When French voters rejected the EU constitution last May, it was thought by many observers to be an anomaly -- a one-off act by voters afraid of losing cherished privileges in a land committed to an integrated Europe.
However, nearly one year on, it is beginning to look more and more as if the country that likes to style itself a "motor of Europe" might actually be more of a roadblock on the path to European integration.
A series of maneuvers by French companies and leaders have created the suspicion, in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe, that the French want to have their economic cake and eat it too -- that is, benefit from the EU's open borders while keeping a firm hand on their family jewels.
Growing criticism of alleged French protectionism provoked President Jacques Chirac into an angry defense of his country during talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel earlier this month.
"France has been accused in the foreign media of being protectionist," Chirac said in Berlin. "This is absolutely absurd."
Nevertheless, resentment over what French leaders themselves have called "economic nationalism" has grown so strong that one Italian editorialist spoke of a "French illness that risks infecting everyone on Europe."
Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti compared the situation created by French behavior to the period leading up to World War I.
"Today, no one wants a blockage of the European markets either, but ... we are risking a chain reaction," he complained.
The Italians were commenting on the most recent case of French so-called economic nationalism, which involves two French companies, French energy giant Gaz de France (GDF) and the energy and environment services group Suez.
Brussels and Rome accuse the French authorities of arranging a shotgun wedding between the two companies to head off an anticipated hostile takeover bid for Suez by the Italian giant ENEL.
As a result, Brussels has chosen to make a test case of the Suez affair about the way business will be conducted in Europe in the future.
The EU could take France to court over the case if it proves that French authorities played a role in hampering ENEL's ability to make a bid for Suez.
On Tuesday, French Finance Minister Thierry Breton -- apparently fearing censure by Brussels -- blithely said that his government was not encouraging this or any other merger.
"I only encourage companies to do their work," Breton said. "They can join with whomever they like."
This was the same Breton who two months earlier openly expressed his government's hostility to a hostile takeover bid by the world's No. 1 steelmaker Mittal Steel for Europe's Arcelor.
Breton said the French government was worried about the takeover attempt because "Arcelor carries out a very large part of its activities in Europe, notably in France."
In fact, the French government has compiled a telltale history of interference in the free market of cross-border takeovers, repeatedly selecting like a protective mother what it considers the most fitting partners for its companies.
In 2004, when the Swiss pharmaceuticals company Novartis made a bid for the French-German group Aventis, the government of then-prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin immediately voiced its strong opposition.
"We will do everything in our power so that this merger is not completed," a Raffarin adviser said at the time. "France is a sovereign state. We will not let the Swiss simply take over what we have spent years to build up."
Instead, similar to the way the merger between GDF and Suez has been arranged, the French authorities pushed for a merger between Aventis and the French company Sanofi-Synthelabo, creating Sanofi-Aventis.
Last year, rumors of a possible hostile takeover bid by the US foods giant PepsiCo for France's leading foods group Danone sent politicians in Paris to the barricades again.
Although PepsiCo never confirmed interest in Danone, the outrage expressed by French leaders was so great that a clear message was sent to other possible suitors.
According to the business daily La Tribune, that scare prompted the French intelligence services to draw up a list of possible takeover targets to be protected from foreign poaching.
The list -- which includes Danone, the bank Societe Generale, retailers Casino and Carrefour, telecommunications equipment firm Alcatel and media group Vivendi Universal -- goes well beyond the "nationally strategic" companies the EU would permit protecting.
But the case of Suez and GDF is particularly galling for Brussels as EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes has warned that the sector was not sufficiently integrated and too concentrated in the hands of a few companies.
Last week, EU energy ministers urged to speed up the creation of a frontier-free energy market, and called on Kroes to carefully vet protectionist moves in the sector.
Austrian Energy Minister Martin Bartenstein, whose country currently serves as EU president, stated the conflict clearly.
There is, he said, a contradiction between some governments' "nationalist approach" to blocking energy sector takeover bids and the EU's rules on ensuring the free cross-border movement of capital.
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS