In what cannot possibly surprise anyone, Iran has not responded to the EU’s offers with regards to the country’s nuclear program before the deadline (this weekend). An EU official added, though, that Javier Solana expects an answer “in the coming days.” (more…)

Although Europe ignores it, the Turkey’s PM Erdogan is turning into the Turkish version of Vlad. Putin, writes Kemal. (more…)

Weeks after the Irish voted against the new European Union treaty, the presidents of Poland and Germany have refused to sign it as well. The main point from the Poles; if the Irish voted against it and if Ireland will, therefore, not sign it, it’s pointless for us to sign the treaty nonetheless. (more…)

Since Serbia is a Christian country, it seems to me that it won’t take long before Serbia truly joins the European Union (unlike say, o, well, Turkey): ‘The European Union will sign a pact on closer ties with Serbia on Tuesday, a spokesman for EU president Slovenia said.’ (more…)

Europe is making a big mistake by giving Turks the idea that they’re unwanted in Europe. The sad reality of the matter is, of course, that they are unwanted. Most West Europeans don’t want Turkey to join the EU. Why? Prejudices. Most Europeans don’t know much about Turkey, they only know that it’s a Muslim country and that many Turkish immigrants are religiously quite conservative and refuse to integrate. At least; that’s the picture most have, because we don’t know much about life in Turkey itself and because we often confuse Turkish immigrants with, say, Moroccan immigrants and because most of us think that Turkish immigrants are the average Turk. (more…)

Turkish Daily News reports that the European Court of First Instance “annulled yesterday a decision to place the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) on the European Union’s terror list.” Experts said, however, that “the ruling does not prevent member states from blacklisting the terrorist organization.” (more…)

The European Union is considering joining the growing global movement to boycott the opening ceremony at the Beijing Olympics to protect Chinese crackdowns in Tibet.

The boycott of the opening ceremony may become a consensus alternative to either ignoring the Chinese crackdown entirely (the position so far embraced by the Bush administration) and boycotting the entire Olympics (a position rejected even by the Dalai Lama himself).

Mehmet Ali Birand writes for Turkish Daily News: “The most important factor is the AKP’s attitude, which gives the impression that the AKP does not give a damn about the EU. This impression is becoming increasingly widespread regardless of any amount of words to the contrary or of any empty promises. The liberal sector was almost bewitched by the AKP’s wish to tear down old taboos and the definite steps that it had taken in this direction. Its efforts to join the EU seemed to prove that it was not a religious party. It was impressive in the way that it replaced set norms with a fresh outlook. ” (more…)

Oops: “New simulations carried out by European Union experts come to an alarming conclusion: Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium to build an atomic bomb by the end of this year,” the German the Spiegel reports. It goes on to say that “a new computer simulation undertaken by European Union experts indicates that the NIE’s time estimates might be dangerously inaccurate as well — and that Iran might have enough fuel for a bomb much earlier than was previously thought.” (more…)

Where would I be without Holly? No where. Today she sent me a link to the following article: Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen “has pledged to lobby the EU member states to admit Israel to its ranks.” (more…)

Don Surber brings the news that French President Nicholas Sarkozy has stood up to Syria: “After meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Sarkozy cut off diplomatic relations with the Syria over Syrian interference in Lebanon,” Don writes.

The BBC adds that Sarkozy said that “[l]Links will be restored only when France has proof that Syria is not blocking progress towards installing a consensus president in Lebanon.” Instead of talking the talk, Syria must now walk the walk. (more…)

The EU countries agreed to a new treaty last week, one that is much like the older “constitution,” which was not accepted by the peoples of the only two countries that held a referendum about it (France and the Netherlands), though, with a few differences. Obviously, our politicians are trying to sell to us as something completely new - the Dutch people, however, think quite differently and do not believe one word of what our Prime Minister says about this subject.

Meanwhile, the Brits don’t seem to be too happy either:

A key pledge safeguarding British control over its own foreign policy that was secured by Tony Blair at the Brussels summit is not legally binding, it became clear last night.

The Opposition stepped up calls for a referendum after it emerged that a clause negotiated by Mr Blair allowing exemption from a common EU foreign policy was merely a “declaration of intent” and not an enforcable part of the treaty.

The Prime Minister’s hard-fought deal began to unravel as the Conservatives accused him of surrendering British sovereignty and boxing in his successor, Gordon Brown.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said Mr Blair had broken the most important of his four “red lines” - the limits of the powers he was prepared to cede to Brussels after the rejection two years ago of the EU’s planned constitution.

The blueprint for a new Reform Treaty, signed by the 27 EU member states at 5am yesterday, was hailed by Mr Blair, who leaves office on Wednesday, as a key part of his legacy.

The Dutch politicians also explain that, because they changed a comma in this treaty, there is no need for a referendum. The real reason is - of course - that if a referendum would be held, the Dutch people would most likely repeat their ‘no, thank you very much,’ from two years ago since little has changed.

Blair: “We’ve been arguing for many years about the constitutional question. This deal gives us a chance to move on. It was important to get out of this bind into which we’d got with the constitutional treaty.”

The solution: lets ram it through their throat.

This ‘treaty’ is, as the Telegraph words it, “simply a repackaged version of the rejected EU constitution.” Nothing significant has been changed, except for a comma every here and there. O, and they have decided to simply call it a “treaty” instead of a “Constitution.”

Nice try, sadly for them, Europeans are not stupid.

Now, I am personally in favor of a Constitution for the EU, but I do not favor pushing it through peoples’ throats. As far as I know, we still live in a Democracy, and the Dutch (and French) have already said ‘no’ to the Constitutional treaty of two years ago. Our Prime Minister promised that they would come up with a completely different plan altogether, ‘we’ trusted him (well, I didn’t but ok), and now broke his word.

We need a new referendum. Let the people - once again - decide what to do with this treaty.

A great OP-ed at the Opinion Journal about the German Paul Wolfowitz:

Imagine that a top civil servant at a major multinational institution arranges a job for a fortysomething female colleague that comes with a $45,000 raise and brings her yearly salary to about $190,000, tax free. Now imagine that the couple has been photographed at a nudist beach–him wearing nothing but a baseball cap.

The latest sordid twist in l’affaire Wolfowitz? Not at all. This is the story of Günter Verheugen, first vice president of the European Commission in Brussels. In its contrasts and similarities with the “scandal” now absorbing the World Bank and its president, it offers timely instruction on the nature and power of modern bureaucracies.

In April, Mr. Verheugen, a former German parliamentarian for the Social Democrats, appointed economist Petra Erler as his chief of staff. In August, the couple was spotted au naturel on a Baltic shore. Mr. Verheugen–who also has a wife–has dismissed allegations of impropriety as “pure slander” and asked the German newsweekly Der Spiegel whether “two adults [can’t] do as they wish in their private lives?”

He has a somewhat strange view of what constitutes “slander” and what does not, but okay, fair question. The answer:

In fact, they can’t: The EU Commission’s Code of Conduct, which he helped draft, observes that “in their official and private lives Commissioners should behave in a manner that is in keeping with the dignity of their office. Ruling out all risks of a conflict of interest helps guarantee their independence.”

This is ludicrous, right? Corruption, and moral depravity in general for that matter, at the highest level. He has got to go, that must be clear to everyone, especially to those European politicians who called for Paul Wolfowitz’s resignation (virtually all European politicians).

Don’t think, however, that the commissioner is out on his ear: German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier defends him as “an irreplaceable Brussels heavyweight,” while Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso says Mr. Verheugen has his “full confidence.” That’s more support than Mr. Wolfowitz will ever get from his European friends, who are clucking noisily about the need for the World Bank to preserve its “credibility” and for its president to be “beyond reproach.” (It’s also more than he’s getting from the Bush administration, which is offering token words of support while quietly shopping former Afghan Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani as a potential successor.)

Ahwell, boys will be boys.

“Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will meet next Wednesday for talks on the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program, an EU official said on Friday.”

The official went on to say that “They will be preliminary discussions with a view to seeing if it would be possible to restart negotiations.”

Iranian news agency ISNA quoted Larijani as telling Solana: “While Iran keeps its obvious right in developing a peaceful nuclear program, it is always ready to have constructive negotiations with other parties.”

Negotiations about what? Iran is quite clear on this issue: it will not stop developing nuclear weapons‘energy’. The only thing we can ‘negotiate’ about is when the Mullahs will be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and somehow, that does not make me happy.

There can be no negotiations as such about Iran’s program. The U.N. has ordered Iran to halt it(s program), if Iran does not comply, more and more sanctions will be imposed. If Iran continues to ignore the international community, action will have to be taken. It is that simple.

A short, but passionate and angry article at National Review Online by John Derbyshire. He writes:

I am at the point with this business about the British hostages where I really can’t trust myself to post any more, I’m so mad. Toby Harnden indeed says much of what needs saying, but I think he is too kind to the enlisted men. They are saps and worms, insults to the Queen’s uniform. I’d better change track right here—see what I mean?
[…]
I’ve told this story before, so I hope I’ll be forgiven for telling it again. My Mum, Esther Alice Knowles (1912-98), eleventh child of a pick’n’shovel coal miner, in one of the last conversations I had with her, said: “I know I’m dying, but I don’t mind. At least I knew England when she was England.”

It’s all gone now, “dead as mutton,” as English people used to say. Now there is nothing there but a flock of whimpering Eloi, giggling over their gadgets, whining for their handouts, crying for their Mummies, playing at soldiering for reasons they can no longer understand, from lingering habit. Lower the corpse down slowly, shovel in the earth. England is dead.

