Connect with us

Europe

Bangladesh-German Relations: Current Trends and Prospects

Published

on

 By 2026, Bangladesh will be upgraded to a middle-income country and it has several challenges along with the positive aspects. On the other hand, amid and after the post-Covid new normal, Germany, likewise other European Union (EU) members, needs to harness new avenues for economic and infrastructural development along with facing the challenges of economic reconstruction. Bangladesh has gradually turned to a geostrategic and economic hub of South Asia and Southeast Asia. At least ten developmental mega projects and speedy economic acceleration creates a new avenue for the Bangladesh-EU relations and especially for the Bangladesh-German relations.

Historical relations

Bangladesh has long-standing and reliable traditional and historical relations with Germany since the independence of Bangladesh in 1971. Germany (former East Germany) was the first country in Europe to officially recognize Bangladesh. After establishing the diplomatic relations on February 4, 1972, the bilateral relations between the two countries began to grow increasingly both in “depth and dimension”. Both countries have a long and successful bilateral relationship on most international issues and platforms. Between 1972 and 2020, Bangladesh received approximately € 3.03 billion in commitments from Germany as part of bilateral financial and technical cooperation. Besides, when Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family was assassinated on August 15, 1975, his daughter and the current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was in Germany.

Economic ties

The bilateral economic ties between Bangladesh and Germany have been steadily increasing over the past ten years. Europe, especially Germany is now one of the enthralling and lucrative export destinations for Bangladesh. According to the Foreign Ministry of Germany, Germany is currently the second largest export market for Bangladesh. The volume of bilateral trade with Germany has increasingly enlarged in recent years. In 2018, Bangladesh exported goods worth about 5.8 billion Euros to Germany and imported worth 800 million Euros with a gross 6.6 billion bilateral trade. 90% of the exporting products Bangladesh to Germany are textile material along with frozen foods and leather products.

In a recent meeting with the railway minister of Bangladesh on May 20, German Ambassador to Bangladesh Mr. Peter Fahrenholtz has expressed his desire to be a part of the development partner of Bangladesh especially through investing in the Railway sector. The government of Bangladesh has given more importance to the railway sector. Many projects are currently underway in the railways including Dhaka to Jessore through the Padma Bridge Rail Link Project, Bangabandhu Railway Bridge, Dhaka-Cox’s Bazar rail link and Jessore-Satkhira rail line. Germany with its high technological advantage can play an important role in investing as well as digitalizing the railway sector of Bangladesh. Along with the railway, German investment in Bangladesh is also increasing in other sectors since 2016. Germany got approximately 4 billion dollars for several projects in Bangladesh in various sectors including electricity and textiles. The notable works of German-based companies received, included e-passports, 3,600 megawatt LNG-based power plants and the supply of 15 oil and gas-fired engines to generate 260 megawatts of electricity.

In the investment sector, the involvement of developed countries like Germany in the development and progress of Bangladesh is certainly very encouraging. Amid the hard time of Covid-19, Germany has agreed to provide 339.54 million euros for various development projects in the country which is signed by the Secretary of the Economic Relations Division (ERD) of Bangladesh and the Ambassador of Germany on behalf of their countries respectively. It is to be noted that technical and financial agreements are executed between the governments of Bangladesh and Germany every two years. Of the 339.54 million euros, 48.4 million euros are being given as grants and 292.5 million euros as loans, which are repayable at nominal interest for 25 years. These grants and loans will be used in various development projects in the country. The news of increased foreign investment and foreign reserves of Bangladesh is undoubtedly reassuring even in the face of Covid-19 epidemic.

According to Bangladesh Investment Development Authority (BIDA), from the 2016-17 fiscal year to March 2020, about US $11 billion foreign exchange investments have been implemented. In the 2019-20 fiscal year, gross foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows to Bangladesh was approximately US $3.23 billion. Besides, the foreign reserve of Bangladesh has exceeded 45 billion dollars. It is a pride for the country that born from poverty, famine and war, the country is now lending foreign reserves to Sri Lanka and Sudan through currency swap. Bangladesh’s position in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index 2021 has been upgraded to 168th from 176th with 8 steps forward than previous year. All these will help in improving the investment environment in the country, setting up new industries and creating new avenues for expanding bilateral economic relations between the two countries. Speaking at a seminar organized by the German-Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce during a visit to Germany in October 2018, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh called on German entrepreneurs to invest in the pharmaceutical, tourism, manufacturing, ICT, ceramics and renewable energy sectors for joint ventures.

In order to expand German-Bangladesh bilateral trade in the future, new export sectors need to be harnessed keeping in mind the need for environment and labor-friendly production. To diversify the exporting areas, shipping industry, vaccine production and technological cooperation could be the potential areas of bilateral trade in the upcoming days. Although Bangladesh has given priority to the textile sector, the sectors of leather goods, frozen fish, engineering products and medicines need to be developed to diversify the exporting products. The technological sector and agricultural and industrial equipment of Germany is far better than Bangladesh. Bangladesh has been developing 100 economic zones where German industries can work through investment and technology sharing. In a word, there is huge potential to accelerate the bilateral relations to a new height.

Bangladesh has been able to retain its GDP growth rate at around 7 per cent in the last decade before the Covid-19 attacked. Even during the pandemic, Bangladesh is among the fewer countries that become able to maintain a positive growth rate at 5.24 per cent in the 2019-20 fiscal year. To make its economic development more dynamic, the Bangladesh government is focusing on the mega infrastructure projects i.e., Padma Multipurpose Bridge, Metro rail project or Matarbari deep seaport. Bangladesh will soon become a middle-income country where there are enormous opportunities for Germany for trade and investment. Bangladesh’s economic development has been praised by various German economic organizations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank as well. Among the 27 countries of the European Union, Germany is the largest consumer market that leads to competition between exporting countries to capture the German market. In 2019, Germany imported 1,104.1 billion euros worth of goods from abroad, however, Bangladesh only captured 5.64 billion euros where Bangladesh and Germany have huge room for development.

Human Security Aspects

‘Environmentalism’ has been gaining momentum in Europe especially in Germany that tends to lean them towards eco-friendly products which paves the way for Bangladesh to export tea and jute-oriented products. Besides, Germany is one of the leading countries in the world in terms of producing alternative environment friendly fuels. In the field of alternative energy, Bangladesh can utilize the experiences and technological support of Germany. Climate change and global warming are common threats for the world. Bangladesh as the worst sufferer and Germany as an active proponent of climate diplomacy, should work together to make the world sustainable, livable and eco-friendly. Germany can contribute to the Delta plan 2100 and Climate funding to join hands with Bangladesh to mobilize resources for climate and security. Germany may provide Bangladesh technological know-how on how to produce and manage sustainable and renewable energy.

The present state leader of both Bangladesh and Germany has been praised for their humanitarian stands above all other narrowly-defined state interests. The two countries are leading in sheltering refugees around the world. Since 2017, a large number of Rohingya FDMNs fled to Bangladesh due to the “genocidal intent” of the Myanmar Army. As the socio-economic, environmental and security dimensions of sheltering over 1.2 million Rohingya refugees are increasing day by day, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina, “the mother of humanity”, has been seeking sincere response from the international community to accentuate safe and dignified repatriation of the Rohingya FDMNs. The Rohingya crisis is a haze on the economic development of the country. Germany should intensively cooperate with Bangladesh in finding a durable solution for the forcibly displaced Rohingya Muslims in Bangladesh.

People-to-People Contact

The cultural relationship and people-to-people contact of Bangladesh and Germany are very strong. Cultural cooperation is mainly directed through the Goethe Institute. In Bangladesh, the Institute is the key meeting place for all those interested in Germany. It offers diversified cultural events through film festivals, seminars and lectures on contemporary arts, culture and exhibitions of both German and Bangladeshi artists. German government has been providing different education and cultural exchange programs for the foreign students. Besides, in the higher study level, they are providing scholarships like German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) scholarship which is a really good opportunity for people-to-people contact and cultural affinity. The DAAD and other organizations offers a number of scholarships to Bangladeshi students and young researchers each year in order to promote the academic exchange between Germany and Bangladesh. Besides, in February 2021, GIZ, a German-based organization, has expressed interest in providing more technical assistance to Bangladesh to create skilled human resources in the field of textile education. The company has proposed a new project called ‘Higher Education and Leadership Development for Sustainable Textiles in Bangladesh (HELD)’ to assist the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.

To conclude, Bangladesh-German relations have been enjoying great historical, economic and cultural ties. Germany is one of our biggest trading partners and the second largest market for garments in particular. But now pharmaceuticals, eco-friendly agricultural products, leather and ceramic products need to be prioritized for export diversification. Germany is an all-weather development partner of Bangladesh. They are supporting Bangladesh in numerous developmental activities through GIZ in the technology, health, education, environment, climate change, good governance and renewable energy sectors. They should work in a coordinated way to develop bilateral relations and to become trusted development partners in the upcoming days.

