As part of the NAVI Research Institute interview series, we had the extraordinary privilege of engaging in a captivating conversation with the renowned Belgian economist, academic, and politician, a former Belgian Prime Minister Professor Mark Eyskens, on the scintillating subject of migration.
Director of NAVI Research Institute, Dr. Cihan AYDINER, Deputy Director of NAVI Research Institute, Mr. Ümit Kurt, and Chairman of NAVI, Dr. Sedat Cevikparmak, conducted the interview on 10 August 2023.
This exclusive interview promises to serve as an illuminating prism through which to view the multifarious dimensions of migration. Professor Eyskens’ profound reservoir of knowledge and his dual expertise in both academia and statesmanship converge to offer a unique vantage point from which to navigate the complexities inherent to migration studies.
(As Delivered- Full recorded video)
Sedat Cevikparmak:
Hello, Ladies and Gentlemen and NATO Veterans. It is an honor to welcome you all to this insightful video interview as part of the NATO Veterans Initiative-NAVI Research Institute discussion series.
I’m Dr. Sedat Cevikparmak, the Chairman of the NAVI. And I’m truly delighted to have the distinguished presence of Professor Mark Eyskens with us today. Professor Mark Eyskens is a Belgian politician and esteemed academic and accomplished economist and prolific author. His wealth of experience and expertise makes him an invaluable voice on the pressing issue we’re here to explore: migration.
As we all know, migration is a complex and multifaceted topic that intersects with geopolitics, human rights, economics, and social dynamics. It is an issue that impacts nations, communities, and individuals around the world.
At NAVI, we are committed to fostering meaningful dialogues that transcend boundaries and bring diverse perspectives to the forefront. Our mission is to engage thought leaders, experts, and influencers in discussions that address critical global challenges, and today’s conversation is a testament to that commitment.
Throughout his distinguished career, Professor Mark Eyskens has demonstrated a deep understanding of the complexities of migration and its far-reaching implications. His insights today have the power to illuminate the nuances of this topic, offering us a comprehensive understanding of its causes, consequences, and potential solutions.
I encourage you all to actively engage in this dialogue with your comments and feedback when you watch it. As we delve into the various dimensions of migration and its significance in the contemporary world. Let us embrace this opportunity to gain insights, challenge our perspectives, and collectively contribute to a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities that migration presents.
Dr. Cihan Aydıner, the Director of NAVI Research Institute, and Mr. Umit Kurt, the Deputy Director of NAVI Research Institute, are joining us today to conduct the interview. Without further ado, it is my privilege to introduce Professor Mark Eyskens, who will share his valuable insights and perspectives on the topic of migration. Thank you again for joining us, and I’m confident that this conversation will enrich our understanding and contribute to the global discourse on this critical issue. With that, I will leave the floor to Dr. Cihan Aydıner to start the conversation. Thank you.
Dr. Cihan Aydıner:
Thank you so much, Dr. Cevikparmak, and welcome again, dear Professor Mark Eyskens. I want to talk about migration topic. As you know, migration has become a critical topic, intertwined with security concerns, in the context of global geopolitical dynamics. As an accomplished economist, professor, and politician with a deep understanding of Belgium’s political landscape, we are eager to hear your insights on how migration impacts European security and its relevance to NATO’s agenda. My question is, throughout history, migration has been influenced by various factors, including armed conflicts. Drawing from your personal experiences during World War II, how do you perceive the interplay between security and migration, and how can NATO effectively address security-driven migration challenges in contemporary Europe?
Prof Mark Eyskens:
The link is extremely important and also visible. Migration is indeed, as was said, a complex phenomenon, and today, it has become a global phenomenon. We have to explain to public opinion that migration is one of the fundamental laws of human behavior. You know, humanity started somewhere in the Olduvai Valley between the border of Tanzania and Kenya. There emerged the Homo sapiens 300,000 years ago. And very soon, this small group of human people needed to immigrate to other parts of Africa and later on to all the continents.
I’m a European and I’ve been in the United States many times. I’ve studied there at the best-ranked universities. When I was traveling somewhere in the Middle West in deep America, people asked me, “Where are you from?” I never said I was from Belgium because that’s too small and unknown a country. When I said, “I’m from Brussels,” that was a place my interlocutors knew well, the capital of Europe. I generally added: “I am a European,” and then my interlocutor often said, “You’re a European, then you are a Caucasian.” Because the Americans learn at school that the origin of the Europeans is the Caucasus, in near Asia, so they are Caucasians.
Indeed, most Europeans, thanks to their ancestors, emigrated from Caucasia to Europe. So, we are all emigrants, and we are all immigrants, but it’s very difficult today to convince public opinion of that truth.
And of course, today, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the enlargement of the European Union, and the integration of 27 member States, Europe has become an open space and people are moving worldwide. “The world is our village”. Although still, many people prefer that their village remains their world.
We have, as far as Europe is concerned today, to make a distinction between Europeans moving within the European Union from other member States and people coming from outside Europe, for instance, from Africa and from other parts of the world, from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Asia, and so on.
And the truth is that immigration has become a strategic weapon in international power politics and in the hands of big powers. And then I look at Africa. In Africa, the population is exploding. There are two billion people living in Africa today, and fifty years from now, it will be four billion. If, in the meantime, climate heating continues and the desertification of agriculture, and there is general famine, what will happen to all these poor people? They will move to the north because they think that Europe is still an Eldorado, a paradise with a mild climate and with large social allowances. So, there will be massive immigration from Africa to Europe. What will we do?
First, it’s my opinion that some countries in the world, and I will call them by their name, like Russia and also China, will promote that kind of immigration of African people to Europe because they know there will be an invasion by migrants of Europe that could be the cause of disruption of the European Society and completely disturb and even threaten Europe with its disappearance as a civilization. In case of such a massive immigration in Europe by Africans, not only 20,000 or 30,000 but 300,000 a month and millions a year, what will we then do as Europeans? And how will our democracies react?
Extreme rightist, nationalist opinion makers will say, “No, that’s impossible. It’s totally unacceptable. And what to do if you can’t stop them? Well, then, we just shoot at them. We will sink the boats that bring the poor people from the coast of northern Africa to the South Coast of Europe. It is clear that such a dramatic evolution could create a totally disruptive situation in Europe.
Hence, it’s of the utmost urgency to think about solutions. The first challenge to take into consideration is the observation that there is a major essential link between the management and the monitoring of immigration, mainly from Africa on the one hand and the solution of climate change on the other.
After all, we’re lucky in Europe, at least the European-minded people, that Mr. Frans Timmermans, the Vice President of the European Commission, launched his Green Deal aiming at mastering the heating of the climate and its consequences. These proposals have been largely accepted also by the European Parliament, which has still to realize all this by voting appropriate legislation. But my personal feeling is that there was one big chapter not even opened in the Green Deal of Timmermans.
That’s a plan about Africa and an African climate policy, a policy needed to stop huge potential immigration from Africans to Europe. But how to do that? and when? Evidently, by applying the Green Deal and limiting the heating of the earth in Africa as a major priority, and by making the Africans participate in all the new technologies of mastering climate heating. And secondly, of course, by promoting investments in Africa in such a way that they guarantee economic and high-tech development and, as a consequence, improved standards of living, which should demotivate emigration. Food, water, elementary comfort, and elementary needs should be better taken care of in a deal whereby also Europe could get some advantages in terms of the import of essential strategic raw materials and products we need today, particularly in the development of high technology. But thanks to fair deals with the African authorities taken into account the respect of essential human rights.
I’ve studied the original Charter of the United Nations, adopted in 1946. In that charter, there is a very nice chapter called “trusteeship” that was used after the war. As a consequence, Belgium was confirmed in his trusteeship over two ex-German colonies, Rwanda and Burundi. And the Belgians developed these two countries with the support of local leaders. Of course, today, you can no longer speak about trusteeship. This term has a colonial meaning, but one can propose a new type of “partnership,” a partnership aiming at indeed realizing a new kind of Green Deal with a major input of strategic investments. We should try to promote this idea in Europe and consider the Green Deal of Mr. Frans Timmermans just one big chapter, followed by another important chapter about the “green” development of Africa, stressing the importance of a Green Deal in favor of the African population.
Dr. Cihan Aydıner:
Thanks so much for your insights. I want to turn back to Mr. Ümit Kurt and continue with this topic and policies.
Mr. Ümit Kurt:
Thank you, Prof Eyskens, with your exceptional background, including your tenure as the Prime Minister of Belgium in 1981, uniquely positions you to comment on the evolution of migration policies and their impact on European societies. As the 2024 EU elections approach, migration remains a key topic, with potential ramifications for Europe’s stability and cohesion. My question is that over the years, migration management has been a complex issue for European countries and institutions. How do you assess the role of Frontex in mitigating security risks posed by irregular migration, and what improvements do you believe are necessary to enhance its effectiveness in safeguarding Europe’s borders?
Prof Mark Eyskens:
The merit of Frontex is to exist, but of course, it’s not an ideal structure. There are many loopholes in the European border, I must say. And an efficient control of these borders, particularly in the Mediterranean, would require a Frontex with the importance of a big army. It would be also very expensive. So, when has tried to support Frontex with other policies and measures which have been original, sometimes successful, but sometimes failed painfully? The idea was to convince countries around Europe, on the border of Europe, to welcome migrants coming from North Africa or Asia.
And the first country with which the European Union concluded an important agreement was Turkey. The accord implied a big amount of money paid by the EU and an important number of refugees. The Turkish government installed these people in camps, waiting for future solutions. The formula succeeded rather well unless some abuses. But it was worthwhile to try it with Turkey. I don’t say it was perfect, but it’s more a success than a failure. Another important try was very recently made with Tunisia. And there occurred a big failure because the agreement was not sufficiently precise and because it was not a real partnership.
We had also, as Europeans, of course, to insist on the respect of human rights and the control of them. But the implementation was not guaranteed. So, if we continue to negotiate such agreements of hosting migrants with third countries outside the EU in Northern Africa or in the Middle East, we have to introduce in the agreement a mechanism of controlling the way human rights are respected.
As a European Union, we cannot sacrifice our essential values to just material interests. So, we have to clarify that requirement during the negotiations with non-European countries, and we have also to be ready to pay the hosting countries for these guarantees.
We have to continue our efforts also within Europe to solve the immigration issue in a humane way, taking into account also the economic benefits of immigrants being integrated into the labor market. When speaking about migration and solidarity, however, immediately sharp differences of opinion occur and voters in the democratic 27 EU countries react easily in a protectionist way. In Flanders for instance, we have a rightist Nationalist Party which is propagating the slogan: “Our own People First,” and many people walking in our streets, if questioned, will answer, “Well, of course, it is quite normal that our people come first; like our family, our friends, our colleagues, the citizens of our city and of our country and our nation.
And there is a former president in the United States preaching from everywhere “America first” protectionism collective egoism. This is an absolutely counterproductive approach if you want an efficient, democratic, and balanced solution of the problems caused by Globalism and unfair competition. Democracies today show their vulnerability when voters give credit to their Darwinian instincts like egoism, aggressivity, nationalism, even war. Then, helping poor people is no longer their business. It is rather worrying. If we look at the political map in many countries, there is a tendency towards the right and extreme right, also on the theme of migration. And the most worrying for me is today, what’s happening in Germany. Germany, firstly, has some economic problems that are very serious, and secondly, indeed, the extreme rightist party, Alternative Fur Deutschland -AFD – according to the opinion polls, is making spectacular progress. And, in this country, while we all know what happened there in the 30s of the previous century, this is indeed worrisome now, the more we have actually the same tendency in Italy, Poland, Hungary, and also in France. Many observers are saying that Madame Marine Le Pen will be the next president. And also in Belgium, rightist parties seem successful, where the nationalists are moreover in favor of Flemish autonomy and propose to split Belgium after the next elections or at least in a few decades.
So, the whole problem of immigration, which is a fundamental problem, has to do with civilization, has to do with morality, and values, is exploited in the most vulgar way by demagogues who are threatening democracy.
Dr. Sedat Cevikparmak:
Well said, Prof Eyskens. Right now, I would like to turn our attention to the upcoming elections, the 2024 EU elections. How do you foresee the election outcomes affecting the migration policies in Europe? And also, the second part of my question is about how you think NATO should react.
Prof Mark Eyskens:
This is a very important question. I’m convinced that NATO should not only maintain its military power and all its other capacities and, of course, the possible call on Article 5. And that solidarity among members is very important. NATO should also spread messages involving the expression of societal values.
