ReportWire

Tag: Annalena Baerbock

  • Estonian foreign minister expects further Russian provocations

    [ad_1]

    NATO reacted appropriately to Russia’s recent violations of Estonia’s airspace but should expect further disruptive actions from Moscow, according to the Baltic country’s foreign minister.

    “I’m really sure that Russia will continue these provocations. It’s not about Estonia, it’s about NATO unity, as well as testing our capabilities, to also trans-Atlantic unity,” Margus Tsahkna told dpa on Friday on the sidelines of the Tallinn Digital Summit.

    In September, three Russian fighter jets entered the airspace of the EU and NATO member state for about 12 minutes.

    The government in Tallinn requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and consultations with its allies under Article 4 of the NATO Treaty.

    In a subsequent statement, the military alliance warned Russia against further border violations, threatening the use of force.

    “We reacted, I think, in a very solid way,” said Tsahkna, adding that NATO had shown that it functions well, including through the immediate interception of the Russian aircraft.

    “Everything was under control. There was no immediate direct military threat.”

    Even after the incident, the alliance showed political unity and determination, he noted.

    Estonia’s foreign minister joined Latvia and Lithuania in calling for NATO’s mission to monitor Baltic airspace to be converted into a genuine defence operation.

    “We are supporting this idea,” said Tsahkna, while stressing that it is not enough to simply change the mission’s name.

    Rather, it must be upgraded with improved air-defence capabilities, according to the minister.

    The governments in Riga and Vilnius had previously spoken out in favour of transforming NATO’s Baltic Air Policing Mission into an Air Defence Mission.

    Under the joint mission implemented in 2004, NATO allies take turns providing fighter jets and personnel for armed protection flights.

    The three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which border Russia, do not have suitable aircraft of their own for the task.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump in speech to UN says world body ‘not even coming close to living up’ to its potential

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump returned to the United Nations on Tuesday to boast of his second-term foreign policy achievements and lash out at the world body as a feckless institution, while warning Europe it would be ruined if it doesn’t turn away from a “double-tailed monster” of ill-conceived migration and green energy policies.His roughly hour-long speech was both grievance-filled and self-congratulatory as he used the platform to praise himself and lament that some of his fellow world leaders’ countries were “going to hell.”The address was also just the latest reminder for U.S. allies and foes that the United States — after a four-year interim under the more internationalist President Joe Biden — has returned to the unapologetically “America First” posture under Trump.“What is the purpose of the United Nations?” Trump said. “The U.N. has such tremendous potential. I’ve always said it. It has such tremendous, tremendous potential. But it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential.”World leaders listened closely to his remarks at the U.N. General Assembly as Trump has already moved quickly to diminish U.S. support for the world body in his first eight months in office. Even in his first term, he was no fan of the flavor of multilateralism that the United Nations espouses.After his latest inauguration, he issued a first-day executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization. That was followed by his move to end U.S. participation in the U.N. Human Rights Council, and ordering up a review of U.S. membership in hundreds of intergovernmental organizations aimed at determining whether they align with the priorities of his “America First” agenda.Trump escalated that criticism on Tuesday, saying the international body’s “empty words don’t solve wars.”Trump offered a weave of jarring juxtapositions in his address to the assembly.He trumpeted himself as a peacemaker and enumerated successes of his administration’s efforts in several hotspots around the globe. At the same, Trump heralded his decisions to order the U.S. military to carry out strikes on Iran and more recently against alleged drug smugglers from Venezuela and argued that globalists are on the verge of destroying successful nations.The U.S. president’s speech is typically among the most anticipated moments of the annual assembly. This one comes at one of the most volatile moments in the world body’s 80-year-old history. Global leaders are being tested by intractable wars in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, uncertainty about the economic and social impact of emerging artificial intelligence technology, and anxiety about Trump’s antipathy for the global body.Trump has also raised new questions about the American use of military force in his return to the White House, after ordering U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June and a trio of strikes this month on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea.The latter strikes, including at least two fatal attacks on boats that originated from Venezuela, has raised speculation in Caracas that Trump is looking to set the stage for the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.Some U.S. lawmakers and human rights advocates say that Trump is effectively carrying out extrajudicial killings by using U.S. forces to lethally target alleged drug smugglers instead of interdicting the suspected vessels, seizing any drugs and prosecuting the suspects in U.S. courts.Warnings about ‘green scam’ and migrationTrump touted his administration’s policies allowing for expanded drilling for oil and natural gas in the United States, and aggressively cracking down on illegal immigration, implicitly suggesting more countries should follow suit.He sharply warned that European nations that have more welcoming migration policies and commit to expensive energy projects aimed at reducing their carbon footprint were causing irreparable harm to their economies and cultures.“I’m telling you that if you don’t get away from the ‘green energy’ scam, your country is going to fail,” Trump said. “If you don’t stop people that you’ve never seen before that you have nothing in common with your country is going to fail.”Trump added, “I love the people of Europe, and I hate to see it being devastated by energy and immigration. This double-tailed monster destroys everything in its wake, and they cannot let that happen any longer.”The passage of the wide-ranging address elicited some groans and uncomfortable laughter from delegates.Trump to hold one-on-one talks with world leadersTrump touted “the renewal of American strength around the world” and his efforts to help end several wars. He peppered his speech with criticism of global institutions doing too little to end war and solve the world’s biggest problems.General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock on Tuesday said that despite all the internal and external challenges facing the organization, it is not the time to walk away.“Sometimes we could’ve done more, but we cannot let this dishearten us. If we stop doing the right things, evil will prevail,” Baerbock said in her opening remarks.Following his speech, Trump met with Secretary-General António Guterres, telling the top U.N. official that the U.S. is behind the global body “100%” amid fears among members that he’s edging toward a full retreat.The White House says Trump will also meet on Tuesday with the leaders of Ukraine, Argentina and the European Union. He will also hold a group meeting with officials from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan.He’ll return to Washington after hosting a reception Tuesday night with more than 100 invited world leaders.Gaza and Ukraine cast shadow over Trump speechTrump has struggled to deliver on his 2024 campaign promises to quickly end the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. His response has been also relatively muted as some longtime American allies are using this year’s General Assembly to spotlight the growing international campaign for recognition of a Palestinian state, a move that the U.S. and Israel vehemently oppose.France became the latest nation to recognize Palestinian statehood on Monday at the start of a high-profile meeting at the U.N. aimed at galvanizing support for a two-state solution to the Mideast conflict. More nations are expected to follow.Trump sharply criticized the statehood recognition push.“The rewards would be too great for Hamas terrorists,” Trump said. “This would be a reward for these horrible atrocities, including Oct. 7.”Trump also addressed Russia’s war in Ukraine.It’s been more than a month since Trump’s Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and key European leaders. Following those meetings, Trump announced that he was arranging for direct talks between Putin and Zelenskyy. But Putin hasn’t shown any interest in meeting with Zelenskyy and Moscow has only intensified its bombardment of Ukraine since the Alaska summit.European leaders as well as American lawmakers, including some key Republican allies of Trump, have urged the president to dial up stronger sanctions on Russia. Trump, meanwhile, has pressed Europe to stop buying Russian oil, the engine feeding Putin’s war machine.Trump said a “very strong round of powerful tariffs” would “stop the bloodshed, I believe, very quickly.” He repeated his calls on Europe to “step it up” and stop buying Russian oil.Trump has Oslo dreamsDespite his struggles to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, Trump has made clear that he wants to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, repeatedly making the spurious claim that he’s “ended seven wars” since he returned to office.“Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Prize — but for me, the real prize will be the sons and daughters who live to grow up because millions of people are no longer being killed in endless wars,” Trump offered.He again highlighted his administration’s efforts to end conflicts, including between Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Sudan, Rwanda and the Democratic Congo, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Cambodia and Thailand.“It’s too bad that I had to do these things instead of the United Nations doing them,” Trump said. “Sadly, in all cases, the United Nations did not even try to help in any of them.”Although Trump helped mediate relations among many of these nations, experts say his impact isn’t as clear cut as he claims.___AP journalists Tracy Brown and Darlene Superville in Washington and Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

    President Donald Trump returned to the United Nations on Tuesday to boast of his second-term foreign policy achievements and lash out at the world body as a feckless institution, while warning Europe it would be ruined if it doesn’t turn away from a “double-tailed monster” of ill-conceived migration and green energy policies.

    His roughly hour-long speech was both grievance-filled and self-congratulatory as he used the platform to praise himself and lament that some of his fellow world leaders’ countries were “going to hell.”

    The address was also just the latest reminder for U.S. allies and foes that the United States — after a four-year interim under the more internationalist President Joe Biden — has returned to the unapologetically “America First” posture under Trump.

    “What is the purpose of the United Nations?” Trump said. “The U.N. has such tremendous potential. I’ve always said it. It has such tremendous, tremendous potential. But it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential.”

    World leaders listened closely to his remarks at the U.N. General Assembly as Trump has already moved quickly to diminish U.S. support for the world body in his first eight months in office. Even in his first term, he was no fan of the flavor of multilateralism that the United Nations espouses.

    After his latest inauguration, he issued a first-day executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization. That was followed by his move to end U.S. participation in the U.N. Human Rights Council, and ordering up a review of U.S. membership in hundreds of intergovernmental organizations aimed at determining whether they align with the priorities of his “America First” agenda.

    Trump escalated that criticism on Tuesday, saying the international body’s “empty words don’t solve wars.”

    Trump offered a weave of jarring juxtapositions in his address to the assembly.

    He trumpeted himself as a peacemaker and enumerated successes of his administration’s efforts in several hotspots around the globe. At the same, Trump heralded his decisions to order the U.S. military to carry out strikes on Iran and more recently against alleged drug smugglers from Venezuela and argued that globalists are on the verge of destroying successful nations.

    The U.S. president’s speech is typically among the most anticipated moments of the annual assembly. This one comes at one of the most volatile moments in the world body’s 80-year-old history. Global leaders are being tested by intractable wars in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, uncertainty about the economic and social impact of emerging artificial intelligence technology, and anxiety about Trump’s antipathy for the global body.

    Trump has also raised new questions about the American use of military force in his return to the White House, after ordering U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June and a trio of strikes this month on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea.

    The latter strikes, including at least two fatal attacks on boats that originated from Venezuela, has raised speculation in Caracas that Trump is looking to set the stage for the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    Some U.S. lawmakers and human rights advocates say that Trump is effectively carrying out extrajudicial killings by using U.S. forces to lethally target alleged drug smugglers instead of interdicting the suspected vessels, seizing any drugs and prosecuting the suspects in U.S. courts.

    Warnings about ‘green scam’ and migration

    Trump touted his administration’s policies allowing for expanded drilling for oil and natural gas in the United States, and aggressively cracking down on illegal immigration, implicitly suggesting more countries should follow suit.

    He sharply warned that European nations that have more welcoming migration policies and commit to expensive energy projects aimed at reducing their carbon footprint were causing irreparable harm to their economies and cultures.

    “I’m telling you that if you don’t get away from the ‘green energy’ scam, your country is going to fail,” Trump said. “If you don’t stop people that you’ve never seen before that you have nothing in common with your country is going to fail.”

    Trump added, “I love the people of Europe, and I hate to see it being devastated by energy and immigration. This double-tailed monster destroys everything in its wake, and they cannot let that happen any longer.”

    The passage of the wide-ranging address elicited some groans and uncomfortable laughter from delegates.

    Trump to hold one-on-one talks with world leaders

    Trump touted “the renewal of American strength around the world” and his efforts to help end several wars. He peppered his speech with criticism of global institutions doing too little to end war and solve the world’s biggest problems.

    General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock on Tuesday said that despite all the internal and external challenges facing the organization, it is not the time to walk away.

    “Sometimes we could’ve done more, but we cannot let this dishearten us. If we stop doing the right things, evil will prevail,” Baerbock said in her opening remarks.

    Following his speech, Trump met with Secretary-General António Guterres, telling the top U.N. official that the U.S. is behind the global body “100%” amid fears among members that he’s edging toward a full retreat.

    The White House says Trump will also meet on Tuesday with the leaders of Ukraine, Argentina and the European Union. He will also hold a group meeting with officials from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan.

    He’ll return to Washington after hosting a reception Tuesday night with more than 100 invited world leaders.

    Gaza and Ukraine cast shadow over Trump speech

    Trump has struggled to deliver on his 2024 campaign promises to quickly end the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. His response has been also relatively muted as some longtime American allies are using this year’s General Assembly to spotlight the growing international campaign for recognition of a Palestinian state, a move that the U.S. and Israel vehemently oppose.

    France became the latest nation to recognize Palestinian statehood on Monday at the start of a high-profile meeting at the U.N. aimed at galvanizing support for a two-state solution to the Mideast conflict. More nations are expected to follow.

    Trump sharply criticized the statehood recognition push.

    “The rewards would be too great for Hamas terrorists,” Trump said. “This would be a reward for these horrible atrocities, including Oct. 7.”

    Trump also addressed Russia’s war in Ukraine.

    It’s been more than a month since Trump’s Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and key European leaders. Following those meetings, Trump announced that he was arranging for direct talks between Putin and Zelenskyy. But Putin hasn’t shown any interest in meeting with Zelenskyy and Moscow has only intensified its bombardment of Ukraine since the Alaska summit.

    European leaders as well as American lawmakers, including some key Republican allies of Trump, have urged the president to dial up stronger sanctions on Russia. Trump, meanwhile, has pressed Europe to stop buying Russian oil, the engine feeding Putin’s war machine.

    Trump said a “very strong round of powerful tariffs” would “stop the bloodshed, I believe, very quickly.” He repeated his calls on Europe to “step it up” and stop buying Russian oil.

    Trump has Oslo dreams

    Despite his struggles to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, Trump has made clear that he wants to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, repeatedly making the spurious claim that he’s “ended seven wars” since he returned to office.

    “Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Prize — but for me, the real prize will be the sons and daughters who live to grow up because millions of people are no longer being killed in endless wars,” Trump offered.

    He again highlighted his administration’s efforts to end conflicts, including between Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Sudan, Rwanda and the Democratic Congo, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Cambodia and Thailand.

    “It’s too bad that I had to do these things instead of the United Nations doing them,” Trump said. “Sadly, in all cases, the United Nations did not even try to help in any of them.”

    Although Trump helped mediate relations among many of these nations, experts say his impact isn’t as clear cut as he claims.

    ___

    AP journalists Tracy Brown and Darlene Superville in Washington and Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cameron and Baerbock call for ‘sustainable cease-fire’ in Gaza

    Cameron and Baerbock call for ‘sustainable cease-fire’ in Gaza

    [ad_1]

    British Foreign Secretary David Cameron and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Sunday called for a “sustainable cease-fire” in the Middle East, lamenting that “too many civilians have been killed” in the Israel-Hamas war.

    In a joint article in the Sunday Times, Baerbock and Cameron made clear that: “We do not believe that calling right now for a general and immediate cease-fire, hoping it somehow becomes permanent, is the way forward.”

    “We must do all we can to pave the way to a sustainable cease-fire, leading to a sustainable peace,” they said.

    The article represents an apparent shift in the stances of both countries on the conflict in Gaza. The British government has called for a “humanitarian pause” in the fighting, but has stopped short of urging a cease-fire. Germany has staunchly defended Israel’s right to defend itself since the attacks by Hamas on October 7.

    Last Tuesday, both Germany and the U.K. abstained from voting on the U.N. General Assembly’s call for an “immediate humanitarian cease-fire” in the Gaza Strip — which passed by 153 to 10 with 23 abstentions.

    “Our goal cannot simply be an end to fighting today. It must be peace lasting for days, years, generations,” the two ministers said in their article, stressing that they support “a cease-fire, but only if it is sustainable.”

    The international calls for an immediate cease-fire are “an understandable reaction to such intense suffering, and we share the view that this conflict cannot drag on and on,” Baerbock and Cameron wrote. That is why the two governments “supported the recent humanitarian pauses” and are “pushing the diplomatic effort to agree further pauses to get more aid in and more hostages out,” they said.

    “Only extremists like Hamas want us stuck in an endless cycle of violence, sacrificing more innocent lives for their fanatical ideology,” the two ministers wrote.

    However, “the Israeli government should do more to discriminate sufficiently between terrorists and civilians, ensuring its campaign targets Hamas leaders and operatives,” Cameron and Baerbock said.

    “We do not believe that calling right now for a general and immediate cease-fire, hoping it somehow becomes permanent, is the way forward” because “it ignores why Israel is forced to defend itself: Hamas barbarically attacked Israel and still fires rockets to kill Israeli citizens every day,” they said. Baerbock and Cameron prefer “a sustainable cease-fire, leading to a sustainable peace. The sooner it comes, the better — the need is urgent,” they said.

    French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna, meanwhile, on Sunday urged an “immediate and durable” truce in the Gaza Strip. Speaking in Tel Aviv during a meeting with her Israeli counterpart, Eli Cohen, Colonna said that “the truce should lead to a lasting cease-fire with the aim of releasing all hostages and delivering aid to Gaza.”

    [ad_2]

    Tommaso Lecca

    Source link

  • France, Germany deplore Paris knife attack that left German man dead

    France, Germany deplore Paris knife attack that left German man dead

    [ad_1]

    The French president and Germany’s foreign affairs minister condemned Saturday’s knife attack in Paris that injured two and left a German national dead. Anti-terrorism prosecutors have opened an investigation into the assault.

    Police arrested a 26-year-old Frenchman, who had been on the security services watchlist, soon after the attack Saturday night near the Eiffel Tower. Officials said the victim was with his wife when he was attacked and fatally stabbed on Quai de Grenelle.

    “I send all my condolences to the family and loved ones of the German national who died this evening during the terrorist attack in Paris,” French President Emmanuel Macron said on X. “The national anti-terrorism prosecutor’s office … will be responsible for shedding light on this matter so that justice can be done in the name of the French people,” he said.

    Emergency services treated the two injured, a French national and a foreign tourist, whose wounds are not life-threatening.

    Following his arrest, the assailant told police he was distressed over how “many Muslims are dying in Afghanistan and in Palestine,” France’s interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, told reporters late Saturday. The suspect had served four years in jail for planning another attack in 2016.

    “Shocking news from Paris,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock posted online. “My thoughts are with the friends and family of the young German who was killed in the suspected Islamist attack. Almost his entire life lay ahead of him,” she said. “Hate and terror have no place in Europe,” Baerbock said.

    The two people injured in the incident were a Frenchman aged around 60 and a British tourist, the BBC reported. Neither was found to be in a life-threatening condition, it said.

    Saturday’s incident comes less than two months after a similar incident in the northern French city of Arras. A teacher was slain and two people wounded in a knife attack at a school in Arras in mid-October.

    [ad_2]

    Bjarke Smith-Meyer

    Source link

  • Germany U-turns on commitment to meet NATO spending target annually

    Germany U-turns on commitment to meet NATO spending target annually

    [ad_1]

    BERLIN — So much for Olaf Scholz’s Zeitenwende

    The German government on Wednesday stepped back at the last minute from making a legal commitment to meeting NATO’s target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense on an annual basis, according to Reuters and German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. 

    A government official told the news agency that a clause pledging to meet the target was deleted at short notice from Finance Minister Christian Lindner’s draft of a new budget financing law, just before the Cabinet passed it to the parliament.

    Instead, the government pledges to meet the 2 percent target on average over a five-year period, as already set out in the recently published National Security Strategy. 

    Annalena Baerbock’s Foreign Office had opposed setting the 2 percent target in law, as desired by the Defense Ministry, Süddeutsche Zeitung reported.

    A spokesperson for the government declined to comment to Reuters on the details of the bill.

    Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced the Zeitenwende, a new dawn in Germany’s security policy.

    “From now on, we will invest more than 2 percent of the GDP into our defense year after year,” Scholz said in February 2022. He renewed this promise after last month’s NATO summit in Vilnius. 

    For many years, Germany was criticized by NATO partners, especially the United States, for not sticking to NATO’s requirement on defense spending. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What genocide? Volkswagen’s morally expensive bet on China

    What genocide? Volkswagen’s morally expensive bet on China

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    BERLIN — The blowback came in the form of cake.

    An annual meeting of Volkswagen shareholders in Berlin in May was disrupted by protesters, one of whom hurled the creamy confection at the assembled executives, forcing Chairman Hans Dieter Pötsch to flinch out of the way.

    Among the subjects of their ire: A car plant some 3,500 miles away in the Chinese region of Xinjiang, where Beijing has carried out a campaign of mass detention, reeducation and forced labor that the United States has described as genocide of the Uyghur ethnic minority.

    One topless woman in the room waved a banner with the words “End Uyghur Forced Labor” before the protesters were escorted away. Outside, other activists held up signs saying “Camps, forced labor, family separations: VW major shareholders in Lower Saxony must not remain silent about crimes against Uyghurs.”

    Volkswagen denies it has ever utilized forced labor in Xinjiang. But it has been less willing to grapple with the broader accusation: That by maintaining the facility at the request of Beijing, the company — and by extension the German government, which supported the carmaker’s investments in China — is providing political cover for crimes against humanity.

    “Even if there is no forced labor, it is such a big symbol for the Chinese government to show the world that they bring prosperity to the region,” said Eva Stocker, senior project officer from the World Uyghur Congress, an advocacy group for Uyghur rights and self-determination. “But we see it as a genocide.”

    The rising criticism over Volkswagen’s presence in Xinjiang has been accompanied by a shifting in the political and economic winds. Russia’s war on Ukraine has kicked off a broader conversation about strategic dependency, with officials in Brussels and Washington calling for “de-risking” with regard to Beijing. At the same time, worries about climate change are upending the automobile market, with Chinese electric carmakers preparing to challenge legacy brands in Europe on their own soil.

    This all poses a conundrum for Volkswagen, which led the Western charge into the Chinese market in the 1980s and remains dependent on business there for 15 percent of its pretax profit and 37 percent of its new car sales last year.

    China’s treatment of Uyghurs is unlikely to be central to the discussions as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz hosts a Chinese delegation led by Prime Minister Li Qiang this week. But Volkswagen’s relationship to China, and the human rights abuses being carried out there, is illustrative of Berlin’s increasingly uncomfortable dependency on Beijing — and the challenges Germany is likely to face as the West seeks to turn de-risking from a slogan into action.

    Slave labor

    Potential complicity in genocide is a charge to which one might expect Volkswagen to be sensitive. When the company was founded in 1937 by the national labor organization of the Nazi Party, it used concentration camp prisoners as slave labor. Hundreds of infants kept at a children’s home run by Volkswagen were starved to death.

    During the Holocaust, the Nazis sent their perceived enemies to extermination camps. In Xinjiang, human rights groups have documented mass incarceration, forced sterilization, the suppression of religious practices, including the burning of mosques, and the separation of hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren from their parents. Many believe these practices meet the definition of genocide as acts intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”

    The United States government has denounced human rights abuses in Xinjiang as genocide, as have national legislatures in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Lithuania and Canada. The German Bundestag has not, though Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has called for a ban on goods made with forced labor and for investigations into China’s actions in Xinjiang.

    Volkswagen denies it has ever utilized forced labor in Xinjiang | Freddy Chan/EPA via EFE

    Investigative journalists have found traces of forced labor camps within 15 miles of Volkswagen’s Xinjiang plant, which is a joint venture initiative with SAIC Motor, the largest state-owned automobile manufacturer in China. As POLITICO and other media reported, the use of forced labor was so rampant in the region that schoolchildren were organized by schools to carry out manual labor.

    “By the plant, there are seven concentration camps … so this is what Volkswagen cannot deny, but they say they are not connected with them,” Erkin Zunun, the chief coordinator of the World Uyghur Congress based in Munich, said. “Nobody can say 100 percent there is no connection to forced labor.”

    Ralf Brandstätter, the head of Volkswagen’s China operations, said after a visit to the Xinjiang plant in March that he’d found no evidence of forced labor. “I can talk to people and draw my conclusions. I can try and verify the facts [from joint venture partner SAIC], and that’s what I did,” Brandstätter said. “I didn’t find any contradictions,” he added, citing seven staffers he’d spoken to via translators.

    Over the past few years, European diplomats based in China have made repeated inquiries into Volkswagen’s presence in Xinjiang, according to three diplomats granted anonymity to speak frankly about their exchanges. Time and again, they received the same answer. “They always insist there’s no forced labor, and that the minorities they hire in the local plant are not forced labor,” one of them said. “They don’t care what happens outside the factory.”

    Volkswagen rejected the accusation that by being in Xinjiang, the company is complicit in the human rights violations being perpetrated there. “Will something change if Volkswagen leaves?” said a Volkswagen spokesperson speaking on condition of anonymity. “We have doubts about this.”

    The spokesperson said the company pays its employees at the plant on average 30 percent more than other automakers in the region and has had practically no staff turnover in recent years. “We are offering around 250 workers and their families a good … living in the region,” the spokesperson said.

    ‘Devil’s agreement’

    On its own, Volkswagen’s investment in Xinjiang — and the company’s decision to stay there despite human rights violations in the area — makes little reputational or economic sense.

    Since the COVID shutdowns, the plant hasn’t been used for vehicle assembly or production, but rather as a sorting center for cars heading to local dealerships. Last year, Volkswagen says some 10,000 cars — an average of less than 28 a day — were cleared through the facility, with plans to increase this over the next few years. Staff at the site carry out water resistance checks, quality controls and assess driver assistance systems, a spokesperson said.

    The investment has to be considered in the broader context of Volkswagen’s engagement with Beijing. Unrestricted access to the Chinese market is mission-critical for all German automakers, but for Volkswagen, it’s what makes it a global heavyweight brand. Nearly 40 percent of Volkswagen’s global car sales were in China last year, up from 31 percent a decade ago, according to data from the Center for Automotive Management in Cologne.

    According to a senior Western diplomat, Volkswagen’s Xinjiang presence is part of a “devil’s agreement” that the Chinese government imposed on the German car company 15 years ago. Under the deal, Volkswagen had to agree to build a new factory in Xinjiang — which was and has remained an economic backwater — in return for permission for a dozen new plants in the economically vibrant eastern coastal area, as well as the booming central provinces.

    “The misleading assumption is that we were forced, that we opened the plant as a push from the government in Beijing,” said the Volkswagen spokesperson. “That isn’t true. It was part of a greater plan — the Go West strategy,” referring to the company’s ambitions to expand into less developed parts of China.

    Today, pulling out would risk jeopardizing relations with Beijing, as China often treats expressions of concern about human rights violations in Xinjiang as endorsements of what it sees as U.S. pressure on the country.

    The presentation of the new Golf GTI at the Shanghai car show in 2021 | Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images

    Volkswagen is determined to live with its contractual obligation with SAIC to stay in Xinjiang at least until 2030, Volkswagen chief lobbyist Thomas Steg told journalists in March. “This plant is owned and operated by a non-controlled joint venture, all the decisions have to be taken unanimously,” the company spokesperson said.

    In a written statement, Volkswagen Group said it “stands firmly against” forced labor, adding it “takes its responsibility for human rights very seriously in all regions of the world, including China.”

    “In a globalized world, we can only really strengthen Germany as a business location if we maintain and further develop our relations with major economic players such as China,” it said.

    Green evolution

    While Volkswagen has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Berlin for its investments in China, the political winds back home have started to shift.

    The main push comes from the Green Party, a junior partner in Germany’s coalition government, and its calls for “values-driven” diplomacy. In May 2022, the German Economy Ministry, led by Green Party heavyweight Robert Habeck, announced it would stop all investment guarantee schemes for companies looking to invest in the Xinjiang region of China due to the deteriorating human rights situation.

    Volkswagen’s investment guarantees were not extended because the interministerial committee that decides on them determined that the company “has too little control and knowledge … within the joint venture to adequately counter the human rights risks,” a German official said.

    Chinese carmakers with cheaper battery technology are making a play for Europe | Tobias Schwarz/AFP via Getty Images

    Foreign Minister Baerbock has also taken a tougher line, warning companies that they won’t be bailed out with taxpayers’ money if “things go wrong” in other parts of the world. Her stance has not gone unnoticed by Beijing. When Baerbock visited China in April, her counterpart Qin Gang warned Berlin it should be thinking about its business interests.

    “Both sides should maintain and advance existing cooperation, create a favorable environment and stable expectations for cooperation between enterprises of the two countries, and provide stronger growth drivers for the global economy,” Qin said.

    Germany’s first National Security Strategy, released last week, criticizes China for disregarding human rights, although the document does not go further into detail. Berlin also plans to release a dedicated China strategy in July.

    For the automaker, the Green Party’s China policy has become a headache. “It’s crazy what Habeck and Baerbock are doing at the moment … [They] just try to bring confrontation to the world,” said Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, director of Center for Automotive Research, an industry group with close ties to Volkswagen and to Chinese carmakers. “It’s really crazy.”

    Dudenhöffer insisted the German carmaker had done everything within its capacity to ensure good labor standards in the Xinjiang plant. He didn’t believe the company had broached with Beijing the possibility of the plant’s closure or the transfer of its ownership to its Chinese partners. “I think they discussed it internally, but … if you start to talk about that issue [with the Chinese], then you start to go into opposition with the most important market you have in the world,” he said.

    The EV threat

    The irony is that Volkswagen’s morally expensive bet may not even pay off.

    After enjoying decades of market leadership, the German auto giant is struggling to cope with the impending demise of the combustion engine and is facing unprecedented challenges from Chinese-made electric vehicles, which are now set to become the “greatest risk” facing European carmakers, according to a report by Allianz Trade.

    Even as Volkswagen doubles down on the Chinese market, Chinese carmakers with cheaper battery technology are making a play for Europe, with brands like BYD, Great Wall, Nio and Xpeng launching across the Continent.

    While electric vehicles only make up around 5 percent of European sales, EU regulators have mandated a phaseout of the combustion engine by 2035. One analysis predicts Chinese imports could make up nearly a fifth of all European sales by 2025 — bad news for local legacy brands.

    Even if Volkswagen does find a way to hold out at home, its investments in China could be at risk if Europe raises trade barriers against Chinese vehicles, as France has been calling for. Such a move would almost certainly lead to reciprocal action from Beijing, which has not shied away from using its regulatory muscles to push its diplomatic interests.

    In 2017, for example, when South Korea sought to buy a missile defense system from the U.S. in order to stave off the threat from North Korea, Beijing vocally opposed the move, and sales of Hyundai and Kia models subsequently plummeted, sparking rows with dealerships and plant closures.

    Under President Xi Jinping, China has also sought to diminish the market share of foreign companies. In telecoms, for example, European players like Ericsson and Nokia have been crowded out by homegrown heavyweights Huawei and ZTE. China may have needed Western companies to jump-start its industrial development, but with Xi seeking to present China as an alternative to the West, that utility is quickly fading.

    In other words, for Volkswagen’s executives, cake-throwing protesters may be the least of their worries.

    [ad_2]

    Stuart Lau , Joshua Posaner and Hans von der Burchard

    Source link

  • Germany aims to ‘set the record straight’ on China after Macron’s Taiwan comments

    Germany aims to ‘set the record straight’ on China after Macron’s Taiwan comments

    [ad_1]

    BERLIN — German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock is heading to China to represent Berlin, but she’ll likely have more explaining to do about Paris in the wake of French President Emmanuel Macron’s explosive comments on Taiwan.

    As Baerbock embarked on her two-day visit Wednesday evening, officials in Berlin were eager to stress that Germany and the EU care about Taiwan and stability in the region, arguing it’s mainly China that must contribute to de-escalation by refraining from aggressive military maneuvers close to the island nation.

    Baerbock’s trip comes amid international backlash against Macron’s comments in an interview with POLITICO, arguing Europe should avoid becoming America’s follower, including on the matter of Taiwan’s security. Although German government spokespeople refused to comment directly on the French president’s remarks, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry specifically called out Beijing when expressing “great concern” over the situation in the Taiwan Strait.

    “We expect all parties in the region to contribute to peace. That applies equally to the People’s Republic of China,” the spokesperson said, adding: “And it seems to us that actions such as military threatening gestures are counter to that goal and, in fact, increase the risk of unintended military clashes.”

    Nils Schmid, the foreign policy spokesperson for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party (SPD), said he expects Baerbock to “set the record straight” during her trip to China, which will involve meetings with Beijing’s Foreign Minister Qin Gang, Vice President Han Zheng and top diplomat Wang Yi.

    “We clearly defined in the [government] coalition agreement that we need a changed China policy because China has changed. The chancellor made that clear during his visit. Above all, Scholz also issued clear warnings about Taiwan during his visit [last year],” Schmid wrote in a tweet. “I assume that Foreign Minister Baerbock will repeat exactly that and thus set the record straight and make a clarification after Macron’s botched visit.”

    Berlin traditionally has been much more in sync with the U.S. on foreign and security policy than France has, which is why many politicians and officials in the German capital reacted with horror to Macron’s comments. The French president said Europe should not take its “cue from the U.S. agenda and a Chinese overreaction,” suggesting the EU stood between the two sides, rather than being aligned with its longtime democratic partners in Washington.

    Macron gave the impression to some in the U.S. that Europeans see Beijing and Washington as “equidistant” from Brussels in terms of values and as allies, said SPD foreign policy lawmaker Metin Hakverdi, who is currently on a parliamentary visit to the U.S.

    “That was foolish,” Hakverdi told POLITICO, adding that “Macron potentially damaged the peaceful status quo around Taiwan” by giving “the public impression that Europe has no particular interest in the conflict over Taiwan.

    “The issue of Taiwan is not an internal matter for the People’s Republic of China. Anything else would virtually invite Beijing to attack Taiwan,” Hakverdi added. “I am confident that our foreign minister will make that clear during her trip to Asia — both to Beijing and to our Asian partners.”

    Katja Leikert from the main German opposition party, the center-right CDU, criticized Macron’s comments as “extremely short-sighted,” and added: “Should China decide to strike Taiwan militarily, either by invading it or by starting a maritime blockade, this would have significant political and economic repercussions for us. We cannot just wish that away.

    “What we actually need to do right now is strengthen our defense against aggressive measures from Beijing,” Leikert said.

    For Berlin, Macron’s comments also come at a particularly bad moment for transatlantic ties. The German government is keen to mend cracks in its relationship with Washington that have emerged over the controversial benefits for U.S. businesses under Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Europe hopes to reach an agreement so that its own companies may also be eligible for these subsidies.

    Macron’s comments “will not help in renegotiations on the Inflation Reduction Act, nor will they help Joe Biden in the election campaign against populist Republican candidates,” said the SPD’s Hakverdi.

    The German foreign ministry spokesperson was quick to stress that both France and Germany were involved in shaping a joint EU-China policy | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images

    The German foreign ministry spokesperson was quick to stress that both France and Germany were involved in shaping a joint EU-China policy, which was also done in cooperation “with our transatlantic partner.”

    During her trip to China, Baerbock plans to raise the situation in the Taiwan Strait; Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; the human rights situation in China; as well as the fight against climate crisis, the spokesperson said.

    Baerbock’s foreign ministry is also currently drafting Germany’s first China strategy. A draft of this seen by POLITICO last year vowed to take a much harder line toward Beijing. Baerbock and her Green party are at the forefront of pushing such a tougher position, while Scholz has long preferred a softer approach.

    Incidentally, however, the German government said Wednesday it is reassessing whether to potentially take a firmer stance and ban Chinese state company Cosco from going through with a highly controversial move to buy parts of a Hamburg port terminal.

    Scholz had strongly pushed for the port deal ahead of his own trip to Beijing last year, but the future of the transaction is now in doubt after German security authorities classified the terminal as “critical infrastructure.”

    [ad_2]

    Hans von der Burchard and Gabriel Rinaldi

    Source link

  • German Christian Democrats rewrite Merkel’s China playbook

    German Christian Democrats rewrite Merkel’s China playbook

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    BERLIN — Germany’s Christian Democrats, the country’s largest opposition group, are planning to shift away from the pragmatic stance toward China that characterized Angela Merkel’s 16 years as chancellor, claiming that maintaining peace through trade has failed.

    It’s a remarkable course change for the conservative party that pursued a strategy of rapprochement and economic interdependence toward China and Russia during Merkel’s decade and a half in power. The volte-face has been spurred by Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and Beijing’s increasingly aggressive stance — both economically and politically — in the Asian region and beyond.

    According to a draft position paper seen by POLITICO, the conservatives say the idea of keeping peace through economic cooperation “has failed with regard to Russia, but increasingly also China.” The 22-page paper, which is to be adopted by the center-right Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) parliamentary group in the Bundestag around Easter, outlines key points for a new China policy.

    In a world order that is changing after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Chancellor Olaf Scholz last year announced a Zeitenwende, or major turning point, in German security policy. Economy Minister Robert Habeck and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, in particular, have stressed the necessity of a comprehensive China strategy, an idea already mentioned in the coalition agreement to form Scholz’s government. Their ministries have elaborated two different drafts, but a comprehensive strategy is not yet in sight.

    “We realize at this point in time, with some surprise, which is why we prepared and presented this paper, that the German government is significantly behind schedule on key foreign and security policy documents,” said CDU foreign policy lawmaker Johann Wadephul.

    The foreword to the position paper states that “the rise of communist China is the central, epochal challenge of the 21st century for all states seeking to preserve, strengthen, and sustain the rules-based international order.” The CDU/CSU parliamentary group is open to working out a “national consensus” with Scholz’s government. That consensus, the group says, must be embedded in the national security strategy and in a European China strategy.

    The relationship with China is described in the same triad fashion that was formulated by the European Commission in 2019 and is in the coalition agreement of the current German government. Under this strategy, the Asian country is seen as a partner, economic competitor and systemic rival.

    But the CDU/CSU group’s paper says policy should move away from a Beijing-friendly, pragmatic stance toward China, especially on trade. “We should not close our eyes to the fact that China has shifted the balance on its own initiative and clearly pushed the core of the relationship toward systemic rivalry,” the text states.

    Such an emphasis from the conservative group is remarkable given its long-held preference for economic cooperation and political rapprochement toward both China and Russia under Merkel. Before leaving office, for example, Merkel pushed a major EU-China investment deal over the line, though it was later essentially frozen by the European Parliament due to Beijing’s sanctions against MEPs.

    “I say to this also self-critically [that] this means for the CDU/CSU a certain new approach in China policy after a 16-year government period,” Wadephul said.

    The paper calls for a “Zeitenwende in China policy,” too, concluding that Germany should respond “with the ability and its own strength to compete” wherever China seeks and forces competition; should build up its resilience and defensive capability and form as well as expand alliances and partnerships with interest and value partners; and demonstrate a willingness to partner where it is openly, transparently and reliably embraced by China.

    The CDU/CSU paper calls for a European China strategy and a “European China Council” with EU neighbors for better cooperation. A central point is also strengthening reciprocity and European as well as German sovereignty.

    “Decoupling from China is neither realistic nor desirable from a German and European perspective,” according to the text.

    To better monitor dependencies, the paper proposes an expert commission in the Bundestag that would present an annual “China check” on dependencies in trade, technology, raw materials and foreign trade, with the overall aim of developing a “de-risking” strategy.

    [ad_2]

    Gabriel Rinaldi

    Source link

  • Inside the deal: How Boris Johnson’s departure paved the way for a grand Brexit bargain

    Inside the deal: How Boris Johnson’s departure paved the way for a grand Brexit bargain

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    LONDON — It was clear when Boris Johnson was forced from Downing Street that British politics had changed forever.

    But few could have predicted that less than six months later, all angry talk of a cross-Channel trade war would be a distant memory, with Britain and the EU striking a remarkable compromise deal over post-Brexit trade rules in Northern Ireland.

    Private conversations with more than a dozen U.K. and EU officials, politicians and diplomats reveal how the Brexit world changed completely after Johnson’s departure — and how an “unholy trinity” of little-known civil servants, ensconced in a gloomy basement in Brussels, would mastermind a seismic shift in Britain’s relationship with the Continent.

    They were aided by an unlikely sequence of political events in Westminster — not least an improbable change of mood under the combative Liz Truss; and then the jaw-dropping rise to power of the ultra-pragmatic Rishi Sunak. Even the amiable figure of U.K. Foreign Secretary James Cleverly would play his part, glad-handing his way around Europe and smoothing over cracks that had grown ever-wider since 2016.

    As Sunak’s Conservative MPs pore over the detail of his historic agreement with Brussels — and await the all-important verdict of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland — POLITICO has reconstructed the dramatic six-month shift in Britain’s approach that brought us to the brink of the Brexit deal we see today.

    Bye-bye Boris

    Johnson’s departure from Downing Street, on September 6, triggered an immediate mood shift in London toward the EU — and some much-needed optimism within the bloc about future cross-Channel relations.

    For key figures in EU capitals, Johnson would always be the untrustworthy figure who signed the protocol agreement only to disown it months afterward.

    In Paris, relations were especially poisonous, amid reports of Johnson calling the French “turds”; endless spats with the Elysée over post-Brexit fishing rights, sausages and cross-Channel migrants; and Britain’s role in the AUKUS security partnership, which meant the loss of a multi-billion submarine contract for France. Paris’ willingness to engage with Johnson was limited in the extreme.

    Truss, despite her own verbal spats with French President Emmanuel Macron — and her famously direct approach to diplomacy — was viewed in a different light. Her success at building close rapport with negotiating partners had worked for her as trade secretary, and once she became prime minister, she wanted to move beyond bilateral squabbles and focus on global challenges, including migration, energy and the war in Ukraine.

    “Boris had become ‘Mr. Brexit,’” one former U.K. government adviser said. “He was the one the EU associated with the protocol, and obviously [Truss] didn’t come with the same baggage. She had covered the brief, but she didn’t have the same history. As prime minister, Liz wanted to use her personal relationships to move things on — but that wasn’t the same as a shift in the underlying substance.”

    Indeed, Truss was still clear on the need to pass the controversial Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which would have given U.K. ministers powers to overrule part of the protocol unilaterally, in order to ensure leverage in the talks with the European Commission.

    Truss also triggered formal dispute proceedings against Brussels for blocking Britain’s access to the EU’s Horizon Europe research program. And her government maintained Johnson’s refusal to implement checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain, causing deep irritation in Brussels.

    But despite the noisy backdrop, tentative contact with Brussels quietly resumed in September, with officials on both sides trying to rebuild trust. Truss, however, soon became “very disillusioned by the lack of pragmatism from the EU,” one of her former aides said.

    “The negotiations were always about political will, not technical substance — and for whatever reason, the political will to compromise from the Commission was never there when Liz, [ex-negotiator David] Frost, Boris were leading things,” they said.

    Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss announces her resignation outside 10 Downing Street in central London on October 20, 2022 | Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images

    Truss, of course, would not be leading things for long. An extraordinary meltdown of the financial markets precipitated her own resignation in late October, after just six weeks in office. Political instability in Westminster once again threatened to derail progress.

    But Sunak’s arrival in No. 10 Downing Street — amid warnings of a looming U.K. recession — gave new impetus to the talks. An EU official said the mood music improved further, and that discussions with London became “much more constructive” as a result.

    David Lidington, a former deputy to ex-PM Theresa May who played a key role in previous Brexit negotiations, describes Sunak as a “globalist” rather than an “ultra-nationalist,” who believes Britain ought to have “a sensible, friendly and grown-up relationship” with Brussels outside the EU.

    During his time as chancellor, Sunak was seen as a moderating influence on his fellow Brexiteer Cabinet colleagues, several of whom seemed happy to rush gung-ho toward a trade war with the EU.

    “Rishi has always thought of the protocol row as a nuisance, an issue he wanted to get dealt with,” the former government adviser first quoted said.

    One British official suggested the new prime minister’s reputation for pragmatism gave the U.K. negotiating team “an opportunity to start again.”

    Sunak’s slow decision-making and painstaking attention to detail — the subject of much criticism in Whitehall — proved useful in calming EU jitters about the new regime, they added.

    “When he came in, it wasn’t just the calming down of the markets. It was everyone across Europe and in the U.S. thinking ‘OK, they’re done going through their crazy stage,’” the same official said. “It’s the time he takes with everything, the general steadiness.”

    EU leaders “have watched him closely, they listened to what he said, and they have been prepared to trust him and see how things go,” Lidington noted.

    Global backdrop

    As months of chaos gave way to calm in London, the West was undergoing a seismic reorganization.

    Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine triggered a flurry of coordinated work for EU and U.K. diplomats — including sanctions, military aid, reconstruction talks and anti-inflation packages. A sense began to emerge that it was in both sides’ common interest to get the Northern Ireland protocol row out of the way.

    “The war in Ukraine has completely changed the context over the last year,” an EU diplomat said.

    A second U.K. official agreed. “Suddenly we realized that the 2 percent of the EU border we’d been arguing about was nothing compared to the massive border on the other side of the EU, which Putin was threatening,” they said. “And suddenly there wasn’t any electoral benefit to keeping this row over Brexit going — either for us or for governments across the EU.”

    A quick glance at the electoral calendar made it clear 2023 offered the last opportunity to reach a deal in the near future, with elections looming for both the U.K. and EU parliaments the following year — effectively putting any talks on ice.

    “Rishi Sunak would have certainly been advised by his officials that come 2024, the EU is not going to be wanting to take any new significant initiatives,” Lidington said. “And we will be in election mode.”

    The upcoming 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday peace agreement on April 10 heaped further pressure on the U.K. negotiators, amid interest from U.S. President Joe Biden in visiting Europe to mark the occasion.

    “The anniversary was definitely playing on people’s minds,” the first U.K. official said. “Does [Sunak] really want to be the prime minister when there’s no government in Northern Ireland on the anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement?”

    The pressure was ramped up further when Biden specifically raised the protocol in a meeting with Truss at the U.N. General Assembly in New York in late September, after which British officials said they expected the 25th anniversary to act as a “key decision point” on the dispute.

    The King and I

    Whitehall faced further pressure from another unlikely source — King Charles III, who was immediately planning a state visit to Paris within weeks of ascending the throne in September 2022. Truss had suggested delaying the visit until the protocol row was resolved, according to two European diplomats.

    The monarch is now expected to visit Paris and Berlin at the end of March — and although his role is strictly apolitical, few doubt he is taking a keen interest in proceedings. He has raised the protocol in recent conversations with European diplomats, showing a close engagement with the detail. 

    One former senior diplomat involved in several of the king’s visits said that Charles has long held “a private interest in Ireland, and has wanted to see if there was an appropriately helpful role he could play in improving relations [with the U.K].”

    By calling the deal the Windsor framework and presenting it at a press conference in front of Windsor Castle, one of the king’s residences, No. 10 lent Monday’s proceedings an unmistakable royal flavor.

    The king also welcomed von der Leyen for tea at the castle following the signing of the deal. A Commission spokesperson insisted their meeting was “separate” from the protocol discussion talks. Tory MPs were skeptical.

    Cleverly does it

    The British politician tasked with improving relations with Brussels was Foreign Secretary Cleverly, appointed by Truss last September. He immediately began exploring ways to rebuild trust with Commission Vice-President and Brexit point-man Maroš Šefčovič, the second U.K. official cited said.

    His first hurdle was a perception in Brussels that the British team had sabotaged previous talks by leaking key details to U.K. newspapers and hardline Tory Brexiteers for domestic political gain. As a result, U.K. officials made a conscious effort to keep negotiations tightly sealed, a No. 10 official said.

    “The relationship with Maroš improved massively when we agreed not to carry out a running commentary” on the content of the discussions, the second U.K. official added.

    This meant keeping key government ministers out of the loop, including Northern Ireland Minister Steve Baker, an arch-Brexiteer who had been brought back onto the frontbench by Truss.

    British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly is welcomed by European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič ahead of a meeting at the EU headquarters in Brussels on February 17, 2023 | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty Images

    The first U.K. official said Baker would have “felt the pain,” as he had little to offer his erstwhile backbench colleagues looking for guidance while negotiations progressed, “and that was a choice by No. 10.”

    Cleverly and Šefčovič “spent longer than people think just trying to build rapport,” the second U.K. official said, with Cleverly explaining the difficulties the protocol was raising in Northern Ireland and Šefčovič insistent that key economic sectors were in fact benefiting from the arrangement.

    Cleverly also worked at the bilateral relationship with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, while Sunak made efforts to improve ties with French President Emmanuel Macron, Lidington noted.

    A British diplomat based in Washington said Cleverly had provided “a breath of fresh air” after the “somewhat stiff” manner of his predecessors, Truss and the abrasive Dominic Raab.

    By the Conservative party conference in early October, the general mood among EU diplomats in attendance was one of expectation. And the Birmingham jamboree did not disappoint.

    Sorry is the hardest word

    Baker, who had once described himself as a “Brexit hard man,” stunned Dublin by formally apologizing to the people of Ireland for his past comments, just days before technical talks between the Commission and the U.K. government were due to resume.

    “I caused a great deal of inconvenience and pain and difficulty,” he said. “Some of our actions were not very respectful of Ireland’s legitimate interests. I want to put that right.”

    The apology was keenly welcomed in Dublin, where Micheál Martin, the Irish prime minister at the time, called it “honest and very, very helpful.”

    Irish diplomats based in the U.K. met Baker and other prominent figures from the European Research Group of Tory Euroskeptics at the party conference, where Baker spoke privately of his “humility” and his “resolve” to address the issues, a senior Irish diplomat said.

    “Resolve was the keyword,” the envoy said. “If Steve Baker had the resolve to work for a transformation of relationships between Ireland and the U.K., then we thought — there were tough talks to be had — but a sustainable deal was now a possibility.”

    There were other signs of rapprochement. Just a few hours after Baker’s earth-shattering apology, Truss confirmed her attendance at the inaugural meeting in Prague of the European Political Community, a new forum proposed by Macron open to both EU and non-EU countries.

    Sunak at the wheel

    The momentum snowballed under Sunak, who decided within weeks of becoming PM to halt the passage of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill in the House of Lords, reiterating Britain’s preference for a negotiated settlement. In exchange, the Commission froze a host of infringement proceedings taking aim at the way the U.K. was handling the protocol. This created space for talks to proceed in a more cordial environment.

    An EU-U.K. agreement in early January allowed Brussels to start using a live information system detailing goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, seen as key to unlocking a wider agreement on physical checks under the protocol.

    The U.K. also agreed to conduct winter technical negotiations in Brussels, rather than alternating rounds between the EU capital and London, as was the case when Frost served as Britain’s chief negotiator.

    Trust continued to build. Suddenly the Commission was open to U.K. solutions such as the “Stormont brake,” a clause giving the Northern Ireland Assembly power of veto over key protocol machinations, which British officials did not believe Brussels would accept when they first pitched them.

    The Stormont brake was discussed “relatively early on,” a third U.K. official said. “Then we spent a huge amount of effort making sure nobody knew about it. It was kept the most secret of secret things.”

    Yet a second EU diplomat claimed the ideas in the deal were not groundbreaking and could have been struck “years ago” if Britain had a prime minister with enough political will to solve the dispute. “None of the solutions that have been found now is revolutionary,” they said.

    An ally of Johnson described the claim he was a block on progress as “total nonsense.”

    The ‘unholy trinity’

    Away from the media focus, a group of seasoned U.K. officials began to engage with their EU counterparts in earnest. But there was one (not so) new player in town.

    Tim Barrow, a former U.K. permanent representative to the EU armed with a peerless contact book, had been an active figure in rebuilding relations with the bloc since Truss appointed him national security adviser. He acquired a more prominent role in the protocol talks after Sunak dispatched him to Brussels in January 2023, hoping EU figures would see him as “almost one of them,” another adviser to Sunak said.  

    Ensconced in the EU capital, Barrow and his U.K. team of negotiators took over several meeting rooms in the basement of the U.K. embassy, while staffers were ordered to keep quiet about their presence.

    Besides his work on Northern Ireland trade, Barrow began to appear in meetings with EU representatives about other key issues creating friction in the EU-U.K. relationship, including discussions on migration alongside U.K. Home Secretary Suella Braverman.

    Barrow “positioned himself very well,” the first EU diplomat quoted above said. “He’s very close to the prime minister — everybody in Brussels and London knows he’s got his ear. He’s very knowledgeable while very political.”

    But other British officials insist Barrow’s presence was not central to driving through the deal. “He has been a figure, but not the only figure,” the U.K. adviser quoted above said. “It’s been a lot of people, actually, over quite a period of time.”

    When it came to the tough, detailed technical negotiations, the burden fell on the shoulders of Mark Davies — the head of the U.K. taskforce praised for his mastery of the protocol detail — and senior civil servant and former director of the Northern Ireland Office, Brendan Threlfall.

    The three formed an “unholy trinity,” as described by the first U.K. official, with each one bringing something to the table.

    Davies was “a classic civil servant, an unsung hero,” the official said, while Threlfall “has good connections, good understanding” and “Tim has met all the EU interlocutors over the years.”

    Sitting across the table, the EU team was led by Richard Szostak, a Londoner born to Polish parents and a determined Commission official with a great CV and an affinity for martial arts. His connection to von der Leyen was her deputy head of cabinet until recently, Stéphanie Riso, a former member of Brussels’ Brexit negotiating team who developed a reputation for competence on both sides of the debate. 

    Other senior figures at the U.K. Cabinet Office played key roles, including Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and senior official Sue Gray.

    The latter — a legendary Whitehall enforcer who adjudicated over Johnson’s “Partygate” scandal — has a longstanding connection to Northern Ireland, famously taking a career break in the late 1980s to run a pub in Newry, where she has family links. More recently, she spent two years overseeing the finance ministry.

    Gray has been spotted in Stormont at crunch points over the past six months as Northern Ireland grapples with the pain of the continued absence of an executive.

    Some predict Gray could yet play a further role, in courting the Democratic Unionist Party as the agreement moves forward in the weeks ahead.

    For U.K. and EU officials, the agreement struck with Brussels represented months of hard work — but for Sunak and his Cabinet colleagues, the hardest yards may yet lie ahead.

    This story was updated to clarify two parts of the sourcing.

    [ad_2]

    Cristina Gallardo and Esther Webber

    Source link

  • China talks ‘peace,’ woos Europe and trashes Biden in Munich

    China talks ‘peace,’ woos Europe and trashes Biden in Munich

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    MUNICH — China is trying to drive a fresh wedge between Europe and the United States as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine trudges past its one-year mark.

    Such was the motif of China’s newly promoted foreign policy chief Wang Yi when he broke the news at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday that President Xi Jinping would soon present a “peace proposal” to resolve what Beijing calls a conflict — not a war — between Moscow and Kyiv. And he pointedly urged his European audience to get on board and shun the Americans.

    In a major speech, Wang appealed specifically to the European leaders gathered in the room.

    “We need to think calmly, especially our friends in Europe, about what efforts should be made to stop the warfare; what framework should there be to bring lasting peace to Europe; what role should Europe play to manifest its strategic autonomy,” said Wang, who will continue his Europe tour with a stop in Moscow.

    In contrast, Wang launched a vociferous attack on “weak” Washington’s “near-hysterical” reaction to Chinese balloons over U.S. airspace, portraying the country as warmongering.

    “Some forces might not want to see peace talks to materialize,” he said, widely interpreted as a reference to the U.S. “They don’t care about the life and death of Ukrainians, [nor] the harms on Europe. They might have strategic goals larger than Ukraine itself. This warfare must not continue.”

    Yet at the conference, Europe showed no signs of distancing itself from the U.S. nor pulling back on military support for Ukraine. The once-hesitant German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged Europe to give Ukraine even more modern tanks. And French President Emmanuel Macron shot down the idea of immediate peace talks with the Kremlin.

    And, predictably, there was widespread skepticism that China’s idea of “peace” will match that of Europe.

    “China has not been able to condemn the invasion,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a group of reporters. Beijing’s peace plan, he added, “is quite vague.” Peace, the NATO chief emphasized, is only possible if Russia respects Ukraine’s sovereignty.

    Europe watches with caution

    Wang’s overtures illustrate the delicate dance China has been trying to pull off since the war began.

    Keen to ensure Russia is not weakened in the long run, Beijing has offered Vladimir Putin much-needed diplomatic support, while steering clear of any direct military assistance that would attract Western sanctions against its economic and trade relations with the world.

    Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitro Kuleba is expected to hold a bilateral meeting with Wang while in Munich | Johannes Simon/Getty Images

    “We will put forward China’s position on the political settlement on the Ukraine crisis, and stay firm on the side of peace and dialogue,” Wang said. “We do not add fuel to the fire, and we are against reaping benefit from this crisis.”

    According to Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, who met Wang earlier this week, Xi will make his “peace proposal” on the first anniversary of the war, which is Friday.

    Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitro Kuleba is expected to hold a bilateral meeting with Wang while in Munich. He said he hoped to have a “frank” conversation with the Beijing envoy.

    “We believe that compliance with the principle of territorial integrity is China’s fundamental interest in the international arena,” Kuleba told journalists in Munich. “And that commitment to the observance and protection of this principle is a driving force for China, greater than other arguments offered by Ukraine, the United States, or any other country.”

    EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell met Wang later on Saturday and called on him to “use [China’s] closeness to convince Russia to engage in real peace efforts. Borrell expressed hope that Wang’s visit to Moscow could be used to convince Russia to stop its brutal war,” according to an EU official familiar with the talks, adding the EU chief told Wang Russia conducted “gross violation of the letter and spirit of the U.N. Charter.”

    Many in Munich were wary of the upcoming Chinese plan.

    German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock welcomed China’s effort to use its influence to foster peace but told reporters she had “talked intensively” with Wang during a bilateral meeting on Friday about “what a just peace means: not rewarding the attacker, the aggressor, but standing up for international law and for those who have been attacked.”

    “A just peace,” she added, “presupposes that the party that has violated territorial integrity — meaning Russia — withdraws its troops from the occupied country.”

    One reason for Europe’s concerns is the Chinese peace plan could undermine an effort at the United Nations to rally support for a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which will be on the U.N.’s General Assembly agenda next week, according to three European officials and diplomats.

    Taiwan issue stokes up US-China tension

    If China was keen to talk about peace in Ukraine, it’s more reluctant to do so in a case closer to home.

    When Wolfgang Ischinger, the veteran German diplomat behind the conference, asked Wang if he could reassure the audience Beijing was not planning an imminent military escalation against Taiwan, the Chinese envoy was non-committal.

    Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said “what is happening in Europe today could happen in east Asia tomorrow” | Johannes Simon/Getty Images

    “Let me assure the audience that Taiwan is part of Chinese territory. It has never been a country and it will never be a country in the future,” Wang said.

    The worry over Taiwan resonated in a speech from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who said “what is happening in Europe today could happen in Asia tomorrow.” Reminding the audience of the painful experience of relying on Russia’s energy supply, he said: “We should not make the same mistakes with China and other authoritarian regimes.”

    But China’s most forceful attack was reserved for the U.S. Calling its decision to shoot down Chinese and other balloons “absurd” and “near-hysterical,” Wang said: “It does not show the U.S. is strong; on the contrary, it shows it is weak.

    Wang also amplified the message in other bilateral meetings, including one with Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. “U.S. bias and ignorance against China has reached a ridiculous level,” he said. “The U.S. … has to stop this kind of absurd nonsense out of domestic political needs.”

    It remains unclear if Wang will hold a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken while in Germany, as has been discussed.

    Hans von der Burchard and Lili Bayer reported from Munich, and Stuart Lau reported from Brussels.

    This article was updated to include details of the meeting between Wang and Borrell.

    CORRECTION: Jens Stoltenberg’s reference to Asia has been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Stuart Lau , Hans von der Burchard and Lili Bayer

    Source link

  • Germany ready to let Poland send Leopard tanks to Ukraine: foreign minister

    Germany ready to let Poland send Leopard tanks to Ukraine: foreign minister

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — Germany “would not stand in the way” if Poland or other allies asked for permission to send their German-built Leopard tanks to Ukraine, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said on Sunday.

    The remarks by the Green politician, who was interviewed by French TV LCI on the sidelines of a Franco-German summit in Paris, came in response to comments by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who has raised pressure on Berlin in recent days by saying that Poland is willing to supply Kyiv with Leopard tanks, which would require German approval.

    Morawiecki even suggested that Warsaw was ready to send those tanks without Berlin’s consent.

    Baerbock, however, stressed that “we have not been asked so far” by Poland for such permission. “If we were asked, we would not stand in the way,” she added.

    German officials have gotten increasingly frustrated in recent days by what they perceive as a “media blame-game” by Poland, as Warsaw has repeatedly suggested that Germany was hampering plans to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine, although it appears that the necessary request for export permission has not been made yet.

    Germany is, however, still dragging its feet when it comes to the bigger question of whether it would be willing to send its own Leopard tanks to Ukraine, for example as part of a broader coalition with Poland and other countries like Finland and Denmark.

    Pressed on that point during a press conference in Paris on Sunday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz avoided giving a clear answer, stressing instead that Berlin had never ceased supporting Ukraine with weapons deliveries and took its decisions in cooperation with its allies.

    Poland’s Morawiecki said on Sunday that his country was ready to build a “smaller coalition” for sending tanks to Ukraine without Germany.

    Baerbock’s comments are therefore also raising the pressure on Scholz to take a clearer position on the tank issue — at least when it comes to granting export permissions to other countries.

    After Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, also from the Greens, said earlier that Germany “should not stand in the way” of permitting such deliveries, the foreign minister’s even more definitive statement makes it even harder for Scholz to take a different position.

    Ukraine has been appealing to Germany and other Western nations to supply modern Western-made battle tanks in order to fend off an expected Russian spring offensive.

    [ad_2]

    Hans von der Burchard

    Source link