Political News

All-nighter 18-hour EU summit to pick Juncker’s successor to return for third day amid deadlock

Published by:

All-nighter 18-hour EU summit to pick Juncker’s successor to return for third day amid deadlock 2



All-nighter 18-hour EU summit to pick Juncker’s successor to return for third day amid deadlock 3

An EU summit to choose Jean-Claude Juncker’s successor and other top Brussels jobs will carry over into an unplanned third day of talks after EU leaders failed to find consensus despite working throughout Sunday night and Monday morning.

The European Council was finally suspended at lunchtime on Monday so that leaders could get some sleep, after pulling an 18-hour shift in the Belgian capital’s Europa building – but it will convene again on Tuesday morning for more urgent discussions.

As he departed on Monday, French president Emmanuel Macron said it was fair to describe the meeting so far as a “failure”, while Angela Merkel told reporters: “If we knew what we had to change by tomorrow we could have just continued. We thought we needed a break and perhaps find new inspiration.”


Though the mammoth European Council meeting in the Belgian capital was formally suspended for part of Sunday night, leaders and delegations used the time for informal bilateral discussions with each other, with officials pulling an all-nighter. After a brief rest they picked up again at breakfast on Monday morning, with a view to filling the EU’s top posts – including the coveted role of European Commission president. 

Frans Timmermans, the socialist group’s candidate to lead the EU’s executive, is emerging as the compromise choice for the job – but some central and eastern European countries have set themselves against his appointment.

Mr Timmermans, a Dutch social democrat who has previously criticised Boris Johnson for making “borderline racist” comments, has a reputation for social liberalism and has spooked some right-wing populist governments: including those of Poland, Italy and the Czech Republic.

Leaders are keen to hash out a final nominee for the top post at this summit so they can beat the European parliament to the punch on selecting a candidate – part of the power struggle between the EU institutions. The council’s choice would then be put to MEPs in the European parliament for a confirmatory vote. The new MEPs, elected last month, will sit for the first time in this session on Tuesday. The leaders pledged to return at 11am on Tuesday – meaning they would unusually be sitting at the same time as the European parliament.

Ms Merkel, who is now backing Mr Timmermans for the role despite coming from a different political group, defended the thinking behind his appointment as the meeting broke up.

Socialist group leader Udo Bullmann (left) and and his party’s candidate for Commission president, Frans Timmermans, campaign in Berlin (AFP/Getty)

She appeared to suggest that a majority on the council could, if it wanted to, outvote other member states and put him in office – but questioned whether it would be a good idea. She added that she wanted “as much as a consensus as possible” and said she would not feel comfortable with other member states outvoting the entire Visegrad Group of central and eastern European countries, or Italy.

Under EU rules a qualified majority of member states on the council must back a commission president – 55 per cent of member state governments, representing 65 per cent of the population. But Ms Merkel said she would not be happy with a commission president endorsed only by member states representing just “65.1 per cent” of the population and that she hoped that situation could be avoided.

“The fact is that we need to bring many loose strands together. What we aim for is as much of an agreement as possible, as much as a consensus as possible,” she said.

Mr Macron said the failure to reach a decision reflected badly on the EU. The French president told reporters: “We cannot hold talks with world leaders, in an ever more violent world, and be a club that meets at 28 without ever deciding anything.”

Jean-Claude Juncker at the summit (EPA)

Calling for reform of the EU treaties, he said: “We have to profoundly change our rules. While we have not reformed the workings of our intergovernmental method, we will not be credible on the international level, we will not be credible in the eyes of our citizens, and it will be impossible to enlarge in any way the EU.”

A video of a late-evening meeting on the sidelines of the summit between frontrunner Mr Timmermans and the Bulgarian prime minister, Boyko Borissov, appeared to suggest a compromise was close.

Under the plan, Manfred Weber, the centre-right candidate for commission president, might instead be handed the European parliament presidency, while Mr Timmermans – a former vice president of the commission who speaks seven languages – would take charge of the EU’s executive.

“A compromise is on the horizon, in which Weber will take the parliament and you will take the commission, so I wanted to see from you,” Mr Borissov tells Mr Timmermans in the video.

Mr Borissov then says this had been “discussed with Angela [Merkel], [Mark] Rutte and other colleagues today”.

Mr Timmermans then says he is not sure “we should be recording all of this” before the video of the meeting ends. 

Other top EU posts are also up for grabs at the summit, including the bloc’s foreign affairs chief, and potentially Donald Tusk’s replacement as European Council president. Considering all the posts at the same time allows leaders to horse-trade for them – potentially making breaking the deadlock easier.

Leaders discussed candidates on Sunday night over creamy pea soup and pan-fried langoustine, with fillets of sole and mashed potatoes, followed by a dark chocolate poached meringue and ice cream at the summit’s dinner. The meal started hours late to allow for more one-on-one discussions between different parties to take place.

The main meeting was also suspended a number of times throughout the course of the evening to make time for bilateral chats.

Theresa May attended the meeting, for what is likely to be her last visit to Brussels as prime minister – but played a low-key role in proceedings. The only social media post the prime minister made during the summit was a picture of herself watching the England vs India cricket match.



Source link

Political News

EU summit: Talks stall as leaders argue into early hours over Jean-Claude Juncker’s replacement

Published by:

EU summit: Talks stall as leaders argue into early hours over Jean-Claude Juncker’s replacement 5



EU summit: Talks stall as leaders argue into early hours over Jean-Claude Juncker’s replacement 6

EU leaders dragged a Brussels summit out into the early hours of Monday morning arguing about who should replace Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission president, but were still far from agreement. 

Frans Timmermans, the socialist group’s candidate to lead the EU’s executive, appeared to be emerging as the compromise choice at the meeting after he received the backing of Angela Merkel behind the scenes.

But some central European countries, wary of Mr Timmermans’s reputation for social liberalism, have been blocking his appointment – at least for now. The Dutch politician supports a second Brexit referendum and has previously criticised Boris Johnson for making “borderline racist” comments.


Leaders are expected to work through breakfast on Monday in order to hash out a final nominee to replace Mr Juncker. The choice would then be put to MEPs for a confirmatory vote.

A video of a meeting on the sidelines of the summit between Mr Timmermans and Bulgarian prime minister Boyko Borissov shot late into the evening appeared to suggest a compromise was close.

Under the plan, Manfred Weber, the centre-right candidate for president, might instead be handed the European Parliament presidency, while Mr Timmermans – a social democrat who speaks seven languages – would take charge of the commission.

“A compromise is on the horizon, in which Weber will take the parliament and you will take the commission, so I wanted to see from you,” Mr Borissov tells Mr Timmermans in the video.

Mr Borissov then says this had been “discussed with Angela [Merkel], [Mark] Rutte and other colleagues today”.

Mr Timmermans then says he is not sure “we should be recording all of this” before the video of the meeting ends. 

States opposed to the centre-left candidate heading up the Commission as of around 2am are reported to include the Czech republic and Slovakia. 

Frans Timmermans is already first vice president of the European Commission (Getty)

Other top EU posts are also up for grab at the summit, including the bloc’s foreign affairs chief, and potentially Donald Tusk’s replacement as European Council president. Considering all the posts at the same time allows leader to horse trade, potentially making breaking the deadlock easier.

Leaders discussed the succession over creamy pea soup and pan-fried langoustine, with fillets of sole and mashed potatoes, followed by a dark chocolate poached meringue and ice cream at the summit’s dinner. The meal was hours later starting to allow for more one-on-on discussions between different parties to take place.

The main meeting was also suspended a number of times throughout the course of the evening to make time for bilateral chats. Mr Tusk is understood to have taken a tour of EU leaders in the early hours of the morning to try to break the deadlock. 

Theresa May attended the meeting, for what is likely to be her last visit to Brussels as prime minister – but played a low-key role in proceedings. The only social media post the prime minister made during the summit was a picture of herself watching a cricket match of England vs India.

The leaders pulled the fledging all-nighter because they are keen to nominate their choice for commission president before the newly elected European Parliament sits next week in Strasbourg for the first time. Mr Juncker’s term is up at the end of October.



Source link

Political News

From conflict to compromise: Lessons in creating a state

Published by:

From conflict to compromise: Lessons in creating a state 8



From conflict to compromise: Lessons in creating a state 9

A few days ago, the leader of a movement that wants its own state asked me how to get one. It was not of course an easy question to answer. But having been involved in various self-determination struggles around the world, I told him what I’ve learnt. Lessons about self-determination – becoming a state – are drawn not from academic studies, legal analysis or books… but from gritty experience. My organisation, Independent Diplomat, and I have advised two of the last three countries that have become independent, Kosovo and South Sudan (the third to become independent most recently is Montenegro). I’ve advised the governments and parties of some that so far have failed to win that goal: Palestine and Catalonia. I’ve worked for or talked with leaders and activists in West Papua, Kashmir, Western Sahara and Somaliland and even the South Tyrol. Indeed I’ve attended the UN Security Council with no less than five such movements. I was once a British diplomat there, so I’ve enjoyed both the first-class cabin and the cattle class treatment – and being refused entry.

This last experience points to the first lesson, a hard one for aspirant states to hear. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas (or Thanksgiving). The state-based international system is profoundly ill-disposed towards new states. Perhaps this isn’t surprising. Many states, from Niger to Spain, worry about breaking up. Governments and rulers don’t like having less to rule over. People can be very discomfited by the prospect of “secession” – especially if their own rights are in question. 

But it doesn’t work to simply dismiss powerful sentiments, a dismissal too often expressed in repression. The British government’s decision to allow a referendum on Scottish independence was exceptional and wise. 


Contrast it with Spain’s punitive response to Catalan nationalism: several of those who organised a peaceful vote in Catalonia remain in jail. In every case of self-determination (with perhaps the exception of Palestine), the state-based system was, from the first outset, hostile. In Kosovo and South Sudan, the basic predisposition at the UN, EU and in other bodies was negative, until it wasn’t (and we’ll come to why it changed later, and Kosovo is still not a UN member state). In both cases, there was a painful and tortured diplomatic process to reach a conclusion that was obvious to anyone who lived on the ground: both states had to come into being or there would be war. 

As a result of this systemic hostility, the second lesson is obvious: there is no application process to become a state. There is no committee or UN process to examine such cases. There is no website to explain how it’s done. Each case is different. But in short, you only become independent by pushing for it yourself. No one will give it to you even though, ultimately, it is other states who must recognise you as a state (the basic paradox that is the heart of the problem): unilateral declarations of independence achieve little and often provoke yet more resistance.

And because the process is not institutionalised, self-determination in practice, if not in theory, has very little to do with law (except in some strange cases). There are lots of voluminous legal texts about the criteria for statehood, the Montevideo Convention and so forth. But I’ve seen these to be largely irrelevant, except as tools for retrospective analysis. The choice to recognise a state is always a political one by other states. International courts don’t take the decision, though their rulings can confirm the necessity of a decision (as the International Court of Justice has done in the case of Western Sahara). Legal arguments can bolster political ones, but they are never primary. We once advised the Kosovo government not to circulate a paper on its legal case for statehood. Why? Because it was so weak. But Kosovo’s political case was strong: the overwhelming majority of its population wanted independence and the province had effectively been governed separately since 1999.

In one strange case, however, the law really mattered. But it wasn’t international law. In the case of Montenegro, Serbia and the rest of the world accepted Montenegro’s independence referendum, and subsequent independence, because of Montenegro’s status as a republic in the constitution of the short-lived state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a state that no longer exists, a status that in turn derived from the Tito-drafted constitution of the communist federation of Yugoslavia. Kosovo did not enjoy such a constitutional status, although it was part of the country, which was one of the arguments Serbia deployed to oppose its otherwise equally legitimate demand for independence. One necessary conclusion, the third lesson: law does not, and should not, define legitimacy.

Fourth, and this is a hard one for liberation movements to hear: the state that matters most in self-determination is the one you are leaving. For Catalonia, Madrid’s ferocious opposition to any process of self-determination has effectively scuppered it, at least for now. 

For Somaliland, the main obstacle to its recognition by other states, who are otherwise very complimentary about Somaliland’s remarkable self-built democracy and stability, lies in Mogadishu. And it doesn’t take an expert on the Middle East to observe that the country that matters most in Palestine’s fight to become a state is, of course, Israel (followed a close second by the United States).

Fifth, and this is more welcome to liberation movements: never give up. For decades, statesmen and so-called experts opined that East Timor would never win independence from Indonesia. East Timor’s leaders, when they weren’t in jail but in exile, would tour the corridors of places like the UN, receiving at best polite brush-offs and outright indifference (I’ve experienced the same many times). They never gave up. And today East Timor is independent. I’ve met the brave leaders of West Papua, a place that should be freed of the same oppression that the East Timorese endured and one day, I trust, will be. They’ve heard that lesson too. I don’t see Kashmiris giving up either: at a minimum, the maintenance of their struggle demands some kind of resolution. This will not go away.

Sixth, the commitments of the “international community”, such as those like international law, don’t count for much. You could fill a library with the UN resolutions demanding a Palestinian state, including General Assembly resolution 67/19 11317 that gave Palestine a sort-of membership of the UN and the ur-resolutions 242 and 338 that ordained the so-called two state “solution”, and yet Palestine is not independent. 

In Western Sahara, the UN Security Council agreed there should be a referendum for self-determination in 1991 and has repeated that commitment on an annual (and sometimes six-monthly) basis ever since. An expensive UN mission was set up and remains to administer that referendum. The “international community” i.e. the powerful countries that run the UN known as the P5, have done nothing to fulfil its own commitment. Not with any pleasure, I’ve told Palestinian friends many times: it’s a great mistake to think that just because “they” have promised your own state, that “they” will one day live up to their obligations and grant you one. It doesn’t work like that.

Seventh, in all recent cases of contested self-determination, the United States is crucial. Kosovo and South Sudan became independent because the US decided it so, and brought the rest of the international community with them. If the US decides that it’s time for a truly independent Palestinian state – as it should – then my guess is that it would happen. In this realm, the multi-polar world has yet to manifest itself – at least not yet. As a sort of counter to Kosovo, whose independence Moscow formally opposed (but in fact privately acquiesced in), Russia encouraged the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Those would-be statelets have been recognised by a grand total of five other countries, including Russian satraps Venezuela and Syria. But whether the determinative importance of the US will endure its current decline of influence is another question.

Finally, the worst lesson of all. 

Somaliland is a democracy and a beacon of stability in the wartorn Horn of Africa. It has a strong legal case for statehood as it pre-existed the creation of Somalia. Its population has voted overwhelmingly for independence. It has peacefully demanded its acceptance as an independent state since 1991 (and indeed it was once an independent state after the British left).  It has been recognised by precisely nil other states and suffers the indignity of being called a “breakaway” state by the BBC, as if this word defines it.

The Frente Polisario, which represents the indigenous people of occupied Western Sahara, has pursued nearly 30 years of peaceful yet fruitless diplomacy to demand the fulfilment of the international community’s promise of a referendum on self-determination. In all that time, it has refused to return to a liberation struggle by military force, despite many provocations including the purported annexation of the territory by Morocco. They have shown depthless patience and commitment to a peaceful resolution. The result? No referendum and little prospect of one. The Frente Polisario and 175,000 refugees driven out by Morocco in 1975 remain in refugee camps in the Sahara desert.

One New York morning, shortly before South Sudan’s independence referendum, the result of the ceasefire agreement that ended Sudan’s long and incredibly bloody civil war, the UN Security Council held what’s called a formal meeting to endorse the vote. It was attended by luminaries like Hillary Clinton, then the US secretary of state, and the UN secretary-general. I was there with a South Sudanese leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) who was invited to speak in that grandiose forum. By coincidence, that same day, but in the afternoon, the Security Council met privately in so-called “informal consultations” to discuss, and do nothing about, Western Sahara. The Frente Polisario was not invited to speak but waited with them outside the private chamber. The SPLM leader stopped by and I made introductions: two liberation leaders meeting, both former guerilla fighters, both demanding independence. The first question the Saharawi representative asked of the South Sudanese was to the point: why did you get your independence referendum and we didn’t? The SPLM leader did not hesitate before replying: because we told everyone, very clearly, that if we didn’t get it, we would go back to war the next day.

Some lesson, but the very same I had learned in Kosovo. There, the UN Security Council refused to do anything about Kosovo’s final status for several years after the Nato  intervention that ended Serbian control of the province in 1999. There was a lot of talk but no movement to resolve the question of the independence sought by the majority Kosovo-Albanian population. In 2004, there were deadly riots in Kosovo that were caused, in part, by the intense frustration over that lack of progress. Fourteen people were killed. The province seethed with violence. Various senior officials from the US and EU visited with grave faces. I was there at the time (I had been seconded to the UN by the British government) and told them: make this place independent or you will get more of this, and worse. Others said the same. None of the countries concerned would admit it, but it was the violence that triggered the “final status” process that ended with Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008.

The lesson could hardly be clearer, but perhaps needs spelling out. There needs to be some kind of international consensus and forum to address the many, and potentially violent, demands for self-determination across the world. The arbitrary drawing of borders by feckless and inept colonial officials in the Middle East, Africa and Asia has left behind an awful lot of unresolved self-determination crises. Kashmir, a source of conflict between two nuclear-armed countries, is not merely of local interest. We need some accepted criteria to assess the legitimacy of such demands, including for instance the protection of minorities, non-interference by outside powers and democratic endorsement (a requirement for non-violence might also help), and we need a place to talk about them sensibly. Not a court, as these disputes do not lend themselves to legal arbitration. They are political matters to be resolved by political means: negotiation, negotiation and more negotiation.

So this was the advice I gave the independence leader. He took it well, but gravely, for not all these observations were welcome. Although embroiled in war, he is a man of peace and reason. I didn’t relish telling him that the threat of war was decisive in the two examples of “successful” self-determination I’ve been part of, but it’s the truth. And in both those examples, the resulting states have been troubled and, in the case of South Sudan, horrifically violent, an outcome born of local rivalries: an example that is often carelessly deployed globally to dismiss all those who seek new states. But I’m sure he, like me, would prefer it otherwise – would prefer that there were some way of dealing with his demand for self-determination more sensibly and, above all, peacefully.

Carne Ross is founder of Independent Diplomat, the world’s first diplomatic advisory group


Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent Minds



Source link

Subscribe to get this amazing EBOOK Free

By subscribing to this newsletter you agree to our Privacy Policy