Military power is not the only a force that can stabilize modern societies and promote peace, but it’s complementary with other values. And indeed, why should NATO not tackle the immigration issue for reasons of common security and even propose some solutions in terms of integrating immigrants in some armies? And by doing so, opening the labour market for immigrants. Because this is the economic aspect and also the solution of the whole problem. When you look at the labor markets in Europe in most countries, there’s an extreme shortage on the supply side of labor forces. At the same time in most European countries, there exists a situation of zero unemployment. Notwithstanding all kinds of problems and difficulties, we are in a period of unemployment zero, if not a negative.
So, this is an opportunity to insert so-called economic migrants in the labour market but also political and climate migrants, capable of being integrated in the economic process.
This, of course, implies an efficient and coordinated policy in the 27 members of the European Union. Migrants have to be educated. They have to learn the language. They also have to handle new technologies, particularly in the field of information and communication technologies (ICT). This will increase the opportunity for migrants of being usefully employed even in the army, provided, of course, that strategic confidentiality and cybersecurity remain protected. Jobs within a modern army have no longer in the first place to do with the use of arms and learning to shoot. A lot of military tasks concern the maintenance, administration, information, surveillance…
NATO could indeed propose elements to the solution of the migration issue. NATO could also play a big role in making Frontex more efficient and more powerful and efficient thanks to intelligence and modern means of management and organization.
Migrants should, from their side, realize that they have to make a big effort of integration in their hosting country, while responsible people in the hosting country should understand that integration does not mean assimilation. Cultural differences between allochthones and autochthones should be respected as long as they do not violate the constitutional principles of the hosting country.
Dr. Cihan Aydıner:
Prof Eyskens, I want to talk about some leading migration scholars like Stephen Castles highlight how Western democracies sometimes collaborate with autocratic regimes to manage migration. These relations are raising questions about the prioritization of short-term interests over human rights and broader historical contexts. Given your expertise, could you share your perspective on why Western policymakers adopt this approach and allow autocratic regimes to weaponize migration?
Prof Mark Eyskens:
Well, it’s a fact that, indeed, autocratic regimes weaponize migration. They use it as a means of pressure against the United States and Europe by organizing floods of migrations in Europe and in the United States, hoping that this will become absolutely unbearable and that it will weaken even destroy our democracies. This is indeed a grave danger. That is why we negotiate agreements with governments outside the Union that are not perfect democracies. They may even be autocracies.
But if you only talk today with countries that are pure democratic regimes, then of course you have, I think, to put question marks behind the names of many members of the United Nations, except 50 or 60 countries out of 192. Let us hope that the idea of democracy will develop and evolve throughout the world and make the world better. Being realistic, I think that democracy miraculously introduced in a country like China or even in countries like India will always be quite different from what democracy is in a country like Belgium or the Netherlands, or the other European states. And by consequence, we have to take into consideration the diversity of the practical organisation of democracies but always in the framework of the essential respect of basic human rights. We have to stick to the basic universal human values. Otherwise, we will not only lose our faces but also ourselves.
Mr. Ümit Kurt:
I want to continue with the same topic. The first question is on the article released by Financial Times, titled “Courting Middle Eastern autocrats won’t solve Europe’s refugee crisis” by Kim Ghattas two days ago. In this article, it’s very clearly mentioned that the autocratic regimes will not serve in favor of the European Union, even though the European Union’s ‘cash for migrant’ control policy, and also being blind to the so-called autocratic regimes’ all kinds of human rights abuses in their country. From that point, is there any other way from the cash for migrant control for the European Union to deal with the migration crisis, or is this the only way the European Union has?
Prof Mark Eyskens:
Some say that negotiating a separate agreement about migration with more or less autocratic regimes produces very unreliable and unstable results. As I said before, we should introduce in a possible agreement about migration with third countries an elaborated chapter for the treatment of migration and migrants in a much broader framework that should be called a partnership of a new type, a bit in the modernized logic of what was considered as a trusteeship in the original Charter of the United Nations (1946 chapter XII).
When democratic countries today treat migration separately, they unavoidably provoke in parts of their public opinion very sharp opposing reactions, “our people first” claims, nationalist demands, and even xenophobic and racist attitudes. Such kinds of hostile reactions may also prevail in the hosting countries outside Europe. On the contrary, when migration becomes a chapter in a much broader agreement, then it could be better integrated in the policy of the hosting country and of the European countries by making also a mutual cost-benefit analysis of the measures proposed. It is evident that for the member states of the European Union, the main responsibility and initiative remain with the European Commission and the European Council.
Most important, of course, is the choice of the potential hosting countries. In the past, the European Union negotiated hosting agreements for migrants with countries of northern Africa, particularly Libya, and of course, Turkey and, more recently, Tunisia. Turkey is a good partner because Turkey is an important country, a member of NATO, and is playing an influential role on the diplomatic playing field, also occasionally as a mediator between countries having conflicting interests or even being at war, like Russia and Ukraine. So, this is an asset, and Turkey is playing the role of a bridge.
But it is clear that in the world today, the global world has become our village. We have to think of a review of the functioning of the United Nations. António Guterres is a very good secretary-general. He makes nice speeches, but it always remains a bit theoretical and too basically, if not romantic. Where are the acts of the UN, the highest international institution? The Charter of the UN is passé on a lot of issues, as the French say, and overwhelmed by the rude reality of the worldwide power politics of today. The United Nations Security Council is a purely political council and, moreover, politicized in terms of national and nationalist power games. It would be most appropriate to introduce in the decision-making process of the United Nations Security Council also basic economics challenges, because economic policy is also an element in international strategy. Weapons are important, but also economic sanctions, trade relations, and the exchange of high technology are more and more on the international agenda.
For instance, the question: “Where are we going to produce the chips of the future?”. It was announced recently that Taiwan is going to make a huge investment in Germany for the production of microelectronic circuits. Bravo for the Germans, but what in the other countries and continents? How to promote economic wealth and social welfare based on equitable access to tech progress?
The time has come to rethink what was structured just after the Second World War in order to maintain peace throughout the world and promote sufficient welfare. One of the major obstacles to guarantee and efficient decision-making process is the rule of unanimity that is required in the United Nations Security Council for each decision. It is time to enlarge the number of members of states around the table of the Security Council and to introduce a qualified majority voting system or QMV. This is already progressively and very carefully realized in the European Council.
Unanimity is no longer required for all items in the European Council, and that is an important progress that should be enlarged. But within the United Nations Security Council, nothing is moving, and in many issues, veto rights are blocking any solution. It’s often the same representatives of Russia and/or China that cast the same veto vote. The use of veto rights in the UN Security Council has become destructive to the efficiency, credibility, and image of the UN.
Mr. Ümit Kurt:
Thank you very much. Let’s talk a little bit about the EU’s efforts on the new proposed act about migration and asylum. Hosting immigrants is an increasingly divisive issue in the Bloc since 2015. And today, the proposed legislation concerning the distribution of responsibilities toward migrants and refugees, in which EU diplomats anticipate agreement with the European Parliament by February 2024, is set to coincide with the 2024 elections.
The EU’s new pact on migration and asylum, as defined by the Commission, have established regulations and policies that foster a fair, efficient, and a sustainable migration and asylum process within the Union and The Pact, proposed in September 2020 as you remember, is designed to manage and normalize migration for the long term, providing certainty, clarity, and decent conditions for people arriving in the EU. My question is regarding this effort on hosting immigrants, what is your assessment of the proposed legislation’s potential to address the “refugee crisis,” as we named it, especially as it focuses on migrants and asylum seekers who have already arrived in Europe?
Prof Mark Eyskens:
I think that the approach of the European Commission and the European Parliament is constructive but insufficient. Moreover, within the European Parliament, there are also parties that represent extreme tendencies against migration. To make well organized immigration acceptable for many voters in the European Union, politicians should explain to them that well-organized immigration is also in the interest of the citizens. As I already underlined, there is a fundamental shortage in the labor market in each country of Europe. So, we need migrants as members of the active population, and we can prove by statistics that the migrants who are integrated in a country like Belgium do work and add each year 1.5 billion € to GDP. That argument is convincing for many people as soon as it is tabled in the democratic debate. So, the more migrants you integrate in the labor market, the better your economy is doing. Moreover, migrants are human beings. We have to ask them to get integrated by leaning the local languages, to learn a job, acquire professional formation, and so on. However, that’s more and more difficult given the progress of high technologies. Integration by migrants is necessary, but we shouldn’t require them to assimilate. There is a difference between integration and assimilation. Assimilation means that you ask from these people; “come to Belgium and become the same kind of people as the Belgians are.” That’s a bridge too far. Migrants may stay culturally as Turks, Moroccans, Indians, Pakistanis, and so on. They should be allowed to practice their religions, provided their behavior and social attitude are not in contradiction with the constitutional principles of the country where they are, adding that we have basic respect for migrants. They may stay as they are, provided they succeed in combining this with integration.
