The EU finance ministers are meeting in Brussels today and tomorrow, first in the Eurogroup format and then as the ECOFIN Council. After an update on the current economic situation and a discussion on the EU’s lack of innovative strength, the ministers will discuss what is currently probably the hottest topic in European economic policy: the Capital Markets Union.
During this evening’s dinner, former French National Bank President Christian Noyer will present a report he has written on behalf of the French Ministry of the Economy. The report outlines in some detail how a European savings product, a securitization market backed by state guarantees and more centralized market supervision could be operationalized.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, the ministers will then deal with two tax dossiers that the Belgian Presidency would like to finalize: the reform of VAT and a reform of withholding tax.
The first concern is to modernize and digitize the collection of VAT, which should facilitate data collection and curb VAT fraud. One of the measures would oblige large platforms to ensure that the providers active on them pay VAT. Estonia, home of the Bolt mobility platform, is still opposed to this provision. According to information available to Table.Briefings, the Baltic member state is the only hurdle to the adoption of the reform, which requires unanimity.
At this start to the week, I hope you have the self-confidence of those small states that always manage to shape the tax policy of the entire EU according to their own ideas.
Many in European politics hope that a high voter turnout is the best protection against the strengthening of anti-democratic parties in the European Parliament. But how can voters be mobilized – especially 16- and 17-year-olds, who will be able to vote in the 2024 European elections in Germany for the first time?
“The right to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds is being celebrated as a major achievement,” says Stefanie Hartung, co-founder and Deputy Chairwoman of Pulse of Europe. However, she is torn. “I would consider it a great achievement if they all knew that they could vote. There’s a huge question mark behind that for me.” Europe has a communication problem, says Hartung – and not just around the election.
The citizens’ movement Pulse of Europe started in 2017 to promote the European idea and protect it from undemocratic tendencies, disinterest and falling voter turnout. To this end, it uses low-threshold campaigns, such as the joint singing of the European anthem last week in Cologne. However, while Pulse of Europe attracted a lot of attention with its Sunday demonstrations in the years following its foundation, the movement has recently become more quiet.
“You can see it in Fridays for Future: you can’t demonstrate endlessly, of course, but on specific occasions,” explains Hartung. And the European elections are one such occasion. Pulse of Europe has not only launched its own European election campaign but is also taking action on streets and squares again. “We are out and about in many cities. On the Sunday before the European elections, as many Pulse of Europe cities as possible want to demonstrate again.” However, Pulse of Europe is now much more than that, says Hartung. “There are a wide variety of formats, such as the European house parliaments, where we discuss the reform of Europe. We ask critical questions and let citizens discuss how they imagine their Europe.”
The mood towards Europe is critical. “And not without good reason, we also see it that way as a pro-European citizens’ movement. There is a need for reform,” says Hartung. However, Europe is actually better than its reputation. This is not a new symptom either. “If local politicians communicated to citizens daily in their work on the ground how much – and in this case, how much good – comes from Europe, then Europe would certainly be in a better position.”
Europe is complex and bad at communicating its policies, says Hartung. “Europe would have to maintain a huge communication machine on a daily basis to say what good things Europe is doing.” This is because the connection to Europe is not always made at the national level to the extent that it should be. “Even now, with the European elections, we are once again seeing that Europe is being specifically functionalized, instrumentalized, not to say abused.“
Nevertheless, the mood is not as bad as is often claimed. “We must make a distinction between the governments of the member states and their citizens,” warns Hartung. Poland is a good example. “A majority of Poles were clearly pro-Europe, even under the PiS government. Since Donald Tusk took over, they finally have the feeling that Brussels is listening to how they feel.”
One of Europe’s problems is the ambitious attempt to “achieve maximum cooperation with maximum sovereignty,” says Hartung. One example of this is the principle of unanimity, which initially made the Community great, but now makes it too slow and susceptible to blackmail. The solution: abolishing the principle of unanimity in favor of qualified majority decisions.
Hartung also sees a need for reform in foreign and security policy. “In view of the global challenges, we urgently need to reposition,” says Hartung. However, that’s a tall order. But the bottom line is that the majority know that it doesn’t feel good to stand alone, in the interplay with the USA, China and Russia, but also India and Brazil.
The Union must also strengthen the European sense of community. To this end, she proposes a European broadcaster with a common program – translated into all 24 official EU languages. “A large joint media channel would be good so that what happens in Finland is also heard in Romania – and also in the countryside,” says Hartung. A common official language would also help to strengthen the sense of community.
Volt’s demands for reform go much further. “We want to give the EU a constitution,” says Nela Riehl, who is running for the European Parliament for Volt. It is now a matter of finding majorities for this. “We envision a real European government with a European prime minister.” There should also be European ministries. Europe would then have a federal structure like the Federal Republic of Germany. There is certainly support for this, says Riehl. “Many see it as a counter-proposal to ‘we have to go back to the nation-state’, which is the right-wing conservative narrative at the moment.”
Not exactly a European government, but the direct election of Commission presidents is also being called for by the left. It is about “direct legitimacy,” that the personnel are not simply negotiated behind closed doors, says Martin Schirdewan, Co-Chair of the Left Group in the European Parliament. “We want greater citizen participation, that European Citizens’ Initiatives, if they are successful, must also be included directly in the legislative process.” But above all: “It is clear that we need a right of initiative for the European Parliament.”
This is also the view of the SPD. “We see a need for reform when it comes to the role of the European Parliament, which finally needs a right of initiative,” says Secretary-General Kevin Kühnert. “People are now electing their parliament and frankly expect this parliament to be able to do what every Bundestag and every state parliament can do: introduce its own bills.” The EU has outgrown its old size, which is why the rules of the game need to be adapted. “Unanimity on issues such as tax policy is outdated with 27 member states,” says Kühnert. “And yes, more federal structure would be good.”
For example, the SPD believes it is important that citizens should be able to vote for a transnational list at the next European elections in addition to the national vote they can cast for a list – as Volt is also calling for. “After all, we have long been standing together with our European social democratic sister parties and also under the same programmatic conditions,” says Kühnert. “We would also like to present this to voters in a joint list.”
Hartung from Pulse of Europe also believes it is important to finally introduce the right of initiative for Parliament. “Because in my view, that would get things moving a lot more.”
You can find more articles on the 2024 European elections here.
Vladimir Putin is traveling to China – again. Just a few days after his Europe visit, President Xi Jinping is meeting with the man the Europeans – most recently German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron – would like to get him away from. In vain so far.
China’s official position on Russia remains unchanged. Nevertheless, the debate about Russia’s attack on Ukraine and China’s stance on the issue continues, at least in academic circles. Recently, a guest article for the British magazine The Economist by one of the fiercest Russia critics surprised readers: Beijing politics professor Feng Yujun predicted Russia’s defeat. Continued Western support and social cohesion in Ukraine would force Russia to vacate all occupied territories “In time.”
From the beginning of the invasion, Feng had repeatedly argued that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unjustified and motivated by imperial greed – and that China was making a strategic mistake by cooperating too closely with Moscow on this issue. “China’s relations with Russia are not fixed,” said Feng. China already abandoned the “no limits” friendship with Russia and returned to traditional principles of “non-alignment, non-confrontation and non-targeting of third parties.”
Feng is not alone in his criticism of Russia. “Feng’s mistrust and criticism of Moscow have become clear in most of my conversations with Chinese scientists, albeit in a milder form,” explains Thomas des Garets Geddes, who has selected essays by Chinese scientists translated and published in his newsletter Sinification.
Mark Leonard from the European Council of Foreign Relations (ECFR) also had confidential talks with several academics at a conference in Beijing at the end of 2022. “The ambivalent feelings of the Chinese towards the Russians were very striking,” he said last July during a webinar presentation of an ECFR study on the topic. He even noted a certain contempt in some cases.
But the West should not get its hopes up too much. Feng Yujun’s warning against maintaining close relations with Russia does not reflect the majority opinion among Chinese political analysts. “It is quite common for Chinese analysts to express criticism and distrust of Moscow while advocating the continuation of close relations with the Kremlin,” Geddes told Table.Briefings. “This may seem somewhat contradictory at first glance, but it simply reflects that China’s national interests take precedence over everything else.”
This includes the fact that Beijing continues to believe it needs Russia as an ally against the scorned Western-dominated world order. This is why some academics stand by Russia without question. In a recent text translated by Geddes, Wang Xiushui from Beijing Aviation University and former Air Force colonel demands: “Beijing’s relations with Moscow must remain at the center of China’s diplomatic strategy.” In a world where the law of the jungle applies, China and Russia must become unbeatable adversaries of the USA. Only then would they gain the respect of the West.
Wang sees the Ukraine war as a “clash of civilizations” (文明的冲突), which must be viewed from a long-term perspective: “From the perspective of the emerging global landscape, I believe that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is the opening battle for a multipolar world” (多极世界的揭幕之战)” He does not use the word “war” in his article. According to Geddes, the prevailing opinion among China’s established intellectuals lies somewhere between that of Feng Yujun and Wang Xiushui.
It’s worth taking a quick look at Russia. Maxim Yusin, a columnist for the Russian business newspaper Kommersant, believes that Feng’s Economist guest article is definitely a signal. “If you know how Chinese society is organized, it’s hard to imagine that the professor who wrote this article acted at his own risk and without the support of the responsible comrades in Beijing,” he writes. There is no answer to this question.
However, according to Jusin, China’s peace initiatives to resolve the Ukraine conflict are “not at all” in line with the maximum demands of the Russian side. Beijing calls for an end to hostilities, even a freeze in the conflict, says Jusin, “but makes no mention of Ukraine’s demilitarization, denazification or a regime change in Kyiv.” These are all key demands of the Kremlin, which is why Jusin believes that China maintains a greater distance from Russia than the West perceives.
Meanwhile, there are no reports of loud demands from Chinese academics for arms deliveries or even military aid for Russia. China expert Thomas Eder from the Austrian Institute for International Affairs has looked at several Chinese platforms for expert discussions on foreign policy (aisixiang.com, cfisnet.com and cn.chinausfocus.com) and found that academics there generally “counsel prudence, balance and continuity.” He believes that this caution by the foreign policy elites is the one reason why the government is holding back.
On these platforms, Chinese academics describe “cooperation with Moscow in international organizations as important, and Russia as key for a global strategic balance.” However, many also argued that Russia’s actions were harming China’s interests. “They describe Russia as a potentially bigger problem for China-EU relations than the US.”
The platforms also describe the EU’s strategic importance for China in the context of competition with the US as “no less than that of Russia.” If this is true, the government should listen to Feng Yujun. Beijing must prevent the West and other parts of the world from transferring their dissatisfaction with Russia onto China.” That is currently the threat, especially in Europe.
Ms. Noichl, what is your assessment – have the past five years been a success in terms of equality?
In terms of equality policy, the legislative period has been incredibly successful. After all, you have to bear in mind that the world out there is currently rather anti-feminist in some respects. We therefore said: everything we have already achieved must now be cemented. And at the same time, we have managed to take further steps forward.
Where do we stand today in terms of equality for women in the economy?
The promise made by feminists from the 1950s to 1970s – “If you take a job out there, you will become economically independent of men and can shape your own life” – has unfortunately not been fulfilled. Women are increasingly working in low-paid jobs and are therefore still not independent.
In this mandate, the EU set a Europe-wide minimum wage framework: 60 percent of the average wage in a country. This was primarily intended to reduce the large differences between the member states. Will it also change the situation of women?
The European minimum wage is huge for us women. Minimum wages help women disproportionately. In Germany, we have noticed that the introduction of the minimum wage has mainly helped women in the East: Hairdressers, for example, who were previously fobbed off with €2.50 and tips. And now, with the minimum wage increase in Germany to €12.41, it is again women who have the real added value.
In 2022, women in the EU earned on average almost 13 percent less than men for the same work, in Germany even almost 18 percent less. What has the EU done to combat the gender pay gap?
We have launched the so-called Pay Transparency Directive. This allows us to take a look at current wages. Unfortunately, we haven’t managed to do this for all companies, but only for the really big ones. However, they now have a Europe-wide right to information and reporting obligations. If they have 20 female dispatchers and 50 male dispatchers, they have to think: Do I even pay them the same? Or, do the women mysteriously earn €200 less? For example, women can no longer be asked what they earned before. In addition, we are already doing something for the future with the minimum wage and the pay transparency directive: after all, the pension gap, the difference in pensions, can amount to up to 30 percent.
Let’s take a look at the companies: Among other things, the EU has adopted the “Women on Boards” directive, which has been planned for ten years. The member states have until 2026 to implement it. What will change as a result?
We now have a Europe-wide quota for women on supervisory boards: 40 percent for listed companies. Without a Europe-wide regulation, we would have a patchwork. This is about a climate change. I want to use the word deliberately here: Companies also have an internal climate, their own way of doing things. The way they deal with women who have children but still want to advance and make a career. The way they deal with men who want to take parental leave. We hope not only that there will be more women on supervisory boards, but that this will change corporate management and make it more partnership-based.
In its gender equality strategy, the EU Commission has committed itself, among other things, to systematically integrating the gender perspective into all policy areas. How well does gender mainstreaming work?
We are still a developing country, here. It often seems to me as if legal texts have to be finalized and then three sentences for women are added in at the end. Not enough happens in the individual committees either. We already have a gender mainstreaming network in the S&D Group, which has female observers in every committee and discusses the topic. But you often get the feeling that equality is still seen as a soft issue. The hard issues are negotiated first and then they might talk a little about the soft issues. But equality must be considered from the outset and included in the papers.
In a special report published in 2021, the European Court of Auditors criticized that gender equality was not adequately taken into account in the EU budget cycle either.
Every second euro must go to a woman. We have the right to half the money. This is already being taken ad absurdum in the area of agriculture alone. It’s different in Germany, but in many other parts of Europe, farms are owned by men. This means that the high subsidies from the EU – a third of the EU budget after all – flow disproportionately into their hands. The same applies to aid money and European subsidies. Covid aid has also gone predominantly into the hands of men throughout Europe.
How can this be changed?
The most important thing is not just to wait and see what happens, but to take control. In Berlin, for example, there is already a gender mainstreaming officer. This person monitors where the money goes in funding projects and tries to make adjustments. In EU legislation, for example, there would also need to be a very clear mandate to carry out impact assessments not only in the technical or financial area but also for gender equality. We should ask: What happens at the European level if we turn certain screws?
After the European elections in June, the headwind you mentioned could increase in Brussels. How do you see the coming legislative period?
We must safeguard women’s rights at the European level so that changes in the member states cannot undermine these rights. Last year, we Social Democrats presented a European Women’s Rights Charter. We want to use it to secure minimum standards across Europe. After all, Europe is a promise. It cannot be the case that whether I am protected against domestic violence depends on where I live. We expect all candidates in the S&D Group to sign the charter and make it clear: I will use my strength to stand for equality.
What do you wish for the future of EU equality policy?
If I could work my magic, I would make equality a condition for EU membership. If more countries join in the next few years, we must ensure that equality is always on the negotiating table. And I would like to see funds frozen in the event of violations. Countries that take action against equality must be able to see this on their bank statements.
The EU is making every effort to institutionalize the fight against disinformation – with success. The Digital Services Act (DSA) came fully into force in February. Implementation in the national parliaments is underway and was recently adopted in Germany. The DSA obliges platforms to actively combat disinformation. This approach to platform regulation is appropriate, as social media has created a kind of second reality that must not remain a legal vacuum given the influence of extremist groups and authoritarian regimes.
With regard to the latter, it is also understandable that the EU is continuously strengthening its institutions such as the Strategic Communication Department of the European External Action Service (EEAS) in the hybrid war against Russia. Given daily attempts by authoritarian regimes to undermine democratic values, this is an important step towards strengthening the EU’s resilience. However, neither measure is sustainable in the fight against disinformation. This is because they do not get to the root of the problem.
Election results show that people in democratic systems are becoming increasingly susceptible to fake news and bizarre conspiracy theories. Since the 2000s, Eurosceptic parties – which are on the extreme left and extreme right of the party spectrum – have become ever stronger in the EU Parliament. They are predicted to gain an even higher share of the vote in the upcoming elections. The extreme right in particular often uses conspiracy narratives, for example when it comes to issues such as migration or climate protection. This includes the AfD, which is gaining strength in Germany, now also among young people.
However, belief in conspiracy theories and fake news can also manifest in low voter turnout. Both, the rise of extreme parties and falling voter turnout reflect a stark dissatisfaction with political decision-makers. And shows that politicians, parties and democratic institutions are considered untrustworthy by many parts of the population.
The latter affected me personally. When I was in my early twenties, I was part of the conspiracy ideology scene in Germany. Back then, it was mainly mental problems and left-wing extremist influence that drove me into the hands of pied pipers. I didn’t feel heard or listened to by society. At that time, politicians seemed unreachable to me; inaccessible with their academic language and empty phrases. I mistrusted them and the first time I was allowed to vote, I didn’t.
I was particularly motivated in this respect by Ken Jebsen, a man who is described by experts as one of the most influential conspiracy ideologues in Germany. My involvement went so far that I briefly headed the public relations department of a conspiracy ideology medium. I also got to know Jebsen personally during this time.
After I left the scene and became politicized, one thing became clear to me: Democratic parties can no longer afford to sit together on a small and settle disputes on a large scale. No, political decision-makers and players need to get out there and face up to the dissatisfaction of various stakeholder groups. With more accessibility and radical honesty, it is possible to reach those who are losing faith in the democratic parties.
What is needed is not a top-down but a bottom-up approach; from the local to the state to the national level, political actors must take responsibility, step out of their comfort zone and face criticism from citizens.
It is true that with the Digital Services Act, the EU is creating a regulation that applies to all member states in the European single market and systematizes the fight against disinformation. This provides EU countries with an important instrument. However, the fight against disinformation can only be won if they recognize that it must be tackled from within.
This is also a question of the competitiveness of democratic parties. This realization is crucial, not only with regard to the EU elections in June but also the upcoming state elections in the eastern federal states of Germany.
Johanna Koch, born in 1995, is a communications expert and creative from Berlin. She is an honorary member of the district council in Berlin-Mitte. Based on her own experiences in the conspiracy ideology scene, she deals with the reasons why people are driven into the clutches of pied pipers, how people can free themselves from this sphere of influence and what kind of political measures are needed to counter it.
The EU finance ministers are meeting in Brussels today and tomorrow, first in the Eurogroup format and then as the ECOFIN Council. After an update on the current economic situation and a discussion on the EU’s lack of innovative strength, the ministers will discuss what is currently probably the hottest topic in European economic policy: the Capital Markets Union.
During this evening’s dinner, former French National Bank President Christian Noyer will present a report he has written on behalf of the French Ministry of the Economy. The report outlines in some detail how a European savings product, a securitization market backed by state guarantees and more centralized market supervision could be operationalized.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, the ministers will then deal with two tax dossiers that the Belgian Presidency would like to finalize: the reform of VAT and a reform of withholding tax.
The first concern is to modernize and digitize the collection of VAT, which should facilitate data collection and curb VAT fraud. One of the measures would oblige large platforms to ensure that the providers active on them pay VAT. Estonia, home of the Bolt mobility platform, is still opposed to this provision. According to information available to Table.Briefings, the Baltic member state is the only hurdle to the adoption of the reform, which requires unanimity.
At this start to the week, I hope you have the self-confidence of those small states that always manage to shape the tax policy of the entire EU according to their own ideas.
Many in European politics hope that a high voter turnout is the best protection against the strengthening of anti-democratic parties in the European Parliament. But how can voters be mobilized – especially 16- and 17-year-olds, who will be able to vote in the 2024 European elections in Germany for the first time?
“The right to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds is being celebrated as a major achievement,” says Stefanie Hartung, co-founder and Deputy Chairwoman of Pulse of Europe. However, she is torn. “I would consider it a great achievement if they all knew that they could vote. There’s a huge question mark behind that for me.” Europe has a communication problem, says Hartung – and not just around the election.
The citizens’ movement Pulse of Europe started in 2017 to promote the European idea and protect it from undemocratic tendencies, disinterest and falling voter turnout. To this end, it uses low-threshold campaigns, such as the joint singing of the European anthem last week in Cologne. However, while Pulse of Europe attracted a lot of attention with its Sunday demonstrations in the years following its foundation, the movement has recently become more quiet.
“You can see it in Fridays for Future: you can’t demonstrate endlessly, of course, but on specific occasions,” explains Hartung. And the European elections are one such occasion. Pulse of Europe has not only launched its own European election campaign but is also taking action on streets and squares again. “We are out and about in many cities. On the Sunday before the European elections, as many Pulse of Europe cities as possible want to demonstrate again.” However, Pulse of Europe is now much more than that, says Hartung. “There are a wide variety of formats, such as the European house parliaments, where we discuss the reform of Europe. We ask critical questions and let citizens discuss how they imagine their Europe.”
The mood towards Europe is critical. “And not without good reason, we also see it that way as a pro-European citizens’ movement. There is a need for reform,” says Hartung. However, Europe is actually better than its reputation. This is not a new symptom either. “If local politicians communicated to citizens daily in their work on the ground how much – and in this case, how much good – comes from Europe, then Europe would certainly be in a better position.”
Europe is complex and bad at communicating its policies, says Hartung. “Europe would have to maintain a huge communication machine on a daily basis to say what good things Europe is doing.” This is because the connection to Europe is not always made at the national level to the extent that it should be. “Even now, with the European elections, we are once again seeing that Europe is being specifically functionalized, instrumentalized, not to say abused.“
Nevertheless, the mood is not as bad as is often claimed. “We must make a distinction between the governments of the member states and their citizens,” warns Hartung. Poland is a good example. “A majority of Poles were clearly pro-Europe, even under the PiS government. Since Donald Tusk took over, they finally have the feeling that Brussels is listening to how they feel.”
One of Europe’s problems is the ambitious attempt to “achieve maximum cooperation with maximum sovereignty,” says Hartung. One example of this is the principle of unanimity, which initially made the Community great, but now makes it too slow and susceptible to blackmail. The solution: abolishing the principle of unanimity in favor of qualified majority decisions.
Hartung also sees a need for reform in foreign and security policy. “In view of the global challenges, we urgently need to reposition,” says Hartung. However, that’s a tall order. But the bottom line is that the majority know that it doesn’t feel good to stand alone, in the interplay with the USA, China and Russia, but also India and Brazil.
The Union must also strengthen the European sense of community. To this end, she proposes a European broadcaster with a common program – translated into all 24 official EU languages. “A large joint media channel would be good so that what happens in Finland is also heard in Romania – and also in the countryside,” says Hartung. A common official language would also help to strengthen the sense of community.
Volt’s demands for reform go much further. “We want to give the EU a constitution,” says Nela Riehl, who is running for the European Parliament for Volt. It is now a matter of finding majorities for this. “We envision a real European government with a European prime minister.” There should also be European ministries. Europe would then have a federal structure like the Federal Republic of Germany. There is certainly support for this, says Riehl. “Many see it as a counter-proposal to ‘we have to go back to the nation-state’, which is the right-wing conservative narrative at the moment.”
Not exactly a European government, but the direct election of Commission presidents is also being called for by the left. It is about “direct legitimacy,” that the personnel are not simply negotiated behind closed doors, says Martin Schirdewan, Co-Chair of the Left Group in the European Parliament. “We want greater citizen participation, that European Citizens’ Initiatives, if they are successful, must also be included directly in the legislative process.” But above all: “It is clear that we need a right of initiative for the European Parliament.”
This is also the view of the SPD. “We see a need for reform when it comes to the role of the European Parliament, which finally needs a right of initiative,” says Secretary-General Kevin Kühnert. “People are now electing their parliament and frankly expect this parliament to be able to do what every Bundestag and every state parliament can do: introduce its own bills.” The EU has outgrown its old size, which is why the rules of the game need to be adapted. “Unanimity on issues such as tax policy is outdated with 27 member states,” says Kühnert. “And yes, more federal structure would be good.”
For example, the SPD believes it is important that citizens should be able to vote for a transnational list at the next European elections in addition to the national vote they can cast for a list – as Volt is also calling for. “After all, we have long been standing together with our European social democratic sister parties and also under the same programmatic conditions,” says Kühnert. “We would also like to present this to voters in a joint list.”
Hartung from Pulse of Europe also believes it is important to finally introduce the right of initiative for Parliament. “Because in my view, that would get things moving a lot more.”
You can find more articles on the 2024 European elections here.
Vladimir Putin is traveling to China – again. Just a few days after his Europe visit, President Xi Jinping is meeting with the man the Europeans – most recently German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron – would like to get him away from. In vain so far.
China’s official position on Russia remains unchanged. Nevertheless, the debate about Russia’s attack on Ukraine and China’s stance on the issue continues, at least in academic circles. Recently, a guest article for the British magazine The Economist by one of the fiercest Russia critics surprised readers: Beijing politics professor Feng Yujun predicted Russia’s defeat. Continued Western support and social cohesion in Ukraine would force Russia to vacate all occupied territories “In time.”
From the beginning of the invasion, Feng had repeatedly argued that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unjustified and motivated by imperial greed – and that China was making a strategic mistake by cooperating too closely with Moscow on this issue. “China’s relations with Russia are not fixed,” said Feng. China already abandoned the “no limits” friendship with Russia and returned to traditional principles of “non-alignment, non-confrontation and non-targeting of third parties.”
Feng is not alone in his criticism of Russia. “Feng’s mistrust and criticism of Moscow have become clear in most of my conversations with Chinese scientists, albeit in a milder form,” explains Thomas des Garets Geddes, who has selected essays by Chinese scientists translated and published in his newsletter Sinification.
Mark Leonard from the European Council of Foreign Relations (ECFR) also had confidential talks with several academics at a conference in Beijing at the end of 2022. “The ambivalent feelings of the Chinese towards the Russians were very striking,” he said last July during a webinar presentation of an ECFR study on the topic. He even noted a certain contempt in some cases.
But the West should not get its hopes up too much. Feng Yujun’s warning against maintaining close relations with Russia does not reflect the majority opinion among Chinese political analysts. “It is quite common for Chinese analysts to express criticism and distrust of Moscow while advocating the continuation of close relations with the Kremlin,” Geddes told Table.Briefings. “This may seem somewhat contradictory at first glance, but it simply reflects that China’s national interests take precedence over everything else.”
This includes the fact that Beijing continues to believe it needs Russia as an ally against the scorned Western-dominated world order. This is why some academics stand by Russia without question. In a recent text translated by Geddes, Wang Xiushui from Beijing Aviation University and former Air Force colonel demands: “Beijing’s relations with Moscow must remain at the center of China’s diplomatic strategy.” In a world where the law of the jungle applies, China and Russia must become unbeatable adversaries of the USA. Only then would they gain the respect of the West.
Wang sees the Ukraine war as a “clash of civilizations” (文明的冲突), which must be viewed from a long-term perspective: “From the perspective of the emerging global landscape, I believe that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is the opening battle for a multipolar world” (多极世界的揭幕之战)” He does not use the word “war” in his article. According to Geddes, the prevailing opinion among China’s established intellectuals lies somewhere between that of Feng Yujun and Wang Xiushui.
It’s worth taking a quick look at Russia. Maxim Yusin, a columnist for the Russian business newspaper Kommersant, believes that Feng’s Economist guest article is definitely a signal. “If you know how Chinese society is organized, it’s hard to imagine that the professor who wrote this article acted at his own risk and without the support of the responsible comrades in Beijing,” he writes. There is no answer to this question.
However, according to Jusin, China’s peace initiatives to resolve the Ukraine conflict are “not at all” in line with the maximum demands of the Russian side. Beijing calls for an end to hostilities, even a freeze in the conflict, says Jusin, “but makes no mention of Ukraine’s demilitarization, denazification or a regime change in Kyiv.” These are all key demands of the Kremlin, which is why Jusin believes that China maintains a greater distance from Russia than the West perceives.
Meanwhile, there are no reports of loud demands from Chinese academics for arms deliveries or even military aid for Russia. China expert Thomas Eder from the Austrian Institute for International Affairs has looked at several Chinese platforms for expert discussions on foreign policy (aisixiang.com, cfisnet.com and cn.chinausfocus.com) and found that academics there generally “counsel prudence, balance and continuity.” He believes that this caution by the foreign policy elites is the one reason why the government is holding back.
On these platforms, Chinese academics describe “cooperation with Moscow in international organizations as important, and Russia as key for a global strategic balance.” However, many also argued that Russia’s actions were harming China’s interests. “They describe Russia as a potentially bigger problem for China-EU relations than the US.”
The platforms also describe the EU’s strategic importance for China in the context of competition with the US as “no less than that of Russia.” If this is true, the government should listen to Feng Yujun. Beijing must prevent the West and other parts of the world from transferring their dissatisfaction with Russia onto China.” That is currently the threat, especially in Europe.
Ms. Noichl, what is your assessment – have the past five years been a success in terms of equality?
In terms of equality policy, the legislative period has been incredibly successful. After all, you have to bear in mind that the world out there is currently rather anti-feminist in some respects. We therefore said: everything we have already achieved must now be cemented. And at the same time, we have managed to take further steps forward.
Where do we stand today in terms of equality for women in the economy?
The promise made by feminists from the 1950s to 1970s – “If you take a job out there, you will become economically independent of men and can shape your own life” – has unfortunately not been fulfilled. Women are increasingly working in low-paid jobs and are therefore still not independent.
In this mandate, the EU set a Europe-wide minimum wage framework: 60 percent of the average wage in a country. This was primarily intended to reduce the large differences between the member states. Will it also change the situation of women?
The European minimum wage is huge for us women. Minimum wages help women disproportionately. In Germany, we have noticed that the introduction of the minimum wage has mainly helped women in the East: Hairdressers, for example, who were previously fobbed off with €2.50 and tips. And now, with the minimum wage increase in Germany to €12.41, it is again women who have the real added value.
In 2022, women in the EU earned on average almost 13 percent less than men for the same work, in Germany even almost 18 percent less. What has the EU done to combat the gender pay gap?
We have launched the so-called Pay Transparency Directive. This allows us to take a look at current wages. Unfortunately, we haven’t managed to do this for all companies, but only for the really big ones. However, they now have a Europe-wide right to information and reporting obligations. If they have 20 female dispatchers and 50 male dispatchers, they have to think: Do I even pay them the same? Or, do the women mysteriously earn €200 less? For example, women can no longer be asked what they earned before. In addition, we are already doing something for the future with the minimum wage and the pay transparency directive: after all, the pension gap, the difference in pensions, can amount to up to 30 percent.
Let’s take a look at the companies: Among other things, the EU has adopted the “Women on Boards” directive, which has been planned for ten years. The member states have until 2026 to implement it. What will change as a result?
We now have a Europe-wide quota for women on supervisory boards: 40 percent for listed companies. Without a Europe-wide regulation, we would have a patchwork. This is about a climate change. I want to use the word deliberately here: Companies also have an internal climate, their own way of doing things. The way they deal with women who have children but still want to advance and make a career. The way they deal with men who want to take parental leave. We hope not only that there will be more women on supervisory boards, but that this will change corporate management and make it more partnership-based.
In its gender equality strategy, the EU Commission has committed itself, among other things, to systematically integrating the gender perspective into all policy areas. How well does gender mainstreaming work?
We are still a developing country, here. It often seems to me as if legal texts have to be finalized and then three sentences for women are added in at the end. Not enough happens in the individual committees either. We already have a gender mainstreaming network in the S&D Group, which has female observers in every committee and discusses the topic. But you often get the feeling that equality is still seen as a soft issue. The hard issues are negotiated first and then they might talk a little about the soft issues. But equality must be considered from the outset and included in the papers.
In a special report published in 2021, the European Court of Auditors criticized that gender equality was not adequately taken into account in the EU budget cycle either.
Every second euro must go to a woman. We have the right to half the money. This is already being taken ad absurdum in the area of agriculture alone. It’s different in Germany, but in many other parts of Europe, farms are owned by men. This means that the high subsidies from the EU – a third of the EU budget after all – flow disproportionately into their hands. The same applies to aid money and European subsidies. Covid aid has also gone predominantly into the hands of men throughout Europe.
How can this be changed?
The most important thing is not just to wait and see what happens, but to take control. In Berlin, for example, there is already a gender mainstreaming officer. This person monitors where the money goes in funding projects and tries to make adjustments. In EU legislation, for example, there would also need to be a very clear mandate to carry out impact assessments not only in the technical or financial area but also for gender equality. We should ask: What happens at the European level if we turn certain screws?
After the European elections in June, the headwind you mentioned could increase in Brussels. How do you see the coming legislative period?
We must safeguard women’s rights at the European level so that changes in the member states cannot undermine these rights. Last year, we Social Democrats presented a European Women’s Rights Charter. We want to use it to secure minimum standards across Europe. After all, Europe is a promise. It cannot be the case that whether I am protected against domestic violence depends on where I live. We expect all candidates in the S&D Group to sign the charter and make it clear: I will use my strength to stand for equality.
What do you wish for the future of EU equality policy?
If I could work my magic, I would make equality a condition for EU membership. If more countries join in the next few years, we must ensure that equality is always on the negotiating table. And I would like to see funds frozen in the event of violations. Countries that take action against equality must be able to see this on their bank statements.
The EU is making every effort to institutionalize the fight against disinformation – with success. The Digital Services Act (DSA) came fully into force in February. Implementation in the national parliaments is underway and was recently adopted in Germany. The DSA obliges platforms to actively combat disinformation. This approach to platform regulation is appropriate, as social media has created a kind of second reality that must not remain a legal vacuum given the influence of extremist groups and authoritarian regimes.
With regard to the latter, it is also understandable that the EU is continuously strengthening its institutions such as the Strategic Communication Department of the European External Action Service (EEAS) in the hybrid war against Russia. Given daily attempts by authoritarian regimes to undermine democratic values, this is an important step towards strengthening the EU’s resilience. However, neither measure is sustainable in the fight against disinformation. This is because they do not get to the root of the problem.
Election results show that people in democratic systems are becoming increasingly susceptible to fake news and bizarre conspiracy theories. Since the 2000s, Eurosceptic parties – which are on the extreme left and extreme right of the party spectrum – have become ever stronger in the EU Parliament. They are predicted to gain an even higher share of the vote in the upcoming elections. The extreme right in particular often uses conspiracy narratives, for example when it comes to issues such as migration or climate protection. This includes the AfD, which is gaining strength in Germany, now also among young people.
However, belief in conspiracy theories and fake news can also manifest in low voter turnout. Both, the rise of extreme parties and falling voter turnout reflect a stark dissatisfaction with political decision-makers. And shows that politicians, parties and democratic institutions are considered untrustworthy by many parts of the population.
The latter affected me personally. When I was in my early twenties, I was part of the conspiracy ideology scene in Germany. Back then, it was mainly mental problems and left-wing extremist influence that drove me into the hands of pied pipers. I didn’t feel heard or listened to by society. At that time, politicians seemed unreachable to me; inaccessible with their academic language and empty phrases. I mistrusted them and the first time I was allowed to vote, I didn’t.
I was particularly motivated in this respect by Ken Jebsen, a man who is described by experts as one of the most influential conspiracy ideologues in Germany. My involvement went so far that I briefly headed the public relations department of a conspiracy ideology medium. I also got to know Jebsen personally during this time.
After I left the scene and became politicized, one thing became clear to me: Democratic parties can no longer afford to sit together on a small and settle disputes on a large scale. No, political decision-makers and players need to get out there and face up to the dissatisfaction of various stakeholder groups. With more accessibility and radical honesty, it is possible to reach those who are losing faith in the democratic parties.
What is needed is not a top-down but a bottom-up approach; from the local to the state to the national level, political actors must take responsibility, step out of their comfort zone and face criticism from citizens.
It is true that with the Digital Services Act, the EU is creating a regulation that applies to all member states in the European single market and systematizes the fight against disinformation. This provides EU countries with an important instrument. However, the fight against disinformation can only be won if they recognize that it must be tackled from within.
This is also a question of the competitiveness of democratic parties. This realization is crucial, not only with regard to the EU elections in June but also the upcoming state elections in the eastern federal states of Germany.
Johanna Koch, born in 1995, is a communications expert and creative from Berlin. She is an honorary member of the district council in Berlin-Mitte. Based on her own experiences in the conspiracy ideology scene, she deals with the reasons why people are driven into the clutches of pied pipers, how people can free themselves from this sphere of influence and what kind of political measures are needed to counter it.
