I don't see why the EU would be attacked by Iran or its allies, or by Israel or the US, or why it should rush troops to the assistance of the US. I don't believe Iran responding to an illegal attack by the US is grounds for application of NATO's Article 5, but I could be wrong. In any case, if the US demanded it this could be the end of NATO
It would be Iraq 2.0. And since Iraq 1.0 (the original 1990 attack was the beta release) gained almost unwavering support from a lapdog EU I wouldn't expect anything different this time around.
It's the US which needs a diplomatic onslaught, not Iran. Not that it would help the outcome, but it would put some distance between an insane US regime and an EU which so far has been complicitly compliant, offering only token resistance.
If Brussels grew a spine, Iran could turn into the US's own Suez. But Brussels won't, so we can look forward to even more expensive oil, and one last military disaster.
I was shocked at the bile displayed by the guy from the Commission's US desk as he briefed us on EU-US relations when I visited the Commission last November.
No love lost, I can assure you.
But foreign policy is a National issue. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I'm talking about the career civil service people, not the political appointees. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Solana was the NATO civilian head during the Serbia bombing campaign - while I still respect his intellectual and diplomatic capacity I think he's a total sell-out. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
You exaggerate. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I mean unwavering tacit support for rendition flights, intelligence gathering and sharing, and other essentials.
Brussels is of course shocked that these things have happened - not that they continue to, naturally - but I don't remember there being a great deal of action to stop them.
The EU is good at making a disapproving noise about US adventuring, but doesn't seem interested in doing anything much that might put real pressure on the US - like sanctions, or even just giving senior US diplomats a formal stern talking to.
There certainly weren't any sanctions against any of the member states who chose to send troops to Iraq.
How illegal is a war if no one is prosecuted for it?
The European Parliament issued a scathing report on the rendition - completer despite their inability to subpoena anyone or to hear evidence that a member state considers critical to their "national security".
Dick Marty of the Council of Europe also produced a substantial report.
None of this is about "Brussels", it's about the national governments. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
To date Brussels has threatened sanctions against Italy, Israel, the Saudis and Iran, for various reasons.
The EU also threatened sanctions against Poland and Romania for hosting CIA jails. So Brussels certainly does have leverage, and is willing to consider using it.
But Brussels didn't threaten sanctions against any of the countries which sent troops to Iraq. In fact there was a Press Communiqué in 2004 which said:
The EU and the GCC stated their determination to assist the Iraqi people as they enter a new era in the history of their country. The EU and the GCC expressed concern about the security situation in Iraq, noting that this remains a major impediment to successful political and reconstruction processes. They condemned all violence and terrorist attacks, including the kidnappings and brutal murder of hostages. They deplored the taking of hostages in all circumstances and called on those responsible to release immediately and unharmed all remaining hostages and to desist from any further such activity. The EU and the GCC expressed their abhorrence at recent evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraqi prisons. The EU and the GCC condemned any instances of abuse and degradation of prisoners in Iraq, which are contrary to international law, including the Geneva Conventions. The EU and the GCC welcomed the commitment by relevant Governments to bring to justice any individuals responsible for such acts involving the abuse of Iraqi detainees, and their commitment to rectify any failure to adhere to international humanitarian law.
The EU and the GCC expressed concern about the security situation in Iraq, noting that this remains a major impediment to successful political and reconstruction processes. They condemned all violence and terrorist attacks, including the kidnappings and brutal murder of hostages. They deplored the taking of hostages in all circumstances and called on those responsible to release immediately and unharmed all remaining hostages and to desist from any further such activity.
The EU and the GCC expressed their abhorrence at recent evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraqi prisons. The EU and the GCC condemned any instances of abuse and degradation of prisoners in Iraq, which are contrary to international law, including the Geneva Conventions. The EU and the GCC welcomed the commitment by relevant Governments to bring to justice any individuals responsible for such acts involving the abuse of Iraqi detainees, and their commitment to rectify any failure to adhere to international humanitarian law.
This was in a formal statement by official representatives of the EU, speaking for the EU.
So it's not impressive that it doesn't read like a forceful condemnation of an illegal war and occupation, or of a government which had been saying since 2002 that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to its interrogators.
The lack of a single security policy by the E.U. member states is what I see as the Achilles' heel of the European Union. Until Europe can speak with one voice internationally, powers such as Russia, China, and the U.S. will continue to play one European nation off another nation.
I find this paradox to be an interesting, but flawed creation. I wonder what the U.S. would have been like if the member states each had their own foreign policy?
