Commentary: International Leaders Summit

ILS Takes 'Freedom Philosophy' to Brussels

By Eric Jansson

Special Report on the International Leaders Summit

The Fourth Annual International Leaders Summit (ILS), held in Brussels on October 10-11, 2007, showcased views and personalities from the leading edge of the struggle for political and economic freedom in Europe, the United States and beyond.

Co-hosted by Roger Helmer and Syed Kamall, British Conservative members of the European Parliament, the ILS event offered brainstorming and networking opportunities for individuals and institutions who share the aim of advancing the cause of liberty.

At the heart of discussion and debate were the evolving aims of a newly reunited Europe, in the continent's dual capacity as a patchwork of sovereign nations and an institutional union, the EU. What will be the future of transatlantic relations? What can we do to further advance the cause of liberty in Europe, amid the socio-political flux that accelerated with the collapse of Communism 18 years ago and continues today?

Speakers and participants noted an array of opportunities and challenges in areas such as tax reform, constitutional reform, industrial policy and political advocacy.

Joined by a chorus of fellow British MEPs, Roger Helmer made a strong case for discarding EU regulations that curb the powers of sovereign nations and their citizens. Adding depth and dimension to the argument were Victoria Curzon Price of the University of Geneva, Peter Jungen of the European Enterprise Institute (EEI), Bridgett Wagner of The Heritage Foundation, Swedish MEP Christofer Fjellner, British MEP Nirj Deva and others.

Their messages resonated clearly with speakers and participants from new EU member states of central and eastern Europe, as well as candidate states, which face particular challenges in a shared European context.

On the security front, The Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes along with British MEP Geoffrey Van Orden outlined challenges in the Middle East, Europe's home-grown terrorism, and emerging threats to liberty and prosperity. Panelists affirmed the need to strengthen and expand the coalition against global terrorism. Concerns were also expressed about the trajectory of Russia, both internally and as a westward projector of renewed power.

In the fray were Mart Laar, the Estonian MP and former prime minister, Jerzy Samborski of EEI, Girts Valdis Kristovskis, a Latvian MEP and former defence minister, Croatian prime ministerial candidate Ljubo Jurcic, the eminent Slovenian economist Ljubo Sirc, Estonian MEP Tunne Kelam, Slovenian MEP Romana Jordan-Cizelj and a host of others.

Major contributions came also from Joel Anand Samy and Natasha Srdoc, co-founders of the ILS and the Adriatic Institute for Public Policy, a free market think tank in Croatia.

Speakers from the US and New Zealand also made essential contributions, as leading lights from the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and American for Tax Reform (ATR) were joined by Maurice McTigue, a former New Zealand government minister distinguished by his outstanding achievements as a free market reformer.

Cato Institute's Daniel Mitchell along with ATR's Grover Norquist clearly articulated the case for tax competition rather than Brussels' emerging sentiment of tax harmonisation.

The overarching message, as urged by proven reformers such as Mr Laar and Mr McTigue and advocated by policymakers and analysts from the US and Europe, was that free market reforms are not merely possible. They are essential in an age when, although Communism is vanquished institutionally, the Marxist instincts and coercive powers of "big government" remain immense.

Two documentary films screened at the event provided extra inspiration on this point. "The Singing Revolution", directed by Jim and Maureen Tusty, recounted the Estonian struggle for independence and freedom from Soviet rule. "Freedom from Despair", directed by Brenda Brkusic, chronicled the lives of Croatian citizens who fled and fought Communist tyranny through the late 20th Century.

Eric Jansson is a freelance journalist and contributing editor for Balkan Insight, BIRN's online publication. Jansson served for nine years as a journalist in eastern Europe for the Financial Times, dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur and other news organisations

Impressions: Croatia and Second International Leaders Summit

By John Willman
The Financial Times

The second International Leaders Summit in May 2005 was a fascinating opportunity to review progress in advancing free market ideas in Croatia since the first summit last year. My conclusion was that such ideas are gaining a hold, but there is much still to be done by the Adriatic Institute and others before they become widely accepted.

