CentreRight

Unknown EU Foreign Minister Wants Her Own Airplane Now

The absurdity of appointing a never-elected, inexperienced, politically correct bureaucrat as the EU’s first foreign minister is slowly coming back to haunt Brussels. With less than 100 days in office, Catherine Ashton has fluctuated between Brussels’ laughing stock and its resident scapegoat. Criticized by even the most ardent of EU supranationalists, it has emerged that Baroness Ashton has received a letter from the UK Foreign Minister with some rather pointed advice for the world’s highest paid female politician.

Instead of knuckling down and getting on with her highly-paid job, Baroness Ashton has astonished even the greediest of Brussels’ bureaucrats by claiming she is being held back by not having her own airplane. Apparently, the Spanish EU Presidency thinks that Baroness Ashton should not have to share a plane with the French Foreign Minister, with whom she flew to an EU conference last week. She deserves her own Air Force I to compete with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Other EU elites are claiming that the European Commission is holding Baroness Ashton back by unfairly hanging on to resources and responsibilities in trade, aid and development. However, the Lisbon Treaty left the division of foreign policymaking responsibilities ill-defined among its actors, which now include five people who call themselves “President” within the EU’s institutions. It was entirely predictable that European Commission President José Manuel Barroso would attempt to control EU foreign policy by stealth.

It took eight years of tortuous negotiations, bullying and cajoling for the EU to formally pass the Lisbon Treaty which created the new EU foreign minister’s post. But it has taken just three months to unravel. And while completely out of her depth, Baroness Ashton is not solely to blame. The Lisbon Treaty has created several additional layers of EU bureaucracy to one of the world’s least efficient organizations, and added a twenty eighth European foreign minister for Washington to deal with. Rather than bring anything more to the table, the Lisbon Treaty has just created more headaches for the world to come to terms with and Baroness Ashton is just one of many.

Note to the EU: Haitian Crisis is not about You

Only the EU could survey the devastation suffered by the Haitian people and make it all about them. With as many as 200,000 people estimated to have died and a second powerful earthquake hitting the country this morning, the EU has thrown itself into a spat with the United States, with the French Cooperation Minister accusing the U.S. of “occupying Haiti,” during an EU meeting in Brussels. No mention of the fact that while U.S. soldiers are clearing the airport for aid deliveries, flying orphans to the U.S., and have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton coordinating the American response as the government’s highest priority, EU officials are safely ensconced in their cozy Brussels’ offices drinking lattes and bemoaning American quickness.

MEP’s have been even more vitriolic, telling EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton that her lack of visibility in Haiti is a devastating blow for the credibility of the EU – despite the fact that she herself acknowledged that she would be more of a hindrance than a help in Haiti right now (perhaps the only moment of lucidity displayed by Mrs. Ashton to date). Liberal French MEP Marielle de Sarnez told Mrs. Ashton: “politics is above all about symbols, and that is why I don’t think you should be here, but in Haiti.” The rest of the world however, thinks it’s about saving lives.

To be fair to the MEP’s holding Mrs. Ashton to account for her £270,000 annual salary, they were right that she should have at least stayed in Brussels to coordinate EU action instead of taking off for London this weekend to tuck into her Sunday roast as normal.

Whether it be MEP’s, the European Commission or French ministers, the EU has done the unthinkable and managed to frame this humanitarian crisis in its pointless and relentless obsession with bashing America. However, it is the desperate hand-written signs of Haitians themselves saying, “welcome America” that tell the real story: if you find yourself in the poorest and most vulnerable situation on earth, it is the stars and stripes that you want to see coming over the horizon; not the EU’s crown of thorns.

EU Foreign Minister: From Underwhelming to Epic Failure

After eight years of bullying, cajoling and harrying, the EU formally introduces the Lisbon Treaty today and will replace the quiet man of foreign affairs, Javier Solana, with the unknown and unwanted Baroness Catherine Ashton.

Solana has led the EU bloc in foreign affairs for over a decade. His most notable achievement by far has been the steady centralization of foreign policy in Brussels. Concrete achievements toward global stability and security are virtually impossible to identify: Solana will leave office with a third of Georgia’s territory under Russian occupation, despite having the European Union take the lead in negotiations during the August 2008 War; Iran has just announced that it will further defy the international community and construct another 10 uranium enrichment plants despite years of much-trumpeted EU negotiations; and Russia has just simulated a nuclear attack on Poland, to deafening silence in Brussels.

From today onwards, a different voice will be on the end of the line when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rings ‘Europe’. The inexperienced and clueless Baroness Ashton, who has never held elective office, will take over the EU’s sprawling international bureaucracy and become the face of Europe. No one is expecting much and neither should Washington. Secretary Clinton should take note therefore: there is still no substitute for calling London, Paris, Berlin or Rome if she really needs to talk to ‘Europe’.

And The Winner Is ... Brussels

In perhaps the least-watched and least-electrifying “election” of recent times, the European Union (EU) today appointed a permanent President and a Foreign Minister.

Described by The Daily Telegraph as a “little-known Belgian federalist and (the) Labour peer who has never held elected office,” the anonymous Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy and the UK’s European Commissioner Baroness Ashton were appointed to the posts by EU leaders over a private dinner in Brussels this evening.

Rompuy – officially from the centre-right of the political spectrum, whatever that means in Belgium – enjoyed the support of France and Germany, who saw his key attributes for the role as (1) unstinting support for further European integration; and (2) invisibility on the world stage; neither Merkel nor Sarkozy are ready to relinquish the spotlight just yet. Ashton’s attributes were simple (1) she was female, center-left and from a large EU member state; and (2) she wasn’t the Iraq-War supporting, American-loving Tony Blair. Divvying-up the posts between left/right, male/female and large/small member states are the way things are done, Brussels-style: there’s no room for merit or democracy in Brussels’ processes.

Catherine Ashton will take office with an international rolodex thinner than the average city councillor. Then again, Herman Van Rompuy will take office without even a job description. The only winner in all of this is self-aggrandizing EU elites who have finally realized the trappings of an EU superstate, albeit without a semblance of credibility or legitimacy.

Hillary Clinton Gets It Wrong

There was widespread media speculation that during her meeting today with Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would raise objections to the Conservative Party’s pledge to repatriate key powers from the European Union to the United Kingdom. Labour, trailing the Conservatives in the polls by double digits, are no doubt rubbing their hands together in glee that their left-wing media allies have dealt a blow to the Tories electoral hopes by labeling them as politically extreme.

This is precisely why Hillary should not get involved; she is an experienced enough political operator to smell a political rat when it’s in her kitchen. The ‘furor’ at Foggy Bottom over Lisbon is undoubtedly driven by the Labour Government, in conjunction with EU elites, determined to kill any future referendum on Lisbon. Having bullied Ireland into a Yes vote, Brown et al. are on nothing less than a holy crusade to close the wound of Lisbon which has scarred Europe for the past few years.

More importantly, the United States should not be concerning itself with Britain’s constitutional arrangements. As America’s closest international partner and a fully-functioning democracy, Britain has the political maturity to determine its own destiny. Secretary Clinton has no reason to break faith with the British people who are quite capable of making their own decisions on matters of sovereignty and self-determination. And she should read the polls: three quarters of British people want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, fulfilling the broken manifesto pledge by Labour.

Lastly, Secretary Clinton is making a rod for her own back. In less than a year, it is almost certain that she will be dealing with a Conservative Government which is committed to renegotiating Britain’s relationship with the EU. She should not want to start off on the wrong foot.

Besides which it remains entirely unclear why she thinks it will be easier dealing with Brussels than dealing with London. It isn’t José Manuel Barroso who will send troops to send to Afghanistan. It isn’t Javier Solana who will join America in sanctioning Iran. And it certainly isn’t Benita Ferrero-Waldner who will take in prisoners from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo. With the Lisbon Treaty in force, the EU will undoubtedly interject itself into the national decision-making of EU members on issues of defense and security, but Washington should be ready to see its life get a whole lot worse in that instance.

A Referendum on Lisbon: It’s about Our Broader Relationship with the EU

The Czechs have told the EU today that they intend to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by the end of the year. A collective sigh must be doing the rounds in Brussels that the interim Czech government and its sovereignty-loving President, Vaclav Klaus will ratify the Treaty before Gordon Brown is kicked out of office and replaced by the Lisbon-loathing David Cameron.

Brussels should not be so cocky. Although David Cameron looks unlikely to hold a post-ratification referendum on Lisbon, he has already said that “matters can not rest there”. He is now promising that a future Conservative Government will repatriate a series of powers from Brussels to Westminster.

However, this is precisely why it is essential that David Cameron holds a post-Lisbon referendum. The Conservative’s promise of a referendum on Lisbon was always about something far broader than the Treaty itself; it sought a mandate to go to Brussels to renegotiate the terms of our membership of the EU commensurate with British interests and public attitudes. Rejecting the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum is the political earthquake which Cameron needs to undertake this mammoth task.

Conservatives do not really want a relationship with the EU based what we have now. If Cameron’s tactic is to renegotiate our relationship with the EU by repatriating key powers – defense, justice, home affairs and employment legislation for a start – then he will need to head-off Brussels’ inevitable pushback with his own ‘game-changer’.

The new intake of Conservative MP’s projected for the next election, as profiled by Conservative Home, are more like Dan Hannan than Ken Clarke. The Shadow Cabinet also has more than its fair share of vocal EU-skeptics. Lisbon has been the key EU talking point since 2007, and prior to that the EU Constitution. Cameron cannot walk back from that now. A post-ratification referendum on Lisbon remains Cameron’s best catalyst for starting a conversation he cannot ignore: how he will formulate a relationship between Britain and the EU that his party and the public will rally behind.

Has America Made Poland the New France?

Which country in Europe announced yesterday that the EU should expedite the development an independent defense identity, build its own military transport aircrafts rather than buy American, bolster the EU’s procurement agency and have an EU Foreign Minister attend NATO meetings?

Although this reads like the French national security strategy, it is in fact Poland who announced these priorities for its 2011 Presidency of the European Union. One of the most EU-realist, pro-American, NATO-supporting countries announced yesterday that even energy security – previously its most pressing priority in Brussels – would take second place to the development of a European defense identity.

This announcement comes just days after President Obama unceremoniously abandoned Poland and the Czech Republic by reneging on the Bush-era agreement to place elements of the U.S. missile defense shield there. For Poland, this decision was a bridge too far; already disappointed by America’s failure to grant them visa-free travel, and President Obama’s lack of appreciation for its significant Afghanistan deployment, Warsaw has seemingly chosen a European route rather than the Atlantic one.

In December 2008, The Heritage Foundation stated:

“When President-elect Barack Obama finally makes his decision about whether to proceed with deployment of U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, he should know that the implications of that decision will reach far beyond Warsaw and Prague: It is a decision on which the future of the transatlantic security alliance itself rests. If the United States chooses to abandon its Central and Eastern European allies as well as its obligations to NATO, it will hand the European Union a blank check to pursue an autonomous defense identity, independent of NATO, and will reduce America’s influence within the transatlantic alliance significantly.”

President Obama should be in no doubt that America will lose out in this equation. The militarization of the EU embodies the worst elements of European animosity toward the United States and will fundamentally undermine the NATO alliance. And replacing individual European allies with a single EU foreign minister is a monumentally bad idea, as Dr. Henry Kissinger noted in 2001:

“When the United States deals with the nations of Europe individually, it has the possibility of consulting at many levels and to have its view heard well before a decision is taken. In dealing with the European Union, by contrast, the United States is excluded from the decision-making process and interacts only after the event, with spokesmen for decisions taken by ministers at meetings in which the United States has not participated at any level.... Growing estrangement between America and Europe is thus being institutionally fostered.”

By abandoning the Third Site missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, President Obama not only made America less safe, he threw away important bilateral allies in Europe, and endangered the transatlantic relationship. It may take decades for America’s leadership in Europe to recover.

A New EU-Backed Berlin Wall

Almost as predictable as President Obama’s groveling apology for America’s greatness before the UN is the EU’s ‘independent’ report that Georgia is to blame for Russia’s illegal and immoral invasion of its sovereign territory in August 2008.

Even by the EU’s sky-high standards of shamelessness, this “blame the victim” mentality is shocking. With a budget of over $2 million and initiated by the EU’s chief Russian apologist Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini came to the most politically-convenient conclusion Brussels could have hoped for: Tbilisi – and specifically its President Bush-backed leader Mikheil Saakashvili – started the whole thing. Sure, Russia made things worse but blame must be laid at Tbilisi’s door.

Following President Obama’s shameful surrender to Moscow in abandoning the Third Site missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, Moscow must think Christmas has come early. Among other things, since President Obama’s election in November Moscow has:

1. Threatened NATO members with offensive missile deployments;
2. Cut off energy supplies to Ukraine;
3. Had its spies caught operating at NATO headquarters; and
4. Taken military control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s borders which it unilaterally recognized in violation of an EU negotiated ceasefire.

However, Brussels and Washington have reacted with a big, warm embrace for Moscow and a chilly brush-off for Tbilisi; while Russia enjoys the seemingly unending fruits of Obama’s ‘reset’ tree, Tbilisi continues to languish in the cold.

In an open letter this week, former Czech President Vaclav Havel and other European leaders petitioned the West to remember the appeasement culture of 1938-9 that led to one of the darkest periods in modern history. It states: “a big power will always find or engineer a pretext to invade a neighbour whose independence it resents.” The letter went on to state bluntly: “Twenty years after the emancipation of half of the continent, a new wall is being built in Europe – this time across the sovereign territory of Georgia.”

EU Manipulating Brown and the British Electorate?

The Times is reporting that Gordon Brown’s negotiating position in Brussels has been unexpectedly strengthened. Scared at the prospect of a Conservative victory in an early general election, EU powers are apparently willing to prioritize British agenda items in the coming months, lest the Conservatives come to power and hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Firstly, this is a calculated and serious interference in British domestic politics and lays to bed any semblance of democracy or decency on the part of the European Union. Secondly, it is all but certain that Britain’s interests will not be furthered in any significant way. The report suggests Brown wants to prioritize a ‘green agenda’, which is cynical in the extreme since this is already a long-standing priority for the EU and especially the new Swedish EU Presidency.

Thirdly, it reveals the power that Britain could wield within the European Union on a consistent basis if only it had the political will to do so. It is patently clear that Brussels needs Britain more than vice versa, and will stop at nothing to avoid the renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the EU. With this in mind, David Cameron should not be afraid to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty regardless of its ratification status. He should have no hesitation in telling the British people that he intends to negotiate a relationship with Europe that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the costs, none of which is possible under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.

Gordon Brown should not be taking any solace from the warm welcome he received in Paris today. Although the compliments showered upon him will be welcome relief from the battering he now receives on a daily basis in Britain, he can be sure that it will only last as long as he is serving the European project. Gordon Brown continues to preside over a failing and flailing Government which lacks the credibility and legitimacy of public support. Notching up a few favors in Brussels will not revive his political career and will not see British interests furthered.

Sally McNamara: The EU is already trying to progress from Superstate to Superpower - and must be stopped

By Sally McNamara

One could never accuse Javier Solana of lacking ambition. In typical Euro-arrogance, EU ‘Foreign Minister’ Solana has already assumed an Irish “Yes” vote to the Lisbon Treaty and predicted that EU diplomacy will eventually rise to such heights as to match the US and China (Note: several other countries have not yet signed the wretched Lisbon Treaty either, including Poland and the Czech Republic).

Last year, I questioned Mr. Solana about the Lisbon Treaty when he appeared on a panel in Washington alongside former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, UN official Kemal Dervis and President of The Brookings Institution, Strobe Talbott. He seemed genuinely perplexed that someone would rain on the parade of unfettered Euro-gushing that was enveloping the event. When I asked him about the EU’s utter disregard for public opinion opposing further European integration, he dismissed my factual question, saying: "I’m not going to be very long, because Strobe and Kemal have defended the case which to my mind doesn't need too much to be defended.”

President Obama should not be be criticising America's past actions

By Sally McNamara

In terms of heavyweight battles, political bouts come no bigger than former US Vice President Dick Cheney taking on President Barack Obama in Washington last week, with regard to national security issues. In a piece or pure political theatre, President Obama gave a lengthy speech at the National Archives in Washington DC, followed mere moments later by Vice President Cheney speaking at a downtown Washington think-tank in answer to the young President. The topic du jour was Guantanamo Bay, and chiefly, Obama’s claim that the Cuban prison and other Bush-Administration policies have left America less safe.

Among Obama’s earliest Presidential promises were pledges to close Guantanamo and end harsh interrogation practices. He has selectively released Bush-era memos detailing CIA interrogation tactics and banished the phrase “War on Terror” (in favour of “Overseas Contingency Operation.”) So far, the charismatic Obama has had it all his own way, but the straight-talking former Vice President responded with a no-nonsense appraisal of what the Bush administration did in the wake of 9/11 and why.

He detailed their strategic actions post 9/11, without apology, and said that he would not hesitate to take the same steps again. Even though his speech was distributed to the audience before Obama had delivered his, it provided an uncanny point-by-point answer to President Obama’s litany of criticisms and liberal hand-wringing.

David Cameron should take on the European issue now

The political firestorm over MP’s expenses shows no sign of abating, as public anger continues to grow at seemingly unending stories of home flipping and unjustifiable claims. By itself, the stench of corruption can often be enough to bring down a government. However, it is the growing sense of mistrust that Labour has cultivated in its past three terms which have had such a damaging cumulative effect on political life more generally.

Labour’s broken promise to hold a referendum on the European Constitution (later Lisbon Treaty) is undoubtedly a big part of the public’s mistrust of this Government. At the last General Election, all three major political parties were committed to holding a referendum on the European Constitution. Yet only the Conservatives stood behind their commitment when EU elites birthed a virtually identical twin and gave it a new name.

Labour’s broken promise to hold a referendum on the Treaty didn’t come close to bringing down the Government. However, it confirmed to the British electorate a sense that regardless of what they promise in their manifestos, governments no longer feel honor-bound to stand behind those commitments. Labour’s sheer brazenness over Lisbon has not gone unnoticed and it will not go unpunished.