The British and French governments are demonstrating that they have a capacity for thinking on matters diplomatic and military which is infinitely superior to that monstrous international amphyctony known as the European Union. The EU has grown from a rather decent, modest concept of enhanced economic unity to a bloated mastodon with delusions of adequacy while the British and French governments under more or less conservative leadership have shown a realistic appraisal of how diplomatic and military clothing must be cut to fit the economic cloth.
In a way quite unforeseeable only a few years ago, London and Paris are edging to a degree of military cooperation without precedent. This merging of capacities not only magnifies the military strengths of both but addresses points of relative weakness to the advantage of both countries. It is a foregone conclusion that this development will serve to amp up the diplomatic influence of both as well.
A few days hence French President Nicholas Sarkozy will hold a summit with British PM David Cameron. The high point of the meeting will be the announcement of a military alliance between the two countries which will see among other features the reconfiguration of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to accommodate RAF aircraft. This will be a temporary(?) fix bridging the gap between the budget constricted requirement to retire the British fleet of Harrier jump jets and the commissioning of the next generation British carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the arrival from the US of the Joint Strike Fighter.
There will be other mergers of capacity in the structure of the new alliance. But, far more important than the details is the existence of the agreement. This bilateral approach marks a departure from the very tired thinking which has dominated Europe since the end of the Cold War and the rise of the EU. It provides a viable alternative to both the highly undesirable combined EU military force and the increasingly irrelevant and politically divided NATO.
The alliance is a natural in several basic ways. France and the UK are the only nuclear powers in Europe. Both are permanent members of the UN Security Council. Each has a sizable expeditionary force capacity and a recent history of distant operations including the ongoing one in Afghanistan where France has 4,000 troops deployed at present--not as many as the UK but more than simply symbolic. The alliance would provide a firm platform for future distant operations provided, of course, the interests of both countries are directly involved.
An indirect benefit for both comes from economies which may result from the alliance. This would assure that each state would have resources for necessary unilateral operations. France has a wide variety of post-colonial commitments in Africa as does the UK. But these commitments are of an individual not a joint nature, so it is critical that each have an autonomous capacity. The same obtains with respect to the few residues of colonial majesty still sticking to the British lion's mane such as the Falkland Islands where it is unreasonable to expect France or any other state to offer direct assistance.
The recent defense and security review conducted by the Cameron government makes it clear that the UK must operate as a partner with some alliance in most conceivable military activities. Whether with NATO or in a bilateral context with the US or, now, France, the UK has no realistic choice other than alliance based operations. Still it is essential that the UK retain a sufficient independent capability to deter, say, Argentinian ambitions regarding the Falklands.
A closer merging of intelligence capacities will accompany the enhanced military alliance. Both countries have good to excellent intelligence apparatuses and a further level of cooperation will enhance these as well. When looking at the threats today and into the near future, the name of the game is intelligence. Closer and more comprehensive sharing of assets and product will give both countries yet another leg up in the contest with advocates of violent political Islam.
All the way around, the developing alliance is a fine idea. Even the US will benefit, at least incidentally, from its existence. A thumbs-up to both London and Paris--even if it means Napoleon is spinning in his tomb.
Now for the really bad idea.
The European Union emboldened by the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty has created a new diplomatic monster which will simultaneously undercut the ability of the individual member states to execute effective independent foreign policy and confuse the diplomatic landscape for everybody else. The grotesquely named European External Action Service (EEAS) is an equally grotesque bureaucratic blight on the great garden of diplomacy.
The EEAS is headed by a Briton, the Baroness (life peerage due to Tony Blair) Ashton. The Baroness is a person without any discernible qualification for her job to which she was appointed by Gordon Brown. As the woman has no foreign policy experience, not even a professorship in diplomacy, one can only conclude she got the job as a reward for her years of toiling in assorted Labor Party supported quangos. As a one time quangocrat Ms Ashton not only has no hands on acquaintance with the trenches of diplomacy, she has no direct contact with politics per se. She is, in short, a veteran of the remote and lofty world of unelected, unaccountable policy making boards whose let-them-eat-cake attitude toward the inhabitants of the real world is legendary.
The Baroness has a true barony at her disposal. The EEAS disposes of some 7,000 eurocrats who will labor not only in the Brussels headquarters but in some 137 embassies around the world. Nor is the Baroness Ashton's fiefdom impoverished. Its budget comes in at approximately twelve billion dollars. That is pretty top drawer--as is the Baroness's own reward, nearly three quarters of a million dollars not including perks and bennies.
The personnel deployments are a bit confusing. There will be forty-six diplomats in the tiny but luscious island of Barbados. The Turkish contingent amounts to 132 which outstrips the 124 assigned to the US. Morocco will get ninety-two nudging the less scenic and far more dangerous Afghanistan's eighty-five. Twenty-nine eurocrats will fetch up in Tajikistan while thirty-one will wade ashore in Yemen. The numbers roll on and on with little if any relation to either the interests in play or any other real world consideration until the least favored country of Togo gets a mere three, not even enough for a game of whist.
The assorted poohbahs and panjandrums will be housed in appropriately expensive quarters and will ride about in splendid armor plated limos.
As the citizens of the Barony of Ashton ride about so also will they sow diplomatic confusion. The standard has already been set by the EEAS man in Washington, Joao Vale de Almeida, who let it be known that he spoke for all the EU member states. He modestly told the assembled press that, where the EU had a unified position, "I am the one leading the show."
Well, this implies that either the EU will have a common position on everything, in which case the member states could save a lot of money by shutting down their embassies for all except routine functions such as visas, or there will not be many common stances, so even the EEAS heavyweight is superfluous. In either alternative, the existence of the EEAS "ambassador" will raise the question of who is in charge here?
In the best of times, diplomacy is often conducted in turbid waters. The addition of a foreign policy equivalent of a fifth wheel in no way clarifies the murk.
The Lisbon Treaty removed the requirement that all EU foreign policy decisions be unanimous. This means that the EEAS may work against the policy interests of one or more member states. For example, if a majority of EU members vote to cozy up to Tehran, the EEAS will do just that not only in Iran but in other capitals where the eurocratic version of ambassadors will press their host to also hug the ayatollahs tighter.
Stances to the contrary dictated by national interests would not matter. Thanks to the splendors of democracy, the majority would rule, even if, as in the case of Iran, major players such as the UK, France, and Germany are in the dissenting minority.
The consideration of conflict between a majority position and those of individual members is not academic. It has already been seen in the context of Hamas and the Gaza Strip as well as with regard to Israel. It deserves noting in this regard that the Baroness has bloviated at some length about her "clout" in Gaza due to her record of securing financial assistance for the terroristic thugs who run the place.
Looking ahead, the EEAS poses a long term threat to the diplomatic establishments of all its member states. Due to the very high salary schedules, a budding diplomat faced by a choice between his own country's foreign service and the EU's apparatus will be tempted sorely to go with the money. This means over time each member will be bled of its most ambitious, most able, and most promising diplomats. This may bode well for the dreams of the collectivists of Europe, but it has no good impact for the several states.
That was probably one of the intentions of those Eurocrats who designed and built the EEAS. To these worthies the notion of nation is anathema. So, they no doubt have hoped that starving each member of talent will be the best way of bringing the hated nation-state to the desired status of extinction.
Now, bucko, that is a really bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment