European Foundation Intelligence Digest

Issue No. 181                                                                                                                                                               27th November 2003

 

 


I.    Turkey and terrorism

Row about Turkey in Germany

The terrorist attacks in Turkey have provoked a row in Germany between the Government and the Christian Democrat opposition.  Wolfgang Bosbach, the vice-chairman of the CDU, said that the attacks in Turkey proved that terrorism could be imported, by which he presumably meant that the EU itself would be in danger if Turkey becomes a member.  The Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, rejected these claims but was called “infantile” in return by a leading member of the Christian Social Union.  Glos said, “Schröder obviously cannot think of any concrete reasons for admitting Turkey as a member of the EU.  To use the terrible terrorist attacks as a reason for accelerating Turkey’s membership would be to allow Al-Qaida to dictate how we act.”  The argument was provoked because the Turkish Prime Minister said that the attacks showed that Turkish membership of the EU was “even more important than ever”.  [Der Spiegel, 23rd November 2003]

 
Turkish radicals blame USA for bomb attacks

Various Islamist journalists and commentators in Turkey have suggested that the recent bomb attacks in Istanbul were the work of the CIA and Mossad.  Abdurrahman Dilipak of the Islamist daily, Varik, claims that the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, “has understood nothing” about the attacks.  Although the Prime Minister has in fact said that he is himself “not 100% sure” that they were carried out by Al-Qaida, as has been claimed. The newspaper’s headline leaves no one in any doubt about who it blames:  “Cursed be the CIA and Mossad!”  The journalist goes on to claim that Al-Qaida and the Turkish Hezbollah, as well as other groups, are “infiltrated by Western secret services and Turkish intelligence.”  Abdurrahman Dilipak is not the only person to entertain such theories:  they flourish on both the right and left in Turkey.  Faik Bulut, a well-known conspiracy theorist, says, “Al-Qaida committed these attacks, manipulated by the CIA and Mossad.  The purpose of the attacks is to bring Turkey into the global war on terror. The purpose is to prevent Turkey from seeking alliances other than that with America and Israel, and to modify her priority which, up till now, has been to prevent the creation of a Kurdish state.”  Bulut alleged that Albanians from the Kosovo Liberation Army, whom he calls “terrorists trained by the Americans” are also involved.  [Le Figaro, Libération, 24th November 2003]          On Thursday, thousands of people demonstrated in the streets of Istanbul against terrorism, but also against “Yankee imperialism” and against their country’s alliance with Israel. People carried banners saying “Killer” with pictures of Osama bin Laden, George Bush, Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon and even Mr. Erdogan.  [Yassin Musharbash, Der Spiegel, 22nd November 2003]

 

II.               Israel and EU
EU relations with Israel at low point

The foreign minister of Israel, Silvan Shalom, has travelled to Brussels to see his EU counterparts, in an effort to repair the increasingly fragile relationship between his country and the EU.  On Saturday, Shalom had said that there was a connection between the “anti-Israeli trends” in Europe and the terrorist attacks in Turkey.  He said that the sharp criticisms of his country encouraged “verbal terror” which in turn led to physical terror of the kind witnessed in Istanbul.  Prior to this, a Commission poll had shown that 59% of the population of the EU thinks that Israel is a threat to world peace.  The Israeli Government said that the way in which the question was put encouraged the answer given.  But many Europeans do think that pressure should be put on Israel, including economic sanctions.  The states which are most critical of Israel are Finland, Portugal, France, Spain, Sweden, Greece, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.  The EU transfers €10 million to the Palestinian authority every month, and the money is supposed to be used for social projects.  But Israel accuses the EU of indirectly supporting Palestinian terrorism.  The EU used the meeting to call on Israel to receive its special envoy, the Belgian Marc Otte:  since Otte met Yasser Arafat in September, the Israeli Government has refused to speak to him.  Javier Solana, the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, said the EU wanted “more cooperation and trust” from Israel.  [Katja Riddersbusch, Die Welt, 18th November 2003]

                At the end of the meeting, Mr. Shalom said, “Anti-Semitism is back. The attacks in Istanbul and Paris are not isolated incidents.  They constitute another link in the chain of global terrorism which has hit New York, Mombassa, Bali, Jerusalem, Baghdad, Casablanca and other targets.  These attacks are the symptom of a profound and growing anti-Semitism, of hostility towards Jews and their fundamental rights. When Jews can no longer pray in their synagogues, we are all in danger.”  Mr. Shalom added that Europe had a historic, moral and political obligation to fight against anti-Semitism.  In order to do this, he has suggested the creation of “an Israeli-European council of ministers” to oversee and to combat manifestations of anti-Semitism.  But the atmosphere in the meeting was said to be uneasy.  Mr. Shalom did agree, reluctantly, that the EU envoy, Marc Otte, could be received after all, although even this concession was granted only after a row between him and Javier Solana.  [Laurent Zecchini, Le Monde, 19th November 2003]

 

US calls on Euros to condemn anti-Semitism

George Bush having called on European leaders to condemn anti-Semitism firmly, in a speech given on 19th November during his state visit to Britain, a Democrat Representative, Robert Wexler, has called on European leaders to publish a report commissioned in Brussels on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.  In a letter addressed to Romano Prodi, Wexler, who is the Ranking Member on the House International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Europe, also asked European leaders to take measures immediately to combat the rising threat to European Jews.  Wexler cited a recent attack on a Jewish school in France as evidence for this rising threat.  [http://www.wexler.house.gov/press_releases/Nov_25_03.htm]

His letter follows a similar letter written to Javier Solana in July, [http://www.wexler.house.gov/press_releases/Jul_21_03.htm], as well as a similar statement about anti-Semitism by Tom Lantos, which says that there have been more anti-Semitic incidents in France and Germany than in any other country in the world.  [Le Monde, 26th November 2003]

 

Christian Democrats rally around Hohmann

More than one thousand members of the Christian Democrat party in Germany have placed an advertisement expressing their support for the beleaguered Member of the Bundestag, Martin Hohmann. Hohmann has been the subject of great controversy since he gave a speech on 3rd October, in which he discussed, among other things, German history.  The thrust of his speech was that it would be just as wrong to say that the Germans were collectively guilty for Nazism as it would be to suggest that the Jews were collectively guilty for communism.  His speech was widely interpreted as anti-Semitic.  The support initiative, called “Critical Solidarity with Martin Hohmann”, is protesting mainly against the disciplinary measures which the leadership of the CDU party has brought against Hohmann.  Its website, www.kritische-solidaritaet.de in German, contains the full text of Hohmann’s speech.  [Appeal launched in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung on 14th November 2003]

 

Fini goes to Israel

Meanwhile, the Deputy Prime Minister of Italy, Gianfranco Fini, who is the leader of the neo-fascist Alleanza Nazionale, has paid a visit to Israel, where he condemned the racial laws passed by Mussolini in 1938, the man who, in 1994, he had called the greatest statesman of the 20th century.  Fini donned a purple skullcap to visit the Yad Vashem memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, and he spoke of the duty to denounce the “shameful pages of our history”.  He said that his gesture was not so much intended to “settle accounts with the past” but “to prepare our future”.  He said, “We have to do this so it is clear to all today, in 2003, with racism and anti-Semitism, so no one can say ‘I’m not connected, it has nothing to do with me, it is not my place to respond.” Fini had meetings with the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, the Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and the Israeli President, Moshe Katzav. Israeli commentators say that the reason why Fini’s “conversion” has been finally accepted by Israel, after a long period in which the Israelis refused Mr. Fini’s advances, is that he supports the policies of the Israeli Government, including the construction of the “separation fence” which is being built along the country’s border with the Palestinian territories. [La Repubblica, Haaretz, Secolo d’Italia, 24th November 2003]


 

III.            End of Stability Pact

 

Paris and Berlin achieve victory

The Stability Pact is now a dead letter.  During a meeting held in Brussels on 24th and 25th November (it finished at 4 a.m.), the finance ministers of the eurozone agreed to suspend the procedures which had been started against France and Germany for their persistent refusal to respect the terms of the Stability Pact.  The pact now does not apply to the two biggest economies in the eurozone.  The decision follows an offensive launched by the German finance minister, Hans Eichel, who was determined not to see Germany humiliated by having sanctions imposed on it.  The irony is that it was Germany which insisted on the pact in the first place.  It even initially wanted it to be juridically obligatory, and to operate automatically.  Now it has adopted the position which France initially wanted when the pact was negotiated.  France and Germany managed only with great difficulty to achieve this result.  The decision to let them off the hook was opposed by the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and above all Spain.  The European Commission was also opposed, and its credibility is now in tatters. The commissar for monetary policy, Pedro Solbes, lost his temper and said that the conclusions of the council did not respect the spirit of the treaties and the pact.  He said that only a rule-based approach could guarantee the undertakings to which all had agreed, and treat all member states in the same way.  He called the decision “a defeat for Europe”.  Even the commissar for the budget, Michaele Schreyer, criticised the decision.  Small states are angry too. “We do not want to put our fate into the hands of the big countries,” said the Dutch finance minister Gerrit Zalm, who before the meeting had made his opposition to the Franco-German position abundantly clear.  Indeed, he had said that even the Commission’s demands did not go far enough.   [Cornelia Wolber, Die Welt, 26th November 2003]

The outcome is humiliating for the Commission because France has simply taken no notice at all of the demands made on it by Brussels.  [Arnaud Leparmentier, Le Monde, 25th November 2003]  The French Finance Minister replied to the angry commissar by saying that the decision was taken only because the economic conditions were so exceptional.  The Commission has said that it will continue to apply the pact, and that it is considering whether to appeal to the European Court of Justice.  [Libération, 25th November 2003]  By obtaining this decision, France and Germany have escaped fines of between €7.5 billion and €10 billion.  [Die Welt, 25th November 2003]

            The decision has also caused fury in the German opposition.  The Christian Democrats and Liberals said that they thought the Stability Pact had been irreparably damaged, the Commission humiliated, and the euro in danger.  The opposition alleges in particular that any hope of tax cuts has now been scuppered.  [Die Welt, 26th November 2003]

 
ECB president threatens to raise rates

The president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, threatened to raise rates if the stability pact is not respected.  In a speech given in Frankfurt on 20th November (i.e. before the decision to drop the deficit procedure against France and Germany) Trichet said, “Undisciplined budgetary policies, salary increases which go beyond increases in productivity, and tax rises undermine confidence and reduce growth in the long-term.  Such a situation could quickly lead to the build up of unwelcome inflationary pressures which would then have to be corrected by monetary policy.”  He went on to “encourage” all governments to respect the rules of the stability pact.  “By doing this, they will reduce public spending, thus favouring growth and the reduction of unproductive spending …By doing this, they will credibly reduce their public deficits which will favour growth and contribute to a lowering of interest rates over the medium and long term.”  The deficits of both France and Germany are expected to be above the permitted 3% for the third year running, as both countries are refusing to implement the recommendations of the Commission, which was demanding a reduction of €6 billion in France’s budget deficit.   [Arnaud Leparmentier, Le Monde, 21st November 2003, Die Welt, Der Spiegel, 24th November 2003]

 

IV.             Other EU news

 
France and Germany debate ‘union’

France and Germany have taken the astonishing step of suggesting that the two countries might form some sort of bilateral ‘union’ with one another.  The possibility of a “Franco-German union” was mooted during a private meeting which took place on 4th November, but which was first reported in Le Monde on 13th November. The author of the idea is the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, who mentioned it in a speech to a private think tank. He said that the time was right for France and Germany to take this decisive step forward, and that Europe was “the only bet which we cannot lose”. It is not clear yet just what such a “union” would involve;  what is clear is that the suggestion of deepening even further the link between France and Germany, forty years after the signature of the Elysée Treaty which created the Franco-German couple, comes at a time when relations between the two countries are particularly warm.  This is the consequence of the Iraq crisis.  There is also another consideration:  proposing the creation of a Franco-German union, at this critical juncture in the negotiations over the future European “constitution”, is a way of showing the other countries that France and Germany are prepared to press ahead with bilateral integration even if the constitution fails. Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the French Prime Minister, is quoted as saying, “What is there left for France if the Europe of 25 fails?  The initiative of a Franco-German rapprochement.” Raffarin said that he could “well imagine” a German commissar one day representing the interests of France in Brussels.

The idea of creating a “hard core” was first mooted in 1994 by two German politicians, Karl Lamers and Wolfgang Schäuble. Although their ideas now seem to be being re-launched, there is very little that is clear about the latest proposals. Villepin’s proposal does not seem to have contained anything really concrete, and there have not even been clear discussions between Paris and Berlin about what to do if the IGC fails. [Henri de Bresson and Arnaud Leparmentier, Le Monde, 13th November 2003]

 
Poles debate whether to stand firm

The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, has said in Warsaw that, “If there are concerns about a Franco-German hegemonial project, then we must discuss them.  People’s worries must be put on the table!”  Such worries have indeed been voiced in Poland, which is resisting the attempt, contained in the draft European constitution, to weaken the voting rights of smaller and medium-sized states and to increase those of the big states.  On 28th November, the foreign ministers of the present and future EU states are meeting to discuss these proposed changes to the system of double majority in the new constitution (“double” majority because a proposal could, according to the draft be blocked by states representing 60% of the population of the EU).  The Polish Government has received support for its position from prominent “intellectuals” in Poland, who are in the habit of writing open letters on matters of public policy, just as was common in the communist times.  Among 300 “intellectuals” to support Warsaw’s position, the former foreign minister Wladyslaw Bartoszewski and the newspaper editor Adam Michnik have said that the Convention used “undemocratic methods” to arrive at the new proposed voting arrangements.  They say that the new system will widen the democratic deficit and go on, “There is with some governments, above all France and Germany, less and less readiness to build a coherent Europe of solidarity.”  The signatories also call for an inclusion in the preamble of a reference to the Christian heritage of Europe, which they say is not a reference to the Catholic Church but simply to historical truth. Such a reference has been opposed mainly by France.  [Gerhard Gnauck, Die Welt, 21st November 2003]

 

Parliament sceptical about Prodi’s action plan

The President of the European Commission has presented the Commission’s “action plan” to fight against corruption in the wake of the Eurostat affair.  It was very poorly received by the European Parliament.  “Nothing new,” grumbled one MEP.  Another MEP, Diemut Theato, has said that Prodi’s action plan consists merely in setting up new committees – “too many”, she says.  She says that the Parliament will not tolerate Prodi’s proposal to take investigations into Commission officials out of the hands of Olaf, the anti-corruption unit, and conduct enquiries internally instead.  The Austrian Social Democrat MEP, Herbert Bösch, has said that the proposed reform will only make matters worse, as cases of suspected corruption will henceforth be investigated behind closed doors.  Olaf was created in 1999 after the collapse of the Santer commission – on corruption charges.  The office is structurally part of the Commission, but it operates independently of it.  Scepticism about Mr. Prodi’s action plan has also been heightened because the president of the European Court of Accounts, Juan Manuel Fabra-Vallés, has said that the auditors indicated in 1993, 1998 and 1999 that there were “problems” with CESD, one of the companies at the centre of the corruption allegations about Eurostat.  The agency is accused of having awarded fictitious contracts since 1989, the money being paid into secret bank accounts which the employees then used to finance personal costs like holidays, cocktail parties and a volleyball team.  Estimates for the total amount of money stolen range from