Tag: European Union
Doom and gloom
A world that was looking hopeful two weeks ago has taken a sharp turn southwards:
- The earthquake in Japan has not only caused upwards of 10,000 deaths and untold destruction, it has also put in doubt nuclear programs worldwide, not to mention what the prospect of further radiation leaks will do to stock markets today and the economic recovery in the future.
- Counter revolution is on the march in Libya, Bahrain and Yemen–in all three countries repression is winning the day, with the help of hesitation in Europe and the U.S. and Saudi and UAE security forces in Manama.
- Egypt votes in a constitutional referendum Saturday to either approve amendments prepared behind closed doors that would leave its regime largely intact, or disapprove, sending the country into uncertainty once again.
- Violence in Sudan is rising, with local south/south conflicts and tension in Abyei overshadowed for the moment by the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement claim that the north is planning a coup intended to prevent independence in July.
- Iran is succeeding in repressing its Green Movement opposition and in neutering anyone else who might dare to challenge President Ahmedinejad.
- Kurdish and Arab leaders in Iraq are competing to see who can claim Kirkuk is their Jerusalem most convincingly, while their respective military forces face off in the contested town.
It is telling that today’s testimony in Congress by General Petraeus on the situation in Afghanistan, which is expected to be relatively upbeat, is the only good news, though experienced wags will see it as just the latest in a long string of turning points in a war that has never turned.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Counter revolution advances, not only in Libya
With the U.S. and Europe hesitating to take action against Gaddafi, the counter-revolution is in full swing, not only in Libya. The Saudis have prevented any sizable demonstrations and have sent military forces into Bahrain to reinforce its effort to repress the demonstrations, which yesterday focused on Manama’s financial district. In Yemen, seven were killed over the weekend and many more injured as the government used deadly force against university demonstrators. Demonstrators and local doctors are also claiming that some sort of illegal poison gas was used:
In Libya, Gaddafi’s forces have taken Brega and are headed east towards Benghazi. The once hopeful rebellion appears headed for defeat, if not oblivion. The past several days of inaction have had serious consequences, as Tripoli has used its unchallenged air force and superior fire power to force the rebels out of several key positions. Libyan forces are now approaching Adjabiya. Their long supply lines now represent the last, best hope of the rebellion to prevent the fall of Benghazi.
Will these reversals encourage conservative forces in Tunisia and Egypt to hold on to what positions they can, or even strike back to counter changes already in progress? Are the reversals temporary setbacks, or are we witnessing the end of the (early) Arab spring? Will the protesters find ways of reviving their efforts? Will the regimes turn their backs on protester aspirations or look for ways to offer more meaningful reforms? Lots of questions, few answers.
PS: Little did I know when I wrote this that Jackson Diehl had already asked similar questions, with a somewhat more pessimistic spin, in this morning’s Washington Post.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Time to make history
President Obama yesterday declared Gaddafi to be “on the wrong side of history.” By this he presumably means that in the long-term Gaddafi is finished. The trouble is it does not look as if the Colonel is finished anytime soon. History can be a long time in the future.
Things are moving, slowly. The Arab League is meeting today to discuss a no-fly zone over Libya. The head of the Libyan Interim National Transitional Council, who now has the honor of a substantial price on his head offered by Gaddafi, has called for a sea blockade as well. The Americans, belatedly in my view, have announced that they will establish liaison with the Council. The president of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, made a strong statement calling for Gaddafi to step down but did not call explicitly for a no-fly zone and in fact offered no indication of concrete steps the EU is taking to force Gaddafi out. NATO is reportedly studying military options. But the African Union has issued a fence-sitting declaration that excludes military intervention.
Gaddafi has said he will turn Libya into another Vietnam. In a perverse sense, he has already done that, with his forces playing the unfortunate role of the Americans in Vietnam. But the Americans held on for a long time in Vietnam, and Gaddafi may do likewise in Libya. He knows, as does Washington, that no one is even thinking about putting American boots on the ground. The Iraq/Afghanistan Syndrome is much in evidence, with Defense Secretary Gates making it clear he does not want to take military action against Gaddafi.
The issue now is how to keep the rebellion alive while we all deliberate. Humanitarian assistance to the rebel-held areas is becoming urgent, as supplies there are dwindling. A shift in the military balance is also important. Gaddafi’s forces have taken Zawiya in the west and likely also Ras Lanuf towards the east. Superior fire power and organization are giving Tripoli important advantages. We can all hope that the Libyans will handle this situation on their own, or that the Arab League or EU will rescue the rebellion.
But in our heart of hearts, we know that international leadership lies with the Americans. When did Europe or the Arab League ever take decisive action? Everyone is waiting for President Obama to make history in the present, without waiting for it to happen in the future. He has a lot of options. The time has come to choose the ones he wants to pursue.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This is interesting
Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Bozidar Djelic is cited today as saying that Serbia has to find a solution for Kosovo before it can enter the EU, which might happen by 2015. This is not new, nor is it as promising as it sounds at first reading, because he adds:
Such compromise would guarantee economic and political autonomy of Kosovo, without jeopardizing Serbia’s territorial integrity….We cannot have a long-term peace if we support one nationalism against the other. It’s good to support the European kind of compromise which is not satisfactory but it is functional.
It is also said that he cited two precedents: Hong Kong and the two Germanies. Both of these are cases in which reintegration into a single sovereign state was the eventual result.
Anyone who follows Kosovo knows that autonomy within the context of even nominal Serbian sovereignty is no longer possible, if it ever was. Nor will reintegration happen, except in the context of EU membership for both Belgrade and Pristina. Belgrade cannot hope to govern Kosovo the way China today governs Hong Kong or Berlin governs East Germany. That’s a pipedream.
Djelic’s statements are nevertheless interesting, as they suggest that Belgrade is beginning to think seriously about what it has to do about Kosovo in order to get into the EU. This should be the vital question for Belgrade. It is also urgent, since the EU is unlikely to move quickly on an application for membership from a state that cannot define its own borders.
It should also be the vital question for Brussels, which so far has not spoken unequivocally about the need to resolve the Kosovo issue before Serbia can enter the EU. It is of course hard for Brussels to speak with one voice on this subject, as 22 of its member states have recognized Kosovo and 5 have not. Some of those 22 are sure to block Serbian membership so long as the Kosovo issue remains unresolved and have said as much publicly and privately. Getting an unequivocal statement out of the 27 would go a long way to clarifying the situation. You don’t need to have recognized Kosovo to know that EU membership for Serbia is impossible without resolving the Kosovo issue.
Washington will also have to be clear with Belgrade about the need to resolve Kosovo before Serbia can enter NATO. This is less urgent, as Serbia understandably shows few signs of really wanting NATO membership. But no one should be encouraging Belgrade to think that anything less than a full resolution of the Kosovo issue is vital to Serbia’s long-term relationship with the United States.
Pristina should take notice too. It would be perilous for Kosovo if Serbia were to enter the EU first, even if it has accepted Kosovo as a sovereign state. Belgrade would then have a veto on Pristina’s EU membership. The only reasonable solution to this problem is for Pristina to accelerate its own efforts at preparing for EU membership. It has done well to meet the EU technical requirements for the Schengen visa waiver, and I hope the EU will come to its senses and allow that to go forward. But there are many other areas in which Pristina is lagging. It needs to get its own house in order. Governing well is the best revenge.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
That was easy!
EU mediator Robert Cooper opened talks between Pristina and Belgrade Tuesday in Brussels, marking the launch of a dialogue process called for by the UN General Assembly last fall and likely to last many months if not years. Chief negotiators Borko Stefanovic and Edita Tahiri are eminently capable and qualified exponents of their respective sides and will be expected to try to keep the talks going despite shaky political situations in both capitals.
I’ve now heard several different versions of the agenda, with Stefanovic saying the first item was land registers, diplomatic sources saying it was supposed to be customs (an obviously sensitive issue for the Serbian side) and the Americans originally interested in establishing the authority of the Kosovo courts in northern Kosovo.
I’m not sure it matters much. Whatever works is okay for me. But I do think it will be difficult to keep the focus on practical issues without wandering off into status questions. If you don’t think land registers can be linked to status issues, guess again. Serbian government and Church land claims in Kosovo are extensive. The link of status to customs and courts is too obvious to mention.
This is one of those diplomatic dances that drives outsiders nuts. All the diplomats agree the talks are about practical issues, not status, but it is also perfectly clear that the eventual goal is to get to a situation in which Serbia can accept Kosovo as a sovereign state, one way or another. Membership in the UN might be sufficient, if formal diplomatic recognition proves too difficult.
Nothing less than that will get Serbia into the EU, and nothing less than that will satisfy Pristina and Washington either. We just don’t say it in polite company, because it will make life harder for those Belgrade who want to prioritize Serbia’s EU membership. But that symmetrical table, with the Pristina delegation on one side and the Belgrade delegation on the other, already presages the eventual outcome.
That is not to say there isn’t a lot of work to be done on practical issues, or that it won’t be useful to start with them. The potential agenda is long: land registers, customs, authority of the Pristina institutions in northern Kosovo, mutual recogntion of documents, return of artefacts, state property, citizenship, pensions, salary arrears, transportation and telecommunication links, police and border patrol cooperation…. Resolving at least some of these issues will improve relations between Pristina and Belgrade–which have been virtually non-existent since the 1999 NATO/Yugoslavia war.
I trained both Serbian foreign service officers and Kosovan officials for these talks years ago. I’m delighted to see that they are happening, and I wish both sides well in pursuing their legitimate interests. Success in these talks will help a good deal to move the Balkans closer to the EU. Failure is not an option. Best wishes to Edita and Borko!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Europe has to go on a diet
President Obama scored points this week by supporting India’s bid for a permanent (non-veto) seat on the 15-member UN Security Council. He is likely to do the same for Brazil when he next meets its President, newly elected Dilma Rousseff. Neither Brazil nor India, however, can expect to occupy their cushions any time soon. Among the many obstacles, two bear mention:
1. Regional opposition is strong. Pakistan (and other Asian countries) are unlikely to applaud loudly as archrival India gets a permanent seat among the world’s mighty. Nor are Argentina and Mexico likely to applaud for lusophone Brazil to represent Latin America permanently on the Council.
2. Europe is over-represented and needs to give up seats so that the Council can be kept at a reasonable size. As many as five, more often four, seats on the Council are occupied by European Union members, including two permanent seats for France and the UK. To make room for Brazil and India, plus increased regional representation from Africa, the Middle East and Asia, will require Europe to go on a diet, as it has (barely) begun to do at the IMF: IMF Survey: G-20 Ministers Agree ‘Historic’ Reforms in IMF Governance.
This won’t be easy: Germany has long campaigned for a permanent seat of its own. But with EU countries coordinating their foreign and security policies, is there really any need for so many different European voices to be saying much the same thing? Or would European weight in peace and security issues be greater if the Union had fewer seats (and a louder voice)?
RSS - Posts
