Pooling, Sharing and European Defence Integration

Photo: AP

The hot potato these days in Security and Defence debates in the EU is “pooling and sharing“. Refered to as “smart defence” in the NATO circle, this term refers to using common existing or planner resources to provide defence capabilities at the disposal of several member states. Triggered by the more and more political nature of the EU and its Foreign Policy, the process got a boost because of the severe cuts in defence spending as a result of the crisis. Many countries, especially the smaller and newer member states, but also military giants like the UK, are forced to discontinue procurement programs or to decommission capabilities. Worse, for political reasons governments often cut funding for Research and Technology thus shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.

UN Watch reminds how Libya was allowed a seat in the Human Rights Council

Below is an interesting post by the UN Watch who signalled the UN already a year ago to revise its decision of allowing LIbya into the Human Rights Council. It was a shameful decision and those of us involved in international affairs and democracy know it beyond any doubt. Not sure for the people in the UN who took this decision.

Egypt – what the West did not do

“We urge President Mubarak to embark on a process of transformation which should be reflected in a broad-based government and in free and fair elections,” – this is what the three biggest EU foreign policy players  France, Germany and UK said about the protests and violent clashes in Egypt. At the same time EU institutions issued 3 different statements focusing on political detentions, restoring communication services. Once again, an international crisis with likely grave consequences for global trade and regional security shows the EU how disintegrated its foreign policy is.

NATO before the summit: how much does Turkish friendship cost?

That Turkey is the main hurdle for developing more successful Common Security and Defence Policy in the EU there is no doubt. Neither there is about whether it is a committed NATO member and a strong European and US ally at the gate of the Middle East. Until Now.

Attention: Nagorno Karabakh

I regret that it gets harder and harder to write this blog not least because there are so many things to write about.

One of them is something few people tend to discuss these days – the frozen conflicts, and the one in Nagorno Karabakh in particular.

I think it will not be long before international diplomacy focuses its attention in the South Caucasus again. And just like the last time, it may be because of a conflict. Then however, it will be too late to comment and warn. In order not to face the harsh realities of negotiating seize-fire in the middle of a fierce conventional war, one would rather not leave the frozen conflicts on their own. Because they tend to defrost once  in a  while.

Turning a blind eye on Kyrgyzstan ?

Here is an interesting email I got the other day from an event manager in the European  Commission.

Dear Readers,

This week, I will exceptionally leave my journalistic neutrality behind
and advocate the cause of Kyrgyzstan.

Ashton’s Foreign Policy: Introduction*

They call her ‘a person without experience’ and ‘the lowest common denominator’. But she is not. Catherine Ashton is a very ambitious professional politician. She is the hope of Europe for a stronger engagement with the world and more efficient European Foreign Policy. She is the one who ought to have vision for a new set up of EU’s external relations. But does ‘ought to’ mean ‘can’ in this case. Can she have such a vision, or will this be the one of 1-2 national capitals or a closed circle, which has been thinking of the new European External Action Service for years before the job was handed to Ashton in November 2009?