The Ukrainian governing coalition of President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is once again faced with a break-up. The crisis has arisen over differing views of Russia's action in the Caucasus. In addition, together with the pro-Russian opposition Tymoshenko's party has voted to limit the power of the president. Is this the end of the "Orange Revolution"?
With articles from the following publications:
Gazeta Wyborcza - Poland, Der Standard - Austria, Postimees - Estonia, Il Sole 24 Ore - Italy
Gazeta Wyborcza - Poland
The liberal daily Gazeta Wyborcza voices concern at the break-up of the governing coalition over the independence of democratic Ukraine: "Moscow is the only one to profit by the conflict between the politicians of the Orange Revolution. ... In the event that the democratic change which began four years ago ends in a catastrophe and a debacle for the victors of Maidan [Independence Square in Kiev], Russia will draw Ukraine back into its sphere of influence. And if that happens it will then replace them with a single person. What happened on Tuesday and Wednesday in Kiev only brings us closer to this catastrophe. ... Poland's government must shake up its partners in Kiev as quickly as possible and explain to them - if possible loudly and in not too many words - that what matters is not who will be president of Ukraine in 18 months. What is important is that Ukraine should be ruled by a democratically elected president and not a governor general." (04/09/2008)
Der Standard newspaper calls on the contesting parties to settle their differences and present a united front in view of Russia's power politics: "The new edition of the orange coalition ... has fallen victim to the old rivals' power struggles. ... The crisis in the Caucasus has sharpened the conflict, because relations with Russia have always been a sensitive issue in the country. ... But precisely because of the difficult situation in the region, the government crisis comes at the wrong time. Certainly, fears of Russian military action in Ukraine may be unfounded. But Moscow's flexing its muscles should also a warning to Kiev, which like Georgia aspires to join the Western alliances. Now is the time for unity, not election campaigning. The parties should think about that in the next ten days." (04/09/2008)
Postimees newspaper considers that the power struggle between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is endangering the entire country's development: "There were great hopes after the Orange Revolution that nothing could now stop Ukraine on its path to the West. But the inner tensions we are seeing could do just that, and many of the illusions from four years ago have already been dashed. And yet now is the time, after the Russian aggression against Georgia, for the country to be united, because Moscow will use every weakness to force Ukraine back into its sphere of influence and solve the Crimea question to its advantage. Kiev must now take wise domestic policy decisions, but it also needs the support of the West and clear signals regarding a possible NATO membership." (04/09/2008)
For the daily Il Sole 24 ore, the new government crisis in Ukraine also poses a problem for the US government. "De facto the vote was against President Viktor Yushchenko, and opened the door wide for the government's resignation. The realistic perspective is a dissolution of the current parliament, the third since 2006. This is a staggering record and highlights the fragility of Ukraine's institutional and political structures. The country is marked by crises and permanent instability, which also have a devastating effect on the economy. Those who want Kiev to join NATO should think about this too. ... This serious crisis happened just before the arrival of US Vice President Dick Cheney, who represents the intervention wing of the Bush government and supports NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Cheney will find Yushchenko in the position of a 'lame duck', which means a plus point for Moscow in this international tug of war on post-Soviet turf." (04/09/2008)
European football is in an uproar. A few days ago violent fans in Italy caused a scandal, and just yesterday the traditional British club Manchester City was bought by Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), an investment firm owned by the ruling family of the United Arab Emirates. Whither goes football in Europe?
With articles from the following publications:
La Repubblica - Italy, The Guardian - United Kingdom, Süddeutsche Zeitung - Germany
La Repubblica - Italy
La Repubblica regrets that violent fans and the lack of economic transparency are discouraging financially strong investors from buying Italian football clubs. "After the various takeovers, the British Premier League is now the richest in the world. ... Why are rich oil sheiks and Russian oligarchs not interested in Italian fooball clubs? ... Investors in Italy must fear they will not be able to control what they have bought. The clubs are held hostage to the so called organised supporters, comprising in part real criminal gangs whose acts of violence can do irreparable damage to property and society. Underlying these collective acts is an economic intent for which it is difficult to find and prosecute individual perpetrators. Added to that is the powerful role of football managers, and last but not least conflicts of interest. Italian clubs get their money almost exclusively from the rights to television broadcasts. The people conducting the negotiations often pursue their own private interests, in conflict with those of other clubs. In a word, football suffers from the same ills as the entire Italian economy." (03/09/2008)
Commenting on the sale of Manchester City football club, The Guardian bemoans the fact that football clubs are no longer dominated by fans but by financiers: "The saga is merely the most spectacular example of an irreversible shift in the top clubs which communities and fans seem powerless to control. Last time it was Chelsea. Now it is Manchester City. Soon it will be another club, possibly Arsenal or Newcastle. It is a spectacular process and it fuels tremendous entertainment. But it is a collective delusion not to see that it is all a classic live-now-pay-later Faustian pact. For football fans, a season or two's bought glory may feel like a prize beyond price. But in the end it is all another example of the headlong sacrifice of our way of life and our planet to oil profiteers who respect neither laws nor traditions. Maybe that's life. But football fans always prefer innocence to experience." (03/09/2008)
The daily Süddeutsche Zeitung expresses concern about the influence exerted by wealthy investors on Europe's football leagues. "In total 450 million euros were spent on Italy's transfer market and - thanks to the oil and gas reserves in Abu Dhabi and Russia - even more in England. The Spanish league and the [top German division] the Bundesliga cannot keep up with this - perhaps because they do not have the advantages of a head of government like [Italian Prime Minister] Silvio Berlusconi. He invited Chelsea's owner Roman Abramovich to lunch on the Island of Sardinia on a blue August day. ... Two days later [striker] Andre Schevchenko was signed up with AC Milan again. The Italians have been able to keep foreign investors in football at arm's length so far. ... Only Berlusconi and Inter's [the Milan football club] petrol tycoon Massimo Moratti can ... hold their own with Abramovich, but the much poorer competition doesn't want to be left behind. ... No matter what the cost." (03/09/2008)
The EU heads of state and government yesterday agreed on a joint response to the Caucasus crisis at a special summit in Brussels. Europe's press discusses the result.
With articles from the following publications:
El Mundo - Spain, Gazeta Wyborcza - Poland, Tribune de Genève - Switzerland, La Repubblica - Italy
El Mundo - Spain
The Spanish daily El Mundo comments that the crisis summit in Brussels has demonstrated that the principle of consensus is blocking a plausible EU foreign policy: "Once again the members of the Union have shown that to reach a consensus they seek a common denominator which is then reduced to pleasing rhetoric that lacks any substance. ... They confine themselves to demanding 'responsible action' from Moscow and overlook the fact that the Russians have ignored the compromise negotiated by [current EU President Nicolas] Sarkozy without suffering any consequences. The crisis in Georgia has once again shown the inability of the EU to present a coherent and plausible foreign and security policy. ... Although it is a worthy goal for the European Union to honour its name and act in consensus, the crisis in Georgia has yet again shown that the main task of the EU is establishing a foreign policy. We must not allow our ability to act jointly to constantly get in the way of our determination to achieve results." (02/09/2008)
According to the Gazeta Wyborcza, the summit meeting demonstrated a swing of opinion: "The Old Europe has begun to view Russia with its second, eastern eye. ... The large countries used to see Russia as a trading partner, an energy supplier and a world power that can (and does) help Europe in Africa, Afghanistan and in the struggle with Iran. We, the nations from behind the former Iron Curtain, saw things differently. For us Russia is a threat - capable of extortion through missiles and trade embargoes. With the invasion in Georgia, Russia has shown the West its darkest side, in which hardly anyone in Berlin or Paris believed. The Germans and the French had heard of such an aggressive Russia from the Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians, but they had explained these accounts away with a reference to our troubled past. Now they believe them. Nicolas Sarkozy said after the summit that a return to the policy of zones of influence is unacceptable, and that Yalta is a thing of the past. These words will resound in the Kremlin for a long time to come." (02/09/2008)
The Tribune de Genève welcomes the diplomatic path for dealing with Russia adopted by the EU at the summit meeting: "There was little room for manoeuvre. The 27 [member states] ... decided to use the sole weapon available to them in countering Russia's military strength: diplomacy. ... Even if the decision by the EU Council of Ministers may seem laughable at first sight, on second glance it seems as unexpected as it is subtle. Unexpected because it was agreed on without much difficulty by the 27, who many had considered at odds. Subtle because it is less dramatic than the sanctions demanded by some, since it leaves room for dialogue and puts the ball in Russia's court. ... But this affair confirms that the Cold War is over, and that Russia and Europe have entered a mutually dependent partnership." (02/09/2008)
For La Repubblica, yesterday's crisis summit introduces a new foreign policy era in the EU. "The summit was a touchstone, and a debut for Europe, which must now stand on its own two feet with neither tutor nor protector. ... Europe is no longer just one element in the balance between two powers, it now regulates the balance itself. ... The new Europe came into the world with the forceps of crisis, and the birth is also a return to the past and the international relations that had seemingly been made obsolete by galloping globalism. ... As regards the classical concept of the balance of forces, admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO would have considerably disrupted the balance of the Old Continent." (02/09/2008)
The leftist parties across Europe are in crisis. Relegated to the opposition in many countries, they are struggling with dwindling membership and ideological marginalisation. The European press analyses the decline of the Left.
With articles from the following publications:
Le Figaro - France, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung - Germany, Famiglia Cristiana - Italy
Le Figaro - France
The convention of the French Socialist Party (PS) took place over the weekend. Le Figaro newspaper accuses the party of having lost track of its goals and convictions: "Not only is the Socialist Party wandering aimlessly in ideological terms, it is also living a permanent lie. It lies to itself. Because everyone knows the party will never recover without choosing an incontestable, uncontested leader. ... For a long time the PS has proposed nothing original or coherent, because it has not reflected, worked, or questioned itself. Cacophony reigns in the party regarding the future of Europe, the institutions, and how to deal with both the extreme left and the centre. ... In the midst of a methodological and ideological crisis, the Socialist Party has lost its bearings." (30/08/2008)
The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) has betrayed its ideals, writes the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. This is seen for example in its handling of the Caucasus crisis and the visit of the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of the Tibetans: "If you take a sober look at the SPD today, you see anything but a cosmopolitan party. What you do see is an autistic obsession with personalities ... and systems of reference that are only understandable to insiders, all of which refer to our welfare state. ... Appeals not to offend the sensibilities of wounded party leaders are slowly becoming the hallmark of a party that was founded to protect the poor. ... It is hard to imagine that social democratic parties once wooed dissidents, convicts and opposition figures. ... A return to the tradition of cabinet diplomacy is never amiss for reasons of state, but for a mainstream party it is not enough." (31/08/2008)
The Catholic weekly Famiglia Cristiana accuses the left-wing democratic opposition party Partito Democratico (PD) of wasting its time with constant infighting: "While the government distracts our attention ... with alleged emergencies, the increasingly belligerent, masochistic and divided opposition presents us with the spectacle of its mental confusion and total lack of effective proposals for low-income families. ... It has nothing to say on issues that are the province of left-wing parties, and instead of coming up with a solid family policy it is tearing itself apart. A swift and conclusive initiative or a party congress aimed at establishing a joint strategy should be organised before the party drowns in a quagmire of schizophrenia and depression - both among its leaders and its voters. The nation has had enough of this Tower of Babel the party has become as it awaits the Flood." (01/09/2008)
Territorial integrity or peoples' right of self-determination? Russia's recognition of the secessionist Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has fueled new discussion of old geo-political conflicts across Europe. In particular the division of Cyprus into Greek-Cypriot and Turkish republics could be affected by the conflict.
With articles from the following publications:
Milliyet - Turkey, Phileleftheros - Cyprus, Neue Zürcher Zeitung - Switzerland
Milliyet - Turkey
Following Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia the Turkish daily Milliyet condemns Russian support for the Republic of Cyprus: "In principle, or on paper, everybody is in favour of territorial integrity and against separatism. The Russian Federation also espouses these principles due to its own problematic regions, like Chechnya. But when it suits its interests, Moscow carefully defends the same criteria for others, like on the Kosovo issue, or for Cyprus. Moscow has long supported the Greek Cypriot administration over the Cyprus issue, objected to Turks' establishing a separate entity, and refused to recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). But Russia's operation in South Ossetia and its active support for separatism both there and in Abkhazia ... shows that when its own interests are at stake, it takes the opposite side. Moscow's recognizing separatist regions over Georgia's territorial integrity is a bad example for the Greek Cypriots, who have always gotten sympathy and support from Russia." (27/08/2008)
Cyprus must insist that international law will be observed in the Caucasus conflict, writes Phileleftheros newspaper. "It is true that Russia ... supported us in the Cyprus conflict. It is no accident that the Republic of Cyprus ... sees Moscow as a stable ally, because Moscow's view of the Cyprus problem ... is based on international law. Appealing to international law ... is the strongest weapon we have. For that reason we must be very careful how we interpret the crisis between Russia and Georgia. The Republic of Cyprus will soon ... have to make an official statement on this topic. This position must not vary from the one we have had for years. That means we must unconditionally call for the respect and protection of the territorial sovereignty of states. The position we ... adopted for Kosovo must also apply to Georgia. ... Otherwise we will only undermine our own position." (28/08/2008)
The Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung sees Turkey caught in a catch-22 situation regarding Russia owing to the unresolved Cyprus issue. "Turkey has fallen between two stools as regards the Caucasus crisis. ... While the US and many European states have condemned Russia's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Ankara confined itself to a statement by its foreign ministry expressing Turkey's concern about the 'recent developments'. That was a minimum rather than a maximum of diplomatic criticism. ... If Turkey condemns Moscow's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Ankara risks being told by Moscow that it has done the same thing in Cyprus. ... Turkey could even be tempted to follow Russia's example in Cyprus. ... The game with the two conflicting principles, the right of self-determination of minorities - including those in Kosovo and on Cyprus - and territorial integrity in all other cases, is an extremely awkward issue." (29/08/2008)