“A more assertive EU in a volatile world”
By Helga Schmid
The predictions made last year with regard to the growing importance of great power rivalries still rings in our ears.
What is more, our strategic environment grows ever more unpredictable. Today, major powers openly challenge the rules based international order and seek to promote alternative visions of a world divided into spheres of influence. Geopolitical rivalry stokes tensions and raise the alarm bell of a new “proliferation age” that risk escalating into inadvertent military confrontation. Climate change is becoming an existential threat while cyberspace and disinformation campaigns are the new weapons of the 21st century
For the European Union, the answer is clear: these challenges can only be tackled through a multilateral approach. Together we have the tools and the political weight to shape the future global order if we stay united. This is why instead of retreating from international cooperation and global partnerships, the EU is stepping up its commitment to address global challenges together with its partners: this is true for the Paris agreement on climate change, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on non-proliferation, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the EU’s strategy for connectivity between Asia and Europe or the reform of the WTO.
While these agreements are – in essence – hard to reach, we are convinced they are the best way to ensure a more peaceful, prosperous and secure world environment. Even more so when it is clear that no single country can address these challenges alone. I am convinced this approach is the right one and the fact that demand for European action from our partners has never been so high speaks for itself.
At every given opportunity, the need to define common answers to common problems is not only highlighted but translated into action. The European Union is therefore investing in broader international cooperation and partnerships above all with NATO, the UN, and regional organisations such as the Africa Union and ASEAN. Our trilateral EU-AU-UN cooperation on common challenges such as migration illustrates how multilateral solutions can contribute to greater safety, stability and prosperity.
For instance, as the UN IPCC Special Report on Global Warming warned us recently, there is an urgent need to act on climate change. This is the logic for the EU’s tireless efforts to reach a successful outcome at COP 24 in Katowice. The EU will lead by example by turning its own ambitious commitments for 2030 into concrete action. This was made clear at the high level event on Climate and Security hosted by the EU last June.
In the security sector, the European Union continues to assert its role as a security provider. Not only it is working internally to intensify joint efforts to effectively fight terrorism, hatred and violent extremism, the Union is engaged on the ground with 16 crisis management missions i.e. nearly 4.000 men and women. From building capacities in Mali, Niger and Central African Republic, to supporting security sector reform in Iraq, fighting piracy off the coast of Somalia or preventing a resurgence of violence in Georgia, the Union continues to strengthen international security in its neighbourhood and beyond. This is complemented by continued engagement in more than 40 mediation activities across the world, from Colombia to Yemen and Philippines, and underpinned by financial assistance as the EU remains the lead donor for development and humanitarian aid.
As Europe is taking more responsibility for its own security, the debate on European strategic autonomy has moved to the fore and not without controversy. However, at its heart is a simple reasoning: when needed, Europeans need to be able to protect and defend European interests and values and have the capacity to act. We want to be able to cooperate with third countries on our own terms.
In this respect, we stepped up the development of joint military capabilities through our ‘Permanent Structured Cooperation’ (PESCO), we will increase joint investments through the European Defence Fund, we are streamlining military command structures (MPCC), and we agreed a Compact to strengthen our civilian crisis management. As such these initiatives also contribute to strengthen NATO’s European pillar and contribution to collective defence.
Greater responsibility also includes beefing up our own resilience and capacity in energy, space, infrastructure and other critical sectors. We Europeans cannot accept interference and destabilisation through hybrid and cyber-attacks, hence our on-going focus on reinforcing cybersecurity capacities, improving the protection of data and containing disinformation through the recently adopted Action Plan on Disinformation.
We also need to be extra vigilant to preserve achievements on non-proliferation, such as the INF treaty or the nuclear deal with Iran, as the stakes for our own security are simply too high. The starting point cannot be to dismantle the current architecture and start from scratch. We Europeans are working at all levels to promote the universalisation and implementation of existing agreements, such as the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty or the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. We are also pushing for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to come into force which could play an important role as we work towards a complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation of the DPRK.
Taking greater responsibility does not stop at defence issues. Security today is also about economic security. This notion includes the strategic importance of the Euro and the need to ensure that the single currency can play its full role on the international scene. Promoting the Euro’s international role is part of Europe’s commitment to an open, multilateral and rules-based global economy. The extra-territorial effects of sanctions also challenge the Union’s capacity to follow through on our own political commitments. In this context we are developing mechanisms that will assist, protect and reassure economic actors to pursue legitimate business abroad.
As Europeans we cannot afford to waste time or to be less innovative than others. We need to modernise our approaches and engage more actively with new actors at the intersection of technology and foreign and security policy. This is why the High Representative launched the Global Tech panel, with the CEO of major Tech companies, in order to help ensure that international ethics and rules can keep pace with human ingenuity. To harness these opportunities, we also must take the security implications seriously, hence the recent European Commission Communication on Artificial Intelligence.
All in all, supporting rules based multilateralism and greater European strategic autonomy are not contradictory objectives. If we strengthen our resilience in the face of new risks, the European Union will play its part in reinvigorating the multilateral order and be reckoned as an assertive actor in a volatile world.
Helga Schmid is Secretary General of the European External Action Service
This article originally appeared in the newspaper “The Security Times”
Beyond the symptoms: Why we cannot overlook the land tenure system in Ethiopia
Joining the pieces
According to the internal displacement monitoring committee (IDMC)1 ,about 1,391,000 Ethiopians were internally displaced due to conflict, between January and June 2018.The international property rights index(IPRI: 2018) ranked Ethiopia 106th out of 125 with a score of 4.42 in a 0-10 scale. She took the 18th place in Africa (Rwanda scored 6.56 and came out 1st in Africa, and 32nd in the world) 2. A recent report by the World Bank3 regarding the “ease of doing business”, put Ethiopia 159th out of 190 countries.
Through all the above three reports runs a shared theme, the extent to which countries ensure business confidence and protect property rights. In this piece I will single out the land property right and its contribution to the existing problems in Ethiopia. Then, I will shed some light on the possible “way outs”. Given the role of land in any society’s life and the particular agrarian nature of the Ethiopian Economy, a closer examination on how land is being employed is paramount importance. I believe that the land ownership question is at the heart of the recent political uprising as it was in the late 1960s and early 70s.
“Land to the tiller” marched the students of the late 60s and early 70s. The very same people came to power in 1991 and a ratified a constitution that maintained the socialist land policy of the Dergue and denied the tiller full ownership of a piece of land, ultimately making themselves the new land lords. The negative effects of this decision are haunting the Ethiopian society up to this very moment in different parts of the country. Be it in displacement (remember the millions), low agricultural productivity, conflict, corruption, poor land management, to name a few. However, no discussion is going on, no measures are being taken, and no lasting remedy is being put in place to tackle this critical issue of our day.
In the past, there were hot debates on Article 40(3) of the current constitution which states “The right to ownership of rural and urban land …is exclusively vested in the State and in the peoples of Ethiopia… Land shall not be subject to sale or to other means of exchange “. This has received wide spread criticism from home and beyond. A research report by EEA (2002) says “Major features of the existing land tenure system such as declining farm size, tenure insecurity, and subsistence farming practices, are identified as part of the causes of the poor performance of the agricultural sector”. Similarly, the UN (2014) reported that”… (in Ethiopia) land tenure appears to be insecure due to the limited transferability of land rights; the state still has the ultimate rights to land and exercises the power to do whatever local or national authorities want at any time.”
On the other hand, the ruling party, EPRDF has had two lines of argument: one is the “fair distribution of land” and “historical justice”. Does this match with the reality on the ground? Aren’t the farmers and urban dwellers subjected to the new bureaucratic landlords “the hour and the day “of whose coming “no one knows”? Why do we still import food items despite having a vast fertile land?
The good norm and the facts
Both temporal and spatial experiences are crystal clear when it comes to the critical role of individual property (a secured one) to overall development. This revelation dates back to the time of Adam Smith (in his Wealth of nations) Human beings are driven by incentives-self-interest. Out of this incentives comes economic (market) consciousness which in turn gives rise to efficiency and productivity. The freer the individual to decide with all the resources she/he has, the better the productivity and the bigger the size of national cake. In their far famed 2012 book “Why Nations Fail”, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that “… leaders of African nations that have languished over the last half century under insecure property rights and economic institutions, impoverishing much of their populations”. Indeed, there is a strong correlation between secure property rights and over all development. Nordic countries are at the very top of the IPRI ranking as they are in every holistic measure of progress. And those at the bottom are the ones which sideline the individual citizens from owning property, and those with weak property right enforcement.
Given, the status quo, the rural land registration in Ethiopia has been praised for increasing land tenure security. But, of course, what can be completely cured should not be subjected to a non-stop painkiller. We have a long way to go. And we should start it now.
The wrong way and the bitter fruits
All the highly advanced economies (say group seven) have strong private property enforcement (including land ownership). That helped them own the lion’s share of the global GDP. Is Ethiopia afraid of its potential success? What if she follows suit? Let the Ethiopian state be busy with the matters of its own. The land ownership will be best economized left to the individual citizens for the reasons I enumerate below
According to enormous research findings at different countries in different times, state ownership of land is associated with low productivity, poor land management, weak environmental conservation, insecure land tenure. Ethiopia is not different. Belay Kassa (2004) noted that “…because of the fact that land constitutionally belongs to the state, farmers are rather sceptical to invest in long-term land improvement practices (such as tree planting, construction of anti-erosion barriers, building of ditches and furrows)”.
Moreover, as EPRDF itself confirmed in many press releases, its appointees were found to have been engaged in a grave land related corruptions. As Lord Acton once said it “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The state monopoly over land ownership is most likely to be abused either for political gain, economic benefit or for both.
Another natural consequence of insecure land tenure is conflict. Lack of a clearly defined land ownership can become a source of horizontals and vertical conflict (at times communities quarrel with communities, and at other times municipalities and other administrative ranks come in to direct confrontation with citizens.
The exit (from the problem, and of course, of this article).
Properly redesigning and clear definition of as which part of the land belongs to private citizens, communities, and the public (state) and installing strong enforcement mechanisms will avert the aforementioned bitter fruits of insecure land tenure. This will nurture rapid development in the agricultural sector which in turn will vitalize the expansion of agro industries and the overall economy.
Given our recent experiences and lessons from abroad, lasting peace and sustained development will be realized only when individual citizens are free to play their roles- including fully owning a piece of land.
By Etsubdink Sileshi
The writer can be reached at etsubdink08@gmail.com
