Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi)

#REUNIR2024UNWRAPPED 📌 As 2024 draws to a close, we invite you to explore the analyses and research from REUNIR. This holiday season, unwrap our working papers and op-eds, offering in-depth perspectives and opinions on challenges to the security, the economy and democracy of the EU’s candidate countries in the Western Balkans and the eastern neighbourhood.  Read and find out more here:  https://lnkd.in/d8b9n4FK HAPPY HOLIDAYS! WARMEST WISHES FOR A BRIGHT 2025 🎄 The REUNIR Team Georgian Institute of Politics (GIP) CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies) International Centre for Defence and Security (ICDS) Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) Maastricht University University of Graz Belgrade Centre for Security Policy School for Policy Analysis NaUKMA Analysis NaUKMA European Commission IPRE - Institutul pentru Politici și Reforme Europene Université Sorbonne Nouvelle College of Europe College of Europe in Natolin REDEMOS Horizon Europe Project #REUNIRNewsletter

With Donald Trump’s inauguration around the corner, it’s time to take stock of the Biden administration's track record on Critical and Emerging Technologies (#CET) — think semiconductors, biotech, clean energy technologies, and more. In a new case study, GPPi’s Florian Klumpp & Jakob Hensing demonstrate that the Biden government worked hard to promote American CET, both by trying to stimulate domestic innovation and through protectionist policies aimed at keeping US tech out of China’s reach. The goals? To extend the US technology edge over China and, crucially, to strengthen US national security through tech policy. How did that go? Some key takeaways: 🔹 Overall, the measures did what they were designed to do: increase the American tech lead on China. But the effort was extremely costly. 🔹 Critics of the Biden-Sullivan agenda warned that the protectionist measures would prove self-defeating. But Jakob and Florian found that “from a US national security perspective, a version of the Biden administration’s strategy is fundamentally justifiable.” 🔹 With techno-nationalist tensions between the US and China on the rise (and likely to grow further under Trump 2.0), we should expect a split in the tech world: both the US and China will develop their own, protected technology. 🔹 Where does that leave Europe? Theoretically, the US could try to force European countries to cooperate. But voluntary buy-in would be a more reliable and sustainable path to safeguarding US security and prosperity. Interested in more? Find the full case study at: https://lnkd.in/drmM8HtF

📣 New publication: “As Large of a Lead as Possible”? Taking Stock of the Biden Administration’s Agenda on Critical and Emerging Technologies It is not easy to keep up with everything being written on the intersection of technology, power and security, and to get a clear sense of some basic assessments amid the multitude of angles and data points. That is why Florian Klumpp and I have written up a case study on the Biden Administration's agenda in this area, in which we try to bring various ongoing strands of debate into a coherent structure and to systematically take stock of the agenda’s achievements and challenges. Some key take-aways:   ▶️ The Biden administration’s overarching CET agenda is best characterized by the slogan “as large of a lead as possible” rather than by “small yard, high fence” or other familiar adages on the topic. A central driver of the agenda has been the urgency of containing China’s tech-enabled military modernization, fused with an aspiration to safeguard long-term prosperity for the American middle class. ▶️On balance, the concrete measures adopted have fulfilled their stated purpose of widening the US lead on relevant technologies over China. However, the effort was very costly, both in terms of direct outlay costs from measures to ‘promote’ accelerated technological progress in the US and in terms of the collateral economic damage caused by efforts to ‘protect’ US capabilities from leakage to adversaries. ▶️The costs and side-effects of ‘protect’ measures were strongly exacerbated by their increasingly expansive application after initial steps did not prove as effective as hoped. Despite the frequent commitment to ‘derisking’ rather than ‘decoupling’, current dynamics between China and the US are likely to result in a far-reaching bifurcation of the global technology stack. ▶️This bifurcation would entail the loss of some forms of US leverage over China in the future, a clear strategic drawback from an American perspective. Still, given the very strong home-grown Chinese push to reduce dependencies and exposure to US measures, prioritizing outright technological supremacy can be considered a fundamentally reasonable strategy to protect national security from a US perspective. ▶️In a scenario of far-reaching technology decoupling, the US may be able to force many countries, notably in Europe, into alignment. However, fostering voluntary acquiescence and buy-in by advancing a positive vision of a global technology order that better leverages cooperation among partners would offer a less abrasive and more reliable path to safeguarding US security and prosperity. While unlikely under the new Trump administration, this is the approach that both domestic stakeholders and America’s international partners should push for.

Guten (very early) Rutsch🥂! The GPPi presses will be standing still until 2025. Sliding into your inboxes one last time, with our final newsletter for 2024. Among other updates, it features our recent work on: ◾ Critical and emerging technologies (CET): Florian Klumpp & Jakob Hensing took stock of the Biden administration’s track record on CET. How effective were these measures in promoting and protecting American tech, specifically vis-à-vis China? ◾ Migration: Mere hours after the fall of the Assad regime, German politicians started a heated-but-misguided debate on a potential return of Syrian refugees. What would a good return policy really look like? Julian M. Lehmann advises: Focus on promoting development and stability in Syria post-Assad. ◾ Russia's war against Ukraine: 18 percent of Ukrainian territory is currently occupied by Russia. What does everyday life in these areas look like? As Julia Friedrich & Polina L. explain, Moscow's occupation practice entails far more than just a change of flags and passports -- it comes at a human cost. For more, read the full issue: https://lnkd.in/gRMGgeMd And if you haven’t yet already, subscribe to the newsletter here: https://lnkd.in/dtpiXSNG And with that, we’re signing off for the year. See you in 2025!

In need of a last-minute boost of motivation to get you through 2024? Why not pause for a round of GPPi’s very own version of “Chutes & Ladders” — called “Breakthroughs & Backslides” — where you must, with time against you: 🌳 Traverse the Forest of Unfinished Tasks 🦇 Escape the Cave of 3-PM-Darkness 🌋 Avoid — at all cost! — a plunge into Mt. Doom(Scrolling) … among other fun adventures! Wishing you good luck & all the best for the coming year! P.s. See you on the other side… 👋😈

"Biotechnology, Security, and Sovereignty: Strategic Priorities for Germany and the EU" was the title of the final discussion round in 2024 that we hosted as part of our Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) project on Critical & Emerging Technologies. Many thanks to Velislava Petrova, PhD of the Centre for Future Generations (CFG) and Philipp Heuermann of Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc. for excellent inputs, as well as to participants from various ministries, MP and parliamentary faction offices, industry, science, and think tanks for many valuable contributions to the subsequent discussion moderated by Florian Klumpp. Of the technology fields usually discussed as "critical" with regard to national security and global power politics, biotech stands out in terms of the sophistication of some longstanding strands of discussion (for example, on biosecurity and biosafety), but also in terms of relative lack of a broad-based strategic debate that really connects the dots and translates into coherent policy action. Looking forward to continuing our work on this next year. Thanks also to the Auswärtiges Amt (Federal Foreign Office) Germany for funding this project, and to the Leibniz Association for allowing us to use their beautiful conference room.

Only days after the fall of the Assad regime in #Syria, Germany's conservative CDU/CSU party called for a plan regarding the return of Syrian refugees who have made Germany their new home. GPPi’s Julian M. Lehmann recently weighed in on this ‘Rückkehr-Debatte’. 📢 He argues that the German debate is coming at the issue from the wrong angle: Germany’s primary interest is to ensure Syria’s stability and development, not promoting Syrians' swift return. Julian also points out that a sudden increase in returns could even have a destabilizing effect on Syria, given how dependent the country is on aid. Before anything else, the German government and its partners should open lines of communication with the leadership of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) militia to improve the delivery of humanitarian aid and explore how outside partners can support Syrians in rebuilding their country. A thoughtful return policy, on the other hand, could bolster Syria's economic and political stability long term. In order for that to happen, the German government should continue to facilitate Syrian labor integration here in Germany as well as in neighboring countries like Jordan and Türkiye (who have taken in large numbers of Syrians since 2015). The goal here would be to promote both skills and money transfers, through migrants returning voluntarily or sending money back home. 👉 Read more: https://lnkd.in/eXZgcCzr

🎙️ What might #Syria look like when the dust settles? On The Times "World in 10" podcast, GPPi's Tobias Schneider told Toby Gilles that the Assad regime's breathtakingly fast collapse does not mean the country is suddenly at peace. The armed factions that have taken over, Tobias explains, are as divided among themselves as they were at odds with the Syrian government — and it's not at all clear that former loyalist groups are willing to "just melt away into the background." Other key dynamics to watch according to Tobias: ▪️ In a country that is as diverse as Syria, the biggest hope for a peaceful future is inclusivity. For the moment, HTS has taken most of the reins of power; but if the rebels don’t relinquish at least some of it, resentment among the different strata of Syrian society will grow. ▪️ There are many tough choices ahead. After almost 14 years of civil war, all the key players are known and have contacts to outside actors. The biggest challenge will be to resolve competing material interests, many of which fall along geopolitical faultlines that run through Syria. ▪️ So far, the transition has been a Syrian process — a blessing for the country. We should expect many attempts by outside actors to exert influence, but at the end of the day, a new governing model will have to be sorted out by Syrians. ▪️ Against this backdrop, Donald Trump's call for the US to stay away from the situation "may even be the most sensible foreign policy that any US administration has had in a long time." Tune into the full episode here: https://lnkd.in/dKYVndnK

🗓️ EVENT | Ideas of Energy #3: "Energy and War & Peace" How has #energy shaped the international order? What do the current conflicts with Russia and in the Middle East mean for Germany's energy sovereignty and security? What geopolitical dynamics arise in the process of decarbonization? For a deep dive into these questions and more, join us for an evening with Helen Thompson (University of Cambridge), who will discuss the political economy of energy in a turbulent world. ⚡ When: January 16, 2025 from 19:00 (CET) ⚡ Where: Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) ⚡ What: Talk and discussion, followed by a reception The event will take place in English. To attend, please register here: https://lnkd.in/ePH4N-iv Ideas of... is a joint talk series by GPPi, the Freigeist Research Group at Freie Universität Berlin, and Dezernat Zukunft - Institut für Makrofinanzen. ### Andrea Binder, PhD Jakob Hensing Katharina Nachbar Max Krahé

After the collapse of the Assad regime, now is the time for Europe to help rebuild and stabilize the new #Syria, GPPi's Tobias Schneider told stern. Doing so would be in Europe's interest, too — and even limited support could go a long way, according to Tobias: "Syria is a desperately poor country. We could do a lot with relatively little money.” At the same time, he explains, it's important to remain clear-eyed about the wider geopolitical context: “Syria remains at the center of a conflict that is being fought on multiple fronts. That is not over just because Bashar al-Assad is gone.” ➡️ Read the full piece (in German): https://lnkd.in/dt3fc8B3