Non-existent European policy. Facts confirm that the time has come for Europe to work on its foreign policy and military policy without reservation. Let me continue with the reflection that I started in EUROPE 10866. We are well aware that in the hottest region of the world - Syria and its surroundings - the positions of the EU member states continue to differ. France is calling ever more loudly for weapons to be given to the rebels. Austria is in the process of withdrawing its contingent in the UN force that is deployed in a buffer zone between Syria and Israel because the extension of the Syrian conflict endangers the safety of Austria's soldiers. And we all now know that the decision (if we can call it that) of the European foreign affairs ministers - allowing each country of the EU that deems it appropriate to distribute weapons to the rebel forces - will become effective from 1 August. A uniform EU attitude - be it in one direction or another - continues to be non-existent. Who would dare to speak of a common foreign policy?
Preparing for the December summit. Four EU countries - Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Lithuania - have issued a non-paper in favour of strengthening dialogue between the EU and NATO. It has been covered at length in our twice-weekly publication Europe Diplomacy and Defence (no 614). In the view of this non-paper, political and strategic dialogue - along with concrete cooperation between the EU and NATO - should be strengthened from four points of view: (i) permanent dialogue; (ii) cooperation, with a view to creating a joint Coordination Council when the time is right; (iii) extending the capacity of cooperation, adding new domains such as energy, for example; (iv) preparing crisis management, involving joint exercises. And cooperation could be extended - as part of civil-military interaction - to energy efficiency and security, to a transatlantic energy market, and to the protection of the environment.
Five other EU countries - Austria, Finland, Greece, Ireland and Slovenia - have produced a discussion paper on the civil dimension of crisis management, which calls for the December summit not to overlook the connection between the military and civilian, especially in border disputes.
These initiatives show that groups of member states (without explanation for their composition) are asking questions or putting suggestions together - with their sights already on the ad hoc European summit at the end of the year. Sometimes the member states do not agree - with each following its national policy (this is most evident in the case of the Syrian conflict). In other instances, having acted together, they question the validity of their action and try to get out of it.
The Afghanistan case. The most significant example of this is that of Afghanistan - where the resolve to put an end to the failure of Western intervention is taking shape. In an interview conducted last week, the EU special representative to Kabul, Vygaudas Usackas, stated: “Today, Afghans must be aware that there is no room for complacency. We have helped this country a great deal, and attention is now turning to Syria and the Middle East (…). Fatigue is setting in from these 11 years of conflict. What is more, Europe is experiencing financial difficulties…” Considerable funding is still planned for the next seven years, but with demanding political conditionality - transparent elections, fighting against corruption, respecting women's rights, foundations for economic development (89% of the Afghan budget depends on foreign aid!). Usackas also recalled that poppy growing remains the country's main agricultural resource. The EU will work with Afghanistan to eradicate the drug trafficking that results from this, and to set up alternative crops. Yet the conditional nature of future aid remains the basis.
The US and NATO programmes for withdrawal are equally explicit.
Nevertheless, events don't always correspond to intentions. Last week, the EU representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, had to deplore a bomb attack from a booby-trapped car in Kabul that left 15 dead and 40 injured - responsibility for the attack was claimed by Taliban rebels. The EU, and the US too, only aspires to getting out of this mess (and the cost of it)
Global reflection. The possibility of Ms Ashton going beyond the task of expressing Europe's regrets, or its indignation (depending on the case), in order to play an active role, brings us to the third part of this overview - the general reflection, which is currently under way at several different levels - on the future of the EU's foreign and military policy (which we call defence policy to be faithful to the principle that Europe can only take military initiatives in order to defend itself). This will be the third part of this overview.
(FR/transl.fl)