The fall of the Soviet Union handed the U.S. a unique opportunity, as the surviving superpower, to lead the world toward a period of greater cooperation and conflict resolution through the use of diplomacy, global organization, and international law. This great opportunity to change US foreign policy doctrine was completely squandered by successive US presidents, who chose "the stick above the carrot" and consequently making the world a more dangerous place today.
The differences between the foreign policies of the EU, based on cooperation, trade , the environment,and Human Rights, and that of the United States became especially aparent during the Trump Administration, when Europe started staking out separate, clashing positions, on everything, from telecommunications to energy. The EU and US both issued sharp disagreements on the basic building blocks of foreign relations—namely, how the international system should work. French President Emmanuel Macron seized the spotlight, and sent the hearts of European federalists aflutter, by calling for “a European way” while raising the possibility of a French-led European nuclear deterrent, a precondition for any true independence from the United States.
If opinion polls are to go by, we are already separated. Nowhere is this felt more acutely than in Germany, the most important country in Europe. In January, Pew Research released a poll showing that 57 percent of Germans hold an outright unfavorable view of the United States. A few months earlier, in September, the European Council on Foreign Relations reported that 70 percent of Germans want their country to remain neutral in any conflict between Moscow and Washington.
For some European, Anglo-Saxon capitalism is seen as ruthless and rootless, mowing down the social order in the service of individual greed. For others, the United States’ dominance of the West breeds resentment, especially in an era of globalization, when even the slightest shocks from across the Atlantic hit the EU's bottom line or derail its diplomacy.
With the US Biden Administration in charge soon, the overall relationship between the two Transatlanic Super Power partners certainly will get off to a better start, but the US administration must certainly not expect that the status quo is re-established. Take note America, your former "lap dog" now considers itself an independent partner with its own voice.
EU-Digest
Showing posts with label EU Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU Foreign Policy. Show all posts
1/2/21
11/15/18
Brazil-EU Relations: As Brazil moves right, what is left for Europe in Latin America? – by Gustavo Müller
The election of Jair Bolsonaro as Brazilian president continues the
regional trend in Latin America that has seen the rise of a variety of
right-wing governments. As the world’s 4th largest democracy turns to
the extreme right, the European Union will be forced to review its
foreign policy towards Latin America.
Notably, it will have to adapt to the weakening of the region’s cooperative projects and organisations. If the polarising discourse of Bolsonaro and its campaign team shapes Brazilian foreign and domestic policies over the next four years, the EU should expect a growing gap regarding interests and values between both regions.
The EU’s multi-layered foreign policy towards Latin America has been laid out in its 2016 Global Strategy which emphasises region-to-region relations with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) – a consensus-based intergovernmental organisation of 33 sovereign members – as its counterpart.
The Global Strategy also mentions an approach that builds on “competitive advantages” of various regional groupings, including the current negotiations of the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement, as well as an open relationship with Cuba and support for the implementation of the peace agreement in Colombia.
Read more: As Brazil moves right, what is left for Europe in Latin America? – EURACTIV.com
Notably, it will have to adapt to the weakening of the region’s cooperative projects and organisations. If the polarising discourse of Bolsonaro and its campaign team shapes Brazilian foreign and domestic policies over the next four years, the EU should expect a growing gap regarding interests and values between both regions.
The EU’s multi-layered foreign policy towards Latin America has been laid out in its 2016 Global Strategy which emphasises region-to-region relations with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) – a consensus-based intergovernmental organisation of 33 sovereign members – as its counterpart.
The Global Strategy also mentions an approach that builds on “competitive advantages” of various regional groupings, including the current negotiations of the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement, as well as an open relationship with Cuba and support for the implementation of the peace agreement in Colombia.
Read more: As Brazil moves right, what is left for Europe in Latin America? – EURACTIV.com
1/13/17
European Unity and foreign policy: 7 Brexit strategies Theresa May could use to erode EU unity
As Prime Minister Theresa May prepares to take the U.K. out of the European Union, she might have to play dirty if she wants to clinch the best possible deal for Britain.
The U.K.'s success at undermining the bloc's united front will dictate whether May can extract concessions from the EU, such as retaining preferred trading relationships and favourable access for London's financial businesses. The remaining 27 governments have managed to a hold a common line so far but the two-year negotiation will test competing priorities from Paris to Budapest and Lisbon to Warsaw.
Here's Bloomberg's guide to how Britain can undermine EU unity:
1. Offer cash
2. Play parts of the EU against itself
3. Exploit splits over Trump and Putin
4. Tempt industry
5. Leverage EU citizens living in the U.K.
6. Threaten tax cuts
7. Hope that Europe is distracted
EU-Digest Note: It is all wishful thinking - a clever Europe without Britain should seriously start thinking about completely cutting its political ties with Britain and also see how they can revise the Atlantic Treaty they have with the US to make it more independent from US foreign policy influence, which have had a very poor record of success. Specially now that there is a new US Administration run by a somewhat unorthodox personality
Read more: Brexit strategies Theresa May could use to erode EU unity
The U.K.'s success at undermining the bloc's united front will dictate whether May can extract concessions from the EU, such as retaining preferred trading relationships and favourable access for London's financial businesses. The remaining 27 governments have managed to a hold a common line so far but the two-year negotiation will test competing priorities from Paris to Budapest and Lisbon to Warsaw.
Here's Bloomberg's guide to how Britain can undermine EU unity:
1. Offer cash
2. Play parts of the EU against itself
3. Exploit splits over Trump and Putin
4. Tempt industry
5. Leverage EU citizens living in the U.K.
6. Threaten tax cuts
7. Hope that Europe is distracted
EU-Digest Note: It is all wishful thinking - a clever Europe without Britain should seriously start thinking about completely cutting its political ties with Britain and also see how they can revise the Atlantic Treaty they have with the US to make it more independent from US foreign policy influence, which have had a very poor record of success. Specially now that there is a new US Administration run by a somewhat unorthodox personality
Read more: Brexit strategies Theresa May could use to erode EU unity
10/14/16
Middle East: Obama’s Syria Policy: The Illusion of US Power in the Middle East - Gareth Porter
The U.S.-Russian ceasefire agreement has collapsed and the the massive Russian bombing campaign in Aleppo has escalated. As a result, the frustration of hawks in Washington over the failure of the Obama administration to use military power in Syria has risen to new heights.
But it is the Obama administration’s role in Syria over the past five years that has led to its present inability to do anything about the Russian military escalation in Aleppo.
The problem is that the administration has pursued policy objectives that it lacked the means to achieve. When Obama called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down in September 2011, the administration believed, incredibly, that he would do so of his own accord.
As former Hillary Clinton aide and Pentagon official, Derek Chollet, reveals in his new book, The Long Game, “Early in the crisis, most officials believed Assad lacked the necessary cunning and fortitude to stay in power.”
Administration policymakers began using the phrase “managed transition” in regard to U.S. policy toward the government, according to Chollet.
The phrase perfectly reflected the vaulting ambitions of policymakers who were eager to participate in a regime change. They saw this regime change as a big win for the United States and Israel and a big loss for Iran.
Not a shred of evidence has ever surfaced suggesting that the US has done anything to pressure its allies to cut off the channels of arms that were strengthening the al-Qaeda-linked militant group, al-Nusra Front.
As a result, the Sunni arms-to-jihadists strategy and the U.S. support for “moderates” were two parts of a broader political-diplomatic strategy of pressure on Assad to step down.
As former U.S. ambassador, Robert Ford observed in February 2015, “For a long time the administration had “looked the other way” while the U.S.- supported forces were coordinating with Nusra Front.
Read more: Obama’s Syria Policy: The Illusion of US Power in the Middle East - The Globalist
But it is the Obama administration’s role in Syria over the past five years that has led to its present inability to do anything about the Russian military escalation in Aleppo.
The problem is that the administration has pursued policy objectives that it lacked the means to achieve. When Obama called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down in September 2011, the administration believed, incredibly, that he would do so of his own accord.
As former Hillary Clinton aide and Pentagon official, Derek Chollet, reveals in his new book, The Long Game, “Early in the crisis, most officials believed Assad lacked the necessary cunning and fortitude to stay in power.”
Administration policymakers began using the phrase “managed transition” in regard to U.S. policy toward the government, according to Chollet.
The phrase perfectly reflected the vaulting ambitions of policymakers who were eager to participate in a regime change. They saw this regime change as a big win for the United States and Israel and a big loss for Iran.
Not a shred of evidence has ever surfaced suggesting that the US has done anything to pressure its allies to cut off the channels of arms that were strengthening the al-Qaeda-linked militant group, al-Nusra Front.
As a result, the Sunni arms-to-jihadists strategy and the U.S. support for “moderates” were two parts of a broader political-diplomatic strategy of pressure on Assad to step down.
As former U.S. ambassador, Robert Ford observed in February 2015, “For a long time the administration had “looked the other way” while the U.S.- supported forces were coordinating with Nusra Front.
Read more: Obama’s Syria Policy: The Illusion of US Power in the Middle East - The Globalist
2/25/16
EU Migrant Crises: The EU must be able to face, acknowledge and fix the root of the problem - by RM
As the saying goes "concern yourself more accepting responsibility than with assigning blame".
US continuous criticism of the EU’s handling of the refugee crisis is the case in point .
Let's face it - the EU migrant crises comes as a direct result of a Europe which is still blindly following a US led foreign policy which is part of the so-called "allied commitments".
When these plans,however, as most of them usually do, turn into human disaster, Europe is required to carry the burden of fixing the mess afterwards..
The above specifically reflects on a totally flawed EU Middle-East foreign policy (a carbon copy of that of the US), specially in regions of the Muslim World, the Middle East and North Africa.
Where exactly is the line between inaction and complicity? The notion of neutrality, for a country as powerful as the United States, is illusory. Doing nothing or “doing no harm” means maintaining or reverting to the status quo, which in the Middle East is never neutral, due to America’s and Europe's longstanding relationships with regional political actors.
Europe’s refugee crisis might feel a million miles away for many Americans, but there is something everyone can relate to: money: and this ompletely messed up Middle East foreign policy could cost the United States several hundred billion dollars eventually.
That’s according to the Bertelsmann Foundation, a respected think tank here in Germany, which looked at the potential economic consequences if Europe were to reinstate border controls within its 26-country passport-free travel area.
As the continent buckles under the weight of the most serious refugee crisisever since World War II, the breakdown of that zone, known as the Schengen Area, has loomed as a dark prospect.
Reinstating border checks are bad for European business, experts say. They would even stunt economic growth through a vicious cycle that starts with higher labor costs — thanks to long lines at borders — and ends with declining sales and lower production.
If this happens it would mean major economic losses for the EU could reach up to €1.4 trillion by 2025.
So what to do about it? It would basically need two essental steps to be taken by the EU .
The first would be to immediately decouple the EU foreign policy from that of the failed US Middle East foreign policy; secondly, invest in a far reaching Euro-Mediterranean - North African Free Trade Area, which would aim at establishing peace and prosperity in the area by removing barriers to trade and investment between both the EU and countries in that area, based on mutual respect and recognition of all freely elected governments, religious freedom and cultural ties.
It obviously would be a long and difficult process, but the results would certainly be far more rewarding, productive and beneficial to all the people in the area, and obviously less costly than the useless and destructive military campaigns most nations within the EU and the US are presently involved in.
EU-Digest
US continuous criticism of the EU’s handling of the refugee crisis is the case in point .
Let's face it - the EU migrant crises comes as a direct result of a Europe which is still blindly following a US led foreign policy which is part of the so-called "allied commitments".
When these plans,however, as most of them usually do, turn into human disaster, Europe is required to carry the burden of fixing the mess afterwards..
The above specifically reflects on a totally flawed EU Middle-East foreign policy (a carbon copy of that of the US), specially in regions of the Muslim World, the Middle East and North Africa.
Where exactly is the line between inaction and complicity? The notion of neutrality, for a country as powerful as the United States, is illusory. Doing nothing or “doing no harm” means maintaining or reverting to the status quo, which in the Middle East is never neutral, due to America’s and Europe's longstanding relationships with regional political actors.
Europe’s refugee crisis might feel a million miles away for many Americans, but there is something everyone can relate to: money: and this ompletely messed up Middle East foreign policy could cost the United States several hundred billion dollars eventually.
That’s according to the Bertelsmann Foundation, a respected think tank here in Germany, which looked at the potential economic consequences if Europe were to reinstate border controls within its 26-country passport-free travel area.
As the continent buckles under the weight of the most serious refugee crisisever since World War II, the breakdown of that zone, known as the Schengen Area, has loomed as a dark prospect.
Reinstating border checks are bad for European business, experts say. They would even stunt economic growth through a vicious cycle that starts with higher labor costs — thanks to long lines at borders — and ends with declining sales and lower production.
If this happens it would mean major economic losses for the EU could reach up to €1.4 trillion by 2025.
So what to do about it? It would basically need two essental steps to be taken by the EU .
The first would be to immediately decouple the EU foreign policy from that of the failed US Middle East foreign policy; secondly, invest in a far reaching Euro-Mediterranean - North African Free Trade Area, which would aim at establishing peace and prosperity in the area by removing barriers to trade and investment between both the EU and countries in that area, based on mutual respect and recognition of all freely elected governments, religious freedom and cultural ties.
It obviously would be a long and difficult process, but the results would certainly be far more rewarding, productive and beneficial to all the people in the area, and obviously less costly than the useless and destructive military campaigns most nations within the EU and the US are presently involved in.
EU-Digest 1/15/16
Eastern Europe: The EU’s Benign Neglect of Eastern Europe - by Judy Dempsey
The authors from Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine were asked to give a critical
assessment of the EU’s policies toward their country, ranked on a scale
from “miserable” to “excellent.”
The EU’s record in Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Ukraine was deemed “inadequate” (the second-lowest ranking). In Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova, it was described as “satisfactory” (the third-lowest score). Nothing stellar to boast about.
Re-reading the series—independently of the refugee crisis, which is likely to make Europe turn even more inward—one finds little scope for optimism for the lands between the EU and Russia.
This is because the EU has been consistently very weak in dealing with
post-Soviet countries (except the Baltic states) compared with the
former Communist countries of Central Europe and Southeastern Europe.
The latter knew exactly where they wanted to be after 1989: part of the
Euro-Atlantic constellation. Joining the EU and NATO was their goal. It
was about coming home to a reunited Europe.
When it comes to Eastern Europe, the EU is making fatal mistakes that leave the region without a perspective and render it even more unstable than it already was. Yet these shortcomings could be easily remedied with political will.
The biggest shortcoming is the lack of a long-term strategy toward any of these countries. Even in Ukraine, the EU has no idea what perspective to offer this big country whose political and economic stability has enormous consequences for Europe.
Even more worrying, the EU is not applying sufficient pressure on Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to implement reforms. Nor is it doing what it has persistently failed to do in both old and new members as well as candidate countries: reach out, as Mikhail Minakov from Kiev wrote, “to local governments and pro-reform NGO networks.”
If the EU wants to have an impact, it is not going to achieve this by talking to the governing elites while failing to engage genuinely independent civil society movements.
Didn’t it learn anything from its misguided policies in the Middle East prior to the Arab Spring? Seemingly not.
Read more: The EU’s Benign Neglect of Eastern Europe - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The EU’s record in Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Ukraine was deemed “inadequate” (the second-lowest ranking). In Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova, it was described as “satisfactory” (the third-lowest score). Nothing stellar to boast about.
Re-reading the series—independently of the refugee crisis, which is likely to make Europe turn even more inward—one finds little scope for optimism for the lands between the EU and Russia.
This is because the EU has been consistently very weak in dealing with
post-Soviet countries (except the Baltic states) compared with the
former Communist countries of Central Europe and Southeastern Europe.
The latter knew exactly where they wanted to be after 1989: part of the
Euro-Atlantic constellation. Joining the EU and NATO was their goal. It
was about coming home to a reunited Europe.When it comes to Eastern Europe, the EU is making fatal mistakes that leave the region without a perspective and render it even more unstable than it already was. Yet these shortcomings could be easily remedied with political will.
The biggest shortcoming is the lack of a long-term strategy toward any of these countries. Even in Ukraine, the EU has no idea what perspective to offer this big country whose political and economic stability has enormous consequences for Europe.
Even more worrying, the EU is not applying sufficient pressure on Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to implement reforms. Nor is it doing what it has persistently failed to do in both old and new members as well as candidate countries: reach out, as Mikhail Minakov from Kiev wrote, “to local governments and pro-reform NGO networks.”
If the EU wants to have an impact, it is not going to achieve this by talking to the governing elites while failing to engage genuinely independent civil society movements.
Didn’t it learn anything from its misguided policies in the Middle East prior to the Arab Spring? Seemingly not.
Read more: The EU’s Benign Neglect of Eastern Europe - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
8/2/15
EU-Digest July-August Poll results shows majority polled want stronger European Union - by RM
A recent EU-Digest poll (see insert) shows a majority of those polled favor a stronger, better structured and governed European Union.Only 20% favored a return to independent nationhood for the 28 nation member Union.
A large percentage (40%) felt that the EU has not become stronger , or more unified over the past 10 years to face the challenges of globalization
If there is any finger pointing to be done about the progress that has been made so far in Bruxelles, as to creating a stronger and better functioning Union, it must be noted that more than half of the 28 EU governments are run or led by Conservative and right-leaning Liberal governments. This political picture is also reflected in the EU Commission and the EU Parliament.
Consequently legislation on a Financial Transaction Tax, the regulation of casino capitalism, off-shore tax evasion, an independent foreign policy, or more social justice in the area of immigration and migrant policies have not been forthcoming. Mainly because legislation within the EU and among member states has been blocked by inward looking nationalist and conservative political forces
Another major issue looming high above the EU's weak and "toothless" legislative structure is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, as it is known. TTIP will be the most important global trade agreement of its kind, representing nearly half of the world's GDP. It is a trade deal between the USA and the EU, whose impact will be felt by all and everyone.
Is the EU able to control these negotiations, or at best, to keep them on an even playing field against the slick US corporate trained and supported negotiating team? Not really, if one looks at how the US's NSA got away with spying on the EU commission, EU corporations, local EU governments and EU citizens.
Bottom-line: Europe needs some imaginative thinking and vision to lift it out of its current torpor.
Watered down solutions will eventually bring this amazing and most promising global project of this century, called the EU, which has brought peace and prosperity to the European continent now for over 50 years, to a standstill.
Our new EU-Digest is about the election of the EU President - should it be by popular vote or by parliamentary majority ?
EU-Digest 1/19/15
EU and the US: strange bedfellows - perceptions and reality - by RM
Historical ties: US and Europe respect many common democratic ideals and through-out the years always jointly stood up for these ideals on many occasions, including-fighting wars and conflicts over these ideals against adversaries together .
Economics: both the EU and the US adhere, certainly if we look at these ideals in the past, to supporting and promoting free and open global trade,
This common purpose has, however, eroded rapidly over the past 5 - 10 years.
Comparing US and EU austerity programs following the 2008 economic crises, it seems that when you put EU austerity programs under a magnifying glass they are in effect quite realistic, and even though they are so far not showing spectacular results, these measures seem to be working.
The US, on the other hand, seems to be doing economics by "magic wand" and in the process has rung up the world's biggest deficit.
The so-called quantitative easing {QE) developed by the US Fed in fact means just printing more money and putting their head in the sand. QE is only pushing the day of reckoning further away. Unfortunately, this kind of economic policy will come and haunt the US in a big way one day.
In the past the US had a thriving industrial base on which it could fall back. It does not have that today.
As to Europe and the ECB, chaired by Mario Draghi, a former Goldman Sachs employee, it seems the ECB is also expected to take the plunge into quantitative easing, mainly as a result of constant Wall Street Pressure.
The results, in the long run, will like with the US program, eventually not be what was expected.
Facts and figures: European economic data is usually very accurate. In contrast, US economic data including labor data is not always accurate, making it necessary for the US Government to release several updates and revisions which make it quite confusing for economic analysts.
Freedom of the Press: there does not seem to be any apparent censorship of the Press in either the EU or the US
Watching the news in America outsiders are constantly amazed by the uniformity and sensationalist news coverage projected by the corporate owned networks to the majority of US viewers,
Two US exceptions as to the above observation are "link TV" and "PBS".
Aljazeera America and BBC America are also considered good alternatives for news "without a slant" one can watch in America.
For more international news, another possibility is "streaming" news from France24 on your computer. .
For Europeans in America interested to keep up-to-date with their home news they will find most local European TV stations have internet links which you can watch anywhere in the world..
Miscellaneous observations Some other general observations about American and European differences
Like the EU, the US is a magnet for immigrants and refugees from economically, democratically, and war ravaged countries.
The US population in general is obese, consumer driven, under-educated and not very savvy when it comes to world affairs or in speaking foreign languages.
The EU population is nationalistically and negatively inclined at what they consider as foreign, be it immigrants or religious beliefs..
Europeans in general are far better educated than Americans, many speak at least 2 to 3 languages and are aware of what is going on around the world.
Corporations: Corporate America: has basically taken over political America and regardless of the fact that they are perceived in both the US and the EU as corrupt and too powerful, are nevertheless continuing their practices as usual and are practically unopposed by governments on both sides of the Atlantic
Corporations and their lobbyists are getting an ever stronger foothold in the European parliament.
Racial Divide: There is still a huge, often hidden, racial divide between black and white in America.
Middle East: The strong Jewish influence and political lobby by Israel in relation to US policies in the Middle East has certainly contributed to the present chaotic situation in that area.
The situation becomes even more muddled if one includes in that picture the US close ties with Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
One could also say that this situation is reminiscent of the former British Empire "divide and conquer" policies which eventually ended in disaster.
The EU has a different vision about relations with Middle Eastern countries and has close ties with the Palestinians and their leader Abbas .
The EU has also strongly objected against the destructive Israeli attacks against Gaza and the unauthorized expansion of Israel on the West bank.
NATO: EU states are usually forced to go along with the US on their military adventures in the Middle East and elsewhere as a result of their membership in NATO.
Research and polls show that 68 % of the EU 500 million plus population would vote in favor of getting out of the NATO if a referendum were held today
The Environment: On the issues of global warming, GMO, and alternative energy, the population of the US is held mainly in the dark by the corporate controlled press and government.
Consequently, they are not totally aware of the dangers lurking around the corner if no action is taken.
Future outlook: A positive development for future change is that the "below 30" of the US population have no appetite for any global military adventures, and little or no confidence in their present political representatives. and believe transparency of Government actions are compromised.
This positive outlook is also apparent in Europe
It certainly is a hopeful sign that the change which is coming will probably also result in the US and the EU becoming more equal and independent partners within the Atlantic Alliance than they are today.
EU-Digest
7/14/14
EU Politics: EU summit may decide only on foreign policy chief - by Valentina Pop and Andrew Rettman
Leaders meeting on Wednesday (16 July) are likely to pick only the new
EU foreign policy chief, with a decision on the successor to Council
head Herman Van Rompuy “possibly” delayed until autumn.
According to one EU source, "if a complete deal is feasible, we should go for it. Otherwise, it will be only the high representative."
A second source told this website that it is "certainly a possibility" that only the foreign affairs chief is picked.
Both the foreign policy head - Catherine Ashton - and the Council president - Herman Van Rompuy - have five months to go until their terms end.
But in the case of the foreign affairs job, the successor also has to undergo hearings in the European Parliament and to be voted together with the rest of the new EU commissioners in October.At the core of the delay is a disagreement in the Socialist leaders' camp.
France's Francois Hollande is reluctant to endorse Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt for the Van Rompuy job. Thorning-Schmidt is a centre-left politician, but close enough to the centre-right to be acceptable to the likes of Germany’s Angela Merkel or the UK’s David Cameron.
The political colour of one top job will determine the other, as the centre-right and the centre left are dividing the posts evenly.
Read more: EUobserver / EU summit may decide only on foreign policy chief
According to one EU source, "if a complete deal is feasible, we should go for it. Otherwise, it will be only the high representative."
A second source told this website that it is "certainly a possibility" that only the foreign affairs chief is picked.
Both the foreign policy head - Catherine Ashton - and the Council president - Herman Van Rompuy - have five months to go until their terms end.
But in the case of the foreign affairs job, the successor also has to undergo hearings in the European Parliament and to be voted together with the rest of the new EU commissioners in October.At the core of the delay is a disagreement in the Socialist leaders' camp.
France's Francois Hollande is reluctant to endorse Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt for the Van Rompuy job. Thorning-Schmidt is a centre-left politician, but close enough to the centre-right to be acceptable to the likes of Germany’s Angela Merkel or the UK’s David Cameron.
The political colour of one top job will determine the other, as the centre-right and the centre left are dividing the posts evenly.
Read more: EUobserver / EU summit may decide only on foreign policy chief
6/13/14
Is EU Foreign Policy Weak or clever ?: A promise barely noticed- Charlemagne:
America's retreat from the woes of the world is worrying its friends in the Middle
East. Jihadists are surging through Iraq; Syria uses chemical weapons
without retribution; and the latest American attempt to solve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has failed. Is it time for Europe to help
fill the vacuum?
Europeans always dream of exerting global influence commensurate with their economic weight. The Middle East’s problems have a way of washing up on Europe’s shores, be it boat people landing on the Mediterranean coast, or terrorists returning after being hardened by jihad in one or other civil war. And yet Europeans are struggling to be heard.
Take this week’s visit to Israel by José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission. He expanded on what, in another time or place, would be a big promise: if and when the Israelis and Palestinians make peace, the EU stands ready to offer economic integration akin to that enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland. In Ukraine the power of a similar offer precipitated a civil war and geopolitical contest with Russia; in the Holy Land, though, the promise of “special privileged partnerships” was barely noticed. It is striking, that, separately, Israel chose not to vote in March on a UN motion sponsored by the West to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
If America elicits less respect from Israel these days, Europe is the object of much scorn. Europe is remembered as a Jewish graveyard and, latterly, is regarded as an economic basket-case. Even collectively, it packs far less military punch than America. The French- and British-led intervention that toppled Muammar Qaddafi in Libya has left a violent mess.
The European Union’s 28 member-states are divided between big, small, old and new members and, when it comes to Israel, between the guilt-ridden (Germany) and the disapproving (Sweden).
As with much else, EU foreign-policy positions are finely balanced compromises, so even important moves are lost in woolly formulations. Seeking to keep Israeli-Palestinian peace talks alive after John Kerry, the American secretary of state, declared a “pause” in his mediation, Mr Barroso said the hiatus was “untenable in the long run”; peace with the Palestinians was in Israel’s best security interest.
America is of paramount importance to Israel’s security. But Europe makes several vital contributions. Its sanctions on Iran helped bring the mullahs to the negotiating table; its money keeps the Palestinian Authority alive as a negotiating partner for Israel; and Europe is central in managing the Syrian refugee crisis.
To be heard, Europeans need to speak clearly about what a two-state solution means: the end of Israeli occupation of land captured in 1967 (with agreed land swaps and a deal on Jerusalem), but also the end of further Palestinian claims on the Jewish state created in 1948. Palestinian refugees will, overwhelmingly, return to the new state of Palestine, not their old homes in Israel.
Read more:Charlemagne: A promise barely noticed | The Economist
Europeans always dream of exerting global influence commensurate with their economic weight. The Middle East’s problems have a way of washing up on Europe’s shores, be it boat people landing on the Mediterranean coast, or terrorists returning after being hardened by jihad in one or other civil war. And yet Europeans are struggling to be heard.
Take this week’s visit to Israel by José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission. He expanded on what, in another time or place, would be a big promise: if and when the Israelis and Palestinians make peace, the EU stands ready to offer economic integration akin to that enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland. In Ukraine the power of a similar offer precipitated a civil war and geopolitical contest with Russia; in the Holy Land, though, the promise of “special privileged partnerships” was barely noticed. It is striking, that, separately, Israel chose not to vote in March on a UN motion sponsored by the West to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
If America elicits less respect from Israel these days, Europe is the object of much scorn. Europe is remembered as a Jewish graveyard and, latterly, is regarded as an economic basket-case. Even collectively, it packs far less military punch than America. The French- and British-led intervention that toppled Muammar Qaddafi in Libya has left a violent mess.
The European Union’s 28 member-states are divided between big, small, old and new members and, when it comes to Israel, between the guilt-ridden (Germany) and the disapproving (Sweden).
As with much else, EU foreign-policy positions are finely balanced compromises, so even important moves are lost in woolly formulations. Seeking to keep Israeli-Palestinian peace talks alive after John Kerry, the American secretary of state, declared a “pause” in his mediation, Mr Barroso said the hiatus was “untenable in the long run”; peace with the Palestinians was in Israel’s best security interest.
America is of paramount importance to Israel’s security. But Europe makes several vital contributions. Its sanctions on Iran helped bring the mullahs to the negotiating table; its money keeps the Palestinian Authority alive as a negotiating partner for Israel; and Europe is central in managing the Syrian refugee crisis.
To be heard, Europeans need to speak clearly about what a two-state solution means: the end of Israeli occupation of land captured in 1967 (with agreed land swaps and a deal on Jerusalem), but also the end of further Palestinian claims on the Jewish state created in 1948. Palestinian refugees will, overwhelmingly, return to the new state of Palestine, not their old homes in Israel.
Read more:Charlemagne: A promise barely noticed | The Economist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)