Sarkozy Speech in Le Havre

Dear readers,

As you are probably aware of, if you have followed this blog from the beginning (poor you), I am interested in maritime transport, from a professional point of view. I have worked in various positions for maritime companies or suppliers and I am still currently employed by a container shipping line.

So I had quite some expectations about the much touted new French policy regarding the sea and especially ports. This has been engaged quite massively since Nicolas Sarkozy became President (although in all honesty, his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had largely began in the same direction). Anyway, last week, during a visit to Le Havre harbor, Nicolas Sarkozy made a rather long speech summarizing the efforts already engaged and defining priorities and concrete actions for the future. As you can imagine, I read it with attention.

First, I'd like to say that I never was a fan of Mister Sarkozy. I didn't vote for him in the last elections and I have no particular sympathy for him neither for his party. He is in general way too conservative for me, focusing largely on security rather than justice, business rather than people and image rather than content. However, I always decided to keep an open mind regarding specific policies, and give him the benefit of the doubt. I have to admit that I have been rather well surprised by this Le Havre speech. As a note, please remember that this policy (apart from a tangential exception) left aside anything related to the French Navy and defense in general. Such topics have been touched in other speeches and documents, unfortunately not to my liking either.

But for the port policy, I must say, Mister Sarkozy had it right. After a short descriptive of the current state of affairs (abysmal, as everyone in the field knows), the French President noted that France has a massive maritime potential, be it for trade (ports, shipping lines, shipping routes and other intermodal potential) fish resources, mineral resources and of course energy and science. He also noted that such a potential was either unexploited, poorly exploited or (in the case of fisheries) exploited in an unsustainable way. This is something that has been said by specialists and scientists for about twenty years, but I have to remind the reader that it is the absolute first time, to my knowledge, that it is admitted at such a high level in France.

So what about the solutions. Well, and that's where it becomes interesting, Mister Sarkozy went in quite some details... at least apparently. First he noted that Paris had to be better linked to Le Havre (its natural entry port) and that a TGV (high speed train) would be build for this. This annoyed me prodigiously. Of course, a TGV is a nice piece of technology. However, most of the needed traffic between Le Havre and Paris is merchandise (oil, ores and mostly containers). Adding a TGV will only make the merchandise traffic more difficult by increasing congestion on the line. But the next paragraph re-insured me a bit: Sarkozy asks indeed for a dedicated merchandise rail link too, and practically ordered RFF (the rail infrastructure company in France) to stop canceling merchandise slots already reserved for freight trains. This is a major new policy in France and could do a lot to change the way freight is moved in the country. At the moment, France relies massively on trucks for transports, which is congesting the roads, polluting the environment and economically stupid.

Nicolas Sarkozy went further on the port policy which is now largely engaged. Le Havre had just finished its negotiations on port reforms (and most French ports already did so in the past months), largely transferring the crane operations and ownership to private operators, as is done in most efficient ports around the world. This much needed privatization will hopefully help improve the disastrous competitive position of French ports. Despite their advantageous location in Europe, on the Asia route, Marseille, Le Havre and Dunkirk all together are not even reaching the level of traffic of ports like Antwerp or Hamburg (not even mentioning Rotterdam, which is a league of its own). This ridiculous situation is largely due to poor public infrastructure, a culture of social conflict and the absence of decent hinterland links to serve other countries via France. But it is also the symptom of a lack of interest in France for its ports and the maritime world in general. This seems to have changed with Jacques Chirac a bit (maybe via his personal links with CMA CGM and Perrigault) but took a new dimension with Sarkozy.

To my surprise, he even mentioned inter-modality, container traffic, train issues, port comparisons, trade routes and so on. Obviously, someone briefed him extensively and successfully on the question. I hope this is more than just words and will translate in actual policies and investments. I wouldn't hold my breath too much though. The "little Nicolas", as he is sometimes dubbed by comics, is used to big media appearances followed by very little or no realizations. But again, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Interestingly enough (and in a domain where I am much less proficient, I am afraid), he mentioned other aspects of maritime policies that are new. For the first time, he refused to blindly defend French and European fisheries and claimed that conservation and exploitation of the sea should be based on sound scientific studies and not local politics (something never done by his predecessors). This is a major switch in France and might foresee other ones... maybe even for the absurd French agricultural policy imposed upon the European Union? One can dream. Sarkozy took a similar approach towards the use of the sea for mineral and energy production. Coming from such a pro-business politician, this was a surprisingly "green" speech.

