The idea has taken hold that the EU is experiencing a political fracture embodied in the allegedly divergent positions of António Costa and Ursula von der Leyen regarding the aggression of the USA and Israel against Iran. There are even those who suggest that this divergence goes further, encompassing different conceptions regarding the nature of the relationship between the European Union (EU) and the USA and the role to be played by the EU on the international stage.
The fracture cannot be proven and the divergence remains only on the surface of the appearance of the words used. Looking deeper we find a position that is, after all, shared between both in what is most significant.
The EU’s alignment with the USA, complicity in its action on a global scale and submission to its impositions is the common substrate that unites them. Even if one says between the lines what another writes above them.
Going through the various statements made in recent weeks, nowhere can you find a simple and straightforward condemnation of US and Israeli aggression against Iran by any of these EU officials. At best, there are general and indirect references to the censorship of bombings carried out in the name of democracy and in defiance of the “rules-based international order”. In some cases the references are so diffuse and confusing that some people may be left with the doubt that the words were uttered to target even the United States.
With differences to be noted in the way each one chooses to refer to International Law, the truth is that none identified that aggression against Iran as a gross violation of International Law and the Charter of the United Nations that it constitutes. As the world is faced with unjustified and unprovoked aggression, even less is it noticed that the speech is not clear and vehement as it was in other circumstances. Ultimately, it reveals the bias and double criteria that break credibility and mark the partiality of the position taken by the EU whenever the abuses of those who are considered allies or masters are at stake.
In the cross-references to International Law, freedom, democracy, peace, Human Rights and the sovereignty of peoples, one will eventually find a greater difference between the speeches of Costa and Von der Leyen. But it is only through speech that these differences are resolved. In action, the unity of EU leaders is maintained in alignment, complicity and submission to the USA.
This is the only way to explain why the EU does not “pull any feathers” to counter the aggressive action of the USA, despite the emphasis made regarding its negative impacts on Latin America, Greenland and the Middle East or on the Palestinian people in Gaza, through the intervention of the Israeli government.
Neither one nor the other is even heard of, for example, acting to put an end to the genocide in Gaza by suspending the EU/Israel association agreement.
Let’s agree that, for political fracture and divergence, there needs to be more substance…
Write without applying the new Spelling Agreement
Leave a Reply