I am very impressed by the patience and the determination of the Ukrainian people in their struggle to retain territorial integrity and sovereignty. You are a unique example of courage, dignity and common sense. I know that you deserve more.
Also from us, from Europe. You have many friends here, and I can promise you that you will not be left behind. We also have our limitations, but we will continue in our efforts to fulfil your justified expectations.
We highly rate the efforts of the Ukrainian authorities, including those of President Poroshenko, to implement large-scale reforms in extremely difficult conditions. Ukraine's success will be the success of all of Europe.
(delivered in Ukrainian)
Three days ago we commemorated the third anniversary of the Euromaidan. Since then Ukraine has gone through very difficult times, with Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and its aggression in eastern Ukraine. Europe must do everything in its power to make sure that Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and stability are preserved. We continue to support the Minsk process and our sanctions are linked with the complete implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Recently we renewed support to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission.
The last three years have seen the birth of a new Ukraine that advances its democracy and economy through, sometimes very tough, reforms. Additional assistance from Europe should support Ukraine in strengthening its democratic path.
In this context we discussed visas. I am happy that all EU Member States decided Ukraine is ready for a visa-free regime. This decision is a recognition of Ukraine's achievements in meeting European standards. It will enter into force once the European Parliament and the Council find an agreement on the reform of the EU's visa policy, which is on track. We discussed this with President Schulz today and we will intensify work with the Parliament to make it happen. But I want to underline that this discussion does not concern Ukraine any more, as Ukraine has already done its work perfectly. Now the discussion concerns relations between the EU Member States and the European Parliament with regard to the EU's visa policy.
Before concluding, let me add a comment on the future of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, following the Dutch referendum. My goal is clear: to finish the ratification process of the Association Agreement. This agreement is not only of mutual economic benefit, but - more importantly - it carries great geopolitical significance. After having spoken to Prime Minister Rutte and President Poroshenko, I can report that we are working hard to find a solution that will allow the Dutch to ratify, by addressing all their concerns, while fully respecting the interests of Ukraine and making sure that the remaining 27 do not need to ratify again. It is my hope and intention to find such a solution at the December European Council.
Finally, let me say that the summit today is another proof of our concrete commitment to Ukraine.
The Stabilisation and Association Council between the European Union and Kosovo held its first meeting on 25 November 2016. This inaugural meeting marks a new important stage in EU-Kosovo relations.
The Stabilisation and Association Council welcomed the entry into force of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) on 1 April 2016. The European Union noted that the SAA is at the core of the relationship between the EU and Kosovo. It provides the contractual framework within which the EU and Kosovo will intensify their co-operation and take stock of developments in their relationship. Both sides also warmly welcome today's signature of the framework agreement on Kosovo's participation in Union programmes, which will open up new opportunities for the population of Kosovo, from research to student exchanges.
During the meeting, discussion took place on recent key developments relating to the fulfilment of the political criteria, as well as the state of play concerning the economic criteria, financial cooperation and the implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.
The Stabilisation and Association Council welcomed the launch on 11 November of a European Reform Agenda which will play an important role in guiding Kosovo's reform efforts, in areas such as good governance and rule of law, competitiveness and the investment climate, as well as employment and education. This will aid Kosovo in its implementation of the obligations under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.
The meeting discussed reform priorities in areas including rule of law and judicial reforms, respect for fundamental rights, public administration reform, and economic reforms. The Stabilisation and Association Council welcomed Kosovo's significant progress in fulfilling the requirements of the visa liberalisation roadmap. The EU encourages Kosovo to intensify work on the ratification of the border/boundary agreement with Montenegro and to continue to strengthen the track record in the fight against organised crime and corruption.
The meeting underlined the importance of progress in the EU-facilitated dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade and of the implementation of all agreements already reached without delay.
The meeting was chaired by High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, on behalf of the European Union. Commissioner Johannes Hahn represented the European Commission. The delegation of Kosovo was led by Prime Minister Isa Mustafa.
Kosovo*
References to Kosovo are without prejudice to positions on status. They are in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/1999 and the opinion by the International Court of Justice on the Kosovo declaration of independence.
The President of the European Court of Justice, Koen Lenaerts, spoke for many in the aftermath of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union. He said that he was completely in the dark on whether, when and under which conditions Brexit would happen, concluding ‘it’s all pretty speculative’. The question – Remain or Leave – was binary and offered no additional guidance. Now, the British government has to implement the people’s choice.
It will do so under the leadership of a new Prime Minister, Theresa May. She is investing her time in developing ties with European leaders despite her government’s rhetoric of global engagement. The EU, meanwhile, has produced a global strategy document asserting that the idea of the Union as an exclusively civilian power doesn’t reflect the evolving reality, in which soft and hard power go hand-in-hand. We’re perhaps at an inflection point where all actors are reassessing recent orthodoxy.
To some in London, the idea of focusing attention exclusively on NATO might seem an attractive simplification. But it’s likely that things will become more complicated. The range of inter-related issues now bundled under the heading of defence and security has become so broad that dealing with them in any single institutional framework, whether it be the EU or NATO, is impossible. A constructive dialogue for understanding key questions, and better synergy in implementing policies and conducting operations, has been a shared goal within the transatlantic community since the EU was created.
Broadly speaking, that community has held together reasonably well, but there have recently been some spectacular failures of solidarity over important questions. And there’s unease over future unity, as problems become more complex and actors more diverse. Even the largest powers no longer act alone, and it can’t be a good thing for a country with significant resources to disengage from discussion and action. There is a risk that fragmentation and disunity will lead to paralysis.
Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright perhaps provided the recipe for the future with her “3D” speech: avoid transatlantic decoupling, avoid duplication of effort on problems, and don’t discriminate against any country that wants to make a constructive contribution on the grounds of institutional affiliation. That formula is already being applied to a degree – for example, when the EU or non-allies such as Finland and Sweden participate in key meetings convened by NATO – and could be extended to facilitate the participation of the UK and other countries in EU meetings.
“Choosing a British official as Commissioner for the Security Union is an indication that the EU and the UK want to preserve their close association and cooperation in areas like counter-terrorism”
Issues that are a high priority for both the EU and the UK, for which the EU either already has legislation or is likely to legislate in ways that affect the UK directly (for example, through laws with budget implications), should be the main focus for attention at the moment. For internal security, this approach seems to be favoured. The decision that a British official, Sir Julian King, should become the Commissioner for the Security Union is an indication that the EU and the UK want to preserve their close association and cooperation in areas like counter-terrorism, fighting violent crime and combating transnational organised crime, including cybercrime.
It may also be possible to identify issues on which it’s important for the UK and the EU to continue seeking a common approach, but which don’t require new procedures to preserve cooperation. Opening meetings that discuss and decide the broad approach on vital issues would be a minimum expectation. Even if decisions lead to either legislation or budgetary commitments, participation without voting or veto rights might be justifiable and fairly easy to organise. But the informal meetings of the “27” suggest that this approach isn’t preferred at the moment.
Then there is the cluster of issues where the UK has questioned the need for initiatives that others think would be useful. Without the 1998 settlement between Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac, there would probably be no Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) at all, as the UK agreed not to block all EU initiatives in the military sphere and France agreed to become a constructive partner in NATO. Nonetheless, the speed and trajectory of the CSDP has been influenced by a residual British caution over the role of the EU as a military actor.
Implementing development assistance, the security implications of climate change, energy security, advanced research and technology investment, and the mass movement of people though irregular migration or displacement in conflict are all areas where specialist advice might be valuable to parts of the EU that have no internal military expertise. But the UK’s reluctance was one factor blocking initiatives to strengthen the EU’s military staff, or develop pathways by which military advice could be accessed more easily across EU institutions. In this respect, Brexit might bring about a useful change.
IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – European Parliament
The post Fragmentation may bring security paralysis appeared first on Europe’s World.