Syria rejects US overtures, Ahmadinejad attacks Israel. The Washington Post reports:
The presidents of Iran and Syria on Thursday ridiculed U.S. policy in the region and pledged to create a Middle East “without Zionists,” combining a slap at recent U.S. overtures and a threat to Israel with an endorsement of one of the region’s defining alliances. (…) The message delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a joint news conference was sharp and spoke to a shared sense that Iran is gaining influence in the region despite U.S. efforts.
The United States wants “to dominate the region, but they feel Iran and Syria are preventing that,” Ahmadinejad said. “We tell them that instead of interfering in the region’s affairs, to pack their things and leave.” Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier, spoke of Israel’s eventual “demise and annihilation” and said the countries of the region could create a future “without Zionists and without colonialists.”
Assad criticized what he regarded as the United States’ “new situation of colonialism” in the region, with troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and pressure on Syria to split from Iran, a friendship Assad emphasized was secure even given Syria’s faltering economy. (…)
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that the return of an ambassador marked a “slight opening” toward Syria but that ultimately the United States expects Assad to curb his ties with Iran and his support for militant groups like the Lebanon-based Hezbollah and Hamas, based in the Gaza Strip.
But Assad and Ahmadinejad on Thursday emphasized that their countries’ relationship had deepened with the signing of an agreement waiving visa restrictions for travel.
Reuters adds:
Ahmadinejad’s visit (to Syria) came a day after Clinton said the United States was asking Syria “to begin to move away from the relationship with Iran,” and to stop supporting the Lebanese Shi’ite movement Hezbollah, which is also backed by Iran. “We must have understood Clinton wrong because of bad translation or our limited understanding, so we signed the agreement to cancel the visas,” Assad said. “I find it strange that they (Americans) talk about Middle East stability and peace and the other beautiful principles and call for two countries to move away from each other,” he added.
Ahmadinejad told a joint news conference: “Clinton said we should maintain a distance. I say there is no distance between Iran and Syria.” He added: “We have the same goals, same interests and same enemies. Our circle of cooperation is expanding day after day.”
No apology for France’s role in the Rwandan genocide. Linda Melvern writes in the Guardian:
During his whistle-stop visit to Rwanda, Nicolas Sarkozy made no apology for the role of France in the genocide of 1994. A carefully worded acknowledgement that mistakes had been made, not just by France, was as far as he went. (…)
France had been the one country that had stood any chance of preventing what happened. For years France had supported Rwanda’s Hutu dictatorship; the French military had armed and trained the killers and when the genocide began there were French officers embedded in the elite Rwanda army units whose troops in the first hours had eliminated Rwanda’s political opposition. France had given tacit approval to the Hutu Power extremists who had formed a rogue government that would eventually create a society based on genocide. (…)
But a true reckoning of French policy may never be possible, for the historic visit surely signifies an end to further embarrassment. In all probability, the relevant archives will probably remain firmly under lock and key. French policy was particularly secretive – the preserve of President François Mitterrand and his “Africa Unit” comprising intelligence operatives, mercenaries, businessmen and senior military officers. Its policy was unaccountable to either the French parliament or the press.
The end of Putinism? Anders Aslund comments in the Washington Post:
A recent week in Moscow left one clear impression: The Putin model of crony state capitalism is dead. For years, the structure that Vladimir Putin crafted looked invincible, with its steady, high growth rates and effective, mild repression. But the system only distributed ample oil rents to the elites and the ordinary people, creating neither moral nor economic value.
Today the bill is due. In 2009, Russia’s gross domestic product plunged 7.9 percent, even though Moscow had the world’s third-largest international currency reserves. Russia performed the worst among the Group of 20 leading global economic powers. And as Russian elites realize that the Putin model has failed, opposition to the government is mounting. (…)
Much of Russia’s economy is now dominated by monopolistic state corporations such as Gazprom, Russian Railways, Russian Technologies, Transneft, Rosneft and a handful of banks. They are run by Putin confidants who are close friends from his days in the KGB. These big state corporations accounted for much, if not all, of the decline in Russia’s GDP last year. They are a black hole of inefficiency. Their leaders do not know how to run a company, which leads to poor financial results, huge state subsidies, miserable services and enormous corruption.
Stalemate again in Ukraine? According to the Economist, “for the moment Ukraine’s politics continues to be in chaos”:
The election has affirmed Ukraine as a functioning democracy, but it has neither brought political stability nor resolved the crippling question of where power lies in a country of 46m people. Ukraine is still trapped in the constitutional compromise agreed to by the outgoing president, Viktor Yushchenko, which divides executive power between the president and a prime minister chosen by the Verkhovna Rada (parliament). This means that, despite his win, Mr Yanukovich can do little without a new parliamentary coalition. Creating one has proved harder than he expected.
EU police trainers for Afghanistan still missing. Paddy Ashdown writes in the Times:
Meanwhile, although Western military resources have increased, the EU has continued to prove completely incapable of finding the trainers necessary to fulfil one of our key exit strategies — the retraining and reform of the Afghan police. This alone makes the achievement of President Obama’s target of starting withdrawal in the middle of next year extremely unlikely.
Controversy over war ship sale to Russia. In the margins of the EU defence ministers meeting in Majorca, the row over France’s plan to sale the Mistral war ship to Russia has reached new levels. The EU Observer reports:
Latvia and Lithuania have called for tighter EU rules on arms exports amid French plans to sell a state-of-the-art warship to Russia. The Baltic countries made their appeal during an informal EU defence ministers’ meeting in Majorca on Thursday (25 February). “The EU and Nato should only sell their military equipment and weapons to third countries if it does not create risks of regional security tension,” Latvian defence minister Imants Liegis said, according to his press statement. “EU member states should consult among themselves on issues that might compromise the security of other member states before clinching strategic and military deals.” (…)
The Latvian and Lithuanian ministers also voiced their concerns in bilateral meetings with French defence minister Herve Morin at the Spanish event. “They don’t understand our relationship with Russia. They don’t see a problem. France said that times have changed, that we should forget about the past,” a Latvian official said. The Lithuanian meeting was friendlier. “We left with different positions on the subject. But I was told that no final decision [on the sale] has been made yet,” Ms Jukneviciene said. “A number” of EU states, including Poland, voiced support for her proposals on new rules in the margins of the Majorca gathering, the Lithuanian minister added.
Ahston criticised for skipping EU defence ministers meeting. AFP reports:
French Defence Minister Herve Morin set the tone, berating the EU’s High Representative for foreign and security affairs for opting out of her first chance to attend a get-together of the 27 European defence ministers. “Isn’t it rich that this morning, to display the ties between NATO and the EU, we have the NATO secretary general (Anders Fogh Rasmussen) here but not the high representative for the first meeting since the Lisbon treaty came into effect,” said Morin, referring to the text which created Ashton’s post as the EU’s foreign affairs and security chief.
At the end of two days of talks in Palma de Majorca, Spanish defence minister Carme Chacon repeated Ashton’s “excuses.” But it appeared more will be needed to mend bridges between Ashton and the ministers she failed to meet. Dutch counterpart Jack de Vries, in a Twitter comment, said “Madame Ashton was notable by her absence” adding that predecessor Javier Solana always managed to find space in his diary for the EU defence ministers’ talks. “In future she will have to organise her time better,” one German diplomat said. Another diplomat present at the closed-door defence talks said that several ministers had made cutting remarks about Ashton’s absence.
More similar reports on criticism of Ashton: Times, Daily Telegraph, EU Observer.
Leading on foreign policy ideas. Catherine Ashton has given an interview to Time. Excerpts:
Q: You are supposed to represent a united European foreign policy, but E.U. politicians still seem reluctant to cede the limelight. If another Iraq occurred, how could you ensure a united European response?
A: Let’s get out of the limelight first. Someone asked if I would be able to stop the traffic in Washington, but in fact my job is to keep traffic moving. I’m not interested in the limelight. I’m interested in what we can actually do. The way the E.U. approaches the issue is that we will look for a consensus if there is one. It doesn’t mean there will be one. But we also need someone who will look for a European perspective on things governments think of nationally. I chair the E.U.’s Foreign Affairs Council, which is a monthly meeting of foreign ministers, where we come together over an agenda, set by me, based on what I know member states want to discuss. It aims to find consensus. My job is to lead the development of European foreign policy ideas. But I recognize that on some issues, there will not be a consensus. There will be different views. (…)
Q: You said there was no shortage of ambition in Europe. Over the next five years, what will Europe do?
