by Katinka Barysch
Guido Westerwelle is the undisputed winner of Sunday’s election in Germany. His Liberal Democratic Party (FDP) attracted almost 15 per cent of the vote, its highest share ever. Angela Merkel will remain chancellor although her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) did slightly worse than in the 2005 election. The FDP’s gains allow Merkel to discard the cumbersome ‘grand coalition’ with the Social Democrats and start negotiating a deal with the more likeminded Liberals.
The haggling about posts and policies is likely to be swift this time, with Merkel promising to have her new cabinet in place in a couple of weeks. Traditionally, the leader of the junior coalition partner becomes foreign minister (and vice chancellor). So Westerwelle is almost certain to succeed SPD-leader Frank-Walter Steinmeier in the foreign ministry.
Since taking over as FDP leader eight years ago, Westerwelle has worked hard to make his party appeal more to young voters and those fed up with the two big Volksparteien, the SDP and the CDU. Sunday’s result shows that he has been successful. But party political manoeuvring and a relentless quest for media attention have not left him much time to travel the world.
His public statements about foreign policy have often been a little vague and sometimes contradictory. He has argued for continuity in German foreign policy, promising that there would be no sharp breaks with most of Steinmeier’s positions. As a strong Atlanticist he was critical of George W Bush’s war on terror but has applauded Barack Obama, in particular for his moves on disarmament. He has spoken out against Germany sending more troops to Afghanistan, or letting them fight in the south, but he wants Berlin to live up to its promises to train more Afghan policemen. He is a firm believer in the benefits of European integration, especially the single market, and he thinks Germany should pay more attention to the smaller EU members. But the smalls will not like his suggestion that European integration should become more flexible, allowing sub-groups of member-states to go ahead with particular policies. He says EU accession negotiations with Turkey should continue, which will put him at loggerheads with those in the CDU (and its smaller sister party, the CSU) who want to offer Turkey a privileged partnership. He has sometimes sounded rather conciliatory on Russia. But he also advocates keeping Germany’s nuclear power stations running beyond 2022, to make the country less dependent on Russian gas.
Westerwelle does not have a lot of experience with foreign policy and his public statements on international issues so far do not add up to a coherent Weltanschauung. That does not mean that he would not make a good foreign minister. Joschka Fischer had limited international credentials before he became foreign minister of the SPD / Green Party coalition in 1998. He turned out to be an effective and principled international operator. Like all foreign ministers before him, he quickly became one of Germany’s most popular politicians.
It is not Westerwelle (or Fischer or Steinmeier) that is the problem. It is the tradition of giving the foreign ministry to the leader of the junior coalition partner. Westerwelle may or may not agree with Merkel on foreign policy. He has little choice but to use his new job to sharpen his party’s profile. The SPD did so dismally in Sunday’s election partly because, after four years in the grand coalition, voters struggle to tell what it stands for. The lesson for the FDP will be to chart an independent course, especially after 11 years in opposition. It should: in economics, not in foreign policy.
Since the foreign minister and the chancellor always come from different parties, all vital foreign policy dossiers (relations with the US, Russia, China and so on) land directly on the chancellor’s desk. Not content with being in charge of secondary issues, Germany’s foreign ministers have often developed their own stance on the big issues of the day. Contradictory public statements and competing diplomatic initiatives have sometimes been the result. Such incoherence in foreign policy mattered little before reunification, when Germany’s low-key foreign policy mainly consisted of supporting European integration and the transatlantic alliance. But today, Germany claims international leadership and is expected to adopt regional and global responsibilities. Today, German foreign policy should not be a matter of coalition squabbles. Therefore, the foreign minister should come from Merkel’s own party.
Westerwelle should move into the finance ministry instead. While the foreign policy part of the FDP’s manifesto is weak, it has strong positions on economic policy: it advocates open markets, less stringent hiring and firing rules, an effective competition policy, help for small enterprises and, most importantly, lower and simpler taxes. Westerwelle insists that he will not sign a coalition agreement that does not contain tax reform. But he also knows that with € 1.6 trillion in public debt and a new law mandating a zero deficit by 2016, there is not much room for fiscal manoeuvre. The temptation to leave this balancing act to someone else and instead enjoy the international limelight will be strong. But if Westerwelle is serious about tax reform, he should install himself in the finance ministry and see it through as best he can. By helping to tackle some of Germany’s economic weaknesses, Westerwelle may even add more to his country’s international standing and credibility than by being its chief diplomat.
Katinka Barysch is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Talk of ‘exit’ is premature
by Simon Tilford
The governor of the Bank of England (BoE), Mervyn King, has had a mixed financial crisis. He assumed that financial stability flowed from monetary stability – which we now know is not the case – and was very slow to recognize the extent of the crisis. He has also taken the UK into unchartered waters with the embrace of so-called quantitative easing (QE). QE involves the electronic creation of new money by the central bank in the form of purchases of government and private sector bonds. QE aims to drive down long-term interest rates and encourage bank lending. The BoE has now spent around £150bn, in the process buying not far short of a quarter of the UK’s entire outstanding stock of government debt. It is far from clear whether QE will work. It is possible that the banks will simply sit on the cash rather than lending it, as they did in the early 1990s when the Bank of Japan employed a similar strategy. But King is right to argue that dramatic action is warranted by the economic outlook, which is much worse (and not just in the UK) than the general consensus.
The BoE governor has repeatedly warned that commentators and economists are not paying sufficient attention to the difference between ‘growth and levels’, and that the threat of inflation is extremely remote. He is clearly right. A couple of quarters of modest economic growth following peak-to-trough contractions of around 5 per cent is neither here nor there. It certainly does not represent a return to business as usual. Of course, it is positive that the recession is over. But that the economy has been stabilized at all has been the result of massive monetary and fiscal stimulus. The underlying dynamic remains very weak. On most growth projections it will take the EU economy several years to return to pre-crisis levels of GDP.
No sooner has the recession ended than we are being overwhelmed with talk of a rapid bounceback in economic growth and hence for the need to craft ‘exit strategies’ to prevent an upsurge of inflation. This ignores what has happened. The gap between what we can produce and what we do produce is now enormous. With consumption and investment set to remain very weak, it will take many years to close this gap. To talk of exit strategies in such a situation is dangerous and potentially deflationary. It is going to feel like a recession for many years. Demand for labour will take a long time to recover, not only because it will take time to recoup the lost output but because labour productivity will also rise over this period. Fewer workers will be needed to produce a given amount of output. The result threatens to be mass unemployment. The outlook for investment is also very poor. The combination of excess capacity and undercapitalised banks will conspire to keep investment weak for quite some time.
Of course there are mighty long-term fiscal challenges facing most EU economies. If bond investors start to believe that governments have lost control of their public finances, long-term interest rates will rise, hitting growth. But a premature exit would do more harm than good, as it would almost certainly derail the recovery, in the process weakening fiscal positions. If no-one else is willing to spend, then the state has to. Any country exiting before a self-sustaining recovery has taken hold will essentially be guilty of free-riding on the demand being generated by deficit spending elsewhere. Germany has already indicated that it intends to tighten fiscal policy steadily following the election and is now constitutionally obliged to reduce its fiscal deficit to 0.35% of GDP by 2016. Such a move will only work if others keep spending and Germany can rely on rebuilding its trade surplus for economic growth. This is a zero-sum game. If everyone behaves in this way, the impact on Europe’s economy will be dire.
Similarly, a premature move to raise interest rates in an effort to head off a largely imaginary inflation bogeyman would risk scuppering the recovery by increasing the cost of capital and boosting the already excessive strength of the euro. The European economy needs very low interest rates for an extended period of time to keep capital cheap and to stimulate activity to close the output gap. The risk of snuffing out the recovery now (in the process exacerbating the weakness of public finances) is far greater than a spike in inflation later on. Stagnation and debt deflation pose greater risks to the European economy than inflation.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.
The governor of the Bank of England (BoE), Mervyn King, has had a mixed financial crisis. He assumed that financial stability flowed from monetary stability – which we now know is not the case – and was very slow to recognize the extent of the crisis. He has also taken the UK into unchartered waters with the embrace of so-called quantitative easing (QE). QE involves the electronic creation of new money by the central bank in the form of purchases of government and private sector bonds. QE aims to drive down long-term interest rates and encourage bank lending. The BoE has now spent around £150bn, in the process buying not far short of a quarter of the UK’s entire outstanding stock of government debt. It is far from clear whether QE will work. It is possible that the banks will simply sit on the cash rather than lending it, as they did in the early 1990s when the Bank of Japan employed a similar strategy. But King is right to argue that dramatic action is warranted by the economic outlook, which is much worse (and not just in the UK) than the general consensus.
The BoE governor has repeatedly warned that commentators and economists are not paying sufficient attention to the difference between ‘growth and levels’, and that the threat of inflation is extremely remote. He is clearly right. A couple of quarters of modest economic growth following peak-to-trough contractions of around 5 per cent is neither here nor there. It certainly does not represent a return to business as usual. Of course, it is positive that the recession is over. But that the economy has been stabilized at all has been the result of massive monetary and fiscal stimulus. The underlying dynamic remains very weak. On most growth projections it will take the EU economy several years to return to pre-crisis levels of GDP.
No sooner has the recession ended than we are being overwhelmed with talk of a rapid bounceback in economic growth and hence for the need to craft ‘exit strategies’ to prevent an upsurge of inflation. This ignores what has happened. The gap between what we can produce and what we do produce is now enormous. With consumption and investment set to remain very weak, it will take many years to close this gap. To talk of exit strategies in such a situation is dangerous and potentially deflationary. It is going to feel like a recession for many years. Demand for labour will take a long time to recover, not only because it will take time to recoup the lost output but because labour productivity will also rise over this period. Fewer workers will be needed to produce a given amount of output. The result threatens to be mass unemployment. The outlook for investment is also very poor. The combination of excess capacity and undercapitalised banks will conspire to keep investment weak for quite some time.
Of course there are mighty long-term fiscal challenges facing most EU economies. If bond investors start to believe that governments have lost control of their public finances, long-term interest rates will rise, hitting growth. But a premature exit would do more harm than good, as it would almost certainly derail the recovery, in the process weakening fiscal positions. If no-one else is willing to spend, then the state has to. Any country exiting before a self-sustaining recovery has taken hold will essentially be guilty of free-riding on the demand being generated by deficit spending elsewhere. Germany has already indicated that it intends to tighten fiscal policy steadily following the election and is now constitutionally obliged to reduce its fiscal deficit to 0.35% of GDP by 2016. Such a move will only work if others keep spending and Germany can rely on rebuilding its trade surplus for economic growth. This is a zero-sum game. If everyone behaves in this way, the impact on Europe’s economy will be dire.
Similarly, a premature move to raise interest rates in an effort to head off a largely imaginary inflation bogeyman would risk scuppering the recovery by increasing the cost of capital and boosting the already excessive strength of the euro. The European economy needs very low interest rates for an extended period of time to keep capital cheap and to stimulate activity to close the output gap. The risk of snuffing out the recovery now (in the process exacerbating the weakness of public finances) is far greater than a spike in inflation later on. Stagnation and debt deflation pose greater risks to the European economy than inflation.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The dangers of Karzai’s re-election
by Tomas Valasek
The final result of the Afghan election may not be known until the end of September, but it looks as if President Hamid Karzai will have done well enough to avoid a second round of voting. This is causing dismay in some western capitals, where some senior figures now view Karzai as a key obstacle to Afghanistan’s reconstruction. If he stays in power, people in many European countries are likely to become increasingly disenchanted with the ‘mission impossible’ that their soldiers are undertaking, and that would increase the probability of European forces being withdrawn.
A senior UK diplomat recently described the problems posed by Karzai’s government for western attempts to reconstruct Afghanistan. “Our game plan is to use foreign troops to create enough breathing room for the Afghan government to assert its authority throughout the country,” he said. “But if the government whose authority we help to assert is widely viewed as corrupt and incompetent, we have no chance of succeeding.”
Karzai’s government has earned its inglorious reputation for several reasons. Washington suspects that some of its top officials are involved in the drug trade, including the president’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, as well as the defence minister, Karzai’s running mate and the potential future vice-president, Mohammad Fahim. Corruption extends downwards through the bureaucracy. Western troops say that many Afghan policemen steal valuables during searches of houses. Local leaders complain they have very little effort from the Kabul government to rebuild roads or resuscitate the economy; it is the western governments and NGOs that deliver the little progress that there is.
In his early years as president, Karzai offered hope for a new future and was genuinely popular. In 2005, 83 per cent of Afghans approved of president Karzai and 80 per cent approved of the national government overall. Today those figures have dropped to 52 and 49 per cent, respectively. Those are still solid numbers that some western leaders would envy. But the support has been on a constant slide for the past four years because more and more Afghans have given up hope that the current government will deliver stability or prosperity.
The US, the UK and other key troop-contributing governments worry that a Karzai victory heavily tainted by allegations of fraud will further disappoint the Afghans and embolden the Taliban. And in the western countries that send the troops his re-election could also fatally undermine public support for the mission. The latest opinion polls show that about two-thirds of Britons want UK troops out of the country – not only because of rising casualties, but also because of the perception that Afghan politicians are using their authority, which rests on the support of western troops, for self-enrichment.
The US, for now, has little choice but to stay put. The US public is as fidgety as that in Britain but President Obama has made success in Afghanistan a key plank of his foreign policy and he will not want to give up so soon. The US may send more troops if General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, requests reinforcements.
The situation is different in other NATO allies. The Dutch are scheduled to leave next year, and the Canadians say they will withdraw in 2011, though NATO is working hard to get both governments to change their mind. That may prove impossible unless events in Afghanistan give the public some reason to believe that NATO is managing to turn around its flagging mission. Even the British presence cannot be taken as guaranteed, if public support for it continues to slide.
The prospect of European troops departing brings two risks. One is to the security of Afghanistan itself. Together, the UK, Canada and the Netherlands supply the bulk of the troops that keep a semblance of order in three of the volatile southern provinces (though the US is reinforcing its presence in the south). NATO and the EU are busy training new Afghan soldiers and police to replace the western troops. But on the evidence of the past few years, the central government is unlikely to have enough properly trained replacements to take over from the Europeans anytime soon. Some local Afghan leaders say that if the Europeans withdraw in the next year or two, they will leave the country too, or strike deals with the Taliban. Either way, the government in Kabul would lose out. The second risk is to NATO itself. Why should Washington take the alliance seriously if it finds itself manning the ramparts in Afghanistan alone?
To prevent European support for the war in Afghanistan from collapsing, the governments need to take two steps. First, those capitals that have done little to drum up public support for the mission need to step up. In the UK, Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a major ‘why we fight’ speech on September 4th. More effort of this sort is needed. Second, assuming that Karzai is declared the victor, the West needs to find ways of making clear to is government that it needs to do more to fight corruption. This could include withholding EU and national aid from the most corrupt parts of the Afghan government.
Getting the Kabul government to change its ways will not be easy: when the US special representative, Richard Holbrooke, recently suggested that Afghanistan might have to deal with complaints of ballot-rigging by holding a second round of elections, Karzai walked out of the meeting; he later told a French newspaper that the US wanted him to be more “docile”. But the European governments and Washington are right to try. The government in Kabul and its western partners need to find ways of changing the perception that the Karzai government is failing, or public pressure may force European troops to withdraw sooner than is good for the country.
Tomas Valasek is director of foreign policy and defence at the Centre for European Reform.
The final result of the Afghan election may not be known until the end of September, but it looks as if President Hamid Karzai will have done well enough to avoid a second round of voting. This is causing dismay in some western capitals, where some senior figures now view Karzai as a key obstacle to Afghanistan’s reconstruction. If he stays in power, people in many European countries are likely to become increasingly disenchanted with the ‘mission impossible’ that their soldiers are undertaking, and that would increase the probability of European forces being withdrawn.
A senior UK diplomat recently described the problems posed by Karzai’s government for western attempts to reconstruct Afghanistan. “Our game plan is to use foreign troops to create enough breathing room for the Afghan government to assert its authority throughout the country,” he said. “But if the government whose authority we help to assert is widely viewed as corrupt and incompetent, we have no chance of succeeding.”
Karzai’s government has earned its inglorious reputation for several reasons. Washington suspects that some of its top officials are involved in the drug trade, including the president’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, as well as the defence minister, Karzai’s running mate and the potential future vice-president, Mohammad Fahim. Corruption extends downwards through the bureaucracy. Western troops say that many Afghan policemen steal valuables during searches of houses. Local leaders complain they have very little effort from the Kabul government to rebuild roads or resuscitate the economy; it is the western governments and NGOs that deliver the little progress that there is.
In his early years as president, Karzai offered hope for a new future and was genuinely popular. In 2005, 83 per cent of Afghans approved of president Karzai and 80 per cent approved of the national government overall. Today those figures have dropped to 52 and 49 per cent, respectively. Those are still solid numbers that some western leaders would envy. But the support has been on a constant slide for the past four years because more and more Afghans have given up hope that the current government will deliver stability or prosperity.
The US, the UK and other key troop-contributing governments worry that a Karzai victory heavily tainted by allegations of fraud will further disappoint the Afghans and embolden the Taliban. And in the western countries that send the troops his re-election could also fatally undermine public support for the mission. The latest opinion polls show that about two-thirds of Britons want UK troops out of the country – not only because of rising casualties, but also because of the perception that Afghan politicians are using their authority, which rests on the support of western troops, for self-enrichment.
The US, for now, has little choice but to stay put. The US public is as fidgety as that in Britain but President Obama has made success in Afghanistan a key plank of his foreign policy and he will not want to give up so soon. The US may send more troops if General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, requests reinforcements.
The situation is different in other NATO allies. The Dutch are scheduled to leave next year, and the Canadians say they will withdraw in 2011, though NATO is working hard to get both governments to change their mind. That may prove impossible unless events in Afghanistan give the public some reason to believe that NATO is managing to turn around its flagging mission. Even the British presence cannot be taken as guaranteed, if public support for it continues to slide.
The prospect of European troops departing brings two risks. One is to the security of Afghanistan itself. Together, the UK, Canada and the Netherlands supply the bulk of the troops that keep a semblance of order in three of the volatile southern provinces (though the US is reinforcing its presence in the south). NATO and the EU are busy training new Afghan soldiers and police to replace the western troops. But on the evidence of the past few years, the central government is unlikely to have enough properly trained replacements to take over from the Europeans anytime soon. Some local Afghan leaders say that if the Europeans withdraw in the next year or two, they will leave the country too, or strike deals with the Taliban. Either way, the government in Kabul would lose out. The second risk is to NATO itself. Why should Washington take the alliance seriously if it finds itself manning the ramparts in Afghanistan alone?
To prevent European support for the war in Afghanistan from collapsing, the governments need to take two steps. First, those capitals that have done little to drum up public support for the mission need to step up. In the UK, Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a major ‘why we fight’ speech on September 4th. More effort of this sort is needed. Second, assuming that Karzai is declared the victor, the West needs to find ways of making clear to is government that it needs to do more to fight corruption. This could include withholding EU and national aid from the most corrupt parts of the Afghan government.
Getting the Kabul government to change its ways will not be easy: when the US special representative, Richard Holbrooke, recently suggested that Afghanistan might have to deal with complaints of ballot-rigging by holding a second round of elections, Karzai walked out of the meeting; he later told a French newspaper that the US wanted him to be more “docile”. But the European governments and Washington are right to try. The government in Kabul and its western partners need to find ways of changing the perception that the Karzai government is failing, or public pressure may force European troops to withdraw sooner than is good for the country.
Tomas Valasek is director of foreign policy and defence at the Centre for European Reform.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Anglo-Saxons and hedge funds: Culprits or scapegoats?
by Philip Whyte
Disasters often provoke unseemly bouts of finger-pointing. This has certainly been true of the global financial crisis. In the Anglo-Saxon world, libertarians have blamed it on governments, and governments on ‘bankers’. But in continental Europe, many blame Anglo-Saxons for their supposed reluctance to regulate financial markets. The crisis, they believe, would never have happened if the British and the Americans had regulated and supervised their financial sectors like the French and the Germans. On this view, the UK needs to change, notably by clamping down on hedge funds. Does this narrative stack up? Or have some Europeans just turned Anglo-Saxons and hedge funds into their scapegoats of choice?
Tirades against Anglo-Saxons long predated the crisis, but they have gathered in intensity since it began. In the run-up to the G20 summit in April, Luxembourg’s prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, stated that this crisis “started in the US. The Anglo-Saxon world has always refused to add the dose of regulation which financial markets needed.” At the end of the same summit, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, announced the death of “unregulated Anglo-Saxon finance”. And in July, Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, told a political meeting in Nuremberg that “with us, dear friends, Wall Street or the City of London won’t dictate again how money should be made, only to let others pick up the bill.”
In any analysis of the causes of the crisis, the UK and the US clearly deserve a share of the blame. They tolerated unsustainable domestic credit booms which wreaked havoc on themselves and the rest of the world. But they were hardly the only countries to experience credit-fuelled housing booms. Denmark, France, Ireland and Spain did too. Nor were they the only countries which allowed ‘shadow banking’ entities to proliferate and banks’ exposures to complex financial instruments to grow. It was a funding crisis at two ‘special investment vehicles’ (SIVs) that brought the regulated German bank, IKB, to its knees. And German banks built massive exposures to collateralised debt obligations (CDOs).
What of hedge funds? Listen to French and German leaders, and you would think that hedge funds were central to the financial crisis. France and Germany have leaned on the European Commission to propose a directive that would regulate hedge funds; they have criticised the Commission’s resulting legislative proposal as too weak; and they have accused the British of dragging their heels. France and Germany are not entirely wrong: the example of Long Term Capital Management in 1998 shows that some hedge funds can pose a threat to financial stability. Even so, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that France and Germany have used the crisis as an opportunity to advance one of their hobby horses.
Both the EU’s de Larosière report and the UK’s Turner review agree that hedge funds did not cause the global financial crisis. They did not drive the growth in sub-prime lending. They did not cause house prices to fall. And they did not force regulated banks (such as Germany’s Hypo Real Estate) to hold CDOs on their balance sheets. So it is quite wrong to imply, as some French and German politicians do, that the crisis would not have occurred if hedge funds had been more tightly regulated. It is also wrong to suggest that the British are reluctant to regulate hedge funds. The British government has accepted the Turner review’s recommendation that “regulation should focus on economic substance, not legal form”.
The Turner and de Larosière reports point to a broad, technocratic cross-Channel consensus on the causes of the financial crisis and the lessons to be learned. Does it matter if this is not reflected in political rhetoric? Yes, for two reasons. First, political obsessions can often drag policy in undesirable directions. (Remember that when Germany chaired the G7 in the months leading up to the crisis in 2007, it was so fixated with regulating hedge funds that it was blind to what turned out to be the central problem: the excessive leverage and effective under-capitalisation of the regulated banking sector). Second, rhetoric can poison negotiations unnecessarily, making agreement more difficult to reach.
Populist broadsides against Anglo-Saxons and hedge funds are unlikely to help the prospect of pan-European regulatory reform. If French and German politicians are not careful, the scenario which they paint of a recalcitrant Britain at odds with the rest of Europe could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. It is no secret that sections of Britain’s media and political class are primed to detect sinister motives in anything emanating from Europe. More often than not, such fears are just paranoid fantasy. But for once, the British may be forgiven if they conclude that France and Germany are exploiting the crisis to promote some of their longstanding objectives and to weaken London’s position as a financial centre.
Philip Whyte is a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform.
Disasters often provoke unseemly bouts of finger-pointing. This has certainly been true of the global financial crisis. In the Anglo-Saxon world, libertarians have blamed it on governments, and governments on ‘bankers’. But in continental Europe, many blame Anglo-Saxons for their supposed reluctance to regulate financial markets. The crisis, they believe, would never have happened if the British and the Americans had regulated and supervised their financial sectors like the French and the Germans. On this view, the UK needs to change, notably by clamping down on hedge funds. Does this narrative stack up? Or have some Europeans just turned Anglo-Saxons and hedge funds into their scapegoats of choice?
Tirades against Anglo-Saxons long predated the crisis, but they have gathered in intensity since it began. In the run-up to the G20 summit in April, Luxembourg’s prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, stated that this crisis “started in the US. The Anglo-Saxon world has always refused to add the dose of regulation which financial markets needed.” At the end of the same summit, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, announced the death of “unregulated Anglo-Saxon finance”. And in July, Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, told a political meeting in Nuremberg that “with us, dear friends, Wall Street or the City of London won’t dictate again how money should be made, only to let others pick up the bill.”
In any analysis of the causes of the crisis, the UK and the US clearly deserve a share of the blame. They tolerated unsustainable domestic credit booms which wreaked havoc on themselves and the rest of the world. But they were hardly the only countries to experience credit-fuelled housing booms. Denmark, France, Ireland and Spain did too. Nor were they the only countries which allowed ‘shadow banking’ entities to proliferate and banks’ exposures to complex financial instruments to grow. It was a funding crisis at two ‘special investment vehicles’ (SIVs) that brought the regulated German bank, IKB, to its knees. And German banks built massive exposures to collateralised debt obligations (CDOs).
What of hedge funds? Listen to French and German leaders, and you would think that hedge funds were central to the financial crisis. France and Germany have leaned on the European Commission to propose a directive that would regulate hedge funds; they have criticised the Commission’s resulting legislative proposal as too weak; and they have accused the British of dragging their heels. France and Germany are not entirely wrong: the example of Long Term Capital Management in 1998 shows that some hedge funds can pose a threat to financial stability. Even so, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that France and Germany have used the crisis as an opportunity to advance one of their hobby horses.
Both the EU’s de Larosière report and the UK’s Turner review agree that hedge funds did not cause the global financial crisis. They did not drive the growth in sub-prime lending. They did not cause house prices to fall. And they did not force regulated banks (such as Germany’s Hypo Real Estate) to hold CDOs on their balance sheets. So it is quite wrong to imply, as some French and German politicians do, that the crisis would not have occurred if hedge funds had been more tightly regulated. It is also wrong to suggest that the British are reluctant to regulate hedge funds. The British government has accepted the Turner review’s recommendation that “regulation should focus on economic substance, not legal form”.
The Turner and de Larosière reports point to a broad, technocratic cross-Channel consensus on the causes of the financial crisis and the lessons to be learned. Does it matter if this is not reflected in political rhetoric? Yes, for two reasons. First, political obsessions can often drag policy in undesirable directions. (Remember that when Germany chaired the G7 in the months leading up to the crisis in 2007, it was so fixated with regulating hedge funds that it was blind to what turned out to be the central problem: the excessive leverage and effective under-capitalisation of the regulated banking sector). Second, rhetoric can poison negotiations unnecessarily, making agreement more difficult to reach.
Populist broadsides against Anglo-Saxons and hedge funds are unlikely to help the prospect of pan-European regulatory reform. If French and German politicians are not careful, the scenario which they paint of a recalcitrant Britain at odds with the rest of Europe could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. It is no secret that sections of Britain’s media and political class are primed to detect sinister motives in anything emanating from Europe. More often than not, such fears are just paranoid fantasy. But for once, the British may be forgiven if they conclude that France and Germany are exploiting the crisis to promote some of their longstanding objectives and to weaken London’s position as a financial centre.
Philip Whyte is a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Can Europeans share a common security culture?
by Clara Marina O'Donnell
European countries have long declared their ambition to turn the EU into a global player in security – in order to tackle common threats and strengthen their voice on the global stage. But they still cannot agree on the main threats to their security or the best way to tackle them. Their views are so diverse that it is a wonder EU countries have managed to agree on any common action at all. But member-states need to strengthen their efforts to develop a common approach to security if the EU is to become a serious player.
For the past two decades, the EU has been developing a profile in foreign and security policy. It has agreed common security strategies, deployed over 20 peacekeeping and crisis management missions, led negotiations with Iran on the latter’s nuclear programme and negotiated a ceasefire to the Russia-Georgia war. However, as was brought into focus at a recent EUISS seminar, EU countries do not always share the same threat perceptions, or agree how these should be tackled.
Some European countries, such as Ireland and Austria, do not believe they face any serious ‘hard’ threats. Others fear for their territorial integrity, including the Baltics, Poland and the Czech Republic. Greeks and Cypriots worry mainly about the prospect of renewed military conflict with Turkey. So while Cyprus is still partly militarily occupied and Greek and Turkish military aircraft tail each other on a daily basis, the Viennese worry mainly about the level of burglaries in their city.
While the UK considers the threat of transnational terrorism as the most pressing threat to Europe as a whole, and a key priority to be tackled at home and abroad, most other countries feel largely unaffected. Russia is seen as a close partner to some countries, including Italy and Germany, while the Baltic states see it as an existential threat. Some member-states believe it is important to have a global outlook on security, in particular France and the UK, while others, such as Malta, believe their main security challenge is managing migration flows.
