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.

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.

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.

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.