A great blog post by the EU's top diplomat on Europe's strategic autonomy. There are a couple areas I don't agree with though. This quote here: "no one advocates the development of a fully autonomous European force outside NATO". President Macron is a big advocate for an EU Army.
https://twitter.com/JosepBorrellF/status/1334551111785705474
Frankly, I don't see how an EU Army and NATO can coexist. This seems problematic, especially with a Biden administration coming soon. I also don't agree with the Astanisation segment either. 👇
"In conflicts like Nagorno-Karabakh, Libya and Syria, we're witnessing a form of “Astanisation” of regional conflicts (reference to the Astana format on Syria) which leads to the exclusion of Europe from the settlement of regional conflicts in favour of Russia and Turkey."
The EU and many other international organizations use small group formats and achieve positive results. Libya was a perfect opportunity for the EU to benefit from this format. I had hoped to see member states like Italy or Malta take part in a small group.
I am certain that Turkey would be happy to work with EU member states in Libya to help establish western values like democracy and human rights in the war torn country.
And also, whether it be Libya or Syria, the progress that Turkey has helped achieve has had a positive impact on creating a space for dialogue under the umbrella of the UN. So this Astanisation has worked in unison with international organizations.
The EU does need a major overhaul in the coming years if it wants to maintain relevance. Strategic autonomy is important for the union but it needs more cohesion amongst member states and a homogeneous centralized decision making authority.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
