Most commentators routinely assume that a "yes" vote in this Sunday's French referendum on the proposed EU constitution would be good for Europe and the EU. But there is reason to doubt the conventional wisdom.
The French referendum will determine the political fate of French President Jacques Chirac -- not France's commitment to Europe, which is fixed and immutable. If the French vote "no," Chirac is finished. If they vote "yes," he is re-empowered.
Europe clearly would be better off with Chirac weakened than strengthened, even if it means a temporary slowing of the pace of integration.
Chirac practices the politics of "scapegoatism" and excuses. According to Chirac, France's exports are lagging not because France is losing its international competitiveness -- although it is, especially to Germany -- but because of the strong euro. Likewise, France's economic growth is waning not because France has failed to undertake necessary structural reforms, but because European interest rates are too high.
Who does Chirac think is at fault? The European Central Bank, of course, for allowing the euro to appreciate too much and for not cutting interest rates enough. Unfortunately, this is typical of Chirac's leadership style: blame others, excuse yourself and ignore reform. This is hardly the type of leadership Europe needs to survive and prosper in the modern world. But Europe will get more of it if the French vote "yes."
Europe would also continue to be dominated by the interests of the big countries, with the small countries in the back of the bus. The fate of the Franco-German axis, in particular, hinges on the outcome of the referendum. A "yes" invigorates the axis; a "no" weakens it.
"Who would follow Chirac if the French vote `No'?" asked one EU ambassador in a recent interview. "Even Berlin has options."
But Berlin would not like a "no" vote. If Chirac goes down, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder loses face as well. Two birds would be wounded with one stone.
The prospect of a re-energized Franco-German axis is why the Dutch -- who are traditionally pro-European but do not want a Europe that marginalizes small countries -- might vote "no" in their referendum -- which follows shortly upon France's -- if the French vote "yes." A Dutch "no" would signal rejection of a corporatist Europe dominated by French and German interests, as well as representing a protest against the unpopular conservative and moralistic policies of the Balkenende government. France is not the only EU country with an unpopular leader.
Eastern Europe also has a big stake in the outcome of the French referendum. Chirac made it perfectly clear how he feels about the new smaller countries when he told them to "shut up" when they disagreed with him over Iraq.
More recently, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier chastised Romanian President Traian Barescu for lacking a "European reflex," because Barescu plans to align Romania with Anglo-Saxon liberal economic policies, and wants a special relationship with the US and Britain to improve security in the Black Sea region.
Rather than buckle to France's will, however, Barescu warned France's leaders to stop lecturing his country -- a sure sign that French influence is on the wane even in countries with which it has close historical ties.
A French "no" would sit well with the Union's newer members from Eastern Europe, who know Chirac is not their friend, and who are more attracted by promises of rapid economic growth than social protection and corporate state mischief.
Finally, the referendum contains an unstated question about the future of the European Monetary Union (EMU) and the euro. The "yes" camp argues that rejecting the Constitution would damage the European Central Bank (ECB) and the euro. But why would the EU fall into chaos and the euro wilt if the Treaty of Nice remains in force. In the area of monetary integration, the European constitution doesn't change anything, other than the voting procedures in the Governing Council if the EMU grows beyond 15 member countries.
A "yes" vote, on the other hand, would encourage a reassured Chirac to continue his policy of no reform and scapegoating the ECB. External political pressure on the ECB and its president, Jean-Claude Trichet, to lower interest rates and talk the euro down surely would increase. This is more likely to bring the euro down than a "no" vote.
Melvyn Krauss is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry