The international airport at Conakry, Guinea, is busier than usual this week, as diplomats from France, the U.S. and Britain continue to descend upon the West African capital for more discreet horse-trading in preparation for the expected United Nations vote on the Iraq resolution. Although Guinea has close financial ties to France and polls show that its Muslim population strongly opposes an Iraq invasion, the developing nation could gain $21.4 million in U.S. foreign aid this year in exchange for a vote in favor of the pending resolution.
Wooed by such a wealthy suitor, Guinea may not be able to afford ideology.
Such are the naked politics of checkbook diplomacy, currently on gaudy display as the Bush administration tries to pull from among the 15 members of the U.N. Security Council the nine votes required to authorize an invasion. In the tug-of-war over the six undecided countries that will determine the final outcome, the U.S. is brandishing its wallet as a weapon. Guinea, Mexico, Chile, Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan all face the same dilemma this week: Ignore mounting opposition to war at home, or face the wrath of Washington?
Turkey has been offered $6 billion in direct aid, plus billions more in loans, if it will allow the U.S. to base soldiers there in advance of an invasion. But promises are flowing to nations far from the war front. A no vote by Chile could jeopardize a bill now pending in Congress for increased trade access — a measure worth billions of dollars over time. For Cameroon, a proposed 670-mile oil pipeline from Chad to be built by Exxon Mobil and ChevronTexaco is at stake. Poland stands to win $3.8 billion in loans for military aircraft. Bulgaria has no doubt heard hints that it could win a chance to host a new U.S. military base, which would inject millions into its economy. Guinea’s army rangers continue to need U.S. training to prevent attacks from neighboring Liberia.
Such mercenary diplomacy is a long-accepted fact of international relations, and it is so widely practiced that few are shocked by it. As employed by the Bush administration, such largesse has helped build a coalition of approximately 40 nations to back the Iraq war effort. But some analysts find one fact especially striking: Despite the aid, and despite the underlying threat that comes with every offer, the administration has still not locked up the Security Council vote. Given the amount of cash being dangled, “it raises questions that the administration has not made a persuasive case,” says Nick Ziegler, an associate professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley. “You’ve got to pay a lot of money to convince people to go along with you when you haven’t given them a more convincing reason to do so.”
According to a recently released report by the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, the nebulous coalition represents barely a tenth of the world’s population — and many of the countries didn’t join out of an idealistic commitment to the liberation of Iraq. “Almost all, by our count, join only through coercion, bullying, bribery, or the implied threat of U.S. action that would directly damage the interests of the country,” the report states. “Far more impressive is the list of nations that have stood up to U.S. bully tactics and stand opposed.”
Turkey is only the most prominent example of how strong-arming hasn’t worked. Turkish public opinion has been staunchly against the war. The day Turkey’s parliament voted against allowing the deployment of 62,000 U.S. troops for the development of a northern front against Iraq, the country lost a potential $26 billion in future aid. One week later, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a trade bill that assists Pakistani rugmakers but omitted provisions aiding Turkey.
If the U.S. remains true to form, the punishment is likely to get worse if Turkey doesn’t reverse its vote. Past U.N. negotiations have proven that the U.S. deals harshly with those who oppose its considerable will. In 1990, Yemen made the mistake of opposing the U.S. in a Security Council vote authorizing the Gulf War. Three days later, the U.S. cut off nearly all aid to that country. More recently, a vote on an early version of the U.N. resolution on Iraq contained a similar threat for Mauritius, which held a temporary seat on the council last year. When Washington complained about less-than-enthusiastic support, Mauritius recalled its U.N. ambassador for “continuing to convey the mistaken impression that his country had reservations about the U.S. resolution against Iraq.”
“We support the United States,” Mauritian Foreign Minister Anil Gayan said at the time. “Our position is not neutral.”
Although the current Bush administration vehemently denies it, bribery is not abnormal U.S. foreign policy. In “The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War and Peace, 1989-1992,” former Secretary of State James Baker writes frankly of his coercive role in the U.N. Security Council vote authorizing the Gulf War in 1990. “I met personally with all my Security Council counterparts in an intricate process of cajoling, extracting, threatening, and occasionally buying votes,” he recalled. “Such are the politics of diplomacy.”
