EU Referendum

Showing posts with label common foreign policy. Show all posts

link[i-link]
Things do seem to be linked with each other. Just as I started reading up on the latest news about Durban II there was a call from the BBC Russian Service. Could I come in and take part in a discussion about the British position? Well, I could certainly take part in a discussion (what else do I do with my life?) but finding out what the British position was might be a little more difficult.

We have written about the first Durban conference and its deranged participants who turned it into an anti-American, anti-Semitic and, generally, anti-Western festival here and here. (The best site on which the whole farce can be followed is UN Watch. At least it would be a farce if it were not so tragic. We are, after all, funding this appalling event.)

After a certain amount of humming and ha-ing, the United States has, it would appear, decided to boycott the Conference, not least because Secretary of State Clinton might not have wanted the sort of abuse that was hurled at her predecessor, Colin Powell, at the original Durban conference.

President Obama's decision may have annoyed the tranzis who, naturally enough, do not like to see their favourite president follow in the footsteps of their least favourite one, but has the support of various members of the House:

Last week a bipartisan group of House members sent a letter to Obama congratulating him for deciding to boycott the meeting, which is scheduled to begin Monday.

"We applaud you for making it clear that the United States will not participate in a conference that undermines freedom of expression and is tainted by an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda," said the letter signed by seven members of Congress.

Voice of America confirms the non-attendance:

State Department Spokesman Robert Wood says the US will boycott the conference "with regret" because of objectionable language in the meeting's draft declaration. Wood said Saturday that despite some improvements, it seemed clear the declaration will not address U.S. concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression.

Given that the committee organizing the conference was chaired by Libya, freedom of expression is unlikely to have ever been high on the agenda.

I shall write later on what is going on in Geneva at the Durban II conference and it seems to be rather entertaining. In the meantime, let us have a look at Little Green Footballs, which is listing the countries that are boycotting this noxious event.

Here we go: Australia, Sweden (with Canada and Italy having joined Israel and the United States before), Netherlands, Germany and New Zealand. Poland has announced its boycott as well. There may be others but that is plenty.

Wait a minute. There is a country missing. What is Britain's attitude? Clearly, we are not boycotting or Charles Johnson would have noted that fact. Maybe he has simply missed the announcement. After all, even Homer, they tell us, nodded.

No he missed nothing. Not that I would expect him to – I was just trying to let hope win over experience. Britain is ratting on her allies going to the hate-fest Anti-Racism Conference, organized by the committee chaired by Libya at which President Ahmadinejad, for one, is expected to launch his usual anti-Semitic rant and other delegates are expected to applaud or, at least, look neutral. Quite appropriately, that event will take place some time today, the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birth.

We are not sending a very high level delegation but not a particularly unimportant one either. It is led by Peter Gooderham, British ambassador to the UN in Geneva. A nicely judged effort of fence-sitting diplomatic compromise. According to the official explanation, the Foreign Office is "watching how things will develop".

The spokesman said Britain wanted the conference "to get a collective will to fight racism now" but was "under no illusions about the scale of this challenge."

"We wouldn't be able to support a process that was skewed against the West or other countries," the spokesman said, adding that Britain had certain "red lines" on the issues involved that it would stick to.

"We have argued for the concluding document to have sufficient (content) on the Holocaust and combatting anti-Semitism... we would find it unacceptable if the process seeks to deny or denigrate the Holocaust".

Ah yes, those red lines. How reassuring to hear that phrase again. Remind me, how did it work out last time?

France, apparently, is also sending a delegation and this, according to The Telegraph, shows a rift in the EU. Bernard Kouchner, who is leading the delegation, has warned that they would leave if the Iranian President starts making racist or anti-Semitic comments. Given the man's track record that seems an absolute certainty.

The Italian Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, has made it clear that it would have been better if the EU member states had stayed together and followed a common line, preferably that of a boycott. One must admit, that Common Foreign Policy is not looking very good at the moment. But when did it? I am afraid, in this case we cannot blame the EU for our own government's pusillanimity.

COMMENT THREAD

Salome_Zourabichvili[i-Salome_Zourabichvili]There are few things more irritating than listening to instructions on what the EU should be doing from people who clearly do not know the first thing about that collection of institutions. For once I am not talking about Conservative politicians and wannabe politicians but about the former Gergian Foreign Minister, Salome Zourabichvili, who gave a talk to the Henry Jackson Society this lunchtime, entitled "Russia and Georgia: The problem Europe would rather forget".

Nothing wrong with the second part of that title except for the exclusivity. "Europe" would rather forget about most problems, internal or external.

As it happens, Ms Zourabichvili's biography does not inspire one with any sort of confidence in her solid judgement but, at the very least, as a former member of the French foreign service (even while Foreign Minister in the Georgian government, which must have raised questions of conflicting interests) she ought to know a little more about the European Union.

It is possibly her Francophile background that prompts to castigate the outgoing American Administration as having harmed Georgia more than most people realize and expressing some certainty in the incoming Administration (just as soon as it gets over the lengthy inauguration festivities).

According to Ms Zourabichvili the EU has certain responsibility towards Georgia, Ukraine and other "neighbourhood" countries, especially as the new American Administration is likely to concentrate on other matters, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, the economy and so on. How she knows this is a mystery but her point that the EU ought to make it clear that "European" countries are its responsibility and the US can rely on its allies is a good one.

At least, it would be a good one, if one did not immediately recall the last time the then EC announced just that. "This is Europe's hour," - said Jacques Poos ofLuxembourg, then holder of the rotating presidency. He was talking about the disintegrating Yugoslavia and a right mess the EC/EU made of it. Perhaps, Ms Zourabichvili does not recall those days, despite being a high ranking French diplomat at the time.

The EU, according to her, has various other responsibilities. There are those 300 observers, whom Russia appears to accept while getting rid of the OSCE ones and probably closing down the UN mission quite soon. One can't help wondering why Russia thinks it has no particular difficulty with the EU keeping its observers there while refuses to countenance the OSCE.

One or two things the former Foreign Minister did not mention. The word NATO did not cross her lips. Neither did she refer to the fact that the Russians have broken the agreed cease-fire several times, despite the EU resuming the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement talks early last December. Could there be a connection between that event and the benign attitude with which the Russian government views the EU observers? And might this benign attitude not change if the 300 temporary observers are turned into some kind of a permanent EU presence, as Ms Zourabichvili suggested several times in her talk?

Much of the talk was taken up, as I said at the beginning, with advice on how the EU could make its interests in the area clear to Russia, thus forcing the latter to make its interests clear. She does have a point - it is not entirely clear what Russia has gained from that incursion last summer and from acquiring two more South Caucasian autonomous republics. Unless, of course, the whole episode was directed at the domestic audience, whipping up its fears of the enemy that is all around them and, even, inside the country.

The point is, the former Foreign Minister repeated several times, that the EU must make its interests clear in order to make people understand what its foreign policy is. Well, dear former Foreign Minister and French diplomat, that is the basic problem. The EU has no single set of interests anywhere, has no real policy towards its neighbours or near-neighbours and that is why there can be no EU foreign policy, no matter what the French President may pretend. You see, dear fFM&Fd, however hard President Sarkozy (and his predecessor) may try, nobody apart from the French and members of the State Department believe that French and European foreign policies are identical.

The EU, according to Ms Zourabichvili, is in a good position to help develop democracy in the two authoritarian states, Russia and Georgia, though the latter is probably more susceptible to the idea (especially if Ms Zourabichvili finally acquires some political support in the country, one assumes). Apparently, she labours under the misapprehension that the EU is a democracy as well as an organization that has certain interests.

Sadly, as soon as the Georgian crisis was over the European consensus (by which, I think, she meant French policy) disintegrated and Russia once again finds herself dealing with individual countries separately. This must be overcome.

Interestingly, Ms Zourabichvili proudly proclaimed that the supposed weaknesses of the EU are, in reality its strengths. These are a more pragmatic attitude to international affairs, diversity of opinion and lack of military prowess. In other words, complete lack of integrity, no common ground and no real ability to back up its demands or requests, should these materialize.

I think it is time Ms Zourabichvili came back to where she belongs: the French diplomatic service.

Borut_Grgic[i-Borut_Grgic]OK, I am back, though it is entirely possible that my temporary absence, caused by other work, has not been much noticed. The other reason for my absence has been a certain inner difficulty: it is hard to summon up interest in the doings of the EU when far bigger and more exciting things are going on in the world.

On the whole, I am happy to write about bigger issues, partly because we are examining Britain's role in the world, which means that the world has to make an appearance in our examination; and partly because our self-defined remit involves a discussion of various countries and organizations. Some of our readers prefer it that we (and they) remain big fish in a very small pond. The problem is that at 5ft 1in it is very difficult to be anything but a herring (though not a sprat) and, in any case, I easily succumb to intellectual claustrophobia.

Still, every now and then, one must turn to the EU and its shenanigans. Therefore, I was pleased to see in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal Europe (there she goes again, unable to stick to solid British newspapers) an article by Borut Grgic, entitled "Europe’s Lack of Strategic Ambition".

Mr Grgic (the one that is smiling in the picture) is, I assume, of Slovenian background, and a graduate of Stanford University. He is the Founder and Director of this particular Institute for Strategic Studies, based in Ljubljana, Brussels and New York. For a small institute it seems to have a lot of addresses but to quote Lady Bracknell in "The Importance of Being Earnest":

Three addresses always inspire confidence, even in tradesmen.

My pleasure lessened as I read the article. Instead of tackling the basic problem of a potential EU common foreign policy, Mr Grgic seems to have accepted its main plank. In fact, I had to take issues with his first paragraph, though I approved of the crisp style:

Russia's invasion of Georgia has once again revealed the European Union's central foreign policy flaw: While the EU is good at managing crises, it has hardly ever solved one.

Um, well, half-right, Mr Grgic. It is true that the EU has never (not hardly ever but never, to reverse the Gilbertian line) solved a crisis but neither has it shown itself able to manage one, whether inside or outside itself. Just look at the mess it is making of the problem of Ireland and the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty.

In any case, a foreign policy, common or not is more than just managing crises, let alone solving them. In some ways, it is about preventing crises, though, clearly, that is not always possible. But, in order to have a foreign policy, there has to be some understanding of aim, purpose and interest. Clearly, the EU has none of these and that is why it cannot have a common foreign policy beyond the structures that can be created by agreement.

There is one exception to that – the EU's aim has been, so far, to expand. Like certain very simple animal organisms, such as an amoeba, the great European project can survive only by growing and changing shape. Mr Grgic seems to accept this, as the rest of his article is a discussion as to the harm done by the EU not talking seriously about making Georgia a member – an issue that has not really come up as Georgia wants to be a member of NATO, knowing full well that the EU is not going to be much use against its large neighbour to the north.

Even worse, according to Mr Grgic, the EU seems to have lost its appetite for expansion to the point of not wanting even small and well-run Montenegro.

Rather than embracing this as a strategic opportunity -- since both countries have been advancing fast in their reform and transition efforts, outpacing the regional averages - the EU seems to be embarrassed by their progress. Brussels is looking for ways to shut its doors and keep the ambitious would-be members at a distance, perhaps just long enough so they lose their zealous drive.

True, the recent accession of Romania and Bulgaria has given enlargement a bad name. Brussels sharply criticized Sofia and Bucharest in July for not doing enough to fight corruption and suspended hundreds of millions of euros in aid money. This experience has given enlargement skeptics the upper hand. But punishing Montenegro and the Balkans for the failings of Sofia and Bucharest is unfair and strategically shortsighted.

The EU is missing a huge opportunity to stabilize the broader Balkans and Caucasus regions if it fails to reward Montenegro and Georgia for their efforts. In the first case, it's the EU Balkan agenda that hangs in the balance. Montenegro is a living example of regional success. It never went through a war or ethnic cleansing. Because of its democratic outreach to all of its citizens, it has managed to keep its Albanian minority excited about a future in an independent Montenegro.

The country is making rapid economic progress and moving at a fast-forward pace through the reforms agenda outlined by the EU in its Stabilization and Association Agreement.

Certainly, European countries should make some kind of decision about the Balkans and the Caucasus, the latter, in particular, being a tinder box ready to blow. There is, furthermore, the question of energy supplies. The need to diversify includes the need to get gas and oil without any Russian interference, as the country has shown herself to be less than reliable in every way.

To assume, though, that the only way to achieve these objectives is by expanding and, necessarily, strengthening and centralizing the European Union indicates that Mr Grgic has not really studied the situation and all its possibilities. One wonders what his Institute really does for research.

David+Miliband+02[i-David+Miliband+02]About ten years ago I was privileged (if that is the right expression) to lead a discussion at the Centre for Policy Studies on the subject of British foreign policy – do we have one in the light of the developing EU common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and can we actually define what it ought to be. I have an odd suspicion that it was before the watershed of 1997, that is, under the last Conservative government. Otherwise, the CPS would not have been thinking about developing policies. So, let us say, 1996.

The crisis that the EU could not cope with was the disintegration of Yugoslavia that had been going on since 1989 and had been made worse by the posturing of various West European politicians. (I wasn’t going to mention Douglas Hurd and his letter about level killing fields but find that I cannot resist the temptation.)

Since then both my colleague and I have written many tens of thousands of words on the subject of the EU's common foreign policy as weary readers of this blog know. To sum up, the structures and institutions of the CFSP have been developing, treaty by treaty, Council by Council with cheerleaders like the Centre for European Reform's director Charles Grant telling us that Europe must play a stronger role in the world and can do so only by speaking with one voice. I have never had an answer to the question "what will the Single European Voice say".

This has been the problem all along as we, on this blog, have grown tired of pointing out: there is no common interest among the 27 member states so there can be no common foreign policy. But if the EU is to turn itself into a more or less functioning state, it has to have a foreign policy. Each time we go round this argument we reach an impasse that becomes particularly obvious whenever there is a crisis.

Well, here we are in another crisis that involves Russia, Georgia, other former Soviet colonies and a spectacularly inept performance by the EU. The old structures, NATO, G7 and individual countries are beginning to reassert themselves and Britain has, amazingly enough, made it clear that it is siding against Russia's aggressive intent to reconstruct the Soviet geopolitical sphere. Well, the Foreign Secretary has made it clear as has the Leader of the Opposition. There has been little from the Prime Minister and the Shadow Foreign Secretary but one cannot have everything.

Mirabile dictu, at least one journalist, Iain Martin in The Daily Telegraph, to be precise, has noticed an interesting thing. Britain, he has discovered, has no foreign policy beyond becoming more involved with the EU's CFSP and, as a consequence, farming out what is left of that policy. Well, well, well. How long did it take Mr Martin to discover this? And why does he need to dilute his discussion of a very important topic with the inevitable speculation about David Miliband's plans to become Leader of the Labour Party either before or after the next election?

In fact, what is the point of spending quite so much time on lambasting Gordon Brown (a sport that is akin to shooting fish in a barrel) instead of analyzing how the country has reached this particular stage?

Of course, Mr Martin might have to acknowledge that this is not a problem created by the Labour government but one that has been in the background since the beginning of the European project and has been definitely developing since the Maastricht Treaty whose Title J first spoke of a common foreign and security policy, though in very general terms, and an intention would be to formulate a common defence policy.

Since then the idea has been gaining ground steadily and as steadily has the notion of an independent British foreign policy been disappearing from the public debate. Tony Blair would not have had as many problems with the war in Iraq if he had argued the need for it on the basis of British interests and British foreign policy but being a true supporter of European integration and of transnational thinking he could not bring himself to do that.

The world, Iain Martin thinks, is a scary place and the response to that should be a development of where Britain's interests lie, this being an alliance with the United States though not a close subservience to it, rather than a drowning in the European project and an acceptance of Franco-German ideas as being the right ones to follow. Mr Martin has noticed, apparently, that neither France nor Germany have been particularly alert on the subject of Russia and her aggressiveness. But then, neither has our own Foreign Office. Come to think of it, our media has been remarkably quiescent on the subject of British foreign policy and what it should be.

Still, we must cease worrying. Iain Martin is not alone in noting this peculiar development. Daniel Hannan has also written about it on his blog. As I said, it takes a crisis …

Sarkozy_Medvedev[i-Sarkozy_Medvedev]It seems incredible but President Sarkozy still seems to think that he has some kind of a role to play in the crisis in the Caucasus. He keeps running around, accepting Russian peace offers and cease-fire deals and then finding that there is not the slightest intention on the Russian side of fulfilling the obligations that they themselves propose. I must say, it is not entirely clear why the Russians keep playing this game unless, as some analysts have been suggesting, there are splits among the various leaders, military and civilian and, above all, between former President, now Prime Minister, Putin and his teddy bear.

Reuters entitles the news item "Russia starts Georgia pullout" but this is a little misleading. Russia is not starting anything of the kind; she is merely promising to do so.

Russian troops will pull back from Georgia's heartland by the end of this week, the Kremlin said on Tuesday, but NATO said it was freezing contacts with Moscow until all Russian forces were out of the country.

This reminds one of the very popular Russian word, which has flummoxed many a Western businessman: сейчас (seychas). Its direct meaning is this minute (or this hour if you wish to be pedantic) but, in actual fact, it conveys a sense of urgency that is just inferior to the Spanish mañana. Yes, yes, yes, we're going, we're going.

So the soft power of the EU has failed and President Sarkozy's readiness to go along with whatever President Medvedev told him has achieved nothing. To be fair, as Joel J. Sparayregen has pointed out on American Thinker, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a Russian expert in her academic days, has faltered at first as well. Unlike President Sarkozy, she has acknowledged it and American demands have become tougher as has NATO's stance, though there is no mention of Georgia becoming a member in the near future. On the other hand, if the near future includes Russian troops on Georgian soil, that might be quite a wise precaution.

The near and mid-term future will, it seems, include missiles positioned in South Ossetia and, possibly, Abkhazia, pointing at Georgia, in order to protect the Russian citizens of those two regions. Since they are now unlikely to be anything but part of Russia, the protections seems excessive.

Almost certainly Russia will institute one of her economic blockades of Georgia. After all, we cannot have the latter being economically successful as that would humiliate Russia.

The latest prediction is that Russian forces will pull back to prearranged positions by August 22, just about the fortieth anniversary of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, but this will not mean simply going back to Russia and South Ossetia but staying in the "buffer zone", that is 14 kilometres beyond the border inside Georgia itself. It would appear that the French negotiators thought this was perfectly reasonable. Then again, did they have an option if nobody was prepared to use stronger methods? G8? Well, no, G7, I think.

CNN entitles its analysis rather whimsically “NATO grapples with angry bear”. In itself, the analysis tells us nothing new. America, Britain, most of the former Soviet colonies and, one assumes, Denmark and Canada are calling for tougher measures; France, Germany and Italy are cowering and chattering about keeping channels open. What that means is anybody’s guess. After all, nobody is suggesting never talking to Russia again.

It is unfortunate that CNN goes along with the analysis that Russia and her self-appointed supporters have managed to feed into the public discourse:

But western ministers, it seems, have only just taken aboard how angry a resurgent Russia, traditionally fearful of encirclement, has been about the U.S. missile defense plan with installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, about the steady eastward march of NATO and the EU, and about the West's ready endorsement of Kosovo's breakaway from Russia's allies in Serbia.

Largely this is tosh. The missile defence plan is no threat to Russia and the former Soviet colonies became members of NATO because they were afraid of the bear. In other words, they are not surprised by the latest developments because they have always expected something like this.

There has never been the slightest indication that Russia cared much about Serbia as the Serbs have vociferously complained about and Kosovo is of little importance to them. The plan to use South Ossetia to threaten and invade Georgia has been maturing for, at least, five years when those Russian passports were first handed out.

Somehow, the myth of the resurgent, angry and humiliated Russia seems to have taken hold. I am in the process of writing a long posting on the subject so shall hold my fire till then but I may add that if Russia is afraid of encirclement then the country she is most fearful of is China.

When it comes to invasion from the east, Monty’s saying of the three rules of war do not apply. Mostly, these have been successful and Russia knows it. A little reported recent development was a border agreement signed between the two countries on July 21, which is returning 174 sq km of territory to China.

The areas to be returned - the Yinlong Island (Tarabarov Island) and half of the Heixiazi Island (Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island) - are territories the former Soviet Union occupied during a 1929 border skirmish.

They are located at the confluence of the Heilongjiang and Wusulijiang rivers that serve as a natural border between the two countries.

Following years of negotiations, the two sides signed an agreement for the return of the areas in October 2004 when Vladimir Putin, then Russian President visited Beijing.

After that, the two neighbors spent three years of negotiations on delineation.

Curiously enough, this was not much reported in Russia, either.

The Eurasian Daily Monitor, which has been following the growing crisis in Georgia long before most of the Western media and politicians realized there was anything to follow (as it happens we have written about it a few times ourselves, here for instance) gives a more detailed analysis of the non-withdrawal and the rings President Medvedev has been running round President Sarkozy.

COMMENT THREAD

The French EU Presidency, we are told by EUObserver, is preparing to call an emergency EU "summit" on the Russia-Georgia "conflict" (when does it become a war?) at Poland's request. This is how the EU functions and why it is impossible to use that organization and any other tranzi for the development of foreign policy, quite apart from the fact that there is no EU policy on the Caucasus.

Russia is bombing cities inside Georgia, including the outskirts of Tbilisi, and has sunk at least one Georgian boat in Georgian waters. Gori is being evacuated and the Baku-Tbilisi oil pipeline has been bombed though not, apparently, put out of action.

The EU, the body that demands that it becomes our sole representative on the international scene is preparing to call an emergency meeting of foreign ministers and this will take place, possibly, on Wednesday. Or possibly not.

"The proposal of [Polish] prime minister Donald Tusk to hold a meeting of the European council at the level of heads of government has been accepted. We don't know the date yet," Polish foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, said at a press briefing in Warsaw on Saturday.

"There is...a possibility a formal summit will take place in Brussels later in the week," Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, told Swedish news agency TT.

It seems that Wednesday will probably be the day after French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner and his Finnish colleague, Alexander Stubb, return from Tbilisi.

Meanwhile, other countries who have a clearer understanding of what Russia might do next, have been speaking up.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland called on the European Union and NATO to oppose Russia's "imperialist" policy towards Georgia.

And even countries such as Sweden, which was not part of the Soviet bloc, expressed extreme concern at the conflict, making comparisons to Adolf Hitler's tactics as leader of Nazi Germany.

Russia has in turn been vocal in criticising neighbours such as Ukraine, which it accused of "encouraging" Georgia to attack the separatist region of South Ossetia.

"The EU and NATO must take the initiative and stand up against the spread of imperialist and revisionist policy in the east of Europe," the leaders of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland said in a joint statement.

Ukraine has plenty to worry about, being the next on the shopping list. After all, former President, now Prime Minister, Putin has always made it clear that he intended to restore the Soviet geopolitical territory and, in particular, he was anxious to take back the two biggest ones that got away: Ukraine and Georgia. Obviously, he meant that, if necessary, it will be done by force.

Swedish Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt, has demanded a very strong response from the European Union. That will be a little hard to achieve with Germany being so dependent on Russian gas and with other West European states being more anxious "to stand up to America" than pay attention to what is going on next door to it. Well may Ukraine and the Balts worry.

Tomislav_Nikolic[i-Tomislav_Nikolic]Well, some eyes on Serbia and not nearly as many as Serbia thinks or hopes. Next Sunday will see the parliamentary election and, in theory at least, the results will decide whether the country continues to look more or less to the West or turns inward again, isolating itself from its neighbours beyond the odd snarl across the border.

The threat the Serb nationalists issue from time to time is that if the EU continues to be nasty to Serbia, the country will turn eastward to Russia and China. On the whole, it is not clear what that might mean, especially when it comes to China. Will there be investments from that country? And if so, into what? That gas pipe that Russia has been negotiating has not been built yet and, in any case, its purpose is not to supply China but Europe.

Aid? Unlikely. That is not the way China does business, being considerably more hard-headed than the “selfish, capitalist” West that turns mushy when it comes to developing countries at whatever stage of development they are, playing on guilt feelings.

Russia is not going to help Serbia all that much. She did little in the eighties and will not start to get involved in Balkan politics too much now. Incoming President Medvedev may have a greater appetite for foreign adventure than outgoing President, soon to be Prime Minister, Putin but so far we have seen no evidence of that.

What Russia has done is to sign an agreement with President Tadic and Prime Minister Kostunica for the construction of part of the proposed South Stream pipeline. Russia is anxious to see that agreement be finalized, election or no election.

From a certain point of view, Serbia is important to Russia but, from the same point of view, so are Bulgaria, Italy, Austria and Hungary. In other words, Russia’s desire to consolidate her control over the supply of gas to Western Europe is what motivates that country and its biggest industrial conglomerate, Gazprom. (Incidentally, one wonders whether outgoing President Putin will become chairman of Gazprom, as it has been mooted.)

On Friday the International Herald Tribune carried an article about Tomislav Nikolic, leader of the Radical Party, generally described as far-right, though such terminology has little meaning outside Western Europe. The Trib also published an excellent picture of the “charismatic”, as they describe him, Mr Nikolic.

Mr Nikolic’s predecessor, as leader of the ultra-nationalist party (I think we can describe it as such) was Vojislav Seselj, until he turned himself in to the UN tribunal to face war crimes charges. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction among Mr Seselj’s supporters because of what was perceived to be undue pressure put on him by the Serbian government.

Mr Nikolic has ruled out the idea of war to regain Kosovo, a decision that has a good deal to do with the fact that Kosovo is under NATO’s protection and also with the other fact that there will be no military help from Russia, no matter what was said in the heat of the moment when Kosovo declared its de jure independence.

Kosovo has been a diplomatic failure for Russia (and, of course, for Serbia) in a completely unnecessary way. If the negotiations had been conducted slightly differently and if Serbia had been genuinely prepared to negotiate, this messy situation might not have occurred.

Actually, the most interesting comments by Mr Nikolic are about the late unlamented (except by a few supporters around the world) President Miloševič.

The problem with Milosevic, Nikolic says, is that he never finished what he started.

"All the wars Milosevic started, he gave up," Nikolic said. "His biggest mistake is that he was not a person who would take things to the end. I have the popularity that Milosevic had, and my votes come from some of the same people. But we got crazy from his politics. I can't be called another Milosevic."

There were very good reasons why those wars were not finished but fighting them well-nigh finished off the Serbian people. It is hard to understand what Mr Nikolic would have preferred.

Mr Nikolic, whose party is the largest in the parliament and who has an excellent chance of becoming a prime minister, having failed repeatedly in his attempts to become president, seems to be serving up a mixture of nationalism and social control, popular in many parts of post-Communist Eastern and South-East Europe, where moorings disappeared in the nineties.

At the same time he is insisting that Western investors and, above all Western aid-givers have nothing to fear. Serbia will not change under his government. She will co-operate with the Hague tribunal and will continue their efforts to join the European Union – a long-term project, despite the recently signed Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA).

The problem is that the United States and the European Union might cut their aid if Mr Nikolic is elected, though according to some commentators, Vojislav Kostunica will be more of a nuisance for Europe.

But while Serbian liberals portray Nikolic as a radical demagogue, some Western diplomats say he poses less of a threat to Western interests than does Vojislav Kostunica, the Serbian prime minister, who helped lead the revolution that overthrew Milosevic but has now adopted nationalist rhetoric.

"Kostunica is a 19th-century, anti-Western, romantic nationalist," said one senior Western diplomat, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the domestic politics of another country. "Mr. Nikolic is more pragmatic."

A fellow blogger, whose previous professional involvement means that he has forgotten more about the Balkans than I ever knew, told me that I should not underestimate the readiness of Serbs to be “different”. Perish the thought, I replied. How could one underestimate something like that?

The problem is that the EU cannot afford another member that is “different”. We already have Greece that is an ally often in name only but one that relies heavily on subsidies from the European Union.

The situation with the Balkan countries throws up once again the basic problem with that much vaunted common foreign policy – it has no idea what to do about the EU’s neighbours because it is not based on any common interest. All it can do is assimilate those neighbours as well as it can manage and all relations must revolve round the possibility of membership rather than agreements on various matters.

Having assimilated one lot the EU comes up against another set of neighbours and the same problems arise. Once again the only discussion is whether those countries can become members and if so how soon. If not, there is no real plan as to how to deal with them. This militates, for instance, against any such thing as a European policy towards Russia, though the member states, by and large have no individual policies either.

Entirely unsuitable countries become members of the EU, adding to the tensions within while the Commission, its officials and the budding external service struggles with ideas as to what to do with even less suitable countries that lie on the periphery.

Finnish+soldier+01[i-Finnish+soldier+01]Would it not be a good idea to have a common European foreign policy? You know it makes sense. Think of all those times that Europeans would like to play a strong part in world affairs and … well … never quite manage it because the world and its affairs are not terribly interested or interested only in some things said by Europeans. So, if they all combine and speak with one voice, all those problems will disappear.

Europe, as the European Union is sometimes called, the largest single entity of unknown kind, the largest single market with a GDP that sometimes equals and sometimes surpasses that of the United States, depending on who is doing the counting, would play a political role that was commensurate with its economic strength.

Or something like that.

What this argument manages to leave out is the very important question, mentioned on this blog more times than we can comfortably link to in a single posting, of what the Single European Voice is going to say.

This problems has become particularly important since the entry of the various post-Communist (sometimes the “post” bit is a little elliptical) states, whose attitude to the world and its various powers are somewhat different from that of France and Germany.

There is the case of Russia. Edward Lucas, author of “The New Cold War”, thinks that we need a strong, united European Union because that is the only way we can stare Russia down in her most bullying mood. But would we?

It is entirely possible that the foreign ministries of Finland and Estonia have been reading Mr Lucas’s book, as they have come up with a proposal that he would most likely agree with.

They have called for a common EU policy on Russia but, one must assume, they would prefer their own view to be the one that prevails.

A strong EU is in the interests of both Estonia and Finland, Alexander Stubb, visiting Finnish Foreign Minister, told reporters after meeting with his Estonian counterpart Urmas Paet in Tallinn.

If the EU wants to be an authorized power on the international stage, it should have a common foreign policy especially on ties with Russia, Stubb said.

EU member states' policy towards Russia may vary due to their own situations, but such policy should be in conformity with the EU's collective approach, he said.

Mr Stubb explained in a little more detail what he had in mind:

Finland's Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Stubb (Nat. Coalition Party) says that his personal goal is to link Russia more closely to the European system. He does not believe that Russia will ever become a member of the European Union, because he feels that two great powers will not fit into one union.

"I believe in a free trade area, in which goods would move between Russia and the EU without tariffs. The closer the relations that are established, the more solid the dependency", Stubb emphasised at a lunch on Tuesday of the Association of Political Journalists.

While we go along with the understanding that Russia is not really a serious candidate for European Union membership, a view that is quite clearly shared by the Russian authorities (most people in that country have not really heard of the EU), we cannot help wondering why Mr Stubb thinks that a strong common foreign policy will work on creating a free trade area.

Furthermore, even if he cannot recall what it was like to have the Soviet Union on the doorstep, many others in Finland can and some recent developments in Russia have brought those memories back.

If he finds some of these matters hard to work out, he might like to consult his Estonian colleagues who are moving up to an anniversary of the saga of the bronze soldier and, no doubt, remember the Russian boycott imposed at the time as part of President Putin’s bullying tactics that, in the end, got him nowhere.

Meanwhile, what is that common foreign policy towards Russia to be? Perhaps each member state could produce one of its own. Then we could have 27 common foreign policies. Well, at least. I am sure some countries will be able to produce several.

link[i-link]Kosovo’s declaration of independence last Sunday was the least surprising event of this year (though, naturally, there is plenty of time to go for more dog-bites-man-supermodel-takes-drugs stories in 2008). While I am not at all surprised that Serbia and Russia are going through the motions of rage and astonishment I find the silliness and ignorance of commentators in the West – for once, I think, the blogosphere is slightly worse than the MSM – perpetually odd.

When Hashim Thaci was elected to be Prime Minister of Kosovo last November he announced that he would declare his country to be independent as soon as possible after December 10, when the international mediators were supposed to report back to the UN on the progress of negotiations over Kosovo’s status.

The negotiations led nowhere and the UN continued to procrastinate. The election of Boris Tadic, supposedly pro-Western but really little different from his more nationalist rival, as Serbia’s President earlier this month speeded up events. Mr Tadic may want Serbia to be in the EU – promising the Serbs great prosperity through that move – but he, too, was against Kosovan independence. For that matter, no Serb politician at this time is interested in any arrangements with Kosovo apart from some kind of a return to the past, something that was clearly never going to happen. But then Yugoslavia was never going to be turned into Greater Serbia either but it took ten years of war, thousands of dead, tens of thousands displaced and severe economic hardship for the Serbs to accept that.

President Tadic, backed by the Russian government, has gone to the United Nations Security Council asking for the independence to be annulled and Serbia’s “territorial integrity” to be restored.Serbia has also recalled its ambassador from Washington and filed legal charges against Hashim Thaci and the Kosovan leadership in general. Other measures against countries that insist on recognizing Kosovo are being threatened.

The one thing that our readers were missing was a long posting from me on the subject of Kosovo, Serbia, the EU, Russia and related matters. Well, fear no more. It is up on EUReferendum 2 and you can read it. Be warned: it is very long.

Mark+Leonard[i-Mark+Leonard]Well, it has been long time a-coming, considering the solid financing behind it (hint: George Soros and his various interests) but an item on EUObserver alerted me to the great event of the year: the European Council on Foreign Relations has finally been launched.

It now has a brand new website, which tells us that George Soros, the Council’s “onlie begetter” will launch it at a forum attended by all the great and the good, where he will discuss Europe’s global role. One can’t help feeling that Mr Soros is more interested in his own global role but that may be my infamous cynicism. Madeleine Bassett would never think that.

How can one resist an article by François Godemont, a member of the French great and the good fraternity that tells us that we must persuade Burma’s military junta that it makes more sense to have a political process. Sounds like another great common platform for the European Union.

There are fifty founding members from all the member states with impeccable credentials. (I am always rather sorry to see Bronislaw Geremek on lists like this, as I rather admire the man.)

The Statement of Principles starts off with a predictable and completely unlikely appeal to the governments of European Union:

We call on the governments of the European Union to develop a more coherent and vigorous foreign policy, informed by our shared values, dedicated to the pursuit of our common European interests, and sustained by European power.

As a matter of fact, I am rather impressed that in this case the reference is to the European Union and not to Europe. This could not have been written by Mark Leonard, the overall director of this enterprise. When I last debated with him on Radio 4 he showed complete ignorance of how the EU worked and declared said ignorance in ringing tones. He lost the debate, anyway.

Mark Leonard, the wunderkind of the soft-left europhile think-tank world, is the man who wrote not that long ago a book, entitled “Why Europe will run the 21st century?”. It had a great deal about soft power and “Europe’s” unseen influence on countries, if memory serves correctly, such as Russia and Rwanda. One wonders whether he will continue to believe so but, of course, he must go on believing that “Europe’s” power works like an unseen hand in all the member states. It’s just he will not go on saying it quite so openly, I expect.

As a matter of fact, he may be a little disappointed with that plan to run the 21st century. On the new website he says:

Europe needs to come of age. We need to stop complaining about what others are doing to the world, and start thinking for ourselves. We want a can-do foreign policy, where European power is put at the service of European values.

Quite so. Just as soon as we have a European power and can define European values.

COMMENT THREAD

Schwarzenberg[i-Schwarzenberg]Charlemagne’s column in the Economist deals with the embarrassment that the Czechs are causing in Brussels. No, it has nothing to do with them insisting on drinking Pilsner instead of Belgian beer but more with the fact that they take a little too seriously the European Union's profession of supporting freedom and democracy.

Mind you, this is not a new story. We wrote about it on this blog several times, notably here and here. But then, this is just a blog that cannot begin to compete with the sages of the MSM, particularly of the world famous Economist.

We also covered the story Charlemagne cites

Two years ago, ex-President Havel accused Spain of “shameful” appeasement for pushing European embassies in Havana to ban dissidents from attending receptions. (For the Spaniards, the Czechs were guilty of gesture politics that misfired.)

Of course, we called Spain’s behaviour by its proper name – appeasement, agreeing with President Havel. Sadly, the Economist cannot run to that. Instead it spends a little time being gently ironic about the Czechs who, very admirably, like to fight for democracy but really what an unsophisticated bunch.

Charlemagne may think that Karel Schwarzenberg, the Foreign Minister, is slightly amusing in an operattaish sort of way but we find it difficult to disagree with his “old-fashioned” views:

Mr Schwarzenberg is a rather old-fashioned figure (he is in private life a prince, with several castles to his name). He sums up the code that should define civilised nations. “Democracy is not just a question of voting systems, and having a good constitution,” he says, “It is a question of—and the English have a wonderful expression for it—accepting things which are done and not done. As long as this code does not exist, each democracy has its difficulties.” This is rather a courtly formulation, and would doubtless trigger further eye-rolling if uttered in Brussels.

To be fair to Charlemagne, there is a final sentence:

But if the EU were serious about being a club ruled by moral values, it is the kind of talk that should fit right in.

Indeed but as it isn't serious the talk does not fit in.

COMMENT THREAD

Libya+torture[i-Libya+torture]An update on the story of the Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctors released from Libyan prison in response to European bribery soft power.

It seems that Dr Ashraf Alhajouj is, after all, filing a complaint against Libya before a UN "human rights panel". If that means the Human Rights Council, I do not expect very much will come of that.

Still, Libya responded in the shape of another interview with Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam (yes, him again). According to an article on Al-Jazeera, which refers back to the interview in Newsweek, Gaddafi Junior cheerfully admitted that torture had been used on the medics but it was not nearly as bad as Dr Alhajouj makes out. Really, the man is such a wimp.

In an interview on Wednesday, Saif al-Islam said: "Yes, they were tortured by electricity and they were threatened that their family members would be targeted. But a lot of what the Palestinian doctor has claimed are merely lies."

He also expressed doubts about Libya being held responsible for that very mild torture and in that he was probably right. I can't imagine who will hold them responsible. The European Union perchance?

Anyway it was all the Europeans' fault.

He said the process was initiated by the Europeans.

Saif al-Islam told Newsweek magazine on Wednesday: "Yeah, it's an immoral game, but they set the rules of the game, the Europeans, and now they are paying the price ... Everyone tries to play with this card to advance his own interest back home."

In the interview to Al Jazeera, Saif al-Islam vouched for the innocence of the medics, but said that conflicting reports implicating them had been submitted to the Libyan courts.

The courts had relied on these documents, he said.

Hard to tell what he really meant or why he is always being pushed out to make statements of this kind.

Sarkozy_Libya[i-Sarkozy_Libya]At first the release of the Bulgarian medics after eight years of incarceration and torture by the Libyan government was greeted joyfully by all believers in the European project and the need for “Europe” to have a common foreign policy. Here is a wonderful example, they chortled, of “soft power” that is sooooooooooo much more effective than the nasty hard power of the Americans.

An article in Transitions Online, a largely Europhile site that deals with Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, breathes a sigh of relief at Europe finally showing willingness to work together and exert pressure as a single entity after a period of discord, what with arguments about Turkey’s possible entry and those cheeky referendum results in France and the Netherlands.

As our readers undoubtedly expect, this blog does not precisely agree with that judgement. We are, as it happens, not alone. Here is a longish piece that sums up the situation as it appears at this point.

COMMENT THREAD

darfur.02[i-darfur.02]One of the items in the Presidential Conclusions of this June’s European Council, under the heading of External Relations, talks of the EU – Africa relationship. This is the sort of item that is likely to be produced as part of the common foreign policy, which is not based on common interests, there not being any, but on supposedly common values. Whether these values are common to anyone in the rest of the world or even, for that matter, European countries and peoples, remains irrelevant.

So, instead of letting individual countries work out their relationship with individual African countries (except for France, which persists in behaving as a colonial power) the EU has put together a framework policy for dealings with the African Union (AU).

49. The second EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon in December 2007 will provide an important opportunity to enhance the relationship between the EU and Africa and to build an ambitious and strategic new partnership.

50. Recalling its conclusions of June 2005, the European Council underlines the importance it attaches to the further close cooperation with the African Union to ensure that a Joint EU-Africa strategy can be adopted by December 2007. The European Council reaffirms the commitment to continue support for the African Union, with a view, inter alia, to strengthening the African Union's capacity in conflict management, resolution and prevention. The European Council welcomes the intention to establish an Africa-EU energy partnership at the EU-Africa Summit.

51. The European Council stresses the need for new arrangements allowing early release of EU funds to support AU rapid deployment, which should be addressed as a priority. The Council reaffirms the commitments undertaken in the EU Strategy "The EU and Africa: Towards a Strategic Partnership" and encourages Member States to make all efforts to reach the targets set therein.

We have already written about the forthcoming Summit to which President Mugabe of Zimbabwe will be invited because other African leaders refuse to attend if he is not.

Let us have a look at items 2 and 3, which mean mostly that the EU will hand over more of our money to the African Union in the vain hope that it will improve its hitherto non-existent “capacity in conflict management, resolution and prevention”. Well, as Alice was told at the Mad Hatter’s tea party, you can always have more than none.

Even so, if we are about to give more money, ought we not find out what happened to the previous amount? Apparently, there is an effort to do so and the results are lamentable.

Yesterday’s Washington Post reported:

European funds designated for the African Union mission in Darfur have not reached the undermanned and underequipped military force for months, leaving soldiers there without pay, officials said Tuesday.

The African Union acknowledged the problem, but said the European Union requires cumbersome accounting impossible in a remote and violent region the size of France.

This may well be true, though as the money comes from the European taxpayer, there ought to be some kind of an accounting procedure. Clearly that idea has not been discussed in all those EU - Africa meetings. Incidentally, have we had any accounts of the large amounts of money that has been handed over to Sudan in general and, in particular, for the purposes of helping the people of Darfur?

African+Union.01[i-African+Union.01]Even the amounts that have gone to the AU are not exactly chicken-feed:

The European Commission has earmarked $384 million for the African Union since November 2004, and further funds have been provided by the individual EU states, for a total of more than $544 million. The European Union is investigating why its money has not been paid to AU soldiers, officials said Tuesday.

One assumes that the money is not simply lying around. Where it has gone to might be a good subject for EU investigation but since the group is led by the egregious Spanish MEP Josep Borrell, that question is unlikely to be asked.

The AU is blaming the EU’s convoluted accounting system and the EU is implying that the AU has been, at best, lackadaisical. In the meantime, the soldiers, who have not been able to impose order in Darfur in any case, remain unpaid. History is full of interesting tales of what happens to the civilians around them when soldiers are not paid.

COMMENT THREAD

Molodaya+Gvardiya[i-Molodaya+Gvardiya]In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Europe Mart Laar, the former Prime Minister of Estonia and a devoted free-marketeer, had an article entitled “Imperially Deluded”[subscription only]. In it he analyzes President Putin’s more or less imperial ambitions, his desire to reunite what was the Soviet Union or, at least, the Russian Empire and his turn away from the attempts made under Yeltsin to understand twentieth century history. All of this is very worrying for Europe and the world and, as Mr Laar rightly points out, for the Russian people. It is also fraught with problems for President Putin and his successor, whoever he may be.

