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.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS