Tidbits on Libya and the EU

A brief from EUobserver reports that on May 26 Hadeiba Hadi, the Libyan Ambassador to the EU, defected from his post as representative of the Qaddafi regime in Brussels. His staff also resigned.

In a statement made to the AFP, Hadi explained that he and his team felt obliged to make a decision to "no longer represent the regime," which is currently embattled against rebel forces seeking to ouster the Libyan leader from his decades-long rule.

Speaking of EU-Libyan affairs, last week EU foreign affairs chief Lady Catherine Ashton opened an EU office in Benghazi, Libya, where rebel governing structures like the Transitional National Council (TNC) are based. In a statement made following a meeting with the TNC's Chairman, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Ashton promised EU partnership in policy areas including security, economy, health, education and civil society. 

The EU's move to set up shop in Benghazi marks perhaps the boldest diplomatic decision for Libya's long haul. This takes one step further the decision by French president Nicolas Sarkozy to be the first to recognize the Libyan rebels' legitimacy. Much remains to be seen in the development of a Libya without Qaddafi in charge -- and even this, though desired by much of the international community, is a far-from-certain outcome. 

In an unexpected result from the G8 conference currently taking place in Deauville, France, Russian president Dimitri Medvedev has offered to try to coax Qaddafi into stepping down. This seems like an unreliable hand-off of negotiating power should the decision-makers in Europe and the US decide to go with it. But it may allow Russia to assert itself as a key player in conflict resolution, while the EU and US would benefit from some much-needed relief to then focus on issues closer to home such as the ongoing euro crisis and global recession more broadly. More to follow.

Live From New York: A Finnish Expat on the Euro Crisis

A Finn-come-New Yorker expounds on the transatlantic notions that surround the euro crisis, the recent victories by right-wing nationalist parties in Finland's elections, and how observers in the US  may or may not be able to comment on it all. A thought-provoking read.

"Our resentment toward being asked to help our far-flung partners in the Union is also exposing the hypocrisy behind another dearly held Finnish tradition: our disgust at how little compassion Americans seem to have for their fellow citizens in terms of sharing the wealth. When my friends criticize the United States for failing to provide universal health care, I point out that America is twice the size of the European Union. It’s not quite parallel, but if Finns were asked to contribute to the health care of the Greeks, the Irish and the Portuguese, they might feel a little like Americans.

"And now they do.

"Friday afternoon, without the support of the True Finns, Portugal’s bailout was endorsed in Parliament, clearing the way for its approval by the European Union on Monday.

"Because they failed to get what they wanted, the True Finns dropped out of the negotiations to become a coalition partner in the new government.

"But even if they won’t play a major role in determining Finnish policy, the True Finns have prompted some lasting changes, and transformed Finland’s meek stance toward Europe. The leading parties have refused to back further bailouts unless the country in question provides direct guarantees on the loans. (...)

"And the debate they started — about what kind of country Finland is, and wants to be — continues. The True Finns fear that the Finnish way of life will be undermined by immigrants. In my “red-green” circles — as the politically leftist and environmentally aware are called — the fear is that Finland will succumb to close-minded bigots and lose the diversity and benefits that come from belonging to a larger European community.

"For my part, I did what I could to help — I offered a place on my couch in Brooklyn to any political refugees. But in the end, my friends in Helsinki seem to be deciding that this is no time for retreat. Instead they’ll stay to help determine the future of their country.

"Perhaps in the process, we Finns will learn something from that union of states on the other side of the Atlantic. And maybe we’ll even be able to offer some suggestions in return."

 

Ashton, Clinton Meet -- Washington Snoozes

EEAS chief Lady Catherine Ashton and US Sectretary of State Hilary Clinton met in Washington Tuesday to discuss a buffet of global issues, notably Syria in the context of the Arab Spring uprisings that have rocked the Middle East and North Africa since December 2010. 

A random Google search revealed that, apart from CNN, no major US news networks or print outlets thought the event was worth covering. Meanwhile, transatlantic coverage continues to be dominated by the Arab Spring, late-phase details in the Osama Bin Laden execution, US relations with Pakistan and the Cannes Film Festival and, most recently, the scandal surrounding rape allegations against IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (see previous EurAmerican post).

What does the EEAS -- and the EU more broadly -- have to do to make headlines in Washington?

Snippets on Strauss-Kahn

As International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn sits in the Rikers Island jail following an arrest on allegations of rape, world media has been of many minds about what it means, and what to expect. They vary in what the predict and project, but all seem to bear the same breathless anticipation for what's around the corner.

Here are a few:

The Wall Street Journal's The Source reports that, contrary to fears, DSK's arrest has not led transatlantic markets to tank.

French political parties are scrambling to find firm footing in the lead-up to the country's presidential elections next year, and Sarkozy's has issued a (characteristically audacious) statement that the Socialist Party has lost “the moral part of the battle for the presidency,” the New York Times says.

Would-be successors to the notoriously womanizing public figure include the Swiss Josef Ackermann, the German Thomas Mirow, the Briton and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the Frenchwoman Christine Lagarde. Some European leaders, including Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, have argued that for the traditionally European-led organization, only a European should be considered, so as to continue to steer the Old Continent out of the debt crisis currently embroiling the European Union's monetary standing.  

The IMF has had a heavy, and generous, hand in the bailout process of the eurozone's worst-faring countries, and many in Europe fear their IMF help may dry up if one of theirs is not in control. This piece also notes that, "for the first time, there is a genuine possibility that the I.M.F. position could go to an official from a faster-growing non-Western country, reflecting the shifting global economy" (NYT also). 

EUobserver writes that two EU ministers who are both women -- Austrian finance minister Maria Fekter and Spanish senior official Elena Salgado -- have moved for Strauss-Kahn to step down, so as to preserve the image of the IMF and to take into account the "extraordinarily serious" nature of the allegations.

Presseurop reports via Mediapart that as "a harsh reminder of reality," the IMF boss, despite being "one of the most influential, most powerful, most popular men in the world," still has to "answer for his conduct as an ordinary citizen."  

Euronews covers the sore subject of Strauss-Kahn's damning portrayal in US media, which stands in stark contrast to the 'Guigou Law' passed in France last year to reinforce the presumption of innocence by banning the show of charged persons in handcuffs or being escorted by police. The law was named after the politician who drafted it, the Socialist Elisabeth Guigou.

“I found that image to be of unimaginable brutality, violence and cruelty,” said Guigou, in Global Post.

Bin Laden Reported Dead

From Al Jazeera: 

"US president Barack Obama is due to make a statement shortly in which he is expected to announce the death of Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda. [...]
 

"Qais Azimy, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Kabul, said that Afghan officials have confirmed that Bin Laden had died and that his body was with the United States.

"Officials would not confirm whether he had been killed in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and said that the death of the al-Qaeda leader was more of a "symbolic victory", as he was no longer directly connected to the group's field operations, Azimy reported."

*

The Washington Post posits that this was a CIA operation. It comes on the heels of an already white-hot controversy involving CIA operative Raymond Davis, who was working undercover in Pakistan when he shot and killed two Pakistanis who allegedly tried to rob him. 

Late the night of Sunday, May 1, US President Barack Obama made an address from the White House -- after a delay of over an hour -- replete with imagery of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and an unabashedly pro-American, surprisingly hawkish stance on the breaking news. 

"Justice has been done," Obama declared. The US president also stressed that "we must remain vigilant," and that the operation against Bin Laden was not an act within a larger war against Islam. Importantly, Obama made explicit reference to the fact that this claim was originally made by former US President George W. Bush.

"We will be relentless in defense of our citizens, and our friends and allies," Obama said, with manifest resolution in his voice. 

Crowds spilled into the streets in Washington. Ecstatic chants erupted of "USA! USA!" from crowds that gathered in front of the White House.

*

The questions we transatlantic thinkers must now ask ourselves include:


- How should the US and Europe respond? 

- What are the security implications involved? How might we anticipate the possibility of reprisals, attacks or other violence in the West?

- What are the long-term effects of a killing of this magnitude, whether "symbolic" or real?


Your comments are welcome.

Germany’s Libya Abstention and the World: What Now?

         Germany’s March 17^th decision to abstain from the United Nations vote for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over Libya has unleashed a firestorm of international criticism – as well as open skepticism on the country’s current and future fitness for leadership on the world stage. The tumultuous last few weeks have observers voicing three primary concerns on whether Germany should (or even could) assume the world leadership position it claims to want: 1) a paradox, both in policy and in image, 2) battered confidence on the part of its foreign partners, and 3) an uncertain future in global leadership.

