Author: Bertrand Renouvin

  • Four years ago, Coralie Delaume published a book whose title was a provocation – The Franco-German Couple Doesn’t Exist: How Europe has become Germany and why that will not last. Taken by illness in December 2020, Coralie has not lived to confirm the pertinence of her prediction.

    The false couple, where each party cultivates from its own side the illusory virtues of an imaginary model, is today confronted with a flagrant failure. Yes, it has not lasted. At Berlin, the givers of lessons are confronted with inflation in two figures and the prospect of a recession harshly marked by shortages.

    Reputedly pragmatic, the German managing class tells itself stories of its past, and the French elites have had the naivete to believe that Germany had raised itself from the war by the singular efforts of a hard-working and disciplined people, guided by enlightened leadership. Rather, the dynamism of the Federal Republic is the result of other factors: the pillage by the German army during the war, US aid, the under-valuation of the mark, the effective erasure of the public debt and the absence of reparations towards the countries that it had occupied and martyred.

    Reputedly realist, the German managing class has constructed, after the absorption and pillage of the Democratic Republic, a mercantilist system that could not last forever. In Paris one praises the merits of German industry as if its commercial success was a product simply of local management professionalism and the wisdom of unions.

    It would have been necessary to stress, as we have done, the advantages constituted by the euro exchange rate, the low wages, the social precariousness, and the relocation of industry to Central and Eastern European countries where the workforce is readily exploited.

    We have praised German budgetary rigor in forgetting that it has had as consequence inadequate public investment which drives the decay of infrastructure.

    We have praised the financial prosperity and the robustness of national savings without wanting to acknowledge the fragility of the German banks.

    And nobody has bothered themselves about the Russian gas supply, since free markets must necessarily engender prosperity and peace.

    This rickety system corresponds to the ideology of the German managing class and to our own defects. Under the aegis of Angela Merkel, the German bourgeoisie imagined the end of history in transferring to the European Union the old conception of the German Reich, that they wanted to unify beyond politics by the general implementation of German norms. For the sycophants of the ‘Franco-German couple’ – a concept unknown in Germany itself – do not want to admit a truth however well established by specialists of that country: our German friends aspired to be the best Europeans because they were persuaded that Europe could function like Germany.

    That’s exactly what happened by way of giving constitutional value to the treaties – that which we [the French people] had refused in 2005 – and by the weakness of the French elites, always concerned to obtain Berlin’s blessing. But the German leaders, well supported on the German norms that impose balanced budgets, low wages and unrestrained competition, devoted themselves to the defense and promotion of German interests.

    The German mission has been pursued with disregard for the claimed ‘European solidarity’. It is without informing its [European] partners that Angela Merkel decided to exit nuclear power in 1999 and to welcome hundreds of thousands of migrants.

    The German mission has been pursued with disregard for other peoples in the Union, and particularly the Greeks. The massive reduction of public expenditure and the extraordinary reduction in wages and pensions has produced impoverishment and the plundering of the country. Greece figures today amongst the poorest states of the EU, just ahead of Romania – with a public debt greater than in 2015. Other peoples of Southern Europe have also suffered from the Berlin-Brussels tutelage and the German people themselves have not been spared: we have noted in 2019 that poverty then touched 16.5 per cent of the population.

    It is this ‘anti-model’ which is in the process of breaking up before our eyes. Germany confronts that energy becomes terribly costly when the sweet trade in gas becomes the stake in international relations of force. Its manufacturing sector is on the skids and the government counts the cost of the calamitous implications of a lack of sufficient supportive infrastructure, discovering, too late, the necessity to construct LNG ports [to accommodate US LNG imports]. Underpaid workers suffer the violence of inflation and the risk of unemployment grows if employers implement plans to relocate to Latin America.

    Germany, virtuous and consensual in appearances, sure of itself but often indecisive and inconsistent, has not seen coming a crisis that has been brewing for several years and of which the Russo-Ukrainian war has exposed the scale. Let us resist the temptation of now giving lessons to Germany ourselves.

    *****

    • Translated by Evan Jones (a francophile and retired political economist at University of Sydney) and is published here with permission from author.
    The post Germany: the end of illusions first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Building Europe to have peace. Such is the just and fine ambition that one must pursue relentlessly. Nevertheless, it is necessary to define ‘Europe’ and to specify the conditions for the peace that is desirable on our continent.

    For Europe is a continent. Only de Gaulle had envisaged Europe as a geopolitical ensemble composed of all the states participating in balance. François Mitterrand took up the idea in the form of a European confederation, but he too quickly abandoned it.

    Since 1945, what is presented as ‘Europe’, in the West of the continent, is only a subset of countries incapable by themselves of ensuring peace. One regularly hides its powerlessness behind proud slogans. Such is the case with that which affirms ‘Europe means Peace’. As a historical reality and as promise it is false.

    During the Cold War, it is not the organs of the Common Market, of the European Economic Community then of the European Union which have assured peace in Europe. It is well known that the equilibrium between the great powers has been maintained by nuclear dissuasion and, more precisely, by the potential for massive destruction possessed by the US, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and France.

    NATO forces under American command offered Western Europe a fragile umbrella, since the US would not have put their very existence in jeopardy to prevent a very improbable land-based offensive by the Soviet Army. Ready for all possibilities but not prepared to pay the price of a classic confrontation, France, having left the integrated command of NATO in 1966, considered the territory of West Germany as a buffer zone for its Pluton nuclear-armed missiles.

    The collapse of the Soviet Union has pushed into the background the debates on nuclear dissuasion, but it is still not possible to glorify a ‘Europe’ pacific and peace-making. For thirty years we have seen the «peace of cemeteries» established on our periphery, and under the responsibility of certain members states of the European Union.

    The principal states of the EU carry an overwhelming responsibility in the bloody break-up of Yugoslavia. Germany, supported by the Vatican, unilaterally recognises Slovenia and Croatia on 23 December 1991, which pushes the then “Twelve” to follow this lethal route. France could have opposed this decision. It gives up this option because, on 15 December in Council, François Mitterrand reaffirms his conviction: it is more important to preserve the promises of Maastricht than to attempt to impose the French position on Yugoslavia. In other words, Yugoslavia has been deliberately sacrificed on the altar of “Franco-German friendship“, when one could already see that Berlin lied, manoeuvred and imposed its will. The German ambition was to support Croatia, including by the delivery of arms, in a war that would be pursued with a comparable cruelty by all the camps.

    The recognition of Slovenia and Croatia embroiled Bosnia-Herzegovina and provoked the extension of the conflict, then its internationalisation. Tears would be shed for Sarajevo while forgetting Mostar. Some Parisian intellectuals would demand, in the name of ‘Europe’, an attack on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, then comprising Serbia, Vojvodina, Kosovo and Montenegro. Their wish was granted in 1999 when NATO, under American commandment, bombed Yugoslav territory for 78 days, killing thousands of civilians. France, Germany, Italy, Belgium … participated in this military operation, in contempt of the UN Charter and of NATO statutes, an alliance theoretically defensive …

    Let no one pretend that the principal member states of the EU were waging humanitarian wars and wanted to assure economic development and democracy. ‘Europe’ has protested against ethnic cleansing by Serbs but has left the Croats to force out 200,000 Serbs from Krajina. ‘Europe’ waxes indignant about massacres in Kosovo but it has supported extremist ethnic Albanians of the Kosovo Liberation Army who have committed multiple atrocities before and after their arrival to power in Pristina.

    These Balkan wars occurred in the previous Century, but it is not ancient history. The countries devastated by war suffer henceforth the indifference of the powerful. In Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, one lives poorly, very poorly, if one is not involved in illegal business networks. Then one seeks work elsewhere, preferably in Germany, if one is not too old.

    After having mistreated, pillaged then abandoned its peripheries, ‘peaceful’ Europe then goes to serve as an auxiliary force in American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron were in the forefront in the bombardment of Libya, but the outcome is as disastrous as in the Middle East and Central Asia – graveyards, chaos, the hate of the West and, at Kabul, the return of the Taliban.

    This brief review of the deadly inconsistencies of European pacificism cannot ignore Ukraine. The European Commission itself has encouraged the Ukrainian government in its quest for integration in the EU, before proposing a simple accord of association. The Ukrainian government, having declined to sign this accord, the pro-European groups allied to the ultranationalists have descended into the street in November 2013 with the support of Germany, Poland and the US. The Maidan movement, the eviction of President Yanukovych and the war of the Donbass have led, after the Minsk accords and a stalemate in the conflict to the situation that we have before our eyes in early January – the US and Russia discuss directly the Ukrainian crisis without the ‘Europe of peace’ being admitted to the negotiating table. The EU has totally subjugated itself to NATO and does not envisage leaving it.

    It is therefore possible to note, once again, the vacuity of the discourse on the ‘European power’ and on ‘European sovereignty’. Thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we should acknowledge all the opportunities lost. After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, France could have demanded the withdrawal of American forces installed in Europe and proposed a collective security treaty for the entirety of the continent, while pursuing its project for a European Confederation. From Right to Left, our governments have preferred to cultivate the myth of the “Franco-German friendship”, leave the US to pursue its agenda after the upheaval of 2003, and then return to the integrated command of NATO.

    They offer us not peace but submission to war-making forces that they have given up trying to control.

    *****

    • Translated by Evan Jones (a francophile and retired political economist at University of Sydney) and is published here with permission from author.

    The post A Peculiar European “Peace” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Seven days have sufficed for the tempest unleashed by Australia to fizzle out in the tepid waters of a diplomatic communiqué. A mere seven days. The sudden tearing up of ‘the contract of the century’ bearing on the purchase of French submarines has been denounced as a ‘stab in the back’ by Defence Minister Jean-Yves More

    The post France: Illusions and Debasement appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.