France, Germany and the European Union challenges and responses

 From France to Germany, and across the EU, the risks are enormous and the challenges must be won

Victor Ângelo

France is experiencing a very serious political crisis. The dissolution of the National Assembly, decided on 9 June 2024 by President Emmanuel Macron, was a gamble that surprised the political class and proved to be a mistake. Since then, four prime ministers have already come to power. The latest, Sébastien Lecornu, formed a government on Sunday night and resigned the following morning. An absolute record, which clearly shows the deadlock the country is in.

The political elites are grouped into two extreme camps: Marine Le Pen’s party and a coalition of more or less radical left-wing forces, with Jean-Luc Mélenchon as the leading figure. What little remains, the centre, is fragmented around half a dozen politicians who cannot agree. Several of these personalities, as well as Le Pen and Mélenchon, are convinced they could succeed Macron as head of state. They want Macron to resign from the presidency of the Republic without delay. Officially, his second term should end in May 2027. Now, due to the seriousness of the crisis, even his political allies are saying that the solution to the deadlock would be for the president to leave office early.

I do not believe this will happen. Macron may not want to admit that his popularity is at rock bottom. This week’s poll found that only 14% of the French support his policies. It is a catastrophic percentage. Macron believes, however, that he has the constitutional legitimacy to continue.

In a deep crisis like the current one, and if Macron were to opt again, in the near future, for early parliamentary elections, it is possible that Marine Le Pen’s far-right could win the most seats. Her party appears, to a significant part of the electorate, as more stable than the left, which is a fragile patchwork of various political opinions.

In any case, whether it is early presidential or new parliamentary elections, France is on the verge of falling into the abyss of deep chaos, caught between two ultra-radical poles. This time, the risk is very serious. The most likely outcome is that France, one of the two pillars of the European Union, will be led by a radical, ultranationalist party, hostile to the European project, xenophobic, and ideologically close to Vladimir Putin.

The other pillar of Europe is Germany. Friedrich Merz, chancellor since May, is in constant decline with public opinion. Only 26% of voters believe in his ability to solve the most pressing problems: the cost of living, housing, immigration, and economic stagnation. The German economy contracted in 2023 and 2024, with sectors such as construction and industry falling back to levels of the mid-2000s. The engine of the economy, the automotive industry, is about a third below its peak 15 years ago and has returned to levels close to the mid-2000s, reflecting a loss of competitiveness and profound structural changes in the sector.

In a recent discussion with German analysts, I was told that the unpopularity of Merz and his coalition is paving the way for the far-right to come to power in 2029 or even earlier. This year, the AfD (Alternative for Germany, a party led by Nazi nostalgists) came second, with almost 21% of the vote. The growing discontent of citizens, competition with the Chinese economy, tariffs and restrictions imposed by the Americans, spending on aid to Ukraine, Donald Trump’s blatant support for German right-wing extremists—who sees the AfD as a way to seriously undermine European unity—, the growing propaganda against foreigners living in Germany, all these are factors that reinforce the electoral base of this racist and Nazi-inspired party. Not to mention that the AfD maintains privileged relations with the Kremlin.

The crossroads in which both France, now, and Germany, in the near future, find themselves represent two enormous challenges for the survival of the EU. They are incomparably more worrying than the consequences of Brexit or the sabotage by Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico. They come at a time when the EU faces a series of existential problems of external origin.

The external enemies are well known. Fear and concessions are the worst responses that can be given to them. Enemies and adversaries must be dealt with with great strategic skill and reinforced unity, only achievable if EU leaders can explain and prove to citizens the importance of European unity and cohesion.

The international scene is much bigger than the USA, Russia, or China. The expansion of agreements with Japan, Canada, Mercosur, the African continent, and ASEAN should be given priority attention. This list does not seek to exclude other partners, it only mentions some that are especially important.

The future also requires resolutely reducing excessive dependence on the outside in the areas of defence, technology, digital platforms, energy, and raw materials essential for the energy transition. Debureaucratising, innovating, and promoting the complementarity of European economies is fundamental. All this must be done while combating extremism. To think that extremists will play by democratic rules once in power is a dangerous illusion. Exposing this fiction is now the urgent priority in France, and the constant priority in all Member States, including Portugal.

Biden and Putin: they have the keys

Biden and Putin: an indispensable dialogue

Victor Angelo

 

When leaders like Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin spend two hours in a frontal discussion, we, simple mortals, can look at it positively, even when the results seem uncertain. I have always argued that major crises should be directly discussed between those who actually hold power. Leaving such crises to be dealt with at the level of foreign ministers, however experienced, is not enough. So often it only serves to aggravate misunderstandings and pander to extreme positions. We often see ministers who are more papist than the Pope. Even when they foresee solutions, they do not dare mention them, for fear of the leader's reaction. It is up to the leader to send appeasement signals, to show the way and mark the bounds, which are now known as "red lines".

That is what Biden and Putin sought to do. And this is the way they should continue, preferably in personal meetings. Diplomacy is done with handshakes. Even in times of pandemic. Leaders know this. That is why Emmanuel Macron was in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia a few days ago, with much success, regarding the French war industries - and much criticism from human rights activists. And Pope Francis, who does not stop despite apparent physical frailty, went to Cyprus and Greece. Vladimir Putin himself made a lightning trip to India on Monday to spend a few hours strengthening relations with Narendra Modi, encouraging trade and, above all, deepening political-military cooperation.

A positive outlook does not prevent us from seeing the gravity of the current situation. The massive deployment of troops and exceptional logistical means in Russian regions close to the eastern border of Ukraine makes one think, whether one likes it or not, of the preparation of a military offensive. That is the interpretation that prevails in the main European capitals and in Washington. Some academics and others with an open window to the media street say it is a way for Moscow to apply pressure, to get certain political guarantees coming from the opposite side. That may be so. But the truth is that this reading is not accepted by Western leaders, who see in Russia's military moves all the signs of a short-term warlike action against Ukraine. The pretext for such action would be to counter a hypothetical campaign by Kiev against the pro-Russian separatists who control the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine. The Kremlin swears it has no intention of intervening militarily, but this message does not get through, because of the extraordinary degree of mobilisation on the ground. Putin needs more than solemn declarations on the right to homeland defence, a statement that makes no sense since nobody intends to invade this or any other part of the Russian Federation. 

Indeed, Russians and Westerners need to get out of the trap they have let themselves fall into, especially since 2013, as if there should be a permanent hostility between the two. Unfortunately, it seems that only demonstrations of force make eyes open. So, on the Western side, there is now a threat that has been clearly explained to Putin. But it is not a military threat. It would be a package of measures that would have a huge impact on the Russian economy, which is no longer in good health. Russia would be cut off from a large part of the international financial and payment systems, which are in fact controlled by the Americans, it would have immense difficulties in changing its roubles into euros and dollars, not to mention other restrictions in terms of investment, trade, and travel to Europe. Biden was very shrewd in his approach. Before and after his conversation with Putin, he involved Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom in the consultation. We have a cohesion of five. For prudence's sake, I believe, it does not include Poland or any other Eastern European country. It is clearly an agreement that tells us that we are at a dangerous crossroads and that the continuation of the conversation between the leaders is the indispensable way forward. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 December 2021)

 

 

Comments on this week's G7 meeting

A Very Combative G7

Victor Ângelo

 

The G7 brings together the largest liberal economies, that is, in descending order of size, the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Canada. Together they represent about 50% of the world economy. The leadership of the G7 in 2021 falls to the British, who held a meeting of foreign ministers this week in preparation for the summit scheduled for June.

They have gone two years without meeting. The pandemic and the malaise caused by Donald Trump's presidency explain the long hiatus. Now the realities are different. Control of the pandemic seems possible, thanks to vaccination campaigns. And the policies pursued in Washington are no longer unpredictable. Still, it was necessary to decide between a face-to-face meeting or not. After a year of virtual conferences, it was concluded that when it comes to diplomacy, face-to-face contact is by far the most productive. Many of the videoconferences held between politicians during the pandemic turned out to be a mere formal exercise in which each one read the text in front of him  or her, without an exchange of ideas, an analysis of options or a personal commitment. We are now safely back to face-to-face discussions.

Another aspect concerns the list of countries outside the G7 but invited to the meeting. It was limited to South Africa, Australia, South Korea, and India, as well as two supranational organizations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union. The political reading of this choice is easy to make. There is a clear preference here, and not just from the British. The economic and geopolitical focus is on Asia, on strengthening relations with countries that can stand up to competition from China.  Latin America and the Middle East were simply ignored.

China was in fact a dominant concern. The consultations among the ministers started there. The US is pursuing a very complex policy line in relation to China. They seek, in the main, to combine antagonism with cooperation. Hostility in general and agreement, in certain concrete matters, for example in the area of climate change or on Iran. This line will not work. The message received in Beijing from Washington can be summed up in one word - confrontation. And the Chinese will respond to that perception club in equivalent currency.

The Europeans themselves - and this has been shown in the statements made by Germany and France - think that the American position with regard to China is excessive. They agree with Washington when it comes to human rights, Hong Kong or Xinjiang, or the protection of intellectual property. But they believe that Europe has much to gain if the relationship with China is based on respect for established rules and the pursuit of mutual advantages. Japan prefers to follow a policy similar to Europe's, despite pressure from the Biden administration.

Russia was also high on the agenda. The Kremlin is now seen as a threat to the European and American democracies. In this matter, the harmony between the two sides of the Atlantic is clearer. The issue of defending democratic regimes, including the fight against the spread of false or biased information, was a major theme.

The American Secretary of State went to London to propose a new strategic approach. Antony Blinken argues that the group cannot just be a coordination mechanism for the big capitalist economies. It must become a platform for political intervention by the most influential democracies. This is an expression of a belief prevalent in the current American administration that the US has a mission - that of saving the democracies. For some of us here in Europe, such a proposition generates three kinds of uneasiness. One, related to the increasing marginalization of the UN's political role. The other, with the worsening polarization of international relations. The third, with the weight that a phantom named Trump may yet exert in American politics.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Merkel's succession

Some good news from Germany. Armin Laschet is a balanced choice to succeed Angela Merkel as CDU party leader. He is the respected Chief Minister of the North Rhine-Westphalia Region and has demonstrated his pro-European Union credentials. He advocates for a fair relationship between its member states.

The point now is to see if he can win the September federal elections to the Bundestag and be his coalition candidate for the chancellorship.   

Our Putin policy

Russia in fat letters

Victor Angelo

 

This week, Vladimir Putin and Russia made headlines again. One of the reasons was the message of congratulations that Putin sent to Joe Biden. The Russian leader turned out to be one of the last heads of state to congratulate the winner of the US elections. The pretext for the delay was to wait for the results of the Electoral College. This formalism, which was impeccable from a legal point of view, but undiplomatic and inconsequential in terms of future relations, barely conceals Putin's preference for Donald Trump. In Moscow's view, Trump's incompetent, incoherent and divisive policy was the one that most weakened the international position of the USA and best served the Russian geopolitical renaissance. Not to mention, of course, the deference that the American always showed for the Kremlin's strong man. 

Putin's message speaks of cooperation and puts his country on a par with the USA, in the very exclusive league of the great states "especially responsible for global security and stability". Putin, always attentive, takes this opportunity to reaffirm his country's indispensable role on the world stage.

In the meantime, other headlines have emerged about Russia. Since March she has been accused of infiltrating the computer systems of several major American targets. The list of federal institutions and private companies violated, as well as the level of refinement used, show the gigantic scale of the operation, which can only have been carried out by the highly specialised services that make up the official Russian espionage web. It is true that other countries are constantly trying to do the same. But the fact is that the Russians have succeeded and for a long time. This can only mean that the leadership invests exceptionally in cyber-espionage. It will never be known exactly what information has been extracted. The hope remains that the volume of data will be of such magnitude that it will eventually overwhelm the analysts. In these matters, it is one thing to obtain information, but another to have the capacity to carry out its analysis, in order to transform it into knowledge and courses of action, and this in good time, which becomes short as soon as the infiltration is discovered.

To complete the bunch, it was simultaneously noticed that the Russians had also pirated the European Medicines Agency. And CNN published a detailed report of the persecution and poisoning of the opposition figure, Alexei Navalny, by Putin's agents. Then came the news about doping and the ban on participation in the next Olympic Games. A series of negative headlines about a regime that loves to sell its image as respectable.  

Amid all this, Europeans extended sanctions against Russia until July 2021. These measures, which come from 2014 and relate to Russian armed intrusions into Ukraine and the occupation of the Crimea, have a narrow scope. They do not include, for example, the suspension of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which will link Russia and Germany across the Baltic. Another title of the week was to announce that work on the installation of the pipeline had resumed and had even entered the final phase.

The reality is that EU leaders do not have a clear political vision of what the relationship with Russia should be like. There has been much debate on the issue, including the design of scenarios, but no agreement. The trend seems to me, as we look at the decade ahead, a mixture of deadlock, hesitation, opportunism, mistrust, and detachment. A policy of uncertainties, with Putin setting the pace.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), now with Helga Schmid at the helm, should seek to be the bridge for dialogue between us and Moscow. But not only that. The EU's external agenda needs to define a strategic line on Russia, including proposals for joint action, first in areas of least controversy and serving to build understanding and trust. The same should happen at the military level, both in the EU and NATO. Russia is our massive neighbour. Threatening, certainly, with autocratic leadership, but geographically, culturally, and economically close. A policy of locked doors has no way out.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

The Eastern Mediterranean as a conflict zone

 Translation of today’s opinion piece as published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon).

29 Aug. 2020

Troubled waters in the Eastern Mediterranean

Victor Angelo

 

The week was on the verge of exploding, in the eastern Mediterranean. Turkey continued its maritime prospecting for gas deposits, with economic and political intentions, and increased its military presence in waters that Greece considers belonging to its continental shelf. The latter, in retaliation, declared that it would conduct naval and aerial exercises in those same waters. And she did so for three days, August 26-28, in collaboration with the armed forces of Cyprus, France and Italy. These manoeuvres followed another maritime exercise, a Greek-American one, which was more symbolic than anything else, but which did not go unnoticed in Ankara. Certain Turkish commentators said, then, in a subtle way because criticizing the regime puts many journalists in prison, that one of the government's objectives should be to avoid the diplomatic isolation of Turkey. A bit of very revealing advice.

The possibility of a military incident between the two neighbouring countries has left some European capitals restless. The big question became how to avoid an open confrontation, which would end up dragging several European countries and even Egypt, among others.

An effort of appeasement in the NATO framework was put aside. The organization is unable to respond to this rivalry between two member states. In fact, the Alliance's paralysis is becoming increasingly apparent in matters related to President Erdogan's political games. Following the ill-told coup attempt in July 2016, Turkey has become a millstone tied around NATO's neck.

The European channel remained. Germany, which holds the presidency of the EU and carries weight in both countries, sent its foreign minister, the social democrat Heiko Maas, to Athens and Ankara. His proposal was clear: to establish a moratorium on the exploitation of the contested waters and to seek a negotiated solution. In Greece, little was achieved. The Greeks had obtained the convocation of a European meeting on the subject and continued to bet on the decisions that could be taken there, as well as on Emmanuel Macron's support. In Turkey, Maas obtained from his counterpart a promise to participate in a process of dialogue. It was a clever way of responding, on the part of the Turkish minister, who thus sought to sap the will of the Europeans to adopt sanctions against his government.

The Greek-Turkish neighbourhood is very complicated. There is only one solution, and that is dialogue and cooperation between the two neighbours. This should be the line recommended by the European partners. It will not be easy to get it accepted, but alternatively, any confrontation would be a catastrophe. We must also send clear messages to President Erdogan, both about the future of the relationship between his country and Europe - which will not involve accession, since Turkey is part of another geopolitical reality and belongs to a cultural sphere that differs from the one prevailing in Europe - and about other issues where the parties' strategic interests may be at odds.

It must be recognized that Turkey is a country that counts in its geographical area. At the same time, we must not forget the choices that President Erdogan has made in recent years, which shock, contradict our idea of democracy and leave many European leaders frankly apprehensive. Erdogan's Turkey has unrealistic ambitions that go far beyond its economic strength - the national GDP is half of Spain's, although the Turkish population is twice that of Spain - and its capacity for regional influence. In fact, Turkey is a country still developing and with serious problems of social inclusion of its ethnic minorities, not to mention the ever-present issue of respect for human rights.  It would do better to spend less on military expenditures - they represent 2.7% of GDP, a figure well above the average and the recommendation that prevails within NATO - and more on promoting the well-being and opportunities of its citizens. If so, it is certain to aspire to a closer association with the EU.

This is for the future, perhaps even only possible in a post-Erdogan era. For now, it is essential to halt the military escalation and calm the waters.

 

 

 

 

 

A stronger European Union

The European Recovery Fund, proposed by the President of the European Commission, was favourably received in the various capitals of the Member States. The Italians and the Spaniards were happy, on one side, and the Scandinavians as well, notwithstanding earlier positions regarding the need for conditionalities.

It is, in fact, a balanced plan, which reserves a good part of the resources for grant-type financing. And it adds an incredible amount of money to other resources already announced, either by the Commission or by the European Central Bank. Ursula von der Leyen demonstrated opportunity and vision. Her standing as head of the Commission comes out strengthened. Of course, behind all this, we can guess there is the support of Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schäuble, who is now President of the German Federal Parliament and who continues to have a lot of power, on the domestic scene of his country. In the end, these things happen if the Germans are on board. They do not express it too loudly, but their voice is the determinant one in matters of common economic policies, agriculture excepted.

The European recovery

Today, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron stated they will advocate for the establishment of a €500 billion recovery fund. In their view, the money should be raised in the international capital markets by the European Commission, as a common pot aimed at helping the Member States seriously affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The disbursements would be approved by the Commission, following the criteria that are yet to be established. It would also be the Commission that would have the responsibility to pay the markets back, meaning, the principal and the interests or dividends.

I am not sure this will work. Austria’s leader, Sebastian Kurz, has already voiced strong objections to such an idea. He does not want to see a recovery mechanism that is dispensing grants to the States. He is for loans. Loans make the leaders a bit wiser than just getting free money, he seems to believe. We can expect that other voices will join his own.

In view of this, my position is that most of the money should be channelled to fund joint multinational projects that would reinforce the European system and would have an impact on the EU’s strategic self-sufficiency in matters of public health, bioresearch and other critical emergency response mechanisms. The pandemic has taught us that the health sector is vital, not only for medical reasons but also because of its impact on the functioning of the economy. We cannot no longer talk about strategy without including the strengthening of our common capacity to deal with epidemics, critical hospital equipment needs and essential medicines. Money should also be spent on common logistics and rapid deployment networks.

It is also clear that the recovery fund must be operational soonest. There is urgency. We are not yet at the end of the crisis. The intensity of the pandemic can have a new surge at any moment. We must be better prepared this time. In addition, the economy of the most affected countries needs resources that would encourage new investments, in greener areas, and in matters that address the issues of income and social security. The priority should go for those projects that are fundamental for a stronger Europe and that are not too much dependent on resources and means of transportation we do not control.

This is a time to think differently. The fund, if it is thoughtfully planned and wisely administered, can become a tool for transformation and progress. The alternative is for it to become a reason for further divisions within the European space. Nobody wants that to happen.

The judges and the economic crisis

The judgement issued by Germany’s Constitutional Court regarding the European Central Bank’s bond purchasing programme must be taken very seriously. It challenges the autonomy of the Bank, it gets the judges into monetary and fiscal matters, where the Court is not necessarily in familiar territory, and, above all undermines the authority and the mandate of the European Court of Justice. In the end, the judgement imperils the European Union itself.

But it came as no surprise. Many in Germany and elsewhere are still looking at some other European countries through the lenses of historical prejudice.

In any case, it must be responded to in a manner that is as comprehensive as possible. The ECB will take its part. It should be able to produce the justification the Constitutional Court requires. And key European politicians must state in clear terms the ultimate authority of the European Court of Justice. More concretely, Angela Merkel should come up with a statement that would underline the exceptionality of the current crisis and the need to go beyond the conventional approaches. It should add a word of respect for the Constitutional Court, of course, and, at the same time, remind everyone that the ECB’s plans and decisions are fundamental to overcome the calamity we are in.

Americans love to dictate to others

The US Congress is not happy. The Chamber of Representatives just approved a bill to sanction all companies that are engaged in the building of the gas pipeline known as Nordstream 2. This pipeline will connect the production fields in Russia to the consumers in Germany and beyond. It crosses the Baltic Sea. And it is key for the supply of this part of the EU. But our American friends see it differently. For them, this pipeline creates additional subordination to the Russian energy sector and, in addition, makes the pipeline through Ukraine less lucrative for the Ukrainians.

This is no good news. It is another front of tension between us and them. It widens the gap. And it reminds many of us that it is time to have a different approach to our external relations. Europe needs a stronger and more independent capacity to deal with friends and adversaries.

Unfortunately, events like this emphasise that often it is better to negotiate with adversarial powers than with allies. And when we start looking at things from such a prism it is better to have a clear view and move without any type of hesitation.

The approaches towards the future of European defence

When it comes to European defence, it is not either the US or Turkey that count. It is basically how the issue is seen by the French, the Germans and the Poles. The British, with the Brexit imbroglio, have somehow stepped aside. Each one of these three nations lead a different school of thought on the matter. And, in many ways, the Poles are more influential than what many outside analysts think. On top of that, they tend to voice positions that are not too far from the feelings we find within the US side. In this context, the strategy must follow a gradual approach, step by step, starting with less controversial areas. And it has to consider what should be the future of NATO in the Europe of tomorrow.

9 November is a European date

Besides the German leaders, the Presidents of Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary participated in the ceremony in Berlin, marking the 30^th anniversary of the fall of the Wall. I am very pleased they did. The date is an important one for freedom and democracy in their part of Europe. But it is also a key one for the rest of us, in the EU. It is about freedom, the end of a totalitarian approach to governance, the realisation that the communist utopia, as promoted by the Soviets and their allies, was nothing else but a tragic instrument to keep power in the hands of minority political extremists. It is above all a key date for Europe and its modern history. As such, it is most surprising not to see at today’s ceremony some politicians such as Emmanuel Macron, Charles Michel, the incoming EU Council President, and many others from the Western side of Europe. I think they made a mistake.

Iran and the EU approach

Today, unexpectedly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Brussels. He met the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the UK, and briefly, the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy. The matter was Iran.

The US Administration has placed Iran at the top of its international agenda, next to two other critical themes: the trade talks with China and the internal situation in Venezuela. The American leadership is clearly betting on isolating Iran as a way of weakening the regime. Such policy is above all inspired by advice coming from Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both countries want Iran down.

This is certainly a very risky policy.

The alleged sabotage of four oil tankers in the very sensitive area around the Strait of Hormuz, which was big headlines today, is another very serious development in a very explosive environment. It is unclear what really happened to the ships and who was behind the actions, whatever actions they could have been. To draw any conclusion without more information would be extremely foolish. If there was indeed a big issue with those tankers, if an attack took place, an international commission on enquiry should be mandated to assess the facts. I hope the Europeans told something like that to Pompeo. I expressed interest in being part of the investigation.

I understand there was little common ground today between the visiting Secretary and the EU Ministers. That’s is encouraging. The Europeans must show they have their own way of looking at Iran and the Middle East, for that matter. They appreciate the alliance with the US but, at the same time, they must assert their independent views. Particularly when the gravity of the situation does not allow any misguided approach. As it does not tolerate a partisan policy, choosing the Saudi or the Israel side when the region needs a cool and balanced line to be followed by the Europeans.

Europe and China

Brexit issues made us lose sight of the joint meeting on 26 March between Xi Jinping, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker. The main credit for such summit should be given to the French President. He took the initiative and was able to convince the Chinese President to accept it.

Xi Jinping was visiting France. President Macron´s message to him was friendly but unambiguous: you should not intent to establish good relations with any of the European countries, including the larger ones, without considering the EU context and the fact the countries are part of a political union. Member States keep their independence, that is very much true, but they are also inserted in a larger system of common interests.

I see three messages in all this. First, there is a balance to be respected between individual and common European political objectives. Second, no bilateral action undertaken by China should be perceived as undermining the EU´s unity. This latter point must also be practised by the European countries. When dealing with China, they must keep the concern for EU´s cohesion as a priority. The third message is about power and leverage. Europe can only be able to respond to China’s domineering approach if its Member States act together. The opposite, to believe they can be treated by China on an equal footing is either political naïveté or a manifestation of deceitful policies.

The four-sided summit has also helped to prepare for the next high-level meeting between the EU and China that will take place on 9 April.

Responding to Germany and to AKK

AKK, full name, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the new leader of the CDU governing party in Germany, is more concerned with the growing influence of the AfD – Alternative for Germany, the extreme-right, ultranationalist party – than with European affairs. That explains, to a very large extent, the way she responded to Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance proposals. She was above all writing to her constituency within CDU and to many of those voters that have decided to move their support to AfD during the last few years. One of the things she must achieve is to bring that support back to CDU. Her leadership is a lot about that objective.

All that is fine. We know that party politics is primarily a domestic matter. However, AKK’s approach is not a balanced one. Germany is a key player within the EU. As such, it ought to show leadership and ambition on European matters. That is particularly needed now, when the European elections are already taking shape in the near horizon and a new leading team will take over in Brussels and be directing the institutions for the next five years. Moreover, this is a time of major political challenges, both within Europe and in the international scene. Internally, Europe as a project is seriously questioned by a bad mixture of populist sentiments and national fragilities. Externally, the risks to European interests are many, complex, simultaneous and compound. They come from some neighbours – these are always the most dangerous threats. But in the connected world we live in, the concept of neighbourhood needs to be reassessed. And the threats also come from unsettling changes of policy at the level of our traditional allies.

There is thus plenty of room to be leader about. That should be one of the messages to be sent back to Germany and to AKK.

Macron and the Germans

The CDU Leader’s response to Emmanuel Macron shows there is a big gap between the German right-wing vision of Europe’s future and the more centrist proposals made by the French President. And, in many ways, the CDU’s views, as expressed by Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, reflect the opinion we can find in the German streets.

They also send a clear message to Macron. We can cooperate but we do not belong to the same political family. And we, Germans, we lead our grouping of parties in the European institutions.

Macron must feel a bit alone tonight.  

Juncker´s options

Now that Jean-Claude Juncker has presented his ideas about the options regarding the future of the EU, a matter that I will discuss in the next writings, it has become apparent that the Germans and the French have decided to support Juncker and accept his implicit suggestion that they should become again the core engine of the European project. Both governments back Juncker´s views that see different groupings of countries opting for distinct levels of integration. Also, they are convinced that this is no time for a change at top of the European Commission. That´s the reason they want to be seen as keen supporters of Juncker´s full mandate. 

German politics

Martin Schulz spent many years in Brussels first as Member of European Parliament and in the end, as its President (Speaker). A few weeks ago, he returned to his native Germany and took the leadership of his party, the SPD (Social Democrat). He is now campaigning throughout the country, with the forthcoming legislative elections in mind. The elections will take place at the end of September. That´s a long way down the line. An eternity, in political terms, particularly now, that everything goes fast and can change even faster. He is competing against Angela Merkel, who will be fighting for a fourth term as leader of Germany. That´s a formidable challenge. But Schulz is doing well. He is seen as potential winner. That´s good, in politics.

In any case, we are fortunate to have Merkel and Schulz as the key competitors in Germany. They are both balanced leaders and people without fear. They are also resolutely pro-Europeans. Their presence in the front lines is good news for the EU.

Elections money

Elections will take place in a number of EU countries this year. And interestingly enough, we will see those countries actively borrowing in the capital markets. Italy´s government will be number one. They intend to issue public debt bonds totaling € 271 billion. That´s a lot of money, to be paid by future governments and the younger people. France will be number two. They should be in market to borrow over €200 billion. Even Germany, with general elections later in the year, will be looking for fresh money in the financial markets: €160 billion.

The point here is to spend a lot on public goodies to get the voters happy and ready to support those in place. It´s short term politics against long term liabilities.

Responding to terrorism with wisdom

Yesterday´s horrendous attack in Berlin cannot be used by the extreme right to further their hate campaign. We should not allow it to happen.

The people responsible for the violence are terrorists and they should be dealt as such. We cannot fall into stereotypes and start looking at every refugee as a potential threat. Refugees are just fellows like you and me. The main difference is that they had to run for their lives. They are not in the business of taking other people´s lives. The criminal that comes to us and tries to do us harm is just that, a criminal. He might represent a new type of danger. But that´s the world of today, the upshot of some very serious crises in different parts of the world.

This seems to be understood by the vast majority of the German people. They are deeply sad and disturbed but they remain calm and have demonstrated they do not fall in the trap the extremists are so good at laying. We should share their pain but also their wisdom.