In NATO’s new strategic concept, which was adopted in Madrid yesterday, China appears as a “challenge” for the first time. Although NATO had already classified the People’s Republic as a “systemic challenge” previously, this is now also stated in the paper that will determine the course of the next ten years. Stephan Israel analyzed what this means.
The de facto end for the internal combustion engine became a quasi-end for e-fuels and hybrids during the negotiations on the Fit for 55 package on Wednesday night. It is true that from 2035, no more cars that emit C02 may be registered. However, the interpretations of what this means in detail are surprisingly different. Lukas Scheid looked into the interpretations and reactions.
Either way, the end of the internal combustion engine means high demand for batteries for electric cars in the future. Many in the industry now foresee a shortage of lithium, and by 2024 or 2025, a shortage of batteries as well. Read more about this in the News .
Of course, Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the EU Commission and master of the Green Deal, was also involved in the negotiations on the Fit for 55 package. In today’s Profile, Stephan Israel‘s takes a closer look at the “climate czar”, who is always overshadowed by events.
I wish you an exciting read.
The view of Russia is unsurprisingly without illusions against the backdrop of the attack on Ukraine: The Russian Federation is the “greatest and most immediate threat to the security of allies and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area,” according to the new strategic concept adopted by NATO at its summit in Madrid.
The passage on China, which is mentioned in a NATO strategic concept for the first time ever, caused more discussion in the run-up. The US, supported by Great Britain, demanded plain terms to circumscribe the Chinese leadership’s aggressive striving for power. Germany and France also pushed for a more nuanced characterization in view of economic interests in the world’s second-largest economy. China could not be described as an adversary on a par with Russia, they said.
However, the mere fact that two sections are now devoted to China is a watershed in the history of the transatlantic alliance. Top diplomats were still negotiating the crucial passages shortly before Madrid. The People’s Republic of China’s stated goals and its policy of coercion posed “challenges” to the interests, security and values of NATO allies, the strategic concept now says. China was using a wide range of political, economic, and military tools to expand its global footprint and power projection.
It goes on to describe in clear terms how China is targeting allies with “malicious hybrid and cyber operations”, “confrontational rhetoric and disinformation”, and harming alliance security. China also seeks to control key technology and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains. China is using its economic clout to create strategic dependencies and increase its influence.
China was also seeking to undermine the international order, including in space, on the Internet, and at sea. The leadership in Beijing also used its “increasingly close strategic partnership” with the Russian Federation as leverage. The interplay between Beijing and Moscow is an issue of concern to the US, also in light of the Russian war in Ukraine. At the same time, NATO says it is open “to constructive discussions with the People’s Republic of China aimed at safeguarding the alliance’s security interests, including talks to build mutual transparency”.
However, there is no intention to be naive about it: The alliance will expand its joint situational awareness, increase resilience and operational readiness, and guard against “the tactics of coercion by the People’s Republic of China and its attempts to divide the alliance”. NATO will stand up for its shared values and the rules-based international order, “including freedom of navigation”.
NATO updates its strategic concept every ten years. At the last meeting in Lisbon in 2010, China was not yet an issue, Russia was valued as a “strategic partner” and the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was a welcome guest. This was despite the fact that Russian forces had invaded Georgia two years earlier and had not withdrawn from Moldova or Transnistria, contrary to the agreements. After the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, at the latest, the alliance’s old strategic guideline was completely obsolete.
The new concept could be similar. It is quite possible that Russia will have served its time as an opponent in ten years and that the real threat will come from China. The clear sections on the new challenger are at least an indication in this direction . The fact that the heads of state and government of Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea were present for the first time on the first day of the summit is also an indication. “We are facing an era of strategic competition,” said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg following the meeting with partner countries.
NATO will remain a transatlantic alliance, the Norwegian stressed. But it shares the same values with its partners and has to deal with the same threats. When the security of partners is called into question, this also affects NATO and the security interests of its members. China terrorizes its neighbors and threatens Taiwan. The leadership in Beijing is substantially expanding its armed forces and spreading Russian propaganda. China is not an adversary, Stoltenberg stressed, but allies and partners should not be blind to the challenge. NATO would expand cooperation with friendly states in the Indo-Pacific region.
The EU’s “no” to phasing out internal combustion engines was the right thing to do, FDP leader and German Finance Minister Christian Lindner tweeted on Wednesday morning. CO2-free fuels in passenger cars remain possible even after the agreement of the EU environment ministers, in his view. Many see it differently. They see the agreement at the Environment Council as a clear vote against the internal combustion engine. Among them are Steffi Lemke (Greens), the environment minister responsible for the legislative proposal, and Green Deal Commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Both made it clear that from 2035 onwards, only new cars that do not emit CO2 are to be registered. And according to the EU’s current definition, neither e-fuels nor plug-in hybrids are free of CO2 emissions. The German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) therefore sees the Council’s position as a “de facto ban on internal combustion engines” from 2035. “With this decision, the environment ministers have taken a decision against an industrial policy that is open to technology,” commented VDA President Hildegard Müller.
Politics has the task – especially when it comes to setting such ambitious targets – of creating the framework conditions to ensure that these plans can be achieved, Müller added. “With a policy that only demands from others and does not deliver itself, the climate targets cannot be achieved.” The VDA is therefore calling for a “reliable charging and H2 refueling infrastructure throughout Europe“.
The Federation of German Industries (BDI) also sees no opportunities for the use of e-fuels “because only electric drives may continue to be counted in fleet regulation”. This lacks a decisive incentive for the market ramp-up of e-fuels, says BDI President Siegfried Russwurm. “No one can predict with absolute certainty today what will be technologically possible and the best solution in 2035.”
Only the German Mechanical Engineering Industry Association (VDMA) interprets the outcome of the Environmental Council as an averted ban on internal combustion engines. Nevertheless, there are “major uncertainties with regard to future drive technologies for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles,” says Hartmut Rauen, Deputy Managing Director of the VDMA. The EU has not been able to come to a clear decision on the form in which e-fuels will be used in road traffic in the future.
Interestingly, the environmental associations are disappointed by the Council’s agreement for the opposite reasons. A back door remains open for internal combustion vehicles, commented Kerstin Haarmann, the federal chairwoman of the Traffic Club Germany (VCD). She said that the FDP’s refusal to agree to a ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035 was responsible for this. As a result, Germany has lost its credibility as a climate protection pioneer in Europe.
It is annoying that the EU must continue to “deal with the bogus solution of inefficient and expensive e-fuels, which have no place in the passenger car market,” said Greenpeace managing director Martin Kaiser. What is clear, however – and Frans Timmermans made this clear as late as Wednesday night – is that the right of initiative to consider e-fuels lies with the Commission. He said it is not obliged to bring forward a legislative proposal to include e-fuels or hybrids in the fleet limits. If manufacturers show that their technologies are carbon-neutral under EU regulations, the Commission would be open to it but also makes clear that so far they can’t.
The criticism of some environmental associations is also directed against the further compromises of the Environment Council. A “heavily watered-down” EU climate package, says Germanwatch, including the agreement on the Social Climate Fund. Germany’s prolonged blockade has almost jeopardized the entire package here, criticizes political director Christoph Bals. The compromise that has now been reached is inadequate and urgently needs to be improved. Germany had tried to reduce the size of the Social Climate Fund. “At least the German government was not able to prevail with its shameful proposal,” said Bals.
Bals sees the fact that industry is to receive free CO2 certificates as protection against carbon leakage until the end of 2035 as showing too much consideration for industry rather than for achieving climate targets. “The already inadequate proposal of the Commission and the French Council Presidency was watered down even further under pressure from the German government.” For trilogue negotiations with the Parliament, he demands that Berlin henceforth act as a “climate policy draught horse and not a brake”.
