Transatlantic Politics

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!

There is a spectrum haunting Europe: the EU Constitution. Despite all appearances, it's not quite dead. Au contraire. After two identity changes, some face lifts and a heavy dose of make-up, the "undead" Constitution  was first re-baptised as the "Reform Treaty" and now lives on as the "Lisbon Treaty". The final deal was struck on Friday in Lisbon, Portugal, where all the EU member states agreed that the new Treaty would be ratified by parliamentary procedures. No more referendums (except for Ireland and possibly the UK if Gordon Brown caves in to the Tories).  The EU learned its lesson the first time after France & the Netherlands rejected the Constitution.  Democracy is a bitch and it is better to keep the role of deciding the new shape of the European Union out of the hands of the voters. 

Why the dull name "Lisbon Treaty" instead of "EU Constitution" or even the "Reform Treaty"? First, the name will simply join the list of the other confusing names of EU institutions and projects: The "European Council", which is the main decision maker in the EU and features a gathering of the heads of all member states.  This is not to be mixed up with the "Council of Europe", which is a UN-like, human rights watchdog that includes "democratic", non-EU countries, such as Russia.  Confusing?  All the better!  The populace of the EU isn't supposed to be able to tell the difference between the myriad of EU institutions!

The EU knows better than most that a lack of understanding leads to a lack of accountability. This is part of the reason why the EU Constitution has been renamed the "Lisbon Treaty", a name that is easily confusable with the unrelated "Lisbon Agenda".  What is the "Lisbon Agenda" you ask?  Well, it is another "bold" project of the EU adopted in 2000 and aimed to "make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world".  Funny - perhaps.  Ambiguous - absolutely. Confusing - most definitely.

In fact, the name "Lisbon Treaty" is designed to suggest that the new document is part of a series of Treaties all signed in nice touristy locations that have come to define the competences of the EU institutions: the "Rome Treaty", the "Maastricht Treaty", the "Amsterdam Treaty" and the "Nice Treaty". In no way is it designed to remind the populace of the failed EU Constitution (even though that is what it is). 

In order to achieve the EU Constitution's goals without the Constitution's language, the document itself has been made almost unreadable.  Here is an excerpt of the  "Lisbon Treaty", to be enacted on January 1st 2009: 

4) Article 2, renumbered 3, shall be replaced by the following: Article 3

1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

But what are its values?  Well, in order to understand that, you would have to refer to at least three other tomes of previous drafts and treaties to go with (including the EU Constitution).  In fact, each term has been so longly debated and negotiated that some sentences don't make a lot of sense anymore.. 

The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

I'm not an economist, but who would prefer "balanced" economic growth to "economic growth", "highly competitive social market economy" to "highly competitive market economy", who would aim for "full employment", "social progress" and a "high level of protection"? Bingo! The French.

It's not a joke, it's a reality. All this gibberish is Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy's work of art. Oh la la, quelle economie, quel protectionisme! But since Germany isn't too keen on free market economics either and while Gordon Brown was busy bargaining Great Britain's opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (which is to become legally binding in all EU member states except UK and Poland) nobody really fought against Sarko..

On the Eastern front, a humble going-along attitude was prevailing, with two notable exceptions: Poland and Bulgaria. The Poles fought and finally got their veto mechanism called the "Ioannina Clause", while the EU freshman Bulgaria, a member only since January 1st, 2007, obtained the right to use the spelling "evro" instead of "euro".

But overall, the "Lisbon Treaty" enforces many of the ideas set out in the EU Constitution, even if under less sensitive terms. There will be a President of the EU, elected for 2 1/2 years by the European Council, there will be a Foreign Minister of the EU, called "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy". The EU gets more powers especially in the field of justice, home affairs, counter terrorism and foreign affairs. The EU Parliament becomes equally powerful with the European Council, it will have co-decision powers in virtually all areas. Biggest loser of the Treaty: the EU Commission, the technical, "executive" branch of the EU which has the power of legislative initiative. So far, every member state was represented in the Commission. But the "Lisbon Treaty" provides the number of EU commissioners to reflect only two thirds of the member states, invoking the "efficiency" criteria. Nevertheless, the number of Commission bureaucrats stays the same. Also the number of directorates and units. The ones who lose the most are the small countries, especially the new members from the former Communist block. One EU official I talked to told me following:

The Commission works in most areas with ridiculously thin resources. So whatever the initiative, you can usually trace it down to one or two desk officers who are doing the real work. These people, with no ill will, just as a resource constraint consequence, may very well work and prepare a proposal without full awareness of the implications that that proposal will have in every member state. I think the fact that around the College table and in the final stage of preparation, at the cabinet level, there is somebody who is looking from a national perspective, is healthy for the system. This is the only way  the Commission as an institution can take its decisions fully aware of the impact they will have everywhere in the Union.

I think it’s a big shame especially for the small member states. The four big ones can be comfortable. They know that the machinery is such that it will always act taking into account their concerns and preoccupations, even if they’re out for some years. But the small member states made a fundamental mistake in accepting it.

Ultimately, one might argue that it doesn't really matter what this Treaty is all about, since in 6 or 7 years there will probably be another one, just as incomprehensible and contradictory. Somewhere between The United States of Europe and a community of free nations, somewhere between a super-state with super-bureaucracy and the advantages of the common market, at some point some member states might consider an exit from the EU. And let the French be the last to shut the lights off. 

Share This

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

The 5th Republic has a new leader: Nicolas Sarkozy. Voted by an overwhelming majority, during Sunday elections, Sarko is now the heading the destiny of France, with 53,06% of the total votes. And he’s about to do it the RIGHT way. Last night, during the popular rally in the Place de la Concorde, he declared: “I will grant everyone equal chance. But they should be worth having it, by working hard”. The main newspapers of the Hexagon commented thoroughly today the implications of Sarkosy’s coming to power in such a particular country as France. Jean d’Ormesson, a distinguished French writer, also member of the Académie Française, dedicated an entire page in Le Figaro, to Sarkozy’s profile:

“What is he actually doing? He reinstates the lost dignity of the right. Ever since Vichy, the right has been the living image of the unhappy conscience. It creeps in the shadows, it hides and it is ashamed of itself and of what it stands for. The brilliance is left, the good conscience is left. An icon of a Socialism that has not fathered him, but that he nevertheless represents, Mitterand has ended up in pursuing, in all impunity, right spanning policies: well, he could do it because he was a leftist. Voted by the right, Chirac was constrained to embark upon policies rather of a radical-socialist origin than Gaullist approaches. Sarkozy is explicitly on the right, in a healthy and provocative way”

Many experts and commentators have insisted on the very technical aspect of the campaign. And some, as is the case of Claude Karnoouh, in an interview he gave me yesterday, has even called this race “the race of two future prime-ministers, and not presidents”. That is because traditionally, in France, the president establishes the general framework of foreign policy and is the Commander in Chief of the French Army. Yet, both Segolene Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy have insisted on domestic issues, as the welfare system, the reforms, the economy, the work period in one week (35 hours). Sarkozy was regarded as the one who has more concrete solutions for France’s problems, while Segolene was granted the label of the supporter for distributive democracy.

As Sarkozy addressed the crowds last night, he was surrounded by his antourage, by his family. One of them is particularly important. It’s François Fillon, Sarkozy’s main political advisor who is highly regarded as de Villepin’s successor at Matignon Palace, as future prime minister of France. Quoted by Le Figaro today, while he answered a question for the French TV channel TF1, he declared that the future government “will personify the openness”.After 10 days of relaxation in the Greek Islands, Sarkosy will be sworn in on the 16th of May. Legislative elections wil take place on the 10th and on the 17th of June, and UMP is expected to take the lead, followed closely by PS and the UFD, on the third position (as showed by today’s Le Figaro estimates). Le Parisien notes that in New York Sarkozy already has been nicknamed “The American” (page 13, printed edition). George W. Bush and Angela Merkel passed their greetings last night to the newly elected French President.

Share This

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

53% - Nicolas Sarkozy

47% - Segolene Royal

The exit polls are clear: France's new president is the center-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy. Good news for the economy, immigration policies and France-US relations. Bad news for Turkey, as Sarkozy is a fierce opponent to its future EU membership. He might soften his stance though, especially since Turkey is not due to join before 2014 anyway.

Share This

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

According to an FT-poll , the Brits, Germans, Italians and Spaniards are even more Socialist than the French - or maybe they just wish them "well."  All of these groups support Mrs. Segolene Royal from Socialist Party over the current front-runner from the center-right, Nicolas Sarkozy:

Sixteen per cent of respondents in Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK considered that Ms Royal would be the best president for France, with 7 per cent opting for Nicolas Sarkozy, the contender from the centre-right UMP party.

Ms Royal proved most popular in Spain and Italy, which have left-wing governments. Ms Royal has made a point of courting the support of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain’s socialist prime minister, who is to attend her final campaign rally in Toulouse on Thursday. The first round of voting will be held on Sunday.

Separately, 22 per cent of French respondents in the poll considered Ms Royal to be the best president just behind Mr Sarkozy, with 23 per cent.

 Let's see where the two stand on the issues:

Segolene Royal - "We need justice and order"

• boost minimum wage to 1500 Euro a month, a 19.6% increase, but promising not to raise taxes…
• abolish the new flexible job contract for small firms
• create 500,000 subsidised jobs for young graduates
• pay the entire salary and social charges for unskilled young people to work for a year in small businesses
• big increase in spending on universities, research and innovation
• the construction of 120,000 social housing units a year

 Nicolas Sarkozy - "Get France back to work" (not a bad idea at all)

• exempt time worked over 35 hours a week from social charges and income tax
• give universities more autonomy, letting them compete to recruit staff and students
• break the big five unions' statutory stranglehold on representation in companies
• introduce a law that will guarantee “minimum service” on public transport during strikes
• reform the special pension regimes for railway drivers and other state employees that enable them to retire early on full pension.

According to The Economist, Sarkozy seems to be the only chance of reform France has left:

Mr Sarkozy is the only candidate who seems both to have understood the urgency of reform and to have the abrasiveness to stand a chance of carrying it out. A political outsider, who fought his way to the top of the Gaullist party through hard work and cunning, he remains fearless in the face of opposition. Anticipating resistance, his advisers are already working on a draft of the law on minimum service, so as to curb the effectiveness of strikes.

Share This

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