Tag: European Union
Waffling, weak-kneed, paltry stuff
Carl Bildt, Sweden’s able foreign minister, today tweeted this “good conclusion” from the Euroepean Union meeting today:
In the light of the new IAEA report, which is to be considered by the IAEA Board of Governors, the Council expresses its increasing concerns over the Iranian nuclear programme and the lack of progress in diplomatic efforts. It condemns the continuous expansion of Iran’s,enrichment programme, and expresses particular concerns over the findings of the IAEA Director General report on Iranian activities relating to the development of military nuclear technology. Iran has been found in violation of international obligations, including six UNSC and ten IAEA Board Resolutions. We urge Iran to address the international concerns over the nature of its nuclear programme
through full cooperation with the IAEA and by demonstrating readiness to engage seriously in concrete discussions on confidence building steps, as proposed by the HR on behalf of the E3+3. The Council recalled the latest European Council conclusions inviting it to prepare new restrictive measures against Iran. The Council will continue to examine possible new and reinforced measures and revert to this issue at its next meeting, taking into account Iran’s actions.
There may of course be something lurking here that is not spelled out: we can hope that there will in fact be “new and reinforced” measures out of the next meeting. But on the face of it, this is waffling, weak-kneed, paltry stuff from people who should know better and by now be ready to act.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Addio, addio
It has taken far too long for Italy to say goodbye to Silvio Berlusconi. It will take a bit longer while the Parliament approves the austerity plan and the former crooner tries to wriggle out of his promise to resign.
As it seems finally to be happening, I couldn’t resist posting this 1962 Claudio Villa entry in the Eurovision song contest:
Or maybe you prefer the operatic version from Rigoletto:
Apart from my own 10 years in Italy, I find this hard to connect to war and peace, the touchstones of www.peacefare.net But here is a try:
The Italians, who have participated in virtually every UN peacekeeping operation for decades (as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other operations), are going to be in rough financial shape for the better part of the next decade. They are not going to be able to carry as much international burden as they have in the past. Europe generally is going to be as hard up for funds as we are, if not worse.
The frugal superpower is going to have frugal allies.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Are things going to hell in Libya?
Not yet is the answer.
But you wouldn’t know that from the media coverage. National Transitional Council (NTC) chair Mahmoud Jalil’s comment about allowing polygamy got a lot of ink. So too does every hiccup of the armed militias in Tripoli, not to mention what happens if an Islamist sneezes or a supposed Al Qaeda flag flies. I need hardly mention the disgusting, criminal behavior of the young men who capture Qaddafi and then allegedly sodomized and murdered him.
I wouldn’t want to minimize any of these issues. In fact, I drew attention to the militia and Islamist issues weeks ago. Integrating the militias under NTC control, establishing law and order and ensuring no room for Al Qaeda are vital, as is regaining control of as many surface-to-air missiles (MANPADs) as possible.
But any government that can peacefully switch out its prime minister and begin the process of appointing a new cabinet, in accordance with its constitutional framework, is not yet going to hell in a handbasket. Nor does the relatively chaotic situation outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, and the wasteland that used to be Sirte, prove that things are going in the wrong direction.
What we need to do now is ensure that they continue to go in the right direction. Where are the goals agreed between the Libyans and the international community? Where is the structure for donor coordination? What kind of program is the European Union putting in place? What are the Qataris up to? The internationals quickly lost their focus once the fighting was over.
This is a big mistake. Libya has bigger problems than Tunisia: the lack of a state, the violence of the rebellion, militia competition, some revenge killing and torturing. But it also has resources, good leadership, and some serious planning, including the constitutional framework. Let’s make sure it heads down Tunisia’s path towards good elections and a constitution.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
There are worse fates
The annual EU Forum, a confab sponsored by the Paris-based European Union Institute for Strategic Studies and SAIS’s Center for Transatlantic Relations, convened Thursday and Friday in Washington to focus American and European luminaries on the thing we all call the Arab Spring, even though we know it started last winter, varies from country to country and may not have results as upbeat as the appellation implies. Almost entirely missing from the day and a half conference were Arab voices. This was an opportunity for the “the West” to put its heads together, not for the revolutionaries or the oppressive regimes to offer their narrative.
They were nevertheless much present in the minds of the participants, who leaned towards enthusiasm for the values of the protesters, as well as their energy and determination, while worrying about the impact on Western interests. The three big areas of worry arise from
- the Islamists: what do they really mean by sharia law? will they really play fair in democracy?
- increased Arab support for the Palestinians: will it make the Israel/Palestine equation even more difficult to solve?
- sectarianism (will it lead to civil wars and possible spillover to other countries, especially in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen?
Underlying all was a sense that the West has precious few resources with which to respond effectively to the revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, to the continuing repression in Syria and Yemen, or to the reforms in Jordan and Morocco, never mind the still solid autocratic regimes in the Gulf or the fragmented polity in Palestine. No one seemed to feel Western credibility or influence was strong, especially in light of the long-standing support (and arms) both Europe and the U.S. had given to Arab autocracies in the past (and continue to provide to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others even now). And everyone was aware that the Chinese, Turks, Brazilians, Indians and other emerging powers will play increasing roles in the Middle East, offering contracts and aid on terms far less complex and burdensome than those of the West.
The Europeans nevertheless came with a strong sense that the Middle East is their “southern neighborhood” and they need to up their game in response to changes that will affect their interests directly, whether through immigration, economic interdependence, oil and gas supplies, contracts, investment and myriad other ties. Precisely what they are going to do about it was not clear, and there was a strong sense that European policy on the Arab Spring has been re-nationalized. The British and French in particular are carving out their own distinct approaches, taking advantage of their forward role in the NATO military action against Qaddafi, while other countries are lagging and the EU itself is still contemplating the interior walls of the Berlaymont.
The Americans would like to focus more on Asia, not only Afghanistan/Pakistan but also China and North Korea as threats to national security. It was clear to all that Europe would not share this Asian interest to the same degree, but yesterday’s talk of Chinese financing to back the euro might change a few minds on that score. The problem for the Americans is that the Asian challenge requires a very different set of policy instruments from the Arab Spring, which apart from Egypt and Yemen Washington might rather leave primarily to the Europeans (no one of course says this quite so bluntly, but if you follow the money that is what they mean). Everyone expects, though, that NATO will remain somehow important and in the end the only real military instrument capable of effective power projection available to the Europeans.
There were lots of other points made. Trade and investment are far more important than aid. We need to be talking not only with secular women but also with Islamist women. Liberal economic reform, associated in Egypt and other countries with the old regimes, is in trouble, at least for the moment. Civil society in the Arab Spring countries needs Western support, but it should not be done through governmental channels but rather by nongovernmental organizations like the American National Endowment for Democracy (and the talked about European Endowment for Democracy). Western conditionality should focus on transparency and accountability rather than specific policy prescriptions.
I could go on, but I trust the sponsors will be doing a far better job of writing up in due course, and tweets are available from EUISS for those really interested. Bottom line: the West is fading even as its values spread. There are worse fates.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Next week’s “peace picks”
Relatively slim pickings this week, at least in numbers. Not sure why.
1. In the Eye of the Storm: Turkish Foreign Policy in an Age of Domestic Realignment, Brookings, October 25, 2:30-3:30 pm
Panelists
Ümit Boyner
Chair
Turkish Industry and Business Association (TÜSİAD)
Soli Özel
Professor
Kadir Has University, Istanbul
2. A Roadmap for Effective Economic Reconstruction in Conflict-Affected Areas, USIP, October 26, 9 am-1 pm
The event will include two panels which will address structural as well as programmatic aspects of economic reconstruction, including: risk-aversion in donor institutions, inter-agency and international collaboration and cooperation, monitoring and evaluation, and the role of entrepreneurship and public/private partnerships.
Panelists will glean lessons from relevant case-studies and begin to chart the roadmap to peace and prosperity that World Bank President Robert Zoellick called for with the launch of the 2011 World Development Report.
Speakers
- Fred Tipson, Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow
U.S. Institute of Peace - Basel Saleh, Assistant Professor of Economics
Radford University - Jomana Amara, Assistant Professor of Economics
Naval Postgraduate School - Sharon Morris, Director of the Conflict Management Group
Mercy Corps - Robert Aten, Senior International Economics
Ret. U. S. Agency for International Development - Gary Milante, World Development Report Core Team Member
World Bank - Graciana del Castillo, Co-founding Partner
Macroeconomic Advisory Group - John Simon, Founding Partner
Total Impact Advisors - Del Fitchett
Independent Economics Consultant - Raymond Gilpin, Director of the Center for Sustainable Economies
U.S. Institute of Peace
The Carnegie Endowment and the North-South Institute will host a discussion on the complexities of electoral support in conflict contexts and examine two compelling case studies—the recent elections in Afghanistan and Kenya. The event will also mark the launch of a new book by the North-South Institute, Elections in Dangerous Places.
Radwan Ziadeh, director of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies, and Ammar Abdulhamid, founder of the Tharwa Foundation and a human rights activist, will discuss this topic. For more information and to RSVP, contact katarina@jhu.edu.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Mr. Petrović comes to Washington
Slobodan Petrović, the leader of the largest Serb political bloc in the Kosovo parliament and a deputy prime minister in the Albanian-majority country, has visited us previously in DC, but this is the first time we’ve had him as a solo act at Johns Hopkins. He appeared previously with then Finance Minister Ahmet Shala. Petrović outperformed, as they say on Wall Street (when it isn’t occupied).
He starts from a simple premise: he can do more to protect his constituency, attract Serbs back to Kosovo (or keep them from leaving) and improve their economic and social conditions by political participation than by isolating the Serbs and refusing to vote or serve in parliament, which is what Belgrade prefers. This is a marvelously simple, even self-evident, but decidedly non-Balkan notion.
It has worked reasonably well for Serbs south of the Ibar river, where most of them live. Forty per cent of them voted in the last Kosovo election. They are less isolated than five years ago, when Petrovic launched his Serb Liberal Party, and their rights are more widely respected. The Pristina government has funded housing and infrastructure for Serb communities, and the international community has pitched in as well. Decentralization, in accordance with the Ahtisaari peace plan that Belgrade rejected, has provided Serb-majority municipalities with a wide degree of autonomy. Freedom of movement has improved. I won’t say all Albanians have learned to embrace the Serbs, but they are certainly far more accepting of them today than in the immediate aftermath of the 1999 NATO/Yugoslavia war, when something like half the Albanian population of Kosovo returned from having been expelled by Serbian forces.
There is lots more to be done for the Serbs south of the Ibar, but the big problem is northern Kosovo, where Belgrade has not permitted Pristina’s institutions to be established, even those that are guaranteed autonomy by the Ahtisaari plan. As Petrović recounted, Belgrade instead maintains barely functioning municipal governments with large payrolls. Nationalist Serbs from all over Kosovo have retreated to the north, including some Croatian Serbs relocated to Kosovo in 1995. The result is a lawless area where courts don’t function, services are poor and extremists are determined to resist not only Pristina’s authority but also the UN, EULEX, NATO and the EU.
Ultimately, this is a European Union problem. The EU Commission has recommended candidacy status for Serbia, provided it improves cooperation with Pristina. The question is how far Belgrade will go. The smart money is betting not far, since Serbia has elections early next year and the EU is believed to have set a low bar, apparently in the hope that will boost Serbian President Boris Tadić’s reelection prospects.
Some believe things are moving in the right direction and we just need to patiently keep them on track. Eventually, Serbia will have to accept Kosovo independence as a reality. Some even believe that Tadić, if reelected, will bring nationalist Tomislav Nikolić into the government as prime minster, reducing Kosovo’s salience as a competitive issue in Serbian politics and enabling both to accept reality sooner rather than later.
I’m not ready to sign up to optimism on Serbia’s acceptance of the Kosovo reality. I’ve been disappointed too many times. But I am optimistic about the prospects for the Serb communities south of the Ibar. Petrović is leading them in a good direction, one I hope the Albanians of Kosovo will appreciate and reward. Pristina’s fate still depends, as it has since 1999, on how fairly it is prepared to treat Kosovo’s Serb population. That is also the key to the north, where it is not going to be easy to gain the confidence of the population.
One note of appreciation: to the Kosovo embassy in Washington, which handled its deputy prime minister’s visit well. As those of us who deal with the Balkans in Washington know only too well, Washington embassies sometimes provide support that depends all too obviously on the ethnic background of the visitor. Thank you, Ambassador Spahiu, for showing that Kosovo knows better!
RSS - Posts
