Good news continue to exists. EU diplomats are confident that the foreign ministers will be able to clear the way for Ukraine to finally receive fresh money for urgently needed arms purchases at today’s meeting in Luxembourg. It is about windfall profits on frozen Russian central bank funds. There is a way to circumvent Hungary’s veto, diplomats said. Commission Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis confirmed that Ukraine should receive a first tranche of €1.5 billion before the summer break. Ukraine is to receive a total of €3 billion from the windfall profits by the end of the year.
But that was the end of the positive developments. Hungary is still blocking €7 billion from the Peace Facility. The money was to be used to compensate European partners for already made deliveries of weapons and ammunition. There are vague hopes that the government in Budapest will give up the blockade before Hungary takes over the EU presidency from Belgium on July 1. The Belgian Presidency is working tirelessly to find a solution. There is no way around unanimity for the Peace Facility. The Hungarian veto, piquantly, does not affect Ukraine, but its European partners, who are waiting in vain for reimbursement.
The Middle East issue is also on the agenda. Foreign Affairs Commissioner Josep Borrell is still waiting for an answer as to whether Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz will accept the invitation to a meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council. According to diplomats, there are signals that Foreign Minister Katz could be prepared to attend a meeting under Hungary’s “pro-Israeli” presidency of the Council. The foreign ministers will kick off an intensive week with the formal start of accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova on Tuesday. Before the heads of state and government meet for the summit on Thursday and Friday to hopefully decide on the personnel package for the top positions at the second attempt. Time is pressing. The first round of the parliamentary elections is due to take place in France on Sunday, which is likely to bring new uncertainty with the predicted good results of right-wing and left-wing extremists.
Have a good start to the week!
The conservatives announced legal action following the scandal between the ÖVP and the Greens, the two coalition partners in Austria, over the “yes” to the renaturation law in Brussels. The aim is to reverse the EU’s approval in the Council of Ministers and to intimidate Lenore Gewessler, the minister responsible. The Green Environment Minister had approved the legislation on Monday against the wishes of her government partner and in contradiction to a decision by the Austrian federal states.
These are the steps planned against Gewessler:
Experts are cautious as to whether the ÖVP strategy could work. This is “uncharted legal territory,” says Walter Obwexer, an expert in European constitutional law at the University of Innsbruck. There are differing views among legal experts on the action for annulment. A decision can be expected in one and a half years at the earliest. According to Robert Kert, a lawyer at the Vienna University of Economics and Business, it cannot be assumed that there has been an abuse of office. The Greens are relaxed about the legal steps. They point out that the ÖVP has repeatedly gone it alone politically itself during the course of the coalition.
Nehammer now wants to only implement “necessary and important measures,” he told the Austria Press Agency (APA). After the ÖVP had already canceled several of its own appointments, it held this weeks Council of Ministers not in person but by circular resolution. On June 21, all five state energy councillors appointed by the ÖVP also boycotted a meeting with Leonore Gewessler. They disliked the Environment Minister’s unilateral action, saying there was a lack of trust.
After the Green minister’s coup, the ÖVP was fuming with rage. That evening, Nehammer appeared before the cameras: Gewessler had acted “unlawfully” and committed a “more than serious breach of trust.” Legal opinions from the Constitutional Service in the Federal Chancellery and the ÖVP-led Ministry of Agriculture would prove this.
Gewessler, in turn, relies on four private legal opinions (see here, here, here and here). These attest to her more or less free right to vote. For example, the uniformly negative opinion of the federal states is no longer valid, as it refers to an outdated version of the law. In addition, the SPÖ-governed federal state of Vienna has now decided to approve the law. Carinthia, which is governed by the SPÖ, also intends to take this step. Nature conservation is a matter for the federal states in Austria. However, according to the constitution, Gewessler can deviate from a uniform position of the federal states for “compelling integration and foreign policy reasons.”
The coalition wants to continue despite the uproar. There will be no new elections, declare the ÖVP and the Greens. Elections will be held in Austria on September 29 anyway. In the polls, the ÖVP is behind the right-wing populist FPÖ and on a par with the SPÖ at around 22 percent. Its chances of becoming the next chancellor are therefore limited. In addition, the ÖVP will be voting on important laws in the coming weeks – for example on asylum advice, cell phone security and in the area of justice. They do not want to jeopardize the passing of these laws. The Greens would also lose power in the event of new elections.
The crisis of confidence in Austria runs deep. Sowing mistrust has become a political strategy, critics accuse the conservative and right-wing parties. For months, the EPP and ÖVP have been spreading misinformation about the renaturation law, as around 6,000 researchers criticized in an open letter. Their accusations:
The ÖVP also spread disinformation on other topics, falsified surveys and produced invoices that later turned out to be unreliable. “Flooding the zone with shit” is the name of this PR strategy. It makes disinformation socially acceptable. The ÖVP achieves short-term success, but democracy is damaged in the long term. According to the APA trust index, there are only four federal politicians whom citizens trust more than they distrust. Gewessler and Nehammer score particularly poorly.
Young people’s trust in politics is also declining, while skepticism towards science remains high. 38 percent of respondents prefer to rely on their common sense, while only 58 percent trust ecological and climate research, according to the Science Barometer of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. The FPÖ, which has been leading all polls for more than a year, thrives on this skepticism.
Why did Beijing target the pork industry specifically? What’s the strategy behind that?
They want to send a clear signal, a warning that, if the EU does not negotiate on the electric vehicle duties, China will put anti-dumping duties on pork. They chose pork because it is the biggest agricultural export from the EU to China. And therefore it is politically quite visible. Even though agriculture is only a very small part of the EU’s total exports to China, it is politically very visible in the EU, and it draws attention to the problem. Earlier on, Beijing threatened to possibly target dairy products, wine and even Airbus.
Why didn’t they go for that?
I’m surprised that they didn’t target wine. Because a lot of the wine comes from France, and France was behind the electric vehicle case, pushing for it. But maybe that sector was too obvious, and in any case, they already targeted primarily French spirits. When it comes to dairy, the EU does not export so much to China. It does export infant formula, which the Chinese really need. So, pork is a quite convenient one. We are looking at three billion euros of exports. It is not going to change the world, and in my view, it does not amount to a trade war. China has chosen to investigate this sector because it can cause some damage and alert three or four member states to the EV case, but not massive damage or lead to a trade war. So they chose the value of the sector quite carefully.
Do you think that it is a good strategy on their part?
I have mixed feelings about this. I think it is a good strategy if the signal is ‘We want to negotiate,’ which I think is their intention. It is not revenge.
And will that work?
Maybe. The countries affected by this would be Spain, Netherlands and Denmark as the three big exporters. None of them seem to have particularly strong vested interests in the EV issue. I guess targeting their pork exports will make them inclined to tell the Commission please negotiate on EVs, but it will not have a dramatic effect on the case. Whereas, the country which was most pushing for duties on electric vehicles was France. If Beijing wanted to retaliate or have maximum leverage in any future negotiations, they would have been better off targeting products from France or Germany, which are the ones that make the decisions in the EU basically. So in that respect, it is not a brilliant strategy.
Beijing will rather create problems for itself?
I see two issues: One is, in the long term, it is not very wise to put tariffs on food and commodities because, from a food security point of view, it is a rather dangerous approach to reduce your sources of supply. The second one: This anti-dumping investigation that China has launched, was clearly done for political reasons. There is no credible dumping of pork into China. That really undermines China’s credibility when, at the same time, it is claiming or pretending to be committed to multilateralism and following, very faithfully, WTO rules. The fact that they introduce this investigation for political reasons, undermines their narrative completely. They are doing themselves some damage in the long term, as well as reputational damage.
You mentioned that the pork sector may be carefully chosen to facilitate negotiations rather than escalating. Both sides agreed on Saturday to start negotiations. How likely do you think it is that this conflict will be resolved through negotiations?
The EU regulation and policy on anti-subsidy do give some scope for negotiation. If the Chinese companies cooperate with the investigation, that can lead to a much lower anti-subsidy duty. And if the Chinese government cooperates in explaining what the subsidies are or are not, that would also be helpful.
The EU can also choose to look at the broader public interest – there is a public interest test in EU trade defense legislation. Is it in our interest as the European society or economy to put a tax on Chinese electric vehicles – yes or no? And if, at the end of the day, the Commission and the member states decide that we need affordable Chinese green technology to help the net-zero target and the green transition, they can decide not to tax these imports too high because we need this for the green transition. So there is considerable scope for negotiation. I don’t think we’re in a trade war just because of three billion euros of pork. In any case, for the time being, it’s just an investigation by China and not actually the imposition of any duties yet.
How likely is it that the investigation will actually be followed up with actions, like tariffs on pork?
It will depend on the discussion about the electric vehicle case. If there is no sign of scope for negotiation with China; or if the Chinese companies do not cooperate in the EU investigation, then I’m quite sure the Chinese will put duties on pork. Beijing also made a very vague claim – with no evidence so far – that there is also illegal subsidization going on in Europe for the pork sector. So they can also try to put countervailing duties on the subsidies. I am sure that they will do so if they are not satisfied with the result for electric vehicles. If only because they would lose face otherwise.
What impact would the pork duties have on the EU market? And which ones on China? You have already mentioned that some agricultural foodstuffs are difficult to procure there
It will have some impact on the Chinese market in the short to medium term because China needs these products. Quite a lot of the European exports, things like the heads, the trotters, the feet are not used in Europe but the Chinese buy them. That also means, to have a supply of those parts, you have to produce the whole pig. And China may not have the consumer capacity to absorb all the meat if it is produced domestically.
It also means there will be some overcapacity in Europe temporarily, if the Chinese market is closed to European exports. But the experience we have had over the last few years has suggested that the pork industry is quite able to redirect their trade and diversify their markets. That has been the experience of recent years following, for example, when Germany was locked out of the Chinese market due to ASF in Germany. They were able to really send the pork to new destinations after a few months.
Could the EU appeal at the World Trade Organisation, since the WTO is a bit toothless currently?
If the EU found that China’s anti-dumping measures were incompatible with China’s WTO obligations, then, of course, the EU could take China to the WTO. The EU will decide on that based on a number of criteria. First, is there a lot of money involved? Secondly, is there a systemic problem that we need to fix? And thirdly, are we likely to win the case? If the EU is convinced it can win the case, and if it’s either a systemic case or it’s one with significant commercial implications, then it may well go forward to use the WTO dispute settlement system. But it works very slowly. It takes a couple of years between launching a case and its conclusion. In the meantime, the duties remain in place. It is not the ideal solution. What often happens in such situations is that a WTO member threatens Dispute Settlement Understanding and enters into consultations with the other country to see if a compromise can be found that would obviate the need to go the whole way and launch a dispute. And it would probably in this situation be in China’s interest not to have its Anti-Dumping legislation systemically found incompatible with WTO rules.
John Clarke is the former Director for International Relations at DG Agriculture in the European Commission. He was previously Head of the EU Delegation to the WTO and the UN in Geneva. He joined the European Commission in 1993 as a trade negotiator.
She likes the cliché of the “Iron Lady.” When asked about this, Kaja Kallas smiles very delicately and answers in perfect English: “Wasn’t British Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher a successful woman? Kallas manages to make this rhetorical reply sound self-confident rather than arrogant. And her success could prove her right. Her chances of soon becoming EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs are not bad.
Even without this office, the liberal head of government of small Estonia is one of the successful Nordic female politicians. Like Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen or Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, she represents a new generation of women in politics: smart, cosmopolitan and power-conscious. Instead of wearing discreet dark suits, they appear on the big stage of politics in colorful dresses. With very clear statements, especially in Kallas’ case.
Even before Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2022, she warned of an invasion and called for more arms deliveries. “Russia is the biggest threat to us Europeans.” At the Munich Security Conference in February 2023, she put pressure on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on the open stage and called for ammunition to be organized for Ukraine across Europe. She not only increased her own country’s defense spending, she also called on other Europeans to invest more in their security. She considers the widespread fear of a Russian nuclear strike – especially in Germany – to be absurd: “The aim is intimidation, and that works in some countries.”
Kallas speaks of the new self-confidence of the small Nordic states. Even in the face of big Germany. “I have the feeling that we have been heard more in recent years than ever before.” In an interview with Table.Briefings, she explained that people had long had a completely different impression. “The Germans know very little about the 50 years we were occupied. They didn’t miss us, but we missed them! We need to talk about that.”
And she does. Very clearly, also when she talks to Germans. And she repeatedly mentions that people in Estonia have not forgotten the policy that Germany pursued towards Russia for a long time. The head of government of a country with 1.3 million inhabitants then wraps up her criticism with a smug smile: “We know how Russia operates and where that can lead.”
Her drastic words seem to have annoyed the Russian ruler to say the least. In February, the Russian Interior Ministry put the Estonian head of government on a wanted list. Kalla’s government had ordered the dismantling of former Soviet monuments. “This is yet more proof that I am doing the right thing,” she wrote unabashedly on X. It will be interesting to see how she will deal with Russia friend Viktor Orbán as a potential EU foreign affairs representative.
When the lawyer and mother of three became the first woman prime minister in 2021, she was one of the most popular politicians. As popular as she is on the European stage today, however, her image has suffered at home. An affair involving her husband, who continued to do business with Russia through a logistics company after February 2022, caused her lasting damage.
Kaja Kallas and the liberal Reform Party narrowly won re-election in 2023. However, her approval ratings fell rapidly, partly because higher energy prices and unpopular austerity measures are angering Estonians. However, this does not change the fact that her candidacy for a European office is widely supported in Estonia.
Kallas has long made no secret of her career plans. And it would probably not be wrong to say that the 47-year-old sees her future in Brussels rather than Tallinn. “Estonia is too small for her,” says Elisabeth Bauer, who has long traveled to the Nordic countries for the Konrad Adenauer Foundation: “She is a passionate European.” And one with experience: the former MEP – between 2014 and 2018 – knows what makes Brussels tick.
Her candidacy for the post of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs can also be read as a signal. One that the Italian head of government Giorgia Meloni does not like at all. With Kallas, the North is gaining influence, not only in the EU but also in NATO: incidentally, she was also once under discussion for the post of NATO Secretary General. Nana Brink
Good news continue to exists. EU diplomats are confident that the foreign ministers will be able to clear the way for Ukraine to finally receive fresh money for urgently needed arms purchases at today’s meeting in Luxembourg. It is about windfall profits on frozen Russian central bank funds. There is a way to circumvent Hungary’s veto, diplomats said. Commission Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis confirmed that Ukraine should receive a first tranche of €1.5 billion before the summer break. Ukraine is to receive a total of €3 billion from the windfall profits by the end of the year.
But that was the end of the positive developments. Hungary is still blocking €7 billion from the Peace Facility. The money was to be used to compensate European partners for already made deliveries of weapons and ammunition. There are vague hopes that the government in Budapest will give up the blockade before Hungary takes over the EU presidency from Belgium on July 1. The Belgian Presidency is working tirelessly to find a solution. There is no way around unanimity for the Peace Facility. The Hungarian veto, piquantly, does not affect Ukraine, but its European partners, who are waiting in vain for reimbursement.
The Middle East issue is also on the agenda. Foreign Affairs Commissioner Josep Borrell is still waiting for an answer as to whether Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz will accept the invitation to a meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council. According to diplomats, there are signals that Foreign Minister Katz could be prepared to attend a meeting under Hungary’s “pro-Israeli” presidency of the Council. The foreign ministers will kick off an intensive week with the formal start of accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova on Tuesday. Before the heads of state and government meet for the summit on Thursday and Friday to hopefully decide on the personnel package for the top positions at the second attempt. Time is pressing. The first round of the parliamentary elections is due to take place in France on Sunday, which is likely to bring new uncertainty with the predicted good results of right-wing and left-wing extremists.
Have a good start to the week!
The conservatives announced legal action following the scandal between the ÖVP and the Greens, the two coalition partners in Austria, over the “yes” to the renaturation law in Brussels. The aim is to reverse the EU’s approval in the Council of Ministers and to intimidate Lenore Gewessler, the minister responsible. The Green Environment Minister had approved the legislation on Monday against the wishes of her government partner and in contradiction to a decision by the Austrian federal states.
