FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

20.12.2004

Targeting Santa



Groups in Germany and Austria have launched campaigns protesting the commercialization of Christmas. The target of their ire is Santa, an American import who they say doesn't represent what the holiday is all about.

Bettina Schade says she doesn't have anything personal against Santa Claus. In fact, she likes a lot of things about today's celebrations of Christmas -- the lighted trees, the gold ornaments, the silver stars.

But all the material things, the hectic rush to buy gifts, and the ubiquity of the bearded man in the red suit are taking away from the core meaning of Christmas. She'd like to see things changed, or at least toned down a little.

"The Christian origins of Christmas, like the birth of Jesus, have receded into the background," she said. "It's becoming more and more a festival that is reduced to simply worldly gifts and to commerce."

She is part of a campaign called the Frankfurter Nicholas Initiative, founded by a Roman Catholic priest in Frankfurt, Eckhard Bieger. Alarmed by the growing commercialization of Christmas in Germany, he launched the initiative that's aimed at putting St. Nicholas, a fourth-century monk, back in the Christmas spotlight where he used to be.

It's an uphill battle, however, since St. Nicholas' successor, the American-inspired jolly old St. Nick, or Santa Claus, has been edging the miter-wearing historical figure out of the German Christmas landscape of late. German kids do set out their shoes on Dec. 6 for St. Nicholas to fill them with sweets, but that holiday now pales in comparison with Santa's sleigh-ride night.


[size=8]Chocolate Santa dressed up at St. Nicholas[/size]

To counter this trend, the Frankfurt Initiative along with another Catholic organization, the Bonifatiuswerk, has launched pro-Nicholas campaign. They show kids how to turn chocolate Santas into chocolate Nicholas figures and have been handing out stickers in stores and at Christmas markets featuring a bar cutting across an image of Kriss Kringle. It proclaims the area a "Santa-Free Zone."

"Santa Claus is a creation of the advertising industry and Coca-Cola to further commercial interests," Bieger told Reuters.


Santa's origins

The image of Santa most known today -- fat, white bearded and in a red suit -- is indeed a creation of the Coca-Cola company, which was looking for a new figure to use in its advertising campaigns in the 1930s and 1940s.


Santa Claus, inspired by Coke

A Swedish-American artist, Haddon Sundblom, created the jolly, benevolent character for Coke based on a previous figure created for Harper's Weekly in the 19th century by Thomas Nast, a German immigrant to the United States.

For the small but vocal anti-Santa movement, which has also gained momentum in Austria, Santa Claus is a poor reflection of the original St. Nicholas, who is believed to have been a fourth-century bishop in Myra, in present-day Turkey. He had a reputation for generosity and kindness, which gave rise to legends of miracles that he performed for the poor and unhappy.

"St. Nicholas was a man who helped the poor, saved people who were unjustly condemned, freed prisoners," Schade said. "You could say he was a forerunner of Amnesty International. Santa is much less than that -- just about giving gifts."


True meaning

The church-affiliated groups believe focusing on St. Nicholas can remind people about the core values of Christmas, such as family, sharing and doing good for others. They feel the time of the year that should encourage people to be thoughtful and contemplative is being drowned out by Jingle Bells and ho ho ho.



"What is the meaning of Christmas? The meaning of Christmas is, in the first place, not shopping," said Reverend Volker Faigle, a Lutheran pastor and representative of the Protestant church to the German government and the EU.

He said the Protestant church also did not hold any particular grudge against Santa, or the gift-giving he represents. It is just a matter of keeping what many see as the excesses of the Christmas season in check.

"Our shopping centers want to make money and they have a right to make money, we have no problem with that," he said. "But if you already start the season in September, people think Christmas is just about shopping, shopping, shopping. Then we think Christmas is misused."

The Protestant Church has started a program called "Christmas in December," selling things such as Advent calendars without the chocolates and cartoon figures. Church representatives even approached German retailers and marketers asking them to keep the Christmas overkill in check.


Crucial for sales

But according to the German retailing association, Christmas is a critical time for retailers: What some see as Santa surfeit, shop owners see as a lifeline.

From the looks of shops in Berlin, retailers have not held back when it comes to promoting Santa and gift-giving. That is perhaps understandable, since according to the HDE retailers' association, about 20 percent of annual sales are made in the last two months of the year.


Christmas shoppers

"We didn't have a good year in 2004, but in December the mood has picked up," said Hubertus Pellengahr, HDE's spokesman. "Presents are being bought, people have finally found a little joy in buying again."

But talking to shoppers in front of one of Berlin's premier department stores, KaDeWe, it appears some holiday fatigue might be setting in.

"There are many good things that comes over from America, but this kitsch Christmas style is getting the upper hand," said Hella Wichman, 55, who was visiting Berlin from Hamburg and doing a little window shopping.

"There's too much of everything, too many lights, too much money spent, too much Santa," she said. "There is nothing thoughtful about Christmas anymore."

But jolly old Santa himself, talking to children amid glittering ornaments on KaDeWe's fifth floor, finds the groups who would like to lower his profile somewhat alarmist. He said there's room for both him and his predecessor St. Nicholas during the Yuletide season.


"Santa brings joy, and children grow up so fast anyway," he said. "Why not let them enjoy his magic for as long as they can?"

Tsunami aid likely to be given EU budget flexibility

06.01.2005 - 09:57 CET | By Honor Mahony The European Commission has indicated that it is not likely to punish EU countries that breach the rules governing the euro as a result of giving aid to victims of the tsunami disaster in south east Asia.

Spokesperson for monetary affairs Amelia Torres on Wednesday (6 January) said that the Commission was expected to treat the aid as an exception.

"All expenses must be counted during the assessment of the size of the budget deficit," she said, according to Reuters. "But the tsunami aid may be treated as an exceptional circumstance."

The European Commission is in charge of making sure that member states adhere to the euro rules - known as the stability pact. These say that countries may not run budget deficits of more than 3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Ms Torres' comments came as Germany on Wednesday pledged 500m euro for the tsunami victims.

A country may escape being punished for breaching the stability pact if its deficit is caused by a natural disaster or severe economic recession.

Berlin has breached the stability pact three times in a row and is pushing for a more flexible interpretation of the rules to allow for the exclusion of certain types of spending, such as for reseach, from deficit calculations.

Court case?
Germany's repeated breaking of the pact rules is having repercussions elsewhere in the EU.

Liberal members of the European Parliament want to take the European Commission to court for letting Germany and the other serial pact breacher, France, off the hook last month.

In December, monetary affairs commission Joaquin Almunia announced that the Commission would not be pursuing excessive deficit procedures against Paris and Berlin although the countries may break the 3 per cent ceiling in 2005, as well.

The liberal group, the third biggest in the European Parliament, is using a paper by Cologne-based Professor Bernhard Kempen to back up their calls.

Professor Kempen concluded that the liberals would have a case for going to court.

Silvana Koch-Merin, leader of the German FDP faction in the Liberal group, said "Almunia buckled under pressure from the German and French governments. That is a scandal. The Commission is supposed to be the guardian of the [EU] treaties" .

The Liberals will now try and rally support from other groups in the European Parliament.

A Franco-German Anti-Turkey Pact


The head of the Christian Social Union (CSU), Edmund Stoiber and new Chairman of the ruling French Conservatives, Nicolas Sarkozy have made a mutual display of their opposition to Turkey joining the European Union


Edmund Stoiber remains firm in his opposition to Turkey joining the EU

Joining Stoiber at a CSU meeting in the Alpine location of Wildbad Kreuth, the French politician made no bones about his support for the German conservatives' controversial opposition to Turkey being granted accession to the European Union.

Speaking after the meeting, Stoiber said that neither he nor his French colleague would entertain the idea of forging a political union with countries of what he termed "a different structure."

He said the European Union could not support membership from countries such as Turkey, Ukraine or Belarus, and added that the only way to work with such unlikely candidates would be to create privileged partnerships.

Stoiber and his CSU are opposed to having Turkey join the European party on the grounds that the new constitution would give Turkey, as a densely-populated country, too much say in the overall scheme of things.

Expanding informal understanding

Stoiber said that his party would be willing to give the green light to the European constitution only if it granted the German parliament, the Bundestag a more influential voice on the European stage. But in the absence of such a clause, some 18 CSU members of parliament have threatened to vote against ratifying the constitution treaty.


Nicolas Sarkozy
The two men made a joint stand for an expansion of the existing Franco-German axis. Stoiber said it was time for some of the larger countries, such as Britain, Italy, Spain and Poland, to reach informal agreement among themselves. But Sarkozy (photo, above) said any such expansion should not be of an exclusive nature.

UK government fires starting gun for referendum campaign

26.01.2005 - 17:44 CET | By Richard Carter

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The UK Government has published the question voters will be asked in the forthcoming UK referendum on the EU Constitution, kicking off what promises to be a long and bitter battle.

The question on the ballot sheet will be as follows: "Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"

Presenting the question today (26 January) in the UK parliament, Foreign Minister Jack Straw said that the UK would be "isolated and weak" if the Constitution were rejected.

Starting gun
And the publication of the question provoked a flurry of statements from both those in favour of the Constitution and those against, effectively starting the campaign.

The opposition Conservative Party, which opposes the Constitution, said that the question appears straightforward but has warned that the Constitution will lead to a European superstate.

They have said that if they win the election next Spring, a vote will be held by October.

Britain in Europe, a pro-Constitution campaign group, also welcomed the simplicity of the question and said it hoped that voters could now concentrate on the "important issues facing Britain and its relationship with its closest partners in Europe".

Their Director, Lucy Powell, said in a statement, "There will be a stark choice facing voters: to continue with our present course of active engagement in Europe or take a step into the unknown by rejecting the Treaty".

"The first course has served us well for over 30 years, ensuring British prosperity and higher living standards. The second course of action is fraught with uncertainty and would be a leap into the unknown".

Vote No's Neil O Brien said, "Tony Blair promised a great campaign in which 'battle would be joined'. Now the Government is reduced to trying to sneak out the EU Constitution bill without even a press conference".

"The reality is that the Government doesn't want to discuss the EU Constitution ahead of the election because they know it is extremely unpopular with voters and with business".

Early 2006
An exact date for the poll has not yet been set, but insiders believe that the vote will be held in early 2006.

In an interview in today's Financial Times, UK Prime Minister Blair said that the referendum would be held "some time in 2006 but when, I don't know".

The UK is due to hold an election early this spring - probably in May - and it will take over the Presidency of the EU on 1 July this year, so the vote is almost certain to be after these two events.

The timing may prove to be crucial.

The UK is arguably the country most likely to vote against the Constitution, which needs to be ratified by all 25 member states to come into force.

"Yes" campaigners are hoping that the UK will vote last on the issue, with the text already ratified by all 24 other member states. This would increase the pressure on the UK to vote "yes" and strengthen the argument that the UK would be isolated in the event of a "no" vote.

But it looks as if Denmark, Poland and the Czech Republic may vote after the UK, nullifying this effect.

Strong feelings against the Constitution
Whenever the poll is held, the Government is set for a tough task in persuading a sceptical British public of the merits of the Constitution.

Current opinion polls show that roughly two-thirds are against the Treaty. However, people close to the debate say privately that the gap will narrow after the election (which Mr Blair is widely expected to win), when the Government steps up its campaign.

Big battle ahead
Those arguing in favour of the Constitution include most Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (third party) and the Britain in Europe campaign.

They argue that Britain will be isolated if it fails to ratify the Treaty and that the UK may be forced to leave the EU.

Those arguing against include the Conservative Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the Green Party, the Scottish National Party and the No campaign.

They say that signing the Constitution would give too many powers away to Brussels.

A House Divided
The Orange Revolution is carving new fault lines between Old and New Europe that have nothing to do with war in Iraq.

By Steven Paulikas
Newsweek International


Jan. 24 issue - At one time, they had a Union of their own. When the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth met its demise in 1795, its territory included not only those two countries but the entire western half of Ukraine.

In Eastern Europe, history remains a powerful guide to its leaders?-a fact some in the West apparently do not fully appreciate. Angered at the initiative taken by Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski and his Lithuanian counterpart, Valdas Adamkus, in helping to defuse Ukraine's political crisis, European Parliament President Josep Borrell likened the pair to a "Trojan horse" for the United States. Borrell has since insisted his off-the-cuff remarks, made at a private forum in Madrid on Jan. 4, were misinterpreted. But the intended message was clear: new EU members should leave the tough foreign-policy decisions to their bigger, older brothers.

Borrell's slip of the tongue underscores how far the Union has to go toward unity. The EU's response to the crisis in Ukraine has miffed politicians from both halves of the continent. Bigwigs from Europe's traditional powerhouses are unused to taking a back seat to Europe's upstarts from the east. For their part, representatives newly arrived in Brussels from countries in Ukraine's backyard have been left to wonder why a Spaniard like Borrell is commenting on their policy toward an unstable neighbor. Poland immediately loosed an angry protest. "It's not his role to evaluate other countries?-his job is to unite, not divide," says Polish EU parliamentarian Janusz Wojciechowski. Tart as the rhetoric may be, it's but a prelude of more to come.

"Old" versus "New" Europe? If ever that divide applied, it's over Ukraine. For several years, Poland and Lithuania have sought to build on their centuries of shared history and assist their neighbor in its recovery from the communist past. "President Kwasniewski and I have consistently been the only advocates of Ukraine to the Western world," says Adamkus. When outgoing Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma made a state visit to Lithuania in 2002, Adamkus took him bowling at Vilnius's first major shopping mall.

Because of that unique degree of friendship, Adamkus says, it was natural for him to pick up the phone and call his old bowling buddy as the situation in Ukraine turned critical. "When I asked what we could do to help, Kuchma said the friends of the Ukrainian people should drop whatever they were doing and come to Kiev immediately." A frantic night of communication between the Lithuanian and Polish foreign ministries and EU foreign-policy experts ensued. The next day, Adamkus, Kwasniewski and EU external-relations chief Javier Solana were sitting at round-table discussions with Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovich, the feuding candidates in Ukraine's presidential elections.

The EU's diplomatic intervention in Ukraine's political fate could have been cause for celebration. Not only did the talks result in a fresh round of fairer elections, but the Brussels establishment had joined with the Union's newcomers to tackle their first shared foreign-policy crisis since last May's enlargement. Instead the crisis has exposed fault lines already raw from the tumult over the war in Iraq. Borrell's "Trojan horse" crack echoed French President Jacques Chirac's suggestion two years ago that Eastern Europe had missed an opportunity to "shut up" when countries in the region supported the U.S. invasion. Viewed as hopelessly pro-American, nations like Poland and Lithuania have long been accused of obstructing attempts to construct a single foreign-relations platform for the entire EU.

Ironically, a democratic Ukraine is likely to make matters worse. Before men like Adamkus and Kwasniewski had an inside voice in the EU, Europe was able to quietly ignore Ukraine?-and the massive financial and political effort it would take to pull the country into the European fold. But now that Poland and Lithuania have helped launch the country boldly down the path of reform, Ukraine threatens to gobble up the attention of Eurocrats who would rather worry about preapproved EU issues, such as the accession of Turkey and the European Constitution.

The pro-Western forces that took power in Ukraine after the last round of elections have made EU membership a top priority. Oleh Rybachuk, Yushchenko's chief of staff, has vowed to "knock down" Europe's door until the EU lets his country in, a development that until November was unthinkable in Brussels. And Eastern Europe's representatives to the EU can be expected to press Ukraine's case vigorously, not least because they see a democratic Ukraine as key to stability throughout the region. After all, they ask, how much more European is Turkey than Ukraine, not to mention Romania or the Balkans? Poland will not only support Ukraine's drive to join the EU, but "we will fight for it," a Polish member of the European Parliament, Janusz Onyszkiewicz, told reporters in Kiev recently.

Everyone accepts that Ukraine's EU bid will take time. But Europe can expect to be pushed for more immediate concessions: support for Ukraine's membership in the WTO, the creation of a free-trade zone or even associate EU membership?-and a fast track into NATO. Even as Europe has been giving Kiev the cold shoulder, NATO has launched a bilateral cooperation program with Ukraine that many speculate could lead to full membership now that the undemocratic regime of Leonid Kuchma is gone.

All this alarms many in Old Europe, especially those for whom NATO is often a synonym for America. To politicians with a history of Ameriskepticism like Borrell, the spectacle of hyperenthusiastic NATO members Poland and Lithuania throwing themselves into the Orange Revolution smacked of Washington's meddling. Old- guard Europeans?-particularly in France, Belgium, Italy and Germany?-also worry about further alienating Russia, whose relations with the EU over the past year have turned frosty. Officially, Old Europe's leaders have welcomed the changes in Ukraine. Behind the scenes, the rhetoric has been very different. "I've never seen anything like it," says a U.S. official just back from Warsaw and Kiev. "They're really beating up on Poland," as well as other new members.

For New Europe, the experience has been unsettling. "It's difficult for Polish politicians to have to choose between loyalty to the United States and NATO and solidarity with the EU. They're only now realizing that the West doesn't always speak with one voice," says Zdzislaw Mach, director of the Center for European Studies at Jagiellonian University in Krakow. Which voice Europe will use when it finally speaks to Yushchenko is still unclear. Yet many EU countries understand only too well the struggle to emerge from a communist past. Whether old or new, it will be difficult for Europe to abandon a Ukraine so tantalizingly close to joining it on the other side of totalitarian rule. That fact alone may sooner or later force the two sides to bridge their differences.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

EU lifts Cuba diplomatic freeze

The EU has decided to temporarily lift a diplomatic freeze imposed on Cuba shortly after a crackdown which saw 75 dissidents jailed in March 2003.

