The Waxman-Markey Bill—known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) and the first ever climate bill passed by either house of Congress—was passed by the US House of Representatives on 26 June, as reported by Europolitics.  It has been welcomed in Europe as a major step toward transatlantic convergence towards fighting climate change, but before it becomes law the bill will have to be approved by the Senate.

The House bill sets targets to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 3 percent by 2012, 17 percent by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050—relative to 2005 levels according to an article from Pew.  It also establishes an extensive “cap and trade” system for carbon-producing industries, allocating a specific amount of emissions per industry (ie. a “cap”).  A producer who exceeds its allowance must buy permits to offset its emissions (ie. the “trade”).  This system is already in use in the EU.

While EU governments see the bill as a positive advance, the US lags far behind the EU in its overall progress on the issue.  Europe has set target emission reductions of 20 to 30 percent by 2020.  These cuts are relative to 1990 levels (as specified in the Kyoto Protocol), so these initial cuts are much more ambitious than the US goals proposed in ACES.

Climate Change advocates hope that the US will agree to legislate in favor of greenhouse gas cuts similar to those in ACES in time for the upcoming UN Copenhagen summit in December.  Global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 25 to 40 percent by 2020 if global warming is to be kept within two degrees Celsius, according to the UN Panel on Climate Change.

However, there is no certainty of a similar bill passing in the Senate after the narrow margin it obtained in the House.  Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes to push the bill through by November—in time for Copenhagen.  The Obama administration does not want a repeat of the Kyoto conference where, in the end, Washington did not sign on to the Protocol approved by the EU nations.

Striking a pragmatic tone ahead of the upcoming U.S.-Russia summit, a top U.S. policy-maker said that the meeting is intended to “do some useful things” including renewed momentum on arms control.

Phillip Gordon, the new Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, made the point in a speech to a European Institute audience, including many European ambassadors in Washington - on June 18.  It was his first public-speaking engagement speech since assuming his new position, which includes partial responsibility for policy toward Russia

“We don’t want just a nice summit just for the sake of having a nice summit,” he said. But he suggested that pragmatic cooperation between Moscow and Washington offered a way forward amid so many global challenges for both countries.

His remarks - in response to questions about his talk - seemed intended to moderate any expectations of a major breakthrough in strained U.S.-Russian relations at the two governments’ first major encounter.

Both governments have said that they see the meeting as a stepping stone to a new treaty on strategic nuclear weapons to replace the START treaty that is due to expire in December. “There is a strict timetable because we need [that new agreement] agreed and ratified by the end of the year and the summit can push that ball forward,” he said.

A round of deeper cuts in the two main powers’ arsenals of missiles and warheads could improve prospects for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is up for review next year. That meeting will have to confront challenges about how to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, but many countries are reluctant to support tougher wording in a revised treaty because, they say, the nuclear-weapons states have done too little to reduce their own nuclear stockpiles.

On the thorny dispute about a U.S. missile-defense system based in Eastern Europe, Gordon hinted at a new, more cooperative formula for overcoming Russian objections. “If we can put our minds together and find ways to contribute to a missile defense that would protect Russians, Central and Western Europeans and Americans, we are open to that,” he said.

In re-affirming the Obama administration’s hopes for more “constructive engagement” with Russia, Gordon said that “the famous reset” with Moscow could not involve American acceptance of a privileged sphere of influence for Russia covering countries on its borders. “We strongly believe that democratic countries in Europe should be able to choose the alliances they want and orient themselves in the direction they want” - apparently a reference to Georgia, where Washington has vowed continued non-recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But, he added, “we see no reason why we can’t continue on that course while also [building] a more constructive relationship with Russia.” Turning to Ukraine, the biggest country in this zone of unfinished business, he said: “Ukraine, I think, needs our support as it tries to overcome political difficulties and stabilize its economy.” He did not specifically mention NATO, but he said that the Obama administration’s priorities in Europe include “the completion or extension of a long-term project of extending stability and democracy eastward.”

Offering a wider vision of the Obama administration’s view of Europe, Gordon stressed U.S. interest in closer cooperation with European allies. Confronted with problems in many parts of the world, he said, “it has really sunk into the [American] population at large that we need friends and allies.”

Looking at the recent record of transatlantic cooperation, he depicted a positive trend: “I think we’re doing pretty well,” he said. He stressed the need for U.S. cooperation with the European allies and pledged that Washington would make no damaging concessions to appease Russia’s ambitions on Europe’s eastern periphery.

Gordon, 45, is a an author and policy expert who for two decades has specialized in European affairs, initially in Western Europe and more recently on frozen conflicts on Europe’s eastern periphery, especially the issues dividing Turkey and Armenia.  As U.S. experts frequently point out, success in normalizing that frozen relationship would dramatically improve the prospects for getting natural gas in Central Asia to be able to flow to Europe.

Since 2000, he has held top positions at the policy-oriented Brookings Institutions in Washington. (He worked closely there with the new U.S. ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder.)  An early opponent of the Iraq war, Gordon was a close Obama adviser on foreign policy during the campaign. “Phil’s calm demeanor and instincts in many ways embody the Obama style and diplomatic philosophy of calmly and clearly pursuing U.S. interests, but doing so working closely with allies and multilateral institutions,” Karen Donfried, a prominent diplomatic analyst in Washington, told the National Journal.

Germany, the EU’s “Mr. Coal,” has stumbled in its first high-tech attempt to make this fossil fuel environment-friendly. The German utility RWE had plans for a big project of carbon sequestration, but the venture was derailed when the German parliament, the Bundestag, voted down a bill in late June that was supposed to lay a legal framework for the practice. The technology is designed to make coal consumption carbon neutral by capturing the carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants and pumping them into vast underground storage chambers. In gaseous form, the emissions are pressurized to reduce their volume and then can be contained.  This way no CO2 is released, and the energy company does not incur any fines to the EU for greenhouse-gas emissions.  The bill was killed by objections from Germany’s two center-right ruling parties, Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party.  Some argued that storage of the CO2 in the underground facilities is unsafe, and the gas will leak.  Others maintained that it is counterproductive: the money used for the storage should be used to develop other clean energy alternatives.  Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) was reportedly furious about the outcome.  Without CO2 sequestration, the days of cheap, coal-based power could be numbered for Germany—the European nation with the biggest coal reserve.

Read the full story at Spiegel Online:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,632620,00.html

A comparable project in the U.S. was started and then canceled by the Bush administration. Called FutureGen, the experimental plant would have used cutting-edge technologies (including coal gasification and CO2 capture and sequestration) to generate electricity with near-zero emissions from a first-of-its-kind, coal-fueled power plant. The Obama administration is expected to revive the venture – cf. European Affairs, Vol. 10, No.1-2.

Spanish Parliament intends to end the practice of letting its magistrates seek war-crime indictments against officials from any foreign country, including the United States. This unique Spanish interpretation of international law has caused friction between Madrid and many foreign capitals. The most high-profile cases have been led by Spanish magistrate Baltazar Garzon, who brought charges against Chile’s former dictator Augusto Pinochet and more recently against high-ranking Bush administration officials over actions related to Iraq.

Spain’s crusading magistrates invoked judicial-cooperation accords with other EU states to get them to subpoena and even arrest foreigners on their territory who were the subject of Spanish warrants for crimes against humanity.

A change in Spanish law, circumscribing magistrates’ role to cases with direct links to Spain, has won the support of an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the Spanish parliament. This principle of “universal jurisdiction” has raised hackles in many capitals.

Opposition to Spain’s claim to a special international role has increased with the emergence of the ICC and special war-crimes tribunals in Europe and Africa. According to the Washington Post, “Spain’s judicial adventurism has become an irritant for the country’s diplomats and politicians, who must convince powerful allies and trading partners that their colleagues on the bench intended no offense. Israeli officials have accused Spain’s judiciary of advancing a political agenda, whereas China has demanded ‘immediate and effective measures’ to end the investigation.”

