ReportWire

Tag: Emmanuel Macron

  • After Macron, le déluge

    After Macron, le déluge

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    Anyone looking at France right now could be forgiven for thinking the country was on the edge of a revolution.

    Major cities from Paris to Lyon erupted in riots overnight on Thursday, with black-clad protesters lighting bonfires and hurling projectiles at riot police after President Emmanuel Macron rammed an unpopular reform of the pension system through parliament. More than 400 police were injured.

    The violence capped weeks of mass protests as millions marched through French cities to oppose the reform, which will raise the legal age of retirement to 64 from 62 currently. More protests are already planned for next week, piling pressure on Macron’s already embattled government and prompting Britain’s King Charles to cancel a highly-awaited visit.

    Yet for all the sound and fury of the protests, which could yet worsen if students join in, there’s nearly zero risk that Macron himself will have to leave office. Having narrowly survived a vote of no confidence, he may seek to reshuffle his cabinet and sack his prime minister, Élisabeth Borne — but the presidential system is so designed that the leader is nearly guaranteed to remain president until the last day of his term, in 2027.

    The bigger question, then, is about what happens after Macron, whose hyper-personal style of leadership has often been described as king-like, even by the standards of France’s monarchical Republic, leaves the stage for good. 

    Barred from seeking a third term by the constitution, Macron will leave behind a leaderless and rudderless ruling party that may well cease to exist without him, creating a power vacuum that far-left and far-right leaders, including three-time presidential contender Marine Le Pen, are itching to fill. 

    And while Macron has a solid hold on power now, the parliamentary rebellion his government faced down this week — and the chaos engulfing the country — raise ominous questions about the future for anyone who hopes to see France stay firmly anchored to the pro-EU, pro-NATO liberal camp.

    In other words, after Macron, le déluge

    Macron’s shaky platform

    The first danger sign flashing over French democracy is the state of Macron’s own party, the centrist Renaissance group. In many systems, ruling parties have deep roots and an ideological foundation that, at least in theory, give them a raison d’être beyond exercising power. 

    But this isn’t the case for Macron’s party, which was born for the sole purpose of hoisting its founder into the Elysée presidential palace and then supporting his government. As such, it’s docile by nature and, with a few exceptions, hasn’t produced bold personalities who would in other circumstances be natural successors to the president. 

    And while the party is already short of a majority in parliament, the rebellion against the pension reform this week revealed Renaissance to be much weaker even than was previously thought — more of a hollow platform for Macron to stand on than a launchpad for future leaders. Indeed, Prime Minister Borne believed that she could rely on support from the center-right Les Républicains party to provide the necessary votes to pass the reform, as part of an informal coalition arrangement.

    Yet this hope vanished suddenly and unexpectedly when a group of 19 Les Républicains, led by southern lawmaker Aurélien Pradié, defied orders from their own party leadership and announced they would support a motion of no confidence in Macron’s government. As rebellions go, it revealed not just the weakness of Renaissance, but the continued disarray of the mainstream center-right in France — which has produced most of the country’s leaders since World War II and is now a shadow of its former self.

    “The political landscape isn’t just fractured; it doesn’t offer any hope for the president, the government or their supporters,” said Jean-Daniel Lévy, a political analyst with pollster Harris Interactive. “There is no such thing as a Macron doctrine or an ideological successor to Macron.”

    The rebellion against the pension reform this week revealed President Emmanuel Macron’s party to be much weaker even than was previously thought | John Macdougall/AFP via Getty Images

    The second alarm bell ringing is how much the pension crisis has emboldened the far-right and far-left factions in parliament. Take Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a far-left firebrand who’s made two failed bids for the presidency, and is now the most recognizable face in the NUPES, a recently-formed left-wing coalition gathering what’s left of the Socialist party, Mélenchon’s hard-left France Unbowed group and the Greens.

    Having faded from view, Mélenchon has roared back into the limelight during the pension reform battle, appearing constantly in the media. Anti-NATO, Euroskeptic and calling for an end to France’s 5th republic (his 6th Republic would end the presidential monarchy), the ex-socialist whose sympathies lean more toward Venezuela than Brussels is ideally suited to produce revolutionary soundbites.

    With his pension reform, Macron has “lit a fire and blocked all the exits,” Mélenchon quipped this week.

    Le Pen eyes the crown

    Yet Mélenchon’s prospects of taking power in 2027 look slim. According to an IFOP poll published in early March, just 21 percent of the French believe he’s best-positioned to lead the opposition — suggesting he’s not very well-loved by other adherents of the NUPES coalition.

    Much better positioned is Marine Le Pen, the far-right chief whom Macron defeated twice in the final rounds of two presidential elections. Indeed, since her last defeat, Le Pen has made further strides toward making herself look presidential while continuing to try to detoxify her party’s image.

    Not only has Le Pen ditched the “National Front” party name that was associated with her Holocaust-minimizing father, Jean-Marie Le Pen; she has abandoned an electorally-disastrous plan to exit the euro currency zone and she’s established herself as the leader of her party’s 88-strong delegation in the French parliament, placing her at the center of the action against the pension reform.

    She hasn’t confirmed that she’ll make a fourth bid for the presidency. But there’s no reason to believe she wouldn’t. And this time, Macron won’t be around to stop her.

    “After Macron, it will be us,” she told BFMTV this week, referring to her National Rally party.

    Aside from Le Pen, the obvious choice to succeed Macron would be Édouard Philippe — his remarkably beloved one-time prime minister. Since leaving office in 2017, Philippe has been quietly biding his time as mayor of Le Havre, a mid-sized port city on France’s northern coast, and nurturing his own center-right political platform, Horizons.

    The fact that Philippe, in an interview earlier this month, came out to address the fact that he’s suffering both from alopecia and vitiligo only seemed to bolster his popularity with the French, who rate him as their preferred political personality, according to this ranking.

    But Philippe’s stance on retirement, backing an increase in the legal age to 67 — above and beyond what Macron proposed — has not done him any favors. According to a poll by Odoxa, 61 percent of the French weren’t happy with his attempt to defend the pension reform.

    He still hasn’t said for sure whether he will run in 2027, and the past week’s action suggests his association with Macron could turn out to be a drag on his prospects once campaigning gets started, should he decide to enter the race.

    [ad_2]

    Nicholas Vinocur

    Source link

  • In France, some protests against increased retirement age turn violent

    In France, some protests against increased retirement age turn violent

    [ad_1]

    A smattering of protests against President Emmanuel Macron’s plan to raise France’s retirement age from 62 to 64 took place Saturday in Paris and beyond, as uncollected garbage continued to reek in the streets of the French capital amid a strike by sanitation workers.

    Largely non-violent protests were held in various cities, including Nantes and Marseille, where protesters got past police to occupy the main train station for around 15 minutes. In the eastern city of Besancon, hundreds of demonstrators lit a brazier and burned voter cards.

    In Paris, an eerie calm returned to most of the French capital after two consecutive nights of unrest. Police banned gatherings on the Champs-Elysées avenue and the elegant Place de la Concorde, where protesters tossed an effigy of Macron into a bonfire as a crowd cheered Friday night.

    Demonstration In Front Of French National Assembly
    Demonstrators gather in front of the National Assembly in Paris, France, before the French government pushed a pensions reform through parliament without a vote. March 16, 2023.

    Michel Stoupak via Getty Images


    Several thousand protesters gathered Saturday evening at a public square in southern Paris, the Place d’Italie, where some people set trash cans on fire.

    Protesters are trying to pressure lawmakers to bring down Macron’s government and doom the unpopular retirement age increase he’s trying to impose without a vote in the National Assembly.

    After Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne invoked a special constitutional power to skirt a vote in the chaotic lower chamber, lawmakers on the right and left filed no-confidence motions against her Cabinet on Friday. The motions are expected to be voted on Monday.

    Some Paris residents who were out buying their weekend baguettes blamed Macron’s administration for the fumes wafting from the trash piled up near a bakery in the city’s 12th district.

    “The government should change its position and listen to the people because what is happening is extremely serious. And we are seeing a radicalization,” Isabelle Vergriette, 64, a psychologist, said. “The government is largely responsible for this.”

    The district’s mayor, Emmanuelle Pierre-Marie, was out and about from the crack of dawn voicing concern in her neighborhood about the consequences of the uncollected garbage, which has become a visual and olfactory symbol of the actions to defeat the president’s pension reform plan.

    “Food waste is our priority because it is what brings pests to the surface,” Pierre-Marie said. “We are extremely sensitive to the situation. As soon as we have a dumpster truck available, we give priority to the places most concerned, like food markets.”

    More labor strikes were planned for Monday in numerous sectors, from transportation to energy. The Civil Aviation authority asked to have 30% of flights canceled at Orly, Paris’ second airport, and 20% in Marseille.

    Trade union confederation CGT warned that at least two oil refineries might be shut down starting Monday. Industry Minister Roland Lescure said the government could requisition personnel – order workers back to their posts – to avoid fuel shortages.

    Macron has argued that requiring people in France to work two more years is needed to invigorate the country’s economy and to prevent its pension system from falling into a deficit as the population ages.

    Laurent Berger, head of the moderate CFDT union, said the retirement reform “must be withdrawn.”

    “We condemn violence. … But look at the anger. It’s very strong, even among our ranks,” he said on RMC radio.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Parts of Paris set ablaze amid continuing protests against retirement age increase

    Parts of Paris set ablaze amid continuing protests against retirement age increase

    [ad_1]

    Parts of Paris set ablaze amid continuing protests against retirement age increase – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Protests in Paris have grown violent since French president Emmanuel Macron unilaterally decided to raise the nation’s retirement age from 62 to 64. Michael George has the story.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • French workers may have to retire at 64 and many are in uproar. Here’s why | CNN

    French workers may have to retire at 64 and many are in uproar. Here’s why | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Paris
    CNN
     — 

    Impromptu protests broke out in Paris and across several French cities Thursday evening following a move by the government to force through reforms of the pension system that will push up the retirement age from 62 to 64.

    While the proposed reforms of France’s cherished pensions system were already controversial, it was the manner in which the bill was approved – sidestepping a vote in the country’s lower house, where President Emmanuel Macron’s party crucially lacks an outright majority – that arguably sparked the most anger.

    And that fury is widespread in France.

    Figures from pollster IFOP show that 83% of young adults (18-24) and 78% of those aged over 35 found the government’s manner of passing the bill “unjustified.” Even among pro-Macron voters – those who voted for him in the first round of last year’s presidential election, before a runoff with his far-right adversary – a majority of 58% disagreed with how the law was passed, regardless of their thoughts about the reforms.

    Macron made social reforms, especially of the pensions system, a flagship policy of his 2022 re-election and it’s a subject he has championed for much of his time in office. However, Thursday’s move has so inflamed opposition across the political spectrum, that some are questioning the wisdom of his hunger for reforms.

    Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne conceded in an interview Thursday night with TF1 that the government initially aimed to avoid using Article 49.3 of the constitution to crowbar the reforms past the National Assembly. The “collective decision” to do so was taken at a meeting with the president, ministers and allied lawmakers mid-Thursday, she said.

    For Macron’s cabinet, the simple answer to the government’s commitment to reforms is money. The current system – relying on the working population to pay for a growing age group of retirees – is no longer fit for purpose, the government says.

    Labor minister Olivier Dussopt said that without immediate action the pensions deficit will reach more than $13 billion annually by 2027. Referencing opponents of the reforms, Dussopt told CNN affiliate BFMTV: “Do they imagine that if we pause the reforms, we will pause the deficit?”

    When the proposal was unveiled in January, the government said the reforms would balance the deficit in 2030, with a multi-billion dollar surplus to pay for measures allowing those in physically demanding jobs to retire early.

    For Budget Minister Gabriel Attal, the calculus is clear. “If we don’t do [the reforms] today, we will have to do much more brutal measures in the future,” he said Friday in an interview with broadcaster France Inter.

    “No pensions reform has made the French happy,” Pascal Perrineau, political scientist at Sciences Po university, told CNN on Friday.

    “Each time there is opposition from public opinion, then little by little the project passes and basically, public opinion is resigned to it,” he said, adding that the government’s failure was in its inability to sell the project to French people.

    They’re not the first to fall at that hurdle. Pensions reform has long been a thorny issue in France. In 1995, weeks-long mass protests forced the government of the day to abandon plans to reform public sector pensions. In 2010, millions took to the streets to oppose raising the retirement age by two years to 62 and in 2014 further reforms were met with wide protests.

    An anti-pension reform demonstrator writes

    For many in France, the pensions system, as with social support more generally, is viewed as the bedrock of the state’s responsibilities and relationship with its citizens.

    The post-World War II social system enshrined rights to a state-funded pension and healthcare, which have been jealously guarded since, in a country where the state has long played a proactive role in ensuring a certain standard of living.

    France has one of the lowest retirement ages in the industrialized world, spending more than most other countries on pensions at nearly 14% of economic output, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    But as social discontent mounts over the surging cost of living, protesters at several strikes have repeated a common mantra to CNN: They are taxed heavily and want to preserve a right to a dignified old age.

    Macron is still early in his second term, having been re-elected in 2022, and still has four years to serve as the country’s leader. Despite any popular anger, his position is safe for now.

    However, Thursday’s use of Article 49.3 only reinforces past criticisms that he is out of touch with popular feeling and ambivalent to the will of the French public.

    Politicians to the far left and far right of Macron’s center-right party were quick to jump on his government’s move to skirt a parliamentary vote.

    “After the slap that the Prime Minister just gave the French people, by imposing a reform which they do not want, I think that Elisabeth Borne should go,” tweeted far-right politician Marine Le Pen on Thursday.

    Members of Parliament of left-wing coalition NUPES (New People's Ecologic and Social Union) hold placards as French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne addresses deputies to confirm the force through of the pension law without a parliament vote on Thursday.

    The leader of France’s far-left, Jean-Luc Melenchon was also quick to hammer the government, blasting the reforms as having “no parliamentary legitimacy” and calling for nationwide spontaneous strike action.

    For sure, popular anger over pension reforms will only complicate Macron’s intentions to introduce further reforms of the education and health sector – projects that were frozen by the Covid-19 pandemic – political scientist Perrineau told CNN.

    The current controversy could ultimately force Macron to negotiate more on future reforms, Perrineau warns – though he notes the French President is not known for compromise.

    His tendency to be “a little imperious, a little impatient” can make political negotiations harder, Perrineau said.

    That, he adds, is “perhaps the limit of Macronism.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Macron on the brink: How French pensions revolt could wreck his presidency

    Macron on the brink: How French pensions revolt could wreck his presidency

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron will face a moment of reckoning Thursday as lawmakers gear up for a final vote on the government’s deeply unpopular pension reform.

    The controversial bill, a centerpiece of Macron’s second term, has sparked weeks of nationwide protests led by trade unions and faced intense criticism from both the far left and the far right in the National Assembly.

    The French president wants to increase the legal age of retirement to 64 from 62 and extend contributions for a full pension in an effort to balance the accounts of France’s state pensions system — among the most generous in the world. According to projections from France’s Council of Pensions Planning, the finances of the pensions system are balanced in the short term but will go into deficit in the long term.

    Despite government concessions on various aspects of the bill in recent weeks, opposition to the reform remains very high, with polls saying two-thirds of French citizens oppose it.

    Speculation is running high that Macron might not have enough support in the National Assembly, and may choose a constitutional maneuver to bypass parliament — in a move that could unleash a political storm in France.

    On Thursday, the French Senate and the National Assembly are expected to cast a crucial vote on the second reading of the bill, after the Senate voted in favor last week. The outcome will determine the shape of Macron’s second term and stands to bear heavily on his legacy.

    The worst case: Macron loses the vote in parliament

    Losing the parliamentary vote would be a stunning defeat for the French president, who pinned his bid for a second term on his promises to reform France’s pensions system. But political commentators have been speculating in recent days that Macron’s Renaissance party doesn’t have enough votes to pass the bill.

    The French president lost its absolute majority in the National Assembly in parliamentary elections last June. He has since been forced into making ad-hoc deals with MPs from France’s conservative party Les Républicains. But the once-mighty conservatives appear split on the reform, despite assurances this week from their leader Olivier Marleix that there was “a clear majority” backing the bill.

    A defeat in parliament would have seismic and long-term repercussions for Macron’s second term and it is likely that the president’s trusted lieutenant Prime Minister Elizabeth Borne would have to resign in such a scenario. Party heavyweights however say they will not shy away from seeking a vote.

    “There will be a vote, we want a vote, everyone must take its responsibilities,” said Aurore Bergé, leader of the Renaissance group in the National Assembly.

    “There can be an accident … we’ll manage it as we can,” admitted Jean-Paul Mattei, a centrist MP who belongs to Macron’s coalition, with reference to a defeat in parliament.

    However, this is the most unlikely scenario as expectations are that the government will bypass a vote if they sense that they are short on votes.

    Protestors hold an effigy of French President Emmanuel Macron, during a demonstration on the 8th day of strikes and protests across the country against the government’s proposed pensions overhaul in Paris on March 15, 2023 | Alain Jocard/AFP via Getty Images

    Pretty bad: Macron bypasses parliament and loses credibility

    In the face of a potential defeat in the National Assembly, Macron has a nuclear option: invoke article 49.3 of the French constitution. This mechanism allows the government to force through legislation without submitting it to a vote.

    While the constitutional maneuver may seem like an easy way out, it’s a highly risky move as it allows lawmakers to table a motion of no confidence within 24 hours. Macron’s government has faced down motions of no confidence in the past but the stakes are much higher this time around.

    Beyond surviving a motion of no-confidence, Macron and Borne will also come under fire for refusing to submit to the democratic process.

    According to Frédéric Dabi, general director of the IFOP polling institute, the impact on public opinion if the government uses the 49.3 article as opposed to passing a tight vote in parliament would be “radically different.”

    “Public opinions on the 49.3 article have changed … it is regarded as a tool to brutalize the National Assembly: it’s now seen as authoritarian instead of merely authoritative. People want more transparency, more democracy today,” he said.

    France’s hardline unions would no doubt use this to stoke unrest and call for further strike action.

    Trade union leader Laurent Berger has warned the government against using the 49.3 article, saying that it would be “incredible and dangerous.”

    “Nobody can predict what will happen, the protest movement seems to be running out of steam, but if the government invokes article 49.3 it could be read as forcing the issue and may relaunch the protest movement,” said Dabi.

    Still not great: Macron wins vote but faces mass protests

    If the French president wins the vote in parliament, it’ll be seen as a victory but one that may completely drain his political capital, and whip up protests on the streets.

    “It’ll be a victory for Macron, but it’ll only bear its fruit in the long term. In the short term, he’ll face a tense country where relations have become very strained,” said Chloé Morin, a writer and political analyst.

    Trade union leader Berger has said that he would “take on board” the result of Thursday’s vote in parliament. But protests, which have been almost weekly since January, may continue nonetheless across the country in an effort to force the government into backing down and withdrawing the text.

    Morin thinks it is unlikely there will be “an explosion of protests” after the vote as people are resigned to seeing it pass.

    French police officers intervene during a protest by local council employees against the government’s retirement reform in front on the prefecture in Seine Saint-Denis, in Bobigny, a surburb of Paris on March 14, 2023 | Thomas Samson/AFP via Getty Images

    “However, the protest movement might become more radical with lightning protests or sabotages, led by a minority in the citizens’ movement,” said Morin.

    In October last year, industrial action in France’s refineries led to nationwide shortages at petrol stations, forcing the government to intervene in what was seen as Macron’s biggest challenge since his re-election last year.

    There are dangerous precedents for Macron too. In December 2019, the government was forced to abandon a new green tax when faced with the explosive Yellow Vests protests that shook the political establishment.

    [ad_2]

    Clea Caulcutt

    Source link

  • Macron’s defiant show of force in parliament exposes a weakened president

    Macron’s defiant show of force in parliament exposes a weakened president

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to bypass parliament and impose his deeply unpopular pensions reform has revealed an uncompromising and weakened leader who now faces severe backlash from emboldened opposition lawmakers and protesters.

    Macron had vowed to abandon his top-down approach to politics and work with opposition parties during his second term. But when it comes to old-style politicking, Macron’s troops still have a lot to learn.

    Despite intense lobbying efforts with MPs and frantic meetings at the Elysée on Thursday and in the weeks leading up to the decisive moment, the French president and his stalwart lieutenant Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne faced the likelihood of a defeat in parliament and decided instead to invoke a controversial constitutional tool — article 49.3 — to bypass a vote.

    “My political interest would have been to submit to a vote … But I consider that the financial, economic risks are too great at this stage,” Macron privately told ministers according to a participant at the meeting.

    Macron’s flagship pensions reform aims to increase the legal age of retirement to 64 from 62 and extend contributions for a full pension in an effort to balance the accounts of France’s state pensions system. Macron’s Renaissance party lost its absolute majority in the National Assembly in parliamentary elections last year, but the government was able to pass legislation in recent months with the support of the conservative party Les Républicains. It appears, however, that in the nail-biting run-up to the vote, there were concerns the president wasn’t able to rally enough troops in favor of the bill.

    Arriving in parliament on Thursday, Borne faced scenes of anger and unrest in the National Assembly as she made her announcement triggering article 49.3. Far-left lawmakers from the France Unbowed party booed and chanted the national hymn the Marseillaise as far-right National Rally MPs shouted “Resign! Resign!” The speaker of the house was forced to suspend debates to allow Borne to make her speech.

    “We can’t take the risk of seeing 175 hours of parliamentary debate come to nothing,” Borne said.

    After the announcement, opposition MPs vowed to continue the battle against the reform, either in parliament, by supporting a motion of no-confidence, or in the streets.

    The leader of the far-right National Rally, Marine Le Pen, slammed the move as a “personal failure” for Macron. “It’s his reform, he’s the one who proposed it and defended it during his campaign,” she told reporters at the National Assembly.

    Spontaneous protests erupted Thursday evening in several cities across France, including Paris, where thousands of protestors descended on the Place de la Concorde after the move, clashing with police and setting fire to scaffolding. Trade unions called for a day of protest on March 23, undeterred by Macron’s decision to push through the legislation.

    Article 49.3, ‘a denial of democracy’

    Invoking article 49.3 is widely seen as a perilous move for the government as it allows MPs to put forward a motion of no-confidence within 24 hours and risks radicalizing protest movements in France. Trade unions have already shown great unity and led almost weekly marches and strikes, bringing out hundreds of thousands of citizens to the streets. In Paris, a strike by garbage collectors has seen an estimated 7,000 tons of garbage left on the street.

    While the French constitution does allow governments to bypass parliament under certain conditions, its use is increasingly seen as undemocratic in France amid social tensions and the growing mistrust of politicians.

    “The government’s use of the 49.3 procedure reflects the failure of this presidential minority,” Charles de Courson, a longtime independent lawmaker, told the BFMTV news channel.

    “They are not just a minority in the National Assembly, they are a minority in the whole country. The denial of democracy continues,” he said.

    Speaking ahead of the vote, Frédéric Dabi, general director of the IFOP polling institute, said that opinions on invoking article 49.3 — as opposed to passing a tight vote in parliament — are “radically different.”

    “Public opinions on the 49.3 article have changed … it is regarded as a tool to brutalize the National Assembly: it’s now seen as authoritarian instead of merely authoritative. People want more transparency, more democracy today,” he said.

    But the show of force also exposes a weakened president, who after having lost a majority in parliament and amid low popularity ratings, was unable to turn the tide of public opinion in France.

    Surviving now, and later

    In the short term, the government will have to survive several motions of no-confidence that are expected to be voted on Monday. Macron’s government has faced down motions of no confidence in the past but the stakes are much higher this time around.

    “It’s maybe the first time that a motion of no-confidence may overthrow the government,” Green MP Julien Bayou told reporters, adding that the government was “prepared to wreak havoc” in the country.

    Longer term, the move destroys prospects of a closer alliance between Macron’s Renaissance party and the conservative Les Républicains following a string of ad-hoc deals in recent months. In a worrying sign for Macron’s second term, as the debates on the pensions reform reached a climax, the leadership of the conservative party could not muster its own faithful despite concessions on the bill from the ruling party.

    The great irony for Macron — needing partners and not finding them — is that he is the man who upended France’s political landscape by crushing the traditional left-wing and right-wing parties in 2017.

    The dilemma for Macron is how he will get anything done in the next four yours of his presidency, given the reinvigorated opposition he is sure to face in a parliament dominated by the far left and the far right, and without reliable coalition partners.

    Perhaps the only silver lining for Macron is the view from abroad.

    “On the international scene, it’s a sign that France can make reforms, even if, frankly, many may think we are having a nervous breakdown over something so small, given that the government has made so many concessions [on the bill],” said Chloé Morin, a writer and political analyst ahead of the vote.

    “Everybody knows that [reforming pensions] in France is difficult …That’s what’s at stake for Macron: he is a president who is building his legacy,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Clea Caulcutt

    Source link

  • Macron pays high price in popularity over pension reform, survey shows

    Macron pays high price in popularity over pension reform, survey shows

    [ad_1]

    Emmanuel Macron is paying a high price for his push on pension reform as a survey on Sunday showed the French president is facing a new low in popularity — as low as during the protests of the so-called Yellow Jackets.

    As the French take to the streets to protest against Macron’s pension reform, 70 percent of respondents said they are dissatisfied with the president, according to the Ifop barometer published by Le Journal du Dimanche. Macron’s popularity rating fell by 4 points in one month, it showed.

    Since December, Macron has suffered a substantial drop of 8 points, and he now sees only 28 percent satisfied and 70 percent dissatisfied, according to the poll carried out, Le Figaro emphasized, between March 9 and 16.  

    That is the same period as the negotiations that finally led the Elysée to shun parliament and impose the unpopular pension reforms via a special constitutional power, the so-called Article 49.3, which provides that the government can pass a bill without a vote at the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, after a deliberation at a Cabinet meeting.

    The procedure has been used in the past by various governments. But this time it’s prompting a lot of criticism because of the massive public opposition to the proposed reform, which raises the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 years. Some media stress that recent opinion polls have shown that a majority of the French are opposed to this type of procedure.

    “You have to go back to the end of the Yellow Jackets crisis in early 2019 to find comparable levels of unpopularity,” writes Le Journal du Dimanche commenting the survey. The outlet also stresses that dissatisfaction with Macron crosses all categories, the younger generations as well as the blue- and white-collar workers.

    A total of 169 people, including 122 in Paris, were taken in custody for questioning on Saturday evening in France during demonstrations marred by tensions between the police and the protesters, according to French media citing figures communicated on Sunday by the Ministry of the Interior. 

    [ad_2]

    Jacopo Barigazzi

    Source link

  • Macron narrowly survives crucial no-confidence votes in parliament

    Macron narrowly survives crucial no-confidence votes in parliament

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    PARIS — Emmanuel Macron’s government narrowly survived a no-confidence vote in the French parliament Monday, after it pushed through a deeply unpopular pensions overhaul without a vote last week, sparking outrage and spontaneous protests across the country.

    In a high-stakes vote in France’s lower house of parliament, 278 MPs, mostly from the left and the far right, voted in favor of a cross-party motion of no confidence, falling just short of the 287 votes needed to topple the government. A second motion, backed only by the far-right National Rally, did not garner enough votes.

    The outcome of the first vote was much tighter than anticipated and increases the pressure on Macron to withdraw his reform. It may also give a boost to the protest movement led by trade unions against the measures. The French president will also be under pressure to respond either by addressing the country or reshuffling his government.

    Speaking ahead of the votes, the centrist MP Charles de Courson, one of the authors of the cross-party motion, accused Macron’s government of lacking “courage” during the parliamentary debates.

    “You could have submitted [your reform] to a vote, and you probably would have lost it, but that’s the game when you are in a democracy,” he told MPs.

    The leader of Macron’s Renaissance parliamentary group Aurore Bergé lashed out at accusations the government had failed to seek compromises with MPs and accused opposition parties of working against the common good.

    “When people speak of a grand coalition, it should be so that people work together for the good of the country. It’s the opposite that you are offering us … you want to bring our country to a halt, in our institutions and … in the street,” she said.

    The motions of no confidence were proposed last week after Macron authorized the use of a controversial constitutional maneuver on Thursday to bypass a vote in parliament on his pensions reform bill. The French president wants to raise the legal age of retirement to 64 from 62, in an effort to balance the accounts of France’s indebted state pension system and to bring France’s retirement age in line with other European countries such as Spain and Germany where it ranges from 65 to 67 years old.

    The no-confidence motions were voted on in the National Assembly as industrial action disrupted flights, public transport, waste collection and refineries ahead of a nationwide day of protests on Thursday. Trade union leaders hope for a show of force against the government and have also warned that social unrest risks spiraling after several protests in Paris turned violent in recent days.

    “I send this alert to the president, he has to withdraw the bill before there’s a disaster. [Our protests] have been very controlled since the beginning, but the temptation of violence, of radicalization … is there,” said CFDT trade union leader Laurent Berger on Sunday.

    While the government has survived efforts to topple it, speculation is now running high that Macron will want to replace his beleaguered Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne in a government reshuffle aimed at refreshing his image. According to an IFOP-JDD poll published on Sunday, Macron’s popularity rating fell by 4 points in one month to 28 percent.

    A tight win for Macron

    Monday’s no-confidence motions had been widely seen as unlikely to pass ahead of the vote because the French National Assembly has been deeply divided since parliamentary elections last year. While Macron’s Renaissance party has lost its absolute majority, opposition parties backing the no-confidence motion failed to get enough votes because most MPs from the conservative Les Républicains refused to support it.

    Still, more conservative MPs than expected decided to ignore the party line and back the cross-party motion of no confidence, exposing the deep divides within Les Républicains.

    Elisabeth Borne will live to see another day as French Prime Minister | Pool photo by Gonzalo Fuentes/AFP via Getty Images

    On Monday, one of the leading rebels, conservative MP Aurélien Pradié, said voting in favor of the motion of no-confidence was needed to “emerge from the chaos.”

    “The Macron club has not understood what is going on. And if we need to jolt them with a motion of no-confidence, I will back it and lend my voice to the people who feel disdained,” he told Europe 1 radio.

    This article has been updated with more details on the votes.

    CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of MPs who voted in favor of a cross-party motion of no confidence.

    [ad_2]

    Clea Caulcutt

    Source link

  • French Senate adopts pension reform as street protests continue

    French Senate adopts pension reform as street protests continue

    [ad_1]

    The French Senate voted in favor of the controversial pension reform overnight, paving the way for a potential final adoption of the law on Thursday, as thousands of people continue to demonstrate across the country.

    The widespread opposition to the retirement overhaul is a political test to French President Emmanuel Macron, whose liberal party has been struggling to pass the reform ever since it lost its majority in parliament last summer.

    “A decisive step to bring about a reform that will ensure the future of our pensions. Totally committed to allow a final adoption in the next few days,” French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne tweeted after the vote.

    The French government wants to change the retirement age from 62 to 64, with a full pension requiring 43 years of work as of 2027. The right-leaning Senate adopted the reform with 195 in favor and 112 against the measure.

    Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated across France on Saturday, and protests were expected to continue on Sunday. So far, strikes have disrupted sectors including public transport, oil refineries, schools and airports.

    On Sunday, Laurent Berger — who heads the largest French labor union — said: “I call on parliamentarians to see what’s happening in their districts. … You can’t vote for a reform that’s rejected by so many in the workforce.”

    During the presidential campaign, Macron vowed to reform the French pension system to bring it in line with other European countries like Spain and Germany, where the retirement age is 65 to 67 years old.

    Official forecasts show that the French pensions system is financially in balance for now, but it’s expected to build up a deficit in the longer term.

    French labor unions are calling for a “powerful day of strikes and demonstrations” on Wednesday, when lawmakers from the Senate and National Assembly are set to hold a small-group meeting to find a compromise on the pensions revamp. If they do reach an agreement, the law could be adopted on Thursday.

    The government could also ultimately decide to adopt the revamp using an exceptional procedure that requires no parliamentary vote.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Anne Aarup

    Source link

  • Sunak and Macron hail ‘new chapter’ in UK-France ties

    Sunak and Macron hail ‘new chapter’ in UK-France ties

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    PARIS — Vegetarian sushi and rugby brought the leaders of Britain and France together after years of Brexit rows.

    U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday held the two countries’ first bilateral summit in five years, amid warm words and wishes for closer post-Brexit cooperation.

    “This is an exceptional summit, a moment of reunion and reconnection, that illustrates that we want to better speak to each other,” Macron told a joint press conference afterward. “We have the will to work together in a Europe that has new responsibilities.”

    Most notably from London’s perspective, the pair agreed a new multi-annual financial framework to jointly tackle the arrival of undocumented migrants on small boats through the English Channel — in part funding a new detention center in France.

    “The U.K. and France share a special bond and a special responsibility,” Sunak said. “When the security of our Continent is threatened, we will always be at the forefront of its defense.”

