Europe’s new triumvirate
Yang Chengxu

AIN November 2006, Angela Merkel took office of chancellor of Germany. In May this year, Nicolas Sarkozy became master of the Elysee Palace in France. And in June, Gordon Brown became prime minister of Britain. The impact of these consecutive leadership changes on the development of European Union (EU) has been at the forefront of public attention, as they tackle thorny international issues. The United States, for example, is attempting to control the EU by exploiting the differences between the so-called “New Europe” and “Old Europe,” while Russia is using its vast energy resources to sow discord in the EU. Faced with these pressures, the three new EU leaders must learn to get along well with each other and gradually mitigate their existing differences to improve EU solidarity and the union’s status as a big power in the international arena.
Despite the EU’s continued enlargement, the union has virtually stagnated on political matters because of internal differences that arose after French and Dutch citizens voted down the proposed EU constitution. EU-U.S. relations, which grew worse because of objections to the Iraq War by former French President Jacques Chirac and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, have started to improve. On the other hand, EU-Russian relations face various difficulties and are hard to predict under the three new European leaders. As for China, the EU is asking the country to shoulder greater responsibilities for the world due to competitive pressure, thanks to China’s fast development.
Pushing the EU
It is the common aspiration of the EU countries to free the union from the tough political dilemmas it faces. Soon after taking office, for example, Merkel committed herself to resolving the problem of the EU constitution. During her tenure as EU chairperson in the first half of this year, she engaged in a lot of diplomatic activities to achieve this goal. Likewise, on the very day he was elected president of France, Sarkozy immediately began to push the EU member countries to restart discussions on the EU constitution and declared “France is back to Europe.”
The heads of states exchanged visits between Germany and Poland, France and Poland, and Germany and France and made mutual concessions, forming a foundation for the success of the summit meeting held in Brussels on June 23. The meeting reached a consensus on the framework and contents of the new constitution and set forth a “roadmap.” It is predicted that the EU member countries will start the ratification process in 2008. France and Germany managed to persuade Poland, Britain, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands to proceed based in the name of the EU’s overall interest. The bond between Germany and France will remain the driving force of the enlarged EU. The EU’s 27 member countries have eliminated differences, emphasized their common interests, consolidated their cohesion, maintained the direction of the EU development and enhanced the public’s confidence on the future development of the EU.
Different strokes for different folks
The three new EU leaders must work together for Europe to reclaim its position on the center stage of international relations - a somewhat tricky task, considering their different backgrounds, experiences and personalities. Merkel was brought up and educated in East Germany, Sarkozy is of Hungarian descendant, and Brown is a Scot. Merkel also comes from a different political party from that of Schroeder. The three new European leaders are different from their predecessors in leadership characteristics. It appears that the differences between Brown and Tony Blair on EU and international policy issues are remarkably smaller than the differences between Merkel and Schroeder, and between Sarkozy and Chirac. But the actions of the new leaders will inevitably differ from their predecessors. Among the leaders of the three EU powers, Merkel is moderate and steady, Brown is taciturn, and Sarkozy, full of unexpected acts and words, is regarded as an “oddity” in political circles. While remaining objective to Britain joining the euro zone, Brown will weigh Britain’s interest in the matter against the tendency of EU development over the long term. In the near future, Brown will be on good terms with Sarkozy who admires Britain’s economic system.
Merkel and Brown are both practical, and their fathers are both pastors. Hence, it will not be hard for them to get along. Sarkozy and Merkel, however, have very different personalities. It appears that it would take time for them to develop the seamless cooperative relationship that the previous German and French leaders enjoyed. Believing that the overvalued euro is not good for the European economy, Sarkozy insists on the European Central Bank’s interference in the euro’s depreciation, a move that Germany opposes. And Germany complains about France’s various projects in Libya, including a memorandum on nuclear power that Sarkozy signed without coordinating with Germany and other EU members.
Mending Relations with America
When the United States and Britain started the Iraq War in 2003, German-U.S. and French-U.S. relations plummeted. Nevertheless, leadership changes in Germany, France and Britain present the best opportunity to mend EU-U.S. relations. Since taking office, Merkel has met U.S. President George W. Bush five times. The two countries have worked closely with each other and strengthened their coordination on significant international issues, including the Middle East and the Iranian nuclear issue.
During her first visit to the United States in November 2006, Merkel proposed establishing a Europe-U.S. free trade agreement and a trans-Atlantic economic partnership that would let Europe and the United States reach a consensus on uniform technology standards, surveillance regulations, enhancing investment, protecting intellectual property rights and promoting financial market integration. Sarkozy is considered a right-wing pro-U.S. politician. Although he views the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a serious mistake, his attitude toward the United States is sharply different from that of Chirac. Before he was elected president, Sarkozy visited the country and after meeting with Bush, said publicly that “anti-Americanism was an elite indulgence not shared by the French at large.” He also followed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s example and vacationed in the United States and visited Bush’s family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, immediately warming Franco-American relations.
The French Defense Minister Hervé Morin and Hubert Védrine, the country’s former foreign minister, made a proposal to Sarkozy that France return to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to rebuild good relations with the United States and improve the country’s position in the NATO. It was reported that Sarkozy would pay another visit to America to discuss France’s return to NATO with U.S. leaders.
Britain and the United States have always maintained a special relationship, to which the change of major political figures in Europe will not bring any substantial changes. Britain always has serves as a bridge for the United States to reach Europe. However, Brown will not follow the U.S. administration’s every step, as Blair did. For domestic reasons, he will insist on a pullout from Iraq, which will influence Britain’s relationship with the United States. Before stepping down, Blair had reduced British troops in Iraq from 18,000 to 5,500. After taking office, Brown further withdrew 500 British troops from Basra Palace and redeployed them in the British army base near the city’s airport on September 2. Brown announced on October 8 that Britain would reduce its troops in south Iraq from 5,500 at the start of September to 4,000 in several months. Brown later said his country would reduce its troops in Iraq to 2,500 by spring 2008. The U.S. Government reacted strongly and said that Britain’s decision created a danger that degraded the special relationship between the two countries to a new low.
While enhancing its ties with the United States, the EU keeps some distance from it as well. For example, before Merkel visited the United States after taking office, she criticized the country for maltreating prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. With regard to the negotiations that the United States conducted with Poland and the Czech Republic on setting up an antimissile system, Merkel said publicly that NATO should discuss the matter and reach a consensus on a solution and that Russia should be invited for open discussions. According to European public opinion, deploying anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic has deepened internal disagreements in the EU. Therefore, one could interpret this to mean that Washington harbors an intention to break up the EU, while Europeans harbor strong anti-American sentiments. Such differences of opinion between the United States and the EU also extend to the issues of energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
Nevertheless, it appears that the leadership changes in Germany, France and Britain will improve the EU’s relations with the United States, although, they will be limited because the EU seeks to protect its own interests. Cooling down EU-Russian ties Russia’s relations with its European neighbor countries have fallen to their lowest point since 1991. European counties have criticized Russia for “retreating from democracy” and heading toward “dictatorship.” Europe and the United States continue to squeeze Russia’s strategic space. They have aggravated friction with Russia over the country’s plan to build energy pipelines in the Middle East and the Black Sea and on how to resolve the Kosovo issue. The leadership changes in Germany, France and Britain have not curbed the continuously deteriorating relations. Countering the United States’ decision to set up antimissile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia said it would suspend the implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and threatened to aim nuclear weapons at Europe again.
The struggle between America and Russia for Europe is becoming heated, while European-Russian relations have hit barriers. Eastern European countries, especially Poland and the Baltic states, have become the mouthpieces of the United States in Europe. In the EU, there are two attitudes toward Russia with New Europe favoring a hardline approach while the majority EU member countries hope to improve relations and enhance cooperation with Russia. However, in recent years, economic ties between Europe and Russia have developed quickly. From 2000 to 2006, their bilateral trade volume almost doubled, registering $231 billion. About 53 percent of Russia’s foreign trade was done with Europe. Europe supplies more than half of Russia’s foreign investment.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)

Sri Lanka’s story continues to be a tragic one
Ameen Izzadeen

THE old widow whom I knew well had several children. One of them was incorrigible and unruly — a jobless drunkard. While the other children looked after the old lady and gave her money, the drunkard visited her only to harass her and take money. Yet, her love for the rebel son was overflowing. I was privy to the conversation where the other children would take the old woman to task for spoiling her son. They wished he had been dead. But she was resolute in her love and prayed that her son was guided on the right path
. The rebel son, because of his bad habits, died, and the old woman nudging the nineties was shattered while the siblings breathed a sigh of relief. He might be a drunkard or a menace to society, yet he was her son — and she continued to pray for him till she died. When Subramaniam Paramu Thamilselvan, the political head of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), was killed there was jubilation in the south. The news was greeted with lighting of firecrackers and beating of the traditional drum. Many wished the Air Force attack had killed LTTE leader Prabhakaran. They were apparently like the children of the old widow, wishing the death of their own sibling. Immortal words like those of Ernest Hemmingway in his ‘For Whom the Bells Toll’ were clearly not known or relevant to most of them. Hemmingway had said, “Every person’s death diminishes me, because I belonged to humanity.”
I visualised Mother Lanka in the image and character of the old widow. But like the old lady who is dead and gone, Mother Lanka wasn’t there to cry for her rebel son. Mother Lanka is somewhere but no body knows where exactly. She is a victim of rebellion and a captive of racism. The Tigers may not be like the drunkard son of the old lady, but they were rebels who harassed Mother Lanka. A majority of Sri Lankans did not want some of the Sri Lankans to be equal sons and daughters of Mother Lanka. This attitude pushed them to find refuge in another mother — Mother Eelam. Incidentally, Eelam is another name for Sri Lanka in Tamil.
Even today, if Mother Lanka can be found and given her rightful place, she will shower love on her rebel sons in the north and east. A mother’s love knows no discrimination. I am also reminded of the biblical parable of the prodigal son. When the old father had a big feast to celebrate the return of his younger son, his elder son was angry. The old father said, “For this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” But Father Lanka is also nowhere to be seen either to accept his lost son and assure his elder son that the fattest calf to the rebel son does not mean he (the elder son) would lose what is his.
This is the tragedy of the house of Lanka, no father, no mother while the siblings are fighting for inheritance. As Nobel Prize winner Amatya Sen said the degeneration and the death of Sri Lanka began when it devalued the time-tested principle of pluralism based on multi-racial and multi-religious unity in diversity. The killing of Thamilselvan on Friday in a Sri Lanka Air Force air attack has only aggravated the fighting. The attack has added more chorus to the growing cry for war. “Kill Prabhakaran and finish the war” is what we hear in the south. It may be a war cry. But those who call for war say their war cry is actually a cry for peace. They say: “Enough war. This war should come to an end. If it meant that it could come only at the cost of killing Thamilselvan, Prabhakaran and all the rebels. Then kill them and finish the war. We cannot go on like this forever.”
They are like the old lady’s ‘goody goody’ children who wished for the death of the rebel sibling. The enmity has taken to roots to such an extent that this war is no longer considered a clash between sons of Sri Lanka. It is “us” versus ‘them’. ‘Us’ represents those who visualise in their mind the tear-drop shaped map of the country surrounded by the Indian Ocean when Sri Lanka is mentioned. ‘Them’ represents those who fight for part of that map. The house of Lanka has been devastatingly polarised. One does not have to carry out a detailed sociological analysis to say this. He or she only has to take a glance at newspapers these days. Saturday’s front-page banner headline of a state-run Sinhala newspaper said, ‘The smiling butcher eliminated’. There is little doubt that the Tigers are butchers. But such public elation by a mouthpiece of the government is a crude display of government’s lack of commitment to peace or confidence-building measures.

