France prepares for war with Iran?

On Sunday 16 September, 2007 France's Bernard Kouchner said: "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war."

Calling the nuclear standoff "the greatest crisis" of present times, Kouchner said: "We will not accept that the bomb is manufactured ..." and hinted that military plans were being developed.

At a conference of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in Austria, Mohamed ElBaradei said he saw no clear and present danger, and that talk of force was counter-productive.

What is the meaning of this? Can anyone in France please explain?

Whatever happened to a consensus EU foreign policy?

Calling Mr. Solana?

My Financial Times response to Mr. John Bolton's op-ed in the FT in which he requires Britain's PM Brown to choose between the EU and the U.S.

Time for realistic approach to Europe
By Sarwar Kashmeri
Published: August 3 2007 03:00 Last updated: August 3 2007 03:00
From Mr Sarwar A. Kashmeri.

Sir, The political centre of gravity in Europe shifted to the European Union decades ago. The US's "special-relationship" ought to have moved accordingly - from Britain to the EU. That it did not was a strategic error. To cede control of the future direction of this flawed attachment to Britain, as John Bolton suggests, would be a huge mistake.

The US needs to take command of its European foreign policy direction and make it clear to Britain that there will always be close cultural, business and sentimental connections to it, but going forward the US's political "special relationship" will be with the EU.

Speaking at the US Military Academy, West Point, in 1962, then secretary of state Dean Acheson presciently said: "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role. The attempt to play a separate power role, that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based primarily on a 'special relationship' with the United States . . . is about played out."

The 21st century will have a number of super-powers besides the US. These will surely include China, India and the EU. They will not include Britain.

It is time to inject a dose of reality to America's foreign policy towards Europe as Acheson had wanted to do more than 40 years ago.

Sarwar A. Kashmeri,
S Reading, VT 05062, US
(Fellow, Foreign Policy Association)
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

__________________________________________________________


MR. JOHN BOLTON'S OP-ED IN THE FINANCIAL TIMES OF 31 JULY 2007

( I really found this to be a hugely pompous and un-diplomatic column; but such is the neoconservative thought process, and I suppose it is better to keep illuminating the opinions of the folks who engineered the disasters that daily unfold in Iraq and Afghanistan. sak )


Britain can’t have two best friends
By John Bolton
Published: July 31 2007 18:21 Last updated: July 31 2007 18:21

Gordon Brown’s first Washington visit as Britain’s prime minister has prompted tea-leaf reading about the strengths and weaknesses of the US-UK relationship. Momentarily diverting – and probably unavoidable – as the frenzy of speculation is, the real tests lie ahead. Actions ultimately trump semiotics in national security affairs.

Moreover, as contentious and important as Iraq is, it is a mistake to think that disagreements on that issue represent a fundamental change in the US-UK relationship. Tony Blair and President George W. Bush disagreed on global warming, as will Mr Brown and Mr Bush, but in neither case does the disagreement reflect a tectonic shift.

In fact, whether the “special relationship” grows stronger or weaker lies entirely in British hands. Americans across the political spectrum are content to keep it as it is and has been essentially since the second world war. That does not mean that the two countries always agree, nor has it ever meant that Britain is a poodle following America’s lead, self-flagellating Brits notwithstanding.

There are, however, more fundamental questions. Successive UK governments have taken Britain deeper and deeper into the European Union, all the while proclaiming that nothing fundamental about Britain’s status was changing. Britain is not unique in this regard. Europeans advocating an “ever-closer union” continually reaffirm that they are not changing anything fundamental about their sovereign control over foreign and domestic policy.

This attitude has been widespread, but the re-emergence of a European “constitution” – under whatever name – has brought Britain to a clear decision point. The long, slow slide into the European porridge has had few clear transition points. In the aggregate, however, the magnitude of changes in the status of the EU’s formerly Westphalian nation-state members can no longer be blinked away.

Thus, saying that the UK’s “single most important bilateral relationship” is with America, but is not comparable with UK membership of the EU, is a clever but ultimately meaningless dodge. Drop the word “bilateral”. What is Britain’s most important “relationship”? Does Mr Brown regard the EU as a “state under construction”, as some EU supporters proclaim, or not?
The answers to these questions are what Washington really needs to know. What London needs to know is that its answer will have consequences.

For example, why does a “union” with a common foreign and security policy, and with the prospect of a real “foreign minister” have two permanent seats on the UN Security Council and often as many as three non-permanent seats out of a total of 15 council members? France and Britain may not relish the prospect of giving up their unique status, but what is it that makes them different – as members of the “Union” – from Luxembourg or Malta? One Union, one seat.

Mr Brown cannot have it both ways (nor will President Nicolas Sarkozy), in part because many other EU members will not let the matter rest. Of course, the Security Council permanent seat itself is not the real issue – it is the question of whether Britain still has sovereignty over its foreign policy or whether it has simply taken its assigned place in the EU food chain.

Consider also the US-UK intelligence relationship. Fundamental to that relationship is that pooled intelligence is not shared with others without mutual consent. Tension immediately arises in EU circles, however, when Britain advocates policies based on intelligence that other EU members do not have. How tempting it must already be for British diplomats to “very privately” reveal what they know to European colleagues. How does Mr Brown feel about sharing US intelligence with other Europeans?

Finally, there is Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, which will prove in the long run more important for both countries than the current turmoil in Iraq. Here the US has followed the EU lead in a failed diplomatic effort to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. If Mr Bush decides that the only way to stop Iran is to use military force, where will Mr Brown come down? Supporting the US or allowing Iran to goose-step towards nuclear weapons?

I will wait for answers to these and other questions before I draw conclusions about “the special relationship” under Mr Brown. But not forever.


The writer is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was US ambassador to the UN in 2005-06. His book, Surrender Is Not an Option, will be published in the US in November
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

An Evolving Union: A conversation with European Commission Vice President Margot Wallström

The Foreign Policy Association and Sarwar Kashmeri, FPA Fellow and author of America and Europe after 9/11 and Iraq: The Great Divide are pleased to announce the launch of a special series of interviews celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which laid the foundations of the European Union. This unprecedented series kicks off with a discussion between Kashmeri and European Commission Vice President Margot Wallström. Wallström speaks of the evolution of the European Union, what it means to young Europeans today and the challenges presented by its complexities to U.S. policymakers. The series will continue in September with conversations with other officials of the European Commission and member states.

Click here to listen to a podcast of the conversation between Kashmeri and Commissioner Wallstrom.

Growing Up In An Evolving European Union

The EU is arguably the most important political development of the last half century. But it is also a bonding of cultural thought, an acknowledged success at eliminating the brutal wars that had savaged Europe for centuries, and an economic success story. The generation that built the EU is fast giving way to a new generation of Europeans that grew up in a borderless Europe with its single currency, European parliament, and a sense of Europeaness that none of its forebears has ever had before.

I had the pleasure of listening to four bright, articulate young Europeans discuss their views and experiences growing up in an evolving EU at a wonderful event organized by the University of Vermont's Global Village and European Studies Program.

We are all Europeans today!

Around a quarter of a century ago, one of my favorite magazine (woops! sorry, newspaper), The Economist's, cover showed the stars from the EU flag all crashed on the ground. As I recall it was the breakup of the European Currency Rate Mechanism. All was lost, the single market dreams were over. Well they were not, the stars rose back up again and we stand at the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. Bravo.

Happy Birthday EU--we are all Europeans today.

US & EU should focus on light bulbs!

I've long been of the opinion that it will be easier to renegotiate a new transatlantic-alliance if we approach the process as a series of projects, each designed to achieve a tangible result, rather than a big bang to pull the erstwhile allies together again. That was the successful Schuman approach to create the EU from nation states that had fought each other for centuries.

Here is a project that should have wide support on both sides of the Atlantic: The elimination of incandescent light bulbs on both sides of the Atlantic.

These are the light bulbs that most of us use; they were invented in the 19th. century and are very energy inefficient. The EU has just decided to phase them out by 2009. This will save EU citizens billions of euros in fuel bills per year, and also 20 million tons of carbon emissions.
Among the manufacturers of light bulbs that have agreed to this EU initiative is General Electric, headquartered in the U.S.

So here is my suggestion: President Bush should send a Cabinet Secretary to Brussels and join the EU project to banish these old Victorian era bulbs in the EU and America. Elimination of incandescent light bulbs will conserve a signifiant amount of energy, reduce carbon emission, and generate transatlantic goodwill.

If a salve is needed to soothe U.S. anti-green conservatives: Australia, that stalwart American ally, this year passed a law to ban the old light bulbs by 2009, in fact it was Australia's decision that inspired the EU.

It is, as they say in America, a no-brainer.

EU-US single market moves ahead?

The US and EU could set a date for the creation of a transatlantic trading zone at a summit in April 2007, the Financial Times reported a few days ago. This would be progress indeed, and is a tribute to the strategic thinking of Germany's Chancellor Merkel who proposed this initiative and has moved it to the top of the transatlantic agenda.

As the the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has succinctly put it: "The EU and US are each other's main trading partners. Our economies represent 58 percent of Global GDP and 37 percent of world trade....a genuine transatlantic marketplace could increase GDP in both the EU and the US by more than 3 percent." The American ambassador to the the EU declared that the US President and his cabinet are politically committed to this project.

