Clinton and Ashton have “productive relationship”, the US Ambassador to the EU, William Kennard, says in an interview with Esharp. He also comments on the creation of the new EU diplomatic service.
Kennard has warm words for Catherine Ashton, the EU’s high representative for foreign and security policy who has spent most of this year focused on setting up the European External Action Service or EEAS in the face of harsh criticism of her performance from sections of the media. Ashton and Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, have developed “a very warm and productive relationship”, he says. “That, in and of itself, I believe is making the EU a more effective actor in foreign policy – just to have a single interlocutor to deal with on these issues.”
It was only natural, says Kennard, that there should have been some tensions and disagreements during the establishment of the EEAS: “This is a big change, creating basically a new government agency that is going to be working all around the world,” he says. “This is a big undertaking. But we are confident this will be a significant improvement in our ability to interact with the EU. And more importantly, it will extend the EU’s influence around the world in a much more effective way.”
Turkey-EU relation in “worse shape than ever”, says Amanda Paul (EPC) in Today’s Zaman:
The bubble that was Turkey’s EU dream has well and truly burst. Five years since Ankara began membership talks, the relationship is in worse shape than it has ever been, with growing ambivalence and opposition on both sides.
In the EU there is little appetite for taking on board a big chunk of “Turkish delight” with some member states (led by the French) opposing it outright. In Turkey the EU is increasingly viewed as a “bete-noir.” Turks resent that their country is treated differently from other candidates; that the EU is insensitive to issues that are of great importance to Turkey (the continued harboring of PKK terrorists in some member states); and that the EU projects double standards — preaching to Turkey that is should improve minority rights while at the same time French President Nicholas Sarkozy expels Roma in a manner that has been compared by some French MP’s to round-ups during World War II. Coming at a time when Ankara is becoming increasingly assertive and confident on the world stage, many Turk’s now believe they are well placed to ditch the EU goal, something I totally disagree with. The EU acts as an anchor, one could say, keeping Turkey on the straight and narrow. However, with some in the EU seemingly intent on rejecting Ankara, the anchor is losing its weight and Turkey is beginning to drift. (…)
There is no doubt that Turkey’s longstanding alliance with the West has shifted. But, clearly, it is not over. Ankara is never going to totally turn its back on the West, but it will be more and more inclined to do things “its own way.” The only way to change this is for the West to rejuvenate the relationship, to demonstrate to Ankara that Turkey is a crucial partner with whom they want a shared future. If they do not, it is likely that in a short time Ankara’s EU flame will burn out, leaving behind a very unpredictable and anchorless Turkey .
EU must reform its approach to aid, says Richard Gowan (ECFR) in the European Voice (subscription required):
This year, Haiti’s earthquake, Pakistan’s floods and Russia’s fires have stirred up debate about how the EU delivers crisis aid, with Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president, calling for the creation of a European emergency response force.
In Brussels, officials complain that although they play a leading role in funding international humanitarian operations, they don’t get enough credit for it. Kristalina Georgieva, the European commissioner for humanitarian aid, argued in an August interview that EU-funded aid agencies should “do more to help the EU by flying the EU flag”. Georgieva is now preparing proposals on how to improve European responses to crises. (…)
Improving the EU’s and the international community’s delivery of humanitarian aid poses technical challenges, but European leaders must also recognise that ‘emergency response’ is rarely just a technical issue. Pakistan’s floods are not only a human tragedy but also a political problem, opening up opportunities for the Taliban. Haiti’s earthquake was a huge blow to UN-led efforts to build a functioning state there. The political neutrality of ‘pure’ humanitarian agencies, like the Red Cross, allows them to operate in places like Somalia, but aid delivery routinely involves military hardware: the EU naval force off Somalia’s coast protects the UN’s food shipments, and in Afghanistan NATO escorts the UN World Food Programme’s aid convoys.
Handling complex emergencies therefore requires more than humanitarian aid. It demands military hardware. And it demands civilian state-builders, such as the policemen and advisers that the EU has sent to the Balkans and Afghanistan.
Such support requires decisions by politicians and political organisations. Unlike the Red Cross, the EU is a political organisation – and its capacity to deal with the complex political aspects of humanitarian crises suffers from deep flaws. Its civilian state-building missions, for example, are frequently 30% understaffed. The EU’s goal of improving humanitarian aid is laudable, but it needs to focus on improving its political response as much as its ability to deliver aid.
EP will use leverage on EEAS staffing, the EU Observer reports:
Two senior MEPs have indicated that the European Parliament will leverage its legal powers to make sure Catherine Ashton gets the “right balance” of top people in the diplomatic corps.
