The fall of the Soviet Union handed the U.S. a unique opportunity, as the surviving superpower, to lead the world toward a period of greater cooperation and conflict resolution through the use of diplomacy, global organization, and international law. This great opportunity to change US foreign policy doctrine was completely squandered by successive US presidents, who chose "the stick above the carrot" and consequently making the world a more dangerous place today.
The differences between the foreign policies of the EU, based on cooperation, trade , the environment,and Human Rights, and that of the United States became especially aparent during the Trump Administration, when Europe started staking out separate, clashing positions, on everything, from telecommunications to energy. The EU and US both issued sharp disagreements on the basic building blocks of foreign relations—namely, how the international system should work. French President Emmanuel Macron seized the spotlight, and sent the hearts of European federalists aflutter, by calling for “a European way” while raising the possibility of a French-led European nuclear deterrent, a precondition for any true independence from the United States.
If opinion polls are to go by, we are already separated. Nowhere is this felt more acutely than in Germany, the most important country in Europe. In January, Pew Research released a poll showing that 57 percent of Germans hold an outright unfavorable view of the United States. A few months earlier, in September, the European Council on Foreign Relations reported that 70 percent of Germans want their country to remain neutral in any conflict between Moscow and Washington.
For some European, Anglo-Saxon capitalism is seen as ruthless and rootless, mowing down the social order in the service of individual greed. For others, the United States’ dominance of the West breeds resentment, especially in an era of globalization, when even the slightest shocks from across the Atlantic hit the EU's bottom line or derail its diplomacy.
With the US Biden Administration in charge soon, the overall relationship between the two Transatlanic Super Power partners certainly will get off to a better start, but the US administration must certainly not expect that the status quo is re-established. Take note America, your former "lap dog" now considers itself an independent partner with its own voice.
EU-Digest
The Future Is Here Today
Where Business, Nature and Leisure Provide An Ideal Setting For Living
Showing posts with label EU Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU Foreign Policy. Show all posts
January 2, 2021
February 26, 2016
EU Migrant Crises: The EU must be able to face, acknowledge and fix the root of the problem - by RM
As the saying goes "concern yourself more accepting responsibility than with assigning blame".
US continuous criticism of the EU’s handling of the refugee crisis is the case in point .
Let's face it - the EU migrant crises comes as a direct result of a Europe which is still blindly following a US led foreign policy which is part of the so-called "allied commitments".
When these plans,however, as most of them usually do, turn into human disaster, Europe is required to carry the burden of fixing the mess afterwards..
The above specifically reflects on a totally flawed EU Middle-East foreign policy (a carbon copy of that of the US), specially in regions of the Muslim World, the Middle East and North Africa.
Where exactly is the line between inaction and complicity? The notion of neutrality, for a country as powerful as the United States, is illusory. Doing nothing or “doing no harm” means maintaining or reverting to the status quo, which in the Middle East is never neutral, due to America’s and Europe's longstanding relationships with regional political actors.
Europe’s refugee crisis might feel a million miles away for many Americans, but there is something everyone can relate to: money: and this ompletely messed up Middle East foreign policy could cost the United States several hundred billion dollars eventually.
That’s according to the Bertelsmann Foundation, a respected think tank here in Germany, which looked at the potential economic consequences if Europe were to reinstate border controls within its 26-country passport-free travel area.
As the continent buckles under the weight of the most serious refugee crisisever since World War II, the breakdown of that zone, known as the Schengen Area, has loomed as a dark prospect.
Reinstating border checks are bad for European business, experts say. They would even stunt economic growth through a vicious cycle that starts with higher labor costs — thanks to long lines at borders — and ends with declining sales and lower production.
If this happens it would mean major economic losses for the EU could reach up to €1.4 trillion by 2025.
So what to do about it? It would basically need two essental steps to be taken by the EU .
The first would be to immediately decouple the EU foreign policy from that of the failed US Middle East foreign policy; secondly, invest in a far reaching Euro-Mediterranean - North African Free Trade Area, which would aim at establishing peace and prosperity in the area by removing barriers to trade and investment between both the EU and countries in that area, based on mutual respect and recognition of all freely elected governments, religious freedom and cultural ties.
It obviously would be a long and difficult process, but the results would certainly be far more rewarding, productive and beneficial to all the people in the area, and obviously less costly than the useless and destructive military campaigns most nations within the EU and the US are presently involved in.
US continuous criticism of the EU’s handling of the refugee crisis is the case in point .
Let's face it - the EU migrant crises comes as a direct result of a Europe which is still blindly following a US led foreign policy which is part of the so-called "allied commitments".
When these plans,however, as most of them usually do, turn into human disaster, Europe is required to carry the burden of fixing the mess afterwards..
The above specifically reflects on a totally flawed EU Middle-East foreign policy (a carbon copy of that of the US), specially in regions of the Muslim World, the Middle East and North Africa.
Where exactly is the line between inaction and complicity? The notion of neutrality, for a country as powerful as the United States, is illusory. Doing nothing or “doing no harm” means maintaining or reverting to the status quo, which in the Middle East is never neutral, due to America’s and Europe's longstanding relationships with regional political actors.
Europe’s refugee crisis might feel a million miles away for many Americans, but there is something everyone can relate to: money: and this ompletely messed up Middle East foreign policy could cost the United States several hundred billion dollars eventually.
That’s according to the Bertelsmann Foundation, a respected think tank here in Germany, which looked at the potential economic consequences if Europe were to reinstate border controls within its 26-country passport-free travel area.
As the continent buckles under the weight of the most serious refugee crisisever since World War II, the breakdown of that zone, known as the Schengen Area, has loomed as a dark prospect.
Reinstating border checks are bad for European business, experts say. They would even stunt economic growth through a vicious cycle that starts with higher labor costs — thanks to long lines at borders — and ends with declining sales and lower production.
If this happens it would mean major economic losses for the EU could reach up to €1.4 trillion by 2025.
So what to do about it? It would basically need two essental steps to be taken by the EU .
The first would be to immediately decouple the EU foreign policy from that of the failed US Middle East foreign policy; secondly, invest in a far reaching Euro-Mediterranean - North African Free Trade Area, which would aim at establishing peace and prosperity in the area by removing barriers to trade and investment between both the EU and countries in that area, based on mutual respect and recognition of all freely elected governments, religious freedom and cultural ties.
It obviously would be a long and difficult process, but the results would certainly be far more rewarding, productive and beneficial to all the people in the area, and obviously less costly than the useless and destructive military campaigns most nations within the EU and the US are presently involved in.
August 2, 2015
EU-Digest July-August Poll results shows majority polled want stronger European Union - by RM
A recent EU-Digest poll (see insert) shows a majority of those
polled favor a stronger, better structured and governed European Union.Only 20% favored a return to independent nationhood for the 28 nation member Union.
A large percentage (40%) felt that the EU has not become stronger, or more unified over the past 10 years to face the challenges of globalization
If there is any finger pointing to be done about the progress that has been made so far in Bruxelles, as to creating a stronger and better functioning Union, it must be noted that more than half of the 28 EU governments are run or led by Conservative and right-leaning Liberal governments. This political picture is also reflected in the EU Commission and the EU Parliament.
Consequently legislation on a Financial Transaction Tax, the regulation of casino capitalism, off-shore tax evasion, an independent foreign policy, or more social justice in the area of immigration and migrant policies have not been forthcoming. Mainly because legislation within the EU and among member states has been blocked by inward looking nationalist and conservative political forces
Another major issue looming high above the EU's weak and "toothless" legislative structure is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, as it is known. TTIP will be the most important global trade agreement of its kind, representing nearly half of the world's GDP. It is a trade deal between the USA and the EU, whose impact will be felt by all and everyone.
Is the EU able to control these negotiations, or at best, to keep them on an even playing field against the slick US corporate trained and supported negotiating team? Not really, if one looks at how the US's NSA got away with spying on the EU commission, EU corporations, local EU governments and EU citizens.
Bottom-line: Europe needs some imaginative thinking and vision to lift it out of its current torpor.
Watered down solutions will eventually bring this amazing and most promising global project of this century, called the EU, which has brought peace and prosperity to the European continent now for over 50 years, to a standstill.
Our new EU-Digest is about the election of the EU President - should it be by popular vote or by parliamentary majority ?
EU-Digest
June 13, 2014
Is EU Foreign Policy Weak or clever ?: A promise barely noticed- Charlemagne
America's retreat from the woes of the world is worrying its friends in the Middle
East. Jihadists are surging through Iraq; Syria uses chemical weapons
without retribution; and the latest American attempt to solve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has failed. Is it time for Europe to help
fill the vacuum?