European countries are confronted with the aging of their population and the financing of the pensions of a growing part of their citizens. Fundamental social responsibility of democratic governments requires sufficient economic growth and a capable and dynamic active population. So, young migrants who integrate in Belgium, can stay here and make a career with their families. Attractive also is the fact that we have in a country like Belgium a system of Social Security that guarantees elementary standards of living for the families with children. Which of course is also very important for migrants. But this doesn’t mean that Europe should be considered as a kind of social paradise where you can live in great comfort without any effort.
In fact, this is the only honest, positive message towards migrants, who have often been exploited financially and even physically by people smugglers. If they arrive in Europe and are confronted with a hostile atmosphere where they were expecting exactly the contrary, then, of course, psychologically, they will have difficulties integrating into European society and the labor market.
Dr. Sedat Cevikparmak:
As our final question, Professor Eyskens, I would like to bring out the issue of the America and Europe dichotomy in terms of migration. As NATO Veterans Initiative – NAVI is based both in Europe and in the United States and one of the things that we’re trying to achieve when we think about any topic is that we want to bring out the best in Europe and America and provide a platform where we can also think and talk about policy differences. NAVI is very unique in this regard, I believe. The types of migration and the risks and opportunities that both continents face are quite different, right? So, the United States in one hand secluded from hotbed geographies around the globe by oceans. But then, it has its own peculiar type of migration from central and south America. But then Europe is just a different story. And we’re allies. And how do you think the United States policy helping or not helping Europe in their effort to manage migration and vice versa? How is Europe helping or not helping the United States in that regard?
Prof Mark Eyskens:
The immigration in the United States is quite different from immigration in Europe. And this in many different aspects. The American migration policy, apparently more focused on containment then on integration, illustrated by the building of a kind of Iron Curtain along the border between the South of the American States and Mexico, could inspire some rightist parties in Europe. Applied to Europe, this American way of coping with immigration, seems not very accurate, not efficient as far as the working of the European labour market is concerned, and not without a caveat from a moral point of view. It seems not to be the exact way to find structural solutions to the European migration challenge.
Of course, this reservation by Europeans with respect of the American migration policy has nothing to do with a fundamental criticism about the long-term policy of Europe’s most friendly nation and ally, the US. Our criticism is focused on the specific policy during the presidency of President Donald Trump. At least, I say that this way of governing is not the European style and not even compatible with basic European societal morality. What was more inspiring for Europe was not the recent American policy, but a much more sided example, namely Australia or even New Zealand. But these experiments are so geographically remote and the conditions so different from the European situation that their application to the European case appears to be rather theoretical.
I’m in favor of a typically European approach that takes into account the interests of Europe, the interests of our labor market, the interest of what is bearable for public opinion but also the interest of the migrants and their right to be treated as human beings.
Dr Cihan Aydıner:
Thank you so much, Professor Eyskens. Your wealth of knowledge and experience has provided us with invaluable insight allowing us to see immigration not only as a contemporary challenge, but as an intricate part of our shared human story. Your reflection on economic, cultural and political dimensions of immigration have also shed light on the multifarious effects it has on societies, both receiving and sending societies.
As we conclude this interview, it’s our hope that the perspectives shared today will inspire further dialogue, critical thinking, and compassionate action in the complexities of immigration in our world. Thank you once again for your participation and we look forward to continuing these meaningful conversations that shape our understanding of the diverse and connected world we live in. Thanks so much.
Prof Mark Eyskens:
Thank you very much. For me, this discussion was a privilege and an occasion to underline how important the link and the bridge with the United States and NATO are for Europe. NATO is much more than a historical alliance. It is a human alliance, and we have to reinforce that alliance and to stick together. Particularly since peace has been violated by invasive war in a country like Ukraine, a very close and still closer neighbor of the European Union. Thank you very much for the opportunity for me to express my opinion and accept my admiration for what you are doing. Thank you very much for the opportunity for me to express my personal opinion. Good luck and success.
The NAVI Research Institute is the research division of NATO Veterans Initiative - NAVI that provides a unique perspective to transatlantic leaders and societies on peace and security through the lens of NATO's founding principles of rule of law, democracy, human rights, and individual liberties. The NAVI Research Institute was officially established by the NAVI Board on July 16th, 2023.