—Khaleej Times




Egypt’s bold nuclear-step
Linda Heard

LAST week, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced the relaunch of his country’s nuclear energy program, on hold since the 1986 Soviet Chernobyl disaster. “Egypt will go through with the nuclear energy project in the belief that energy security is a basic element in building the future of the homeland and part and parcel of Egypt’s national security system,” he said while pledging it would be transparent, peaceful and developed in coordination with the UN nuclear watchdog the IAEA.
Gamal Mubarak, the ruling National Democratic Party’s assistant secretary-general, subsequently fleshed out his father’s statement. The government wanted to ensure the country benefited from sustainable energy by 2022 and would immediately begin constructing four nuclear power stations, he said. According to Egypt’s minister for electricity, the first will be built near the coast east of the Mediterranean resort town Alexandria and besides having a 1,000-megawatt capacity will be a vital source of desalinated water. It is predicted to be up and running by 2018. It should be mentioned that Egypt has possessed a Soviet-supplied 2-megawatt nuclear research reactor fuelled by enriched uranium since 1961 — The Inshas Nuclear Research Center, north of Cairo. Reports suggest that Inshas might have been upgraded to 22-megawatts over the past decade with the assistance of Argentina. It is also believed that Egypt has an indigenous source of uranium in its eastern desert, although according to the IAEA, Egypt has thus far not attempted an enrichment process. Like Iran, Egypt is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty under the terms of which it has the right to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and elicit assistance from nuclear powers. However, here the similarity ends. While Iran is under international siege for its nuclear ambitions, Egypt’s have been blessed by the US, France and the EU. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Washington would not object to Egypt’s program provided it respects the rules of the NPT and the IAEA.
“Countries that are members in good standing of the NPT and enter into agreements with the IAEA regarding safeguards for peaceful nuclear energy, we have no problem with that,” he said, adding, “Those are countries we can work with”. He should have added “with the exception of Iran”. Director-General of the IAEA Mohammed El-Baradei told CNN at the end of last month that he had “not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now” in Iran. El-Baradei believes Iran is cooperating and any differences can be overcome with dialogue and negotiation. Yet for some strange reason politicians in Washington think they know better than highly qualified and experienced inspectors in the country, and rather than rethink their aggressive stance prefer to smear anyone who isn’t prepared to dance to their politically-driven tune.
In June, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused El-Baradei of “muddying the message to Iran” and he later told reporters he was sick of “backseat drivers, putting in their five cents”. The actual message is this: Countries that are friendly to the West are given carte blanche to pursue peaceful nuclear programs; those that aren’t are vilified, sanctioned and threatened with bombardment. It appears that Egypt has taken a “if you can’t beat them, join them” attitude. For years the Egyptian government, along with many others in the region, has pushed for a nuclear-free Middle East. At a UN conference in September, Egypt led the call for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, which the US, Israel and 25 EU countries chose not to endorse. Egypt expressed its surprise and disappointment in a letter to EU leaders, signed by the foreign minister. “Cairo is unaware of the substantive reasons that led to such a decision taken by your country and I would, therefore, greatly appreciate your views on the matter,” he wrote. In fact, there’s nothing surprising about the stance of those countries that either abstained from voting or voted against the proposal. The only nuclear country in the Middle East is, of course, Israel, which in some Western quarters is immune from criticism. Due to the outrageous double standards openly displayed by Israel and Washington over this issue and the obsequious falling in line of their European allies, the dream of a nuclear-free Middle East has receded into the twilight zone.

—Arab News