When French voters rejected the EU constitution last May, it was thought by many observers to be an anomaly -- a one-off act by voters afraid of losing cherished privileges in a land committed to an integrated Europe.
However, nearly one year on, it is beginning to look more and more as if the country that likes to style itself a "motor of Europe" might actually be more of a roadblock on the path to European integration.
A series of maneuvers by French companies and leaders have created the suspicion, in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe, that the French want to have their economic cake and eat it too -- that is, benefit from the EU's open borders while keeping a firm hand on their family jewels.
Growing criticism of alleged French protectionism provoked President Jacques Chirac into an angry defense of his country during talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel earlier this month.
"France has been accused in the foreign media of being protectionist," Chirac said in Berlin. "This is absolutely absurd."
Nevertheless, resentment over what French leaders themselves have called "economic nationalism" has grown so strong that one Italian editorialist spoke of a "French illness that risks infecting everyone on Europe."
Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti compared the situation created by French behavior to the period leading up to World War I.
"Today, no one wants a blockage of the European markets either, but ... we are risking a chain reaction," he complained.
The Italians were commenting on the most recent case of French so-called economic nationalism, which involves two French companies, French energy giant Gaz de France (GDF) and the energy and environment services group Suez.
Brussels and Rome accuse the French authorities of arranging a shotgun wedding between the two companies to head off an anticipated hostile takeover bid for Suez by the Italian giant ENEL.
As a result, Brussels has chosen to make a test case of the Suez affair about the way business will be conducted in Europe in the future.
The EU could take France to court over the case if it proves that French authorities played a role in hampering ENEL's ability to make a bid for Suez.
On Tuesday, French Finance Minister Thierry Breton -- apparently fearing censure by Brussels -- blithely said that his government was not encouraging this or any other merger.
"I only encourage companies to do their work," Breton said. "They can join with whomever they like."
This was the same Breton who two months earlier openly expressed his government's hostility to a hostile takeover bid by the world's No. 1 steelmaker Mittal Steel for Europe's Arcelor.
Breton said the French government was worried about the takeover attempt because "Arcelor carries out a very large part of its activities in Europe, notably in France."
In fact, the French government has compiled a telltale history of interference in the free market of cross-border takeovers, repeatedly selecting like a protective mother what it considers the most fitting partners for its companies.
In 2004, when the Swiss pharmaceuticals company Novartis made a bid for the French-German group Aventis, the government of then-prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin immediately voiced its strong opposition.
"We will do everything in our power so that this merger is not completed," a Raffarin adviser said at the time. "France is a sovereign state. We will not let the Swiss simply take over what we have spent years to build up."
Instead, similar to the way the merger between GDF and Suez has been arranged, the French authorities pushed for a merger between Aventis and the French company Sanofi-Synthelabo, creating Sanofi-Aventis.
Last year, rumors of a possible hostile takeover bid by the US foods giant PepsiCo for France's leading foods group Danone sent politicians in Paris to the barricades again.
Although PepsiCo never confirmed interest in Danone, the outrage expressed by French leaders was so great that a clear message was sent to other possible suitors.
According to the business daily La Tribune, that scare prompted the French intelligence services to draw up a list of possible takeover targets to be protected from foreign poaching.
The list -- which includes Danone, the bank Societe Generale, retailers Casino and Carrefour, telecommunications equipment firm Alcatel and media group Vivendi Universal -- goes well beyond the "nationally strategic" companies the EU would permit protecting.
But the case of Suez and GDF is particularly galling for Brussels as EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes has warned that the sector was not sufficiently integrated and too concentrated in the hands of a few companies.
Last week, EU energy ministers urged to speed up the creation of a frontier-free energy market, and called on Kroes to carefully vet protectionist moves in the sector.
Austrian Energy Minister Martin Bartenstein, whose country currently serves as EU president, stated the conflict clearly.
There is, he said, a contradiction between some governments' "nationalist approach" to blocking energy sector takeover bids and the EU's rules on ensuring the free cross-border movement of capital.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS