MILLSTONE OR MULTIPLIER? EU FOREIGN POLICY

EU foreign policy co-operation gives the UK a chance to persuade 27 other countries to support British aims – but Britain’s success depends on the UK showing more interest.

Since the Maastricht Treaty established the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in 1992, successive British governments have seen CFSP as an important tool to achieve national foreign policy goals. Were they right, or would Britain’s foreign policy be more effective outside the EU? One way to judge is to compare some of the priority objectives of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) with the EU’s foreign policy goals, for example on Iran, Russia, Somalia and international organisations.

Barack Obama and the Powell Doctrine, Reconsidered

President Barack Obama was elected to extricate the United States from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a sad irony of his presidency that among his foremost foreign-policy legacies will be leaving American involvement in both countries as among the first and most complex challenges his successor will face.

Greek foreign policy: The next ruin?

The economic consequences of Greece leaving the eurozone would be serious for the Greek people and the rest of the EU. The foreign policy implications could be equally bad. Russia policy aside, the Syriza-led coalition has been part of the European mainstream. If a post-Grexit Greece lurched from left-wing populist to right-wing nationalist government, its foreign policy could be an even bigger problem for Europe. 

The EU and Greece have finally agreed on a bail-out deal. But, as Christian Odendahl and John Springford have written recently (‘The Greek bailout deal resolves nothing’, July 13th), its flaws are so serious that it is likely to fail eventually. Before EU leaders steel themselves to expel Greece from the eurozone, they should think about Greece’s geopolitical importance (and not just its flirtation with Russia). 

Mogherini's mission: Four steps to make EU foreign policy more strategic

At her confirmation hearing, Federica Mogherini, the EU’s new high representative for foreign 

affairs and security policy, said that she wants to make EU foreign policy more ‘strategic’. She 

called for a ‘strategic rethink’ and asked for 100 days to review the External Action Service 

(EEAS), the EU’s diplomatic arm that she now leads. What steps should she take? 




Mogherini heads a service that struggles to live up to expectations.  Four years after the 

creation of the EEAS, European foreign policy remains disjointed, overly technocratic and too 

slow in response to political crises. There have been a few successes, including the 

negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo, the diplomatic détente with Iran and political reform 

in Myanmar. But too often, member-states pursue narrow national agendas while EU 

institutions lack the political clout to push for a common European agenda. The result has been 

a European foreign policy that punches below its weight.

The Top 5 Foreign Policy Lessons of the Past 20 Years

 Tell me, friend: Do you find the current world situation confusing? Are you having trouble sorting through the bewildering array of alarums, provocations, reassurances, and trite nostrums offered up by pundits and politicos? Can't tell if the glass is half-full and rising or half-empty, cracked, and leaking water fast? Not sure if you should go long on precious metals and stock up on fresh water, ammo, and canned goods, or go big into equities and assume that everything will work out in the long run?

Today's world is filled with conflicting signals. On the one hand, life expectancy and education are up, the level of violent conflict is down, and hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty over the past several decades. Private businesses are starting to take human rights seriously. And hey, the euro is still alive! On the other hand, Europe's economy is still depressed, Russia is suspending nuclear cooperation with the United States, violent extremists keep multiplying in several regions, the odds of a genuine nuclear deal with Iran still look like a coin toss, and that much-ballyhooed climate change deal between the United States and China is probably too little too late and already facingright-wing criticisms.

South Korea: Foreign Policy Impasse?

South Korea’s foreign relations especially in East Asia are in a state of impasse under the current President Park Geun-hye. During the last President Lee Myung-bak, it was clear that South Korea gave priority to its alliance with the US and resultantly drifted away from its closest economic partner, China.

The current President Park Geun-hye from the very beginning wanted to balance this over tilt. She tried to implement a two-leg policy, and made her first ‘official visit’ to the US and first ‘state visit’ to China, emphasising the importance of both in the foreign policy calculus of the country. It was indeed a very perceptive move. Similarly, South Korea under the current administration declared the initiation of ‘trust politik’ towards North Korea, which was a correction to the unconstructive hard-line policy of the previous South Korea administration. It was considered to be the right choice to pacify North Korea and engage it in meaningful dialogue towards denuclearisation, economic reform, and ultimately, bringing about a peace regime on the Korean peninsula.

Rouhani and Iran’s Foreign Policy: Charting the Change

After the presidential elections of 14 June 2013, Iran’s Hassan Rouhani has proved that he is introducing changes in the country’s foreign policy based on cooperation and moderation as he did when he was nuclear negotiator.

Iranians have shown that they seek moderation and reject a hardline policy. This election has therefore created opportunities and opened the door for a rapprochement between Iran and the West.

Principle, Rigor and Execution Matter in U.S. Foreign Policy

U.S. President Barack Obama has come under intense criticism for his foreign policy, along with many other things. This is not unprecedented. Former President George W. Bush was similarly attacked. Stratfor has always maintained that the behavior of nations has much to do with the impersonal forces driving it, and little to do with the leaders who are currently passing through office. To what extent should American presidents be held accountable for events in the world, and what should they be held accountable for?

US in South Asia: Declining Influence

The US’ influence in South Asia is fast diminishing and this trend is likely to continue deep into the future. In the aftermath of World War II, South Asia was considered a strategic backwater by the US policymakers. Additionally, South Asia offered little economic opportunities to the US corporate sector. With the solitary exception of turning Pakistan into an alliance partner, the US cared little about this region.

Even in the realm of alliance politics, the US had little to offer Pakistan. Pakistan’s membership in the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization, and the US’ military assistance to Pakistan was ineffective during Pakistan’s military misadventures against India. It was only after the late 1970s’ Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan that Washington got critically involved in South Asia.

What is wrong with German foreign policy?

During the euro crisis, Germany has become Europe’s unquestioned leader on economic policy-making. Both the strength of its economy and the demands of others for its money have given Germany a pre-eminent role. In foreign and security policy, Britain and France have generally set the EU agenda. The Ukraine crisis, however, may allow Germany to lead in this field, too. Germany has a special relationship with Russia, geographical proximity to Ukraine and strong economic ties with both. Meanwhile France is busy with two wars in Africa, and Britain is constrained by its europhobic domestic debate, as well as its post-Afghanistan, post-Iraq fear of foreign entanglements. 



Nevertheless Germany will not emerge as a leader of EU foreign policy unless it overcomes some of the weaknesses that hold it back. President Joachim Gauck (pictured) identified two specific problems in an important speech to the Munich Security Conference on January 30th: Germany has tended to evade some of the responsibilities that other Western powers have borne; and it suffers from a dearth of strategic thinking. Gauck did not refer directly to a third problem: in Germany, foreign policy is more commercially-driven than in some EU countries. 

How Monetary Policy Drives Foreign Policy

It should now be evident that America's foreign policy is to an extent being driven by our banking mess. Again and again, we see Washington, including Wall Street's handmaiden, the Fed, exporting monetary chaos implicitely in order to weaken the status of potentially competing reserve currencies:

The American Public's Indifference to Foreign Affairs

Last week, several events took place that were important to their respective regions and potentially to the world. Russian government officials suggested turning Ukraine into a federation, following weeks of renewed demonstrations in Kiev. The Venezuelan government was confronted with violent and deadly protests. Kazakhstan experienced a financial crisis that could have destabilized the economies of Central Asia. Russia and Egypt inked a significant arms deal. Right-wing groups in Europe continued their political gains. 

Any of these events had the potential to affect the United States. At different times, lesser events have transfixed Americans. This week, Americans seemed to be indifferent to all of them. This may be part of a cycle that shapes American interest in public affairs. The decision to raise the debt ceiling, which in the last cycle gripped public attention, seemed to elicit a shrug.

U.S. Foreign Policy from the Founders' Perspective

Last week I discussed how the Founding Fathers might view the American debt crisis and the government shutdown. This week I thought it would be useful to consider how the founders might view foreign policy. I argued that on domestic policy they had clear principles, but unlike their ideology, those principles were never mechanistic or inflexible. For them, principles dictated that a gentleman pays his debts and does not casually increase his debts, the constitutional provision that debt is sometimes necessary notwithstanding. They feared excessive debt and abhorred nonpayment, but their principles were never completely rigid.

Whenever there is a discussion of the guidelines laid down by the founders for American foreign policy, Thomas Jefferson's admonition to avoid foreign entanglements and alliances is seen as the founding principle. That seems reasonable to me inasmuch as George Washington expressed a similar sentiment. So while there were some who favored France over Britain during the French Revolutionary Wars, the main thrust of American foreign policy was neutrality. The question is: How does this principle guide the United States now?

