Posted by Joerg Wolf in
European Issues, US Foreign Policy on Wednesday, July 23. 2008
Finally, Serbia is back in Europe. Stephen Castle and Steven Erlanger write in the NY Times:
Europe on Tuesday welcomed the arrest of Radovan Karadzic not just as a victory for international justice, but as a vindication of the Continent's favored political doctrine: soft power. (...)
In the last few months the European Union has helped bring a pro-Western political party to victory in Serbia's elections while ensuring that it has powerful incentives to hand over war crimes suspects. The arrest of Mr. Karadzic demonstrates how effective the union's leverage can be, particularly with neighboring countries that have ambitions to join it.
Yeah, it only took a bit more than a decade...
But then again, how successful (and how costly) is hard power? Milosevic and Karadzic were not arrested during the many Balkan wars... (Well, obviously, without the wars, they might still be in power.) And capturing Saddam was much more expensive and demands from the US to a strong commitment to Iraq of at least a decade...
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
European Issues on Thursday, July 10. 2008
Douglas Muir found an interesting NY Times article that describes why birthrates vary so much across Europe and how some East German cities to handle population decline. See his post in A Fistful of Euros.
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
European Issues on Friday, June 20. 2008
Guardian correspondent Jonathan Steele has an interesting piece about the different significance Lithuania attaches to the victims of Communism and of Nazism. He describes walking through the 'Museum of Genocide Victims':
But as I moved from room to dismal room, I had a growing sense something was missing. Vilnius was once known as the Jerusalem of the North. What about the Jews? Did their fate not merit remembrance? In a corridor I eventually found a placard with a brief, though telling, mention. It gave estimates for the victims of Lithuania's Soviet occupation and of the Nazi one as well. The number summarily shot, or who died in prison and during deportation in the Soviet period, reached 74,500. During three years of Nazi rule from June 1941, those killed amounted to 240,000, "including about 200,000 Jews". It is worth noting that this is a general issue throughout the former communist countries of Europe. It is not hard to predict that countries will tend to play up their own victimhood and not discuss their complicity in a genocide. This was also the initial reaction of the West European countries that were occupied by the nazis. Over time, however, that has been replaced by a more critical narrative.
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues on Tuesday, June 17. 2008
This is a guest article by Carole van Eyll, a native Belgian currently working as an intern at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. Carole has expertise in international and European public law.
"Belgium has ceased to exist," said a journalist from the Belgian national French-speaking TV station during a hoax news report in 2006, stoking long-term questions as to the reasons of existence of this small yet complex country.
Whether a premonition or provocation, the Belgian situation has since become increasingly tense due to the often caustic relations between the two main linguistic communities, which include mostly Dutch-speakers in northern Flanders (60% of the population) and Francophones in southern Walloonia.
I live in a country that has yet to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; where children who cannot speak Dutch are not allowed on playgrounds, and their parents in the same situation are restricted from buying new houses in certain Dutch neighbourhoods; where elected politicians native of another official language are prevented from assuming their functions; and where people are instructed by their politicians to denounce vendors who advertise in languages other than Dutch.
The worst thing is that Belgium is a developed European country, a founding member of the EU, and the host nation for NATO Headquarters and most EU institutions. It is ironic that the towns surrounding some of the West’s main institutions for spreading democracy and human rights values – towns in the heart of Europe and the West – are themselves unable to practice what they preach.
Continue reading ""Belgium has ceased to exist...""
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
European Issues, German Politics on Tuesday, June 17. 2008
Harris Interactive: Majorities of the public in France (68%), Spain (57%) and Germany (57%), as well as 39 percent of Italians and 35 percent of British adults consider Germany to be the "leader" of Europe. Of these European countries, Germany is considered the leader by all five. In the United States, almost two-thirds (63%) of Americans lean more towards the country they believe to be their closest partner, Great Britain, as the leader of Europe today. I learned about this poll in the US Embassy's InfoAlert, which recommends many other interesting articles from the last two months as well, especially regarding the future of NATO.
Posted by Editors in
European Issues on Monday, June 16. 2008
Atlantic Review editor Nanne Zwagerman has written a Euroblog roundup regarding the Irish 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty in his personal blog DJ Nozem, which covers European issues much more extensively than Atlantic Review.
The round-up includes J. Clive Matthews' call for looking more closely at the evolution of political integration in the United States, which did not happen merely by the stroke of a pen.
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations on Saturday, June 7. 2008
Editor's note by Nanne: The following entry was written by Migeru, an editor of the progressive community blog 'The European Tribune'. It is a scenario on the chances for European action on Iraq, based upon the principles of 'human rights' and 'riding the wave'.
As a recent post by Jörg revealed, there may be renewed interest in a European policy on Iraq. Beyond the current lack of any coordinated policy and the expectation that a European policy should consist of helping out America, a broad range of options exists.
This shortened version of Migeru's European Tribune diary is a first step in exploring some of those options.
It seems that European (Union) involvement in sorting out Bush's Iraqi misadventure has become a hot topic again [as shown by diaries of Magnifico and Joerg in Berlin - Nanne]. Jörg's diary especially got me thinking about what could be expected of European Union involvement in Iraq, and what a European strategy should be. My tentative answer is based on two principles: human rights and riding the wave.
Human Rights
It may be unrealistic to think of the EU as postcolonialist, but in any case I personally would like to see European Union foreign policy built around a true concern for Human Rights (counterexample). It is true that Iraq is everyone's problem even if the blame for the current mess can be pinned almost exclusively on the US. A spillover of violence from Iraq would be of concern to Europe, the Middle East is relatively close and accessible, and we need the oil, too. But instead of traditional geopolitical power-plays and grand-chessboard strategy, assume that the EU's concern would simply be to help Iraq contain the bleeding, restore a semblance of dignity and respect for human rights, and allow a civil society to emerge from the ashes. What would be the strategy, and what would be the roadblocks along the way?
Continue reading "What can be expected of Europe in Iraq?"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
European Issues, German Politics, Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, May 29. 2008
Benjam in Perry writes in Anglofritz:
Berlin-based Scottish expat, culturist and opinionator Nick Currie, better known as the musician Momus, elects Barack Obama today as the next President of Europe. The position just opened up, Momus says, after French President Nicolas Sarkozy earlier this month withdrew his essential support of Tony Blair for the job.
He also quotes Roger Cohen in the New York Times, who describes Obama as an online phenomenon, jumping national borders and "stirring as much buzz in Berlin as he does back home." Well, that's quite a bit of an exaggeration, but there is probably indeed more popular support for Barack Obama than for Tony Blair for the position of EU President. (See Nanne's post on Contention About the New "EU President")
Obama is considering a visit to Berlin, says Karsten Voigt, the German government's envoy for German-American relations, according to DW World. I doubt that Obama will indeed visit Germany during the hot election campaign. He already has won more than 80% of votes from the US expats living in Germany and registered as Democrats, I believe.
It would be great, however, if Obama would take time of from the campaign trail and visit Europe in order to put to rest the criticism from Steve Clemons (and myself) regarding his Lack of Real Interest in Transatlantic Cooperation:
As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe, Obama has held zero hearings -- at least that is how the record appears to me. Compare this to the House Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe, which is having constant hearings -- or to the Senate Subcommittee's work before Obama became Chair -- or to a comparative commitment of Hillary Clinton
Related posts in the Atlantic Review:
• President Obama and Europe
• Clinton Most Likely to Rebuild US-European Alliance
• Obama the Catalyst
Posted by Sonja Bonin in
European Issues on Sunday, May 18. 2008
While Swiss media are reporting Al Qaeda bomb threats during the upcoming EU- soccer championship (taking place in Switzerland and Austria), Eric Grover warns from an Islamic "World War IV" against the West on blogactiv. This entry was cross-posted from blogactiv with permission and without further editing. It does not represent the Atlantic Review's opinion on the matter:
"A resurgent fundamentalist Islam is engaged in a global war against the West and the rest of the infidel world. In World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism former Commentary editor in chief Norman Podhoretz calls it WW4.
Republican presidential frontrunner John McCain believes "the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremists." Mitt Romney said the “philosophy of radical jihadism says, ‘We want to kill.’” In stark contrast, Democrats, George Bush and many European leaders talk about combating terrorism – a means, disembodied from any animating ideology or purpose. It is as if in WW2 Roosevelt and Churchill had called for waging war against Panzer tanks. UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in a positively Orwellian construction now refers to Islamic terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.”
21st century Europeans and Americans no longer understand men motivated by and willing, indeed eager, to kill and die for their faith.
Continue reading "World War IV: Europe on the Front Line"
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations on Friday, May 16. 2008
Observing Hermann has posted a revealing article that references the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) most recent survey on global arms transfers (HT: Joe Noory):
The survey says that the USA, Russia and Germany are the world’s leading weapons exporters, with Germany’s latest weapons export piece of the pie profits coming in at around $3.395 billion. Damn, just think of all the ploughshares you could buy with that.
Taking a look at the numbers more closely reveals some interesting facts:
 In 2007:
• The USA, Russia, and Germany held 31, 19, and 14 percent of global exports respectively
• France was the fourth largest arms exporter, with 11% of the global market
From 2006 to 2007:
• Russia’s market share dropped 25% to 19%
• Germany’s market share rose 11% to 14%
• France’s market share rose 6% to 11%
The chart above shows Germany's global arms exports have increased steadily over the past few years. This is interesting considering Germany's resistance to take on an active combat role in Afghanistan, instead preferring to focus on reconstruction projects. As Observing Hermann wryly states:
All I can say is that it’s good to know that all of these German weapons are being used for goodness and niceness and purely defensive purposes (did you know that Wehrmacht meant defensive force?), not like some other countries’ weapons out there, if you know what I’m sayin’. Otherwise a whole lot of people in this country wouldn’t be able to sleep well at night.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Afghanistan: Merkel has “No Time” for Burden Sharing Proposals
• Afghanistan: NATO Crisis Gets Worse
• War for Dummies: Step 1, Fighting is Necessary
• Afghanistan: Fighting is Not Most Important
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Saturday, May 10. 2008
Tiny Georgia has become the front line in West-Russia tensions for the past month. It began at the NATO Bucharest Summit in early April, when NATO members rebuked immediate progress toward full NATO membership for Georgia, due largely to protests from Russia – while nonetheless promising future membership.
In the month since Bucharest, Russia-Georgia relations have spiraled quickly. Multiple Georgian unmanned aircraft are claimed to have been shot down over the breakaway region of Abkhazia, though disinformation (i.e. – blatant lies) coming from Russia, Georgia, Abkhazia, or all three, have blurred the facts. Russia has also deepened ties with Georgia’s separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and increased its number of “peace-keepers” there despite protests from the EU and NATO. At the same time, Russia is accusing Georgia of preparing an invasion into Abkhazia, and Georgia has pulled out of an air-defense treaty with Russia.
While both Russia and Georgia are contributing to escalating tensions, Russia undoubtedly initiated the latest downturn as a response to Georgia's bid for NATO membership.
Continue reading "Georgia Conflict: Should NATO Marry the Small Kid on the Playground?"
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Monday, April 28. 2008
France has signaled over the past few months that it may pursue reintegration into the NATO command structure, which President Charles de Gaulle fitfully left in 1966. A sympathetic member of the French National Assembly published an article in Newsweek arguing this move is, “no less than a revolution for NATO and transatlantic relations.” The article explains Sarkozy's proposed tradeoff:
By showing that France is America's trusted friend again, Sarkozy hopes to gain influence on American policy, and, in particular, on lifting the longtime U.S. veto on European defense.
This is an interesting proposal: France will rejoin NATO if it can pursue its own parallel EU military structures. Many in the US defense establishment have long been concerned that a more autonomous European Security and Defense Policy is intended to act as a counterweight to the United States, or that it will duplicate/detract from NATO programs and assets. As Soeren Kern of the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos states in World Politics Review:
… most of Sarkozy's proposals seem to be geared toward creating a rival European defense structure that over time will duplicate but not double NATO resources… Indeed, some of the more U.S.-leaning European states suspect that France's renewed interest in rejoining NATO is in fact a Trojan horse designed, ultimately, to destroy the Atlantic Alliance from within.
At the same time, the United States has been pushing Europe to build stronger military capabilities since the Alliance was born, based on a plea for "burden sharing." One common sentiment, although often expressed with reserve, is that “it doesn’t matter where the forces come from, so long as they come.” By rejoining NATO, Sarkozy may be able to strike a balance of confidences between what on the face appears to be double-think: convincing America of France’s commitment to Atlanticism, while concurrently pursuing greater European military autonomy.
However, Soeren Kern points out that even if Sarkozy’s intentions are Atlanticist in nature, they will probably not outlast his term of presidency:
For most of the French ruling elite (the anti-American Left and the nationalist Right), the United States is considered to be the main problem in international affairs because of its reluctance to share its power. The only solution, in their view, is a French-led EU superstate that can counterbalance America on the global stage. And a unified EU foreign and defense policy that is completely independent of NATO (i.e., the United States) is essential to achieve equal status. Until then, anti-Americanism will continue to be the preferred means to accelerate the process of loosening the transatlantic link.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Europeans View China as the Biggest Threat to Global Security
• Europe is a Threat to the United States
|
or 
:
Latest Comments
France, that they were simply not European enough yet. I agree for Istambul, [...]
Pat Patterson about Karadzic's Arrest: Triumph of European Soft Power?
Turkey is being kept out because of some ongoing problems in Cyprus? That must be [...]
franchie about Karadzic's Arrest: Triumph of European Soft Power?
http://online.wsj.com/public/r esources/documents/pearl123199 .htm This is a vast [...]
Editor, Common Ground News Blog about Karadzic's Arrest: Triumph of European Soft Power?
I don't think that celebrating a victory earned through persistent use of soft power [...]
quo vadis about Karadzic's Arrest: Triumph of European Soft Power?
"Well, obviously, without the wars, they might still be in power." What actually [...]
Kevin Sampson about Karadzic's Arrest: Triumph of European Soft Power?
Now all you have to do is catch Ratko Mladic.
Joe Noory about Germany's Federal Minister of Economics Visited Baghdad
I hate to deflate you Luftballon, but Observing Hermann scooped you by a few days. [...]
Joe Noory about Karadzic's Arrest: Triumph of European Soft Power?
If anything the DELAY of Jerry Garcia arrest was a victory for 'soft power'. His [...]