Will Anglo-French defence co-operation be a casualty of the UK's decision on Syria?

Syria will not see a rerun of the Anglo-French Cooperation we saw in Libya

Commenting on Conservative Home's special jury on the events in Syria Open Europe's Christopher Howarth argues that Anglo-French co-operation on defence and foreign policy has taken a knock from the UK's decision to pull out of military action in Syria:

David Cameron’s Syrian fiasco will reverberate through many aspects of politics. But how will it affect the UK’s international standing?

The US may now look at the UK in a different light but, ironically, within the EU the UK’s reputation may improve. Europe tends to dislike what it perceives as rushed and unilateral military action (a UK/US-led operation is seen as unilateral). Parliamentary opposition to military action is something most EU states can easily understand and the UK’s break with the US may seem refreshing.

However, there is an important exception - the French Government. France and the UK are the only two EU states with the capability and (until now) the will to act. Recognising this, the FCO have been at pains to improve Anglo-French defence and foreign relations - UK help for France in Mali being a recent example. The FCO realise that if France and the UK cooperate they can be a powerful force within the EU and indeed the world. The most serious ramification of Syria is that these plans for Anglo-French defence cooperation may have taken a knock.

We have been here before. The last time UK foreign policy went spectacularly awry was in Suez. Then as now the UK bailed on France. We remember Suez as a lesson in the need to work with the US, for the French it was a lesson in the folly of trusting Anglo-Saxons. Things are nowhere near as bad this time but the relationship needs to be repaired.

Of course Syria is not Suez and the lessons will be different. Eden was tripped up by opposition from the US and Tory liberal internationalists, appalled by the naked pursuit of British interests. Cameron’s Tory opposition came from the descendants of the traditional wing who backed Eden, but who fail this time to see a British interest. After Suez, liberal policy makers agreed that the UK’s role in the world had shrunk and that it was a mistake to act without the US.

This time it is important to ensure that we do not accept any further shrinkage and that future US action is not spurned by the UK and an already sceptical EU. Like Anthony Eden, David Cameron has come unstuck on an area of policy that seemed to be his primary interest. Unlike Eden, Cameron has the opportunity to move on and repair the damage.


Europe reacts to David Cameron's defeat on Syria

Europe has reacted with surprise - and a degree of shock - to David Cameron's defeat in the House of Commons, which has de facto ruled out British participation in any potential military operation in Syria, at least for now. Here is a first round-up.

In an interview with Le Monde, French President François Hollande commented the outcome of the vote as follows,

Each country is sovereign [and can decide] to take part in a [military] operation or not. This is valid for the UK as well as for France.

Hollande suggests France could go ahead with or without the UK, and says,

If the [UN] Security Council is unable to act, a coalition will be formed. It will have to be the largest possible…It will have the support of the Europeans. But there are only few countries that have the capacity to inflict a sanction through the appropriate means. France is one of them. It’s ready [to act]. It will decide its position in close contact with its allies.

An editorial in Le Monde carries the headline, "The Commons vote against...Tony Blair", and notes,

It's the trauma of the Iraqi episode…that explains the 'no' of the British parliament to a [military] action in Syria. It's not David Cameron…who has been defeated. Rather, he pays for Tony Blair – as Mr Cameron himself acknowledged during the debate. 

As regards the international implications of yesterday's vote, the article goes on,

Washington has indicated that the decision of the UK – the privileged ally, the one of the 'special relationship' – would not stop the US intervening. But [the UK’s decision] can’t not embarrass Paris – even though, officially, France’s position remains that it is impossible not to react to the use of chemical weapons.

Germany's Die Welt has a comment piece entitled, "Cameron experiences his greatest humiliation". The article notes,

The refusal of the British House of Commons to participate in a military strike against Syria has left Cameron badly damaged - and with him the 'special relationship' with the United States.

Die Welt's chief correspondent Michael Strümer stresses how, once again, when it comes to 'hard power' the EU disappears. He writes,

While all eyes are on Washington, New York, Moscow, and on Damascus, Ankara, Cairo and Jerusalem, awkward silence reigns in Brussels…In the corridors of powerlessness in Brussels you can sense frustration and little momentum.

Christian Zaschke of Süddeutsche Zeitung describes the vote as,

A political slap in the face of historic proportions” for the Prime Minister, adding that it will define his tenure…On the international stage, [Britain] will be taken less seriously.

In Denmark, the only other EU country that has signalled it might take part in a strike, political leaders have this morning signalled that the country remains committed - although Foreign Minister Villy Søvndal also warned that the UK vote "calls for reflection".

When asked about the vote, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski dodged the question, replying that it is important to have confidence in the UN inspectors' evidence. Sikorski also suggested that a possible solution could be for Russia to secure the Syrian regime's chemical weapons stockpiles - as the majority of them dates from Soviet times.
 
In Spain, an article in El País under the headline, "A blow to Cameron", argues that, as a result of the vote,

The British Prime Minister sees his authority seriously dwindled and, in an unprecedented event in the country’s modern history, has lost control over foreign policy.

Italian political commentator Gianni Riotta notes in La Stampa,

Paradoxically, Hollande, a French Socialist, seems to be the ‘hawk number one’. After securing a very prudent pension reform, he’s now trying to use strength against an ex colony inherited by the Turks to titillate the nation’s imperial pride – although Cameron’s defeat will lead him to take a milder stance.

We will keep updating the blog with any other interesting reactions throughout the day.

Syria: The Ins, the Outs - and the Maybes

As we noted in our previous blog post, Syria has again shown that the EU holds almost as many foreign policy positions as there are states - though we should also remember that this is an extremely complex and senstitive situation.

However, as we also note below, EU countries seem to be coalesing around at least three positions at present. One group - the UK, France and Denmark - is commited to military action with or without the UN. The second group are the definite 'outs' and the largest group is made up of those still waiting to make up their minds. Added to that there is perhaps a fourth group made up of a number of smaller states who have not expressed a clear opinion.

The table below divided the 28 EU member states into these four groups, based on our reading of the current stated positions. This is of course a very fluid table - heavily dependent on evidence, events and developments - and as ever, we welcome reader comments in case we've missed something or if a country's position changes.

Click to enlarge

Syria: Who’s in and who’s out?

Plenty to ponder over Syria

Following the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad’s regime in Syria, the stakes have been raised. But as the calls for international military intervention grows louder, how have Europe’s various players been lining up? Well, the EU is certainly not “speaking with one voice.” Somehow neither the Lisbon Treaty, nor the EEAS nor the arrival of Cathy Ashton has managed to magically replace 28 individual foreign policies with a single EU one. (We remain shocked!)

So when it comes to Syria, there are now three key questions for the member states: whether to take part in military action; whether to back military action without necessarily taking part and, crucially, whether to do either of these two without a UN mandate. The last is obviously key as Russia is liley to veto any UN resolution with teeth, and has already made it clear it would consider any intervention without a UN mandate a "crude violation of international law".  

So far, we count three EU countries that have signalled willingness to participate militarily even if a UN mandate isn't forthcoming – the UK, France and Denmark. France and the UK - that between them account for most of the EU's military spending - are as usual the key players in the EU when matters are moved into the domain of hard power. David Cameron will today present a draft resolution proposing action against Assad's regime in the UN Security Council "authorising necessary measures to protect civilians" in Syria. Writing in the Telegraph today, British Foreign Minister William Hague argues that:

“this is the moment for democratic nations to live up to their values…We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century to go unchallenged. That would send a signal to the Syrian regime that they will never face any consequences for their actions, no matter how barbarous."

Meanwhile, French President Francois Hollande said yesterday that “France is ready to punish those who took the heinous decision to gas innocents," while French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius told Europe 1 radio on Monday: "The only option that I am ruling out is to do nothing." 

Both, it would appear, very much keep the option open to press ahead without the UN. 

Germany is more hesitant. There is virtually zero chance of Berlin playing a major part in any military operation of any sort. The question is - and this is what the German debate is centred around - will it back military action without a UN resolution. Remember, Germany ended up on the same side as Russia and China - against the UK and France - in abstaining on a UN Security Council vote on Libya back in 2011. However, this move was also triggered a domestic and international political backlash, which the Germans haven't forgotten. The country's Foreign Ministry has welcomed the UK's motion at the UN.

#Syria #Westerwelle welcomes British initiative to address poison gas attack within UNSecurityCouncil. United stance needed! @foreignoffice
— GermanForeignOffice (@GermanyDiplo) August 28, 2013

And there's no lack of scepticism. Phillipp Missfelder, the foreign affairs spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party, said that,"The [German] army has, through its current international operations, already reached the breaking point," and that military action without a UN mandate is "hard to imagine." However, interestingly, fellow CDU MP Ruprecht Polenz, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Bundestag, said that military action against Syria without a UN mandate could be "legitimate", citing Kosovo as a precedence, adding that the use of chemical weapons was a "serious, brutal taboo, which may not remain without consequences”. However, he stopped short of explicitly calling for German involvement. 

The SPD's chairman Sigmar Gabriel has suggested that German involvement should be limited to the diplomatic front, specifically that Chancellor Merkel ought to fly to Moscow to convince Russian President Putin to change his policy.

According to Number 10, Chancellor Merkel and David Cameron discussed the situation and “agreed that such an attack demanded a firm response from the international community.” (Not that this fairly generic statement tells us much.) Germany clearly remains nervous about foreign policy meddling. 

So far Italy is leaning back too. "Italy will not take part in any military solutions without a UN Security Council mandate," according to its Foreign Minister Emma Bonino. "Even the option of a limited intervention risks becoming unlimited," said Bonino, adding that Italy was "already stretched and even over-stretched" militarily in other parts of the world.

Despite Poland's support for the EU developing a stronger and more coherent military presence, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed today that “Poland does not envisage taking part in a military intervention in Syria. In any form.”

Like many others, Spain hasn't yet made up its mind but it is sticking to the hope of a UN resolution. Deputy Secretary General of the Partido Popular, Carlos Floriano, said Wednesday, that the Government will decide its stance “[once it is] aware perfectly of every detail." Meanwhile the Spanish Foreign Ministry said it hoped the UN Security Council “can make decisions that comply with international law.” 

Of the smaller countries, "non-aligned" Sweden is as usual calling  for “the broadest international support possible” but leaving it open how to approach a US/UK/France led operation absent a UN solution. Fellow "non alinged" country Austria is also staying quiet. Portugal says it won’t comment on potential action, with the Ministry of Foreign affairs simply issuing the generic statement that “it is in close coordination with its partners and allies.”

NATO-member Denmark, on the other hand, yesterday signalled that it’s willing to take part in military action even absent a UN-solution, with a series of pretty robust statements from senior Danish politicians. According to an opinion poll published today, 64% of Danes are opposed to such a move, however. 

Greece is likely to come under pressure to open up its strategically important bases to the US but ANSA quotes Greek officials as saying they have themselves “ruled out the possibility of active military involvement”. 

So what about the EU institutions themselves?  We wouldn't want to forget those. They are sticking to the ‘UN Security Council’ line. As Baroness Ashton said on Monday, "Of course the Security Council is extremely important in this. It is the role of the Security Council to look and see how the international community can and should respond."

With Hermann van Rompuy, President of the European Council, also urging similar action on Syria via the UN Security Council, this begs the question, what happens if that isn't forthcoming and the UK/France and US continue to push for military action? This then has the potential to become one of the biggest foreign policy clashes between the UK/France and Brussels since the new EU foreign policy architecture was put into place.