EUROPEAN UNION

From Aic-background

Jump to: navigation, search

File:EU_Flag.jpg

Contents

The Creation of the European Union

The creation of the European Union can be seen as one of the greatest accomplishments of diplomacy. As such, it is an incredibly complicated, vague, and confusing entity. Luckily, for the purposes of this simulation all that is needed is a basic understanding of the European Union, and a strong understanding of the branch of which you are a part. That said, one should first understand that the original mission of the Community of Europe, fore-runner of the EU, was nothing short of the elimination of all wars between European countries. It is with this lofty goal in mind that we shall begin our examination of the EU; first, with a brief history of its evolution.

After World War II, Europe was faced with a pressing question, how to prevent future wars from occurring? In recent history, the wars of Europe had generally been fought between France and Germany. From the Franco-Prussian war through World War I and culminating in World War II, these two great nations had utilized Europe as a battlefield for their national ambitions. This created not only significant instability within France and Germany, but within Europe as a whole, which was regularly dragged into their conflicts. In 1946, the first step towards truly making war between European nations unthinkable was made by Winston Churchill who called for a “United States of Europe.” This idea was not a completely new one; however, if words carried weight, the words of Churchill were granite slabs. In 1950, the first concrete manifestation of this idea came into being. The 1951 Treaty of Paris created the European Steel and Coal community. This community was comprised of France, West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg. The choice of coal and steel were not random. In any war, control of these two materials is key for the production of military equipment. By creating a shared market for these nations, their ability to utilize these resources for inter-communal warfare was almost completely removed. It also created a shared economic interest based around international cooperation.

The European Coal Steel Community was a huge success. This venture can be seen as a litmus test for the concept of a supra-national community. Not only did it help preserve peace between the nations, but it was also a huge economic boon. In its wake, two other hugely successful communities followed. The European Economic Commission and the European Atomic Commission built upon the foundations laid by the ESC and established equally successful partnerships. However, these three organizations remained apart. While they shared the same elected body, which governed them, the three organizations did not interact with each other. In the 1960s, the communities were merged and continued to flourish. Their success quickly attracted new participants and a period of expansion began, in which new countries sought to join the European Communities.

With the expansion of the ECs, a new system had to be employed, an organization capable coping with a much more complex situation. In 1993, the first manifestation of the EU came into being. The European Union of 1993 was organizationally different from the current system. What is important is it established, for the first time, the concept of a mutual foreign policy. Until this time, pursuit of foreign policy was not incorporated into the structure of the European Communities. The EU of 1993-2008 established the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. This is the institution, within the EU, with which we are most greatly concerned. It is an institution of which you are part. However, it is also an institution which has changed since its first inception. The 1993-2008 EU, like its predecessors, was successful. However, there were problems around organization, leadership, voting, and structure. Thus, in 2009, a new treaty, The Treaty of Lisbon was signed into being. This created the form of the EU within which you function today...with one major alteration. In 2016, Great Britain voted to exit the European Union. Prime Minister Theresa May invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, officially starting the so-called "Brexit," in March 2017, meaning the Great Britain's split from the EU will be enacted by March 2019.

Beginning of the Common Foreign Security Policy

The Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) is the policy with which you are charged with executing. Here, it is important to point out that each country within the EU is sovereign. While they do permit certain powers to the EU, each maintains control over their own foreign policy. So when does CFSP become pertinent? CFSP only pertains to those areas of foreign policy which all twenty seven member nations of the EU agree upon. This must be a unanimous vote. If successful, a position is created for the EU diplomats to pursue. If unanimous agreement is not reached, then the matter remains outside the scope of the EU, and is then something for each member nation to pursue on its own. An example of this is the Iraq War. The EU member nations could not agree on a position to take with regard to the Iraq War. Britain was in favor of it, and other nations staunchly opposed it. Thus, the EU remained neutral and individual member nations pursued their own foreign policy. It should also be understood that approval of an EU position does not bar EU nations from pursuing their own foreign policy within that area. While France might agree to an EU mission within Israel, it may also seek to push its own agenda within Israel itself. To avoid conflict, the EU’s goals are generally confined to three areas; economics, humanitarian issues, and defense-related matters. Note that defense here is not defense in the way the U.S. imagines it. The EU has no offensive authority.

Once a CFSP is formed it falls to the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, to see to its implementation. However, she does not work alone. Her office, works with both the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council. As you will remember, the European Council is the body which votes on the different aspects of the CFSP. The European Council is a gathering of heads of states and government. It can be seen as the big picture branch of the government, focused on defining the overall policy of the EU. We now come to the President of the European Commission, who is in charge of the European Parliament, the legislative assembly of the EU. He is involved with the ratification of treaties, and the creation of laws within the EU. The big question is, how do these three groups work on foreign policy. The President of the European Council tends to be the strategist, working behind the scenes and making sure that there is a united policy. This does not mean that he does not speak out on important issues; just that his focus is on creating a unified policy for the EU. The Office of the High Representative deals in bi-lateral relations. Once a policy is created, the High Representative deals directly with those countries concerned and attempts to convince them of the beneficial nature of the EU’s policies. The President of the European Commission deals with the ratification of treaties and acts as the Head of Government. He can be seen as the spokesman for popularizing EU policy to the rest of the world. While the High Representative focuses on the country or countries in question, the President of the Commission focuses on publicizing the EU’s policy to the world and gathering support of it. Here, we will briefly look at each institution and then at each character.

Before we discuss the roles of each body, it must first be stated that there are no defined roles. This can be confusing. In the real world, it is a diplomatic headache of the first degree. However, the Treaty of Lisbon does not set out well defined roles in foreign affairs. Let us take the EU mission to the UN as an example. The High Representative, the President of the Commission, and the President of the Council are entitled to represent the EU within UN bodies and at UN meetings. The roles discussed below are those which the Presidents and the High Representative generally follow. This does not mean that they never step outside of their roles. They do. However, in order not to ruffle any feathers, one can be assured that they closely discuss their actions with the other parties before they act.

Presidency of the European Council

Within the EU, the President of the European Council’s primary job is to organize the meetings of the European Council and to negotiate consensus on pressing issues such as the CFSP. The European Council defines policy. This is a duty which is normally carried out by the executive of the nation. A policy is not a law, but it is a governing principle. Not negotiating with terrorists is an example of a policy. While there is no law against it, it is something which many nations view as unwise and, therefore, do not do. Policies change, though, sometimes quite quickly. As the EU has no true Executive, the European Council creates policies based on consensus. This insures that the EU presents a united front and also that no country’s sovereignty is violated by a powerful executive.

At face value, it may seem that the President of the European Council is not concerned with affairs outside of the EU. However, he is deeply involved in foreign affairs, working to help define plans of action with which all EU member states can agree. His focus will be trained to a greater degree on EU members, such as Germany and France, hoping to create a unified approach. However, he also engages in direct diplomacy. In the EU, there are no clear delineations between who can and cannot act on behalf of the EU in foreign affairs. However, since all actors are pursuing the same policy, they tend not to step on one another’s toes. The President of the European Council can be viewed accurately as the behind the scenes actor, dealing directly with the heads of state of other countries, but rarely venturing into the spotlight.

The President of the European Commission

The European Commission is as close to an executive and legislative body as is present in the EU. It is responsible for proposing laws and implementing them. While the EU Council can be seen as representing the Governments of the EU, the Commission is the parliament of the people. While each member of the Parliament is proposed by its member state, it is not bound to its interests. Meaning that the Parliament is free to act on its own will, unlike the Council. The Commission's function within the EU is focused on the day to day affairs of creating a functioning and evolving union. In foreign affairs, however, its role is much less defined.

Generally, the President of the European Commission is seen as the head of Government for the EU. Generally, he is tasked with championing the policies of the EU publicly. While the High Representative deals with the countries in question directly, and the President with the Council works behind the scenes to get things moving, the President of the Commission generally handles the public lobbying of other extra-EU nations for support. For example, if American support was wanted to push through a World Trade Organization deal, the President of the Commission might pay a visit to the United States, or issue a statement of encouragement.

The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

The High Representative is charged with carrying out the CFSP as defined by the European Council. Where all member nations agree, the High Representative can negotiate on behalf of the European Union with the concerned parties on treaties which are then presented to the Commission of Europe for ratification. The High Representative acts very much like the U.S. Secretary of State. The High Representative is concerned with direct negotiations and with bringing pressure to bear on those countries directly covered by the CFSP. The High Representative is also in charge of exercising EU-security policy; which means, understanding the threats to the EU and employing a strategy to mitigate these threats.

