The political situation in Poland seem to have deteriorated after the latest events, especially the witch-hunt for for ex-communists. The government's practice of scanning the whole society after former collaborators to the communist regime is not beneficial in the long run, since the entire society in some way or another was dependent on the regime. It is a futile attempt to rid the country of "intolerable elements" which will do more harm and good to national unity and reconciliation with the Polish past. Moreover, the witch-hunt comes concurrent with something that looks like a crack-down on the courts auhority and the independence of the judiciary, along with an increasing corruption in the administration. According to some, it seems that Poland is in a way divided in two: in the left ringside is the ultraconservative ruling party, eagerly supported by far-right organizations and antisemites; on the right side is the tolerant, open and courageous Poland which seems to be losing ground in the battle.
A quick glance at Poland's history gives some explanations for the present situation - a battleground in WWI, crushed by the Germans in WWII, ockupied by the Russians subsequently and the rule of an oppressive communist regime lasting over 40 years. But that should not be allowed to spoil what the Poles has achieved: Democracy and human rights, freedom of speech and membership in the EU.
The EU must be tougher on the Polish goverment and consider political sanctions of some kind if the Poles continue on their path. It is not sufficient with verbal criticism, what is needed is action.
Saturday, 12 May 2007
Monday, 23 April 2007
In Africa, a neglected democratic development
The elections in Nigeria has drawn to a close, with no clear winner in sight. The country is, literally, a mess. It's democratic experiment is in danger due to the massive economic, political and social decay, and with corruption crippling the administration, the bureaucracy and the government itself. The situation resembles the Congo's current difficulties, where the election in 2006, by many hauled as a 'success', did not produce an unambiguous and uncontested winner. The international community - that is, the Western hemisphere - seem to think that the president of Congo, Laurent Kabila, is 'better than nothing'. At least concurrent actions support that notion. Kabila is no spring chicken, but responsible for much of the atrocitities that have taken place in the vast country. War is still raging in the eastern part, even though the UN has its largest African peacekeeping force stationed there, and despite the EU's (albeit small-scale)efforts to stem the violence.
The Western response to Nigeria's and the DRC's plights (the Democratic Republic of the Congo), along with a range of other countries, is one of ambiguity and vagueness. The root of the problem, arguably, lies in these countries often immense natural resources, which should be a source of wealth for them, but instead has always been a curse. After the wars in the DRC, which raged between 1996-1997, and 1998-2003, respectively, the UN established that exploitation of natural resources was a key factor in explaining the war. And the sad truth is that to a large extent, Western companies have been responsible for the exploitation and abuse, mostly big multinational corporations acting in an unscrupulous manner. Despite the UN's efforts at coming to terms with the situation, nothing has happened. In the UN Security Council, of which the USA, Great Britain and France are members, no actions have been directed at punishing the companies responsible for the exploitation.
A Congolese parliamentary report issued in 2003 found that the European and US companies had “breached international business norms in their operations in Congo”; what the parliament had established was uncomfortable for the UN Security Council, whose members were “reluctant to punish or even seriously investigate corporations based in their own countries”. The international community has acknowledged that exploitation of natural resources has been a major factor in the DRC conflict, but has done little or nothing about it.
How is the West going to cope with the problems, when they are, in fact, to a great extent, caused by its own actions? If one weigh the costs of the massive peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts to the profits generated by western companies, the balance is clearly twisted in the wrong direction. The operations conducted by the UN cost enormous sums annually, and many Western countries are growing increasingly reluctant to pay for efforts and contributions that have no happy ending in sight.
Therefore, the only wise thing to do is to impose stricter laws on companies conducting dubious businesses in the region, and to scrutinize the activities of these. In the long run, this could actually be beneficial to the Africans for them to help themselves in building the societies they want. If nothing is done, we will see yet another genocide, more atrocities and more violence taking place. And when the guns have silenced, guilty conscience will force the West (albeit reluctantly) to intervene yet again to stop a war which it is in part responsible for.
The Western response to Nigeria's and the DRC's plights (the Democratic Republic of the Congo), along with a range of other countries, is one of ambiguity and vagueness. The root of the problem, arguably, lies in these countries often immense natural resources, which should be a source of wealth for them, but instead has always been a curse. After the wars in the DRC, which raged between 1996-1997, and 1998-2003, respectively, the UN established that exploitation of natural resources was a key factor in explaining the war. And the sad truth is that to a large extent, Western companies have been responsible for the exploitation and abuse, mostly big multinational corporations acting in an unscrupulous manner. Despite the UN's efforts at coming to terms with the situation, nothing has happened. In the UN Security Council, of which the USA, Great Britain and France are members, no actions have been directed at punishing the companies responsible for the exploitation.
A Congolese parliamentary report issued in 2003 found that the European and US companies had “breached international business norms in their operations in Congo”; what the parliament had established was uncomfortable for the UN Security Council, whose members were “reluctant to punish or even seriously investigate corporations based in their own countries”. The international community has acknowledged that exploitation of natural resources has been a major factor in the DRC conflict, but has done little or nothing about it.
How is the West going to cope with the problems, when they are, in fact, to a great extent, caused by its own actions? If one weigh the costs of the massive peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts to the profits generated by western companies, the balance is clearly twisted in the wrong direction. The operations conducted by the UN cost enormous sums annually, and many Western countries are growing increasingly reluctant to pay for efforts and contributions that have no happy ending in sight.
Therefore, the only wise thing to do is to impose stricter laws on companies conducting dubious businesses in the region, and to scrutinize the activities of these. In the long run, this could actually be beneficial to the Africans for them to help themselves in building the societies they want. If nothing is done, we will see yet another genocide, more atrocities and more violence taking place. And when the guns have silenced, guilty conscience will force the West (albeit reluctantly) to intervene yet again to stop a war which it is in part responsible for.
Sunday, 15 April 2007
Wake up and face the reality, Sweden
Swedish television today showed a programme which concerned the forthcoming Swedish-led Nordic Battlegroup, and which criticized the training and preparatory work of the Swedish Defence, as well as the psychological suitability of the soldiers who have signed up for the task.
The programme asserted that the Swedish soldiers, if sent to an crisis area, would face grave danger and risk their lifes. Well, naturally, that is what a soldier faces when signing on. What do people actually expect from a dangerous mission in, lets say, the Congo?
If peace, or at least a ceasefire, cannot be achieved through diplomacy alone, peace enforcement is necessary to curtail the violence and to keep the warring at bay. Constituting an important part of the efforts to create peace, peace enforcement remains crucial in order to check violence, and even prevent possible genocide (as was the case in the DRC in 2003, when the EU intervened). Shall we let the other EU Member States carry the burden instead, is that solidarity? We have decided to join forces with the Union in its amibition to contribute to peacebuilding wherever needed, and therefore we must understand and accept that sending troops to foreign countries torn apart by war involves risks and dangers.
The programme asserted that the Swedish soldiers, if sent to an crisis area, would face grave danger and risk their lifes. Well, naturally, that is what a soldier faces when signing on. What do people actually expect from a dangerous mission in, lets say, the Congo?
If peace, or at least a ceasefire, cannot be achieved through diplomacy alone, peace enforcement is necessary to curtail the violence and to keep the warring at bay. Constituting an important part of the efforts to create peace, peace enforcement remains crucial in order to check violence, and even prevent possible genocide (as was the case in the DRC in 2003, when the EU intervened). Shall we let the other EU Member States carry the burden instead, is that solidarity? We have decided to join forces with the Union in its amibition to contribute to peacebuilding wherever needed, and therefore we must understand and accept that sending troops to foreign countries torn apart by war involves risks and dangers.
Monday, 9 April 2007
British soldiers released: A sordid truth revealed?
A few days ago, the Iranian goverment released its "prisoners", or whatever status they actually had been given. It was good news, of course, but one cannot help but wonder what made the Iranians carry out this "concession". Many analysts and experts feared a recurrence of the hostage-taking in 1979, when the so-called "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line" held 63 US diplomats and servicemen in captivity for 444 days. Thankfully, that did not happen this time. In many ways, this current affair resembled the 1979 crisis and as such prompted fear not just in the UK, but also in the EU and USA. The possible linkage to the Iranian nuclear program was a case in point, threatening to complicate and impede a possible diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue.
What made the Iranian goverment release the Britons? Was it due to fear of sanctions and other measures, of retributions from the UK or the US? One can, anyway, rule out the notion that the EU's 'actions' made the Iranians reconsider their position. The Union's response to the whole affair was in the end feeble and half-hearted. Some editorials in Swedish newspapers argued whether the EU's "soft power" could save the day, and resolve the crisis trough diplomacy and "negative sanctions". The lack of sufficient backing for Britain by Union leaders might have revealed a sordid truth, however, that other Member States conceived of the deal as something entirely British, and, as such, a wholly British concern. Is this not exactly what the Maastrich and Amsterdam treaties was meant to prevent and avoid? For the Member States to act "in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity", and "to refrain from action which is contrary to the interests of the Union...".
One cannot help but wonder what actually is in "the interests of the Union", that Member States concern themselves only with matters that are in their interest, setting solidarity aside?
The next time, it might be another Member State that has fallen into trouble of some sort, and thus requires the assistance and full backing of the entire EU. Let's hope for a better response then.
Tuesday, 3 April 2007
Unite on the energy issue
The events of the last weeks have weakened the EU's common position on Russia, and on energy issues, and have entailed a split of the unity of Europe. Russia persists in negotiating bilaterally with EU Member States, and signing energy deals that causes further division in the Union. The firm, common stand of the EU on dealings with Russia, if it has ever actually existed, is now gone as a consequence of the Russian divide-and conquer strategy.
What has led to this situation? The answer lies in Poland's reluctance, its hardline position on the issue, and its governments negative stance towards the Union. Even though Poland is to receive 75 billion dollars from the EU in the coming seven years, through various development assistance and support programs, the Poles remain strangely sceptical towards the Union. Instead, the focal point of Polish foreign policy has shifted towards the US, which however, its own people does not approve of. By no doubt, the Polish history of mostly damaging and detrimental Russian influence has affected the country's stand, but by no means should it lead to the Poles turning its back on Europe. Were it not for the EC/EUs contributions in the 1990s, i.e. economic and political support in a period of socio-political and economic turmoil, the Poles would surely be much worse off.
The Russians are using its energy resources as a means of extending its influence in Central and Eastern Europe. While this is nothing new, considering the events in both Byelorussia and the Ukraine, it must worry EU leaders. Albeit this new threat is of a non-military nature, it still poses an economical and political threat to the Union.
As often happens when the Union is treated as a bloc of 27, rather than as an entity speaking with one voice, other countries and actors are exploiting and benefiting from the inherit weaknesses of the EUs institutional basis; in this case, Russia. The new Member States must ask themselves what they want out of the European project, as their unilateral actions (not only Poland are to be blamed) do much harm to European unity. Do they believe that acting alone is beneficial in the long term? If the possibilities and chances of the EU to speak with one voice are impeded, it runs the risk of losing international respect, influence and legitimacy.
The EU must issue a strong warning to the states that fail to comply with EU legislation and rules, and threaten to jeopardize European energy policy. It is a bad sign already that Russia rejects the Commission's demands of giving European energy companies access to the Russian energy market. As the Russian energy companies are so firmly attached to Moscow, these has become power instruments at the hands of an unreliable government.
The problem is twofold, however, and also entails the Poles shifting it focus back towards Europe, but its near fundamentalist, conservative government has chosen a different path. It is ultimately, though, up to the Polish people to decide what they want. The EU is an association of democratic, enlightened and free countries, and it should remain true to its values.
