Attempts to build Afghan police faltering. The New York Times reports:
The attempts to build a credible Afghan police force are faltering badly even as officials acknowledge that the force will be a crucial piece of the effort to have Afghans manage their own security so American forces can begin leaving next year. Though they have revamped the program recently and put it under new leadership, Afghan, NATO and American officials involved in the training effort list a daunting array of challenges, as familiar as they are intractable. (…)
General Burgio said the countries that were supposed to be building up Afghanistan’s security had not followed through on their promises to send enough qualified instructors. But even when the instructors arrive, he said, the countries involved seem unable to agree on a uniform training protocol. (…)
DynCorp, the American company that provided retired police officers to do much of the training, has been told its contract will not be renewed. But it has appealed that decision, holding up the changeover until the appeal is decided, by March 24.
That has left NATO struggling to augment the police trainers with active-duty police officers from European countries.
Two narratives. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad spoke at the Herzliya Conference in Israel. The Washington Post reports:
“This is a case of two completely, diametrically opposed historical narratives,” Fayyad said in a 30-minute address that delved into the logic behind key Palestinian demands such as an end to Israel’s occupation and settlement of the West Bank and the creation of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. “Israelis have a long history. Pain. Ambitions. Like you, we have our own history of pain and suffering, and we have our own ambition — to live alongside you in peace and security.”
Fayyad’s effort to keep Palestinian self-governance in the West Bank on track continues to command Israeli respect and keeps U.S. and European funds flowing in. In an earlier address to the conference, Israeli President Shimon Peres drew the Ben-Gurion comparison, calling Fayyad a state-builder. Others — even those pessimistic about a peace agreement — agreed. “The good news: For the first time ever, the Palestinians have someone willing to think constructively and build their society. Bad news: He is not representative,” said Dan Schueftan, director of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa.
Paris considering to sell vessel Mistral to Russia. The Washington Post reports:
Such a deal, which the French Defense Ministry said is under negotiation, would mark the Russian military’s first major arms purchase abroad in modern history. It would also be a seminal moment for France and the West. The sale would be the largest and most sophisticated by a NATO country to Russia and would dramatize the evolving role of an alliance conceived to counter Soviet military power. (…)
Sarkozy’s government said the proposed sale was a logical extension of NATO’s repeated expressions of willingness to work with Russia as a partner, not an enemy. Prime Minister François Fillon has been a particularly vigorous champion of the deal, framing it in a context of broadened economic and political relations with Russia, including participation in strategic oil-pipeline ventures and joint automobile manufacturing projects. “It would be impossible to call for continental stability in partnership with Russia if we refuse to sell armaments to Russia,” Fillon said during Putin’s visit to Paris. “A refusal would amount to contradicting our own statements.” Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was no less eloquent in his defense of the negotiations. “We do not want to be prisoners of the past,” he said after a negotiating session with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Moscow.
China planning to lend 1 billion US dollar to Moldova — why? Reuters is looking for an answer.
No breakthrough in Cyprus. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, ended a three-day visit to Cyprus without tangible results, the New York Times says.
Ukraine’s Orange Revolution a success, former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer says:
Although Ukraine is in big economic and social trouble, it should not be forgotten that it has, until today, been saved by the fate of becoming a “guided” democracy in the Russian mold. Independent media and freedom of speech have not been restricted in Ukraine, and elections since 2004 have been judged free and fair by both international observers and the parties themselves. (…) Moreover, regardless of who wins the presidential runoff, fears about Ukraine’s independence will not, in contrast to 2004/2005, be an issue. This too, is a step forward that should not be underestimated.
He calls for a German-Polish initiative to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union.
Ivan Krastev describes the Orange Revolution as a key stage in a nation-building process:
Ukraine is in the painful process of building a new national identity. The Orange Revolution has been a failure in many aspects, but, on the positive side, it was a decisive moment in Ukraine’s nation-building process. In this sense, it did not fail. Contrary to the fears of many, the past five years did not deepen the divisions in society. Instead, the divisions contributed to the emergence of a new political consensus that was demonstrated in these elections. At the heart of this consensus is the fact that “Ukraine is not Russia” and that Ukraine has a better chance to survive as a dysfunctional democracy than as a functional autocracy. It is easy to notice that in these elections, Yanukovic is not the pro-Russian candidate (and not only because of his American advisers) and Tymoshenko is not the pro-NATO candidate (and not only because the former President Yushchenko was passionate about NATO). Both of them have moved to the political and geopolitical center. While for the moment the prospects of democracy in Ukraine are still uncertain, it is clear that Ukraine—muddling through its permanent institutional crisis—has succeeded to survive as an independent state. In short, the Orange Revolution has succeeded as a national revolution, and these elections are the best proof of this. It was not Europe that lost Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine might not be lost at all.
