An agreement was tentatively reached on 21 October in Vienna between Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), France, Russia and the US. Details of the deal are still not public and the deal is not sealed yet (the Iranian delegation needs clearance from Tehran). Still, the general elements of the deal are known and they raise important questions and leave some critical matters of Iran’s nuclear dossier essentially unresolved. Iran has agreed to ship a significant share of its Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) stockpile to Russia for further enrichment. The fuel will then be processed into fuel rods and returned to Iran for use in its Tehran Research Reactor, under IAEA safeguards. Pending clarification of what additional elements the deal addresses and includes, here are five questions that presumably remain unanswered.

Read the rest of this entry »

If one was asked this question, the answer appears to have been answered already: no, there can be no sustainable peace in Europe without the future enlargement, there can be no stability in Europe without the Western Balkans. But, with popular anxiety over further enlargements on the rise and with the unexpected difficulties facing the Union as it endeavours to reform its institutions, it is worth asking ourselves what is at stake, and why it is so important that the Western Balkans countries not be “left behind” in the European integration process.

After the accession of Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007, ensuring the success of the enlargement process has become one of the EU’s major political priorities. And indeed, the very essence of European integration is to overcome the division of Europe and to contribute to the peaceful unification of the continent. The Western Balkans region is essential to the EU’s security and peace project. Read the rest of this entry »

The release of a much anticipated EU-commissioned  report  into the causes of the Russian-Georgian war of August 2008 predictably spread the blame for the conflict around. Georgia got its share of the blame, but the text of the report is devastating to Russia’s narrative of the conflict. The Report faulted Georgia for its attack on Tskhinvali; but summarily and bluntly dismisses the entire Russian justification for its subsequent invasion, as well as its recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Importantly, the report also warns against the dangers of the accepting rhetoric of ‘spheres of influence’. Whether this will result in any tangible implications remains more doubtful.

BACKGROUND: Assisted by a small army of experts, Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini has spent close to a year investigating the origins and course of the Russian-Georgian war.  Tagliavini’s report itself is moderate in size, consisting of 40 pages, but it is supplemented by a 450-page addendum of historical, humanitarian, legal and political analyses by members of her group, as well as a further 600 pages of appendices (mainly documents provided by the conflicting parties). Given its size and the subject matter, the report will undoubtedly be the subject of great debate and controversy.

  Read the rest of this entry »