EU Leadership, Anyone?
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Tue, 2007-03-20 18:23
On three critical global issues – nuclear non-proliferation, Middle East peace and climate change – it [Europe, i.e. the EU] is better placed than anyone.
Opening nuclear negotiations with Tehran was a European idea in 2004, initially given a lukewarm reception by Washington. More recently, as the EU3 (Britain, France and Germany) approach began to be seen as the only game in town, Washington has offered more active support, but so far always stopping short of speaking to Tehran directly on the nuclear issue. Bringing Russia and China on board was, again, a European initiative. If a solution emerges, it is likely to be European-brokered. There is much greater cohesion among Europeans on Iran than there was on Iraq five years ago: on Iran, the EU will not be split.
When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, barely any progress has been made over the past six years. The adoption of the “road map” and the creation of the quartet (EU, Russia, UN, US) were born of European ideas. They were formally endorsed by Washington, but never seriously pursued and later quasi-abandoned. This year, a major effort by the current EU presidency has led to the quartet’s revival, and more diplomatic activity. Many in the region doubt, however, whether Washington will have the determination necessary for a breakthrough in the peace process without even more active input from Europe. The European willingness to take more responsibility in the region, and to play a role in ending the Lebanon war in 2006, including the deployment of military forces to the country, was an eye-opener for many – in the region and beyond.
On climate change, the critical question is who can – and will – lead the international debate about a post-Kyoto regime. If a deal can be hammered out in 2007, and if it has any chance of endorsement in the US, China and India, it will most likely be the result of the EU’s ongoing efforts to move ahead with ambitious goals on CO2 emissions and energy saving.
In Reply to Rob
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2007-04-03 17:01.
Do you really believe that the severing of European trade with Iran would change the regime's behavior? Iran's recent history is one of survival:
Iran only sued for peace with Iraq when the latter targeted its cities for chemical attacks, which killed 100,000 (we won't go into who sold these to Iraq or what influential bureaucrat prompted Hussein to consider invasion).
When the Russians are more helpful on Iran than Europe, maybe
Submitted by Rob the Ugly American on Tue, 2007-03-20 20:17.
there's a problem.
Europe is Iran's largest trading partner, doing tens of billions of dollars in trade a year. If Europe were serious, they could threaten Iran with this, and Iran would likely face ending its quest for nukes or the collapse of the economy. So, what do the Europeans do?
Just this week, 4 European companies made new investments in Iranian oil.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=3/17/2007&Cat=9&Num=029
More blatant European hypocrisy.
Meanwhile, the Russians:
PARIS, Mar. 18 — Russia has informed Iran that it will withhold nuclear fuel for Iran's nearly completed Bushehr power plant unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council, European, American and Iranian officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/world/middleeast/20irancnd.html?_r=1&h...
This European strategy of hypocrisy is not going over well in the US.
And Germany gives medals to al-Queda financiers:
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=68625
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=66891
With allies like these...