Priorities, Priorities

Paddy Ashdown is a fairly popular guy; long before Nick Clegg was carving out a niche for the Lib Dems Paddy Ashdown was establishing them as a political force in the UK. One can’t help but think that his rather macho image as a former SAS type helped strengthen and broaden the idea of being a “liberal”. As with many pre Clegg Leaders Ashdown probably never saw the political success he deserved but he went on to play a significant role on the world stage particularly as High Representative in Bosnia during a critical stage of its reconstruction.

Ashdown was in Dublin recently to talk about this and made some forceful points at a meeting of a Joint Oireachtas Committee on European and Foreign Affairs. A full transcript is well worth reading here. In summary Ashdown feels the EU is letting Bosnia unravel and not standing up to Serbia and its client entity in Republica Srpska and the Jim Allister of Balkan politics Milorad Dodic. He also believes that the interference by Serbia in Bosnia should not be accepted in terms of the accession process. The December European Council blocked the beginning of Serbian accession to the EU on the basis of it’s dispute with Kosovo, the implication being that the interference with Bosnia is just fine.

 

Ireland has an interesting view on this. It has clearly supported Serbia, indeed it has gone well beyond the view of the EU Commission (which itself was quite critical of Serbia but held out accession as a route to dealing with it) and has used phrases such as “major advances“ and “monumental“ . This is relatively strong stuff. We have to remember that in many instances Irelands foreign policy positions can be word for word the same as Commission statements. Paddy Ashdown has a different view. Following a fairly comprehensive presentation on the situation in Bosnia he requested that Ireland make Bosnia a foreign policy priority in the same way that the UK has. There it is, a fairly straightforward request. We could even write the language “two countries overcoming division and making their way together in a modern Europe” quite the stuff of Ferrero Rocher.

I get the feeling that such a request will be easily shrugged off and presumably the Government can cite some reasons why not. Principally we will be told that Africa and our Aid partners are our real priority. Perhaps, although even though the Government has published a worthy Africa Strategy it has not officially stated this is a foreign policy priority and we do not have a comprehensive policy document setting out what Irelands priorities are.

It is a fair question as to what Irelands priorities are in Europe’s neighbourhood, the EU has a neighbourhood policy and the External Action Service gives it a lot of attention. In terms of enlargement we are for everyone, including Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Turkey to mention but a few. Larger countries have issues with many of these countries but it seems to be a hallmark of our foreign policy that we have a “come one come all” approach. On the surface that would be fine but following Paddy Ashdowns logic might be another way of looking at it. We could then speak out and say Serbian gross interference in the internal affairs of Bosnia, undermining the Dayton Agreement, is not acceptable and will be opposed by Ireland.

Europe is where we live and we should have something to say about what happens on our continent. In Africa we prioritise human rights and democracy, maybe this would be an approach that we could try out closer to home.

Where’s the Justice in That?

 

Everyone is fairly used to the EU being involved in more and more areas of their lives from consumer protection to competition policy to the environment. Most of this legislation is based on historical powers or competences related to the development of a single market for goods and services. However since Lisbon the EU is now involved in a whole host of what many may see as even more sensitive decisions in the fields of Justice and Home Affairs. For years these areas were known in Euro jargon as “The Third Pillar” with the core of Europe being the first pillar of social and economic policies and the second security and defence policy. While the ultra sensitive area of security and defence remains effectively subject to unanimity a huge slew of policies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs have been, since the Lisbon Treaty, subject to Qualified Majority Voting by member states with the Commission proposing laws and an equal say for the European Parliament.

This is important stuff affecting a huge amount of our ordinary lives. The EU and most notably the Commission have been busy beavering away on a whole host of directives and regulations since these new arrangements came in to force. The Irish Government would, with some justification, say that Ireland and the UK have an opt out from measures in this area and this is true. Indeed one Commission insider described it as a fantastic piece of negotiation, but what exactly is on the way and what is it we want to opt out of and why?

The basic idea of EU action in this area is the desire to create an area of “Freedom, Security and Justice” a concept going back to the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1996. The EU has long felt that areas such as organised crime, terrorism, illegal immigration, drug smuggling and human trafficking needed a coherent cross border approach. This is seen as a natural balance to the freedom of movement the EU has long guaranteed. In the run up to Lisbon and the previous constitutional treaty there was some debate about Justice and Home Affairs but generally this important area receives little public attention (a notable exception was a debate at the now defunct National Forum on Europe in 2005).

Vivienne Reading is the EU Commissioner in the area and she is responsible for a full legislative programme covering a vast area of policies ranging over the right to a lawyer, European Arrest Warrants, the right to a translator for accused persons and much more. Since Lisbon the EU Parliament also has a say and the Council of Ministers must also vote on any proposal. While areas like immigration and visas are arguably recognised as well established at the EU level it is areas such as the criminal law that might surprise people in terms of some of the proposals coming forward. The Lisbon treaty provided for the extension of majority voting to, Union-wide recognition of judgments and judicial decisions; preventing and settling conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States; and facilitating cooperation between judicial and equivalent authorities in relation to criminal proceedings and en­forcement of decisions.

So Ireland can opt out or indeed opt in at any time which can be useful. Ireland stated at the time of Lisbon that it wanted to opt in but the day to day picture is somewhat different. In reality the UK is the heavy hitter in terms of negotiations and dangling the remote possibility that it would cede anything in this highly sensitive area.

The European Arrest Warrant was a major development in this field and has created significant interest due to the Du Plantier case (due to French law allowing for extra territorial prosecution). Other measures have been introduced since to in many ways try and balance this rather egregious provision. Many of these seem to make complete sense such as the right of an accused to translation. Maybe one of the more basic and simpler ones on the agenda is the right to access a lawyer, but maybe it’s not so simple.

Here again it seems Ireland may opt out. This appears, like a lot in this area, to be due to differences in the respective systems in different countries and when the presence of lawyer becomes necessary. However it may seem odd to many people that Ireland is effectively against such a right in the EU. This surely is the problem; little of these extremely important and arguably cutting edge issues receive very much attention in Ireland at all. It could even be argued some of the issues at stake are as important as the economic debates we are having at the moment as they concern our individual liberties and freedoms. So whether it’s the media or Government would it be too much to expect somebody to please start talking about all of this?

 

Laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership

We may hear a lot more of this phrase in the near future

Gavin Barrett provides a cogent analysis of the new Treaty proposals recently signed off in Brussels. His thesis suggests that perhaps Enda Kenny should have had a lawyer on his 12 person delegation before agreeing to the idea of a new fresh Treaty, a concept which raises many new constitutional issues that amending the current treaties or instigating Enhanced Co-operation might not have done.  I wonder however if there is a different interpretation that could be taken?

There has been considerable Treaty development since the Crotty case in 1986, the people have (hesitantly in some instances) adopted many new and more far reaching provisions now reflected in the current treaties. This must surely inform any debate and legal deliberation as to what constitutes “laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to” the key test now contained in the Constitution. Gavin Barrett argues that something outside a traditional EU treaty would be vulnerable to challenge however surely the key issue is whether these changes would be “laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to ”. In this sense the emphasis is on the idea of necessitated by membership. If we weren’t in the Euro the actions might not be necessitated but as we are so dependent on the common currency it could be argued such changes are clearly necessitated by membership.

The Euro is clearly central to Ireland’s membership of the EU and is a major project of the Union so presumably actions to protect and ensure the Euros survival for Ireland meet this test. The Treaties have extensive and dedicated articles about the Euro and relating to “countries whose currency is the Euro”. Most pertinently Chapter 4 of Title VIII of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU and Article 136 therein and the Protocol on Excessive Deficits. A system of economic governance and indeed mutual surveillance of budgets is already provided for in the treaties. The improvement or tightening up of such provisions would surely pass the “Crotty Test” as it scarcely is a change that would “alter the essential scope or objectives of the Communities” Such change within the Treaties could be seen as minor and effectively tightening upon existing provisions in Irelands case.

However the idea of a new treaty is of course more problematic. If the proposals follow the urgings of Guy Verhofstadt and follow the wording of the existing treaty and are exclusively about the type of things in the treaty on deficits, budgets and securing the currency it should hardly matter that it is a new document as it will still be necessitated by membership of the EU and the Euro in our case. This is not the best method and is clearly caused by the UKs position but the above argument must be considered. An entirely distinct legal point is, as Mr. Cameron implies, whether the European Court of Justice will put up with this methodology. The 26 states are creating a treaty outside the current treaties but with the obvious and premeditated objective of influencing what happens within those existing treaties. This will surely be challenged.

All in all while complicated by recent developments there is still a sustainable legal view that any new treaty is within the parameters of what is needed and expected by existing membership and does not alter the essential scope or objectives of the Union

Irish Lisbon Protocols Won’t Emerge Until March, Hopefully Before Next Treaty!

Many of us will remember one of the key planks of the Governments second referendum Yes campaign was the inclusion of protocols to the EU Treaties which it was strongly implied were to be included in the Croatian Accession Treaty. These protocols covered taxation, education defence and abortion This was signalled as the next opportunity to re-open the EU treaties. This was an important commitment, for example the Referendum Commission’s website stated;

“The European Council has also made a decision which sets out the effects of the Lisbon Treaty on Irish policy and law in a number of areas: the right to life, family and education; taxation; and security and defence.

This decision is not part of the Lisbon Treaty, but is contained in a new international treaty which will be legally binding on all 27 member states of the EU. This new international treaty will come into force on the same day as the Lisbon Treaty, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by all the member states. The European Council has agreed that protocols will be added to a later EU treaty to give full effect in EU law to this decision (this is likely to be a Treaty of Accession for a new member state – such as Croatia or Iceland)”

Now that the Croatian Treaty has come and gone and as there is apparently a new Treaty in the offing, we might hope this process could be expedited. There was probably some unrealistic expectations that our protocols would actually be included in the text of the actual Croatian Accession Treaty but this was never a runner as it is about…eh…Croatia. However it would seem reasonable to have had the process for the Irish protocols finished by the same time. However it also emerges that the Irish Government only requested the actual changes in September, nearly two year after the Treaty entered in to force! So with parliamentary ratification required in all member states this was never going to be completed by December.

Even more revealing is that the European Parliament is still considering the protocols and will not be completing its deliberations until well in to the New Year. The Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Parliament has been considering a report on the matter by Inigo Mendez De Vigo, a Spanish Christian Democrat. A first hearing was held on November 25th! The Parliament will have to give its consent to the protocols and then member states will presumably have to ratify them. The report is envisaged to be completed by the end of  March. Given that the process of new treaty change is planned for the same time we might wonder if these protocols will ever see the light of day?

Declan Ganley has been commenting on this and sent a message on Twitter to Minister Lucinda Creighton. She replied @declanganley “Yes tax guarantee is included in Irish Protocol. Simple!”

Simple indeed, but no rush mind you.

To Treaty or not to Treaty

 

Brigid Laffan raises some interesting issues in relation to potential future treaty change in the Irish Times. The various options might also have an impact on the necessity for a referendum in Ireland as an intergovernmental treaty, it could be argued, would not be giving sovereignty to the EU under the Crotty Judgement and would like all other international treaties be subject to ratification by the Dail only. However it could well be equally debated that the same “Crotty principles” would apply to significant powers transferring to any new body outside of the state under articles 28.2 and 29.4 (the original argument made by Crotty).

There is a lot if misunderstanding about this. Quite frequently we hear that any treaty change requires a referendum. The Crotty case allows for all sorts of treaty change including moving things from unanimity to QMV but it arguably draws the line at the transfer of real and substantive powers to the EU. The entire case was around whether the 1973 vote and Act mentioning acts necessitated by membership allowed the state ratify the SEA in 1986. It would seem that things have moved on so much that this conundrum would be very different today and would have to consider the successive referenda since.

The most significant part was perhaps in a minority judgement;

“It is the opinion of the Court that the first sentence in Article 29, s. 4, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution must be construed as an authorisation given to the State not only to join the Communities as they stood in 1973, but also to join in amendments of the Treaties so long as such amendments do not alter the essential scope or objectives of the Communities. To hold that the first sentence of Article 29, s. 4, sub-s. 3 does not authorise any form of amendment to the Treaties after 1973 without a further amendment of the Constitution would be too narrow a construction; to construe it as an open-ended authority to agree, without further amendment of the Constitution, to any amendment of the Treaties would be too broad”

So treaty change does not always mean a referendum. In fact the very notion of “the Communities” has effectively disappeared with the advent of the European Union.

Turning again to Brigid Laffans piece, surely a co-ordinated effort by member states outside of the EU to make a different treaty exclusively altering or varying a key provision of existing EU treaties would be frowned upon by the European Court of Justice? The Schengen Treaty was adopted well before the Lisbon Treaty which contains many declaratory principles about the Union pursuing “objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties” and it “shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties”.

Similarly the use of Enhanced Co-operation under the existing treaties raises many issues. Given one option is for member states of the Euro only to participate in such a move the reluctance or inability of one of the 17 to take part could scupper the whole enterprise as presumably all changes would have to take effect in all 17 using the currency. The Treaties further provide that Enhanced Co-operation is to be used as a “last resort” when all other methods have failed, presumably requiring a reasonable lapse of time. Provisions in relation to Divorce and Patents are arguably of less magnitude than provisions governing the Euro. Presumably those countries not using the Euro would still have a major interest in any changes to the governance of the currency and as the Treaties stand these countries who meet the criteria can join at any time.

These two options seem to present problems at the European level. The Governments options are very limited but modest treaty change involving the 27 member states “allowing” the 17 make particular arrangements for the Euro and it’s governance should be achievable. Given the Euro, its governance and mutual surveillance are already part of the treaties (article 136 TFEU) any such change may not require a referendum in Ireland.

In touch, pause…engage?

It’s rare the European Parliament gets much attention. That’s a pity. It’s a great place, in many ways it sums up everything that is great about the EU. In it’s sprawling and costly buildings you can stand in a lift with Italian Christian Democrats, German Social Democrats, Scandanavian Liberals, French Greens and on it goes. There simply is no other multinational parliament functioning on party lines on our planet! There are rather boring and appointed parliamentary assemblies in the Council of Europe and NATO but nothing like this. Party discipline is extremely strong in the European Parliament with coalitions on a range of issues needed.

Those who say the EU lacks democracy should spend a bit of time in the Parliament and consider that this is a body directly elected by the people of Europe. For a number of years the Parliament had the reputation as being a talking shop and indeed its powers were limited. However the European Parliament has been the real winner in recent treaties and now enjoys practically equal power with the Council of Ministers. This means people need to pay a lot of attention to the directly elected parliament rather than always focussing on the musical chairs on the Council.

So it seems that the Parliament will get one of it’s rare moments in the sun in Ireland soon with its hearings on appointments to the European Court of Auditors. While European economic governance and key directives may not excite much interest the prospect of a Government nominee coming a cropper seems to get people talking. Again it is a refreshing approach from European institutions that appointees to  important posts go before a directly elected parliament of the people. This is common in most democracies and well recognised in the USA, the Irish Government parties also promised similar….Anyway back to the hearings.

Michael Noonan had some interesting remarks to make on the subject remarking that the Parliament had its own role but there were no Irish
members on the committee. Drivetime went on to play an interview with an influential Christian Democrat who seemed to have reservations on Mr. Cardiff, the same political family as the Minister who was rummaging for his green jersey. We still don’t seem to get it. Our three main historic political parties are all members (now) of the three largest political families in Europe and beyond. Sinn Fein and the Greens have similar links.

However our senior ministers still look at one of the most important European institutions through green lenses. Other Committee members were talking about the values and role of the nominee yet we seem to think nationality is the only issue. One can only wonder how much thought was given by the Government to the role of the European Parliament in this process. To a large degree MEPs are ignored between elections but expected to back national Governments at the drop of a hat. If this was the case we should simply go back to appointing our MEPs. If we are really engaging in Europe we should be engaging with the European Parliament, all the time, not just when our national Government wants something.

Hey, I don’t remember voting for you!

Critics of the EU have long argued that it is somehow an  undemocratic fit up. Generally this argument doesn’t stand up to examination  what with a directly elected parliament, an improved role for national  parliaments under Lisbon and more transparency in the Council of Ministers.  However in politics and Europe perception is everything. If the person on the street  was asked who is driving the response to the Euro debt crisis they would no doubt say Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy and who could say they are wrong. Indeed several commentators and senior people in politics constantly remind us that “Europe” is struggling with this crisis. However what exactly do they mean by Europe.

The original version of the EU was set up in a very particular way not unlike the idea behind the original USA. Particular institutions were given particular functions and roles. There has been a lot of  change down the years but a surprisingly large amount of the original “institutional architecture” (sorry!) remains. Put very simply, the appointed Commission was to be an independent referee to drive proposals. Member states were to be the final arbiters on laws. Initially the Parliament was to be consulted so as to give some direct voice to citizens but this is the one institution which has gained enormous powers and is now a co-legislator (sorry again!) in 95% of policy areas.

But hang on Merkel and Sarkozy are only 2 of 27 heads of states and Government and aren’t members of the other two institutions, indeed. Politics like life is changing. The media and dare we say the public like simple presidential politics, so too does the EU maybe as it has three
presidents! The idea of two leaders driving the process and taking responsibility is a simple message but of course there’s more to it than this. The Franco-German axis in European integration goes back a long way and has always been seen as the “driving engine” of the process. The historical reasoning is clear, these were the two countries at the heart of successive European conflicts and two of the largest founding states. Of course things have moved on since then. After the enlargement of 10 in 2004 many felt this axis would falter which it did for a while but it has been back with a vengeance in recent times.

So on which articles of the Treaty is this leadership duo based, well none of course. It may come as some surprise to many to learn that not every aspect of what happens in the EU exists within the treaties. What is happening here is politics pure and simple. It is also quite natural politics which has gone on for decades. EU leaders don’t just show up at summits one arm as long as the other. There are various sectoral council meetings, groups of officials, COREPER (permanent ambassadors to the EU, sorry the 3^rd) and a whole host of other things going on. But somebody has to take the lead.

Now we just agreed a permanent president of the EU Council in Herman Van Rompuy (one of the three presidents!) so shouldn’t he but doing
this. He should of course but maybe old habits die hard or maybe the fact that these two countries have a lot riding on this means they don’t want to let go. It makes little difference, in the end of the day any two, three or more countries could meet in advance of a summit and set out their priorities, it is due to realpolitik that two of the biggest and most influential do it on such a regular basis. In fact there are rare occasions that other groups meet. This regularity has gone in to overdrive with recent events but again there is nothing to stop any group doing the same.

David Cameron had a number of meetings with the “outs” after he left (or was asked to leave) the most recent Summit meeting on the Euro. There was brief speculation that he would lead a group of the “outs” for the future but this looks less likely now. So again any group of states can come together to try and influence the EU agenda and decisions. It is important to note however that the actual decisions are still taken under the treaties and the legal framework governing the EU as a whole. The Franco-German proposals are just that, they may even have audiences with other countries affected like Greece but the deliberations remain just that. If the other member states had a QMV (where relevant) or if even one disagreed on issues needing unanimity they could throw them out but they rarely seem to do so. Maybe it is easier for the others
this way or maybe the two big states ensure their proposals are acceptable to all. Maybe other states like to imply they are been brushed aside by this juggernaut for their domestic audience, who knows.

It is though undesirable for two leaders and two countries to play such a dominant role. Indeed the late Garrett Fitzgerald expressed his fears that this would come to pass and that a directoire would be established. His answer to the dilemma was to recommit to the “community method” (final sorry) the tried and trusted balance between the Institutions. Small states particularly benefit from this regardless of what naysayers say. The dominance of two states is bad for Ireland and bad for Europe. Small states themselves need to be the ones leading the charge to resuscitate the normal way of doing business, any takers?

Who Ya Gonna Call?

In relation to European foreign policy a popular anecdote is  of Henry Kissinger complaining that if he wanted to phone Europe who should he talk to. People might tell a similar tale about Europe’s current economic woes. It’s  now being said of course that the current economic crisis in Europe is caused by  not enough Europe. Precious little comfort to those who know that there is no public support for more Europe. Elsewhere people can read about the tendency to  blame Europe for everything. However at this time we need to understand why Europe  has been weakened and most importantly who did it.

Jacques Delors became a huge target for Eurosceptics especially  in the UK. Who can forget the famous “Up Yours Delors” headline in the Sun.  However many people have missed the real changing dynamic in the EU in the years since Delors. Perhaps the French socialist was somewhat overbearing in the role of EU Commission President but it scarcely seems believable now that Europe’s leaders wanted a strong Commission leader to drive the process of European integration. Another subtlety totally lost on Irish and other audiences was the very deliberate balance struck between the Institutions in the original design of the EU.

The search for the President of the European Commission has almost become a search for the least well known politician in the EU. We now, courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty, also have the spectacle of a little known President of the EU Council and a middle ranking polytechnic lecturer in charge of the EU’s foreign policy. Of course this is scarcely an accident. Irish debates about successive EU Treaties portray it as a grab for power by “Brussels” against the hapless member state thus avoiding another really big show. Similarly the naysayers want us to believe the all powerful unelected Commission is the enemy of all. Again a trip back to the original institutional balance of the EU is instructive.

The Commission was very deliberately an unelected body so as to be an objective and fair referee in a complex political field. Ironically most
long serving Irish EU officials are quick to point out the value of the independent Commission in resisting the power of the big states. However things have been changing in terms of the institutional balance in the EU. The huge growth of the democratically elected parliament has been a big story. Somebody now working in Government was once me telling how powerless the Parliament was compared to the mighty Commission. One glance at the number of registered lobbyists to each institution quickly settled that debate!

At the same time it has been the member states and their leaders who have been flexing their muscles. A look at the chosen candidates for Commission President tells all, Santer, Prodi, need I say more. So people railing against the Commission may have to think again, it is the political dominance of the European Council and particularly the leaders of the largest countries that is the real institutional story of the last 15 years. This has a real impact today on issues of economic governance. The leaders of the EU Council may talk the talk but they are singularly unable to actually do much without cumbersome intergovernmental agreements of the 17 and the 27. This is a direct result of the eroding of the delicate institutional balance of the EU. The populist clamour against the one independent EU Institution that could act on the economic stage has left the EU in a perilous position in this area. Many people wanted less Europe, we are perhaps seeing the results of this today.

Just Don’t Go There?

 

Many issues in foreign policy and international relations have a habit of coming around far too often in a very repetitive way perhaps even like the proverbial bad penny. Arguably the leading issue in this regard is the inability or unwillingness of the international community to intervene in a timely fashion in conflicts which may have significant impact on civilian populations. International law and policy has always struggled with these questions.

Recently there have been more of these conflicts to examine and perhaps learn from. Resolution 1973 on Libya was a significant development in this regard as a Chapter VII resolution (authorising force) with a distinct emphasis on protecting civilians. However such thinking is new and innovative and needs to be explored further. Now seems to be as good a time as any as the Arab Spring unfortunately keeps producing more challenging questions. While a conflict still rages in Libya the situation in Syria gives rise to fresh questions. It is a fair question to ask why there is intervention in some areas and not in others. Maybe it is not possible to give a detailed outline of every situation but some guidelines can surely be established. Of course each and every situation is changing all the time but perhaps all the more reason to attempt to set out what the basic principles are.

International situations will vary considerably from region to region and from time to time. While recent examples have involved internal democratic revolutions being put down this may or may not always be the case. We have seen and can imagine many situations such as traditional armed conflict, failed states, break-away states, ethnic enclaves and many more.

This offering can in no way be definitive but more some suggested starting points. It appears there are five conditions that should be met;

Other methods have not worked or cannot work due to the immediacy of the situation or other reasons: It seems important to recognise the huge amount of diplomacy that actually does prevent conflict. Arguably whole swathes of aid and trade fit in to this area too. Force should always be the last option and a certain space for diplomacy must always exist. Of course this should not allow for delay and obfuscation which are all to common when aggressors seek to avoid international attention.

There needs to be a clear and immediate threat to large numbers of civilian populations: This was the essence of the debate in Libya with a well crafted resolution. It is probably heartless and difficult to admit it but not every spat in a country deserves F23 planes. All human rights abuses and suppression should be addressed by the international community but we have to accept it is the immediate and the most serious that merit the most serious response. Capacity does matter too. This may be bad news for people on Bahrain and Syria, but things change and an escalation of a conflict needs to be looked at afresh as is certainly the case in Syria.