The article also corrects the various accounts of Estonia’s liberation that are and have, for the last sixty odd years, been put about by the Russian authorities. (Incidentally, one does wonder yet again about those youngsters and their supposed rage. They look to me to be in their late teens and early twenties. Yet they are screaming about their grandfathers being called gangsters. Given how early people marry and bear children in Russia, I’d say they are talking about great-grandfathers at least, possibly great-great-grandfathers.)

This is what Mr Laar says:

All this agitation comes over a monument that not only was not destroyed but that most Estonians view as symbol of over four decades of Soviet occupation. On September 22, 1944, the Red Army “liberated” Tallinn not from German forces, who were nearly gone, but from a legitimate Estonian government. The Estonian flag, not the German swastika, was taken down from government buildings that day.

The swastika had been removed by Estonian soldiers, some of whom died in the fighting. The Soviets arrested the Estonian government, shot some of its members and sent others to the gulag. So the Estonians shared the fate of the leaders of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, who were also hunted down and killed by the NKVD after putting up a valiant fight against the Nazis.

These are the facts that official Russian ignores, and most ordinary Russians are not even aware of. Members of Estonia’s 1944 government haven’t even been rehabilitated in post-Soviet Russia, whose Supreme Court still considers them “enemies of the state”, as the USSR branded them.

Official Soviet behaviour was similar in other liberated countries with a great deal of effort going into ensuring that local resistance to the Nazis was side-lined and exiled at best, murdered, judicially or otherwise, at worst. On the other hand one cannot blame the soldiers and officers involved. They were undoubtedly told that these were all fascists, Nazis and the enemy in general. What did they know? What do the journalists who have been foaming at the mouth in the last couple of days know?

Some Soviet soldiers realized what was going on and brought stories home. Quite a few of them found themselves transported to the gulag as well. A very large proportion of the victorious Red Army celebrated a number of Victory Day anniversaries behind barbed wire in Siberia.

So much for the history that is still unresolved and is causing so much anguish. What of the present and the future? It is true that until you know and understand the past you cannot move forward to the future. This seems to apply to Russia, a potentially great country but, apparently, doomed to go round and round in historical circles.

This time round, however, there is a new kid on the block – the European Union, who has insisted that the only relationship it could have with the former Communist countries is for them to become members. Estonia is, thus, a member state as is Latvia, which was being bullied, though not so spectacularly, last year.

Russia, as the Estonian government has pointed out, is interfering in Estonian affairs, inciting riots in the country, attacking Estonian diplomats in Moscow. Should the EU not make a stand?

We have already documented the mewling response the European Union has produced. It has sent a delegation to Moscow. Nor has it exactly been active in lifting the blockade on the Estonian embassy that has finally gone, according to Kommersant.

It seems that members of Molodaya Gvardiya and Nashi, both pro-Kremlin organizations, controlled and supported by the Kremlin, have lifted their siege, much to the local militia’s relief. One can imagine that the militiamen were itching to deal with that lot the way they usually deal with demonstrators but were restrained by the knowledge that this spontaneous action was entirely favoured by the authorities.

It seems that the Estonian ambassador’s scheduled holiday was used as an excuse to call back the hooligans, who departed, enormously pleased with themselves and shouting nasty and stupid abuse at Estonia, the Estonian ambassador and the Estonian people in general. At some point, Putin will have to deal with these youthful cadres, who may well get out of hand. That will not be pretty.

Meanwhile, some businesses have decided to boycott Estonian economically.

Although the Russian authorities did not proclaim any economic sanctions against Estonia, regional businessmen and some companies took it upon themselves. Thus, Severstaltrans holding suspended the construction of a car-assembling factory in Estonia, which was to assemble up to 120,000 off-road cars annually (the investments into this project reach about $80 million). Akron chemical holding decided to suspend the funding of investment projects in Estonia. Bashkiria’s chain Universal-Trading stopped selling Estonian goods in its stores. Owner of Kalev confectionary Oliver Kruuda said on Thursday that “the Russian market is closed for Kalev”. According to Estonia's Aripaev, Kalev’s sales in Russia made up €260,000 monthly.

It seems unlikely that these businesses merely decided to cut off their noses to spite their faces. One is justified in suspecting a certain amount of government pressure behind the scenes.

On the whole, Russia prefers to deal with individual member states, knowing full well that some of the older ones like France and Germany will probably find ways of accommodating it. Unfortunately, this crisis has been too big and too public. The EU had to step in as has NATO, possibly, once again seeing that the EU will do precious little.

The EU is now threatening to withdraw its support, bought by Russia reluctantly signing up to Kyoto, for that country’s membership of the WTO unless it stops trading sanctions on Estonia, resumes the supply of oil and stops hassling her diplomats. As the United States was never that keen on Russia joining, it seems quite likely that this will be put on the back burner again.

Meanwhile the Finnish President, Tarya Halonen, has expressed what must be the thought in many an EU politician’s head: above all we must have joint line, no matter what that might be. The crisis with Estonia will not affect the EU-Russia Summit that is due on May 18 and only Germany, the President, can deal with the matter. The Estonians must be a little surprised by the Finns running scared but this may not be the general opinion in that country. Politicians, as we know, do not always express the general opinion in their country.

Both the EU and NATO have, apparently, offered support and solidarity to Estonia though their main concern is to defuse the tension with Chancellor Merkel particularly active in trying to ensure that the coming Summit is not derailed. So far, no member state has asked for a postponement but if the situation is not resolved this may well happen.

In any case, what can be achieved at the Summit? It is quite clear that Russia is determined to show her supposed stature as a great power by bullying anyone who appears to be a possible victim. Once these victims stand up to the bully, there is a retrenchment.

The EU has boasted mightily of its soft power and ability to influence other countries through it, unlike the nasty Yanks who always use force. Actually, even the second half of that is not true. Well, here is Russia, on the EU’s doorstep, that could do with a bit of influencing and soft power. All the EU seems to be doing is limp-wristed flapping and running up Angela Merkel’s phone bill and all because that famed common foreign policy has no real aim or purpose. All it ever wants to achieve is peace and quiet and everybody getting along. If that means giving in to bullying, well, so be it.

COMMENT THREAD