Israel joining EU “very unlikely”. The Reuters blog comments:
While Berlusconi’s comments made headlines, at least in Israel and Italy, it’s not the first time he’s laid out such an ambition – he said almost exactly the same thing during a visit to Croatia in January 2003, when he backed Zagreb’s bid to join the EU and said he hoped Israel, Turkey, Ukraine and Moldova would follow. Expressing such a hope is an easy thing for Berlusconi to say and makes him look generous towards his hosts. But he also knows that Israeli EU membership is extremely unlikely any time soon, not only because of opposition among existing EU member states, but because there’s not enormous enthusiasm on Israel’s part either. (…)
Israel, with its hot technology sector and rapidly expanding economy, might make a strong economic partner for the EU, but member states that have concerns about Turkey’s membership are likely to have similar concerns about Israel, a Jewish state that remains a long way from reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Israel is aware of that, and also knows that many of the benefits of the European Union can be enjoyed without having to go through the heartache and strictures required to become a fully-fledged member. Israel is already a participant in the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy, is a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, and enjoys favourable EU trade terms via an association agreement that came into force in 2000. Closer EU ties, particularly on trade and economic issues, would always be welcome, but full EU membership, involving the surrendering of some of Israel’s hard-fought-for sovereignty and giving up the shekel for the euro, remains far too much of a reach. Joining the OECD is an Israeli priority, but Berlusconi’s dreams are very unlikely to become a reality.
Obama’s decision to skip the EU-US summit. The New York Times has some new background:
European officials said that two senior American officials — the under secretary of state for political affairs, William J. Burns, and the assistant secretary of state for European affairs, Philip H. Gordon — had attended a preparatory meeting for the summit meeting two weeks ago in Madrid, and that there was no hint then that Mr. Obama would decide not to attend. But a senior American official said that Mr. Gordon and Mr. Burns emphasized to Spanish officials, when the meeting was raised, that they “were not in a position to commit to one.” In fact, the official said, the Obama administration has been “pursuing and getting a better relationship with Spain and the new E.U.,” with Mr. Zapatero visiting Washington twice. (…)
American officials said that Mr. Obama felt that the previous major American-European summit meeting, last June in Prague, was a waste of time, and European Union officials said that the president even skipped a leaders’ lunch at the smaller European Union-United States meeting in Washington last November, sending Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. instead, something they said that President George W. Bush would never have done.
Charles Grant, the director of the Center for European Reform, a London-based research center, said that the Obama decision “is a useful wake-up call for the E.U.” He said the European Union must realize “that no one will court them or have summits with them because Europe is a nice idea. “They need to deliver.” Mr. Obama sees Europe as an important ally, but “Obama clearly has no emotional identification with Europe,” Mr. Grant said. “He has a cool, analytical view of allies and partners, but when the Europeans can’t provide much to help America solve global security problems, he doesn’t want to spend too much time on it.” (…)
The State Department spokesman, P. J. Crowley, said in Washington on Monday that the transition to a new leadership of the European Union after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty might have been a factor. “Because of the changes involving the establishment of a E.U. council president and a European Commission president on top of the rotating E.U. presidency, I think it’s taking some time to work through exactly how various high-level meetings will happen. But we look forward to ongoing dialogue.”
AFP has a reaction from Catherine Ashton:
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said Obama’s decision was no more than “a logistical problem”. Asked if it constituted a snub, she replied: “No, not at all.” “I knew about the possibility that President Obama would not be able to make that date,” she told AFP. While unable to give details of the clash of dates, she added that the White House was “looking for another date” for the summit, which the Spanish had seen as a highlight of their six months at the helm of the EU presidency. “He is going to be in the Iberian peninsular in November for the (Lisbon) NATO summit so there is a question whether he could do something … at that point,” she added.
Laura Rozen writes in Politico:
The EU summit in Prague last April was considered a waste of time by the White House, reports said. The Obama administration was already reluctant to put it on Obama’s schedule this year, but Spain, which now has the presidency of the EU, tried to push a meeting, and ended up with something of a mess.
