Despite the resistance of the US (who, together with Israel and 2 pacific island states voted against the Council) the Union pushed successfully for a reform of the UN human rights structure. The new body will hopefully allow to keep frequent human rights violators out and voice critizism more frequent and substantiated. Finally, term limit will keep the US out of the new body after it had a seat in the Commission since its existence. This will make human rights politics less dependent on the US' partisan interests.The EU has recently faced criticism for not making a stronger stand for human rights, eg. in the 2006 Human Rights Wach report. The support for Kofi Annan, the cooperation with NGOs like Amnesty and the firm push for the reform is a good response of the EU. Good job, Javier.
Thumbs up also for Benita Ferrero Waldner, the Union's foreign relations commissioner: the incredible dictatorship right in the heart of Europe, Belarus, gets finally more into the focus of the Union as the elections come close. Last month saw the kick-off for the Union's dissident broadcast service for Belarus. The commissar now voices regularly criticism on human rights abuses in Belarus, most recently the arrest of opposition member Anatoly Lebedko and various NGO representatives. Also positive: US and EU's cooperation on the issue.That's how European foreign policy should look like: strong internationalism within the boundaries of the UN and firm standing for human rights in the wider European region.
3 comments:
you changed the name! i like the (intentional?) double or even triple entendre.
as for your concern about readership, you have at least one loyal browser in me. but since i've managed to focus on more local projects and u.s./global political realities, i often don't feel informed enough to comment much on the eu.
one related subject i would probably like to read more about is that of eu military policy and expenditures. it's rather sickening that the psoe here, for example, increased funding on weapons technology development and production. like the threats of nuclear power you mentioned, militarism is another scourge that humanity needs to steadily eradicate. and spending on either weapons and nuclear power always carries the threat of speeding up the deadly arms race, the collapse of eco-systems and the unfair public subsidizing of massive corporations.
the usual leftist rant... but perhaps there are openings for "strong internationalism", as you put it, that also encourage a substantial reduction in the arms trade? a changing (reduced) role for nato? bucking unipolar u.s. military dominance with greater diplomatic and economic incentives rather than a rival military force? mechanisms that might lead to the reduction of u.s. and chinese military expenditures? or maybe just start with preventing eu member states from not only being complicit with u.s. "war on terror" abuses, but also to stop shipping weapons and technology to dictatorships around the world. these all seem so elementary, but yet so unattainable given current arrangements.
Well, that's the right questions asked.
In my humble opinion it's the EU interest in the stability of its nearer surrounding like the Mediterrenean countries, Turkey, southeast Europe and the east Europe (Ukraine to Georgia) that could most likely trigger a change in the EU foreign policy.
From now on it has to be pointed out stronger that Union's policies supporting and encouraging undemocratic and human rights-abusing countries (like Russia) are enormously weakening our efforts to stabilize our surrounding region. The negative consequences of the policies you mentioned are harming our goals in the region.
I don't want to see Ukraine or Georgia crumble again just because the EU is not able to have a coherent pro-democracy, pro rule of law and pro stability foreign policy. And I'm pretty sure that neighboring countries like Poland, Romania or Turkey are not willing to tolerate that, either.
woh, I forgot the weapons-issue. Here's the deal:
I agree with you that making profit from war is wrong. Plus: vast armies are bound to have destabilising effects.
Concerning Europe:
1) I oppose the integration of the European military systems for now and I am opposed to the battlegroups. I don't think that the EU has found a mechanism so far that would prevent the EU to become just another American-style time bomb. I'm not at all unhappy about the fact that European military budgets are trailing the US or Chinese expenditures and I think it should stay this way.
2) But I think there are reasons for military action and therefor armies are needed. There are few, but they are existent. Bosnia was a right decision (although the US did the bombings then), and there are numerous UN missions staffed and equiped by European nations that are important and right. Investment and research in arms are therefor needed, too. This, though, does not mean at all that European arms producers should have the right to sell their shit to random countries. The biggest attemted breach of selling restrictions in recent time (France to China) was, funnily enough, prevented by the US.
Post a Comment