Charlemagne
Europe's despot dilemma
Oct 11th 2007
From The Economist print edition
The European Union seems unable to decide how to deal with dictators
IF EVER there was a moment for Europe to come up with new policies for dealing with despots, it is now. The muscular American approach to effecting regime change has few takers these days. The club-of-autocrats approach, exemplified by China's see-no-evil relations with Myanmar and Sudan, is ineffective and may be vulnerable to pressures from today's interconnected world (Olympic boycott, anyone?). In theory, the European Union is ready. It is eager to show off the fledgling common foreign policy of a regional power that is big, rich and noisily principled, but also an exponent of “soft power”.
Moreover, dealing with rogues is high on Europe's agenda. Next week foreign ministers will meet to debate policies towards Iran, Myanmar and Uzbekistan. Trickiest of all, they will consider how to stop Zimbabwe's pariah-president, Robert Mugabe, hijacking an EU-Africa summit in Portugal in December.
It would be nice to report that the EU is rising to the challenge, and crafting a middle way between realpolitik and the idealistic promotion of peace, democracy and prosperity. Alas, Europe seldom works like this. In Myanmar, it lacks leverage; over Iran, commercial interests are blocking France's recent call for tougher sanctions. Often European leaders lack the single-mindedness to confront a ruthless regime, such as gas-rich Uzbekistan, which has contemptuously shrugged off European efforts to discuss the 2005 massacre of opposition protesters in Andijan.
The Europeans are in a special pickle over Mr Mugabe. EU-Africa summits have been blocked for seven years by disagreements over whether to invite a man whose destruction of a once-prosperous country has left him with few, if any, defenders in Europe. But now China's expanding presence in Africa, offering billions in cash and loans in exchange for natural resources, has reduced the ban-Mugabe camp to one EU country: Zimbabwe's former colonial master. The British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has pledged to boycott the summit rather than share a table with Mr Mugabe. Faced with threats of a matching African boycott if Mr Mugabe is banned, Portugal, which holds the rotating EU presidency, has suggested that the final guest list be decided by African countries.
The summit itself has few clear goals, though the Portuguese talk of drawing up “a completely new basis for dialogue” with Africa, based on principles such as democracy, regional integration and “good governance”, which should at least make Mr Mugabe smile. In Brussels the near-universal call is to hold an Africa summit mainly because there has not been one for a long time. The British stance prompts impatience, even incomprehension.
Mr Brown's “posturing” is not helpful, comments one diplomat. Yes, Mr Mugabe is horrible, says another, but there are “any number of rogues” in Africa. Even an official sympathetic to Britain's “principled” stance points to the EU's dwindling leverage in Africa, thanks to that Chinese cash. African recipients of China's largesse can ignore such traditional vehicles for European influence as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, she notes. Yet “Europe has all sorts of interests in being more involved in Africa, like migration and security.”
Is the EU, then, to be nothing more than a cynical player of geopolitics, coldly pursuing European interests under cover of its talk of values? At least that would offer the meagre comfort of simplicity. In fact, the EU position is not so coherent. A strong whiff of realpolitik certainly hangs in the air when diplomats in Brussels explain why nothing can be done to punish some despot or other. The explanation follows a wearily familiar format. You know, it is suggested, our existing sanctions are meaningless, they are not “biting”. And yes, this despot is a monster, but is he much worse than others we talk to? Anyway, adding extra sanctions, or pulling out, would be an empty gesture: the Chinese/Indians/Russians are just waiting to take our place.
Continent of guilt, and cynicism
That sounds cynical enough. But most European governments do not even have the courage of their lack of convictions. Five minutes after conceding that a dictator is wicked but must be engaged anyway, diplomats will point to “promising” signals on human rights that can be linked to any EU talks. For example, most observers assume that energy and strategic interests lie behind a German-led push to suspend EU sanctions on Uzbekistan, but pro-engagement diplomats feel the need to say that they detect signs of better behaviour. This can be surreal. In one discussion about Uzbek repression of journalists, a German claimed that this was mostly just “self-censorship”. (Perhaps he was thinking of Gulbahor Turaeva, a doctor sentenced to six years for crimes including “defamation” after providing independent reports from Andijan. A mother of four, she was released in June only after she “confessed” to acting criminally, and denounced dissident colleagues and foreign journalists.)
At times the EU's behaviour smacks of a loss of moral confidence. During a recent discussion of Chinese lending policies in Africa, one senior diplomat questioned Europe's right to criticise, given its colonial past. (One retort would surely be that even ex-colonial powers can learn from their mistakes.) During a private discussion of human-rights abuses in Asia, another asked rhetorically if they were so much worse than the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by some Western powers.
A bit of European humility and self-knowledge may be welcome. But not if it becomes an excuse for inaction. The EU likes to talk. Well, talking is not a bad start, so long as the right conditions are attached. That takes moral confidence, and the nerve not to ditch principles at the first sign of competition from less scrupulous rivals, such as China.
The Americans have a lot on their plate just now. A global vacancy exists for somebody with good plans for handling tyrants. The question is: could the EU plausibly apply for it?
Recent Comments