    Macron congratulated Sunak for agreeing the Windsor Framework with the European Commission, putting an end to a long U.K.-EU row over post-Brexit trade rules in Northern Ireland, and stressing it marks a “new beginning of working more closely with the EU.”

    “I feel very fortunate to be serving alongside you and incredibly excited about the future we can build together. Merci mon ami,” Sunak said.

    It has been many years since the leaders of Britain and France were so publicly at ease with each other.

    Sunak and Macron bonded over rugby, ahead of Saturday’s match between England and France, and exchanged T-shirts signed by their respective teams.

    Later, they met alone at the Élysée Palace for more than an hour, only being joined by their chiefs of staff at the very end of the meeting, described as “warm and productive” by Sunak’s official spokesman. The pair, who spoke English, had planned to hold a shorter one-to-one session, but they decided to extend it, the spokesman said.

    They later met with their respective ministers for a lunch comprising vegetarian sushi, turbot, artichokes and praline tart.

    Macron congratulated Sunak for agreeing the Windsor Framework with the European Commission | Christophe Archambault/AFP via Getty Images

    Speaking on the Eurostar en route to Paris, Sunak told reporters this was the beginning of a “new chapter” in the Franco-British relationship.

    “It’s been great to get to know Emmanuel over the last two months. There’s a shared desire to strengthen the relationship,” he said. “I really believe that the range of things that we can do together is quite significant.”

    In a show of goodwill from the French, who pushed energetically for a hard line during Brexit talks, Macron said he wanted to “fix the consequences of Brexit” and opened the door to closer cooperation with the Brits in the future.

    “It’s my wish and it’s in our interests to have closest possible alliance. It will depend on our commitment and willingness but I am sure we will do it,” he said alongside Sunak.             

    Tackling small boats

    Under the terms of the new migration deal, Britain will pay €141 million to France in 2023-24, €191 million in 2024-25 and €209 million in 2025-26.

    This money will come in installments and go toward funding a new detention center in France, a new Franco-British command centre, an extra 500 law enforcement officers on French beaches and better technology to patrol them, including more drones and surveillance aircraft.

    The new detention center, located in the Dunkirk area, would be funded by the British and run by the French and help compensate for the lack of space in other detention centers in northern France, according to one of Macron’s aides.

    According to U.K. and French officials, France is expected to contribute significantly more funding — up to five times the amount the British are contributing — toward the plan although the Elysée has refused to give exact figures.

    A new, permanent French mobile policing unit will join the efforts to tackle small boats. This work will be overseen by a new zonal coordination center, where U.K. liaison officers will be permanently based working with French counterparts.

    Sunak stressed U.K.-French cooperation on small boats since November has made a significant difference, and defended the decision to hand more British money to France to help patrol the French northern shores. Irregular migration, he stressed, is a “joint problem.”

    Ukraine unity

    Sunak and Macron also made a show of unity on the war in Ukraine, agreeing that their priority would be to continue to support the country in its war against Russian aggression.

    The French president said the “ambition short-term is to help Ukraine to resist and to build counter-offensives.”

    “The priority is military,” he said. “We want a lasting peace, when Ukraine wants it and in the conditions that it wants and our will is to put it in position to do so.”

    The West’s top priority should remain helping Ukrainians achieve “a decisive battlefield advantage” that later allows Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to sit down at the negotiating table with Russian President Vladimir Putin from a stronger position, Sunak said en route to the summit.

    “That should be everyone’s focus,” he added. “Of course, this will end as all conflicts do, at the negotiating table. But that’s a decision for Ukraine to make. And what we need to do is put them in the best possible place to have those talks at an appropriate moment that makes sense for them.”

    The two leaders also announced they would start joint training operations of Ukrainian marines.

    [ad_2]

    Cristina Gallardo and Clea Caulcutt

    Source link

  • France mass strikes bring a million demonstrators to the streets against pension reform

    France mass strikes bring a million demonstrators to the streets against pension reform

    [ad_1]

    France mass strikes bring a million demonstrators to the streets against pension reform – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    More than a million people marched in France and strikes disrupted transport and schools during mass protests against President Emmanuel Macron’s plans to push back the retirement age to 64. Elaine Cobbe spoke demonstrators who disagree with Macron’s plans to have them work later in life.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Oh my God, it’s really happening’

    ‘Oh my God, it’s really happening’

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    Kaja Kallas had been dreading the call.

    “I woke at 5 o’clock,” the Estonian prime minister recalled recently. The phone was ringing. Her Lithuanian counterpart was on the line. 

    “Oh my God, it’s really happening,” came the ominous words, according to Kallas. Another call came in. This time it was the Latvian prime minister. 

    It was February 24, 2022. War had begun on the European continent. 

    The night before, Kallas had told her Cabinet members to keep their phones on overnight in anticipation of just this moment: Russia was blitzing Ukraine in an attempt to decapitate the government and seize the country. For those in Estonia and its Baltic neighbors, where memories of Soviet occupation linger, the first images of war tapped into a national terror. 

    “I went to bed hoping that I was not right,” Kallas said.

    Across Europe, similar wakeup calls rolled in, as Russian tanks barrelled into Ukraine and missiles pierced the early morning sky. In recent weeks, POLITICO spoke with prime ministers, high-ranking EU and NATO officials, foreign ministers and diplomats — nearly 20 in total — to reflect on the war’s early days as it reaches its ruinous one-year mark on Friday. All described a similar foreboding that morning, a sense that the world had irrevocably changed.

    Within a year, the Russian invasion would profoundly reshape Europe, upending traditional foreign policy presumptions, cleaving it from Russian energy and reawakening long-dormant arguments about extending the EU eastward.

    But for those centrally involved in the war’s buildup, the events of February 24 are still seared in their memories. 

    In an interview with POLITICO, Charles Michel — head of the European Council, the EU body comprising all 27 national leaders — recalled how he received a call directly from Kyiv as the attacks began. 

    “I was woken up by Zelenskyy,” Michel recounted. It was around 3 a.m. The Ukrainian president told Michel: “The aggression had started and that it was a full-scale invasion.” 

    Michel hit the phones, speaking to prime ministers across the EU throughout the night.

    Ursula von der Leyen and Josep Borrell speak to the press on February 24, 2022 | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty Images

    By 5 a.m., EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell was in his office. Three hours later, he was standing next to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as the duo made the EU’s first major public statement about the dawning war. Von der Leyen then convened the 27 commissioners overseeing EU policy for an emergency meeting. 

    Elsewhere in Brussels, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg was on the phone with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who were six hours behind in Washington, D.C. He then raced over to NATO headquarters, where he urgently gathered the military alliance’s decision-making body. 

    The mood that morning, Stoltenberg recalled in a recent conversation with reporters, was “serious” but “measured and well-organized.”

    In Ukraine, missiles had begun raining down in Kyiv, Odesa and Mariupol. Volodymyr Zelenskyy took to social media, confirming in a video that war had begun. He urged Ukrainians to stay calm. 

    These video updates would soon become a regular feature of Zelenskyy’s wartime leadership. But this first one was especially jarring — a message from a president whose life, whose country, was now at risk. 

    It would be one of the last times the Ukrainian president, dressed in a dove-gray suit jacket and crisp white shirt, appeared in civilian clothes.

    Europe’s 21st-century Munich moment

    February 24, 2022 is an indelible memory for those who lived through it. For many, however, it felt inevitable. 

    Five days before the invasion, Zelenskyy traveled to the Munich Security Conference, an annual powwow of defense and security experts frequented by senior politicians. 

    It was here that the Ukrainian leader made one final, desperate plea for more weapons and more sanctions, hitting out at Germany for promising helmets and chiding NATO countries for not doing enough. 

    “What are you waiting for?” he implored in the highly charged atmosphere in the Bayerischer Hof hotel. “We don’t need sanctions after bombardment happens, after we have no borders, no economy. Why would we need those sanctions then?”

    The symbolism was rife — Munich, a city forever associated with appeasement following Neville Chamberlain’s ill-fated attempt to swap land for peace with Adolf Hitler in 1938, was now the setting for Zelenskyy’s last appeal to the West.

    Zelenskyy, never missing a moment, seized the historical analogy. 

    Five days before the invasion, Zelenskyy traveled to the Munich Security Conference, where he made one final, desperate plea for more weapons and more sanctions | Pool photo by Ronald Wittek/Getty Images

    “Has our world completely forgotten the mistakes of the 20th century?” he asked. “Where does appeasement policy usually lead to?”

    But his calls for more arms were ignored, even as countries began ordering their citizens to evacuate and airlines began canceling flights in and out of the country. 

    A few days later, Zelenskyy’s warnings were coming true. On February 22, Vladimir Putin inched closer to war, recognizing the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic in eastern Ukraine. It was a decisive moment for the Russian president, paving the way for his all-out assault less than 48 hours later.  

    The EU responded the next day — its first major action against Moscow’s activities in Ukraine since the escalation of tensions in 2021. Officials unveiled the first in what would be nine sanction packages against Russia (and counting). 

    In an equally significant move, a reluctant Germany finally pulled the plug on Nord Stream 2, the yet unopened gas pipeline linking Russia to northern Germany — the decision, made after months of pressure, presaged how the Russian invasion would soon upend the way Europeans powered their lives and heated their homes.

    Summit showdown

    As it happened, EU leaders were already scheduled to meet in Brussels on February 24, the day the invasion began. Charles Michel had summoned the leaders earlier that week to deal with the escalating crisis, and to sign off on the sanctions.  

    Throughout the afternoon, Brussels was abuzz — TV cameras from around the world had descended on the European quarter. Helicopters circled overhead.

    European leaders gathered in Brussels following the invasion | Pool photo by Olivier Hoslet/AFP via Getty Images

    Suddenly, the regular European Council meeting of EU leaders, often a forum for technical document drafting as much as political decision-making, had become hugely consequential. With war unfolding, the world was looking at the EU to respond — and lead.

    The meeting was scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. As leaders were gathering, news came that Russia had seized the Chernobyl nuclear plant, Moldova had declared a state of emergency and thousands of people were pouring out of Ukraine. Later that night, Zelenskyy announced a general mobilization: every man between the ages of 18 and 60 was being asked to fight.

    Many leaders were wearing facemasks, a reminder that another crisis, which now seemed to pale in comparison, was still ever-present.

    Just before joining colleagues at the Europa building in Brussels, Emmanuel Macron phoned Putin — the French president’s latest effort to mediate with the Russian leader. Macron had visited Moscow on February 7 but left empty-handed after five hours of discussions. He later said he made the call at Zelenskyy’s request, to ask Putin to stop the war.

    “It did not produce any results,” Macron said of the call. “The Russian president has chosen war.”

    Arriving at the summit, Latvian Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš captured the gravity of the moment. “Europe is experiencing the biggest military invasion since the Second World War,” he said. “Our response has to be united.”

    But inside the room, divisions were on full display. How far, leaders wondered, could Europe go in sanctioning Russia, given the potential economic blowback? Countries dug in along fault lines that would become familiar in the succeeding months. 

    The realities of war soon pierced the academic debates. Zelenskyy’s team had set up a video link as missile strikes encircled the capital city, wanting to get the president talking to his EU counterparts.

    One person present in the room recalled the percolating anxiety as the video feed beamed through — the image out of focus, the camera shaky. Then the picture sharpened and Zelenskyy appeared, dressed in a khaki shirt and looking deathly pale. His surroundings were faceless, an unknown room somewhere in Kyiv. 

    “Everyone was silent, the atmosphere was completely tense,” said the official who requested anonymity to speak freely.  

    Zelenskyy, shaken and utterly focused, told leaders that they may not see him again — the Kremlin wanted him dead.

    Black smoke rises from a military airport in Chuguyev near Kharkiv on February 24, 2022 | Aris Messinis/AFP via Getty Images

    “If you, EU leaders and leaders of the free world, do not really help Ukraine today, tomorrow the war will also knock at your door,” he warned, invoking an argument he would return to again and again: that this wasn’t just Ukraine’s war — it was Europe’s war. 

    Within hours, EU leaders had signed off on their second package of pre-prepared sanctions hitting Russia. But a fractious debate had already begun about what should come next. 

    The Baltic nations and Poland wanted more — more penalties, more economic punishments. Others were holding back. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi aired their reluctance about expelling Russian banks from the global SWIFT payment system. It was needed to pay for Russian gas, after all. 

    How quickly that would change. 

    Sanctions were not the only pressing matter. There was a humanitarian crisis unfolding on Europe’s doorstep. The EU had to both get aid into a war zone and prepare for a mass exodus of people fleeing it. 

    Janez Lenarčič, the EU’s crisis management commissioner, landed in Paris on the day of the invasion, returning from Niger. Officials started making plans to get ambulances, generators and medicine into Ukraine — ultimately comprising 85,000 tons of aid. 

    “The most complex, biggest and longest-ever operation” of its kind for the EU, he said. 

    By that weekend, there was also a plan for the refugees escaping Russian bombs. At a rare Sunday meeting, ministers agreed to welcome and distribute the escaping Ukrainians — a feat that has long eluded the EU for other migrants. Days later, they would grant Ukrainians the instant right to live and work in the EU — another first in an extraordinary time. Decisions that normally took years were now flying through in hours.

    Looming over everything were Ukraine’s repeated — and increasingly dire — entreaties for more weapons. Europe’s military investments had lapsed in recent decades, and World War II still cast a dark shadow over countries like Germany, where the idea of sending arms to a warzone still felt verboten.

    There were also quiet doubts (not to mention intelligence assessments). Would Ukraine even have its own government next week? Why risk war with Russia if it was days away from toppling Kyiv?

    “What we didn’t know at that point was that the Ukrainian resistance would be so successful,” a senior NATO diplomat told POLITICO on condition of anonymity. “We were thinking there would be a change of regime [in Kyiv], what do we do?” 

    That, too, was all about to change. 

    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz addressed Germany on the night of Russia’s invasion | Pool photo by Hannibal Hanschke/Getty Images

    By the weekend, Germany had sloughed off its reluctance, slowly warming to its role as a key military player. The EU, too, dipped its toe into historic waters that weekend, agreeing to help reimburse countries sending weapons to Ukraine — another startling first for a self-proclaimed peace project.

    “I remember, saying, ‘OK, now we go for it,’” said Stefano Sannino, secretary-general of the EU’s diplomatic arm. 

    Ironically, the EU would refund countries using the so-called European Peace Facility — a little-known fund that was suddenly the EU’s main vehicle to support lethal arms going to a warzone. 

    Over at NATO, the alliance activated its defense plans and sent extra forces to the alliance’s eastern flank. The mission had two tracks, Stoltenberg recounted — “to support Ukraine, but also prevent escalation beyond Ukraine.” 

    Treading that fine line would become the defining balancing act over the coming year for the Western allies as they blew through one taboo after another.

    Who knew what, when

    As those dramatic, heady early days fade into history, Europeans are now grappling with what the war means — for their identity, for their sense of security and for the European Union that binds them together. 

    The invasion has rattled the core tenets underlying the European project, said Ivan Krastev, a prominent political scientist who has long studied Europe’s place in the world.

    “For different reasons, many Europeans believed that this is a post-war Continent,” he said. 

    Post-World War II Europe was built on the assumption that open economic policies, trade between neighbors and mild military power would preserve peace. 

    “For the Europeans to accept the possibility of the war was basically to accept the limits of our own model,” Krastev argued. 

    The disbelief has bred self-reflection: Has the war permanently changed the EU? Will a generation that had confined memories of World War II and the Cold War to the past view the next conflict differently?

    And, perhaps most acutely, did Europe miss the signs? 

    Ukrainian refugees gather and rest upon their arrival at the main railway station in Berlin | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images

    “The start of that war has changed our lives, that’s for sure,” said Romanian Foreign Minister Bogdan Aurescu. It wasn’t, however, unexpected, he argued. “We are very attentive to what happens in our region,” he said. “The signs were quite clear.”

    Aurescu pointed back to April 2021 as the moment he knew: “It was quite clear that Russia was preparing an aggression against Ukraine.”

    Not everyone in Europe shared that assessment, though — to the degree that U.S. officials became worried. They started a public and private campaign in 2021 to warn Europe of an imminent invasion as Russia massed its troops on the Ukrainian border. 

    In November 2021, von der Leyen made her first trip to the White House. She sat down with Joe Biden in the Oval Office, surrounded by a coterie of national security and intelligence officials. Biden had just received a briefing before the gathering on the Russia battalion buildup and wanted to sound the alarm. 

    “The president was very concerned,” said one European official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations. “This was a time when no one in Europe was paying any attention, even the intelligence services.”

    But others disputed the narrative that Europe was unprepared as America sounded the alarm. 

    “It’s a question of perspective. You can see the same information, but come to a different conclusion,” said one senior EU official involved in discussions in the runup to the war, while conceding that the U.S. and U.K. — both members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance — did have better information.

    Even if those sounding the alarm proved right, said Pierre Vimont, a former secretary-general of the EU’s diplomatic wing and Macron’s Russia envoy until the war broke out, it was hard to know in advance what, exactly, to plan for. 

    “What type of military operation would it be?” he recalled people debating. A limited operation in the east? A full occupation? A surgical strike on Kyiv?

    Here’s where most landed: Russia’s onslaught was horrifying — its brutality staggering. But the signs had been there. Something was going to happen.

    “We knew that the invasion is going to happen, and we had shared intelligence,” Stoltenberg stressed. “Of course, until the planes are flying and the battle tanks are rolling, and the soldiers are marching, you can always change your plans. But the more we approached the 24th of February last year, the more obvious it was.”

    Then on the day, he recounted, it was a matter of dutifully enacting the plan: “We were prepared, we knew exactly what to do.”

    “You may be shocked by this invasion,” he added, “but you cannot be surprised.” 

    Clea Caulcutt and Cristina Gallardo contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Suzanne Lynch, Lili Bayer and Jacopo Barigazzi

    Source link

  • Belarusian leader, a key Putin ally, plans state visit to China next week

    Belarusian leader, a key Putin ally, plans state visit to China next week

    [ad_1]

    Beijing announced on Saturday that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, will travel to China on a state visit from February 28 to March 2.

    The announcement of the trip comes a day after Beijing, looking to play a role in mediating a resolution to the Russian war on Ukraine, published a 12-point “position paper” aimed at ending the conflict.

    “At the invitation of President Xi Jinping, President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko will pay a state visit to China from February 28 to March 2,” the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement on Saturday.

    The Belarusian foreign ministry confirmed the planned visit, saying the Chinese and Belarusian foreign ministers discussed it in a telephone call on Friday.

    Lukashenko has backed Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and allowed its territory to be used in the Russian assault. Lukashenko said last week that his country was prepared to join Russia’s war against Ukraine, if attacked. That prompted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to warn the Belarusian leader not to get directly involved in the war.

    Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday said he will visit China in early April and seek Beijing’s help in ending the war in Ukraine. “The fact that China is engaging in peace efforts is a good thing,” Macron said, according to French media reports.

    Ukraine’s Zelenskyy also said he would like to engage with Beijing following the proposals unveiled on Friday toward resolving the conflict. Zelenskyy said he was open to considering some aspects of the Chinese “position paper” and would welcome the chance to discuss the proposals with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

    A meeting with Xi could be “useful” to both countries and for global security, Zelenskyy said. 

    [ad_2]

    Jones Hayden

    Source link

  • Macron lays out ‘new era’ for France’s reduced presence in Africa

    Macron lays out ‘new era’ for France’s reduced presence in Africa

    [ad_1]

    French President Emmanuel Macron called on Monday for his country to build “a new, balanced relationship” with Africa, as the former colonial power seeks to reduce its military presence on the continent.

    “The objective of this new era is to deploy our security presence in a partnership-based approach,” Macron said in a speech in Paris, ahead of a tour that will take him to Gabon, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Congo later this week.

    In the future, French military bases on the continent will be “co-administered” with local personnel, the French president said, while there will be a “visible decrease” in the number of French troops stationed in Africa over the next few months.

    The news comes as France has faced increasing opposition from local governments over its continued military presence in several of its former colonies, and was forced to withdraw hundreds of troops from Mali, the Central African Republic and Burkina Faso over the past year. Around 5,000 French soldiers remain stationed on various bases throughout the continent.

    But Paris’ waning influence — particularly in the Sahel region — has also allowed Russia to expand its reach in Africa, including in the digital sphere through the use of disinformation campaigns, as well as on the ground with mercenaries from the Wagner group, who in some cases have replaced French soldiers.

    The French president said his country would steer away from “anachronistic” power struggles in Africa, saying African countries should be considered as “partners,” both militarily and economically.

    “Africa isn’t [anyone’s] backyard, even less so a continent where Europeans and French should dictate its framework for development,” Macron said.

    [ad_2]

    Nicolas Camut

    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

  • Zelenskyy: Macron is ‘wasting his time’ with Putin

    Zelenskyy: Macron is ‘wasting his time’ with Putin

    [ad_1]

    French President Emmanuel Macron is wasting his time talking to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Sunday.

    “It’s a useless dialogue. In truth, Macron is wasting his time,” Zelenskyy said during an interview with several Italian newspapers.

    “I have come to the conclusion that we are unable to change the Russian attitude,” Zelenskyy added. “It is up to them to choose whether to cooperate with the international community.”

    Macron has been criticized by Zelenskyy in the past for his attempts to keep lines of communication open with Moscow since the Kremlin launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    In remarks made over the weekend during the Munich Security Conference, Macron said that he had not spoken to Putin since last September, adding that “now [was] not the time for dialogue.”

    But, a day later, Macron added that although he wished for the Kremlin to lose, the war would end not on the battlefield but with peace talks — and that France would “never” support “crushing Russia.”

    In the same interview with Italian media, Zelenskyy also reacted ironically to the recent statements from former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who triggered an internal revolt among European conservatives last week after he said the Ukrainian president was responsible for the war.

    Berlusconi, who has described himself as a close friend of Putin, was heard boasting about receiving bottles of vodka from Putin for his birthday in audio tapes leaked to the press.

    “He likes vodka? If that’s the case, we have some of the finest quality in Ukraine — we can offer him some,” Zelenskyy said.

    The Ukrainian president also commented on recent reports from the U.S. that China was ready to send weapons to Russia, saying he hoped Beijing would keep a “pragmatic approach,” to avoid a “Third World War.”

    Elena Giordano contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Macron calls out Russia for work with ‘neo-mafia’ Wagner group

    Macron calls out Russia for work with ‘neo-mafia’ Wagner group

    [ad_1]

    MUNICH — French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday called out Vladimir Putin for telling him last year that the paramilitary Wagner Group had nothing to do with Russia.

    “A year ago I spoke to Putin and he assured me Russia had nothing to do with the Wagner Group,” he told an audience at the Munich Security Conference. “I accepted that,” he said.

    The Wagner Group has since provided military services supporting Russia’s war effort. It means Moscow “formalized the fact that Wagner was an explicit, direct, diplomatic-military, neo-mafia medium of Russia around the world,” Macron said.

    Macron’s speech comes as country leaders and security officials gathered for a three-day event in the Bavarian capital, a conference dominated by the West’s efforts to allign on how to support Kyiv in its conflict with Russia.

    The French president said the time isn’t right for dialogue with Russia and called on Western states to “intensify” their backing of a Ukrainian counter-offensive. But he suggested that — when negotiations would end the war on terms acceptable to Kyiv — Europe and Russia should “create an imperfect balance” on the Continent.

    “It’s time for a transition,” he said, suggesting Russia and its adversaries will need to agree on a new regional security architecture, calling it an “imperfect balance.”

    But he emphasized the time isn’t right for negotiations, noting it’s “too early” to formulate such a Europe-Russia understanding.

    The comments reflect Macron’s long-held view that security guarantees for Russia are an “essential” component of any peace talks. Moscow has to be satisfied with how the war ends, or else any deal would be no more than a ceasefire and not a treaty, he argues.

    Laura Kayali contributed reporting.

    CORRECTION: This article was updated to correctly reflect Macron compared the Wagner group to the mafia.

    [ad_2]

    Jamie Dettmer and Alexander Ward

    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

  • Europe is Ukraine’s ‘home,’ Zelensky tells EU lawmakers in emotional address | CNN

    Europe is Ukraine’s ‘home,’ Zelensky tells EU lawmakers in emotional address | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a heartfelt appeal to lawmakers in Brussels on Thursday to allow his country to become part of the European Union, insisting that Europe is Ukraine’s “home.”

    During an address to the European Parliament, Zelensky said his country and the EU share the same values, and that the “European standard of life” and the “European rules of life” are “when the law rules.”

    “This is our Europe, these are our rules, this is our way of life. And for Ukraine, it’s a way home, a way to its home,” Zelensky said, referencing Ukraine’s aim to join the European Union.

    “I am here in order to defend our people’s way home,” he added.

