Update on France: Rough waters ahead for President Sarkozy

A year ago, Nicolas Sarkozy came to power, billing himself as the only person brave enough to reform France. He was the French change candidate, flamboyant and sure of himself. Now he is fighting for his political life. A year since he took office, polls show his support at 28% and falling.

In a 90 minute interview the once once flamboyant President was replaced by a more modest personae, which took responsibility for the mistakes and failures of the past year, ranging from turmoil in his own personal life (i.e. courtship and marriage to Carla Bruni) to in fighting within his administration and policy setbacks, beginning with the announcement of reforms, only to later shelve them, causing confusion and leading many to question his ability to manage his office.

Despite his more humble tone, however, Sarkozy made clear that he would continue to attempt to reform France on many fronts at once, including defending his loosening of the 35 hr week and his cutting of public sector jobs despite growing street protests from high school students and education staff. He also reiterated his hard stance on illegal immigration and even promised to hold a referendum on Turkey's ascension into the EU, something for which there is strong opposition in France.

Sarkozy argued that in some ways his economic policy was a victim of the current global financial crisis, including the high price of oil and the Euro which makes exports less competitive. Additionally, growth rates which were high before the subprime crisis, are now worst. Inflation has continued to rise dramatically, while salaries have remained unchanged, as has unemployment, which although slightly reduced, remains one of the highest in Western Europe.

There is fear in France that given the Socialists Party's weakness, and Sarkozy's falling popularity (and that of his party, the Union for Popular Movement) will open the way for the revival of the extreme right, under the banner of the National Front during the next election cycle.

In some way, as the article notes, French voters are the victims of their own high expectations. They expected change to happen too quickly and have been disappointed by the reality of failed initiatives, in the midst of an economic downturn.

Apart from France's own political trouble, here in the US we have to look at the repercussions of a defeat for Sarkozy. As many have noted since his ascension to the presidency, he's something American's haven't seen in a long time, a French Atlanticist, who values France's relationship with the US. This has facilitated not only France's re-engagement with NATO, but also removed the US as an obstacle to an independent European Defense capacity. Already, many have wondered whether such Atlanticist leanings would outlast his presidency, but not many have wondered what would happen if his Atlanticist leanings were, fairly or not, blamed for his failed tenure as President of France. This would almost assure a more anti-American stance in the country for years to come. In addition, it would likely stall any movement on the more ambitious policies he has pursued outside of France, such as his Mediterranean Union, which although drastically scaled back, has the potential to increase the EU's focus on North Africa and the Middle East, complementing the US's efforts in both regions as part of the ill-named War on Terror.

This is all the more important as France is slated to take over the EU Presidency on July 1 of this year, and his ability to push his EU wide agenda will likely be constrained by the political climate within France itself. It remains to be seen what steps he will take to address public discontent and whether he can win back some of the support he has lost during the past year. It's an interesting moment for France, and perhaps, there is a lesson for us on this side of the pond, now that we are electing our next leader.

Read More...

Snippet only...

'Free Tibet' flags made in China

Talk about aiding both sides of a conflict! According to the BBC, a factory in Guangdong province in China has discovered that it was making flags for the Tibetan government-in-exile. According to the article, the workers were apparently unaware of what the colors and flag represented.

This is a perfect story about this globalized world we live in. First, the flags were ordered from over seas to support a cause the Chinese government, to put it mildly, frowns upon. Then factory workers notice these same flags being used against the Chinese government via television reports (where protesters were holding them up for Tibet) and by searching for their meaning on the internet. Even more ironic, for the pro-Tibetan side, at many rallies, they will be flying pro-Tibetan flags, made for profit in Chinese factory. (Hat Tip: FP Passport)

For a different take on this "controversy" please visit The Useless Tree: Nationalism, Globalization and "Three in the Morning." I partially agree, but note that even in the US, in what Tom Barnett has billed as the world's first multinational union and "blueprint for globalization", nationalism is alive and well, and from time to time, rears its ugly head; in that, China is hardly alone.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Hamid Karzai escapes Taliban attack (Updated)

The ceremony in Kabul, was commemorating the 16th anniversary of Afghanistan's victory over the Soviet invasion, which is also known as Victory Day/Mujahideen Day and consists of a parade where Afghanistan showcases its military power, including troops, tanks and aircraft. Just as the national anthem ended, shots rang out from abandoned houses a few yards from where the VIP's were seated hitting the back of the stage. The press is reporting that at least 3 people were killed and 9 wounded; among the dead, a small child and a parliamentarian (the latter died from wounds sustained during the attack).