As with the first summit, the speakers included several leading members of the government, including the deputy prime minister. All were anxious to show their commitment to the free market, and willing to consider the views
of speakers from outside Croatia.

This is is a terrific asset for the Adriatic Institute, but the responses of ministers to questions often showed a shakey grasp of principles. Understandable though it is after more than 40 years of socialist planning, there is still a mistaken belief that government can do things better than business. We in Britain and elsewhere in the West have discovered the hard way that this is an illusion!

The interest of the mass media is also a wonderful asset - and one that free market think-tanks in the West who sometimes struggle for a hearing might envy. Both summits have opened with hour-long television debates involving keynote speakers on HRT1, and been followed by newspapers, radio and television. Even the presence in Croatia of the International Monetary Fund and Carla del Ponte could not eclipse the second summit.

A third admirable feature is the willingness of leading thinkers and politicians from neighbouring countries in the region to come to the summits. The guest list has been truly sparkling, involving participants from Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Serbia & Montenegro, Austria, Germany and others - with spillover benefits, I would suggest, for those countries also. The Adriatic Institute plays a role as a regional think-tank, as well as a Croatian one.

Finally, the presence of Croatian exiles at both summits has brought a different perspective to the proceedings. Members of the diaspora have achieved business success across the world, showing there is no lack of
talent in their nation.

The only disappointment is that there were not more participants at the summit proceedings to hear the excellent speeches and discussion. It is clear that there is still far to go until Croatia is a fully fledged market economy, free from the dead hand of government - contributors referred to the difficulties in privatisation, for example, when the government's commitment is dissipated by local interests. But the Adriatic Institute has placed free market ideas on the agenda and is winning a hearing from them in government and through the media. It deserves to succeed in this vital task.

John Willman
Business Editor, The Financial Times, London

John Willman chaired two strategic panels during the second International Leaders Summit, June 1 and 2, Zagreb, Croatia at The Regent Esplanade Zagreb:

• The Rule of Law - Protection of Property Rights and Combating Corruption

• Privatization and Deregulation

Membership Has Its Privileges -- Or Does It?

By Matthew Kaminski
The Wall Street Journal via Dow Jones

Zagreb, Croatia -- Europe's insular elites are in a huff over the demise of their constitution. For a change, this political, existential, salutary, pick-your-adjective crisis resonates beyond the Brussels Beltway -- and above all beyond the European Union's eastern frontiers.

Here in Croatia, a former Yugoslav and Hapsburg outpost that missed last year's train to join the EU, many people now fear that another chance to be truly European won't come again for a long time -- if ever. Over lunch, a group of Croat businessmen tell sad tales of falling foreign investment and waning government momentum on reform since the French and Dutch soured on the constitution and put future EU expansion in jeopardy.

Any delay or halt to the EU's eastward march would be a painful side-effect. Little wonder that the countries outside the EU are often more exercised about the constitutional troubles than club members. It's not out of any love for the hapless treaty. The EU states know that life will go on as before. Croatia, the other Balkan countries, Turkey, Ukraine and Georgia -- all desperately knocking at the door to "Europe" -- lack the luxury of a predictably boring future.

In trying to find their feet, these countries on Europe's edges have sold tough reforms to their voters with a simple line: That's what it takes to get into the EU. So why would the EU abandon its most effective foreign-policy tool? Good question.

The French government quickly spun the non vote against the constitution as a vote against future EU growth. Jacques Chirac insists that no one else can join without a ratified constitution. EU President Jose Manuel Barroso and others seem to agree. France isn't happy with the 10 newest EU members, who are mostly pro-American and whose entry made it harder for Paris to steer the EU as before. Conveniently, France came up with an excuse to stop here all by itself.

Turkey was expected to start accession talks in October and Croatia -- assuming Zagreb plays nice with the U.N. war crimes prosecutors for the Balkans -- soon after. Both dates are in doubt. The January 2007 entry of Bulgaria and Romania may be delayed, too. Tony Blair, who assumes the six-month rotating EU presidency Friday, wants to push expansion, but the resistance from other West Europeans will be hard to overcome.

It's true that at heart last month's French vote, more than the Dutch vote, reflected deep anxiety over globalization. The most effective non campaign slogan promised "a different Europe" without low-wage "Polish plumbers" or "Turkey," which together symbolize an EU (and globe) of open borders. For Europe to come to terms with a Turkey or Ukraine in the club, it must first come to terms with the modern world. Today a majority in the prosperous but stagnant EU states -- symbolized by "France," if you will -- want to live in denial.  

The last time that Europe lost interest in its own backyard, in the early 1990s, the Balkans blew up in war. A decade on, the eastern borderlands are wobbly still. Young leaders in Ukraine and Georgia are trying to show that good governance can put down roots in hostile turf. Turkey's human-rights record improved and its economy grew a remarkable 10% last year -- all in part thanks to changes pushed by the EU -- but the Islamist rulers have a difficult job to finish.

In the Balkans, the threat of renewed violence must be neither exaggerated nor dismissed. Kosovo may soon break from Serbia, which needs to reconcile itself to the loss. Bosnia's rival ethnic camps will have to reopen the decade-old peace accord to get a better national constitution. Croat politics are haunted by nationalism. Solutions to all these problems are imaginable as long as the ultimate goal for the region is inclusion in the EU and NATO. Without that, bets are off.

Since the 1999 Kosovo war, the last U.S. military intervention in Europe, the EU took the initiative on the Balkans, Turkey and, though less so, Ukraine with American blessing. Its policy, in a word, was enlargement. If the carrot of membership becomes less appetizing or disappears, the U.S. will have no choice but to re-engage, on its own or through NATO. Some allies will help. Poland, a new EU member, champions Ukraine in Europe and the U.K. and Germany are committed to the Balkans. But America remains the adult supervisor in Europe.

The EU matters really for the small things, like helping Serbia clean up its customs police or Turkey adopt liberal media laws. "Europe has been able to drive extraordinary reforms," Jean Lemierre, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, told me. "If they see too many obstacles [to EU membership], too many difficulties, you'll see a new political debate."

Perhaps, but we shouldn't be overly pessimistic. For all their claims to "love Europe," Turkey & Co. don't dream about the bloc's 80,000-page rule book or the blue flag with a dozen yellow stars. No, they badly want to join the rich, free and interconnected world. The EU is, or was, their ticket in. The drawn-out process of accession gave them access to a Western, as opposed to a strictly European, marketplace not only of goods but ideas, democratic standards, and stability.

Put a different way, it's more important for countries to qualify to join the EU than to actually be members of the bloc. Turkish and Balkan leaders insist that the EU-mandated reforms were beneficial in and of themselves. They now need to walk this talk.  

For the institution known as the EU, the future survival of enlargement -- an ugly word to describe remarkable changes in Europe -- will be the litmus test. Mr. Chirac and friends say that they now can't imagine Turkey or Ukraine in the club. What's harder to picture is a relevant EU without them.

Mr. Blair takes the EU helm at an opportune time. Last week before the European Parliament, the British prime minister made the obvious but little-heard case that a vibrant Europe needs open economies and open doors. This Europe would be "confident enough to see enlargement not as a threat -- as if membership were a zero sum game in which old members lose as new members gain, but an extraordinary, historic opportunity to build a greater and more powerful union." In other words, heretical by Brussels standards, the EU needs the Croats and the Turks more than they need the EU.

---

Mr. Kaminski is deputy editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe.  

This column was published on Monday, June 27, 2005

Copyright (c) 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Matthew Kaminski spoke at the second International Leaders Summit (ILS), June 1 and 2, Zagreb, Croatia at The Regent Esplanade Zagreb:

• ILS Strategic Session - The Rule of Law, Protection of Property Rights and Combating Corruption