All in all, if only two of the four main proposal he discussed are actually implemented, this would be enough for me to swallow my opposition to Nicolas Sarkozy. I might not like him, but I would be glad if he at last does something where so many before him never even got informed on the topic.

Mauritania election "fair"?

Dear readers,

I have been following the Mauritanian elections, both via the BBC site and the excellent analysis from The Moor Next Door. So I have been a bit surprised by Le Monde latest reaction to the very expected "victory" of putschist General Ould Abdel Aziz. Of course, Le Monde simply and factually quotes a civil servant of the Quay d'Orsay (French Foreign Office) and adds together the claims of two opposition leaders that the whole thing was a sham. But it doesn't go any further, neither qualifies or measures these claims.

I am not really surprised by the French government reaction. Ould Abdel Aziz, whether this is true or not, is seen in Mauritania and abroad as a French protégé, by Moroccan proxy. Therefore, and after the lukewarm condemnation of his putsch by the French authority, nobody was expecting France to take the side of his opponents. But I am more disappointed by Le Monde's reaction. A bit of analysis is also part of a serious newspaper's work. I know that being factual is a good thing, but not even mentioning the connection between the current winner and the usual "Françafrique" circles is a little bit light for the French evening journal.

When I compare this to the in depth analysis of every rumor in the Iranian vote, I can only say that this is unbalanced reporting... Another sad day for French journalism.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Dear readers,

If the Senate hearings of Sonia Sotomayor weren't in full proceedings, the other piece of news which would be on top of the US and not just international press would be the new Cheney scandal. Apparently, Dick Cheney would have prevented or delayed disclosure of a CIA program to send assassination teams against specific Al Qaeda targets. The whole problem is not the killings, from a legal point of view, but the hiding of the program from the Congress Intelligence Committee. I am not going down this road, because it is frankly of little interest (except if it leads to a Cheney indictment, but I am not holding my breath).

What I am more interested about are the assassinations themselves. First, a bit of irony... Since when did the CIA stop killing people? I mean the right people in the wrong place... or the other way around. ;-) I mean, what is their usefulness if they can't blow up a couple of self designated bad guys (and a bunch of civilians in the process)? You see, the problem is that the CIA switched from a traditional ground operational procedure (practised by nearly all countries and secret services on the planet, regardless of the regime) to the quasi exclusive use of drones. The unmanned aircraft went to be seen as the panacea when in need of safe removal of an annoying terrorist / freedom fighter / politician and so on. This led to the nearly daily use of MQ-1 Predator and later MQ-9 Reaper drones on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, in Yemen and in Iraq (and probably a couple of other places).

However, and apparently (if we must believe Leon Panetta, the current CIA chief), the "new" assassination program began just after 9/11. Although the CIA is covering itself by saying it was never made operational, one can legitimately have some doubts. What could have taken them eight years? I know the US intelligence community is in dire need of Middle-East specialists, Arabic speakers and so on, but still, it took less time for the NASA to put someone on the moon... And it is not like you need these guys to be in constant contact with the enemy either.

Other countries, as I mentioned, have done this for decades: the Russians had and still use special units and killers abroad, while the French have killed or attempted killing their enemies abroad, when deemed feasible. The United Kingdom SAS assassination squad became famous when they slaughtered a couple of unarmed IRA operatives in Spain in broad daylight. The Mossad revenge killing of PLO terrorists after the Munich Olympics has been made a movie. So why not the USA? I suspect there is a certain reluctance in the USA (despite the extreme violence of its society itself) to engage into what the American mentality considers dirty stuff. It's like sex on TV, swearing in children programs or showing tits at the Super Bowl: you just don't do it. After Second World War, the USA were even in the process of dismantling all their war time intelligence operations (not just the special force units), such as the OSS, before the reality of the Cold War pushed them to create the CIA.

