EU unity is under erosion

It doesn´t sound good when European governments start focusing the public discourse on migration movements from one EU state to another and talk about curbing the free flow of workers. This is one of the pillars of the Union. A basic fundamental principle. To challenge it undermines further the purpose of the EU, it is another step, let´s be clear, towards European disunity.

It is also a way of reviving the old ghosts of ultra-nationalism and even xenophobia. For centuries, Europe was built of hard-nosed nationalistic politics. That made the Continent one of the most unstable and war-prone of all. Then, after the Second World War, the trend was reversed and a common dream was put together. That has given us almost 70 years of peace.

Now, that might be under threat. Gradually, like erosion, but dangerously changing in the wrong direction.

Development co-operation requires leadership

In a discussion this afternoon about development co-operation the OECD Development Aid Committee President, Erik Solheim said that leadership is essential for change to occur.

He knows what he is talking about as he himself was an important agent of change in his home country, Norway.

But I have the impression that leadership in the area of development is lacking nowadays. After the Busan (Indonesia) conference in 2011, where new principles for aid assistance were agreed upon, too much emphasis has been placed on partnerships and very little on the responsibility to lead the process. And when everyone is in charge nobody leads. Without clear and responsible leadership we see the UN (UNDP) and OECD struggling to get heard and to make things to happen. Or, UNDP and OECD should be accepted as the leading players in the field of international co-operation.

Co-operation is indeed about partnerships. But someone has to guide the process. If not, each player will go about it as he/she sees fit. And that is at present the case. 

Central African Republic

There is increased noise about the possibility of a UN peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic (CAR). The friends of that country and of Africa should amplify the noise to make sure the key world leaders understand that such a mission is required. It should actually be on the ground soonest.

However, I am afraid the noise will not be strong enough. My sources tell me there is little chance to be able to find the troops and deploy soon enough. The UN is still struggling with its deployment in Mali. To add CAR to the list would be like adding complication to complexity.

But it has to be done.

And at the same time, it calls for decisions on the rapid phasing out of peacekeeping missions where they are no longer critical. That brings to mind Cote d´Ivoire and Liberia, for instance.

Il also reminds us that the UN Security Council has to be better at defining and monitoring exit strategies. Peacekeeping missions need to be goal oriented and time sensitive. 

An excellent agreement with Iran

The agreement Iran and the P5 plus Germany reached and committed to is a very positive development in matters of international security. It can also have a very constructive impact in the stabilisation of the Middle East. Iran is indeed an important player in the region. The move towards cooperation with the West and the key representatives of the international community can open the doors for other agreements.

And the next one should be on Syria. It is now rime to engage on the solution of that tragedy as deeply as these countries have engaged on finding o modus vivendi with Iran.

Now a side comment. Israel has called the agreement with Iran “an historic mistake”. The mistake is however elsewhere. The Likud leadership, and especially Prime Minister Netanyahu, need to realise that those who signed the accord with Tehran are not simple minded fellows. They know very well what is going on in Iran and in the region. They know where their interests lie. If they have signed that means very clearly the step is in the right direction. No doubt, gentlemen! 

Pyromania

Former Portuguese President Mario Soares is now an old man. But he is still very much involved in his country´s politics. And at present he is in a crusade against the current President, Cavaco Silva, and the Prime Minister, Pedro Passos Coelho. Soares is actively campaigning to get them to resign. He thinks that these two are the key culprits when it comes to the economic crisis Portugal is going through.

As he is a fighter, and remains so, notwithstanding old age, Soares does not give up. And sometimes, as he did a couple of days ago, he goes too far and gives the impression that he is inciting people to violently oppose the President and the Prime Minister. Even, to physically attack them.

He knows, of course, that advocating violence against the Head of State and the Prime Minister could be seen as a criminal initiative. Therefore, he gives the impression that he is advising both of them to quit before it is too late and violence erupts.

As they say, the old fox knows how to go about catching the chicken.

The only problem is that Soares is fuelling a situation that is already very tense. That is a bit of a worry for many of us who think that the country needs enlightenment, not fires. 

The plane was full

My flight this evening from Basel to Brussels was full. I was amazed. How could it be? Basel might be rich and industrious, Mulhouse, in France, is just next door, the German border is there as well, but still, these are somehow what I would call provincial areas.

I came to the conclusion, once more, that you open a link between two cities and then you just get a lot of passengers. Air travel has become like a second nature to many people. 

Soldiers and Police

I have just been invited to address a high level (ministerial) meeting on the security threats in the Sahel Region. 

The initiative is a good one, because the Sahel has an impact on North Africa and Europe and the meeting brings people from those two sides of the Mediterranean together. But the interesting thing is that the meeting is called by defence leaders. The military are indeed looking at the issue.

But my message to them will be, among other things, a very clear one: these matters call for a close cooperation between the military and the police establishments. They are an opportunity for both sides to work together and show they can cooperate. 

Libya needs a stronger partnership with the EU

Libya´s internal situation calls for enhanced international support. The EU leaders need to engage the Libyan authorities and make clear they are ready for a much stronger and more coordinated partnership with the country. Institution building and the restoration of state authority are key priorities. The international assistance should focus on them. And recognise that a chaotic Libya at the doorstep of Europe and in the margins of the Sahel is a major threat to our stability and to the security of the very fragile African states that are in the vicinity. 

Again on Israel and its neighbours

Following my post of yesterday about Israel and Iran, I got call this afternoon from a friend who is also very close to Prime Minister Netanyahu. The caller had just arrived from Israel. And I could notice two things: the country´s leadership is very unhappy with the way the Obama team is looking at Iran´s nuclear issue; they can´t understand why people in Washington are so eager to strike a deal with the Iranians; and then, the second point concerns Israel´s believe they will be able to take military action against the nuclear facilities in Iran and get the tacit but firm approval of many in the Middle East, including the Saudis. This is actually encouraging the hard liners in Jerusalem to go for the bombing.

All this adds instability and unpredictability to a region that is already in deep turmoil. It´s not good at all!

Israel and Iran

It would be a mistake to underestimate Israel´s strategic interests as we get closer to the next round of negotiations with Iran.

The country´s leaders see Iran as a major threat.

They will try everything – including in the Capitol Hill in Washington – to make sure that the pressure on Tehran is not eased out. And in their tricks box, there is the menace of unilateral military action against the nuclear installations in Iran. The public mentioning by the Israelis of such a possibility is in itself a way of convincing Washington that an agreement with Iran is only good if it is a lose-win accord.

 And that is not possible, as I see it, because no leader in Tehran will accept an agreement that looks like a defeat.