What has led to this situation? The answer lies in Poland's reluctance, its hardline position on the issue, and its governments negative stance towards the Union. Even though Poland is to receive 75 billion dollars from the EU in the coming seven years, through various development assistance and support programs, the Poles remain strangely sceptical towards the Union. Instead, the focal point of Polish foreign policy has shifted towards the US, which however, its own people does not approve of. By no doubt, the Polish history of mostly damaging and detrimental Russian influence has affected the country's stand, but by no means should it lead to the Poles turning its back on Europe. Were it not for the EC/EUs contributions in the 1990s, i.e. economic and political support in a period of socio-political and economic turmoil, the Poles would surely be much worse off.
The Russians are using its energy resources as a means of extending its influence in Central and Eastern Europe. While this is nothing new, considering the events in both Byelorussia and the Ukraine, it must worry EU leaders. Albeit this new threat is of a non-military nature, it still poses an economical and political threat to the Union.
As often happens when the Union is treated as a bloc of 27, rather than as an entity speaking with one voice, other countries and actors are exploiting and benefiting from the inherit weaknesses of the EUs institutional basis; in this case, Russia. The new Member States must ask themselves what they want out of the European project, as their unilateral actions (not only Poland are to be blamed) do much harm to European unity. Do they believe that acting alone is beneficial in the long term? If the possibilities and chances of the EU to speak with one voice are impeded, it runs the risk of losing international respect, influence and legitimacy.
The EU must issue a strong warning to the states that fail to comply with EU legislation and rules, and threaten to jeopardize European energy policy. It is a bad sign already that Russia rejects the Commission's demands of giving European energy companies access to the Russian energy market. As the Russian energy companies are so firmly attached to Moscow, these has become power instruments at the hands of an unreliable government.
The problem is twofold, however, and also entails the Poles shifting it focus back towards Europe, but its near fundamentalist, conservative government has chosen a different path. It is ultimately, though, up to the Polish people to decide what they want. The EU is an association of democratic, enlightened and free countries, and it should remain true to its values.
Saturday, 31 March 2007
Do not recognize Hamas
Lately I have been reading a most interesting book, Unholy War by Loretta Napoleoni. The book concerns the mounting threat of international terrorism, specifically the threat arising from numerous militant islamist groups operating largely unchecked in various nations around the world, from the Philipines to Albania. The book revealed some rather disturbing truths on the nature of modern-day terrorism. What was especially fascinating was Napoleoni's theories regarding the root causes of the evolution of vast terror networks, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah. These organizations thrive on the chaos and disarray which characterises many nation states in the Middle East. Through various illegal and clandestine activities - smuggling drugs, money laundrying and arms trade- they finance their terror warfare.
How do they go about financing these activities, considering that terror operations, even at small scale, requires large financial resources? The answer lies embedded in the term shell states. A shell state is exists in "failed states", nation states with illegitimate governments with some or little control of the state's territory. They do no longer provide the services needed for their citizens, no rule of law and the state's legitimacy is diminishing. Shell states often evolve after civil war has wrecked the nation and the government ruling it, and when the government can no longer defend all of its territory. In the vacuum that is created, terror groups step in, offering at least some form of control and stability to the local population. They provide services, build hospitals, infrastructure and industry, though of a limited scope.
What is different from "actual" nation-states is that the shell states are built up around warfare, and all taxes and profits are used to fund the group's war. In the case of Hamas, that is exactly what has happened. Hamas did win the election, but it cannot claim any legitimacy since its entire existence was conceived out of the war against the occupationists, Israel. In fact, no state at all exists in Palestine, and Hamas has stepped in to gain from the confusion and disorder which plagues Palestine. Hamas is actively supported by various "fund raisers" and "charity organizations", which are in fact concealed sponsors of the terror warfare. Through shell companies, illegal arms trade, drugs smuggling, funds raised from sponsors in Saudiarabia and around the Middle East, Hamas can finance its operations. It is in fact in this way that Islamist terror is funded around the world. Americans and Europeans by the drugs which keep these movements alive and kicking, and the oil we buy from the Gulf states are transfered into support for terrorismIn the case of Hamas, it would be wise not to recognize this terrorist organisations, which thrives on illegal activities and whose pursuits are none but war and terror. It is not likely that the EU or the US would ever acknowledge Hamas' in the near future, but voices have been raised in Europe to "relieve" the Palestinian people in its tedious situation, but recognizing the Hamas and thus removing it of the "terror group list". It seems like Hamas are doing just fine without international aid, and actually prospering from it.
In an article in The Herald Tribune today, Israeli officials express their concern on the current Hamas military build-up in the Gaza strip. According to Israeli officials, Hamas "is building its military capacity in the Gaza Strip, constructing tunnels and underground bunkers and smuggling in ground-to-air missiles and military-grade explosives". Hamas has now apparently recruited over 10 000 fighters, whom have received their training from fellow terrorist organization Hezbollah. How is this possible without extensive external funding? Not very likely that it derives from levying taxes and legitimate businesses...
The origins of terror must be combatted by focusing on its root causes - socio-political decay, economic ruin and a lack of democracy and free speech - rather than through military means. In that respect, the EU must focus on supporting moderate Muslim organizations and targeting aid specific areas, so as not to risk that the funds fall into the wrong hands.
Friday, 30 March 2007
British soldiers taken hostage
The High Representative of the CFSP, Javier Solana, meeting with the EU foreign ministers of the 27 Member States, today issued a strong statement condemning the hostage-taking of the 15 British soldiers, claiming that the capture was "unacceptable" and "a big mistake". It is a welcomed, firm message of force against an Iranian government who believe it can persuade its ostensibly deceived, disillusioned masses with propaganda and false accusations. From the very beginning, the operation was sanctioned by the UN, and the British sailors arguably had no reason what so ever to trespass in Iranian waters. The borders of the waters outside the Iranian coast, the Northern Gulf, are highly dubious, and Iran should not make such a claim considering the uncertainty which surrounds the whole affair.
Worringly enough, it seems like the Iranians are taking advantage of the fact that the British army and navy are overstretched and exhausted, campaigning both in Iraq and Afghanistan; such bold actions could not have been feasible only a few years ago. It might also be part of a desperate Iranian attempt to coerce the international community into sanctioning its nuclear programme. Either way, these actions must be strongly condemned and the prisoners to be released immediately. Iran must now that it cannot get away with this grave offence.
Worringly enough, it seems like the Iranians are taking advantage of the fact that the British army and navy are overstretched and exhausted, campaigning both in Iraq and Afghanistan; such bold actions could not have been feasible only a few years ago. It might also be part of a desperate Iranian attempt to coerce the international community into sanctioning its nuclear programme. Either way, these actions must be strongly condemned and the prisoners to be released immediately. Iran must now that it cannot get away with this grave offence.
What is the European Union?
The EU may present a perplexing and ambiguous image to the rest of the world.
It is more than an international organization, but less so than a state; to conceptualize its identity is a complex task; as McCormick argues, however, whereas the EC was once a political exercise of limited scope, it is now a global superpower.
Outside actors might contemplate whether to think of the Union as a single body, or to conceive of it as a unit of 27 Member States united around a wide range of common interests and normative values. The complexity of the organization is illustrated by its multifaceted character, complex institutional machinery and the range and width of its policy areas, but also of its significant international influence and, alas, its “frequent inability to wield it”. Former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, once said that to “understand Europe you have to be a genius or French”, in a way reiterating Kissinger’s famous remark that “there was no focal point for contact with Europe”. What Kissinger implied was that if he wanted to call Europe, whom should he call?
One possible reason for the inability of the rest of the world to comprehend and understand the EU might be that it is an entirely new phenomenon in world politics, “the first truly post-modern international political form”. In that respect, the Union can be considered to be “the most highly evolved example of regional integration in the world”; rather than working together on a set of issues, the Member States of the Union have transferred significant powers to a supranational decision-making system and bodies of common law. Even though cooperation and integration around certain policy and interest areas have had its difficulties and impediments, and despite the blow suffered when the Constitution was rejected, the Member States seem to have converged on vital issues.
The Union is in a constant state of change and evolution, as new reforms are passed through and efforts are made to streamline the institutional machinery, and how much power and influence the EU could attain is at the end of the day up to its member states. Ultimately, membership in the Union is voluntary and if a member state should chose to opt out of the Community, this would not be treated as secession.
The Union came into existence as a means of ensuring that conflicts such as the World War II would never occur again. Thus, the Union was from the very beginning a peace project and it is hard to contest the notion that it is also a very successful one. In that sense the EU has without a doubt achieved what it set out to do.
The question is what kind of influence the Union would wield in the world. Would it look foremost to its own interests, or would it remain faithful to its original moral values and to the principles of peace and democracy that have guided it through 50 years? If the latter comes true, and the Union's aspirations and endeavours could be transformed into concrete action, the world could gain from its combined economic and political power in the shape of a better environment, long-term engagement in peacebuilding, development aid, promoting democracy, and restrain unilateral military actions.
It is more than an international organization, but less so than a state; to conceptualize its identity is a complex task; as McCormick argues, however, whereas the EC was once a political exercise of limited scope, it is now a global superpower.
Outside actors might contemplate whether to think of the Union as a single body, or to conceive of it as a unit of 27 Member States united around a wide range of common interests and normative values. The complexity of the organization is illustrated by its multifaceted character, complex institutional machinery and the range and width of its policy areas, but also of its significant international influence and, alas, its “frequent inability to wield it”. Former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, once said that to “understand Europe you have to be a genius or French”, in a way reiterating Kissinger’s famous remark that “there was no focal point for contact with Europe”. What Kissinger implied was that if he wanted to call Europe, whom should he call?
One possible reason for the inability of the rest of the world to comprehend and understand the EU might be that it is an entirely new phenomenon in world politics, “the first truly post-modern international political form”. In that respect, the Union can be considered to be “the most highly evolved example of regional integration in the world”; rather than working together on a set of issues, the Member States of the Union have transferred significant powers to a supranational decision-making system and bodies of common law. Even though cooperation and integration around certain policy and interest areas have had its difficulties and impediments, and despite the blow suffered when the Constitution was rejected, the Member States seem to have converged on vital issues.
The Union is in a constant state of change and evolution, as new reforms are passed through and efforts are made to streamline the institutional machinery, and how much power and influence the EU could attain is at the end of the day up to its member states. Ultimately, membership in the Union is voluntary and if a member state should chose to opt out of the Community, this would not be treated as secession.
The Union came into existence as a means of ensuring that conflicts such as the World War II would never occur again. Thus, the Union was from the very beginning a peace project and it is hard to contest the notion that it is also a very successful one. In that sense the EU has without a doubt achieved what it set out to do.
The question is what kind of influence the Union would wield in the world. Would it look foremost to its own interests, or would it remain faithful to its original moral values and to the principles of peace and democracy that have guided it through 50 years? If the latter comes true, and the Union's aspirations and endeavours could be transformed into concrete action, the world could gain from its combined economic and political power in the shape of a better environment, long-term engagement in peacebuilding, development aid, promoting democracy, and restrain unilateral military actions.
Monday, 26 March 2007
Celebrating 50 years: On the future of the European Union
An issue often neglected in the debate on the EU is that of its future role in world politics and international relations in particular. The Union is the single largest trading bloc in the world; its influence in areas such as trade, finance, environment, endorsing democracy and human rights is significant.
The EU, however, is not really what it can be. If the Union leaders can unite around a common foreign policy (sure the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the CFSP, already exists, but it has a vague and altogether far to general design and is not institutionalized in a constitution), the combined powers of the Union Member States could be a source of immense power in world affairs. The goals and aims of the EU are, inter alia, advocating democracy, human rights, free trade, freedom of speech, religion, and, foremost, peace. It could surpass the UN in conflict resolution, peace enforcement and peace building, on account of its credibility and legitimacy.
While this is much endeavoured in the Union, it is still up to the Member States if they are to embrace the constitution; it would do much good for the unity of the EU should that happen.
The EU could indeed be a force for peace, prosperity and human development if it could agree on vital issues such as foreign policy, security, and defence. This, however, requires the surrender of national - sovereign - powers to a common foreign ministry. To exert power, the Union must speak with one voice, and its divisions and differences must not be able to be exploited by other states and actors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)