What conclusions should we draw from Germany's abstention on no-fly zone?

Last night's UN resolution authorising the creation and enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, and Germany's abstention in the Security Council's vote in particular, is stirring quite a debate.

Iain Dale has been quick to denounce the German abstention as "shameful" and an act of "cowardice".

The Spectator's Alex Massie has countered that:

Having doubts is not shameful and I don't see why we are supposed to think that Germany should have supported the resolution simply because Britain, France and other countries were doing so.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but if sovereignty means anything it must permit sovereign, friendly nations to disagree on matters of major international importance. (And if the Germans are bad europeans for preventing a common EU approach doesn't that just mean they're fulfilling the traditional British role? Which in turn means they must, from the eurosceptic position, be the Good Guys in this instance.)

Germany's aloofness when it comes to matters of foreign policy and military action can be extremely frustrating. Take its unwillingness to get fully involved in Afghanistan, despite providing the third largest contingent of NATO troops, as an example. The legacy of the Second World War still looms large in the German psyche and that is somewhat understandable.

But, whatever one's views about the merits of Germany's perceived pacifism, Massie makes surely the most important point: that countries should be free to make up their own minds and, if they disagree with each other, so be it.

The real problems arise when you try to force these different views through the funnel/sausage machine that is the EU in the hope of a single common position.

At last week's summit, we should remember, it was Germany that blocked EU endorsement of a no-fly zone. This, in the words of the Independent, left France and the UK "isolated" in their call for intervention. This was, of course, nonsense because, as we have seen, it was never going to be the EU that decided on the use of force. The Franco-British defence pact, agreed last year outside the auspices of the EU, was an admission - however small - on the part of France that to get things done militarily, the EU is just too slow, indecisive and unwieldy.

And it was the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that today noted "the tensions in foreign policy between France and Germany are remarkable," adding that the lack of Franco-German consensus was "paralysing the EU".

The Franco-German relationship will always be the most important in the EU (they share a border, a turbulent history and the same currency), but on more and more issues, be it defence or the future of the euro, as France and Germany get up close and personal, the more they start to grate with each other. The FAZ article started by noting that newly appointed French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe's first visit to Berlin was cancelled, albeit with the "plausible excuse" that he had to fly to the UN in New York.

Alright, it's only in one area, and hopefully it won't come to the use of force, but if France begins to see the benefits of a flexible approach to European cooperation, sometimes outside the EU, this could prove to be important in breaking down the EU's monolithic approach to many other issues.

Lowest common denominator

EU leaders - still visibly split - have just agreed on a trade-marked "least common denominator" statement on Libya, following today's summit in Brussels. Speaking at the end of the summit, David Cameron said that the EU's 27 leaders were "united, categorical and crystal-clear" that Gaddafi had to go - which is a welcome statement (Gaddafi is a maniac after all) but not much different to what the EU leaders who matter had already called for.

In terms of substance, EU leaders agreed new sanctions against financial institutions linked to the Gaddafi family, adding the Libyan Central Bank and Libyan Investment Authority to the EU asset-freezing list. It also agreed that "contingency planning" involving "all options" should continue, in case Gaddafi and his LSE-educated son, continue to act crazy.

The communique didn't refer to a no-fly zone, however, despite Nicolas Sarkozy calling for "defensive" and "limited" air strikes - something he said he had British support for.

Before the summit, Sarko said,

"We the French and the Britons have given our availability – under the explicit condition that the United Nations want it, the Arab League agrees to it and the Libyan Authorities that we want to be recognised wish it – to carry out targeted, purely defensive actions, and only in the event that Mr. Gaddafi used chemical weapons or the aviation against people who are demonstrating without violence."

The reluctance of other leaders to subscribe to this reasoning means that the UK and France were sidestepped on this point. The EU remains all over the place on a no-fly zone (and France still stands alone in recognizing the Libyan opposition).

This also appears to be the first time that Cameron has openly clashed with EU 'foreign minister' Cathy Ashton, who according to PA, is now warning against a no-fly zone. An EU diplomat is quoted saying:

The efficiency of a no-fly zone is very questionable. Apart from anything else, European command and control facilities would not be able to get a no-fly zone up and running in less than five or six weeks, and Nato is suggesting it would take at least three to four weeks.

All of this is of course being played down by Downing Street.

