Five months ago most European citizens were unaware of the number of refugees seeking to reach the richest EU Member States like Germany, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The first wake up call for Europe was after the Lampedusa tragedy costing the lives of more than 300 refugees on October 3rd, 2013. Europeans were shocked, as the world was, to wake up with hearing such tragedy taking place at their doorstep. From 2013 to 2015, the issue of mass-migration from Syria, Eritrea, Somalia and other countries in the region left the front pages and the minds of Europeans, but had remained extremely present in the world of experts and the International Organization for Migration was calling for actions. The second wake-up call, which marked the beginning of the seriousness of the crisis, was the shipwreck killing an estimated 900 migrants on April 19th, 2015 off the coast of Italy.
The migration crisis, aside from geopolitics and economics, is quite interesting for several reasons. Movements in policy-recommendations and policy-making by European leaders seem to have occurred in relation with direct materialization of the crisis through very powerful (in the negative sense of the term) images. Below are the most marking pictures that were featured on front pages of global newspapers. For the last four months, images of misery, death, pain, innocence have illustrated the failures of European leaders on the international stage, brought back humanity (which has been missing for too long), and the moral responsibility of all Europeans – leaders and citizens included – (read here a superb piece by Judy Dempsey).
Death at Sea – From the Lampedusa tragedy (2013) to today
Crossing Eastern Europe
Getting to Germany
The Picture that Re-Humanized the Migration Crisis
The last picture showing the lifeless body of Aylan Kurdi, a 3 year old Syrian boy, lying on a turkish beach has moved world citizens and European leaders (the New York Times published a powerful story about this image). Since the EU meeting in June, the EU (even though President Juncker and HR Mogherini have been active on the issue, but hardly visible) and its Member States have failed to agree on receiving asylum seekers and implementing real policies.
The migration crisis lost all of its humanity because of the national rhetorics. But the picture of Aylan appears to have been the shock necessary for European citizens and leaders. Even David Cameron, British Prime Minister, whom had used very derogatory words in regards of migrants seeking to reach the United Kingdom (read a piece on the issue here), responded by claiming that the UK will try to do more in the short and long term as it has a “moral responsibility.” During an address to the House of the Commons, David Cameron has announced that the UK will be re-settling 20,000 Syrians over the four and half years. “We will continue to show the world that this country is a country of extraordinary compassion,” said Cameron “always standing up for our values and helping those in need.” France and Germany have announced as well that they will be taking an additional 55,000 refugees over the next two years (24,000 for France and 31,000 refugees for Germany). François Hollande of France said that it was a “fundamental principle” of France to accept asylum seekers. But the British and French numbers are well below Germany’s.
In some way, the power of this picture has mobilized world public opinion and put pressure on European leaders to deliver at the up-coming EU interior and justice ministers meeting on September 14th. But an EU leaders meeting will be necessary afterwards to solidify the decisions. As the Eurozone crisis, the migration crisis highlights the lack of integration between a European asylum policy with 28 national migration policies. Until the European and national levels will either be merged or fully disintegrated, the migration and eurozone crises will not be fully solved.
If the world was not watching in May during the meeting setting the Agenda on Migration, it will be paying close attention in September. The EU and its Member States have to deliver by respect to European complex history and heritage, to European values, norms and principles, and by simple humanity.
Too much has been said in dehumanizing the refugees coming to Europe in the name of simplification and nationalism (read here a previous analysis on the issue). The 71 refugees recently found dead in a truck in Austria is another horrific example of the tragedy taking place on European ground. Ensuing the discovery of the 71 corpses in the truck in Austria, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, made a powerful, and yet short, statement about the migration crisis in Europe. “This is a human tragedy” he declared “that requires a determined collective political response. It is a crisis of solidarity, not a crisis of numbers.”
It seems that the Austrian case has motivated Germany, France and the United Kingdom in seeking for a European solution. A call for action from Berlin, London and Paris is important as they are the most powerful capitals in the EU and usually action occurs once the three of them have set the motion on. However, on the question of migration, they have diverging reasons: Germany is the largest receiver of asylum seekers and seriously needs assistance from its European partners; the United Kingdom is rethinking its European membership and Cameron appears to be in favor of maintaining the UK within the EU, so he cannot move to far right; France receives a large amount a refugees and is dealing with rising cases of terrorist attacks. For the three of them action will always look better from a domestic standpoint. Ultimately on September 14th, the EU ministers of interior will be meeting at an emergency summit.
Even though the three EU powerhouses have agreed on seeking for a common approach, other EU Member States have adopted anti-migrants measures that go against the normative and ethical standards established, agreed and promoted by the European Union.
With increasing numbers of migrants coming from the Middle East, North Africa, and Africa, several EU Member States have implemented radical measures in dealing with the large movement of migrants (read previous analyses here and here on the issue). Interestingly enough, these Member States are not receivers of migrants, but are transit countries on the way to the final destinations of Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Sweden. The measures implemented by Bulgaria, Hungary, France, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (an EU candidate country) are troublesome.
Bulgaria, one of the most recent EU Member States, is a transit country for most migrants coming from Turkey. Bulgaria deployed troops, which included tanks, to its border with Turkey and Macedonia. Such political move has raised some serious criticism from human rights groups. The Bulgarian Ministry of Defense argued that it was simply a “preventive” operation. A military solution to a human crisis is generally not the most appropriate option. Bulgaria has as well built a 160-km fence along its border with Turkey. And Slovakia only wants Christian refugees.
Hungary has received the most negative coverage and attention for its approach to dealing with the crisis. Hungary’s policies are directly aligned with the government led by Viktor Orbán. His narratives against migrants and even the EU have been quite virulent. “The
prime minister and many members of his cabinet have made it perfectly clear,” argued Marton Dunai of Reuters “saying things like, we don’t want thousands and thousands rampaging through the country every day.” As Bulgaria, Hungary is a transit state to richer EU countries, as it is “the gateway to Europe’s visa-free Schengen zone.” In order to lower the number of migrants crossing the country, the government has ordered the creation of a razor wire fence along its border with Serbia. This fence is more of a nationalist stunt than a wall blocking migrants in Serbia. Asked on the wall being built by Hungary, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius expressed his anger towards the Hungarian initiative. “I take a very dim view, a very dim view” said Laurent Fabius. “Hungary is part of Europe. Europe has values and these values are not respected by putting up wire fences.” The comments by Laurent Fabius have created a fraught between France and Hungary. Hungarian Foreign Minister, Peter Szijjarto, responded that “Instead of shocking and groundless judgements, one should instead concentrate on finding common solutions for Europe” and has even summoned the French Ambassador to Hungary.
France should as well be listed as a EU Member State not doing enough in the case of the migration crisis. The recent call by the French government for an emergency summit is a positive element, but for too long France has let camps grow in the suburbs of Calais, first with Sangatte and now with the Jungle. The current situation in the Calais camp demonstrates the lack of desire by the French government to deal properly with the 5,000 migrants trying to reach the other side of the English Channel. European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans has announced that France will receive up to five million euros that “will be used to set up a camp that can provide humanitarian assistance to around 15-hundred migrants. The money will also go on transporting asylum seekers to other destinations in France.” France has not done enough in the last decade to create appropriate infrastructures in the region of Calais to accommodate the migrants.
The last case is the recent use of force by the Macedonian authorities. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is not a EU Member State, but a EU candidate. As Bulgaria, they do not belong to the Schengen agreement and are transit countries. Macedonia is directly on the path to Hungary. In the last two months, Macedonia has recorded over 40,000 migrants crossing its country to either go to Serbia or Hungary. In August 21st, the Macedonia authorities used force against migrants. This event comes at a time wherein the Prime Minister has been facing serious domestic criticism as he is facing allegations of illegal wire-taps, corruption and authoritarianism.
Amalgams and Political Games
Extreme-right wing and mainstream parties throughout the Union have oversimplified the migration crisis in the name of short-termism and nationalism. The rise of nationalist parties throughout the EU framing the debate and ultimately fostering fear in the hearts of many Europeans and elected officials are transforming the debate on one of the most important problems facing the Union into an absolute aberration.
The amalgam that has been made, and is starting to hold in the collective memory, that migration translates into an increase of terrorist and criminal acts has to be rejected by the elected officials. The recent tragic event in the Thalys train from Amsterdam to Paris has nothing to do with the current migration crisis. But the link is continuously made and hammered by media and politicians that a belief with no empirical evidences, as most of the specialized literature on terrorism rejects, is being transformed into a fact. Elected officials, politicians in Europe and in the US are constantly reminding the audience of such belief.
Across the pond, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, Donald Trump,
has completely shifted the debate on immigration from a social problem into a security problem using similar strategy. In the brilliant piece published in the New Yorker, Evan Osnos quotes Trump’s 1987 memoir, wherein he wrote “I [Donald Trump] play to people’s fantasies. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration – and a very effective form of promotion.” The words and narratives made by politicians like Donald Trump, Marine LePen, Nicolas Sarkozy, Vicktor Orbán, David Cameron, Geert Wilders are a constant reminder of the danger of radicalizing a debate as contentious as immigration. The case of Thalys, perpetuated by a Moroccan citizen Ayoub el Khazzani, clearly a terrorist act, has no connection with Syrian refugees fleeing a warzone between dictator Bashar Al-Assad, ISIS, and a multitude of factions.
“This may not matter to the National Front’s core electorate,” wrote top French expert François Heisbourg in an op-ed published in the Financial Times “but it does mean that mainstream policy has largely conceded defeat when it comes to values. Europe is better than this; so is France. Europe’s leaders need to live up to our responsibilities as humans and as neighbours, assume part of the burden, and talk straight to the electorate. Continued European and French fecklessness will only improve the far-right’s prospects of success, and deepen what is already an unprecedented crisis.”
Juncker called in a recent op-ed for “collective courage,” rather than solidarity. Now is the time to do so. The migrant crisis has underlined a paradox between national asylum policies and the schengen agreement of open borders. This crisis, like the Euro crisis, demonstrates the challenges that the EU and its Member States are facing in balancing out national priorities (protection of national sovereignty like fiscal policies, defense and immigration) and the deepening of the integration process. One of the recent tensions between the Member States and the EU has been about the Schengen Agreement. If conservative parties want to reintroduce border control, either to stop migrants or terrorists, the Commission refuses to touch at the border-free agreement calling it one of the greatest European accomplishment.
The migration crisis is highlighting another paradox in the European integration process between European and national interests. The tensions between the Member States and Brussels cannot continue any longer. Letting migrants die and be mistreated on European ground is an unacceptable reality.
(Copyright 2015 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).
Is the United Kingdom, especially Britain, sick? For years, the media has called France the sick man of Europe, it appears that Britain has caught a similar cold. If France is facing dire economic conditions and is unable to implement real reforms launching the economic engine once and for all, Britain has for its part disappeared from the European and international stage. Britain is on election mode and these elections are serious for the future of Britain and its future within the European Union. Because Britain has fallen from the table of relevance, the general European public is unaware of them. May 7th will be a big day for Britain, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.
The election is being disputed between seven candidates. The two main candidates belong to the two big parties: conservative led by Prime Minister David Cameron; and the Labor led by Ed Miliband. The others are from smaller parties, which have nevertheless shaped the debate, like the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, the Democratic Unionists in Northern Ireland, the Greens, and UK Independence Party (UKIP). These smaller parties may not produce the next Prime Minister, but “could hold the balance of power in the next Parliament, making government policy subject to negotiation.” The expectation is to see either Miliband or Cameron winning the popular vote. So far, the campaign has revolved around the following three issues: the economy, health care, and immigration.
Risk-Aversion or Pessimistic Isolationism?
Since the election of Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010 Britain has lost some of its grandeur and relevance. Just on foreign and defense policy, Britain has disappeared from
the international arena. From a mid-size power to a small power, Britain lost its appetite for international relevance and action. The turning point was the no vote by the Parliament for a military intervention in Syria against President Bashar al-Assad in August 2013. Since then, Prime Minister Cameron has just looked inward and tried to clean up the house letting foreign affairs aside. Ed Miliband, Labor Party Leader, has described Cameron’s foreign policy of “pessimistic isolationism,” and for electoral purposes argued that Cameron has “weakened Britain.”
In terms of foreign policy, Britain has been a no-show on really important issues like Ukraine (France and Germany signed the Minsk agreement with Russia), on sanctions against Russia, on Libya, on the migration crisis, on Africa, on fighting ISIS in Syria and Libya and so forth. Britain is only assisting the US on bombing ISIS in Iraq. In Africa, Britain is barely assisting the French in the mission in Mali and has expressed very limited interests in fighting Boko Haram. The absence of Britain and Cameron on dealing with Putin and Russia over the question of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine has been damaging to the credibility of the country and the EU on trying to solve serious regional crises.
One reason for such risk-aversion by Britain is the Iraq and Afghan campaigns. The costs on going to war in Iraq with the Americans in 2003 are still being felt. Then the mission in Afghanistan lasted over a decade and Britain does not want anymore to get drag down in another foreign campaign with no success at the end, which Syria and Libya could very much be. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain has not been able to justify the size and length of both missions and the population has grown opposed to another foreign intervention.
Letting your Allies down
The US is now extremely worried about the future of the ‘special relationship.’ Britain may tend to believe that the ‘special relationship’ is set in stone, but like any relationship, without discussion and connection they tend to dry out and die. Britain cannot expect the US to be its closest ally when Britain does not reciprocate. Maybe the British leadership believes that all GOP candidates ought to pass by London in order to be presidential, but so far none of them has been successful at it – recall McCain and Romney – and a talk in London by a non-elected and/or elected official in his personal capacity does not make up for the core of the ‘special relationship.’ Additionally, the US saw the move by the Foreign Office to decide to make Britain a founding member of Beijing’s new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a competitor of the World Bank, as some sort of backstabbing. France, Italy, and Germany have followed the UK on this policy-choice.
For France and Europe, an inward looking Britain is a real concern as well. France and Britain have certainly a long past fighting one another, but there is one core dimension wherein Paris and London see eye to eye: defense and foreign policies. European defense was created, functioned and has deepened thanks to the Franco-British couple. The Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) was established ensuing the 1998 bilateral Saint-Malo meeting. Since the disappearance of Britain on common defense questions, France has become anxious. For instance, top French expert, Camille Grand of the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique argued in the New York Times that “We in Paris understand that Germany is a complicated partner on defense, but the assumption is that Britain is a like-minded country ready to intervene, would spend enough on defense and remain a nuclear weapons state. All this is being challenged, and it makes Paris feel lonely.” Despite some historical and cultural divergences, Paris and London have always shared a common acute sense of foreign affairs and valued their cooperation in foreign, security and defense policies.
So Long Britain?
Britain is an interesting European case for two reasons: first, the raison d’être of its political class has become so anti-European that it goes against its national interest; second, there is no long-term vision for Britain in interacting with Europe and the world.
Britain must for once and for all accept its role and place within the European Union. If it wants to leave, the referendum ought to be implemented and the country will adjust accordingly towards a Brexit or not (see the short video above). But having Britain being so anti-European and
blocking any initiatives (against the CAP, against a large common budget, against police and judiciary cooperation, against the Schengen agreement, and so on) in Brussels is counter-productive for Britain, the EU, and the 28 EU Member States. For instance, having London fighting for the increase of the budget of Operation Triton is counterproductive. The perpetual fear of lost of sovereignty and stripping away British independence cannot last any longer. A balance ought to be found between anti-EU and constructive bargaining.
Second, the British political class, as its French counterpart, is composed of visionless politicians. There is no long-term vision for their respective countries with serious political, economic, social and financial agendas. There are only bureaucrats seeking for perpetual reelection at great cost for the country. Hopefully, the May 7th elections will allow British citizens and politicians to reflect on the role of Britain in Europe and the world. This is only wishful thinking, as in reality the general election appears to be another wasted opportunity for a clear national reflection on Britain’s future.
(Copyright 2015 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).
“France would have lost her soul in her eyes and those of the world.” This sentence ends the recent column by Jacques Attali, an influential French economist and policy-advsior. In his recent op-ed titled, Do you really want this kind of France?, Jacques Attali reflects on the surge of the Front National (FN) and what France would look like under its reign.
The extreme-ring wing party Front National finds its roots in the conservatism of the old fascist and colonialist France. In its early years, the FN demonstrated without any shame its admiration for the Vichy government, which collaborated with the Nazis during World War two. Additionally, many of its leading members belonged to the Organization de l’Armée Secrète (OAS), an underground organization composed of former French soldiers opposed to the independence of Algeria in the 1960s. The OAS tried at several occasions to assassinate General de Gaulle and committed a series of terrorist attacks in Algeria and France.
The current honorary President and founder of the FN, Jean-Marie le Pen, has always been sympathetic to such xenophobist, racist and colonialist ideologies. Nevertheless, the FN was never targeting the presidency nor trying to gain power under his leadership. The FN saw itself as an opposition force to the socialist and right political establishment, and did not want to govern. The attraction to power appeared with the 2002 presidential election when Jean-Marie le Pen rose to the second round facing Jacques Chirac. Mr. le Pen ultimately lost the election, but the influence of the FN in shaping political narratives and policies was initiated. As illustrated below the rise of the FN since 1974 has been progressive.
From 2002 to today, the rise has been steady, progressive and meticulous. The architect behind such political consolidation is Mr. le Pen’s daughter, Marine le Pen. Her entire platform rests on shifting the image of the party from an ultra-nationalist party into a conservative and nationalist party. She has worked on making the FN an acceptable voting option and political alternative for a larger segment of French citizens.
France is currently in election mode with the departmental elections. These ongoing local elections – the first round was on Sunday, March 22nd, and the second one on Sunday, March 29th – are supposed to solidify the political weight of the FN. The conclusions of these 2015 department elections are that even tough the FN does not win any department, as hoped, the party nevertheless demonstrates some serious gain. It received 40% of the votes in the 1100 counties still present for the 2nd round. Ensuing the elections, UMP takes 66 departments (currently at 41) and the PS 30 (so loosing 31 departments). The FN does not gain any, but its presence can now be felt all around France.
Marine le Pen, with her slogan le Rassemblement Bleu Marine, has played the rhetoric of leading the first political party of France ensuing the European elections of May 2014. French citizens gave the majority to the representatives of the FN, followed by the right-wing UMP and then the socialist PS. Since May 2014, the FN has been campaigning on the base of being the first party of France. The FN has used the current political status-quo with a sluggish socialist presidency and a very divided right-wing UMP led by former President Nicolas Sarkozy. The FN appears as the only stable and united political force with a simple agenda. From campaigning to governing, the gap remains to be filled.
Attali Looks at France under the FN
In an intellectual exercise, Jacques Attali draws a picture of France under the FN if elected at the presidency in 2017. His point is that even though it could be a one and done type of mandate, the consequences of the FN policies, politics and laws would be disastrous for France, the EU and the image of France at home and abroad for several decades.
In European politics, the FN would certainly work in removing France for any common European project. It would in some ways look like the Cameron’s mandate seeking for increasing his political leverage in his consent euro-bashing rhetorics. The FN would push for a referendum to leave the common currency, the Euro, and ultimately the EU. The Schengen agreement
would certainly see its last hour, killing the free movements of people in Europe. In terms of defense and security policy, France would leave NATO and any cooperative agreements with other European partners and may instead solidify her relationship with Russia.
At home, Attali argues that the core values, principles and norms adopted and incorporated for century in French politics would be erased. In practice, the death penalty would be re-instituted, and human rights and the social contract would deeply suffer. Currently, in some cities of France under FN mayors, associations and other local initiatives have lost funding and are being progressively removed (listen here to an investigation by FranceInter at the life of French citizens in cities under FN control).
Economically, a national currency, most likely the Franc, would be reinforced creating some serious financial and economic trouble in France and in Europe. In terms of religion, aside from Christian heritage, the others will have most likely to adapt or leave. Political rhetorics and narratives will resemble to ones used by Nicolas Sarkozy in order to create a split within the French society based on the modo of us versus them. Us being the good Frenchman, and them the unwanted French. Anything foreign would be rejected in order to protect French uniqueness and culture.
Attali does not foresee a successful mandate for the FN and underlines that the FN would face a choice between dictatorship and repudiation considering the disastrous consequences of its policies. Ultimately, the FN would pick the latter in order to maintain its power and criticize any oppositions as root causes of France’s problems.
FN: A Necessary Evil?
The FN illustrates the real malaise in the French society. The malaise comes from a core aspect in French psyche: exceptionalism. France perceives itself as such because of her history – the birthplace of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the Napoleonic Code, the Trente Glorieuses, its nuclear arsenal, among others – and its role in shaping regional and world events as an exceptional nation. France as the United Kingdom and United States share this exceptionalist component in their political belief and system and foreign policy. France understands her role as an important part of world politics and does not perceive anymore being able to shape it.
Such concept of exceptionalism demonstrates a belief in France in shaping events, not being subject to them. Globalization is perceived as a threat to France’s uniqueness and autonomy. Such belief holds no empirical grounds considering the numbers of French firms leading in their respective sectors thanks to globalization, French as one of the most spoken languages in the world and French citizens are present all around the world. The selective-memory/analysis of globalization as a menace to the sovereignty of France is a constructed myth for obvious political reasons.
Last but not least, Attali’s analysis falls under a new trend of work, prediction. For instance, the recent book by Michel Houellebecq, Soumission, projecting the reader into a France in 2022 seeing the rise of an Islamic party leading to a progressive islamization of France society, has launched a serious polemic about the societal and political trauma of France in time of crisis. If Houellebecq is a divisive and satirical author, Attali is a respected economist and intellectual. Nevertheless, both work underlines complex societal and national crises. France is a nation in search of an identity and voice in the 21st century.
(Copyright 2015 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).
During the G-20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, Russian President, Vladimir Putin, received a rather cold welcoming from his world counterparts. It appeared that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper among others to have had critical words toward Vladimir Putin. It was even reported that Canadian Prime Minister told Vladimir Putin, “Well, I guess I’ll shake your hand, but I have only one thing to say to you: ‘You need to get out of Ukraine’.” Russian President even left the meeting before the end as he explained, “We still have to get home and be ready for work on Monday. It would be nice to be able to sleep for 4 or 5 hours.” During the last Q&A with the press, Putin claimed that “Ukraine was not discussed in any official context during the G20 discussions. The issue did not come up at all and was not even mentioned.” The G-20 meeting confirmed that the relations between the West and Russia are at one of the lowest since the end of the Cold War.
Decisions by the FAC Meeting
After a rather difficult, or even ‘humiliating‘ G-20 meeting for Vladimir Putin, the Russian President is now waiting to see what the EU and its Member States are willing to do in order to tackle the Ukrainian crisis (see here a previous analysis on the topic). On November 17th, the EU-28 met during a Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) in order to discuss the Ukrainian situation among others. HR/VP Mogherini was presiding the FAC, for the first time as the HR, principally focusing on the situation in Ukraine. The conclusions reached by the FAC are once again minimal. The United Kingdom, Poland and the Baltic states were pushing for tougher rhetorics in order to denounce Russian violations in Ukraine. As explained by Mogherini ensuing the FAC meeting, “a major EU political role on the way to find effective means to have a political solution to the crisis, engaging in dialogue with Russia.” Four dimensions were discussed during the Council meeting:
first, reaffirming EU’s support for the Minsk Protocol and Memorandums (pushed by France, the Benelux countries, and Finland);
second, underscoring the importance of the formation of the new government following the national parliamentary elections of October 26th;
third, eventual sanctions targeting Ukrainian separatists, possibly agreed next month. But according to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, stricter sanctions are not currently on the table;
fourth, the launch on December 1st of the EU Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine).
EUAM Ukraine – The latest CSDP mission
The EUAM Ukraine, or the latest Common Security and Defense Policy mission, will be launched on December 1st, 2014. EUAM Ukraine is a civilian, or unarmed, non-executive civilian mission. EUAM was created on July 22nd, 2014 and is led by Kálmán Mizsei, appointed on the 24th of July. From its initial creation on July 22nd to November 30th, EUAM received a €2.68 million for the start-up of the mission. More recently, the Council has allocated a budget of € 13.1m for the first 12 months of the mission’s two-year mandate starting on the 1st of December. The mission of EUAM Ukraine consists in assisting “the Ukrainian authorities in the field of civilian security sector reform, including police and rule of law.” So far, there is no indication of the size of the EUAM.
In the aftermath of its establishment in July, former HR/VP Ashton declared:
“The Ukrainian Authorities have embarked on the critical path of civilian security sector reform and have requested the support of the European Union. The EU is deploying this mission to assist Ukraine in this reform, including police and the rule of law. It will provide strategic advice for the development of effective, sustainable and accountable security services that contribute to strengthening the rule of law in Ukraine, for the benefit of all Ukrainian citizens throughout the country.”
Several months later, newly appointed HR/VP Mogherini announced that
“Responding to a request from Ukraine, the EU advisory mission will assist in the reform of the Ukrainian civilian security sector, including police and civilian security services, public prosecution and the courts. EU experts will work for efficient, trusted civilian security institutions under democratic control. Like the Association Agreement, the Status of Mission Agreement is a further sign of our joint efforts for a genuine reform process for Ukraine.”
The Status of Mission Agreement (SOMA) has already been signed between the HR/VP Mogherini and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin, permitting an immediate launch of the operation on the 1st of December. Despite a small budget, the EUAM mandate and mission is enormous. EUAM is supposed to advise on a reform strategy over the civilian security sectors, including the police and the rule of law, and oversee its implementation. In a report produced by Bruxelles2, Nicolas Gros-Verheyde underscored the degree of challenges in creating and implementing the rule of law in Ukraine in a two-year period considering the level of corruption, the nature of the police forces – an historically politicized and militarized instrument -, and reaffirming the power of a centralized government – as some regions are under militia control -.
