By Perry PADA
It is a fact that along with the successful expansion of the EU 27 (Jan 2007), the European Union has made significant achievements in many fields. With the population close to 487 million, at the same time EU has emerged as one of the most powerful global players in terms of economic, trade and investment shares. It contributed around 51% of the world’s foreign direct investment outflows; its export of goods and services accounted for around 38% of the world market, controlled close to 36% of the world’s GNP, and contributed around 56% of official development assistance.
EU Member States make up the largest block in the Breton Woods institutions: 23% of the votes in the World Bank, and 29% in the IMF, and it constitutes the largest collective number of votes as a regional grouping in the WTO. Noting these, it is also significant to remind ourselves of the ongoing progress of expansion of EU 29 to include the Balkan countries. The EU is becoming a significant global international relations entity in term of its geo-economy and geography. With this rate of achievement, a major question emerges: will the EU become a new global player particularly on the issues of global peace and security as a balancing force against United States hegemony?
It is widely acknowledged by many European scholars and political observers that the ongoing development of the political framework of the EU is however not as mature as the economic framework and achievements. With all of these, EU political unification remains unaccomplished, thus diluting the Union’s ambition to play a global role on political and security issues. It is without doubt that the beneficial synergy of the expansion will gradually restructure American – European future global relations. This restructuring may not prove significant in the area of global security in the immediate future due to US global predominance. America’s global agenda is clearly stated in the Bush’s doctrine that The U.S. will act against threats before they are formed and act alone and preemptively, as the best defense is an offense, recognizing that enemies can not be permitted to strike first -- with a "coalition of the willing" if possible, but alone if necessary .
It is reasonable to assume that the (enlarged) EU, as the result of its developing Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), will enable Europe to become an even more effective international partner with the US in tackling regional and global problems; terrorism, proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and international crimes and other global security issues. Therefore the EU will be a collaborative power with the US, but will it be a restraining power? However, the recent test case of the Iraq and/or the very recent Iranian nuclear issue; it has yet to find a single voice on vital issues of peace and security. Moreover, both crisis, clearly demonstrated that the European Union is not as monolithic as it may appear in rejecting USA unilateralism. Pro and contra of USA interventionist policy among the EU member states on the issue of Iraq speaks for itself. The U.S. has exploited this in its reference to ‘new’ and ‘old’ Europe. ‘Old’ Europe led by French, represented by many of the former Communist countries in the contra camp, while ‘New’ Europe in the pro one. Therefore, the EU’s intention of being a global actor in balancing the USA is not without hurdles. The remedy is strong political unification to realize such a mission.
The current debate exposes the argument that the uneasy process of EU political integration greatly affects its foreign policy capabilities and to some extent weakens its capacity as a new global force to balance the US role. It is therefore questionable whether the EU’s Common Foreign and Strategy Policy framework (CFSP) will be an effective foreign policy, or remain as a merely academic one due to divergent interests. At this point, it can be forecast that the future of the EU CFSP is at stake. Faced as it is with “less obedient member-states”, It is intriguing to examine the argument postulated by many scholars that the real question for European politics lies between “living in an integrated Europe dominated by France and Germany …or preferring to maintain a degree of independence by aligning with the US on security issues”. Is reliance on the US real or merely nominal independence? Supporting this latter argument is the existing ‘good’ traditional relations between US and some individual EU member-states. These bi-lateral relations contribute to the EU’s ineffectiveness, as they tend to neutralize the principle of multilateralism as a counterweight to US Unilateralism.
It can be easily predicted that the major EU member states will adopt divergent positions when confronted with security issues as they did in the Iraqi case. The US unquestionably will pursue an approach of multiple bilateralisms with EU members on security and defense matters, as there leverage is increased. In the context of the ineffectiveness of EU foreign policy, the ability of British, French and German national foreign policy will to a certain extent influence if not dominate the UE foreign policy orientation. Between them, as a rule, France and Germany tilt toward a unified and independent foreign policy, while the British retain their traditional Anglo-American ties. The current partial involvement of EU in the case of the Iran Nuclear debacle by establishing the UE- 3 “European God Fathers” (Britain, Germany and France) to deal with Iran is maybe the exception.
The CSFP with all 27 members should it fully support a position would prove to be little more than illusory if the EU member states maintain a double agenda or disguise their goals. The goals are clear: (1) to pursue their own national agenda to maintain the guaranteed alignment with the US on security issues but retain the right to determine what is a security issue, (2) gain its economic interest at the expense of the collective EU economic trajectories. Is the national foreign policy initiative to always support the national political interest? It is a questionable proposition that the divergent views and internal divisions within the union can be addressed by the decision to create an EU Foreign Ministers and diplomatic service to conduct EU diplomacy. It is, however, possible that the foreign ministers consultation institution can become one of the forums to cope with the problem of internal division. The effort to enhance the existing mechanism stipulated in the EU Constitution is to prevent the EU security system from being torn apart especially when dealing with its ‘global partner’ the USA in a real sense. The EU states “The global relationship is irreplaceable. Acting together, The European Union and the United States can be a formidable force for good in the world. If we build up capabilities and increase coherence, we will be a more credible actor and a more influential partner” .
On the other hand the Director-General of the EU for external and politico-Military affairs Sir Brain Crow has presented a variant analysis: “ [The] EU has been effective in its foreign policy only where the US has chosen not to be significantly engaged, where the EU and the US shared policies and work together, or at least where the EU accepted however reluctantly that it had to work with the US. This statement clearly acknowledges the existing leadership of the US in foreign relations.
The development of EU – US relations reflected at the US – EU summit in Ireland of June 26, 2004 is a clear signal from both sides of a rapprochement after the disagreement over the Iraqi invasion. At the Summit, the US admitted, at least rhetorically, that the EU’s role is very important as it is impossible for the US to play its role unilaterally. The Summit produced several EU - US Joint declarations on the issues of the Middle East and the Mediterranean, Sudan, Iraq, Terrorism, HIV/AIDS, Economic cooperation and Non Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The relationship has already been on a positive track, encouraged by their common concern and sense of solidarity and cohesion to combat post 9/11 terrorism and the bombing in Madrid of 11/03/2004. These events, for many European observers, strengthened the global bonds.
For the US part, a strong and stable EU certainly will support its global security agenda in the region; it is a benefit for the US since it realized that the cost was high to tackle alone security problems in Europe. The US President explicitly praised the success of the EU expansion. There remain major reservations about Turkey over fear of including a Moslem – culture country in Europe as well as concern over Turkish immigration in the future. The ‘temporarily’ failure accession of Turkey membership in EU was officially reported by the EU Presidency – Finland, due to Turkey’s inability to implement the “Ankara Protocol” particularly in solving its bilateral conflict with Cyprus. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the success of EU expansion and its further development may very well lead to the spirit of European togetherness and gain ground as a new global force.
This picture has an alternative possible meaning for the US that is gradually the EU’s role would lessen its hegemonic role in the security area. For example the pro US policy of the EU member states will change its stance to support the old Europe (countries who remain opposed to the interventionist US policy in Iraq). But for many it is still insufficient to fulfill their ambitions to balance US political influence.
The current rapprochement of EU - US relations could be observed at the Vienna EU - US summit meeting in June 2006 which successfully produced a Vienna Summit Declaration. The summit displayed that both sides had been trying hard to increase their bilateral relations by adopting a common view on four areas of cooperation under the title of EU - US strategic partnership, namely:
- Promoting peace, human rights and democracy worldwide;
- Confronting global challenges, including security;
- Fostering Prosperity and opportunity;
- Promoting strategic cooperation on energy and energy security, climate change and sustainable development.
While the four areas of cooperation are too broad to be effectively implemented, the EU – US summit meeting clearly indicated that both sides tried to put behind them the previously held different views particularly the approach to tackling global security issues. Some important areas of cooperation had been reached, among them, continuing close cooperation on the Middle East through the quartet formation; preventing access by terrorists to weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery and promoting “democratization” in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan and on the Iran Nuclear issue, both sides had a common perspective to urge Iran to suspend its Uranium enrichment program.
For some analysts, the meeting clearly showed a nuanced approach reflecting the desire that both sides were seeking a common strategy on the issue of combating terrorism. Political criticism had been expressed by Europeans regarding the way the US approached combating terrorism and treating of prisoners in violation of international law and human rights principles. The current case of Guantanamo prisoners and US secret prisons scattered in Europe and elsewhere are the strongest to come under criticism but unfortunately no further action is proposed to investigate. Can Europe use its leverage to sway US policy in responding properly to global security and terrorism? The answer is, not likely
To this point, can we expect a balance of EU - US relations within the context of global relations? The immediate answer depends on the EU’s process of greater political unification and the ability of the EU as an effective union to tackle its problematic diversity while trying to replace US political supremacy employing leverage by its own economic policy in the third world. For example, the involvement of EU in Indonesia, in supporting the Aceh peace process and its great contribution through the multi donor trust fund for reconstruction and rehabilitation in post-Tsunami Aceh. This was a relatively successful intervention and substantially increased its leverage in the region.
It is important to note, however, that the recent EU Summit in Brussels during June 2006 clearly indicated that EU political integration needs much more times to be fully mature, this phenomenon can be learned through the rejection of Dutch and French people to ratify the European Constitution (among 25 EU member excluded Romania and Bulgaria, only 15 have ratified the Constitution).
In scholarly language, in order to fulfill its role playing as a global force, the immediate requirement is that the EU has a solid and integrated political framework, while developing its independent security and defense policy supported by an independent military force outside of NATO. Unless this takes place the result of the giant EU is that it will always be fragmented and remain in the shadow of the US and parts of it act as merely a part of “US coalition of the willing”. It is for this reason that the US vehemently opposes such an initiative.
Monday, September 03, 2007
The Transatlantic Relations: Can EU balance the US’ Global Role?
Monday, August 27, 2007
Issues on Portugal Presidency
Portugal has begun its six-month term at the helm of the European Union presidency, effective from 01 July 2007. There are a number of difficult and controversial issues that have been inherited.
One of the first announcements is an Africa-EU summit that will be hosted in Portugal in December. Portugal hosted the first-ever summit of the two continents in 2000. A second had been scheduled for 2003, but was 'indefinitely postponed' due to protest from other EU nations over the attendance of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.
The December summit will focus on immigration and development, and will address a number of human rights issues inter-related to these problems. This is a critical point since President Mugabe currently has an EU travel ban against him, the same issue which postponed the 2003 summit.
A travel ban on senior officials provides for exemptions for meetings to discuss human rights. As one senior Portuguese official pointed out "He [Mugabe] will be hearing things he does not want to hear." Several African nations have threatened to boycott the summit if Mugabe is not allowed to attend.
African progress
The hope is to hold summits with Africa every other year in an effort to step up diplomatic relations with the continent. The European Union has engaged in massive efforts over the past several years to address the waves of illegal migrants attempting to cross the sea and enter Europe.
The efforts engage in several simultaneous strategies.
To secure the borders, Frontex was established to patrol the sea and pick up migrants before they can make landfall. The program is highly successful, although rather overwhelmed at the moment. Increased funding, expansion of resources, commitment by European nations and increased patrolling schedules are all recent actions undertaken since the summer of 2006.
However, the strategy is certain to fail in the long term if the foundations of the problems are not addressed.
Under the German presidency, efforts from 2006 were continued to strengthen economic development aid to African nations. By increasing the standard of living in Africa, most migrants will find incentive to remain. Many have stated that they do not particularly wish to come to Europe, but they see few other options.
Additionally, agreements have been made, with more on the way, between the European Union, individual EU nations and several African countries on a number of points. Portuguese Prime Minister, José Sócrates, who took over the rotating EU council presidency from Germany, inherits a number of these agreements and now must make further progress.
Fundamentally, in exchange for economic development aid, schools, security training, increased attention toward legal migration routes and job centers, African nations must agree to accept back their nationals who are deported from Europe, increase their own border security to reduce illegal travel, and take on the crime and corruption that is aiding the illegal migration trade.
A very significant step was made toward these goals last month by a delegation of Spanish business executives, with the cooperation and blessing of the Spanish government. They traveled to Senegal in a recruitment drive to establish training centers and to provide job contracts and visas for African nationals to work in Spain.
The initiative is seen as model for how the EU and individual Member States might address some of the most pressing concerns.
Difficult agenda
Unenviably, Portugal also faces several other pressing and contentious problems. Debate over the EU constitution has begun to unravel previous consensus and agreements. Poland and the United Kingdom in particular are leading the calls to water down or even forget about the constitution.
There is also the debate over Turkey's aspirations to join the EU, which is related directly to any further EU expansion. By treaty, unless new agreements are achieved, the EU is currently limited to a 27-nation bloc, for one example.
Turkey in particular is of very serious concern. There is some debate if it should even be included as a part of Europe. Now holding the presidency, it is expected that Portugal will push its viewpoint hard among EU nations to negotiate accession for Turkey.
On a more pragmatic level, there are Turkish human rights violations both currently and in the history of the last century that have left very bitter feelings among some countries and ethnic groups. Corruption in Turkey is also seen as major stumbling block.
France in particular opposes Turkish membership, while Portugal has openly endorsed bringing Turkey into the EU. The new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has suggested that Turkey and North African states should form a "Mediterranean Union," which would then form economic and diplomatic relations with the European Union.
As if these issues aren't enough, relations with Russia have been deteriorating with some ominous recent developments. During the winter, Russia flexed it energy muscle in a reminder to Europe that the vast bulk of oil and gas consumed in the booming EU economy comes from Russia and Russian controlled interests.
At the same time, there is an increasing wave of immigration coming from Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The EU faces complex visa and security negotiations as the eastern borders of Europe begin to blur.
Earlier this year, relations between the EU and Russia took a major hit as Russia directly exerted its influence in Estonia. A controversy over the Estonian government's decision to move a Soviet-era monument led to violence in the capitols of both countries. The situation was inflamed by the Russian government's insistence on interfering with a sovereign European Union nation that also happens to be a member of NATO.
And, just this week, Russia has announced plans to install missile batteries in Kaliningrad as a response to plans by the United States to install their own missile systems in various East European countries.
Continuing to look toward the east, it should be noted that the six-month progress report on the EU's most recent Member States was released on the Thursday before Portugal assumed the EU presidency. The EU Commission had very little good to say about the levels of corruption in Bulgaria and Romania.
There are accusations that the report was watered down to avoid controversy, but it could not avoid listing political assassination and rampant corruption as being endemic in the two new governments. Romania and Bulgaria just barely escaped sanctions from Brussels this time, but they were both criticized severely for failing to tackle high-level corruption and enact promised judicial reforms since they joined the Union in January.
With all the other interesting items on the EU agenda, Portugal now must deal with increasing doubts over how qualified the two newest EU members are to belong.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Peace deal helps to rebuild Aceh, but pains remain
Mohamad Rayan, Banda Aceh, Aceh
Two years have passed since the Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding was signed on Aug. 15, 2005. Several significant developments have taken place in Aceh since, including a successful and widely respected democratic election and the swearing in of a democratically elected government.
