Anger over a lack of unity in EU Foreign Policy

 

Cyprus Exercises its Capacity for an Independent Foreign Policy 

Ongoing developments in the deepening and expansion of the political project that is the EU lead to a concentration of power in ever smaller circles of people. The result of this is the dilution of sovereignty in the nation-state.  

 

The clearest manifestation of a nation’s freedom is its ability to demonstrate an independent foreign policy; to define its own relationship with the rest of the world. 

 

EU institutions have incrementally over many years eroded the capacity of member-states to exercise power over its foreign relations. 

 

In the EU Constitution (rejected in a popular vote in both France and Netherlands) and its replacement, the Lisbon Treaty (rejected in a popular vote in the Republic of Ireland) there were changes in voting arrangements among the Council of Foreign Ministers from the previous terms outlined in the Nice Treaty. 

 

Article 16 of the Treaty on European Union stipulates the conditions for a qualified majority: Majority of EU member-states: 55% (or 72% if acting on a proposal from neither the Commission nor from the High Representative) . 

 

This week saw senior figures in EU Foreign Policy circles vent rage that Cyprus is “going against the grain” in order to make a point in an unrelated issue (reported in The Guardian here). 

 

EU leaders were seeking to present a united front in its response to current civil unrest in Belarus. However, Cyprus is (at the time of writing this) threatening to block European Union sanctions on Belarus. The Cypriot government has argued this is because the bloc has declined to levy similar measures against Turkey over a long-simmering dispute about maritime rights in the eastern Mediterranean. 

Geo-political Considerations

Accusations by Cyprus that the EU is inconsistent in applying sanctions against odious states are demonstrably correct. And not just with Turkey. 

 

The hypocrisy of Western leaders in their concerns about Human Rights abuses is laid bare when you think of support for politically useful despots. Onetime British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray blew the whistle (at great risk to his career) on the use of torture in the country he was stationed in.  

 

The strategic partnership between Uzbekistan and Western governments excuses people being boiled alive by the authorities in the former USSR country, it seems. Craig Murray's "Dirty Diplomacy - Murder in Samarkand" (2007) is reviewed by the NY Times here.