European Foundation Intelligence Digest, 18th

Germany hedges

The surrealism of European policy has never been greater. At the very moment when Europe has more or less decided to appoint a “president” to represent the EU’s common foreign and security policy, it is clear that no such thing exists. As Britain adopts a pro-American position on Iraq, threatening to support a military attack even if not sanctioned by the UN, Germany France are saying more or less the opposite. France has even hinted at a veto.

Germany’s position is not entirely clear. On the one hand, the defence minister, Peter Struck, has said that it is “basically no longer conceivable” that Germany would vote in favour of war in the Security Council, although he added that this depended on the circumstances with which the Council was faced. On the other hand, a government spokesman has dismissed Struck’s statement as “a personal opinion”, while yet another spokesman has said that Struck’s position is the same as the Chancellor’s. According to the well-informed Spiegel, the decision has already been taken in Berlin to vote No. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the US government has warned the Germans against the consequences of voting No. [FAZ, 17^th January 2003]

Resistance to the war remains strong among the governing Social Democrat and Green parties. The leader of the Greens, Angelika Beer, said, “We simply cannot imagine Germany voting Yes. We do not want this war. We are against it.” The Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, said that he thought it “desirable” that Saddam go into exile but he expressed doubt that this could be achieved. According to polls, 76% of Germans are against a war: they were answering the question whether Germany should vote against it in the UN. [Die Welt, 18^th January 2003]

On the other hand, it appears that the German army will help the US army after all. This runs counter to the undertakings given repeatedly by Gerhard Schröder during last September’s election campaign. The German defence ministry has confirmed that it might fly wounded American soldiers from Saudi Arabia to Germany for medical treatment, an operation which it calls “humanitarian”. Peter Struck has also suggested that German-manned AWACS reconnaissance planes might fly over Turkey, an issue on which the opposition is demanding a vote in the Bundestag. The German government has, however, decided to refuse to despatch Patriot anti-aircraft missiles to Turkey, as the US government asked it to, even though it has just agreed to deliver a consignment of these missiles to Israel. [Die Welt, 18^th January 2002]

George Robertson, the Secretary-General of Nato, has tried to get the Germans on board by saying that they will be morally obliged to join the war effort as members of Nato. Robertson said pointedly that Turkey was doing its bit and the Nato would support the UN. “I would expect Germany and the other eighteen allies to do the same,” he said. [Handelsblatt, 17^th January 2003]

Chirac demands new resolution

The president of the French Republic has said that he stands shoulder to shoulder with Germany in demanding a second UN resolution before any military action against Iraq. He said that any attack would require “an express decision of the UN security council, which must be based on a report by the weapons’ inspectors”. Chirac said France would maintain her freedom of decision in all circumstances (although he also promised to work together with Germany). [Interview in Die Welt, 20^th January 2003]

This position was reaffirmed at the UN Security Council meeting of Foreign Ministers, when the French Foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said categorically that, “Nothing supports a military initiative.” He said that Paris would not vote for a new resolution which was not supported by the international community: this was understood as a threat to use a veto. Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister (Germany currently chairs the Security Council) said, “We are very afraid that a military intervention in Iraq will entail considerable risks in the fight against terrorism.” [Le Monde, 21^st January 2003]

Woolsey tells Germans the war is about oil

In an interview with the German weekly, Der Spiegel, the former director of the CIA has confirmed that the impending war on Iraq is a war for oil. He told the magazine, “Oil is the life blood of all industrial nations. Two thirds of the known oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf. It is not just America which is dependent on oil, but the whole world. In the short term, our basic vulnerability lies in the fact that the Saudis can easily cut or raise the supply, because they control half of the “swing capacity”, or four million barrels. With this, the Saudis have a decisive influence on the oil price. We must take the oil weapon away from the Middle East.” “Unfortunately,” he added, “democracies like Israel do not have oil, only authoritarian regimes have it.” Woolsey confirmed that the US was “starting with Iraq” because Iraq was the most dangerous country in the Middle East, but that the “long-term strategy” had to be to democratise the whole region. “We cannot leave Saddam in power and democratise the region from the edges. We have to start at the centre of the problem.” [Der Spiegel, 20^th January 2003]

France calls for pan-European referendum

The French government has confirmed that it thinks that the new European constitution should be submitted to a vote which should be held in all EU member states on the same day. Holding one referendum at the same time would, Paris says, be “a symbolic act of foundation, which would unite all the peoples of Europe”. It would also represent “a step forward for European consciousness”, said the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin. [APA, DPA, Der Standard, 18^th January 2003]

Manoeuvring starts for presidency

No sooner had the idea been officially mooted to elect a “president” of Europe for 5 years (or possibly for a 2 ½ year term, renewable once) than names mysteriously “went forward” into the ring. The names of José-Maria Aznár, Anthony Blair, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Jean-Luc Dehaene and Jean-Claude Juncker have all been mooted as possible future presidents of Europe. José-Maria Aznár has been particularly quick off the mark, designating his foreign minister, Ana de Palacio – the sister of the Spanish member of the European Commission, Loyola de Palacio – to campaign for him. “He has all the qualities required for the job of future president of Europe,” she has been saying, “and he is recognised as such in Europe.” Anthony Blair’s name has also been mooted, but many feel that his extreme pro-Americanism marginalizes him from the European mainstream. The election of a Frenchmen seems unlikely, since France is probably going to get the presidency of the European Central Bank. Other people have mentioned the prime minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker and the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, both as possible presidents but also, more probably as potential “foreign minister” of Europe, a post which is to be created out of the two jobs currently done by Christopher Patten and Javier Solana. Jean-Luc Dehaene, the entirely spherical former Belgian prime minister, might become the new president of the Commission. [Thomas Ferenczi & Arnaud Leparmentier, Le Monde, 18^th January 2003]

Kaiserlich und königlich

At the centre of the Franco-German discussions was, of course, the compromise between Paris and Berlin on future institutional reform, especially the decision to press for a bicephalous presidency, one for the Commission and one for the Council. Britain and Spain seem to support the proposal, while smaller countries (especially the Netherlands) oppose it. Speaking to a club of European students at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris, the president of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, defended the plan against its critics who say that a bicephalous presidency would mean a “cohabitation” like that between the French president and prime minister. Giscard said that this would not be a problem because the two presidents would have different functions. [Henri de Bresson, Thomas Ferenczi, Jean-Pierre Langellier, Le Monde, 16^th January 2003]

Unanimity in Versailles

On Wednesday 22^nd January, a joint meeting of the French and German parliaments was held in Versailles and a joint communiqué was prepared the previous week, which extolled the virtues of the Franco-German couple as the basis of the European construction. The German Foreign Minister said that Franco-German co-operation would be all the more necessary as Europe enlarged to include new member states. [Die Welt, 17^th January 2003] Plans for deepening Franco-German co-operation include creating structures to co-ordinate the work of the two countries’ cabinets, and introducing dual Franco-German citizenship. [Die Welt, 21^st January 2003]

German deficit is 3.7%

Just as Europe is preparing a new paper constitution, its economic behaviour shows that previous agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. The German budget deficit for 2002 was 3.7%, way over the 3% which the Germans themselves demanded everyone else respect. The government blamed this on the worst year for the German economy since 1993. It is expected that the deficit will be smaller in 2003, but only by 0.2%. In other words, the promise to borrow no more than 3% has been proved hollow. [Handelsblatt, 16^th January 2003]

The Finance Ministers of the EU are reported therefore to be planning to press ahead with the imposition of their deficit procedure against Germany. An EU diplomat was quoted as saying that he did not expect there to be an argument on the matter, as there had been last year when the Commission first introduced the idea. Berlin is unlikely to oppose the procedure: apart from anything else, the figures are far worse than the Germans were pretending they might be last year. The Commission has demanded that Germany provide concrete proposals within four months for bringing the budget deficit down. There is likely, however, to be a lively discussion on whether to issue an “early warning” to France. But it is not expected that the ministers will debate the issue of who is to succeed Wim Duisenberg as head of the European Central Bank. [Handelsblatt, 20^th January 2003]

Europarliament votes for gay marriages

The European Parliament has narrowly approved a resolution calling on all EU member states to recognise gay marriages. It “urged” the EU members “to permit marriage between partners of the same sex”. The motion was carried by 277 votes to 269, with 14 abstentions. The rapporteur was the Dutch Labour MEP and chairwoman of the European Parliament’s Gay and Lesbian Intergroup, Joke Swiebel. This vote is likely to exacerbate anti-EU feeling in some candidate countries, especially Poland and Malta. In Poland, the anti-EU forces are, inter alia, those grouped around the conservative Catholic party, the League of Polish Families. [Zenit.org, 17^th January 2003]

Germany has lowest taxes in Europe

The German Finance Ministry has calculated that Germany has the lowest taxes in Europe. When pension contributions, health and unemployment payments are included, the total tax burden in Germany is 36.4%, as against 37.4% in Britain, 41.8% in Italy and 45.4% in France. The rate in the USA is 29.6% and 27.1% in Japan. Portugal, Switzerland and Ireland have total tax burdens which are even lower than the German figure. But if you calculate the tax burden alone, i.e. excluding social security and pension contributions, the German tax rate is 21.7%, the lowest in Europe, while Japan is at 17.2% and the USA at 22.7%. [Handelsblatt, 20^th January 2003]

EU and Nato “to merge”

The chairman of the Military Committee of the European Union (sic!), Gustav Hägglund, has said that it makes no difference whether Finland votes to join Nato or remain neutral because, within the next ten years, the EU’s military wing will merge with the European pillar of Nato anyway. Mr. Hägglund was speaking at the University of Helsinki in the context of a debate within Finland about whether to join the Atlantic alliance or whether to remain neutral. Mr. Hägglund somewhat undiplomatically said that it really did not make much difference what the Finns decide because by that time the European pillar of Nato will have merged into the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy anyway, to which Finland belongs. [EU.observer.com, 17^th January 2003]

European commission presses on with lawsuit against US cigarette manufacturers

The European Court of Justice has ruled that the European Commission is the competent body for pursuing three American cigarette manufacturer, Phillip Morris, Japan tobacco and R J Reynolds, in the American courts for complicity in cigarette smuggling and money laundering. The defendants in the case had argued that the Commission had no right to bring it; the case is being heard in New York. The Commission, which is supported by 10 member states, accuses the cigarette companies of using their smuggled cigarettes for money laundering, and of thus depriving European countries of over 2 billion euros per year in tax revenue. There are various different legal suits which revolve around this issue, the most recent having been lodged on 31^st October 2002 specifically against R J Reynolds. It claims that Reynolds allowed its cigarettes to be used for money-laundering and arms-buying operations in Russia, Italy and Colombia. [Le Monde, 15^th January 2003]

A Gaullist speaks

In an interview of quite astonishing langue de bois, the president of the French Republic has demonstrated modern European politicians’ mastery of the kind of language so brilliantly attacked in George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language. “Great challenge”; “the re-foundation of the European project”; “important steps forward”; “a positive balance”; “a common declaration” – all these phrases trip vacuously off Chirac’s lips. “Our most important objective,” said the president, “is to strengthen Europe as an area of progress, liberty, security and justice for all its citizens.” The questions were tame enough but Chirac managed to fail to answer the following points: “Will it not be rather confusing to have three European presidents?” (i.e. of the Commission, the Parliament and the Council); “Should the Nice treaty be revised, especially its provisions on the organisation of the Commission?”; “Are you favourable to a single EU representation in international organisations like the IMF and the UN?”; and even “Where are the borders of Europe?” [interview with Luc de Barochez and Pierre Rousselin, Le Figaro, 20^th January 2003 http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20030120.FIG0125.html]

Shurely shome mishtake

A Social Democrat member of the Bundestag, Uta Zapf, appeared on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme defending the decision by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to impose an injunction, and sue The Mail on Sunday for writing an article about Mr. Schröder’s love affairs. She added that she thought a Europe-wide law should be passed on the matter, thereby imposing German standards of privacy onto this country. The injunction, indeed, has been issued even though none of the offending issues of The Mail on Sunday were distributed in Germany, and even though the newspaper is not available on the Internet. Can this be the same Uta Zapf who for years has been berating the government of Belarus for its “suppression” of press freedom? As head of the OSCE parliamentary assembly, Frau Zapf has been particularly belligerent in her attitude towards Minsk. No doubt we can expect her now to defend President Lukashenko when he tries to impose a €250,000 fine on he next Polish newspaper to criticise him.

Greeks relaunch idea of Balkan federation

The Greek foreign minister caused a stir just before the New Year when he told the Süddeutsche Zeitung that all Balkan countries had a future in the European Union by saying, “Even just a glance at the map shows that a black hole is being created in the middle of a region, most of which will become part of the EU very soon. The countries of the Balkans must have a future in Europe, and we should speed up this process during our presidency. In Greece, there have repeatedly been discussions about a federation of Balkan states. The EU gives us the possibility of using the vision of the past for future stability in the region.” (Eurocrats and American diplomats frequently refer to countries they do not like, or which have not yet been gleichgeschaltet, as “a black hole”: this expression has also been used, in different circumstances, to describe Kaliningrad and Slovakia.) The minister’s reference to a Balkan federation elicited a sharp response from the spokesmen of the president of Macedonia, Boris Trajkovski. Borjan Jovanovski said that closer co-operation among the Balkan states was necessary to speed up their integration into the EU but that Macedonia opposed any plans to create a Balkan federation. The Greeks, who hold the EU presidency, immediately back-pedalled furiously and said that “no one in Brussels wants a Balkan federation” – much as Leon Brittan used to say in the early 1990s than “no one in Brussels wants the EU to become a federation” – and that the Greek minister meant only that Balkan states should co-operate more. [Dnevnik, Skopje, 9^th January 2003]

Iraqis trained in Hungary

The former Soviet, now American air base at Taszár in Hungary, is being used to train thousands of Iraqis to liberate their country from Saddam Hussein. Thousands of them are holed up in the base, which they are not permitted to leave, in conditions of great secrecy. Various figures have been given for the number of trainees - between 1,000 and 4,500. One minister has said that the Iraqis are “American citizens” while a Pentagon spokesman said none of them were. Hungarian ministers have said they are being trained as interpreters, and for other clerical work, but that they were also being made acquainted with military matters and being trained to use handguns. The opposition has done its best to find out just what is happening inside the base, with the former director of the Hungarian secret services saying that the presence of the Iraqis endangered Hungarian national security. [Boris Kalnoky, Die Welt, 18^th January 2003]

Zeman enters the race

The former Social Democrat prime minister of the Czech Republic, Miloš Zeman, has entered the race for the presidency of the republic. In last week’s inconclusive election for that post, the Eurosceptic former prime minister and former president of the Chamber of Deputies, Václav Klaus, emerged as the front-runner. But he did not receive the required qualified majority. (It is a parliamentary vote.) The other three candidates, including the Social Democratic Party’s initial choice, have withdrawn, leaving the field open to these two former prime ministers. Václav Klaus commented on Zeman’s candidacy, “Miloš Zeman is certainly a stronger competitor than those who ran in the first round. I will have to take him very seriously indeed.” If the contest between Zeman and Klaus also ends inconclusively, then the vote might be submitted to the electorate. Under these circumstances, it is expected that Klaus would win. [Der Standard, Vienna, 18^th January 2003]