These are the steps planned against Gewessler:
Experts are cautious as to whether the ÖVP strategy could work. This is “uncharted legal territory,” says Walter Obwexer, an expert in European constitutional law at the University of Innsbruck. There are differing views among legal experts on the action for annulment. A decision can be expected in one and a half years at the earliest. According to Robert Kert, a lawyer at the Vienna University of Economics and Business, it cannot be assumed that there has been an abuse of office. The Greens are relaxed about the legal steps. They point out that the ÖVP has repeatedly gone it alone politically itself during the course of the coalition.
Nehammer now wants to only implement “necessary and important measures,” he told the Austria Press Agency (APA). After the ÖVP had already canceled several of its own appointments, it held this weeks Council of Ministers not in person but by circular resolution. On June 21, all five state energy councillors appointed by the ÖVP also boycotted a meeting with Leonore Gewessler. They disliked the Environment Minister’s unilateral action, saying there was a lack of trust.
After the Green minister’s coup, the ÖVP was fuming with rage. That evening, Nehammer appeared before the cameras: Gewessler had acted “unlawfully” and committed a “more than serious breach of trust.” Legal opinions from the Constitutional Service in the Federal Chancellery and the ÖVP-led Ministry of Agriculture would prove this.
Gewessler, in turn, relies on four private legal opinions (see here, here, here and here). These attest to her more or less free right to vote. For example, the uniformly negative opinion of the federal states is no longer valid, as it refers to an outdated version of the law. In addition, the SPÖ-governed federal state of Vienna has now decided to approve the law. Carinthia, which is governed by the SPÖ, also intends to take this step. Nature conservation is a matter for the federal states in Austria. However, according to the constitution, Gewessler can deviate from a uniform position of the federal states for “compelling integration and foreign policy reasons.”
The coalition wants to continue despite the uproar. There will be no new elections, declare the ÖVP and the Greens. Elections will be held in Austria on September 29 anyway. In the polls, the ÖVP is behind the right-wing populist FPÖ and on a par with the SPÖ at around 22 percent. Its chances of becoming the next chancellor are therefore limited. In addition, the ÖVP will be voting on important laws in the coming weeks – for example on asylum advice, cell phone security and in the area of justice. They do not want to jeopardize the passing of these laws. The Greens would also lose power in the event of new elections.
The crisis of confidence in Austria runs deep. Sowing mistrust has become a political strategy, critics accuse the conservative and right-wing parties. For months, the EPP and ÖVP have been spreading misinformation about the renaturation law, as around 6,000 researchers criticized in an open letter. Their accusations:
The ÖVP also spread disinformation on other topics, falsified surveys and produced invoices that later turned out to be unreliable. “Flooding the zone with shit” is the name of this PR strategy. It makes disinformation socially acceptable. The ÖVP achieves short-term success, but democracy is damaged in the long term. According to the APA trust index, there are only four federal politicians whom citizens trust more than they distrust. Gewessler and Nehammer score particularly poorly.
Young people’s trust in politics is also declining, while skepticism towards science remains high. 38 percent of respondents prefer to rely on their common sense, while only 58 percent trust ecological and climate research, according to the Science Barometer of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. The FPÖ, which has been leading all polls for more than a year, thrives on this skepticism.
Why did Beijing target the pork industry specifically? What’s the strategy behind that?
They want to send a clear signal, a warning that, if the EU does not negotiate on the electric vehicle duties, China will put anti-dumping duties on pork. They chose pork because it is the biggest agricultural export from the EU to China. And therefore it is politically quite visible. Even though agriculture is only a very small part of the EU’s total exports to China, it is politically very visible in the EU, and it draws attention to the problem. Earlier on, Beijing threatened to possibly target dairy products, wine and even Airbus.
Why didn’t they go for that?
I’m surprised that they didn’t target wine. Because a lot of the wine comes from France, and France was behind the electric vehicle case, pushing for it. But maybe that sector was too obvious, and in any case, they already targeted primarily French spirits. When it comes to dairy, the EU does not export so much to China. It does export infant formula, which the Chinese really need. So, pork is a quite convenient one. We are looking at three billion euros of exports. It is not going to change the world, and in my view, it does not amount to a trade war. China has chosen to investigate this sector because it can cause some damage and alert three or four member states to the EV case, but not massive damage or lead to a trade war. So they chose the value of the sector quite carefully.
