Transatlantic Politics

Lively debate in the European Parliament today regarding the willingness of two new member states (Poland and the Czech Republic) to allow the installment of an US missile shield on their territory. When it comes to Antiamericanism, the "EU solidarity" is strongly in place. The EU parliamentarians have suddenly found common ground for a joint EU foreign policy: the missile shield upsets Russia, so there should be an "open debate" about it in all the member countries. Even though defense is still a national, non EU-matter, there could have been no better pretext to call for "sovereignty limitations" in defense than bullying against 2 new member states for being too pro-American for the average EU taste.  Suddenly, even the low-key speaker and EU foreign policy representative Javier Solana has found a cause worth fighting for: not to "affect" EU-Russia relations.

"The EU is not a defence alliance, we all know this, but it does have an external security policy and it can and should debate this subject," Mr Solana said in a prelude to a potential formal debate among EU heads of state or foreign ministers in future. "I think that's what most political leaders in the EU want," he added, noting the US plan could "affect" EU-Russia relations.  "We're not calling for people to take a decision on the subject, but it would be a mistake not to talk about it," he added, tiptoeing through Title V of the EU treaty on the limits of EU competency on security issues. "On security matters, the Treaty allocates sovereignty to member states. But that sovereignty has to be compatible with our general interests in security."

Surely, there is nothing wrong about debate. It's part of democracy. But it would be very naive not to see that EU's concern is totally in line with the Kremlin discourse. Putin has been very vocal  about this missile defense shield, even invoking a "second Cold War". But this is also a charade. Putin knows very well that the missile shield is not aimed against Russia. It's about Iran. The defense shield would protect Europe from any attacks from the Middle East. And Iran being the "roguest" state at this point with very clear military and nuclear ambitions, the missile defense shield is probably one of the issues Tehran has put forward on the negotiation table with Kremlin. Here is what the Russian Foreign Ministry said today (what a coincidence!) in a letter co-signed by Putin:

"The international community should not risk escalating the situation around Iran and should wait for the U.S. to make a good-faith effort to normalize relations with Tehran," the Foreign Ministry said in a foreign policy review signed by the president. The Russian ministry said the Iran crisis could have devastating consequences for relations between "civilizations," and then the U.S. would have to prove it is not preparing for a "clash of civilizations" by building up "Fortress America," separated from the rest of the world by two oceans and strict border controls. Unlike the U.S., Russia, which is building a nuclear power plant in southern Iran, has opposed any tough sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Russian authorities have also been seriously alarmed by U.S. plans to deploy a missile shield in Central Europe to prevent possible strikes from Iran or North Korea. In his outspoken address to the Munich security conference in February, President Putin said the U.S. missile defense plans could trigger a new arms race, and accused the U.S. of ignoring international law and imposing its own rules on other countries."We are seeing an increasing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law," Putin said, adding that Russia would amend its military strategy in response.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This is not a joke, it's actually from the EU jargon.. so don't crack yourselves up.  The mega-efficient EU anti-corruption enforcement squads have just payed a surprise visit to the Brussels bureaucrats in an attempt to crack down on the "passive corruption". Here is what EUObserver reports:

European Commission officials were being interrogated by Belgian police on Tuesday afternoon (27 March) following surprise raids by police on commission buildings.
Jos Colpin at the Brussels prosecutor's office told EUobserver the officials arrested on Tuesday are suspected of "passive corruption," or taking "bribes" from real estate and security firms.
The officials being interrogated - the number of which is not being made public - possibly "circumvented normal tendering procedures" involving the commission's representation premises in Luxembourg, France and Italy.
The civil servants are suspected of pocketing bribes from real estate and security companies in return for rewarding them contracts to rent and secure the commission buildings.  

The beauty of the story lies in the minor detail that this case has been going on for the past..3 years. With no convicts so far…Just another regular EU procedure with no scary outcome. But the OLAF (EU's anti-fraud and (anti?)corruption body) has been "fully supportive" so there still is hope.

A commission spokesman confirmed the raids in commission buildings, but refused to comment on the affair other than saying the commission is "fully co-operating" in the investigations. The EU's independent anti-fraud office, OLAF, took part in the investigations, he added.  Belgian Prosecutor Berta Bernando-Mendez started investigations into the case three years ago, leading to Tuesday's operation which was spearheaded by the Belgian police's anti-corruption unit and which also saw the participation of Italian and French police. It will be decided before Wednesday morning 06:00 CET whether any official will be held in custody for further interrogation, Mr Colpin said.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Politicians the world over have to be marveling at Nancy Pelosi's ability to bribe her fellow congressman and have it portrayed in the American press as "a triumph".  Well done, Nancy.  All it took was $20 billion (with a B) in earmarks and other vote-buying schemes to convince her fellow Democrats to vote for the Iraq appropriations bill:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has demonstrated she can pile on enough pork to bribe enough Democrats to cobble together a bare, partisan majority to "send a message" that has no chance of becoming law. Congratulations…

The lengths that Democratic leaders had to go to win their "triumph" betrayed its cynicism. To get her narrow majority of 218 votes, Ms. Pelosi and Appropriations Chairman David Obey had to load it up like a farm bill: $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers, $283 million for dairy farmers–all told, some $20 billion in vote-buying earmarks of the kind Democrats campaigned against last year.

From The Wall Street Journal 

Not only has Pelosi proven the hypocracy of the Democrats' earlier promise to rid Washington of this sort of vote-buying and corruption, she has significantly hindered the overall war effort (not just the funding of it) by flatly stating when U.S. troops will withdraw.  She has taken the management of the war out of the hands of the U.S. military in Iraq and instead imposed an arbitrary timeline on our troops in the field from 3,000 miles away.  Has anyone ever heard of winning a war by declaring your intent to withdraw?

Even more sad (or ironic, depending on your point of view) is that the passage of this bill will accomplish nothing - 0 - zip - nada here in the U.S.  The passage of this bill in the Senate is highly unlikely and President Bush has already declared his intention to veto the bill if it reaches his desk in the unlikely scenario that it does pass the Senate.  What this bill actually accomplishes is that it sends the clearest message yet to those who would defeat our efforts in Iraq that we are preparing to abandon the place in the near future.  Once again, well done Nancy.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If  you read the declaration signed by the EU leaders to celebrate EU’s 50 anniversary, the "consensus" reached says a lot about the commitment for Europe to move forward. It’s a political statement that sounds pretty but remains very vague, trying to please everyone and therefore not committing itself to anything. The word "enlargement" doesn’t even come up, although it’s been the most successful EU policy so far. Sure, they talk about reunification and integration, but enlargement implies a strategy with political AND economic aims. And that seems to be forgotten.

Europe’s wealth lies in the knowledge and ability of its people; that is the key to growth, employment and social cohesion. We will fight terrorism and organized crime together.

We stand up for liberties and civil rights also in the struggle against those who oppose them. Racism and xenophobia must never again be given any rein.

We are committed to the peaceful resolution of conflicts in the world and to ensuring that people do not become victims of war, terrorism and violence.

The European Union wants to promote freedom and development in the world. We want to drive back poverty, hunger and disease. We want to continue to take a leading role in that fight.

We intend jointly to lead the way in energy policy and climate protection and make our contribution to averting the global threat of climate change.

The Economist published this week a very realistic analysis about how the EU and the US are completely losing their leverage and power to attract former Soviet countries to commit to democracy and transatlantic values. The so-called "orange era" is coming to an end, the revolutionary spirit that sparked across Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia or  Kyrgyzstan, but one could argue also about Romania, Bulgaria or Hungary.

The bottled-up anger with the petty humiliations of daily life that fuelled past protest movements in ex-communist countries has weakened, partly because life has improved and partly because of the opportunities offered by migration. The EU—to put it mildly—no longer looks like a lighthouse beckoning new members towards peace and prosperity. As Mr Krastev says, the clearer the EU’s borders become, the less attractive it is to outsiders, and the weaker its promise that “if you are like us, you could become one of us”.

Plus, there is serious competition. Russia has learned the importance of the people-power game, and is going to play it with increasing skill. The Kremlin looks set to invest more money, more time and more expertise in winning over wobbly post-Soviet countries than the West ever will. It can call now on sinister pro-Putin groups, such as Nashi (Ours), which know how to mobilise a crowd. If you applaud orange-clad activists making history on the streets of Kiev, it is hard to explain why those trying to do the same in the Kremlin’s red white and blue are inherently more objectionable.

The conclusion of the b-day declaration, "Europe is our common future" - a sort of a milder "United we stand" - might be a good PR-thing, but it’s hardly a reality among the EU members. And this is known and exploited by Russia. The losers seem to be always the same - the satellite and former Soviet countries, especially those who tried to commit themselves to Euroatlanticism. But looking at the way the EU works and acts right now, they might consider this was a big mistake.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

There’s a witty editorial in the yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (requires subscription) about Angela Merkel’s totally softened policy-making. The title "Angela Schroeder" says it all, the current holder of the EU-presidency has actually more resemblance to her predecessor than to what she initially was supposed to stand for: closer US-German relations, stronger NATO involvement, "less government", cutting taxes, economic reform.

Upon assuming the presidency of the bloc in January, Ms. Merkel decided to use this rare opportunity to shape the Brussels agenda for six months to advance the softest of all soft policies: to revive the European Constitution.
(…)The EU’s real challenges are elsewhere: enlargement to the Balkans and Turkey, economic reform, the incomplete single market, terrorism, immigration, energy security to name only a few. Any of those would have proved more challenging for Ms. Merkel — and so much more beneficial for the EU.

Instead of immigration or energy security, Ms. Merkel has given in to the green obsession (despite her center-right orientation) currently so trendy in the EU: gas emission targets that are merely "PR gimmicks" - 20% by 2020 - when just 2 of the 15 old EU member states are on track to meet the Kyoto protocol. On issues like Iran, Merkel has also visibly given in to her Social-Democrat predecessors and members of cabinet. If one year ago, she was comparing Iran’s rhetoric to the Nazis, now she softened the tone and let her Foreign Minister and Schroeder’s former chief of staff do the talking. In Afghanistan, NATO is "fighting uphill" because of her refusal to move the 2700 troops out of the stable north to the more dangerous south.

The latest Merkel disappointment involves American plans to expand its missile defense shield. Poland and the Czech Republic are in talks with Washington to install radar and missile sites to better protect the U.S. and Europe against an Iranian missile attack. To stir up nationalist furies at home and pressure the Poles and Czechs, Vladimir Putin lashed out against the missile plan, knowing full well this limited system could never put a dent in Russia’s own nuclear threat. Germany’s foreign minister immediately rushed to the defense — of the Kremlin. Mr. Steinmeier accused the U.S. of supposedly failing to inform Russia about the missile plans.
Ms. Merkel could have set her foreign minister straight for resuscitating the Schröder-style coddling of Moscow. But she, who grew up in East Germany, only seconded him. Ahead of a trip to Warsaw last week, the chancellor said, "We, and I will say it in Poland, prefer a solution within NATO and also an open discussion with Russia about it." The Germans aren’t so concerned with NATO cohesion in Afghanistan. In this case, the countries directly involved are the ones to decide.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!