Anyway, I personally believe that murder is always unethical. However, I consider (but I would be happy to be proven otherwise) that politics, especially international one, can not be entirely ethical. It is a sad fact of humanity that some people are such remorseless killers that they would wage war on the most peaceful states, only to make their point, kill, rape and genocide, just name it... Most of these are of the ideological type, which means there is simply no reasoning them at all. In the long term, they will get back at you. This is why most decent countries (including the liberal democracies) have used assassination as a latest resort, usually to avoid more carnage. It is not considered pretty, it is not considered honourable and neither is it considered moral. But it is a lesser evil, one you carefully plan to be able to staunchly deny it later.

I think it could have saved a lot of trouble to the USA and the entire world, if this CIA program had been implemented a bit more seriously (providing that the necessary legal information of the Congress had taken place). Instead of invading Iraq (probably the stupidest adventure ever attempted by the USA and UK) or dragging into lengthy and costly operations in Afghanistan, a series of killings, based on sound intelligence, could have improved the situation tremendously. And even if it wouldn't have helped, at least it should have been tried, before engaging in a double war with hundreds of thousands of victims on all sides.

In comparison, I will let you with this little piece of French nastiness in Pakistan. I know all parties involved have denied anything of the like, but the fact is that a couple of Pakistani admirals have been knee capped and the fact is also that the ISI has been known to play for both sides for at least 20 years. The fact is also that French services are known to absolutely always avenge their guys, a way or another. The Syrians learned it the hard way in the Bekaa in the 80's. You don't make war in tutu...

European marine defence

Dear readers,

As you probably know, Europe has no defence forces, stricto sensu, and of course even less of a navy. Of course, the European Union website will tell you otherwise, and I am aware of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). But such a policy is very deceptive in its name as well as its definition. First, it is not really as common as it says it is, and, second, it is more an intention of a policy than a real policy by itself. Let me explain.

The CFSP, or PESC in the French EU jargon, is primarily a voluntary coordination effort by member states who are not militarily neutral. It is also a prevention system and an anti-terrorism information exchange forum. But it is not a common army, and though multinational units do exist, they can not be engaged on an order from Brussels, even if it was backed by the EU Parliament. In other words, it is a nice beginning but not a real policy. There is also a generally agreed guideline on military purchase contracts, but I dare say that it does not prevent or discourage EU countries to buy military equipment without coordination with their neighbours nor does it prevent them from buying equipment outside of the Union, even if the price tag is higher.

The result we all know. While the EU has some powers in terms of economic and monetary policies, and while it certainly has a strong common environmental policy, it is looked upon with derision by other major powers. And with good reasons. There is no "big stick" to paraphrase Roosevelt, to back up the European soft words. OK, I'll give you one or two successful common missions in the Balkans and a half success in solving the Russo-Georgian war. But let's face it, the Eurocorps is a sad joke (no offence intended to its brave members, but I am sure they are as disappointed as myself about their forces), there is no EU navy or Air Force and countries like the Netherlands, Poland or the UK have absolutely no European solidarity when it comes to military spendings. They simply buy what the USA tell them to, regardless of the price or the actual need for such equipment.

Recently, I have to admit, some light seemed to show at the end of the dark tunnel of the CFSP. France led initiatives seem to be pushing in a better direction. First, under Jacques Chirac presidency, France and the UK decided to develop a new generation of aircraft carrier together. This was a major decision for both countries and the result was a common design platform for modular ships (three to be exact). Unfortunately, while the UK kept their end of the bargain and ordered their two units to host their future JSF aircrafts, France is still mulling over its decision to buy a replacement for the already shelved Clemenceau. Though it is for budget reasons, the decision of delaying the decision might in the end cost a lot more to France. This is one of the miracles of the National Accountancy system that France uses for its budget. It is a system which, unlike normal accountancy principles, counts only the current year for expenses and revenues, ignoring future expenses for the next year. It means that, technically, a measure can be taken which actually will cost more to the tax payer, but, in the short term, will weight less on the yearly budget. It's completely stupid, but, let's face it, French civil servants and politicians are not the brightest lot.

Anyway, to come back to the topic, there is one area where France is pushing in the right direction, and it is the navy. Just yesterday, France hosted an initiative aimed at gathering an EU rapid reaction force of naval units. France has allegedly the biggest navy of the EU (at least until the UK carriers are build) and would probably contribute the most to it, hence the location of the meeting. But interestingly enough, the real reason behind such an interest is the usual one: EU countries have a common enemy. It is not Russia, not Iran, not China or Syria. The common enemy disrupting vital marine supply lines is a bunch of African pirates, operating from the war torn area of Eyl, between Puntland and Somalia proper.

These strange mix of Punt mafia and Somali Islamists is motivated by greed and power and raids everything moving between the Somali barren coast and the Seychelles islands. They are disrupting a major oil and gas tanker route, as well as a container route from Asia to Europe and from the Middle-East to Europe (not counting several secondary routes to Africa). So French navy units and other EU ships have began policing the area, first as secondary operation zone for the NATO forces protecting the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and now as an operation by itself (FR). The operation had yesterday its first success, with the arrest of a dozen pirates on a boutre loaded with RPG launchers and assault riffles. They were duly delivered to Puntland coast guards who are also beginning to show their own teeth lately. We will see where all this leads. But I hope that we will see more of these operations in the future.

I also hope that European countries will eventually begin to purchase weapons, ships and vehicles together, even if I know that it is not for tomorrow...

It's NO again...

Dear readers,

So that's it! The Irish have voted against the Lisbon Treaty, the text of which should have replaced the defunct EU Constitution (that they had previously approved). The text of the treaty was more or less similar to the Constitution, only the non institutional aspects and the state symbols had been stripped from it. This was to take into account what the Dutch and French has said they didn't like (or at least what politicians had said they didn't like). All these efforts have been in vain. Obviously, the situation changed between the two series of ratification and the Irish have voted against elements completely different from the French and the Dutch ("the constitution was [supposedly] too pro-business and not social enough"). The Irish are afraid of the supposedly (again) attack against their sacrosanct neutrality, and more generally of getting their voice diluted in the new system.

The fact that both reasons (the previous ones and the current ones) are totally imaginary is irrelevant. People rarely vote for rational reasons. Mostly they vote "with their guts", for the guy who is more eloquent or demagogic (thanks to the Sin Fein...) or simply because they are angry or happy. It does not matter much. I can't help feeling betrayed, as an EU tax payer, by the ungratefulness of most Irish people. After all, they have benefited my generosity for so many years, that they could have made the effort to read the treaty and realize that what a handful populist were saying was a big pile of crap. But I am not feeling that bad against them. They have excuses, just like so many others.

Their excuse (and one major flaw of both the Constitution and the treaty) is that these texts have been discussed in closed chambers, by lawyer and specialists and are the result of tit for tat negotiations between politicians who have everything in mind but their fellow citizens interests. So maybe this time, our politicians will understand that they have to consult the people of Europe to ask them what they want. My guess is they would tell them that they want more transparency in Brussels like in the various capitals, more accountability from the politicians at all level and more democratic decisions. But of course, instead of this, they will continue the blame game: taking credit for all the good things (mostly discussed in Brussels) and blaming Europe for their own failures. I would also hope that this time, they try to create a simple text, easy to explain in layman's terms to everyone. But I know that the Danish, English and other Polish politicians will add a dozen of opt out and conditions so that the text become unreadable again and making sure it is (again rejected).

Fair enough, we have the politicians we deserve. But frankly, sometimes I despair from both the politicians and my fellow citizens... Who is the most ignorant or stupid is not always easy to find out.

The Doha agreement

Dear readers,

Like all Lebanese crisis before, the latest Beirut coup by Hizbollah has been put into a text by the Doha agreement. The reaction in the various media have been mixed, Western media (and pro-governmental Lebanese ones) underlining the failure of Lebanon and of the Lebanese Army to contain the violent assault of a sectarian armed militia against the majority of its fellow citizens. Other media (basically the ones in Teheran or their allies such as Al Manar TV) claim victory. So imagine my surprise when I read the editorial from Le Monde, French newspaper supposed to be balanced and rather pro-Arab: the article basically congratulates the Arab League members for having found a positive "solution", though a temporary one, to the Lebanese crisis. It goes as far as lauding the role of Qatar's representative who would have used to good his friendly links with Iran.

