Javier Solana In The News
EU foreign policy expected to enter 'new era' EU Observer (April 6, 2008) - The European Parliament is seeking to bolster its role in the bloc's common foreign and security policy (CFSP), with senior MEPs saying it is time for Europe to become a "player and not just a payer" on the world stage. Polish centre-right MEP and head of the foreign affairs committee, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, says that EU foreign is moving "from one era to another" with the new Lisbon Treaty, due to kick in next year. The proposed new EU foreign minister and diplomatic service as well as the possibility for a group of member states to move ahead in defence cooperation mean foreign policy is "one of the most innovative parts of the treaty." The fact that Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, will for the first time be present at the MEPs' annual debate on CFSP on Wednesday (4 June) is in itself a "turning point," said the Pole at a briefing on Tuesday. Euro-deputies will today debate a report that sets out principles for the EU's foreign policy - such as respect for human rights - calls for certain issues to be prioritised and says that the CFSP budget from now until 2013 is "insufficient." "Either we have to beef up foreign policy financially, or we have to rethink whether we really want to be a global player," said Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who next week will travel to Paris to discuss the issue with the incoming French EU presidency. "We ask why is nothing ready, prepared for the events that will happen if the treaty [comes into force], and we haven't had an answer," he said. "We are asking this question also: do you have any hidden reserves? What's your view? How to finance the new set up? No answer." Democratic oversight The report also calls for parliament to be given greater democratic oversight over the area, which to date has remained firmly the domain of member states. It suggests that the foreign minister "regularly" appear before MEPs and that the parliament be "fully consulted" on who the foreign minister should be, as well as what the diplomatic service should look like. Deputies are also urging the future EU foreign minister to inform the parliament before any "common actions" are taken. "If we start sending soldiers into danger, it is up to the parliament to give its blessing," says Mr Saryusz-Wolski. The report also takes a more long-term view of the future of common foreign and security policy, with the head of the foreign affairs committee urging the bloc to stop acting like a "fire brigade" rushing to put out emergencies here and there and to think more of the "long-term strategic interests of the Union…20–30 years ahead." EU army Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who believes the union will
gradually develop its own army, says it is no longer enough that the
bloc exercises its traditional role as a soft power. "Too often we spend
money without any conditions being attached. I am against Europe being a
payer and not a player," he said. But he admits there is a "fear" in
the parliament that the foreign minister and the new permanent president
of the European Council may add to the trill of voices of on the EU
stage all claiming to speak for Europe and may not turn Europe into a
player. The potential for overlap between the two posts – starting
in January - and for rivalry with the European Commission president is
high. Debates on the posts are expected to start in earnest in autumn
and be wrapped up by December. In time-honoured EU fashion, balancing
who wins the posts will have to involve the consideration of a series of
factors, including nationality, whether a candidate comes from an old or
new member state or a small or big member state, and the person's
political hue.
European HQ heads Sarkozy plan for greater military integration
Guardian UK
(June
7,
2008) - France has proposed a battery of measures aimed at
boosting European military integration - including the EU's first
permanent operational headquarters in Brussels for planning military
missions abroad - threatening a bruising battle with the British
government. The proposals, circulated to European governments in a
five-page document detailing Paris's security policy priorities, include
common EU funding of military operations, a European fleet of military
transport aircraft, European military satellites, a European defence
college, and the development of exchange programmes for officers among
EU states. Since 2004, the British have resisted the headquarters idea,
seeing it as a French ploy to undermine the Nato alliance and boost
common European defence by establishing a European rival to Nato's Shape
planning headquarters at Mons in Belgium. The prime minister's spokesman
said yesterday the British government is committed to Nato remaining the
cornerstone of European defence, but also supports permanent structured
cooperation on defence within the EU so long as it does not duplicate
the work of Nato, or remove the UK veto. The two governments are already
negotiating quietly over President Nicolas Sarkozy's defence proposals,
sources said, adding that Washington is privately pressing the Brown
government to reach a deal with the French. In a speech to Greece's
parliament, Sarkozy said the EU must be able to defend itself, but he
said: "It is not a case, nor will it ever be a case of competing with
Nato. We need both. A Nato and European defence that oppose each other
makes no sense." Details of the French proposals, obtained by the
Guardian, confirm that Sarkozy is determined to use his six-month EU
presidency, starting in three weeks, to drive forward his military
agenda for Europe. The French have sought to keep their proposals
private for the moment so as not to derail ratification of the EU
treaty. Ireland is holding its referendum on the Lisbon treaty next week
and British peers are due to vote on whether to demand a similar
referendum next Wednesday. The British government insisted the document
was a set of preliminary proposals for discussion with the British and
Germans, and did not represent French government policy. Most
sensitively, Paris is insisting on the new Brussels headquarters
coming under the authority of Europe's foreign policy supremo, a
post whose powers are considerably boosted under the EU's reform treaty
and which is currently held by Javier Solana of Spain.
Ultimately, the Brussels headquarters would plan and control EU missions
abroad. "Solana thinks we need a more permanent structure in Brussels.
There's no doubt about that. The big problem is the Brits," said an EU
foreign policy official. more...
Iran Allows Solana to Visit Tehran to Deliver Nuclear Proposals
Bloomberg (May 20,
2008) - Iran has agreed to a trip by European Union foreign
policy chief Javier Solana to deliver a package of incentives aimed at
persuading the country to suspend uranium enrichment, Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki said. Mottaki didn't say when Solana will arrive in
Tehran with the latest proposals for Iran's nuclear program from the
five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus
Germany, according to the state-run Fars news agency. The U.S., the
U.K., France, Russia and China, which have veto power at the UN Security
Council, were joined by Germany on May 2 in revising an incentive plan
developed in 2006. Measures in the initial package included an offer to
provide Iran with enriched uranium for power stations in exchange for
suspension of its own enrichment efforts. The enhancements to the
package haven't been made public. Iran says its nuclear program is
needed to produce fuel for power stations, while the U.S. and its allies
allege the project is being used as cover for the development of an
atomic weapon. Enriched uranium can be used to generate electricity or
to make nuclear warheads. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on May 13
that he won't put Iran's "right'' to carry out uranium enrichment on its
own soil "up for negotiations.'' Iran is a signatory to the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Solana welcomes appointment of EU civilian operations commander
WorldNet Daily
(May 14, 2008) - THE
EUROPEAN UNION S167/08 Javier SOLANA, EU High Representative for the
CFSP, welcomes the appointment of Kees Klompenhouwer as EU Civilian
Operations Commander. Javier SOLANA, EU High Representative for the
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), congratulated Mr. Kees
Klompenhouwer today on his appointment as EU Civilian Operations
Commander and Director of the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability
(CPCC) at the Council of the European Union: "I would like to
congratulate Kees Klompenhouwer on his appointment as the Civilian
Operations Commander and Director of CPCC. In this capacity, he will
exercise command and control at strategic level for the planning and
conduct of all civilian crisis management operations. Mr.
Klompenhouwer brings considerable expertise to his role as Civilian
Operations Commander. In the accomplishment of his tasks, he will
have my full support and that of the European Union as a whole." Mr.
Klompenhouwer addressed today the Ambassadors of the Political and
Security Committee for the first time and presented the main priorities
of his new function. Mr. Kees Klompenhouwer, whose appointment took
effect on 1 May 2008, will exercise command and control at strategic
level for the planning and conduct of all civilian crisis management
operations, under the political control and strategic direction of the
Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the overall authority of the
Secretary- General/High Representative for the CFSP (SG/HR). He will
also direct the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) which
was established in August 2007 in the General Secretariat of the
Council. CPCC currently totals 60 staff including Council officials,
senior police, rule of law and support services national experts. The
Director of CPCC also has functional authority over planning
capabilities and expertise contributed by the European Union Military
Staff (EUMS) through its Civil/Military Cell and over the Watchkeeping
Capability as far as their support to civilian operations is concerned.
CPCC has a mandate to plan and conduct civilian European Security and
Defence Policy (ESDP) operations under the political control and
strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee; to provide
assistance and advice to the SG/HR, the Presidency and the relevant EU
Council bodies and to direct, coordinate, advise, support, supervise and
review civilian ESDP operations. CPCC works in close cooperation with
the European Commission. The following civilian ESDP missions have been
launched or are planned: EUPM (Bosnia and Herzegovina), EULEX Kosovo,
EUPOL RD Congo, EU SSR Guinea Bissau, EUBAM Rafah (Palestine), EUPOL
COPPS (Palestine), EUJUST LEX (Iraq) and EUPOL Afghanistan.
EU warns
Russia against boosting troops in Georgian breakaway regions
EU Observer
(April 30, 2008) - In a sharp
escalation of tensions in the South Caucasus, Russia has claimed
that Georgia is set to invade its breakaway region of Abkhazia and
is increasing the number of Russian troops there and in South
Ossetia in response. The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana,
has warned Russia against such a move. "Even if the increase in
peacekeepers is within limits, if we want to diminish the perception
of tensions, I don't think it is a wise measure to increase now," EU
foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Tuesday (29 April),
adding that the union continues to defend the territorial integrity
of Georgia. The statement came only hours after Russia had accused
Georgia, a part of the Soviet Union between 1922 and 1991, of
attempting to invade Abkhazia, something that Tbillisi denies. "If
Georgia puts in place the threat it has made on a number of
occasions about the use of force in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, we
would be forced to take retaliatory measures to protect the lives of
our citizens," Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told press,
after talking to his European counterparts in Luxembourg on Tuesday.
The Russian foreign ministry has accused Georgia of sending 1,500 of
its own troops and police in the upper Kodori Gorge in Abkhazia,
which is still under Tblisi's control. "A bridgehead is being
prepared for the start of military operations against Abkhazia,"
reads a ministry statement. Georgia has denied any plans or troop
build-up, and regarded the Russian move and accusations as
provocative. Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze said: "From now on, we
consider every [Russian] soldier or any unit of military equipment
coming in [to Abkhazia and South Ossetia] as illegal, potential
aggressors and potential generators of destabilisation." "We
consider this to be an utterly irresponsible step. We think this
step will utterly destabilise this region," he added. Meanwhile,
according to AFP, Georgian interior minster Shota Utiashvili said:
""This is not acceptable to us ... [Russia] cannot increase the
number any further." "It is the Russians who are taking provocative
actions, not Georgia," he added. "Deploying additional troops is
certainly a very provocative move." "There has been no increase in
forces from the Georgian side, nothing at all. The Russian statement
is simply not true," he continued.
Europe's role in the Middle East: Model or mediator? The Jerusalem Post (April 23, 2008) - Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, is the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Secretary-General of both the Council of the European Union (EU) and the Western European Union (WEU). He was named Secretary General of the 10 permanent members of the Western European Union in November 1999. Solana is a physicist who later became a politician, serving as a minister in Spain for 13 years under Felipe González before serving as Secretary General of NATO from 1995 to 1999. Since October 1999, Javier Solana has served as the EU's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In 2004, Solana had been designated to become the EU's Minister for Foreign Affairs for when the European Constitution was to come into force in 2009, but it was not ratified and his position has been renamed under the Treaty of Lisbon. Here are Solana's e-mail responses to questions sent to him by this columnist: The EU (in its early version as a common market) came about as an attempt to bring a halt to hostilities among European countries, especially France and Germany. [Note how the free-trade process is now working for a North American Union] How relevant is this experience for the current Middle East situation, and what role could the EU play in facilitating similar developments?
How could the EU help Israeli and Arab companies pursue business joint ventures through the auspices of the European Union?
Do you believe there is interest from Arab business sectors in different countries to strengthen economic ties with Israel?
Do you as EU High Representative see it as part of your agenda to promote a Free Trade Area or other economic cooperation between Israel and its Arab neighbors?
The EU could afford to concentrate on first economic matters and then deeper integration thanks to the defense umbrella provided by the US during the cold war. Could the EU play a similar role today for the Middle East?
| Israel | Islam | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | 1st Seal |
France seeks more ambitious EU globalisation strategy
EurActiv.com
(April 17, 2008) - The EU's growth and
jobs strategy needs to be supplemented by a global arm if Europe
wants to remain competitive in the future, argues a new report for
the French government , which could become official policy when the
country assumes the EU Presidency on 1 July. Although the Lisbon
Strategy is delivering initial results, the EU needs to "quicken the
pace" and "adopt a global viewpoint" or it will be "out of the race
by 2020", argued Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, the author of the report, in
an interview with EurActiv France before the official presentation
of the report to the government on 15 April. Admitting that the
Lisbon Strategy has been "visionary" in giving Europe a "head start
over the rest of the world," the author criticises its failure to
achieve the intrinsic goal of reducing the competitiveness gap with
the US. Now Europe even risks being overtaken in certain sectors by
major emerging countries such as China, India or Brazil if it
chooses to maintain the current status quo, argues Cohen-Tanugi.