Different views also exist on how to tackle security threats. For many member-states a UN mandate is essential in order to participate in a military mission abroad, while for others, like the UK, it is only desirable. Some believe the US and NATO are cornerstones of their security (in particular the UK and the eastern countries), while others view NATO with suspicion – and resent the UK for having sided with the US during the war in Iraq. Some EU member-states have long traditions of intervention in conflicts across the world and accept the possibility of casualties within their armed forces, in particular France and the UK. Others are averse to the use of military force, most notably Germany.
Various member-states (Sweden, Austria, Finland and Ireland) have a long history of neutrality and are grappling to make their stance compatible with growing EU co-operation in security and defence (Ireland is finding it the hardest to accept EU defence co-operation. Due to public concern, it will have its military neutrality enshrined in an EU treaty for the first time if the Lisbon treaty comes into force). For their part, the UK and France are insistent on the need to develop expeditionary capabilities to allow the EU to fulfil its ambitions abroad. Some member-states, such as Sweden, have transformed their military forces, but many others have so far resisted.
In light of their very different histories, traditions and cultures, it is no mean achievement that EU countries have agreed to work together to provide peacekeeping and crisis management to conflicts zones in need, and to cooperate on wider security issues such as Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, with time the EU is likely to become further involved in security, by tackling ‘soft’ threats (such as protective measures against cyber attacks), or certain aspects of ‘hard’ threats (such as monitoring the cross-border transfer of dangerous products which could be used in chemical or biological attacks).
But member-states’ different interests and approaches limit the EU’s effectiveness as an external actor, as demonstrated by the difficulties in finding helicopters for the EU’s peacekeeping mission to Chad, the UK’s refusal to send a battlegroup to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2008, or the difficulties the EU has in agreeing a common position on Russia or energy security.
Perhaps the biggest problem for the EU is the division between its western and eastern members. While many member-states feel they cannot trust their partners to guarantee their security (within the EU or NATO), it is difficult to talk of a common security culture. If threat perceptions within eastern European countries worsened, their anxieties could define their foreign policies, hampering the EU’s work at home and abroad (and NATO). For the EU and NATO to remain credible security providers to their members, and for the EU to become a serious player in global security, European countries must overcome the current mistrust and strengthen their efforts to develop a stronger common strategic culture.
Clara Marina O'Donnell is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform
European countries have long declared their ambition to turn the EU into a global player in security – in order to tackle common threats and strengthen their voice on the global stage. But they still cannot agree on the main threats to their security or the best way to tackle them. Their views are so diverse that it is a wonder EU countries have managed to agree on any common action at all. But member-states need to strengthen their efforts to develop a common approach to security if the EU is to become a serious player.
For the past two decades, the EU has been developing a profile in foreign and security policy. It has agreed common security strategies, deployed over 20 peacekeeping and crisis management missions, led negotiations with Iran on the latter’s nuclear programme and negotiated a ceasefire to the Russia-Georgia war. However, as was brought into focus at a recent EUISS seminar, EU countries do not always share the same threat perceptions, or agree how these should be tackled.
Some European countries, such as Ireland and Austria, do not believe they face any serious ‘hard’ threats. Others fear for their territorial integrity, including the Baltics, Poland and the Czech Republic. Greeks and Cypriots worry mainly about the prospect of renewed military conflict with Turkey. So while Cyprus is still partly militarily occupied and Greek and Turkish military aircraft tail each other on a daily basis, the Viennese worry mainly about the level of burglaries in their city.
While the UK considers the threat of transnational terrorism as the most pressing threat to Europe as a whole, and a key priority to be tackled at home and abroad, most other countries feel largely unaffected. Russia is seen as a close partner to some countries, including Italy and Germany, while the Baltic states see it as an existential threat. Some member-states believe it is important to have a global outlook on security, in particular France and the UK, while others, such as Malta, believe their main security challenge is managing migration flows.
Different views also exist on how to tackle security threats. For many member-states a UN mandate is essential in order to participate in a military mission abroad, while for others, like the UK, it is only desirable. Some believe the US and NATO are cornerstones of their security (in particular the UK and the eastern countries), while others view NATO with suspicion – and resent the UK for having sided with the US during the war in Iraq. Some EU member-states have long traditions of intervention in conflicts across the world and accept the possibility of casualties within their armed forces, in particular France and the UK. Others are averse to the use of military force, most notably Germany.
Various member-states (Sweden, Austria, Finland and Ireland) have a long history of neutrality and are grappling to make their stance compatible with growing EU co-operation in security and defence (Ireland is finding it the hardest to accept EU defence co-operation. Due to public concern, it will have its military neutrality enshrined in an EU treaty for the first time if the Lisbon treaty comes into force). For their part, the UK and France are insistent on the need to develop expeditionary capabilities to allow the EU to fulfil its ambitions abroad. Some member-states, such as Sweden, have transformed their military forces, but many others have so far resisted.
In light of their very different histories, traditions and cultures, it is no mean achievement that EU countries have agreed to work together to provide peacekeeping and crisis management to conflicts zones in need, and to cooperate on wider security issues such as Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, with time the EU is likely to become further involved in security, by tackling ‘soft’ threats (such as protective measures against cyber attacks), or certain aspects of ‘hard’ threats (such as monitoring the cross-border transfer of dangerous products which could be used in chemical or biological attacks).
But member-states’ different interests and approaches limit the EU’s effectiveness as an external actor, as demonstrated by the difficulties in finding helicopters for the EU’s peacekeeping mission to Chad, the UK’s refusal to send a battlegroup to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2008, or the difficulties the EU has in agreeing a common position on Russia or energy security.
Perhaps the biggest problem for the EU is the division between its western and eastern members. While many member-states feel they cannot trust their partners to guarantee their security (within the EU or NATO), it is difficult to talk of a common security culture. If threat perceptions within eastern European countries worsened, their anxieties could define their foreign policies, hampering the EU’s work at home and abroad (and NATO). For the EU and NATO to remain credible security providers to their members, and for the EU to become a serious player in global security, European countries must overcome the current mistrust and strengthen their efforts to develop a stronger common strategic culture.
Clara Marina O'Donnell is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Carl Bildt and the cost of speaking plainly
by Charles Grant
Carl Bildt is better known throughout the world than most of his fellow EU foreign ministers – and many of the prime ministers, too. That is not only because he has held some senior jobs (prime minister of Sweden, and Balkan envoy for both the United Nations and the EU), but also because he is actively engaged in, and knowledgeable about, a wide range of international issues.
Someone with Bildt’s skills and experience should be the front-runner to become the EU’s new High Representative – in effect its foreign policy chief – if, as is likely, the Lisbon treaty is finally implemented at the end of this year. That treaty would merge the roles currently played by Javier Solana, the current High Representative, and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the commissioner for external relations, into a single post at the head of a new ‘external action service’ – an embryonic EU foreign ministry.
But Bildt’s chances of being appointed High Representative are slim. This is because he tends to say what he thinks and that is not always wise in politics or diplomacy. His frank and trenchant opinions appeal to think-tankers and journalists but not always to other foreign ministers. Some of them find his confidence and cleverness, and the length of his contact book, irritating. And sometimes he conducts his own solo diplomacy, particularly when Balkan problems hot up, which can be frustrating for the country holding the EU presidency.
I must declare an interest. Carl Bildt sat on the advisory board of the Centre for European Reform until he became Swedish foreign minister in October 2006, and still attends many CER conferences. He is very much a ‘think-tankers’ foreign minister’: he likes to argue and ask questions, and he brims with ideas. He also works very hard at his job: most weekends, this youthful-looking 60-year old is at some conference or other, debating the most pressing foreign policy issues of the day. And if he is not at a conference he is on a diplomatic mission or at a summit.
His critics view Bildt as an arrogant Mr Know-it-all. But in many ways he is modest. He takes the time to speak to people who are not ‘important’, like secretaries and conference organisers, and not all politicians do that. Furthermore, most politicians will only attend a conference if they are given a speaking slot. They go to give their speech and are not particularly interested in hearing what others have to say. But Bildt is not like that. Every six months the CER and other think-tanks organise a roundtable that brings together European and American diplomats and thinkers. Bildt always turns up, even though he seldom has a speaking slot. He sits at the back taking notes, because he is genuinely interested to hear what other experts have to say.
If Bildt was serious about running for the job of High Representative he would have manoeuvred to win the support of France and Germany. But he has not done that, with the result that both Berlin and Paris are likely to block his candidacy. Germany takes the view that the EU should maintain friendly relations with Russia. So in August 2008, when Russia invaded Georgia, the Germans disapproved of Bildt’s comparison of the Russian justification for the attack on Georgia to Adolf Hitler's rationale for invading parts of Central Europe – namely the need to protect a minority. Bildt’s comment was indeed over-the-top and unwise. In fact he has a good network of contacts inside Russia, including some of those in positions of power. Nevertheless as far as several EU governments are concerned, Bildt is simply too confrontational towards Russia.
France is an even bigger problem for Bildt. Just before the recent European elections he gave an interview to Le Figaro in which he contradicted the view of President Nicolas Sarkozy that Turkey is not in Europe. “If we judge Cyprus to be in Europe, although it is as in island along Syria's shores, it is hard not to consider that Turkey is in Europe," Bildt said. That interview made Sarkozy angry and he cancelled a visit to Stockholm. To make matters worse, Bildt does not speak French fluently.
Bildt has also been implicitly critical of Sarkozy’s protectionist rhetoric – he is a true believer in free markets, free trade and the ‘Lisbon agenda’ of economic reform. You know where you are with Bildt – he is a strong backer of human rights in authoritarian countries and he believes that the countries of Eastern Europe should be free to choose their own destinies. He is also an unstinting Atlanticist; if the decision was left to him, Sweden would join NATO. Bildt’s experience in Bosnia has made him passionate about the protection of minorities. At the end of the war in Sri Lanka, when government forces were killing many Tamil civilians, he tried to fly to Colombo to make his point to the country’s leaders. But he was refused a visa.
