Posted by Kyle Atwell in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Monday, September 29. 2008
Georgia’s president published a plea for continued western support in the Washington Post titled, “Answering Russian Aggression”. In it, President Mikheil Saakashvili promises an increase in Georgian transparency in exchange for continued support from and integration into the West.
Perhaps most significant to the West will be Saakashvili’s promise to increase transparency and openness of the Georgian state itself, to include reforms aimed at strengthening the opposition and liberalizing the media. Of course all good things come with a price, and for Georgia to continue its Western embrace, Saakashvili is asking for some help in return:
But the West also must respond to Russia with conviction. We cannot allow Russia's annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to stand. Nor can Moscow be permitted to continuously flout the cease-fire to which it has repeatedly agreed.
My government welcomed the European Union's decision to accelerate Georgia's integration into European institutions. Last week, we were heartened by the first official visit to Georgia by the North Atlantic Council, and we hope that NATO will move forward with our membership application.
Continue reading "Georgia’s Bid: Western Values for Western Security"
Posted by Pat Patterson in
European Issues on Sunday, August 24. 2008
This is a guest blog post by Pat Patterson:
Kenneth R. Weinstein, the CEO of the Hudson Institute, wrote a recent article in The Weekly Standard which argues that the divisions within the EU are greater and institutionalized than the more publicized division between the EU and the US.
Many of the policies, most recently instigated by France, have been resisted because they are seen as solely in French national interest and in most cases are the antithesis of the interests of the EU bureaucracy and Germany: "But suspicions linger in Berlin and elsewhere that Sarkozy's true goal in forming the [Mediterranean] Union was to expand France's sphere of influence at Germany's expense."
Continue reading "European Disunion"
Posted by Editors in
European Issues on Sunday, August 10. 2008
South Ossetia might well become Georgia's Chechnya. And the European Union might be the best-placed conflict manager in the South Caucasus, concludes Professor Stefan Wolff from the University of Nottingham in this guest article for Atlantic Review:
 As fighting in the separatist region of South Ossetia in Georgia escalates, with Russian air force attacking military targets inside Georgia and Abkhazian rebels in another break-away region of Georgia launching attacks against Georgian military installations, the South Caucasus seems on the brink of a major military confrontation between Georgia and Russia and its allies. The current hostilities are the culmination so far of increasing belligerence on all sides over the past 4 years. With both conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia unresolved but quiet since the early 1990s, it was only when current Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili came to power in 2004 that things began to heat up.
Continue reading "What to Expect from the Georgia-Russia Crisis"
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
European Issues on Wednesday, August 6. 2008
European defence integration is little discussed, chiefly because it does not really show progress. The last major news was a dust-up a few years ago over the question of having an independent headquarters from NATO in Brussels, between the USA and UK on one side, and a batch of continental countries led by France on the other side (Sarkozy has recently won over the USA, the UK still has to be wood). Or, if you have really been paying close attention, the recent missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chad. For those who are interested why there has been so little progress, Nick Whitley has written a very useful policy paper for the European Council on Foreign Relations on Europe's security and defence policy.
As Pat Patterson wrote in a previous post, the report is long and not always readable if you are not familiar with the lingo. So here's a short overview.
In the 1990s, the EU agreed to form what the media called a 'rapid reaction force'. This was a plan to have a force of up to 60,000 troops capable of deploying within sixty days. These troops would be drawn from national armies. Little has come of this capability, and the EU has since shifted its policy towards developing 'battlegroups'. These are units of around 1500 troops to be deployed on very short notice. Whitney estimates that two are now actually operational.
Whitney's policy paper is marked by a post-cold war strain of thought that sees current security threats mainly in failed, failing or recovering states, in which intervention has to take place. It is odd to place this in the context of a struggle against Russia, as Simon Tisdall does in the Guardian, since Whitney specifically lambasts Europe's excessive capacities to fight war in Central Europe, and questions expensive projects like aircraft carriers. Europe's current manpower is too large, in Whitney's view, and at the same time not enough of it can be deployed abroad.
Continue reading "The State of European Defence Integration"
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 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 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
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
European Issues on Thursday, March 6. 2008
If the Lisbon Treaty will enter into force, there is going to be a new position in the European Union - that of European Council President.
Currently there already are two presidents in the EU: the President of the European Parliament, and the President of the European Commission.
The European Council - a body constituted by national government leaders which meets 4 times a year - currently still has a rotating presidency, which is held by a different EU country every 6 months. This will be replaced with a single president chosen by national government leaders, for a period of two and a half years - renewable once.
It is completely unclear how this new post will develop. As the European Council is a powerful institution which often drives the EU agenda and makes critical decisions, the as of yet nonexistent position has already given rise to contention.
Continue reading "Contention About the New "EU President""
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues on Wednesday, February 13. 2008
From Deutsche Welle:
The European Commission agreed to a plan to collect fingerprints and photographs from foreigners entering the EU, part of an effort to fortify the bloc's borders. The plan, which was presented on Wednesday, Feb. 13, could see EU funds used to develop surveillance equipment like cameras, sensors and pilot-less drones. Civil libertarians argue that the controversial measures infringe on people's privacy and won't fight crime. But proponents of the plan called the proposals "further building blocks in the often stated aim of the European Union to build a space of free and secure travel through collective responsibility and solidarity."
Yesterday’s Washington Post also had an interesting article on the topic:
If approved by the European Parliament, the measure would mean that precisely identifying information on tens of millions of citizens will be added in coming years to databases that could be shared by friendly governments around the world.
The United States already requires that foreigners be fingerprinted and photographed before they enter the country. So does Japan... The plan is part of a vast and growing trend on both sides of the Atlantic to collect and share data electronically to identify and track people in the name of national security and immigration control.
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations on Friday, February 8. 2008
Ronald Asmus has a new “grand strategy” for the west: it should continue to expand eastward (see Foreign Affairs, subscription only):
The challenge of securing Europe’s eastern border from the Baltics to the Black Sea has been replaced by the need to extend peace and stability along the southern rim of the Euro-Atlantic community—from the Balkans across the Black Sea and further into Eurasia, a region that connects Europe, Russia, and the Middle East and involves core security interests, including a critical energy corridor. Working to consolidate democratic change and build stability in this area is as important for Western security today as consolidating democracy in central and eastern Europe was in the 1990s.
The west’s most important accomplishment following the Cold War has been its integration of central and eastern European countries that were previously part of the Soviet Union—countries that have undergone significant reforms to be accepted into NATO and the EU. It is interesting that despite the ubiquitous negative publicity NATO is receiving these days, due largely to a perceived lack of teamwork in Afghanistan, there are several countries that continue to fervently seek membership—take the 71 percent of Georgian’s who endorsed NATO membership in a January referendum for example (see Today’s Zaman).
Continue reading "Ronald Asmus' Strategy for the West: Expand East"
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Monday, January 28. 2008
The short-lived age of US hegemony is over, with no hope of return. Instead of comfortable primacy, the United States will struggle as one of three global superpowers.
This is the 21st century described by Parag Khanna in an essay published in New York Times Magazine, titled “Waving Goodbye to Hegemony” (HT: David Vickrey). Khanna, a Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation, bases the essay on his new book, “The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order,” to be published by Random House in March (the book is already the second bestseller at Amazon). Here is Khanna’s line of argument:
Continue reading "Parag Khanna: "Europe's Influence Grows at America's Expense""
|
or 
:
Latest Comments
SC, I know and love the Ozarks. I've even been to Rolla once or twice when I lived in [...]
Marie Claude about FT: "Speed of European Response Leaves US Trailing"
only t happens that some believe in a godveal
Don S about Financial Crisis: "Trans-Atlantic Sniping"
Indeed yes, SC. Subtley and natural modesty precludes one from pointing out that the [...]
Don S about FT: "Speed of European Response Leaves US Trailing"
My there seems to be SUCH a lot of distrust in Deutschland! Distrust of Poland, [...]
SC about Financial Crisis: "Trans-Atlantic Sniping"
Swift's quote couldn't be more appropriate, and was certainly close to mind while [...]
SC about FT: "Speed of European Response Leaves US Trailing"
Hmmm . . . do I detect a goldbug among us?