Within this tripartite system, the High Representative can be seen as the most hands on actor. The High Representative directly represents EU policy. While the President of the Commission might make a state visit to the U.S. to drum up support for the denouncement of settlement expansion in Gaza or the President of the Council might tour EU countries trying to do the same, the High Representative would be actively engaged with Israel, trying to dissuade this policy and draw media attention to it.

The European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy Regarding the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The European Union has a vested interest in preserving good trade ties with Israel. Trade between the EU and Israel amounts to well above fourteen billion Euros. Trade with the EU makes up more than 33% of Israel’s foreign trade and comprises 40% of its imports. Importantly for the EU, the trade deficit favors European exports. This simply means that Israel buys more from the EU than the EU buys from Israel; thus, leading to a profit for the EU. This beneficial trade arrangement has led the EU to pursue strong ties with Israel. It is this deep trade relation with Israel that forms the center of EU relations with Israel. Before going on, one must understand that the EU public is, to a much greater extent, more critical of Israel’s policies. This said, in 2008, after the Gaza war, the EU suspended several trade initiatives which would have strengthened EU-Israel relationships. After the Gaza war, the expansion of Israel-EU trade became contingent upon Israeli demonstrating a respect for human rights. While the EU is Israel’s largest trade partner, the EU is also the largest single donor to the Palestinian Authority.

In an effort to promote a two-state solution, the EU has presented their policy as contingent upon Israeli respect for human rights. Currently, within the EU, there is a push for sanctions against Israel. Here, one sees the threat of a reduction in trade being used to attempt to bring about the desired goal. Still, this has not caught on in the highest levels. The most the EU has done was to place a hold on the expansion of the relationship between the EU and Israel until such time as Israel respects the human rights of the Palestinian people.

The EU differs on specific issues with Israel and the U.S. On the issue of settlements, the EU’s policy is clear and straight forward,

“The EU condemns the decision by the Government of Israel to build new housing units in East Jerusalem. Israel should reverse this decision. The EU calls upon the Israeli authorities to fulfill all their commitments and obligations vis-à-vis the peace process, and to refrain from unilateral decisions and actions that may jeopardize the final status negotiations. The European Union reiterates that settlements are illegal under international law. They undermine current efforts for restarting peace negotiations, constitute an obstacle to peace, and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible.”

The EU views all settlement construction as illegal and an obstacle to peace. It is one of the hurdles facing stronger EU and Israeli economic and political relationships.

On the Issue of Jerusalem, EU policy holds that while Israel controls all of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem is occupied territory. The EU holds that it should be the capital of a new Palestinian state and that Israel’s occupation is illegal. This is a belief which it holds on all Israeli intervention in the West Bank and Gaza. The EU sees the Israeli military as an occupying force, which is illegal under international law. This is a point of contention between the EU, the U.S., and Israel.

The EU policy towards Gaza is also much more in line with international standards. The closing of Gaza by Israeli and Egyptian forces is viewed as illegal and “counter-productive.” The EU stands by the policy that Gaza should be opened to humanitarian aid and allowed to export and import commercial goods. This is a policy with which Israel does not agree. Israel believes that by closing the border to Gaza, it not only reduces the chances of Hamas attaining weapons, but also decreases the popularity of the group. This decrease is believed to come from the increased hardships brought about by the closed borders and Hamas’s inability to alleviate that hardship.

Unlike other groups, the EU is actively involved in the West Bank and works in concert with the Palestinian Authority. It is actively engaged in trade with the West Bank and the promotion of good governance programs. Still, the EU does recognize that Israel has some legitimate security concerns. However, what it decries are disproportionate uses of force. The Gaza war is a clear example. A rocket killed four Israelis. The ensuing Israeli attack killed more than a thousand Palestinians and thirteen Israelis.

The important thing to remember is that the economic ties between Israel and the EU are the basis for the EU’s legitimate interest in Israeli policies. The potential for loss of trade with the EU (or the proposition of increased trade) is a potent political tool. Also, unlike other nations and because of its more critical populace, the EU is much more prone to criticism of Israel than some other nations. While it has deep relations with Israel, it has absolutely no problem criticizing actions which it views as illegal. It also works with Israel to prevent terrorism. In one of the many joint Israel and EU ventures, security assets of both are mobilized jointly to confront the shared threats of terrorism.

EU and Iran

The EU’s relationship with Iran mirrors, in many ways, its relationship with Israel. The EU has large investments in Iran. In 2009, the EU was Iran’s primary trading partner. However, the EU has been forced to follow a dual-track approach to Iran, because of the nation’s violation of human rights and its enrichment of uranium. This approach is simply a carrot and stick approach. The EU has offered financial and technical help if Iran agrees to export uranium to other countries for enrichment and to allow for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. However, Iran has refused this such deals, and the EU has had to use a stick by voting for consistently stronger economic sanctions. The EU is also critical of Iran’s record on human rights and has made this another political point, enforcing focused sanctions on those people believed to be personally complicit in violations of human rights. Focused sanctions include freezing personal bank accounts of individuals determined to be acting in violation of human rights, as well as the accounts of companies owned by such individuals, and revocation of the right of such individuals to travel in or through the EU. Here, one should again note the financial nature of the EU’s foreign policy. In both Israel and Iran, the focus is around providing economic benefits for acquiescence to EU policy, and the weakening of economic relations when such countries acting contrary to EU policy.

The EU and Syria

As with many other countries in the Middle East, Syria is undergoing a moment of intense change. However, unlike many other countries in the Middle East, the Syrian leadership has a very strong hold on the reins of government. The President Assad was a fairly popular president. He brought security and growth to the country of Syria. While corruption and abuse were rampant, he was seen as uninvolved. However, the resent violent dispersion of demonstrators has blackened his image as a reformer. The European Union has not turned a blind eye to the violent repression ongoing in Syria. Its economic ties would not allow for that.

As with many other countries in the area, the EU has financial ties to the Syrian government. The Syrian government is a member of several Mediterranean trade organizations, of which the EU is the most prominent player. The EU and Syria also have a cooperation agreement which provides beneficial trading circumstances. While this is certainly not on the same scale as the EU's relation with other countries in the Middle East, Syria still receives lower tariffs and duties when selling to EU markets. Ignoring the gross abuses of Human Rights ongoing in Syria, while at the same time preserving such relations would be a black mark on the EU's record. However, blanket sanctions would hurt the whole economy of Syria, not just those culpable for the abuses. Therefore, the EU and the US have opted for targeted sanctions. These are a lesser form of sanctions that target the assets and ability to travel of Syria's top leadership. This is an effort to apply pressure directly to the source of the problem.

The EU's goal in Syria is simple. To end the bloodshed. Many claim that the Syrian government has killed up to eight hundred demonstrators, a claim it hotly disputes. The Syrian government claims that it is fighting an armed insurgency, a claim that seems very farfetched. At the moment, the EU has limited its punitive actions, however, should violence continue one could easily speculate that the EU would be willing to adjust its CFSP to allow for broader sanctions. Remember though that the broader and more painful the sanctions, the more they cause damage to the people of the country. Diplomatic pressure when dealing with Syria should be the first course of action. As the saying goes, light is the best disinfectant. The EU has absolutely no problem calling out Syria's transgressions if added international pressure can save lives, and perhaps, bring about democratic reforms.

The EU and Turkey

European-Turkish relationships are complex and of long duration. Some parts of Europe have longer historic ties with Turkey than they do with other parts of Europe. For example, Italy traded with Turkey long before they ever traded with the frozen British Isles to the north. The Greeks and Persians had economic relationships and wars well before the people who would come to be today’s Germans had even entered into Germany. Fittingly, Turkey is the country with the longest running bid for membership to the EU. Turkey views its petition for membership as beginning in 1959, when EU was nothing more than the European Economic Council. Here, the reader will again note an important occurrence. The EU is Turkey’s biggest importer--nearly 52.9% of all imports to Turkey come from the EU. Though this accounts for only about of 4% of EU exports, it is still a vital market for the EU. This market is larger, in financial terms, than those of Iran and Israel combined.

Turkey and the EU agree on many issues of foreign relations. However, Turkey’s bid for admittance to the EU is a critical source of tension. Currently, a long process of negotiations is unfolding between the EU and Turkey, negotiations that seek to bring the policies of Turkey into alignment with those of the EU. Because the voting power in some EU bodies is based around proportional representation (meaning the voting power of the nation is determined based on the number of citizens it has) Turkey, with its 78 million citizens, would become one of the most powerful nations within the EU as soon as it joined. As a consequence, the EU feels it is necessary to insure that the policies of the EU and Turkey are in agreement before Turkey is admitted, and this has become a real sore point. Though they cooperate fiscally and militarily (Turkey is a member of NATO) there are still critical differences which prevent Turkey from gaining admittance to the EU.

A key point of contention is around the Island of Cyprus. Cyprus is divided in two, the north being claimed as the Turkish Republic of Cyprus, the south known as Cyprus. Cyprus is an EU nation which disagrees with the division of the nation. The EU maintains an economic embargo of Northern Cyprus. This is a point which must be overcome before Turkish accession. Other points of contention include territorial disputes between Greece and Turkey, Turkey’s unwillingness to allow for conscientious objection to military service, and objections to Article 301 of the Turkish penal code which prohibits insulting the Turkish state, which violates freedom of speech in the eyes of many within the EU.

How should the Turkish question figure into your approach? Turkey is a huge trading partner, and an ally in the region. As the only Muslim country to have a military alliance with Israel, they have great credibility in both the East and West. Avoidance of the accession question is the best route. However, you should understand it in case it is raised. Until Turkey changes its laws to align completely with the EU’s, accession to the EU will not be possible. Stress should be placed on ongoing EU-Turkey negotiations and recognition of the importance of a suitable union for both populations.

CFSP in the Simulation

The previous was an outline of policies and how the EU has approached them in the past. However, you will have your own specific CFSP. You are allowed to change it; however, this is risky. France can block it, or the Game Mentor (who represents the other nations of the EU) can rule it as inappropriate and block it. Not only that, it requires one week to be approved, except in the most extreme circumstances. Remember, you are trying to get twenty seven countries to agree, not a small task. The one-week waiting period represents that difficulty. However, if you publicize your case well enough to move quickly persuade France, the Game Mentor may feel it appropriate to expedite the approval process. The CFSP is comprised of key points of policy which you must follow. You should orientate your statements and actions around trying to promote these policy points. You will note that they are vague--this allows you wiggle room in pursuing them.

How do you know if something requires an amendment to the CFSP? What is beyond its scope? Here are a few questions to ask. Does the proposed measure require an action to be performed by EU member states or does it in any way limit the freedoms of member states? If so, then an amendment to the CFSP is most likely in order. Does the action require an allotment of significant funds which are not already approved, and which cannot be justified as essential in the pursuit of a stated goal? An example of such a policy would be sanctions, which limit what can be traded with the targets of the sanctions. This would require an amendment. Should a crisis arise--say the U.S. wishes to strengthen sanctions on Iran--this is not something you can do on your own. Remember, you must convince the representatives of France to endorse the new CFSP, since it only requires one dissenting vote to veto it. The EU does not have the authority to act in an offensive military capacity, period. Individual member states may use offensive military force; however, the EU will remain neutral in almost all cases, except for defensive military operations.

Working with your CFSP: The trick is to avoid concrete actions. The threat of an action does not violate your CFSP. For example, stating that you are considering the sanctions proposed by the U.S. applies pressure while not calling for the re-evaluation of your CFSP. Saying that you are studying the creation of a Palestinian nation by U.N. mandate with interest and enthusiasm does not violate a CFSP because you are not committing any nations to action. However, imposing sanctions or recognizing a nation forces EU nations to abide by that decision and violates their sovereignty; thus, it would require an amendment to the CFSP. For example, recognizing the continued belligerence of the Iranian Republic in disregard of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the European Union has approved the implementation of new sanctions on the Iranian republic. This would require an amended CFSP. If you need to change the CFSP, you must submit an action form to your Game Mentor. Furthermore, you must convince France to agree to the policy.

Your CFSP

Gaza

  • Gaza: Recognizing the importance of an end to the embargo of Gaza to the future of the peace process, the European Union declares that efforts shall be made to ensure the swift opening of Gaza’s borders. In the interest of facilitating this goal, the European Union is ready to provide financial aid, material aid, and personnel.
    • Financial Aid- The European Union is ready to allot funds for the training of Gazan security forces to man the border checkpoints, as well as for the construction of border infrastructure and the purchase of necessary equipment.
    • Material Aid- The European Union stands ready to provide equipment and materials necessary for quickly establishing secure border crossings and help to insure Israeli security.
    • Personnel- The European Union stands ready to provide security trainers to help ensure the secure borders of Gaza.
  • Gaza: Upon the opening of Gaza’s borders, the European Union authorizes the release of funds for the purpose of rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure. The European Union understands the essential role that the economy plays in establishing a stable society and limiting extremist tendencies.
  • Gaza: The European Union condemns, in the strongest terms, the use of violence by any involved party. The European Union states that the use of violence on civilians has the potential to damage not only the peace process, but relations with the European Union.
    • The European Union condemns the disproportionate use of force by Israel.
    • The European Union condemns the indiscriminate use of force by Hamas.
  • Freedom of the Sea: The European Union calls on Israel to respect the freedom of international waters. The European Union condemns Israeli attacks on any vessel within international waters. Furthermore, the European Union views such actions as potentially harmful to the relations between the European Union and Israel.

West Bank

  • West Bank: Understanding the importance of good governance and the construction of civil society, the European Union encourages all efforts to strengthen government building programs within the West Bank. Towards this goal, the European Union authorizes the expenditure of funds such as the European Union’s representatives see as befitting.
  • The European Union recognizes the legitimacy of Israeli security concerns.
  • The European Union views the separation barrier as an illegal project and an infringement upon human rights. It calls upon Israel to abide by the ruling of Israel’s High court, and to stop all construction on the separation barrier.
    • Furthermore: The European Union acknowledges freedom of movement as key to the construction of a vibrant and stable economy. For the attainment of that goal, the European Union Views any Israeli restrictions upon Palestinian movement within the West Bank as illegal.
  • In pursuit of the goal of a stable and free Palestinian nation, the European Union calls upon Palestinian leadership to ensure that all elections are free and fair. The European Union further calls upon the Palestinian Authority to address the systemic forms of corruption which plague its government. The European Union makes it known that failure to make a good faith effort to address these matters may have a negative impact on the provision of EU funds.
    • The European Union urges its representatives to make all efforts to help the Palestinian Authority establish a governmental system which respects the rule of law and the rights of the individual.
  • On Borders: The European Union, in accordance with international law, views the 1967 Green Line as the natural borders of Israel and Palestine. o
    • The European Union views the presence of Israeli forces within the 1967 borders as an occupation which is illegal under international law. o
    • The European Union views all Israeli construction within the 1967 borders as illegal settlements which represent an obstacle towards peace. As such, the European Union urgently calls upon Israel to cease and desist from the construction of further settlements.
  • Until such time as Israel shows a readiness to compromise on the above mentioned issues, the European Union does not see fit to further economic ties. Furthermore, failure to make progress on the above stated issues may have negative economic repercussions.
  • The European Union looks favorably upon the reconciliation of the Palestinian political parties, and hopes that this reconciliation will lead to a fruitful political union.
  • The European Union has no opinion on the resolution for the recognition of Palestine as a state. The European Union holds that this is a decision for individual member states to make </ul>

    Military Force

    The EU views as unproductive, the use of military force in all situations, save for those where the lives of civilians are under direct threat.

    Iran

    • Nuclear Power: The European Union respects the right of all nations to pursue peaceful nuclear power projects. The European Union stresses the necessity of all signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to abide by its protocols.
      • The European Union calls upon the Iranian government to abide by the extended protocols of the NPT, and to allow IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear facilities.
      • The European Union calls upon the Iranian government to make known all of its nuclear research sites, stockpiles, reactors, and facilities used in the pursuit of nuclear power, as is required by the NPT.
      • The European Union has adopted a two track policy towards Iran. Failure to abide by the NPT will be met with further sanctions. However, acceptance and adherence to the NPT protocols will permit for financial and material aid and eventual restoration of normal relations.
      • The European Union calls upon Iran to seek alternative sites for the enrichment of its uranium. The European Union stands ready to help facilitate this process both monetarily and materially.
    • Human Rights: The European Union condemns the recent violence in Iran. The European Union strongly encourages that its representatives make every effort to ensure that Iran adopt free and fair elections and a respect for the rights of its people in accordance to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

    Turkey

    Turkey: The European Union encourages ongoing negotiations with the Turkish government over its accession to the European Union. However, the European council remains seized of the matter. (The term “remain seized of the matter” means that the European Council will not release to other actors authority on this matter. In other words, while you can work, if Turkey brings this issue up, on the below matters, you cannot actually address bringing Turkey into the EU.)

    • The European Union encourages a strengthening of economic and trade relations with Turkey.
    • The European Union encourages further reforms within Turkey on the grounds of Human rights, economic freedoms, political freedoms, minority rights, and a further reduction of market protections.
  • Personal tools