Obama doesn't love us anymore...

Obama won't be attending the upcoming EU-US summit in Madrid. Do you feel abandoned? Alone? Unloved?

Despite the talk this will generate, there's not really that much to say. Obama is a smart man, and if there's a point to attending, he will attend. We might wring our hands over the loss in status and perceived snubs, but at the end of the day if the EU doesn't prove itself to be a valid global actor, then it won't attract a global guest list to its summits. That the summit is in Madrid doesn't really matter (as Julien Frisch highlights), but it does indicate why Obama won't bother coming: the central institutions are loosing out to the member states.

The Economist has a very good article on the need for Ashton to assert herself against a Spanish rotating presidency meddling in EU foreign policy. If Ashton can't even slap down member states for floating policy ideas as policy fact, then what does that say for the credibility of the Lisbon institutions? Would you dial a number if the person at the end of the line is too afraid to speak?

In short, there's no point wringing our hands over this latest loss in prestige. We need to get to grips with where we want to go with our foreign policy (and on who will do what both in foreign policy and domestically), and how we're going to get there. Then others will be willing to talk to us about it.

America, the 28th Member State?

I had restrained myself when Obama gave his support to Turkish membership of the EU. Sure, it's diplomatically impolite, but I tried not to take much notice. However, while flicking around news channels, I saw a discussion on CNBC (which is about finance, so I've never watched it before) about Turkish-American relations and Turkish entry to the EU.

Verdict? Europe was being to stubborn and unreasonable - and there seemed to be an almost complete ignorance of what the EU actually is.

The question was [paraphrasing from memory] "now that Obama has pushed for Turkey to be admitted, or at least called for Turkey to be admitted, into the European Union, will that increase Turkey's chances of joining?". There was no reference made to the French or German reactions to Obama's - well, I'd like to call it a gaffe, but has there been any recognition to this outside of Europe?

Turkish membership was discussed purely as a way of "reaching out" to the Islamic world. I'm a big supporter of Turkish entry, but I wouldn't support it if it was just a gesture of "reaching out". It was never said, but the discussion and the questions gave me the sense that Europe was being obstructionist; Turkey was co-operating; would Europe risk endangering the success of Obama's reaching out?; can't Europe see how good it would be to reach out to Turkey and the Islamic world?

First of all, why is EU membership being spoken of as a US foreign policy tool? It seems so obvious that to point it out is almost idiotic, but it seems that it has to be done - the US is not an EU member. Though it would make more difference if I told them...

Second, membership is not a token gesture awarded to countries to make them feel better (in fact, how could an empty gesture make much difference in international diplomacy?): EU membership means a high degree of economic integration, along with elements of political and cultural integration (Turkey would probably make the "big 3" a "big 4"). Membership is a huge step, and it should only be granted when the candidate country is able and willing to take on the obligations as well as the rights - it's not something dreamt up to be used purely for some touchy-feely exercise of "reaching out".

And I'm surprised at this. I don't hold American journalism in particularly high esteem (why watch CNN when you can watch the news?), but America has been the source of a lot of literature on the EU/Europe, both academic and popular, and the American public generally reads more books on China, Europe, geopolitics, etc. than European publics. And you would think that a financial news programme would be aware of the workings of the EU, and how political decisions can impact on economic ones.

They did have a French political analyst, who just kept insisting that it was a "sensitive issue" in Europe, without explaining the significance of membership. Still, a casual knowledge of the EU would help if you're going to report on it. Must do better.

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.