That the EU's two most credible military powers and only permanent members of the UN security council are seemingly at odds with the other 25 member states illustrates the limitations on the EU's foreign policy ambitions. Although a no-fly zone would almost certainly require US approval and firepower, in Europe, the UK and France are the only game in town if things get really nasty. But still, everyone must be included, no one left out.

Today's meeting was all about EU self-assurance and will have little bearing on on how things turn out on the ground.

ECB Presidency: Now what?

Axel Weber's elevation to President of the European Central Bank was long seen as a mere formality - a natural step towards the realisation of a"German-speaking euro". So reports in today took plenty of people by surprise, including Chancellor Merkel and the markets. Apparently, the Governor of the German Bundesbank has decided to pull out of the race because, in the words of a European official quoted by the WSJ, he has "other plans". Some papers suggest that these plans could involve a top job at Deutsche Bank.

The situation is somewhat confused. According to Bundesbank sources, Weber might still want to run for ECB-President. Weber himself has said he will not make any comments until he discusses the issue with Merkel. But our guess is that Weber has thrown in the towel.

First, Weber doesn't have lots of friends in the eurozone's "periphery" countries. He's a fierce (and vocal) opponent of the ECB's purchases of junk bonds from Greece, Ireland & Co. And he's probably keen on raising interest rates to curb inflation, because, at the end of the day, this is what the ECB is there for. But such a policy would be poison for vulnerable economies in the eurozone, that are trying bounce back from the economic downturn.

Germany may also have decided that sacrificing Weber's ECB Presidency was a price worth paying in return for France's backing for the "pact for competitiveness".

So now what? Merkel is said to be lacking a "plan B". The only viable alternative would be Klaus Regling, the chairman of the European Financial Stability Facility, but he has no intention of quitting his current post.

Sarkozy would presumably be quite keen to replace Trichet with Christian Noyer, the Governor of the French Central Bank. Or maybe with IMF Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn (simultaneously neutralising a possible rival in next year's French Presidential elections). But nationality matters, and it's very unlikely that another Frenchman is appointed in place of Trichet.

Italy's Mario Draghi has therefore emerged as the strongest contender. He has been doing a decent job in protecting Italian banks from the crisis, and his international reputation as Chairman of the Financial Stability Board is up to scratch. He's also considered more diplomatic than the hawkish Weber.

However, his previous position at Goldman Sachs could prove to be an obstacle. In addition, as ECB President Draghi would also chair the European Systemic Risk Board, the new EU watchdog in charge of macro-prudential supervision. But Italy has already secured the chairmanship of the European Banking Authority (Andrea Enria). There are four new financial supervisors in the EU, and giving two of the chairman positions to Italy might prove too much, especially as the UK, Germany and France got none.

The situation remains fluid, in other words. Trichet is leaving the Eurotower in October and what's clear is that the eurozone can hardly afford a row over his successor.

Saying 'Nein' To Angie - Part II

We've already looked at the reaction from some of the European press to the Franco-German "pact for competitiveness". But what about European leaders? Well, as has been widely reported, Paris and Berlin may find it a bit more difficult than usual to get their way.

Possibly the toughest reaction came from non-euro member Poland, whose PM Donald Tusk "personally attacked" German Chancellor Angela Merkel and expressed “fundamental doubts” about her plans, according to Spiegel. Going all out, he added:

Why do you have to demonstrate a division? Are the rest of us standing in your way?

Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme said on his arrival at Friday's summit that he was "absolutely not in agreement" with the idea of scrapping the link between pay rises and inflation, and warned,

We will not allow our social model to be undone.

Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker concurred,

I can't really find a reason why abolishing the indexation of wages should improve the competitiveness of my country or the euro area.

Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann, a known supporter of German-style fiscal discipline, bluntly stated,

I don't even think it's possible that the EU sets the retirement age.

Predictably, Greece also voiced its disapproval, not quite appreciating the idea of a constitutional limit to government borrowing - the already infamous "debt brake". In an interview with Ta Nea, Greek Deputy Prime Minister Theodoros Pangalos said,

I categorically reject the thought of an EU decision to intervene in national constitutions. The idea that this would be a precondition for being a part of the German rescue plan is not attractive to me.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy will now try to find a compromise, suitable to all eurozone leaders. An extra eurozone summit is planned, possibly for March 11, then the aim is to have a deal ready at the EU summit by the end of March.

Bonne Chance.

Saying 'Nein' To Angie

Last week's EU summit, saw the Franco-German "pact for competitiveness" - a raft of proposed rules on wages, pensions, spending and taxation to strenghten discipline in the eurozone - run into some serious opposition. Not surprising given that the plan effectively demanded that permanent, cast-iron rules, rather than votes in democratically elected national parliaments, determine key policies on spending, taxation and pensions across the eurozone.

Mariano Rajoy, leader of the Spanish opposition Partido Popular, summarised the underlying problem: “As a Spaniard, I don’t like to be told what I have to do by outsiders”.

Both the content (such as breaking the link between wages and inflation) and the process (France and Germany hammering out a deal behind closed doors with little input from anyone else) caused plenty of mutters from the other EU leaders.

The Merkel-dominated plan would lay down the new economic rules in exchange for injecting more money into the eurozone's rescue fund, but is now unlikely to be adopted in full.

Here is a round-up of what the press in the so-called 'peripheral' eurozone countries - the politically correct epithet for PIIGS - said last week about Iron Angie's ultimatim.

An article in Greek left-liberal newspaper To Ethnos argued,

The way in which decisions are being forced through in the states of the Eurozone and EU nowadays is nothing short of a coup d' état. One may or may not agree with Merkel's proposals [...] But what is absolutely unacceptable is this method of foisting these measures on the states.

In Spain, an editorial in El País criticised plans to keep salary increases below the level of inflation and argued,

The Spanish economy needs to change its growth pattern; save more and increase productivity. To achieve this, many changes are needed, and one can also discuss what Merkel proposes. But in the end, each country must choose its own formula to boost productivity.

Another Spanish daily, La Vanguardia, simply stated,

[A common] European economic policy is running. Angela Merkel is driving it.

An article in Italy's top financial newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore noted,

If all goes well, the Franco-German pact for growth and competitiveness will not make any mention of imbalance corrections for countries running excessive trade surpluses: no mention of the fact that Germany might be forced to boost its internal demand to favour growth in the rest of Europe. However, a blueprint will be provided for the gradual Germanisation of Europe [...] In other words, the European economic government always invoked by France, but all in German sauce [...] Will other eurozone countries follow? Bets are open, but if they want to stay in the euro area they will not have much choice.

In Le Figaro, Chief International Economy reporter Alexandrine Bouilhet described the Franco-German proposal as the “tree hiding the forest” , arguing,

The markets listen to it with only half an ear, not to say that they are indifferent. They are only waiting for one thing: fresh money on the table to avoid a Spanish collapse. The rest is nothing but political window-dressing made of promises that only bind those who made them…”

Chapeau!

Je T'Aime... Moi Non Plus

Lofty plans for aligning France's and Germany's economic policies are nothing new. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is particularly excited about the idea.

But what do people in both countries think of the prospect of becoming more like eachother? Today's Le Monde features a new survey carried out by French Institute IFOP on behalf of a German and a French think-tank.

It gives an answer that Sarko - and a big chunk of the EU elite - probably don't want to hear. According to the poll, only 18% of Germans think that their country should consider France its "privileged partner". On their part, only 31% of French think Germany should be considered the same.

And there's more. Only 44% of Germans agree that their country should coordinate more of its economic policies with other eurozone countries, compared to 65% of the French. Unsurprisingly, French and Germans aren't exactly on the same wavelength when it comes to the role of the ECB. 69% of Germans say that the ECB should focus its efforts on "combating inflation and price increases", while 51% of French think that it should act to "spur economic growth". That discrepancy goes to the very heart of the eurozone's problems (one-size-doesn't-fit-all).

In other words, not a good place to start for two countries which are trying to show the eurozone that greater harmonisation of economic policies is both achievable and desirable...

We can't help but to recall what French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde recently said on BBC Newsnight. When asked whether people had ever voted in favour of greater harmonisation of economic policies in the eurozone, she replied:

The European project has been around for over fifty years and it was built on the back of a situation where people were at war […] The European project is something we all believe in because we want peace to be maintained.

Eh, was that really the question?

Instead of reverting back to their default Kum-bay-ya mode when faced with economic and democratic reality, Lagarde and the others would do well in pondering these poll results. After all, reality will catch up with them sooner or later.

Double Standards & Flexible Principles

The row between the French government and the European Commission over the repatriations of Roma people has reawakened the debate about immigration policies, solidarity and racism. The topic is extremely complex, and some of the main questions could remain unanswered for a long time.

But the recent quarrel has also shown how the French government is guilty of double standards when it comes to respecting "European principles".

As we argue in this letter to European Voice today, for years France has lectured other member states on the need for "European solidarity" and to keep up the image of a happy family. However, now that it is accused of violating several key EU laws, the French government suddenly seems much less keen to abide by the principles it used to preach.

But Sarkozy is not the only one who has displayed the symptoms of "EU-hypocrisy" lately. As Dutch MEP Derk-Jan Eppink revealed during the last plenary session of the European Parliament, in 2002 Belgium was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights because, three years before, 74 Roma people had been "collectively expelled" and deported to Slovakia. And guess who the Belgian Prime Minister was at the time? None other than Liberal MEP Guy Verhofstadt (shaking hands with Sarkozy in the picture), the staunchest defender of euro-federalism and "European values".

Indeed, only last week, Verhofstadt was quick to join the rest of the European Parliament in condemning the French policy. He said,

"The reaction from several French government ministers to our criticism is regrettable. This is not a question of political diktat but an appeal to a better sense of judgement based on commonly shared European values for tolerance, non-discrimination and respect for free movement. The Roma are European citizens just like any other."

"Parliament this week was perfectly entitled to point out that bribing or forcing one ethnic group to return, en masse, to another member state, is not in conformity with EU laws, nor in the spirit of the treaties."

It's worth watching the video below right to the end of Eppink's speech. The look on Verhofstadt's face is a picture.

As Bitter As Bile

It has been labelled in all manner of different terms: "a violent clash", "a virile confrontation", "a furious row". But today's Le Monde finally sheds a little light on what Sarkozy and Barroso told each other during their squabble over the Roma deportations at last week's EU summit.

The paper has published a transcript of the row, under a new headline: "A lunch as bitter as bile in Brussels". Unfortunately for our French-speaking readers, we aren't able to provide a link, as the article is only available to subscribers of Le Monde's website. However, we provide some of the more juicy excerpts below. (Only thing to bear in mind is that the transcript has been put together thanks to the contribution of several witnesses - both direct and indirect - and therefore might not always reflect what was said verbatim.)

With no further comments needed from us, we step aside and leave the stage to the protagonists:

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy: "Nicolas [Sarkozy] has asked me to give him the possibility to make some remarks on a current issue. Indeed, I leave him the floor".

French President Nicolas Sarkozy: "I have the highest respect for the [European] Commission. I have done a lot for it. I have done a lot for the Commission and to bring France back to the heart of Europe [...] It's normal for the Commission to investigate. But before any investigation, one of the Commission's Vice-Presidents [Sarko obviously referring here to Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding] has used expressions like 'disgusting', 'disgrace', 'Second World War'. These are words I can't accept. I don't say that the Commission is disgusting [...] I've come here only because she [Ms. Reding] has apologised. I had told [Commission President] Barroso that I would not come if she didn't apologise".

Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso: "The substance and the form [of Reding's declarations] are two separate issues. We have rules against discrimination, and it's the role of the Commission to defend them [...] The Commission has distanced itself from Viviane's statement. She has said that she regrets the interpretation which has been made of her declarations".

Sarkozy (interrupting Barroso): "The interpretation?! It's not for this that she had to apologise, but for saying that [France's Roma policy] is 'disgusting'".

Barroso (keeping his cool): "I understand Mr. Sarkozy's emotion [...] Ms. Reding has said that she regretted her statement. I note that the French Secretary of State for European affairs has not done the same".

A quick footnote is needed here. French Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche had replied to Viviane Reding saying that according to him the French people were the real guardian of the EU Treaties, rather than the European Commission.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi: "We need to withdraw speaking rights for Commissioners and their staff. Only Barroso must be allowed to speak [in public]".

German Chancellor Angela Merkel: "We need to convey an image of serenity at the end of the summit. We need to avoid using certain expressions".

At this stage, the Cavaliere's interruption and Iron Angie's words of wisdom might have calmed the atmosphere. But not quite. Sarko insists that he wants his counterparts to adopt a common position on the Roma issue, specifying that the Commission has the right to ensure the respect of EU law, but member states have the final word on the measures to address the question. Barroso loses his patience.

Barroso: "These pressures must stop [...] The Commission must be allowed to do its job. Otherwise, we will not have the kind of Europe we want. The European Court of Justice will have the final word".

Sarkozy: "We can't say that the Commission will refer the matter to the Court. There has to be an investigation before. By the way, I have to pay tribute to Jean-Claude Juncker [Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Ms. Reding's home country], who has urged this lady to apologise".

Sarko avoids calling Ms. Reding by name...

Luxembourgish Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker (trying to mediate): "Ms. Reding should not have talked the way she did. Nicolas should not exaggerate, though. It's only by chance that she was born in Luxembourg".

Barroso (interrupting Juncker): "But it was you who appointed her [as EU Commissioner representing Luxembourg]. Three times!"

Juncker: "Yes, but at your request..."

Sarkozy: "Let Van Rompuy speak".

Van Rompuy reminds the EU leaders that journalists from all over Europe are waiting outside and proposes to draft some conclusions to settle the matter, at least for the moment. Barroso tries to set his own conditions.

Barroso: "We will not target a specific Commissioner. Otherwise, we will also refer to other people".

French Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche obviously springs to mind...

Sarkozy: "Barroso can't tell us what to say!"

Barroso: "I've the right to express my opinion, because I'm a member of the European Council myself. And I even have a special statute [...] We have done everything to help you with the European Parliament, which is furious on this issue. Let's not turn all this in an institutional quarrel. That would be excessive".

Berlusconi: "We need to silence the Commissioners!"

And the row reportedly terminates here, with Chancellor Merkel suggesting they move on to a different topic.

Keeping the dream alive

One of the more interesting aspects of EU politics at the moment is the crumbling Franco-German axis. The frictions between Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel – which are well documented by now - defined today’s EU summit in many ways .

As we outline in a new report published yesterday, Sarkozy wants an ‘economic government’ for the 16 eurozone members (meaning more influence over the ECB and possibilities to put pressure on Germany to stimulate domestic demand), while Merkel is pushing for tougher budgetary rules, backed by sanctions, but want them done primarily at the level of all 27 member states - fearing the politicisation of monetary policy if France gets its way.

Both the French and the German press seem to agree that Merkel now has the upper hand – and the conclusions from today’s Summit bears the Chancellor’s fingerprints.

Sarkozy and Merkel seemed to reach an uneasy – and just about face-saving – compromise earlier in the week, saying that “The natural frame for economic governance is at 27.” They also agreed on the possible need for Treaty change to introduce tougher sanctions to underpin the stability pact.

But tensions still persist. Sarkozy appears to be clinging on to his idea of an economic government for the eurozone. At a press conference following today’s summit, he said of his drive towards an economic government:

We are only at the beginning of the concept. Only four months ago, the words ‘economic governance’ were taboo. But the idea is progressing…The idea of economic government is not only about dealing with budgetary issues. It will allow us to put into place a strategy for competitiveness in several domains, such as research, social rights and universities.

He went on,

There will be sanctions for those who do not fulfill their commitments on debt. Fines are not the best solution. Together with Angela Merkel, we support the withdrawal of voting rights…Several countries want the sanctions to be the same for all member States […] Sanctions and obligations must be tougher for Eurozone countries.

Not the strongest stuff ever to come out of Sarkozy, but it still shows that he’s probably not going to give up on his dream of a euro economic government just yet – and that a new grand bargain between the Germans and the French won’t be achieved so easily this time.

Frosty

The Franco-German axis, which for so long has defined the European Union, has taken some serious hits lately. Following the trauma of the eurozone crisis, the relationship between the two countries is heading towards a historic post-war low - to the point that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are no longer on speaking terms according to whispers in Brussels. This wasn't helped by Sarkozy's comments the other week that "95 percent" of the bailout package deal agreed corresponded to French demands.

Today Wirtschaftswoche takes an interesting look at the strains, quoting one "experienced" CDU source saying that "In this government one can talk anti-French without being punished...that wasn't the case at the time of [Chancellor] Kohl".

Quite extrordinarily, the article also suggests that relations between Sarkozy and Merkel are at such a low ebb that "Merkel likes to imitate the vain behaviour of the little Frenchman, thereby making friends in her party laugh during the late hours." Harsh!