The implementation and deployment of EUAM Ukraine is a positive note for the EU as its represent a certain willingness to act in Ukraine aside the OSCE. Unfortunately, EUAM Ukraine does not address the root cause of the current tension in Ukraine, Russia. Even though, European leaders have talked tough in Australia, they are still not addressing the real problem represented by Russia. In her recent op-ed, Judy Dempsey underscored how Chancellor Merkel perceives Russia as the main threat to Europe’ security and her continuous interaction with her Russian counterpart as she does not trust him.
Following the G-20 meeting, Chancellor Merkel made some comments about the Ukrainian crisis, saying “suddenly we are confronted with a conflict which goes to the center of our values, so to speak. Now we can’t hold speeches at commemorations. Now we have to show what we have learned from all this.” Chancellor Merkel was clear on advancing the need for Europe to stop the talking and finally start behaving as a regional power. Additionally, Dempsey wrote that “The recent bout of Western sanctions against Russia have shown how the diplomatic path is not working. That is all the more reason for European leaders to accept the changing geostrategic realities.” Once again, EUAM illustrates the gap between between the rhetorics and the actions.
The Use of Economic Power to Asserting Europe’s Power?
To some degree EUAM Ukraine can be compared, in terms of strategic choice, to the failed EU mission in Afghanistan, EUPOL-A, trying to reform the Afghan National Police (ANP) in wartime. Despite, American and Western military presence, the EU was unable to perform such complex and lengthy process considering the security challenges in Afghanistan among other reasons. In Ukraine, wherein combats are taking place in the Eastern part of the country, wherein Russian presence and influence is undeniable, how can the EU be successful at reforming the civilian security sector in two years. Not significant reforms can be implemented until the borders are secure, the political situation of Eastern part of Ukraine is settled, and the central government of Ukraine is legitimate all around the country. EUAM Ukraine should be launched once the status of Ukraine is settled and Russian influence minimized, not before.
Right now, the EU ought to address the military threat represented by Russia on the European continent against Ukraine and some EU Member States. The EU and its Member States are not committed to use hard power, so they will need to increase the economic sanctions against Russia. EUAM does not respond to the geostrategic realities in Europe, deeper and stricter economic sanctions would finally demonstrate EU commitment to enforcing its influence and responding to Russian actions. The EU has demonstrated that it is not and does not want to become a military power in order to assert its influence and power, its economic engine and market may be the instrument to do so. “Merkel believes that German industry, and Europe as a whole,” argued Dempsey, “must be willing to pay the price for Putin’s violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.” History has demonstrated that there is always a cost to pay in order to assure one’s security. The EU feels that by adopting a ‘wait and see’ approach, the security threat embodied by Russia will eventually disappear. The battle over Ukraine may be a bigger fight about the future of geopolitics and peace on the European continent.
(Copyright 2014 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).
The European Parliament (EP) has finally approved the new Commission, known as the Juncker Commission. After his election with a large majority by the European Parliament on July 15th, 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker, former Prime Minister of Luxembourg and long-time European advocate, has been working on shaping its tenure and designing his Commission for the 2015-2019 period. On October 29th, Jose-Manuel Barroso, the current President of the Commission, will participate at his last meeting at the helm of the Commission. On Thursday, Barroso will be meeting with Juncker and the newly appointed President of the European Council, Donald Tusk – whom would take his functions on December 1st -, for a last transition meeting before the beginning of the Juncker era.
On September 10th, 2014, President-elect Juncker presented his team and the distribution of the portfolios accordingly. Ensuing his presentation, each Commissioner-to-be was facing individual hearing before the relevant European Parliament committees. From September 29th to October 20th, the EP was interviewing each candidate. Out of the 27 designated, only one was rejected, Alenka Bratušek, the Slovenian candidate responsible for the Energy Union. Other candidates like France’s Moscovici, UK’s Hill, faced tough confirmation hearings. Jonathan Hill, candidate for the financial DG, was even called back for a second hearing. It is Frans Timmermans, a former foreign minister of the Netherlands, whom becomes the first vice president and will serve as Mr. Juncker’s deputy.
Four Questions for the Juncker Commission
Even though Barroso is still at the helm of the Commission (read here his defense of his tenure), one should take the time to raise a series of questions prior the shift of power at the Berlaymont.
2. Making Europe closer to Europeans – reconciling Europe with the Europeans. How successful will Juncker and its apostles be at it? This issue is more than simply explaining to Europeans citizens what the EU does and doesn’t. It is in fact an important dimension considering the rise of the extremes – right and left combined – in most EU Member States. Juncker needs to create a new narrative explaining the importance of the EU – without sounding like a history professor – and demonstrating its relevance in order to assure the survival of European uniquenesses under the forces of globalization. The recent outcomes of the European Parliaments’ elections in May 2014 clearly demonstrated the gap between Brussels and Europeans. The blame ought to be distributed across the board: Member States have played the Brussels’ bashing game in order to cover up their incompetencies for too long; Brussels has sounded to distant and cold by adopting the approach of one policy fits all; European citizens have not done their jobs of citizens for too long – and even enjoyed the ride when the economic situation was stable and rosy – and have blamed the Euro and Europe for all their traumas – including high level of unemployment, which the Commission has no power over it -.
3. Member States – their support to the Juncker Commission will be crucial for a new energy in European politics. Under Barroso, the Commission has lost some of its relevance and power at the benefit of the Council and European Council. Juncker ought to make the Commission once again relevant and guardian of the Treaties. According to the Treaties, “the Commission has the sole right to initiate European legislation and the power to enforce treaties by suing member governments at the Court of Justice of the European Union.” But Juncker cannot do miracles with the current governments like the ones in the UK and France blaming all their turmoils on Europe. The most recent outcry by David Cameron about the extra €2.1 billion bill is a ‘joke.’ According to the EU budget commissioner, Jacek Dominik, British officials knew for 10 days the adjustment of their share to the EU budget based on changes in their gross national income (watch the video here). Cameron’s anger is simply political to attract his electoral base and the more extremes branch of the UKIP. In France, the recent submission of the new French budget falls under the same category, minus the anger. Core EU Member States are playing the card of domestic political appeal at the cost of European soundness. France cannot be upset at the rules that it had previously agreed on and voted in favor. Barroso undermined to some extent the power of the Commission, will Juncker bring it back?
4. How does Juncker get the EU become more integrated on important policies like foreign affairs, energy/environmental policies and fiscal policies among others. On foreign affairs, that would be in the hands of the HR/VP Mogherini. But on energy and environmental policies, the Juncker Commission could once and for all initiate a clear agenda for a shift towards greener energies, while contributing to economic growth – which has been addressed during the recent European Council meeting in late October -. In any case, “there is a sense that Juncker will try to solve Europe’s ongoing problems pragmatically,” writes Alice Pulh, “instead of launching brand new polices with innovative ideas.”
Food for Thoughts
Yes this section may be too far fetched, but it is actually an important point of discussion. A Commission with the representation of the 28 Member States (MS) is not only too large, but also anti-supranational by nature. The fact that MS are still the ones selecting their candidates and bargaining for the DG of their choosing is contrary to what the Commission should be all about. The President of Commission should be the one selecting the candidates of his choice in order to compose its own Commission. Additionally, having the MS promoting a candidate to represent themselves at the Berlaymont goes against the idea of the Commission being ‘above’ the Member States in terms of influence and power, and truly European -for whatever it means-. The Commission is not about defending national interests, but European interests. This new commission has highlighted a series of problems in balancing national and european interests, as illustrated by the difficult hearings and negotiations over three nominated commissioners, France’s Pierre Moscovici (economic affairs), the UK’s Jonathan Hill (financial services) and Spain’s Miguel Arias Canete (climate and environment).
Then, the Juncker Commission is facing a serious challenge, relaunching the economic engine of the EU. Following the EP vote approving the Juncker Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker said that
[it was] “time to roll up our sleeves and get down to work: to kick-start economic recovery, create more and better jobs, address the plight of Europe’s youth for a better future, protect the most vulnerable in our society and cope with the rapidly deteriorating geopolitical situation.”
In order to re-launch the economic engine of the Union, two options are on the table. Juncker has inherited one option, the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP), and he has been advocating, option 2, for an EU-wide economic boost through investments. So one approach is from within, the other from outside. The TTIP was initiated under Barroso and has turned into difficult negotiations between the EU and the US and among the EU-28. The TTIP is supposed to create the largest economic bloc in the world in order to balance the rise of new powers like China, India and Brazil. The second option is the €300 billion investment package introduced back in July by Juncker. The package has been contentious as nobody knows where the money would come from and it seems very unlikely that the EU-28 would anytime soon pool the money into a common fund supervised and utilized by the Commission. Both aspects, the TTIP and the €300 billion investment package, shall be understood as ‘new deals’ in order to relaunch European economic engine. Juncker understands very well that a long-term sluggish economic environment could affect the survival of the European welfare states and ultimately the EU as whole.
(Copyright 2014 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).