The French investigate something Le Pen said.
Archive for the ‘European Politics’ Category
Le Pen WWII remark triggers probe
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005Do we want the Turkish peasantry here?
Tuesday, January 4th, 2005Kevin Myers, this time spouting his outlandish views in the Telegraph:
Within the EU, Sweden and Germany have received most Turkish immigrants – and most of them are not the cosmopolitan sophisticates of Istanbul, but are from the relatively backward communities of Anatolia.
Young Swedes and Germans of Turkish extraction usually marry back into their ancestral homelands, bringing their brides home to Europe to reinforce the creation of an Anatolia in exile. In both countries, new dialects are emerging: Turko-Swedish and Turko-German, linguistic reflections of the changes of identity that are taking permanent root there.
A bien-pensant arrogance has transformed cities in almost every country in Europe. Immigration was held to be a good thing: to question it was racist. Provided that the host society was tolerant enough, it was assumed that the incomers would inevitably become integrated, adopting indigenous values. But the opposite happened: many European children are being raised to embrace loyalties wholly antithetical to the values of the states they live in.
They are not cuckoos in the nest, for cuckoos ultimately leave: the millions of Muslim immigrants who have poured into Europe are staying.
Moreover, with a religious culture that generally disdains contraception, abortion and women’s “rights”, the Muslim population will almost certainly grow disproportionately. Bernard Lewis, the pre-eminent British scholar of Islam, predicts that by the end of this century, Europe will be predominantly Muslim.
Even saying this would cause me to be shunned at a dinner party in Islington. For one of the symptoms of the chronic immigration syndrome is that the intelligentsia of the host-country refuses to discuss, or even permit discussion, of its long-term consequences. Instead there is much witless, liberal maundering about the unassailable virtues of a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-ethos society.
He sounds terribly scared…
Embraceable E.U.
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004Robert Kagan has this interesting article in the WP last week. He is worth quoting at length here:
But the crisis in Ukraine shows what an enormous and vital role Europe can play, and is playing, in shaping the politics and economies of nations and peoples along its ever-expanding border. This is no small matter. On the contrary, it is a task of monumental strategic importance for the United States as well as for Europeans. By accident of history and geography, the European paradise is surrounded on three sides by an unruly tangle of potentially catastrophic problems, from North Africa to Turkey and the Balkans to the increasingly contested borders of the former Soviet Union. This is an arc of crisis if ever there was one, and especially now with Putin’s play for a restoration of the old Russian empire. In confronting these dangers, Europe brings a unique kind of power, not coercive military power but the power of attraction. The European Union has become a gigantic political and economic magnet whose greatest strength is the attractive pull it exerts on its neighbors. Europe’s foreign policy today is enlargement; its most potent foreign policy tool is what the E.U.’s Robert Cooper calls “the lure of membership.”
Cooper describes the E.U. as a liberal, democratic, voluntary empire expanding continuously outward as others seek to join it. This expanding Europe absorbs problems and conflicts rather than directly confronting them in the American style. The lure of membership, he notes, has helped stabilize the Balkans and influenced the political course of Turkey. The Turkish people’s desire to join the European Union has led them to modify Turkey’s legal code and expand rights to conform to European standards. The expansive and attractive force of the European Union has also played its part in the Ukraine crisis. Had Europe not expanded to include Poland and other Eastern European countries, it would have neither the interest nor the influence in Ukraine’s domestic affairs that it does.
Cooper, unlike many Europeans, acknowledges the vital role of U.S. power in providing the strategic environment within which Europe’s soft expansionism can proceed. Employing America’s “military muscle” to “clear the way for a political solution involving a kind of imperial penumbra around the European Union,” he suggests, may be the way to deal with “the area of the greatest threat in the Middle East.” In the Balkans, Europe’s magnetic attraction would have been feeble had Slobodan Milosevic not been defeated militarily. And undoubtedly American power provides a useful backdrop in the current diplomatic confrontation over Ukraine.
Cooper is not alone in his expansive European vision. Among leading European policymakers, Germany’s Joschka Fischer seems the most dedicated to using enlargement and the E.U.’s attractive power for strategic purposes. Before Sept. 11, 2001, Fischer was suspicious of bringing Turkey into the European Union and inheriting such nightmarish neighbors as Iraq and Syria. But now he regards Turkey’s membership as a strategic necessity. “To modernize an Islamic country based on the shared values of Europe would be almost a D-Day for Europe in the war against terror,” he argues, because it “would provide real proof that Islam and modernity, Islam and the rule of law . . . [and] this great cultural tradition and human rights are after all compatible.” This “would be the greatest positive challenge for these totalitarian and terrorist ideas.”
Americans could hardly disagree. Unfortunately, Cooper’s and Fischer’s vision of an expanding E.U. empire is not shared across Europe. It finds most support in Tony Blair’s Britain, as well as in Poland and other Eastern European countries, and among the current German leadership (though not among the German population). It has least support in France, where even the recent inclusion of Poland and other nations to the east is regarded as something of a disaster for French foreign policy and where the admission of Turkey is considered anathema. Modern, secular, forward-looking France still insists that Europe must remain, in the words of Valery Giscard d’Estaing, a Christian civilization. In this and other respects, France is part of what one might call “red-state Europe,” a pre-modern bastion on a postmodern continent.
Americans are generally skeptical of or indifferent to the European Union. They shouldn’t be. The United States has an important interest in the direction the E.U. takes in coming years. It may actually matter, for instance, whether Britain votes to support the E.U. constitution, as Blair wants. A Britain with real influence inside the E.U. is more likely to steer it in the liberal imperial direction that the E.U.’s Cooper, a former Blair adviser, proposes. That could prove a far more important strategic boon to the United States than a few thousand European troops in Iraq.
Is Turkey the next Argentina?
Sunday, December 5th, 2004Could Turkey be plunged into a fiscal nightmare? Erinc Yeldan, professor in the department of economics at Bilkent University in Ankara and Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington seem to think so. Will this threaten future Turkey accession to the EU?
They note:
But beneath these numbers, a crisis looms. The expansion has been driven by a huge inflow of capital from abroad, $10.9 billion in 2003 (4.6 percent of the economy) and $12.5 billion in just the first eight months of 2004. These are overwhelmingly speculative, short-term inflows – not direct investment, for example, which would expand the country’s productive capacity and create jobs. Foreign direct investment has in fact fallen since 2000. The country is very vulnerable to a serious economic downturn when the inflow of foreign money goes dry.
These kinds of massive speculative capital inflows have a habit of reversing themselves, as they did in Asia in 1997, setting off the Asian financial crisis and a regional depression. In such situations, investors eventually begin to worry about the sustainability of such borrowing and debt. Any number of external events could trigger such an exodus from Turkey: For example, if U.S. and world interest rates rise, as they undoubtedly will from their current historic lows, safe assets like U.S. Treasury securities will become much more attractive.
The influx of speculative money from abroad has also pushed the Turkish currency, the lira, to an overvalued level. This, too, is a bubble waiting to burst. In the meantime it has devastated traditional Turkish industries that are typically labor-intensive by making imports artificially cheap, thus aggravating the unemployment problem. The lira had risen 139 percent against the dollar between 2000-2003.
The country’s public debt is unsustainable at 70 percent of the economy. In order to sustain it presently, the IMF has the government running a primary (excluding interest) budget surplus of 6.5 percent. This is extremely high (compare it with 3.0 percent for Argentina and 4.25 percent for Brazil), and prevents the government from making necessary investments in human capital and infrastructure.
Another devastating part of the IMF program is high interest rates: The Treasury’s debt instruments that are the leading assets in the Turkish financial markets carry an interest rate of 26 percent, still very high at 15 percent in real, inflation-adjusted terms. Compare this with 2 percent in the United States – it is easy to understand why businesses in Turkey are reluctant to borrow and invest in productive capacity.
In short, the policy makers have created an economy that runs on a speculative bubble. It would be nice if a majority of the Turkish people at least got some of the benefits of bubble-driven growth for as long as it lasts. But unfortunately, this has not been the case. Since 2000, the unemployment rate has risen by almost 4 percentage points to 10.5 percent, and real wages have actually fallen.
As Turkey and the European Union continue talks on the possibility of EU accession, the Turkish government should re-examine its unsustainable economic policies of the last five years. Continuing these IMF-supported policies in hopes of garnering credibility with the EU may be dangerous. Ironically, such policies could lead to an economic failure that would actually doom Turkey’s chances for membership.
Europe: Al Qaeda’s next target?
Sunday, December 5th, 2004Will Europe see more Madrid and Istanbul style attacks? Many analysts are saying that Europe is at greater risk than the US.
Ursula Mueller, a German diplomat with terror expertise, said that European-based terrorists were under pressure; terror operations have been averted in London, Paris and Madrid. “But they continue to focus on catastrophic attacks,” she said.
“There are indications,” Mueller said, “that Europe is at greater risk for terrorist attack than is the U.S.” – particularly U.S. allies with troops in Iraq, but also Germany, which has 2,200 troops in Afghanistan.
“The situation may become much more precarious,” said Greg Mascolo, Der Spiegel’s Washington bureau chief and author of “Inside 9-11.”
“Europe’s threat is growing from the inside,” Mascolo said.
Poland chases after Ireland’s pot of gold
Sunday, December 5th, 2004Kevin Cullen in the IHT writes about Poland, and their aspirations to copy Ireland’s success. Among some of the similarities between Poland and Ireland:
Patrycjusz Sliwinski, 23, who proudly explained that he was named after Ireland’s patron saint, is writing his University of Wroclaw master’s thesis on Oscar Wilde. He became an Hibernophile by reading Irish history. “Basically, the Irish got screwed, like us, by a bigger neighbor,” he said.
Ouch.
Nato is a threat to Europe and must be disbanded
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004Jonathan Steele argues for the disbandment of NATO:
We must go all the way, up to the termination of Nato. An alliance which should have wound up when the Soviet Union collapsed now serves almost entirely as a device for giving the US an unfair and unreciprocated droit de regard over European foreign policy.
As long as we are officially embedded as America’s allies, the default option is that we have to support America and respect its “leadership”. This makes it harder for European governments to break ranks, for fear of being attacked as disloyal. The default option should be that we, like they, have our interests. Sometimes they will coincide. Sometimes they will differ. But that is normal.
But is this kind of disengagement from the US a positive thing? Will not European and US interests collide, leading to further fragmentation of relations?
Is Europe ready for Turkey?
Saturday, November 6th, 2004Dominique Moisi questions whether the EU is ready for Turkey, and cites three likely factors involved.
Polls show that at least in France, 75 percent of the population is not ready to accept Turkey – it is a refusal based on ignorance, stereotypes and prejudices disguised as common sense. And without the support of France, it is unlikely that Turkey can enter the union. It is therefore essential to understand the emotional roots of public rejection, some of which apply beyond France.
And the three:
First, globalization. The more interdependent the world becomes, the more people look for marginal differences. The more they fear the unknown, the more they desire familiarity. In an increasingly secular Europe, the sound of church bells takes on a reassuring cultural – as opposed to religious – quality. There is a widespread notion that 70 million Muslims are disturbing, if not invading, our select club.
Second, 9/11 makes Turkey’s integration at once more necessary and more frightening. If the threat comes from within Islam, the reasoning goes, why on earth should we marry our mortal enemy?
And unlike Bosnia, which will one day apply for candidacy, Turkey is both Muslim and very large. Of course this is precisely why we need Turkey, if our aging continent wants to recover its demographic dynamism and fulfill its ambition to truly play a world diplomatic role, in particular in the Middle East.
Third, the process of enlargement itself is playing against Turkey, since Europe is already adjusting to its passage from 15 to 25 members.
What is this ‘European Union’?
Saturday, November 6th, 2004Anne-Marie Slaughter in the IHT, with a piece on the EU. She cites the number of times both George Bush and John Kerry have referred to the European Union – and it’s not often. This bit is good:
Suppose the citizens of Ohio or Oregon or Alabama understood that the EU has a larger population and gross domestic product than the United States. That English is widely and increasingly spoken as a second language. That most of the students who are either no longer applying to American schools or unable to enter the United States for a lack of a visa are choosing European universities instead. And that EU representatives are thick on the ground in many developing countries, both trolling for business and doling out aid and advice.
Suppose further that at a time when one of the most important issues in the U.S. election is which candidate is better placed to “win the peace” in Iraq and Afghanistan, American voters knew something about the EU model of building democracy – through assistance, admonition and accession negotiations. Americans would not likely believe that the prospect of EU membership, even if such a thing were possible, would have convinced the Taliban or Saddam Hussein to lay down their arms. But they might think that after the first flush of military victory the EU could teach America quite a lot about the exercise of civilian rather than military power.
EU citizens may be dubious about the EU’s effectiveness, particularly in political and military affairs. They may be unhappy about the democracy deficit. And they may be skeptical about their new constitution. But they know that the EU is an entity distinct from “Europe,” a rising entity of their own creation that is not simply an imitation of the United States. As a result, American voters are genuinely living in a different world from their European counterparts.
This trans-Atlantic divide results not from policies but from the most basic perceptions of relevant political actors in the international system. It should worry us all, well beyond the election.
Would Turkey split the EU and the U.S. ?
Thursday, October 21st, 2004Would it? Ian Bremmer in the IHT seems to think Turkey might split the EU and the US.
Will Turkey join the EU club?
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004Katrin Bennhold of the IHT asks if Turkey is set to join. The most important statistic, at least in my opinion:
With 70 million inhabitants, Turkey is already the second-most populous country in the region, behind Germany with 82 million; by 2020, Turkey’s population is projected to reach 85 million, while Germany’s is expected to ease slightly, United Nations forecasts show.
And this will mean:
The question at the heart of Giscard’s argument is this: Even if Turkey is given a date to begin accession talks later this year, how likely would it be that it would win the required unanimous approval from all existing EU members a decade from now, when it would carry the most weight in EU decision making from the start?
Plotting Europe’s eastern border
Sunday, September 12th, 2004Viktor Yushchenko, candidate in the upcoming Ukrainian presidential elections, makes some interesting points about the future of the Ukraine, and worries concerning the expanded European Union.
He states:
While welcoming the enlargement of the European Union, Ukrainians are anxious about European integration halting at our western frontier and in fact creating a new dividing line.
Our neighbors in Belarus, Moldova and Russia feel the same way. Our anxiety is also shared by Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and the Baltic states – neighbors who understand the gravity of problems resulting from the incomplete unification of Europe and the emergence of a new phenomenon: a bipolar Europe
There is an interesting concept. What is also interesting is that Ukraine has a population of some 48 million people. A healthy injection of people in the future, for Europe’s aging population. A bipolar Europe is a worry, but Europe really has to decide where exactly Europe stops and Asia/Middle East begin.
Is there ever a case for EU borders extending all the way to the Eastern parts of Belarus and Ukraine? Turkey will almost certainly join within the next 6 years, meaning that an EU country would border Iraq – a strange thought indeed.
It’s all quite hard to call, but important decision on the future expansion of Europe will have to be made.
EU plays a strong role on Darfur
Sunday, September 12th, 2004Bernard Bot, minister of foreign affairs of the Netherlands and the current president of the EU Council of Ministers writes about Europe’s efforts in relation to Darfur.
If the European Union talks to the rebels, we will declare a unilateral cease-fire,â€? said Vice President Ali Osman Taha of Sudan after his meeting with a Dutch government delegation visiting Khartoum on Jan. 30. This was one of the first results of the EU’s diplomatic involvement in the crisis in Darfur, an involvement that began long before the international media became interested in events there.
Russia warns Georgia after threat
Wednesday, August 4th, 2004In other Georgian news:
Moscow has reacted angrily to a Georgian threat to open fire on ships which “illegally” enter the waters of its breakaway province of Abkhazia. Russia, which has close ties to the Black Sea province, said it would respond to any attack on its citizens with “the necessary rebuff”.
The situation over Abkazia seems much more volatile than Ossetia, despite recent reported skirmishes between Georgian soldiers and South Ossetians. This is more to do with Russian interference, even though Russia is involved in both regions. Abkazia has some valuable Soviet-era airbases, besides all the beach resorts.
With regard to any problems in these regions, suspect Putin/Russian involvement in all cases.
The Workplace: Blowing whistles and the EU: Marta Andreasen
Sunday, August 1st, 2004Marta Andreasen blew the whistle on dodgy practices inside the European Union, she now resides in limbo.
The saga dates to May 2002, when she started alerting her bosses and then ultimately their bosses that the government computer software was vulnerable to error and fraud just five months after she started her job.
“It was not as though I was asking them to build a cathedral or send a man to the moon,” said Andreasen, who is still on the payroll. “Had they followed my advice, today there would be effective measures in place, and the funds would be protected. Instead, I was suspended, and the EC said they already knew about the problems.”
Today the commission is hard pressed to explain precisely why disciplinary proceedings against Andreasen have lingered. A commission official, who asked to remain anonymous, said authorities had moved slowly to “make sure that justice is done.” It took time, he added, because the author of a report about the matter held another full-time job.
The accusations against Andreasen are also a little complicated. She was not suspended because of her withering criticism, which gained support from, among others, Jules Muis, the commission’s former internal auditor.
He observed in a blunt internal memo that Andreasen’s concerns appeared “factually substantive and correct.”
In reality, she was suspended for violating Articles 12 and 21 of staff regulations: failure to show sufficient loyalty and respect. She had ignored the established hierarchy by expressing her concerns directly in letters to the commission’s president and 10 legislators.
Sufficient loyalty and respect? Are these guys crazy?