The political relationship between the EU and the US is in intensive care, continued efforts to strengthen the business ties will buy the politicians on both sides time to re-discover the importance of the transatlantic alliance.

2007 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome that began the powerful European common market. Let's celebrate by initiating concrete steps to move ahead with a transatlantic common market.

U.S. missiles negotiations with Poland & Czech Republic a bad idea

Here we go again, playing off the divisive "old-Europe" and "new-Europe" neoconservative scorecard.

What else to make of the American initiative to try and place anti-missile systems in Europe by working through Poland and the Czech Republic. If the threat from missiles launched from the Middle East and/or North Korea is real (and I believe it is prudent to consider this threat to U.S. and EU security) would it not have been better to deal at the U.S.--EU level rather than with individual states in Europe? The former approach carried the risk of longer negotiations but would force EU wide discussion of this important security issue, which would result in a far stronger agreement, especially in the face of growing Russian opposition and criticism from Germany.

Ofcourse there is always a risk that EU public opinion would not be convinced that the risks of a rogue missile attack outwiegh the benefits, but isn't that a risk worth taking? As it is, public opposition and the razor thin parliamentary balance in the Czech Republic might well derail the plan and another opportunity to strengthen defenses and begin to rebuild the transatlantic alliance by recognizing the desire of Europeans for ever-closer union will been lost.

NATO: Corpse on a horse?

U.S. President George W Bush has called on other NATO members to step up their battle against Afghanistan's Taliban. He said that NATO had to hold true to its founding principle - "an attack on one is an attack on all."

This must have come as a real surprise to NATO members. Immediately after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 NATO, for the first time in its history, invoked Article 5 of its Charter—the one that states “an attack on one is an attack on all,” and offered to fight shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. as it prepared for war in Afghanistan. A magnanimous gesture, that was immediately rejected by the U.S. The American side felt NATO was ill prepared to fight a real war and would be more of a hindrance than a help. After spending billions of dollars and an enormous amount of political capital to keep NATO going, the first time the organization wanted to march into war it was judged incompetent.

If this is the entity on which the future of Afghanistan now depends, I’d say the Afghanis ought to be really concerned about their future security! I can just see the Taliban shaking in their boots.

Does anyone out there disagree with me and still believes NATO can save Afghanistan?

More importantly: do we still need NATO?

Bravo! Chancellor Merkel

German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants the EU and the U.S. to establish a single market through the harmonisation of EU and U.S. regulations on financial instruments and goods. This is an excellent idea and the American side should welcome it.

The $3 trillion EU-U.S. economy's depth and complexity has kept the transatlantic alliance from fraying further, so anything that strengthens these ties should be embraced.

Realizing that trade negotiations are stuck in the Doha round's machinations, Chancellor Merkel wisely proposed the two sides side-step these contentious issues and focus instead on making the financial and business infrastructure and plumbing work more smoothly. " Ms Merkel said she wanted to create a single market for investors, with common rules on intellectual property, financial regulation and even car emissions," The Guardian reported. "German experts believe a single EU/US financial market could be created by 2015, cutting trading costs by 60% and the cost of capital by 9%," the paper said.

"I feel it is very important that trans-Atlantic economic relations are intensified," the German newspaper Der Spiegel's blog reported from her keynote speech in Davos. "History shows that close trans-Atlantic economic integration is always the impetus for boosting economic growth," she said.

The Chancellor cited European investment in the American rail network in the 19th century and the post-World War II Marshall Plan as examples of successful trans-Atlantic integration. "The U.S. is still the European Union's most important trade partner, as it was in the past," she said. "We are also the most important investment partners for each other."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she wants to see "ever-closer economic co-operation" between the 27-nation EU and the U.S.", reported the BBC. The EU has achieved its historic success by working on an ever closer union, and Ms. Merkel astutely recognized that calling for a "big-bang" approach to U.S.-EU economic cooperation would be a difficult undertaking, but moving ahead a project at a time is a proven recipe for success, as the EU has demonstrated over the last 50 years.

All this was a prelude to the Chancellor's Washington, D.C. meeting with President Bush on January 13, 2007.

By all accounts the two leaders got along well. It would have been nice to see a high-level EU-U.S. working group set up to move Ms. Merkel's proposal to action. Perhaps this can still happen. All those who are concerned about the future of the transatlantic alliance should be calling their political representatives; business leaders ought to be up front supporting Ms. Merkel's initiative. American media needs to explain the importance of this development for American and European jobs and standards of living, and for strengthening the the EU-U.S. alliance.

My EU/US views on public radio

On Friday, January 19, 2007, Laura Knoy, host of The Exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio (NHPR) invited me to discuss my book on her call-in radio program that is heard by upwards of 150,000 listeners in New Hampshire, Vermont, and the Boston area of Massachusetts. You may listen to the program on an MP3 player, or a Microsoft Windows Player.

The EU's investment in America is enormous (over $3 Trillion, ie. for my European readers, $3,000 billion) and spread throughout America. For example, over a billion dollars have come to my home state of Vermont (population: 625,000) and the investment supports 7,200 jobs, more than half of which are in manufacturing. It was interesting to engage with the bright and informed audience that called in to question me as you'll hear.

Foreign Policy Association book reception/New York

On January 23, 2007 a standing room only crowd attended a discussion of my new book America & Europe After 9/11 and Iraq: The Great Divide. It was hosted by New York's Foreign Policy Association and you can view my remarks and the discussion here.

The video is about one hour long, and the audience included diplomats, business executives, teachers and interested New Yorkers. Among the press was the Turkish service of the Voice of America. This tape was shown in Turkey later in the week. To tell you the truth, I was surprised at the large turnout. Could it be that people are starting to realize that there is a world beyond Iraq?

The VOA reporter asked what I thought about Turkey joining the EU? That, I replied is an internal EU decision, but that I agreed with Ana Palacio (former Spanish Foreign Minister) who told me that the EU had made a promise to Turkey that it could join the EU, and that promise had to be kept.

Business links will not protect EU-U.S. alliance for long

If the political side were to turn really sour, there might be domestic pressures in Europe to treat the United States more as a competitor than as an ally.
Ambassador Hugo Paemen, former EU Head of Delegation to the U.S.

The $3 trillion transatlantic business relationship employs around 15 million people and is the biggest and deepest commercial relationship between two continents in recorded history. Just about as many Americans work for European firms as Europeans do for American firms. China might grab all the headlines, but for now the size of the EU-U.S. commercial link dwarfs those from developing countries. For instance, the total number of manufacturing workers employed by U.S. affiliated companies in China is less than half of the manufacturing workers employed by American firms in Germany alone.

Without this huge business relationship the political ties between Europe and America would have been in worse shape than they are now. But we shouldn't take this status for granted. Politics can quickly seep into the business sphere. Remember the 2003 U.S. steel tariffs against Europeans? The EU gave notice that if the tariffs were not removed within a few weeks, the EU would target goods from politically sensitive American states and put tariffs on them. The states were selected based on their importance to the American President who was running for re-election. The tariffs were quickly removed. What might have happened had they not?

China, India, Brazil, and the Middle East are emerging as the commercial giants of the twenty-first century. The transatlantic economic link will become less important 20-30 years from now than it is today. Even more important to re-negotiate a new alliance now.

The Journey Begins

Europe's center of gravity has been shifting to the European Union for 50 years, but America continues to forge foreign policy for Europe using Cold War realities, by viewing Europe through Anglo-tinted glasses.

Dean Acheson, one of America's great Secretaries of State had predicted a dismal future for Britain, Europe, and the United States if this situation was not corrected. The dangers Acheson foresaw in Britain overemphasizing its "special relationship" with the U.S., in lieu of its role as a full member and leader of Europe, may well have reached its zenith with Britain's unflinching support for the American decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Why would Britain, America's closest ally, the coinventor of modern Iraq, with intimate knowledge of, and deep historical ties to, the Middle East, and with its powerful understanding of Arabs and Islam, not have influenced its ally's actions more wisely?

Acheson would have immediately understood why it was not in Britain's best interest to offer this wise counsel. Addressing a student conference at the U.S. Mlitary Academy, West Point, in 1962 he presciently said, "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role. The attempt to play a separate power role, that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based primarily on a 'special relationship' with the United States,..., is about played out."

My recently published book, America and Europe after 9/11 and Iraq; The Great Divide, (see www.kashmeri.com,) addresses this issue using material from private conversations with former President George H. W. Bush (Sr.), Secretary James Baker III, former British PM John Major, former Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio, U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, General Wesley Clark, and other transatlantic leaders.

"I am not sure American administrations have ever understood the complexity of the European Union," one of my interlocutors told me. This lack of understanding needs to be corrected. It will result in a more enlightened American foreign policy, which is in America's best interest; and I would submit in the best interest of Europe, Britain, and the world.

Through this blog I hope to illuminate the continuing integration of Europe into an ever closer Union with personal observations on trends and developments that impact American business and foreign policy. I thereby hope to convey to my fellow Americans why transforming the so called "special relationship" between the U.S. and Britain to one between the U.S. and the EU should be a key foreign policy objective of the next American president.

America will always have a close relationship with Britain because of the cultural, business, and historical ties between the two countries. But in matters of foreign policy it is the European Union that matters.