Many EU foreign ministers would probably prefer a High Representative in the mould of Javier Solana, the incumbent. The Spaniard’s style of operating is the opposite of Bildt’s: he avoids direct confrontations with people, preferring to build a consensus through discreet personal diplomacy. The ideal High Representative would be a figure who combined Bildt’s rigorous thinking and grand strategic vision with Solana’s subtle manner and feline operating skills. But there is probably no such person.
Charles Grant is director of the Cente for European Reform
Carl Bildt is better known throughout the world than most of his fellow EU foreign ministers – and many of the prime ministers, too. That is not only because he has held some senior jobs (prime minister of Sweden, and Balkan envoy for both the United Nations and the EU), but also because he is actively engaged in, and knowledgeable about, a wide range of international issues.
Someone with Bildt’s skills and experience should be the front-runner to become the EU’s new High Representative – in effect its foreign policy chief – if, as is likely, the Lisbon treaty is finally implemented at the end of this year. That treaty would merge the roles currently played by Javier Solana, the current High Representative, and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the commissioner for external relations, into a single post at the head of a new ‘external action service’ – an embryonic EU foreign ministry.
But Bildt’s chances of being appointed High Representative are slim. This is because he tends to say what he thinks and that is not always wise in politics or diplomacy. His frank and trenchant opinions appeal to think-tankers and journalists but not always to other foreign ministers. Some of them find his confidence and cleverness, and the length of his contact book, irritating. And sometimes he conducts his own solo diplomacy, particularly when Balkan problems hot up, which can be frustrating for the country holding the EU presidency.
I must declare an interest. Carl Bildt sat on the advisory board of the Centre for European Reform until he became Swedish foreign minister in October 2006, and still attends many CER conferences. He is very much a ‘think-tankers’ foreign minister’: he likes to argue and ask questions, and he brims with ideas. He also works very hard at his job: most weekends, this youthful-looking 60-year old is at some conference or other, debating the most pressing foreign policy issues of the day. And if he is not at a conference he is on a diplomatic mission or at a summit.
His critics view Bildt as an arrogant Mr Know-it-all. But in many ways he is modest. He takes the time to speak to people who are not ‘important’, like secretaries and conference organisers, and not all politicians do that. Furthermore, most politicians will only attend a conference if they are given a speaking slot. They go to give their speech and are not particularly interested in hearing what others have to say. But Bildt is not like that. Every six months the CER and other think-tanks organise a roundtable that brings together European and American diplomats and thinkers. Bildt always turns up, even though he seldom has a speaking slot. He sits at the back taking notes, because he is genuinely interested to hear what other experts have to say.
If Bildt was serious about running for the job of High Representative he would have manoeuvred to win the support of France and Germany. But he has not done that, with the result that both Berlin and Paris are likely to block his candidacy. Germany takes the view that the EU should maintain friendly relations with Russia. So in August 2008, when Russia invaded Georgia, the Germans disapproved of Bildt’s comparison of the Russian justification for the attack on Georgia to Adolf Hitler's rationale for invading parts of Central Europe – namely the need to protect a minority. Bildt’s comment was indeed over-the-top and unwise. In fact he has a good network of contacts inside Russia, including some of those in positions of power. Nevertheless as far as several EU governments are concerned, Bildt is simply too confrontational towards Russia.
France is an even bigger problem for Bildt. Just before the recent European elections he gave an interview to Le Figaro in which he contradicted the view of President Nicolas Sarkozy that Turkey is not in Europe. “If we judge Cyprus to be in Europe, although it is as in island along Syria's shores, it is hard not to consider that Turkey is in Europe," Bildt said. That interview made Sarkozy angry and he cancelled a visit to Stockholm. To make matters worse, Bildt does not speak French fluently.
Bildt has also been implicitly critical of Sarkozy’s protectionist rhetoric – he is a true believer in free markets, free trade and the ‘Lisbon agenda’ of economic reform. You know where you are with Bildt – he is a strong backer of human rights in authoritarian countries and he believes that the countries of Eastern Europe should be free to choose their own destinies. He is also an unstinting Atlanticist; if the decision was left to him, Sweden would join NATO. Bildt’s experience in Bosnia has made him passionate about the protection of minorities. At the end of the war in Sri Lanka, when government forces were killing many Tamil civilians, he tried to fly to Colombo to make his point to the country’s leaders. But he was refused a visa.
Many EU foreign ministers would probably prefer a High Representative in the mould of Javier Solana, the incumbent. The Spaniard’s style of operating is the opposite of Bildt’s: he avoids direct confrontations with people, preferring to build a consensus through discreet personal diplomacy. The ideal High Representative would be a figure who combined Bildt’s rigorous thinking and grand strategic vision with Solana’s subtle manner and feline operating skills. But there is probably no such person.
Charles Grant is director of the Cente for European Reform
Friday, July 10, 2009
Iran, elections, and nuclear weapons
by Tomas Valasek
What the future holds for Iran's theocratic regime is hard to read. True, the government has ensured its own survival by suppressing last month's protests there with brutal force. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will remain in power despite a contested election. But the authority of the regime has suffered. The president has lost legitimacy in the eyes of millions of Iranians. The country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who urged force against the protestors, has lost much of his popularity. The events of June 2009 could turn out to be the beginning of a deeper challenge to the Islamic republic: Iran observers point out that the country's 1979 revolution was preceded by a long build up of low-level agitation.
What is clear is that the violence around the presidential election bodes ill for western diplomacy to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, in at least two ways. First, Barack Obama will be under pressure to rethink the offer of 'engagement grounded in mutual respect', which he extended to the government in Iran in April 2009. On the other hand, the US will now find it easier to convince the Europeans to toughen the sanctions regime on Iran, thanks to Tehran's heavy-handiness.
Iran's nuclear programme is run directly by the country's supreme leader, not the president. The recent political turmoil will have had little effect on it. Even if the challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi had won the presidency, Iran would have almost certainly continued to enrich uranium. Mousavi said during the campaign that he would not abandon "Iran's right to nuclear technology". Some Iran watchers have speculated that Mousavi would build enrichment facilities but not nuclear weapons, lest he put Iran in even deeper isolation. In reality, the president's views have little bearing on the nature of the nuclear project.
The West has long been worried that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, or at least acquiring all the necessary ingredients. However the more immediate concern now is the prospect of an Israeli military strike on Iran. US officials say they fear that Israel may try to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities this autumn, before Russia delivers a batch of modern anti-aircraft missiles recently purchased by the Iranian regime.
To prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – and to keep Israel from attacking – Barack Obama launched a new diplomatic push in April 2009. He has promised to join the European-led talks with the government in Tehran. US negotiators are rumoured to be considering dropping a key western condition for the talks, namely that Iran shut down its enrichment programme before the negotiations start. Obama also recorded a video statement to the Iranian people, in which he has offered a partnership between the US and Iran. The idea was to win the Iranian regime's goodwill by showing it the respect it craves, and to spur the Iranians into pressuring the leadership to pursue a less confrontational line with the US.
The second pillar of the US strategy has worked very well. While most Iranians support the nuclear programme, many of the young ones are increasingly frustrated with the country's pariah status. Mir Hossein Mousavi, surged ahead in the polls after he accused president Ahmadinejad of leading Iran into the 'indignity' of international isolation.
But Mousavi failed to win – or was prevented from winning – and the post-election protests have undermined the overall strategy. Iran cannot negotiate because the government is 'too busy locking people up', said one EU official working on the Iran dossier. If Ahmadinejad and Khamenei do fully consolidate power, this will create another headache for the West: how can Barack Obama speak to a regime which has likely rigged elections and brutally suppressed democratic protests? Obama is already under fire for being "soft" and "naive" regarding Iran. Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently urged him to take a harsher line, noting that Iran's nuclear programme was progressing whatever the domestic situation there. Even if Obama starts talks with Tehran, he may feel compelled to satisfy Mullen, and others, by employing tougher rethoric. This would likely cause the talks to collapse prematurely.
If, as is likely, engagement does not generate a generous response from Tehran, the US will want to tighten existing sanctions on Iran. Some governments like the German and Italian ones, have been known to be sceptical about the need for further sanctions; the Italian foreign minister published an article in early June calling for the West to be nice to Iran. But the violence in Tehran has made the doubters more inclined to penalise the Iranian government, EU officials say.
However, fresh UN sanctions may be blocked by Russia, and possibly China. Both are members of the UN Security Council and oppose a harsher line on Iran. If the US and the EU apply unilateral sanctions, these will be less effective. Meanwhile, Israel may decide to attack, or Iran may race to acquire a full nuclear weapon. So the furore over Iran's presidential election – by throwing up new obstacles to diplomacy – has made the job of resolving tensions over its nuclear programme harder. That may prove the deadliest legacy of the events of the last few weeks.
Tomas Valasek is director of foreign policy and defence at the Centre for European Reform.
What the future holds for Iran's theocratic regime is hard to read. True, the government has ensured its own survival by suppressing last month's protests there with brutal force. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will remain in power despite a contested election. But the authority of the regime has suffered. The president has lost legitimacy in the eyes of millions of Iranians. The country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who urged force against the protestors, has lost much of his popularity. The events of June 2009 could turn out to be the beginning of a deeper challenge to the Islamic republic: Iran observers point out that the country's 1979 revolution was preceded by a long build up of low-level agitation.
What is clear is that the violence around the presidential election bodes ill for western diplomacy to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, in at least two ways. First, Barack Obama will be under pressure to rethink the offer of 'engagement grounded in mutual respect', which he extended to the government in Iran in April 2009. On the other hand, the US will now find it easier to convince the Europeans to toughen the sanctions regime on Iran, thanks to Tehran's heavy-handiness.
Iran's nuclear programme is run directly by the country's supreme leader, not the president. The recent political turmoil will have had little effect on it. Even if the challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi had won the presidency, Iran would have almost certainly continued to enrich uranium. Mousavi said during the campaign that he would not abandon "Iran's right to nuclear technology". Some Iran watchers have speculated that Mousavi would build enrichment facilities but not nuclear weapons, lest he put Iran in even deeper isolation. In reality, the president's views have little bearing on the nature of the nuclear project.
The West has long been worried that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, or at least acquiring all the necessary ingredients. However the more immediate concern now is the prospect of an Israeli military strike on Iran. US officials say they fear that Israel may try to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities this autumn, before Russia delivers a batch of modern anti-aircraft missiles recently purchased by the Iranian regime.
To prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – and to keep Israel from attacking – Barack Obama launched a new diplomatic push in April 2009. He has promised to join the European-led talks with the government in Tehran. US negotiators are rumoured to be considering dropping a key western condition for the talks, namely that Iran shut down its enrichment programme before the negotiations start. Obama also recorded a video statement to the Iranian people, in which he has offered a partnership between the US and Iran. The idea was to win the Iranian regime's goodwill by showing it the respect it craves, and to spur the Iranians into pressuring the leadership to pursue a less confrontational line with the US.
The second pillar of the US strategy has worked very well. While most Iranians support the nuclear programme, many of the young ones are increasingly frustrated with the country's pariah status. Mir Hossein Mousavi, surged ahead in the polls after he accused president Ahmadinejad of leading Iran into the 'indignity' of international isolation.
But Mousavi failed to win – or was prevented from winning – and the post-election protests have undermined the overall strategy. Iran cannot negotiate because the government is 'too busy locking people up', said one EU official working on the Iran dossier. If Ahmadinejad and Khamenei do fully consolidate power, this will create another headache for the West: how can Barack Obama speak to a regime which has likely rigged elections and brutally suppressed democratic protests? Obama is already under fire for being "soft" and "naive" regarding Iran. Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently urged him to take a harsher line, noting that Iran's nuclear programme was progressing whatever the domestic situation there. Even if Obama starts talks with Tehran, he may feel compelled to satisfy Mullen, and others, by employing tougher rethoric. This would likely cause the talks to collapse prematurely.
If, as is likely, engagement does not generate a generous response from Tehran, the US will want to tighten existing sanctions on Iran. Some governments like the German and Italian ones, have been known to be sceptical about the need for further sanctions; the Italian foreign minister published an article in early June calling for the West to be nice to Iran. But the violence in Tehran has made the doubters more inclined to penalise the Iranian government, EU officials say.
However, fresh UN sanctions may be blocked by Russia, and possibly China. Both are members of the UN Security Council and oppose a harsher line on Iran. If the US and the EU apply unilateral sanctions, these will be less effective. Meanwhile, Israel may decide to attack, or Iran may race to acquire a full nuclear weapon. So the furore over Iran's presidential election – by throwing up new obstacles to diplomacy – has made the job of resolving tensions over its nuclear programme harder. That may prove the deadliest legacy of the events of the last few weeks.
Tomas Valasek is director of foreign policy and defence at the Centre for European Reform.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Russia: A tale of two crises
by Katinka Barysch
Russia’s economy has been hit hard by a triple whammy of capital outflows, collapsing oil prices and falling global demand. In the first three months of the year, output was down by 10 per cent compared with a year earlier. The retail boom that had fuelled growth in recent years has turned into a slump. The output of the manufacturing sector is contracting at a rate of over 20 per cent year on year. Construction is in deep recession. The current-account surplus has melted away.
However, the latest economic indicators suggest that the economic contraction is at least slowing. The oil price has recovered to over $70 a barrel. Surveys show that credit conditions are easing and managers are a bit less gloomy. Capital outflows have slowed. So has inflation, which has allowed the central bank to finally cut rates. International reserves, although down from 2008 peaks, still stand at $410 billion. The government is making plans for recapitalising some of the country’s banks.
Investors still remember the rapid, V-shaped recovery that followed Russia’s last financial crash in 1998. In the following nine years, the Russian economy grew by an average of 7 per cent a year. Will Russia be able to pull out of trouble this quickly again?
On the plus side, Russia’s government finances are in incomparably better shape than they were ten years ago. Back then, it was short-term public borrowing that triggered the crisis, ultimately forcing the government into default. Since then, the budget has shown a healthy surplus, allowing the government to stash away $140 billion in a reserve fund. So although revenue has collapsed (half of it comes from the oil and gas sector), the authorities have room for fiscal manoeuvre. Public spending will also have a bigger impact on the economy, simply because the Russian state is much bigger than it used to be (federal budget revenue was 13 per cent of GDP back in 1998, today it is over 20 per cent, according to Erik Berglőf from the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development).
Also, in 1998 the Russian economy had only just returned to growth, following years of severe post-transition recession. Now, after ten years of uninterrupted expansion, fewer Russians are living hand to mouth and many should be able to draw on savings to tide them over the most difficult period.
However, there are also reasons to expect the current crisis to be more severe and drawn-out. The 1998 crisis mainly affected emerging markets. This time, the recession is global, which means that no country will be able to export its way out of trouble. (Russia exports mainly raw materials, as well as some metals, timber and heavy industrial goods. But it is the collapse in demand for non-oil exports, such as steel products, that is causing the most trouble since these are often produced in isolated one-industry towns.)
Depressed global demand also means that the rally in oil prices is likely to be short-lived. After 1998, the oil price climbed steadily from around $10 a barrel to a peak of $140 last summer. Many forecasters expect oil prices to linger around $50-60 this year and next – not disastrously low but not enough to fuel a strong Russian recovery either. Moreover, Russia’s economy today is much more dependent on oil and gas sales than it was in 1998. Back then, oil and gas sales accounted for 44 per cent of export revenue, now the share is over two-thirds. Many manufacturing and services industries are directly or indirectly linked to the resource sector.
Perhaps the biggest difference lies in the role of banking and borrowing. Although both crises originated in the financial sector, in 1998 this sector was still so small that its collapse barely affected the wider economy. Then, credit to firms and households stood at 9 per cent of GDP; today it is over 40 per cent.
In recent years, much more of that borrowing came from abroad so the drying up of global liquidity in 2008 hit Russia hard. The World Bank estimates that in 1998-99, the reversal in foreign capital flows amounted to less than 2 per cent of Russian GDP. In 2008-09, it was close to 12 per cent of GDP.
Domestic banks cannot take up the slack because a rising share of bad loans will constrain their ability to start lending again. The health of the banking sector is difficult to assess. Official numbers show that the share of non-performing loans has climbed from 1 per cent at the start of the year to 4 per cent today. Given the sorry state of Russian industries, this is still an implausibly low number. Independent assessments put the share of bad loans at anywhere between 10 and 20 per cent.
As a result of these factors, the Russian economy is likely to take longer to come out if its slump than it did ten years ago. The World Bank predicts a contraction of almost 8 per cent this year, but some forecasters thinks even this is too optimistic and they question whether Russia will be able to make even timid recovery in 2010. Most economists agree that Russia stands little or no chance of returning to the 7-8 per cent growth rate that it enjoyed before the crisis struck
The big question is what the changed growth outlook will mean for Russia’s internal stability and the government’s willingness to implement economic reforms. In 1998 Russians expected very little from their leaders in Moscow. They were positively surprised when the Putin administration after 2000 started to implement some useful reforms, such as simplifying the tax system and cleaning up regulations.
Since then, Putin’s muscular rhetoric, combined with Alexei Kudrin’s sound macro-economic management, have raised expectations. The people that took to the streets in Russian cities in recent weeks and months did not so much protest against government policies as demand government help. The government could react either by getting serious about modernising and diversifying the economy. Or it could resort to economic nationalism and populist spending increases. So far, there is more evidence of the latter than the former. Prime Minister Putin has personally instructed companies to clear wage arrears and criticised shops for overcharging struggling families. On June 29th, he told the managers of Russia’s biggest banks that they should not go on summer holiday before they have significantly increased lending to the corporate sector (he even gave them a numerical target of $16 billion). With this kind of crises response, Russia’s growth prospects could end up being lower not only in the short term, but for many years to come.
Katinka Barysch is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.
Russia’s economy has been hit hard by a triple whammy of capital outflows, collapsing oil prices and falling global demand. In the first three months of the year, output was down by 10 per cent compared with a year earlier. The retail boom that had fuelled growth in recent years has turned into a slump. The output of the manufacturing sector is contracting at a rate of over 20 per cent year on year. Construction is in deep recession. The current-account surplus has melted away.
However, the latest economic indicators suggest that the economic contraction is at least slowing. The oil price has recovered to over $70 a barrel. Surveys show that credit conditions are easing and managers are a bit less gloomy. Capital outflows have slowed. So has inflation, which has allowed the central bank to finally cut rates. International reserves, although down from 2008 peaks, still stand at $410 billion. The government is making plans for recapitalising some of the country’s banks.
Investors still remember the rapid, V-shaped recovery that followed Russia’s last financial crash in 1998. In the following nine years, the Russian economy grew by an average of 7 per cent a year. Will Russia be able to pull out of trouble this quickly again?
On the plus side, Russia’s government finances are in incomparably better shape than they were ten years ago. Back then, it was short-term public borrowing that triggered the crisis, ultimately forcing the government into default. Since then, the budget has shown a healthy surplus, allowing the government to stash away $140 billion in a reserve fund. So although revenue has collapsed (half of it comes from the oil and gas sector), the authorities have room for fiscal manoeuvre. Public spending will also have a bigger impact on the economy, simply because the Russian state is much bigger than it used to be (federal budget revenue was 13 per cent of GDP back in 1998, today it is over 20 per cent, according to Erik Berglőf from the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development).
