European Foundation Intelligence Digest, 18th

Europeans frustrated at Britain’s equivocation

When Alexander the Great untied the famous Gordian knot by simply cutting through it, he fulfilled a prophecy and became ruler of all Asia. Gordon Brown, by contrast, has left the knotty euro issue even more entangled than before, by combining his rejection of the euro with an undertaking to campaign in favour of it. The continental Europeans have reacted with some frustration to England’s apparent perfidy. A commentator for the main German business newspaper has said that this is the worst possible way of dealing with the issue, from the business point of view. Calling the Gordonian ‘not yet’ “a setback for the European integration process as a whole”, Andreas Hoffbauer comments that Britain is seen as an increasingly unreliable partner in Europe. “How can one work closely with an EU partner which cannot decide on such a decisive issue? A clear No, for instance through a referendum, would not by any means mean a political rift with Euro-land. But what counts for companies counts also for governments: a clear statement is always better than eternal delaying tactics. Many EU countries would understand a British refusal to join the euro. The brief excursion into the common currency zone has not been forgotten, which ended in a disaster for Great Britain which came to be known as ‘Black Wednesday’. Furthermore, the British economy is currently doing better than that of the euro zone. Brown’s analysis gives interesting indications for countries like Germany. But however helpful are the recognition of a lack of convergence between the British and EU economies, or the material on the flexibility in the labour market, these are peripheral issues. The Blair government always tries to present euro membership as an economic issue. But it is and remains a political decision. From this point of view, the 33 tonnes of paper which were delivered to the London parliament in the form of 77,000 documents on the results of the tests, are basically worthless. This heavy justification cannot hide the fact that Blair must fear for his influence in Europe. No other politician knows better than he how important symbols are in politics. The euro stands for the whole European question - Blair himself said that the history of Britain’s relations with Europe was a history of missed opportunities. He has now missed yet another opportunity, for reasons of domestic political calculation. With his indecision he has continued the tragedy as one of the main actors. And Europe, in this drama, is still waiting for the redemptive final act.” [Andreas Hoffbauer, Handelsblatt, 10^th June 2003]

Swedish government welcomes Brown’s statement

The government of Sweden, which is campaigning in favour of a Yes vote in this September’s closely contested referendum on the euro, has welcomed the statement given to the House of Commons by the British Chancellor, saying this it represents “an important rapprochement” of the UK to the single currency. The Swedish Minister for Coordination, Per Nuder, said that Gordon Brown had given “an important signal” towards British euro-entry. [Handelsblatt, 9^th June 2003]

Slovak EU referendum ‘was rigged’

The Digest reported at the time on the suspiciously high turnout figures, and the absurdly high “Yes” votes, in both Lithuania and Slovakia. Now, a local paper in Slovakia has suggested that the poll may have been rigged. According to the Slovak Spectator, an English-language paper in Bratislava, questions are being raised about the accuracy of the turnout figures, and that these questions throw the legitimacy of the poll into doubt. According to the official figures, 52.15% of eligible citizens cast a vote in the poll on 16^th – 17^th May 2003. Like many post-communist countries, Slovakia requires a 50% turnout for the result to be valid. But the newspaper has ascertained that a number of voters took two ballot papers with them into the polling booths, and that elections officials turned a blind eye to this. Various people have recounted their experiences to the paper, including people who took two ballot papers by mistake from a pile which had been simply left out on the table. The normal practice – and the requirement of the electoral law - is for each voter to be handed his ballot paper by an official. In addition, there are recorded instances of people coming to vote and finding that their names were already ticked off on the list as having already voted. Local politicians have said that it is fairly easy for commission members to tick off extra people’s names so that the number of ballots cast conforms to the number of ballots in the box. The paper also points out that all the political parties who had representatives on the electoral commissions in each polling station are declared supporters of EU membership, and that they therefore had an interest in ensuring that the turnout exceeded 50%. There were no foreign observers at the poll, and there were no independent local observers. Local NGOs (who are notorious for supporting supranational bodies like the EU and NATO) claimed that there was no need to observe elections in Slovakia. This is in spite of the fact that there is evidence of vote rigging in last December’s local elections, and that this rigging consisted precisely in commission members giving as many as 150 votes to particular candidates. Criminal charges on this are pending. A former parliamentary speaker has pointed out that it is very anomalous that only 24% of citizens had voted by the end of the first day of voting and that the turnout suddenly leapt to 28% the next day. [Lukáš Fila, The Slovak Spectator, 9^th – 15^th June, 2003, http://www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok.asp?vyd=2003022&rub=spect_news&cl=12982]

Bulgarian official warns of electoral fraud

Mikhail Konstantinov, a member of the Central Electoral Commission in Bulgaria, has warned that this autumn’s local elections might be open to fraud because 800,000 registered voters have left the country but their names have not been removed from the electoral register. [Radio Free Europe, 5^th June 2003]

Poles do as the Pope tells them

Poland is not only by far the most populous of the candidate countries (with 38 million inhabitants, it is just a little smaller than Spain); it is also the one where anti-EU political parties are the best organised. Despite predictions by Eurobarometer, the EU polling organisation, last autumn that the turnout would be only 27%, in the end 59% turned out to vote. But Professor Maciej Giertych of the League of Polish Families, one of the two main anti-EU parties, told the Digest that his party did not suspect that there had been any manipulation of the electoral process on the day. Instead, he attacked the manipulation of the media in the run-up to the poll. [The Digest reported on this in Issue 168, but mistakenly attributed the survey to the Adam Smith Institute. Instead, the report was carried out by the Union for Real Politics, a small anti-EU party of which a Board member is an expert for the Adam Smith Institute.] Professor Giertych drew particular attention to remarks made by the Pope on 18^th May in which he said that he wanted Poland to join the EU, albeit on equal terms. Although the Pope also said that Eurosceptics had valid views, his pro-EU remarks were broadcast on every news bulletin in Poland between the date they were made and the date of the election (7^th and 8^th June). This meant that a large number of older voters, who might otherwise have been expected to vote No, changed their minds and voted Yes: exit polls, indeed, showed that people aged over 65 years voted Yes more than those under 25. Although only 18% voted on Saturday, people voted on Sunday, especially at the end of the day when they returned home from a weekend away. The pro-EU propaganda was relentless; the European Integration Office sent text messages to mobile phone users encouraging them to vote; museums in Warsaw offered free admission to encourage people to stay in town on Sunday; a letter from the Polish bishops’ conference encouraged people to vote. [Monika Scislowska, Associated Press, 8^th June 2003]

Pope campaigns for EU in Croatia

The Pope repeated his pro-EU statements during his recent visit to Croatia. Speaking on his arrival at the airport in Rijeka, Pope John Paul II spoke of his “affection” for the Jewish and Muslim religious communities and said, referring to the country’s application to join the EU, “Croatia has recently asked to become an integral part, also from the political and economic point of view, of the great family of the European peoples. I can only express my hope that this aspiration will be happily realized: the rich tradition of Croatia will surely contribute to strengthening the Union as an administrative and territorial unit, and also as a cultural and spiritual reality.” [Holy See Press Office, 5^th June 2003, http://www.vatican.va/news_services/bulletin/news/13405.php?index=13405&po_date=05.06.2003&lang=en#CERIMONIA%20DI%20BENVENUTO%20ALL’AEROPORTO%20DI%20RIJEKA]

Romanian prime minister calls for ‘federal’ EU

Adrian Nastase said in an interview with a German newspaper that he thinks that only a federalised structure can provide a long-term solution to the problems faced by the EU. He said, “I am aware of the fact that the idea is generally rejected by smaller states and that my statement could produce an uproar in my own country,” and added that he supports the idea of electing an EU president for a mandate of “some three years”. (The draft EU constitution suggests that he be elected for a term of 2 ½ years.) Mr. Nastase said he agreed with the idea that not every EU state should necessarily have its own commissioner, something which many smaller EU states also contest. Finally, he said that he supported the consolidation of the military capacities of the European Union, because only then would the continent be fully respected as a strategic partner by the United States. He said that he wanted American troops to be stationed in Romania and that Romania would send some 600 troops to Iraq. [Handelsblatt, 5^th June 2003]

Clever Klaus

The Czech president, Václav Klaus, has given a clever pre-electoral broadcast to Czech voters in the run-up to the referendum on EU membership. Although he and his fellow Eurorealists (Jan Zahradil, the foreign policy spokesman of the ODC Civic Democratic Party founded by Klaus, is a member of the International Advisory Board of the European Foundation) have not openly called for a “No” vote (which, in Klaus’ case, might be incompatible with his constitutional duties of impartiality), few Czechs are in doubt that the main opposition party and the country’s president have serious reservations about EU membership. Klaus called on Czech citizens to cast a vote in the referendum which is to be held on 13^th and 14^th June, saying that the plebiscite was a historic moment which would not repeat itself, and said that he was sure that decisions would be taken responsibly. He did not suggest that voters vote Yes, in stark contrast to the presidents of neighbouring Slovakia and Poland, who campaigned eagerly for EU accession. Klaus said, “Each of you will participate in the decision on whether the Czech Republic should voluntarily transfer an important part of its sovereignty to a large transnational entity in exchange for the possibility to participate in its decisions and to be part of it.” A private correspondent to the editor of the Digest commented “Klaus made an intelligent declaration asking people to take part in the referendum because at stake is the loss of national sovereignty. He didn’t say ‘vote yes or no,’ but every one whose brain is still active (the number is dwindling every day) knows what it means.” Moreover, speaking on the BBC Czech service, Klaus also said that the government should consider tendering its resignation if the turnout is low. He criticised the pro-EU campaign on Czech television, saying that it presented every aspect of EU membership through rose-tinted glasses. He said the information presented as “consciously misleading, marginal, avoiding the core of the matter, one-sided, [and] stressing only the positive [aspects of accession] and the benefits while neglecting the other side.” He added that he does not see why Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda should be in charge of EU-accession issues, because this “has nothing to do with foreign policy.” [The broadcasts on Czech TV and the BBC Czech service were on 9^th June; see Radio Free Europe Newsline, 10^th June 2003]

Klaus then gave an interview to a leading Czech daily in which he said that Czechs should have benefited from a longer period of “enjoying our independence” before joining the EU. He said that this was now impossible, since the EU had shown itself unwilling to wait for “our small country”. He again warned against the dangers of European centralism and stressed that the proposed constitution only heightened the danger. He declined to say how he would vote himself, saying that it would be inappropriate for the president to do this, or to advise others on how to cast their ballot. [Lidove noviny, 11^th June 2003] Klaus’ extreme circumspection contrasted with the approach taken by his predecessor, Václav Havel, who on 10^th June called on Czechs to vote Yes. He made the appeal in typical style, at a concert in Wenceslas Square organised by supporters of EU accession. Havel said that fears over loss of sovereignty were groundless. He even – if you can believe it – said that voting Yes to Europe was voting No to economic fraud. [Radio Free Europe Newsline, 11^th June 2003]

Paris and Berlin agree on constitution

At a summit meeting between the French president and the German chancellor, the two sides expressed full support for the draft constitution presented by the European Convention. They said they were “determined to support it unreservedly”. Chancellor Schröder said that he thought there was a good chance that a text would be adopted at the summit meeting in Thessaloniki on 20^th and 21^st June. Chirac said that he and his German opposite number would campaign for the text to be adopted there. [AFP, 10^th June 2003]

Did he jump or was he pushed?

