multinational feudal empires into industrial nation-states was very complicated in Central Europe,particularly for Slovaks, who shared the old kingdom together with Hungarians and many other nations. Not only did this part of empire suffer from extremely slow pace of modernisation of the non-competitive feudal system, but the “magyarisation” policy – which stood for „one country, one language“ - was incredibly frustrating. The thousand years long political marriage did not stand the test of the 20th century standards. Large groups of talented Czech and Slovak emigrants, particularly in the United States and France,where they



100 YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA ⊲ HISTORY CHAPTER were exposed to modern democracies, eventually provided crucial political support to the home leaders in their Central European case, and it was in no small part thanks to many of them that from the ashes of the old empire and horrors of the WW I The Czechoslovak Republic was born in 1918. This year is celebrated not only by Czechs and Slovaks; it figures on birth certificates of numerous modern European states, as the end of the war altered the political landscape of the entire continent. For both of our nations, this marked the beginning of a very successful story. Twenties and thirties were not easy years in the European history. Many countries remained autocratic, and many more still struggled. For us,this period laid fundaments for modern democraticconstitutional heritage, unprecedented economic growth, industrialisation, as well as cultural and educational spin like never before. For Slovaks this was truly a life-saving moment. Before the WW II, Czechoslovakia was among the leaders of the free World at the time in both political terms as well as indomains of industry and culture. The Second World War brought a pause to the common state, as the Czech part became occupied and crippled by Hitler’s Germany,while Slovakia turned into a puppet nazi state which lost large parts of its territory to the revisionist Horthy Hungary. Many lessons still resonate today: authoritarian nationalistic tendencies remain underestimated,as we close our eyes before aggressive revisionism and historic mythologies, and forget to forge and feed effective alliances with reliable allies. And even if we are now better off in terms of more political freedom, as well as economic and cultural success, this does

year is celebrated “ This not only by Czechs

and Slovaks; it figures on birth certificates of numerous modern European states, as the end of the war altered the political landscape of the entire continent.”

not guarantee anything, as long as we underestimate security, and tolerate nationalism and populism. For both Czechs and Slovaks the end of the war brought justice, and the country was recreated almost in its entirety. Unfortunately, having been overtaken by the communist regime andending up on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, the re-established Czechoslovakia remained under totalitarian rule for the next 40 years. In 1989 the Velvet Revolution opened a new chapter in our history. Despite the division of our nations in 1993, both countries are now examples of a successful divorce from the communist past and heading towards a democratic future, while the bond between them is as strong as it ever was. We should not forget the lessons of the last 100 years. To pick at least some of them: we must to remember that together we are stronger; that democracy and a free, open, competitive economy is the key;that we must never underestimate nationalism, revisionism and false historical mythology; and that there is never enough effort expended in building and maintaining strong and efficient alliances in order to defend our values of democracy and freedom. The challenges we are about to face in Europe in coming years will test our abilities to take these lessons effectively. Being ignorant and indifferent will invariably lead us to a disaster. That’s why the heritage of free, democratic Czechoslovakia should be a binding one for all of us.and efficient alliances in order to defend our values of democracy and freedom.” ■

President of the Slovak Republic Andrej Kiska at the opening speech of the Czech-Slovak / Slovak-Czech exhibition at the Bratislava Castle. JJ SITA/Diana Černáková




U.S. ambassador to Poland Paul Jones, left, shakes hands with Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, as Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, center, smiles during a ceremony of signing a deal to buy the U.S. made air defense Patriot system was signed, in Warsaw, Poland. JJ AP Photo/Alik Keplicz

28.03.2018, REUTERS Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history, agreeing with the United States to buy Raytheon Co’sPatriot missile defence system for $4.75 billion in a major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia.NATO member Poland has accelerated efforts to overhaul its ageing weaponry following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Two-thirds of Poland’s weaponry dates back to the Cold War era, when the country was a part of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said the Patriot agreement showed “solidarity and cooperation” with the United States and other NATO countries. The deal is for delivery of two Patriot batteries manufactured by Raytheon, each with two fire units, in 2022. Warsaw is negotiating with Washington to buy more Patriots, a new 360-degree radar and a low-cost interceptor missile as part of a second phase of modernisation. Fourteen other countries, including six NATO members, have Patriot missiles. Romania agreed in November to buy Patriots and the U.S. government has also approved sales to Sweden. Switzerland last week announced it was also looking at the Patriot among other systems in a competition expected to kick off later this year.The Patriot deal came also as a relief for Poland amid tension with Washington over a law Warsaw introduced in January imposing jail terms for suggesting Poland was complicit in the Holocaust. The United States says the bill subverts freedom of speech and Israeli officials say it amounts to Holocaust denial, an accusation that Poland’s nationalist government rejects. ■

The President of the Czech Republic Milos Zeman and the President of the Slovak Republic Andrej Kiska during a press conference at the Grand Hotel Kempinskina in Štrbské Pleso. High Tatras. JJ SITA / Radoslav Maťaš

The Czech Republic’s Olympic Committee has suggested an overhaul of the country’s national anthem to mark the 100th anniversary of the founding of Czechoslovakia. They have commissioned several new arrangements of the anthem, including a vocals-free version specifically for sporting events, Radio Prague reports. Kde domov můj (Where is my home), was adopted as Czechoslovakia’s anthem in 1918, with one verse in Czech, followed by a second verse with a different melody in Slovak.In 1993, when the Czech Republic and Slovakia split, the two countries went their own way with their two verses, and Slovakia adopted the second verse, NadTatrousablýska (Lightning over the Tatras), as its own anthem.Now, Czech Olympic Committee president Jiří Kejval


CZECHS CONSIDER NATIONAL ANTHEM UPDATE 29.03.2018, BBC NEWS considers the existing anthem to be “too short” at just over a minute, and also “lacking in majesty”, says Czech Television. The new arrangement re-instates a largely forgotten Czechlanguage second verse by original lyricist Josef Kajetán Tyl, and features a more complex orchestral style to that of composer František Škroup’s original.However, the newly beefed up versions haven’t been welcomed with universal acclaim, with one music critic speaking on Czech TV calling it a “megalomaniacal arrangement under which the original composition is completely lost”. However, Mr. Kejval is sticking to his guns, saying that it’s right for the Olympic Committee to ask questions about the tune as it is mostly heard at sporting events, but he concedes that people might still be attached to the current version. ■




Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban smiles during an international press conference in the Parliament building in Budapest, Hungary. JJ Lajos Soos/MTI via AP

09.04.2018, BBC NEWS Hungary’s firebrand nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban claimed a “historic victory” Sunday as his right-wing party took a thumping lead in the country’s key parliamentary election.The 54-year-old will serve a third consecutive term in office, with his party Fidesz projected to keep its key two-thirds majority in parliament.Fidesz won almost half of the vote, with 93% of ballots counted, Hungary’s National Election Office said.Mr.Orban is a strong Eurosceptic who campaigned on an anti-immigration platform. In a speech to supporters Mr.Orban said his victory gave Hungarians “the opportunity to defend themselves and to defend Hungary”. Leaders of the second and third-placed parties have resigned in light of the result.Polling stations were meant to close at 19:00, but some stayed open hours later due to long queues. Voter turnout reached a near-record 69% - an outcome some believed would favour the prime minister’s opponents. But

A woman places a sticker on a poster with a photo of slain journalist Jan Kuciak during an anti-government rally in Bratislava, Slovakia. JJ AP Photo/Ronald Zak, File

More than a month after the double murder of investigative journalist Jan Kuciak and his fiancée, Martina Kusnirova, the aftershocks continue to reverberate throughout Slovakia, underscoring the country’s struggles with corruption but also the vital importance of the quest to uncover it.At the beginning of April tens of thousands rallied across Slovakia in a new wave of anti-government protests amid a political crisis triggered by the slayings of an investigative reporter and his fiancée.The murders have been met with universal condemnation and outrage inside Slovakia and throughout the European Union. Kuciak was the first journalist ever to be killed for his work in Slovakia’s 25 years as an independent state. Until now, it had enjoyed a reputation as a country where expression was generally tolerated.In the wake of

with almost all votes counted, the nationalist Jobbik party is in second place with 20% of the vote. The Socialists are in third with 12%, and the LMP, Hungary’s main Green Party, is in fourth with 7%.Jobbik’s chairman Gabor Vona stood down, telling a news conference: “Jobbik’s goal, to win the elections and force a change in government, was not achieved. Fidesz won. It won again.”Socialist Party President Gyula Molnar was similarly downcast as he resigned, saying: “We regard ourselves as responsible for what happened [and] we have acknowledged the decision of voters.” ■

PROTESTS IN SLOVAKIA AFTER KILLING OF JOURNALIST 28.03 & 05.04.2018, WASHINGTON POST the murders, then-Prime Minister Robert Fico made a bizarre public commitment to “find the killers,” offering a reward of 1 million euros for information leading to arrests. But those promises rang hollow to many. Almost immediately, close associates of his were implicated in the case.Fico,along with a number of other officials, was forced to resign. As time continues to pass since the crime, the odds of a proper investigation become bleaker. Officials with close ties to the Italian crime organization implicated in the murders were reportedly among the first to enter the crime scene, fueling speculation about evidence-tampering.Many Slovaks simply assume that their officials are corrupt. ■




When the EU Commission President Juncker delivered his “State of the Union” address on 13 September 2017, 5 sentences of his speech referenced the Western Balkans and “maintaining the credible enlargement perspectives” for the region. These sentences were applauded by “friends of the enlargement” within the EU as well as the candidate countries, even though one of them claimed that “No candidate was ready,” followed by 12 sentences about Turkey. Current state of play in terms of the European integration and the Western Balkans is that there are four candidate countries: Serbia and Montenegro have initiated the accession chapter negotiations while Albania received candidate status in 2014 and is waiting to open the accession negotiation chapters conditioned by further progress in reforms. Meanwhile, after the recent political changes, Macedonia has high hopes that the new government will reignite the reform process, though much work remains to be done. One matter is the „name issue” with the neighbouring Greece, where the international community could assist the two countries in finding the compromise; otherwise Macedonia will remain stuck in the same place it has been for years (candidate’s status achieved in 2005), which could have a devastating impact on the country’s morale. Furthermore, there are two remaining „aspiring countries,“ Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo that still await the candidate status. Significant internal reforms are needed for each to pass this threshold, and 5 EU member states don’t even recognize the latter as a country. The Western Balkans has been emerging on the EU’s radar more over past two years. Since then, very recently, the High Representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy Mogherini spoke about the “unfinished business in the Western Balkans“ in reference to the enlargement. Also, French President Macron publicly endorsed the „European


perspective of the Western Balkans“. These, together with the Commission recently adopting a “Strategy for the credible enlargement perspective for the Western Balkans”, are all positive signals from European heavy-weightsand Euro-technocrats towards the region aiming to keep them motivated, engaged and on the European orbit. Maybe these signals are meant to make up for Juncker’s declaration at the beginning of his tenure back in 2014, when he said that the following 5-year-term of the Commission under his leadership will pass without enlargement. It was probably a coldly calculated play by the “team Juncker”, which has proven to be correct, although it was received very emotionally in the Balkan region as“delay tactics”. On the other hand, the current positive signals might have been misinterpreted in some of the Balkan capitals too - not as encouragement to keep them motivated, but rather as reaffirmation that they have been doing enough. Frankly speaking, not nearly enough has been done and a number of reforms are needed in all candidate as well as aspiring countries; not only “tick-the-box” reforms, but real implementation - and this is the tricky part. Rule of law, independent judiciary, independent media, good governance should not be just phrases, but the reality. Unfortunately, with some internal problems in the EU itself, it is challenging to keep the candidates on this track. The EU is then accused of using double standards whereby once „in the club” they don’t have to play by the rules.

Not nearly enough has been done and a number of reforms are needed in all candidate as well as aspiring countries; not only “tick-the-box” reforms, but real implementation - and this is the tricky part. WWW.GLOBSEC.ORG

EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND WESTERN BALKANS ⊲ ON THE MAP The EU’s internal challenges are hurting the candidate countries the most because “older” EU countries, that are also more sceptical about the whole enlargement process will have more pronounced concerns, that with the enlargement they are letting in some more trouble-makers who could further erode the EU’s unity. Therefore, to maintain the credible enlargement perspective for the Western Balkans, first of all, the rules of the enlargement must remain consistent. Conditions must be equal for all the candidates (with the exception of unique national situations, e.g. in case of Serbia,where Chapter 35 applies, considering its relations with Kosovo) and clearly defined beforehand. The accession negotiation process of each country must be transparent and at the same time it must be clear that there are no short-cuts to the membership. In parallel with that, the EU should send clear signals that once a candidate country fulfils accession criteria, they will be accepted and that member countries will work with their own home constituencies to explain benefits of welcoming the Western Balkans’ countries into the EU family. Reforms are difficult for many Western Balkan countries, but they must be implemented and they must be implemented credibly. The EU should be clear that simulation of reforms is not acceptable. Candidate countries must take firm ownership of reforms in order to modernize and improve conditions for their own citizens’ benefit, not “because Brussels wants it from us”. Under the latter narrative it should not be surprising that support for EU membership is drifting in number of countries of the Western Balkans – most recently especially in Serbia. Furthermore, there are tools as well as funds and willing member countries to assist the candidates with reforms for the transformation. Juncker spoke about “more democratic Europe for 2025” and the date emerged a few more times in his speech. Soon after,this led to floating interpretations that the date 2025 is also meant as the earliest deadline for the next EU enlargement round as perceived by the “Team Juncker“. This has elicited mixed reactions as well. Some applaud it as a commitment of the EU to enlarge after all, while others think that the EU should have not set a deadline for itself in such a specific area.

The EU should refrain from giving deadlines for itself as the integration processes must be driven by the candidates. This is especially true for the Western Balkans.

I believe we should turn the table around - candidates need to be ready and when they are ready (the EU accession process offers plenty of benchmarks from which progress can be established) the EU members will be able to persuade their own constituencies to support the enlargement. That, however, requires work on the home turf to ensure political support, while candidates also have to work on their own home turf to gather support for reforms and their proper implementation. In the process, we should refrain from naming the “best pupils in the class”. We made a similar mistake in the Eastern Partnership group few years back with Moldova and it did not work out well. It is understandable that the EU needs a success story among the candidates, but to accomplish that we should not turn a blind eye to serious problems with the rule of law, judiciary independence, corruption, independent media or concentration of power in number of candidates’ countries. At the same time, they should not attempt to sit on two chairs (EU and Russia), especially if „those chairs are so far apart”.

European Council President Donald Tusk, speaks during a press conference after a meeting with Kosovo President Hashim Thaci during their meeting in Pristina, Kosovo. JJ AP Photo/Visar Kryeziu

I would join the latter group, as I believe giving a deadline in this case is a mistake. I understand it was done with good intentions after analysing all variables of the enlargement equation, but it was perceived very negatively among the Western Balkan countries, especially in Serbia and Montenegro, who have advanced the most in the EU integration process. Generally, there has been a feeling among the candidates (minus Turkey, plus aspiring countries), that the date is too far away – beyond the mandate of even the next Commission, and that casts shadow over the credibility of the deadline. Therefore, the EU should refrain from giving deadlines for itself as the integration processes must be driven by the candidates. This is especially true for the Western Balkans.



Greece’s Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias, left, meets with Kosovo’s president Hashim Thaci in Kosovo’s capital Pristina. JJ AP Photo/Visar Kryeziu

FRANCE AND GERMANY ON THE FUTURE OF THE EUROZONE KK Orsolya Raczova Research Fellow with the Future of Europe Programme at the GLOBSEC Policy Institute

The financial crisis posed significant challenges for the member states of the Eurozone. Some countries were more affected than others and for some it took longer to recover. In fact, Greece is still suffering from the crisis and its aftermath both economically and socially, and the country remains in debt. Approaches on how to help Greece vary within the block, just like the future orientation of reforming the Eurozone remains unanswered. The direction for the future of the Eurozone is likely to come from the 2 leaders: Germany and France. Germany and France are often seen as the leaders both in the European Union and the Eurozone, and many await the


direction of the future of the block from these two leading countries. During and in the aftermath of the financial crisis, it was primarily Germany setting the agenda. Germany has been in favour of a strong fiscal discipline and painful structural changes. In practice this meant that countries hit by the crisis the most, such as Greece, have been subject to strict austerity measures, in order to save a key Eurozone member. The crisis was so deep in Greece that even discussions on Greece potentially leaving the Eurozone and returning to the drachma were raised. Many argue that this was the country’ most serious crisis in modern times. Austerity measures were imposed, and Greece remained a member of the Eurozone.Although 2017 has been the first year since the crisis showing signs of recovery, Greece still has the largest debt load in the EU, with almost 180% of GDP (2016). Moreover, 2018 will be an important year for Greece because the country is due to exit a €86bn rescue programme. During the years of the financial crisis Greece has been granted extensions numerous times on paying its debt; and Emanuel Macron, the new President of France proposed to go even further, to grant debt relief to Greece. France and Germany often have differing views when it comes to the future of the Eurozone. As mentioned above, German leadership favoured fiscal discipline, however, France has been more outspoken on the need for reforms, more solidarity as well as risk sharing. Therefore, the views of France and Germany do not only differ when it comes to


FRANCE AND GERMANY ON THE FUTURE OF THE EUROZONE ⊲ EU INSIGHT bailing out a fellow member state, but they have had very different ideas on the long-term future direction of the block. Macron, since elected, has called for a fully integrated Eurozone. According to his plans, such integration could result in creating a position of a Eurozone financial minister, an entity such as a parliament and a corresponding budget. On one hand such institutionalisation and financial autonomy could make the Eurozone more “crisis prone” because it would “arm” the block with tools to be able to handle unexpected situations without external help. On the other hand, however, a deeper integration of the Eurozone may result in a multi-speed Europe, where the countries outside of the Eurozone are likely to be left out. Becausemany of the Central Eastern European countries are non-Eurozone members, there are concerns of them being left behind in a multi-speed Europe. To some extent the core and periphery dichotomy already exists, but further integration of specific countries would deepen this gap even more. And since the Central Eastern European region is both geographically and economically close to Germany,

Germany and France are often seen as the leaders both in the European Union and the Eurozone, and many await the direction of the future of the block from these two leading countries.

On the other hand, however, a deeper integration of the Eurozone may result in a multispeed Europe, where the countries outside of the Eurozone are likely to be left out.

Germany has so far adopted a cautious approach towards further Eurozone integration. Therefore, there have been and will likely remain to be clashes between the French and the German idea regarding the future direction of the Eurozone. However, changes have been seen in both countries. Macron has been vocal and insistent on his plans for the block; while Germany has experienced recent changes in political leadership. As a result of the 2017 German federal elections, the composition of the coalition government has changed; Germany has a new Finance Minister, Olaf Scholz, a centreleft Social Democrat (SPD). Mr. Scholz has been critical of strict austerity measures and interference into fellow Eurozone members’ affairs, including managing the crisis in Greece. Therefore, the German approach to managing the problems of the Eurozone might change. In light of changes in leadership in both countries, structural and policy changes in the Eurozone are more likely to see light. France already presented its plans when it comes to the future of the Eurozone; Germany is expected to present its plans in June 2018. Nevertheless, everyone eagerly awaits how and to what extent the two strongest countries will work together on reforming the Eurozone. ■

European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, left, and Macedonian Prime Minister Zoran Zaev, right, shake hands posing for the media, following their meeting at the government building in Skopje, Macedonia JJ AP Photo/Boris Grdanoski




NATO and the European Union are implementing a Technical Arrangement on cyber defence cooperation which was signed in _____________. In light of common challenges, NATO and the EU are strengthening their cooperation on cyber defence, notably in the areas of information exchange, training, research and exercises. a) March 2016 b) November 2017 c) January 2018 d) February 2016

2. What are and where are located the two famous NATO schools in Europe for cyber security? The first one provides cyber defence-related education and training to support Alliance operations, strategy, policy, doctrine and procedures; the second fosters strategic thinking concerning political-military matters, including cyber defence issues. a) The NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany and the NATO Defense College in Rome, Italy b) The NATO School in Munich, Germany and the NATO Defense College in Milan, Italy c) The NATO School in Brussel, Belgium and the NATO School in Rome, Italy d) The NATO School in Warsaw, Poland and the NATO School in Munich, Germany 3. From 1 January to 30 June 2018 the Council of the EU is chaired by Bulgaria. The priorities of the Bulgarian presidency are driven by its motto: _____________, which is also the motto of the coat of arms of the Republic of Bulgaria. The presidency will work with its partners on unity among the member states and the EU institutions so as to provide concrete solutions for building a stronger, more secure and solidary Europe. a) „United in diversity“ b) „United we stand strong“ c) „Man’s mind ranges unrestrained in counsel“ d) „It´s your world!“ 4. The two biggest economies in EU after Brexit __________ - disagree on design of the European Monetary Fund – for example, the French don’t like the idea that it should lend to sovereigns in return for bond-holders taking losses.

a) France and Italy b) Germany and France c) Germany and Italy d) Spain and Denmark

5. The Persian Gulf War Oil Spill in _____________ was not an accident - in a bid to deter the coalition from landing marines and other amphibious troops in northern Kuwait and southern Iraq, Iraqi forces released hundreds of millions of gallons of oil from Kuwait’s Sea Island terminal into the northern Persian Gulf before the end of hostilities. Some sources estimate that between 380 million and 520 million gallons were poured into the gulf, making the incident one of the largest known oil spills in history. a) 1989 b) 1990 c) 1991 d) 1992


_____________‘s ice cover continues to decrease in its mass as a resultof the ongoing warming of the Arctic. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle: not only the warming means less ice forms and more ice melts, but also, because there’s less ice, less of the sun’s incident solar radiation is reflected off, which feeds back into increase of temperature. On March, the ice cover peaked at 14.48 million square kilometers, making it the second lowest maximum on record. a) The Amundsen Sea b) The Bering Sea c) The North Sea d) The Arctic Sea

7. After the parliamentary elections in Hungary held in April 2018, which brought victory to ____________ the Prime Minister; the European Parliament report calls for sanctions procedure against Hungary as his goverment has been accused by critics at home and abroad of putting Hungary on the road to autocracy and reintroducing undemocratic practices last seen under communism, such as de facto censorship in state media.

a) The Jobbik with Gábor Vona b) the Fidesz–KDNP with Viktor Orbán c) the MSZP–Dialogue with Gergely Karácsony d) the DK with Ferenc Gyurcsány

8. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in her last interview that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline cannot go ahead if Ukraine loses its importance as a transit country for gas to Europe. Nord Stream 2 is meant to carry 55 billion cubic meters of gas from _____________ via the Baltic Sea, doubling the capacity of the existing Nord Stream pipeline. It would also concentrate up to 80 percent of the EU’s Russian gas imports through one route.

a) Russia to Belgium b) Russia to Austria c) Russia to France d) Russia to Germany

9. _____________ is a plan designed to improve the security and resilience of national infrastructures and services. All countries of the European Union currently adopt this document as a key policy feature, with the purpouse of tackling risks which could potentially undermine the achievement of economic and social benefits from cyberspace.

a) National cyber security strategy (NCSS) b) Cyber security strategy (CSS) c) Information Sharing and Analysis Centres (ISACs) d) Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)

10. The Information Security Forum (ISF), a global, independent information security body that focuses on cyber security and information risk management forecasts an increase in the number and impact of data breaches, largely due to to five critical global security threats that organizations will face in 2018. One of these top cyber threats, „CaaS“, stands for:

a) Crime-as-alternative-structure b) Crime-as-a-service c) Crime-as-a-superphenomenom d) Crime-as-a-science

1.d, 2.a, 3.b, 4.b, 5.c, 6.d, 7.b, 8.d, 9.a, 10.b





Issue 1/2018 Publication date: 14 May 2018





Editor-in-Chief Soňa Trojanová Project Coordinator

Martina Šinkovičová

Language Corrections

Tomáš Grenzner

Graphic Design

Peter Mandík

Photography SITA, TASR


⊲⊲ Editorial

Soňa Trojanová

⊲⊲ Headlines

Peter Džadoň

Marcel Jacko

Martin Šuba

⊲⊲ In Depth

Lukáš Dravecký

⊲⊲ Op-ed

Alexandra Briediková

Martina Nižníková

Peter Džadoň

⊲⊲ History Chapter

Alexandra Ilková

⊲⊲ Eu Insight

Martin Šuba

⊲⊲ Visegrad News

Anna Przybyll

⊲⊲ Quiz

Michaela Marečková

GLOBSEC Academy Centre Kuzmányho 3, 974 01 Banská Bystrica Mobile: 00421 / 948 120 537 Tel./Fax.: 00421 / 2 544 106 09 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 Globsec magazine The editorial board of the Globsec magazine reserves the right to shorten and revise articles when necessary.



Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.