Europe

Rare earth elements (REEs) are a group of 17 elements that are crucial for the production of a wide range of high-tech products. Ironically, REEs are not “rare” and are found abundantly throughout the world, however, when found they are in such low concentrations that extraction is not feasible. Furthermore, when found in higher concentrations they must be separated from other elements, a process that is both environmentally and financially costly.   REEs are vital for several industries and are used in electronics, military technology, and most importantly, renewable energy. Although substitutes exist for REEs with producers attempting to replace them, REEs continue to be more effective, therefore, given their importance in the production of renewable technologies such as wind turbines and electric vehicles, demand is expected to increase, with the European Union (EU) alone expecting REEs needs to increase fivefold as it and the rest of the world transitions to net-zero.   Currently, China dominates the global REEs market, accounting for over 35% of the world’s REEs reserves and 70% of production. China's domination of the REEs market has raised concerns over supply chain security, dependence on China, and China’s use of REEs as a political bargaining piece; such as when it cut exports to Japan following the arrest of a Chinese sailor by Japan. Recently, discoveries of REE deposits in Norway and Sweden have made headlines. The discoveries could have the potential to disrupt the market and have far-reaching implications.  

The Russian-Ukrainian war created significant uncertainty in the world’s energy markets and disrupted trade relations between the second-largest energy exporter and the second-largest energy importer. This disruption strongly signals a shift in the global energy supply chains, as indicated in a previous analysis. In the short term, Europe is expected to turn to the Arab Gulf to fill the gap left by the lack of Russian energy products.   However, in the long term, Europe will need to find sources that are highly sustainable, affordable, and less harmful to the environment than oil. This is because petroleum usage is incompatible with the European Green Deal (EGD), which aims to achieve carbon neutrality for the entire European continent by 2050. Furthermore, the EGD seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the mainland by around 55% below 1990 levels by 2030, which is unattainable with continued oil usage.   As a result, Europe will turn to its neighbours, particularly those in North Africa, who possess a variety of energy sources that can help it achieves its objectives and guarantee energy sustainability. Thus, this article explores Europe’s energy requirements and assesses the potential of North Africa’s energy resources to meet these requirements.

The European Union’s position as a leader in sustainability and environmental protection is coming into question with the bloc’s recent programs and policies mainly, the new Farm to Fork strategy and the updated Common Agricultural Policy. On the one hand, the EU faces criticism from non-governmental organizations and scientists regarding the extent to which policies are actually “green” and on the other hand they also face pressures from farmers and cooperatives who are concerned about the implications of policies on farmers and production. Additionally, there is cause for concern about the impact on agricultural production and food security in developing countries. Since contemporary agriculture is not a closed autonomous system, rather one where policy changes create shifts in agrarian markets that ripple across all sectors and throughout the global economy, and Europe has one of the world’s largest agriculture industries, it is imperative to evaluate the current trajectory of green agricultural policies in order to identify if, when and how this will cause a shift in agricultural practices and markets globally. The question is, are Europe’s efforts to make agriculture sustainable genuine or is there a glass ceiling on reforms? And what could this mean for developing countries that are just starting on the sustainability path?

On November 30th, the San Diego police department received approval from supervisors to deploy robots with lethal capabilities in emergency situations, making it the second California city to publicly discuss the use of remote lethal force after Oakland in October 2022. The decision generated immediate backlash which pushed supervisors to put the program on hold following a vote on December 6th.   San Diego and Oakland may have halted the use of “killer robots” for now, but they have been used previously in the United States after Dallas police used a robot to kill a mass shooter in 2016. The mass shooter had already killed five police officers and injured dozens more. The robot was equipped with an explosive, then moved to a wall behind the shooter, then the bombs exploded killing the mass shooter and slightly damaging the robots arm, marking the first usage of a “killer robot” by U.S. law enforcement.   Robots in domestic law enforcement are not unusual in U.S. police departments, and many have operated robots for close to a decade but they have been used to inspect suspicious packages or deliver items during hostage negotiations without risking police officers and until 2016 not for lethal purposes.

June 2022, the European Commission announced granting Ukraine the status of a candidate country to the European Union. Nevertheless, problems concerning Ukraine such as their struggle with their economy and political system, are still on the agenda. Giving the candidacy status to Ukraine has been criticized since Ukraine is still regarded as a weak country and not yet eligible for such a status especially when compared with other European candidates. European accession is granted after an assessment process based on what is known as Copenhagen criteria. European officials have announced that the accession process will be done by the book and merit based. In the same vein, the commission has granted Moldova the same status which is, the same as Ukraine, considered part of Russia’s sphere of influence. Keeping all this in mind, in the light of Russian war in Ukraine, it is a valid question to ask whether Ukraine candidacy is merit based or politicized. Is the fifth enlargement scenario of the accession of incompetent Bulgaria and Romania as a reward for their role in Kosovo war is being repeated with Ukraine? Considering this, the analysis is going to examine why Ukraine was accepted as a candidate. Drawing on European Commission’s reports, it will be discovered which of Copenhagen criteria are fulfilled by Ukraine. Copenhagen Criteria are:   Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities (Political Criteria) A functioning market economy and the ability to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU (Economic Criteria) The ability to take on the obligations of membership, including the capacity to effectively implement the rules, standards and policies that make up the body of EU law (the ‘acquis’), and adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

The United States and Russia have a long and complicated history. The USSR and the United States of America were allies during the Second World War and quickly turned rivals during the Cold War (1947 – 1991). It was throughout this period that the ideological differences between the two superpowers reached its height, with the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) by the United States, and the USSR responding by creating the Warsaw Pact effectively splitting the world between East and West. Despite there being no direct conflict between the United States and USSR, each state would actively participate in proxy wars; where agents supplied by them would engage in hostilities such as in the Chinese Civil War (1944 – 1949), the Korean War (1950 – 1953), the Vietnam War (1955 – 1975), and the Soviet-Afghan War (1979 – 1989).   Furthermore, the United States and USSR would attempt to place weapons within each other’s spheres of influence with the United States doing so in Italy and Turkey in 1961 and the USSR responding by supplying Cuba which ultimately led to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and nearly brought both superpowers to nuclear war. Following the fall of the USSR, the United States was the only remaining superpower and relations between the United States and the newly formed Russian Federation began to improve, however by 1999 that came to an end as NATO further expanded in Eastern Europe with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joining, in 2004 Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined as well, all had been former members of the USSR and were viewed by Russia as part of its sphere of influence.   Since then, United States-Russia relations have been consistently deteriorating with recent significant events being the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 and accusations by the United States that Russia manipulated the 2016 Presidential Election. It is within this context of United States led encroachment into territory that Russia believes culturally and historically should be its own that the Russo-Ukrainian War resumed flowing the invasion of Crimea, below is where we will analyse what the United States has to gain and the legacy the Cold War casts on the Russia-United States relationship.