This is, excuse my French, utter bullshit. Qatar's role was certainly one of a host and must be indeed signalled. But I fail to see in which way this is a success for the Arab League. I fail to see how this would be a positive thing, even less a solution of any kind. The Doha agreement simply freezes a situation obtained by violence against the rule of law or even simple dialogue. It is a good thing, admittedly, that the various Lebanese factions reach some agreement (any agreement) through an exchange of words rather than the exchange of bullets we had been used to in the latest weeks. But in this case, the victory is all on Hizbullah's side. It got everything that it had asked: a veto right in the government (despite the fact that it does not reflects its parliamentary representation), its secret communication system and its control over Beirut airport traffic. In exchange, it does not give anything to the representation of the majority of Lebanese. To save face, the immediate election of Michel Suleiman as President is presented as a concession to the government (through a "temporary modification to the Constitution" which normally forbids the Chief of the Army to take the Presidency). But in fact this very point had always been accepted by Hizbullah (for the simple reason that Suleiman is, like Nasrallah himself, one of Syria's assets in Lebanon). The same is said of the application of the electoral law as is (1960 version), the only demand of Hizbullah that hasn't been accepted.

Let's face it, Doha is just a lesser evil to avoid another catastrophe in Lebanon. But it is not an Arab League success, it is a slap in the face of all Arabs by Iranian proxies. And it is another show of impotence for both French diplomacy (Kouchner proved once more that one can be a great humanitarian worker and an extremely lousy Foreign Minister) and for the French press. Before writing a paper, damn it, try to check your facts first!

Sarkozy and the EU - follow up

Dear readers,

Nicolas Sarkozy, the new French president, loses no opportunity to look like a fool. He had, before his election, made very clear that he was opposed to Turkey's accession to the European Union. He had even strongly supported his predecessor's idea to include into the French Constitution an article stating that before any EU enlargement (after Croatia's), French people would have to approve it by a referendum (as a constitutionalist, I strongly reject the idea of mixing levels of priority in legal texts, but that's another story).

Furthermore, he had put as a condition to any extra discussion with Turkey (such as the opening of new "accession negotiation chapters") that an EU committee would discuss enlargement rules. This was accepted by other EU members (under Greek and Cyprus pressure) and such a committee was indeed created last week. Though the UK managed to exclude from the committee powers any discussion on the final borders of Europe, Sarkozy claimed loudly in the (French) media that such powers had been indeed included. Denying the obvious can be damaging in the future, but it seems that an otherwise relatively clever Sarkozy has suddenly lost touch with reality. Of course, the fact that French people and media did lost touch with any reality a long time ago probably helps.

Now Sarkozy has another issue at hand. He wants to be seen as the President who changes things (especially things made by Jacques Chirac, his predecessor and mortal enemy). So he decided yesterday to ditch the Constitution article mentioned above and replace it by one where the President has the right to chose between a referendum and a vote by the Congress (both French Parliament Chambers gathered together). Needless to say that it is usually a lot easier to get the second right than the first. This infuriated politicians and media opposed to Turkey's EU accession. They see it as a concession to Turkey, as French MP's are globally more in favor of Turkey's accession than French citizens themselves. I truly wonder how Sarkozy is going to sell this to his party and his voters without looking like an idiot... On the other hand, he seems to have other preoccupations right now. And about this one, I have only one thing to say: the bastard! OK, I am only jealous. ;-)

Holidays

Dear readers,

I was in holidays in France for a couple of weeks. This is why there haven't been any posts lately. It was nice (though rainy). Those who wants to see the pictures can here. Mostly boring if you are not a family member, but there are nice pictures of my parents town and region.

France's President dangerous play

Dear readers,

I have ranted a lot about the USA and the UK in the past days, so I guess it is only fair enough that I turn back to my own country for once. More precisely, I would like to give a look on the first hints on France's new European policy. And, let's say it right away, it is not looking too good. France's new President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has been keen to show that he was in control and to assert himself in the first days after his elections, both at home and in international meetings. If he enjoys internally what we call in France "l'état de grâce" (a religious term describing the trust the people give in a newly elected leader), he still has to prove himself abroad. And the first appearances have been nothing less than abysmal.

I will pass on the little show at the G8 summit where our dear new President showed he couldn't really stand alcohol. It's a minor mistake and merely an embarrassing moment. Not everyone can make a Russian roll under the table. ;-) More importantly, I believe, the "petit" Nicolas has sent four first messages to the world. The first was the day of his election, when he said that France should try to rebuild links with its US ally while continuing to show its "friendly difference". Nothing wrong with this, as it might be a small inflexion from past policies, but no real novelty.

His second message has been a little more concerning. And it was also a kind of backing off from his electoral promises (probably not the last but, hey, that's politicians for you). In two occasions, he gave signs that he would abandon free market orthodoxy to avoid social unrest. The first one was its visit to Airbus, where he hinted that he could ask for a renegotiation of the reorganisation plan. I hope this does not happen. Airbus badly needs such a reorganisation if we want to keep in Europe some kind of lead over the American aerospace industry. It is not a social issue, nor really an economic one, it is more strategic. Any visionary leader (and so is Angela Merkel who accepted the plan) should see that. The second occasion was during the renegotiation for the amended European Treaty in Brussels. The only French demand was to scrap the defense of free competition by the Union. I am not particularly concerned about it. After all, there is no need to put this kind of proposal in the supranational treaties when it can more appropriately be dealt by regulations and directives. I have always been in favor of keeping organisational aspects at treaty and constitutional level and political aspects in the purely legal field. But the message sent to the world and to France European partners is worrying: Nicolas Sarkozy, self proclaimed champion of free market is backing off.

Sarkozy's third message has been to the Middle-East world as well as Europe. Our new president has said in several occasions that he wanted a clear definition of Europe's ultimate border. And he has also said he does not want to see Turkey ever entering the EU. Everybody can see he will use the first matter to block the second. This is a bad idea hidden behind a good one. Yes, there is a point in defining the future ultimate borders. Would it be for the sake of clarity, but also to send a message out. But no, Turkey should not be excluded a priori. I have said it several times, but we have treaties and engagements with Turkey that we can not negate. Furthermore, blocking Turkey is a major strategic and geopolitical mistake.

To show how dumb that is, I'll give a little example. Two groups of children are playing in a school court. One is a bit uptight, but rather nice, educated and fair play, consisting of mainly rich white boys. The other group is quite more violent, colored, poor and aggressive (it's not their fault all the way, they have been poorly educated and resent previous squabbles with the first group). There is one big boy in the middle, stronger than most of the others, but not really belonging to either group. Both groups are not fighting, but everybody knows, including the teachers, that it might happen at any moment, as it already has in the past. The big boy in the middle has asked to play with the rich ones, because he is wary about the aggressiveness and condition of the poor boys. The rich ones, at the beginning of the year have said, ok, you can play with us, but there are some conditions you have to respect. And we give you the first six months of the year to fulfill these very difficult conditions. He has to find nice cloths, treat the girls in the school with more respect, improve his marks, learn to talk better and avoid all these bad words and he has to stop beating his little brother. There is also a little marble issue with two of the smallest of the rich boys (nobody is really sure about the legitimacy of the issue, or who began it, but the two small boys are adamant it must be solved at once, despite its relatively small importance).
After 3 months, the big boy has quite improved, but suddenly, the white boys begin to make it more difficult for him. They add criteria, renegotiate the trial period length with the big boy. Suddenly, four of the white rich boys call it quit (before the end of the six months). They just say: no you don't belong to our group. Keep playing on the side. Oh, and by the way, keep away from the poor guys because they are not as good as us. What do you think the big guy will do? And who do you think will win the next fight for marbles between both kids groups? Do you think girls will get more respect from all groups after all? And do you think that it will motivate the poor kids to behave better? Well, any school kid knows the answer to these questions. Any teacher too. But not our President as it seems.


But you know what? There is a third message sent out there by our dear Sarko... He has decided lately to present France's new budget. Now remember, Sarkozy is a right wing guy, defending free market and sounder budgetary policies... Well, think again. The project of budget is showing an deficit increased to 2.4% and no return to an even balance before 2012. So long for the agreed return to a balanced budget in 2010. This is not only stupid for France (remember that this is increasing our already massive debt, one of the highest in the world), it is also a break of solidarity with other European countries in the Eurozone which are balancing their budget. Basically, we make them indirectly pay (through the common monetary policy) for our deficit too. A nicety that they will sure remember when we will really need them for something important. Solidarity is not just one way. It s always give and take, especially in international relations...