The Aceh government law, passed by the House of Representatives last year, has also helped the peace process in the province. It gave the government of Aceh significant powers. With the exception of banking, defense, security and foreign relations decisions, all other areas are the responsibility of the elected Aceh government, currently let by Governor Irwandi Yusuf. The central government will also allocate 5 percent of its total general allocation funds to the province.
This will increase the amount of funds Aceh receives from Rp 3 trillion to Rp 8 trillion and will enable the government to pour more money into the education, health and community empowerment sectors, benefiting especially the victims of conflict.
However, there is a chance governor Irwandi has forgotten he was elected to lead all Acehnese people, even if they supported other candidates in the election.
The KPA (Aceh transitional committee), a body formed by the Aceh government, is facing public criticism for its aggressive lobbing to win tenders for development projects. Now even for small projects, such as building a sewerage system in Banda Aceh for example, contractors have to have KPA or Free Aceh Movement (GAM) connections to win tenders. The committee is also allegedly involved in the illegal logging trade.
Irwandi has worked hard to combat illegal logging activities in the province. He employs 1,000 forestry rangers, most of whom are supporters of the KPA and GAM. Only time will tell whether or not the anti-illegal logging force will be able to combat the crime or will instead monopolize illegal logging activities itself.
But what is evident two years after the MOU was signed is that the economic cake is being contested by supporters of Governor Irwandi and Vice Governor Nazar.
Supporters assemble every day outside the governor's office, perhaps seeking rewards for their support. It is an amazingly different governor's office from that of a normal governor's office. It is becoming a governor's office for the people. However, the government needs to adjust its system of receiving guests because it could affect the performance of the office.
Another significant development two years since the MOU was signed is that there have been no more military clashes between the TNI and GAM ex-combatants.
However, a significant rise in the number of crimes committed has become evident. As Aceh becomes more lucrative, criminals from Medan in North Sumatra and Palembang in South Sumatra have started to operate in the province.
Concerns also remain regarding the poor performance of the Aceh Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency (BRA). Acehnese people are still also waiting for the establishment of a human rights court and a commission for truth and reconciliation to trace human rights abuses in the past.
According to the "Aceh Conflict Monitoring Update" published in March 2007 by the World Bank, the delivery of reintegration funds caused some tensions between the KPA and anti-separatist groups. The BRA needs to launch massive campaigns, especially targeting ex-combatants, so people know what benefits are they entitled to and how to obtain them.
The BRA has already allocated US$150 million to assist targeted groups. So far it has disbursed Rp 25 million to each of 3000 GAM combatants, Rp 10 million to each of 6200 GAM non-combatants, Rp 10 million to each of 2035 political prisoners, Rp 5 million to each of 3024 GAM members who surrendered before the MOU was signed and Rp 10 million to 6500 members of anti-separatist groups. It has also disbursed funds to 5726 conflict-affected villages, ranging from Rp 60 million - 170 million.
The parties to the conflict have shown their commitment to building mutual confidence and trust. This aim has been largely achieved during the last two years. However, a solution for lasting peace and prosperity is still far in the distance.
The writer is a specialist on issues concerning Aceh and is the community relations manager for Yayasan Hutan Tropis Borneo. The opinions expressed in this article are his own.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
EU Bans on 51 Indonesian Airlines
By Perry PADA
The recent decision by the EU to blacklist fifty-one Indonesian airlines is an inappropriate act of political theatre, serving neither
With not one of these airlines flying to
The reasons behind Indonesian´s displeasure are reasonable, and are based among others on ………….
(a) the EU’s verdict has failed to respect the normal process of inquiry being conducted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO);
(b)
(c) the unilateral action taken by the EU has the effect, possible unintended, of disrupting the excellent spirit of dialog and cooperation which
Sunday, August 05, 2007
A Democratic Indonesian Tiger?
Wahingtonpost.com
By James Castle and Craig Charney
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; Page A17
Today, Indonesia is back: a working, if imperfect, democracy and a recovering economic tiger. The emergence of a solid democratic regime has quelled regional separatism and Islamic militancy. Moreover, Indonesians are bullish on foreign investment and U.S. brands, though they are skittish about economic liberalization. A stable, growing Indonesia is again attracting foreign investors, despite their disappointment with the pace of economic and legal reform
The successful shift to democracy has confounded skeptics who in 1997 feared this sprawling, diverse country of 235 million would disintegrate without a strongman holding it together. Its effective security response to bombings by Islamic extremists and its marginalization of pro-terror radicals has also surprised those who thought the world's largest Muslim nation might become a "failed state" and a hotbed of terrorist activity. Instead, Indonesia has achieved something unique in the region and the developing Muslim world: stability and growth on democratic foundations.
Since Suharto fell, Indonesia has held two free elections, in 1999 and 2004, both with turnout over 90 percent. Neither election was marred by serious fraud or violence; the political system has become open and vibrant. Almost all important segments of society -- even the military -- accept the legitimacy of the political system.
Polling we conducted beginning last September shows that Indonesians are optimistic about their country's future. Their reasons include restored order; economic recovery; and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's successes in attacking corruption, raising school enrollment and ending separatist conflict in Aceh. Regional threats to Indonesia's integrity have been resolved through the 2005 Aceh peace accord, the financial autonomy given all provinces in 2001 and the independence East Timor gained in 2000.
The reform-minded Yudhoyono, Indonesia's first directly elected president, retains great popularity. In trial heats for the 2009 election, he trounces rivals, including his 2004 opponent, former president Megawati Sukarnoputri.
Some worries remain, including high unemployment, corruption and problems with disaster relief after the 2004 tsunami and other natural calamities. Yet these concerns contrast sharply with Indonesians' preoccupations after Suharto's fall: riots, violence and a leadership vacuum. Today, questions about the survival of the state have given way to ordinary government problems -- jobs and good governance.
Indonesia's democratic advance seems to have blocked Muslim extremists from making any headway. The Islamic fundamentalist party still polls at just 7 percent, its 2004 level, while the moderate Nahdlatul Ulama -- the world's largest Muslim organization -- is viewed favorably by 80 percent of the people. The state's security measures -- including the arrest in June of two leaders of Jemaah Islamiyah, al-Qaeda's local affiliate, for alleged involvement in terrorism -- have popular support. Backing for the U.S.-led war against terrorism has climbed sharply since 2002, after the terrorist bombings in Bali and Jakarta, and Indonesians now support the effort by 5 to 3. With banks and companies restored to health, the economy grew 5.5 percent in 2006. Growth should top 6 percent this year. More than $12 billion in public and private bonds have been sold since 2005, and foreign direct investment ($6 billion in 2006), though below pre-crisis inflows, is catching up.
Investors should be interested: Indonesians favor foreign investment 2 to 1. Iconic U.S. brands -- Coca-Cola and Microsoft -- are popular despite widespread antipathy toward America's Middle East policy. (There is a catch: Indonesians demand more corporate social responsibility -- and say multinationals do less for society than state or private local firms.)
Moreover, while Indonesians want to compete in the world economy, its risks frighten them. They split over tariff cuts, fear liberalizing labor markets and are reluctant to privatize state-owned firms. This restrains government from making those needed reforms, a problem which -- along with weak legal institutions -- inhibits foreign investment.
Yet Indonesia has come far since 1997, when students marched in the streets behind a coffin, protesting the "death of democracy." Indonesian democracy is managing potentially explosive disputes -- political, regional and religious -- that its autocratic neighbors ignore or suppress. If it can speed up economic progress, broad-based democracy, as in India, may become a better long-term bet for stability and growth than the rigid systems prospering in China, in Vietnam and in other Muslim countries.
James Castle foundedCastleAsia, a Jakarta consultancy. Craig Charney is president ofCharney Research, a New York polling firm. They co-authored "Indonesia Outlook Survey 2007."
Read More..
YahooMail
