It is tempting to indulge in some typical British lip-curling over the grand-sounding Treaty of Franco-German Cooperation and Integration signed on Tuesday by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron in Aachen (known as Aix-la-Chapelle in France), capital of Charlemagne’s lost but not forgotten ninth-century European empire.
The pact, reaffirming the 1963 Elysee Treaty that set the two countries on the path to post-war reconciliation, is intended to reassert the centrality of the Franco-German partnership in a splintering Europe beset by resurgent nationalism, rightwing populism and Brexit.
Cynics would say it is also an attempt to reassert the fading relevance of Merkel and Macron.
Illustration: June Hsu
Yet it is not necessary to be an English Euroskeptic to have serious doubts about this project. Macron was accused of “high treason” this week by the French right for supposedly secretly planning to surrender Alsace and Lorraine.
Rassemblement National party leader Marine Le Pen said French schoolchildren would be forced to speak German.
Merkel was also attacked at home for falling into the trap of appearing to endorse, at least in theory, some of Macron’s more high-flying ideas about a joint eurozone budget, a banking union, common taxes and a European army.
Alternative fur Deutschland party leader Alexander Gauland said Macron was trying to grab “German money.”
Such claims are nonsense, but so, too, is the idea spread by the Euroskeptic media in Britain that Paris and Berlin are conspiring to seize full control of the EU and impose a new, shared hegemony at the expense of smaller states.
The real problem with the new treaty is that it is mostly a bland, unambitious fudge.
The soaring ideals and aspirations enunciated by the newly elected Macron in his 2017 Sorbonne speech, about a Europe of democracy, sovereignty, unity and security, find but a faint, distorted echo today.
The treaty has little concrete to say about key, contentious issues facing Europe, such as migration, social fracture and alienation, and environmental challenges.
For example, it focuses on closer governmental coordination, intelligence sharing and cross-border cooperation — all of which have been mooted before. It skates around differences over arms exports — Germany banned weapons sales to Saudi Arabia after Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, while France did not.
The pact is also silent on the vexed issue of “sharing” France’s permanent UN Security Council seat, as suggested by some in Berlin.
Macron’s proposals about economic stimulus, social investment, a financial transaction tax and bank insurance have been lost in the mists of Germany’s innate fiscal caution.
In short, the Aachen treaty could be said to symbolize all that is bad about “Europe,” as viewed through jaundiced British eyes. It sounds fine and dandy, but it ducks the difficult issues, dodges tough decisions and, in seeking out inoffensive common ground, forfeits any sense of vision.
That is what cynics would say — and they would be fundamentally wrong. In their different ways, with numerous caveats and hesitations, and notwithstanding their considerable domestic political difficulties, Macron and Merkel are bravely trying to achieve three distinct and laudable objectives.
One is to remind Europeans, including the Brexiting British, that reconciling these two great continental powers was a signal achievement of the second half of the 20th century. It was a key British policy aim.
The ensuing partnership was a crucial cornerstone in the construction of the EU, still by far the world’s most successful model of interstate collaboration. It helped bring unprecedented peace, security and prosperity to Europe.
“Seventy-four years, a single human lifetime, after the end of World War II, what seems self-evident is being called into question again,” Merkel said on signing the treaty. “That’s why, first of all, there needs to be a new commitment toward our responsibility within the EU, a responsibility held by Germany and France.”
Second, by reaffirming their partnership, France and Germany are not seeking to dominate, but to safeguard those hard-won gains in the face of a dangerous pan-European upsurge in nationalist sentiment, divisive rightwing demagoguery, and out-and-out racism and xenophobia.
They are seeking to compensate for the damaging loss of Britain as an active partner in that ongoing fight. It is to Britain’s great collective shame that it appears set on abandoning the field and retreating into delusional nostalgia for an imagined past at the very moment when the forces of reaction are gathering new strength.
Last, Macron and Merkel are doing what any British leader worth their salt should instinctively be doing, too. They are reinforcing Europe’s defenses against the depredations, current and future, of a US that is increasingly intent on exploiting the privileges conferred by global leadership, while rejecting the accompanying responsibilities; and against the rise of a ruthless new superpower, China, whose authoritarian, anti-democratic practices fundamentally challenge European values of independence, freedom of action and individual rights.
For all their faults and weaknesses, Macron and Merkel can still see the bigger picture. These days, Britain’s small-minded leaders cannot see beyond their rather stuck-up noses.
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
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
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