The election of a European party leader — one of about 200 in the EU — is normally not big news. However, it is when the party is the strongest political force in the EU’s largest and richest country.
Over the past weekend, Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) anointed Armin Laschet, the unassuming, friendly-faced prime minister of North Rhine-Westphalia state, as its chairman.
Laschet is not exactly a star on the world stage, but remember the name: Statistically, a Christian Democrat is the odds-on favorite for the German chancellor’s job.
Five of Germany’s eight post-World War II chancellors have hailed from the CDU — from Konrad Adenauer to the incumbent, Angela Merkel. Moreover, the CDU currently leads in national polls by a wide margin, making it a safe bet that Merkel’s successor will again hail from the conservative camp after Germany’s general election in September.
Laschet is to face a two-step process: first CDU chair, then chancellor candidate. Historically, the party chair has had first dibs as standard-bearer, but not necessarily a lock on the nomination, which is scheduled for March.
Before we get to the complications, let us look at Laschet, who went into the CDU convention predicted to lose. With his surprise victory, he is now the front-runner for the chancellor candidacy. So, let us posit that he will form the next government. What is to be expected?
In three words, “Merkel minus Angela” — maximum continuity. Laschet does not promise a new dawn, or a break with 16 years of Merkel’s centrism and its creeping leftward tilt.
That shift has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is driving a massive expansion of government spending and redistribution across the West. Trillions of euros are being showered on individuals and “system-relevant” companies.
Expect “Merkelism” in foreign policy as well.
In the three-way race for the top party job, Laschet’s two rivals — Friedrich Merz, a former leader of the CDU’s Bundestag caucus, and German Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Norbert Rottgen — promised to rebalance German interests in favor of “Westernism”: more for defense and NATO, fewer goodies for Russia and China.
However, Laschet would follow in Merkel’s footsteps.
Call it “diplomatic centrism.” Do not let the US drag Germany into conflicts with the two giants in the East. Keep your distance from Washington. Try to be on good terms with each and all, as it befits Berlin’s position in the heart of Europe.
As chancellor, Laschet would not defy Russia by cutting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that is to pump Russian gas directly into the country, circumventing Poland and Ukraine, and increasing Germany’s energy dependence on the Kremlin, nor would Germany exclude Chinese 5G technology from its networks.
A sign of things to come is the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment, concluded under German leadership just three weeks before US President Joe Biden’s inauguration.
With the agreement with Beijing, Biden’s hope of recruiting the EU into a strategic coalition against China evaporated. Indeed, together with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership — which 15 Asian countries, including China, concluded in November last year — the EU-China deal has left the US out in the cold.
On Europe, the future under Laschet also promises continuity. That means open spigots for the European Central Bank, together with an ever-larger shift of spending and taxing powers to the European Commission, the EU’s unelected executive.
In her early years as chancellor, Merkel fought massive transfers of clout and cash to the EU tooth and nail. Now, the debt and transfer union is locked in, never mind who the next chancellor is. Even out of power, Merkel will likely continue to shape the EU’s future.
Although probability suggests that Laschet will be chancellor once the election ballots are counted on Sept. 26, he would have to strain hard to unify the CDU and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU). Coming from behind at the CDU convention, he barely made it on the second ballot, winning just 521 of 1001 votes.
Worse, in nationwide polls, just one-third of respondents thought that Laschet might “make a good chancellor candidate.” About 55 percent opted for the CSU chairman Markus Soder, who is sure to challenge Laschet for the nomination. Indeed, Soder has been angling nonstop for the top prize.
What does Soder stand for? A more accurate question would be: “What does he not stand for?”
Soder has been shifting his positions with great alacrity, moving smoothly from right to left and back, be it on domestic security, immigration, “family values,” lockdowns, industrial policy or a German version of the “Green New Deal” proposed in the US.
Soder has insisted on Russia sanctions, but he has also made nice with Russian President Vladimir Putin while visiting the Kremlin.
Is there much of a difference between the two leaders of the two wings of German Christian Democracy? Laschet, to repeat, is “Merkel minus Angela.” Soder is a politico who tries to project charisma and fortitude, although his past suggests relentless flexibility, also known as indecisiveness or opportunism.
For the rest of the world, it matters little whom the party nominates. German multiparty coalition politics is not designed for sudden lurches, as is the case in the US. In Germany, it is always a few degrees to the left or the right, plumbing the depths and steering clear of treacherous shoals — all the while remaining finely tuned to the changing moods of the electorate.
Laschet or Soder for chancellor? “Merkel-plus” or a Bavarian posing as a strongman? The third player, of course, is COVID-19.
Last year, the efficient Germans excelled at holding the pandemic at bay. Today, the country is staggering from lockdown to lockdown as infections soar.
If the crisis continues, the German electorate might prefer a roly-poly, predictable uncle from the Rhineland to the unbridled ambition of a would-be king from Bavaria.
Josef Joffe, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, serves on the editorial council of German weekly Die Zeit.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
Taiwan-India relations appear to have been put on the back burner this year, including on Taiwan’s side. Geopolitical pressures have compelled both countries to recalibrate their priorities, even as their core security challenges remain unchanged. However, what is striking is the visible decline in the attention India once received from Taiwan. The absence of the annual Diwali celebrations for the Indian community and the lack of a commemoration marking the 30-year anniversary of the representative offices, the India Taipei Association and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center, speak volumes and raise serious questions about whether Taiwan still has a coherent India
Recent media reports have again warned that traditional Chinese medicine pharmacies are disappearing and might vanish altogether within the next 15 years. Yet viewed through the broader lens of social and economic change, the rise and fall — or transformation — of industries is rarely the result of a single factor, nor is it inherently negative. Taiwan itself offers a clear parallel. Once renowned globally for manufacturing, it is now best known for its high-tech industries. Along the way, some businesses successfully transformed, while others disappeared. These shifts, painful as they might be for those directly affected, have not necessarily harmed society
Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy. For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd. That they are basing this
RSS