DEVELOPMENTS

On July 21st, Nepal swore in its newest president, Ram Baran Yadav.  But this inauguration is particularly noteworthy because it was the Himalayan country’s first presidential inauguration.  After 240 years, Nepal’s monarchy was brought to an end with a change to the constitution in May.  The abolishment of the monarchy was one of a number of steps taken to bring democracy, peace and reconciliation to a country that has been plagued by violence in recent years.

Ironically, this historic move towards democracy wouldn’t have been possible without the help of the Maoist party, a revolutionary communist movement which had been responsible for violent attacks in the country since 1996.  The complexity of Nepalese politics makes the Maoists integral to the democratic movement in Nepal.   In April, they won the most votes in the constitutional assembly and led the effort to establish the new republic. 

But after their candidate, Ramraja Singh, was defeated in the presidential election, the Maoists announced plans to withdraw from the newly formed government.  Now the stability of this nascent democracy is in jeopardy.

BACKGROUND

Nepal is arguably best known in the U.S. as being home to Mount Everest and the Himalayan mountain range.  But for about a period of ten years it had a more unfortunate claim to fame.  From 1996 to 2006, the country was host to one of South Asia’s deadliest conflicts in recent years.  Over 13,000 people died in a complicated three-way conflict between the King, the government he disbanded, and the Maoist rebels.   It was not until 2006 that the Maoist insurgents announced their willingness to lay down their arms in order to restore peace on one condition: the dissolution of the monarchy.

Although the insurgency began in 1996, the Maoists’ distaste for the royal family peaked in 2001, when Prince Dipendra allegedly murdered the rest of the royal family with an Uzi before taking his own life.  Under the laws of succession, the dead King’s brother, Gyanendra took the throne.   Meanwhile, the Maoists had effectively shut down a portion of industrial activity using their affiliation with trade unions to trigger nationwide strikes.

Stories of the massacre, which began to affect the country’s luxury tourism industry, only made things worse for King Gyanendra.  Frustrated with government’s inability to deal with Maoists, King Gyanendra suspended Prime Minister Deuba’s government and called for a general election, while attempting to negotiate a cease-fire with rebels.   By the time the King reappointed Deuba in 2004, the cease-fire with the Maoists had long since ended.   To make matters worse, the government coalition had split.  A year later, King Gyanendra  declared a state of emergency, sacked the government and assumed direct rule.  According to the U.N. and other NGOs operating in Nepal at the time, King Gyanendra had detained political party leaders and journalists and also suspended civil liberties including the right to a free press.  In addition, the Royal Nepalese Army was allegedly responsible for brutal attacks on civilians, including the murder of a local communist party leader, which resulted in countrywide protests in February 2006.  At the time, the Maoists, working with the All Nepal Trade Union Federation, forced the closure of many major international companies including Coca-Cola’s bottling operation in Nepal. 

Many residents of the Nepal’s countryside were caught in the middle of the conflict.  Not only did they have to worry about daily extortion attempts by the Maoists rebels, but they had to brace themselves for the Royal Nepalese Army which would harass them for information about the Maoists and even occasionally burn homes down.  Many young men left the countryside and the country itself, rather than be caught between these two dangerous and unpredictable armies.  The Global Internally Displaced Persons database of the Norwegian Refugee Council estimates that anywhere between 100,000 and 200,000 Nepalese people crossed the border into India as a result of this conflict.

In April of 2006,  the bloodshed, public demonstrations, and the devastating effect which the conflict had on the country, drove King Gyanendra to restore parliament and relinquish power as political head of state.  Subsequently, the Maoists signed a peace deal with the new coalition government.   These developments eventually led to a call for new elections in 2007 and a push by Prachanda, leader of former Maoist rebels, to end the monarchy. 

ANALYSIS

The new republic, which exists in part thanks to former Communist rebels, has strong ties to both China and India.  As a result, this experiment with democracy will be of interest to the United States as it tries to balance China’s influence in the region.  If the Maoists, one of the country’s most popular parties, refuse to take part in parliament, the other coalitions may not be stable enough to hold the government together.   Whether the country would revert to a state of violence is unclear.   But if the Maoists do engage, show commitment to the political process, and renounce violence, the U.S. may be willing to provide support to the country.  The likely first step for the U.S. will be to remove Nepal’s Maoist party from the State Department’s terrorist exclusion list, opening the door to increased aid and assistance.

---

Olivier Kamanda is Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy Digest.

DEVELOPMENTS

Iran’s recent test launch of nine long-range missiles is making its neighbors nervous.  To make matters worse, attempts to dissuade Iran from enriching uranium (the process by which mined uranium is developed into fuel for nuclear power and nuclear weapons) haven’t worked.  Several world leaders from the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia offered Iran trade deals and other incentives in exchange for a vow to stop uranium enrichment.  Many of these leaders fear that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons under the guise of peaceful (or civilian) nuclear power development.  Iranian officials claim their development of nuclear power is permitted under international law. Who is right?

BACKGROND
Nuclear power provides great benefits which can support a country’s growing demand for electricity.  As compared to coal-fired power plants, nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide.  Nuclear power plants are cheaper to fuel than fossil plants such as natural gas turbines.  As compared to other alternative energy sources, nuclear plants last an average of eighty years compared to the twenty-year lifespan of a windmill.  All of these factors have made nuclear power an appealing alternative to coal and other fossil fuels (but one need only recall the disasters at Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island to understand why some may be concerned about the safety of nuclear power).  France leads the world in this area, generating 78% of its electricity from nuclear power.  And although Iran, a major oil exporter, has profited from the rising cost oil, its leaders understand that its oil supply is finite. Oil can’t support the economy forever, but civilian nuclear power can help Iran export more oil without drawing on its own supply. 

But Iran’s demand for civilian nuclear power is not the true concern.  The international community already supports the spread nuclear technology for civilian purposes.  This goal has been incorporated into the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NNPT).  But this same treaty also aims to restrict the spread of nuclear technology for military weapons.  The difficulty for the IAEA, the international watchdog group responsible for monitoring the spread of nuclear technology, is determining Iran’s motives.  Because the elements, equipment and process for developing a nuclear weapon are almost identical to development of civilian power, it is often difficult for weapons inspectors to be positive about the true purpose of any nuclear enrichment facility.

Nuclear power plants work by harnessing heat from the fission of uranium atoms.  During the fission process, a neutron hits the uranium atom and splits it, releasing a great amount of thermal energy which is either used to produce steam or heat gas.  The steam or heated gas is then used to power generators and produce electricity.  In most cases the uranium ore used in the fission reaction is run through a centrifuge, spinning at speeds high enough to enrich the uranium by 2-3%.  But, if multiple centrifuges are allowed to run for years instead of months, then it is possible to enrich uranium up to the 90% needed to make a nuclear weapon.  Therefore, weapons inspectors must figure out how long these centrifuges have been running in order to determine whether the uranium enrichment is for peaceful or military purposes.

In the meantime, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declares that Iran’s uranium work will go on. He expects to be taken at his word that Iran has no other nuclear purpose than to fuel nuclear reactors. 

But many Western leaders, including allies of Israel, are not convinced.  The Iranian president’s increasingly aggressive comments towards Israel have sparked concern.  In 2005, President Ahmadinejad declared that Israel “must be wiped off the map” and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy [Israel].  The recent announcement that nine Iranian long-range missiles could reach Israel and U.S. troops in the region has received a lot of attention by U.S. and Israeli defense officials.  Although, some have said that the test launch was in response to Israel’s military exercises a week prior, Iran’s action have been met with more alarm and strongly worded statements of disapproval by U.S. government officials.

The challenge for the international community is to fix the in framework (under the NNP Treaty) that is supposed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.  Any country can leave the NNPT without real repercussion.  In fact, North Korea left the treaty in 2003, although it is still developing nuclear weapons technology and may have even sold that technology to other states. Pakistan, another country outside the NNPT regime, has been accused of leaking nuclear technology to “rogue states” and maybe even terrorist groups, but little has been done to reign in this program.  Finally, Israel, which never signed the NNPT, is known to have nuclear weapons and has been entirely shielded from the IAEA inspections process.  These and other inconsistencies, challenge the credibility of an international framework aimed at reprimanding Iran for pursuing uranium enrichment.

ANALYSIS

The debate over the U.S. policy towards Iran will only heat up as the presidential campaign heads into the final stretch.  Both candidates were quick to issue forceful statements declaring how they would respond to Iran’s nuclear development if they were president.  McCain and Obama seem to agree on the end goal of compelling Iran to abandon its push for nuclear weapons, but disagree on the means to achieve it.  Whereas Obama is in favor of engaging the Iranian government with the help of international pressure, McCain believes that isolating Iran until it agrees to give up its nuclear development is the first step towards negotiation.

But while the candidates announced what they would do as president, Israel may not wait long enough for either to be sworn in. Israel’s defense minister said that Israel is ready to act against Iran if threatened.  President Bush recently announced that he may approve a possible Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Speculation about an attack on Iran has not only caused petroleum prices to rise, but raised concern about further destabilization in the Middle East, and the likelihood of an Iranian response against Israel and the U.S.  Faced with this new reality, advocates for diplomacy and negotiation are slowly running out of time.

DEVELOPMENTS

Argentina has experienced three farmer strikes in the past four months, as well as increasing food rationing in the capital city of Buenos Aires and food shortages in its provinces. The source of the strikes is a sliding export tax instituted by President Cristina Fernandez, which has resulted in a tax increase of 27 to 40% on soybeans. The price of food has increased recently in large part because of ongoing farmers' strikes.  However, the continuing troubles have done more than exacerbate food security in this South American republic, as it has ostensibly resulted in a vicious cycle of inflation that could have a significant ripple effect in the region.

This crisis has placed Argentina – a major agricultural producer – in a difficult position and it is increasingly attempting to convince purchasers that it is still a reliable source.   Concurrently, the price of food has been increasing while overall inflation continues to rise.  The numbers are intimidating for consumers – food prices have increased 30% in the last year and inflation stands at 20%.  As a result, Argentina’s consumers have decreased consumption, thus slowing the economy.  This has resulted in the negative economic projections for the remainder of this year and will likely be a continuing source of political friction. 

BACKGROUND

Argentina has not been a stranger to inflation in its recent history. In the 1980s, it experienced skyrocketing inflation, reaching 1,000% in 1998.  Understandably, this economic instability affected Argentina’s political and economic development.  Although the Argentine experience was common to the region in the 1980s – referred to as Latin America’s ‘Lost Decade’ because of the high inflation rates and excessive debt–  Argentina’s recovery plan for abandoning such high inflation was unorthodox. In 1991, the government pegged the value of its currency (the peso) to the U.S. dollar (the “Convertibility Plan”).  Albeit risky, the Convertibility Plan worked. The Argentine peso was stabilized and inflation declined. Moreover, during this period Argentina, like many of its neighbors, opened to free markets.

During the 1990s, Argentina enjoyed strong economic growth as a result of the privatization of various industries and the influx of foreign investment that was ushered in through this new "free market" approach. Argentina’s growth was also assisted by the U.S.-implemented Brady Plan that afforded national banks liquid assets instead of non-liquid ones, thus allowing the banks to ease the debt crisis.  However, the boom years would come to an end as international shocks rendered Argentina’s Convertibility Plan a liability rather than an asset.

