"Yes, Minister"

The European Union actually has a foreign ministry, called the "External Action Service." The stated goal of the group is to respond to unexpected events. A recent article in The Economist Baronness Catherine Ashton, head of the organization, has come under fire for her lack of visibility and unwillingness to take a leadership role with fellow foreign ministers. She has been slow to call for free and fair elections in Egypt, a fact that some attribute to her desire for consensus among EU states.

The foreign ministers of individual EU states have not hesitated to take unilateral actions in a number of cases--banning visas and freezing assets of senior Belarussian officials, of the president of the Ivory Coast, and of the former president of Tunisia. This is an indication that the role of the EU is, at least for the present, limited to issues of the member states. When it comes to foreign affairs, the real power still lies with the individual states. There is no EU military force, so membership in NATO is the closest thing there is to having any sort of compulsive power when it comes to out-of-area actions.

This article brings to mind several questions. Is Baroness Ashton's view of her role typical of British domestic politics? It is typical for cabinet ministers in Britain to depend heavily on career civil servants, and the EU position might assume expertise in the field of foreign affairs. Is her reticence is a reflection of the British idea of "cabinet responsibility," where decisions are made behind closed doors and a united front is presented to the public? Is her lack of visibility indicative of a lack of support of EU policies within Britain?

Generational Change and the Future of U.S.-Russian Relations

from the Journal of International Affairs
Spring/Summer 2010

--A whole generation has no memory of the Cold War except as history, but many of the elite policy makers continue to view Russia through that lens. (We have maintained better relations with China than with Russia, even though China is less democratic and poses a bigger threat to our national interests.) Because they have not had the same period of respite that we have had, Russian youth continue to hold skeptical opinions about the United States.
--"The upheavals associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union have contributed to creating a younger generation in Russia whose values are in many ways sharply at odds with mainstream western liberalism." They tend to support Russia's power ambitions, its xenophobia, and its heightened sense of political efficacy--ability to have an impact in the larger world.
--Generational differences can also be seen in comparing Vladimir Putin to Medvedev. Putin is 15 years older and was a KGB agent serving abroad during the changes brought by Gorbachev. Medvedev is much more comfortable with an open society.
--Comparing the positions of John McCain and Barack Obama also shows a generational divide. McCain sought to expel Russia from the G8 and held a hard line on missile defense. Obama's position is more optimistic.
--Russian youth tend not to be involved in public activism. They are cynical and skeptical in their attitudes towards Russian political institutions, but more than 70% trust Putin. This suggests that they agree with their elders that Russia needs to be ruled with a strong hand.
--The Russian government has been able to mobilize young people through youth groups like Nashi which grew out of an earlier organization designed to support Putin. Nashi promotes a strand of xenophobia and has collaborated with far-right groups to attack anti-government activists.
--The Kremlin has intervened in education to "rehabilitate the image of Josef Stalin and to cover up some of the darker pages in the country's Soviet past."
--There has been an increase in attacks on ethnic minorities. One survey found that almost a quarter of youths supported "liquidation" of illegal immigrants in Russian cities.
--National and regional governments seem to be indifferent to the activities of right-wing groups.