There is no functioning domestic democratic system: The poll tax riots did not need to be on the agenda of the Security Council. This of course could be controversial, what is and isn’t a fully functioning democracy, democracies can deteriorate as was the case in Tunisia, we have half baked democracies like Russia. The key question seems to be can issues of disagreement be resolved at the ballot box or not.

A regional intervention or regional agreement is preferable: Regional actors are still at a very primitive stage and have limited capacity. The Arab League gave some political cover to the Libyan mission but could scarcely be held up as an example. The role of these actors may remain more political for the moment and this is something desirable or preferable perhaps more than essential.

Ideally a U.N. Mandate should exist but special procedures for “Human Security” situations are needed: This is rather to invert or reverse some of the “traditional” Irish approach. It also seems important to draw on the widely recognised mistakes in Iraq. We should not throw out the necessary consensus implied in Security Council resolutions in prioritising a human security approach. U.N. rules and laws do exist but must be improved and traditional diplomacy can assist in many conflicts

Even in writing this the complexity of a one size fits all approach is evident and very learned minds indeed struggle with these concepts. We haven’t even considered issues like capacity (there is none), simple power relations (who’s up for taking on China!) or the constant compromises in trade and other relations. But clearly a lot of thought and work needs to go in to this. Maybe one country could take the lead, maybe a small non aligned country with little historical baggage…

 

Nothing to see Here?

The arrest of Ratko Mladic is a huge step forward for those who want to see a greater emphasis on ethics and human rights in foreign policy. Apparently of the 161 people sought by the ICTY in the Hague Mladic is number 160 brought to the dock. This is a tremendous achievement and
illustrates the international system can work sometimes and can put certain things right. Of course it is scant consolation for those who lost their lives or their relatives in this awful conflict or indeed the much greater number who suffered a similar fate in Rwanda, where in fairness an International Tribunal has done similarly good work.

This was a conflict that could have been shut down early on or at least nipped in the bud when the JNA demonstrated their determination to enter the fray in Bosnia itself. Many actors failed the people of this region. The EU talked the talked when they were unable to take even a baby  step in a military situation, the hapless Jacques Poos foreign minister of Luxembourg declared it was to be “the hour of Europe”. This was followed by inept and ineffectual troika delegation after troika delegation. The United Nations provided an insufficient mandate and inadequate resources for peace keepers meaning they could only watch as thousands of innocent civilians were massacred. Plenty of individual states failed to play it straight with the people in Bosnia.

So whither Ireland? Well of course we’re only a small state on the edge of Europe, faith and begorrah kind sir. It’s great to blame the big guys in these situations and claim it was noting to do with us but unfortunately from time to time we are put in a position where we have to take a stance. More recently we sought election to the UN Security Council only to be landed with a decision on the invasion of Iraq which left even Bertie Ahern turning verbal summersaults.

So it also was with the conflict in former Yugoslavia. The fiendishly clever Europeans rotated the presidency of the EU putting Ireland in the Troika during the conflict. Yet time after time the Irish Government and Dick Spring as Foreign Minister made out this was a complex civil war that we could make no difference to. As always our supposed independent foreign policy was almost identical to any other major power who had taken a position like the U.K. and the U.S. The presence of the JNA and it’s top generals like Mladic in a country recognised internationally gave lie to the notion of the civil war. Throughout Europe the generation who said never again sat on their hands while the innocent bodies piled up.

Ireland was front and centre in this approach, part of the Troika from mid 1996 on and made several statements on the matter. In 1993 the international community “guaranteed” 3 safe areas in Eastern Bosnia in Srebinica, Gorazde and Zepa. All areas were remorselessly attacked by Serb forces with both Zepa and notoriously Srebinica falling. The horrific scenes played out still seemed to leave European and Irish politicians unmoved.

We can only hope that some of the lessons of this conflict have been learned but it is still hard to say. At least the European Security and Defence Policy has developed some tools for dealing with conflict early and efficiently. The EU has had some successes in its missions to date but the U.S.
still appears to act as the final guarantor and of course had to contribute significantly to the eventual solution in Bosnia and the rest of the Balkans.

Ireland can’t walk away from this one but hopefully like everyone else we will play our part in trying to make sure it never happens
again.