Crisis Caused by Whose Diplomatic Mistakes?

             US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, has pointed a finger at the EU for the deteriorating relations between the USA and Middle East. I would like to make a counterargument and point out that if there is anybody to blame on the escalating diplomatic crisis in the Middle East, it is the USA that has caused it with its narrow minded policies toward that region. It is the blind support of the USA of Israel that has caused this drift and various mistakes in the strategies in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, and not the EU’s policies toward Turkey.
             Yes, as William Hague stated in the World Economic Forum, the EU has made a strategic error in distancing itself from Turkey, but it does not mean that the division of Cyprus or the worries of Germany and France over immigration of Turkish citizens to the EU are the problems with no possible diplomatic solutions. The Members of the EU are overwhelmed with the internal economic troubles and busy with bringing their deficits under control; therefore the negotiations with Turkey have not been exactly in the top of the priority list for the politicians. At the moment, the Members of the EU have to assure that their policies will guarantee a strong future for the EU and its economy and that the internal campaign promises of the each member state will coincide with the EU agreements and regulations; otherwise the question of Turkey joining the EU will lose its relevance all together. Thus one has to give these states some time to deal with their internal problems during this economic downturn before they are expected to sign new agreements and treaties, I believe that it is also for Turkey’s best interest to join the EU when the economic, financial, and political reforms for a stronger EU have succeeded. Currently the European countries are too busy on fixing the financial mess that the USA created with its under-regulated financial markets and the culture of corporate greed. Unfortunately, this culture had spread to Europe against the common sense of the Europeans who are otherwise very conservative. The EU has not forgotten Turkey, it is part of Europe and it always will be. When Israeli navy hijacked Turkish flagged ships at the high seas and caused the death of Turkish citizens, European countries strongly criticized the actions of Israel while the USA was not even capable for a valid diplomatic statement. Therefore, I don’t think the Defence Secretary of the US has any right to point his fingers at the EU, but instead he should look in the mirror for the diplomatic crisis in the Middle East.

Häly Laasme

Europe Lacks a Backbone in Foreign Relations.

             Why are the European countries sometimes incapable for decisive decisions in the foreign relations that would benefit them even when the perceptions of the USA are not evident? Why are the European governments so determined to ruin their relations with the Middle East and why do they allow Israel to conduct human rights violations and international law violations without consequences? Why do the European governments fail to understand that the geopolitical interests of the USA will sometimes differ from the interests of Europe? The USA is not next to the Middle East, while Europe is, and therefore it is the responsibility of the European governments to develop better relations with Middle Eastern countries, while the USA, because its distance, can allow its policy makers to make decisions that might not be in the best interest of Europe or are more ambiguous in their interpretation of the international conventions. The USA is a strongest ally to the European countries and its importance should not be undermined, but it does not mean that our views and foreign policy decisions always have to coincide. The governments of Europe have to make decisions that would benefit their citizens and residents, while it is the duty of the USA government to take care of its people. This is why we all pay taxes to our governments, to assure that the basic fundamentals for the existence of state, security and justice, would be satisfied. For example, Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary can allow statements like, “We are greatly supportive of Israel security and that is not going to change,”(1. June 2010) after Israel had broken international maritime law (if Israel’s blockade of Gaza is considered illegal by international law) by boarding Turkish flagged ships outside Israel’s territorial waters. On the other hand, European countries cannot afford this kind of statement in any strategic move, because it is part of Eurasia and the security of its neighborhood is based on binding multilateral and bilateral agreements. If there is a fire in your back yard, you have to try to control its spread on your property. If one of the states starts avoiding the international agreements and the other states do not condemn it, the mutual bargaining processes and diplomatic relations in Europe will be greatly damaged because in Europe trusting other actors in the decision making is one of the greatest tools of leverage that every state in this region brings to the bargaining table. European diplomacy is based on trust and agreements that protect the sovereignty and security of its countries; therefore, there is not much room for tolerance toward states that avoid or undermine international laws and regulations – they simply have to be followed if they all want to have warm relations with each other. Europe cannot preach something that it is not capable of fulfilling itself. If it wants the Middle East to be a democratic Arabic region that abides by the international rules then it has to demonstrate by example that it highly values these rules and regulations and prohibits any encroachments.
             In the context of foreign relations, Turkey is part of Europe, even though it is not part of the EU, and it is in the best interest of Europe to support its fellow countries. This is utmost important for developing better relations with other Middle Eastern countries and Arab League. In the mediations, one needs a third party that both parties would agree upon and Turkey is a state that other European governments as well as Arabic countries find themselves looking toward when they are developing their reciprocal relations in the areas of trade and security; therefore Europe needs to support Turkey more than the USA does. International relations include variety of very complex issues and one can observe from this incident how international agreements work in reality. As a NATO member, Turkey should have a strong support from its allies if it feels that its sovereign rights have been infringed on. What we have observed in this case is that the USA has taken very reserved position in supporting another NATO member to clearly support the non-NATO country, Israel. This is certainly something to consider for the Eastern European countries which sometimes are concerned about their membership in the NATO and how capable it would be in guaranteeing their security if they, for example, would be in the same situation with Russia. Would NATO support them in the time of crises or would some of its members find that their continued relations with non-NATO countries are more important?” This incident has made the development of the new strategic concept of NATO even more essential for deeper understanding of the degree of alliance cohesion and what can the member states truly expect through this alliance; what are the threats considered relevant for NATO actions in today’s world and how they converge with national interests of members. After all, the aim of any kind of alliance is to umbrella the nations that would be able to support each other’s objectives in the foreign policy; otherwise the credibility of the alliance would become questionable. And Europe needs NATO, since it is currently the only multilateral framework that is capable for well coordinated and rapid counterinsurgency on the Eurasian continent if there should raise the necessity for military actions. It is not as much about the proliferation of nuclear weapons as it is about the acts of terrorism that all the European and Arabian countries have to worry about. Despite the differences in their views they all need peace to thrive economically or socially in today’s highly interdependent world.
             At the Al-Arabiya session of the World Economic Forum, “Davos Annual Meeting 2010 – Rethinking the Balance of Power in the Middle East,” Mr. William Hague, then the Shadow Foreign Minister from the Conservative Party of the UK, emphasized the importance of Turkey to the EU and how not supporting its ambition to join the EU would be a great strategic error because it is a great channel between the Middle East and Europe. He also stressed that if his party will be elected in the general elections of the UK, it will put some new British impetus into the Middle East Peace Process and that his party supports a complete stop of Israeli settlement activity. He stated that the peace process is a very important priority for them in the international relations and recognized the fact that many problems do stem from an inability to resolve this situation. Mr. Hague said that even though there might be mistrust between the Arabs and the West because the complications in the aspects of world affairs, many nations of the Middle East and Arab world are considered as friends and that Israel and Palestinian state have to find a way to live alongside in peace and security. From the session of the World Economic Forum it does seem that Mr. Hague and Europe are highly interested of warmer mutual relations with Middle East and Arab world, which also includes finding a viable solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If this is the ultimate goal for Europe, then why would the OECD make such a huge diplomatic mistake by inviting Israel to join the OECD economic club and not extending the same kind of invitation to Palestine? If the goal is to support the development of valid and peaceful relations between these two entities then why is the OECD determined to sabotage this goal with such a strategic mistake. Diplomatic negotiations include the premise that all the actors have to be treated fairly and with the same respect, but currently the diplomatic relations of Europe are very much biased toward Palestine, which have to be changed if the European community is truly interested of helping these two countries in continuation of the proximity talks that would lead to a common ground in their relations. If one observes the EU policies and treaties, he or she would notice that the same is expected from the members of the EU; thus, all the states expect to be treated by the same rules and regulations. For example, if the EU calculates carbon quotas for its member states or defines the rules for Eurozone, it has to apply the same conventions to all its members; otherwise it would not be able to govern the region effectively. One cannot give allowances to some states and then deny them to others if a productive cooperation is expected.

Häly Laasme