"Europe is once again behind in a world that is developing at
unprecedented speed," he says, resulting from its failure to
implement the promised reforms. A new 'Lisbon Plus'? The
report calls for the Lisbon Strategy to be renamed "Lisbon Plus" and
integrated into a broader "EuroWorld 2015 Strategy" which would
produce a "more comprehensive strategy" than the Lisbon Agenda.
While "Lisbon Plus" would become the EU's internal component of this
"strategic vision", the second pillar would rely on common external
policies, such as trade, agriculture or the internal market, to help
shape globalisation, according to the report. "The importance given
to external policies is intended to signal the start of a new phase
in the history of European unification in which Europe is no longer
centred on itself but on its relationship with the rest of the
world," the author claims, highlighting a "genuine paradigm shift".
"Competitiveness through innovation" The focus of Lisbon Plus
should be on "competitiveness through innovation," the report
suggests, linking the different economic, social and environmental
dimensions. Moreover, the author expresses his hope that the French
Presidency (to begin on 1 July) will stimulate the so-called
"knowledge triangle" (higher education, research and innovation),
enhancing the value of Europe's human capital and promoting a new
"green economy". "The real global challenge with which Europe is
confronted is to stay in the race, in terms of prosperity and
international influence, in a world that is destined to be dominated
by an America/Asia duopoly," says Cohen-Tanugi. "It is now up to the
French EU Presidency to start carrying through this new strategic
vision," the report concludes.
Israel, Palestinian talks raise hope for 2008 accord: Solana
EU Business
(April 8, 2008) - EU foreign policy
chief Javier Solana expressed hope Tuesday that Israel and the
Palestinians could reach a peace settlement this year, after their
leaders met for the first time in almost two months. "Politically,
an important meeting took place yesterday," he told members of the
European Parliament, a day after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
and Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas held direct talks in
Jerusalem. "I do think that we have still a chance to move the
process to a settlement before the end of year 2008," Solana said,
underlining: "I don't want to sound too optimistic, I want to sound
realistic." He said that "the situation in Gaza is more relaxed than
it used to be" and that he hoped a "period of quietness" would
descend on Gaza, with the help notably of Egypt. Israel has sealed
off Gaza from all but vital goods since Hamas seized power last
June, in a bid to halt rocket attacks from the territory and to put
pressure on the Islamist-run government. But Solana said the future
would become clearer in the summer. If "we are not able to move the
process in a dynamic manner by this period of time, maybe we'll have
to begin to think that the possibility of an agreement in the year
2008 will be further away," he said. Olmert and Abbas agreed Monday
"to continue with the goal of reaching an historic agreement by the
end of the year," an Israeli spokesman said, despite accusing each
other of failing to meet commitments under a peace roadmap.
Shell chief favours cross-border cooperation over competition to cut CO2
CNN Money
(April 7, 2008) - Royal Dutch Shell
Plc.'s (NYSE:RDS A) chief executive Jeroen van der Veer said the group
favours a scenario to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions which
promotes cross-border cooperation rather than countries rushing to
secure energy resources for themselves. Speaking at an event here, the
chief executive said coalitions should take on the challenges of
economic development, energy security and environmental pollution
through cross-border cooperation. Under the group's favoured
'Blueprints' scenario, innovation should occur at the local level, as
major cities develop links with industry to reduce local emissions, he
said. Added to that, national governments should introduce efficiency
standards, taxes and other policy instruments to improve the
environmental performance of buildings, vehicles and transport fuels.
'The Blueprints scenario will be realised only if policymakers agree on
a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy
efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power
generation; industry; transport and buildings,' he said. 'This will
require hard work and time is short'. Under the scenario, the group
assumes carbon dioxide (CO2) is captured at 90 per cent of all coal and
gas fired power plants in developed countries by 2050, plus at least 50
per cent in non-OECD countries. The chief executive said government
support is needed for carbon capture and storage (CCS) because the
system adds costs and yields no revenues. 'At least, companies should
earn carbon credits for the CO2 they capture and store,' he said. In
response, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he
supports the 'Blueprint' scenario in general terms. He said the
scenario is 'dramatic' in that it requires the cooperation of every
country in the world. 'The EU needs to act together rapidly in
the Blueprint type of model. A single policy is absolutely fundamental,'
Solana said. more...
EU foreign policy expected to enter 'new era' EU Observer (April 6, 2008) - The European Parliament is seeking to bolster its role in the bloc's common foreign and security policy (CFSP), with senior MEPs saying it is time for Europe to become a "player and not just a payer" on the world stage. Polish centre-right MEP and head of the foreign affairs committee, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, says that EU foreign is moving "from one era to another" with the new Lisbon Treaty, due to kick in next year. The proposed new EU foreign minister and diplomatic service as well as the possibility for a group of member states to move ahead in defence cooperation mean foreign policy is "one of the most innovative parts of the treaty." The fact that Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, will for the first time be present at the MEPs' annual debate on CFSP on Wednesday (4 June) is in itself a "turning point," said the Pole at a briefing on Tuesday. Euro-deputies will today debate a report that sets out principles for the EU's foreign policy - such as respect for human rights - calls for certain issues to be prioritised and says that the CFSP budget from now until 2013 is "insufficient." "Either we have to beef up foreign policy financially, or we have to rethink whether we really want to be a global player," said Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who next week will travel to Paris to discuss the issue with the incoming French EU presidency. "We ask why is nothing ready, prepared for the events that will happen if the treaty [comes into force], and we haven't had an answer," he said. "We are asking this question also: do you have any hidden reserves? What's your view? How to finance the new set up? No answer." Democratic oversight The report also calls for parliament to be given greater democratic oversight over the area, which to date has remained firmly the domain of member states. It suggests that the foreign minister "regularly" appear before MEPs and that the parliament be "fully consulted" on who the foreign minister should be, as well as what the diplomatic service should look like. Deputies are also urging the future EU foreign minister to inform the parliament before any "common actions" are taken. "If we start sending soldiers into danger, it is up to the parliament to give its blessing," says Mr Saryusz-Wolski. The report also takes a more long-term view of the future of common foreign and security policy, with the head of the foreign affairs committee urging the bloc to stop acting like a "fire brigade" rushing to put out emergencies here and there and to think more of the "long-term strategic interests of the Union…20–30 years ahead." EU army Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who believes the union will
gradually develop its own army, says it is no longer enough that the
bloc exercises its traditional role as a soft power. "Too often we spend
money without any conditions being attached. I am against Europe being a
payer and not a player," he said. But he admits there is a "fear" in
the parliament that the foreign minister and the new permanent president
of the European Council may add to the trill of voices of on the EU
stage all claiming to speak for Europe and may not turn Europe into a
player. The potential for overlap between the two posts – starting
in January - and for rivalry with the European Commission president is
high. Debates on the posts are expected to start in earnest in autumn
and be wrapped up by December. In time-honoured EU fashion, balancing
who wins the posts will have to involve the consideration of a series of
factors, including nationality, whether a candidate comes from an old or
new member state or a small or big member state, and the person's
political hue.
Brown to host world leaders at 'progressive' summit
AFP
(April 4, 2008) - Prime Minister Gordon
Brown is to host a summit of some 20 world leaders and key figures to
discuss "progressive" governance, after a conference on the issue in
London Friday, officials said. South African President Thabo Mbeki,
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and former US president Bill
Clinton are among participants at the summit of broadly centre-left
leaders outside London on Saturday, said Downing Street. EU foreign
policy chief Javier Solana, World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy
and national leaders from Australia, Chile, Cyprus, Ghana, Italy,
Liberia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Norway and Slovakia are also scheduled,
according to a participants' list released by Downing Street. In a
speech pre-released on video ahead of the conference Friday, and the
"progressive governance summit" on Saturday, Brown called for the
development of a form of "globalisation that is fair and sustainable for
all." The conference brings together some 300 leaders, officials and
experts in a location outside London which has so far not been
disclosed. When the summit was last held in Britain it was in Bagshot,
south of the capital. The conference is organised by the Policy Network,
which describes itself as "an international thinktank dedicated to
promoting progressive policies and the renewal of social democracy." The
idea for the summit was launched by Clinton in 1999, when he was still
in office. The first one was held in Berlin in 2000, before Stockholm in
2002, London in 2003, Budapest in 2004 and Johannesburg in 2005. Brown
will host it after returning from Bucharest, where he has been attending
the NATO summit. The 2008 meeting will focus on globalisation, climate
change and poverty. "Achieving an inclusive globalisation, one that can
combine economic dynamism with social justice in a sustainable way for
all, is the key political challenge facing this generation of leaders
and politicians," Brown said in a video posted on the website of the
Guardian daily. EU must boost military capabilities in face of climate change EU Observer (March 10, 2008) - The European Union should boost its civil and military capacities to respond to "serious security risks" resulting from catastrophic climate change expected this century, according to a joint report from the EU's two top foreign policy officials. The EU and member states should further build up their capabilities with regards to civil protection, and civil and military crisis management and disaster response instruments to react to the security risks posed by climate change, reads a paper by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner. The seven-page paper, to be submitted to EU leaders at a summit in Brussels later this week, warns of a range of stark scenarios, in particular the threat of an intensified "scramble for resources" – both energy and mineral – in the Arctic "as previously inaccessible regions open up." The rapid melting of the polar ice caps is seen as a great opportunity for far-northern economies, as the "increased accessibility of the enormous hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic region" mean new waterways and international trade routes open for business where once there was only ice. But this does not come without certain hazards. The report highlights the threat to Europe from Russia. "The resulting new strategic interests are illustrated by the recent planting of the Russian flag under the North Pole." Eco-migration: Additionally, the report suggests that Europe will come under increasing pressure from so-called eco-migration. "Europe must expect substantially increased migratory pressure," says the report. "Populations that already suffer from poor health conditions, unemployment or social exclusion are rendered more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, which could amplify or trigger migration within and between countries." The document notes that the UN has predicted that there will be millions of environmental migrants by 2020, and warns that the pressure will not only come from beyond Europe's borders, but that climate change "is also likely to exacerbate internal migration with significant security consequences." Other worries include water shortages and the consequent food price increases that result from lower crop yields, all of which could lead to civil unrest, particularly in the Middle East. This in turn puts pressure on energy security. more...| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | International Herald Tribune (March 10, 2008) - For months, for years, we have been deeply distressed, yet powerless, with respect to the tragedy in Darfur. Two weeks ago, despite the troubles in Chad, Europe gave itself the means to protect the victims and to rebuild their villages in eastern Chad. At the behest of France, and thanks to the efforts of our European partners, the European Union - implementing a unanimous UN Security Council resolution - launched its Eufor operation. There will finally be help and comfort for women - who up to now were raped or killed as soon as they left their camps - and for hungry children. This is no small achievement. I've just returned from Goz Beida in eastern Chad, and I will never forget the enthusiastic welcome the European soldiers received from displaced persons and refugees. The launch of an autonomous EU operation in Africa, led by an Irish general with a Polish deputy and bringing together troops from some 15 countries, illustrates how far we have come in building a European defense. It is now desired and supported by nations that until very recently remained skeptical. We have been working to build a European defense since the 1990s. The Europeans needed military means commensurate with their political ambitions. How could we hope to influence a crisis or negotiations without the means to back up our words? "The Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises," concluded the Franco-British Saint-Malo Summit in 1998. The European Security and Defense Policy inscribed in the Lisbon Treaty is finally allowing us to meet this need. In the future, if we wish to do so, the EU will be able to fully assume its role on the international scene. No one can deny that this is a major asset for peace in the world. The approximately 15 civilian and military operations that Europe has already conducted since 2003 in the Balkans, in Africa, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and as far away as Indonesia, largely attest to this. In each of them, the EU was guided by a single ideal: to save lives, to avert war, and to work for reconstruction and reconciliation when the international community had been unable to prevent conflict. Each time we did so with a concern for effectiveness and pragmatism, with or without direct support from the Americans. Our vision of relations between the EU and NATO is that they should be founded on this same pragmatism. In some cases, the EU has used its own military means, as it did in Congo in the past and is doing in Chad and the Central African Republic today. In other situations - Bosnia, for example - the EU benefited from NATO support. Now, in a growing number of crises, the EU and NATO are deployed together on the ground. That is sufficient to show that there is not competition but rather complementarity between the two organizations. How could it be otherwise when 21 of the 26 NATO allies are members of the EU, and 21 of the 27 EU partners are members of NATO? Moreover, it is these individual nations that decide on a case-by-case basis what is the most appropriate framework for their actions. And it is they who supply troops and equipment - there is no EU army, just as there is no NATO army. And all the parties remain free. This very simple truth means that European defense relies on the commitment of each state and that all may do their share. It presumes that all European countries make the effort to ensure that the security of all is no longer guaranteed or financed by only a few. As France is one of the largest contributors to both EU and NATO operations, it is in our interest, even more than in that of others, for the two organizations to work more effectively together. The positions expressed by President Nicolas Sarkozy last fall are clear: A tireless promoter of European defense, France is at the same time a key member of NATO, whose forces it has commanded on several occasions, particularly in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Our new approach to NATO is not an alignment but rather a strengthened European dynamic. Some claim that the United States remains opposed to a European defense, as it would weaken NATO. This claim no longer appears to be true. Recent statements by high-ranking U.S. officials in Paris and London indicate that Washington - aware of the challenges we must face together - acknowledges the necessary complementarity of the two organizations. Trust is built over time and through reciprocity: Our openness to the United States and American support for the EU autonomously assuming its responsibilities shall advance hand in hand. European defense and Europe's anchorage in the Atlantic alliance are two facets of the same defense and security policy, pursued in the name of the values we share. The EU presidency, which France will assume on July 1, must allow us to open new perspectives in the field of security and defense, to fight against terrorism and proliferation more effectively, to reinforce our energy security, and to prepare the implementation of permanent structured cooperation open to all 27 member states, as made possible by the new treaty. We will resolutely strive toward that aim. We are already preparing ourselves under the presidency of our Slovenian friends. This progress will give full meaning to the renewal of our relationship with NATO. | EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder | 1st Seal | America | Revelation 17:12,13The prophesied war on the saints is coming and I really feel we are watching the international cooperation now whose power will be given over the the man of sin and the head and voice of Europe. To those that don't understand the ultimate end of this, it may sound good because who doesn't want peace and security? But who will be in charge of this collection of cooperating armies and who will become the enemy of the state? As Richard Peterson pointed out in his posting on the Alliance of Civilizations,
President or
foreign minister - who should talk to Medvedev?
EU Observer (March
7, 2008) -
Listening to an analysis of the Russian presidential election, I
heard the interviewer ask who would now be handling Russian foreign
policy? Would it be the President - the newly elected ex-Chairman of
the Russian state energy giant, Gazprom, whose name was lost to
Hillary Clinton the other day - Mr Dmitry Medvedev? Or would it be
that prime ministerial power behind, under, over, around, and beside
the President's throne - Mr Vladimir Putin? The government spokesman
muttered something safe, as spokesmen are wont to do. Under our
constitution, he said, the President deals with foreign policy while
the Prime Minister (that is Mr Putin) deals with domestic matters.
We shall have to wait to see what happens in practice but only the
bright and naively optimistic can surely imagine that the Putin
finger will, not only be in every domestic pie, but on every foreign
policy trigger as well. ...But before we Europeans shake our heads
and tut-tut (and after all the congratulations to Mr Mevedev and the
hoping that his election will usher in a new, warm period in
EU-Russian relations, there is a very great deal to tut-tut at in
Russian politics and not only Mr Putin's flagrant warping of the
Constitution and suppression of all viable opposition) we could well
turn the question back on ourselves and ponder who, in practice,
will actually be responsible for foreign policy, on our side of the
fence so to speak, in the post-Lisbon Treaty World of 2009? Who
will have the job of dealing face to face with Mr Putin and Mr
Mevedev over energy security, border control, trade, missile sites,
nuclear installations, climate change, extradition matters,
exploitation of the Arctic, the Caucasus, Serbia, the United
Nations, and so on? Who will handle the relations between democratic
Europe and despotic Russia; between two nuclear armed continents
that share a long border? Will it be Europe's Foreign Minister
designate under the Lisbon Treaty, Or will it be the President of
the European Council? ...In the absence of a coherent European
foreign policy (look how split Europe is over Kosovo, over US
missile defence bases, over gas pipelines) Russia naturally finds it
easy to play one country off against another. Nothing unites us
quite so well as our disunity. But a strong European foreign
policy will require leadership and diplomatic skills of the highest
order, both to secure the policy at home and then to put it across
abroad. As the Constitutional Convention of 2003 foresaw,
Europe does need someone to speak with both personal and
constitutional authority on Foreign Affairs. Should this person
be the (so-not-called) Foreign Minister - or should it be Europe's
President, the man or woman whose task it will be to coral the
member states, pushing the agenda along in the manner of someone
first among equals? At present, of course, there is no EU
President as such. The Lisbon Treaty creates a new and, as yet,
undefined post. Foreign Policy is split between the High
Representative (Mr Solana) who works for the member states, and the
External Relations Commissioner, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner. These two
posts will be combined into something which, in practice, will be a
quasi-Secretary of State role. Mr Solana (for he is the favourite)
will then have a foot in both camps. But a Secretary
of State is a Secretary of State. He or she acts on behalf of the
head of state. Now the European Union is not a state; it is a
partnership of states that wish, ostensibly, to align their foreign
policies to achieve goals and influence which they could not expect
to achieve, in this global world, by acting alone. But if the
partnership is to find a voice and then speak with authority, it
needs a strong President. ...Vladimir Putin may have been prepared
to bend the constitution and engage in practices so anti-democratic
that election observers feel they cannot operate in Russia, so great
are the restrictions placed upon them. But Europeans beware! Our own
democratic credentials at the Continental level are wafer thin; some
would say non-existent. Europe's President will be appointed; not
even indirectly elected. As will be the Foreign Minister. Are
their democratic credentials, therefore, any better than those of Mr
Medvedev and Mr Putin? If our enlarged Europe is to pursue a united
and successful foreign policy, she must not fall into the Russian
trap of becoming another ‘sovereign democracy.' Criticising Russia
here may be another case of pots and kettles. more...
It's the end of Britain as we know it
Christian Science Monitor
(March
24, 2008) - The Lisbon Treaty spells the end of a
sovereign Britain. You might want to take that vacation in England
just as soon as you can – before its 1,000-year run as a sovereign
nation comes to an end. This winter, 27 nations of the European Union
(EU) signed the Treaty of Lisbon. You may think, "Innocuous enough," as
Portuguese-inspired visions of the Tagus River and chicken piri-piri
swirl before your eyes. But for England (Britain, actually) the Treaty
of Lisbon isn't that appetizing. That's because, if ratified, it will
become the decisive act in this creation of a federal European
superstate with its capital in Brussels. Britain would become a
province and its "Mother of Parliaments," a regional assembly. And
that's no small humiliation for a country that gave the world English
and saved Western civilization in the Battle of Britain in 1940. The
Eurocrat elite in Brussels might not admit it, but the Treaty of Lisbon
is essentially a constitution for a "country" called Europe. More
bluntly, it's a cynical repackaging of the EU Constitution rejected by
French and Dutch voters in 2005. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair
promised to put the EU Constitution to the British people in a
referendum. But his successor, Gordon Brown, has reneged on that
promise. He insists that the Treaty of Lisbon is shorn of all
constitutional content and that it preserves key aspects of British
sovereignty. On March 11, the bill to ratify the treaty cleared the
House of Commons. And now the Brown government is poised to win passage
in the House of Lords, too. But British resistance is stirring. In a
recent series of mini referendums, almost 90 percent of voters gave the
Lisbon Treaty an emphatic thumbs down and demanded a nationwide
referendum. If all 27 nations ratify the treaty this year, it will
begin to come into effect on Jan. 1, 2009. The British will then be
expected to transfer loyalty and affection to the EU and devote
themselves increasingly to its wellbeing. With its flag, anthem,
currency, institutions, regulations, and directives, the EU has long
been indistinguishable from a nation-state-in-waiting. Now the
Lisbon Treaty gives it those requisites of nationhood it's always
lacked: a president, a foreign minister (and diplomatic corps), a
powerful new interior department, a public prosecutor and full
treaty-making powers. Add to those its common system of criminal
justice, an embryonic federal police force, and the faintly
sinister-sounding European Gendarmerie Force, and what this union
becomes is a monolithic state with great power pretensions. Most
alarmingly, though, is that the Lisbon Treaty can be extended
indefinitely without recourse to further treaties or referendums.
That 27 European nations are on the verge of being reconstituted as a
federal European superstate is substantially the achievement of the
fanatical French integrationist Jean Monnet, for whom the nation state
was anathema. When British Prime Minister Edward Heath took Britain
into the Common Market in 1973, the country thought it was entering a
free-trade agreement. It hoped membership would sprinkle some
European stardust on Britain's shipwrecked economy. Mr. Heath, a
passionate Europhile, assured the country that membership would not
entail any sacrifice of "independence and sovereignty." Like Europe's
fervent integrationists, whose plans for political union had always been
disguised as increasingly beneficial economic integration, Heath
maintained the fiction that he had simply joined a trading bloc.
Britain had been a highly successful nation state and global power. Now,
it seemed, she needed Europe to reverse a relentless decline. Thus
when the British were asked to decide on continued membership in the
Common Market in a 1975 referendum, almost 70 percent voted to stay in.
The "Yes" campaign swept to victory on a platform of jobs, prosperity,
and peace. But the implications for the weakening of national
sovereignty went unheeded. Few recalled that in 1961 the
Anti-Common Market League had warned that signing the Treaty of Rome
(which created the Common Market) "would mean a permanent, irrevocable
loss of sovereignty and independence" and that Britain's affairs "would
increasingly be administered by supranational bodies … instead of by our
own elected representatives." Surrendering to supranational rule is
hard for Britain given its celebrated past. Its European neighbors, by
contrast, their histories indelibly stained by tyranny, military defeat,
and imperial barbarity, seem eager to subsume themselves in a
suffocating superstate. The Treaty of Lisbon crystallizes the EU's core
belief that nation states are every bit as defunct as Stone Age tribes.
In the case of Britain, though, it would curtail the freedom of action
and global vision of a nation whose people are far from convinced that
sovereign independence is a badge of shame. Britain could walk out of
the EU today simply by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. But
political courage of that order is in short supply. Perhaps only Queen
Elizabeth II can rescue her realm from the baleful Treaty of Lisbon. She
could veto it when it comes to her for royal assent and – sensationally
– declare that she's not prepared to see her proud, independent,
liberty-loving country swallowed up by an arrogant, authoritarian, and
unloved European superstate. She would be in excellent company. Queen
Anne refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708. And that was
only about a bunch of musket-toting rubes of doubtful loyalty. This is
about national survival.
EU's
Solana condemns Jerusalem attack
European
Jewish Press
(March
6, 2008) - European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana
condemned Thursday night a deadly attack on a yeshiva or Jewish
religious school in Jerusalem. "Javier Solana spoke tonight with the
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to condemn the terrorist that
killed at least eight students and injured many more, " a statement from
the EU Council said. Solana, who had talks in Israel earlier this week,
sent to Livni his condolences to the families of the victims and to the
Israeli authorities. A Palestinian terrorist entered the building of the
Merkaz Harav Yeshiva religious school in Jerusalem late Thursday and
started shooting, killing eight students and wounding 35. Security
services in Israel have been on alert for the past three weeks since
Israel was blamed by Hezbollah for the assassination in Baghdad of one
of its top commanders, Imad Mughniye. France also condemned the attack.
"France condemns in the strongest terms the horrible attack this evening
in a Talmudic school in west Jerusalem which has caused the death of
numerous civilians," Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said in a
statement. Kouchner called for "talks aimed at the creation of a
Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel".
Climate change poses 'security risk'
London Financial Times
(March 3, 2008) - Climate change poses
"serious security risks" and fighting it should be part of "preventive
security policy", according to the European Union's top diplomats,
writes Andrew Bounds in Brussels. The warning is contained in a paper
prepared for an EU summit this month by Javier Solana, the bloc's
foreign policy chief, and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, external relations
commissioner. The paper, seen by Financial Times Deutschland and the FT,
says increased natural disasters and shortages of water, food and other
resources in the developing world could affect European security. The
threat of water wars is particularly grave in the Middle East.
Two-thirds of the Arab world relies on external supplies. "Existing
tensions over access to water are almost certain to intensify in the
region, leading to further political instability with detrimental
implications for Europe's energy security and other interests. Water
supply in Israel might fall by 60 per cent over this century," the paper
says. It anticipates falling harvests in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Saudi
Arabia, creating instability there. "Climate change will fuel conflicts
over depleting resources, especially where access to those resources is
politicised," it says, citing the fighting in Darfur. It points to seven
threats, including disappearing islands and coastlines, increased
migration, a new scramble for resources in the Arctic and greater
competition for access to energy.
Gaza: EU Slovenian presidency condemns ‘disproportionate use of force’
by Israel European
Jewish Press
(March 2, 2008) - The European Union has
condemned on Sunday what it called the “disproportionate use of force"
by Israel in the Gaza Strip as the EU’s foreign policy chief, Javier
Solana is arriving in the region. In a statement, the EU’s Slovenian
presidency said: "The presidency condemns the recent disproportionate
use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) against Palestinian
population in Gaza and urges Israel to exercise maximum restraint and
refrain from all activities that endanger civilians." It added: "Such
activities are contrary to international law. The Presidency at the same
time reiterates condemnation of continued firing of rockets into Israeli
territory and calls for its immediate end." The statement was issued
after intense fighting in the Gaza Strip over the weekend in which
fifty-four Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers were killed. Senior
Israeli political and military leaders have been mulling a major ground
operation in the Gaza Strip for months, as Hamas militants launched
daily rocket and mortar attacks on southern Israel. The EU presidency
said "it rejects collective punishment of the people of Gaza." "We are
deeply worried about the suffering of the civilian population on Israeli
and Palestinian side. We have stated too many times that both
Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace and security,”
the statement said...
