Connect with us

Europe

Four Pieces of Advice to Emmanuel Macron about the INF Treaty

Dr. Andrey KORTUNOV

Published

on

Emmanuel Macron’s recent response to Russia’s proposed moratorium on deploying short- and intermediary-range missiles in Europe has caused an uproar. European media was quick to conclude that the French leader effectively supported his Russian counterpart’s idea. The Kremlin voiced a similar interpretation of his statement. Capitals of Central Europe responded with a barrage of accusations against the Élysée Palace, suggesting its current occupant was undermining the unity of the West and was, once again, all too willing to make unjustified concessions to Moscow. Many in the United States were surprised that France was trying to influence the fate of the INF Treaty, which was (or rather had been, before its demise) a bilateral treaty between Moscow and Washington.

Macron had some explaining to do to his American and European partners, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, journalists and experts, and he assured them that France was not really supporting any kind of moratorium. At the same time, his government is not discarding the idea of shaping a “new security architecture” together with Russia and is, in fact, advocating a “transparent, substantive and critical dialogue” with Moscow. “You can’t dismiss what could be the basis for further discussions”, Macron said, explaining his reasoning.

Constructive Uncertainty?

Some ambiguity in French rhetoric regarding the INF Treaty is understandable. On the one hand, the French government has no desire to open a new front of opposition with NATO, whose relations with France are complicated as it is and which has already fully aligned with the US on the INF Treaty. Neither did G7, during its summit in Biarritz, dare attempt to adjust the patently flawed and unconvincing US narrative regarding the preservation of the INF Treaty.

On the other hand, Macron does not want to lose his shot at the now-vacant position of foreign policy leader of Europe, including regarding Russian, which is very important for the European Union. Even less would he wish to surrender the issue of the INF Treaty (with its direct and fundamental bearing on the foundations of European security) to Donald Trump, who has not shown himself to be particularly reliable or benevolent towards Europe.

The French initiative seems to be left hanging. Emmanuel Macron held a meeting with Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the Normandy Four summit in Paris, but the INF Treaty does not appear to have been discussed in any detail. As any other “deep state,” the French bureaucratic machine is more inclined to sabotage any bold new ideas than nurture them. Time is passing, and the initial shock caused by the dissolution of the Treaty is fading, overshadowed by new problems and new challenges. The United States’ withdrawal from the INF Treaty did not cause an immediate apocalypse and life without the Treaty is becoming part of the “new normal” that both Eastern and Western Europe have been talking about for almost six years.

It would be very disappointing if the interest shown by France in the INF Treaty remained just vague political declarations and rhetoric without any substantial practical output. If I were to advise Macron on foreign policy, I would give the French leader four pieces of advice on how to drive the issue of the INF Treaty, as well as European security in general, out of the deadlock.

Avoid Issuing Ultimata

First of all, it would be unwise to follow the United States in demanding that Moscow completely destroy its controversial SSC-X-8 missiles as a prerequisite for any dialogue about a moratorium on deploying short- and intermediary-range missiles in Europe. It could be insisted that the Russian side provide additional information about this system, and new verification mechanisms could be offered in addition to those that had been provided for by the INF Treaty. The matter of increasing transparency and predictability of Russian missile construction could also be brought up.

Yet the ultimatum that SSC-X-8 be destroyed essentially means that Russia is offered a choice between two clearly unacceptable courses of action. Either Moscow should repent of violating the INF Treaty deliberately and maliciously over the course of many years, willfully trying to conceal these violations from its western partners, or it should declare that it did not violate the treaty – but is willing to destroy a perfectly compliant system just because the Pentagon and NATO do not like it.

We recall that, back in their time, Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze took the second path: they did not acknowledge that the Soviet “Oka” short-range missile (NATO designation SS-23 Spider) fell into the category of arms to be destroyed under the INF Treaty, but still agreed to dismantle Oka as a gesture of goodwill. This was a step for which Gorbachev and Shevardnadze are criticised by many Russian experts, politicians and military officials to this day. Everyone who has the slightest idea of the brand of foreign policy pursued by Vladimir Putin will likely agree that the negotiation style that worked with Mikhail Gorbachev thirty years ago will not work with today’s Russian president, especially since the level of trust between Russia and the West is critically low at the moment.

Be an Honest Broker

No one can deprive France of its right to voice concerns about Russia’s compliance or noncompliance with the INF Treaty. For one thing, Russia can be accused of not paying enough attention to the doubts and concerns raised in Washington and many European capitals. Yet it would only be fair if Paris also paid more attention to the concerns and suspicions of the Russian side, even if Quai d’Orsay considers them to be ungrounded and unworthy of serious discussion.

The Russian leadership has repeatedly noted that the Mk 41 missile defence launch systems deployed in Romania and Poland could be used to launch Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles; therefore they are in breach of the INF Treaty. The US side has bluntly rejected these suspicions, primarily arguing that launch of sea- and land-based missiles requires different software. After withdrawing from the INF Treaty, however, the United States essentially confirmed Russia’s suspicions, conducting Tomahawk tests without much preparation of land-based launch sites.

Sadly, these tests did not elicit any visible response in Europe. Moscow had to draw the logical conclusion that Europeans were not prepared to make an objective and impartial assessment of Washington’s actions and could not claim the role of mediators on the INF Treaty issue. It is obvious that Macron would have a much stronger position in his dialogue with the Kremlin if he could pose as an “honest broker” willing to consider the arguments of both parties to the Russia–US dispute.

Look for New Formats

Speaking about a “transparent, substantive and critical dialogue” with Moscow regarding the INF Treaty, it would be helpful to decide what possible format this dialogue could take. That is, of course, if Macron is earnestly aiming to bring this dialogue out of the narrow confines of bilateral Russia–America relations. Using the NATO–Russia Council to launch a discussion on nuclear issues that concern Europe does not appear the best solution at this time. The Council will hardly begin working to the full extent of its capacity in the foreseeable future. For now, it is struggling to make progress even on the much less complicated and sensitive issues of military confidence-building measures on the European continent. It is unfortunately hard to count on the OSCE as a platform for “structured dialogue” either since this platform has not even yet brought about the modernisation of the Vienna document.

This means we need to think about creating a separate ad hoc group in NATO to conduct talks with Russia on the INF Treaty. This group could probably include members of the Alliance that are also members of the “Nuclear Club”, namely the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Perhaps countries that accommodate elements of the US European missile defence system (Romania and Poland) might also be included. When the NATO–Russia Council gains its full institutional capacity, the ad hoc group could be seamlessly integrated into its work.

Another interim solution might be to create such an INF Treaty group outside NATO confines, similar to the European tripartite group of France, the United Kingdom and Germany that was established for the Iran nuclear talks. This option would allow the numerous delays and complications associated with NATO’s cumbersome and complex coordination procedures to be avoided.

In any event, the French leader should be prepared for the new format to not only draw criticism but also meet desperate opposition from those powerful political forces in Europe that will inevitably see it as an obvious attempt to undermine the foundations of Transatlantic unity.

Propose a New Strategic Project

The problem of short- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe, which is once again coming to the fore in European politics, appears impossible to resolve outside the broader context of a new European security architecture. The INF Treaty itself did not appear thirty years ago out of the blue but arose out of Mikhail Gorbachev’s ambitious political project to build a “Common European Home”. Had there been no such project, leaders of the continent’s eastern and western states would have scarcely overcome the resistance put up by the high-ranking military officials and conservative politicians that had risen to their posts over the long decades of the Cold War.

The French leader appears to understand the need to link the INF Treaty issue with the new political project. Yet the only thing Emmanuel Macron has ready for this project so far is the pretty slogan about creating “a common Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok”. The problem is: slogans have little credibility in today’s Russia. In fact, this precise slogan has already been pushed for the last thirty years, while the reaction of Moscow’s western partners has been sceptical and wary at best, and at worst there was no reaction. So it is only logical that the French President’s statement has not generated much enthusiasm in Russia.

Similarly, Macron’s statements about the need to achieve “strategic autonomy” for Europe are taken with more than a grain of salt. Other European leaders, from Angela Merkel to Federica Mogherini, have convincingly invoked this autonomy many times before Macron, but tangible progress in this direction is yet to be seen. Macron’s idea to tear Russia from “China’s embrace” and return it to the “European family” is also unlikely to find many supporters among the current Russian political leaders.

