Thursday April 28, 2005
Neighbouring Syria and Iran
- Posted by Rob (#1) on April 28, 2005 08:43 CEST
A lot of Europeans oppose the proposed constitutional treaty of the European Union because they think it will allow Turkey to enter the Union, not realising that Turkey could also enter without the treaty nor that the treaty itself does not guarantee or even significantly simplify its entry. However, article I-57 sub 1 does indeed create some Turkey-related concern for adopting the treaty:
The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
As usual with the treaty, this sounds very positive. But it might be very counter-productive to the interests of European citizens once Turkey joins the Union. Our neighbours would then include Syria and Iran, both notorious for a lack of democracy and severe violations of human rights. Syria should in fact be considered an immediate threat due to the country's track record of aiding terrorism against the ideological values of the Union. The EU should not develop a special relationship with such neighbours, much less one characterised by close and peaceful (appeasing?) relations.
It should be noted that this article poses an extra risk in combination with article I-41 sub 1:
The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civil and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strenghtening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.
Contrary to popular belief, the UN unfortunately does not stand for freedom and democracy. In fact UN membership provides legitimacy for many oppressive governments, including those of Syria and Iran. Two out of five permanent UNSC seats with veto power are in the hands of countries showing increasingly fewer signs of democracy: China and Russia, the latter bordering the EU through the Baltic states. Therefore a European constitution should not place explicit trust in the UN Charter for foreign policies, especially not given the differences of opinion that continue to exist between the UN and NATO, the current common defence and security platform for some member states. Advocates of the treaty might however argue that NATO is also mentioned, in the second paragraph of sub 2 of article I-41 (as well as article I-47-7):
The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States, it shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty, and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.
At first sight it might seem that this clause would resolve most conflicts of interest, but that is not true: member states will still be constitutionally bound to uphold the common positions under article III-305:
In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States participate, those which do take part shall uphold the Union's positions.
Note how the use of "positions" is broader in scope than the NATO exception in I-41 which specifically refers to policy. Individual member states will therefore still depend on a resolvement of internal differences. This will not hurt the Union's capabilities for immediate and resolute action when necessary, due to a paragraph of article III-294:
The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.
However, that does not help NATO: this paragraph prevents member states from impairing the Union, not other member states. As a result non-NATO members still have the opportunity to delay NATO or even influence its policies by forcing other member states to uphold the Union's positions.
But it's not even necessary to argue the possibility of evil intent: the combination of all these articles give enough reason for concern because it is apparent the treaty is far too complex. It should be obvious what a confusing, bureaucratic mess the constitutional treaty would cause if adopted.
- PermaLink: Neighbouring Syria and Iran (2 comments)
- Post comment
Unelected bint gets political
- Posted by Rob (#1) on April 28, 2005 23:17 CEST
Supporters of the Dutch royal family often note that royalty poses no problem for our society because the constitution seperates them from politics. That still doesn't justify hereditary celebrity status and tax benefits in my opinion, but even the political argument has become moot.
Today Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands held a speech for her 25-year jubilee and noted one concern she should not have expressed: our national unelected bint complained that individualism has gone too far in our country. To me this sounds like an indirect attack on political parties in the Netherlands with one or more liberal viewpoints (Americans: read libertarian, progressive forces have not yet hijacked the word liberal in Europe).
It's kind of ironic to be lectured about going overboard on individual rights by someone who was given class status at birth and never bothered to give it up out of solidarity.
Another argument in favour of keeping the royal family around is that is a defining historical tradition. I wonder if the masses celebrating Queen's Day this Saturday are aware that up until the Treaty of Versailles we were a republic for 216 years (versus 190 as monarchy), complete with Golden Age and all that.
- PermaLink: Unelected bint gets political
- Post comment