I am less pessimistic.

I think that Britain can still get her soul back.

The sad reality is that Britain serves as an example of Europe as a whole right now: it is not just Britain that has lost her soul, it is Western Europe as a whole. We, Europeans, have become, I would not call it “appeasers”, but apathic. We do not care about our respective countries any longer, nor about morality. We care about, living peaceful, easy, relaxed lives. “Don’t disturb” is a sign that should hang on every door of every home in Europe. “Whatever happens, don’t disturb. If Iran develops nukes - terrible, but please don’t disturb us too much.”

When something terrible happens, we shrug our shoulders and move on, the only thing that is able to get us ‘warm’ again, instead of our constant state of being lukewarm, is America, and then in a bad way. When something goes wrong in the world, it is America’s fault (but hey, nothing we can do about it) to begin with. And if it is not America’s fault, well, it is probably our fault and we should apologize for whatever it is our ancestors might have done wrong once. A long time ago, who cares, it is still our fault.

The irony is that it is our fault in a way, just not the way most people think: it is our fault in so far that we do not stand up for ourselves anymore, that we do not care about our past anymore, that we despise using the words ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ because, well, there’s no such thing as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, it’s all a matter of perspective and so on.

H/t Shaun Mullen for e-mailing me the link to the article at NRO.

The Guardian reports that America “offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran.”

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

This is exactly the response the U.S. should have given. Some on the left will, undoubtedly, criticize Bush et alia, but Britain has been America’s number one ally and when your number one ally is faced with a problem like this, you offer to do everything necessary to help him / her out. European countries could learn something from that. ‘We’ refused to ‘offend’ Iran by (threatening) economic sanctions, while America offered to carry out airstrikes against Iranian targets.

‘We’ (Europeans) should be ashamed of ourselves.

Blair, meanwhile, told Bush to, in Cernig’s words “back off”.

Immediate military action by Britain and / or the U.S. would have been a mistake. First Britain had to isolate Iran, refuse to negotiate, tell Ahmadinejad to release the hostages ASAP or Iran would face the (economical) consequences. If possible Britain should have tried to put a naval blockade in place, advocated sanctions and, yes, lastly, if absolutely necessary, Blair should given the U.S. permission to carry out airstrikes against Iranian targets, but the time for that had not yet arrived during the first couple of days.

But, Bush, I have to say, handled it very well. The U.S. did what it had to do, it did what the E.U. should have done: fully support Britain, offer to hurt Iran in every way possible, including, if absolutely necessary, by carrying out airstrikes.

Brilliant at Breakfast and the Political Animal (Washington Monthly).

Charles Krauthammer wrote a good column for the Washington Post about the hostage crisis, called “Britain’s Humiliation — and Europe’s”. In it he criticizes the European Union:

Where then was the European Union? These 15 hostages, after all, are not just British citizens but, under the laws of Europe, citizens of Europe. Yet the European Union lifted not a finger on their behalf.

Europeans talk all the time about their preference for “soft power” over the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time. What was the soft power available here? Iran’s shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits, trade and technology. Britain asked the European Union to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The European Union refused.

Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free-trade zone, but as a political entity it is a farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. “The Dutch,” reported the Times of London, “said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.” So much for European solidarity.

He concludes:

The capture and release of the British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the “international community” and its great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the European Union and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to “deplore” this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of “grave concern.”) Then turn to the despised Americans. They’ll deal some cards and bail you out.

Exactly.

Quite frustrating.

For some reason, we, Europeans, refuse to deal with our own problems - still. We depend on the United States. The European Union is not a political superpower and will never be one, unless Europe grows a spine that is.

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided that after having been humiliated for weeks and after the prisoners have (finally) been released the time to talk tough has arrived.

Prime Minister Tony Bair abandoned the careful, diplomatic language he used during the crisis. Today, when the captives were safely en route to Britain, his tone became tough, almost antagonistic, as he spoke of possible links between the Iranian government and terrorism in Iraq.

Tony, Tony, Tony. Rather late for that, isn’t it?

(more on this in my next post)

More at Blue Crab Boulevard, Betsy’s Page and At-Largely.

In the comment section of my post of yesterday called “The European Divide” reader and commenter David and I expressed our concern for Europe’s passiveness. David left two interesting, thought-provoking comments, which I have decided to publish right here, on the frontpage for two reasons:
1- I am concerned about Europe
2- It might cause a good, interesting debate about this issue.

So, David’s first comment:
The world is heading from (relative) order towards increasing chaos.

In an orderly and peaceful world institutions such as the EU have a lot of relevance, creating ways for countries to interact and co-operate peacefully.

In a more chaotic world power comes not from international laws but from military strength. This is where Europe is living in an advanced state of self delusion.