The new government in Berlin “actively undermined negotiations on crucial issues such as the emissions trading system and the climate fund during the preparation of the Council,” said Viviane Raddatz, head of climate protection and energy policy at WWF Germany. “In this context, the question is how Germany intends to achieve its national climate targets and what concept of European solidarity it represents.”
Monday’s negotiation results in the Energy Council were also not without criticism. “Unfortunately, the target of 40 percent renewables by 2030 in the EU is far too weak,” tweeted Simone Peter, president of the German Renewable Energy Federation (BEE). “Science & associations have been calling for higher targets for a long time. Given cost & supply crisis of fossil fuels plus climate crisis, far more ambition would be needed.” The Council had postponed negotiations on a target increase to 45 percent renewables until the trilogue with the Parliament.
On the other hand, the adoption of proposals for faster planning and permitting procedures met with a positive response. “Europe now wants 510 gigawatts of wind energy by 2030, up from 190 GW today. Europe will only achieve this if it speeds up permitting procedures. It is very good that EU energy ministers have now agreed to do just that,” said Giles Dickson, CEO of WindEurope.
For the renewable associations, however, it is the concrete implementation that matters. “All new wind farms should be approved in a maximum of two years. Governments should ensure that this deadline covers all approvals, including environmental impact assessments and grid permits,” Dickson added.
Hydrogen Europe, on the other hand, was less than enthusiastic about the target for sustainable e-fuels in industry, which was watered down from the Commission’s proposal last July (50 percent) and which the Commission wanted to increase further with REPowerEU (75 percent).
“Unfortunately, the Council’s position falls short of the ambitious targets set in the RePowerEU Communication and dilutes the targets for renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) in transport and industry. The shift from mandatory to indicative targets in these sectors harms the business model and affects certainty for investors,” said CEO Jorgo Chatzimarkakis.
“We call on the European Parliament and the European Commission to advocate for the mandatory sub-targets for RFNBOs in transport and industry proposed under the RED II revision.” With Manuel Berkel
Actually, as the EU’s climate czar, Frans Timmermans would be the man of the hour. But now, he is once again somewhat overshadowed, not getting the unrestricted attention he deserves. Sometimes it’s the circumstances, like now with the Ukraine war, sometimes Ursula von der Leyen steals the show. Yet Frans Timmermans is the man who will get the Fit-for-55 climate package over the finish line: “Europe must send a clear signal to the world that we are ready to do whatever it takes to implement our climate policy,” the Dutchman said before the crucial night session.
On Wednesday morning, he is a good deal closer to achieving his goal. “This is a very good day for the European Green Deal and for the European Union,” Timmermans said. But there is little room for the climate commissioner’s success between the EU summit, G7, and NATO meetings. Timmermans will always remain number two. Or rather, the First Vice-President in the team of the head of the Commission, as the professional politician likes to emphasize, known as a man with a big ego and inexhaustible energy. In fact, he would have liked to replace Ursula von der Leyen at the helm of the Brussels office.
Timmermans was the European Socialists’ top candidate in the 2019 European elections. The Social Democrats only finished as the second-strongest force. When it became clear that the conservative winner Manfred Weber would not be able to muster a majority in the EU Parliament, Timmermans briefly thought he had a good chance.
But the heads of state and government bypassed the top candidates altogether and conjured Ursula von der Leyen out of a hat, on the recommendation of French President Emmanuel Macron. The disappointment was great, especially for the candidate “for a social Europe”, but not only that. The Dutchman needed some time to regain his footing and accept the role as number 2 behind Ursula von der Leyen. The corpulent politician from the Parti van de Arbeid (PvdA) was hardly seen for a long time, and when he reappeared, he had grown a beard.
