| |
|
3. oktober 2005
|
|
 The European Union has finally reached a deal with Turkey about membership negotiations. The negotiations are expected to last as long as ten years, but even the beginning was almost derailed when Austria alone insisted that a "plan B" for a privileged partnership be written into the negotiating framework. All other EU countries, under the leadership of Britain's Jack Straw, ganged up on Austria and it appears the country gave in.
The problem is, again, that the Europeans don't want Turkey in the EU. The one country which had a government actually voicing the opinion of maybe 90% of its population was forced to back down. That isn't a problem for the current negotiations alone; it is a persistent democratic problem for the EU, drawing a long line from the common currency through the (temporarily!) failed referendum to today's bid to have Turkey join the EU.
The European Union has a leadership that can hardly hide its contempt for the skepticism of its own people. Yes, there may be xenophobia, and there may be anti-Islamic feelings, but attributing skepticism towards Turkey's membership bid to such 'primitive instincts' alone is disingenuous. It is called the European Union, and somewhere this union must have its outer borders. The recent massive enlargement is already making the union shake in its foundation. The need for reform, more specifically democratic reform, is almost as overwhelming as the need for eurocrats to realise that some issues should be left to the nationally elected governments. Pressing through these talks knowing that two thirds of EU's citizens will not welcome Turkey into the union can only worsen an already bad situation.
I can certainly see the positive side of Turkey becoming an EU member. The process in Turkey to become eligible for membership is already harvesting benefits, like improving liberties and strengthening the civil institutions. Turkey's Kurd minority certainly hopes the country will join. Turkey was NATO's front-line defence against the Soviet Union during the cold war; Europe now telling Turkey it doesn't welcome it into Europe's institutions is perceived as an insult. It will also demonstrate that those who say an Islamic country cannot be a successful democracy are wrong, and the world desperately needs such a demonstration.
Yet, if ruling with the consent of the people means anything in the EU today, it should mean that the union takes steps to address the concerns of a majority of its citizens first, and negotiate a membership deal for Turkey second. Why should Turkey even want a full membership in a union with such contempt for its people?
PS: The no-majority in the Norwegian population is still strong. A recent opinion poll had 50.3% against and only 37.1% for Norway joining the European Union. Whatever Turkey may do, we'll probably never join.
11:35:55 PM 
|
|
I was somewhat reassured to see on Norwegian TV the other day that our country is stocking up on the influenza medication Tamiflu to be prepared if avian flu should mutate and start spreading in the human population. But Time's Christine Gorman has some possibly bad news for us:
If, like public health authorities in the U.S. and many other countries, you're counting on the anti-viral drug Tamiflu (generic name oseltamivir) to save you should bird flu become pandemic, you may have to think again. A Hong Kong expert told Reuters on Friday that a strain of the H5N1 virus isolated in northern Vietnam this year is resistant to Tamiflu. More common human flu viruses have also recently been shown to be developing a resistance to another set of antivirals called adamantine drugs.
If the Vietnam report proves true, the implications will be particularly worrisome for public health programs to combat bird flu: Many governments have made stockpiling Tamiflu the centerpiece of their planning for a possible pandemic.
Hopefully, then, Hanne Nøkleby at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health is right when she argues that the danger is exaggerated, since there are currently no signs that the virus is mutating, and a mutation that makes it spread among humans may also make it less lethal for us.
Via Dan Drezner, who is not sleeping well at night.
5:47:33 PM
|
|
Not unexpectedly, President Bush has chosen a woman to replace Justice O'Connor
President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for another pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.
"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said as his first Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, took the bench for the first time just a few blocks from the White House. "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."
Miers has never worked as a judge, but like many previous nominees she is nominated from within the administration. She is believed to have impeccable conservative creditentials, but no paper trail of decisions, so it can be a tense confirmation battle.
Update: Conservatives don't appear to be as happy as I thought, according to David Bernstein.
Comments on the conservative "confirmthem" site are apoplectic. This nomination may give the president some problems with his base.
They speak of 'betrayal' which is probably good news for those nervous about the a socially conservative Supreme Court (read: one that overturns Roe vs Wade). The priority for Bush, says Bernstein, is not his socially conservative "base" and their priorities but his administration's war on terror, where administration picks like Roberts and Miers are likely to be sympathetic.
But just as FDR's primary goal in appointing Justices was to appoint Justices that would uphold the centerpiece of his presidency, the New Deal, which coincidentally resulted in his appointing individuals who were liberal on other things, perhaps Bush sees his legacy primarily in terms of the War on Terror, and appointing Justices who will acquiesce in exercises of executive authority is his priority, even if it isn't the priority of either his base or the nation as a whole.
I think this is correct.
Todd Zywicki accuses Bush of cronyism.
I had assumed that some minimum degree of luminescence would be required, in addition to Presidential trust. Little did I know that being close to the President would turn out to be the sole criteria for nomination to the Supreme Court.
May Bush face a harder battle from the right than the left in this confirmation?
Update 2: WaPo has put out a Harriet E. Miers profile.
Update 3: The word 'stealth nominee' is frequently used. Glenn Reynolds makes a note of this:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress.
Now that's a turnup for the books. Glenn says:
Bush may have managed a Perfect Storm here. Democrats will still want to beat him on Miers, because they always want to beat him. Republicans may be happy to see her go down, too. So who, exactly, is going to get her confirmed? Harry Reid?
This may be interesting. Bush the closet socially progressive. I knew there was a reason I liked him.
4:30:40 PM
|
|
A Palestinian civil war in the making?
At least three Palestinians were killed in fierce clashes between Palestinian Authority security forces and Hamas gunmen that erupted on Sunday evening in various parts of the Gaza Strip.
PA security sources said the three victims, Ali Makkawi, the commander of the PA Police station in Shati refugee camp, a police officer and a 10-year-old girl, who was run down by a police car, were killed when hundreds of Hamas gunmen attacked the station with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons.
The article reports lots of recent incidents of gunfire being exchanged between PA forces and Hamas supporters.
Via Roger L. Simon.
11:01:19 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 01.11.2005; 21:06:05.
|
|
|
