The future of the Middle East following the Palestinian elections is commented on as follows by Alexander Gauland ( Die Welt 1/3): “ What many had warned about has now come to pass: the fact that real democracy in the Middle East might produce disagreeable results. The victory of Hamas has thrown Israel, the Americans and the Europeans into a dilemma: whether to accept the result or correct it by economic pressure? The Israelis and the Americans evidently opted for the second hypothesis, while the Europeans hope that they won’t have to make the choice. Instead they spell out their conditions at the top of their voice: renunciation of violence and recognition of the right to the existence of Israel. In the light of historical experiences, such conditions are not sensible. Naturally one cannot expect Israel to negotiate with a group that kills women and children but Hamas will not renounce the threat of violence nor is it willing to recognize Israel as a condition for the start of negotiations; because both the renunciation of violence and the recognition of Israel are the only means of exerting pressure that the Palestinians have at their disposal. At the end of the negotiations they will have to surrender both things, the threat of violence and the refusal to respect the Jewish State: but to ask for this at the beginning of talks is not politic”. […] “ If Hamas were to be willing to enter into real peace negotiations, the Americans and the Europeans could renounce in exchange their evaluation of violence as terrorism, as de Gaulle did in Algeria and Kissinger in Vietnam. The fact that this would represent a particularly painful process for Israel, ought not to deflect us from doing it, in her interest“. In Spain press discussion continues about the financial and economic implications of gas consumption in Europe. In an editorial with the title “ Energy patriotism“, the Spanish daily La Vanguardia of 28/02 says that “the Community ideal, as requested by the European Commission, is that an energy market should exist with ‘European champions’, with strong players, that are the result of the reinforcement of energy companies and not of political intervention. In truth, it is not with 25 energy markets that the EU will be able successfully to tackle the challenge of globalization. But as things stand today that is the reality. France, with her protectionist reaction, confirmed this last weekend, laying down the rules of the game: ‘national champions’ take precedence over ‘European champions'”. According to the Catalan paper Avui of 1/03, commenting on the latest episodes and the attitudes of companies and of the Spanish government, “those who support the takeover bid for E.on are not more pro-European and those who defend the option for Gas Naturale more protectionist. They are different projects that give different responses to the interests of consumers and shareholders of the three companies involved. From this point of view it is absolutely proper that the Zapatero government intends to promote legislation that would permit Spanish firms to do what the Germans have done: merge together to achieve a dimension such as to be able to choose the final contest for the European market”. Remaining in the energy field, the French Catholic daily La Croix (28/2) comments on the case of the merger between Gas de France and Suez, which controls the Belgian Electrabel, object of a takeover bid by the Italian energy company ENEL. Italy has requested European arbitration on this merger. “It’s rather comic writes Guillame Goubert to hear the Italian authorities complain of the merger between Suez and Gaz de France to block an attempted takeover by ENEL. Undoubtedly it is a method of the Berlusconi government to make people forget the fact that it blocked the entry of EDF [the largest energy corporation in Europe] into the Italian market. It’s more understandable to see the Belgian press express concerns about the exchange of the majority shareholder in their national electricity company Electrabel. In Belgium the operation is described as a kind of nationalization of Belgian electricity by the French State (by far the largest shareholder in the new group), whereas in France it is perceived as a privatisation of Gaz de France”. According to la Croix, in this affair, “only one thing is sure. Europe is not the winner. We would need to speak not of economic patriotism, but of provincialism. The objective of the member states is to promote alliances between European industrial players, as is already happening in the steel and aeronautics sectors. In the case of the Suez-Gdf merger neither the French nor the Italian authorities have set a good example”. The question is also commented on by the Italian Catholic paper Avvenire (28/2), which underlines Italy’s shortcomings in this field: “ Enamoured by the dispute over the takeover of Suez writes Giorgio Ferrari we opposed it with a political polemic that seeks to find those responsible for this setback. And the responsibilities are all loaded onto the adversary”. “What would have happened if the Italian government had blocked a French acquisition in Italy? The National Assembly replies the editorialist would have cried foul; all the deputies (from right to left) would have pointed their finger against Italy and called for exemplary punishment. This is a ‘national system’ with all its risks and limitations”.———————————————————————————————————– Sir Europa (English) N.ro assoluto : 1456 N.ro relativo : 16 Data pubblicazione : 03/03/2006
