Relations with China require a EU common approach

Prime Minister Cameron´s visit to Beijing reminds me that there is no EU coherent policy regarding the relations with China.

It is true that there was a recent – about two weeks ago – summit meeting between Van Rompuy and Barroso, on the European side, and the new leadership of China. But it was more of an empty formality than an exercise on strategy. The Chinese play the game and seem to be very interested in a stronger relationship with the EU. But in fact, they are much more interested in their bilateral relations with a small handful of European countries. They know that national sovereignty feelings are coming back within Europe and they understand that better than the concept of a lose community of shared interests.

But the Chinese are difficult and complex parties to any agreement. They have a very strategic and subtle view of international partnerships, particularly with the West. That approach cannot be matched by a piecemeal approach, on our side, by a short-sighted view of each country´s interests. More. The Chinese leaders will take advantage of the competition that is now shaping the relations among the EU member states.

Are we poets or just fools?

EU has chosen the path of confrontation with Russia, when it comes to Eastern Neighbourhood policy. 

Politics is of course about choices. 

It is also about having a clear strategy, once the choices have been made. 

Choices without the appropriate strategy are just empty wishes. They belong to the realm of either the poets or the fools. 

Piracy in West African waters

Again on West Africa, this time on piracy: the Gulf of Guinea has experienced this year 30 sea incidents. In two cases, the local pirates have managed to capture the ships.

 Figures show that the Gulf has had more incidents this year than the Somalia waters -20 cases so far in that part of the Indian Ocean.  It is time to start discussing some big international operation in West Africa, even if its waters are no as vital as the East Africa ones for world trade. If the issue is not addressed soon the economies of the coastal states will be seriously impacted by the growing piracy. And soon we might even see an attack against one of the offshore oil platforms, either in Nigeria or in Ghana.

Radical Islam in West Africa

Kenema is a provincial head town in the South-Eastern region of Sierra Leone. Most of its residents are Muslims, as it is the case in several parts of the country. On 3 November 2013 the people there came to the streets and threw stones at the houses of local men they consider being religious extremists. They call them Al-Shabaab, because they have long beards, they belong to a strict sect of the Islamist faith and their wives are fully covered. And above all, they accuse them of being a hothouse for breeding future terrorists. The Sierra Leone Police had to intervene to bring some tranquillity back to Kenema.

This is new in Sierra Leone. But it is not unique to that West African country. In the recent years, one has seen an expansion of radical approaches to religious practice in different corners of West Africa. They cannot be linked to any violent action. However, they show that the radical preachers trained in Saudi Arabia for many years are now having an impact of the way these traditional communities see Islam. 

Imagination and intuition

With change taking place at such a fast pace, the organizations have to become very flexible and adaptable. Rigid structures will be on the losers ‘side.

Unfortunately, that´s the case with many government administrations and public institutions. They can´t change fast enough, they have their own inertia and therefore they face the risk of becoming an economic and bureaucratic burden at a time when they should be anticipating the future and be able to respond to the new challenges.

The concept of anticipation is also crucial. The leaders are those who can read the signs and foresee the next generation of threats and opportunities. Imagination is, more than ever, a very precious commodity. 

Are we moving back to the old approach to national sovereignty?

This morning I attended a discussion about the current meaning of national sovereignty in Europe. The discussants recognised that we live now in a context of limited and shared sovereignty. As members of the EU, the countries have transferred some of their national powers to the Commission or the Council. And they have also agreed that some key decisions do require the consensus of the membership. These have been important steps towards a supranational approach to the common good.

Everybody seemed to agree that the trend towards pooled State sovereignty will continue and that there will more co-responsibility in the future and less decisions based on a narrow approach to national interests. 

I think it is good to have an optimistic view of EU´s collective will. That´s what will take us forward.

But I am not sure about the next few years. European countries give the impression they are moving back to the old views about sovereignty. That will certainly be a wrong direction. However, one should be aware of the facts. And be prepared for less. Even when we aim at more.

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!