And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from president Barack Obama that private Ryan and his comrades should redeploy to Asia, where the action is going to be.
The strategy document Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense tells us that in keeping with this evolving strategic landscape, our (US) posture in Europe must also evolve (meaning far less men and weapons in Europe). This can hardly come as a surprise to even the most casual of news followers.
While both sides want to maintain the NATO alliance, this long expected move leaves European leaders naked with regard to the state of EU foreign, security and defence policy, especially their inability to even begin the construction of a common European defence.
Since a press statements on every mishap in the world seems to be the extent of EU foreign policy, perhaps the high representative Catherine Ashton could crank out a few lines to let the heads of state or government continue sleeping on the job(?)
Update 11 January 2012: Analysis from Reuters on the state of European thinking and action on common defence.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label Catherine Ashton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catherine Ashton. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 January 2012
Friday, 9 September 2011
EU military headquarters – CSDP permanent structured cooperation
The euroblogger Jon Worth - @jonworth on Twitter – made me notice the Telegraph article by Bruno Waterfield: 'Big Five' tell Baroness Ashton to bypass Britain over EU military HQ.
Jon also had the kindness to point out that my old blog post about the legal base for deeper military cooperation between willing member states turned up first on Google search: EU Treaty of Lisbon: Permanent structured cooperation (1 February 2008).
Permanent structured cooperation history
My blog post offers the drafting history of permanent structured cooperation within the EU framework at treaty level, without dramatics.
I can only marvel at the editorial style of The Telegraph, but I think that a few comments are in order after the government of the United Kingdom vetoed the establishment of the military HQ for the European Union. See EUobserver: UK snubs Ashton over EU military headquarters (19 July 2011).
CSDP aims
The common security and defence policy (CSDP) of the European Union is an integral part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP) (Article 42(1) TEU).
The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy. This will lead to a common defence when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides (Article 42(2) TEU).
There are still a few EU member states which describe themselves as neutral or non-aligned, there is the United Kingdom and perhaps a few other special cases.
CSDP permanent structured cooperation
Thus, the intergovernmental conference leading to the Treaty of Lisbon agreed on a formula to satisfy the countries with shared and higher ambitions in the military field.
If their military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and they have made more binding commitments to one another in the military area with a view to the most demanding missions, they shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the EU framework (Article 42(6) TEU).
Since the UK veto on the EU military headquarters prevents progress for the union as a whole, the advance group of willing countries has set in motion the procedure to establish permanent structured cooperation among themselves, according to the procedures outlined in Article 46 TEU and Protocol (No 10) on permanent structured cooperation established by Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union.
The British nationality of the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton, is totally irrelevant. It is her duty to act in accordance with the EU Treaties.
European defence, NATO and the UK
If I have understood correctly, the cash-strapped US administration is experiencing a severe case of imperial overreach, and they have clamoured for the Europeans to take responsibility for their common defence, while preserving the fundamental transatlantic bridge through the NATO alliance.
It is sad that the United Kingdom, with its military know-how and resources, is dead set against participation, so the willing countries have to proceed with what they have. One more EU core is in the making.
The EU military HQ issue is but a small step, but sooner or later it will hopefully lead to a common European defence, the long term aim of the Treaty on European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Jon also had the kindness to point out that my old blog post about the legal base for deeper military cooperation between willing member states turned up first on Google search: EU Treaty of Lisbon: Permanent structured cooperation (1 February 2008).
Permanent structured cooperation history
My blog post offers the drafting history of permanent structured cooperation within the EU framework at treaty level, without dramatics.
I can only marvel at the editorial style of The Telegraph, but I think that a few comments are in order after the government of the United Kingdom vetoed the establishment of the military HQ for the European Union. See EUobserver: UK snubs Ashton over EU military headquarters (19 July 2011).
CSDP aims
The common security and defence policy (CSDP) of the European Union is an integral part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP) (Article 42(1) TEU).
The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy. This will lead to a common defence when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides (Article 42(2) TEU).
There are still a few EU member states which describe themselves as neutral or non-aligned, there is the United Kingdom and perhaps a few other special cases.
CSDP permanent structured cooperation
Thus, the intergovernmental conference leading to the Treaty of Lisbon agreed on a formula to satisfy the countries with shared and higher ambitions in the military field.
If their military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and they have made more binding commitments to one another in the military area with a view to the most demanding missions, they shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the EU framework (Article 42(6) TEU).
Since the UK veto on the EU military headquarters prevents progress for the union as a whole, the advance group of willing countries has set in motion the procedure to establish permanent structured cooperation among themselves, according to the procedures outlined in Article 46 TEU and Protocol (No 10) on permanent structured cooperation established by Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union.