Javier Solana,
the European Union foreign policy chief, has started on Sunday a 3-day
visit to Israel, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon. In Israel,
Solana will meet on Monday with Israeli President Shimon Peres, Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defence Minister
Ehud Barak. On Tuesday, the EU official will travel to the Palestinian
territories for meetings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Prime
Minister Salam Fayyad, Ahmed Ali Mohammed Qurei, chairman of the
Palestinian negotiating team, and Saeb Erekat, head of the negotiations
affairs department. According to his cabinet, Solana will stress the
importance of keeping the Annapolis peace process on track and underline
the EU's commitment to this process and its support for the parties.
He will also stress the EU's readiness to help bring about and implement
a solution to the situation in Gaza. more... Europe In The World: The Next Steps Cyril Foster Lecture: Javier Solana (February 28, 2008) - It is a special honor to give this year's Cyril Foster lecture. Cyril Foster, I understand, was a special character. A retired owner of a shop selling sweets, who lived and died in a caravan. He left the remains of his estate to this University [Oxford], stating that his money be used to promote peace with an annual lecture. This speech had to focus on "the elimination of war and better understanding of the nations of the world." The commitment of ordinary people like Cyril Foster to international peace offers an important message to those involved in daily diplomacy. Our responsibility is not just to defend the national interest but to put this in context of wider international interests. Gorbachev used the phrase "all-human values." This may sound foreign to use. But I know what he was talking about. Since we are gathered in the Examination Schools, I am conscious I had better try to answer the exam questions that have been set. Why should the European Union play a global role? What have we learned in recent years? And what are the next steps? In science, as in politics, one has to make the case. It cannot be assumed. So what is the case for a credible European Union foreign policy? Broadly speaking, I see two logics: First, and perhaps most familiar, is the logic of effectiveness. It has become a cliché to say that the world around us is changing fast. Trite, perhaps, but no less true. Complexity and uncertainty are core features of the international landscape. The boundaries of national and international politics are blurring. Old templates do not enable us to make sense of today's new threats, new issues and new powers. Meanwhile, many of the old problems from the rubble of past empires endure. In addition, power is shifting away. Both within political systems where markets, NGOs, media and individuals are increasingly powerful. But also between political systems: from the West to East, from North to South. It is clear, or it should be, that in the face of these broad trends, national cards have only limited reach. These days, if you want to solve problems, you must bring together broad constellations of international actors. This applies to all governments around the world. But especially to Europe: a group of medium-sized countries that have had out-sized influence on the world. And whose power base, in relative demographic and economic terms, is eroding. These days politics, like business, is increasingly taking place on a continental or even global scale. It is interesting that sometimes our publics and companies seem ahead of governments in realising this. So the first reason has to do with the changes in the world around us. Effectiveness requires us to group together. On top of the external rationale, there is also an internal, specific European one. For a credible European foreign policy should also be seen as the logical extension of the origins of the European project. With six words, the French poet Paul Valéry captured the European condition in 1945: 'We hope vaguely, we dread precisely.' It was only after Europe had experienced the horrors of the 20th century that people were ready to try a radical new idea: peace through openness; integration based on strong institutions and laws; a paradigm change whereby the strength of one's neighbour was no longer seen as a threat but as an asset. European integration, together with NATO, has been essential for this fantastic success. No one under 60 has experienced a general European war. Historically speaking, this is not the "normal" condition for our continent. Then there is enlargement, through which we have expanded the zone of peace, stability and law. In the European Union we practice system change: it is voluntary, peaceful and extraordinarily successful. From the original six t 27 member-states today. More than 500 million people living under a Community of law. Yes, all this has required a sharing of powers. Some people believe that sharing power means there is less of it when you share it. On the contrary, there is more. Michael Heseltine once expressed this point with a good phrase: "A man alone in the desert is sovereign. He is also powerless." By being members of the European Union, countries regain the capacity to address problems that, on their own, they would have no hope of solving. In other words, the rationale for European integration extends far beyond "no more war." Although that remains a success we should not belittle. So the twin logics are: First effectiveness driven by external forces. And second, extending the internal success of the European project. From peace on our continent to promoting peace in the world. In addition, the internal and external logics are linked. For the nature of the integration project has influenced the kind of foreign policy we are trying to shape. Internally, it has been all about taming the passion of states and spreading the rule of law. To make power lawful and the law powerful. That is the way we started and succeeded inside Europe. And that is how we try to operate outside. Domestically, people are more free if they live under the rule of law than if they live in anarchy. So rules make people free and secure. In the same way, states have more control over their destiny if they can establish a framework of rules and operate together. All this explains our support for strong institutions and rules. From the UN to the WTO to the African Union or the OSCE. But also on specific issues: from human rights, to non-proliferation, to climate change. Mind you, all this is not some naïve do-goodism. We know that all of us, including the strongest, benefit from having a system of rules. And we know that rules need to be enforced. Above all, we know that promoting peace, law and institutions, requires taking risks. Politically and with people on the ground. That is precisely what we have done. Since 2003 we have deployed 18 operations on three continents. From classic peace-keeping, to border monitoring, to security sector, police or judicial reform. In recent years, around 10,000 people have been deployed in EU operations. These operations are mostly small in size. But conceptually they are quite sophisticated. Mixing military with civilian instruments; in support of a political strategy... What about the third part of the exam question, the
"next steps?" If we are serious about a more effective European foreign
policy, there are many things we have to do. Let me mention just three.
Firstly, we need more capabilities for crisis management. Plus we
need a greater willingness to use the ones we have. It is striking that,
after we have agreed together to deploy missions in Afghanistan or Chad
or elsewhere, the force generation takes longer than it should. By being
smarter in how we spend on defence, we can get more usable equipment and
capabilities. In similar vein, we should expand the number of rapidly
deployable and adequately trained civilians. Sometimes mobilising
civilians is even harder than military, since they do not wait in
barracks to be called to duty. Secondly, when we agree by
consensus on what to do, we need greater efficiency in translating that
into effective action on the ground. The
Lisbon Treaty will help very much. It is right that
consensus remains required for decision-making in foreign policy. But
once we have taken decisions, we should be able to implement them faster
and more effectively. Thirdly, and most difficult: we need to
think differently about foreign policy as such. Foreign policy these
days should not be just about diplomats, soldiers and development
workers. And about how we can bring these "tribes" better together -
although doing so is necessary. Modern foreign policy should be broader
and involve wider sets of people. From those working on energy and
climate change to migration and asylum to international economics.
Perhaps I could make the same point somewhat differently. If the
European Union gets its act together on energy, climate change and
migration, we will have created big building blocks for a foreign policy
fit for the 21st century. more...
France: Sarkozy wins vote on EU treaty with help of Socialist Party
World Socialist Website
(February 16,
2008) - President Nicolas Sarkozy has finally succeeded in
imposing the Lisbon Treaty on the French population, with critical
assistance from the Socialist Party. The treaty was approved by the
National Assembly on February 7 by a vote of 336 to 52. A majority of
Socialist Party deputies voted in favour or were absent from the vote.
The treaty is a revised version of the European Constitution, which was
decisively rejected by French and Dutch voters in popular referendums in
2005 because it embodied the free-market economics required by European
capitalism. Although the Socialist Party (SP) and its ally in the
National Assembly, the French Communist Party (PCF), did not have enough
members to vote down the treaty, three days earlier they had the
opportunity to require the government to put the issue before the French
people in another referendum before it could be ratified by parliament.
The acceptance of the treaty necessitated a modification of the French
constitution, which requires a three-fifths majority vote of the
Congress (the joint meeting of the National Assembly and the Senate at
the Palace of Versailles), the only body empowered to change the
constitution. The modification allowed the EU Treaty to be adopted
without a referendum. While the SP, along with the PCF, did have the
two-fifths representation that would have enabled them to prevent the
constitutional change, they chose not to do so. The ruling elites of
France and Europe feared that the French working class, in opposition to
Sarkozy’s dismantling of the welfare state and attacks on living
standards and democratic rights, would again scupper their plans. By
allowing Sarkozy to push through the Lisbon Treaty, the SP has
effectively given the go-ahead to the government to carry forward its
vast programme of “reforms.” Sarkozy appeared on television February 10
to express his relief that “a simplified treaty...was a solution that
allowed partisans and opponents of the [European] constitution to
surmount their differences.” In fact, the constitution and the Lisbon
Treaty are essentially identical. The architect of the constitution,
former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, has already described
the Lisbon Treaty as a “near perfect copy of the 2005 treaty.” Sleep well: Javier Solana and Company are Protecting you! Constance Cumbey (February 15, 2008) - Last year, this time, Javier Solana spoke in New York City to the Arthur Burns Foundation, a German-American journalist group. "Dear Javier" was introduced as the "face and voice of Europe" by the German Ambassador to the USA. It appears he celebrated Valentine's Day, once again, not with wife Concepcion, but in New York City, this time to celebrate the opening of a foundation designed to shred, if not obliterate, national sovereignty: "Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect." In his own imicable words:
But, who's going to
protect us from "Dear Javier" and the "Global Centre"?
For the benefit of you doubting Solana's global influence Constance Cumbey (February 13, 2008) - To my readers: There have been some doubters of Javier Solana's global influence, particularly as he currently appears to be hiding behind upcoming 6 month EU presidency holders such as Nicholas Sarkozy and/or Angela Merkel. I thought you might want to review this release coming from his own office last March 2007. It was about a global governance speech he had just delivered to launch a new "global governance" project with the enthusiastic cooperation of many powerful people in the USA. Nearly one year later, I wonder how that "global governance" project is coming? Stay tuned!
Javier SOLANA, EU High Representative for the
CFSP, launched a research initiative on global security at the Brookings
Institution, Washington.
Javier SOLANA, EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and
Security Policy (CFSP), today delivered an introductory lecture to
launch a research initiative on global security at the US think tank the
Brookings Institution in Washington. Mr Solana underlined the good
relations between the EU and the US. In a broader context, as complex
security challenges defy traditional approaches, Mr
Solana suggested that, instead of "ad hoc" international cooperation, a
universal system to address complex security challenges was needed.
"Globalization has unleashed forces that governments can neither stop
nor control", Mr Solana said. Citing terrorism, non-proliferation,
climate change, epidemics and failed states as problems that could not
be solved by single governments alone, Mr Solana called for a
revitalization of international cooperation by finding ways "to share
power and think about new power". (Emphasis added) Enemy of the Civilization A Time, Times, and Half A Time (February 12, 2008) - Shared Security is the doctrine that a person living in one part of the world has responsibility for the security and well being of a person living in other parts of the world. For example, a person living in Mexico shares responsibility for the well being of a person living in Pakistan and so forth. Shared Security incorporates the doctrines of EU and UN-architected human security and Canadian-architected Responsibility to Protect. These doctrines are designed to eradicate and prevent extreme poverty, hunger, abuses against women and children, genocide, terrorism, insecurities caused by economic collapse and/or state failure, etc. The Shared Security doctrine is the security model for the new global government. In a globalized world where national borders shall become obsolete, nations are expected to fundamentally shift their security strategies. Strategies which once were concerned primarily with forces of external aggression are now being called upon to focus on threats from within. The issues Shared Security addresses are legitimate and should concern all of us—so why should we oppose it? As one becomes familiar with the global governance leadership one learns to read further to, as Paul Harvey says, “get the rest of the story”. Having read calls for sustainable development following drastic population reduction has left me skeptical that good will is the guiding principle. Underlying Shared Security is a fully-developed interlocking security model called CIMIC, i.e., Civilian-Military Cooperation. To understand CIMIC, let’s further examine the components which make up Shared Security. Starting with the Canadian-architected “Responsibility to Protect”, this doctrine has become the cornerstone of the United Nations’ reform and security architecture. The Report of the International Conference "The EU, the US and the Reform of the United Nations: Challenges and Perspectives reveals that “the most significant conceptual shift occurred through the linking of the notions of sovereignty with that of responsibility. Responsibility is not only a virtue to be promoted to achieve international security; it is also a condition necessary to exercise full sovereignty. For the High Level Panel States are means, not ends per se. The “responsibility to protect” populations from atrocities and gross human rights violations shared between states and international institutions, becomes the new organizing concept for the new international security system. A number of participants shared the view that when states are unable or unwilling to perform these functions, the international community must intervene, even with the use of force when necessary.” Responsibility to Protect is understandable where nations are called upon to respond to state aggression and genocide, but language exists which is vulnerable to broad interpretation and abuse. In my previous blog post I presented some of the global governance documents which target political dissent and monotheistic religious doctrines as “extremist” ideologies which lend themselves to violent radicalization. Interpretations of religious texts which do not conform to the Alliance of Civilizations’ guidelines are said to cause social exclusion and violate others’ human rights. (It escapes their attention that syncretism of the world |
This page may take some time to load. For
size reasons I have archived topics by year: |