Why is the EU looking for even bigger climate change challenges?
17 maart 2008
Climate change threatens to overburden states and region which are already fragile and conflict prone. Humanitarian problems and political and security risk will affect European interests. “Climate change is best viewed as a threat multiplier which exacerbates existing trends, tensions and instability”, the report (Climate change and international security) states.
This is not a happy message. But even more worrying to me is that the EU shows little humility as the report says: “The EU is in a unique position to respond to the impacts of climate change on international security, given its leading role in development, global climate change policy and the wide array of tools and instruments at its disposal.”
How is the EU track record of dealing with existing trends, trends and instability?
Poverty and (North-South) inequality are already a huge problem, which results in massive migration. How is Europe dealing with this? Trade barriers, agricultural subsidies that harm poor countries’ farmers?
Is the EU taking decisive measures to deal with the existing problems of the diminishing fish stocks? Or is it trying harder to save jobs than fish?
And isn’t it pathetic to say that the EU has a consistent climate change policy? Look for example at the dispute between the German and French automobile lobbies? Hardly European consensus.
These are just some examples of suboptimal EU performance which gives little comfort for its ability to deal “with a threat multiplier which exacerbates existing trends, tensions and instability”.
The report rightly concludes that it is in “Europe’s self interest” to deal with the problems. However, I believe there are only few areas, which the members recognise as their truly shared self interest. Often the self-interest of specific countries overrules the European dream.
I am definitely pro European and I don’t want to be cynical. But the report even made me think whether it isn’t a pretty effective way of hiding the inability of the EU. Instead of recognising its current short comings, it defines a bigger problem. Most people believe that if you discuss a problem without solving it, the effect will only be more uncertainty and more unrest. For EU diplomats, more unrest is what makes their living. Wouldn’t it be better to act effectively on current problems, instead of continuing to talk about bigger ones?
Deel dit artikel via :
Reacties op deze blog
Er zijn geen reacties op deze blog