A small follow-up to the previous post. It was all down to Kiev’s invitation list, it seems. Ukraine invited EU council president Herman Van Rompuy, EU commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and EP chief Jerzy Buzek to attend this week’s inauguration ceremony of Viktor Yanukovych.
Barroso did not take up the offer. Nor did Van Rompuy. “It’s not usual that by such an inauguration that countries or institutions are present at the level of prime minister, minister or president,” said a spokesperson.
In light of these pending no-shows, Ashton, who had planned to attend the informal defence ministers meeting, then cancelled to go to Kiev. Her people argue that not to have gone would have sent a poor signal to a country whose Russia-friendly president had just taken the fairly surprising decision to make Brussels rather than Moscow the destination for the symbolic first trip abroad.
Well, even if Ashton riled defence ministers to the extent some felt the need to twitter about it (frankly, he doesn’t come out of this too well either), Ukraine officials are pleased. One high-level contact told me that Kiev was “honoured” and “very much appreciated” Ashton’s attendance. It was a“clear-cut” signal from the EU and a “very good beefing-up of the decision by Yanukovych to go to Brussels first.” Yanukovich will be in Brussels on Monday.
So there we go. Relations with an important neighbour were favoured over taking part in the first informal chat with defence ministers under the new Lisbon Treaty. I suspect that had she decided against the Ukraine inauguration she would have come in for criticism too. As it was, I don’t think she missed any giant leaps forward in EU defence integration.
#1 by Ghost on February 26, 2010 - 11:57 pm
I believe that Ms’ Ashton’s decision was a mistake. EU is facing serious internal issues now, that require the full attention of its leaders.
NATO is much more important for the EU that Ukraine. Buzek’s attendance in Kiev would have been sufficient (and important enough)
Poor judgment from Ms. Ashton.
#2 by Ben on February 27, 2010 - 1:33 am
I thought that too, before I read here that van Rompuy and Barroso denied attendance. Buzek’s attendance would have almost been an insult because he isn’t a member of the executive arm of the EU so Ashton made a decision to either attend the defence meeting and leave the EU unrepresented at the Ukrainian inauguration, potentially harming relations of such a strategic state before they could even begin or attend the Ukrainian inauguration and sacrifice the defence meeting that wouldn’t have really benefited by her presence anyhow. Ukraine’s oil lines and potential membership make it a security issue already, so I say she made the right move. I can accept Barroso been unable to fly to Kiev but van Rompuy? Honestly, what is he doing right now that could possibly preclude him?
#3 by Anonymous on February 27, 2010 - 5:16 pm
NATO is not important for the EU, because it is only causing further damage. What is it doing in Afghanistan about the increasing opium production? Protecting it! And some say trafficking it! The US-built Afghan-Tajik bridge made things easier to get into Russia and later Europe, and more roads and bridges are proposed through this heroin-smuggling region. 100,000 people die from this per year, and NATO is not doing a damn thing about it.
#4 by Anonymous on February 27, 2010 - 5:20 pm
And heroin is also one of the major problems facing Ukraine, where it is just as bad as Russia. This stuff is spreading into CEE.
#5 by Ben on February 27, 2010 - 8:09 pm
@Anonymous
You obviously don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
#6 by Anonymous on February 27, 2010 - 8:55 pm
@Ben
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8540726.stm
“The US said the practice was alienating farmers and driving them to support the Taliban.”
Except the heroin is funding insurgents, and terrorist networks in particular. And killing hundreds of thousands. Soon we will even have transportation networks to Central Asia, so Europe can be as inundated with drugs as Russia and Ukraine are. They go right through Turkey and Kosovo into Central Europe. NATO is doing a great job!
#7 by Anonymous on February 28, 2010 - 4:25 am
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100227/158029310.html
Drug trafficking soars 60 times in Russia’s Dagestan in 2009
5000 people die violently on the US-Mexico border because of drug trafficking, but Europe could easily top that record of violence if nothing is done soon. Russia is accusing Georgia of smuggling through Poti and Batumi, so tensions in the Caucasus and the Balkans are about to get worse.
#8 by Gleb Kaplun on March 1, 2010 - 7:46 pm
You people talking about some distant political issues. It is important tough but here in the Ukraine people can not defend their simple rights for even simple thing as to take money deposited in the banks. Prosecution and local militia doing nothing about it despite according to the Ukrainian law this can be qualified as a criminal offence.
Do you want such a state in your neighbourhood? The corruption is a life standard.
You can not get a medical help without to pay despite an official access to medical treatment is free for everyone. Chaos is everywhere. This is and unbreakable circle and you will not be able to find just any responsible person for what happening.
I’m here. I can see it all. Terrible!
#9 by Richard on March 7, 2010 - 9:43 pm
NATO is important only in a negative way – it is a very dangerous organisation. This organisation has never supported democracy or freedom: fascist dictatorships like Portugal were members for many decades (though Portuguese membership was suspended briefly when the dictatorship was overthrown by officers intent on restoring democracy). During the Cold War, NATO assisted far-right groups and plotted to put the Italian neo-fascists in power if the Communists ever gained too much influence – Operation Gladio.
In our own times, NATO has proved an aggressive force in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and has needlessly provoked Russia. And if Georgia had been a NATO member at the time when its aggression against South Ossetia triggered Russian intervention, other NATO countries might have been forced to join Georgia’s side – even though it was Georgia that started the war, as acknowledged by an EU investigation subsequently (the Tagliavini inquiry).
On top of all that, it is obvious that NATO binds European states into permanent alliance with an aggressive neo-imperialist power, the United States, a country that doesn’t share the EU’s values even on domestic issues (such as the death penalty).
#10 by Al Hiddern on March 10, 2010 - 5:38 am
I am no particular supporter of Catherine Ashton (I feel she lacks experience) nevertheless I feel that she has become a “whipping girl” for many flaws that exist within the structure and organisation of the EU and within her own job description.
I feel that her job required nothing less than someone with the diplomatic skills of Ataturk, the global presence of Nelson Mandela and the political skills of Niccolo Machiavelli. Not easy at all.
#11 by Harry on January 14, 2011 - 9:16 am
He said all that I wanted to say.