[ad_1]
The presidents of Turkey and Belarus are laughing out loud. The two neighbors of the EU have been in trouble recently. This week, Europe had to impose sanctions on one of them, Belarusian Aliaksandr Lukashenko, for blatant manipulation of the August elections and subsequent crackdown on protesters. So what, Brussels didn’t lift a finger. If you don’t understand what happened, ask the third member of the minority bloc: Cyprus.
The island state has vetoed the sanctions, as any member state can, as the EU still requires that all foreign policy decisions be taken unanimously. This is one of the many factors that have emasculated European foreign policy for years. For example, China, surrounded by plentiful investment promises, could often “buy” one or even a few small countries in exchange for its veto when it comes time to vote on the EU’s response to human rights abuses.
Would you say to what extent to block sanctions against Cyprus for Lukashenko? Isn’t the government of Nicosia outraged by the brutal actions of this dictator against peaceful protesters, most of whom are women? Of course outraged. However, as is often the case in EU affairs, Cyprus is much more concerned about another conflict: the growing tensions with Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The ethnic Greek Cypriot population has always had problems with Turkey, which invaded the island in 1974. and helped establish a Turkish republic in the north of the territory, recognized only by Ankara. With the discovery of gas in the eastern Mediterranean, these disagreements have become even more dangerous as all neighboring countries now battle over maritime borders and drilling rights.
Last month, RT Erdogan, who, as always, lacked subtlety, sent a Turkish reconnaissance ship, accompanied by warships, into the disputed waters. This sparked outrage in Greece, Cyprus and other neighbors. France even sent its warship and two fighter jets, showing an unequivocal gesture.
However, Germany, which currently leads the EU on a rotating basis, and several other member states are in no rush to impose additional sanctions on RT Erdogan’s government. They want to give negotiations a chance, because the EU and Turkey have to deal with many conflicts at the same time.
These talks would also include dealing with refugees, whom RT Erdogan is happy to push forward as geopolitical infantry. Turkey will be the main theme of the next EU summit.
Cyprus fears that Germany and the EU are not prepared to act harshly enough against RT Erdogan. Therefore, Nicosia has used the only influence it can have and will hold the Belarusian sanctions hostage until the EU expands its measures against Turkey.
It is perfectly understandable that different Member States have different foreign policy interests, often based on their geography, history and even (as in the case of Cyprus) national identity.
However, in the past, this was also the case in trade policy, where, for example, the interests of French farmers and German car manufacturers are far from compatible. And yet, in the end, there was a general consensus that Europe is stronger when negotiating as a single trading bloc, even if that means that not all national interests have the same priority.
It would seem that a similar consensus on foreign policy should be possible. After all, if Cyprus can “win” a round this week, Poland or Lithuania could come back next time, blocking sanctions on Turkey if Cyprus doesn’t change its mind on Belarus.
France and Italy could mutually veto the interests of Libya, where they fought on opposite sides of the civil war. And anyway, several countries might want to block any initiative until the German government finally blocks the controversial oil pipeline between Russia and Germany.
As long as everyone can block everyone, everyone loses.
This madness must end. The decision, as highlighted by the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in her report last week, would be a qualified majority vote. All 27 Member States would impose sanctions or defend human rights if 55% were in favor. members representing at least 65% of the EU population.
A majority vote would not always be suitable for all Member States. However, this is the only way to give the EU the opportunity to speak with one voice on foreign affairs.
And in a geopolitically tense world, Europe as a whole needs at least to be heard, as it has finally agreed to try to negotiate with China. Rejecting unanimity in European foreign policy is an idea whose time has finally come.
[ad_2]