Spanish diplomats also chaffed at the practice. “Universal jurisdiction doesn’t necessarily work, without a connection to Spain, it presents problems of obtaining proof and co-operation from other states. And then the cases do not conclude,” says Angel Lossada, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Now human-rights organizations are chiding Spain about the impending change as an act of  “submission to countries which are protecting war criminals.”

The latest case of this sort brought in to the Audiencia Nacional, the National Court in Madrid, involved charges against former Vice-President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, for allegedly signing off on “a systematic plan for abuse,” and torture in Guantanamo Bay.

Technically, this case would not be affected by the impending change, which is currently under constitutional review, because five citizens or residents of Spain were prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Pressure is mounting on Latvia to devalue its currency, a step with unpredictable consequences for the country’s prospects of joining the Eurozone. Latvia’s economy is the worst hit in Europe by the current global financial downturn; gross domestic product is predicted to contract 13% by the end of 2009. In an attempt to prevent an economic meltdown that could spread across the more fragile economies in Eastern Europe, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union put together a €7.5 billion ($10.6 billion) rescue package.

In order to receive the next €1 billion tranche of the loan, the Latvian government needs to get its public spending under control. It recently implemented draconian austerity measures that include slashing all government pensions by 10%, government workers’ salaries by 20% and teachers’ salaries by half.

The small Baltic country’s troubles are particularly alarming because it had been widely believed that membership in the European Union sheltered nations from the worst effects of the recession. Latvia’s plight is one of several examples that have shaken the assumption that the EU provided a safety net.

So far, the emergency funding from the EU and the IMF are the country’s sole financial lifeline. Latvia’s prime minister Valdis Dombrovskis, said that without fresh cash, the country could go bankrupt by July.

In an attempt to secure additional loans, the government organized a bond auction on June 3 and 4. Investors only bought a fraction of the bonds put on sale, a rare event that reveals a general lack of confidence in the Latvian economy. Finding a bank that is willing to service Latvia’s debt is also highly unlikely at this point, according to Stratfor (a private intelligence agency).

One option for Latvia might be a drastic devaluation of its currency, the lat. It has been pegged to the euro but the strains of Latvia’s economy have made it difficult to maintain this high rate of exchange. By devaluing, Latvia could make its exports cheaper and its imports more expensive and in the long run return the country to a more competitive international position.

But there are arguments against this move. Devaluation is opposed by the IMF, and there are precedents suggesting that the Fund would overlook an emergency action of this sort and maintain its pledge of financial support. Economists arguing against devaluation say that Latvia has a flexible economy and can ride out its current hardship – and hopefully join the euro with a healthy economy in 2012. Latvia could “euroize” even sooner if the European Central Bank relaxed its current entry criteria on an exceptional basis.

The risk of continued inaction is that bankruptcies in Latvia will spread throughout the region, including to Sweden whose banks hold a substantial share of Latvian debt.

When protests of the recent Iranian presidential election began on June 13, EU countries adopted a hard-line stance against violence toward protestors.  Supporters of the moderate Mir Hossein Mousavi claimed election results were fraudulent.  With Mousavi winning only half of the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 63 percent, supporters of the popular opposition candidate became suspicious.

Mousavi himself has declared the results to be falsified and encourages protestors to persist.  Police have been reported to have used excessive force when dealing with protestors.  Videos posted online have shown the use of tear gas, beating with batons, and gunfire.  Because of intense censorship by Iran, the death toll is uncertain, though hundreds have certainly been injured.

While statements by President Barack Obama have been considered timid, many EU leaders have been forceful.  President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has called Tehran’s response to the protests “totally disproportionate.”  Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini denounced the violence and death as “unacceptable.”  Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has demanded a “full vote recount”—with backing from France and Britain.  Tehran has criticized such statements for disparaging the Iranian government.