The British nationality of the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton, is totally irrelevant. It is her duty to act in accordance with the EU Treaties.
European defence, NATO and the UK
If I have understood correctly, the cash-strapped US administration is experiencing a severe case of imperial overreach, and they have clamoured for the Europeans to take responsibility for their common defence, while preserving the fundamental transatlantic bridge through the NATO alliance.
It is sad that the United Kingdom, with its military know-how and resources, is dead set against participation, so the willing countries have to proceed with what they have. One more EU core is in the making.
The EU military HQ issue is but a small step, but sooner or later it will hopefully lead to a common European defence, the long term aim of the Treaty on European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
EU statement on Gaza flotilla
Yesterday, 31 May 2010, the EU high representative Catherine Ashton issued a statement on behalf of the EU on the Israeli military operation against the flotilla heading for Gaza, but seized by the Israeli Defense Forces:
Open questions
The IDF has spread video footage of “pacifists” attacking Israeli commandos with cudgels and the like. The scenes are nasty and the consequences tragic, but who started the attack? Who gave Israel the authority to board and seize vessels on the high sea with military might? How would the state of Israel react to the attempted seizure of its own ships in international waters?
In my humble opinion, Ashton’s declaration leaves a number of additional questions open. These issues should be clarified as part of the ‘immediate, full and impartial inquiry into the events and the circumstances surrounding them’.
The EU regretted the loss of life, but did not deal with the legality of the military seizure of civilian (merchant) vessels, registered in NATO member states, in international waters.
The EU called the blockade of Gaza unacceptable and counterproductive, but it did not deal with the legality of the blockade on sea or land.
The EU did not question the legality of the seizure, transportation to Israel, detention and potential penalties of some 700 citizens from different countries.
The EU did not demand the immediate and unconditional release of the hijacked persons. (The EU only called for consular access and information, as each country would do if one of its citizens was caught in a foreign jurisdiction with a suitcase full of heroin.)
United Nations
The spiral of hate and violence is kept in motion by hotheads on various sides, but the United Nations offers an approximate view of reactions within the international community.
A note on the UN Security Council emergency meeting 31 May 2010 [update: new version published] presents available information about the boarding and offers an overview of UN positions as well as statements by state representatives.
As far as I could see, two countries condoned the sea blockade of Gaza: the United States (“delivery by sea was not appropriate”) and Israel (blockade and boarding legitimate).
Has Israel further undermined its long term security?
Ralf Grahn
The EU deeply regrets the loss of life during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the Flotilla sailing to Gaza and offers its condolences to the families of the victims. The EU condemns the use of violence that has produced a high number of victims among the members of the flotilla and demands an immediate, full and impartial inquiry into the events and the circumstances surrounding them.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains a source of grave concern. The EU does not accept the continued policy of closure. It is unacceptable and politically counterproductive. We need to urgently achieve a durable solution to the situation in Gaza.
The EU underlines its call for an immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from Gaza.
The EU calls on Israel to urgently provide Member States with consular access to and information about their citizens.
The EU calls upon all parties and relevant actors to prevent a further escalation of tensions and underlines the need to continue the proximity talks with a view to the resumption of direct negotiations.
Open questions
The IDF has spread video footage of “pacifists” attacking Israeli commandos with cudgels and the like. The scenes are nasty and the consequences tragic, but who started the attack? Who gave Israel the authority to board and seize vessels on the high sea with military might? How would the state of Israel react to the attempted seizure of its own ships in international waters?
In my humble opinion, Ashton’s declaration leaves a number of additional questions open. These issues should be clarified as part of the ‘immediate, full and impartial inquiry into the events and the circumstances surrounding them’.
The EU regretted the loss of life, but did not deal with the legality of the military seizure of civilian (merchant) vessels, registered in NATO member states, in international waters.
The EU called the blockade of Gaza unacceptable and counterproductive, but it did not deal with the legality of the blockade on sea or land.
The EU did not question the legality of the seizure, transportation to Israel, detention and potential penalties of some 700 citizens from different countries.
The EU did not demand the immediate and unconditional release of the hijacked persons. (The EU only called for consular access and information, as each country would do if one of its citizens was caught in a foreign jurisdiction with a suitcase full of heroin.)
United Nations
The spiral of hate and violence is kept in motion by hotheads on various sides, but the United Nations offers an approximate view of reactions within the international community.
A note on the UN Security Council emergency meeting 31 May 2010 [update: new version published] presents available information about the boarding and offers an overview of UN positions as well as statements by state representatives.
As far as I could see, two countries condoned the sea blockade of Gaza: the United States (“delivery by sea was not appropriate”) and Israel (blockade and boarding legitimate).
Has Israel further undermined its long term security?
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
