The European Union was the only diplomatic actor to sound a dissonant note after the atrocities in Russia. Whilst the chaotic information shed some light on the indifference of the Russian bureaucracy, Bernard Bot, the Dutch Foreign Minister, requested information on how the siege was handled by the authorities. Blasted as “odious”, “insolent” and “blasphemous” by Russia, the EU has attempted to clarify this request as a mere fishing expedition for information, though it sounded critical, given its release in the aftermath of the atrocity. The BBC provide more information, including the telling note that the EU has adopted their methods by deleting the request from their official statement. Of course, the BBC provide a voice for the “insolent” Europeans.
But Andreas Gross, the Council of Europe’s rapporteur on Chechnya, told the BBC he thought Mr Bot actually had a point.
“The Dutch minister was totally right because what we just heard on the news, that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin wants to enforce more security troops, he wants to have a new crisis management, that’s not the point,” he said.
“They have to understand what the people are who do not share their own point of view. And this is a political task they have to learn.
“And in this sense the Dutch minister made a very, very soft attempt to make them think about this, too,” he added.
This is part of a telling pattern in the European Union’s response to terror and genocide. There are no sanctions targeted on the regime of North Korea. The EU webpage on external relations with the DPRK shows that no action has taken place since 2002 and that Brussels has proved unable to condemn a regime that shoots, starves and gasses its own citizens in a slow-motion Terror. The entire relationship is a transfer of funds from the European taxpayer to the Korean communists for varied “humanitarian” projects. One detects the shade of Palestine wagging a finger, as another regime with the blood of innocents, is partially propped up with Euros.
The Russians may have shown a traditional indifference to human life. In Europe, it is clothed with the sweet stench of hypocrisy.
The whole concept of EU foreign policy is bizarre. It’s just a playground for failed or tired national politicians, who amuse themselves by trying to do controversial things and get in the press.
Since the only people who vote in EU elections are already committed to a vague and woolly leftist agenda, these people don’t stand to suffer much political damage by what they say. It’s all very silly.
However, unpleasant as the choice would be, I’d rather live under a corrupt unaccountable regime such as the EU than under a corrupt unaccountable regime such as exists in Russia, so, once again, I’ve got no sympathy for the Russian state, and for Putin to get self righteous about some Dutch twit is far more hypocritical than anything even the EU would do. As others have pointed out, Putin doesn’t really care about people dying, he cares about getting re-elected.
As for EU aid to North Korea, it seems reasonable to me. I’m not really sure it’s our job to stop people in badly run countries from starving to death, but at least it’s a friendly thing to do. Sure, I guess we could invade, depose the regime, and spend 15 years trying to sort the country out, except:
1. That would cost me the taxpayer a lot more, and frankly I don’t care about the starving Korean’s that much and…
2. We appear to have completely forgotten how to run other people’s countries for them, which is a shame as we were quite good at it 100 years ago…
When NK gets a technology that allows it to deploy its nukes somewhere near Europe I’ll get a lot more concerned. Until then, hey, might as well feed their peasants.
Not quite. About 100 years ago you realized you weren’t in fact all that good at it. Just took most of those countries a decade or two to realize it, also. 🙂
J – What a naive little post was yours! “When NK gets a technology that allows it to deploy its nukes somewhere near Europe I’ll get a lot more concerned. Until then, hey, might as well feed their peasants.”
And you think the EU taxpayers’ blood money to N Korea goes to feeding the peasants, do you?
“Since the only people who vote in EU elections are already committed to a vague and woolly leftist agenda, these people don’t stand to suffer much political damage by what they say. It’s all very silly.”em>
So fatty Chris Patten, in charge of who-knows-what segment of the EU monolith, sending US$12m a month to the Palestinians is “silly”, is it? Not provocative? Not outrageous, given that the sympathies of most European populations do not lie with suicide bombers and the attempted destruction of Israel? Chris is just having his little “silly” moment, is he?
J: You seem to genuinely believe that EU funds to NK are really used to feed its people.
I’m amazed.
But then, you see NK as a place where people “starve to death” because it’s a “badly run country” where I, on the contrary, see a very effectively working Communist dictatorship using hunger as a weapon, in a now too familiar pattern.
As a consequence, “When NK gets a technology that allows it to deploy its nukes somewhere near Europe” I’ll be as concerned as you will, and I’ll also get really pissed at the idea that the EU aid would have paid for a part, if not all, of the said technology. Until then, hey, might as well fill Kim Jong-Il’s safe.
On comparing the European Union with the United Nations, there seems to be a remarkable similarity in their foreign policies.
Both seem to be strong on appeasement, both seem to be short on any sort of coherent and purposeful planning. Both are strong on ‘weasel’ words and very strong on cowardice, and of course, both are very strong on socialist idealism. Both favour the ‘bottomless pit’ theory of economics, and see graft as a virtue, and any sense of reponsibility, as a vice.
It is worth remembering that the division of Korea was one of the UN’s wonderful decisions, that the EU now picks up the tab for maintaining that situation is quite coincidental. Likewise the Palestinian problem, perhaps the first of the UN’s long list of utter failures.
Now failed European politicos have two choices open to provide a ‘top up’ their, already substantial, pensions, with a sinecure at the UN or with the EU. Mind you, competition from experienced grafters such as Annan et al, makes the EU option a tad more preferable.
That Russia chooses to get tough with terrorists, is surely up to them, it’s about time somebody did! the mealy mouthed pandering which passes for diplomacy these days, would seem to have been a complete failure.
I find it very amusing that the ‘Buggins turn’, EU President Bot, suddenly has the balls to speak out – him being the Foreign Minister of one of the least significant, most patronizing, appeasing of the countries of the EU. I suppose if he really upset someone, he could always call on the U.K. or the U.S.A for help.
The sad truth is that the outrage that happened at Beslen will continue because the perpertrators are in part directly funded by the EU.
And to make matters worse some of the state sponsors are directly armed by the EU.
The ultimate question being …. What will happen inside the EU when the EU finally cuts out support for terrorists and the sponsoring states ??
And it is only a matter of time before the EU has to make these cuts as the realities of the economic landscape within the EU takes hold.
I’ve no idea how the EU provides aid to NK. I’ll grant you that I’m assuming it _doesn’t_ simply ship some gold bars to the president with a note saying ‘please buy some food for your people’. I’ve no idea if the aid is actually in the physical form of food, or in the form of credit that can be redeemed for imported grain or whatever.
I’m sure the governement of NK would like to divert as much foreign aid as possible to it’s weapons programs. I don’t know how successful it is in doing so. If nothing else, the fact that we ship grain there means the NK regime can spend its own money on missiles rather than food imports.
I’m not a huge fan of the entire concept of ‘ethical foreign policy’, but I’m willing to give it a go. Going around making nice gestures of a few million here and there to ‘oppressed peoples’ isn’t very astute or helpful, but at least it shows you’re making the effort. And it’s better than going around making nasty gestures. I’d rather contribute a few million knowing that some of it ends up in torture chambers and missiles, than spend a few million bombing something in the hope that it’s a weapons factory and not an aspirin factory. If your foreign policy is going to be incoherent, it might as well be a touchy feely way, as opposed to a macho way. IMO
As to the threat from NK? No, I just don’t buy it. I’m not scared of NK, not scared of Arab terrorists, not scared of illegal immigrants. I’m slightly scared of China, the big evil nation that invades everyone but no-one mentions it, and I’m quite scared of the gangs of kids who amuse themselves wrecking British high streets.
Everyone gets their knickers in a twist over a bunch of freaks who kill civilians in far away places, but seems strangely tolerant of our ever more authoritarian, let ever less effective attempts at crime reduction in the UK. Bah.
One would like to ask this EU twits how they would handle such a siege in a better way? How would they handle a school for of children being starved to death and then to watch evil men mow down children as they run away?
Of course, we know how the Belgians handle child killers…
J – You first say you have no idea how the EU “helps” prevent starvation in N Korea [if indeed it does, and I doubt it], saying you don’t know whether it sends gold bars or actual food. In your next sentence, this turns into a fact: the fact that we ship grain there means the NK regime can spend its own money on missiles rather than food imports. Do we ship grain to NK? I doubt it. Money transfers are more likely.
“As to the threat from NK? No, I just don’t buy it. I’m not scared of NK, not scared of Arab terrorists, not scared of illegal immigrants. I’m slightly scared of China, the big evil nation that invades everyone but no-one mentions it, and I’m quite scared of the gangs of kids who amuse themselves wrecking British high streets.”
You don’t buy it, eh? And you think NK is building nuclear reactors for … ?
Who has China invaded lately? China strikes me as intent on wealth creation and managing its vast economy. It also seems to be perking up and taking an interest in being a global citizen. A lot of the designer home decor on sale throughout the world is imported from China. They four Carrefours, and although four is a miniscule number for a billion people, it tells us that wealth is filtering down and that people have the means to become consumers. China stopped being belligerent at least ten years ago – maybe longer. Now they’re engaged in the favourite Chinese pasttime (at which they excel, god knows): making money. Too busy to invade anyone.
I think most people who blog on Samizdata aren’t afraid of Islamic terrorists, although we recognise them as a threat that must be obliterated. You are correct to be frightened of feral British youths, however, especially as the police in Britain are supine in dealing with breaches of the peace.
People. The real threats to world peace are George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon.
How many times do you have to be told to get with the bloody program ?
The EU. Spitting on the graves of children.
J-
You don’t need to wait while NK gets the technology to deploy nukes near the EU. Iran is doing just fine thank you, and I believe they already have an ICBM that’s believed capability will already put it damn close. Fear not, the “facilitators” efforts to date seem to be working quite well, don’t you agree.
“So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.” – Churchill
“Everyone gets their knickers in a twist over a bunch of freaks who kill civilians in far away places,”
Yes, who cares about them or the children they murder. Not our problem eh?
Those Islamic terrorist would never attack the West would they?
There have never been any Islamic terrorists arrested in Britain with plans to attack civilians using chemical/biological weapons has there?
J, just out of curiosity, what color is the sky in your world?
I think you mean “global superpower”
Perhaps someone ought to tell the Chinese government, don’t you think?
So far. But they have occupied the Spratly Islands and are increasingly aggressive towards Taiwan. China is emerging from isolation and entering an expansionist phase. This is not a trivial matter, at least not if you’re in the Far East.
EG
Euan – No, actually. I meant global citizen, which is why I wrote ‘global citizen’. They are interested in a place at the top table and they know they have to abide broadly by the rules in order to trade with the world.
‘Increasingly aggressive towards Taiwan’? I don’t think so. I think the level of their belligerence towards Taiwan has diminished considerably over the last 15 years or so. Now that they’re getting rich on their own account, it isn’t driving them so crazy to see Taiwan thriving. In fact, from friends who do business there, Shanghai makes Taiwan look like a hovel.
Exactly. Superpower status is indeed what they want (and may well achieve as the (so far) most likely successor to the US). Power status is what counts, not nice trade treaties and obedience to international law.
This would explain, presumably, the increasingly overt military exercises in the area, the dire warnings that Taiwan had better not even think about formally declaring itself independent, that Beijing has the right to deal with a “rebellious province”, etc?
No, it isn’t. But money isn’t everything. China doesn’t care any more whether Taiwan is prosperous or not. But it does care, and is extremely touchy about it, that Taiwan is not an integral part of the People’s Republic. It is also working up to doing whatever it thinks it can get away with in order to “integrate” Taiwan.
Wait and see if you don’t believe me.
EG
Euan – China is aware that to gain superpower status and international respect, it must work with the rest of the world. I believe that the days of China suddenly going off at a tangent and doing something foolish are over for the time being – meaning the imaginable future.
They have been threatening Taiwan with military buildups since Sun Yat Sen. I know you won’t agree with my dismissive attitude, but I think it is little more than a formality these days. It’s all choreographed.
Certainly China will become a power in the top three. The other one will be India. Once we might have considered a quartet of powers fairly benignly running the planet, but Europe is dead in the water. So that leaves the United States, which has a long, long time left at the top, China and India. We should not forget what a formidable military India has, by the way.
This is where, to my mind, the Anglosphere rises to the occasion. America, yes, of course, with domain over the Americas. The UK – once the socialists have been destroyed – will be a kind of chief lieutenant to the US (I don’t know if lieutenants can be chiefs) and will broadly be responsible, in partnership with the US, for peace in Europe, which by then will be weak and powerless. Australia will be the regional power in Southeast Asia. These three nations, who broadly think alike, will form a loose confederation.
I see India as a benign military influence in South Asia, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East and N Africa.
China’s provenance is obvious and may include Russia, as a junior partner, and parts of the former USSR.
Someone will have to take on responsibility for keeping the peace in Africa. Or maybe not.
I am not saying any of the three powers or their close allies would have the faintest interest in ruling countries other than their own. Merely that their presence would ensure, in an ideal world, stability in their regions and keep the seas and the skies safe.
I have long thought that this is the way the world is shaping up. The UN would be long gone, of course. And so would its agencies. I think this will come about during the next 50 years and I think it will inaugurate a long period of world peace and stability.
Why do I get the feeling I’m watching the procession of the Archduck Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914?
I feel the same. There is an astonishing degree of complacency in the west, and it appears there is a widespread view that the west has somehow “won” a permanent victory over all other types of civilisation. I think this is wrong, dangerous, naive and frankly stupid. Historical analogues are numerous, of course, most notable if one compares America in 2004 with Britain in 1904, or the so-called Anglosphere with Rome about the time of the Antonines, etc.
The idea that this time is different, that for once we have actually learned the lessons of history, that there is something unprecedented about the current situation, would be, were it not so serious, laughable.
Oh well, I suspect we shall (again) just have to wait for history to prove the Panglossian optimists wrong. I suspect we may not have long to wait.
EG
Pardon my spelling error, please… ‘Archduck’, haha… I didn’t realize it till I checked back in today.