The Conclusion presents a summary of the main points covered in the book, putting the emphasis on the defining characteristics of the post-2013 context. These are the fact that the Brotherhood has grown increasingly fragmented along strategic, ideological and organisational lines. The movement faces several challenges while trying to rebuild in exile, yet, some of the main questions that it needs to address are what kind of organisation it wants to be moving forward, and whether or not its leaders are willing to renegotiate the relationship between the movement and its members in order to maximise survival and resilience.
Chapter 5 looks at the main demands that members are advancing in the post-2013 era and outlines the current splits that are dividing the Brotherhood. It shows that, while there is a collective commitment to the movement’s survival, there is a growing disconnect between those who aspire to just that and those who instead want the movement to thrive despite the current circumstances. It traces ongoing debates over what kind of organisation the Brotherhood should be, moving forward, showing that questions regarding the balance of political and preaching activities have once again taken centre stage. It also offers an initial assessment of the current factions that have formed within the movement in exile. Overall, while the Historical Leadership remains in control of the movement, the vocal demands for new inclusive and democratic values are definitely growing among members in exile. While it is too early to speculate on whether or not real ideological and structural changes will be achieved, some degree of internal change is already underway.
The recent decline in EU–LAC trade exchange and development co-operation occurred parallel to an increasing weakness of political dialogue forums. The three elements trade, development co-operation and political dialogue between the EU and Latin America followed the EU foreign policy doctrine of inter-regionalism, a group-to-group relationship between two integrated blocs. This “triangle model” came under stress from the backlash of globalisation and regionalism, and the emergence of external actors like China or India to the detriment of traditional partners like the US and the EU. To reactivate relations, the EU and Latin America should reduce political co-operation to those issues that are of real mutual interest and inter-regional convergence like drugs or climate policies. At the same time the “one size fits it all” approach does not work in a deeply divided region in terms of development, size, political ideology and external partners.
This chapter explores the practices and institutions that have allowed the EU–Mexico relationship to increase the political and economic interconnections between the countries since the early 1990s. After both parties negotiated the 1997 Global Agreement, the first of its kind between the EU and a Latin American country, the bilateral relationship has been characterised by a convergence of public policy visions, which has benefited both parties to address the shifts in the international order since the late 2000s: the 2008 financial crises, the rise of China in global trade, the technological revolution and questions about the durability of US global leadership. In order to face such a context, the EU and Mexico agreed to modernise the GA in 2016 and conclude negotiations in 2020. One of the main goals of this chapter, along the lines of the premises of this book, is to explain and discuss the complexity of EU–Mexican trade relations considering the challenges the global trade system is facing today. After reviewing the literature about the study of the EU–Mexico relationship and the contribution of the gridlock concept to explain its existence, this chapter examines three significant points in the EU–Mexico relationship. First, it provides a contextual overview about the main trends of the world trade system and the potential effects on Latin America. Second, it explains the conditions that facilitated the negotiation of the GA, its evolution and the subsequent Strategic Partnership (SP). The final section discusses the rationale for the modernisation of the GA and some of its unique details.
In 2012 the EU signed a trade agreement with Peru and Colombia, to which Ecuador subscribed in 2016, having abandoned regional-to-region negotiations with the Andean Community in favour of finalising an agreement with the countries that had already completed agreements with the United States. This chapter explores how the long shadow of the US, so often used to describe the nature of the EU’s relation with Latin America, emerged again in the rationales and negotiations of this modern trade agreement. It traces the impact of the US and its commercial policy on the EU–Peru/Colombia negotiations and on the negotiated outcomes, portraying EU–US competition underlying the EU–Peru/Colombia trade agreement in shaping the context of negotiations as an exercise in geo-economic balancing. The chapter also examines the initial stages of implementation of the agreement, paying particular attention to the controversial Trade and Sustainable Development chapter. The analysis concludes that the trade agreement on its own has not driven major policy changes in the Andean countries but has bolstered broader international commitments to changes in labour laws and policy reforms by creating additional pressure and accountability mechanisms. In so doing the chapter highlights the importance of contextualising trade agreements as one aspect of broader international relations between the EU and Latin American countries.
Chapter 2 examines the Brotherhood’s fall from power, reporting first-hand accounts of the quick turn of events that unfolded in July 2013. It relies on members’ personal experiences to tell the story of the brutality that followed Morsi’s removal and begins by outlining the Brotherhood’s descent into deeply unchartered territory. The chapter traces the movement’s scattering abroad and outlines the unprecedented challenges that come with the dimension of forced exile, showing how the disintegration of established lines of command led to emergence of individual responses to repression. It takes a close look at the relationship between the Brotherhood and its members, focusing on the resurfacing of old grievances and the emergence of new ones. The chapter shows how the traumatic experience of renewed repression and exile accentuated the pre-existing divisions between the movement and its members, further aggravated by the lack of a cohesive response to repression. It concludes by showing how the challenges posed by reuniting in exile allowed members the unprecedented opportunity to reconsider their terms of belonging to the movement, outlining how their individual experiences of repression began to dismantle the collective identity that the Brotherhood historically relied on.
Chapter 1 outlines the early history of the Brotherhood, from its founding by Hassan al Banna in 1928 to the outbreak of the 2011 Arab Uprisings. It does so to provide a necessary background to the movement’s quick politicisation process that followed Hosni Mubarak’s removal, and to set the bases for the analysis of its political behaviour. It offers an account of the Brotherhood’s participation in the uprisings and examines its implication for the movement’s internal debates, identifying the schisms that emerged over the foundation of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and the members’ grievances that were brought back to the surface. The chapter shows that the Brotherhood was already deeply divided before entering the political arena, as would be reflected in the running of the FJP. It then examines the FJP’s time in government, highlighting the contradictory political choices that fuelled popular discontent against the Brotherhood’s rule and revealed the lack of a concrete political project. It concludes by identifying four main factors that contributed to Morsi’s untimely demise. These are: the lack of a coherent vision of an ‘Islamist project’; the fact that the Brotherhood severely miscalculated the amount of support and legitimacy it actually had; its refusal to adapt to the changing circumstances, which then accelerated internal discontent; and the failure to successfully address the permanence of the deep state across state institutions.
European relations with external countries have mainly focused on trade, aid and technical assistance, developing preferential relationships. The network of relationships between the EU and some non-member states defined as a “Pyramid of privilege” (Hill and Smith 2005). These kinds of European relationships extended towards some Latin American countries. Before the 1970s the European Union did not consider foreign policy to Latin America a fundamental issue.These dealings started as a consequence of European intervention in Central America in the 1980s. After this the EU inaugurated new institutionalised relationships with Latin America through sub-regional and regional groups. The Union decided to move its relations with Latin America towards some forms of “associated statuses”; thus, this occurred only with Chile and Mexico. Through this particular condition as a European partnership, each country participated actively in social and co-operation programmes (in horizontal programmes). These involvements increased close links between the EU and Latin America and strengthened European influences in developing domestic policies in Chile and Mexico. The chapter analyses the ties between the EU, Chile and Mexico, specifically how the EU has influenced domestic policies in higher education and science and technology areas, considering the nature of its relationships since 1997.
Contemporary dynamics of EU–LAC inter-parliamentary relations
Bruno Theodoro Luciano
Inter-regional relations between the European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean (EU–LAC) have not only been identified within the diplomatic and intergovernmental spheres. In fact a prominent inter-parliamentary dialogue between these regions has been promoted since the 1970s, years before the first EU–LAC executive summits. The fact that due to colonialism the continents have historically shared the same language, political traditions and culture facilitated the political approximation of both sides, including at the inter-parliamentary level. Alongside this common political and cultural background, in 2006 the Euro–Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (Eurolat) was formalised as the parliamentary dimension of EU–LAC bi-regional Strategic Association (1999). Considering the relations among parliamentarians from the two sides of the Atlantic, this chapter aims to shed some light on the past and current developments of EU-–LAC inter-parliamentary relations, something still neglected by the academic literature on EU–LAC inter-regionalism. By unveiling recent debates and topics of the Eurolat agenda since its establishment in 2006, this chapter intends to highlight how EU–LAC relations at the parliamentary level have evolved over the past decades. Important emphasis is given not just to the development of the institutional settings of this relationship but also to the political or ideological aspects of it, which explain how parliamentarians and political parties of the two regions have dialogued and clashed over key political, economic and social issues over the past years.
This chapter focuses on the EU’s trade ties with the states of the Andean Community. Today these revolve around a combined Free Trade Agreement between the EU and three of the organisation’s members, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. The chapter considers the complex dynamics that have led to the opening of trade negotiations with the region and which ensured their ultimate if only partial success. The chapter argues that, given the limited economic relevance of the Andean region for the EU, the complex ties between the two regions can be explained only through a consideration of external factors. Trade policy developments at the global level, such as the failure of the Doha Development Agenda, or the trade policy of the United States, have ultimately provided the setting for negotiations between the EU and the Andean Community. Rather than limiting the analysis to these exogenous developments, the chapter considers how these have impacted both the Andean region and institutional decision-making in the EU to explain the outcome of EU–Andean Community trade negotiations.