Nicolas Sarkozy has been flaunting an apparent relaxed non-combatant status with new designer stubble. Macleans Magazine asked me to explore what the beard signified and I suggested you should beware vanquished politicians who grow beards. After losing to George W. Bush in 2000, a traumatized Al Gore disappeared from sight for several months, only to reappear whiskered, prompting an American commentator to postulate that he looked “like a Bolshevik labour organizer.” Gore’s beard didn’t signify penitential withdrawal, but more the return of the prophet fortified by a short period of reflection—after all, free of the trappings of office, the former American vice-president was able to set his sights on the more noble task of trying to save the planet. The scraggly white beard sported by former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn following his fall from grace also appeared to have a rehabilitation purpose—he appeared, to some commentators, less haughty and imperious, more down to earth. Read the full article here.
From the perspective of Tripoli, which hosts this week a huge construction and building trade fair that has attracted 427 foreign companies drawn from 26 countries, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague would seem to have a point when urging British businesses to “worker harder” to compete against overseas rivals for deals.
Of those 427 foreign companies participating in Libya Build 2012, not one – yes, you read that right – not a single one is from Britain. Not that the U.S. has distinguished itself either, the business of America is apparently not business, when it comes to Libya at the moment.
Hague’s comments about the need for British business to get stuck in – an updating of Norman Tebbit’s “get on yer bike” remark — hasn’t gone down well with British business.
Former CBI director general Lord Digby Jones, who served in the Brown government as a trade minister, lashed out Hague, complaining on BBC Radio 4 about the weakening of his former department, UK Trade & Investment. “To absolutely decimate that and cut it and then stand up and say ‘come on, get on and do it’, that’s a bit rich.”
But Libya Build 2012 organizers don’t blame the UK embassy in Tripoli or UK Trade & Investment for the non-show of British business. They say that British diplomats were highly supportive and that the 4-day exhibition was well marketed in the UK.
“I was surprised at the lack of take-up by British firms,” says Rania Mohamad, head of international sales for Libya Build 2012. “What we heard was that they were anxious about the security situation.”
Not that nervousness – and believe me it is misplaced when it comes to Tripoli – deterred the more robust Italians or French. There are 134 Italian companies here – from large construction concerns to small furniture businesses and environmental solutions firms.
According to Maria Carmela Ottaviano, head of special projects at the Italian Institute for Foreign Trade, Italy’s trade promotion agency, Italian exhibitors were keen to maintain good commercial ties between Italy and Libya that were fostered by Silvio Berlusconi.
The Italians have two pavilions exclusively for their own use and were so over-subscribed that some exhibitors from Italy have had to take refuge in other pavilions – there are 35 pavilions in all covering 17,000 square meters.
A saleswoman for an Italian manufacturer of security doors told me that they had not done work in Libya before the toppling of Col. Gaddafi but that they were keen to test the waters. She praised the Italian promotion agency for playing a big role – from helping with transportation to visa facilitation and with translation services.
The French have not been shy either to explore opportunities in Libya’s new business environment, nor to remind Libyans of France’s support for their “Arab Spring.”
There are more than 40 French companies exhibiting as well as wheeling and dealing at Libya Build 2012.
“I am very surprised at the absence of British and American firms here,” said Audrey Corriger, an export specialist with Chambon, a manufacturer of factory tools for assembly-line woodcutting and wood-design. “We are hoping to find an importer for our machines,” she says. Chambon hasn’t worked in Libya before, although it has in other North African countries.
“We decided to test the waters,” she says. She admitted that they had wondered if this would be premature to be doing ahead of the assembly elections slated for June 19 but they decided “you can never promote too early.”
Chambon is hoping also to capitalize on French support for the rebels. “As Sarkozy was so supportive of the revolution, we hope this will benefit us.”
Apparently, however, David Cameron’s backing for the overthrow of Gaddafi didn’t strike British firms as a selling point.
Some 632 companies in all are taking part in Libya Build 2012. There are large contingents from Turkey, Tunisia, Egypt and UAE, which is fielding 110 companies. Tiny Malta has its own pavilion where 40 companies are showcasing their products, from lifts and electromechanical systems, to construction materials and furniture and fittings.
“Maybe it was a bit far for the British to travel,” mused Corriger.
Democracy is about elections and we might not always like how people cast their votes but to dismiss their choices as “infantile” strikes me as high-handed — and in the case of the elections recently in Europe mistaken.
