The current crisis made it obvious that Germany is Europe’s strong man.

This is a shift in the balance of power in Europe. One of the biggest which has further consequences.

From the falling down of the Berlin Wall, there came a period when no one was in a dominant role in Europe.

Russia and the US had withdrawn in the first part of the ninieties, then the US had clawed back itself in the form of NATO extension.

Germany was pulled back by its domestic difficulties as it managed the reunification.

The post world war political leaders has pledged to themselves that Germany would be reined by the extension and building up of a new European Union.

Creating a common money for Europe was binding all the European players to a common goal.

During this crisis did it happen that the world took the euro more seriously than Europe itself treated it.

During the crisis, only Germany escaped unscathed the crisis. (The price for international money betting by its banks and companies did not shatter any mirror).

The euro-crisis – a consequence of the world financial crisis and the debt-crisis – revealed that the structure and the logic of the European common money system could not be financed on the world financial markets.

Successful and bigger countries are no longer able to put a veil on the weaker performers’ deficiencies.

Moreover, euro does not overwrite national sovereignity – as we see it day by day in the face of the extra charges money market players put on particular countries debt and their ability to pay their incoming payments.

There is just one nation that has not been under pressure and that is Germany.

Germany is financing Europe through its money – making economy and helps maintaining the euro area’s  credibility.

If the crisis reached Germany in a worse shape – e.g in the deep of structural impasse such as that shaped it in the 1990s – , I do not know who would saved the euro.

Are these Germans angels or real people?

How many times would they save Greece and other profligate countries from default?

The questions runs deeper than that.

If Germans are paying the bill, would they have a bigger say in European decisions?

How deep is their pocket and how strong is their patience to try again and again pay the bill for reckless Europeans?

German Chancellor Merkel was persuading Berlusconi of Italy to introduce cuts in Italian expenditures. Financial Times has mentioned it as a fine bit of its well-connected reporting. What happens when the status quo reached recently again prove to be less than money markets are willing to finance calmly?

What will happen if a big (or the biggest) and most able of the European countries will say that no more money should be spent on making ends meet to save the euro?

How long will be the period, when a big European country is paying the bills, but not using the leverage of powers that comes with the biggest pocket?

Anglo-Saxon journalists are always asking if the euro will be broken under the piling debts. I suspect that they are sticking to this question because they are trying to avoid a much more more obvious and logical question, which is, What happens if Germany will be the guardian guaranteeing Europe’s credibility? What power transfer would it apply in the European Union?

Will the German Chancellor be the ultimate source on important European decisions?

Will Germany become the same to the EU members that US is to the NATO members?

During these days, before our eyes, but hidden from our understanding, Germany is becoming a super-power?

Hillary Clinton is using the Wikileaks revelation as a prop for her pr offensive.

She used blunt words in her Congressional hearings this week, which could be seen as too honest and provocative beside sounding as a death knell for US supremacy.

But after the Wikileaks tsunami, her words were as much calculated as her all public communication.

Among the public bruhaha Wikileaks has caused, along with shame and shock on the cold reality of diplomacy, earlier reserved for the joy of discovery for later generations, the internet page has done a free pr campaign for more military and foreign service spending.

Financial Times has used recently (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ab8c5a8-45e1-11e0-acd8-00144feab49a.htm)  the Wikileaks cables as the proofs that US diplomats are baffled and unarmed against the Chinese avalanche that is flooding world markets as well as important or not so important countries all over the world.

The revealed cables also shows that US diplomats are very good in identifying trends and problems, but are too reserved to urge their government to change direction.

The top bureucrats and politicians can also reap the benefits of Wikileaks avantgarde actions. While earlier it was much more difficult to raise spending on foreign lands, the leaked information confirms from every corner of the world that Chinese are coming closer and closer to the resources of the US hegemony. Even an average, inward-looking US taxpayer can understand that the US is on the brink of giving up its efforts to defend the positions that are the safeguard of his relatively peaceful life.

Politics is always amazing because seemingly odd things makes a perfect couple in the short or the long-term. Have you ever thought of Wikileak founder Assange as a part-time PR guy for US diplomacy?

A new populism is sweeping through the world. An investment bank is blamed for unnecesarily.

Goldman Sachs is made a culprit of the Greek debt problem. Congressional hearings are held and European regulators are fulminating against the speculators.

That is bullshit.

Goldman Sachs helped to restructure the Greek debt. It was an open transaction. The EU accountants approved the deal.

Since the Greek revealed the EU’s consent, no one is examining the EU auditors role and the rules on which they approved the transaction.

What we see is a public relation campaing, though it is conducted now by leaders of powerful institutions. Ben Bernanke, the president of the Fed is the latest one who contributed to the ongoing campaing.

In this latest turn of the events, individual firms are targeted in lieu of the real responsible ones.

Financial markets were strictly regulated. So did we think some years ago. Firms, like Goldman Sachs, did what they could or, speaking more precisely, what they were let to do.

It happens that institutions and rules needs changing. It happens that frameworks that were useful before needs a deep overhaul. This is always based on a change of perception of what we see as a threat. During this crisis, credit default swaps has been identified as the main source of our problems. Unlucky that one can be, Goldman Sachs was trading them even for countries benefits.

If someone has problem with the trading rules and assests that are marketed, there is a short way to forbid their use. Governments can do that. Till they are blaming firms for their actions, they are just not doing their own job, which is nothing else than regulation.

The Greek farce rewrote the dynamics of the European Union.

The traditional line between foreign policy and domestic policy is blurred among the members of  the European Monetary Union and so will stay for the foreseeable future. Which is, in another respect, a new phase in the ongoing EU process, namely the ever closer union.

The Greek fiscal problems and the perception that the Southern flank of the EU cannot be financed through the international money market changed this situation. I think, it is a structural change.

The stumbling and crumbling of the euro-system shows that this is a structural challenge. Countries that were able to fight off threats by depreciating their money can not do it anymore. International pools are dried for financing. Greece is facing a mounting pressure from the healthier European countries to cut its deficit.

These abstract words as „deficit and  „social expenses” are covering important aspects of people’s life. It was the first time that the international press used a new comparison, saying why would a retired German engineer agree to freeze his pension in order to finance Greek people  to retire much more early then he can do.  Germans must work till their sixties, while Greeks can retire at 54.

Meanwhile, Greek politicians are saying that deeper restrictions would lead to a resistance of the Greek people. So Berlin and Paris, London and The Hague must consider aspects that used to belong to domestic politics.

If the EU tries to solve the financial tricks of its members, it needs a constant and suspicious surveillance system and a structure that put pressure on its members. But it also means that euro-members must make a convergence on areas that used to be considered the realms of national sovereignity. Taxes, financial burdens, loans from abroad, social expenses must be scrutinized by the euro-members. These topics are deeply social ones. Ordinary people’s salary, benefits must be considered on a European level for the stability of the common money.

This is the dream of European federalists. European countries have been very resistant to fulfill this dream at its best. Money, and the link it creates among its recipients, would make it.

Financial Times is worried about the next election’s fallout as the Fidesz is the likely winner of the next election. They need to focus on Europe, not just on Hungary.

In the first phase of the current crisis, weak Eastern European countries had to face the blame their developed Western fellow countries put on them for their policy financial policy. In the last week, it turned out that countries like Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Italy are in the same trouble.Although, the majority of them are on the periphery of the eurozone, this list is impressive. It shows that financial weakness and political lazyness are not characteristically Eastern European behavior.

There were plenty of time before to catch up with the financial crisis. Western countries had much more room to cut their public expenses,  to stabilise their public expenditures.It was one and a half year ago that the signs of a big financial and economical criris taken shape.  Their budget for 2010 is the second one that could have dealt with the financial onslaught.

They were just as hopeful as their Eastern counterparts in government. There is no different behavioural pattern for the newly joined countries. Democratic regimes tend to hope for the best and wait a bit too late as they are open to the public criticism. It is always easier to believe that somehow things turns for better than decide on the worst case scenario.

There were discreet grudging when things turned sour in Eastern Europe. Western Europe countries were angry that their Eastern brothers needed further aid.  They talked about the need for prudence and sound management of the budget. It is testing to see whether they hold the same opinion if their Italian and Portugese fellows need the same help.

The crisis made it clear that neither the differences on the their development nor any other challenges they face could differentiate Western and East-Europen countries. They are equally vulnerable to the world market, their politicians are equally exposed to populism, lazyness, over-optimism and to fear from the voters’ punishment. Power has the same characteristics in all over Europe where democracy reins. It also shows that their is an end to the perception that East Europe can always for hope for smooth landing on the wide shoulder of their Western brothers.

It is a good experince. It also shows the end of the little brother-older brother relationship that was powerful in the past two decades.

The EU needs Tony Blair as its first president. The former British Prime Minister is a heavy-weight politician, who, if elected, will be a tough player in forming the EU. That is exactly what the EU needs.

The EU must be  focused in political issues. These kind of issues are off the table now, but needs to be considered in the foreseeable future.

This last crisis that was unfolding from 2007 showed that the world treats Europe as an economical unit. The Afghan war shows that Europe is active in military matters. The Israel-Palestinian conflict and the Iran nuclear criris points to the total lack of a coherent foreign policy of the European countries.

Europe is on the brink of becoming a global player. It is treated that way,while the European politicians are feigning total ignorance on this issue.

Tony Blair is a popular face. He has a history. He can create impact on the audience. Just see the speech market, where the interest in a person could easily be measured by the amount of money people willing to pay for a speaker. Tony Blair is next to Bill Clinton , one of the most expensive guy on the speech circuit.

This man has charisma. He has a media sex appeal.

He is strong-willed and courageous. He has an agenda. Obviously, he has always had an agenda.This is man, who wants to be succesful in measurable ways.

That is what Europe needs. A man, who has political ambitions. Who is trained in creating and managing political conflicts. A man who is not dependent on this job. A man who is yearning for a second round in politics.

Is he a grandstanding man? Oh, yes. Does Europe need someone, who can see through the Brussel diplomacy and the national political interests? I think so.

Just think about the Chinese, the Indians and certainly the US politicians. Of course, they treat the EU as a laughing stock, except when it comes to business matters. To develop a political strength of the EU, this organization needs someone who can create an image of it in the world political scene. There is not an institutional background for the common political stance and there is no real mechanism to create it.

Europe needs someone, who can call any head of state in Europe, Prime Ministers, who are start to bleaming  if a superstar calls them.

Blair ‘s responsibility lies in transforming his sex appeal into direct political influence. A nice, cooperative guy, like Juncker, the Luxembourgian Prime Minister can be smooth in small talk, but what Europe needs is big talk. With a big -mouthed, ambitious guy like Blair.

Political cooperativity needs strong political  will. Giscard D’Estaing and Schmidt, Mitterand-Kohl relationship proved that cooperation bossoms by strong political leader’s vision and acitvity. Blair is zealous enough to do something meaningful in the seat of the Europen President.

If selected, he will go against inter-governmentalism ( in the sense of Brussels -speak), against the central role of the Commission . He is not a transformed federalist ( also in the Brussels parlance) as well not rooted in Big Nations’ Nationalism and Narcissisim.

The political coordination now needs closer – ever closer – political coordination and unity in relevant political issues. Now, more than ever, it is not about policy, it is about politics.

One thing is to create equal conditions in the market. The other is implementing these rules. That sometimes is a rather bumpy road.

In the EU zone, producing animal meat for human consumption requires common rules. It must eliminate local differences in order to create equal conditions for any participants. But what if it collides with local tradition?

In Hungary, cutting pigs and making sauseges and spicy meats from its different parts is a national habit and an occasion for family gathering. It is quite a festival, even in small groups.

Recently, tourism in the country side is on the wake. Many expert says that deprived region of the country can help itself easily if they join the village tourism. Local festivities like cutting pigs are good substitute for cultural programes that are otherwise lacking in poor or distant villages.

The Hungarian government has made a decree recently that ordered pig-cutting implemented only in official slaugther houses. It referred to an EU requirements that was introduced to control the quality of meats and obeyed local authorities to examine the animals. The examination is expensive, requires certain mechanies, thus transporting them to particular houses is impossible. Without examination, pig cutting in houses was said to be illegal.

The law makes room for family consumption as an exception to public consumption. Defined as relatives who are eligible for eating the pig meat wihout further official check, tourist as such can hardly stand for „loved ones” or „linked by blood”. Of course, there are some leeways as human creativioty knows no end, but this is hardly a coomon road to oblige this particular law.