After all, as First Vice-President and Commissioner for Climate Protection, Ursula von der Leyen entrusted him with her most important project, the Green Deal . If it hadn’t been for COVID and the Ukraine war, Timmermans would have attracted considerably more attention. Timmermans was born in Maastricht on May 6, 1961. His father, married to a German, worked in the diplomatic service. Timmermans studied French literature and European law in the Netherlands and in Nancy, France. He later served in The Hague as State Secretary for European Affairs and then Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, among other positions.
He was in office when separatists in eastern Ukraine shot down a Malaysia Airlines airliner with a Russian forces Buk anti-aircraft missile in 2014, killing 298 people, many of them Dutch. Timmermans led the charge at the UN at the time and found the right words, earning him the nickname “Super Frans”. He had made the world cry, the press at home found. Shortly thereafter, he moved to Brussels for his first term and, under Jean-Claude Juncker, had the thankless task of stopping the erosion of the rule of law in Poland and Hungary, of seeking dialogue with Warsaw and Budapest. In the end, a Sisyphean task that made him a hate figure among the right-wing nationalist governments in Warsaw and Budapest.
During the election campaign, he campaigned for a social Europe, for a European minimum wage, for European unemployment insurance. He likes to remind people of his two grandfathers, who were both miners. “We must leave no one behind,” he says, even as Commissioner for the Green Deal. He has brought in former Greenpeace activist and former Social Democratic Party leader Diederik Samsom from The Hague to head his cabinet. Conservative members of the EU Parliament initially scolded the “mortician of European industry” and lobbied Ursula von der Leyen to curb the Dutchman’s momentum for the climate.
But in the meantime, the criticism has died down. The workaholic knows his way around the thicket of Green Deal bills. Timmermans is considered a rhetorical super talent. He can represent the EU with dignity at international climate conferences but also explain the Green Deal convincingly to citizens. Timmermans speaks seven languages fluently and also likes to switch from one idiom to another in the press room of the EU Commission. Timmermans is married and has four children from two marriages. Stephan Israel
In NATO’s new strategic concept, which was adopted in Madrid yesterday, China appears as a “challenge” for the first time. Although NATO had already classified the People’s Republic as a “systemic challenge” previously, this is now also stated in the paper that will determine the course of the next ten years. Stephan Israel analyzed what this means.
The de facto end for the internal combustion engine became a quasi-end for e-fuels and hybrids during the negotiations on the Fit for 55 package on Wednesday night. It is true that from 2035, no more cars that emit C02 may be registered. However, the interpretations of what this means in detail are surprisingly different. Lukas Scheid looked into the interpretations and reactions.
Either way, the end of the internal combustion engine means high demand for batteries for electric cars in the future. Many in the industry now foresee a shortage of lithium, and by 2024 or 2025, a shortage of batteries as well. Read more about this in the News .
Of course, Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the EU Commission and master of the Green Deal, was also involved in the negotiations on the Fit for 55 package. In today’s Profile, Stephan Israel‘s takes a closer look at the “climate czar”, who is always overshadowed by events.
I wish you an exciting read.
The view of Russia is unsurprisingly without illusions against the backdrop of the attack on Ukraine: The Russian Federation is the “greatest and most immediate threat to the security of allies and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area,” according to the new strategic concept adopted by NATO at its summit in Madrid.
The passage on China, which is mentioned in a NATO strategic concept for the first time ever, caused more discussion in the run-up. The US, supported by Great Britain, demanded plain terms to circumscribe the Chinese leadership’s aggressive striving for power. Germany and France also pushed for a more nuanced characterization in view of economic interests in the world’s second-largest economy. China could not be described as an adversary on a par with Russia, they said.
However, the mere fact that two sections are now devoted to China is a watershed in the history of the transatlantic alliance. Top diplomats were still negotiating the crucial passages shortly before Madrid. The People’s Republic of China’s stated goals and its policy of coercion posed “challenges” to the interests, security and values of NATO allies, the strategic concept now says. China was using a wide range of political, economic, and military tools to expand its global footprint and power projection.
It goes on to describe in clear terms how China is targeting allies with “malicious hybrid and cyber operations”, “confrontational rhetoric and disinformation”, and harming alliance security. China also seeks to control key technology and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains. China is using its economic clout to create strategic dependencies and increase its influence.
China was also seeking to undermine the international order, including in space, on the Internet, and at sea. The leadership in Beijing also used its “increasingly close strategic partnership” with the Russian Federation as leverage. The interplay between Beijing and Moscow is an issue of concern to the US, also in light of the Russian war in Ukraine. At the same time, NATO says it is open “to constructive discussions with the People’s Republic of China aimed at safeguarding the alliance’s security interests, including talks to build mutual transparency”.
However, there is no intention to be naive about it: The alliance will expand its joint situational awareness, increase resilience and operational readiness, and guard against “the tactics of coercion by the People’s Republic of China and its attempts to divide the alliance”. NATO will stand up for its shared values and the rules-based international order, “including freedom of navigation”.
NATO updates its strategic concept every ten years. At the last meeting in Lisbon in 2010, China was not yet an issue, Russia was valued as a “strategic partner” and the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was a welcome guest. This was despite the fact that Russian forces had invaded Georgia two years earlier and had not withdrawn from Moldova or Transnistria, contrary to the agreements. After the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, at the latest, the alliance’s old strategic guideline was completely obsolete.
The new concept could be similar. It is quite possible that Russia will have served its time as an opponent in ten years and that the real threat will come from China. The clear sections on the new challenger are at least an indication in this direction . The fact that the heads of state and government of Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea were present for the first time on the first day of the summit is also an indication. “We are facing an era of strategic competition,” said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg following the meeting with partner countries.
NATO will remain a transatlantic alliance, the Norwegian stressed. But it shares the same values with its partners and has to deal with the same threats. When the security of partners is called into question, this also affects NATO and the security interests of its members. China terrorizes its neighbors and threatens Taiwan. The leadership in Beijing is substantially expanding its armed forces and spreading Russian propaganda. China is not an adversary, Stoltenberg stressed, but allies and partners should not be blind to the challenge. NATO would expand cooperation with friendly states in the Indo-Pacific region.
The EU’s “no” to phasing out internal combustion engines was the right thing to do, FDP leader and German Finance Minister Christian Lindner tweeted on Wednesday morning. CO2-free fuels in passenger cars remain possible even after the agreement of the EU environment ministers, in his view. Many see it differently. They see the agreement at the Environment Council as a clear vote against the internal combustion engine. Among them are Steffi Lemke (Greens), the environment minister responsible for the legislative proposal, and Green Deal Commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Both made it clear that from 2035 onwards, only new cars that do not emit CO2 are to be registered. And according to the EU’s current definition, neither e-fuels nor plug-in hybrids are free of CO2 emissions. The German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) therefore sees the Council’s position as a “de facto ban on internal combustion engines” from 2035. “With this decision, the environment ministers have taken a decision against an industrial policy that is open to technology,” commented VDA President Hildegard Müller.
Politics has the task – especially when it comes to setting such ambitious targets – of creating the framework conditions to ensure that these plans can be achieved, Müller added. “With a policy that only demands from others and does not deliver itself, the climate targets cannot be achieved.” The VDA is therefore calling for a “reliable charging and H2 refueling infrastructure throughout Europe“.
The Federation of German Industries (BDI) also sees no opportunities for the use of e-fuels “because only electric drives may continue to be counted in fleet regulation”. This lacks a decisive incentive for the market ramp-up of e-fuels, says BDI President Siegfried Russwurm. “No one can predict with absolute certainty today what will be technologically possible and the best solution in 2035.”
Only the German Mechanical Engineering Industry Association (VDMA) interprets the outcome of the Environmental Council as an averted ban on internal combustion engines. Nevertheless, there are “major uncertainties with regard to future drive technologies for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles,” says Hartmut Rauen, Deputy Managing Director of the VDMA. The EU has not been able to come to a clear decision on the form in which e-fuels will be used in road traffic in the future.
Interestingly, the environmental associations are disappointed by the Council’s agreement for the opposite reasons. A back door remains open for internal combustion vehicles, commented Kerstin Haarmann, the federal chairwoman of the Traffic Club Germany (VCD). She said that the FDP’s refusal to agree to a ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035 was responsible for this. As a result, Germany has lost its credibility as a climate protection pioneer in Europe.
It is annoying that the EU must continue to “deal with the bogus solution of inefficient and expensive e-fuels, which have no place in the passenger car market,” said Greenpeace managing director Martin Kaiser. What is clear, however – and Frans Timmermans made this clear as late as Wednesday night – is that the right of initiative to consider e-fuels lies with the Commission. He said it is not obliged to bring forward a legislative proposal to include e-fuels or hybrids in the fleet limits. If manufacturers show that their technologies are carbon-neutral under EU regulations, the Commission would be open to it but also makes clear that so far they can’t.
The criticism of some environmental associations is also directed against the further compromises of the Environment Council. A “heavily watered-down” EU climate package, says Germanwatch, including the agreement on the Social Climate Fund. Germany’s prolonged blockade has almost jeopardized the entire package here, criticizes political director Christoph Bals. The compromise that has now been reached is inadequate and urgently needs to be improved. Germany had tried to reduce the size of the Social Climate Fund. “At least the German government was not able to prevail with its shameful proposal,” said Bals.
Bals sees the fact that industry is to receive free CO2 certificates as protection against carbon leakage until the end of 2035 as showing too much consideration for industry rather than for achieving climate targets. “The already inadequate proposal of the Commission and the French Council Presidency was watered down even further under pressure from the German government.” For trilogue negotiations with the Parliament, he demands that Berlin henceforth act as a “climate policy draught horse and not a brake”.
The new government in Berlin “actively undermined negotiations on crucial issues such as the emissions trading system and the climate fund during the preparation of the Council,” said Viviane Raddatz, head of climate protection and energy policy at WWF Germany. “In this context, the question is how Germany intends to achieve its national climate targets and what concept of European solidarity it represents.”
Monday’s negotiation results in the Energy Council were also not without criticism. “Unfortunately, the target of 40 percent renewables by 2030 in the EU is far too weak,” tweeted Simone Peter, president of the German Renewable Energy Federation (BEE). “Science & associations have been calling for higher targets for a long time. Given cost & supply crisis of fossil fuels plus climate crisis, far more ambition would be needed.” The Council had postponed negotiations on a target increase to 45 percent renewables until the trilogue with the Parliament.
On the other hand, the adoption of proposals for faster planning and permitting procedures met with a positive response. “Europe now wants 510 gigawatts of wind energy by 2030, up from 190 GW today. Europe will only achieve this if it speeds up permitting procedures. It is very good that EU energy ministers have now agreed to do just that,” said Giles Dickson, CEO of WindEurope.
For the renewable associations, however, it is the concrete implementation that matters. “All new wind farms should be approved in a maximum of two years. Governments should ensure that this deadline covers all approvals, including environmental impact assessments and grid permits,” Dickson added.
Hydrogen Europe, on the other hand, was less than enthusiastic about the target for sustainable e-fuels in industry, which was watered down from the Commission’s proposal last July (50 percent) and which the Commission wanted to increase further with REPowerEU (75 percent).
“Unfortunately, the Council’s position falls short of the ambitious targets set in the RePowerEU Communication and dilutes the targets for renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) in transport and industry. The shift from mandatory to indicative targets in these sectors harms the business model and affects certainty for investors,” said CEO Jorgo Chatzimarkakis.
“We call on the European Parliament and the European Commission to advocate for the mandatory sub-targets for RFNBOs in transport and industry proposed under the RED II revision.” With Manuel Berkel
Actually, as the EU’s climate czar, Frans Timmermans would be the man of the hour. But now, he is once again somewhat overshadowed, not getting the unrestricted attention he deserves. Sometimes it’s the circumstances, like now with the Ukraine war, sometimes Ursula von der Leyen steals the show. Yet Frans Timmermans is the man who will get the Fit-for-55 climate package over the finish line: “Europe must send a clear signal to the world that we are ready to do whatever it takes to implement our climate policy,” the Dutchman said before the crucial night session.
On Wednesday morning, he is a good deal closer to achieving his goal. “This is a very good day for the European Green Deal and for the European Union,” Timmermans said. But there is little room for the climate commissioner’s success between the EU summit, G7, and NATO meetings. Timmermans will always remain number two. Or rather, the First Vice-President in the team of the head of the Commission, as the professional politician likes to emphasize, known as a man with a big ego and inexhaustible energy. In fact, he would have liked to replace Ursula von der Leyen at the helm of the Brussels office.
Timmermans was the European Socialists’ top candidate in the 2019 European elections. The Social Democrats only finished as the second-strongest force. When it became clear that the conservative winner Manfred Weber would not be able to muster a majority in the EU Parliament, Timmermans briefly thought he had a good chance.
But the heads of state and government bypassed the top candidates altogether and conjured Ursula von der Leyen out of a hat, on the recommendation of French President Emmanuel Macron. The disappointment was great, especially for the candidate “for a social Europe”, but not only that. The Dutchman needed some time to regain his footing and accept the role as number 2 behind Ursula von der Leyen. The corpulent politician from the Parti van de Arbeid (PvdA) was hardly seen for a long time, and when he reappeared, he had grown a beard.
After all, as First Vice-President and Commissioner for Climate Protection, Ursula von der Leyen entrusted him with her most important project, the Green Deal . If it hadn’t been for COVID and the Ukraine war, Timmermans would have attracted considerably more attention. Timmermans was born in Maastricht on May 6, 1961. His father, married to a German, worked in the diplomatic service. Timmermans studied French literature and European law in the Netherlands and in Nancy, France. He later served in The Hague as State Secretary for European Affairs and then Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, among other positions.
He was in office when separatists in eastern Ukraine shot down a Malaysia Airlines airliner with a Russian forces Buk anti-aircraft missile in 2014, killing 298 people, many of them Dutch. Timmermans led the charge at the UN at the time and found the right words, earning him the nickname “Super Frans”. He had made the world cry, the press at home found. Shortly thereafter, he moved to Brussels for his first term and, under Jean-Claude Juncker, had the thankless task of stopping the erosion of the rule of law in Poland and Hungary, of seeking dialogue with Warsaw and Budapest. In the end, a Sisyphean task that made him a hate figure among the right-wing nationalist governments in Warsaw and Budapest.
During the election campaign, he campaigned for a social Europe, for a European minimum wage, for European unemployment insurance. He likes to remind people of his two grandfathers, who were both miners. “We must leave no one behind,” he says, even as Commissioner for the Green Deal. He has brought in former Greenpeace activist and former Social Democratic Party leader Diederik Samsom from The Hague to head his cabinet. Conservative members of the EU Parliament initially scolded the “mortician of European industry” and lobbied Ursula von der Leyen to curb the Dutchman’s momentum for the climate.
But in the meantime, the criticism has died down. The workaholic knows his way around the thicket of Green Deal bills. Timmermans is considered a rhetorical super talent. He can represent the EU with dignity at international climate conferences but also explain the Green Deal convincingly to citizens. Timmermans speaks seven languages fluently and also likes to switch from one idiom to another in the press room of the EU Commission. Timmermans is married and has four children from two marriages. Stephan Israel
