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."

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.

The challenge of securing Europe’s eastern border from the Baltics to the Black Sea has been replaced by the need to extend peace and stability along the southern rim of the Euro-Atlantic community—from the Balkans across the Black Sea and further into Eurasia, a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.

We are convinced that there is no security for Europe without the US, but we also dare to submit that there is no hope for the US to sustain its role as the world’s sole superpower without the Europeans as allies.

Bulent Kenes opines in Today’s Zaman that US support for Turkey’s military operations against the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) is a breakthrough for Turkish sovereignty:

During the years of the Cold War, there could be nothing more normal for Turkey, an ally of the US, than to conform to the global policies determined by the US, the super power of the Western bloc that it belonged to in the bipolar system. However, the US wanted to maintain this habit even after the end of the bipolar system when the Cold War ended...
Turkey was, of course, placing importance on its relations with the US and alliance in this new era, but the thing to which it attached a greater importance was the fact that it was a sovereign country. Therefore, Turkey was no longer “a bird in hand” for the US and was endeavoring to become a country which was treated as an equal party at the negotiation table.

Noting that the US also opposes the statute's ratification, Justice Ministry officials assert that the court may be called to prosecute Turkish officers who participate in cross-border operations against the PKK in northern Iraq.

I wonder how this will affect Turkey’s accession to the EU?  The EU did not set Turkish ICC membership as a mandatory precursor for EU membership, but Turkey’s decision to stay out of the court will undoubtedly provide fuel for the anti-Turkey fire burning across Europe. 

Does Turkey see the US as a more reliable partner than Europe?

First, in an ideal world this question would not need to be asked since Turkey is a member of NATO, and all NATO members are presumed to be reliable allies.  When you are done laughing at how far from the truth this is (see my previous post War for Dummies for more), here are some initial thoughts to the question:

While US and Turkish cooperation against the PKK is probably more circumstantial rather than signifying some greater paradigm shift as Kenes suggests, it is nonetheless a positive step for US-Turkey relations after they hit a low leading up to the Iraq war. Concomitantly, Euro-Turkey relations continue to decline as Turkey becomes increasingly frustrated with its spurious EU accession process.  I especially think Turkey has little chance of accession to the EU with the influential anti-Turk Sarkozy as Frances’ president.

So if current trends continue,  Turkey will increasingly view the US as a more reliable partner than Europe.

Nicholas Sarkozy stated last weekend that the issue of Kosovo's independence, "is not an affair of Mr. Bush or Mr. Putin, but one of Europe." (Le Figaro, in French). Another article by John Ward Anderson in the Washington Post reports:

"Kosovo's independence is inevitable," French President Nicolas Sarkozy told reporters after the summit. "It's an issue for Europe to sort out."

Does Sarkozy mean to say that despite a recent history thick with US political and military engagement in the Balkans, Kosovo is now strictly a European issue? Has Sarkozy forgotten so quickly that the United States bailed out Europe in the Balkans even after the 1991 declaration by Luxembourg's foreign minister Jacques Poos that "This is the hour of Europe?"

Joerg recently cited the Jacques Poos quote in an Atlantic Review post he titled "Kosovo: Is the EU Home Alone in the Balkans?" Perhaps another question is, "Kosovo: Whose House is it?"

What is the benefit for Sarkozy or the EU of preemptively decrying American support, especially when the US and EU strategy for Kosovo seem to be in sync? Why not declare this the "hour of the allies" or the "the hour of cooperation", or perhaps be more candid: "this is the hour we will hopefully not f*** up again in the Balkans, but if we do we are glad to have our American friends to back us up?"

Sarkozy's statement is particularly frustrating to America's proponents of transatlantic cooperation, because it is exactly the type of churlish bombast that leads American Europhobes to argue that the pubescent EU Common Foreign and Security Policy aims to build the EU as a counterweight to the United States, rather than as a stronger ally.