Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship's Senior Associate Karl Kaiser shares his perspective on the effect of the current Brexit negotiations on Europe's role in the world in the recent issue of Metro UN.

On the occasion of the inaugural Transatlantic Conference organized by the Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship in Madrid and Segovia in July 2018, King Philip VI of Spain awarded the Spanish Order of Merit to Pierre Keller and Karl Kaiser for their services to European and transatlantic cooperation.

Ever since this group of states became more than a handy acronym about a decade ago, the question whether the partial common interests or the striking differences among them will ultimately prevail has been posed and though it remains open, contemporary trends in international politics have, in fact, given the group new impetus, at least for the time being.

In an op-ed, Karl Kaiser makes the case for why Latin America should feature more heavily in the leading journals of international politics.

Europeans share the world-wide relief that after apocalyptic threats of war the Singapore summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un has dramatically lowered tensions on the Korean Peninsula and thus for the time being avoided a conflict that would have horrible consequences for Koreans, Japanese and Americans, indeed for the entire world. Diplomacy is back and both sides are now committed to negotiations toward an agreement on peace and the denuclearization of North Korea.

Nonetheless, the summit has caused a triple shock in Europe.

Observing the US' global role under President Donald Trump, one is inclined to describe being in this era as "present at the destruction."

At a time of questions about Europe’s unity, security, and prosperity—and about the commitment of the United States to its relationship with NATO and the European Union—the Belfer Center has launched a new Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship to reinvigorate a continental bond that has anchored global order, provided peace and stability, and fueled economic expansion for seven decades.

As a centuries-old state approach to affect the behavior of other states, sanctions have been and are likely to remain controversial for basically two reasons: They often do not have the desired effect on government behavior or they can badly hurt civilians. But as an alternative to the devastation of modern warfare, let alone the horrors of nuclear war, sanctions have a well deserved place in the tool box of diplomacy.

The West’s relationship with Russia has for a long time been and will continue to be a crucial determinant of global politics and stability regardless of internal divisions within the West that have always existed but which have increased in the wake of growing populism everywhere and the Trump Administration’s challenges to multilateral agreements. Nevertheless, reacting to Russian violations of international norms in recent years Western countries have repeatedly acted in unison imposing severe sanctions on Russia or stepping up their defense through NATO.

The war in Syria is the vortex of roughly three crisscrossing conflict fronts.  The origin and the center is the conflict between the Assad-government and the national opposition - enlarged regionally by Iran, Hezbollah and fighters from Pakistan and Afghanistan supporting the government while Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia support the opposition in a sort of Shia-Sunni confrontation. This conflict front has been enlarged geopolitically by the United States supporting the opposition and Russia the Assad-government, indeed, using the conflict to implant herself as a major actor the Middle East.