Europeans always dream of exerting global influence commensurate with their economic weight. The Middle East’s problems have a way of washing up on Europe’s shores, be it boat people landing on the Mediterranean coast, or terrorists returning after being hardened by jihad in one or other civil war. And yet Europeans are struggling to be heard.
Take this week’s visit to Israel by José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission. He expanded on what, in another time or place, would be a big promise: if and when the Israelis and Palestinians make peace, the EU stands ready to offer economic integration akin to that enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland. In Ukraine the power of a similar offer precipitated a civil war and geopolitical contest with Russia; in the Holy Land, though, the promise of “special privileged partnerships” was barely noticed. It is striking, that, separately, Israel chose not to vote in March on a UN motion sponsored by the West to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
If America elicits less respect from Israel these days, Europe is the object of much scorn. Europe is remembered as a Jewish graveyard and, latterly, is regarded as an economic basket-case. Even collectively, it packs far less military punch than America. The French- and British-led intervention that toppled Muammar Qaddafi in Libya has left a violent mess.
The European Union’s 28 member-states are divided between big, small, old and new members and, when it comes to Israel, between the guilt-ridden (Germany) and the disapproving (Sweden).
As with much else, EU foreign-policy positions are finely balanced compromises, so even important moves are lost in woolly formulations. Seeking to keep Israeli-Palestinian peace talks alive after John Kerry, the American secretary of state, declared a “pause” in his mediation, Mr Barroso said the hiatus was “untenable in the long run”; peace with the Palestinians was in Israel’s best security interest.
America is of paramount importance to Israel’s security. But Europe makes several vital contributions. Its sanctions on Iran helped bring the mullahs to the negotiating table; its money keeps the Palestinian Authority alive as a negotiating partner for Israel; and Europe is central in managing the Syrian refugee crisis.
To be heard, Europeans need to speak clearly about what a two-state solution means: the end of Israeli occupation of land captured in 1967 (with agreed land swaps and a deal on Jerusalem), but also the end of further Palestinian claims on the Jewish state created in 1948. Palestinian refugees will, overwhelmingly, return to the new state of Palestine, not their old homes in Israel.
Read more:Charlemagne: A promise barely noticed | The Economis
Europeans always dream of exerting global influence commensurate with their economic weight. The Middle East’s problems have a way of washing up on Europe’s shores, be it boat people landing on the Mediterranean coast, or terrorists returning after being hardened by jihad in one or other civil war. And yet Europeans are struggling to be heard.
Take this week’s visit to Israel by José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission. He expanded on what, in another time or place, would be a big promise: if and when the Israelis and Palestinians make peace, the EU stands ready to offer economic integration akin to that enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland. In Ukraine the power of a similar offer precipitated a civil war and geopolitical contest with Russia; in the Holy Land, though, the promise of “special privileged partnerships” was barely noticed. It is striking, that, separately, Israel chose not to vote in March on a UN motion sponsored by the West to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
If America elicits less respect from Israel these days, Europe is the object of much scorn. Europe is remembered as a Jewish graveyard and, latterly, is regarded as an economic basket-case. Even collectively, it packs far less military punch than America. The French- and British-led intervention that toppled Muammar Qaddafi in Libya has left a violent mess.
The European Union’s 28 member-states are divided between big, small, old and new members and, when it comes to Israel, between the guilt-ridden (Germany) and the disapproving (Sweden).
As with much else, EU foreign-policy positions are finely balanced compromises, so even important moves are lost in woolly formulations. Seeking to keep Israeli-Palestinian peace talks alive after John Kerry, the American secretary of state, declared a “pause” in his mediation, Mr Barroso said the hiatus was “untenable in the long run”; peace with the Palestinians was in Israel’s best security interest.
America is of paramount importance to Israel’s security. But Europe makes several vital contributions. Its sanctions on Iran helped bring the mullahs to the negotiating table; its money keeps the Palestinian Authority alive as a negotiating partner for Israel; and Europe is central in managing the Syrian refugee crisis.
To be heard, Europeans need to speak clearly about what a two-state solution means: the end of Israeli occupation of land captured in 1967 (with agreed land swaps and a deal on Jerusalem), but also the end of further Palestinian claims on the Jewish state created in 1948. Palestinian refugees will, overwhelmingly, return to the new state of Palestine, not their old homes in Israel.
Read more:Charlemagne: A promise barely noticed | The Economis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)