Kerry Meets With Israelis and Palestinians to Revive Peace Process

Injecting a sense of urgency into his mission to revive the moribund peace process, Secretary of State John Kerryheld a round of meetings Thursday with Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

Jim Young/Reuters

Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Tel Aviv on Thursday. “This moment is a critical one for the region,” he said.

“I am convinced, with great humility, that this moment is a critical one for the region and particularly for Israel, for Palestine and for Jordan,” Mr. Kerry said before meeting with President Shimon Peres of Israel.

Israel Hints at New Strikes, Warning Syria Not to Hit Back

In a clear warning to Syria to stop the transfer of advanced weapons to Islamic militants in the region, a senior Israeli official signaled on Wednesday that Israel was considering additional military strikes to prevent that from happening and that the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, would face crippling consequences if he retaliated.

Atef Safadi/European Pressphoto Agency

For several hours on Wednesday, Israel closed Mount Hermon, above, a popular tourist site in Golan Heights, after mortar shells fired from Syria landed there.

“Israel is determined to continue to prevent the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah,” the Israeli official said. “The transfer of such weapons to Hezbollah will destabilize and endanger the entire region.”

Frustrated with diplomacy, some in Congress seek total ban on Iran’s oil

After failing to halt Iran’s nuclear advances with harsh economic sanctions, a group of U.S. lawmakers and analysts is proposing a more drastic remedy: cutting off Iran entirely from world oil markets.

Advocates of the measure say increases in oil and gas production in the Middle East and North America have made it economically feasible to organize the first truly global boycott of Iranian crude. Such an effort, if successful, would sideline the world’s fourth-biggest oil producer and could force Iran to change its nuclear policies.

For American Foreign Policy, No Good Options

One feels sympathy for U.S. President Barack Obama. Whatever he does in Syria, he is doomed. Had he intervened a year ago, as many pundits demanded, he might presently be in the midst of a quagmire with even more pundits angry at him, and with his approval ratings far lower than they are. If he intervenes now, the results might be even worse. Journalists often demand action for action's sake, seemingly unaware that many international problems have no solution, given the limits of U.S. power. The United States can topple regimes; it cannot even modestly remake societies unless, perhaps, it commits itself to the level of time and expense it did in post-war Germany and Japan.

 

Indeed, Obama has onerous calculations: If I intervene, which group do I arm? Am I assured the weapons won't fall into the wrong hands? Am I assured the group or groups I choose to help really are acceptable to the West, and even if they are, will they matter in Damascus in the long run? And, by the way, what if toppling Syrian leader Bashar al Assad through the establishment of a no-fly zone leads to even more chaos, and therefore results in an even worse human rights situation? Do I really want to own that mess? And even were I to come out of it successfully, do I want to devote my entire second term to Syria? Because that's what getting more deeply involved militarily there might entail.

Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relations and Obama's Visit

When U.S. President Barack Obama travels to Mexico on May 2, he will arrive amid a period of sweeping transformation in the country. Embroiled in myriad political battles and seeking to implement an extensive slate of national reforms, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's administration has been focused almost solely on internal affairs. Meanwhile, after years of delay, the U.S. Congress has been debating gun control and immigration reform -- two issues of serious interest to the Mexican government.

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto

U.S.-Mexican relations are strategically important to both countries, and Mexico's period of transition has created opportunities for each to reshape the partnership. And although U.S. media attention has focused primarily on bilateral security issues ahead of Obama's visit -- namely cooperation in Mexico's drug war -- the Pena Nieto administration is working with Washington to re-orient the cross-border conversation to one centered primarily on mutual economic possibility. 

Kerry: NATO should consider response to Syria WMD threat

US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday that NATO needed to consider its role in the Syrian crisis, including how it would respond to a potential chemical weapons threat.
"We need to continue to consider NATO's role as it relates to the Syrian crisis," Kerry told a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, adding that the planning that the alliance had already done was appropriate.

Hagel, in Israel, Presses U.S. Agenda on Deterring Iran

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel opened a weeklong visit to the Middle East on Sunday by pressing an American agenda focused on deterring Iran — including a significant new weapons deal for Israel — coupled with a strong caution that it would be premature for Israel to opt for unilateral strikes on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Mr. Hagel, who was subject to intense,even hostile scrutiny during his confirmation process over whether he was sufficiently supportive of Israel, hailed the “very special relationship” between the United States and Israel. He also repeatedly emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself “in a very dangerous, combustible region of the world.”