The suspension, which is due to be reviewed by July, follows the recent release of several dissidents.

But the union has called for the "urgent" and "unconditional" release of all dissidents detained in Cuba.

EU foreign ministers have also pledged to boost relations with critics of Cuban President Fidel Castro.

The decision was announced by Jean Asselborn, foreign minister of Luxembourg, which currently holds the EU's rotating presidency.

"We highlighted the need to support a process leading to democratic pluralism, respect for human rights and basic freedoms," Mr Asselborn said.

'Cocktail war'

A statement approved by EU foreign ministers said the union was willing to resume "a constructive dialogue with the Cuban authorities aiming at tangible results in the political, economic, human rights and co-operation sphere".

But it underlined it would develop "more intense relations with the peaceful political opposition and broader layers of civil society in Cuba".

The sanctions were imposed on the Caribbean island after a crackdown that led to 75 dissidents being handed long prison sentences, and the summary execution of three Cubans found guilty of hijacking a ferry.

The EU banned high-level governmental visits and participations in cultural events in Cuba and started inviting dissidents to embassy parties, leading to further retaliations by Cuban authorities.

But after releasing several dissidents over the past few months, Cuba announced earlier this month that it had restored diplomatic ties with EU diplomats on the island.

Spain' s Socialist government led by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has played a crucial role in promoting a review of EU policy towards Cuba.

Do British members feel they are losing sovereignty to the EU....(read France.)?

We are all just waiting for the old tyrant to die. Then we will have to wait until a generation enervated by a lifetime of socialism itself dies. Poor Cuba.

I'm more optimistic than you on that one, goergeob1. The bulk of the generation enervated by a lifetime of socialism is quite fed up with socialism, IMHO.

A House Divided
The Orange Revolution is carving new fault lines between Old and New Europe that have nothing to do with war in Iraq.

Europe vs. America
By Tony Judt
by T.R. Reid
Penguin, 305 pp., $25.95

by Jeremy Rifkin
Tarcher/Penguin, 434 pp., $25.95

by Timothy Garton Ash
Random House, 286 pp. $24.95

1.
Consider a mug of American coffee. It is found everywhere. It can be made by anyone. It is cheap?-and refills are free. Being largely without flavor it can be diluted to taste. What it lacks in allure it makes up in size. It is the most democratic method ever devised for introducing caffeine into human beings. Now take a cup of Italian espresso. It requires expensive equipment. Price-to-volume ratio is outrageous, suggesting indifference to the consumer and ignorance of the market. The aesthetic satisfaction accessory to the beverage far outweighs its metabolic impact. It is not a drink; it is an artifact.

This contrast can stand for the differences between America and Europe ?-differences nowadays asserted with increased frequency and not a little acrimony on both sides of the Atlantic. The mutual criticisms are familiar. To American commentators Europe is "stagnant." Its workers, employers, and regulations lack the flexibility and adaptability of their US counterparts. The costs of European social welfare payments and public services are "unsustainable." Europe's aging and "cosseted" populations are underproductive and self-satisfied. In a globalized world, the "European social model" is a doomed mirage. This conclusion is typically drawn even by "liberal" American observers, who differ from conservative (and neoconservative) critics only in deriving no pleasure from it.

To a growing number of Europeans, however, it is America that is in trouble and the "American way of life" that cannot be sustained. The American pursuit of wealth, size, and abundance ?-as material surrogates for happiness ?-is aesthetically unpleasing and ecologically catastrophic. The American economy is built on sand (or, more precisely, other people's money). For many Americans the promise of a better future is a fading hope. Contemporary mass culture in the US is squalid and meretricious. No wonder so many Americans turn to the church for solace.

These perceptions constitute the real Atlantic gap and they suggest that something has changed. In past decades it was conventionally assumed?-whether with satisfaction or regret?-that Eu-rope and America were converging upon a single "Western" model of late capitalism, with the US as usual leading the way. The logic of scale and market, of efficiency and profit, would ineluctably trump local variations and inherited cultural constraints. Americanization (or globalization?-the two treated as synonymous) was inevitable. The best?-indeed the only?-hope for local products and practices was that they would be swept up into the global vortex and repackaged as "international" commodities for universal consumption. Thus an archetypically Italian product?-caffè espresso?-would travel to the US, where it would metamorphose from an elite preference into a popular commodity, and then be repackaged and sold back to Europeans by an American chain store.

But something has gone wrong with this story...