In the wake of the elections in four European countries – the UK, France, Italy and Greece — many Conservative commentators have been on their high horse. Of course, on the left their counterparts have been on braying form when some humility may have been in order, after all traditional left parties also bear a fair share of responsibility for the debt disaster that’s struck Europe.
As far as many Conservative commentators are concerned the narrative is this: Europeans displayed an astonishing lack of adult seriousness by either voting for fringe parties as in Italy or Greece or for the traditional left in France and the UK. By voting the way they did they displayed “wishful thinking” and ignored economic realities. Only by backing parties that are supportive of German-dictated austerity would they have shown they were serious.
And the fringe leaders are all lumped together regardless.
Anne Applebaum writing in Slate Magazine, for instance, argues that the fringe parties are “anti-European, anti-globalization, and anti-immigration. Their leaders, in the words of a French friend, want to ‘withdraw from the world.’”
And she added: “Above all, they are anti-austerity: They hate the budget cuts that they believe were imposed on their national governments by outsiders in the international bond market and by their own membership in the euro currency zone. Never mind that those same national governments had created the need for austerity by overspending and over-borrowing, or in some cases—most notably Greece—by funding vast, unaffordable and corrupt state bureaucracies over many decades.”
Well, the budget cuts were in a sense imposed by outsiders and in Italy and Greece the parties most responsible for over-spending and over-borrowing were the hardest hit in the elections – in Greece the two mainstream parties that have dominated politics there for the last 35 years, and in Italy the center-right parties that were in the coalition governments of Silvio Berlusconi.
In the UK, the local elections success of Labor, the party responsible for the country’s economic mess, can partly be put down to a series of poor decisions and cock-ups by the coalition government and to a general feeling in the country that “we aren’t all it together”.
In Italy and Greece, voters turned to fringe parties to express their distrust of the center. The traditional left did well in Italy but not as well as it should have given the circumstances. It didn’t do so because of the scandals that have hit some prominent leftwing politicians.
And it isn’t clear to me that Italian voters who backed the movement of Beppe Grillo, the comic-turned-blogger activist, were expressing anti-European, anti-globalization or anti-immigration positions.
True, Grillo wants Italy to drop the euro and re-introduce the lira, but is that what was uppermost in the mind of voters when they backed the comedian’s Cinque Stella movement? Of the more the more than 20 people who voted for Cinque Stella who I have spoken with in the last few days not one of them mentioned dropping the euro as Italy’s currency. Nor are any of them anti-immigrant and none of them were anti-European.
They say they voted for Cinque Stella to record a protest against many things – from the corruption of the mainstream parties of both the center left and center right to Silvio Berlusconi’s disastrous stewardship of the country and to the fat-cat Italian parliamentarians, the highest paid lawmakers in Europe.
And none of them were that critical of caretaker premier Mario Monti or his efforts to reduce the public debt or implement structural reform, including changes that would open up the country’s rigid labor market.
Monti’s government is a technocratic one and he and his government were not standing in the local elections. Interestingly, despite the pain Monti is causing people with cuts, reductions in pensions, etc, he has high popularity ratings in the opinion polls of more than 50 percent.
While all of my Cinque Stella voters had questions about austerity and the cuts – from the timing of them to where the cuts are being applied – they all accepted that Italy has to reduce its public debt, improve competitiveness and cutback on the country’s bloated public sector.
And why in the world would they vote for Berlusconi’s party or the Northern League, his onetime coalition partners, when they accept change has to take place?
After all Berlusconi implemented scant reform when he had the opportunity to do so and under his rule, Italy grew at an anemic annual rate of one third of 1 per cent and dropped further down league tables for economic freedom and competitiveness and media freedom. Under Berlusconi, there was a resurgence of the Mafia and increased public corruption. During his tenure his coalition partners approved 18 pieces of legislation that sought to protect his own personal business interests and to provide him with legal immunity for wrongdoing. Is that center-right record one that deserved to be rewarded? Would the voters in Italy have shown more adult seriousness by voting for the center-right?
Brendan O’Neill writing in Spiked in an article headlined “Posturing against austerity: an infantile disorder” strikes the same kind of notes as Applebaum, first misunderstanding that the Grillo vote was a protest one and not one aimed at the Monti government and then arguing that elsewhere the leftwing groups that made electoral gains are driven by a desire to avoid reality.
He wrote: “The alarming thing about Hollande and Alexis Tsipras, the comparatively youthful leader of Greece’s Coalition of the Radical Left, is that they are being treated seriously despite the fact that they, too, are a bit of a joke, a comedic interlude in mainstream politics who offer little, if anything, in the way of an alternative.”