Also, in 1998 the Russian economy had only just returned to growth, following years of severe post-transition recession. Now, after ten years of uninterrupted expansion, fewer Russians are living hand to mouth and many should be able to draw on savings to tide them over the most difficult period.
However, there are also reasons to expect the current crisis to be more severe and drawn-out. The 1998 crisis mainly affected emerging markets. This time, the recession is global, which means that no country will be able to export its way out of trouble. (Russia exports mainly raw materials, as well as some metals, timber and heavy industrial goods. But it is the collapse in demand for non-oil exports, such as steel products, that is causing the most trouble since these are often produced in isolated one-industry towns.)
Depressed global demand also means that the rally in oil prices is likely to be short-lived. After 1998, the oil price climbed steadily from around $10 a barrel to a peak of $140 last summer. Many forecasters expect oil prices to linger around $50-60 this year and next – not disastrously low but not enough to fuel a strong Russian recovery either. Moreover, Russia’s economy today is much more dependent on oil and gas sales than it was in 1998. Back then, oil and gas sales accounted for 44 per cent of export revenue, now the share is over two-thirds. Many manufacturing and services industries are directly or indirectly linked to the resource sector.
Perhaps the biggest difference lies in the role of banking and borrowing. Although both crises originated in the financial sector, in 1998 this sector was still so small that its collapse barely affected the wider economy. Then, credit to firms and households stood at 9 per cent of GDP; today it is over 40 per cent.
In recent years, much more of that borrowing came from abroad so the drying up of global liquidity in 2008 hit Russia hard. The World Bank estimates that in 1998-99, the reversal in foreign capital flows amounted to less than 2 per cent of Russian GDP. In 2008-09, it was close to 12 per cent of GDP.
Domestic banks cannot take up the slack because a rising share of bad loans will constrain their ability to start lending again. The health of the banking sector is difficult to assess. Official numbers show that the share of non-performing loans has climbed from 1 per cent at the start of the year to 4 per cent today. Given the sorry state of Russian industries, this is still an implausibly low number. Independent assessments put the share of bad loans at anywhere between 10 and 20 per cent.
As a result of these factors, the Russian economy is likely to take longer to come out if its slump than it did ten years ago. The World Bank predicts a contraction of almost 8 per cent this year, but some forecasters thinks even this is too optimistic and they question whether Russia will be able to make even timid recovery in 2010. Most economists agree that Russia stands little or no chance of returning to the 7-8 per cent growth rate that it enjoyed before the crisis struck
The big question is what the changed growth outlook will mean for Russia’s internal stability and the government’s willingness to implement economic reforms. In 1998 Russians expected very little from their leaders in Moscow. They were positively surprised when the Putin administration after 2000 started to implement some useful reforms, such as simplifying the tax system and cleaning up regulations.
Since then, Putin’s muscular rhetoric, combined with Alexei Kudrin’s sound macro-economic management, have raised expectations. The people that took to the streets in Russian cities in recent weeks and months did not so much protest against government policies as demand government help. The government could react either by getting serious about modernising and diversifying the economy. Or it could resort to economic nationalism and populist spending increases. So far, there is more evidence of the latter than the former. Prime Minister Putin has personally instructed companies to clear wage arrears and criticised shops for overcharging struggling families. On June 29th, he told the managers of Russia’s biggest banks that they should not go on summer holiday before they have significantly increased lending to the corporate sector (he even gave them a numerical target of $16 billion). With this kind of crises response, Russia’s growth prospects could end up being lower not only in the short term, but for many years to come.
Katinka Barysch is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Britain’s eurosceptics need to come clean
by Simon Tilford
Britain’s media and political class have a right to be sceptical about the EU, even hostile to it. But they also have an obligation to be honest about the economic implications of a retreat from full membership of the Union. Their failure to do so is dishonest and poses a serious risk to Britain’s prosperity. A newly ‘emancipated’ Britain would not remain part of the EU’s single market, at least not on the terms the eurosceptics claim. In fact, a retreat would achieve nothing but impotence. It would not reduce the regulatory and compliance costs facing UK business and it would end our ability to shape the EU’s single market.
Those calling for a renegotiation of the EU’s Lisbon treaty, or of the UK’s relationship with the EU more generally, ignore that this would inevitably lead to at best semi-detached membership of the EU, and more probably divorce. Eurosceptics appear to believe that a Britain outside the EU would remain part of the single market, but that it would be freed from the need to abide by EU regulation. In short, Britain could enjoy all the benefits of access to the single market but none of the costs.
This is incoherent. To remain a full member of the single market, British firms would have to abide by all its rules and regulations. A Britain that opted to withdraw from the EU would have no say over the drawing up of those rules and regulations. British interests would not be represented in Brussels and Britain would not be able to stymie regulatory drives that threaten UK prosperity. In short, British business would experience the worst of all worlds.
British manufacturers might not suffer too badly. Britain would have no say over EU product standards, which British firms would nevertheless have to comply with in order to sell their products in the EU. Nor would the costs of producing for the UK market fall – it would make no sense for British firms to make one set of products for the British market and another for the rest of Europe. But merchandise markets are at least already open. The real threat for the UK lies elsewhere.
Britain is by far the biggest exporter of commercial services in the EU. As such, it has a very strong interest in opening markets for those services. But a Britain that has no say over the future of the single market will not be able to use its influence to push for service sector liberalisation. It will not be able to challenge the self-serving idea put forward by other member-states that a single market in merchandise goods is one thing, but open markets in services are somehow beyond the pale. Nor will it be able to ensure that regulation of service industries is not inimical to the interests of British business. This would be a major own-goal.
One only has to look at the financial services industry to see the risks. If British-based providers of financial services wanted to do business in the single market, they would have to abide by whatever regulations the rest of the EU dreamt up. These would certainly be more restrictive in the absence of British involvement. At a time when other EU governments see an opportunity to cut London down to size, would it really make sense to be a bystander? How would Britain thwart the rather heavy-handed attack on the private equity and hedge fund industries operating in the EU if it had no seat at the table?
Britain needs to step up its involvement in the EU, not leave the playing field in a huff. It needs to strive to ensure that EU financial regulation is – as far as possible – proportionate and reconcilable with the UK approach. More generally, it needs to make common cause with other economically liberal member-states to ensure that the EU evolves in a direction that serves British interests.
Britain’s conversation about its relationship with the EU is devoid of the pragmatism and empiricism with which it is traditionally associated. Some British eurosceptics genuinely believe that the UK can have its cake and eat it. That it could reduce the cost of EU membership while retaining all the existing and potential benefits. Others know exactly what they are doing. Their ultimate objective is for Britain to withdraw from the EU. This is a perfectly defensible aim, but those for whom this is the objective need to explain how it would be in the UK’s strategic and commercial interests.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.
Britain’s media and political class have a right to be sceptical about the EU, even hostile to it. But they also have an obligation to be honest about the economic implications of a retreat from full membership of the Union. Their failure to do so is dishonest and poses a serious risk to Britain’s prosperity. A newly ‘emancipated’ Britain would not remain part of the EU’s single market, at least not on the terms the eurosceptics claim. In fact, a retreat would achieve nothing but impotence. It would not reduce the regulatory and compliance costs facing UK business and it would end our ability to shape the EU’s single market.
Those calling for a renegotiation of the EU’s Lisbon treaty, or of the UK’s relationship with the EU more generally, ignore that this would inevitably lead to at best semi-detached membership of the EU, and more probably divorce. Eurosceptics appear to believe that a Britain outside the EU would remain part of the single market, but that it would be freed from the need to abide by EU regulation. In short, Britain could enjoy all the benefits of access to the single market but none of the costs.
This is incoherent. To remain a full member of the single market, British firms would have to abide by all its rules and regulations. A Britain that opted to withdraw from the EU would have no say over the drawing up of those rules and regulations. British interests would not be represented in Brussels and Britain would not be able to stymie regulatory drives that threaten UK prosperity. In short, British business would experience the worst of all worlds.
British manufacturers might not suffer too badly. Britain would have no say over EU product standards, which British firms would nevertheless have to comply with in order to sell their products in the EU. Nor would the costs of producing for the UK market fall – it would make no sense for British firms to make one set of products for the British market and another for the rest of Europe. But merchandise markets are at least already open. The real threat for the UK lies elsewhere.
Britain is by far the biggest exporter of commercial services in the EU. As such, it has a very strong interest in opening markets for those services. But a Britain that has no say over the future of the single market will not be able to use its influence to push for service sector liberalisation. It will not be able to challenge the self-serving idea put forward by other member-states that a single market in merchandise goods is one thing, but open markets in services are somehow beyond the pale. Nor will it be able to ensure that regulation of service industries is not inimical to the interests of British business. This would be a major own-goal.
One only has to look at the financial services industry to see the risks. If British-based providers of financial services wanted to do business in the single market, they would have to abide by whatever regulations the rest of the EU dreamt up. These would certainly be more restrictive in the absence of British involvement. At a time when other EU governments see an opportunity to cut London down to size, would it really make sense to be a bystander? How would Britain thwart the rather heavy-handed attack on the private equity and hedge fund industries operating in the EU if it had no seat at the table?
Britain needs to step up its involvement in the EU, not leave the playing field in a huff. It needs to strive to ensure that EU financial regulation is – as far as possible – proportionate and reconcilable with the UK approach. More generally, it needs to make common cause with other economically liberal member-states to ensure that the EU evolves in a direction that serves British interests.