On June 21, Italy stated that “it had instructed its embassy in Tehran to provide humanitarian aid to wounded protestors,” according to EU Observer.  Austria shortly followed suit.  Italy, along with France and Finland, has called for a summit meeting of EU leaders to adopt a common position on aid to protestors.  Sweden—soon to ascend the EU presidency—has been stalling on the matter. Cecilia Julin, communications chief for the Swedish Foreign Office, told Associated Free Press that adopting such a policy “would mark a very strong gesture with regard to the Iranian government.”  Many are surprised by Sweden’s position, as it is known for promoting human rights abroad.

With extensive media coverage, Iranian opposition is gaining popular support within Europe.  Demonstrations promoting the liberalization of Iran have been held in many major cities, including Paris, Berlin, and Hamburg.  However, Wayne White, a fellow at the Middle East Institute, maintains that these shows of solidarity will not change the situation in Iran—they will just affect relations between EU governments and Tehran.

Denmark’s Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller thinks western support of the demonstrators will be the “kiss of death,” because it enables Iran to fuse both the protestors and the West into one enemy.  And while the West wants to maintain its opposition to violence, leaders try to strike a delicate balance—criticizing Iran without injuring an already feeble relationship.

In particular, British relations with Iran are deteriorating quickly.  Tehran has singled Britian out as the ringleader of the outside interference that initiated the protests.  Iran has expelled two British diplomats, and the UK has responded in kind.  British Prime Minister Gordon Brown denounced the expulsion as “absolutely without foundation,” according to the Financial Times.  Ali Ansari, professor of Iranian history at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, holds that this type of behavior “just shows how out of touch they [Iranian leaders] really are.”

One item over which the West vies for influence is Iran’s nuclear development, which Iran sees as an “insurance policy” against threats of neighboring countries and of the US.

With stronger threats from the Revolutionary Guard, protestors in Tehran dwindling, and a recount increasingly unlikely, it seems European support will not change the official outcome of the election.

A new and potentially important trend in the EU is the possible emergence of “macro-regions,” starting with a plan under way among eight littoral Baltic states to cooperate in cleaning up their common sea. The Baltic is one of the most polluted bodies of water in the world, so decontaminating it will require a joint approach by the regional group of the affected EU member states: Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden.

Under direction of the European Commission, this multi-national alliance will constitute a concerted, common framework that combines local programs currently managed by over 60 different organizations. The EUobserver, an online news service, reports that specific joint goals include reducing nitrogen and phosphorous levels in the Baltic, protecting biodiversity and preventing over-fishing. By adopting a joint approach, the countries involved hope to share equitably the costs and restrictions involved in the clean-up.

This multi-national approach to large-scale environmental-preservation strategies seems bound to spread beyond the Baltic region. If this experiment works, macro-regional cooperation is sure to manifest in other endangered areas. European nations could partner to protect the fragile Alpine ecology, threatened by the impact of growing tourism. The Danube and the Mediterranean are also two polluted bodies of water for which multi-national rescue efforts are under consideration. 

This cross-border cooperation also occurs in the United States. Impatient with the lack of initiative from Washington, U.S states, Canadian provinces and Mexican states have come together to try curbing carbon emissions in their areas. Three such regional groupings have emerged in North America (the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the Western Climate Initiative and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord), where local governments have adopted their own regional versions of cap-and-trade programs (modeled on the one in use throughout the EU).  

Environmental protection is not the only field in which regional cooperation is becoming more common. A “Euro-metropole” is being established at the border of France and Belgium between Lille, Kortrijk and Tournai. Together these three cities, which count two million inhabitants and cover 3,500 square meters, are a legal entity capable of hiring their own civil servants. Such political structures can facilitate the pursuit of cross-border crime and other common projects, the Belgian justice minister Stefaan De Clerck told the EUobserver.

When President Barack Obama announced plans to close the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Europeans reacted positively to the U.S. policy change, which EU nations had long sought.  In practice, however, most EU member states are proving reluctant to take in Guantánamo prisoners; there are dozens of them whom Washington feels cannot be simply deported to their own nations because of fears that they would be tortured there.

In an official statement supporting the closure of the prison, the EU pledged to help with resettling prisoners.  Yet the ultimate decision still lies with each individual country, and so far most EU member states have proved cautious.  Despite the new EU-US agreement, German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has publicly asked why more former inmates cannot be taken in by the US.

A few of these “prisoners without countries” have been taken in by Europe: The UK has taken in 14 (most with some connection to British nationality or residence); France, 7; Belgium, 2; and Germany, 1.

Spain has responded positively.  Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos recently said Spain has a positive attitude and awaits requests from the U.S.  Once the Obama administration submits a list of detainees, Spain will enter into negotiations.  After a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on June 15, President Obama announced that Italy agreed to take three specific detainees, adding “This is not just talk.”

Ireland has said it is willing to accept Guantánamo inmates.  Austria, the Czech Republic, and Denmark, however, said they will not resettle any.

The on-going negotiations are being handled by U.S. Ambassador Dan Fried, who has reportedly promised to provide more information about individual detainees and offered “compensation” from the U.S. for costs incurred in any transfers.

The U.S. has sought help outside of the EU as well— the islands of Bermuda and Palau — a pacific island — are resettling Chinese Uighurs held at Guantánamo.  A large group of the remaining Arab prisoners are set to be handed over to Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations.

The European Parliamentary elections showed no major political shift in the 27-nation group, but overall turnout hit a new low (43 percent) that seemed to reflect growing apathy about the EU’s relevance in the daily lives of the 500 million people in the union.

Despite the economic crunch that was expected to hurt incumbent governments and boost leftist opposition parties, the overall results show that ruling center-right parties did well, including incumbent governments in France, Italy and Germany. In all these major EU nations, the social-democrat opposition parties are in disarray. In Germany, the SPD suffered its lowest score in postwar elections with 21 percent of the votes.

Unregulated capitalism was humbled in the EU elections, as it continues to be under siege in the global recession, as centre-right parties clearly attracted voters through attention to the economy.  Perhaps a parting statement to the far gone Bush era in the U.S., European citizens voiced their concerns by awarding more parliamentary seats to fiscally conservative parties in Austria, Hungary, and the Netherlands, according to a Financial Times article.       

The election’s results were anti-climactic (and the campaigns across the EU listless) because of the failure last year of the Lisbon treaty. That pact, stymied by Irish voters in a national referendum, bestowed new authority on the parliament in EU policy-making. A side-effect of the essentially status-quo results in these elections will be an increased probability that Jose Manuel Barroso gain a second term as president of the European Commission, an executive arm of the EU.

A significant development was a breakthrough of ultra-right wing parties focused on opposition to Muslim immigration and, by extension, to EU expansion, particularly as regards to Turkey.  For the first time, this issue enabled extreme nationalists to gain a few seats in the European Parliament – including Austria, Britain, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands and Spain. Ireland’s Declan Ganley, leader of the Libertas party that is credited with Irish “no” vote on the Lisbon treaty, is unlikely to gain a seat in the European Parliament and failed in his self-proclaimed ambition to win seats for his party in many other EU countries.  Green parties also made significant gains in the parliamentary voting, which produced low turn outs – as little as 20 percent in some countries.

As a result, this ultra-conservative fringe will not be able to change the course of decision-making in the European Parliament. But their showing can be expected to drive mainstream center-right parties in their own countries strong anti-immigrant policies and possibly increased skepticism about the importance of the EU.

In many EU countries, the vote amounted to a symbolic referendum on the performance of incumbent governments.

In the U.K., Gordon Brown’s Labour party suffered a historic drubbing. His party got the lowest share of the British electorate in any post-war election. In Ireland, too, the ruling party’s showing would have translated into a loss of its majority – as in the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Cyprus and possibly Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal and other countries.

In France, Germany and Italy, the ruling center-right coalition governments generated a strong enough electoral showing to confirm their political strength. Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have recently voiced criticism of the EU institutions, notably the European Central Bank. Their stance may have insulated them from the popular backlash caused by the global economic crash.