The European Parliament is going to vote in plenary today on the EU-US PNR Agreement (you can watch the debate here - it's on now), which will permit the transfer of passenger data (including credit card, luggage and meal choice details) from airlines to US authorities when flying to the US. Rapporteur Sophie in 't Veld's report recommended that the agreement be rejected due to a lack of guarantees that US authorities won't use the data for purposes other than the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime, and because EU citizens will not have sufficient access to legal redress under the agreement.
However the LIBE Committee rejected this report and the EP is likely to accept the agreement, though the BBC reports that it may be by a thin majority. It seems that worries over the US bypassing the EU and making bilateral agreements with national governments and a sense that the EP has already made at least some display of strength over forcing a renegotiation have fed into the desire to vote for the agreement.
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Thursday, 19 April 2012
EU-US PNR vote today
Labels:
airport security,
data protection,
foreign policy,
human rights,
PNR,
US
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
And the Special Representative for Bosnia is...
Ashton may reshuffle the deck of EU Special Representatives now that the Commission delegations are being upgraded to embassies around the world. This is entirely rational and a good move, even if it does mean, as ever, another round of backstage member state maneovering on who gets what post. In the end, it won't make sense to have SRs when the EEAS (European External Action Service) is in place and can do the job just as well. Having SRs for regions and attached to international and supranational organisations (African Union, Balkans, etc) is a good idea, since it would permit an overall approach to regions and promote good contacts and deep relationships between the EU and other regional organisations.
But one point of caution. Paddy Ashdown is being talked about as a possible SR for the Balkans. There is some opposition to his possible appointment on the basis that there shouldn't be too many UK nationals at the top in the EEAS, but there's no denying that he has experience in the region, as he has served as the High Representative for the international community in Bosnia - a very powerful and sensitive role that is key to the state building and reconciliation in the country. But this post is still just as important to the peace process in Bosnia today, and stripping Inzko (the current HR/EUSR) of his EUSR status wouldn't be a good signal to the country when it faces elections this year.
Bosnia still has a long way to go on the path to becoming a country at peace with itself, and it will not help for the EU to take, or appear to take, a more "hands off" approach. This is Europe's back yard, and we have a duty to be fully engaged in the process. I don't think that a SR for the whole Western Balkans would be enough: the HR in BiH needs to be a link between Bosnia, the international community and the EU to work as effectively as possible, and Bosnia needs to have a solid and stable link to the rest of Europe.
But one point of caution. Paddy Ashdown is being talked about as a possible SR for the Balkans. There is some opposition to his possible appointment on the basis that there shouldn't be too many UK nationals at the top in the EEAS, but there's no denying that he has experience in the region, as he has served as the High Representative for the international community in Bosnia - a very powerful and sensitive role that is key to the state building and reconciliation in the country. But this post is still just as important to the peace process in Bosnia today, and stripping Inzko (the current HR/EUSR) of his EUSR status wouldn't be a good signal to the country when it faces elections this year.
Bosnia still has a long way to go on the path to becoming a country at peace with itself, and it will not help for the EU to take, or appear to take, a more "hands off" approach. This is Europe's back yard, and we have a duty to be fully engaged in the process. I don't think that a SR for the whole Western Balkans would be enough: the HR in BiH needs to be a link between Bosnia, the international community and the EU to work as effectively as possible, and Bosnia needs to have a solid and stable link to the rest of Europe.
Monday, 1 June 2009
South Ossetian Elections
Elections have just taken place in the breakaway republic of South Ossetia (which broke away from Georgia de facto a while ago but has recently been recognized by Russia, in payback for the Georgian war and the West (or most of the West's) recognition of Kosovo as an independent state). Rebel leader Eduard Kokoity is in a strong position now, with most of the parties in parliament either supportive or uncritical of the leader.
The EU has condemned the elections as illegitimate, as has the Georgian government naturally enough. But should the EU not take a more constructive role in the region? Backing Georgia may be more in our interests, but the problem won't be solved - whether by independence or reintegration - if the EU either doesn't engage or encourage a multilateral peace process. Isolated republics, dependent on great power patronage, will not work well for their citizens, and the current political alignment only encourages grandstanding by both sides from inside the political bunkers of their alliances. I'm not saying that the South Ossetian regime is good or bad - I suspect the later considering the apparent lack of a proper opposition - but the situation is worsened by the international political atmosphere, and it will be the same for the other breakaway republic.
The kind of approach needed to encourage détente would have to be skillful and effective - sadly an approach unlikely to be forthcoming from the EU in its current "lowest common demoninator" state.
The EU has condemned the elections as illegitimate, as has the Georgian government naturally enough. But should the EU not take a more constructive role in the region? Backing Georgia may be more in our interests, but the problem won't be solved - whether by independence or reintegration - if the EU either doesn't engage or encourage a multilateral peace process. Isolated republics, dependent on great power patronage, will not work well for their citizens, and the current political alignment only encourages grandstanding by both sides from inside the political bunkers of their alliances. I'm not saying that the South Ossetian regime is good or bad - I suspect the later considering the apparent lack of a proper opposition - but the situation is worsened by the international political atmosphere, and it will be the same for the other breakaway republic.
The kind of approach needed to encourage détente would have to be skillful and effective - sadly an approach unlikely to be forthcoming from the EU in its current "lowest common demoninator" state.
Labels:
EU,
foreign policy,
Russia,
South Ossetia
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Steinmeier calls for more disarmament at the start of Munich Security Conference
Walter Steinmeier, German Foreign Minister and SPD Chancellor candidate, has opened the international security conference in Munich calling for more disarmament of both conventional and nuclear weapons. (German; and a short English version).
He described the political situation in Russia and the US (with Obama and a Russian President not so attached to Cold War ideas) as "Das Fenster der Geschichte ist für eine Weile geöffnet" - a window of history has opened [for disarmament and security]. US Vice-President Joe Biden will address the conference later today, with a speech that's expected to set out the new Administration's foreign policy course. Hopefully it will include plans to open new arms control talks to put together a treaty to replace the expiring START 1 treaty.
Russia is in an interesting position at the moment. It's worsening economic condition makes any aggressive foreign policy (or one that might be perceived as aggressive) more risky. Putin, like Obama, has to fix the economy. Putin is still very popular in Russia, but the growing economy was the basis of his popularity, and a lot of his government's legitimacy, and now he is more open to criticism, if only indirectly - The Irish Times has an interesting article noting how it has become acceptable to criticise the government (as a whole) after Medvedev began to criticise the government for its response to the crisis.
Putin is still very much in control, but perhaps the power could slowly shift over time to Medvedev. The US and Europe may prefer to deal with the more liberal President rather than the Prime Minister, but this situation may make it even harder for outsiders to know who they should be talking to in order to "talk with Russia".
Arms control talks would be a good start to relations with Russia, and will probably be popular with the Russian government too. Hopefully any temptation (however remote) to sabre-rattle to distract people's attention from the economic crisis will be cancelled out in Moscow by the need not to frighten off business and investment.
He described the political situation in Russia and the US (with Obama and a Russian President not so attached to Cold War ideas) as "Das Fenster der Geschichte ist für eine Weile geöffnet" - a window of history has opened [for disarmament and security]. US Vice-President Joe Biden will address the conference later today, with a speech that's expected to set out the new Administration's foreign policy course. Hopefully it will include plans to open new arms control talks to put together a treaty to replace the expiring START 1 treaty.
Russia is in an interesting position at the moment. It's worsening economic condition makes any aggressive foreign policy (or one that might be perceived as aggressive) more risky. Putin, like Obama, has to fix the economy. Putin is still very popular in Russia, but the growing economy was the basis of his popularity, and a lot of his government's legitimacy, and now he is more open to criticism, if only indirectly - The Irish Times has an interesting article noting how it has become acceptable to criticise the government (as a whole) after Medvedev began to criticise the government for its response to the crisis.
Putin is still very much in control, but perhaps the power could slowly shift over time to Medvedev. The US and Europe may prefer to deal with the more liberal President rather than the Prime Minister, but this situation may make it even harder for outsiders to know who they should be talking to in order to "talk with Russia".
Arms control talks would be a good start to relations with Russia, and will probably be popular with the Russian government too. Hopefully any temptation (however remote) to sabre-rattle to distract people's attention from the economic crisis will be cancelled out in Moscow by the need not to frighten off business and investment.
Labels:
disarmament,
foreign policy,
Germany,
Iran,
Russia,
start,
US
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)