Britain’s conversation about its relationship with the EU is devoid of the pragmatism and empiricism with which it is traditionally associated. Some British eurosceptics genuinely believe that the UK can have its cake and eat it. That it could reduce the cost of EU membership while retaining all the existing and potential benefits. Others know exactly what they are doing. Their ultimate objective is for Britain to withdraw from the EU. This is a perfectly defensible aim, but those for whom this is the objective need to explain how it would be in the UK’s strategic and commercial interests.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Can Russia contribute to global governance?
by Charles Grant
Like the US, China and India, Russia has never been a big enthusiast for multilateral global governance. When the Russians believe that working through multilateral institutions will suit their interests, they will do so. But Russia’s history, size and traditions make it sceptical of multilateralism. Only with great reluctance did then President Vladimir Putin sign the Kyoto protocol on climate change – when he realised that Russia would benefit financially through the sale of unused carbon allowances.
Russia has never shown a lot of interest in multilateral institutions, other than the privileged clubs it is a member of, such as the G8 and the UN Security Council (UNSC). Presidents Yeltsin and Putin have had similar views on global governance, both preferring to talk of multipolarity rather than multilateralism.
As a G8 member, Russia has not been in favour of broadening the membership to include countries like China. But now that the G20 has become an important group, in some ways replacing the G8, Russia willingly takes part. Russia evidently likes the UNSC, being one of five veto-wielding members. But it has shown less interest in the UN as a whole and stayed on the sidelines during the discussion of UN reform at the end of Kofi Annan’s tenure as UN secretary-general. When Russia does take part in global bodies, it often seems more interested in the status of membership than in active participation.
Russia is ambiguous on whether it wants to join the World Trade Organisation – its membership talks with the WTO have dragged on since 1993. Earlier this month Russian trade officials told EU negotiators that they hoped to join the WTO this year – but then Prime Minister Putin said that Russia would want to join only as part of a grouping with Belarus and Kazakhstan. That is likely to delay membership.
Russia is more comfortable with regional organisations than global bodies, perhaps because it can play a leading role in them. It likes the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, which links a number of former Soviet countries, and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, which brings together most of the Central Asian countries and is dominated by Russia and China. There has been talk in the Kremlin of a ‘gas OPEC’, hooking together Russia, Iran and other producers such as Turkmenistan.
Russia strongly dislikes NATO for several reasons: the US leads the alliance, Russia believes the West would not allow it to join, and NATO’s expansion symbolises Russia’s strategic retreat since the Cold War. In recent years Moscow has taken against the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, whose observers have criticised the conduct of elections in former Soviet states. That is one reason why President Dmitri Medvedev came up with the idea of ‘a new European security architecture’ last year. Medvedev has said this should bring together Russia, the US, European countries and European security organisations. But his government has not yet produced any specific proposals.
The economic crisis is spurring governments around the world to think seriously about reform of global governance. For example the membership of the Financial Stability Forum is being broadened to include the leading developing economies. The IMF and World Bank are preparing for another round of reform. The effort to combat climate change is likely to lead to new global institutions. Yet Russia has been reluctant to put forward its own proposals on global governance. Why?
Russian foreign policy is hyper-realist. Russian diplomats tend to believe that countries are most likely to achieve their objectives through being tough and unyielding rather than by compromising or working things out in international organisations. Their worldview focuses on power rather than rules. It is natural for large and strong countries to be realist; it tends to be smaller and weaker states that see multilateral institutions as a bulwark against bullying by the powerful. And perhaps Russia’s difficult history – it has never had defined frontiers and has usually got on badly with its neighbours – has encouraged the realism.
The fact that Russia is big makes it reluctant to cede much authority to multilateral bodies. For in international organisations small countries can wield disproportionate influence. One thing that Russian diplomats find infuriating about the EU is that small countries can veto its decisions – for a while Lithuania blocked the negotiation of an EU-Russia trade agreement. Tiny Georgia could, if it really insisted, stop Russia joining the WTO. Seeing itself as a great power, Russia has – ever since the Congress of Vienna, almost two hundred years ago – liked the idea of a concert of powers. Thus it enjoys its role in the ‘quartet’ that is supposed to handle the Middle East peace process: Russia sits alongside the US, the UN and the EU.
Russians should rethink their scepticism towards multilateral institutions. The Russian economy is globalising. Sberbank’s recent purchase of a major stake in General Motors Europe is just one indication of this trend. Gazprom is buying energy infrastructure in many EU member-states. Russia’s leading metals companies are building global networks. The long-term prosperity of the top Russian firms depends on their buying companies and raising money in the world’s major financial centres.
Russia is developing global economic interests and will need to defend them. This is best done through strong multilateral institutions. If Russia joined the WTO it would be harder for other countries to impose anti-dumping duties on Russian exports. As a leading exporter of energy, Russia has an interest in joining the International Energy Agency, and helping it to develop into a body that can smooth out volatility in oil and gas prices. Russia should also take more interest in the future of the IMF and the World Bank, and in the emerging institutional framework for regulating global financial markets.
The Europeans – who, unlike the Russians, Indians, Chinese and Americans are instinctively multilateralist – should encourage the Russians to view multilateral institutions as a tool for promoting their national interests. The WTO is the prime example of an organisation that would deliver tangible benefits to Russia, and the EU – as Russia’s biggest trading partner – should urge the Russians to made up their minds to join it.
Charles Grant is director of the Centre for European Reform.
Like the US, China and India, Russia has never been a big enthusiast for multilateral global governance. When the Russians believe that working through multilateral institutions will suit their interests, they will do so. But Russia’s history, size and traditions make it sceptical of multilateralism. Only with great reluctance did then President Vladimir Putin sign the Kyoto protocol on climate change – when he realised that Russia would benefit financially through the sale of unused carbon allowances.
Russia has never shown a lot of interest in multilateral institutions, other than the privileged clubs it is a member of, such as the G8 and the UN Security Council (UNSC). Presidents Yeltsin and Putin have had similar views on global governance, both preferring to talk of multipolarity rather than multilateralism.
As a G8 member, Russia has not been in favour of broadening the membership to include countries like China. But now that the G20 has become an important group, in some ways replacing the G8, Russia willingly takes part. Russia evidently likes the UNSC, being one of five veto-wielding members. But it has shown less interest in the UN as a whole and stayed on the sidelines during the discussion of UN reform at the end of Kofi Annan’s tenure as UN secretary-general. When Russia does take part in global bodies, it often seems more interested in the status of membership than in active participation.
Russia is ambiguous on whether it wants to join the World Trade Organisation – its membership talks with the WTO have dragged on since 1993. Earlier this month Russian trade officials told EU negotiators that they hoped to join the WTO this year – but then Prime Minister Putin said that Russia would want to join only as part of a grouping with Belarus and Kazakhstan. That is likely to delay membership.
Russia is more comfortable with regional organisations than global bodies, perhaps because it can play a leading role in them. It likes the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, which links a number of former Soviet countries, and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, which brings together most of the Central Asian countries and is dominated by Russia and China. There has been talk in the Kremlin of a ‘gas OPEC’, hooking together Russia, Iran and other producers such as Turkmenistan.
Russia strongly dislikes NATO for several reasons: the US leads the alliance, Russia believes the West would not allow it to join, and NATO’s expansion symbolises Russia’s strategic retreat since the Cold War. In recent years Moscow has taken against the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, whose observers have criticised the conduct of elections in former Soviet states. That is one reason why President Dmitri Medvedev came up with the idea of ‘a new European security architecture’ last year. Medvedev has said this should bring together Russia, the US, European countries and European security organisations. But his government has not yet produced any specific proposals.
The economic crisis is spurring governments around the world to think seriously about reform of global governance. For example the membership of the Financial Stability Forum is being broadened to include the leading developing economies. The IMF and World Bank are preparing for another round of reform. The effort to combat climate change is likely to lead to new global institutions. Yet Russia has been reluctant to put forward its own proposals on global governance. Why?
Russian foreign policy is hyper-realist. Russian diplomats tend to believe that countries are most likely to achieve their objectives through being tough and unyielding rather than by compromising or working things out in international organisations. Their worldview focuses on power rather than rules. It is natural for large and strong countries to be realist; it tends to be smaller and weaker states that see multilateral institutions as a bulwark against bullying by the powerful. And perhaps Russia’s difficult history – it has never had defined frontiers and has usually got on badly with its neighbours – has encouraged the realism.
The fact that Russia is big makes it reluctant to cede much authority to multilateral bodies. For in international organisations small countries can wield disproportionate influence. One thing that Russian diplomats find infuriating about the EU is that small countries can veto its decisions – for a while Lithuania blocked the negotiation of an EU-Russia trade agreement. Tiny Georgia could, if it really insisted, stop Russia joining the WTO. Seeing itself as a great power, Russia has – ever since the Congress of Vienna, almost two hundred years ago – liked the idea of a concert of powers. Thus it enjoys its role in the ‘quartet’ that is supposed to handle the Middle East peace process: Russia sits alongside the US, the UN and the EU.
Russians should rethink their scepticism towards multilateral institutions. The Russian economy is globalising. Sberbank’s recent purchase of a major stake in General Motors Europe is just one indication of this trend. Gazprom is buying energy infrastructure in many EU member-states. Russia’s leading metals companies are building global networks. The long-term prosperity of the top Russian firms depends on their buying companies and raising money in the world’s major financial centres.
Russia is developing global economic interests and will need to defend them. This is best done through strong multilateral institutions. If Russia joined the WTO it would be harder for other countries to impose anti-dumping duties on Russian exports. As a leading exporter of energy, Russia has an interest in joining the International Energy Agency, and helping it to develop into a body that can smooth out volatility in oil and gas prices. Russia should also take more interest in the future of the IMF and the World Bank, and in the emerging institutional framework for regulating global financial markets.
The Europeans – who, unlike the Russians, Indians, Chinese and Americans are instinctively multilateralist – should encourage the Russians to view multilateral institutions as a tool for promoting their national interests. The WTO is the prime example of an organisation that would deliver tangible benefits to Russia, and the EU – as Russia’s biggest trading partner – should urge the Russians to made up their minds to join it.
Charles Grant is director of the Centre for European Reform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)