Disclaimer: All information following this is the personal opinion of the author, and does not reflect allegations against any particular individual.
In full disclosure, I'm not qualified to give a personal account of how the EU affects my daily life. I'm not a European citizen, nor even a British citizen: I'm an American law student from the state of Florida. However, I am (at least somewhat) qualified to give my personal analysis of the affect that the EU has on international peace and security, with my undergraduate studies in Political Science and International Relations, and concentrating in International Law while obtaining my Juris Doctor at Stetson University College of Law.
Perhaps to give a bit of background, my analysis particularly stems from the framework of the European Commission, the President of the Commission, and the High Representative of the Union. Back in 1957, the first Common Policy area of Europe was created in the Common Commercial Policy. Since then, and specifically after the Maastricht Treaty, the EU has had a Common Foreign and Security Policy (or "CFSP"). The European Council sets out either Joint Actions or Common Positions, where the former is an actual policy and action agreement that all member states will follow, and the latter where member states merely agree in principle to the item but it serves only as a framework, not a set position of the Union.
The CFSP is, in theory, incredibly useful. It allows member states to pull their political capital together and create a joint position that utilizes the benefits of at least two of the most powerful members of the international community. Using the United Kingdom and France in a joint position, as Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, carries more weight in theory because then those two nations will likely support EU action at that same Council. In practice, however, this rarely happens.
The CFSP has many glaring issues. Regarding the Syrian Civil War, the EU issued a joint communication in June 2013 which, essentially, set the EU policy position on the Civil War. The communique has some ten main policy points, many which are budgetary and sanction related, some refugee related, and some related to "[s]upport[ing] a political settlement through a robust EU position at the up-coming 'Geneva II' international conference." The communique goes on to say that the EU intends to "prepare" a political and diplomatic solution, but fails to suggest an actual means for helping provide it. In fact, to date, the only nation to actual provide a comprehensive peace process plan has been Russia (please note that by a 'comprehensive plan' I am referring to one that is being acted on, not just one that has been stated).
This article isn't meant to say that the CFSP is the sole reason the Syrian Civil War has to date failed. On the contrary, the blame lies largely with the United States and Russia for failing to take initial action towards peace talks and failure to abide by their own promises and conditions for the Civil War. But many fail to recognize that the United States and Russia won't be galvanized into action unless their European, Asian, and African allies jointly support a central position (AKA "coalition building"). Sure, the United States has a robust Coalition dedicated towards the destruction of ISIS/ISIL in Syria, but not one on Syria. Largely, that is because the EU is completely divided on the Syrian peace process. For years, Prime Minister Cameron has said that Assad "has to go" and, at least originally, should not be included in any peace process if the Syrian people were to heal. Chancellor Merkel has actually called for Assad to be included in any peace process. Hollande has also historically been anti-Assad, particularly for the military fight against ISIS/ISIL.
These differences are normal in international conflicts. There was a vast difference of opinions and positions on the Iraq and Afghan Wars between NATO/European nations, and there are many differing positions on the Iranian Nuclear Programme. Stating these differences is actually vital in allowing diplomats, negotiators, and heads of government the chance to find common ground and a compromise they can unite by. Issues over the Iraqi and Afghani interventions allowed for a more comprehensive position to develop, with Afghanistan especially forming the International Security Assistance Force and a joint NATO command structure. Issues over the Iranian programme allowed the US, Russia, the EU, the UN, and Iran to come to an agreement because specific issues where ironed out and compromise was found.
This kind of diplomacy allows all sides to save face, which, really, is the goal of any diplomatic negotiation. What has happened regarding Syria, however, has been grandstanding by the EU that has, I believe, forced positions from the US and UK. President Juncker originally was very pro-Russia when it came to Syria and was calling for the US to work alongside Russia. When Russia first announced its air-and-sea strike operation against ISIS/ISIL, and began to actually launch strikes, President Juncker was quick to change tack and decry Russia's actions as strikes targeting only the Syrian opposition, not ISIS/ISIL.
Well, the US is attempting to work with Russia on Syria now, but statements like this make things very difficult. Ordinarily, nation-states can find common ground because they have actual, legitimate interests in certain areas of concern. The EU is not a nation-state, but has a diplomatic corps and leadership team that is attempting to grandstand like one. The EU doesn't have a middleground on this issue. The US and Russia could work with the UK and France and create an international peacekeeping force, even NATO could join in, but the EU simply doesn't have a military force to do so. And even if the EU passed a Joint Action detailing a call for such a peacekeeping force, it can't require any sovereign nation to take part. Furthermore, if agreement was to be found at the UN, the EU would not be able to actually take part, formally, in proceedings usually. Instead, the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, and the non permanent members of the Security Council would make agreements and decisions indepedent of the EU. On one hand we have sovereign member states able to back down and save face at the UN, but on the other we have President Juncker and High Representative Mogherini don't have the same capacity to find common ground.
Talks with Russia have now headed at the UN, with France and Russia having competing resolutions at the Security Council. The French one, which passed, authorized "all necessary action" (sic) to tackle ISIS/ISIL. The Russian one, which has not yet been voted on and likely won't be voted on, also included that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria also be included in those actions. This provides the opportunity for France, the UK, and the US to back down from their previous positions and at least consider the inclusion of Assad. What wasn't taken into account in these negotiations was the position of Juncker, Mogherini, or the EU. But the statements by those same individuals and the organization nevertheless harm diplomatic efforts, and I believe it to be vital that these statements cease to come from European politicians and instead come from nation-states in Europe only and their respective ministers.
No comments:
Post a Comment