The family of the recently deceased liberal politician, Jürgen Möllemann, has added to the speculation that he committed suicide. Möllemann, a keen parachutist, died in a fall after his parachute failed to open. The government has still not decided whether he should have a state funeral: Möllemann was a controversial politician who was accused of both corruption and anti-Semitism. The government, and even more so Möllemann’s own party, issued tight-lipped statements of regret at his death. The government’s official death notice, for instance, said, “For his work he often received recognition, but naturally also frequent contradiction.” The head of the FDP parliamentary party could not find a single positive thing to say about the man whom the party had expelled last year. But the most spectacular death notice was the one placed in local papers by the late politician’s family, in which they blamed his political enemies for causing his death. His widow and children asked, in the advertisement, whether those would be held accountable “who, in the most underhand way, have tried to destroy both the man Jürgen Möllemann as well as his political work, for which he struggled body and soul for more than 30 years.” Möllemann was under investigation for complicity in financial fraud, and his death leaves five other defendants facing charges over the illegal financing of the FDP liberals. [Helmut Breuer, Die Welt, 11^th June 2003]

Europeans think EU is weak

According to a poll, 62% of Germans think that the EU has been severely damaged by the Iraq crisis and that it can no longer be taken seriously as a body. The poll shows that citizens in other countries think that the EU’s foreign policy role has been weakened by the crisis: 63% in the UK, 70% in Spain, 79% in France. 50% of Germans think the EU is a weak organisation, 75% of them say it has no common foreign and military policy. Only 38% of Germans think the EU speaks with one voice. [Klaus-Peter Schöppner, Die Welt, 11^th June 2003]

Racial murder in Kosovo

There has been an outpouring of international condemnation at the killing of an elderly Serb couple in Kosovo by Albanian thugs. In what looks like a repeat of the racially-motivated attacks which started the Kosovo dispute in the first place, the family was first tortured and then bludgeoned to death in their home in Obilić, where about 20 Serb families had been planning to return to live. Their house was then burned down. They had complained to the UNMIK authorities about death threats, to no avail. The murder has been condemned by the Serbian government, whose prime minister attacked the UN authorities for turning a blind eye to the rise in attacks by Albanians against Serbs. He also said that the UN was guilty of trying to promote Kosovar independence. The Serb minister responsible for Kosovo said that the murder was an attempt to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of its few remaining Serbs. The head of the UN in the province, Michael Steiner, also condemned the murder and went to Obilić as soon as he heard about it. Condemnations came also from Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy supremo; the head of the US mission in Kosovo; the Serbian parliament; the president of Serbia-Montenegro; the European Union; and the Russian government. Some 1,000 Serbs demonstrated in the monastery town of Gračanica against the murder, demanding that the international community do more to protect them. [Beta and Tanjug news reports, 5^th June 2003] The presence of international soldiers who used to protect the Serbs had been wound down in recent months.

Kosovo ‘to declare independence’

According to a Greek daily, the head of the UN mission in Kosovo and the commander of Kfor have informed Nato and Greece (which holds the EU presidency) that Kosovo Albanians seem determined to declare independence from Serbia. Ta Nea says that the Greek government has information showing the strong determination of the Albanians to do this by the end of 2003. It says that the Greek government fears that any such declaration of independence will trigger yet new conflicts in the region, just as the international community is trying to push the successor states of old Yugoslavia back together again. It adds that the attention of the international community is distracted at the moment by events in other parts of the world. [MakFax News Agency, Athens, 9^th June 2003]

Fidel speaks out

In a three-hour televised address, the president of Cuba, Fidel Castro, has lashed out at the European Union, accusing it of “fascist imperialism”. He warned the EU against making any contact with Cuban dissidents, and attacked the recent measures taken against Cuba by the organisation. He called the Spanish and Italian prime ministers “fascists and bandits” and said they must have been drunk when they decided to take measures against Cuba – “if not a drunkenness induced by alcohol, then a eurocentric drunkenness”. He said that no EU ambassadors would be invited to official functions by Cuba. The EU has decided to scale down its diplomatic relations with Cuba following the sentencing of 75 opposition members to a total of 1,454 years in prison. [Agence France Presse, 12^th June 2003]