Transatlantic Politics

Corruption is still a big problem in most Eastern European countries, even after they joined the EU. The biggest failure, on the EU side, was to take for granted that once these countries adopt the EU legislation, their judicial systems will function exactly like in Western Europe. But in a Communist regime, the judiciary is a mere political tool. And by keeping all those judges and prosecutors who were trained in Communist times and have a distorted view of the rule of law, these countries cannot function properly.

A survey made amongst Romanian judges showed that most of them don’t consider corruption as being a serious crime. "It’s not like you kill someone. And how can I sentence someone to many years of prison for corruption, when I have to bribe myself nurses and doctors if I go to the hospital", said a judge as quoted by a German expert who ran the survey.

The Economist writes a sharp analysis on how the crackdown on corruption in Eastern Europe has eroded after the countries joined the EU.

For corrupt officials in central and eastern Europe, life has seldom been better. Joining the European Union has produced temptingly large puddles of public money to steal. And the region’s anti-corruption outfits are proving toothless, sidelined or simply embattled.

The biggest problems are in Romania and Bulgaria, the EU’s two newest members, whose apparent inability (or disinclination) to deal with high-level corruption has led to increasingly acerbic public warnings from Brussels. But other countries have done badly too.

Barely three months after it joined the EU in 2007, the Romanian government fired Monica Macovei, a doughty justice minister who had attacked corruption head-on. Her successor tried to fire the anti-corruption prosecutor for investigating his political sponsors. The incumbent is a former lawyer for Russia’s Gazprom. Procedural snags have held up all high-level corruption cases. Investigation of former ministers now requires parliamentary approval, sending every case back to square one. Although Romania comes out lowest in the EU in the rankings by Transparency International, a lobby group, the government seems determined to attack its critics rather than corruption.

(…)

As its economic competitiveness erodes, eastern Europe can ill afford bad government. Voters are generally disillusioned with post-communist politics. Yet from the Baltic to the Balkans, even politicians facing the most startling accusations of corruption seem not to suffer at the polls. A bit like Italy, really.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Bucharest, Romania:  The final fronteer.

It was the first NATO summit where the US failed to get what it publicly asked for - granting Ukraine and Georgia a next step in the NATO-accession process, the so-called "Membership Action Plan" or MAP.  MAP does not mean automatic NATO membership and can take 5-10 years to complete because the requirements laid out in MAP are dependent on the reformist drive of the respective governments. In the battle over whether to grant MAP to Ukraine & Georgia, French President Sarkozy, whom Bush qualified as "the last reincarnation of Elvis", suddenly switched sides and joined the opposition led by German chancellor Angela Merkel, who was against MAP from the very beginning.

After bitter quarrels at a working dinner hosted by the Romanian president Traian Basescu, the leaders of Old Europe prevailed. Bush and Brown got a measly compromise - a second chance in December, when NATO foreign ministers could decide to give MAP to the two former Soviet countries. But German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier already qualified as "unconceivable" the prospects of changing his mind by December, when, in his view, there will only be a "first assessment". Followed by a second, third, etc. until Ukrainians and Georgians give up hope of ever joining NATO.

The real winner of the NATO summit in Bucharest was none other than Vladimir Putin. It was he who delivered the final speech on the last day of the summit, it was he whom Germany and France were thinking of as these two stalwarts of "Old Europe" fought to keep Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO. Self-confident and pleased that "our concerns were heard", Putin gave the audience at the Summit a condescending discourse which seemed as if the West was already at his disposal and he, the "Tsar of the Kremlin" didn’t feel the need to bully his loyal servants.  If the result of the NATO Summit are any indication, Putin was right.

During the closed-door NATO-Russia Council in Bucharest, Putin threatened the statehood of Ukraine in the event that it would become a NATO member.  Putin noted that "there are 17 millions Russians there" and that "Ukraine is a patchwork of territories from other states". But in the following press conference he refrained himself form directly attacking Ukraine or Georgia. The argument against NATO enlargement, in Putin’s public speech, was that "NATO is not a democratizer", but "a powerful military block whose appearance on our borders will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country’s security.

He also stressed that no threat - from terrorism to proliferation of WMD, from cyber attacks to energy - can be tackled without Russia. NATO was set up during the Cold War against an "evil empire" - the USSR - "but it remains to be seen who was right then", Putin said. That statement alone should set off alarm bells among military strategists and historians throughout the West. 

Putin also mentioned Iran and that, although Russia opposes a military nuclear program, it is "fully committed to honor its contractual obligations in terms of civilian technology and fuel for the civilian Iranian nuclear program".  No comment.

So what will be the future of NATO after Bucharest, after Russia got a veto right through its advocates in the NATO Alliance, especially Germany?

Hopefully Russia will make another mistake, the way it cut off gas to Ukraine in 2006 and let German consumers shiver. And hopefully we’ll have a strong leader in the White House next year. One who knows Russia from the Cold War and sees the new threat it has become. One who doesn’t look Putin or Medvedev in the eyes and thinks he has "seen into their soul", as George W. Bush famously stated after meeting with Putin. That would be the only hope for the transatlantic community. It cannot rely on a reincarnation of Elvis in France and a jello-like chancellor in Germany, too weak to break the will of her half-socialist, pro-Russian government. 

It is a sad indication of where the power truly lies in Europe when Bush and Sarkozy, both hawkish on foreign policy in general, are not able to secure the nomination of two former Soviet satellites to one of the most important military blocs in the world.  Perhaps, in the end, Putin smiles because he knows the truth:  Putin has also looked into the West’s eyes to see its soul and has found that the West is lacking both a soul and a backbone. 

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

U.S. Ambassador to Romania Nicholas Taubman recently spoke to a group in Atlanta, Georgia about investing in Romania.  An excerpt of his speech can be found below:

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

German protectionism at its best: Finish corporation Nokia is a "subsidy locust" and promotes "caravan capitalism" for having decided to move its 2,300 employees-factory from Germany to Romania, where workers cost 10 times less.  Such are the claims made by German politicians and trade unions.

Even the European Commission promised some help from "anti-globalization" funds for the angry German workers, who are backed by influential trade unions and populist politicians.  The European Parliament got into the act as well by launching an investigation into the alleged abuse of EU funds in relocating to Romania. Everyone seems to forget that Nokia is the LAST mobile phone manufacturer to leave Germany, after Motorola and BenQ Siemens did the same over the past two years. And Nokia is not moving to China, like everyone else, but stays in the EU and gives a fair chance of development to Romania, the poorest member of the club after Bulgaria.

Yet principles such as "freedom of goods, labor and services" within the EU are easily forgotten when it comes to German protectionism.

more here.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Coupled with a non-united Europe and the fading influence of the US State Department in Eastern Europe, Vladimir Putin strikes again today on the energy front by securing a deal on the South Stream gas pipeline with Bulgaria, one of his closest allies and also dubbed "Russia's trojan horse in the EU".

During his final visit as Russia's President to a foreign country, Putin managed to get Bulgaria on board for his pet project: The Nabucco pipeline.  This was accomplished even though the South Eastern European country is also a partner in an US-EU backed project designed to be an alternative to Russian pipelines across Eastern Europe and to Russia itself as a gas supplier.

Despite EU optimism, Russia's move is clear: the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan precedent must not be repeated.  The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan gas project was a U.S.-led pipeline that bypassed Russia and brought oil from Azerbaidjan directly to the Mediterranean via Turkey.  This project single-handedly helped Azerbaidjan and neighboring Georgia gain a degree of autonomy from Russia's sphere of influence.

Having witnessed the power of the pipeline, Russia has set its sights on the oil & gas-rich Caspian countries.  As a result, these same former members of the Soviet Union are also becoming more dependent on Russia's state-controlled Gazprom monopoly in an overt attempt by Russian-controlled Gazprom to bring the "lost countries" of the Warsaw Pact back into the sphere of Russian influence.

Reuters summarizes Gazprom's expansion in Central and Eastern Europe. However, Reuters fails to note Russia's recent coup d'etat in Austria, where Putin secured a deal concerning the termination of the previously-mentioned Nabucco pipeline.  The termination point of this pipeline in Austria is at the Baumgarten terminal and is based on the principle that  "if we can't own the pipeline, we should own the faucet". 

Such moves are to be expected from Russia's Gazprom.  Here is a list of Russia's latest energy dealings: 

• BULGARIA
• Gazprom supplies all of the Balkan country's natural gas and transits gas via its territory to Greece and Turkey.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin on Jan. 18 secured Bulgarian participation in the 10 billion euro ($14.66 billion) South Stream gas pipeline.The project, proposed by Italy's Eni  as well as Gazprom, is Moscow's challenge to a rival Nabucco plan to pipe Central Asian gas to the European Union and reduce the bloc's reliance on Russian energy. Gazprom is also interested in buying a stake in Bulgaria's state gas monopoly Bulgargaz if the government goes ahead with plans to list a minority stake on the bourse. Gazprom is also reportedly interested in acquiring the Sofia heating utility plant.
• Bulgaria has picked Atomstroyexport, controlled by Gazprom, to build its new 4 billion euro power plant of Belene.
•  CZECH REPUBLIC
• Czech natural gas firm Vemex has signed a deal with Gazprom unit Gazexport on gas deliveries to the Czech Republic which bypass the former Czech monopoly.
• ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA
• Gazprom wants to build gas storage in the former Soviet Union's Baltic states, but it is seeking alternative pipeline routes to avoid dependence on traditional transit states.
• In particular, it wants to build a pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, which would bypass Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as Poland and Belarus.
• The planned pipeline is to be built by a consortium, Nord Stream, majority-owned by Gazprom and also Germany's BASF and E.ON
• GREECE
• Putin said last month that Greece wanted to double imports of Russian gas after 2016. He said Greece supported Gazprom's plans to build the controversial South Stream pipeline (a rival to the aforementioned other Russian pipeline: Nabucco).
• HUNGARY
• Under a deal announced on July 13, 2006, Gazprom gained stakes in Hungarian gas and power companies in return for giving Germany's E.ON a share in the Siberian Yuzhno-Russkoye field.
• Gazprom and Hungary's MOL have formed a company to study the proposed extension of the Blue Stream gas pipeline, which takes Russian gas to northern Turkey.
• SERBIA
• In December, Russia proposed to Belgrade a controversial energy pact that would potentially see Serbia included in Gazprom's South Stream gas pipeline.
• In return Gazprom would get a 51 percent stake in Serb oil monopoly NIS for 400 million euros. But the proposal has drawn fire from one faction of Serbia's ruling coalition, which argues the offer undervalues NIS.
• Analysts believe nationalist Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica wants to accept the offer, to reward Russia for backing Serbia's efforts to block the independence of its breakaway Kosovo province by threatening to use its U.N. veto.
• SLOVAKIA
• Gazprom owns 49 percent of the gas network SPP together with Germany's Ruhrgas (a subsidiary of E.On) and Gaz de France.
• TURKEY
•  Gazprom supplies three quarters of Turkey's gas via southern Europe and by a pipeline under the Black Sea, which it jointly owns with Eni.
• It wants to buy Turkish gas distribution firms is also seeking direct deals with Turkish utilities with an eye towards supplying gas to Israel.

 Putin's Russia understands that energy is the lifeblood of an economy.  Chavez's Venezuela understands that energy is the lifeblood of an economy.  Why do the largest economies in the world, the EU & the US, not do more to secure their own lifebloods? 

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!