RETHINKING RUSSIAN MISSION IN SYRIA
Since the collapse of the USSR, Syria has remained to be center of Russian Middle East foreign policy regarding its economic and political ties. As a result of the Arab Spring, the Syrian regime and President Assad has shaken with the unrestrained uprisings and western sanctions and eventually crisis turned into a fierce civil war. From the inauguration of the crisis Russia has never altered its political view on Syria even though there were expectations to the contrary. Moscow officially remained calling for “No military intervention against Syria” and that’s why three times vetoed US resolutions concerning widening sanctions or allowing multilateral military operations. However, Russia claims that Moscow is not protective of Syrian regime or Assad instead prevents Syria to fall into a long-term civil war. On the other hand, Syria is one of the most crucial arms importer of Russia and hosting Russian naval base on its Mediterranean coast. In this paper it is aimed to analyze the Russian stable and consistent foreign policy on Syria and its reasons as well as latest Russian and US rising tensions.
Syria and the Doctrine of Arab Neutralism: From Independence to Dependence
Introduction - Neutralism in Retrospect: Definitions and Paradigms Syria's Road to Independence: The Emergence of Pragmatic/Calculative Nationalist Neutralism The Rise of 'Anti-Western Neutralism' in Post-Mandatory Syria Neutralism in Practice: Syria and the Consolidation of the Arab-Asian Group Communism, Syria, and Neutralist Trends Syria's Rival Schools of Neutralism and the Road to Union Nasserite 'Positive Neutralism' and the United Arab Republic Conclusion - The Rise of the Neo-Ba'th and the Gradual Demise of Neutralism Appendix - Modes of Practised Arab Neutralism Index.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.