         Germany’s actions are paradoxical at national, European and international levels. The country long followed draconian foreign-affairs strictures such as “never alone” and “never again Auschwitz,” which guided the country since it emerged, shuddering and ashamed, from its losing role in World War II. After abstention, these tenets seem, at least in the immediate, to have largely been cast aside – with no alternatives proposed to replace them. Equally problematic are the polling results of German opinion on Libya: Reuters reported in April that a whopping 71 percent of Germans support international intervention in the country. According to a contributor at the online Atlantic Community, 65 percent of Germans – essentially, many of the same voters – would disapprove of German participation therein. The country shows a sort of diplomatic allergy to the often ugly business of conflict prevention. Berlin still insists it wants a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, but after its ill-considered abstention, its Western UN allies will surely be loath to grant such a diplomatic trump card to a partner increasingly seen as unreliable.

         The battered confidence in Germany’s recent diplomacy is perhaps best reflected by the United States and France. (...)

Making Sense of the EU: Back to Basics

The EU, or rather, the EU's delegation in Washington, has just released a broad four-page overview of the the European Union. Should be a good guide for those transatlantic policy newcomers seeking to understand the EU in simple terms, as well as those who could use a refresher on "what exactly the European Union is – and what it is not,"  to borrow the delegation's words.

If only answering those questions -- both inside and outside the EU -- were that simple!

Click here to see the document, then scroll to the "Latest Publications" section and click on "EU Focus: Understanding the European Union." For deeper (if dated) info on the EU, see this 2009 survey.

US Presidential 2012: Among GOP Leaders, No One Thinks of Europe

The Huffington Post ran this piece on the foreign policy ideas of the United States' Republican leaders for the 2012 presidential race. European and transatlantic issues are glaringly absent from the party's foreign agenda.

Also called the GOP (for "Grand Ole Party"), Republicans constitute the other half of the US political party system, with Obama's Democratic party seen as more aligned with European-style ideas on the role of the state, social welfare and other issues. These Republicans, who after the President's rough two-and-a-half years in office, are sure to give Obama a serious run for his money. European observers following the early maneuvers of the 2012 campaign should know these names and judge who might toe the line against Obama, who as the incumbent will surely be nominated again as his party's leader.

Here are EurAmerican's picks for the three best and worst GOP hopefuls when it comes to foreign affairs. At best, the top dogs present a balanced and respectful attitude toward America's involvements abroad, a condition that is not always a given, with a certain focus placed on trade and high-skilled immigration. Among the worst candidates, several posture around imbalanced policy considerations that range from myopic to unrealistic, on such issues as support for Israel and what to do against the threat of Islamic extremism. A casual reading of the HuffPo article reveals that, in a party overwhelmed with either domestic or at least non-European foreign policy questions, few take the time for pronouncements specific to the Old Continent.

The Best Three

1) Mitt Romney

HuffPo says, "in an effort to make the U.S. a more competitive economy -- particularly with China -- Romney has proposed enforcing looser immigration laws to take advantage of highly skilled workers. (...)

Bearish and Bullish on the EEAS

The transatlantic commentariat has said much about the early successes and failures of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and its chief, Lady Catherine Ashton. What follows are two diametrically opposed opinions on how EU foreign policy's been doing.

Presseurop's Iulia Badea Guéritée absolutely slams the fledgling agency. Guéritée posts a withering indictment that claims Ashton has been by turns "absent," "voiceless" and the embodiment of timidity in European foreign affairs. 

"The European External Action Service was created over three months ago to provide the EU the unified voice it lacked and its boss, Catherine Ashton has been remarkably…absent. Absent – or overshadowed by other European leaders – in the changing Arab world, absent in Japan, absent in Libya and absent in Lampedusa. What needs to happen for Ms Ashton and the EEAS to come out of the woods?"

Some paint a more rosy picture of the EU's diplomatic strength. Brookings Institute scholar Justin Vaisse counters that European policy heft is being increasingly felt around the world, not least of all according to yardsticks like the European Council on Foreign Relations' "score card" for EU foreign policy effectiveness. (Vaisse played a founding role in the score card's creation.) He writes proudly that

"... The Scorecard seems to be encouraging a discussion about Europe's role and behaviour in the world – our tools, our values and ideals, our interests, our vision. "Policy" is suddenly back in "European foreign policy." "

Chuffed as Vaisse may be to say so, the question of the true gravitas of the EU's global role is the subject of lively discussion worldwide.

French vs. English, Sarkozy, NPR, etc. etc.

The working-language battle continues in Brussels... See these three posts from the excellent Kovács & Kováts blog, which chronicles the Hungarian presidency of the EU. 

Looks a little like this old EurAmerican post, a throwback from all the way to last August. The post mentions Arthur Goldhammer, the guru behind the blog French Politics, who talked to NPR this week about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's new muscular foreign affairs posture.