To win over sceptics, engage the indifferent and inspire hope in enthusiasts, the lofty call to build a new “Greater Europe” must be accompanied by detailed and elaborate blueprints. The name of the project may be changed as work on the blueprints gets underway: instead of the vague contours of a “Greater Europe”, we will see, emerging from a thick fog, the imposing stature of a “Greater Eurasia.”

From our partner RIAC

Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council.

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

An Austro-Franco-German Proposal for a European Post Covid-19 Recovery Programme

Tereza Neuwirthova

Published

on

WIIW Director Holzner addressing the Conference

The conference named “75 years of Europe’s Collective Security and Human Rights System”, which took place on the 1st of July at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, brought together experts related to the reality of the Old Continent and its Union over the course of the past 75 years of its post-WWII anti-fascist existence. It was jointly organized by four different entities (the International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies IFIMES, Media Platform Modern Diplomacy, Scientific Journal European Perspectives, and Action Platform Culture for Peace) with the support of the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, numerous academia supporting and media partners.

The conference gathered over twenty high ranking speakers from Canada to Australia, and audience physically in the venue while many others attended online – from Chile to Far East. The day was filled by three panels focusing on the legacy of WWII, Nuremberg Trials, the European Human Rights Charter and their relevance in the 21st century; on the importance of culture for peace and culture of peace – culture, science, arts, sports – as a way to reinforce a collective identity in Europe; on the importance of accelerating on universalism and pan-European Multilateralism while integrating further the Euro-MED within Europe, or as the Romano Prodi’s EU Commission coined it back in 2000s – “from Morocco to Russia – everything but the institutions”.

The event itself was probably the largest physical gathering past the early spring lock down to this very day in this part of Europe. No wonder that it marked a launch of the political rethink and recalibration named – Vienna Process.

The panel under the name “Future to Europe: Is there any alternative to universal and pan-European Multilateralism? Revisiting and recalibrating the Euro-MED and cross-continental affairs”, was focused on discussing the determinants of Europe’s relations with its strategic Euro-MED and Eurasian neighborhood, the possible pan-European political architecture as well as on the forthcoming post-crisis recovery.

On the latter topic, the panelist Mario Holzner, who is the Director-General of the WIIW Austria, outlined the policy proposal on the post-pandemic European recovery programme, elaborated by his Viennese Institute in collaboration with the Paris-based research institute OFCE  and the German IMK Macroeconomic Policy Institute. The Recovery Fund recently proposed by the European Commission represents a benchmark in the era of stalled European integration, and during the unstable and precarious post-pandemic times it holds a crucial role for overcoming the immense political and economic crisis of 2020 . Following on much public debate about the recovery financing, which however has heretofore lacked the proposals for concreteprojects that the EU should allocate the funds into, it is now urgently needed to come up with these.

WIIW, OFCE and IMK, three research tanks dealing with economic topics, suggested two main pillars – an EU one, and a national one- for the spending of the Commission’s recovery programme that reaches the amount of €2tn and is to allotted over a 10-year horizon. The spending of the EU pillar is to be channeled into the area of healthcare, eventually giving rise to a pan-European health project under the name Health4EU. Not least, another efficient allocation of the funds located in the programme’sEU pillar is to projects helping to mitigate the risks resulting from climate change, as well as to develop an EU-wide rail infrastructure that would substantively contribute to achieving the Commission’s goals of carbon-neutrality at the continent.

Among other, the proposal introduces two ambitious transport projects- a European high-speed rail infrastructure called Ultra-Rapid-Train, which would cut the travel time between Europe’s capitals, as well as disparate regions of the Union. Another suggested initiative is an integrated European Silk Road which would combine transport modes according to the equally-named Chinese undertaking.

Mr. Holzner’s experts team put forward the idea to electrify” the European Commission’s Green Deal. Such electrification is feasible through the realisation of an integrated electricity grid for 100%-renewable energy transmission (e-highway), the support for complementary battery and green-hydrogen projects, as well as a programme of co-financing member states’ decarbonisation and Just Transition policies. Together, the suggested policy proposals provide the basis for creating a truly sustainable European energy infrastructure.