Pairing Hollande with Tsipras seems a tad odd. The latter is far to the left of Hollande and has declared the recovery blueprint approved by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as “null and void” while the new French President has talked only of renegotiating the EU fiscal compact his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, signed.
Hollande is an experienced and mainstream politician and arguably his vagueness during the election campaign on the details of what he would do in office is a reflection of political wisdom – he has avoided over-selling presumably in order to try to lower the expectations of his supporters. He has given himself room for maneuver. He has committed to balancing government spending and borrowing by 2017, avoided making commitments to increase public sector employment beyond education and even with his pledge to hire 60,000 additional teachers he has stressed that this will not be done overnight.
In short, it strikes me that voters on the whole in Italy, Greece and France turned to what they had on hand to punish the mainstream parties responsible for the economic mess while at the same time registering as best they could their opinion that the current approach to dealing with the crisis isn’t working. Is that infantile posturing?
Of course, the voters aren’t alone in being critical of the current austerity tactic. They have plenty of fellow-conspirators – to name a few, the International Monetary Fund; the Italian Premier; the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi; the Financial Times economics columnist Martin Wolf; and The Economist magazine – hardly a bunch of leftwing or fringe loonies. They all argue for blending public debt reduction with growth measures.
Take what The Economist wrote in last week’s edition. “Germany will find itself isolated. It has pushed austerity too far and too fast. The myth of an expansionary fiscal contraction, the idea that deficit cutting would boost growth, has been largely dispelled. The latest evidence is that in a downturn the multiplier effect of fiscal tightening can lead to a deeper recession, making it even harder to cut the deficit.”
Or consider what Martin Wolf wrote in a column this week. “The fact that the policy for dealing with it (the crisis) has been such a disaster – sending unemployment figures through the roof and magically increasing budget deficits – only hastens the final act of this drama: the possibility that Greece will default, leave the euro and increase the contagion in Spain and Italy.”
Wolf argues that German Chancellor Angela Merkel will have little choice but to agree to some changes to the fiscal compact and to soften austerity in its current form. “Whether it is renegotiated, modified or supplemented with a growth pact is a matter of words.” And she has little choice not only because the economic realities demand it but the voters fired a warning shot.
Exit polls suggest at the time of writing that Nicolas Sarkozy has suffered the ignominy of being a one-term French president. His loss means that for the first time in nearly a quarter of a century the French have elected a Socialist as their leader.
The result looks like it will be closer than many thought it was going to be a couple of weeks ago. Sarkozy’s rather brutal anti-Muslim appeal to the far right seems to have been rewarded with a narrower defeat. It appears the Socialist François Hollande has secured 52 percent of the vote compared to 48 percent for incumbent Sarkozy – a solid victory. And as I write, Sarkozy has conceded.
Sarkozy is only the second president, after Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, in 1981, to fail to win re-election under the Fifth Republic.
His supporters are now suggesting that this was an “unwinnable election.” That he was unfortunate in his timing: he entered office as the financial crash hit. Does this mean that no incumbent can expect to win in the current circumstances? He is, after all, the 11th government leader to be swept from office since the financial crash struck. Does this French election hold a warning for Barack Obama?
Four percent is not a heavy defeat. While Sarkozy faced an uphill battle and was associated for many of the French with four years of crisis, the seeds for his defeat also rest with the manner of his governing. The French tend to appreciate a discreet president and Sarkozy was anything but: he chose to celebrate his victory at one of Paris’ most expensive restaurants and for several days after relaxed on a friendly billionaire’s yacht – one sporting the British Red Ensign!
As the living standards of the French dropped during his time in office and unemployment rose, the brash Sarkozy continued to project himself as a contemporary JFK, surrounding himself with beautiful women – not just his wife – and was happy to appreciate being associated with the finer things in life.
Many, I suspect, did not forgive him for this and as they went to the polls they recorded their resentment.
This marks him out from Obama. Sarkozy seemed distant from the pain. Obama doesn’t — although he doesn’t have the Bill Clinton gift of actually appearing to feel the pain. That, though, may save him come November.
There will clearly be Europe-wide consequences from this election. As far as Europe is concerned it is likely to shift the focus from austerity to growth and sets up a possible confrontation between Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The Economist this weekend suggested that Hollande may be rather dangerous, suggesting that he will turn the clock back to the early disastrous days of his Socialist predecessor François Mitterrand. Certainly, Hollande will be less business friendly than Sarkozy and this could well impact the growth he says he wants. But he is a sophisticated and cautious political player and some of his campaign rhetoric should be taken as just that.
Merkel was already indicating on the eve of the French presidential election that she would be open to re-thinking on the austerity-tilted European fiscal pact. She has come under strong lobbying pressure from Italy’s Mario Monti to do so.
Now that Hollande has won that pressure will simply grow on her — and with both the French and Italian leaders arguing for the pact to reflect more of a mix of reform, austerity and growth, she is likely to have to concede and sell it to the Germans.
How the bond and financial markets react is another matter. We shall have more hints on that tomorrow when they open.
Let’s get this right. The former head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, is arguing that “political enemies” linked to Nicolas Sarkozy and the French President’s ruling UMP party choreographed the scandal triggered by his alleged assault on a hotel maid.
The basis for his accusation? Evidence, he says, that his cell phone and text messages were being monitored by his political enemies and a “victory dance” two employees at New York’s Sofitel hotel were caught doing when the police were summoned.
He now says he doesn’t believe that the “incident” with Nafissatou Diallo was a setup but he argues that the subsequent “escalation of the events”, including his arrest and imprisonment were “orchestrated” by political opponents.
Let’s unpack some of that. According to journalist Edward Jay Epstein writing in The Guardian, DSK “accuses operatives linked to Sarkozy of intercepting phone calls and making sure Diallo went to the New York police, thus sparking an international scandal.”
The only evidence he provides for this is a warning from an unnamed friend that a copy of an email his wife, French broadcaster Anne Sinclair, had sent him had been found by a sympathizer inside the UMP party headquarters in Paris.
That’s the only evidence on the monitoring side of the accusation that he provides: an unnamed friend and one email (not a cell phone text message).
And the dance? What on earth could two male employees being doing a jig about? It could be anything at all and nothing connected with DSK, of course. One of them could have got laid the night before, got engaged or won the lottery! Got a great deal on a car! Secured promotion, got a new job. Anything. Or maybe they were celebrating the fact that the police were called in to investigate a nasty assault on a maid by a rich, powerful, arrogant SOB, who thinks women are just “material.” And they didn’t need to feel this way because they were in the service or pay of the French Secret Service.
None of what DSK says passes the laugh test. And what his attitude conveys is this: that there had to be foul play because the law doesn’t, or shouldn’t, apply to the powerful; the law is for the little people.
Bloomberg has a headline this morning that about says it all when it comes to the Eurozone’s political leadership – “Euro Leaders Aim to Buy Time to Save Currency.” More time?
For the past 18 months there has been dithering and inconclusive summits and failure at every turn to get out ahead of the crisis. Solutions promised and offered have failed to convince the markets and investors that a bottom has been put in to save the currency from collapse and the Eurozone from fracture.
With a new year we are where we were before: no viable political solution.
According to Bloomberg, European leaders are “seeking to buy time for the Spanish and Italian governments to wrest control over their debt.” But that isn’t something that is going to happen overnight or even in a few weeks or months. And getting control of their debt is linked to how the markets feel about the Eurozone generally and the level of confidence investors have in it and not just in Italy and Spain.
Neither country has a solvency crisis – or rather they didn’t. Their initial challenge was over liquidity – and that has been allowed to turn into pending insolvency.
In her end-of-the-year comments, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said her government will do “everything” to bring the euro out of the slump. The only way that can happen is if the Germans agree financial transfers to their poorer neighbors. That has to be done quickly now and speed means Berlin accepting Euro-wide debt consolidation and the issuing of Eurobonds backed by all.
The details of closer financial integration with stricter rules on individual government’s public expenditure can come later.
In the next three months some 157 billion euros ($203 billion) in debt will mature in the 17-member Euro area. And something solid needs to emerge from the scheduled Jan. 9 meeting between Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy or those three months could be even more torrid that what we witnessed last year.
World Bank’s Robert Zoellick talks on a theme dear to this blogger’s heart – namely, that the political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic just are not performing and collectively are one of the main causes for the loss of confidence and market turmoil and economic malaise.
“What’s happened in the past couple of weeks is there is a convergence of some events in Europe and the United States that has led many market participants to lose confidence in economic leadership of some of the key countries,” he said.
So let’s see what happens at the summit between French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel and whether they are able to lead and forge a way out of the Eurozone crisis. There is only one realistic alternative now: closer fiscal integration and a serious Eurobond system to bail out the weaker members. If that doesn’t happen, then the markets are going to starting testing with the targets again being Italy and Spain.