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

NATO’s Cypriot Trick

Published

on

UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact died, there was much speculation that NATO would consider itself redundant and either disappear or at least transmogrify into a less aggressive body.

Failing that, Moscow at least felt assured that NATO would not include Germany, let alone expand eastwards. Even the NATO Review, NATO’s PR organ, wrote self-apologetically twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin wall: “Thus, the debate about the enlargement of NATO evolved solely in the context of German reunification. In these negotiations Bonn and Washington managed to allay Soviet reservations about a reunited Germany remaining in NATO. This was achieved by generous financial aid, and by the ‘2+4 Treaty’ ruling out the stationing of foreign NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany. However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe.”

Whatever the polemics about Russia’s claim that NATO broke its promises, the facts of what happened following the fall of the Berlin wall and the negotiations about German re-unification strongly demonstrate that Moscow felt cheated and that the NATO business and military machine, driven by a jingoistic Cold War Britain, a selfish U.S. military-industrial-congressional complex and an atavistic Russia-hating Poland, saw an opportunity to become a world policeman.

This helps to explain why, in contrast to Berlin, NATO decided to keep Nicosia as the world’s last divided city. For Cyprus is in fact NATO’s southernmost point, de facto. And to have resolved Cyprus’ problem by heeding UN resolutions and getting rid of all foreign forces and re-unifying the country would have meant that NATO would have ‘lost’ Cyprus: hardly helpful to the idea of making NATO the world policeman. Let us look a little more closely at the history behind this.

Following the Suez debacle in 1956, Britain had already moved its Middle East Headquarters from Aden to Cyprus, while the U.S. was taking over from the UK and France in the Middle East. Although, to some extent under U.S. pressure, Britain was forced to bring Makarios out of exile and begin negotiating with Greece and Turkey to give up its colony, the U.S. opted for a NATO solution. It would not do to have a truly sovereign Cyprus, but only one which accepted the existence of the Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) as part and parcel of any settlement; and so it has remained, whatever the sophistic semantics about a bizonal settlement and a double-headed government. The set of twisted and oft-contradictory treaties that have bedevilled the island since 1960 are still afflicting the part-occupied island which has been a de facto NATO base since 1949. Let us look at some more history.

When Cyprus obtained its qualified independence in 1960, Greece and Turkey had already signed, on 11 February 1959, a so called ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, agreeing that they would support Cyprus’ entry into NATO.1 This was, however, mere posture diplomacy, since Britain—and the U.S. for that matter—did not trust Cyprus, given the strength of the Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL) and the latter’s links to Moscow. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) wrote: ‘Membership of NATO might make it easier for the Republic of Cyprus and possibly for the Greeks and Turks to cause political embarrassment should the United Kingdom wish to use the bases […] for national ends outside Cyprus […] The access of the Cypriot Government to NATO plans and documents would present a serious security risk, particularly in view of the strength of the Cypriot Communist Party. […] The Chiefs of Staff, therefore, feel most strongly that, from the military point of view, it would be a grave disadvantage to admit Cyprus to NATO.’2 In short, Cyprus was considered unreliable.

As is well known, the unworkable constitution (described as such by the Foreign Office and even by David Hannay, the Annan reunification plan’s PR man), resulted in chaos and civil strife: in January 1964, during the chaos caused by the Foreign Office’s help and encouragement to President Makarios to introduce a ‘thirteen point plan’ to solve Cyprus’ problems, British Prime Minister Douglas-Home told the Cabinet: ‘If the Turks invade or if we are seriously prevented from fulfilling our political role, we have made it quite clear that we will retire into base.’3 Put more simply, Britain had never had any intention of upholding the Treaty of Guarantee.

In July of the same year, the Foreign Office wrote: ‘The Americans have made it quite clear that there would be no question of using the 6th Fleet to prevent any possible Turkish invasion […] We have all along made it clear to the United Nations that we could not agree to UNFICYP’s being used for the purpose of repelling external intervention, and the standing orders to our troops outside UNFYCYP are to withdraw to the sovereign base areas immediately any such intervention takes place.’4

It was mainly thanks to Moscow and President Makarios that in 1964 a Turkish invasion and/or the island being divided between Greece and Turkey was prevented. Such a solution would have strengthened NATO, since Cyprus would no longer exist other than as a part of NATO members Greece and Turkey. Moscow had issued the following statement: ‘The Soviet Government hereby states that if there is an armed foreign invasion of Cypriot territory, the Soviet Union will help the Republic of Cyprus to defend its freedom and independence against foreign intervention.’5

Privately, Britain, realising the unworkability of the 1960 treaties, was embarrassed, and wished to relieve itself of the whole problem. The following gives us the backstage truth: ‘The bases and retained sites, and their usefulness to us, depend in large measure on Greek Cypriot co-operation and at least acquiescence. A ‘Guantanamo’6 position is out of the question. Their future therefore must depend on the extent to which we can retain Greek and/or Cypriot goodwill and counter USSR and UAR pressures. There seems little doubt, however, that in the long term, our sovereign rights in the SBA’s will be considered increasingly irksome by the Greek Cypriots and will be regarded as increasingly anachronistic by world public opinion.7

Following the Turkish invasion ten years later, Britain tried to give up its bases: ‘British strategic interests in Cyprus are now minimal. Cyprus has never figured in NATO strategy and our bases there have no direct NATO role. The strategic value of Cyprus to us has declined sharply since our virtual withdrawal from east of Suez. This will remain the case when the Suez Canal has reopened.8

A Cabinet paper concluded: ‘Our policy should continue to be one of complete withdrawal of our military presence on Cyprus as soon as feasible. […] In the circumstances I think that we should make the Americans aware of our growing difficulty in continuing to provide a military presence in Cyprus while sustaining our main contribution to NATO. […]9

Britain kept trying to give up the bases, but the enabler of the Turkish invasion, Henry Kissinger, did not allow Britain to give up its bases and listening posts, since that would have weakened NATO, and since Kissinger needed the bases because of the Arab-Israel dispute.10

Thus, by the end of 1980, in a private about-turn, Britain had completely succumbed to American pressure: ‘The benefits which we derive from the SBAs are of major significance and virtually irreplaceable. They are an essential contribution to the Anglo-American relationship. The Department have regularly considered with those concerned which circumstances in Cyprus are most conducive to our retaining unfettered use of our SBA facilities. On balance, the conclusion is that an early ‘solution’ might not help (since pressures against the SBAs might then build up), just as breakdown and return to strife would not, and that our interests are best served by continuing movement towards a solution – without the early prospect of arrival [author’s italics]11.

And so it is today: Cyprus is a de facto NATO territory. A truly independent, sovereign and united Cyprus is an anathema to the U.S. and Britain, since such a scenario would afford Russia the hypothetical opportunity to increase its influence in the Eastern Mediterranean.

From our partner RIAC

[1] Ministry of Defence paper JP (59) 163, I January 1960, BNA DEFE 13/99/MO/5/1/5, in Mallinson, William, Cyprus, a Modern History, I.B. Tauris (now Bloomsbury), London and New York, 2005, 2009, 2012, p.49.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Memorandum by Prime Minister, 2 January 1964, BNA CAB/129/116, in ibid, Mallinson, William, p.37.

[4] British Embassy, Washington, to Foreign Office, 7 July 1964, telegram 8541, BNA FO 371/174766, file C1205/2/G, in ibid.’, Mallinson, William, p. 37.

[5] Joseph, Joseph S., Cyprus, Ethnic Conflict and International Politics, St Martin’s Press, London and New York, 1997, p. 66.

[6] In 1964, Cuba cut off supplies to the American base at Guantanamo Bay, since the US refused to return it to Cuba, as a result of which the US took measures to make it self-sufficient.

[7] Briefing paper, 18 June 1964, BNA-DO/220/170, file MED 193/105/2, part A. Mallinson,William, Kissinger and the Invasion of Cyprus, p. 127.

[8] ‘British Interests in the Eastern Mediterranean’, draft paper, 11 April 1975, BNA-FCO 46/1248, file DPI/515/1.

[9] Cabinet paper, 29 September 1976, in op. cit. Mallinson, William, Kissinger and the Invasion of Cyprus, p.134.

[10] Mallinson, William, Britain and Cyprus: Key Themes and Documents, I.B. Tauris, London and New York, 2011, and Bloomsbury, London and New York, 2020, pp. 87-121.

[11] Fergusson to Foreign Minister’s Private Secretary, minute, 8 December 1980, BNA-FCO 9/2949, file WSC/023/1, part C.

Continue Reading

Europe

Belarus divorces from the Eastern Partnership: A new challenge for the EU Neighborhood Policy

Published

on

The Eastern Partnership (EaP) is the Eastern dimension of the EU Neighborhood Policy adopted back in 2009 aimed at deepening relations between Brussels and six Eastern European partners – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The EaP has been regarded as a strategic initiative based on mutual interests and common values with a goal of strengthening political and economic relations with those countries, helping them enhance their institutional capacity through sustainable reforms. While increasing stability and paving the way for the sustainable development of those societies, the EU’s overall goal has been to secure its Eastern borders.

Since the very beginning the EaP has been suspiciously viewed by Russia as an attempt of expansion of the sphere of influence and as a first step of EU membership of these countries. Russians point to the EU and NATO ambitious expansion eastward as the main reason for complicated relations and in this context the EaP has been regarded with traditional fears and paranoic perceptions. The Russian hard power approach causes serious problems for the EaP which fails to mitigate security concerns of partner countries and to come up with serious initiatives for conflict settlement. Being a laggard in terms of soft power, the Russian ruling elite has continuously used all hard power foreign policy instruments at its disposal trying to undermine the coherence of the initiative. And the very recent démarche of Belarus to withdraw from the EaP should be seen in this context of confrontation.

On 28th of June, the ministry of foreign affairs of Belarus announced a decision to halt its membership in the EaP as a response to the EU sanctions imposed on Minsk accompanied by the recalling ambassadors from both sides. Actually, this isn’t the first case of the EaP walkout blackmailed by Lukashenko. The first escape was attempted in September-October 2011, but the difficulties were soon resolved and Lukashenko revised his decision. This time situation seems very complicated and these far-reaching tensions may have tough consequences for Lukashenko’s regime. This new group of sectoral sanctions which target banking, oil, telecommunication spheres and also ban the export of potash, is a harsh response from the EU against Lukashneko’s scandalous hijacking activity in May to detain a Belarusian opposition journalist and blogger Roman Protasevich.

Lukashenko’s administration not only challenges the EU Neighborhood Policy and shows no retreat, but also goes forward escalating the situation. Minsk takes high risks freezing the Readmission Agreement signed by the EU. This document is a legal basis for bilateral cooperation aimed at struggling against irregular migration flows. It’s not a secret that the territory of Belarus has been used for illegal migration for the groups from the Middle East to penetrate into neighboring EU member states such as Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. Moreover, Belarus territory has served as a transit route for smuggling circles going from East to West and vice versa.  And now closing eyes on all these channels, Minsk hopes to increase the bargaining power vis-à-vis Brussels. However, given the Western reactions, it seems that this time the EU is resolute.

Despite the fact that Charles Michel, the President of the EU Council, described this withdrawal as “another step backwards” and even threatened that “this will escalate tensions having clear negative impacts”, the EU wants to continue working with the Belarusian society  as Josep Borrel stated. The EU’s determination to keep the bridges alive with the Belarusian people, in spite of Lukashneko’s radical stance, is aimed at preventing further isolationism of Minsk which would benefit only Russia.

In contrast to the increasing level of tensions with the EU, the Russian authorities continue to support Lukasheno’s administration, thus trying to deepen the gap and to bring Belarus under their total influence. Russia uses Belarus in its chessboard with the EU and the USA in Eastern Europe. Last year’s fraud elections and brutal crackdown by Lukashenko left him alone with the only source of power stemming from the Kremlin. Thus the withdrawal from the EaP should be understood not only as a convulsion of the Belarusian authorities in response to the sanctions, but also Russia’s employment of the Belarus card to respond to the recent joint statement of the EU-US summit in Brussels, when both parties declared their intention to stand with the people of Belarus, supporting their demands for human rights and democracy simultaneously criticising Lukashenko’s regime and his reckless political behavior and also criticising Russian’s unacceptable behavior.

So, Lukashenko’s step to quit the EaP can be seen as a well-calculated adulatory sign towards Moscow sacrificing the last remnants of sovereignty in order to receive financial and political lifebuoy amid the increasing crisis in the result of sanctions.  And the recent visit of N. Patrushev, the Secretary of the Security Council of Russia, to Minsk right after the withdrawal decision shows Russian inclination to strike while the iron is hot and to abuse the vulnerable situation of Belarus. Patrushev stated that the ultimate goal of foreign powers is to change the power in Belarus and he suggested instead of focusing on internal issues, to bring their forces together against external threats as their influence affects internal developments. For this reason, deeper integration of security and military services of both countries are on the table.

The reaction of opposition leader S. Tikhanovskaya was very rough, stating that this suspension will cut the opportunities of ordinary citizens who benefit from the political and economic outcomes of the EaP. Moreover, she claims that Lukashenko doesn’t have a right to represent Belarus since August 2020 and his decisions don’t have legal consequences for Belarus. This kind of approach is shared by the leadership of Lithuania too, whose president and minister of foreign affairs not only refuse to recognize Lukashenko as a legitimate president, but also highlight the role of the Kremlin in supporting the dictatorial power of Lukashenko in exchange for decreasing sovereignty.

The blackmail of Lukashenko to challenge the EU Eastern Neighborhood Policy  in order to have the sanctions lifted may bring about such kind of precedents with other partnering countries as well. First of all, this concerns Azerbaijan which continues to face serious problems related with human rights, freedom of expression, the problem of Prisoners of War and other traits of authoritarian power. It’s well-known that  human rights issues have been the underwater stones in the EU and Azerbaijan relations and they continue to pose new challenges for Aliyev’s non-democratice regime. Another weak ring of the EaP chain is Armenia. Even though reelected N. Pashinyan is eager to pursue a balanced foreign policy, post-war Armenia still faces serious limitations given its vulnerable dependence on Russia. Besides, Pashinyan’s main rival and the former President R. Kocharyan, whose alliance will be the second largest faction in the newly elected Parliament has recently stated that this new parliament can last up to one and half years and nobody can exclude the possibility of new snap elections. His pro-Russian attitude and anti-Western stance are well-known and in case he becomes a prime-minister, there is no guarantee that he will follow the path of Lukashenko. 

Therefore  the statement of the Austrian MFA, that ”we cannot leave South Caucasus to others” during the  recent official visit of the Austrian, Romanian and Latvian MFA under the mandate of the EU High Representative to the South Caucasus, reminds  about the EU presence in the region and also the fact that the ‘normative power’ can be a source of balance and a status quo changer.

Continue Reading

Europe

Anti-Macron protests underline classism, as corona protesters and gilets jaune join forces

Published

on

photo: Alaattin Doğru - Anadolu Agency

I get it. People in France are fed up with the Covid lockdowns and that’s why they are protesting against the new tightening of the Covid rules. But there is much more to the story.

The new anti-Covid rules by French President Macron came in the middle of the Cannes Film Festival where the rich and famous come out to play for 10 days at the French Reviera. I was there, too, in fact when the new set of rules angered so many ordinary French people. But guess what — the rules didn’t apply to us, those gathered for the Cannes red carpets and parties. Celebrities did not have to wear masks on the red carpet. I did not have to put on a mask at the red carpets. I was not checked even once on the mandatory Covid tests which we took every 2 days anyways. No one at the Cannes red carpets, parties or fashion shows was looking at Covid tests at the entrance, and I attended not one or two things. That’s at the time when the rest of France was boiling. Yes, we were treated differently as the Cannes crowd. That was obvious.

Don’t get me wrong — spending tens of thousands of euros to drink champaigne, walk red carpets and hang out with actors, models, designers and influencers is great. But I couldn’t help but notice that the Cannes elite was being held to a very different standard in comparisson to the ordinary French public. Macron exempted the Cannes crowd from the new rules and that smells of classism and elitism. I can see why the gillets gaune, which I wrote about in my book Trump, European security and Turkey (2020), are angry and want to resume their protests which were put an end to with the Covid lockdowns.

In fact, as soon as you move one or two streets away from the craze and snobbery of the Cannes Festival, you see a very different French picture. Actually, the most pleasant conversations I had in Cannes were with the guy that made my pizza at 2am, a couple of gillets jaune on the street, and the taxi driver who lives in Cannes. These were the pleasant, hard-working French people that represent France so much better than the snotty Cannes Film Festival organizers, the French police or the so-overrated snobbery at the Chopard events. 

From the pizza guy in Mozarella Street I learned that he works two jobs and sleeps 3 hours per night. That’s the reality for many normal French people. Yet, he was the nicest and coolest person I met in Cannes. Somehow I wished that he could trade places with some of the rest I met in Cannes who probably don’t deserve to have an easy life and should be taught a lesson. So I get it. I get the struggle of the gillets gaune and all those that are opposed to Macron’s policies. He is increasingly playing with the far right and that might as well mean that he is looking at his sunset. 

I also get the classism that persists in French society — it’s important to be aware of it even if you’re on the receiving end of a lot of glamor, bemefits and good things. All I can tell you is that next time I am in France, I am joining the gillet jaune protests. Now I really get it. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending