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.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under