Next week's summit of Europe's big three powers is being viewed with a mixture of anticipation and foreboding as heralding a new form of leadership for the expanding EU. The reality may be less far-reaching.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair all have good reasons for needing the meeting in Berlin next Wednesday.
All three are domestically weakened, face awkward foreign policy challenges and want to get the EU moving again after a period of economic stagnation and political setbacks. They have recently joined forces in initiatives to boost European defense integration and persuade Iran to accept tougher inspections of its nuclear program.
There is no shortage of other pressing problems for them to address -- reviving a push for economic reform to boost Europe's limp growth, breaking the deadlock on a stalled EU constitution, healing transatlantic rifts over Iraq and seeking a successor to Romano Prodi at the head of the European Commission.
They are preparing a joint call for an acceleration of economic reform efforts ahead of next month's regular summit on economic policy, which officials say breaks little new ground.
But diplomats and analysts say the big three may not be able to agree among themselves on some of these issues, let alone deliver the agreement of other key partners.
NO "DIRECTOIRE"
Italy and Spain were quick to warn against any attempt to create an inner "directoire" to run Europe -- especially one that does not include them.
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, whose country has just ended an unsuccessful six months in the EU presidency, said the emergence of such a leadership trio "is a worry for those who believe Europe is a mechanism for power-sharing, not a mechanism for the concentration of a hard core of power."
But some other countries welcome the new "trilateralism," at least as preferable to Franco-German hegemony.
"Of course, it's a novelty that Blair is joining the duo who meet often," Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller said in an interview. "It can only be beneficial. Blair's presence brings a new point of view. It brings the transatlantic option."
German EU policy expert Ulrike Guerot said the Berlin summit signalled a welcome recognition that the Franco-German axis was no longer powerful enough to drive an enlarged EU of 25 nations.
The traditional theory was that since Paris and Berlin often started on opposite sides of EU debates -- north versus south, agrarian versus industrial, protectionist versus free market, Europeanist versus Atlanticist -- when they reconciled their differences, others would follow. But officials in both capitals now intone the mantra that Franco-German agreement is "necessary, but not sufficient."
"It has become a locomotive without wagons," Guerot said. "France and Germany were seen as riding roughshod over the small countries, not respecting EU budget deficit rules themselves and trying to force acceding states to choose between Europe and the United States."
ENTER THE BRITISH
Enter the British -- free marketeering, pro-American, inter-governmental and presumed to have influence with countries such as Spain and Poland that resent Franco-German dominance.
"Clearly all three leaders are worried about how the EU can take decisions after enlargement," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform in London.
"Chirac and Schroeder know they can't drive a common foreign and security policy without Britain, and Blair thinks they've all got to overcome the old Europe/new Europe divide," he said.
Grant said Blair might be willing to help coax Poland and Spain towards accepting a deal on member states' voting rights that would unblock the stalled EU constitution after May.
The three might also be able to agree on ways to adapt the EU's budget deficit rules, which might in the long term make it less unattractive for Britain to join the euro, he argued.
But on Iraq and on some areas of European integration, like tax harmonization, farm subsidies or calls for a European public prosecutor, Blair differs strongly from the others. And mistrust between Blair and Chirac runs deep after two years of conflict.
"People shouldn't exaggerate what we three can achieve," a French official said. "But they should accept that we can meet in small groups, because Europe simply won't work if everything can only be discussed by all 25."
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS