EU summit overshadowed by dispute over France’s removal of Roma camps. The New York Times reports:
The dispute came to a head in a clash at lunch between Mr. Sarkozy and José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, which has threatened legal action against Paris over its deportation of Roma, also known as Gypsies. The French leader denied there had been any direct clash, but his account was contradicted by other leaders and diplomats. “There was a big argument — I could also say a scandal — between the president of the European Commission and the French president,” the Bulgarian prime minister, Boyko Borisov, said, according to the Bulgarian daily Dnevnik.
Asked about the hour-long exchange, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said “the lunch was good — but only regarding the food.” One European diplomat, not authorized to speak publicly, described the debate as “heated.” Another said: “Voices could be heard through the door.” But Mr. Sarkozy was unswayed. “We will continue to dismantle the illegal camps, whoever is there,” Mr. Sarkozy told a news conference. “Europe cannot close its eyes to illegal camps.”
Gavin Hewitt adds on the BBC blog:
The French leader accused the Commission of having wounded France: “I am the head of state, I am the French President and I can’t let my country be insulted.” His anger relates to comments made two days ago by the EU’s Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, in which she said that the removal of the Roma reminded her of actions taken during World War II. The French president described the words as “shameful” and “disrespectful. He said he would not allow his country to be the victim of “outrageous” insults.
He said none of Europe’s leaders were prepared to accept such language. Chancellor Merkel had called him to express total solidarity,” he said. “Everyone here,” he later told a news conference, “was deeply shocked especially given our wartime history. These words were deeply wounding and were insulting to my fellow countrymen.” But afterwards a spokesman for Mr Barroso challenged Mr Sarkozy’s version of events. “President Sarkozy,” he said, “does have a case to answer. No one supports President Sarkozy on the substance of the issue. There was a huge row over lunch with President Barroso insisting he had a job to do upholding EU laws over the free movement of its peoples.”
The EU will continue considering legal action against France. And President Sarkozy will continue dismantling the illegal camps. “We do not accept the existence of shanty-towns which are degrading to those live in them and nearby,” he said. He promised that French laws would apply to all and would not target particular ethnic groups. (…)
This was a deeply-felt and not a synthetic row. It pits an EU chief determined to fight for Europe’s policing of its laws against a French president equally determined to uphold French law as he sees it. The free movement of people within the EU does not in his view entitle people to occupy territory illegally. French government spokesmen are also hinting that this row “will only widen the gap between the French people and the European institutions”.
The BBC also reports that Sarkozy’s claim to have Merkel’s support has led to a diplomatic row between Paris and Berlin:
Mr Sarkozy told a news conference that Chancellor Merkel had said to him that she intended to follow France’s example in dismantling Roma camps. Mrs Merkel’s spokesman denied she had discussed the issue with Mr Sarkozy. (…) Mr Sarkozy told reporters at the summit that Chancellor Merkel had said she intended to dismantle Roma camps in the coming weeks. He predicted the action could unsettle German politics. But promptly after landing in Berlin, the Chancellor’s spokesman firmly denied that Mrs Merkel had discussed any so-called Roma camps with the French president during the summit or on the margins, let alone their evacuation.
Summit discussions on strategic partnerships. On strategic partnership — the topic of the summit –, EU leaders made little progress, according to media reports (which overwhelmingly focus on the Roma row). RFE/RL’s Ahto Lobjakas has some insight:
Diplomats say the discussion on September 16 fell far short of supplying solutions to the EU’s main problem, which Van Rompuy has repeatedly identified as the bloc’s tendency to “punch below its weight.” Instead, what took place was described by one participant as “an attempt at systematization.” (…)
Officials said the views expressed at the summit varied widely, with some member states stressing the importance of shared values while others argued that the EU must pursue its own “naked self-interest.”
A powerful reminder of the EU’s inability to assert itself on the global stage was provided by Poland, where a Chinese construction company recently won a huge road construction tender after underbidding other competitors by some 60 percent. One diplomat observed that “the opposite, however, does not work,” referring to the EU’s inability to secure similarly lucrative contracts in China. (…)
Officials say the EU is likely to remain hamstrung in the foreseeablefuture by the diverging interests of its member states, which make reaching common positions extremely difficult.
According to the EU Observer, Catherine Ashton made a presentation at the summit in which she proposed to enlarge the list of EU strategic partners:
EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton has indicated that Egypt, Israel, Indonesia, Pakistan, Ukraine and South Korea could join the EU’s existing list of privileged or “strategic” partners. Ms Ashton put forward the new names in a powerpoint presentation at a meeting of EU leaders and foreign ministers in Brussels on Thursday (16 September). The roll-call of six countries ended with a “…” to indicate that the club remains open to other up-and-coming powers, an EU diplomatic source said. The same powerpoint presentation listed Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the US as the set of existing strategic partners.
The term “strategic partner” is ill-defined in EU usage. In practice, it means boosting a foreign country’s diplomatic priority level and organising summits and extra minister-level and expert-level meetings. But it can also be taken to mean an alternative to fully-fledged EU membership. “It’s like love – no one can define it. You only know what it is when you experience it,” the EU diplomatic contact added. Another diplomat remarked that the term had been thought up a few years ago “without anyone ever really defining what it meant and whether, indeed, the others regard us as their strategic partners.”
In a press conference after the summit, European Council President Van Rompuy sketched out the agenda and resumed key points from the discussion (download the statement here or watch it here):
We briefly talked about how to make the best use of the Lisbon Treaty, with the new External Action Service.
- How to make sure that what is done from Brussels and from the capitals goes in the same direction.
- How to coordinate better between the different actors in Brussels.
- How to bring together the different aspects of our relationships with partners, for instance during summits, in areas such as economy, climate, values and security.The proof of the pudding of course is in the eating. How do we deal with our partners, one to one? Today we set priorities on a number of pressing matters.
Our key messages have to be underpinned by specific negotiations and trade-offs. I retain from the discussion the following other points.
1. This is the beginning of a process. This European Council is the first in a row dedicated to foreign policy
2. Our key messages should be mandated by the European Council, prepared and implemented by the Foreign Affairs Council, the Commission and the High Representative.
3. Reciprocity is a key word, it is not a dirty word; one can also speak about “mutual interests”.
4. We all insist on deliverables and leverage.
5. We have precise ideas on how to position ourselves vis-à-vis China (as reflected in the Conclusions of the European Council). So thanks to today’s discussion, when the President of the European Commission and I meet the Chinese Prime Minister in Brussels, three weeks from now, we do not speak just for “Brussels”, we can speak on behalf of the 27.
6. We touched upon other upcoming meetings as well: the G20 summit in Seoul and the EU – US summit, both to take place in November, both crucial for global economic perspectives. We will further prepare these meetings in October. French President Sarkozy, as incoming chair, outlined some of his ideas for the G20 in 2011. He received our full support to create a new dynamic to the G8 and the G20.
7. Middle-East. The success of the Middle East Peace negotiations is in the strategic interest of the European Union. That’s why we adopted a Declaration on this issue.
8. Our neighbourhood policy, for instance Western Balkans and the Eastern Partnership is of the highest importance.
9. Our reputation in the world starts with stability on our own continent. If you want to be global players, you have to be, and we are, regional players.
The official European Council conclusions with the statement on “Relations with Strategic Partners” can be downloaded here.
Barroso’s statement at the press conference following the summit here.
EU agrees trade concessions to Pakistan, the BBC reports:
The European Union has agreed to make trade concessions to Pakistan to help it overcome the impact of flooding, diplomats say. Details of the concessions are not yet available, but British diplomats told the BBC that potentially they could be worth millions of dollars. They say the deal could allow Pakistan significant reductions in duties paid on textile exports to EU countries. (…)
British diplomats in Brussels told the BBC that Thursday’s agreement would in principle allow Pakistan to avoid paying in duties on key imports to the European Union. But correspondents say that countries within the EU that have significant textile industries – such as France, Italy and Portugal – may be opposed to the move. Any move to grant Pakistan a waiver on textile duties would also require the consent of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to ensure trade rules are not violated. The details will be determined in the coming weeks, with the European Commission working with the WTO to finalise how the concessions can be be implemented.
EU gives green light for free-trade agreement with South Korea. Reuters reports:
In an early success at the meeting, member states secured Italy’s backing for the free-trade pact with South Korea, reaching a compromise to delay by six months the introduction of an agreement that Rome fears could hurt its car industry.
“This is the first generation of bilateral trade agreements which will bind Europe and Asia together in an ever-closer economic bond. This is a very big step in opening markets in Asia for our companies,” said Belgian Foreign Minister Steven Vanackere, whose country holds the EU presidency for six months.
EU officials say the agreement will create about 19 billion euros ($25 billion) of new exports for EU producers and combined EU-South Korea trade in goods was worth about 53 billion euros in 2009, according to EU figures.
The deal is due to be signed at an EU-South Korea summit in Brussels on October 6 and will come into force from July 1, 2011.
The European Voice has more:
The deal, brokered by Belgium, the holder of the rotating presidency of the EU’s Council of Ministers, was achieved by conceding to demands from the Italian government that the start of the agreement be delayed. Italy was concerned that its car industry would be overrun by cheaper Korean imports and had asked for the application of the agreement to be delayed by 15 months. However, the deal will now start six months later than the initial planned start date of January. (…)
Vanackere said that the presidency would start negotiations with the European Parliament on safeguard measures that are part of the agreement. These measures provide protection against surges in imports of goods from Korea. MEPs have to agree on the measures before the agreement can be applied. Vanackere said that the agreement was “one of the most ambitious ever” and would mean tariffs being reduced on 97%-98% of goods. He said that non-tariff barriers, which were hurting European companies, would also be eliminated by the agreement.
MEPs from the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group welcomed the statement by the Belgian presidency that the agreement would not be applied until the European Parliament had given its approval. Kader Arif, a French S&D MEP who is group spokesperson for international trade, said: “We are glad that the Council has come to admit that, without Parliament’s consent, there will be no provisional application of this trade agreement.” Bernd Lange, a German MEP who is S&D shadow rapporteur on the deal, stressed the importance of a safeguard clause in the agreement to protect EU producers against unfair competition: “We need to make sure that our manufacturers will compete on an equal footing with the South Koreans. We cannot leave room for dumping situations,” Lange said, adding that it would be important for the Commission to monitor South Korea’s compliance with the agreement’s provisions.
The New York Times adds some context:
The deal will remove nearly all tariffs between the two economies, as well as many other barriers. The European Commission estimates that it will be worth as much as 19 billion euros ($25 billion) in new trade for European Union exporters and will create jobs. Trade between the union and South Korea was worth about 53 billion euros last year.
In Seoul, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said the deal would help South Korean businesses through the lifting tariffs on important exports like cars, televisions, textiles and shoes.
President Obama has been trying to win support for a free-trade deal between the United States and South Korea but the accord is strongly opposed by the American beef and auto industries, and by labor unions, which say it fails to end what they see as unfair restrictions on sales in South Korea.
Background on EU-S.Korea relations on the Commission website, here.
Ashton presides over bureaucratic mess. The Economist’s Charlemagne profiles the EU foreign policy chief:
Lady Ashton is undoubtedly stretched, and not merely by lack of experience or an inability to be in two places at once. She presides over a bureaucratic mess. Her job merges three functions: foreign-policy envoy of the European Council (representing EU members), head of external relations for the European Commission (the EU’s civil service) and chairman of EU foreign ministers’ meetings (formerly a national minister on a six-monthly stint). Her diplomatic cadre, the “external action service”, has been beset by disputes with the European Parliament over budgets and rules, and also by intense lobbying for jobs. This week she at last appointed the first crop of 27 EU ambassadors, but she still lacks her most senior officials. Her supporters admire her ability to put up with it all. But ten months in, she remains a foreign minister without a ministry to speak of.
Claims of power struggle between Ashton and Van Rompuy denied. According to a report in The Parliament, claims made by the Daily Telegraph (and by the EU Observer, see yesterday’s Morning Brief) about a conflict between the EU foreign policy chief and the European Council President (which, according to the Lisbon treaty, both have a role in EU foreign policy) are wrong:
A source close to Van Rompuy, a former Belgian prime minister, told this website on Wednesday that the newspaper claims were “absolute rubbish.” The source said, “These allegations of some sort of rift between Van Rompuy and Ashton are nonsense.” “Van Rompuy is not involved in any sort of power grab and does not support any proposal for a task force as suggested by this newspaper.”
A spokesman for Ashton was equally dismissive of the allegations, saying, “I can categorically deny any rift or disagreement between the two. “This is all a learning process for everyone involved but everyone is working towards the same goal.”
Quote of the day: “A realistic way of characterising the new Germany is that a European Germany is going global with or without its fellow Europeans, and that the choice of whether to follow will be theirs and not Germany’s.” (Ulrike Guérot, ECFR Berlin, Germany goes global: farewell, Europe?)
From the think tanks: Vasily Astrov, Igor Burakovsky, Grzegorz Gromadzki, Peter Havlik, Vasyl Yurchyshyn, Ukraine, the European Union and the International Community: Current Challenges and the Agenda for Overcoming the Stalemate. WIIW, here.
To sign up for the Global Europe Morning Brief, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com