Ms Ashton, the EU foreign relations chief, is getting ready to unveil her nominations for 31 heads of mission and deputy heads of mission for EU embassies abroad, as well as a further 80 senior diplomatic postings and the top 20-or-so administrative jobs in the European External Action Service (EEAS). EUobserver understands she plans to reveal the first tranche of 31 names, which cover important missions such as Brazil, China, Georgia, Japan and South Africa, shortly after coming back from her trip to China on 5 September. The follow-up round of 80 nominations, including a new head of mission in Belarus and deputy heads in Ethiopia, Indonesia and the Palestinian territories, will not be ready until November. It is unclear when the 20-or-so administrative nominations will come out. But Ms Ashton has set herself a deadline of 1 December, a symbolic date one year after the entry into life of the Lisbon Treaty, to get the EEAS up-and-running.
The EU parliament before its summer recess already used its Lisbon Treaty powers to pressure Ms Ashton into granting it a set of privileges, such as the right to interview would-be ambassadors and to say Yes or No to the EEAS annual budget. Under Lisbon, MEPs must legally approve changes to the EU institutions’ staff and budget regulations before Ms Ashton can hire her new team.
A parliament rapporteur on the EEAS, Polish centre-right MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, told EUobserver on Tuesday (31 August) that the assembly’s final approval is not a done deal. “The second half of the game is still ahead of us,” he said, using a soccer analogy for the upcoming negotiations. Mr Saryusz-Wolski said MEPs aim to put forward their draft proposal for the staff and budget regulations in late October and to close the deal in four-way talks with Ms Ashton, member states and the European Commission in November. He suggested Ms Ashton is delaying the nomination process in order to try and get the MEPs’ approval in the bag first. “I believe perhaps that this is why she is waiting,” he said. But he threatened to use time-pressure to make sure parliament gets its say on the top posts: “She wants to have everything ready by 1 December. But we can wait.” Mr Saryusz-Wolski has in the past argued that a significant chunk of senior EEAS jobs should go to candidates from post-Communist EU states.
A parliament negotiator on the EEAS regulations, German centre-right MEP Elmar Brok, told EUobserver that another big chunk should go to European Commission candidates so that the EEAS becomes a genuine EU body instead of an inter-governmental one. “There needs to be a proper institutional balance. If all the posts come from the member states and the Council, then we will have a problem,” he warned. He added that parliament aims to call around 10 out of the top diplomatic nominations for hearings: “If someone goes before the European Parliament and it is a total disaster, then it will be difficult for Ms Ashton to keep them.”
UK Foreign Policy: Cameron’s choices. The FT’s Philip Stephens writes in Esharp about options for British foreign policy:
At a recent meeting of the National Security Council, Cameron and his colleagues were presented with three possible choices as to the nation’s future role on the international stage.
They could decide that Britain should remain a “committed” power – determined to punch above its weight in global affairs and ready to contribute sizeable military as well as diplomatic resources to the task of safeguarding global security. This, of course, was Tony Blair’s choice, though I am told the thought went unspoken at the ministerial gathering. It was also an option – and this Cameron’s officials did make clear – that would preclude the deep cuts in Britain’s defence budget being sought by the Treasury.
At the other end of the spectrum, the prime minister might prefer to see Britain shed its global pretensions. As a “vigilant” power, it could concentrate on defending the “homeland”. There would be no need, under this scenario, for expensive new aircraft carriers and fast jets. The defence budget could be slashed.
Cameron opted for a third way. Britain, in this theory of foreign policy, can become an “adaptable power”. Defence spending will not escape the Treasury axe, but the country will continue to make a significant contribution to preserving security beyond its own borders.
On one level, this choice fits the prime minister’s temperament. A critic of Blair’s foreign policy “adventurism”, he hails from a strand of Toryism that doubts Britain’s capacity to do good in the world. He has abandoned any residual nation-building ambitions for Afghanistan and wants British combat troops to be home by 2014.
On the other hand, Cameron is uncomfortable at the idea of presiding over a nation in decline – economic weakness at home translating into retreat from influence abroad. So he is determined to hang on to the strategic nuclear deterrent and to permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
For Britons tired of being branded America’s poodle and mindful of the cost in blood and treasure of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, much of this seems a pretty reasonable compromise. Given the straitened economic times, it also seems sensible to invest in relationships with the world’s rising economies – hence Cameron’s inclusion of Turkey and India to his first batch of overseas destinations.
This leaves Europe. Here a third-way approach is dictated by the politics of the Tory coalition with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats. The bargain is straightforward – the Eurosceptic Cameron drops barmy ideas about repatriating powers from Brussels, while the Europhile Clegg accepts that Britain will set its face against more integration. Albeit by luck rather than judgment, such a stance rather fits the national mood.
From the think tanks: Julian Lindley-French, Britain and France: A Dialogue of Decline? Anglo-French Defence Co-operation and Implications for the European and Euro-Atlantic Security and Defence Relationships. Chatham, here. — Shane Fitzgerald, Coalition in Britain – Coalitions in Europe? An Analysis of the UK’s European Policy. IIEA, here.
To sign up for the Global Europe Morning Brief, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com