Global Europe

Israel pushing for Iran sanctions. The Washington Post has the story:

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon will meet with senior U.S. officials this week to emphasize Israel’s growing displeasure with the slow pace of diplomacy on Iran at the U.N. Security Council, according to a senior Israeli official (…) The Obama administration has signaled that after a year of outreach to Iran, it would get tough in 2010, promising “crippling sanctions.” “We were led to believe that by now, or the end of the month, that sanctions would be in place,” the official said. Now it appears sanctions might take until April, or even later.

Middle East proximity talks, a theater of the absurd? Sharmine Narwani comments in the Huffington Post:

After a year of grandiose declarations on Mideast peace prospects and a gazillion trips to the region by US Envoy George Mitchell, the Obama administration has come up with this? “Proximity Talks.” Look it up in the Dictionary of Realpolitik and you will find the following: “Negotiations going nowhere fast. Wear seatbelts lest the speed of self-destruction spins you off the earth’s axis.”

Palestinians and Israelis are not even going to be at the table together. Mitchell could not even make that happen. This isn’t phase one of a longstanding conflict. These are adversaries who have sat across many tables and struck many agreements over the past 19 years.

And so this is where we are in the gruelingly endless Middle East peace process. About a dozen steps back from where we started. (…)

Here’s what I think is actually happening: I think Obama is realigning his peacemaking priorities in the Middle East — at least until he has the US economy, health care reform and Iraq under his belt — a must if he wants to be re-elected in 2012. For both domestic and international public consumption, he cannot accept complete failure in such a visibly-touted part of his global agenda. There must be talks in some form, but they will be placed on a low burner, increasing the risk of more of the same endless “process without peace” that the US has sponsored since 1991.

Russia, a failing state? In the Moscow Times, Vladimir Ryzhkov looks at Medvedev’s agenda, the “four I’s”. Bottom line: “institutions are corrupt to the core, the infrastructure is falling apart, the country’s homegrown innovators are abandoning Russia in droves, and investment is evaporating”.

Ashton to Gaza: “unnecessary and unhelpful”. The former Israel ambassador to the EU comments on Ashton’s plan to visit Gaza. The European Observer reports:

Israel has agreed for EU foreign relations chief Catherine Ashton to visit Gaza next week in a mission criticised by a former Israeli diplomat. “I think that both a visit and a meeting [with Palestinian militant group Hamas] are unnecessary and unhelpful,” Israel’s former ambassador to the EU, Oded Eran, told EUobserver from Tel Aviv on Monday (8 March).

“Assuming that Proximity Talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority start in the next few days, why would the EU want to give a moral boost and ‘victory’ to the Hamas and poke a finger not only in Israel’s eyes but those of Abu Mazen and the US?”

The Israeli foreign ministry in a statement on Monday gave permission for Ms Ashton to enter Gaza “for close inspection of humanitarian aid work.” (…)

Mr Eran, who was Israel’s ambassador to the EU until 2007, is currently the director of the Tel Aviv-based think tank, the Institute for National Security Studies, and an advisor to the Israeli parliament’s foreign affairs subcommittee. “The EU can legitimately say that it has an interest in Gaza because of the EU assistance, the alleged humanitarian situation and so on. But for that purpose it can send a mid-level official and not one of the three senior persons in the EU structure,” he added.

Ms Ashton’s office will have to make administrative-level contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza, in order to expedite the visit. Political-level talks with the group, which is listed on the EU’s terrorist register, are suspended under an informal agreement by the Quartet, comprising the EU, UN, US and Russia, in 2006. Ms Ashton’s spokesman, Lutz Guellner, refused to rule out a high-level meeting when questioned by press in Brussels on Monday, however.

Parliament critical of Ashton’s plans for EAS. The EU Observer reports:

Members of the European Parliament have expressed anger over a series of papers outlining how the EU’s future diplomatic service may look. “What is on paper at the moment is insufficient, utterly insufficient,” says German centre-right MEP Elmar Brok, in charge of drawing up parliament’s opinion on the issue.

MEPs fear that current proposals, drawn up and circulated by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton last week, seek to take away too much of what is directly the European Commission’s responsibility.

They also do not contain key parliament demands such as having budgetary control over the service and the right to call nominees to head the EU’s 136 delegations abroad to come and give their views before parliament.

While formally only having the right to be consulted on the setting up of the External Action Service (EAS), MEPs say they intend to make full use of their co-decision powers on finance and staff rules, both of which have to be changed to accommodate it. “We will use our power on budget and staff regulation. If we don’t find a compromise we will not give agreement to these two elements on this,” Austrian Socialist MEP Hannes Swoboda said. (…)

The commission fears losing key policy areas to the EAS, while member states fear a diluted service with a divided chain of command. In the dispute, parliament is a natural ally of the commission.

Did Barroso try to demote Ashton? DPA reports a story (based on hearsay):

The European Union’s foreign policy chief avoided an embarassing demotion on Tuesday, as plans by the European Commission to avoid representation by her at a key European Parliament debate were withdrawn. Catherine Ashton is due to appear before the assembly in Strasbourg on Wednesday, to discuss her plans for the formation of the European External Action Service (EAS), an EU-wide diplomatic service seen as one of the most radical innovations introduced by the Lisbon treaty.

But according to an email exchange between two senior figures in the parliament, seen by German Press Agency dpa, commission president Jose Manuel Barroso wanted aid commissioner Andris Piebalgs to speak for the EU executive, not Ashton.

One of the sources wrote on Friday that he “heard from reliable sources that president Barroso has asked commissioner Piebalgs to attend the plenary debate … in order to represent the commission.” “I find this not only unnecessary, since … Ashton is going to be present in the hemicycle, but also dangerous,” the top official commented. (…)

The same source stressed that Barroso insisting “on a separate representation for his institution” where Ashton was present was “clearly contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon.”

But an EU official minimized the significance of the commission president’s request. “There has never been any question of shadowing Mrs Ashton on common foreign and security policy affairs in the European Parliament,” he told dpa.

The parliament source also condemned attempts by the current rotating presidency of the EU, Spain, “to arrogate to themselves tasks and responsibilities which remain with the VP/HR,” by representing the bloc at events Ashton is unable to attend.