In 2001, Argentina suffered one of its largest market crashes. The collapse of Argentina’s capital markets in the late 1990s, caused in large part by the Asian economic crisis, affected the amount of investment capital that flowed into Argentina.  Reduced capital investment inhibited Argentina’s ability to manage its financial obligations, which in turn led to higher interest rates on Argentina’s bonds.  In the face of the economic downturn, Argentina attempted to offset the crisis by raising taxes. The plan failed and the economy crashed. The increase in taxes weakened consumer spending and choked an already-constricted economy as the country was borrowing dollars from abroad but could not print more dollars to pay its international debt.  As a result of the economic collapse, President Fernando De La Rua resigned. Four successive presidents would attempt to resolve the social and economic chaos that ensued.  Argentina entered a period of social and economic chaos as the cost of living rose.  Many people went hungry and some were even driven to raid supermarkets.

Nestor Kirchner became president during this economic collapse.   His term focused on restoring the credibility of the government by targeting corruption, eliminating the Convertibility Plan, and, in a very bold move, refusing to pay full price on Argentine bonds.  Mr. Kirchner’s administration returned much-needed stability to the government and under his fiscal plan the country saw economic conditions improve.  Argentina’s economy during Mr. Kirchner’s tenure was also boosted by a growing demand for Argentine agricultural products and an undervalued currency that increased demand for other Argentine exports.

Last October, Mr. Kichner’s wife, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was elected president and many had high hopes for her tenure. However, her term has thus far been plagued by an overheating economy, rising costs of fuel, and a fair amount of civil strife. The government has reportedly stopped releasing poverty figures, presumably in an effort to mask the growing challenges facing the Argentine economy.  It would seem that a fatal combination of public spending, government-mandated wage increases, an undervalued currency, low interest rates, and a government proclivity to under-account the current rate of inflation are combining to make high inflation a major obstacle for Mrs. Kirchner’s government. This dangerous recipe threatens yet another economic crisis.
 

ANALYSIS

The economic woes plaguing Argentina are both very real and very dangerous for the region and the U.S.  Not only is Argentina a key country in South America, it has the potential to affect Brazil’s vulnerable economy by adding yet another shock to the ongoing rise in fuel prices, the financial crunch, and the worldwide food crisis. Brazil and Argentina are among the most important players in Latin America, as together they make up a significant portion of the region’s economy. 

Domestically, Argentina may not be able to pull itself from its precarious position as it continues to edge closer to a full-fledged economic crisis. The government’s tendency to provide imprecise statistics is worrisome because it indicates the current regime's willingness to disguise economic issues. The danger of such tactics increases when considering the government's tendency to misreport inflation data.  And it still does not provide adequate information to foreign banks and corporations.  Such behavior scares away potential foreign capital investors and increases interest rates and premiums on Argentina’s debt. 

Although Argentina is still in a position to combat inflation through increased fiscal austerity, such measures are unlikely to be adopted by Mrs. Kirchner as evidenced by her imposition of taxes on agricultural goods  to finance social spending programs.  Mrs. Kirchner appears more committed to focusing the government’s resources on social programs, and by extension social expenditure, than addressing growing inflation and social unrest.  The future of Argentina’s economy remains uncertain and the growing civil unrest will likely continue, as will demonstrations against perceived governmental mismanagement. Mrs. Kirchner’s new government is currently balancing a struggling economy, stagnant wages, and civil unrest.  Her response to this cocktail thus far has been viewed by many as uninspiring.

The looming Argentine economic crisis could affect the U.S. by adding more pressure on the besieged American economy. Argentina, much like the U.S., attracts migrant workers from the rest of Latin America. Thus, a downturn of the economy there is likely to increase the number of immigrants seeking to enter the U.S. instead.  Moreover, an economic meltdown in Argentina may spread to other countries in the region.  This, in turn, would likely affect American companies, as Latin America is a strong consumer of U.S. products. At the same time, a downturn in agricultural production in Argentina will likely continue drive up the cost of food staples globally. Many countries are already experiencing significant increases in the cost of foodstuffs and a number of developing countries have seen near riots erupt as a result. In this context the Argentine situation threatens to negatively impact the U.S. and the cost of food globally. 

DEVELOPMENTS

Zimbabwe’s March 29th, 2008 parliamentary and presidential elections renewed political turmoil in the country.  For the first time, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) lost parliamentary control to the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), an opposition movement led by Morgan Tsvangirai.  

Election results were withheld for over a month, raising suspicions that Mugabe and ZANU-PF tampered with votes.  When finally released, the election results showed that Tsvangirai received just under a majority of the votes, calling for an electoral runoff. Tsvangirai and Mugabe received 47.9% and 43.2% of the votes, respectively.

Tsvangirai withdrew from the presidential race only days before the June 27th runoff in response to political intimidation, threats, and violence directed at MDC supporters, which included beatings and rape. Tsvangirai’s supporters were also persecuted after the one-man runoff, as ZANU-PF members burned and looted their homes, forcing MDC supporters to seek refuge in embassies or flee the country.

United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon declared the June runoff illegitimate, and not “reflect[ive] of the true and genuine will of the Zimbabwean people.”  Earlier in June, members of the international community—including both the South African Development Committee (SADC) and the U.N.—advised that the runoff be postponed, as the hostile political climate in Zimbabwe precluded a free and fair election.  

Political leaders elsewhere voiced similar disapproval of the June elections.  British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for Mugabe to step down, declaring Mugabe’s re-election sullied by “bloody hands.”  Similarly, President Bush denounced the elections a “sham.” 

African Union leaders met on July 1 in Egypt and passed a resolution encouraging negotiations between Mugabe’s ZANU-PF and Tsvangirai’s MDC.  Yet some African leaders have been criticized for being slow to condemn Mugabe and ZANU-PF.  South African President Thabo Mbeki is accused of shielding Mugabe for political reasons, including Mugabe’s fight against apartheid and the ‘black liberation’ platform he pushed in his early political career.  Other leaders see the situation in Zimbabwe as Africa versus the West, like Gambian President Yahya Jammeh, who announced that Africans should stand with Zimbabwe alone: “[The West] think[s] they can dictate to us and this is not acceptable,” CNN reported,“…after all, what did the West do for Africa?” 

BACKGROUND

Zimbabwe has been ravaged by war since the early 1960s, when guerilla groups fought for Zimbabwe’s independence from Britain and competed for political power.  The fighting between Robert Mugabe’s  ZANU and Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), the two main guerilla groups hoping to control Zimbabwe’s government, displaced over 1.5 million people in the two decades before Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980. ZANU-PF emerged in 1980 when Mugabe’s ZANU overtook ZAPU.  ZANU-PF has remained in power ever since.

ZANU-PF led Zimbabwe’s first non-colonial government, with Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister.  In 1987, Mugabe was elected Head of State and has remained President since.  He was re-elected in 1996 and in 2002, and he claims re-election in the contentious 2008 presidential runoff.

Mugabe’s early political career gave him the reputation of a liberation hero—some supporters even compared him to South Africa’s Nelson Mandela.  Mugabe rose to power on a platform of unity.  He was the first black leader in Zimbabwe’s long history of white-minority government.  Mugabe initially showed no signs of the racism that now defines his political rhetoric.  He was perceived as a champion for black Africans who also promised a home for white Africans.

Yet Mugabe has done far more to repress Zimbabweans than to liberate them.  He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of members of the Ndebele minority population, which has traditionally supported Mugabe’s political opposition, ZAPU.  Mugabe manipulated state-owned militia and machinery to intimidate political dissenters, control dissemination of food aid, repress both the media and human rights groups, and force thousands of farmers to relinquish their land.  

Mugabe’s years in power have incited both an economic and a social disaster in Zimbabwe.  Unemployment has risen to over 85%, reports International Crisis Group (ICG), an international NGO based in Brussels.  Zimbabwe’s inflation rate of over 1,000,000% is the world’s highest, according to the Wall Street Journal. Twenty percent of the population suffers from HIV/AIDS and have little access to medical care or pharmaceuticals. 

ANALYSIS

The current situation in Zimbabwe threatens both the stability of surrounding nations and democratic processes throughout the continent.  “What happens in Zimbabwe has importance well beyond that country’s borders. . . the situation in Zimbabwe represents the single greatest challenge to regional stability in Southern Africa today,” Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon declared in June.

Neighboring countries have borne the brunt of millions of Zimbabwean refugees who have fled Mugabe’s regime—3 million have already fled to South Africa, Botswana, and Zambia alone, the London Times reports.  The influx has already caused food shortages and has burdened the economies of bordering nations.  Yet the flow of refugees remains steady.  Members of the U.N. Security Council in mid-July and the Group of Eight (G8) leaders at July’s G8 Summit in Japan discussed plans for alleviating the economic burden caused by refugees from Zimbabwe.

In order to immediately begin ameliorating the situation in Zimbabwe, NGOs like International Crisis Group are calling for a negotiated government between MDC and ZANU-PF, in which the two factions compromise to govern Zimbabwe together until the necessary conditions for a free and fair election are present.  Zach Vertin, ICG Zimbabwe analyst, says that in addition to a coalition government, a successful strategy will include a timely plan for Mugabe’s exit from power. 

The U.N. Security Council is debating a resolution to determine a plan of action for Zimbabwe and potential sanctions against Mugabe’s government.  In a press briefing, U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Migiro stressed that in addition to a plan, the Security Council is prioritizing both accountability for atrocities committed under Mugabe’s regime and the importance of protecting Zimbabweans until the nation regains stability.  As Migiro says, Zimbabwe's crises poses a challenge not just to Africa but to the world.

---
Catherine Fisher is Senior Editor of Foreign Policy Digest.

DEVELOPMENTS

Voters in Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty on June 12th, leaving a question mark hanging over the European Union’s latest attempt to reform its increasingly unwieldy bureaucracy.  In recent years, the European Union (EU) has grown from fifteen to twenty-seven members, and efforts have been underway for some time to streamline its institutions and decision-making processes.  The Lisbon Treaty is a compromise treaty that was drawn up after the draft EU constitution was defeated by referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.  Among the key changes are several proposals designed to make the EU a stronger and more coherent actor in international affairs.

Like all EU treaties, the Lisbon Treaty can only enter into force (become effective) if all twenty-seven member states ratify it.  Ireland was the only EU country required by its constitution to hold a national referendum on the treaty; in the other member states, the national legislature or executive (president or prime minister) can ratify it without consulting the voters directly.  EU leaders have agreed to push ahead with the ratification process and to address the setback of the Irish ‘no’ vote at the next meeting of EU heads of state in October 2008. 

BACKGROUND
With a population of 495 million and a combined gross domestic product of $14.4 trillion (PPP), the European Union is a major economic and political actor.  The EU coordinates the legislative framework that supports a single market across all its member states.  However, it is much more than a free trade area: fundamental to the EU is the idea that policies affecting many areas – from reducing trade barriers to maintaining environmental standards to fighting international crime – will be more effective if adopted at a multi-national level.  This level of cooperation requires a strong political framework, and the institutions and decision-making processes of the European Union provide this. 

The European Union traces its origins to steps taken to secure peace on the continent after the devastation of two world wars.  With the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, France and Germany were joined by Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg in establishing an interdependent economic order that, as the French foreign minister put it at the time, aimed to make war between France and Germany “not merely unthinkable but materially impossible.”  The countries pooled basic production of coal and steel and established a set of political institutions to coordinate and oversee it.  The successful integration of the coal and steel industries led the six countries to extend their cooperation to other areas of the economy.  In 1957, the Treaty of Rome laid the foundation for the modern European Union by establishing a full customs union and introducing the goal of a common market based on the free movement of persons, services, goods, and capital. 

Notably, the aim of economic and political integration in Europe was not to counterbalance or compete with the United States.  In fact, the United States was an early proponent of European integration, viewing cooperation as a means of ensuring peace and prosperity on the continent.  In addition, U.S. economic assistance under the Marshall Plan is credited with having positively influenced these early steps toward integration.

European economic and political cooperation evolved over several decades, and by the mid-1980s the European Community (as it was called at the time) had expanded to twelve members, including Denmark, Ireland, UK, Greece, Portugal, and Spain.  The present-day EU was founded by the Treaty on European Union in 1992, which consolidated  various areas of economic cooperation  under the European Community and introduced two new policy areas – Justice and Home Affairs and a Common Foreign and Security Policy – into the EU’s remit.  It also set out to formalize an economic and monetary union, including a common currency, the euro.  Three subsequent waves of expansion brought the EU to its present twenty-seven members.

The political role of European Union is greater than that of an international organization but less than that of a state.  In creating the European Union, the member states agreed to pool their sovereignty in pursuit of common objectives in three major policy areas, which form the “pillars” of the European Union: European Community, Common Foreign and Security Policy, and Justice and Home Affairs.  Still, the EU’s legislative process allows individual member states to retain a great deal of influence over how these objectives are achieved.  While the exact decision-making procedure depends on the type of policy concerned, the Council of the European Union – an intergovernmental body made up of ministers representing the specific interests of their respective states, not the EU as a whole – is ultimately responsible for determining which legislation is adopted.  Legislation relating to the common market and most other economic and social issues (the first pillar) is subject to only qualified majority voting in the Council, where a total of 345 votes are allocated according roughly to each member state’s population.  In the more sensitive areas of foreign policy and policing (the second and third pillars), decisions currently require unanimity in the Council, effectively allowing any member state a veto.

Over time, the member states have moved incrementally to deepen integration by bringing additional policies under the decision-making procedure of the first pillar.  More recently, the enlargement of the EU to twenty-seven members has necessitated a broader rethinking of its structure.  These factors contributed to the drafting of the Lisbon Treaty, which would introduce a number of institutional and procedural changes.  The Lisbon Treaty would redistribute voting weights among member states in the Council and continue the trend of bringing more policy decisions under the qualified majority voting procedure.  At the same time, it would introduce a new role for the national parliaments in certain policy areas.  It would also create two new positions, a President of the Council of the European Union (to replace the current rotating presidency) and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (combining the responsibilities of two existing posts).  Former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, once famously lamented that he did not know Europe’s phone number.  The proposed changes may finally give him an answer.

ANALYSIS

To many Americans, and indeed to many Europeans themselves, the role and powers of the European Union are unclear.  This is believed to have been a significant contributing factor in the Irish ‘no’ vote, just as it was when the French and the Dutch rejected the EU constitution in 2005.  As summarized in the International Herald Tribune, “For all its benefits, many people feel the Union is remote, undemocratic and ever more inclined to strip its smaller members of the right to make their own laws and decide their own futures.”  However the EU decides to move forward, it will need to counter these sentiments by nurturing a more direct relationship between Brussels and its citizens.

Since Ireland rejected the treaty, a few options have been circulated regarding the way forward.  These include rewriting the treaty, asking the Irish to vote again after some concerns have been clarified, creating a ‘two-tier’ Europe with varying levels of integration, or scrapping the treaty entirely and continuing to operate under existing rules and procedures.  None of these options appear particularly palatable to an EU that has been preoccupied for years with questions of internal reform.  From a U.S. perspective, what matters most is that the EU be able to move beyond its introspective phase and focus its attention more effectively on areas where its considerable economic and political power can make a serious difference in world affairs.  Three EU members (UK, France and Germany) have already taken the lead on non-proliferation in Iran.  On a host of others issues – including climate change, the food crisis, and terrorism, to name only a few – Europe is a capable and credible partner.  The U.S. stands only to benefit from working closely with a strengthened EU to achieve our shared foreign policy goals. 

---

Annie Verderosa is the Regional Editor for Europe/Russia.