Security in focus
European Council professor discusses US Jerusalem stance, terrorism in Africa, China mediation on Rohingya crisis and more
Editor’s Note:
The China-EU Peace and Security Forum, which was organized by the Delegation of the European Union to China, was held at the Chinese Institute for International Studies on Tuesday. Global Times reporter Zhang Xin
(GT) talks with Professor François Godement (Godement), Director of the Asia Programme of the European Council on Foreign Relations, in an exclusive interview, in which the prominent European scholar shares his views on various security issues of global concern. GT: US President Donald Trump’s Jerusalem move has elicited quite a backlash from Arab and Muslim countries. Will that be another potential security exposure to the turbulent region, which has already been torn by terrorism? Godement: What I identify most as a problem of President Trump’s declaration is that he just addresses one part of the issue, saying “we locate our embassy to Jerusalem.” In practice, the Israeli government has been there for many years. In practice, it has full control of Jerusalem. But the problem is that you don’t do this kind of thing without extracting some concessions from the Israeli government about something else. Whether the American embassy is or is not in Jerusalem will change nothing on the ground. And the Palestinians know that so well. They are not even getting so excited. They are angry, but they know they cannot change the balance.
So the real problem is political, is diplomatic, is that the art of the deal is one thing, but you have to think within a coherent framework.
Suppose Mr. Trump had been able to extract from Mr. Netanyahu concessions on the colonization – colonies [occupied Palestinian territories] for example in exchange for placing the embassy in Jerusalem – that would be a very good move. But he hasn’t, because the US has a lot of influence.
My evaluation is that, given the implosion in the Middle East, the collapse of states, the threat to borders, the inter-religious war between Shiites and Sunnis, the regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer central.
There are so many other issues. So I think the move is a mistake, but I think we will recover from this. It will not change much of the situation on the ground. GT: The African Union recently warned that up to 6,000 IS jihadists in Iraq and Syria could return to Africa, imposing a potential threat to the region. Many countries, including China and European nations, have a lot of investment and infrastructure projects on the continent. How do you think they should prepare for the potential risks? Godement: I’m not a specialist in counter-terrorism, but I do not believe that foreign jihadists alone can have a very big influence in African societies. There is the Sahara. The Sahara is a very special case, because in the Sahara, borders are artificial. There is a unity, a geographic unity, of the desert, and there are a number of populations which really do not feel they belong to any nation. The Sahara is like a sea. It’s almost international. So this is a very dangerous breeding area for terrorist groups.
South of the Sub-Sahara, I believe the main issues are local. They are in development. They are in coexistence of communities. They’re for political governance. And this is where we should put all of our attention.
And for that, acting together would be useful. I think the Chinese aid and Chinese presence is very pragmatic. Its quality of work speed, achieving concrete results, is commendable. The European system of aid has other qualities. It does not encourage local corruption; this is something we got over.
And a team-up of both, some of the European process, some of the Chinese way of activeness, will be very useful in some cases and would be a demonstration – a demonstration of China’s change, and a demonstration of our willingness to engage in third areas. GT: China recently mediated between Myanmar and Bangladesh on the Rohingya crisis. Unlike a lot of governments, China doesn’t criticize Myanmar authorities about their way of dealing with internal affairs. How do you comment on China’s performance in dealing with regional conflicts? Do you think China’s practice can be implemented in dealing with other international issues? Godement: First of all, the mediation by China is useful, clearly. Second, I’m waiting to see how much it takes into consideration the humanity plight of the Rohingya. Because there are two issues there – the refugee issue and the border issue – but there is also the intra-Myanmar situation.
It’s a good thing for China to do. Myanmar is also a country and an area where China has a long experience of working, including with minorities. It comes from history, literally. So it’s a privileged ground for China to test this.
But what I would fear is that China indeed has the international component, but is not able to incite Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues on better treatment of a community, that is an issue.
As you know, Myanmar is very sensitive to China as well. So it’s probably difficult for China in many cases to be involved, especially in community affairs. So there is limit. But yes, the Chinese initiative is welcome. GT: Germany’s SPD leader Martin Schulz recently called for the transformation of the EU into a United States of Europe by 2025 with a common constitution. Do you think there’s a trend that the EU will become more politically united? Godement: In the treaties of Europe, there is a phrase about “an evercloser union,” which means we are on a path. But we don’t time it. The UK, in its negotiations before Brexit, managed an opt-out closer-than-ever greater union, precisely because it doesn’t want to go down that path. But other countries agree. So what Mr. Schulz has done is set a date and create a dynamic push for the dynamic. Because the EU does not create itself automatically, you need political push. And he probably realizes that Ms. Merkel has been extremely skillful in managing the crisis, managing relations inside Europe, but has done so without setting long-term goals. So he’s supplementing that, he’s playing his political role. GT: Twenty-five EU member states have just agreed to establish a new defense and security cooperation structure. Why do you think joint defense efforts within Europe are necessary so long as there is already NATO? Godement: There is no incompatibility with NATO because, if you read even the treaties, they allow both for NATO and for the possibility of a country not joining a peculiar, particular pact. So this is flexible. But let’s face it, the US has been asking Europe for years to increase again their defense budget, I stress which has been going down for years. If you do it, there are good reasons to do some of it under a common defense. There are occasional doubts about whether the US would actually support it very strongly. Just adding a reason in transacting common defense doesn’t mean disregarding NATO or the US. But it means complementing it, and creating as you complement it, you also create political reality.