The other parliament figure involved in the email correspondence responded on Tuesday, sharing the concerns of his colleague, and telling him he had been informed that Ashton would “indeed be the only member of the commission taking the floor … during (Wednesday’s) debate in plenary.”

Ashton will fight back today, the Times says:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland will today appeal for an end to the infighting and personal attacks which have marred her first 100 days as the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

The British peer will begin the fightback against her critics by promoting plans to enhance EU common defence policy in an address to the European Parliament. Her speech, designed to show a strong grasp of her wide-ranging job despite her lack of prior experience in foreign and security affairs, will also suggest a new focus for EU foreign policy on the BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China. (…)

The Labour peer will tell MEPs that the EU has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a foreign service, the European External Action Service (EEAS), that should not be wasted or sold short by institutional wrangling. (…)

After a testing three months, when she has been criticised for not responding quickly enough to the earthquake in Haiti and failing to attend key meetings, Lady Ashton will remind MEPs that criticism of her also serves to undermine her role internationally.

Stefan Füle on Balkans, Moldova, Eastern Neighbors, Russia. RFE/RL’s Ahto Lobjakas has a wide-ranging interview with the new EU commissioner for Enlargement and the European Neighborhood Policy, Stefan Füle. Read it here.

To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com

Europe’s phone numbers. In the IHT, Roger Cohen tells a joke:

President Obama learns with interest that Europe now has a phone number. He’s told that, responding at last to Henry Kissinger’s famous jibe, the European Union has appointed a President named Herman Van Rompuy from Belgium and given him a 24/7 phone line.

So, Obama decides to try out Europe’s phone number. Henry will be tickled. But the president forgets about the time difference and gets an answering machine: “Good Evening, you’ve reached the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy speaking. We are closed for tonight. Please select from the following options. Press one for the French view, two for the German view, three for the British view, four for the Polish view, five for the Italian view, six for the Romanian view. …”

Obama hangs up in dismay.

This self-deprecating little story was told by the Finnish foreign minister, Alexander Stubb, during a meeting last week on NATO’s future.

Emerging consensus: Lisbon treaty made things worse. William Underhill writes on Newsweeks “Wealth of Nations” blog:

When the EU’s Lisbon Treaty finally took effect last year, the bloc’s leaders hailed the start of a new era. For the first time, the 27-nation union–representing 450 million people and a third of the world economy–could look forward to matching international clout. The pact gave Europe not just a streamlined decision-making system, but also a permanent president and a de facto foreign minister to serve as its global champions.

Yet 100 days on, Europe’s voice sounds as quiet as ever on the world stage. Both the new European Council president, former Belgian prime minister Herman Van Rompuy, and the new high representative for foreign affairs, Britain’s Catherine Ashton, have confirmed their earlier reputations as lackluster performers better at quiet diplomacy than international image boosting. The talk still is of a new global order dominated by the “G2″ of China and the U.S.

The Brussels hierarchy has been confused, not clarified, by the Lisbon Treaty. Europe now boasts separate presidents of the European Council, the European Commission, and the European Parliament (not to mention the six-monthly rotating EU presidency). But blame for a leadership deficit belongs to member states as much as to the new figureheads. Van Rompuy and Ashton were compromise candidates selected partly because of their unthreatening obscurity rather than their merits.

Whatever their fine words over Lisbon, the bloc’s big hitters remain reluctant to cede any real authority to Brussels. As so often in the EU, national interests trump collective ones.

The simple truth is that the Lisbon Treaty can’t re-create the EU as a superpower. Says Hugo Brady of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think tank: “It is not personality that denotes power: it is money, guns, political will, and diplomatic influence. When the EU can deploy those efficiently, then other countries will sit up and listen.”

Turf war over EAS. In a backgrounder, the Irish Times’ Arthur Beesley says that the EU foreign ministers meeting in Cordoba “gave Catherine Ashton a strong mandate for her new position”:

EU governments are vying with the European Commission and MEPs for influence over the new body, to be known as the European External Action Service (EAS). In the middle stands Baroness Ashton, roiled this way and that as she strives to shape a big new European institution while seeking to establish her voice in global affairs. It is a daunting task. (…)

“Everyone is playing their games – I mean that’s hardly surprising,” Sweden’s foreign minister, Carl Bildt, told reporters in Cordoba. (…)

Conscious that the EAS has the potential to become a major player in global affairs – that is the intention in Brussels, after all – member states are keen to maximise their leverage over the new body. This applies equally to governments who have high ambition for the service and those who would much prefer to limit its reach. All are confronted, however, with the commission’s reluctance to cede too many powers. (…)

As Baroness Ashton prepares to make public her plans next month, Brussels is in a fever of politicking. Whether she can bring all sides together will be a key test of her clout. Crucially, however, a succession of ministers backed her in the tussle with the commission by asserting their primacy over foreign affairs.

Does Germany have a security policy? In an essay for Internationale Politik, the GMF’s Constanze Stelzenmüller is discussing “the core questions of German security policy”:

Does Germany actually have a security policy worthy of the name? If so, is this policy actually based on a strategy? How effective are the actors and institutions that shape and implement such policy? Do Germany’s alliance policies bear inspection? Finally, how good are the tools at its disposal?

Bottom line: German security policy falls (far) short of what it should and could achieve.

To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com

EU foreign ministers show support for Ashton in Cordoba. AFP reports:

European foreign ministers Saturday gave a show of support for beleaguered EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton, hoping to move forward with the building of a new diplomatic service. (…)

“Ashton is a very energetic person, tenacious and strong and we are all going to support her because that’s the way to support our policy,” said Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn at talks in Cordoba, southern Spain.

Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb said “Ashton got 100 percent support” from the 27 EU foreign ministers who started meeting Friday. (…)

While displaying support for Ashton, ministers also stressed that jobs must be distributed fairly among European capitals.

Ashton told them that the jobs would be awarded on merit. “There needs to be some gender balance, geographical balance, political balance but at the same time people will be appointed on merit,” as Ashton spokesman said. “We are not just going to appoint someone because of where they are from.” (…)

Swedish and British foreign ministers Carl Bildt and David Miliband insisted in a leaked letter this week that “recruitment of staff should be transparent and based on merit”, with battles for key global posts due to intensify.

Smaller nations Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia have also written, insisting on being well represented in the new diplomatic service.

Bildt stressed Saturday that it was necessary to ensure that the nascent EAS “fully reflects the member states because if we don’t tie the member states into the structure, it’s simply not going to work.”

The controversy over the appointment of Barroso-ally Joao Vale de Almeida as the EU’s new envoy to Washington has boosted fears that the European Commission is calling too many shots in the appointments. “There is huge frustration among the member states that the whole issue would be steered by the Commission,” Austrian Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger said.

Reuters has more quotes:

Swedish Foreign Minister Cald Bildt told Reuters there had been agreement on the need to support Ashton, who holds posts both in the Commission and in the Council of EU states. “The feeling among the foreign ministers is that she’s our representative, we want to defend her … we see others encroaching on her so we are defending and supporting her.”

Finland’s Alexander Stubb said the aim of the diplomatic service — to give the bloc a stronger global voice — was at risk unless Ashton was given full backing. “There are some member states, especially on the civil servant level who are trying to pull the rug from underneath Cathy Ashton … they should look at themselves in the mirror. “We can either establish a true European foreign policy, a true diplomatic service, and give our 100-percent support to Cathy Ashton, or we can just fall into European foreign policy oblivion,” he said. Stubb also said there was strong support in Cordoba for Ashton’s work. “I would say it’s unanimous,” he said.

Spain’s Miguel Angel Moratinos said there had been a unanimous acknowledgment of Ashton’s “tireless efforts.” “There was a lot of debate but I am sure her proposal on the (EAS) will be extremely well balanced and all institutions will be satisfied,” he said. (…)

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, whose country has been most vocal in its criticism of Ashton’s first decisions as EU foreign policy chief, said little, despite talks with Ashton earlier in the day. “There is a lot of work to do. We will discuss it now,” he said.

Ashton must stand firm. In the Guardian, Will Hutton calls on Ashton to fight back attempts to undermine her authority:

EU heads of state chose her, knowing her lack of foreign policy experience. They aimed to manipulate an innocent. Ashton knows that the same José Manuel Barroso, who is urging all EU institutions to co-operate “in a spirit of loyalty”, is simultaneously engaged in a power grab to keep control of the aid and development funds, so neutering her new service. And while the French and Germans proclaim their fealty to the notion of a European common foreign and security policy, they jealously protect their sovereignty and national influence. Already Ashton has given ground, saying that big member states will have a role – unspecified – in choosing EU ambassadors. The word is she is giving ground to Barroso over her budget. She will argue that, in terms of European realpolitik, she is only recognising reality. Maybe. But it is a reality that should be challenged more firmly than she is doing.

To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com

Iraq’s election: Don’t wash your hands of it — Economist

Another Step Forward for Iraq — By Fouad Ajami, WSJ

Thinking the Unthinkable: War With Iran — By Walter R. Mead, AI blog

The Next Battles for Marja — By Joshua Foust, NY Times

Will EU ambassadors be able to bluff and lie? — By Charlemagne, Economist

Europe’s choice on immigration — By Stefan Theil, Newsweek

Iraq: Mission not accomplished. The Economist warns over potential failure in Iraq:

Seven years after the Americans invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, two momentous events are approaching: a general election on March 7th and the promised departure of all American combat troops by the end of August. Yet governments across the world, most notably Barack Obama’s, seem to have turned their attention elsewhere. Iraq is already yesterday’s story. This is a grave error. The country has been devastated, in good part thanks to the miscalculations of America and its Western allies. It is progressing shakily and still needs outside help. And it is vital to the stability of the region. The mission has by no means been accomplished.

Security Council still divided on Iran sanctions. The Washington Post reports:

The United States and its allies face resistance to sanctions on Iran not only from China, but from other influential countries on the U.N. Security Council, principally Brazil, Lebanon and Turkey, raising the possibility of a sharply divided vote on a sanctions resolution. (…)

The United States and its European allies are confident that they can secure at least 10 votes, including from nonpermanent members Austria, Bosnia, Gabon, Mexico, Nigeria and Uganda — one more than the nine required for passage in the council. But the failure to secure a united front, particularly from the five veto-wielding members of the council, would send a weak signal to the Iranians, diplomats said. U.S. and European officials are eager to have the resolution adopted before a May 4-15 review conference on the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (…)

Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sought to position his government as a key power broker in the Middle East, mediating disputes between Israel and Syria and looking for a similar role in Iran. But Turkish diplomats are concerned that a vote for sanctions would jeopardize its ability to play the role of an honest broker. “They have really raised their level of diplomatic engagement quite dramatically over the last years and the Erdogan government feels that it has a privileged relation to Tehran,” said a senior ambassador involved in the talks.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is seeking to position his government as a leader of the developing world, which often sees sanctions as a Western tool of pressure against poor countries. In New York, Brazilian diplomats have voiced concern to their counterparts that the resolution might deprive Iran of its right to possess nuclear power, according to a council diplomat.

EU Commission: $273 Million for Nabucco pipeline. The NY Times reports:

Günther Oettinger, the bloc’s commissioner for energy, pledged 200 million euros ($273 million) for a pipeline that would start delivering gas by around 2015 from the Caspian Sea region, bypassing Russia and Ukraine. It was the first time the commission had offered money for the construction phase of a gas pipeline. Mr. Oettinger said the offer, which was presented as part of a package of energy infrastructure projects worth 2.3 billion euros, was a “milestone” for European energy policy. “We’re not just supporting an idea anymore, we’re talking about funding,” Mr. Oettinger said in a news conference in Brussels.

The pipeline, known as the Nabucco project, would stretch more than 2,000 miles, or 3,220 kilometers, from Turkey across Bulgaria and Romania and into Austria. The project has significant strategic implications for Europe, which is seeking to reduce its dependence on Russian gas.

Mr. Oettinger also offered encouragement to a rival, Russian-backed project called South Stream, which would take Russian natural gas under the Black Sea to Europe. “We advocate South Stream and we are watching the decision-making procedure in a positive sense,” he said.

Mr. Oettinger emphasized that the companies backing Nabucco, including R.W.E. of Germany and O.M.V. of Austria, needed to make a decision by autumn on whether to go forward, or to use the money for other projects. “All participants want decisions to be taken, one way or the other, this year in fact,” he said. The total cost of the Nabucco project is estimated at 8 billion euros ($10.9 billion), or about 40 times more than the sum pledged Thursday. But Mr. Oettinger said the money still represented a “trump card on the table” for Nabucco. The pledge could help restart progress on Nabucco because the companies that back the pipeline would need to begin ordering some of the pipes to receive the money, according to European officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with the organization’s policy.

EU not living up to aid commitments, leaked document says. Reuters has the story:

The European Union’s development chief may be forced to name and shame France, Germany and Italy for not living up to their aid commitments, contributing to a roughly $17 billion funding gap this year. Andris Piebalgs warned in January he would clearly identify EU countries that failed to meet their aid commitments. “In 2010, the EU aid disbursements are likely to further grow to approximately 54-55 billion euros ($74-75 billion),” a leaked EU document seen by Reuters shows. “Many member states will most probably not reach their… aid targets. A gap of 12-13 billion euros remains.” The paper did not name France, Germany or Italy, but an OECD report last month said they were among the EU’s worst performers. The paper also warned the shortfall threatens the EU’s standing in climate talks, which this year aim to build on the weak accord reached in Copenhagen in December.

New bloc in the bloc? Four central European EU member states have agreed to cooperate closer, the Economist says:

Amid worries that France and Germany are stitching up the European Union’s decision-making, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are reviving their ties and pushing shared ideas on energy security and relations with the east. (…) At a summit in Budapest on February 24th Visegrad showed signs of renewed life. The big shift is in Poland, where go-it-alone policies have given way to enthusiasm for working with the neighbours. Under the voting rules of the Nice treaty, in force until 2014, Visegrad countries have as many votes in the EU as France and Germany combined.

Next year Hungary and Poland will each have six months in the EU’s rotating presidency. Eurocrats in Brussels like to portray the rotating presidency as largely redundant now there is a permanent European Council president. The Poles and Hungarians are working closely together to disprove this. Hungary wants a “Danube strategy” to divert EU money and attention to the river basin. Poland supports this, in return for Hungarian backing for more EU aid to countries such as Georgia, Moldova and Belarus.

Lukashenko, the chess master. The GMF’s Pavol Demeš portrays the Belarusian president as a master in diplomatic tactics:

When Aleksander Lukashenko, the authoritarian president of Belarus, began a recent campaign to intimidate and punish members of the country’s disobedient Polish community, he opened a new front not only with neighboring Poland, but also with the EU as a whole that must now meet that challenge head on.  (…)

Lukashenko is at his chess game again — and winning. Top Western officials are writing him letters, negotiating, and asking him politely to do the things they would like him to do. Fact-finding missions are coming to Belarus to discover what they knew before. While Poland and the EU take the time to consider their next step, Lukashenko is already way ahead of them.  Indeed, his plans likely include making a grand display of stopping the attacks and beginning a reconciliation process between Belarusians and Poles.  But before he does that, he’ll ask for further international financial assistance and other benefits from the very people and institutions who are now asking him to stop persecuting his country’s minorities.  And when that assistance arrives, he will use it to extend his control over domestic resistance and opposition before the new round of elections early next year.

Lukashenko is a tough chess player who frequently uses forbidden moves (including removing pieces from the board) that throw his domestic and international opponents off-balance. The new EU leaders should recognize that their peculiar neighbor will not respond to standard diplomatic warnings and pressure, does not care about EU membership, and is capable of creating the illusion of success for those who enter into negotiations with him. They must appreciate that he is fully aware of the West’s political and economic weaknesses and the increasingly process-driven mentality when it comes to democracy assistance and the protection of human rights. In short, the policy of  engagement  that replaced the strict isolation of Lukashenko’s regime needs to be rethought and recalibrated.

Ashton to fight back against critics. The Guardian reports:

Britain’s Lady Ashton will tomorrow (Friday) fight back against attacks on her performance as the new EU foreign policy chief, seeking a truce with the French after strong criticism from Paris, and demanding the full backing of the EU’s 27 governments.

With Brussels embroiled in an intense power struggle over the direction of EU foreign policy and the shape of an ambitious new EU diplomatic service, known as the External Action Service (EAS), Ashton will meet President Nicolas Sarkozy’s top foreign and defence officials in Paris before heading to Córdoba, in southern Spain, where EU foreign ministers will focus on the new regime.

“She will tell the foreign ministers to take collective responsibility for what they created,” said a senior EU official.

Britain sought to shore up Ashton against her critics ahead of the crucial weekend meetings, as David Miliband, the foreign secretary, wrote a letter of support together with Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister. Referring to the power struggles in Brussels, Miliband and Bildt complained that “inter-institutional rivalries are well-ingrained … we are concerned about some of the inter-institutional struggles evident in our current negotiations on the EAS package. Our summits don’t always bring the concrete deliverables that they should,” they wrote. “We must be honest when we debate this at Córdoba and admit we must do better.”

EU governments are alarmed that the aim of turning the new service into a powerful foreign policy instrument is being blocked and undermined by the European commission. One EU diplomat said: “The foreign ministers need to get behind this [new service] and make sure they get behind Cathy Ashton. The commission is opposed because it wants to keep all expertise. This is the moment when the member states should get strategic.”

The Financial Times quotes an EU official:

“The devil is in the details in these negotiations,” said one EU official. “The member states only this week realised that the Commission was trying to take over this baby that they have crafted, and they want it back. They are firmly in Ashton’s camp.”

The Economist’s Charlemagne has an excellent behind-the-scenes report. For more press coverage (major British newspapers and press agencies) of the issue please go to Global Europe’s News&Views section.

Ashton to miss EU-Morocco summit. On Saturday and Sunday, an EU-Morocco summit will take place in Granada, Spain. Herman Van Rompuy will attend (and chair), but Ashton will be absent, which appears to enrage Spanish diplomats, according to El Mundo (Todos contra Ashton).

Summit routine. Daniel Korski comments on the upcoming EU-Pakistan summit:

The Pakistan-EU summit will take place on April 10, a follow up to the first meeting last autumn. But you would be hard-pressed to know anything about the event, since nobody is taking ownership of it: not Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council’s new permanent president; not Catherine Ashton, the EU’s new foreign policy chief; not even Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero, who has pushed Spain onto the stage in plenty of other areas. The reason is simple: the EU has nothing new to say or offer.