This struck me most strongly during the Mohammad cartoons crisis. In a lot of Middle Eastern countries people were quite prepared to attack their local Danish or Norwegian Embassy, yet they would not dream of doing the same with their US Embassy. This was not because they hated Denmark and Norway more than the US, but because they still have a fear of the US.

Unfortunately European politics reflects the sheltered world of the European chattering classes. In this environment it is a great shame to have opinions that are out of step or to be labeled an extremist. This is why European politics focuses so much on words. The chattering classes are very concerned about what other members of their group think about them; they always want to follow the fashion. In the real world outside the wealthier parts of Europe a lot of people do not really care if some group of pompous hypocrites thinks about them. They do care, however, about what action someone might take against them.

In Europe there are tensions between the wealthy western countries, which are drowning in self-righteous complacency and those of the east, who can see Russia trying to show them who is boss on their borders.

If Russia decided to invade Estonia would Europe actually do anything? I do not think it would happen because the US would intervene, but I have considerable doubts that a lot of people in France or Germany would want to fight against one of their biggest economic partners on behalf of a country that they know nothing about.

Something is rotten in the heart of Europe.

To which I replied that “there s no doubt in my mind that the EU would condemn Russia / Putin, would go to the UN but do nothing that would actually change the situation / defend Estonia” and I asked (re. “something is rotten in the heart of Europe”) “yes, but what is it exactly? What caused Europe to become so complacent? I’m wondering about this myself every now and then and I’m thinking in the direction of moral relativism, pocketbook, no war = peace thinking, wartiredness, etc. but I think that there is more to it. But what exactly?”

David’s answer:

There seem to be a few factors that are important:

1. Moral relativism.

This is the biggest reason. I think that one of the main ironies of moral relativism is how easily it becomes political correctness that is very dogmatic about the current political fashion and that is completely oblivious to its own self-righteousness.

2. The Welfare State.

The struggle for survival has been taken away in much of western Europe. It is easier to fight and die if you think you have a good chance of dying of TB at age 35 than if you feel entitled to live on to 80 in peace and prosperity.

3. Affluence.

Too much luxury. My ancient history is a bit vague but I recollect that many historians regard the collapse of the Roman Empire as being partly due to its affluence and love of luxury.

4. Collapse of Christian belief.

“Imagine all the people living for today” - well you don’t have to imagine any more - they are doing just that. The removal of a complete system of morality with no replacement other than a few simplistic slogans.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defense, wrote a good, interesting column for the Guardian. Be sure to read it in its entirety, here is an excerpt:

In an ideal world quick action by the UN Security Council would have been the way forward. But the Russians and Chinese insisted on a watered-down statement that neither condemned the Iranian action nor called for the immediate release of the prisoners. Tough action through the UN may prove impossible to achieve given the obstacles on the Security Council.

There was, however, one other approach that would have a good chance of succeeding. The members of the EU aspire to having a common foreign policy. What better issue could there be on which our French, German and Italian allies and partners could show solidarity with the UK and demonstrate the benefits of joint action?

The best means of pressure would have been the export credit guarantees that are given to assist trade between Iran and western Europe. These, together with banking and other financial facilities are the soft underbelly of the Iranians and their withdrawal could do significant damage to Iran’s already weak economy.

Such measures have already been canvassed by the Americans in respect of Iran’s nuclear defiance.

The firm statement made by EU foreign ministers calling for the ‘immediate and unconditional’ release is welcome. But the apparent lack of any agreement over economic pressure has two serious consequences. First, it makes it very unlikely that Britain will be able to secure the release of the service personnel in the short term. Second, it is now almost inevitable that Iran will try to impose conditions from the international community and, in particular, the US, on their ultimate release.

This lack of agreement shows how hollow are the aspirations to a common European foreign policy. France and Germany should be ashamed at their refusal to assist their European partner in a humanitarian cause of this kind. If there had been a political will, there could already have been agreement.

I mostly agree with Rifkind. Mostly, because the British government does not seem to be willing to stand firm either. Reports indicate that a deal might be in the working. That is, in my opinion, quite unacceptable. If Britain wants the EU to back her up, she should not back off herself either.

That being said, the response of the EU is, once again, sobering. It’s all talk (”release the hostages asap”, “appropriate measures”, etc.), and no deeds. The EU seems to be able to speak with one voice, but not to act as one. Since the Mullahs only listen to actions, this will not be suffice.

A good, interesting article over at the Guardian about the EU.

This is the current situation: Eastern European countries think quite highly of the EU, Western European countries do not. In the West, the EU is considered to be intrusive, too powerful, not democratic enough, etc.

Personally, I am in favor of the EU, although I am not too happy with the growth of the Union in the last couple of years. Lets first integrate well, lets first prosper and then allow new countries to join. Focus on quality first, quantity later.