As I mentioned in my last post, there is an emerging line of argument can justify the slowness and lack of strategic vision Ashton due to 'lack of resources', the' many voices' or 'condition unanimity among states. " You can read about the very article in The Guardian Ashton ' U.S. Wants' deep democracy 'to take root in Egypt and Tunisia ' as well as the positive reading of the text makes Carlos Carnero . To this we might add the arguments wielded by the High Representative in response to criticism it received from the European Parliament in full Egyptian revolt.
follow that line I think is a mistake. The means by which one has no excuse enough to justify the content. Solana, with less 'media', managed to impose their own profile, strong and unmitigated, emphasizing an identifiable image of the European Union. Significantly have to be the President of the European Parliament the "single" EU High Representative who can react and give it a more personal and less ambiguous about Egypt. Just him, who in principle has no competition on that topic, instead of Ashton, was who conveyed better than anyone that ' Europe is next to the Egyptian people' . The lack of Ashton does not justify in any way the tone (impersonal, cold, distant), the quantity (2 releases no more than 20 lines) and the broadcast system (always written communication) by which it is addressed to Egyptian people and the international community. Similarly, it is sustainable (politically incomprehensible) the argument that the 'many voices' nullify or preclude in the least that Ashton will do his duty 'constitution' of having their own.
In his article (longer than all reported together) Ashton concludes that 'the EU is Perhaps Not Always the Fastest on the way in, But Often the One That stays the longest. We Do not do regime change, pero system change. " From a purely formal political science argument is surprising. The ' system change' advocated by Ashton-which is sensed using like I can balance or replace the 'Not Always The Fastest ' - does not in any form the ability to defend or simply positioned in relation to a ' regime change. " One of the conditions of nature for the establishment of a consolidated democratic system is precisely the end of 'authoritarian'. The differentiation between these two elements leads to conclusions at least troubling. The fact that the EU is a priority 'consolidation' beyond the 'implementation' of democracy does not prevent or relieve it of any way to make judgments about what other people do or do not made-especially when it comes to countries that maintain trade and economic agreements. The consolidation does not negate the importance of implementation. Behind the 'no interference' have been shielded and 'legitimate' all authoritarian, and not to discredit a possible "intervention" abroad, but to delegitimize the smallest plurality of views. Let us carefully on how to present things and how we use the argument of 'non-interference. "
If there is anything worse than an error in politics is the inability to assume the responsibility you have. There is no justification when relativized to democracy or human rights. What in any case there are apologies and solutions. The European Union has much to offer. And not all are errors. But with that attitude, we run the risk that we do not want (post: A rendez-vous au Caire: euh ... ca vous going in september? in Bruxelles2 on the issues being raised Ashton intend to visit Egypt) . Sooner or later Europe will answer the unsettling question of whether the Tahrir square too sing 'Europe, Europe', as he sang 'Obama, Obama, Obama. " What counts is not just being the major partner of democracy, but be perceived as such.
0 comments:
Post a Comment