Money without state. Harold James meditates about the Euro:

The euro precisely measures international tensions in that it is a bold experiment: a currency that is not linked to a state, but rather follows from international rules and treaties. It is a creature of the intellect rather than a product of power. It is a post-modern or post-sovereign currency. But in the aftermath of a crisis, countries put national interests above their willingness to go along with international rules.

Read today on Global Europe: No pain, no gain. The partnership between the EU and Morocco must be filled with life. By Kristina Kausch, Research Fellow at FRIDE, Madrid.

To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com

Power struggle over new EU diplomatic corps. Catherine Ashton has laid out her vision for the architecture of the European External Action Service, which will provide the institutional structure for the EU’s future foreign and security policy (in analogy to a foreign ministry). Her proposals are currently under discussion among EU institutions. Details such as control over personnel and budgets in the new service have not been clarified by the Lisbon Treaty, which leads to conflicts between the Commission and member states (Council) over influence and power. But also Parliament, strengthened by the Lisbon Treaty, wants to be more involved in decision-making.

The European Voice reports:

Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, has begun to push back against attempts by the European Commission to curtail the powers of the Union’s emerging diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service (EEAS). The ongoing tug-of-war between the Commission and the member states, with Ashton caught in the middle, appears increasingly likely to delay the service’s establishment beyond April.

In a set of three papers that were discussed by member states’ ambassadors yesterday (3 March) and that are on the agenda of an informal meeting of member states’ foreign ministers tomorrow (5 March), and will be discussed by the Commission next Thursday (11 March), Ashton laid out her vision for the service, which is supposed to be established next month by a decision of the EU’s national governments.

The EEAS is to be autonomous of both the Commission and the Council of Ministers, which represents the member states, although it will be staffed by officials from the two institutions as well as from the diplomatic services of the member states.

Under Ashton’s draft proposal, the service is to absorb all country desks currently located in the Commission or the Council’s secretariat-general with the exception of desks dealing with actual or potential candidates for membership of the EU.

The heads of the Union’s embassies abroad are to supervise all officials working in their mission, regardless of whether they are from the new diplomatic service or the Commission, to avoid conflicting lines of accountability.

Policymaking in development aid will be shifted to the EEAS under Ashton’s plans.

All three are points on which the Commission takes a very different line: it wants to retain responsibility for development aid, keep within the Commission the desks dealing with countries in the EU’s neighbourhood such as Ukraine and the Middle East, and have Commission staff in the delegations report to their Commission directorate-general rather than to the EEAS headquarters. “The Commission will not accept the principle of a single country desk” at the EEAS, a diplomat said.

Ashton’s proposals follow a fairly standard template familiar from most national foreign services. Slightly unusually – but understandably, given that the EU has no defence department – they also foresee that the EEAS would absorb the EU’s military and civilian crisis response capacities and its intelligence cell, the “Situation Centre”.

There is one nod to Commission interests in Ashton’s papers, however: they propose that the Commission would either be fully involved in the appointment of heads of delegations or would, at a minimum, have to agree to them. Some member states oppose this. They say that Ashton, by virtue of her mandate as a Commission vice-president, already secures the involvement of the Commission and that no further Commission endorsement would be needed.

Parliament wants also more influence over EAS, the European Voice reports:

MEPs will demand a greater say in the creation of the EU’s diplomatic corps when they meet next week for a plenary session in Strasbourg. The European Parliament is frustrated that it has been sidelined in the discussions between the European Commission and member states over setting up the European External Action Service (EEAS). The MEPs will debate a report drafted by Italy’s Gabriele Albertini, who chairs the Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, which calls for a greater say for the Parliament in shaping the EU’s foreign and security policy.

Albertini is demanding that his committee be given better access to “sensitive information” as part of closer consultations with member states on foreign, security and defence policy areas. He calls on Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, to accept MEPs’ demands that any senior appointments she makes to the EEAS or to posts as EU Special Representatives should be put through parliamentary hearings. His report includes an annual assessment of the EU’s foreign and security policy around the world.

Another article in the European Voice describes the conflict between Commission and member states over development funding. And an Irish Times report gives a summary: “Ashton sets out vision for EU’s new diplomatic service“.

Read today on Global Europe: Key partners and shared interests. The European convoy needs strategic guidance for fleet action. By Sven Biscop, director of the Security & Global Governance Programme at Egmont and Visiting Professor at the College of Europe in Bruges and at Ghent University.

To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com

EU might support Russian South Stream pipeline project. The EU Observer reports:

German energy commissioner Gunther Oettinger on Tuesday (2 March) for the first time signaled openness on behalf of the EU executive towards South Stream, a Russian gas pipeline running through the Black Sea, and seen as a rival to Europe’s similar project, Nabucco. “South Stream could be backed by the European Commission on condition that it meets the technical requirements for security,” he said on the sidelines of an energy forum in Bulgaria, AFP reports.

Mr Oettinger argued that the Gazprom-backed project would “increase the capacity” for gas imports in Europe and “set up a new infrastructure,” alluding to the fact that currently 80 percent of Russia’s exports to the EU transits through Ukraine. It is a widespread view among German experts that the Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis, which also had an impact on EU consumers, was Kiev’s fault and an “alternative route” via the Black Sea would prevent a repeat performance.

Mr Oettinger’s comments are a first, however. So far, the EU commission has stuck to the line that it neither opposes nor backs the construction of South Stream, which is seen as competition to Europe’s own project, the Nabucco pipeline, and which would bring gas from the Caspian region directly to southern and eastern Europe via Turkey. (…)

Unlike Nabucco, which is promoted by gas companies and former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, South Stream is being promoted directly by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who managed to secure a handful of political agreements with Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia or Austria to back the scheme. Croatia on Tuesday also signed up as a potential buyer of South Stream gas.

If built, South Stream will tap the same resources as Nabucco was intended for – the gas-rich Caspian region, which currently can only export via Soviet-era infrastructure transiting Russia. Nabucco was designed precisely to lower Europe’s dependence on Russian gas imports, which reaches almost 100 percent in Bulgaria and Hungary. (…)

(Oettingers) comments came amid strong criticism from Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, who lashed out at the European Union and the United States for paying Nabucco only lip service. “All countries in western Europe and the United States have declared the project a priority. But, what I see is that it is a priority only in words,” he said. “The US and the European Commission must make it clear why this project is still at point zero.”