White House press spokesman Ari Fleischer tried to argue at a Feb. 25 news briefing that the current administration is above such venal forms of persuasion. “You’re saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable,” he sniffed. “And that is not an acceptable proposition.” The Washington press corps literally laughed him out of the room.
The fine art of quid pro quo is not just about foreign aid. Cameroon and Guinea are both eligible for preferential access to U.S. markets through the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act enacted in 2000 — provided they do ”not engage in activities that undermine U.S. national security of foreign policy interests.” Voting against the U.N. resolution could result in loss of U.S. preferential status, but voting for it would almost certainly sour relations with France, a top trading partner and primary lender for many West African nations.
For Angola, which did not qualify for the growth and opportunity act because of an anti-corruption clause, future eligibility is one of several issues at stake. Angola exports more oil to the United States than Kuwait, and future International Monetary Fund loans for developing that critical industry may pivot on its vote. Angola’s U.N. Ambassador, Ismael Gasper Martins, has remarked coyly about his country’s position. ”For a long time now, we have been asking for help to rebuild our country after years of war,” he said recently. “No one is tying the request to support on Iraq, but it is all happening at the same time.” On Feb. 20, the U.S. Agency for International Development approved $15.4 million in annual aid for the war-ravaged country, which France is unlikely to match.
Even Mexico, normally a firm ally, has been pressured over its unwillingness to line up in the yes column. On a recent trip to Mexico, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warned that Washington would be “very unhappy” if Mexico voted no at the U.N., and unnamed U.S. diplomats have been widely quoted as saying that a “No” vote could “stir up feelings” against Mexicans in the United States. For Mexico, which sends 80 percent of its exports to the U.S. market, the economic and social consequences of a no vote seem dire.
Oman, Jordan and Bahrain are militarily dependent on the U.S. through arms purchases and training. “New Europe” countries in line for NATO membership — such as Albania, Estonia and Romania — face the possibility that the U.S. could block them from joining.
If the muck of diplomacy more frequently displays Machiavellian than Wilsonian ethics, that’s nothing new. According to the U.S. Agency for International Development website, “U. S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world.” Pragmatically, USAID’s first emphases were on countering the spread of communism, particularly the influence of the People’s Republic of China.
The idea that anyone would consider such naked haggling unethical is “ridiculous,” according to Danielle Pletka, a scholar at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute and former Republican staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the 1990s.”Foreign aid is not charity,” she said in an interview. “There are costs of going to war, and there are costs of siding against the U.S. At the end of the day, they’ll do what’s in their best interest.”
But the scope of available options for checkbook diplomacy has just increased dramatically. In the first major change to the distribution of foreign assistance since the Kennedy administration four decades ago, President Bush last month submitted to Congress his plan for the Millennium Challenge Account, which links foreign aid to “performance markers” to be determined by U.S. administrators. “To be eligible for this new assistance, countries must demonstrate commitment to three standards — ruling justly, investing in their people, and encouraging economic freedom,” Bush said in his message to Congress.
The accompanying budget request of $20 billion — beginning with $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2004 and stabilizing at $5 billion per year by 2006 — translates to a lot more diplomatic horsepower. “It is clear that this administration has taken development off the back burner and placed it squarely at the forefront of our foreign policy,” said Andrew S. Natsios, USAID administrator, before the House International Relations Committee on last week.
And even if the U.S. persuasions are insufficient to win a war authorization in the Security Council, Bush has made clear that it will have the backing of a “large coalition of the willing.” Although the White House refuses to release a list of these allies, administration officials approximate that about 40 countries are involved. “There are many ways to form international coalitions,” Fleischer explained Monday. “The United Nations Security Council is but one of them.”
The following list, culled from reports by the U.S. State and Commerce Departments, along with other studies, includes some of those ways to form a coalition:
Albania is in line for NATO membership, which would bring not only international legitimacy but also more aid. But because NATO requires a unanimous vote to add a new member, Bush could easily block their membership.
Angola is the ninth-largest exporter of oil to the U.S., and future International Monetary Fund loans for developing its oil industry are at stake. Additionally, U.S. officials have threatened to cut back humanitarian aid to Angola — $20 million in the current fiscal year — because of its stained human rights record.
Bahrain, a small Persian Gulf state, is militarily dependent on the United States through arms purchases, training and the presence of U.S. bases on its soil.
Bulgaria, a member of the U.N. Security Council, is owed about $1.7 billion by Iraq, dating back to the Cold War. The Bush administration has promised that postwar Iraq will repay the debt. The U.S. has also promised to favor Bulgarian engineering and construction firms for contracts to rebuild the country after a war, in addition to helping Bulgaria become a member of NATO.
Cameroon, another U.N. Security Council member, is eligible for preferential access to U.S. markets through the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act enacted in 2000 — provided it ”not engage in activities that undermine U.S. national security of foreign policy interests,” one criterion of eligibility. Additionally, a proposed 670-mile oil pipeline from Chad to be built by Exxon Mobil and ChevronTexaco is at stake.
Chile, a Security Council member, is hoping a new free-trade agreement with Washington is approved by Congress. Such an agreement would give Chile the same trade status as Canada and Mexico — a deal worth billions over time.
Costa Rica is negotiating a free-trade agreement between Central America and the United States. Negotiations began in January.
Estonia is in line for NATO membership.
Guinea, a Security Council member, received $3 million in U.S. military grants last year and is expected to get $20.7 million in development assistance this year. It is also eligible for preferential access to U.S. markets through the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act enacted in 2000 — provided it ”not engage in activities that undermine U.S. national security of foreign policy interests.”
Hungary looks forward to potential arms deals in exchange for hosting a U.S. training mission for Iraqi exiles.
Israel is seeking $4 billion in new grants and up to $10 billion in U.S. government guaranteed loans in exchange for shared intelligence and the guaranteed restraint by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the event of an Iraqi attack.
Jordan stands to win $460 million in aid and loans in Bush’s 2004 budget proposal, up $150 million from last year.
Kuwait is militarily dependent on the U.S. through arms purchases, training and the presence of U.S. bases.
Latvia, in line for NATO membership, has granted requests for U.S. military use of its airspace.
Lithuania, in line for NATO membership, has granted requests for U.S. military use of its airspace.
Macedonia, in line for NATO membership, has granted requests for U.S. military use of its airspace.
Mexico sends 80 percent of its exports to the U.S. market. Trade, increased aid for anti-drug-trafficking initiatives, and immigration negotiations are all at stake for the U.N. Security Council member.
Pakistan, another key vote on the U.N. Security Council, saw a 15 percent increase in clothing and textile exports to the U.S. in late 2001, worth $500 million to Pakistani manufacturers. Bush has also promised $1 billion in debt forgiveness this year.
The Philippines received $71 million in USAID money in 2002. On Feb. 21, the U.S. announced it would send an additional 1,700 troops to help fight terrorism.
Poland is being courted to host a new U.S. base. It recently received a $3.8 billion U.S. government subsidized loan to finance the purchase of Lockheed Martin F-16 combat aircraft.
Qatar is militarily dependent on the U.S. through arms purchases, training and the presence of U.S. bases.
Romania is in line for NATO membership.
Saudi Arabia is militarily dependent on the U.S. through arms purchases, training and the presence of U.S. bases. It is also under pressure to improve relations with the U.S. that have been strained since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Slovakia is in line for NATO membership.
Slovenia is in line for NATO membership.
Turkey failed to pass a first vote to allow U.S. troops access to the Turkey-Iraq border, but it is likely to approve a second one — if the U.S. can sweeten the proffered $26 billion in aid and loans with a promise to protect Turkey from an insurgency by Iraqi Kurds.
United Arab Emirates is militarily dependent on the U.S. through arms purchases, training and the presence of U.S. bases.
Here’s a startling news item: “The Intouchables,” a lively if largely predictable Parisian comedy about a wealthy quadriplegic and his ne’er-do-well immigrant caretaker, has become the biggest international success in the history of French cinema. Indeed, according to some sources — and these things are notoriously difficult to measure on a global and historical scale — “The Intouchables” is now the biggest non-Anglophone film of all time, with a worldwide gross approaching $300 million.
But beyond the business headlines, what’s really fascinating about “The Intouchables” is the way it exposes the gulf in racial attitudes between France and the United States, along with another gulf that’s just as wide, the one that has film critics and cinephiles on one side and popular audiences on the other. Viewers in numerous countries have eagerly devoured this feel-good fable about two men of different races and classes who forge an improbable friendship (dubbed by some wags “Driving Monsieur Daisy”). While the audience for foreign-language film is inherently limited in America, there’s no reason to believe it won’t do well here also. At the same time, heated transatlantic debate has erupted over whether “The Intouchables” traffics in offensive racial stereotypes, with Variety critic Jay Weissberg writing an uncharacteristically angry review that accused the film of “Uncle Tom racism” and compared the Senegalese caretaker character to a “performing monkey.”
When Harvey Weinstein first acquired “The Intouchables” in the wake of its smash success in France, he clearly imagined another dark-horse Oscar contender, in the wake of “The Artist.” The film has racked up audience awards at film festival after film festival, and currently stands at No. 93 on IMDb’s user-generated “Top 250″ list. Omar Sy, the charismatic Afro-French actor who plays Driss, the caretaker, won this year’s César award (the French Oscar equivalent) for best actor, beating out actual Oscar winner Jean Dujardin. But with the looming possibility that “The Intouchables” could spark a divisive, soul-searching racial debate — which was precisely what squelched the Oscar hopes of “The Help” — those expectations have been downplayed. (That isn’t why “The Intouchables” is being released this week, with Weinstein and most of the film-biz aristocracy in Cannes, but the coincidence is oddly useful.)
Let me come clean right now and tell you that I enjoyed “The Intouchables” quite a bit. If you’re looking for a lightweight summer change of pace, with just a smidgen of Continental flair, here it is. Both Sy and co-star François Cluzet (of the hit thriller “Tell No One”) are marvelous, the former playing a guy who’s constantly in motion, both physically and psychologically, and the latter playing a depressed and repressed guy who literally can’t move, but whose real imprisonment has more to do with his spirit than his spinal cord. Don’t go expecting serious French art cinema, please; those who have described this movie as something like a mid-’80s Eddie Murphy comedy dressed up with classy Parisian settings are correct. But here’s the question, and I can’t answer it for you: Is that such a bad thing, in itself?
Once is not enough for a movie that’s made this much money, of course, and Weinstein already has an American remake in the works, possibly to star Colin Firth as stick-up-butt wheelchair dude. The real Eddie Murphy has gotten too old to play the loosey-goosey, pot-smoking sidekick, but there’s no shortage of guys who could do it: Jamie Foxx is the default setting these days, but I’d go for the suddenly hot Kevin Hart from “Think Like a Man.” I’m not claiming it’s aesthetically or sociologically valid to remake a French movie that already feels like a reheated Hollywood throwback, by the way. I’m saying it’s a cruel reality, like Dutch elm disease or Adam Sandler, and there’s no way to stop it.
To get back to the case at hand, I do understand what the haters find so offensive about “The Intouchables.” (The infelicitous English title, by the way, reflects the fact that they couldn’t really get away with calling it “The Untouchables,” could they?) I was pretty taken aback by Weissberg’s vituperative review, and I tend to believe that “Uncle Tom” is one of those expressions that white people should pretty much never use. On the other hand, I can only applaud him for abandoning the balanced, analytical mode of trade-magazine criticism and saying exactly what he damn well thinks. (As for comparing a black man to a monkey — well, I understand what Weissberg was getting at, but it’s an error of rhetoric, the sort of comment that makes nuance and context disappear.) And I know for sure, from hearing friends and acquaintances in and around the movie business complain about this film, that Weissberg is not alone.
I believe that Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano, the writing-directing duo who made “The Intouchables,” are innocent of any bad intentions. In fact, “innocent” isn’t a bad word overall, for this movie and the worldview it represents. The French may pride themselves on being the most worldly and sophisticated of all people, but the debate in France about race and immigration and multiculturalism — which ramped up sharply after the suburban riots of 2005 — can sometimes sound strikingly naive to American ears. Until very recently, mainstream French opinion has resisted thinking about the nation in anything except homogeneous terms, despite growing Arab and black minorities (both immigrant and native-born) and evident social problems with segregation and discrimination. (The French census, for instance, is prohibited from collecting data on race or religion, so no one really knows how many French people are black or Islamic.)
There can be no question that the characters in “The Intouchables” are stereotypes, in the broad sense. Cluzet’s character, Philippe, is an aristocratic zillionaire who lives in an astonishingly luxurious flat in central Paris. Since being injured in a paragliding accident, he’s lived inside a cocoon of money and privilege, surrounded by antiques and modern art and a bevy of assistants. Sy’s character, Driss, is easygoing, good-hearted, lustful and uncultured, and his passions run toward pretty girls, getting high and vintage American R&B. Philippe hires Driss specifically because Driss doesn’t particularly want the job — he only shows up to get a signature for his benefits card — and feels no pity for Philippe.
Which is actually a pretty good reason. You get where this is going, most likely: Driss is a pretty inept caretaker, at least at first, but is the only person Philippe knows who will relate to him man to man. There’s a bit of borderline-homophobic humor about their enforced intimacy; there are interludes with hookers and fast cars and late-night conversations fueled by booze and marijuana. Driss learns to like Mozart and modern art; Philippe learns to get down with Earth Wind & Fire and gets some valuable tips about chicks. It’s probably fair to summarize this movie as being the story of a paralyzed white man who needs the help of a younger, stronger, more virile black man to reconnect with his own masculinity, and if you want to say that narrative reflects an underlying latticework of racist attitudes, I won’t argue with you. Then there’s the complicating factor that in the real-life story on which “The Intouchables” is based, the caretaker was of Algerian origin, and hence Arab rather than black. (The filmmakers have said they wanted to cast Sy, and built the story around him, but it’s certainly possible to render other interpretations.)
But one can concede all of that while still agreeing with French historian and multicultural activist François Durpaire, who has responded to Weissberg by arguing that the huge success of “The Intouchables” is likely to have positive effects in Europe’s emerging discussion of race and culture, even if the movie relies on crude generalizations. (Durpaire adds that if “The Intouchables” is offensive, so were the “Beverly Hills Cop” movies.) Movies are not meant to be seminars in sociology, after all, and most viewers will receive “The Intouchables” as an upbeat story about two guys from vastly different circumstances who turn out to have a lot in common and help each other, etc., rather than a lesson in racial semiotics.
Perhaps the strongest endorsement for “The Intouchables” has come from aging French ultra-nationalist Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has described it as an allegory about how the future of his nation depends on disenfranchised young immigrants from the suburbs. He thinks that’s a “dreadful” vision, mind you — but, seriously, who knew that guy was so smart?
“The Intouchables” opens this week in New York and Los Angeles, with wider national release to follow.
BERLIN, Germany – It started with a handshake, not a kiss. When Chancellor Angela Merkel and new French President Francois Hollande finally met in person on Tuesday evening, there was little of the warmth that marked her meetings with Nicolas Sarkozy in recent years.
Aides had downplayed the rendezvous as simply aimed at getting to know one another rather than about hammering out any policy. Yet the future of Europe could hinge on whether these two leaders find a way to work well together.
Rarely have two people met for the first time with so much baggage. Merkel refused to meet with Hollande during his election campaign, and made the highly unusual step of publicly backing his rival, fellow conservative Sarkozy. Hollande for his part seemed to be campaigning as much against Merkel as the incumbent, pledging to renegotiate the fiscal pact that she had championed.
Now the two have finally met face-to-face and the encounter seemed cordial if hardly warm. Following the ceremonial reviewing of the guard of honor – during which Merkel had to gently nudge Hollande in the right direction on the red carpet – the two held an hour -long meeting. They then addressed the throng of international journalists in a joint press conference during which Merkel remained stony-faced during much of Hollande’s comments, interspersed with the odd smile.
The pair did seek to downplay their differences and strike a friendly tone with Merkel even joking that the lightning that had struck Hollande’s plane on his way to Berlin was perhaps a “good omen.”
“I’m not sure whether there is sometimes more divergence perceived in the public realm than there really is,” the chancellor told the press conference. “We are aware of our responsibility, as Germany and France, for a positive development in Europe. Carried by this spirit I believe we will of course find solutions for the different problems.”
Both tried to show a united front on Greece, which risks ejection from the euro zone if it backs anti-austerity parties in the fresh elections likely after the parties failed to form a government. “Just like Frau Merkel,” Hollande said, he wanted Greece to remain in the euro zone while insisting that Athens meet the terms of the bailout agreement.
Yet when it came to the crux of the differences between the two, on austerity versus growth, it was obvious that the only thing that had been agreed so far was that they disagree.
After all, it remains to be seen how Merkel’s strict stance on rapidly reducing budget deficits can be married with Hollande’s plea for some kind of stimulus package to boost growth.
Hollande reiterated his promise to reopen talks about the fiscal pact, the agreement on strict budget discipline which he has said France will not ratify unless a growth element is also adopted.
“I said in the campaign, and I repeat today, that I want to renegotiate what was established at a certain moment,” Hollande told reporters. “Everything that can contribute to growth must be put on the table. I don’t want growth to be just a word, but tangible measures.”
He mentioned boosting competitiveness, as well as Euro bonds – essentially pooling the debt of euro zone members – something Merkel has so far flatly rejected.
He did not, however, mention tinkering with the European Central Bank’s mandate, surely a red line if ever there was one in Berlin.
For all the inauspicious beginnings, observers predict that the two will eventually hit it off. Both play on their modest, down- to-earth style and exude an air of pragmatism rather than charisma. Hollande depicts himself as “Mr Normal” in contrast to the Bling Bling of his predecessor Sarkozy, while the unassuming Merkel is often seen doing her own grocery shopping. And both are said to have a wry sense of humor in private.
Furthermore, Hollande’s gesture of appointing Germanophile Jean-Marc Ayrault as his prime minister will have gone down well in Berlin.
Yet, it is hardly a meeting of equals. Merkel is an old hand in European politics now, in her seventh year in office, while Hollande’s previous executive experience has been confined to serving as mayor of the small town of Tulle.
Furthermore Germany is the EU’s economic powerhouse, with its export-driven economy keeping the rest of the euro zone out of recession, according to figures released on Tuesday. And Berlin has long been calling the political shots in Europe, with the fiscal compact being dreamed up by Merkel, as a way of preventing EU states from getting into deeper debt in the future.
At the same time Merkel is increasingly isolated in Europe, as there is a growing realization that austerity is choking off growth. Hollande knows that other leaders, including conservatives like Italy’s Mario Monti, also want Berlin to budge on its debt reduction fixation.
Hollande came to Berlin straight from his inauguration ceremony in Paris. After beating Sarkozy on May 6 he will feel he has a mandate from the French people to push for a change of direction in Europe. Yet he also faces a tough economic situation back home, with just 0.1 percent growth in the first quarter and growing unemployment, now at a 13-year high of 10 percent. If the economy were to contract even further, it could make it very difficult to fulfill many of his campaign pledges, such as reversing Sarkozy’s pension reforms.
Merkel has her own problems, despite the strong economy. Her party, the conservative CDU, has just suffered a bruising defeat in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Her coalition is increasingly fractious, with Bavaria’s CSU leader Horst Seehofer publicly slamming the CDU candidate in North Rhine-Westphalia Norbert Roettgen on TV for his campaign, while the FDP is unpredictable due to an ongoing leadership crisis.
The fact that she needs a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag to ratify the fiscal compact means she is dependent on the opposition SPD. And while the party has broadly backed her euro policy, it has been emboldened by Hollande’s victory and the strong showing in NRW. On Tuesday the party’s leaders said that they would delay the vote on the fiscal pact, originally scheduled for late May, saying it wanted to see concrete growth measures as well as austerity.
That would leave time for Merkel and Hollande to agree to some sort of compromise solution.
The pair said they will seek an agreement ahead of the next big summit of EU leaders in June. “It will be very important that Germany and France present their ideas together at this summit, and we have talked about the preparation,” Merkel said.
They will see each other before that, meeting at an informal dinner of EU leaders on May 23, as well as at the forthcoming NATO and G8 summits.
However, Hollande is unlikely to show much willingness for compromise with Berlin just yet. After all his party is facing legislative elections in mid June and he will want to make sure he is not seen to be backsliding on campaign pledges.
Hollande wants his five-year term to start with his Socialist Party securing control of the National Assembly so that he can push through his agenda. Otherwise he faces a frustrating period of “cohabitation” with a prime minister from the opposing camp, such as occurred when conservative Jacques Chirac’s presidency coincided with the premiership of Socialist Lionel Jospin from 1997 to 2002.
As such Merkel cannot expect Hollande to veer from his insistence on growth measures. And for all his unassuming manner, he could well prove to be a more difficult partner than Sarkozy in the long run.
Nevertheless Merkel is also likely to stand firm on many issues. Asked on Tuesday night if she feared Hollande’s campaign promises she replied coolly: “I am seldom afraid, as fear is not a good counselor in politics.”
Continue Reading
Close
The message from France and Greece this weekend was clear. Will President Obama and Republicans listen?
By Robert Reich
Socialist Party candidate for the presidential election Francois Hollande delivers a speech during a meeting in Lorient, western France, Monday, April 23, 2012. (Credit: AP/David Vincent)
Who’s an economy for? Voters in France and Greece have made it clear it’s not for the bond traders.
Referring to his own electoral woes, Prime Minister David Cameron wrote Monday in an article in the conservative Daily Telegraph: “When people think about the economy they don’t see it through the dry numbers of the deficit figures, trade balances or inflation forecasts — but instead the things that make the difference between a life that’s worth living and a daily grind that drags them down.”
Cameron, whose own economic policies have worsened the daily grind dragging down most Brits, may be sobered by what happened over the weekend in France and Greece – as well as his own poll numbers. Britain’s conservatives have been taking a beating.
In truth, the choice isn’t simply between budget-cutting austerity, on the one hand, and growth and jobs on the other.
It’s really a question of timing. And it’s the same issue on this side of the pond. If government slices spending too early, when unemployment is high and growth is slowing, it makes the debt situation far worse.
That’s because public spending is a critical component of total demand. If demand is already lagging, spending cuts further slow the economy – and thereby increase the size of the public debt relative to the size of the overall economy.
You end up with the worst of both worlds – a growing ratio of debt to the gross domestic product, coupled with high unemployment and a public that’s furious about losing safety nets when they’re most needed.
The proper sequence is for government to keep spending until jobs and growth are restored, and only then to take out the budget axe.
If Hollande’s new government pushes Angela Merkel in this direction, he’ll end up saving the euro and, ironically, the jobs of many conservative leaders throughout Europe – including Merkel and Cameron.
But he also has an important audience in the United States, where Republicans are trying to sell a toxic blend of trickle-down supply-side economics (tax cuts on the rich and on corporations) and austerity for everyone else (government spending cuts). That’s exactly the opposite of what’s needed now.
Yes, America has a long-term budget deficit that’s scary. So does Europe. But the first priority in America and in Europe must be growth and jobs. That means rejecting austerity economics for now, while at the same time demanding that corporations and the rich pay their fair share of the cost of keeping everyone else afloat.
President Obama and the Democrats should set a clear trigger — say, 6 percent unemployment and two quarters of growth greater than 3 percent — before whacking the budget deficit.
And they should set that trigger now, during the election, so the public can give them a mandate on Election Day to delay the “sequestration” cuts (now scheduled to begin next year) until that trigger is met.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:44 PM UTC
With Hollande poised to win the French election, the EU is finally moving away from destructive austerity measures
By Paul Ames, GlobalPost
Socialist Party candidate for the presidential election Francois Hollande(Credit: AP Photo/David Vincent)
BRUSSELS, Belgium — The ground is shifting in Europe’s debt crisis. The edifice of economic austerity built under the guidance of German Chancellor Angela Merkel is starting to wobble.
There’s a new buzz in Brussels about pumping hundreds of billions into a Marshall Plan-inspired fund to get Europeans back to work, devaluing the euro to boost exports or sharing out the euro-zone debt burden.
“This generalized austerity is prolonging the crisis. I can’t accept that. We need growth in Europe,” says Francois Hollande, the Socialist leader tipped to win Sunday’s French presidential election.
“With every day that goes by, I have the feeling that my initiative is more and more understood in Europe,” Hollande said in comments posted on his website Monday.
Hollande is enjoying an eight-point lead over incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy in opinion polls ahead of Sunday’s vote. His expected victory is the main catalyst behind the emerging pro-growth emphasis in Europe, but there are other factors.
Continuing grim economic news — Spain announced Monday that it had sunk into a second recession in just over two years — is fueling doubts that Europe’s three-year dedication to spending cuts and tax hikes may not be the best way to cure the continent’s economic malaise.
“Europe has misdiagnosed its problems in important respects and set the wrong strategic course,” former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers wrote in a column this weekend. “Only if growth is restored can the euro endure and European financial problems be resolved.”
The Spanish newspaper El Pais reported Sunday that the EU was preparing a 200 billion euro “sort of Marshall Plan” to fund infrastructure projects, green energy and advanced technology.
EU spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen said Monday that such figures were “highly speculative.” However, the EU is putting together a plan to boost growth for approval at what is expected to be a highly significant summit of European leaders on June 28-29.
Wary that the new focus risks further spooking markets, Ahrenkilde Hansen told reporters that going for growth did not mean a return to slack finances. “We are not talking about an alternative to fiscal consolidation,” she said. “The issue is not either fiscal correction, or growth. We need both.”
The late June EU summit is likely to be Hollande’s first if he succeeds in unseating Sarkozy.
Much has been made of the Socialist leader’s expected clash with Merkel due to his criticism of the fiscal discipline treaty that is the centerpiece of her response to the treaty.
Both Merkel and Hollande in recent days endorsed two of the key pro-growth ideas expected to be on the summit agenda: fast-tracking the use of remaining money from the EU’s budget for developing its poorest regions, which ran at 360 billion euros from 2007-2013, and boosting the firepower of the EU’s lending arm, the European Investment Bank.
EU Economics Commissioner Olli Rehn has suggested that lifting its capital by just 10 billion euros could enable the EIB to leverage lending of 180 billion euros.
Although they have continued to spar in media comments, Hollande and Merkel have been preparing the ground for non-confrontational relationship. There are signs of a softening of the Frenchman’s demand for a renegotiation of the fiscal discipline treaty.
Defeat for Sarkozy would however be a blow for Merkel, who offered unprecedented support for the incumbent in the early stages of the French campaign.
She also risks losing allies elsewhere.
The Dutch government, one of the strongest supporters of Merkel’s insistence on austerity for southern Europe, fell last week over its own budget-cutting plans and will face a stern challenge from the center left and far right in September elections.
Parties on both political extremes are seen profiting from a wave of discontent in Sunday’s parliamentary elections in Greece to find a successor to the technocratic government which has gone along with the tough conditions set by the EU in return for bailout packages.
Adding to the pressure over the past few days, several key players have joined the chorus calling for a growth initiative, including European Central Bank Governor Mario Draghi; top EU financial services official Michel Barnier; and the UN’s International Labor Organization.
“Austerity has, in fact, resulted in weaker economic growth, increased volatility and a worsening of bank’s balance sheets,” said an ILO report released Monday. “It is high time for a move toward a growth- and job-orientated strategy.
Monday, Apr 23, 2012 6:42 PM UTC
France's far-right party leader may help the embattled president win reelection
By Barry Neild, GlobalPost
Marine Le Pen reacts after the first round of French presidential elections on Sunday. (Credit: AP/Jacques Brinon)
LONDON, UK — Campaign strategists for both Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande will be scrambling on Monday to make sense of a first-round presidential vote that left neither with a clear path to victory — and showed a surprise level of support for a far-right candidate.
As many analysts expected, Socialist Hollande scored higher than incumbent Sarkozy in Sunday’s election, but thanks to a surge in the popularity of Marine Le Pen of the anti-immigration National Front party, a easy win is no longer the foregone conclusion that many predicted.
Hollande took 28.8 percent of the vote against Sarkozy’s 26.1 percent, meaning they will face each other in a run-off vote on May 6. But what was expected to be a simple referendum on differing plans to rescue France’s struggling economy has been complicated by Le Pen’s showing of 18.5 percent.
As horse-trading begins for the support of those who voted for the eight lower-polling candidates now eliminated from the race, the problem now facing both Hollande and Sarkozy is how they can capitalize on the far-right turnout.
Some analysts said center-right Sarkozy is most likely to benefit from Le Pen’s success, others argued it could derail him. Meanwhile, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the party his daughter now leads, said the result put the National Front on track for big wins in June parliamentary elections.
Le Pen’s success also raises the possibility that French opinion was swayed by a series of shootings in southern France last month involving a 23-year-old terrorist who claimed allegiance to al-Qaeda. At the time, Le Pen said the incident showed that the “Islamic fundamentalist threat has been underestimated in our country.”
That said, Le Pen has doubtlessly attracted considerable support for her protectionist economic policies and for being the only conservative candidate proposing to take France out of the euro.
Page
1
of
42
in
France
A still from "The Intouchables" 
Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande in Berlin on Tuesday, (Credit: Reuters/Fabrizio Bensch) 