Apart from the huge implications for the future of the EU, Merkel's more assertive stance - and the power vacuum left by the radical weakening of the Franco-German axis - is also proving very confusing for journalists. Particularly anglo-saxon ones. In today's FT, Philip Stephens is so perplexed by this new order that he desperately searches for some sort of familiar point of reference and finds....Margaret Thatcher! Stephens argues:

"Mrs Thatcher spoke the language of the small shopkeeper from her native Lincolnshire. Ms Merkel, as determined as was Britain’s Iron Lady that Germany should no longer pick up Europe’s bills, has her own exemplar of the virtues of provincial thrift."

He also seems very pleased with his phrase "anti-European invective", using it twice to describe what he sees as the mood in the UK and Germany - without engaging with any of the actual arguments about the sustainability of the current model for European integration. Stephens is obviously struggling to get with the programme. If Merkel sounds like Thatcher, what exactly is that a sign of? German taxpayers are potentially liable for some €120 billion in eurozone loans and have just seen the independence of the ECB kissed goodbye - after having been promised that neither could ever happen. Whining over the fact that the Germans are not acting like this is 'business as usual' just isn't serious.

In Stephens' eyes the whole world is turning 'anti-European', apart from Sarkozy and a freemasonry of like-minded Eurocrats in Brussels (to steal a phrase from a thought-provoking piece by Simon Jenkins the other day). His views sound almost...provincial.

A leader in today's IHT is also struggling to come to terms with the changing nature of Europe:

"Now, at the worst possible moment, Germany is turning to nationalist illusions. Europe’s past economic successes are now viewed as German successes. Europe’s current deep problems are everyone else’s except Germany’s. That is neither realistic nor sustainable. But German politicians and commentators are callously and self-destructively feeding these ideas."

Some journalists should really get out more and see some ordinary people outside of the political bubbles in a few selected capitals. A more sensible take on the situation can be found in the Economist's Charlemagne column today:

"Anger and denial are hardly surprising. Germans were promised that the single currency would be the old Deutschmark in new clothes, backed by Teutonic discipline and a fiercely independent central bank. Arguably, that fantasy Deutschmark died early on May 10th, when a euro-zone bail-out mechanism was agreed and the European Central Bank started buying government bonds by the bucket load. Germans are now in mourning. How they recover is not just their problem, but Europe's".

In any case, the broken Franco-German engine certainly opens up the playing field for new alliances in Europe - and a new, more sustainable and healthy European agenda. Is the UK's Con-Lib coalition government ready to go to work?

The week when EU politics was turned on its head

It has been an absolutely extraordinary week in European politics. A Con-Lib coalition government has been formed in the UK; the eurozone has been shaken to its very core amid the ongoing sovereign debt crisis; European leaders have agreed on a mind-boggling rescue package worth some €500 billion (and killed the no bail-out principle in the process); the European Central Bank has done what previously was unthinkable and intervened directly in bond markets; the Commission has tabled proposals to give the EU the mandate to sign off national budgets; Angela Merkel has called for a Treaty change to toughen up the Stability and Growth Pact (also calling for a European Army while she was at it); and the UK has become isolated on the very symbolically and economically important AIFM Directive (although the FT was unnecessarily hysterical today).







Phew!!



And today we learn from Spanish El Pais that according to Spanish PM José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Nicolas Sarkozy threatened to leave the euro over the weekend unless Germany coughed up money to help Greece and other struggling euro-states. The revelation – which is being denied ferociously by everyone involved – sent the euro tumbling today.



This is what El Pais writes:



“It happened this Wednesday in a meeting with regional and provincial party members in Ferraz. [Zapatero ] gave a speech for over two hours” recapping part of “the eurogroup meeting in Brussels last week. He underlined that Sarkozy had threatened to remove France from the euro.”



It goes on,

“[Zapatero] had a bad weekend in both Brussels and Madrid. But he wasn’t the only one. The tensions experienced by the Eurogroup leaders were such that a moment arrived when they split into two fronts. On one side France, Spain and Italy. On the other side, Germany. [Zapatero] outlined to the members of the [Spanish party] PSOE [Spanish Socialist Workers' Party] ‘the unusual financial turbulences’ that Europe has seen in the last ten days. And he illustrated the complicated tension of the Eurogroup with some internal comments made by Sarkozy, which those who heard them interpretated as threats. Zapatero said that Sarkozy came to demand a ‘commitment from all to help Greece’ or France will reconsider its position on the euro.’”

One of the people in the audience apparently drew the conclusion from Zapatero’s speech that “Sarkozy had hit his fist on the table and threatened to break away from the euro, which forced Angela Merkel to change her mind and reach an agreement."



Another person in the audience concluded from Zapatero’s speech that “France, Italy and Spain formed a common front against Germany, and Sarkozy came to threaten Merkel with a break in the traditional Franco-German axis."



According to the reports, Sarkozy had also said “"if at time like this, with all that is happening, Europe is not capable of a united response, then the euro makes no sense".



The expression "a week is a long time in politics" feels like an understatement all of a sudden.

Not to be underestimated

In a letter in the Evening Standard yesterday we argued that the EU's new President, Herman Van Rompuy, should not be underestimated.

Just looking through Nicolas Sarkozy's press conference in Brussels last week, this is reinforced.

Sarko describes Van Rompuy as “an extremely determined man who knows exactly where he's going, he's a perfect connoisseur of European politics.”

He says:

“I genuinely find that Herman's views reflect mine: he's a man who knows very precisely where he's going. And if people are criticizing him for not being determined and being too flexible, they risk having some rude surprises, some rude surprises. Don't confuse things, thinking that a tolerant man who's a bit reserved, perhaps a bit modest, can't have firm beliefs. So talk to those who know him well about them and you'll see. I'm going to tell you something: I think he's one of the strongest personalities around the Council table. Don't see that as in any way belittling the others.”

There are a couple of other telling quotes in there too.

Asked why Cathy Ashton got the job of EU Foreign Minister, Sarkozy is clear that this was about rewarding her for pushing the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament and seeing off calls for a referendum:

“Listen, really, this is important, she played an essential role in getting the Lisbon Treaty through the House of Lords, which wasn't nothing, you will agree. She is one of the British political figures – though it's in no way up to me to judge – who most strongly promoted the Lisbon Treaty issue. I've also had occasion to express my gratitude to Gordon Brown for the responsibilities he shouldered, but right the way through the Lisbon process – and you know how fiercely it was discussed in the United Kingdom, it isn't a secret for anyone – she was constantly in favour of it, she supported him courageously. And, after all, we were very happy to find British political women and men to get it through when a section of the British political class was asking for a referendum, as you know as well as I do.”

Lastly, check out his tone here:

“remember Nice and look where we've got to now, the Irish had to be consulted twice, we had to have the presidential election in France to overcome the 'no', same thing in Holland. Then, in the space of a few weeks we had to choose a team; it's been done, without drama, without scandal, without fuss. It's done.”

Tsk - those pesky Irish getting it wrong eh - they "had to be" consulted twice.... !

Yeah, Sarko, just like last week's seamlessly smooth EU summit - what a success that was - not a total embarassment at all... not a monumental contradiction of everything you've been saying about making the EU more democratic, nooo...! A great success, no scandal or fuss at all, we're quite sure the citizens of Europe are all perfectly happy with the whole thing.

Nonvisible Sikhs Welcome In France

Just FYI:

Published on SikhNet (http://www.sikhnet.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarkozy welcomes Sikhs sans turbans

Daily News News EU
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at the concluding press conference of the European Union/India Summit in Marseille, France, stood next to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a Sikh wearing a light blue turban, as he answered this reporter's (Tejinder Singh) question about the wearing of turbans by Sikhs in France. Regarding the required Sikh head covering, an integral part of their religious identity, Sarkozy, replied curtly, "Sir, we respect Sikhs. We respect their customs, their traditions. They are most welcome to France."

Visibly irritated, Sarkozy continued, "But sir, we have rules, rules concerning the neutrality of civil servants, rules concerning secularism, and these rules don't apply only to Sikhs, they apply to Muslims or others. They apply to all on the territory of the French Republic."

The practice by Sikhs of allowing one's hair to grow naturally is a symbol of respect, the most important of the five outward symbols required of all Sikhs, and the turban is worn to cover the uncut hair. Sarkozy explained that the banning of turbans is not discrimination, that, "These rules apply to everybody, to everybody with no exception. There is no discrimination whatsoever."

Making it clear to the Sikh community in France that they have no option other than to conform to the rules, [Mai here: Not so. The Sikhs in France have at least two options. They can pick up their marbles and leave, as did my sixth brother, a long-time resident of la belle France. Or they can stay and fight this horrible law in various ways, ranging from fighting for repeal to opening their own schools. But Sikhs just give up and accept this? I don't think so. Evidently, Pres. Sarkozy has never heard of chardi kala.] Sarkozy made the paradoxical statement, "We respect their traditions and their customs and we are convinced that they too respect the laws, traditions and customs of the French Republic."

Discrimination begins early in France

In 2004, three Sikh boys, Jasvir Singh, Bikramjit Singh and Ranjit Singh, were expelled from French schools for wearing turbans. These students were the first victims of the ban instituted which prohibits Sikh students from covering their hair at school, a decision that has prompted world-wide protest from the Sikh community.

Commenting on the discrimination and its impact on children, Mejindarpal Kaur, the Director of United Sikhs, a worldwide Sikh organisation, stated in a press release that a preliminary survey of Sikh children affected by the French law found that 84 percent of the students interviewed were prevented from wearing head coverings to school. The survey also revealed that students had been expelled from French schools for refusing to remove their turbans, and many more suffered from alienation by their peers.

Also in 2004, Shingara Singh Mann, a French Sikh, reported he was prohibited from renewing his driver's license after it was lost in a theft because he was wearing a turban to cover his uncut hair.

On December 5, 2005 the French High Court ruled in favour of Shingara Singh Mann, giving him the right to wear his turban for his driving license identity photo, overturning an earlier decision by the French Ministry of Transport. But within 24 hours of the court decision, the Ministry issued a circular expressly forbidding turbans to be worn in driver's license photographs.

Kudrat Singh, Director of United Sikhs in France, said, "This is an example of oppression and discrimination which has not been seen in France for decades, and calls into question whether one can be both Sikh and French." According to legal opinions, the ban is a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) which provides for right to freedom of religion.

MEP Gill urges EU action

Asked to comment, Neena Gill, a member of the European Parliament had said, "I am astounded by the level of discrimination that is in fact growing … it is not confined to France … it is in Belgium, in Germany and it really smacks against all these initiatives that the European Commission is constantly launching."

However, solutions aimed at nurturing "unity in diversity," the European Union's frequently appearing slogan, are already working in the United Kingdom, one of the member states of the European Union, and across the Atlantic in the United States.

Highlighting the integration and diversity that prevails across the English Channel, Gill, who was born in Punjab, India, said, "If you look at the United Kingdom, you can wear a turban not only in mainstream jobs but also in the police, the army, the air force or the navy. There is no restriction. In fact, the army has special days when they try and recruit people from the Sikh community and the Dastar (turban) is not a problem for them, so I really think we do need to raise awareness, especially from the European Commission in these particular years of Equality and Intercultural Dialogue. We have to target the resources at these issues to ensure that there is greater awareness across the EU in accepting people of different appearances."

US efforts to embrace Sikhs

Discriminatory incidents involving Sikhs increased dramatically as a consequence of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. There were numerous cases of discriminatory attacks on Sikhs as they were misunderstood as allies of Osama bin Laden due to their appearance.

While the US is making the effort to remove misunderstanding and give Sikhs their legitimate place in society, in some member states of the European Union, comparable progress and acceptance has flowed in reverse.

US lawmaker speaks out

US Congressman Mike Honda (Democrat-California), who represents Silicon Valley and who is involved in this issue in his capacity as Chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, told this correspondent, "I don't believe in sacrificing freedom in order to protect freedom. Turbans are part of the religious identity of Sikhs and we must strive to respect their freedom of religious expression. A balance can be struck between national security and religious liberties, but that balance can only be reached by consulting all the parties involved, in this case the Sikh community."

"It would be ironic that many Sikhs, who fled their homeland seeking religious freedom, would find that America curtailed their religious freedoms when they arrived upon our shores," Honda had added.

The root cause of the discrimination and a pragmatic solution to root it out was aptly summed up by Jennifer Handshew, a seasoned public relations professional in New York who had told this journalist, "I feel that ignorance and fear are the primary factors that fuel this discrimination and believe that education and awareness will help people better understand what the turban means to the Sikhs."

What Handshew and others suggest provide a succinct analysis and a solution, but for now, the door to a respectable life in France for Sikhs has been slammed shut by the French President Sarkozy, in the presence of Indian Premier Manmohan Singh, himself a member of the Sikh community.

Author: Tejinder Singh at the EU-India Summit in Marseille, France
30 September 2008 - Issue : 801



Copyright © 2008 SikhNet, All Rights Reserved