Do you think that it is a good strategy on their part?
I have mixed feelings about this. I think it is a good strategy if the signal is ‘We want to negotiate,’ which I think is their intention. It is not revenge.
And will that work?
Maybe. The countries affected by this would be Spain, Netherlands and Denmark as the three big exporters. None of them seem to have particularly strong vested interests in the EV issue. I guess targeting their pork exports will make them inclined to tell the Commission please negotiate on EVs, but it will not have a dramatic effect on the case. Whereas, the country which was most pushing for duties on electric vehicles was France. If Beijing wanted to retaliate or have maximum leverage in any future negotiations, they would have been better off targeting products from France or Germany, which are the ones that make the decisions in the EU basically. So in that respect, it is not a brilliant strategy.
Beijing will rather create problems for itself?
I see two issues: One is, in the long term, it is not very wise to put tariffs on food and commodities because, from a food security point of view, it is a rather dangerous approach to reduce your sources of supply. The second one: This anti-dumping investigation that China has launched, was clearly done for political reasons. There is no credible dumping of pork into China. That really undermines China’s credibility when, at the same time, it is claiming or pretending to be committed to multilateralism and following, very faithfully, WTO rules. The fact that they introduce this investigation for political reasons, undermines their narrative completely. They are doing themselves some damage in the long term, as well as reputational damage.
You mentioned that the pork sector may be carefully chosen to facilitate negotiations rather than escalating. Both sides agreed on Saturday to start negotiations. How likely do you think it is that this conflict will be resolved through negotiations?
The EU regulation and policy on anti-subsidy do give some scope for negotiation. If the Chinese companies cooperate with the investigation, that can lead to a much lower anti-subsidy duty. And if the Chinese government cooperates in explaining what the subsidies are or are not, that would also be helpful.
The EU can also choose to look at the broader public interest – there is a public interest test in EU trade defense legislation. Is it in our interest as the European society or economy to put a tax on Chinese electric vehicles – yes or no? And if, at the end of the day, the Commission and the member states decide that we need affordable Chinese green technology to help the net-zero target and the green transition, they can decide not to tax these imports too high because we need this for the green transition. So there is considerable scope for negotiation. I don’t think we’re in a trade war just because of three billion euros of pork. In any case, for the time being, it’s just an investigation by China and not actually the imposition of any duties yet.
How likely is it that the investigation will actually be followed up with actions, like tariffs on pork?
It will depend on the discussion about the electric vehicle case. If there is no sign of scope for negotiation with China; or if the Chinese companies do not cooperate in the EU investigation, then I’m quite sure the Chinese will put duties on pork. Beijing also made a very vague claim – with no evidence so far – that there is also illegal subsidization going on in Europe for the pork sector. So they can also try to put countervailing duties on the subsidies. I am sure that they will do so if they are not satisfied with the result for electric vehicles. If only because they would lose face otherwise.
What impact would the pork duties have on the EU market? And which ones on China? You have already mentioned that some agricultural foodstuffs are difficult to procure there
It will have some impact on the Chinese market in the short to medium term because China needs these products. Quite a lot of the European exports, things like the heads, the trotters, the feet are not used in Europe but the Chinese buy them. That also means, to have a supply of those parts, you have to produce the whole pig. And China may not have the consumer capacity to absorb all the meat if it is produced domestically.
It also means there will be some overcapacity in Europe temporarily, if the Chinese market is closed to European exports. But the experience we have had over the last few years has suggested that the pork industry is quite able to redirect their trade and diversify their markets. That has been the experience of recent years following, for example, when Germany was locked out of the Chinese market due to ASF in Germany. They were able to really send the pork to new destinations after a few months.
Could the EU appeal at the World Trade Organisation, since the WTO is a bit toothless currently?
If the EU found that China’s anti-dumping measures were incompatible with China’s WTO obligations, then, of course, the EU could take China to the WTO. The EU will decide on that based on a number of criteria. First, is there a lot of money involved? Secondly, is there a systemic problem that we need to fix? And thirdly, are we likely to win the case? If the EU is convinced it can win the case, and if it’s either a systemic case or it’s one with significant commercial implications, then it may well go forward to use the WTO dispute settlement system. But it works very slowly. It takes a couple of years between launching a case and its conclusion. In the meantime, the duties remain in place. It is not the ideal solution. What often happens in such situations is that a WTO member threatens Dispute Settlement Understanding and enters into consultations with the other country to see if a compromise can be found that would obviate the need to go the whole way and launch a dispute. And it would probably in this situation be in China’s interest not to have its Anti-Dumping legislation systemically found incompatible with WTO rules.
John Clarke is the former Director for International Relations at DG Agriculture in the European Commission. He was previously Head of the EU Delegation to the WTO and the UN in Geneva. He joined the European Commission in 1993 as a trade negotiator.
She likes the cliché of the “Iron Lady.” When asked about this, Kaja Kallas smiles very delicately and answers in perfect English: “Wasn’t British Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher a successful woman? Kallas manages to make this rhetorical reply sound self-confident rather than arrogant. And her success could prove her right. Her chances of soon becoming EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs are not bad.
Even without this office, the liberal head of government of small Estonia is one of the successful Nordic female politicians. Like Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen or Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, she represents a new generation of women in politics: smart, cosmopolitan and power-conscious. Instead of wearing discreet dark suits, they appear on the big stage of politics in colorful dresses. With very clear statements, especially in Kallas’ case.
Even before Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2022, she warned of an invasion and called for more arms deliveries. “Russia is the biggest threat to us Europeans.” At the Munich Security Conference in February 2023, she put pressure on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on the open stage and called for ammunition to be organized for Ukraine across Europe. She not only increased her own country’s defense spending, she also called on other Europeans to invest more in their security. She considers the widespread fear of a Russian nuclear strike – especially in Germany – to be absurd: “The aim is intimidation, and that works in some countries.”
Kallas speaks of the new self-confidence of the small Nordic states. Even in the face of big Germany. “I have the feeling that we have been heard more in recent years than ever before.” In an interview with Table.Briefings, she explained that people had long had a completely different impression. “The Germans know very little about the 50 years we were occupied. They didn’t miss us, but we missed them! We need to talk about that.”
And she does. Very clearly, also when she talks to Germans. And she repeatedly mentions that people in Estonia have not forgotten the policy that Germany pursued towards Russia for a long time. The head of government of a country with 1.3 million inhabitants then wraps up her criticism with a smug smile: “We know how Russia operates and where that can lead.”
Her drastic words seem to have annoyed the Russian ruler to say the least. In February, the Russian Interior Ministry put the Estonian head of government on a wanted list. Kalla’s government had ordered the dismantling of former Soviet monuments. “This is yet more proof that I am doing the right thing,” she wrote unabashedly on X. It will be interesting to see how she will deal with Russia friend Viktor Orbán as a potential EU foreign affairs representative.
When the lawyer and mother of three became the first woman prime minister in 2021, she was one of the most popular politicians. As popular as she is on the European stage today, however, her image has suffered at home. An affair involving her husband, who continued to do business with Russia through a logistics company after February 2022, caused her lasting damage.
Kaja Kallas and the liberal Reform Party narrowly won re-election in 2023. However, her approval ratings fell rapidly, partly because higher energy prices and unpopular austerity measures are angering Estonians. However, this does not change the fact that her candidacy for a European office is widely supported in Estonia.
Kallas has long made no secret of her career plans. And it would probably not be wrong to say that the 47-year-old sees her future in Brussels rather than Tallinn. “Estonia is too small for her,” says Elisabeth Bauer, who has long traveled to the Nordic countries for the Konrad Adenauer Foundation: “She is a passionate European.” And one with experience: the former MEP – between 2014 and 2018 – knows what makes Brussels tick.
Her candidacy for the post of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs can also be read as a signal. One that the Italian head of government Giorgia Meloni does not like at all. With Kallas, the North is gaining influence, not only in the EU but also in NATO: incidentally, she was also once under discussion for the post of NATO Secretary General. Nana Brink