EU has some other officially binding proposals that allows to preserve local culture, tradition and habits if they are the expression of locally practiced customs. The Hungarian authorities forgotton about them and made a mandatory requirements that does not take into consideration the seemingly tiny issues of local pig cutting.

There will no effective foreign policy till the small countries accept that only the bigwigs are counting in world policy.

Just look at Reuters that covers world policy daily. Do you remember any mentioning of the Irish, Dutch, Hungarian prime minister’s remarks on North Korea, Iran or the Middle East?

What they cover is the French, the British and German opinions and announcements. They are the ones who are counting.

It must be admitted openly that bigwigs are representing the EU’s opinion to the world. Like it or not, that is the situation.

Admitting this fact does not necessarily dissolve European unity. In order to avoid it, we must make a difference between representation and unanimity.

We Europeans can not change the world. Even for us, who are living in small European countries, it is natural that our Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers are restricting their comments on domestic issues and interest. We won’t be proud of our Primes if they were active in solving the Middle East problems or were busy dealing with Iran. We would think that they are at least naive or at worst, idiots.

Even we, the citizens of the smaller countries are watching, leading, tracking the big European leaders’ opinions and comment. On the basis of common sense, we are making daily difference between representation and consultation.

We do not like if our elected leaders are not consulting with other elected leaders in the EU and does not shape the EU’s policy. But we know that Merkel’s words are more important than our leader’s words.

Being effective in world policy, any entity needs influence, means and institutions. Only the big European countries have traditions, skills and experience to deal with such issues. Only they have the  economic leverage to press for their proposals. Only they have the necessary resources to support  any policy.

Europe is based on cooperation. Only that the world is overstepping it. Iran’s democratic or anti-democratic choices or Russia’s decisions are influencing us, risking the security of our perimeters., but our saint unity is stopping us forming an effective policy.

Paradoxically, the current system is serving  more of the interest of the big European countries. They are, in theory, on the basis of coordinating their steps in foreign policy matters. In fact, they are following their own paths. If we do not put the responsibility of an effective foreign policy on them formally, they will always have an  excuse to do what they want. If we the people expect from the French, German and the British Prime to act on the basis of European unity and in the interest of Europe as a whole, we must create possibilities to do so.

Do not beat around the bush.  

The often used counter – argument says that the EU is not about a common foreign policy. It is already changed with the majority decision of accepting the new constitution. People and political elites is Europe made the decision to accept a foreign officer for the EU. What will he do? Placing calls to all of the responsible man to talk endlessly on foreign policy issues without the aim of getting somewhere?

Or is a he or she a high level receptionist?

The main thing is overcoming unanimity and equality. It never existed in foreign policy. What we need is facing this reality and create such a mechanism that put pressure on those who are capable and involve those who think they interrest lies in a more assertive European foreign policy.

If we think that a European trade embargo is hardly acceptable to the Iranian leaders, why do not we create a policy framework to facilitate it? If we think that it is not our best interest to have an Iranian nuclear bomb, what stop us from making a unified front against it? If we think that it is not a big deal, why we do not negotiate for better rewards from the Iranians?

I used the word „we”, because I think that we, the Europeans have many more common interest in world policy. Fishing is disrupting us. We Hungarians are not interested in it as we lost our access to any sea, but Norway and Spain have much more stake in it. But an Iranian threat, bombing of the European cities by any terrorist organization and the more subtle topics like people’s equal rights are certainly important for us.

No one is responsible in the EU for representing our common interests.

Maybe Mr Sarkozy would grab for my arguments as the possible leader of Europe. He is at least capable of it. Come over quickly that Europe is about equlity and let’s face the fact that this sort of cooperation does not work in foreign policy. Create the checks and balances to let him do what he already is doing. EU is, in a way, an experience in taming the existing disruptive forces. Do it in foreign policy as well. We the Europeans need the unified forces of our leaders in foreign policy.

In the imaginary „EU Mapbook for Accession” there must be a roadmap about how the accession tames the unruly East Europeans and teach them the golden rule of fiscal stability, macroeconmic soundness.

This idea was very popular in the ninities which, in hindsight, seems to be the period of a „roaring decade” in comparison with the current crisis. Everything was in place. Fiscal austerity and free market was the rule of the day, flushed by unlimited money. Highly developed countries learned about the merit of international cooperation as opposed to singular country strategies.

They followed a strict rule book in creating entry criterias for the East European countries. They thought that they found the unbreakable laws of the economy.

The current crisis points to a deeper problem in East Europe. When the money market dries up, the developing East-European countries find it extremely hard to finance themselves. On the face of it, they are undisciplined in their state finances. If we look behind the facade we find something else. They are on a difficult grade of development. It is an impossible task that the East European countries are trying to manage. No country in the world was able to develop itself with huge investments while trying to keep their budget balanced.

West –European development happened after the Second World War in a long prosperous period on a much more developed basis than in the East recently. They run huge deficit or were beneficiary of increasing productivity and expanding foreign or domestic markets. They worked in a protectionist world where the state has many opportunities to nurture its domestic companies.

These are lacking today. Foreing debts and unbalanced budgets are the price these countries are paying for their progression towards the euro entry. Social expenditure is also high, but to be correct, we must see that its transformation is very hard. In France, Greece or Germany, reform proposals on pension, social expenses are facing uphill struggles and creating spectacular demonstrations that sometimes evolve into outright chaos. East Europeans were relatively calm in that respect.

The very risk that East Europe poses to the EU is their relatively develpoed status, which they want to protect. Financial markets tremors on this part of the world are just part of the story. What the West is financing by loans in this region is the East Europeans’ smooth and unstoppable progress.

Do not be foul. Any change in the US administration will cause no change in European attitudes toward the world order.

Bush and the neocons are treated as the scapegoats for worsening the US –European relationship.  Obama is treated as the leader among the equanimous, who restored faith in cooperation.

In reality, this description is misleading.

If the Europeans criticized Bush for acting alone, it does not mean that they want to act in cooperation.

If they missed consultation with the US on relevant world issues, it just does not mean that they really want to have been consulted on relevant world issues.

If they think that the US is biased toward Israel, they are far from forming an alternative common policy on the region to counterbalance the „idiotic” approach of the US.

It looked like that an arrogant Bush administration overruled a great community called EU on cooperation. As Bush descended the scene, it is more and more clear that for the Europeans the real function of this cooperation is taming the shrewd American expansionism.

That is the real fountain of the frictions between the US an Europe. US administrations  are tending to spread their form of government and  actively pushing for its agenda.

The Europeans, alone, or in their cohort in the EU, do not want to extend democracy’s reach in the world.

The foundation of a good relationship in their relations thus based on the US political approach and not any chemistry between the two entities.

In other worlds, it does not matter who rules Washington. What matters is his attitude on exporting democracy.

If the US is pursuing its goals peacefully ( by splendid oration and by meaningless threat), EU-US relationship is a forever lasting friendship. If US speaks and acts in substantial ways ( by military hardware), the Europeans are drifting away.

Obama is closer to the Europeans hearts, because he is not bellicose. The warming up is based on rhetorics and not any substantial change.

Obama is withdrawing from  Iraq, from Guantanamo, from the axis of evil framework, which is a jolly good news for Europeans.  

Do you see any changes on the European’s side? Mr Gordon Brown restated the special relationship of the US and thew UK, but it does not influence the common European political scene. Europeans are reluctant to accept the prisoners of Guantanamo. For they not only condemned the Cuban special prison system, but they also refuse any dirty part of this terrorist detainee system.  They do not support the missile system and they do not support US Israeli plans.

Because, in the end, they think that these are US wars, US actions, not their cup of tea.

Now we are still enjoying the honeymoon of this special relationship. But more important is the lacking  evidence of any progress in substantial issues. They are not closer on the Russia policy, on the fate of Ukraine, on the world (financial) crisis, on pirates, on environmental issues

Just see the last example. The tension round  the US missile system is cooling down as the US policy on Iran and Afghanistan is opening a new level of cooperation betwen Russia and the US and makes obsolete, for the moment, the missile defence system.

But it leads nowhere. There is not more exhange on Europe’s security, on enhanced cooperation in the world. We heared that the main obstacle to this discussion was Bush’s and the neocons’ one-sided approach. But after they have gone what stops the European from  more meaningful cooperation?