By Dawn's Early Light

EU in the Headlights: Blair's Challenge

Fighting in the Family

United Kingdom and EU rotating President Tony Blair has a tough road ahead of him as he seeks to get the 25 nations of the European Union to agree on a seven-year budget.  The Common Agriculture Policy or CAP is loathed by the British, loved by the French, and attractive to the 10 new members of the union.  Margaret Thatcher, in 1984, was faced with a Britain that was much poorer and with little farming compared to the other EU members.  She negotiated the British rebate on UK membership dues, loathed by the French, loved by the British, and a growing drain on EU coffers. 

What complicates the entire framework of discussion is the current Doha round of trade talks that is stalled after Jacque Chirac killed even the lackluster EU offer to reform agriculture trade policies [see DEL: "Note to Brazil and India:Blame France!"].  According to The Economist, Tony Blair:

"proposes to increase Britain’s net contribution by a total of €8 billion ($9.4 billion) over the six-year budget period, either through a lump-sum payment or a reduction of the rebate. In exchange, he wants to see the overall budget cut. His plan trims about €24 billion off the €871 billion figure proposed by Mr Juncker, largely through cuts in rural-development aid and assistance to the EU’s new members in central and eastern Europe.

But though the proposal avoids direct confrontation on the CAP, the issue still looms large. Britain wants to keep the bulk of its rebate as compensation for the EU keeping the CAP. And Mr Blair’s plan calls for a review of all EU revenue and spending in 2008, when Britain will presumably once again go after the CAP with a carving knife."

To put the CAP in perspective, only 2% of the European workforce farm, the CAP sucks up 40% of Europe's budget (did you think it was going towards technology?), while 80% of the subsidy goes to 20% of the richest farmers. 

Why do people not in the EU care about how the Europeans want to misguidedly spend their citizens' taxes?  Because the subsidy significantly impedes development in the third world and is blocking an agreement on free trade.

What EU Stagnation Means to the Developing World

In 2003 the Europeans attempted a compromise that demonstrates how far the divide still is.  The Economist writes:

"In 2003, the EU agreed to replace a blizzard of farm-support payments with a single payment scheme, which subsidises farmers' incomes directly, rather than by paying higher prices for their crops and livestock. This should remove the worst trade-distorting aspects of the CAP. Farmers now get paid an average of only one-third above world market prices, compared with 80% in the mid-1980s. Overall subsidies are down: from over two-fifths of farm receipts in the 1980s to one-third and falling in 2004.

The trouble is that the 2003 changes were a classic case of only partial reform, as everyone knew at the time. They were too little both for Europeans and for Europe's trading partners. They did not affect tariff levels, which are now the main subject of dispute between the EU and the rest of the world. Nor did the 2003 reforms do enough to resolve looming budget problems. Even so, they went too far for many farmers, who now see themselves as an endangered species."

Given the recent French rejection of the EU Constitution and their desire to not create more political turmoil to compete against the Paris riots, there is little likelihood of any political willingness to promote change.

However, farm subsidies in the developed world are not constrained to just Europeans.  Another Economist article illustrates how beholden the OECD is to farm subsidies.

"There is, though, wide variation between OECD members. Producer support is worth less than 5% of farm receipts in New Zealand and Australia, but amounts to roughly 20% throughout North America, 34% in the European Union, and a whopping 60% in Japan. And while the overall value of support has fallen from 2.3% of GDP in 1986-88 to 1.2% now, the reductions have been uneven. Canada and Mexico have made deep cuts in their farm supports, for instance, while Turkey has actually increased its supports."

The developed world is worried about the spread of AIDS, radical Islam, avian bird flu, and a host of other troubles in the developing world.  However without radical farm subsidy reform, starting in Europe (as proposed by the United States) and followed by Japan, the Doha round will accomplish little.  If the developing world continues without the opportunity for sustainable development and the ability to trade for hard currency with the industrialized world, it will find other exports that may be far more costly to the world.

Terrorism, drugs, diseased and impoverished immigrants are the likely exports the third world will trade with the industrialized nations if a fair trade round is not concluded.  This will be far costlier than sustaining 2% of the European workforce.

The Belmont Club Weighs In on Merkel

Wretchard of The Belmont Club poses this important question: "What foreign policy will the new Chancellor of Germany pursue?"  Along with citing DEL, he links to Hero von Essens' piece "Angela Merkel's Travels (And Her Limits)," which reasons:

"Under Merkel, Germany's foreign policy focus will free itself of Schroeder's shortsighted French fixation, and she will desist from the anti-American posturing which so disfigured Schroeder and Fischer's tenure. Germany assumes the EU Presidency in 2007, so these small signs of opening up to the outside world are mildly encouraging for proponents of such things as reform of the EU budget, including the ludicrous CAP system, a more Atlanticist foreign policy, and integration of the new, eastern EU countries."

