European Foundation Intelligence Digest

Issue No. 160                                                                                                  		                                   	6th February 2003

I.  America drops Europe

Pentagon blasts France and Germany
In two extraordinary statements, the US Defense Secretary and one of his most powerful advisers have attacked France and Germany.  Donald Rumsfeld put Germany in the same category as two rogue states when he said, “I think that Libya, Cuba and Germany are countries which have indicated that they would not help” (with the attack on Iraq).  It was, of course, Rumsfeld who had dismissed the Franco-German opposition to war on Iraq as representing “the old Europe”.  Meanwhile, the US ambassador to Germany, Daniel Coats, accused the German government of undermining the international effort against Iraq.  “At a critical point of the whole process, a few days before the Blix report at the end of January, when pressure on Saddam Hussein to fulfil the UN Resolutions was at its highest, precisely at that point the Franco-German declaration undermined these efforts,” Coats told the Berliner Zeitung.  He also accused France and Germany of making war more likely by their attitude.  [Handelsblatt, 6th February 2003]
	Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Pentagon’s Policy Advisory Board, Richard Perle, said that France was no longer an ally of the United States.  He referred to France as “an erstwhile ally” which the United States had henceforth “to develop a strategy to contain”.  He said that if the US did not develop such a strategy, then “we will not be talking about a NATO alliance”.  Mr. Perle also dismissed Germany’s position as having been adopted by “a discredited chancellor”, recalling his statement on 1st October 2002 [Handelsblatt] that Gerhard Schröder should resign to restore the US-German relationship.  But his main fire was directed at France:  “France is no longer the ally it once was,” he told a public seminar organised by a PR firm in New York.  He accused Jacques Chirac of believing “deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor”.  Perle went on, “I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world. That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people.  Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France.  But in the German case, the behaviour of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism (sic!) and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained. Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium." Perle also said that the US should not again seek the endorsement of the UN Security Council, because this meant subjecting US policy to “a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests.”  [Martin Walker, United Press International, 4th February 2003]

Common EU foreign policy dead on arrival
Tony Blair’s open letter, signed with seven other EU and East European leaders, has annoyed other EU leaders intensely.  The unhappiness over the letter goes far deeper than has been made public, according to reports.  It is being whispered darkly that José-Maria Aznár, Silvio Berlusconi and Tony Blair might have violated the terms of the EU treaties, which require that no EU state undermine the common external position of the EU, and that no one work against “the interests of the Union”.  Like the other heads of state and government countries which did not sign the letter, the Greek prime minister – who is currently president of the Council - was neither asked nor even informed about the preparation of the text.  This has caused especial annoyance.  The EU foreign ministers had, moreover, agreed a common position on Iraq only two days before the letter was published.  This might mean, according to EU legal experts, that the government leaders who signed the letter were clearly in breach of their obligations under the terms of the treaty.  The special summit might therefore be turned into a “Star Chamber” for Tony and the other miscreants.  Few EU governments believe that the decision to sign the letter was as sudden as has been claimed:  there are signs that it may have been planned around 19th January, just as France and Germany were announcing their Schulterschluß on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty.  In the Czech Republic, the former president Václav Havel has also come under criticism for signing the document, with only days before he left Prague Castle and without the approval of the government.  Reports make it clear that the government was contacted by the American embassy, and that Havel’s signature was solicited when the response was negative.  Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, has warned against “pitting one Europe against another”; Austria’s foreign minister also said she regretted the letter, because it showed Europe to be split.  Elmar Brok, the Christian Democrat MEP, called the letter “a race between vassals”  [Andreas Middel, Die Welt, 1st February 2003]
	Luxembourg’s prime minister called the letter “highly regrettable and divisive”.  He said that any government which could not co-ordinate such an action with the other EU states was obviously not fit “to fulfil future tasks in the EU”:  this was a clear reference to José-Maria Aznar’s well-known desire to be the “president of Europe”.  Juncker also said that the eight signatory states had helped neither European unity nor transatlantic relations.  Commentators have also remarked on the fact, however, that France and Germany regularly take initiatives without consulting other countries, and that they are now merely getting a taste of their own medicine.  Other Brussels sources say that they do not believe the alliance of the eight will hold together, even though some people find some of the East European states to be “more American than the Americans”.  [Andreas Middel & Nikolaus Blome, Die Welt, 31st January 2003]
	Germany has therefore denied that it or the Franco-German axis is isolated as a result of the letter.  A government spokesman even tried to show that the letter emphasised certain points with which the German government was in agreement, such as the need to respect UNSC resolution 1441 and the call on Iraq to co-operate with it.  France too tried to put a brave face on matters by saying that there was much in the open letter with which it could agree.  But it is obvious that the letter, which seems to have put the transatlantic relationship above European unity, has done immense damage. [Die Welt, 31st January 2003]

II.	Other EU news – most of it bad

“Catastrophic” German unemployment figures The latest German unemployment figures, 4.623 million, are even worse than expected.  People are now wondering whether the figure might reach 5 million before the year is out. This latest figure represents a drastic increase of 398,000 in January.  The government had expected the figures to remain at the already high figure of 4.2 million.  But now the rate has risen from 10.1% to 11.1%.  This is the highest January figure for five years.  These are seasonally unadjusted figures but the adjusted ones are just as bad.  January is usually a bad month because people are sacked in December.  But the seasonally adjusted figure rose by 62,000 to 4.274 million.  Analysts had expected the seasonally adjusted figure to be only 29,000.  Economists said the new figures were “catastrophic”.  Some said that these figures would increase the pressure for reform.  But the high unemployment will also affect consumption and domestic demand.  The highest increases in unemployment have been in East Germany, where joblessness rose 280,000 to 1.725 million, which represents an unemployment rate of 19.5%.  The rate in the West is 8.8%.  Admittedly some of the rise in the figures for East Germany is explained by the fact that Berlin is now counted in the East German figures for the first time.   [Handelsblatt, 4th February 2003]

Prosecutor demands conviction of Trichet
The chances that the present Governor of the Bank of France, Jean-Claude Trichet, will become the next president of the European Central Bank took a knock when the prosecution in the Crédit Lyonnais trial demanded his conviction for fraud.  Trichet was the head of the French treasury at the time when it is alleged that the bank’s massive losses were being covered up.  The prosecutor demanded a sentence of 10 months in prison.  The prosecutor said that the people in charge of cooking the books were no amateurs and that the Treasury must have known what was going on.  A judgement is expected in April.  The Austrian Finance Minister, Karl-Heinz Grasser, said, “Trichet can be a candidate for the ECB only if it is shown that he has not been involved in any criminal activity.”  [Handelsblatt, 6th February 2003]

Poles might prove awkward
With five months to go before Poland’s referendum on 8th June on whether to join the EU, the final stages of Poland’s accession are not going well.  There has been disagreement between Warsaw and Brussels about what was signed at the Copenhagen summit, with EU officials categorically rejecting any sense that the agreement can now be changed.  Then there has been an even more categorical rebuff for Poland’s last-minute request for a special protocol to be inserted into the treaty protecting Poland’s right to have her own abortion laws:  the EU has refused to include such a provision at this late stage, even though it is likely to excite much anti-European feeling and been exploited by the anti-EU forces.  Moreover – and perhaps most seriously – a recent poll in Rzeczppospolita has shown that only 51% of Poles intend to participate in the referendum at all.  The No camp is encouraging people to abstain, because if the turnout is below 50% then the result of the referendum will be invalidated.  All this is grist to the mill of the most fervently anti-EU political party in Poland, the League of Polish Families.  Roman Giertych, its young leader, says, “This is nothing more or less than a true war for the future of Poland, for the referendum will decide on the fate of Poles for decades to come.”  The League, which won 1,300 seats in the local elections in November, has said that it is going to recruit 200,000 volunteers to campaign on doorsteps.  “We have no chance of winning via the media, which are all controlled by the government, says Giertych, 32.  The League has, however, submitted a political broadcast to the minister in charge of the referendum campaign, asking that it be shown after the broadcasts by the state office for European integration.  In it, the League claims that prices will rise sharply when Poland joins the EU:  by 30% for milk, 43% for bread, 42% for eggs, 120% for medicines, and so on.  Giertych insists that the government’s role is to ensure a fair presentation of the case against the EU:  “If the government rejects our broadcasts, then we will suggest to our voters to think hard before paying the bill later.”  The League also campaigns on moral issues, against abortion and homosexual marriage.  Giertych’s message is also anti-German:  “For centuries,” he says, “France was our ally against Germany but now she is contributing to her power.  The structures of the EU are organised so that Germany gets to decide on everything.”  He complains that 90% of the local press in the Western parts of Poland, which used to be Germany before the war, now belong to Germans.  He also claims that the Germans will buy up agricultural land (which is already happening).  [Libération, 2nd February 2003]  The other – indeed, larger - anti-EU grouping in Poland is Self-Defence, run by Andrzej Lepper.  Like the League, it campaigns on agricultural issues and against dumped EU imports.  On 4th February 3,000 farmers staged a second day of road blockades, halting traffic in 30 locations.  Police used force to break up the demonstrations.  The farmers demanded higher subsidies for farm produce, as well as “honest information” from the government about EU accession. [Radio Free Europe Newsline, 5th February 2003]

Sweden prepares to vote on euro
Another country which might prove awkward is Sweden, which votes on the euro on 14th September.  By law, Sweden should not have the choice on whether or not to join the euro, because, unlike Britain and Denmark, she negotiated no opt-outs from the Maastricht treaty.  But she never joined and her anomalous legal situation has been simply accepted.  The Social Democrat government is, of course, in favour; but Social Democrat party members are very divided.  Dissent is even voiced by the deputy prime minister and the minister for economics.  The polls indicate that it will be very close.  On the No side, there is the Green Party and the Left Party (communist).  For such people, the euro is undesirable because they fear it will destroy the Swedish social model.  One of them, Lars Ohly, says, “The economic policies taken within economic and monetary union are right-wing:  lower taxes, less welfare state.”  Economists, including some on the right, have also been wheeled out on TV to explain why it is better to keep the crown.  Their arguments have force, because Sweden has done relatively well economically since the euro was introduced.  [Antoine Jacob, Libération, 3rd February 2003]

And Finland debates NATO
Some 80% of Finns want to remain neutral:  they have a 1,300 km border with Russia and are afraid of upsetting Moscow.  Finland’s neighbour, Sweden, also remains neutral.  But people in Finland are starting to call for a change to the status quo, especially as NATO extends eastwards to include the Baltic States.  George Robertson went to Helsinki on 30th January on a “fact-finding mission”.  The debate was kicked off by the ardent plea for NATO membership by the country’s former president, Martti Ahtisaari, last November.  The prime minister refuses to say where he stands but he says he is happy that the debate has been opened.  The Iraqi crisis has not helped the pro-NATO cause:  Finns see the Alliance as dominated by the United States, and there is considerable opposition to an attack against Iraq.  Nothing is due to happen until next year, when a report is due to be published on Finland’s defence needs by whichever government wins the election in March.  [Antoine Jacob, Le Monde, 31st January 2003]

The Belgian empire
The Belgian senate has adopted two texts in an attempt to clarify what is meant by the “universal competence” of Belgian jurisdiction which enabled four Rwandans to be convicted in a Belgian court for acts committed in their own country.  When it was introduced, the law gave rise to a host of suits against various heads of state, including the former foreign minister of Belgium’s former colony, the Congo, Ariel Sharon, and Fidel Castro.  The first of these cases was smartly dismissed by the International Court of Justice at The Hague, which stated that international law does not allow the acts of foreign heads of state, or of ministers in foreign governments, to be subject to the jurisdiction of other states.  Those cases were then defeated, including the ones against Ariel Sharon for his role in the massacres at Sabra and Chatila in 1982.  On three occasions, judges in Brussels ruled that the law could apply only if the defendant happened to be on Belgian territory.  This greatly reduced the original intention of the law, which had been that Belgian courts could demand the trial of whomever they liked.  Now the Senate has adopted texts to clarify the intention of the law.  The issue has sharply divided the government.  The interpretative law now passed by the Senate says that the defendant does not have to be in Belgium for the case to be admissible.  The original 1993 text had omitted to make this clear.  The new text applies retroactively, which means that it will affect cases that are currently being considered.  The Israeli foreign ministry has indicated that it thinks that this is all a political way of keeping up the pressure on Ariel Sharon, while the American government has also expressed its concerns on several occasions.  On 12th February, the Court of Cassation is due to say whether or not it thinks that Mr. Sharon can or cannot stand trial in Belgium.  According to Le Monde, it is highly unlikely that the ruling will go against Mr. Sharon.  Instead, the judges are likely to invoke the customary international extradition law, which would make it impossible for the courts to demand Mr. Sharon’s presence.  [Jean-Pierre Stroobants, Le Monde, 29th January 2003]

“Lame duck” Nice treaty enters into force
That is how Libération describes the treaty which the Irish were forced to vote twice on, and which no other country was allowed a referendum on.  The unwieldy and unloved treaty will only last a few years, anyway, because the Constitution is supposed to enter into force in 2005.  In keeping with the treaty’s Byzantine complexity, it will in fact enter into force in stages.  Most of its provisions came into force on 1st February.  But not until 1st November 2004 will the five “big” states (including Britain) lose their second commissar.  Meanwhile, the provisions which increase the number of MEPs from 626 to 732 will enter into force at the European elections in June 2004.  According to one commentator, the Nice treaty manages to increase the power of small states whereas in fact it was supposed to do precisely the opposite.  For six months the European Commission will have 30 commissars; from 1st November 2004, each country will have only one commissar, which will bring the number down to 22 (assuming all seven new member states join in 2003).  This means that the six biggest states, which make up 70% of the population, will have the same number of commissars as the countries which make up 1% of the population. The new European Parliament will have 732 members, even though the EU fixed the upper limit for MEPs at 700 in the previous treaty, signed at Amsterdam.  Here again, the small countries gain while the big countries lose:  France, Britain, Italy and Spain will see the numbers of their MEPs reduced from 87 to 78, and again to 72 when Bulgaria and Romania join.  Germany gets to keep all 99 of her MEPs.  So a French MEP will represent 700,000 people while a Portuguese one will represent 454,000 and an Estonian only 241,000.  This will translate into a loss of power for the big states, because the role of the Parliament will be reinforced.  Finally, in the Council of Ministers, Germany’s role is reinforced because any country can demand that the qualified majority represent 62% of the population.  Since Germany is the most populous country, this gives her a predominant role.  The equality between the big states is broken for the first time.  Needless to say, Nice extends majority voting to several new domains.  [Jean Quatremer, Libération, 3rd February 2003] 

Serbia wants to send its forces back into Kosovo
Following the formal dissolution of Yugoslavia, the Serbian prime minister, Zoran Djindjić, has asked NATO to allow Yugoslavia to deploy 1,000 soldiers in Kosovo.  In a letter to the NATO commander for South-Eastern Europe, Admiral Gregory Johnson, Mr. Djindjić reminded NATO that this was in keeping with the UN resolution passed at the end of the Kosovo war in June 1999.  “I therefore request that, in conformity with your mandate for a rapid fulfilment of the terms of UN Resolution 1244, you provide for the return of up to 1,000 security forces from the mother country (i.e. Serbia).”  Djindjić also requested that NATO continue to respect Serbian and Yugoslav sovereignty over the province.  [Der Standard, 2nd February 2003]
	Meanwhile, the Albanian government in Kosovo has lodged an official protest with the UN Security Council at the fact that Kosovo has been included in the constitutional charter signed between Serbia and Montenegro.  This agreement is to create a loose federation between the two republics, and to drop the word “Yugoslavia” from the country name.  The Albanian government has called the inclusion of Kosovo in this new state “a provocation against peace and against the democratic process in the region.”  Kosovo is mentioned in the charter as one of the two autonomous provinces of Serbia, the other being Vojvodina.  It is defined as “part of Serbia, currently under UN administration”.  [Der Standard, 31st January 2003]

Published by The European Foundation, 62, Brompton Road, London SW3 1BL
Tel. + 44 20 7590 9901, fax 7590 9975, euro.foundation@e-f.org.uk