European Foundation Intelligence Digest, 18th

C’est “non”!

France, Russia and Germany made a surprisingly frank statement that they will veto any further UN resolution that authorises the use of force against Iraq. Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, travelled suddenly to Paris on Wednesday morning, cancelling all his other engagements. The German press was convinced that this was because France was about to abandon its anti-war stance, something the satirical French weekly Le Canard Enchaîné had also suggested would happen. Instead, it was quite the contrary. The USA and Britain are for the time being pressing on as if nothing had happened. But the statement by the three security council members could not have been clearer. [Der Spiegel, 5^th March 2003; Die Welt, 6^th March 2003]

Chirac wows Algeria

President Chirac has completed a triumphal state visit to Algeria, where hundreds of thousands of Algerians greeted his anti-war stance with wild enthusiasm. The crowds also shouted “Visas!” - which seemed to be as close to their hearts as France’s stance in favour of peace. The ceremonial honours lavished on Chirac by the Algerian president Abdul Aziz Bouteflika exceeded even those paid to Castro and Nasser when they went to Algiers in the 1960s and 1970s. Between 500,000 and 1 million people lined the streets on the way from the airport to the capital; several hundred thousand turned out to cheer him in Oran, the former centre of the pieds-noirs. The crowd shouted “Chirac! Chirac!” (and “Visas! Visas!”); in Arabic, they also shouted, “Saddam! The People are with you!” and “No war on Iraq!” President Bouteflika said in his welcoming speech that he deplored the failure of the international community to support Algeria’s fight against terrorism within its own borders. Indeed, he accused some countries of expressing outright hostility to the country’s struggle against the Islamist FIS, a war which has claimed 150,000 lives since 1992. [Florence Beaugé and Béatrice Gurrey, Le Monde, 4^th March 2003]

Klaus elected president of the Czech Republic

The squeals were audible on Friday night, 28^th February, when the former prime minister of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus, was elected president. Klaus has for long been known as a Eurorealist, and he has increased his unpopularity among the euro-cognoscenti in recent years by questioning the wisdom of the Kosovo war, and by dissenting with the US over Iraq: he recently abstained from a parliamentary vote on sending Czech troops to the Gulf.

The election for the president of the Czech Republic is a parliamentary vote, and it took three attempts before Klaus’ final victory on Friday. In this third attempt, the government had put forward a professor of philosophy, Jan Sokol, a man so obscure that he was supported by only 2% of public opinion.

One factor influencing Klaus’ election was the ongoing question of the Beneš decrees, on which the Digest has reported before. Klaus received the support of members of Parliament from the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, inter alia because they feared that Sokol was being too accommodating towards the Sudeten Germans who are demanding at the very least an apology, and perhaps even compensation, for having been driven out of Czechoslovakia after the war. Klaus, by contrast, has always remained firmly opposed to any revision of the decrees. Concern that the decrees might be rescinded, and that the Germans might return to claim back their houses, had caused a surprise increase in the Communist vote in last June’s elections, especially in border areas where Sudeten Germans had previously lived.

In his acceptance speech, Klaus said that he was pleased to have won support from all sections of political opinion represented in the Parliament. But the support given to him by the Communists provided weaponry for the attacks on him that came immediately from the German and Austrian press. “Stalin’s Greetings to Klaus” was the headline of one particularly tasteless article, which absurdly claimed to see significance in the fact that the election occurred on the anniversary of Stalin’s death. [Josef Kirchengast, Der Standard, 3^rd March 2003] The journalist described it as “the worst humiliation” for the outgoing president, Václav Havel, that Klaus had been elected with the support of the Communists, “the inheritors of Stalin”. [Hans-Jörg Schmidt, Die Welt, 1^st March 2003] It is amusing, indeed, that this should be the line of attack since Klaus is usually attacked for being “an ultra-liberal” and “a Thatcherite”. [See Martin Plichta, Le Monde, 3^rd March 2003]

Hostility to Klaus’ election was also expressed by the president of Pan-Europa Union Deutschland, Bernd Posselt, a German MEP close to the German expellees who also sits on the committee for relations with the Czech Republic. He said it was “shocking” that Mr. Sokol, “a convinced Christian and European” should have been called “unelectable” during the campaign. Mr. Posselt ended his communiqué menacingly by saying, “In the EU close attention will be paid to whether the important role played by nationalists and communists in this election will lead to a strengthening of these forces.” [Statement, 28^th February 2003, http://www.sudeten.de/bas/index_a.htm]

Immediately after his election, Klaus moved to reiterate his opposition to a war on Iraq and to European federalism. He said, “Nobody will hear strong words from me in support of a war.” This distinguishes him sharply from Václav Havel, his predecessor, who rushed to support the US-UK position in the “Letter of the Eight” last month. Klaus said that he would never have signed this letter, which was signed by President Havel a few days before he left office, and after the Czech government had refused to sign it. Klaus indeed criticised Havel for failing to consult with the government before doing so. Klaus also rejected the label “Eurosceptic” saying that he was instead a realist. He said he intended to reject a federalist model for EU integration, saying that such a model meant more power in Brussels and less in Prague. On the Sudeten question, he said he did not want to add to the German-Czech declaration he signed as prime minister in 1997. [Interview on TV Nova, 2^nd March 2003]

Denktash refuses to sell out

An a visit to Ankara, the president of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Rauf Denktash, has refused to budge under massive EU and UN pressure to sign a deal ending the 29-year division of the island. The so-called “peace plan” presented by Kofi Annan would, Denktash said, force 100,000 Turkish Cypriots to leave their homes; he added that they would probably end up being chased off the island altogether. He reaffirmed that the TRNC would not be able to agree to the plan, or to the legality of the admission of Greek Cyprus to the EU as the government of the whole island. Denktash tried to dispel any suggestion of bad blood between himself and the leader of the governing party in Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan put the cat among the pigeons last December when he said that Turkey was not prepared to continue with its Cyprus policy of the last 40 years. [Andalou Agency, 5^th March 2003]

US troops to go East

Ever since it was first reported, the rumour that the Americans are considering closing their military bases in Germany and moving them to Central and Eastern Europe instead has refused to die down. The rumour was first reported in the Polish press, especially the leading dailies, Gazeta Wyborcza and Rzeczpospolita, on 31^st January; a local newspaper Glos Koszalinski, rather improbably claimed to have a photograph of troops actually arriving. Later, rumours started to spread that new bases would also be opened in Hungary, especially after the Americans have taken over the old Soviet military base at Taszar to train Iraqi agents. Each time the rumours surfaced, the Pentagon denied them, saying that no firm decisions had been made. On the other hand, the US government and the other concerned governments refused to deny the reports entirely either.

Now these rumours have been confirmed as true. The official Bulgarian news agency has said that up to five US military bases will be created on the territory of Bulgaria in replacement of the bases currently in Germany. The defence minister, Nikolai Svinarov, and the prime minister, Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, were in Washington last week discussing the issue. The matter has already been discussed with the foreign policy committee of the US Senate and with the Atlantic council. [Handelsblatt, 27^th February 2003]

The commander in chief of the US armed forces in Europe has also now confirmed that these discussions are taking place about how to reduce the American military presence in Western Europe and increase it in the East. General James L. Jones said, “We envisage a new concept of implantation of bases, more modern, so that we can better respond to non-conventional challenges.” The Cold War concentration of US presence of troops in Western Europe will therefore be replaced by a network of bases. But the general denied that there already exists a list of bases in Germany which are slated to close. The US army insisted that the transfer to the East was a purely military matter and not in any way related to the recent political crisis in Europe. [Handelsblatt, 3^rd March 2003; see also Mark Landler, New York Times 4^th March 2003]

Troop movements to Romania

The number of troops stationed in Romania has already increased “substantially” over the weekend, according to reports. They are stationed at the Mihai Kogălniceanu base near Constanţa. The spokeswoman for President Ion Iliescu, Corina Cretu, said that the exact number of troops would not be revealed. But she tried to play down what she referred to as “media speculations”. She confirmed, however, that the number of troops stationed in Romania would change in relation to the situation in Iraq. The US Embassy in Bucharest said that the number of troops would not exceed several thousand. [Evenimentul Zilei, Bucharest, 4^th March 2003; Radio Free Europe Newsline, 3^rd March 2003]

German unemployment nearly 5 million

The latest unemployment figures in Germany are 4.706 million; this is a rise of 83,100 since January. The figure is 410,100 higher than this time last year. It puts the unemployment rate from 11.1% to 11.3%. The Chairman of the Federal Institute for Labour, Florian Gerster, said that the German economy was stagnating and that no recovery could be expected in the jobs market. The economy remained hampered by structural weaknesses. Even the seasonally adjusted figures show a rise of 67,000 jobless in February, a higher rise than experts had predicted. [Die Welt, 6^th March 2003]

New black-blue coalition in Vienna

Chancellor Schüssel of Austria has announced, after 96 days of negotiation, that his next government will be composed of the same parties as the previous one, namely with Christian Democrat “Austrian People’s Party” (ÖVP) and the Freedom Party (FPÖ) formerly led by Jörg Haider. The present leader of the Freedom Party, Herbert Haupt, becomes Vice-Chancellor; the former Freedom Party finance minister, Karl-Heinz Grasser, continues in office as a member of the ÖVP. The new programme includes the abolition of early retirement schemes and an increase in the tax on petrol. Shop opening hours will be lengthened and there will be tax cuts in some areas, compensated by increases in social contributions in others. The Freedom Party has abandoned its opposition to EU enlargement, so that Austria will sign and ratify the accession treaties.

The creation of the new government has been met with great scepticism by the press in Austria. It was, after all, a coalition between these two parties which collapsed last year. Several papers accused the parties of treating the voters with contempt, because the FPÖ lost so badly in the elections. The new coalition, said some, represented “an attempt to ignore the will of the people”. Die Presse said the new government was “more of the same, only worse”, while the mass circulation Kronenzeitung asked how long the “new” coalition would last.

The FPÖ ministers are evenly balanced between Haider supporters and Haider opponents; the former leader continues to divide the party. Family politics plays a role: the minister for consumer protection, Ursula Haubner, is Jörg Haider’s sister, while Chancellor Schüssel has sought one leading opponent within his own party of a coalition with the FPÖ, Erwin Pröll, by appointing his nephew to be the minister for agriculture. Jörg Haider himself has lashed out at the new government, saying that it represents a humiliation for his party.

Brussels threatens to fine France

The European Commission has decided to react to France’s notification that its budget deficit was 3.04% in 2002, slightly above the Maastricht ceiling of 3%. It is expected to be closer to 3.5% in 2003 if measures are not taken to stop it. The decision to allow the deficit to go just above 3% can be interpreted as thumbing a nose at the Commission; prime minister Raffarin would be doing the same thing as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Lionel Jospin’s finance minister in 1998, who allowed the deficit to rise to 3.02%. The Commission has said that it will initiate the excessive deficit procedure, even though Paris says that this should not be launched until the deficit is 3.1%. Eurostat has first to look at the figures and see if it comes to the same calculation. It will do this on 17^th March; the following day, the commissar responsible should then launch the procedure. His proposal then goes to the Ecofin council of the 15 finance ministers, who vote on it by qualified majority. If they vote in favour, France will be instructed to take measures to cut the deficit. France is now the third country to have violated the famous rules in the Maastricht treaty, Germany and Portugal having also gone above 3%. The maximum penalty France would have to pay if the procedure is completed would be 0.5% of GDP. [Virginie Malingre et Arnaud Leparmentier, Le Monde, 3^rd March 2003]

The French prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, is doing everything to escape this punishment. He is relying on tax cuts to boost growth, something the excessive deficit procedure would forbid. Paris and Brussels are therefore now arguing about whether the final figure will be rounded up or down (3.038% is rounded down to 3%, 3.05 % is rounded up to 3.1%). Raffarin is therefore saying that the limit has been reached but not exceeded. By contrast, the Commission’s spokesman, Jonathan Faull, says that the rules do not provide for rounding up or down and that, if the deficit is above 3% then the procedure is launched.

Le Monde comes under attack

A blistering attack has been published on France’s daily newspaper of record, Le Monde. Authors Pierre Péan and Philippe Cohen have denounced the newspaper for “permanent abuses of power” and accused its editors of being motivated “by a denigration and hatred of France.” Both authors started separately to write a book about the newspaper, but they were brought together by a publisher and persuaded to publish their manuscripts together. The book has been serialised by the weekly magazine, L’Express. The book pulls few punches; it accuses the newspaper of being “a danger to democracy” because Le Monde abuses its considerable influence over the French media. The authors attack particularly the triumvirate which runs the paper, Jean-Marie Colombani, Alain Minc and Edwy Plenel. They are called “pirates of journalism”, and said to seek nothing but their own personal advancement. The authors also accuse the editors of conducting a smear campaign against France itself: they are said to be obsessed by the ideology of a world without borders, and to be animated by “a fundamental phobia, that of France and its state.” They are called “xenophiles” – even though the authors are themselves leftists – who always present France in the worst light possible and who are obsessed by the darkest periods in French history: Vichy and the war in Algeria. “Le Monde adopts the point of view of the international elites,” write the authors, thus betraying their “latent or explicit Francophobia”. The attacks smack of serious personal animosity, especially when the authors attack Jean-Marie Colombani, a Corsican, because his father wanted the island to be reunited with Italy. They also accuse Edwy Plenel of being “a ghost writer for the CIA”, and present a quotation from the late president Mitterrand to this effect. Mitterrand is supposed to have said, “I have the proof that Plenel is an agent and that Le Monde has become an organism for destabilising our Republic and our society.” Plenel is also, notoriously, a former Trotskyite and the authors naturally dwell at length on his past, accusing him of entryism. On whatever subject, say the authors, “Le Monde always adopts the least generous interpretation when it comes to this country and its inhabitants.” [La Face cachée du "Monde", Pierre Péan & Philippe Cohen, Mille et une nuits, 634 p., 24 euros] Le Monde has announced several libel suits against the book, its authors, and the publishers of L’Express. [Le Monde, 26^th February 2003]

Pan-European political parties to get EU funding

It has been on the cards ever since the Maastricht treaty stipulated that transnational political parties “contribute to the creation of a European consciousness”, but the Nice treaty, signed in 2001 and ratified last year, provides financial support for this noble aim. That treaty having entered into force on 1^st February 2001, the Commission has now put forward a proposal to subsidise such parties. This would mean, for instance, that the European People’s Party and the Socialist Group, the big formations composed of MEPs from different national parties, would get subsidies as parties in their own right. They have functioned to date with more or less illegal forms of funding, namely taking money from other sources and using it for purposes for which it had not been voted. In June 2000 the Court of Accounts found this to be in breach of the treaties, so the party leaders quickly passed a resolution allowing them – without any legal basis - to continue their illegal activities until 2004. This is why the pressure is now on for them to get money from other sources. This has then thrown up a new debate about the sources of funding: Germany wants the pan-European parties to be able to receive unlimited private financing, while the French are opposed to all private finance. Now the Commission has split the difference between them and suggested that private companies can give up to €5,000: France and Germany are both opposed to this, for diametrically opposite reasons, but they are in a minority. The Commission has also suggested conditions which would allow parties to qualify for EU subsidy. They would have to have people elected at national, regional and European level in at least one third of EU member states (i.e. in 5 out of 15 states, with the present EU membership). This financial incentive may explain why the British Conservative Party is suddenly engaged in a flurry of activity, years after they turned down the option of leaving the EPP, aimed at trying to form a union with other “Eurosceptic” parties in Eastern Europe. Small parties like the “Democratic Party of the people of Europe – Free Alliance”, which includes Flemish nationalists object to these rules, saying that they discriminate against them. In the current state of affairs, only four large political formations would qualify: the EPP, the European Socialist Party (chairman, Robin Cook), the European Party of Liberals, Democrats and Reformers, and the European Federation of Green Parties. The PPE and the ESP would get the largest slice of the cake, since 85% of the money would be distributed according to representation in the European Parliament. They also argue that the amount proposed by the Commission, €8.4 million per year, is not enough. They say they need at least €15 million per year. [Rafaële Rivais, Le Monde, 4^th March 2003]