European Foundation
Intelligence Digest
Issue No. 177
1st October
2003
I. Reopening old wounds
The Poles are starting to get seriously worried that their accession to the EU will cause their country to be re-colonised by Germans. They are concerned that Germans will call for property to be restituted which was seized from them in 1945. The Chairman of the Silesian Association (Landsmannschaft), Rudi Pawelka, has created for the purpose of property restitution a “Prussian Claims Society” (Preußische Treuhand GmbH) whose purpose is to collect and administer legal suits for individual property claims in territories which today belong to Poland, the Czech Republic and Russia (to which the former East Prussia currently belongs). The Society is distributing claim forms for people to give details about their property in “East Germany” (i.e. Poland, etc.), and shares are being sold in it to raise the funds for the claims. The Society wants to organise exemplary court cases in the countries concerned. If there is no “politically acceptable solution” then the Society says it will pursue the matter in the courts up to the European Court of Justice. The Society also intends to bring class actions in the United States. The President of the Expellees Association (Bund der Vertriebenen), Erika Steinbach, has said that the Society has nothing to do with her organisation, even though the Silesian Landsmannschaft, which Pawelka heads, is part of Steinbach’s organisation. The deputy president of the Bund der Vertriebenen is also Pawelka’s deputy on the board of the new Society. The Society is based in the Düsseldorf offices of the Landsmannschaft for East Prussia, which also supports the initiative. Pawelka has said that his Society has not yet collected half of the €1 million it needs to start up. The Society is to deal with “soft” cases first, i.e. those dealing with people who emigrated from the countries in question in recent decades. Only later will it move onto the immediate post-war expropriations. Expellees are also addressing their claims to the federal government in Germany, and a private Internet site is encouraging people to write to the Federal Finance Ministry before Poland joins the EU. When it does, cases will be justiciable before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The spokesman of the Polish Foreign Ministry, Boguslaw Majewski, has spoken of “worrying signals” as Germany is increasingly being presented as a victim of the war. He said that Poland’s bill for the Second World War was never paid, and that now was not the time to start opening new claims. [Gerhard Gnauck, Die Welt, 29th September 2003]
The former Prime Minister of Hungary and
current leader of the opposition, Viktor Orbán, has called on the Czech
Republic and Slovakia to rescind all the 1946-46 decrees which legalised the
mass expulsion of Germans and Hungarians from Czechoslovakia. Orbán, who repeatedly called for the Beneš
decrees to be rescinded while he was Prime Minister, met the leader of the
Christian Democrats in the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, and
confirmed that his party will campaign jointly with the Christian Democrats in
next year’s elections to the European Parliament. [Radio Free
Europe Newsline, 29th September 2003]
German-Polish
relations are also being troubled by the plan to create an exhibition centre in
Berlin about the expulsion of whole populations, including the Germans who were
driven out of Central and Eastern Europe after the Second World War. The project is the brainchild of Erika
Steinbach (see above). When Mrs
Steinbach went to Warsaw to discuss the project recently, a Polish paper
depicted her in Nazi uniform. Mrs
Steinbach naturally rejected this characterisation of her policies, but said
that Polish fears had probably been awakened by seeing the Germans and the
Russians cooperating with one another over the Iraq crisis. This, she said, had awakened old fears. Mrs Steinbach has vowed to continue with the
project, even though the German Chancellor and the Polish Prime Minister have
expressed their opposition to it. [Interview in Die Welt, 29th
September 2003]
II.
Europe continues to wobble
The continuing disagreements between Paris and Brussels over how much France is allowed to borrow – and especially the robust defence of France’s right to do as it pleases made by the Prime Minister, Jean-Paul Raffarin – have caused pro-Europeans in France to fear that the tide may have turned against them. In particular, they are beginning to fear that they might lose a referendum if one is held on the European Constitution. The president of the centrist and pro-European UDF party, François Bayrou, has even spoken of “an unprecedented European crisis.” An argument between Paris and the Commission over a plan to bail out the train manufacturer, Alsthom, has also increased the unpopularity of Europe. Pro-Europeans are dismayed to see Brussels being used as a scapegoat for France’s problems. Words like “nationalist” and “demagogic” have been bandied about by pro-Europeans to describe the current governments in France and Germany. Bayrou has said, “The two great political movements which have defended the European project have been colonised by those who believed in Europe the least. The Christian Democrats of the European People’s Party have seen Berlusconi’s people join them, and the British Conservatives, while the Social Democrats have been eaten up by left-wing Eurosceptics.”
The fear is now real that the French might vote No to Europe if a referendum is held on the constitution. The head of the UMP presidential bloc in the French national assembly, Jacques Barrot, therefore started to row back from Jacques Chirac’s promise to hold a referendum, when he said on TV on 14th September that a vote was “not indispensable” and that he was “more in favour” of parliamentary ratification. An adviser to Chirac has even said, “The French would answer a question other than the one which would be put” – a remark which has caused outrage because it could be used to invalidate any referendum at all. Although they are aware of the risks, however, pro-Europeans still think that a referendum is the least bad solution. They think that the legitimacy of European institutions will otherwise be severely contested. In order to forestall any “nationalisation” of the debate on Europe, they are suggesting that the referendum be held on the same day in all European countries, an idea which has already been approved by a very large majority in the European Parliament. This assumes, however, that all countries will hold a referendum, which is highly unlikely. Pro-Europeans are also aware that the issue of enlargement has been rather swept under the carpet, no doubt because people were afraid that the electorate would be afraid of it. The admission of Turkey is a particularly hot potato. These concerns, and the list is not exhaustive, have caused internal divisions within the big parties in France, such as the Socialist Party within which two new formations have said they will campaign for a No. Even pro-European parties like the Greens have expressed their reserves about the Constitution, for many of them consider it to be quite insufficient. Given that no one on either side of the debate actually likes the European Constitution, there is perhaps still a chance that it will never be ratified. [Raphaëlle Bacqué & Jean-Baptiste de Montvalon, Le Monde, 29th September 2003]
A few days before the Intergovernmental
Conference begins, which is due to put the final touches to the European
Constitution, disagreement persists between the EU states about what the
document should contain. The German
Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, said that, “We too have our wishes,” by
which he meant that Germany was not quite as happy with the draft as had been
originally suggested. Fischer said that
if the Constitution was not agreed, then the Treaty of Nice would govern the
EU, and that document was not adequate for dealing with a Europe of 25. Numerous present and future EU states have
expressed criticism of the draft. Austria
and Poland have demanded substantial improvements. The Austrian foreign minister, for instance, has said that every
country should have a commissar, which is not what the draft proposes. Poland has criticised the proposed changes
in the votes each country has in the Council and Parliament: Warsaw wants to stick to what was agreed at
Nice, whereas the draft gives more weight to countries according to their
population, which profits Germany but disadvantages Spain and Poland. Poland also wants a reference to Europe’s
Christian tradition included in the document.
[Die Welt, 30th
September 2003]
Paris and the European Commission are
seeking a way out of their argument over the level of state borrowing which the
French government intends to pursue this year and next, in contravention of the
Stability Pact. But neither side has
explained yet how they intend to find a way out of their disagreement. A Commission spokesman said that France’s
planned borrowing of 3.6% of GDP in 2004 was above the level permitted by the
Maastricht rules, and that it was not compatible with the recommendations of
the EU finance ministers. But he said
that he was pleased with France’s stated intention to reduce borrowing in the
future. He added – albeit without
details – that he hoped that France would be able to bring its budget into line
with the rules. The French budget
minister has said he is still in discussion with the monetary commissar, Pedro
Solbes, about the budget: Solbes said
on 25th September that the budget plans were insufficient. He repeated his insistence that the matter
be cleared up by 3rd October.
After that date, he said that the Commission would set in motion its
excessive deficit procedure against France.
Paris is counting on growth rates of 0.5% for 2003 and 1.7% in 2004,
predictions which the Commission has said are realistic but which other
economists have said are unlikely to be achieved. According to Paris’ current plans, the deficit will not dip back
under the 3% level until 2005. [Handelsblatt, 26th
September 2003]
European Parliament calls for blood
In the Eurostat affair, calls for
commissars to take responsibility for corruption are growing louder. In a closed session on 25th
September, Romano Prodi tried to explain the Eurostat affair to MEPs. Pedro Solbes, the commissar for the economy
and the finances of the EU, is coming under ever heavier scrutiny. Eurostat comes under his direct
control. Neil Kinnock, the commissar
for institutional reform, and the budget commissar, Michaele Schreyer, are also
under pressure. On the other hand, MEPs
seemed generally to agree with the statement of the CDU deputy, Diemut Theato,
chairman of the Parliament’s budget control committee, that it was still too
soon to pass sentence on the Eurostat affair.
The same sentiment was expressed by the Green MEP, Daniel
Cohn-Bendit. Eurosceptics like the
Dane, Freddy Blak, said however that enough was known already about the
Eurostat affair to demand the resignation of Solbes. Mrs Theato said that the investigations carried out by the
budgetary control committee could be finished by the end of the year, and that
the matter could therefore be discussed in plenary session in January. She said that it would then be clear if
heads had to roll. In the session last
Thursday, Prodi confirmed that he was operating a zero tolerance policy, and he
said that the problems with Eurostat had started under the previous Commission. He said that he had learned about the
problems in Eurostat only in May, and that he had reacted immediately and
decisively. Prodi said that the
director of Eurostat, Yves Franchet, was guilty of a severe breach of trust
(even though Franchet has not been convicted of anything yet) but that the
accusations against Solbes were unfair, since he had known nothing about the
matter. The leader of the Christian
Democrat faction in the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, called on
Prodi to present a plan for proper reform of the Commission in the coming few
weeks. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 26th
September 2003]
Regional
elections in Upper Austria and Tyrol have visited severe defeats on the Freedom
Party, which used to be led by Jörg Haider until he resigned, under pressure
from the EU boycott, in the spring of 2000.
The collapse of the party’s fortunes has given rise to calls within the
party for Haider to return as leader.
Haider has said he will not take over the party again, although Austrians
have lost count of the number of times he has said this kind of thing in the
past. Haider has said that he is going
to concentrate on winning the regional elections in the state of Carinthia next
March, where he is Governor. But Haider
did not miss the chance to have a go at the Finance Minister, Karl-Heinz
Grasser, a young man who was Haider’s protégé until he led the reformist
faction which ousted Haider. He said
that Grasser was becoming “more and more of a burden for the coalition.” He said that the poor showing of the FPÖ
proved precisely what he, Haider, had always maintained, namely that the party
should have held out for a drastic tax cut.
Instead of this, it bowed to pressure from its coalition partner, the
Austrian People’s Party, and decided to leave taxes more or less
unchanged. Haider said, “I will see to
it that things go well for modest and virtuous people [i.e. the less well off],
not for those who are already comfortable.”
[Der Standard, 29th
September 2003]
The EU has
called on the coalition which occupies Iraq to put forward a “realistic
timetable” for the transfer of political power to the Iraqi people. At a meeting of EU foreign ministers in
Brussels on Monday, the ministers stressed the importance of re-establishing
Iraqi sovereignty and the creation of a representative government through
democratic elections. The ministers
added that the UN had to play “a vital role” in Iraq. The foreign affairs commissar has promised €200 million for
“reconstruction”. The USA, indeed, is
seeking to present a new UN resolution which will spread the military and
financial burden of the occupation more widely. Perhaps under pressure from the EU, or at least from some its
member states, the USA is now talking about presenting a new Iraqi constitution
in 6 months, whereas previously no timetable had been given. [Der Standard, 29th
September 2003]
Prodi planning his comeback in Italy
According to Jean Quatremer, the veteran
correspondent of Libération in Brussels, the world’s press agrees that
Romano Prodi is the worst President of the European Commission ever. The Eurostat affair, which has destroyed any
pretence that the reputation of the Prodi Commission has cleaned up the act of
its predecessor, comes after a long period in which the President himself has
seen his own authority ebb away remorselessly.
At last October’s economic summit, he literally said nothing, even
though the economy is supposed to be the Commission’s patch. The only country which is not aware of
Prodi’s terrible reputation, says Quatremer, is Italy. This is because the majority of the press is
hostile to the Berlusconi government, and sees in Romano Prodi the man who has
the greatest chances of beating him.
Prodi makes little secret of the fact that he is more interested in his
political future in Italy than in running the European Commission. His job in Brussels ends in December
2004. Three years ago, indeed, Prodi
employed a spin doctor, paid for by the Commission, whose main job seems to be
to ensure that Prodi gets favourable coverage in the Italian press. Apparently, he succeeds excellently at
this. It is also claimed that Prodi is
doing all he can to sabotage the Italian presidency, run by his future rival
Silvio Berlusconi. It is therefore also
likely that Prodi will do everything to sabotage the European Constitution, and
thus to prevent Berlusconi from having the pleasure of presiding over the
signing ceremony in Rome at the end of the year. [Jean Quatremer,
Libération, 27th September 2003]
The
parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe has again expressed its fears
that political extremism is on the rise in Europe. It says that none of the 45 member states of the organisation are
immune from the phenomenon, which is a threat to democracy. The report says that extremism is to be
found all over the European continent, but that it is particularly virulent in
Western Europe. It adds that there is
now a lot of left-wing extremism (especially within the anti-globalisation
movement) as well as right-wing extremism.
“Ultra-nationalism” is mentioned as being one example of extremism. The report says, “Right wing extremism also
finds a resonance in conventional political parties.”
The report does not mention any political
parties in particular, but it does call on European states to pass laws which
would be able to restrict the activities of, and ultimately ban, political
parties regarded as extremist. [http:/assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=http:/assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc03/EDOC9890.htm]
Commissar wants cap on net payments
The EU budget commissar, Michaele Schreyer, has said that she wants an upper limit to be placed on the amount of money net contributors to the EU budget pay in. She said the present system was unfair. The Dutch have paid 0.65% of their GDP into the EU’s coffers, the highest in the EU. Germany had paid 0.38% and Britain 0.31%. The best solution would be to establish one upper limit for all countries. This, she said, would also solve the problem of the British rebate. Schreyer said that the economic situation of Britain had changed since the rebate was negotiated and that it was time to put an end to it. [Handelsblatt, 29th September 2003]
Conspiracy theories sell well in Germany
For the last few weeks, books about the
11th September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington have been
best sellers in Germany. Now, 19% of
the German population believes that those attacks were organised by the
American Government. The main book is
“The CIA and the 11th September” by Andreas von Bülow which is now 4th
on the bestseller list: the book argues
that the CIA and Mossad were involved in the attacks. Mathias Bröckers’ book “Plots and conspiracy theories about 11th
September”, published in June last year, has sold 100,000 copies. A second book on the same theme was
published in July: the author argues
that some of the pilots of the planes might still be alive. Gerhard Wisnewski in “Operation 9/11”
expressed doubt that a plane actually crashed in Pennsylvania. The publication of these books follows the
enormous success of a similar book in France, by Thierry Meyssan, L’Effroyable
imposture which was subsequently translated into 18 different
languages. Meyssan argues that the
Americans collaborated in the attack on the twin towers in order to have a
pretext for worldwide military intervention.
[Nicolas Bourcier and
Georges Marion, Le Monde, 1st October 2003]