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.

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.

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.

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.