Simulation Game: First Committee of the UN General Assembly on ‘Providing Ukraine with lethal defensive weapons’ – ULB MUN

During a eight-hour intensive session, the participants experienced the hard work of a Delegate at the United Nations. The organisers reminded at the beginning of the session the rules and procedures already explained two days before. Due to the small number of participants compared to the members of a real Delegation at the UN and because the participants had few time to prepare and to study the positions of their assigned states, the simulation was simplified by the organizers (the ULB MUN) without losing the atmosphere and the complexity of the UN diplomacy. The simulation was a success and all the participants remained enthusiasts of the new experience (only two out of 21 participants have already did a MUN simulation).

At the end of the simulation, after having produced, discussed, and voted three resolutions – and after having adopted two of them, the participants of the Bernheim Joint Summer School, together with the staff and part of the guests of the JSS, had a relaxing BBQ time in which personal relations were strengthened, opinions were shared, and farewells were said. But with the hope to meet again next year, at the next Bernheim Joint Summer School!

Introduction to Content Analysis and Laboratory Session – Mr. Ferdinand Teuber (UCL)

“All Models Are Wrong, But Some Are Useful”

The whole fifth day was dedicated to Content analysis. The morning session focused on the theoretical aspects of the various models – such as, human coding, dictionary approach, supervised methods for text classification and scaling, unsupervised methods for text classification and scaling. The participants had then the possibility to practice and familiarise with the most commonly-used free software for quantitative studies. The intense session provides the students both with the insights of a methodology mostly used and explained during PhDs and with entry-level skills and tools that would render the participants at least partly capable to use these wide methods and software.

Emanuele Sansonetti

Exploring The Former Soviet Union: An Introduction to Central Asia, Mr. N. Gosset (Royal Institute for Defence, CECID, ULB)

The lecture aimed at providing the students with both a general overview of the Central Asia region and insights in the internal and external dynamics of the five –stan (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan). Mr. Gosset presented the countries’ historical heritages and particularly their narrow links with the Soviet Union – e.g. the still-present legacy of ‘ethnopolitics’ and the concept of nationalnost’, while importantly assessing the huge differences and specificities of the five states which are usually taken as a bloc and perceived as an homogeneous region. The demography and migration trends of each states were firstly outlined, before focusing on the political aspects and the commonality of the Central Asian states in this field – e.g. the presence of an authoritarian ‘kleptocratic’ (predatory elites) regimes, a strong state centralism, an attitude of ‘state capture’ (for the benefit for an elite), the conception of a neo-patrimonialism (patronage network – oligopoly), and the opposition to the Soviet-era generation of politicians (nomenklatura) by a new political generation (so-called biznesklatura, quasi-tribal groups of interests which are linked to the business/economical world). Later, the economies and the social crisis of these countries were analysed with a particular focus both on common challenges to security and on conflicts erupted in the region in the last years – i.e., the Tajikistan civil war in 1992-1997 , the ousting of President Akayev Kirgyzstan during the Tulip Revolution in 2005, the Andijan Uprising on May 13-15, 2005 (8-9000 deaths), and the ethnic clashes in Southern Kyrgyzstan on June 2010. Subsequently, a brief consideration of the always-fashioned narrative of the ‘Great Game’ introduced the argument of the active role in foreign policy of these states that rather than being empty receiver of external foreign policies (as represented in the ‘Great Game’ colonial narrative) exercise their influence, mainly through their key foreign policy instruments (hydrocarbons and rare earth materials) and adopting bandwagoning policies directed towards Russia and China, but also the US and NATO. These relations were better developed in the light of the Ukraine crisis that changed the attitude of Central Asian states, reducing the attractiveness for them to collaborate with the US, the EU, and NATO, while augmenting the Russian predominance in the region.

Briefing on tomorrow ULB MUN simulation

The ULB-MUN association explained the procedures of the simulation and assigned each participants with a state to represent in the recreation of a UN General Assembly First Committee on ‘Supporting Ukraine with defensive lethal weapons’.

Round Table on the Future of EU-Russia Strategic Partnership in the Light of the Ukrainian Crisis – Dr. Neil Melvin (SIPRI – Moderator), Mr. Vincent Degert (EEAS), Pr. Richard Whitman (Kent University), Dr. Nina Bachkatov (ULg), Pr. Natalia Stukalo (Dnipropetrovsk National University), Mr. Federico Santopinto (GRIP)

The first speaker was Mr. Santopinto that, after an evaluation of a certain EU (in)action in the pre-conflict situation, affirmed that Russia is not an enemy for the EU, rather it is an opponent – and probably since the launch of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Moreover he affirmed that Russia is more in a defensive posture depending on the common developing of NATO expansion and EU greater appeal.

Then, the floor was left to Dr. Bachkatov that stressed the importance of the asymmetry of vision between EU and Russia: while EU is all about integration, Russia is mainly focused on sovereignty and national

interests. Because of this kind of realistic approach, Russia is not really an enemy but an opponent, and moreover that means that if Russia’s economical interests will be safeguarded in the framing of an agreement, Russia will be ready to sign it.

Pr. Stukalo then called for the construction of alternative bridges/pillars in EU-Ukraine-Russia relations: on the one hand, reducing the energy dependency on Russia’s resources. On the other hand, she stressed the role that intellectual elites and the middle class would crucially play through non-political tools as culture and education. Moreover, small-medium enterprises could be the new bridges of EU-Ukraine relations, since they are not political actor.

Mr. Degert begun noticing that HR/VP Mogherini said that Russia at this moment is not a strategic partner, thus it could be reversed. However, events have changed the relationship: Russia broke a fundamental principle of international role, the annexation of Crimea left the EU with no other alternatives than sanctions, even if Russia claims not to be part of the conflict. Moreover, the Riga summit confirmed that EU policy is not directed towards anybody. It is Russia which saw the EU as a competitor and the EU didn’t convince Moscow that it could be a win-win situation. That was mainly because the EU and Russia see the world in totally different way, and thus Brussels has to find a new modus Vivendi with Russia. Even because Moscow needs Brussels to address other international crisis and global issues. However, the EU needs a constructive engagement of Russia in Ukraine and is ready to retake relationship with Russia. The idea of an economic area from Lisbon to Vladivostok is still there, the hope is the turning back to that agenda.

Lastly, pr. Whitman started presenting differences and similarities between the Cold War and the Current situation – respectively, the different context and machinery and the presence of two very different economic systems, with two different visions of what is appropriate in political systems and democracies. Then, he argued for three steps that the EU could (should) do – that is, sharing even more and integrating intelligence, adopting the right diplomacy to contain Russia’s action rather than adopting a rollback strategy, and facing and resolving the problem of the gap of capabilities of the EU and its proxy groups in Ukraine.

The end of the Round Table was dedicated to the interaction with the public in a Q&A session.

Emanuele Sansonetti

The Evolution of Russia’s Foreign Policy – Dr. L. Delcour, EU FP7 Cascade Project

The lecture had four main objectives: to identify continuities and changes in Russian foreign policy since the collapse of the USSR in 1991; to provide an understanding of the actors and the decision-making process of Russia’s foreign policy; to provide insights of Russia’s regional foreign policy; to identify the main reasons and factors which shape Russian foreign policy.

Dr. Delcour developed five main points: the key Russia’s milestones and heritages, the fundamental aspects of Russia foreign policy, the instruments used by Russia in foreign policy, the drivers of Russia foreign policy, and Russia’s nature as an international actor.

The three main Russian approaches to foreign policy – namely, liberal (pro-Western romanticism/pragmatism), ‘Pragmatic Patriots’ (anti-Western position on pragmatic bases) ‘Conservatives’ and/or ‘Nationalists’ (anti-Western ideology, the Eurasian exceptionality of Russia) were firstly analysed. Then the attention was put on the players that participate in the Russia’s foreign policy decision-making process. A study on Russia’s wide array of foreign policy instruments was provided with at the same time a particular focus on the main receivers of this foreign policy – that is, the ‘Near Abroad’, the EU, US and NATO, the BRICS (as a group), and China. Lastly, the three main drivers of Russia foreign policy – historical legacies, economic factors, and domestic politics – were analysed and used to explain, at least partly, its dual and multifaceted approach in the international arena.

The EU’s External Relations with the Post-Soviet Area – Dr. S. Vasilyan, American University of Armenia

The very insightful lecture was based on an innovative exercise: encapsulate the mega-case study within lots of theories. The mega-case study was the whole European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). The theories used were various. Firstly, Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism, Functionalism, Neo-Functionalism, Liberal Intergovernmentalism, and Multi-Level theories plus the three Foreign Policy Analysis approaches of Allison were used to explain determined features of the ENP. In a second moment, Realism, Neo-Realism, and various Geopolitical approaches were applied to understand mainly the unsolved conflicts in the European Neighbourhood.

Keynote speech: ‘Is the Security Situation in and around Europe as bad as it seems? What can we do to improve it? – Dr. J. Shea, NATO, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges

The Deputy Assistant Secretary General gave a comprehensive overview of the complex security challenges which Europe is facing nowadays. He identified two main vector from which situations are threatening Europe: one from East and one from South. What Dr. Shea underlined is that on the one hand it is a really complex situation which Europe did not searched for, and on the other hand, linked also to the complex feature of the situation, inaction is not an option. The main problematic issues in this scenario were then expressed: the problem of the lack (numerically and qualitatively speaking) of equipments, the eventual mistrust of the Baltic state with regard to a NATO intervention in an eventual worsening and expansion (towards Nord-East) of the crisis, the European defence budget-related problems (again, both numerically and qualitatively speaking – smart-spending), the lack of a common European strategy towards these areas, the mistrust in NATO by some other states of the international arena, the presence of other international players (even states), and the ever-present problem of lack of both a common (EU) strategic culture and a common (EU) vision on the role the EU should play internationally.

The conclusion is based mainly on an emblematic phrase: ‘we had experience but we miss(ed) the meaning(s)’. As the statement could suggest, positive goals have been achieved. But still there is the necessity to have more intelligence sharing for being able to, once the aims are settled, be really proactive toward these regions, not simply reactive.

Emanuele Sansonetti

JSS DAY #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

JSS DAY #2 : The Complex Challenges of the Post-Soviet area – Dr. Aude Merlin (ULB)

The first class of the JSS was aimed at providing a general overview of both the challenges that the Russian Federation face all along – and within – its borders and the complex elements that need to be taken into account in order to analyse such challenges. The main points of Dr. Merlin were four: the historical legacy, the armed conflicts in the post-Soviet area, the domestic politics, and the Ukraine case.

The most prominent topics of the historical legacy concerned the so-called ‘Ethnonationalism’ and the concepts of natsia (the 15 Union Republic), nationalnost’ (recognised human groups within the Union Republics to which an autonomous status was recognised by the Federal administration), and the plemja/etniceskaja gruppa (human groups that were recognised but that did not obtained any autonomy or exceptionality). Moreover, the collapse of the USSR and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum were analysed.

The second point concerned the armed conflicts in the post-Soviet area and their motivations. Highly related to the first point, was argued that the cascade of proclamation of sovereignty (the 1990-1991 ‘Parade of sovereignties’) led not only national elites but also segment of some nationalnost’ to claim for their autonomy and independence. Often, their ability to obtain an (at least de facto) autonomy was strictly linked to the legacy of ‘ethno-territorial’ building that lead to an ‘ethnic’ mobilisation and organisation – even thanks to the anti-colonial/nationalist narrative correlated to the feeling and self-portraying of these population as being colonised by Russia (and that was particularly true in Chechnya).

At the level of domestic politics the different definitions of the Russian regime were analysed underlying the key differences with and between Central and Eastern Europe. Moreover, an important role was given to the discrediting of the concept of democracy in Russia and the role of the corrupted elites in the expansion of these sentiments.

With regard to the Ukraine crisis the possible aims of Putin were analysed, with a particular attention to the geopolitical, economical/geo-strategic, and political ones.

Crisis and Conflicts in the Caucasus – Dr. Silvia Serrano (CERCEC-EHESS)

The second lecture of the day focused on the Caucasus region and their conflicts. Dr. Serrano indentified four stage of conflicts in Caucasus.

The conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia were classified as first stage conflicts. Their common features concerned the territory, the mobilisation of ethnicity – that is, the concept of nationalnost’, the fact that all these conflicts ended with a ceasefire and that after the agreement there was the creation of de facto states. All these conflicts may also be seen as ‘ethno-territorial’ conflicts and were strictly linked with the changes in the balance of power at the regional and local level.

The Chechen conflict was considered as the second stage conflict. Started in 1994, ceasefire in 1996, resumed in 1999 with an inter-war period not a peaceful period, it has some common features with the first stage conflicts (e.g., mobilisation, territory-ethnicity) but it is different because of the scale of the conflict, the huge number of casualties and the high degree of destruction, and moreover because of the role of Russia. Last but not least, also the origin of the war and the post-conflict development were very different from the first stage conflicts.

Within the third scale type there is the Russia-Georgia war in 2008. This differs from the others due to the direct implication of the Russian Federation on a territory of a neighbourhood state, to the numerous international actors (EU among the others), and to the clear cut to the borders’ status quo.

In the conclusions questions on possible future scenarios were analysed, particularly in relation with the changes in the international system principally with regard to Iran, Syria, and Iraq.

The Domestic Dimensions of the Crisis in Ukraine – Dr. Vsevolod Samokhvalov (University of Cambridge)

Assessing the importance of the historical legacy of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, Dr. Samokhvalov presented the history of those relations from the IX century until today. The role of myths, narratives, and symbolical aspects both in Moscow and in Kiev was stressed, and their heritage in each other

perceptions was underlined. In a dynamic exposition the audience could understand the complexity of the historical (or mythical) representation of both countries with regard to each other. Moreover, the Soviet narrative of Ukraine – and in particular of the Donbass region – was widely analysed, and it helped partly explaining the claims of some parts of that region – namely Donetsk and Luhansk – for independence.

Another important point made by Dr. Samokhvalov was that explaining the Euromaidan uprising only through the irritation for Yanukovich U-turn on the association agreement with the EU is incomplete and reductive at least. Indeed, a deep focus on the Ukrainian society emphasized the role of Yanukovich neo-liberal reforms, of Oligarchs, and of the so-called ‘red directors’.

Emanuele Sansonetti

Bernheim Joint Summer School 2015 – Welcome conference

On Sunday June 28th, 2015, the second edition of the Bernheim Joint Summer School on Security, Peace, and Conflicts (JSS) began in Brussels. While last year it was focused on the Arab Springs, this year it is about ‘The Post-Soviet Area: Challenges and Complexities’. Particularly, it will be focused on security and energy relations between the EU and the Post-Soviet countries.

All the classes and events will take place in the Institut d’Études Européennes (IEE) and in other buildings made available by the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). The JSS is indeed organised by the ULB and the Recherche et Enseignement en Politique Internationale (REPI), but also by the Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité (GRIP, the oldest think-tank in Brussels operating since 1979), the University of Kent – Brussels School of International Studies, the Université de Genève, and the Université Catholique de Louvain. It is an intensive one-week experience in which the participants will have the possibility to be engaged in debates and simulation games, and to attend lectures given by high-level experts.

The welcome conference – ‘From a Model of Development to Evil Incarnate: How Russia has come to loathe the West’ – opening the Summer School was held in the IEE Spaak room by Maria Lipman, the former expert of the Carnegie Moscow Center on Society and Regions Program and editor-in-chief of the Pro et Contra journal, published by the Carnegie Moscow Center. She is also the currently Chief Editor of COUNTERPOINT and a regularly columnist for the online edition of the New Yorker, besides having featured as editor and contributor in several books on Russian domestic politics.

The main elements of her lecture were related to the (mis)perception of Russia by the West – mainly the US – and vice versa. Lipman’s main point was that the worsening in the perception of the West by Russian society was not simply linked to the recent crisis in the relations between the White House and the Kremlin – that is, regarding Ukraine and Crimea – but it is the product of both a narrative taking place in Russia since 1999 (with its up and down peaks) and of the will of US administrations not to take into consideration Russian interests and complaints about Western moves in the international arena since the end of the Cold War. Moreover, it is strictly related to the Russian uncertainty with regard both to the eventual post-Putin era and to Russia’s role in the international system. This was argued by presenting data about public opinion polls and discourse analysis of some of the main players and academics both in Russia and in the US. The question-and-answer session allowed the audience to have insights of Russian society and politics – especially regarding the role of foreign powers during the uprisings along Russian borders, the relations with the US on the terrorist threats, and the homosexual-rights issue in Russian society.

After the conference, all the 21 attendants, along with the organisers and the staff of the Summer School, had the possibility to become acquainted with each other during an enjoyable reception taking place in the wonderful IEE’s back yard.

Emanuele Sansonetti

TEASER

THE POST-SOVIET : CHALLENGES AND COMPLEXTIES

The 2015 Bernheim Joint Summer School is centred on the theme of ‘The post­soviet area’ which builds upon the academic strengths of the five partners. Within this context various sub­themes will be covered as well; these include the crisis and conflicts in Eastern Europe and in the Caucasus, the Russian foreign policy, NATO and the European Union’s foreign policy towards the post­soviet area and Central Asia’s security challenges.

Over a period of one week, students participate in a series of guest lectures, seminars and  debates and  in  a  simulation  game delivered  by  academics,  policy­makers, diplomats  and civil  servants  for  international  organizations.  The summer school allows students to discover the complexities of this area with a particular focus on the EU­Russia partnership in the light of the Ukrainian crisis. Students also benefit from a workshop which gives an insight into the use of political sciences tools to analyze specific questions raised during the week. To mark the end of the Joint Summer School, there will be a closing event to congratulate students for successfully completing the programme.

WELCOME CONFERENCE, SUNDAY 28TH, ULB.

Sunday 6:30-7:30 pm at ULB.

‘From a Model of Development to Evil Incarnate: How Russia has come to loathe the West’, Mrs Maria LIPMAN, Chief Editor, COUNTERPOINT, an online scholarly journal on contemporary Russia published by IERES, George Washington University.