Wretchard then asks in reflection of Ms. Angela Merkel's recent European tour:

"Dawn's Early Light in comparing Merkel to Bismarck made a suggestive comparison. Bismarck unified Germany: what might she do for Europe? Although the European Union draft constitution has fallen into a coma, its departure did not permanently answer the question of what Europe should be."

Therefore, taking liberty with his two questions, let me rephrase: "How will Ms. Merkel's foreign and domestic policy, even in her weakened grand-coalition position, affect European development and integration?" 

Wretchard gives an interesting take on Germany, given its historical position on European and American relations.

"Now it is doubtful whether the European Union will be around in the year 2100 at all. Significantly the Germans did not share the French illusion of thinking the Second World War and the Cold War that followed was won from the Elysee Palace and Brussels. Germany knew that the fourth leading nation in Europe was located across the Atlantic. Puschmann  noted, 'It may not be immediately obvious at present, but Germany does, at least potentially, share Britain’s positive outlook on the transatlantic alliance. Post-war Germany has historically been an Atlanticist nation, standing firmly by the side of the United States and the United Kingdom'. If Merkel sees Europe within the wider context of the West, rather than through the fantasy prism of the Euroleft, she will at least have Bismarck's breadth of vision, though not, perhaps, his opportunities."

Where Chancellor Merkel stands on domestic and foreign policy issues is important to the extent she can influence international relations.

Step 1: Ms. Merkel Needs to Increase her Political Capital

For Ms. Merkel to succeed in transforming Europe and retaining power, she must increase her political capital.  Voters were reluctant to outright support Ms. Merkel's harsher economic reforms of her Christian Democrat Party compared to the Social Democrat approach of supporting the status quo that had failed to reform Germany's 11% unemployment rate.  While America may be the 50/50 nation, German's unfortunately can't even get either party's plan to a 50% voter approval rate.  Given the state of affairs in Germany's current government, Ms. Merkel benefits from extremely low expectations.  Yet she and her chief political opponent share a good deal in common that may help with bringing modest economic change.  As The Economist notes:

"Both of the country's big parties are now led by eastern Germans: the Christian Democrats by Angela Merkel, the prospective chancellor, and the Social Democrats by Matthias Platzeck, premier of Brandenburg. Predictably, the tabloids say that Ossis are the new Bossis. More striking are the similarities between the two.

Both leaders grew up in Brandenburg; both are 51; both are Protestant; both come from a relatively bourgeois background (Ms Merkel's father was a priest, Mr Platzeck's a doctor); both became scientists; and both are divorced, although Ms Merkel has now remarried and Mr Platzeck has three adult daughters. The pair's political lives have also developed in parallel. Both entered politics after the fall of the Berlin Wall (Mr Platzeck as a Green minister in East Germany's last communist government, Ms Merkel as a spokesperson for the first democratic one). Both rose through the ranks and took the helm of their parties more or less by accident. Both are modernisers, but also pragmatists."

Ideologues do not make for good compromisers but pragmatists do.  Ms. Merkel has strong convictions but is shrewd enough to make incremental advances.  This may buy her time domestically to bring about economic change.  The negotiated "coalition contract" will raise the sales tax (VAT) from 16% to 19%, increasing the retirement age to 67 from 65 for workers born after 1970, cut spending by $41 billion in order to create a budget that does not increase debt beyond the 3% of GDP allowed by the EU (source The Economist). So while domestic policy may be limited for great short-term success, Ms. Merkel is unlikely to lead Germany along Schroeder's self-destructive path.

Step 2: Foreign Policy is Ms. Merkel's Key to Achieve Political Capital

Ms. Merkel's political capital for domestic reform and winning an election 4 years out will require a winning European foreign policy.  I see her opportunities as follows in Europe:

1. Tony Blair and Jacque Chirac have vastly different goals for the United Kindgom and France and are often bitter enemies politically.  France and Britain need an "honest broker" to help compromise on the British Rebate and Common Agriculture Policy (CAP).
2. Former Chancellor Schroeder's relations with President Bush were icy at best.  America, fighting it out in Iraq, needs allies in Europe.  Ms. Merkel, not caught up in the Blair/Chirac feud over the War in Iraq, can be an "honest broker" for America with Europe.
3. French President Jacque Chirac, weakened by the recent internationally devastating Paris Riots, can no longer claim French Socialism is the model for Europe.  Ms. Merkel can play an "honest broker" in a middle approach between Anglo-American capitalism and French socialism to pull together a weakened European Union.

Otto von Bismarck's brilliance was apparent in his ability to fashion alliances to strengthen Germany and keep a healthy balance in Europe, playing the French, British, Russians and Eastern Europeans at times against each other.  Ms. Merkel's ability to be an "honest broker" towards Europe and with Washington across the Atlantic may allow her the flexibility to again bring about radical reform to restructuring a broken Europe.  A more efficient Europe will enhance the German economic engine that has historically powered Europe.

This does not answer the important question of "what Europe will be," but it does hopefully address Ms. Merkel's ability to build the political capital necessary to push forward a Europe that would integrate East and West, with an economic model more towards capitalism than socialism and ultimately not at loggerheads with American foreign policy.

Germany's Angela Merkel the Next Bismarck?

November 26, 2005 - Welcome Instapundit and Belmont Club readers.  Make sure you click on the comments section to read some challenging ideas by Joe Katzman and M. Simon of Winds of Change along with UK's Peter Gentle of the up and coming Polish based blog Beatroot and systemic thinker Dan from tdaxp.  Also see DEL post "The Belmont Club Weighs In on Merkel" as a follow up to the Belmont Club piece (above).

Prussian Bismarck's Strategic Genius

Otto von Bismarck was the brilliant leader of Germany (1862-1890), responsible for unifying the country, building an empire and securing peace in Europe through a complex system of alliances that his successors could not maintain.

"His most significant policy objective was that of securing German unification; he took advantage of skillful diplomacy and a series of wars to achieve this goal...  In foreign affairs, opposed to his previous "Blood and Iron" policies before the unification, Bismarck pursued the goal of uniting Germany under Prussia's leadership, and as 'honest broker' securing the German Empire's position by maintaining peace in Europe with a complicated system of alliances."

Bismarck built a strong German military, sought to not compete with the British with its colonies or navy, contain the French by securing alliances with Austria, Italy and at times Russia.  He was the leading statesman of Europe, being responsible for such treaties as the "Three Emperors' League" (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia), "Triple Alliance" (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy), "Reinsurance Treaty" (Germany, Russia).  What Bismarck created in Europe with him at the helm provided great stability for Europe (though not necessarily needed economic reform), but was too complicated a system for leaders of less than his caliber to grow, let alone maintain.  The result of the failure of European leaders to continue the balance of power in Europe led directly to the First World War [DEL strongly recommends Pulitzer Prize winning, Barbara W. Tuchman's Guns of August as an exceptional novel on WWI, Dr. Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy and noted Military Historian John Keegan's The First World War] and changed civilization forever.

Former German Chancellor Schroeder's French Folly

The balance of power in Europe changed radically after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Germany became focused on integrating its two separate countries.  The United Kingdom continued its Atlantic focus while slowly moving towards European integration.  This left France coyly attempting to leverage German strength yoked to Franco-diplomacy, thereby creating a new center in Europe.   

Once Gerhard Schroeder defeated Helmut Kohl for leadership of the German state and her diplomacy, his goals where short term in nature.  Attempting to secure his position in power domestically appeared often his only long-term goal.  Chancellor Schroeder tacked every which way the wind blew to gain domestic support, including anti-American positions, such as colluding with the French to thwart US efforts in Iraq.  He succeeded in damaging the US-German relationship and threw his efforts behind Franco-Russian diplomatic enterprises, even creating a "special relationship" with Vladimir Putin, to the rightful frustration of Poland. 

While UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was often described as America's "Poodle" in the British media, Chancellor Schroeder proved himself far better as Chirac's "Poodle".  German foreign policy was marked by stagnation in the past decade without pushing forward major economic reforms other than European Union integration (with an anti-American bent) that moved along until the French "Non" vote and betrayal of the German position over the EU Constitution [See DEL posts "Why France's Self-Destruction Matters" and "France and the EU Constitution"].

Germany's economy, much like France's, was marked by chronic high unemployment and a growing welfare system, and was unable to support a future Germany that was robust in world affairs.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Brilliant Diplomacy - Another Bismarck?

Asia Summary

For Dawn's Early Light readers interested in Asia, here are some articles worthy of mention, though due to my cold I will not be able to provide the normal longer commentary.  However, they are well worth reading and mentioning in this space.

Japan Draft Constitutional Changes Strengthens Military

"Japan's Draft Charter Redefines Military", Washington Post, November 23, 2005

"The governing Liberal Democratic Party on Tuesday released a draft revision of Japan's pacifist constitution that for the first time since World War II would recognize the country's armed forces as a fully functioning military...

