Clinton has met European NATO ministers in Brussels yesterday, but many more were invited, including Finland, Sweden and Switzerland - all three of which are neutral states (and Switzerland isn't even in the EU).
So why weren't Ireland and Austria invited?
(....It's a pity that the US will miss out on Irish expertise on Iran and Tehranian power structures...)
In other news, the Guardian has a interesting article on Kremlin power struggles. Kremlinology is alive and well.
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
No seat, no Sarkozy
EUobserver has reported that Sarkozy has threatened to boycott the April NATO conference (the 60th anniversary of NATO) - unless he gets to pick his own seat.
And to think he was held up as an example of what an energetic and statesmanlike politician can do at the helm of the EU!
Honestly, this is complete and utter childishness - while the article highlights Sarkozy's lack of English as an embarrassing factor, it is far worse that he so focused on the seating "issue" that he has forced NATO leaders into a compromise seating arrangement. I wonder what effect this will have on the "goodwill" that's supposed to result from the expected re-integration of France forces into the NATO command structure? There will be goodwill, but it is likely to be somewhat tarnished. It can hardly be a good strategy to throw tantrums - there's no other word for it - over insignificant seating arrangements. I can't understand how any of his officials can, apparently, feel so much embarrassment that he cannot speak enough English to engage in smalltalk with other leaders: linguistic ability doesn't automatically translate into statesmanlike qualities, even if it hampers forming relationships with other world leaders. Causing small but intense rows over seating arrangements, on the other hand, hardly helps in building relationships.
The French President Sarkozy seems to run purely on ego. It was mainly ego which drove his presidency - claims that Europe had "changed" him clearly have no basis outside the aim of flattering the EP - Europe just happened to be lucky that it worked to our advantage for 6 months (most of the time).
I do have some respect for him, though - he does try to put his plans into action and to come up with solutions, even if some of them are not fully thought through: a can-do attitude which would be more welcome in many places at the moment - yet it is difficult to have respect for him when he pulls these sort of stunts.
And to think he was held up as an example of what an energetic and statesmanlike politician can do at the helm of the EU!
Honestly, this is complete and utter childishness - while the article highlights Sarkozy's lack of English as an embarrassing factor, it is far worse that he so focused on the seating "issue" that he has forced NATO leaders into a compromise seating arrangement. I wonder what effect this will have on the "goodwill" that's supposed to result from the expected re-integration of France forces into the NATO command structure? There will be goodwill, but it is likely to be somewhat tarnished. It can hardly be a good strategy to throw tantrums - there's no other word for it - over insignificant seating arrangements. I can't understand how any of his officials can, apparently, feel so much embarrassment that he cannot speak enough English to engage in smalltalk with other leaders: linguistic ability doesn't automatically translate into statesmanlike qualities, even if it hampers forming relationships with other world leaders. Causing small but intense rows over seating arrangements, on the other hand, hardly helps in building relationships.
The French President Sarkozy seems to run purely on ego. It was mainly ego which drove his presidency - claims that Europe had "changed" him clearly have no basis outside the aim of flattering the EP - Europe just happened to be lucky that it worked to our advantage for 6 months (most of the time).
I do have some respect for him, though - he does try to put his plans into action and to come up with solutions, even if some of them are not fully thought through: a can-do attitude which would be more welcome in many places at the moment - yet it is difficult to have respect for him when he pulls these sort of stunts.
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Munich International Security Conference: Second Day
Joe Biden addressed the conference today (reported here in German; Tagesschau clip here; BBC report here). There wasn't much - or indeed anything - new about US policy that can be divined from his speech; it was mostly a restatement of Obama's previous announcements: more multilateralism, shift from Iraq to Afghanistan, closure of Guantanamo and the decision of whether or not to give the go-ahead to the anti-missile system in Eastern Europe to be based on the technological feasibility of the system.
More interesting is Angela Merkel's announced willingness to consider "tough sanctions" against Iran if Iran doesn't make any progress in negotiations (here, again in German). This could be a significant hardening of German attitudes to Iran, with which Germany has numerous business interests. However, we'll have to see how Germany defines a lack of progress and tough sanctions.
Jaap de Hoop, NATO General Secretary has again called for closer transatlantic ties, with an America more open to listening to the European states and European states more willing to help in Afghanistan. He also called for a more trusting relationship between NATO and Russia.
BBC news has also uncovered some very important Russian news.
More interesting is Angela Merkel's announced willingness to consider "tough sanctions" against Iran if Iran doesn't make any progress in negotiations (here, again in German). This could be a significant hardening of German attitudes to Iran, with which Germany has numerous business interests. However, we'll have to see how Germany defines a lack of progress and tough sanctions.
Jaap de Hoop, NATO General Secretary has again called for closer transatlantic ties, with an America more open to listening to the European states and European states more willing to help in Afghanistan. He also called for a more trusting relationship between NATO and Russia.
BBC news has also uncovered some very important Russian news.
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Should Afghan opium be bought by Western Governments?
Tony Barber at the Financial Times has a very interesting article on a possible NATO policy of buying all of Afghanistan's opium crop and using it for medicinal purposes. The idea is that this will reduce the drug trade and reduce the funding of organised crime and terrorist organisations through the drug trade.
However, I think a major weakness of such a policy would be that it (by itself) does nothing to encourage Afghan farmers to grow traditional crops; indeed switching to traditional crops while Western governments are buying your produce would be a risky move, as any farmer attempting this would be leaving a secure market to try one which might have a learning curve for the farmer (would many farmers be experienced with traditional crops? Do they grow a small amount themselves to feed their families?), and require building up new buyer-seller relationships in a market they are unfamiliar with.
Perhaps what Afghanistan needs is... some version of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy?
That probably sounds like a strange idea, but it would be a good way of creating a more attractive, more secure market for farmers to grow (return to growing?) traditional crops. It would be hard to place a similar burden in terms of prices on the Afghan people as Europeans are under, but a system of subsidy and (perhaps more controversial, especially for the EU) more secure market access for Afghan farmers to western economies could help create a solid agricultural base in Afghanistan. With population growth and global warming, there should be a good market for Afghan food which will help an emerging agriculture sector to survive in the market when the West reduces and then ends protection of Afghan farmers.
This could also encourage more Afghans to "buy into" the system, and be a way of reducing the influence and support for terrorist groups.
That said, I'm not an economist and I claim very little economic knowledge; this is just an idea.
However, I think a major weakness of such a policy would be that it (by itself) does nothing to encourage Afghan farmers to grow traditional crops; indeed switching to traditional crops while Western governments are buying your produce would be a risky move, as any farmer attempting this would be leaving a secure market to try one which might have a learning curve for the farmer (would many farmers be experienced with traditional crops? Do they grow a small amount themselves to feed their families?), and require building up new buyer-seller relationships in a market they are unfamiliar with.
Perhaps what Afghanistan needs is... some version of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy?
That probably sounds like a strange idea, but it would be a good way of creating a more attractive, more secure market for farmers to grow (return to growing?) traditional crops. It would be hard to place a similar burden in terms of prices on the Afghan people as Europeans are under, but a system of subsidy and (perhaps more controversial, especially for the EU) more secure market access for Afghan farmers to western economies could help create a solid agricultural base in Afghanistan. With population growth and global warming, there should be a good market for Afghan food which will help an emerging agriculture sector to survive in the market when the West reduces and then ends protection of Afghan farmers.
This could also encourage more Afghans to "buy into" the system, and be a way of reducing the influence and support for terrorist groups.
That said, I'm not an economist and I claim very little economic knowledge; this is just an idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)