Power struggle over EAS. Behind the scenes, commission and member states fight over influence on the EAS, the EU’s future diplomatic corps. Main points of contentions are control over development policy and the appointment of the heads of EU embassies. The EU Observer reports:

Talks between the EU executive and national diplomats over the organisation of the External Action Service (EAS) took a combative turn last week after the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, circulated in Brussels a series of “vision papers” – seen by EUobserver – on the new institution. One source close to the discussions described them as “very frosty, pretty tense,” with the commission representatives saying the Ashton documents seemed to offer a leading role for the Council of Ministers, representing the member states.

The European Council asked Ms Ashton to decide how she would be setting up the service by April. Discussions are ongoing with the commission and the council to make sure that everyone is on board before the decision is finally taken in April. But it is understood that feelings are now running so high that the commission is considering withdrawing public support for the proposals. The commission feels that member states are encroaching on parts of policy territory thought of as its own, while member states think the commission, if not exactly making a power grab, is overstepping the mark. (…)

A commission official meanwhile suggested that while talks are “tough”, the discussions “are very much a work in progress and Ms Ashton is in listening mode at the moment, aiming to shape a consensus that meets all concerns.”

The Irish Times has more on the debate on appointments for top positions in the EAS:

A leaked German paper that said Britain has assumed an “excessive” and “over-proportionate” role in EU foreign policy is seen by senior officials in Brussels as a pre-emptive strike against any attempt by Baroness Ashton to appoint a fellow-Briton to the post of EAS director general. The position, akin to that of the secretary general of an Irish Government department, will be critical to the evolution of the EAS. British diplomat Robert Cooper, who is director general of foreign policy in the European Council, is in some quarters seen as an obvious contender for job. However, informed sources said it would be politically impossible for Baroness Ashton to appoint him. Instead, they said, Mr Cooper could well take the post of political director in the EAS, an influential position in the upper tier of the institution.

While the assignment of key posts could yet be far away, well-versed sources said the issue was “live” in diplomatic circles in Brussels. “Every foreign ministry has exactly the same objective: to get as many of their people in as possible,” one said.

Both Germany and France are said to have set their sights on the top civil service post in the EAS. However, their position may be weakened by the fact that they have already struck a deal for own officials to rotate the top administrative position in the European Council. French EU official Pierre de Boissieu, was last autumn appointed secretary general of the European Council, which is the assembly of EU governments. The top EU advisor to the German government, Uwe Corsepsius, is expected to take that role in succession to Mr de Boissieu at the end of his mandate.

Ashton said to be shocked over attacks on her, the Telegraph says:

Baroness Ashton is said to be shell-shocked over the continuing attacks on her appointment, her lack of prior elected office and her alleged lack of foreign policy experience. But today one senior EU official said: ”The blame lies with the system that appointed her, not the holder of the office herself.”

Read today on Global Europe: What future for NATO? A Global Europe online colloquium. With contributions from leading EU foreign and security policy experts: Daniel Korski, Fabrice Pothier, Fraser Cameron, Ivan Krastev, Jolyon Howorth, Paweł Świeboda, Nick Witney and Anand Menon.

To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com

Medvedev in Paris. Steven Erlanger reports:

Mr. Medvedev called the deal (on the French warship Mistral) “a symbol of trust between our two countries” and pressed for “Russia and France to be partners on European security.” (…) Mr. Sarkozy said that Russia was “a partner,” no longer an enemy, and that it was “time to turn the page” on the cold war. “How are we to say to Russian leaders — ‘We need you for peace, like on Iran,’ but then say: ‘We don’t trust you?’ That would be totally inconsistent,” Mr. Sarkozy said.

The two men also praised an important deal signed on Monday between the main French natural gas company, GDF Suez, and the Russian gas monopoly Gazprom. GDF Suez agreed to acquire a 9 percent stake in the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline, intended to send Russian gas directly to Western Europe while avoiding Poland and Ukraine. In return, Gazprom will supply GDF Suez with up to an additional 1.5 billion cubic meters of gas annually starting in 2015.

Yanukovich in Brussels. The NY Times reports:

Visiting Brussels before Moscow on his first foreign trip, the new president of Ukraine, Viktor F. Yanukovich, on Monday promised closer relations with the European Union and reform of his country’s strategically important gas sector. (…) “For Ukraine, European integration is a key priority of our foreign policy,” said Mr. Yanukovich (…)

Mr. Yanukovich won from the European Union a target date in 12 months for completing negotiations on a free-trade deal but no promise that Ukraine — a country of around 46 million people which borders the E.U. — would be able to join the bloc. Mr. Yanukovich, who campaigned against Ukraine’s membership in NATO, said Kiev would continue partnership programs with the alliance. “As to the future, it’s an issue to negotiate, to discuss,” he added, “but the status of Ukraine is not going to change.” (…)

While the E.U. has been cautious about offering Ukraine any path to membership in the bloc, it is eager to foster political stability on its borders, and anxious that the Ukraine should become a reliable energy partner. Faith in Ukraine as a dependable transit country has been shaken by several disruptions to energy supplies brought about by price disputes between Kiev and Moscow. “We need urgent progress on modernization and restructuring of the gas sector,” said José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, who wants more transparency and market mechanisms in the Ukrainian gas sector. (…) If Ukraine adopts a new gas law in line with E.U. regulations, Kiev could sign the Energy Community Treaty and therefore encourage foreign direct investment. Mr. Yanukovich said he was “ready to adopt a law on the internal gas market.”

“Yanukovich is somebody we can work with,” said one E.U. official not authorized to speak publicly about Monday’s meetings. “It was a very strong political signal to come to Brussels before going to Moscow, and it was a very positive first meeting.”

The E.U. is pressing Ukraine to restart discussions with the International Monetary Fund, which last year suspended a loan program to Kiev. Officials see this as a precursor to an improved climate for investment.

Mr. Yanukovich said the two sides had also discussed visa-free travel for Ukrainians to the European Union. In other meetings, he pressed for cooperation on transport links for the Euro 2012 soccer championship that will be held in Ukraine and Poland, officials said.

Blaming Ashton. The Telegraph says that “rather than facing outwards, Brussels is gloomily gazing inwards and increasingly blaming Lady Ashton for the EU’s marginalisation on the global stage”:

“We have fought tooth and nail for nine years to get the Lisbon Treaty, or some form of EU Constitution. Can this really be what it is about?” said a French official.

In the last seven days simmering unease and unrest at Lady Ashton’s performance as EU High Representative for foreign affairs has erupted into the open. (…) “She has become the scapegoat for other people’s failing or inadequacies, whether it is her fault or not and that is very dangerous development for her future,” admitted a sympathetic official. “Some of these people should show a little more collective responsibility.” (…)

Diplomats and officials now openly admit that the Lisbon Treaty, billed as equipping Europe to be a united global power bestriding the world stage, has failed as the EU turns in on itself at a moment when it faces real existential political challenges. “We cannot blame battles between political pygmies for our problems. They are symptoms not causes of the EU’s decline or even decay,” said a depressed Europe minister last Monday.

Post-Lisbon, a proliferation of EU presidents. On Esharp, Geoff Meade writes about the increasing number of “presidents” in the EU institutions:

The Lisbon (Portugal) Treaty creates an all-powerful “President of the European Council” (POEC). This is additional to the existing roles of “President of the European Commission”(POCO) and “President of the European Parliament” (POPE). There is also a “rotating” President-in-Office of the European Council (PORC). (…) There is also a “President of the Committee of the Regions” (POCE) and a “President of the Economic and Social Committee” (PESC), two EU institutions operating quietly in the background. These two Committees (not real committees as they are not subordinate parts of a bigger entity) are nothing to do with the 22 committees of the European Parliament, which are subordinate but nevertheless have their own “presidents”. (…) There is also a “president” for each of the Parliament’s political groups, from which the membership of its committees is drawn. The Parliament has a “Conference of Presidents”, presided over by POPE. At any one time, therefore, about 30 members of the Parliament can lay claim to the title of “president”.

Low hopes for the EU’s new diplomatic service. The Economist’s Charlemagne columnist — David Rennie — has a piece on Esharp about the EU’s new diplomatic service, the European External Action Service (EEAS or EAS). The EAS, he says, “will turn out to be a disappointment”:

For most European countries, the idea of EU embassies taking over their minimal interests around the rest of the globe sounds both cheaper and more politically rewarding than going it alone. In contrast, a minority of EU countries have ambitions to be something like great powers: either globally, like France and Britain, or regionally, like Spain in Latin America. Finally, there are important countries with lucrative foreign interests to defend, even if they do not have strategic visions to promote: think of Germany’s ties to Russia, or Italy’s snuggling up to any number of energy-rich despots. All these groups – the tiddlers, would-be global players and cynics – will undermine the EAS. As soon as the stakes rise high enough, someone will always see an interest in breaking ranks. (…)

In a Union of 27 nations, there can be no secrets (so national diplomatic services will not share their best intelligence with the EAS). (…)

What, then, will be left? The big fear among national diplomats is that the EAS will end up pursuing programme-based external relations, just like the European Commission has for years. Project management is fine as far as it goes, but it only functions in a nice, post-modern world where legitimate interlocutors sit across the table, ready to sign partnership agreements and pledge to spend EU money in ways that can be audited. Alas, the world is still home to lots of nasty powers, who cannot be trusted and may need lying to. If European diplomacy cannot pull that off, will it be diplomacy at all?

Who skipped the EU-US summit? The US ambassador to the EU, William E. Kennard, in an interview with the EU Observer “laid part of the responsibility for the summit debacle on Spain”:

“We had never committed to a summit and we had never told the Spanish government that we were coming to Madrid in May. I think there may have been an assumption that we were,” he said.

Read today on Global Europe: Moscow’s strategic ambition. Energy update: Green light for Nord Stream pipeline. By Roderick Kefferputz, a Brussels-based expert on Eurasian energy and foreign affairs.

To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com

Afghanistan: The surge is working, Craig Charney argues in Newsweek. “In fact, Afghanistan’s demography, sociology, military situation, and politics all favor Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy. That’s why it’s working.”

ICG report on Abkhazia: “In the eighteen months since Russia recognised it as independent from Georgia, small but strategic Abkhazia has become increasingly dependent on its giant patron” Russia, the International Crisis Group says in a new report:

In return for recognition and aid, Russia obtained highly prized military-strategic assets in Abkhazia. Moscow has not abided by the terms of the 2008 ceasefire agreements to withdraw its military forces to pre-war numbers and positions. Most recently it signed with the Abkhaz a new agreement to build a joint military base in the entity. To meet its international commitments, Russia should fully implement the terms of the ceasefire agreements and cut back its military presence to what it was before the war.

What should be done?

It is in the interests of all sides to agree to disagree about status topics that can only be resolved over a long time. Abkhazia and Georgia should focus instead on creating economic and humanitarian links without legalistic preconditions. That would benefit both, build stability and give momentum to what must be a lengthy reconciliation process. Georgia should stick to its commitment of not seeking the isolation of Abkhazia.

The EU and UN should continue to implement humanitarian, confidence-building, economic integration and democracy building projects in Abkhazia, as well as finalise agreements with Tbilisi and Sukhumi to make quicker decisions on project implementation.

“Tbilisi has developed a new ‘State Strategy’ on engagement with Abkhazia and become more permissive of international involvement in the entity. This is a step forward”, says Sabine Freizer, Crisis Group’s Europe Program Director. “All sides should focus on projects that avoid the contentious issue of status to build the confidence needed to eventually address issues including the return of roughly 200,000 displaced ethnic Georgians to their homes in Abkhazia”.

Controversy about French sale of warship to Russia. The Times reports:

The scene is set for conflict between France and its Nato allies when President Medvedev of Russia arrives in Paris today intent on ordering up to four powerful warships from French shipbuilders. Washington and the former Soviet bloc members of Nato are alarmed by President Sarkozy’s willingness to sell a 600ft Mistral Class amphibious assault ship, and possibly three more, to the Russian Navy. Georgia, which was subjected to a Russian invasion in 2008, is leading the charge to stop Moscow acquiring Mistrals, which sell for about £400 million each. (…) Russian officials said that no final decision had been taken on the order, but Mr Medvedev indicated in a French media interview last week that he hoped to clinch the warship contract on his Paris visit this week.

Georgia’s national security advisor Eka Tkeshelashvili speaks in an interview with Foreign Policy about the Mistral sale:

“In addition, the Mistral sale is a political sign from France, which was the broker of our cease-fire agreement. It’s a political signal to Russia that it’s OK that they continue to occupy the territory of Georgia and are still aggressive in their rhetoric. It sends the signal that the occupation of our territory is a fait accompli. It’s not even appeasement of Russia. It’s a reward for Russia. (…)

Respect towards the sovereignty of neighboring countries, nonaggression, not intruding into their internal affairs; not occupying other nations’ territory — these are current rules and not from the Cold War. So the country that violates these should [undergo] some restrictions — especially for military armaments.

Russia itself said that if they had had Mistrals [during the August war], they would have finished the job in Georgia in 40 minutes rather than 26 hours. They are open about that. While the French were saying [the ship] is humanitarian and that it’s not military capacity being given to Russia, [Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin was asked by a journalist how the ship will be used while in Paris. He clearly said that the ship will be used whenever, wherever, and however we’ll deem it necessary. They don’t see themselves being restricted in any way by the humanitarian purpose of this ship and by any location — be that the Black Sea or the Baltic Sea.

Reuters has a curtain-raiser about Medvedev’s 3-day state visit to France. And the Figaro’s Pierre Rousselin comments on the French-Russian partnership (in French).

A new player in transatlantic relations. The European Parliament is a force to be reckoned with, say Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman in a piece for Foreign Policy:

Americans may have to update their opinion — and their approach to transatlantic cooperation — now that the European Parliament has made a most unparliamentary gesture: blocking a deal on sharing bank data with the United States. U.S. policymakers saw this deal as a cornerstone of international counterterrorism efforts, but now, those efforts are on hold. The EU Parliament’s move is a sign that it wants to be a player in transatlantic security decisions — and the United States will just have to accept it.

Why Ashton skipped the EU foreign ministers meeting in Majorca. Honor Mahony has an explanation:

It was all down to Kiev’s invitation list, it seems. Ukraine invited EU council president Herman Van Rompuy, EU commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and EP chief Jerzy Buzek to attend this week’s inauguration ceremony of Viktor Yanukovych.

Barroso did not take up the offer. Nor did Van Rompuy. (…) In light of these pending no-shows, Ashton, who had planned to attend the informal defence ministers meeting, then cancelled to go to Kiev. Her people argue that not to have gone would have sent a poor signal to a country whose Russia-friendly president had just taken the fairly surprising decision to make Brussels rather than Moscow the destination for the symbolic first trip abroad. (…)

I suspect that had she decided against the Ukraine inauguration she would have come in for criticism too.

Rasmussen’s cooperation with Ashton. Nicolas Gros-Verheyde has asked NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen about cooperation with Catherine Ashton. He is working “very well” her, he said, and they have agreed to meet regularly, at least once the month. “We already had fruitful exchanges of views”, which “is very profitable for both of our organisations” (my translation from French).

Paris: Member States to take more influence on EU diplomatic corps. Last week (26 February) French Europe minister Pierre Lellouche has sent a letter to Ashton, Jean Quatremer reports (in French). In the future, EU member states must be consulted before Ashton nominates EU ambassadors, Lellouche says. The list of vacant post must be presented to the member states and a procedure of evaluation established. Paris wants Barroso and Ashton to understand, Quatremer adds, that the new diplomatic service is not an organism where they can place “their” people. Paris thinks however, according to Quatremer, that the controversial appointment of Almeida as EU ambassador to Washington is a good thing, as it opens the door for the appointment of a French diplomat to the post of Secretary General of the EU diplomatic service — the number two of EU foreign policy.

Germany and France dispute Lady Ashton’s ‘excessive’ EU powers, Ian Traynor reports in the Guardian:

Germany is planning to stop what it sees as a British campaign to dominate European foreign policy-making under Lady Catherine Ashton, the Guardian can disclose. Amid growing criticism across the EU of the performance of Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the EU’s new high representative for foreign and security policy, Berlin and Paris are alarmed at the prominence of British officials in the new EU diplomatic service being formed under Ashton. A confidential German foreign ministry document analysing the creation of the EU’s new diplomatic service, seen by the Guardian, has concluded that Britain has grabbed an “excessive” and “over-proportionate” role. Berlin and Paris are anxious that they are losing the battle to win key positions in the new service which is to be the main vehicle for projecting European power globally under the Lisbon Treaty. (…)

“There’s clearly an anxiety in Paris and Berlin that the overall balance will be satisfactory,” said Thomas Klau, a German analyst who heads the Paris office of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “No one has anything against good British candidates, but if it looks like a takeover, it’s different.” (…)

“The inroads to the decision-taking level are easier for the UK than for anyone else,” said a former German diplomat closely following the politics behind the building of the EEAS. “A lot of people are very unhappy. But the French are the only ones doing something about this British dominance.”

In another article, a review of Ashton’s first three months in office, Ian Traynor says that “the knives are out” for Ashton: “In Paris and Berlin, The Hague and Brussels, the whispering campaign against the former leader of the House of Lords is getting louder.”

Yanukovich in Brussels. Today the new Ukrainian president is in Brussels for his first foreign visit. He will meet: in the morning Jose Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy, for lunch Catherine Ashton, after lunch Jerzy Buzek, President of the Parliament. Reuters has a curtain-raiser, and the Washington Post a backgrounder.

Read today on Global Europe: Hillary’s offer. EU and NATO must work hand in hand / Letter from Washington. By Daniel Hamilton, Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS.

To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com

Africa’s Forever Wars — By Jeffrey Gettleman, Foreign Policy

Obama and Iran : The End of Illusions? — By Amir Taheri, AAwsat

The force needed to contain Iran — By J.M. Lindsay, R. Takeyh, Wash Post

Renewal in the West Bank — By Joe Klein, Time

Declare a Palestinian State — By Jerome M. Segal, IHT

Targeted killings: An Eye for an Eye — By Roger Cohen, NY Times

Egypt: No progress on democracy — By Marina Ottaway, Carnegie

Europe’s Contested Neighborhood — By Ron Asmus, P. Syndicate

The end seems near for the Putin model — By Anders Aslund, Wash Post

Is NATO well-suited to wage war in Afghanistan? — By Fred Kaplan, Slate

Lisbon Pact Failing to Lift the E.U. on Global Stage — NY Times

‘My Job Is to Keep Traffic Moving’ — Q&A Catherine Ashton, Time

Challenges for Europe in a changing world (pdf) — Herman van Rompuy, Council