Statement on Russian Elections
Well, it is now 1700 on 5 March 2012, and the statement by Catherine Ashton (on behalf of herself, not on behalf of the European Union!) on Russian elections is just in:
“As Russia’s strategic partner and direct neighbour, the EU has followed with particular interest the election process and the public debate in Russia on the State Duma elections of last December and the Presidential elections held yesterday. The EU takes note of the preliminary results of the presidential elections and the clear victory of Vladimir Putin. International election observers from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) noted the significant civic engagement in the campaign and that authorities allowed protests to take place without undue interference, but also identified shortcomings and irregularities in the preparations and conduct of these elections and that voters’ choice was limited. The EU encourages Russia to address these shortcomings. The EU looks forward to working with the incoming Russian President and the new government in full support of our shared modernisation agenda, which we see as covering both economic and political reforms. We trust the new Russian President will be ready to take these reforms forward, in dialogue with citizens and civil society.”
One might make the usual reflections on power politics versus democracy, EU dependence on energy, WTO accession of Russia, and so on. But perhaps a simple “no comment”, will suffice.
Absence of EU statement on Russian Elections is disappointing
For those who closely follow EU foreign policy, you are undoubtedly subscribed to the press releases by the High Representative, the President of the European Council, the twitter feed, and so on. If so, you undoubtedly know that statements on behalf of the Union arrive quite fast after newsworthy events take place around the world, usually within hours.
Today, upon news of Mr. Putin getting re-elected for a third time in office as Russia’s president on 4 March, at the time of writing on 5 March 2012, there is still no peep by any one of the EU’s top brass. Utter silence indeed. In this case complete silence is in my opinion worse than a vague statement by the High Representative. At the very least, one might expect a statement saying something like
“we note with interest the outcome of the elections of march 4, we are concerned of OSCE reports of voting irregularities, we call upon Russia to guarantee its citizens impartial and open elections, we look forward to continued cooperation with Russia in the context of our strategic partnership“
It certainly did not take me much time to draft those few sentences, and strikes a balance between the irregularities and continues relations. Certainly, it can be a big issue whether or not we should actually congratulate Mr. Putin on his election or not, and I can only imagine the frantic discussions and phone calls currently going on within Brussels, and between Brussels and Paris, Berlin, and London.
Now, the fact that there is no statement at all means at the very least that: 1) Member States and EU institutions’ top brass cannot agree on who will say it; 2) on what they will say; 3) and in what format they will say it. Even though we all know this result was months in the making, one really does not need to know much about Russia to see that Mr. Putin would be re-elected with a result like this. Could this really not have been discussed beforehand. Supposedly, the European Council of 1-2 March 2012 was “the first in two years not being overshadowed by crisis”. Well, there certainly was room for discussion on issues such as this one then, looking ahead into the future only by two days?
The point of my post thus being: saying nothing is a painful reminder of how the Lisbon Treaty did nothing to improve EU external relations, and the delivery of – if not the single voice – at least the “single message”. Am I surprised? No. Disappointed? Yes, because I do believe that the EU as one can do great things.
Book on Coherence in EU External Relations law and the European Neighbourhood Policy
Last month, my book entitled “EU External Relations Law and the European Neighbourhood Policy: A Paradigm for Coherence”, appeared with Routledge UK. Here is the abstract of the book.
The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is a recent example of an external EU policy drawn up explicitly with the objective of achieving coherence in the external policies of the EU and its Member States. Positioning the ENP in the legal-historical context of political union, this book explains why coherence has become a substantive issue in EU external relations, and why law is integral to attaining the ever-enigmatic single voice of the European Union.
The text examines the role of EU external relations law in attaining a coherent neighbourhood policy and goes on to undertake an in depth analysis of the ENP, arguing that the innovative nature of the ENP in regard to coherence lies beyond the narrowly defined legal sphere, and stems primarily from its hybrid composition of hard legal, soft legal and non-legal policy instruments. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach by integrating elements of law, history and political science, EU External Relations Law and the European Neighbourhood Policy is unique in its approach to the subject.
This book will be of particular interest to academics and students of EU Law, Political Science, History and International Relations as well as to practitioners engaged in the process of drafting coherent external policy.
New papers on European External Action Service
Today, CLEER (Centre for the Law of EU External Relations) published two new papers authored by Steven Blockmans on the European External Action Service. I have read both of them, and they are highly recommended. They both draw on extensive empirical research (interviews with practitioners), and draw on deep insight into inter-institutional relations.
The first working paper is entitled “Setting up the European External Action Service: An institutional act of balance” and was co-authored with Leendert Erkelens. This paper essentially looks at the negotiation process during 2010, and the first few months of setting up the EEAS. It examines the relationship with the European Commission, and how the EEAS has gotten the shape it has; and notably where certain policy issues ‘have been cut out’, and why.
The second working paper is entitled “The European External Action Service one year on: First signs of strengths and weaknesses“. If you have limited reading-time available, I’d recommend reading this one first. It is a thick account of ‘learning by doing’ of the EEAS over the past year, with a carefully balanced assessment of the EEAS’ activities so far. Also: it contains a substantive agenda for future research!
How to save the Euro – George Soros
The following text is a must-read by George Soros. It is adapted from a speech delivered today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and lays out the basic tenets of a pro-active approach to saving the Euro, and with that the European Union as a political project. I fully subscribe to what Soros has to say in this text; notably the references to the need for statesmanship on behalf of European Leaders. Statesmanship implies long-term vision for the future of the member states and teh European Union, and has often been lacking in the current crisis. Statesmanship also implies the ability to explain the EU as the ‘fantastic object’, an integration probject creating peaceful and stable relations on a transnational scale, based on rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights, to the benefit of millions.
Double degree programme Peace and Conflict Studies
foreign policy, human rights and terrorism. Modules are taught by political scientists, IR experts, sociologists and social psychologists.
S&P Disclaimer to its Credit Ratings
As the Eurozone crisis reached another milestone with the lowering of France’s credit rating, it is good to remind ourselves of the disclaimer Standard & Poor’s adds to its own ratings. The following was downloaded from the website today, 14/01/2012, and the notable parts in bold/underline have been added by me:
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of S&P. The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P, its affiliates, and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions, regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIESDISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P’s opinions and analyses do not address the suitability of any security. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives.
