He sees three signals of the new strategy:

First, the EU "foreign-policy supremo", Javier Solana, reported on 10 September that he had made "significant progress" in his weekend talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani about how to break out of the impasse over Tehran's insistence on continuing its uranium-enrichment programme. (...)

Second, Bush administration spokespersons have been demanding "more clarification" of EU intentions towards Iran in recent days, in ways which reflect irritation that Washington can no longer lay down the strategy to be followed by the western allies. The US also views the massive EU-led forces which are providing the backbone of the United Nations's peacekeeping forces in Lebanon with some misgivings. While the UN mission is welcomed, its actual operating mandate is not what the US wanted. At EU insistence the mandate for the UN forces will not include the forcible disarming of Hizbollah. (...)

Third, EU foreign ministers - who met informally in Lappeenranta, Finland on 1-2 September to outline their new strategy - have signalled that they want a change in approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The general view among the twenty-five EU governments is that the economic boycott of the Palestinian government formed by Hamas after the movement's January 2006 election victory has been a serious mistake which has pushed the Palestinian territories into total chaos. EU diplomats are actively working on language which Hamas could adopt to imply a de facto (rather than a formal, de jure) recognition of Israel. This might be based on Hamas's existing willingness to negotiate a "two-state" solution to the conflict with Israel.

Read his full article "Europe's foreign policy: saying "no" to the US?" in Open Democracy

Palmer also links to Rami G. Khouri, who writes in Lebanon's The Daily Star "Europe should revise its Middle East policy":

"One of the frightening recent developments in Middle Eastern-Western relations has been the common feeling among many in this region that Europe has abandoned its centrist position and has moved closer to the American-Israeli one. This reflects Middle Eastern perceptions of European positions on several important issues: the Danish cartoons controversy, Iran's nuclear industry, the election of Hamas in Palestine, the long delay in pushing for a cease-fire in Lebanon in July, and - especially in London - adopting the American tendency to exaggerate the "global war on terror" and to view every issue in the Middle East through that distorted lens.

European positions on Middle Eastern issues before 2005 tended to fall squarely in between Arab and Israeli sentiments, and usually offered a more sensible and nuanced policy approach to addressing key issues in the region, such as peace-making (the Venice Declaration) or democratization and economic development (the Barcelona Process). That impartiality seems to have eroded, as reflected in the strong popular anger and occasional violence against European symbols during the cartoons controversy."

Credible? Believable? Any thoughts?

Besides, how is the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership doing these days?

Any progress with helping the economies and civil societies of the 12 North African and Middle Eastern partner countries? The Euromed Partnership will be eleven years old in November, and I would love to read about some real progress.