    Zelensky shakes hands with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola as he arrives at the EU parliament in Brussels.

    Zelensky’s emotional message was designed to try to connect with EU parliamentarians as he continues to push for Ukraine to join the bloc.

    He underlined that Ukraine shares values with Europe, rather than with Russia, which he said is trying to take his country back in time.

    The president warned European lawmakers that Russia wants to return Europe to the xenophobia of the 1930s and 1940s. “The answer for us to that is no,” he said. “We are defending ourselves. We must defend ourselves.”

    Zelensky thanked all the countries that have provided weapons and military assistance to Ukraine, while stressing that his country still needs modern tanks, long-range missiles and modern fighter jets to protect its security, which he said is also Europe’s security.

    “We need artillery guns, ammunitions, modern tanks, the long-range missiles and modern fighter jets,” Zelensky said. “We have to enhance the dynamic of our cooperation” and act “faster than the aggressor,” he added.

    European Parliament President Roberta Metsola introduced Zelensky ahead of his address, telling him: “Ukraine is Europe and your nation’s future is in the European Union.

    “We have your back. Freedom will prevail.”

    Zelensky made a “secret” trip to Brussels on Thursday, a day after he made a surprise visit to London and Paris as part of an unannounced diplomatic tour of European capitals aimed at persuading the West to send more weapons and military support to counter an expected Russian spring offensive.

    Zelensky’s renewed appeal to join the EU comes after Ukraine officially became an EU candidate state last year. It is still likely to be years before Kyiv can start any accession talks to join the bloc.

    During his trip to Brussels, Zelensky was expected to renew his pleas to European leaders to provide Ukraine with Typhoon and F-16 fighter jets.

    Macron and Zelensky at the Velizy-Villacoublay airport southwest of Paris on Thursday morning.

    On Wednesday evening, the Ukrainian leader was hosted in Paris by French President Emmanuel Macron alongside German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

    Macron awarded the visiting Ukrainian president with France’s highest order of merit, the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor.

    Earlier, Macron told Zelensky that France is “determined” to assist Ukraine in its war against Russia. “We stand by Ukraine, determined to help it to victory,” Macron said. “Ukraine can count on France and its allies to win the war, Russia should not and will not win the war.”

    European leaders have been clear in their support for defending Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, with several countries including Germany, Poland and the Netherlands recently giving the green light to provide Kyiv with heavy battle tanks.

    Scholz last June insisted that Ukraine “belongs to the European family.”

    “My colleagues and I have come here to Kyiv today with a clear message: Ukraine belongs to the European family,” Scholz said during a joint news conference in Kyiv with Zelensky.

    Earlier Wednesday, Zelensky addressed the UK parliament during a surprise visit to London, thanking Britain on behalf of his country’s “war heroes.”

    Zelensky expressed gratitude to British parliamentarians for supporting Ukraine during his speech in Westminster Hall. “Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your bravery,” he said. “Thank you very much. From all of us.

    “London has stood with Kyiv since day one,” he told lawmakers. “Since the first seconds and minutes of the full-scale war. Great Britain, you extended your helping hand when the world had not yet come to understand how to react.

    He added: “We know Russia will lose. We know victory will change the world, and this will be a change the world needed. The United Kingdom is marching with us towards the most important victory of our lifetime. The victory over the very idea of war.

    “After we win, any aggressor, it doesn’t matter, big or small, will know what awaits him if he attacks international order.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Theater or Zelenskyy? How Macron keeps failing to lead European response to Ukraine war

    Theater or Zelenskyy? How Macron keeps failing to lead European response to Ukraine war

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy traveled to Western Europe last week to drum up support for his country’s fight against Russia, he made a last-minute stopover in Paris.

    French President Emmanuel Macron was lucky to get the nod.

    Macron’s attitude toward Ukraine’s war effort has frequently proved inscrutable to allies who wonder why France seemed to be hedging its bets by pursuing dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin and touting the need for “security guarantees” for Moscow.

    While German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has suffered bruising criticism over the slow pace of his decision to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, Paris’ contribution to the overall war effort has been substantially smaller, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than Berlin’s, according to a ranking from the Kiel Institute for World Economy updated at the end of last year.

    Even accounting for Macron’s more recent pledge to deliver Caesar howitzers and, jointly with Italy, a MAMBA air defense system, France’s overall support effort is likely to remain well below that of the biggest helpers in 2023. As of November, Poland had pledged more than €3 billion in aid, while the United Kingdom has offered more than €7 billion. France, by contrast, offered €1.4 billion — placing the country well below Western allies in terms of a percentage of GDP.

    When Zelenskyy left Ukraine to visit Western leaders last week, Paris didn’t issue a formal invitation — and the meeting with Macron nearly didn’t happen. The French president had originally planned to spend the evening at the theater with his wife. It was only when aides saw footage of Zelenskyy’s solemn address at Westminster Hall in London that they rushed out an invitation and arranged for the late-evening visit in Paris, according to an Elysée official.

    No wonder Zelenskyy nearly missed Paris.

    When asked why France has sometimes pursued a divergent path on Ukraine compared with other Western allies, French officials defend Macron. In an interview with POLITICO, former French President François Hollande said it made sense to speak to Putin before the invasion to “deprive him of any arguments or pretexts.” A French diplomat added: “It was either that or do nothing. He [Macron] decided to try diplomacy — I don’t think we can blame him for that.”

    As for France’s tepid contribution to the war effort, officials argue that, as continental Europe’s premier military power, Paris has other security responsibilities, namely defending Europe’s southern flank, and must retain some capacity. Sending France’s Leclerc tanks, they say, doesn’t make sense because they are no longer in production and couldn’t easily be replaced.

    But when asked if France is leading on Ukraine, the same officials tend to shrug.

    For François Heisbourg, senior adviser to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Macron’s zig-zagging approach to the Ukraine war effort represents a missed opportunity not just in terms of hard power — but in terms of Macron’s larger ambition, spelled out in his 2017 Sorbonne speech, to position himself as a European leader in the lineage of former President François Mitterrand, former Prime Minister Michel Rocard or former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

    “2022 was a year of missed chances,” said Heisbourg. Macron “spent 15 days going around telling everyone who would listen that Russia required security guarantees, as if Russia wasn’t grown-up enough to request them itself.”

    Macron “can still make up the lost time, but the precondition for that is to be extremely clear on Ukraine, and from there to recover legitimacy among the central European states.”

    France’s ‘open road’

    The irony is that in geopolitical terms, Paris has rarely had a better chance to lead Europe.

    Britain has left the European Union, removing a major liberal counterweight to France’s statism. Germany’s Olaf Scholz has been tied down by coalition politics and the impact of Berlin’s failed bet on Russian energy. France, by contrast, enjoyed stable government and the benefits of relative energy independence thanks to its early embrace of nuclear power. As far as Paris’ position in Europe was concerned, “the road was open,” said Heisbourg.

    In some ways, Macron has exploited this opportunity. Paris has been by far the most vocal advocate for a robust EU response to U.S. President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, a bumper package of subsidies for green business. When he traveled to Washington in November, the French president very much looked like a European leader delivering grievances to a trade rival — and bringing home results for all of the EU.

    Yet France’s attempts at economic leadership within the EU haven’t translated into a wider bid to become Europe’s security guarantor and consensus builder. “No one has replaced Angela Merkel at the Council table,” argued one Eastern European diplomat when asked who was currently “leading” the EU. Hollande and several diplomats lamented the deterioration of Franco-German ties under Macron, saying that it undermined the bloc’s coherence and any hope of a more integrated approach to defense.

    As the war in Ukraine nears its first anniversary, Macron has pivoted toward much more full-throated support for Kyiv. In his New Year’s address to the French, he promised Ukrainians to “help you until victory” — making the rhetorical switch from “Russia can’t win the war.” He’s left a door open to training Ukrainian pilots on Western fighter jets and made a significant contribution to the MAMBA missile defense system. “Toward victory, toward peace, toward Europe,” he tweeted during Zelenskyy’s visit to Paris.

    Yet France also remains one of the most skeptical countries in the EU when it comes to accepting Ukraine into the bloc, and its overall contribution still pales in comparison to other countries.

    Macron still has three years in office, plenty of time to double down on his newfound interest in Ukrainian “victory.”

    But with street protests over planned pension reforms now dogging his presidency at home, the golden opportunity is fading.

    [ad_2]

    Nicholas Vinocur

    Source link