The Truth About The Ankara “Sofagate”
Written by Thierry
MEYSSAN on 15/04/2021
More in Europe:
·
Is Khodorkovsky Behind The Claims Of Russian Death Squads
In The Central African Republic?13/04/2021
·
Global Inequality And How To Fight It (II)07/04/2021
·
Are Vaccines The Real Driving Force Behind The Latest
Donbass Destabilization?06/04/2021
The press agencies have widely circulated images of the EU/Turkey summit in
Ankara on April 6, 2021. It shows Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
receiving European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission
President Ursula von der Leyen. There are only two chairs for three. Mrs von der
Leyen, after standing for a while, sits down on a sofa.
The European media interpreted these images as an insult addressed by the
Turkish autocrat to the European Union. Some saw it as a confirmation of his
machismo. But this is absolutely wrong and masks a serious problem within the
EU.
The meeting should have taken place in Brussels and President Erdoğan went
out of his way to ensure that it was held at home, in Ankara. It was prepared
telephonically by the protocol services of both parties. The layout of the
courtroom was in line with the EU requirements. It was not President Erdoğan
who wanted to humiliate Ursula von der Leyen.
To understand what happened, it is necessary to place the event in the
context of the evolution of the EU institutions.
Council of European Heads of State and Government (March 25, 2021).
On March 25th, thirteen days before the Ankara meeting, the Council of
European Heads of State and Government took place. Due to the Covid epidemic,
the meeting was not physical, but by video conference. It brought together the
27 heads of state under the chairmanship of Charles Michel, plus their real
leader: US President Joe Biden.
The latter confirmed in no uncertain terms that Washington needed a strong
European Union at its command. He gave several instructions, notably to
maintain good relations with Turkey despite the various current disputes
(border demarcation in the Eastern Mediterranean; military occupation of
Cyprus, Iraq and Syria; violation of the UN embargo in Libya; religious
interference in Europe).
Certainly, President Trump intended to replace US imperial relations with
commercial relations. He had challenged both Nato and the European Union. He
had put the Europeans face to face with their responsibilities. But the attempt
to return the United States to the world organisation inherited from the Second
World War has not been opposed. All European leaders find it more comfortable
to place their defence under the “American umbrella” and to pay the price.
The European Union was built in several stages.
Initially, in 1949, the United
States and the United Kingdom placed the whole of Western Europe in an unequal
alliance, Nato. They wanted to govern the area of influence they had negotiated
with the Soviet Union. Subsequently, in 1957, they encouraged six Nato member
states (including one militarily occupied by them) to conclude the Treaty of
Rome, which formed the European Economic Community, the forerunner of the
European Union. This new body was to structure a common market by imposing
trade standards set by NATO. This is why the EEC was organised around two
powers: a bureaucracy, the Commission, responsible for translating the
Anglo-Saxon standards of NATO into local law, and a Council of Heads of State
and Government responsible for implementing these decisions in their own
countries. All of this is supervised by a Parliamentary Assembly composed of
delegates from national parliaments.
Since this Cold War mechanism was
designed against the USSR, its purpose was called into question when the latter
disappeared in 1991. After many twists and turns, Washington imposed a new
architecture: before the Council of West European Heads of State and
Government, Secretary of State James Baker announced that NATO and the EEC,
renamed the European Union, would accept all the former Warsaw Pact states,
except Russia. The institutions, conceived for 6 member states, had to be
reformed to be practiced by 28 or more.
When President Trump decided to
disengage his country from its imperial obligations, some European officials
imagined transforming the European Union into an independent and sovereign superpower,
on the model of the United States, at the expense of the member states. They
censored Italy’s budget and put Hungary and Poland on trial. But they met too
much resistance and failed to turn the Commission into a superstate. The return
of the US sponsor with President Biden offers a glimpse of a new institutional
outcome: the Commission would continue to translate the ever-increasing number
of Nato norms into European law and the Council would continue to implement
them in national law, but given the number of its member states, an executive
function should be given to its President (now Charles Michel).
Until now, the Presidents of the Commission and the Council have been
equals. While the Commission President was the head of a huge bureaucracy, the
Council President was a small character, just responsible for setting the
agenda and recording decisions. However, neither of them was elected, but a
civil servant. Both had the same status in terms of protocol.
So Charles Michel told his colleague Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that he aspired
to become the Union’s super-head of state, while Commission President Ursula
von der Leyen would only be his super-’Prime Minister’. Prime Minister’.
Charles Michel clings to his chair as Ursula von der Leyen protests with a
faint “hmmm! “.
It was Charles Michel and him alone who caused the “protocol incident” in
Ankara. President Erdoğan was only too happy to do him this favour because he
divided the European Unionists in the process. If you watch the videos
carefully, you will see that Charles Michel walks up the steps of the White
Palace without waiting for Ursula von der Leyen, then rushes to the available
chair and hangs on to it instead of making way for Ms von der Leyen or leaving
the room with her if they are not brought another chair. If you read his statement
after the interview, you will see that he does not even mention the incident. If
you look at the Turkish videos of the same incident, you will see that the sofa
on which the Commission President sits is opposite another one where the
Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, sits, as instructed by the European
Protocol. Indeed, there is no longer a Prime Minister in Turkey since the
regime has become presidential. Mr Çavuşoğlu therefore legitimately sits
opposite the European “Prime Minister”.
This is not a diplomatic incident, but an attempt by Charles Michel to
arrogate power to himself within the Union to the detriment of the latter. The
battle has only just begun.
Source: Voltaire Network
No comments:
Post a Comment