A: No. 1, a new diplomatic service. That means a face for Europe, across the world, engaging. Second, Europe has to be a more effective operator in its neighborhood: we have to look at what we do in the western Balkans, Bosnia, what we do after the Ukrainian elections with the new government, looking at our relationship with Russia. And third, a key interlocutor with countries like China, Russia, India and Brazil. And providing the right level of support in areas like Afghanistan, Yemen, in the Middle East. So a much more coherent voice, built up from the 27 member countries working together. We are the beginning of that. The treaty gives us the legal basis to do it, but the development will come in the next few years. I’m only into month three. I don’t even have a full team yet. But as time goes on, we’ll get better.
A key role in EU foreign policy. Herman van Rompuy, Council President, gave an ambitious programmatic speech in Brussels: “The challenges for Europe in a changing world”. He made clear that working on EU foreign affairs will be a major part of his job. Excerpts:
Our main challenge is now how to deal, as Europe, with the rest of the world. (…) How to defend our interests and to promote our values? I consider this is a key question during my mandate as the first permanent President of the European Council.
The world is changing and we must get ready for the change. (…) In order to confront such changes, the members of the Union need to be strong and need to be united. Therefore I believe that the two most important domains of the European Council are economic policy and foreign policy. Simply put: economic policy to be strong, foreign policy to be united. (…)
The European Council has always played a key role in this field (foreign policy). (…) When the Cold War was over, the Heads of State or Government recognised that Europe needed a stronger presence on the international stage. In the Maastricht Treaty, they decided to take this sensitive and important issue into their own hands. (…)
We have developed European instruments for real foreign policy. For instruments to work optimally, one needs to link them to a common strategic vision. Where do we go? Who are our partners? Where do we want to be in ten or twenty years time ahead? (…) President Obama took several months to elaborate a new strategy for Afghanistan. Why are we only
able to react instead of developing a strategy together? (…)The European Council as a whole is entrusted to take the decisions on the Union’s “strategic interests and objectives” in external affairs. According to the Treaty, these decisions relate to both “the foreign and security policy” and to “other areas of the external action of the Union” [art. 22§1 EU]. The decisions may concern a specific country. They may also be thematic in approach, for instance relating to energy. The job of the permanent President of the European Council is to find consensus on all such external matters. Essentially, his task is to establish a shared sense of direction. (…)
We should not be surprised that the more the Union deals with foreign affairs, in the coming decade, the more certain differences in attitude between Member States will rise to the surface. History and geography play an important role in foreign policy. So this is not just about large Member States versus small Member States. It is also about having historic ties with certain regions in the world, or about being an island versus sharing a border with Russia. Such differences are real and will not go away like that.
As president of the European Council, I will consider everyone’s interests and sensitivities. Even if our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth. Recent developments, however, show that no single European country can on its own set the world political agenda or play a decisive role. (…)
In terms of foreign policy, the European Union has, in my view, two tasks ahead. Two tracks.
The first track: we should further develop global economic governance. The foundation of the G20 by the EU was a great step. It is massively important to get key players around the same table. For the Member States of the Union, this requires a stronger coordination of foreign economic policy. It is the external side of the “gouvernement économique” which we are now developing internally. (…)
The second track: we need to review and strengthen our relationship with key partners. I am above all thinking about the United States, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, India, Brazil. (…)
As foreign policy is concerned, I would prefer to compare the European Union to a convoy. Think of a convoy of 27 ships finding its way across the geopolitical waves. Picture them: 27 ships, each flying their own flag and that of the European Union too. The wind makes them drift apart some of the time, gets them to sail in the same direction at other times. You can see that some ships have greater manoeuvrability, others are more robust; some smaller, some larger; some at the margins, others in between.
What you don’t see is what the 27 captains know very well: under the waterline, their ships, like the 27 EU governments, are all connected, economically and monetarily. They cannot sail away from the others just like that…This European convoy does not have one single captain. Recently it acquired a permanent President, however. One of his tasks – at this moment, of my tasks… – is to preside over the meetings of the 27 captains and to find a consensus about where to go. To re-establish a sense of strategic direction.
To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com