According to the AFP, there were also large explosions, likely caused by rocket propelled grenades, which landed near the stage. Although President Karzai appeared in a news conference following the attack to state that everything was calm and that some of the perpetrators had been captured, the Taliban issued a statement saying that the purpose of the attack was not to kill any high level target, including Hamid Karzai, but was merely a means to show that it could attack anywhere in the country with impunity.

Indeed, the attack seems to have achieved the Taliban's stated objective as they were able to execute it, despite tightened security provided by Afghan and allied forces, and in the midst of a display of Afghanistan's military power. What's more, a Taliban spokesman claimed to have had help from within the Afghan security forces, bringing into question not only their ability to fight the insurgency, but also, their loyalty. It remains to be seen what the psychological shock of the event will be, both within Afghanistan (President Karzai and his security forces have been embarrassed on a day that was supposed to showcase their power), and NATO member states, particularly those who have been reluctant to increase their military presence in the country, or to engage in a more serious counter-insurgency effort.

Even more importantly, given President Karzai's recent criticism of US and British military operations as undermining his authority and preventing him from negotiating a cease-fire with insurgents, it remains to be seen what the impact of this attack will be. Additionally, on the American side, this latest attack will likely harden its position against negotiating with the Taliban, something it has criticized the British and Afghan governments for doing at various points. In addition, the manner in which the latest attack will impact upon the upcoming election in Afghanistan is important since support for President Karzai is flagging and as a result, relations between the US, Britain and his government are increasingly strained. Even more importantly, the attack happened even as the US and Afghan forces not only tightened security, as mentioned above, but also despite raids conducted in the preceding days, such as that in Kapisa, where Taliban militants were believed to be planning attacks for today's celebrations.

India and Pakistan have both expressed outrage over the attack, but given relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, at least one of these will get short shrift (even though relations between the two seem to be improving under the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani).

The attack also demonstrates how much still remains to be done to secure Afghanistan from the Taliban and al Qaeda, and how our efforts are being hampered by our continued presence in Iraq, where the host of enemies we are fighting, be they the PKK in northern Iraq, al Sadr's Mahdi army in southern Iraq, and Sunni tribesmen, who with the exception of AQI, have little or nothing to do with our larger war against al Qaeda. Additionally, one of the things this attack brings to the fore is the importance of Hamid Karzai to US plans in Afghanistan, or our over reliance on single political figures in countries in the region, be it Pervez Musharaff in Pakistan, Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, or Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq. A weakness al Qaeda and others will continue to go after, until the US moves to crafting overall strategies divorced from specific political/military figures in these countries.

The BBC has a set of 8 images documenting the parade and attack here.

Related Links

Long War Journal

President Karzai escapes assassination bid, parliamentarian killed

Abu Muqawama

The Latest Attack in Kabul

These spectacular attacks in the cities will undermine support for the government and the Coalition. The Taliban are now nationally an advanced phase II (Strategic Stalemate) insurgency with an increasingly capable propaganda capability. They face a Coalition and government without a comprehensive strategy (we'll see if ISAF signs on to the recently approved Afghan National Development Strategy after the Paris Conference). The chief of the Coalition, GEN McNeill, has just reminded the country that the international community does not plan to stay by suggesting a name change from "International Security Assistance Force" to "Interim Security Assistance Force." What better way to reinforce the standard Taliban propaganda that the Coalition may have the watches, but the Taliban have all the time.

Registan.Net

Karzai Lives to Rule Kabul for Another Day

This is, sadly, an enormous propaganda coup for the Taliban, who have seen their cachet in Afghanistan increase during an escalation of activity over the last year that had previously peaked at the attack on the Serena Hotel. The implications are dire: for years, the running joke has been that Karzai is only the Mayor of Kabul and not President of the country; this attack, which is the second deadly attack on high-profile targets in Kabul in four months, demonstrates just how little control he has even over Kabul. What’s worse is, the apparent ease with which two fire teams got within a few hundred feet of the President indicates that increasing segments of the population are allowing militants to roam freely.

AP video: Taliban attack on Afghanistan's Victory Day parade.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Update on the Mediterranean Union

I'm back. Sorry for the lack of posts these past few months, but I have been busy with other matters. I think what's left of this month will be partially about catching up with events that have transpired since I last posted. As such, this post is intended to update you on President Sarkozy's plan for a Mediterranean Union. I wrote two posts on the subject last year, which can be found here, and here. Both focused on the pros and cons of such a proposal, as well as the prospects it had of coming to fruition.

On the European side, many countries had problems with the proposal from the very beginning. Chancellor Merkel opposed it, first, because it did not include every EU member, particularly Germany, who would have to pay for such a plan without having much say in how the money was spent; second, because the project seemed redundant since the EU already had what was then known as the Barcelona Process which focused on strengthening EU ties to the Mediterranean, including Israel and Turkey; and thirdly, because Germany, in particular, saw it as a move that risked creating a powerful regional bloc within the EU, with France at its helm. Other European nations, such as Great Britain opposed Sarkozy's plan because they saw it as an attempt by France's President to prevent Turkey’s ascension into the EU, by providing it with an alternate club to join. Spain meanwhile was one of the few who supported the proposal because it saw the Mediterranean Union as an extension of the Barcelona Process. Turkey warily supported the proposal, but expressed similar concerns as those voiced by Great Britain. The Czech Republic and Poland opposed the Union initially because they saw it as merely an aggrandizement project for France’s President, whose country takes over the EU presidency on July 1 of this year. Now that the Union for the Mediterranean is about to become a reality, these countries are calling for the EU to focus more on eastern European states, such as Ukraine. In fact, they are calling for a process modeled on the Union for the Mediterranean to foster closer ties to eastern European countries not yet part of the EU.

In the Maghreb and the Middle East several countries (Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Israel) expressed varying degrees of support for such a venture. However, there was enough support for it, that many have begun complaining that rather than focusing on their own regional, read non-European institutions, most Arab and Maghrebi countries seem intent on joining the EU sponsored UM. Mohammad El-Ashab argued recently in Al-Hayat that North African countries should have used the Arab Maghreb Union as a platform to reinforce their position in negotiating with Europe. Instead, they seemingly have abandoned that Union and have sought to replace it with the EU sponsored UM, leaving the EU free to set the agenda, based on its interests, and not those of North African countries.

Since it was proposed, the UM has been debated in European capitals, but particularly between Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy, and earlier this month, they reached a compromise of sorts. Now, almost a year after it was proposed, the Union for the Mediterranean is about to become a reality, on July 13, 2008, but the new proposal agreed upon will retain little of its original design, and come closer to the Spanish vision described above. Chancellor Merkel threatened a boycott of a summit in Paris if President Sarkozy did not water down his proposal. After much debate, Sarkozy gave in. Now, his proposed Union will not only be an extension of the Barcelona Process, but will also include all members of the EU, and not just those bordering the Mediterranean Sea. To boot, the full name adopted for it is “The Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean.” Germany has also been firm in its demand that no new money be allocated for the project, other than what has already been allocated for the 2007-2013 period, which currently stands at €16 billion. Sarkozy, for his part, has promised to raise an additional €14 billion for the Union from private sources, including the government of Qatar.

To be sure, the actual shape that the Union for the Mediterranean will take, will not be known until after the July 13-14 summit announcing its creation, but what is clear is that it won’t be the same grand scheme proposed by President Sarkozy last year. As mentioned above, thanks to the Franco-German agreement, the UM will no longer be independent of EU instruments, since it now is an extension of the Barcelona Process, including its parliamentary component, the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, and the European Neighborhood Process. Moreover, the Union for the Mediterranean has been downgraded from the international forum, as envisioned by Sarkozy, to a mere summit of EU and Mediterranean countries.

As if this was not enough, the new UM will have to deal with thorny issues from the start, including the very difficult and complicated relationship between many of its member states, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (many countries will likely want to avoid having the rotating co-presidency of the UM going to Israel), the Syrian-Lebanese situation (particularly Syria’s association agreement with the EU which has been frozen since 2005 following the assassination of Rafik Hariri) and tensions between Morocco and Algeria. This, without adding the increasing violence and threat posed to North Africa and Southern Europe by al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. This, while also dealing with far more countries than Sarkozy had envisioned participating, leading many to wonder whether his greatest fear has come true, that there would be so many participants that nothing would ever get done, and hence, the Union despite coming online in July, will for all intent and purpose be dead in the water.

Additionally, some argue that the UM seems to be too geared toward business ventures, with too little focus given to democracy promotion or political reform. As such, it has come under increasing criticism by human rights activists. However, I think such a criticism misses the larger point. As Tom Barnett has argued for some time now, one of the best ways to promote political reform is to first connect a country’s or region’s economy to globalization, allowing through that process the flow of international rule sets, which although primarily geared toward business dealings, in the long run, open the way for political change. Still, it remains to be seen exactly how the Union for the Mediterranean will be configured, and whether it can overcome the challenges that essentially killed the Barcelona Process the first time around, to address issues such as immigration, terrorism, further develop economic and trade relations among its participants while also promoting some measures of good governance and likely environmental protection.

Read More...

Snippet only...