The next fifty years: external affairs.

by Colman
Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 03:07:18 AM EST

Right, enough dwelling on what our neo-liberal overlords and their free-market sycophants have to say about the EU and the need for “reform”. They are right, of course, when they say that the EU has to change and adapt to changing circumstances, though their tendency to pretend that an entity that has reinvented itself every twenty minutes or so has ever stood still is laughable.

What do we think the EU should be doing over the next fifty years? Where do we want it to be and what reforms are necessary to get there?

To start with, I’d like to concentrate on external affairs, mostly because Matt in NYC raised it Jérôme’s thread and because I was worrying about Africa in the shower this morning, following on from Nomad’s diary on setting GM mosquitoes against malaria.


It is my belief that soft power - the EU’s favourite kind - is only effective if you have a reasonable reputation for integrity: witness the decline in US soft power associated with the declining US reputation for integrity. We’ve all seen recently the limits to hard power: military force is only capable of achieving limited goals in the modern military environment. It can only destroy, not build.

The EU can lead, but it needs to lead by example. I believe that we need an external policy based on integrity, pursuing solutions that serve the interests of the people involved, not just the leaderships or local lobby groups, negotiation and enough military power to ensure that we can’t be coerced by the less scrupulous.

Our current policy, of tagging along behind the US except when we absolutely can’t stomach it does not server our interests, those of our foreign partners, or even of the US.

Concrete reforms required?

  • A declaration of principles and interests for the conduct of our foreign affairs and a determination to stick to them, enforced by a Court of Foreign Affairs capable of sanctioning clear transgressions by officials or member states.

  • Emphasis on our long-term interests rather than the short term costs. What’s the point of being old and rich if we can’t manage a little bit of patience and hold on for returns on our investments?

  • Some way of cutting through the propaganda that generally ends up being fed to us through the cost-cutting, lazy and occasionally mendacious commercial media. How can the EU pursue fair solutions that properly address the often complicated situation involved when a conflict is being portrayed as good vs. evil?

  • A military structure, which while capable of co-operating with allies, does not depend on external forces.

  • NATO needs to go. External military forces need to be withdrawn from EU soil. They fatally compromise our independence.

  • The EU needs to be willing to speak against other power groups - and take action at the UN level - when they abuse power against the weak.

What’s this got to do with Africa? Many of that continent’s problems are the result of negative feedback loops which are driven externally. Debt, corruption, poor governance and military conflict have all been the direct results of or assisted by the policies of external powers including many of the EU member states and their corporations. By resolving to act in the long-term interests of the African people we can assist them in building a prosperous, peaceful continent capable of being helpful partners in the interesting times we seem doomed to: it would be nice if they could afford to deal with the consequences of climate change themselves, for instance.

Part of our vision for the next fifty years should be an EU that spreads peace and prosperity outside her borders: we will benefit in the long term, as will everyone else.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Still can't see a point to NATO, from an EU point of view.

Time to declare independance from the empire.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 03:10:23 AM EST
A single seat at the UN Security Council. That would force the countries to speak with one voice.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 07:07:52 AM EST
How do you get France and Britain to agree? The UK Eurosceptics would scream bloody murder.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 07:15:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
than "NATO must go", because it only depends on us. France and the UK could agree to vote only as per the decisions of the European Council on Foreign Affairs and there's nothing any non-EU member could do about it - and the EU would get two votes at the Security Council (plus the third rotating one).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 08:42:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can't the General Assembly do something about it?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 at 05:38:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It never did anything about Ukraine and Belorussia being members since foundation, effectively giving USSR 3 votes.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 at 06:25:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not on the Security Council, surely?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 at 06:31:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, but as members in the general assembly.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 at 06:34:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wrote to hastily. Ukraine and Belorussia was not permanent members of the security council but were part of the normal "rotation" (or what the method should be called).

So sometimes USSR had two votes in the SC.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 at 06:41:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And I forgot the link to my source, wikipedia

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 at 06:43:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can Europe be self-sufficient? Does it have enough in the way of natural resources (or can barter for what it lacks) that it can prosper?

With a limited land mass and a dense population it is the natural factors which will ultimately determine the future.

The US was able to prosper during the previous 200 years because it continued to expand into the wilderness. This is now reaching its limit and the consequences are becoming more obvious.

Africa is still undeveloped and is giving away (rather than using) much of its resources. So, if the management issues could ever be solved, it could improve its standard of living. China and India will both become disasters since they already exceed the capacity of their natural environments. Raiding weaker  states for inputs can only go on for so long and will require increasing militarism. This will be countered by the present developed states which are also in competition for the same resources.

The only solution is to realistically address overpopulation. This is not on anyone's agenda, so we can expect uncontrolled disasters, some man-made and some natural.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 10:09:06 AM EST
I think the best way to address overpopulation is development and education. Fertility rates drop dramatically as wealth and education improve.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
by Melanchthon on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 10:49:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The first thing that needs to happen is a Common Foreign and Security Policy by (qualified) majority, with member states not agreeing with the policy being bound to at least neutrality on the issue.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 10:19:25 AM EST
I think these 50 years should be as ambitious as the first 50! So, here are some goals I think Europe should try to attain during the next 50 years in the domain of foreign policy.

-    Integrate Turkey and the Balkans as soon as possible. Open the possibility for candidacy to Ukraine and Belarus. (Switzerland will join sooner or later, and Norway when they run out of oil...)

-    Have an active policy for promoting the development of EU-like regional unions of countries like Mercosur (also in Asia and Africa) and make them benefit from our experience through exchanges and technical assistance. Establish privileged economic and political relationship with them based on strict criteria (economic, social and democratic).

-    Build a Euro-Mediterranean Community based on high social and political standards (rule of law, human rights, democracy). Starting with North Africa, this Euro-Mediterranean Community should as soon as possible include Israel and the Palestinian state (including them would be a strong incentive to find a solution and have a stabilising effect) as well as Lebanon. Organise and facilitate mobility/immigration within this community.

-    Develop a strong economic and cultural partnership with Russia

-    Eliminate existing European tax havens and lead a strong fight against non-European ones. Establish and efficiently enforce rules against corruption.  Establish and enforce rules preventing multinational corporations to use transfer prices to concentrate profits in "business friendly" (low tax) countries.  

-    Set up a voluntarist and sufficiently funded (at least 1% of EU GDP) common policy for the development of underdeveloped countries, particularly in Africa. Establish a much more open immigration policy.

-    Promote a better regulated international economy through coordination between WTO, ILO, World Bank and IMF as well as through integration of stakeholders (trade unions, employers, NGOs...) in their governance bodies / decision-making processes.  Promote sustainable development standards in the international trade agreements.

-    Use the full weight of Europe to empower, democratise and reform the international institutions and to make them work in a more coordinated way. Contribute to the creation of two badly needed global governance bodies:
o    an Economic and Social Security Council
o    an Environment Security Council

Finally, I agree with you about getting rid of NATO, but that means building an integrated Common European Defence Organisation under a Common Foreign and Security policy.

Oh, I forgot: Promote democracy in the United States...;-)

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 10:36:01 AM EST
I think the EU should be ready to, whenever the US threatens a third country with cutting aid unless they follow some asinine policy, pick up the slack.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 10:38:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're right. I think EU should much more stand up to the US, but using soft power.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
by Melanchthon on Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 at 10:45:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]