“The U.S. approach to Europe since day one of the new administration has been show us that you want to help, don’t just tell us,” says Laurie Dundon, director of trans-Atlantic relations at the Bertelsmann Foundation. “The Obama administration said very clearly to Europe early on that they needed concrete deliverables by 2010. The EU isn’t ready. They’ve heard the message, but there is nothing ready to bring to the table in May on key priorities that the U.S. cares about –Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran. …The U.S. isn’t going to send President Obama to a meeting just for symbolism.”
The FT’s Tony Barber comments:
It will be read as a signal from the White House that the president doesn’t think the meeting would be especially productive. And that speaks volumes about how other powers, even allied countries such as the US, view the EU as a force on the global stage. (…)
Obama’s decision will hurt all the more because the EU is in the process, so it thinks, of beefing up its common foreign policy and the way it projects itself to the rest of the world. Now that the EU’s Lisbon treaty is in force, the 27-nation bloc has a full-time president, Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, and a foreign policy chief with enhanced powers, Britain’s Baroness Catherine Ashton. Along with José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain’s prime minister, this pair would presumably have been in Madrid to greet Obama.
But in a way this is precisely the EU’s problem. Obama and other world leaders can’t figure out who exactly speaks for Europe. So far, the main effect of the Lisbon treaty seems to have been simply to add one more European – Van Rompuy - to the party. Neither Barroso nor Zapatero is showing any inclination to step to one side and let Van Rompuy be Europe’s main man. It hardly helps, of course, that virtually no one in Washington had heard of Van Rompuy or Ashton until EU leaders picked them in November for two of the bloc’s highest jobs.
However, the Obama decision is about more than US-EU relations. It is about the EU’s obsolete practice of holding regular summits with third parties – Canada, China, India, Japan, Russia, South Africa, the US and so on – that are usually almost completely empty of substance.
Stanley Crossick says that these developments are putting the Lisbon treaty into question:
Everyone agrees that the European Union must get its act together. The wrangling over the next EU-US summit shows that the EU won’t get it’s act together until the egotism of Member State leaders is brought under control. (…) The question now being asked in relation to EU external policy is whether the Lisbon Treaty is creating more difficulties than it is resolving.
And Hugo Brady (CER) writes in a commentary for the Independent:
Obama’s first experience of the Union was a depressing and substance-free summit in Prague last April where he was hosted by a Czech government, then the holder of the EU’s rotating presidency, which had just fallen. Little he has experienced since then has convinced him that he should take the Europeans seriously as a global force.
Optimists hoped that the EU’s Lisbon Treaty would put an end to such embarrassments and help the EU craft a credible common foreign policy. The Treaty abolishes the role of the rotating presidency in foreign policy in favour of a full-time EU president and a more powerful High Representative for Foreign Affairs. But instead, Europe’s decline seems to be accelerating as it is sidelined in Copenhagen, dismissed by the Chinese and despaired of by the Americans.
The reality is that the Lisbon Treaty is just a piece of paper. It cannot by itself cure the Europeans of their weakness for circuitous arguments and tendency to offer up process as product. On top of this, Cathy Ashton, the EU’s current High Representative, will need at least two years to implement and bed down the Treaty’s foreign policy provisions. Depressingly, the Europeans probably need to accept that they have missed the opportunity Obama’s election represented, at least for now.
The Economist’s Charlemagne looks at the Spanish angle of the story.
And Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy portrays Hillary Clinton as “Europe’s reassurer in chief”:
As President Obama looks east, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is charged with the mission of ministering to a Europe feeling somewhat neglected by this administration.
European Commission set to take office next week. The Irish Times reports:
Barroso’s incoming European Commission moves a step closer to taking up its mandate when Bulgaria’s new candidate for the EU executive goes before a confirmation hearing in Brussels today at the European Parliament. Kristalina Georgieva’s nomination to the international co-operation, humanitarian aid and crisis response portfolio followed the withdrawal last month of Bulgaria’s former foreign minister, Rumiana Jeleva. MEPs had made it clear they would not back Ms Jevela after her weak performance before the development committee.
A vice president of the World Bank, Ms Georgieva is perceived in Brussels to be a much stronger candidate. If her nomination is accepted, as anticipated by the committee, the entire team will go before a vote of MEPs in Strasbourg next Tuesday. Only then can the new commission take office, ending a delay of more than three months in which the outgoing executive has been working in a caretaker capacity.
You can watch the hearing life at 12.30 here or here.
Read today on Global Europe: Our long-term interests. The European Union must defend human rights in Iran. By Lena Kolarska-Bobinska, Member of European Parliament for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).
To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com