The constitutional draft would broaden the government's ability to send forces overseas; such an order now requires special legislation in parliament.

The revision also opens the door to a broader interpretation of the constitution, permitting what some call "collective self-defense" -- or coming to the military aid of other countries. The most likely beneficiary would be Japan's closest ally, the United States, which has urged Japan to adopt such measures. Changes in Japan's constitutional status would have major significance in the region, particularly in the event of a conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan."

DEL posted on this development in "What is Japan's Asia Strategy? (Part II)" on October 29, 2005.  After PM Koizumi's crushing September 11, 2005 electoral victory and his ability to purge his LPD party members that were unsupportive, he is in a good position to continue steps towards strengthening the US-Japanese alliance as well as contain China over issues such as Taiwan and check China's growing military strength.

India to unveil new thinking on foreign investment

The Financial Times (subscription required) writes an article on the above title that is important with respect to India's goals in catching up to China and put some extra horsepower into their economy.

"India’s Communist-backed government will on Thursday afternoon consider a sweeping liberalisation of foreign direct investment rules that would kick start a long-stalled programme of economic reforms.

Kamal Nath, India’s minister for commerce and industry, has proposed allowing 100 per cent foreign direct investment in a range of sectors, including airport construction, oil & gas infrastructure and cash & carry wholesale trading."

Indonesia to Again Receive US Military Support

The US wants Indonesia back in its sphere of influence and not that of the Russians or Chinese.  Goodwill created by the US in the wake of last year's devastating tsunami helped US standing in Indonesia.  This, coupled with its strategic importance as the largest Muslim nation, is the reason for the aggressive US diplomatic move.  The Asia Times Online reports:

"Citing 'national security interests' and noting that Indonesia plays a strategic role in Southeast Asia and is a 'voice of moderation in the Islamic world', the US State Department jumped the gun on Tuesday and lifted a Congress-approved arms embargo against Indonesia.

With East Timor now independent and Aceh no longer a theater of war, Indonesia's pressing need is to upgrade its armed forces to cope with internal security, fight terrorism, guard vital sea lanes, protect the country's numerous oil and gas platforms from terrorist strikes and enforce its maritime boundaries to prevent foreign trawlers from poaching its resources.

Smuggling, illegal fishing and maritime piracy are rife in Indonesian waters, and the addition of more sophisticated vessels will go a long way to curbing these threats...After discussions with President George W Bush, Yudhyono, an ex-general, told a news conference, "I am not pleading for a resumption. We deserve it because we have undergone a reform in our military, with an emphasis on respecting human rights and democracy."

The bulk of Indonesia's hardware is US-made and the TNI - as the army is called - suffers shortages as it can't get replacements and spares.

As a result, Jakarta has increasingly turned to Moscow. After Yudhyono's discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, it was announced that both leaders had agreed to start up intensive negotiations on setting up a joint production facility for certain sophisticated military equipment and to develop a national defense industry in cash-strapped Indonesia."

Read the whole article for the details on Indonesia's Type 209-class submarines, Ahmed Yani-class ships, Tribal-class frigates, Claude Jones-class frigates, F-5 fighter and A-4 attack planes, F-16As, Su-27SKs Su-30MK fighters and Hawk 209 light attack jets.

China's Awkward Relations with the EU

DEL has written before on the failure of Chinese foreign policy to lift the arms embargo from the European Union (thanks to a strong US diplomatic effort against French profit motives).  Another Asia Times Online piece discusses the EU-French-Sino relationship.

"The recent state visits by President Hu Jintao to the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain are the latest steps in a continuing effort by the Chinese government and its European counterparts to strengthen their ties, but they also demonstrate some of the contradictions China faces in dealing with Europe and its constituent member states.

Both the European Union and China have described their relationship as strategic, although sometimes this seems no more than a hyperbolic way of saying each considers the other important. It is perhaps true that the relationship is more strategic for China than the EU. The promotion of multipolarity is one of the key foreign policy aims of the Chinese government, and the EU is a crucial element in the policy." 

The piece discusses UK, German and French positions within the EU trade and military policy regarding China. 

Hope you enjoy the articles.

France Simmers - Chirac Opens His Mouth

Jacques Chirac, after being largely silent over the past week concerning the French riots, gave the country the benefit of a 12-minute address.  The French President took full responsibility for the riots.

Did you believe that last sentence?  For the Chirac watchers, the above statement is laughable.  The aging President blamed French society and the "poison of discrimination".  This Washington Post article explains:

"Chirac turned aside calls for affirmative action programs to boost opportunities for minorities, saying the solution was 'not a question of applying quotas.' He urged the country's businesses and trade unions to do more to 'deal with the problem of employment in difficult areas' and encouraged political parties and the news media to add more minorities to their ranks."

So the failure is not the lack of jobs that the current French government has failed to produce, as Jacques Chirac promised as his top priority 10 years ago.  Rather the unions and the private sector are at fault for not employing enough disgruntled, unassimilated French youth. 

"Chirac spoke after days of debate among politicians, social activists and news media over whether to dramatically reform an antiquated social system that espouses equality but fails to recognize the increasing diversity of French society.

The riots 'bear witness to a deep malaise,' Chirac said. 'It is a crisis of meaning, a crisis of reference points and an identity crisis.'"

President "Jacques" Carter, circa 1979, blamed a "deep malaise".  To cure the French deep malaise, President Chirac recommended a job program to start in 2007 to employ up to 50,000 immigrant youth.  That should solve the "reference point" problem and clear up the "identity crisis".

President Chirac, who has buckled under every worker demand, lacks any type of spine in French domestic politics and is opportunistic at best in French foreign policy for short-term gains, lifts his head up from the sand and lets out a big yawn.

The Christian Science Monitor sums up the French reaction with this article:

"'The events mark a failure and perhaps the decline of the French model of integration [of its immigrants],' says Michel Wieviorka, director of studies at the School for Higher Social Science Studies in Paris. "It is not working any more, and needs at least reform, if not replacement."

This will take a revolution in French thinking about integration, but there are signs that the recent violence has begun to persuade some policymakers that they'll have to overhaul their color-blind ideals of citizenship and face up to the existence of ethnic minorities.

That is likely to be a long and difficult job. France is proud of its ideals and the way it thought it was offering them to newcomers. French politicians may not find it easy to acknowledge how far the country has fallen short of its goals, some immigration experts predict, though Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin acknowledged last week to parliament that, 'the effectiveness of our integration model is in question.'"

If change ever comes to France, it will not be at the hands of Chirac.  It will take a new type of leadership, akin to a Tony Blair or Angela Markel.  While the burnt remnants of 8,400 vehicles, schools, churches and government buildings may not motivate Chirac, it may wake up the French people that the their model and way of life is not sustainable.  Time will tell; however, Dawn's Early Light is not, unfortunately, optimistic.

French Reaction to World Opinion on Riots

French reaction to world opinion and media reports on the French riots is of notable interest.  Reuters has this fascinating piece about world reaction:

"'From Italy to South Africa, Poland to China, from CNN to al-Jazeera, the newspaper headlines and television commentaries set against a background of blazing cars are really hyping it up,' the popular daily Le Parisien complained.

The Foreign Ministry has criticised some foreign reports as excessive and at least one cabinet member, Labour Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, has hinted the critical reporting was meant to hit back at France for opposing the U.S.-led Iraq war...

Eric Raoult, mayor of the eastern Paris suburb of Raincy, did not like being at the receiving end of outside attention.

'Last night, Japanese television and Turkish television were in my city hall telling me what should be done. That hurts me,' he said."

This is all so ironic considering French political grandstanding and French media reports on the Katrina hurricane in America and the war in Iraq.  The French may be good at dishing out disdain but take it themselves in poor stride.

"'Fire and blood in France -- at least that's what some foreign media claim is going on,' Le Parisien wrote. 'Paris is burning, civil war, war zone, race riots -- the headlines, especially on TV, often have no nuance.'

The conservative Le Figaro was indignant about the way U.S. media reported from riot-hit areas such as Seine Saint Denis, the rundown area between the capital and its Charles de Gaulle airport to the north.

'American newspapers don't hesitate to compare Paris to Baghdad or Seine Saint Denis to the Gaza Strip and to call the crisis a "Katrina of social disasters",' an editorial fumed in a reference to the recent hurricane.

Other commentators objected to the way foreign media stress the ethnic backgrounds of the rioters and the racial discrimination they complain about -- issues less prominent here because France officially does not recognise it has minority communities."

However, the article does go on to say that the irony is not lost on all French media outlets.

"Le Figaro said the riots were 'too good an opportunity to pass up, an opportunity to mock the country that claims to have invented human rights and that's always ready -- yes, it's true -- to lecture the rest of humanity.'"

Whatever the French think of Western civilization reaction, the Arab media is having a field day with the riots and seems to lack the clear eye of distinction between a more free France and the jobless, authoritative regimes most Muslims live in.

World Reaction - Opinions outside of France

The French Riots - A Blogger/Reader Debate

Are the riots in France a primary result of economic policies or religious unrest?  The debate among bloggers is being updated in the bottom of my last post.  Please join in!

French Riots - A Debate on Reasons

Dawn's Early Light has taken the position the French riots are largely a result of French domestic policies which have contributed to a long-term high unemployment rate [Prior DEL posts here and here].  While religion is a portion of the issue of the riots, it is, in DEL's opinion, a small one at this point, though the news stories like to phrase it with religious overtones.  Fellow SCBA blogger Mr. Gillmartin at Sheep's Crib believes religion is the primary reason and that the riots will spread in Europe.

The larger question that is emerging, as Mr. Gillmartin notes above, is "Will the riots spread to other European nations with large Muslim populations?"  These countries include Holland, Spain and Germany.

Dawn's Early Light's position is that it is not likely because I hold the position it is a fundamental problem with France's economic structure, and while the issue could morph into a religious uprising, it is not its genesis.  The International Herald Tribune has an article that explores this question with respect to Germany.  German officials are cautiously optimistic that they will not experience the same riots as France.  Here are the reasons given, plus bonus DEL suggestions:

• Germany, in its immigrant communities, lacks the high-rise, crime-infested housing projects like where the riots broke out in France.
• Germany, unlike the French government, has had more interaction with its Muslim communities in discussing issues.
• DEL suggestion 1 - The economic conditions in Germany are less dire than France
• DEL suggestion 2 - There are a greater number of Turkish Muslims in Germany compared to the Algerian Muslims in France.  Turkey has a much greater history of stability than Algeria, and therefore the immigrant communities can assimilate better in Germany than France.
• DEL suggestion 3 - As much as state boundaries (ie., nationalism) has decreased in Europe compared to other parts of the world, including North America and Asia, the cause belli for the riots in France was the death of two teenagers perceived running from French police.  This is not a readily exportable anger.

While the IHT article does mention a few car burnings in Berlin, the riots have not spread by any large or even medium scale at this point to other nations in Europe.  Der Spiegel subscribes mainly to the DEL position, along with most German media outlets:

"As the rioting in Paris enters into its eleventh day, commentators in Germany look to neighboring France in dismay. Fortunately, there is no talk of a clash of civilizations, an unbridgeable religious divide or other nonsense. Most papers see it for what it is: a classic clash between the haves and have nots."

Time will tell who is right in this debate, but the reasons for the riots appear more akin to the Rodney King/Los Angeles riots of 1992 than the "Arab street" rising up in France. 

DEL Bonus Prediction

One bonus prediction Dawn's Early Light will make today is that Turkey's prospects of joining the EU, while in jeopardy before, are most likely damaged beyond repair as Europeans will increasingly wish to exclude Muslims from their economic union, no matter how broken in some portions of Europe.

Update: DEL has asked his SCBA fellow bloggers to chime in on where they stand on the source of the French Riots.  Here are the following reactions and blog posts based on position.

Supportive of the DEL Position it is mainly about Economics:

• Rick Moore of Holy Coast has this post summarizing the DEL position, "He's probably right..." (Nov. 7, 2005)
• Chirol and Curzon of Coming Anarchy agree with DEL and have two post regarding here and here.  "[S]ocieties that do not properly integrate minorities and immigrants socially and economically will result in the disenfranchised resenting the society they live in. They will lash out, often in bursts of coordinated violence. Europe has a serious problem on its hand that it must figure out by itself." From the second link - "The looting in New Oreans had nothing to do with Christianity just as the LA riots were equally secular."
• Cheat Seeking Missiles has an excellent, well sourced piece that lays a large portion of the blame on the broken French system that needs to be "rethought".  However, he does note the strong religious undertones of the have nots versus the haves.  [DEL: readers may differ with my opinion of which side of the debate to put this post on, but I believe the main vein is the broken model over the religious aspects, but they are nevertheless intertwined.]
• Okie on the Lam writes from a personal comparative analysis of the French riots compared to the 1992 Los Angeles riots.  It seems his conclusion so far is that it is economic, but religion could play a larger role and the decisions the French need to make will not be easy.  Okie has two more posts on the topic as well, one a touching letter from a lady in France from The Anchoress and the other a post on an email dialogue between the two of us on the 1992 LA Riots.
• 21st Century Reformation comes down on the side of economics and the failed French welfare state with this post: "The reality is not that these riots are a result of a failed “integration” policy but a failed government welfare policy. The French have built subsidized government housing for their unemployed immigrant population."

Bloggers who believe it is a Muslim/religious issue at is core:

• Mr. Gillmartin's original post can be found here.  He lays out 3 points: 1) he thinks there is reason to believe the riots will spill out over Europe 2) "this is neither an economic or race issue... this is a spiritual and cultural one." 3) Europe has provided a lot of assistance to their immigrants and that Muslim nations do not have a history of providing jobs in their own lands.
• John Schroeder of Blogotional sent DEL an email asking these questions: "If they are economic in origin, why have we not seen the same elsewhere with similar economic policy?  Why are other ethnicities, in similar economic situations in France [not] acting in this fashion?"  DEL's reply to the first question is there were over 74,000 riots and protests in China last year, a Communist (ie., comparable in some ways to a Socialist) government [See DEL post here].  I think the motivations are largely comparable.  The other ethnicities in France did not suffer the death of two teenagers from their community.  (Nov. 7, 2005) Further Update: John couldn't stay away from joining the fray and does so with this extensive, stratfor quoting post making an argument about the differences of cultural and national identity between the US and Europe. 

Also, see The Redhunter's comments below for another great commentary below.

French Riots - Continued

The protests in France, stemming from the electrocution and death of 2 teens running from the police (the police say they were not chasing them), has grown by the day.  In DEL's first post on the riots, I argued that the underlying tensions were largely due to France's socialist policies that have created immigrant neighborhoods with extremely high long-term unemployment.  This in turn has led to a large-scale disenfranchisement of French Muslim youth.  The long-run failure of the French system to provide jobs for their people is giving an opening to the elements of radical Islam that give a false sense of community to those affected Muslim youth.

The Christian Science Monitor approaches the riots from the unemployment perspective in this piece today:

"That incident [DEL: the death of the teenage immigrants], says social worker Michèle Lereste, "crystallized the hatred" that some of the most disaffected and hopeless young men living in what the government calls "sensitive urban zones" feel toward authority.

In these 751 zones that the government has designated for special programs, unemployment stands at 19.6 percent - double the national average - and at more than 30 percent among 21- to 29- year-olds, according to official figures. Incomes are 75 percent below the average."

The article goes on to describe the growing angst French immigrant youth feel towards the French government.

"'The kids learn all the French republican values such as equality in school, and then they find in practice that it's an illusion,' says Ms. Bouzar, who was recently named one of Time magazine's 50 'European Heroes' as a role model for those seeking to be good Muslims and good French citizens. 'There is an enormous gap between theory and practice.'

Nowhere is that gap clearer, say young men in Clichy-sous-Bois and adults who work with them, than in the behavior of the police. 'They check our papers everywhere, all the time, for no reason,' complains one youth in Clichy who did not want to be identified. 'And the checks are getting rougher and rougher.'

Those sorts of experiences 'delegitimize the state' in young peoples' eyes, worries Bouzar, which helps explain why authority figures such as firemen and doctors have been stoned on recent nights even as they tried - with police protection - to save lives and property."

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin (the former French Foreign Minister) expressed an opinion that the protests are "organized".

"'I will not accept organized gangs making the law in some neighborhoods. I will not accept having crime networks and drug trafficking profiting from disorder,' Villepin said at the Senate in between emergency meetings called over the riots."

France's Interior Minister is trumpeting a similar line about the protests being organized.

"Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said in a television interview that he believed the rioting 'was not spontaneous, it was perfectly organized.' He said law enforcement authorities did not know who was organizing the violence and offered no evidence to support the statement."

Meanwhile the French government cannot agree on a course of action and appears paralyzed by the riots.

"De Villepin proposed no action to bolster public statements that have had no discernible effect on the violence. The cabinet has weighed proposals for a forceful response against concern that such a move would merely bring more rioters onto the streets.

'We see the situation in certain neighborhoods is not getting better at all, but degenerating,' Socialist Party leader Jean-Marc Ayrault told French LCI television. He said President Jacques Chirac's government 'did not know how to take control.'"

Dawn's Early Light believes a couple of different scenarios could be at play:

1. The riots were spontaneous based on boiling frustration from young immigrants about their poverty and treatment by the French government and police that were ignited by the teenagers' deaths.
2. After a week, the riots could be spreading based on similar spontaneous uprisings of more communities expressing their anger at the government in a violent fashion.
3. OR radical Islam elements could be using these protests as a means to organize more youth and deploy them against the French government in a larger Islamic movement.

However, without some type of direct evidence that the 3rd scenario above is true from the French government, it would look more likely that the French government is shifting the blame from its own failed policies to the ethereal threat of "radical Islam".

Time will tell which scenario is right.  Regardless, the French have a major systemic, long-term problem to address.  The riots will only lead to strengthening radical Islam in their country over the long run.  Failed socialist policies of Chirac's government appear largely to blame.

What Safety Net? - French Riots

Welcome BBC News World Edition "World Have Your Say" listeners and Winds of Change readers.  This is the post referenced on the live interview with Dawn's Early Light on November 2, 2005 (10:30 am PST).  Part II of this post can be found here.

American capitalism is often derided by the socialist nations of Europe, especially the French, for its "ruthlessness".  It is ironic that the French are experiencing their sixth night of violence in the suburbs of Paris.  The riots are in North African Muslim immigrant neighborhoods and are being framed as a result of chronic youth unemployment. 

A summary of the damage done from the riots according to this Washington Post article:

• Fires in 9 towns
• 15 burned cars in Aulnay-sous-Bois, 69 total vehicles
• Molotov cocktails thrown at Aulnay-sous-Bois's courthouse and fire station
• Stone throwing rioters clashing with police
• Local businesses set on fire
• Over 150 individual fires reported including a primary school

The region of France with the riots is north to northwest of Paris, in the suburbs.

The Root Causes

France's socialist policies are working against their immigrant communities.   In an article from last November, The Economist states:

"The French model has not sheltered its people from poverty as sturdily as is often claimed. Despite devoting 30% of its GDP to social spending, among the highest shares in Europe, France's poverty rate (after social transfers) is not much below that in Britain, and is higher than in Finland or Sweden. Young people, unqualified and often Muslim, are isolated in the grim tower blocks that ring France's cities, which are becoming fertile recruiting grounds for radical Islam.

Some elements of the French public sector are efficient, but not all. The state spends 54.7% of GDP, compared with 44% in Britain. Too many people, filling in too much paper, enforcing too many rules and extracting too many taxes; the system is unsustainably piling up debt for future generations.

A heavy price is paid in job creation, too. High non-wage employment costs, coupled with tight redundancy rules, mean that companies make do with small payrolls. If hotels and restaurants employed proportionately as many people in France as they do in America, says the Camdessus report, the country would create 3.2m extra jobs overnight—albeit the sort of low-paid “McJobs” at which French governments tend to sneer. Over-protection of permanent jobs has prompted employers to recruit increasingly on precarious short-term contracts: these now account for over three-quarters of new jobs created. This two-tier job market particularly traps the young and low-skilled."

French socialism, to protect the domestic population from capitalism, Anglo-Saxon style, instead is producing a country with high unemployment, chronically around 10%.  In the same Economist article above, the results of these policies are compared versus the Anglo-Saxon model:

"For 20 years, France's unemployment rate has been stuck between 8% and 10%. The young and the (not so) old are largely shut out of work. The employment rate among under-25s is now just 24%, where the OECD average is 44%, but that of 55-64-year-olds is 34%, compared with 50% in other OECD countries."

Inverting the number of employed above leaves a stunning 76% of French youth unemployed!

"Between 1980 and 2003, the total number of hours worked in America jumped by 39%, and in Britain by 8%; in France, it fell by 6%. This by itself almost entirely explains the differing economic growth rates over the same period in these three countries."

Needless to say each country's GDP relates a similar response, with the US increasing by 100%, the UK by about 75% and France by less than 60% over the 23-year period cited above.  France is failing on providing jobs to its citizens and, maybe more importantly, to its Muslim immigrants, which is creating an opening for those who preach radical Islam to find more terrorists. 

France's largest contribution to winning the Global War on Terror would be reforming its own economy and giving economic hope to its immigrants.  There is a growing divide between France and the Anglo-Saxon way, and the riots outside Paris are just the beginning spark of worse fires to come.

Update: Famed international relations professor and thinker Francis Fukuyama writes a brilliant piece in the WSJ (November 2, 2005) that frames my above argument in a more cogent way.

"Contemporary Europeans downplay national identity in favor of an open, tolerant, 'post-national' Europeanness. But the Dutch, Germans, French and others all retain a strong sense of their national identity, and, to differing degrees, it is one that is not accessible to people coming from Turkey, Morocco or Pakistan. Integration is further inhibited by the fact that rigid European labor laws have made low-skill jobs hard to find for recent immigrants or their children. A significant proportion of immigrants are on welfare, meaning that they do not have the dignity of contributing through their labor to the surrounding society. They and their children understand themselves as outsiders.

It is in this context that someone like Osama bin Laden appears, offering young converts a universalistic, pure version of Islam that has been stripped of its local saints, customs and traditions. Radical Islamism tells them exactly who they are--respected members of a global Muslim umma to which they can belong despite their lives in lands of unbelief."

The whole piece is well worth reading.  While it helps explain why radical Islam is appealing in Europe, it doesn't address why radical Islam is appealing in the Muslim world where religion is a part of the state.  While he doesn't address the economic aspect of radical Islam's attractiveness in Europe, he does make a sound cultural argument.