From the national pillar, it should be the member states themselves who benefit from the funding allocation in the overall amount of €500bn. According to the experts from WIIW, these resources should be focused on the hardest-hit countries and regions, whereas it is imperative that they are front-loaded (over the time span of three years).

The overall architecture of the programme’s spending, involving the largest part of the budget, needs to be focused on long-term projects and investment opportunities that would serve as a value added for the European integration, while also allowing to build resilience against the major challenges that the EU currently faces. The proposed sectors for the initiatives which could be launched from the EU’s funding programme are public health, transport infrastructure, as well as energy/decarbonisation scheme. Accordingly, it is needed that the funding programme is primarily focused on the structural and increasingly alarming threat of climate change.

As stated in the closing remarks, to make this memorable event a long-lasting process, the organisers as well as the participants of this unique conference initiated an action plan named “Vienna Process: Common Future – One Europe.In the framework of this enterprise, the contributing policy-makers and academics will continue to engage in meaningful activities to reflect on the trends and developments forming the European reality while simultaneously affecting the lives of millions. The European system, formed over centuries and having spanned to a political and economic Union comprising 27 states, is currently being reconfigured as a result of numerous external factors such as Brexit, the pandemic, as well as the dynamics in neighbouring regions. All of these are engendering the conditions for a novel modus operandi on the continent, whereby it is in the best intention of those partaking at this conference to contribute to a more just, secure, and peaceful European future.

Continue Reading

Europe

Britain, Greece, Turkey and The Aegean: Does Anything Change?

Published

on

Since at least 1955, the Aegean Sea has long been an area of contention between local powers Greece and Turkey on the one hand, and the US-UK-Israeli strategic axis on the other, with the Soviet Union and then Russia defending its interests when necessary, since the Aegean cannot be separated from the Eastern Mediterranean as a strategic whole, nor from Syria, Cyprus, Egypt, Palestine and Israel. In this essay, we shall, by using original documents, unravel the background to the present media hysteria over a potential war between Greece and Turkey.

Mental Underpinning

As Giambattista Vico, beloved by James Joyce, wrote, the world moves between periods of order and disorder. At the moment, there certainly seems to be a surfeit of disorder or, in the words of some attention-grabbing media pundits, chaos. We should also bear in mind Francesco Guicciardini’s dictum that things have always been the same, that the past sheds light on the future, and that the same things return with different colours. The current Aegean clash between Greece and Turkey is no exception. Let us look briefly at British policy to gain a more realistic insight into what is really happening, and slice through the emotional and warlike rhetoric emanating mainly from President Erdogan, emphasising as it does Ottomanism and Sunni Mohammedanism (thus undermining Kemalism), and in turn holding NATO to ransom, and distracting the Turkish people from an impending economic crisis.

British Imperial Origins

The origins of Turkish claims go back to Britain bringing Turkey into the Cyprus question in 1955, in breach of Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and then helping Turkey with its propaganda.1 This enabled Turkey to link the Cyprus issue to unfounded claims in the Aegean. Let us look more closely at British policy.

In 1972, Turkey was threatening Greece over its legitimate building of a radar station on Limnos, first for national defence purposes, and then integrated into NATO’s radar network. Britain recognised Greece’s objections to Turkish sabre-rattling: the Head of the FCO’s Southern European Department (SED) consulted Western Organisations Department (WOD), including the comment ‘what looked prima facie like a strong Greek case in law’.2 In a typical bout of taking French leave of the problem, WOD replied: ‘The last thing that we want to do is to find ourselves playing any part in it’.3 Thus, the rights and wrongs of the case were irrelevant to the FCO. Non-involvement was the order of the day.

But internally the debate continued. On 28 September, an FCO legal adviser wrote: ‘My preliminary view is that I agree with the Greek contention that when the Montreux Convention entered into force the provisions of the Lausanne Straits Convention concerning the de-militarisation of Lemnos terminated. I am of this opinion because of the plain words of the two treaties in their context and in the light of their object and purpose.’4

In the event, the issue was fudged, and war was avoided. But the claims remained, to be resuscitated whenever it suited Turkish foreign policy, as in 1975 and in the wake of the invasion and occupation of over one third of Cyprus. Turkey expanded its claims to cover several Greek islands. Again, in private, the FCO revealed the absurdity of the Turkish claims, with the Head of Chancery at British Embassy in Ankara writing: ‘Another example of perhaps typically Turkish thinking on this occurred when I was discussing this subject with Mr Dag, a First Secretary who works to Mr Süleymez […] He said that all that was needed for progress was that the Greeks should give in! I was left with the impression that reference to the International Court was still seen as something rather irrelevant and that the Turks hankered firmly, however unrealistically, for a bilateral solution. This is perhaps not surprising as they can presumably not have very much confidence in winning their case at the Court on its merits alone.’5 In this connexion, Henry Kissinger also pressurised the British Prime Minister to water down a draft UN resolution, so as to appear less supportive of the Greek position.6

The British position can be seen even more plainly in an FCO brief in 1977: ‘It happens that the British Government’s view of the issue is much closer to the Greek than the Turkish view. In particular, Britain supports the entitlement of islands to have a continental shelf.’7

The backstage reality is however better encapsulated in the following extract from an FCO paper: ‘We should also recognise that in the final analysis Turkey must be regarded as more important to Western strategic interests than Greece and that, if risks must be run, they should be risks of further straining Greek rather than Turkish relations with West.’8

At the Moment

The question arises as to whether anything will alter intrinsically in Greek-Turkish relations and in Anglo-Saxon support for Turkey. We are currently witnessing a repeat of previous illegal Turkish actions in the Aegean. France, as often in the past, tends to support Greece more openly, and now Italy has joined in a naval exercise with the French and Greeks. Germany is more difficult, as it still seems to place its enormous business interests in Turkey (its ally in the Great War), including large arms sales, above international law. Britain, the US’s acolyte in the Eastern Mediterranean, is enjoying the possibility of a Franco-German EU-weakening split, as it always has.

If it does however come to serious push and shove, Germany will have to succumb to the French view on Turkish law-breaking, since the EU depends more than ever on the Franco-German axis, and irritated commentators are starting to make comparisons between the Nazi genocide of Jews and Turkey’s genocide of Armenians and others. This is likely to have an effect on the German institutional psyche, still intent on being seen to be humanitarian, to balance the horrors perpetrated in the past. This leaves us with a potential disagreement between the Franco-German axis and thus the EU (even with a Germany being reluctant to criticise Turkey too obviously) on the one hand, and the US-UK-Israel axis on the other. Although the US is still trying, with the UK (and, until recently, Germany) to force Greece and Turkey to talk to each other on an equal footing, this is precisely what Turkey wants, so as to avoid its claims going to the International Court at the Hague. Russia, although happy to see two alleged NATO allies talking about war against each other, and undermining an organisation that it sees as obsolete and a threat to world peace, would not like to see major disorder on its southern flank, as this could affect its strategic interests in Syria and the region as a whole, interests that are considered by many to more legitimate than those of the US, thousands and thousands of miles away.

The only question is whether there will be another international fudge – which means only postponing the problem – or whether UN Law of the Sea will prevail (of course Turkey has not signed the UNLOSC Convention) and put Turkey in its place, with a concomitant return to Kemalism and friendship with neighbours, or even a weakened but less jingoistic Turkish state.

Footnotes

1 – Mallinson, William, Cyprus: a Modern History, I.B. Tauris, London and New York, 2005, 2008, and 2012 (now Bloomsbury), pp. 22-25.

2 – Hitch to McLaren, minute, 7 September 1972, BNA FCO9/1525, file WSG 3/318/1, in Mallinson, William, Britain and Cyprus, Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.

3 – Ibid., Ramsay to McLaren, minute, 13 September 1972.

4 – Ibid., Wood to Hitch, minute, 28 September 1972.

5 – Fullerton to Wright, letter, 28 September 1975, BNA FCO 9/2233, file WSG 3/318/1.

6 -Telephone conversation between Kissinger and Callaghan, BNA PREM 16/1157.

7 – FCO brief, May 1977, BNA PREM16/1624.

8 – ‘British Interests in the Eastern Mediterranean’, FCO paper prepared by South East Europe Department, 11 April 1975, BNA FCO 46/1248, file DP1/516/1.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Europe

From Intellectual Powerhouse to Playing Second Fiddle

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

A multi-ethnic, multi-religious culture built Spain into an intellectual powerhouse so much so that after the reconquesta scholars from various parts of Europe flocked there to translate the scientific and philosophical works from classical Arabic into Latin triggering the European renaissance. 

But soon there were other changes.  The Holy Office of the Inquisition was born.  Muslim dress, Arab names and the Arabic language were outlawed.  A new inferior class of people emerged – Moriscos.  They were Muslims who had converted to Catholicism under threat, usually of exile and loss of property.  Many of course continued to practice Islam in secret. 

Discrimination and mistreatment led to Morisco rebellions which were crushed.  Eventually they were forced into internal exile to the northern provinces of Extremadura, La Mancha and New Castile where there was greater tolerance particularly in La Mancha. 

In Toledo, the area around the cathedral gained fame as an informal school of translators.  Often Morisco, these translators’ services were available to scholars or others requiring translation of Arabic texts.  It is here that the narrator of Cervantes’ epic Don Quixote of La Mancha finds a translator for an Arabic manuscript, a supposedly historical account of Don Quixote’s adventures.  The author of the fictional text is Cide Hamete Benengeli, a name that is clearly of a Morisco.  If Spain was busy making Moriscos a non-people, Cervantes was reminding them of their heritage.  

In 1492 when the last Arab Emirate (Grenada) was relinquished to Catholic Spain the treaty signed promised Muslims the right to their way of life in perpetuity.  Their Catholic Majesties Ferdinand II and Isabella I soon reneged on the deal.  Restrictions, internal exile, discrimination and forced conversions were the result.  But even the converted were not safe.  As Ottoman power expanded to the Mediterranean, Spain felt threatened.  Morisco loyalty became suspect and in the early 17th century they were expelled from Spain as were the Jews.  So ended 900 years of coexistence, fruitful and friendly that changed to suspicions and final expulsion under Catholic Spain.

And what of Spain?  Having lost its intellectual dynamism, it took its brand of intolerant Christianity to the Americas and added it to European diseases to which the people there had no immunity.  A devastated but Christianized population was the result.  Time and immigration have changed demographics.  A majority of Argentines for example have Italian ancestry; German influence in Chile which encouraged immigration from there in the 19th century is another example.  

Our own Ferdinand and Isabella composite resides in the White House with a good chance he will not next year.  Life will go on and people will continue to practice the religion of their birth or choice. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia38 mins ago

Rohingya repatriation: Has the world forgotten about the Rohingya crisis?

In August 2017, the Myanmar army committed atrocities to the Rohingya people in Arakan state of Myanmar including rape, torture,...

Economy3 hours ago

Amirabad Port: The game changer in Indian foreign trade

Authors: Vahid Pourtajrishi & Mahdi Torabi Seaports have played undeniable role in international and even local trade environment. To demonstrate...

South Asia5 hours ago

A Way Forward – Neutralizing the Surge in Insurgency With Diplomatic Empathy in Kashmir

Nationalismis slowly losing its emancipatory value as the progressive inclusion of minority groups in public policy decision making has become...

Newsdesk7 hours ago

Most countries failing to protect women from COVID-19 economic and social fallout

The COVID-19 pandemic is “hitting women hard”, but most nations are failing to provide sufficient social and economic protection for...

South Asia9 hours ago

Regional Power politics and Pakistan foreign policy

“Under the shadow of Growing antagonism among Regional Powers, Pakistan needs to formulate  pragmatic foreign policy by staying between the...

Tech News11 hours ago

Technological Revolution Accelerated by Coronavirus Crisis in Latin America

Latin America and the Caribbean is in the midst of a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” of technological innovation which requires enhancing...

Newsdesk13 hours ago

Progress on Sudan political transition, but challenges remain

Political developments in Sudan continue to move along a positive trajectory, while planning for a UN mission to assist the...

Trending