Berlin was like a honeymoon between America and Europe. But Obama's honey words, were a little too sweet:
That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations – and all nations – must summon that spirit anew.
Nothing wrong with that, but where does it really lead us in practice?
Obama offered a long list of to-do things:
This is the moment:
- when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday.
- when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably.
- for trade that is free and fair for all.
-we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.
-when we must come together to save this planet.
-to stand as one.
-And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world.
I am not sure that THIS is the moment as it has been so for so many years before. Moreover, it will probably be better to say a little about THIS IS HOW we are going to deal with those problems.
The conclusion leaves it all open:
People of Berlin – and people of the world – the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Friday, July 25, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, November 05, 2007
A Secular Age
For all of you who are interested in issues of law, religion and politics in the Transatlantic world (and beyond)., I can warmly recommend Charles Taylor's new book 'A secular age.'
Taylor distinguished three possible meanings of secular, which I would classify as follows:
1-Political secularity: when religious belief is removed from the public sphere to the private sphere as a result of a political compromise
2- Social secularity: when belief fades away from our daily life and does not provide anymore a benchmark for our behaviour
3-Historico-philosophical secularity: it is interested in the evolution of the intellectual framework within which religious belief is understood.
Taylor focuses on the third meaning and explores in an open way what made us move from 1500, when believing was not an option, to 2000 when believing is but an option.
To explain such a paradigm shift, Taylor engages in a story-telling exercise which attempts to unravel the changing conditions of our own religious practices. Pivotal to his story is the emergence of 'exclusive humanism', a way of conceiving human flourishing as an end in itself. According to exclusive humanism each individual is master of his destiny and is empowered to give full meaning to his own life.
This new understanding of human flourishing replaces the Christian one that understood human flourishing as a consequence of god's love, agape. Each individual would therefore have to abandon himself in the hands of god in order to let his life flourish.
To go back to the central question then: what made the shift from 1500 to 2000 possible? the answer is in the book...
Sunday, October 14, 2007
New volume on international migration law
This volume, International Migration Law: Developing Paradigms and Key Challenges, edited by Ryszard Cholewinski, Richard Perruchoud and myself, has just been published by Asser Press, and was launched last Thursday at the Georgetown University Law Center.
The volume looks to provide a comprehensive overview of the "field" of international migration law, developing some key themes identified in a 2003 collection edited by Chetail and Aleinikoff, entitled Migration and International Legal Norms, and also indentifying some areas of emerging significance. It consists in six broad sections: state sovereignty and responsibility (including chapters on migration-related aspects of terrorism legislation, detention, and multiple nationality); trade and labour migration (with contributions on, amongst others, GATS Mode 4 and remittances); forced migration (looking at the law relating to refugees and internally displaced persons, and the compensation claims tribunals); human rights (with chapters on migrant workers, migrant women, trafficking and statelessness); regional free movement regimes (in Europe, Africa, South America and the Caribbean); and emerging issues (informal cooperation mechanisms, biometrics and the new EU Borders Code). It brings together works both by established academics, practitioners and younger scholars who have already made a contribution in their respective fields. It will, we hope, be both accessible to students and non-lawyers alike, whilst also being substantial enough to be of use to academics and practitioners already expert in their fields.
Available now in all good bookshops! Well, on Amazon, anyway...
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Congress v. the President: Round 2
As expected, the Democrat-led Senate has also passed the Bill seeking to make continued funding for the Iraq adventure conditional on a definite start date for withdrawal, and a target completion date. Republicans have, again, dismissed the Bill as nothing more than a "stunt", which seems a little disingenuous, given the undoubted strength of feeling involved for many of those who feel that the US should not remain in Iraq. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, given their dependence on US support, senior Iraqi Government officials have taken a similar line, with Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari suggesting that "this is part of the politicking, basically, in Washington and this has been damaging in fact to the security, political development, not only in Iraq, but in the entire region..."
Bush has, naturally, reiterated his intention to use the veto, safe in the knowledge that the Democrats cannot muster enough votes in Congress to override it. Perhaps, however, this is not such a big deal, however it may look to those of us unfamiliar with the Presidential system (for example, for all of the accusations levelled against him in this regard, it is difficult to imagine Blair going directly against a clear Parliamentary vote on an issue such as this; not least of all because only the Queen is constitutionally "empowered" to do so). The BBC provides a helpful comparison of other presidents' usage of the veto power:
Bush has, naturally, reiterated his intention to use the veto, safe in the knowledge that the Democrats cannot muster enough votes in Congress to override it. Perhaps, however, this is not such a big deal, however it may look to those of us unfamiliar with the Presidential system (for example, for all of the accusations levelled against him in this regard, it is difficult to imagine Blair going directly against a clear Parliamentary vote on an issue such as this; not least of all because only the Queen is constitutionally "empowered" to do so). The BBC provides a helpful comparison of other presidents' usage of the veto power:
George W Bush: 1
Bill Clinton: 38
George Bush Snr: 44
Ronald Reagan: 78
FD Roosevelt: 635
Thomas Jefferson: 0
Roosevelt was in power for 12 years, from 1933-1945; which works out, by my reckoning, at just over one veto per week... Clearly, then, the use of the veto alone is not something that is viewed as in and of itself undemocratic in the US (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the direct electoral mandate of the President); it would be interesting to know, however, what if any the constitutional safguards are in terms of the dramatic situation in which we now find ourselves - namely, the ongoing prosecution of a deeply unpopular war, by a President in the latter years of his period in office, and whose Party suffered heavy losses at the most recent elections (largely as a direct result of that war). Anyone?
Roosevelt was in power for 12 years, from 1933-1945; which works out, by my reckoning, at just over one veto per week... Clearly, then, the use of the veto alone is not something that is viewed as in and of itself undemocratic in the US (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the direct electoral mandate of the President); it would be interesting to know, however, what if any the constitutional safguards are in terms of the dramatic situation in which we now find ourselves - namely, the ongoing prosecution of a deeply unpopular war, by a President in the latter years of his period in office, and whose Party suffered heavy losses at the most recent elections (largely as a direct result of that war). Anyone?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Congress v. the President: Round 1
Following on quickly from the article to which Lorenzo referred immediately below, it seems that Bush's growing isolation over Iraq is no longer limited to the international plane, or to domestic public opinion; he looks now to be at direct odds even with his own Parliament. The House of Representatives voted this evening, albeit by a narrow 218 votes to 208, to make continued replenishment of the President's war chest conditional on the commencement of troop withdrawal in October, with the planned completion date for this process March 2008. The Bill is set to be voted on by the Senate tomorrow, and, given the Democrat majority in that House too, seems likely to be up for Presidential approval before long.
The Whitehouse reaction? "Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq - and the president will veto its bill". Utter intransigence, then; and he is not alone. His position is supported by most Republicans, many in the military establishment, and the Iraqi Prime and Foreign Ministers, no less. The criticisms of the last two actors in particular have to be taken seriously; the trouble is, however, that those who are - ostensibly at least - the President's most important audience, the American people, have made their collective will on this issue relatively clear; it is difficult to view Bush's refusal to accept the judgment of Congress as anything other than deeply undemocratic.
the Guardian recently published an interesting opinion piece by Naomi Wolf, "Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps", outlining the basic 10-point blueprint that has historically underpinned the move to fascism in a variety of different states, and suggesting that the US has already made significant progress along a number of these paths. They are
1) Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy;
2) Create a gulag;
3) Develop a thug caste;
4) Set up an internal surveillance system;
5) Harass citizens groups;
6) Engage in arbitrary detention and release;
7) Target key individuals;
8) Control the press;
9) Equate "dissent" with "treason";
10) Suspend the rule of law.
Initial reactions to these claims may well be, as mine was, that they involve some fairly crass hyperbole; however, as the author develops her argument in lucid and eloquent fashion, it becomes clear that the US has indeed progressed worryingly far along a number of these routes (although she does acknowledge, correctly in my view, that the US's democratic traditions and institutions are too strong for the country to be at risk of a descent into fascist totalitarianism). Wolf recounts, for example, the astonishing story of Professor Walter F. Murphy of Princeton University, denied a pass to board a plane at Newark Airport on the grounds that he was on a terrorist watch list. The airline employee, clearly trying to be helpful, inquired as to whether he had been on any peace marches, as "we ban a lot of people from flying because of that". When the ex-Marine Professor indicated that he had given a very public lecture at Princeton that was highly critical of Bush, the response from the airline representative was simple: "That'll do it".
Moreover, the prosecution of the war on terror requires, of course, the creation of a feeling very similar to it amongst the general population, through the constant invocation of life-threatening danger and amorphous yet ever-present enemy; Guantanamo and the even more secret network of CIA prisons throughout the world are performing the task of the Gulag nicely, and seem also to have arbitrary detention (if not release) pretty much covered; and the rhetoric of "with us or against us", so characteristic of the US approach to this whole affair, strongly suggests that Bush will brook no dissent whatsoever, and, indeed, that to do so is "unAmerican" - as the Whitehouse reaction to this evening's vote shows.
We can, perhaps, add another "step" to the list; a confrontation between the strong Leader and the recalcitrant Parliament, in which the former blatantly and steadfastly refuses to give way to the wishes of the people's democratically elected lawmakers on issues of great importance. We have, it seems, reached just this point now; it will be interesting to see how things play out over the next few days.
The Whitehouse reaction? "Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq - and the president will veto its bill". Utter intransigence, then; and he is not alone. His position is supported by most Republicans, many in the military establishment, and the Iraqi Prime and Foreign Ministers, no less. The criticisms of the last two actors in particular have to be taken seriously; the trouble is, however, that those who are - ostensibly at least - the President's most important audience, the American people, have made their collective will on this issue relatively clear; it is difficult to view Bush's refusal to accept the judgment of Congress as anything other than deeply undemocratic.
the Guardian recently published an interesting opinion piece by Naomi Wolf, "Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps", outlining the basic 10-point blueprint that has historically underpinned the move to fascism in a variety of different states, and suggesting that the US has already made significant progress along a number of these paths. They are
1) Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy;
2) Create a gulag;
3) Develop a thug caste;
4) Set up an internal surveillance system;
5) Harass citizens groups;
6) Engage in arbitrary detention and release;
7) Target key individuals;
8) Control the press;
9) Equate "dissent" with "treason";
10) Suspend the rule of law.
Initial reactions to these claims may well be, as mine was, that they involve some fairly crass hyperbole; however, as the author develops her argument in lucid and eloquent fashion, it becomes clear that the US has indeed progressed worryingly far along a number of these routes (although she does acknowledge, correctly in my view, that the US's democratic traditions and institutions are too strong for the country to be at risk of a descent into fascist totalitarianism). Wolf recounts, for example, the astonishing story of Professor Walter F. Murphy of Princeton University, denied a pass to board a plane at Newark Airport on the grounds that he was on a terrorist watch list. The airline employee, clearly trying to be helpful, inquired as to whether he had been on any peace marches, as "we ban a lot of people from flying because of that". When the ex-Marine Professor indicated that he had given a very public lecture at Princeton that was highly critical of Bush, the response from the airline representative was simple: "That'll do it".
Moreover, the prosecution of the war on terror requires, of course, the creation of a feeling very similar to it amongst the general population, through the constant invocation of life-threatening danger and amorphous yet ever-present enemy; Guantanamo and the even more secret network of CIA prisons throughout the world are performing the task of the Gulag nicely, and seem also to have arbitrary detention (if not release) pretty much covered; and the rhetoric of "with us or against us", so characteristic of the US approach to this whole affair, strongly suggests that Bush will brook no dissent whatsoever, and, indeed, that to do so is "unAmerican" - as the Whitehouse reaction to this evening's vote shows.
We can, perhaps, add another "step" to the list; a confrontation between the strong Leader and the recalcitrant Parliament, in which the former blatantly and steadfastly refuses to give way to the wishes of the people's democratically elected lawmakers on issues of great importance. We have, it seems, reached just this point now; it will be interesting to see how things play out over the next few days.
Bush after Ambush and other stories
The NYRB has a very interesting piece on the clash between Bush and the Democrats after the recent elections.
For those who have a subscription I also recommend Jeremy Waldron on the US Supreme Court internal clashes of personalities.
And John Gray on our moral nature and the existence of intractable moral dilemmas.
For those who have a subscription I also recommend Jeremy Waldron on the US Supreme Court internal clashes of personalities.
And John Gray on our moral nature and the existence of intractable moral dilemmas.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Attempts of Dialogue on Afghanistan between America and Italy
Italy proposes an international conference for peace and stability.
And America listens interested... Is this a sign of Bush's new multilateral approach?
too soon to say, or perhaps too late!
For a report have a look here: http://www.corriere.it/english/articoli/2007/03_Marzo/21/Alema.shtml
Here's an excerpt:
Unexpectedly, the United States yesterday did not rule out an “international conference for peace and stability in Afghanistan”, the carefully crafted diplomatic formula adopted by [Italy’s foreign minister, Massimo – Trans.] D’Alema for a political solution to the Afghan crisis.The State Department’s spokesman, Sean McCormack, said that “it could be a constructive suggestion”. “We want to understand some of the details”, he continued. “Fundamentally, you want to get the opinion of the Afghan Government and President Karzai about this. So I think it’s really an idea that merits some discussion”. “And to see”, concluded Mr McCormack, “whether or not, on the basis of that discussion, you move forward or not”.
And America listens interested... Is this a sign of Bush's new multilateral approach?
too soon to say, or perhaps too late!
For a report have a look here: http://www.corriere.it/english/articoli/2007/03_Marzo/21/Alema.shtml
Here's an excerpt:
Unexpectedly, the United States yesterday did not rule out an “international conference for peace and stability in Afghanistan”, the carefully crafted diplomatic formula adopted by [Italy’s foreign minister, Massimo – Trans.] D’Alema for a political solution to the Afghan crisis.The State Department’s spokesman, Sean McCormack, said that “it could be a constructive suggestion”. “We want to understand some of the details”, he continued. “Fundamentally, you want to get the opinion of the Afghan Government and President Karzai about this. So I think it’s really an idea that merits some discussion”. “And to see”, concluded Mr McCormack, “whether or not, on the basis of that discussion, you move forward or not”.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Obama like Orwell
Obama launches the first serious attack on Hilary Clinton. In a suggestive video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8FRXO-QV0), Clinton is portrayed as imposing top down her 'conversation' with the people that look brainwashed and uniformised. The video suggests that Clinton is a control freak that would like to transform America into an Orwellian state of permanent control of individuals.
Obama promises that 1984 (the famous Orwell's political tragedy) will not happen in 2008.
Obama promises that 1984 (the famous Orwell's political tragedy) will not happen in 2008.
Monday, March 12, 2007
American Universities and Equality
...do not go hand in hand. Rich people have a privileged access to the best Universities, as this interesting study in the NYRB confirms.
here's an excerpt:
The causes and consequences of these dispiriting facts are complex, and the cost to society—moral and material—is high. There is moral cost in the shortfall between the professed ideal of equal opportunity and the reality of rising inequality. As for the material cost, "there has never been reason to believe that all outstanding candidates will be able to pay whatever fees are charged without help," as Bowen and his colleagues put it, and "society at large needs all the trained talent it can marshal."
here's an excerpt:
The causes and consequences of these dispiriting facts are complex, and the cost to society—moral and material—is high. There is moral cost in the shortfall between the professed ideal of equal opportunity and the reality of rising inequality. As for the material cost, "there has never been reason to believe that all outstanding candidates will be able to pay whatever fees are charged without help," as Bowen and his colleagues put it, and "society at large needs all the trained talent it can marshal."
Thursday, March 08, 2007
8th of March
Women's day.
This is the year of Segolene Royal, Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel.
Royal is still misterious. Is she going to reform France at the root, or will she bring more of the old (French socialism).
Hillary is very ambitious and very experienced. But unfortunately, many men do not like ambitious women, or at least that is my feeling. They should give her a chance.
Angela Merkel is doing well despite many things. Her government formed by a large coalition is a slow machine. But Germany is improving economically and Europe is following. Merkel is also leading the European Council with more energy and ideas than their recent predecessors (notably Tony Blair).
We can only hope that 2007 will be a succesfull year for Women!
This is the year of Segolene Royal, Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel.
Royal is still misterious. Is she going to reform France at the root, or will she bring more of the old (French socialism).
Hillary is very ambitious and very experienced. But unfortunately, many men do not like ambitious women, or at least that is my feeling. They should give her a chance.
Angela Merkel is doing well despite many things. Her government formed by a large coalition is a slow machine. But Germany is improving economically and Europe is following. Merkel is also leading the European Council with more energy and ideas than their recent predecessors (notably Tony Blair).
We can only hope that 2007 will be a succesfull year for Women!
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Yoo Shall Torture
Professor John Yoo gave a huge contribution to Bush's administration in its more troublesome period (2001-2003). His memo in defense of Torture is one of the most controversial, and in my mind, repelling documents ever written by a lawyer working for a government.
Yoo may have taken Alexander Hamilton as a role model, but he does not understand that boldness does not equate with lack of intellectual honesty.
Yoo's most recent book on this and other issues 'War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror,' has been admirably reviewed by David Luban in the New York Review of Books.
Yoo may have taken Alexander Hamilton as a role model, but he does not understand that boldness does not equate with lack of intellectual honesty.
Yoo's most recent book on this and other issues 'War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror,' has been admirably reviewed by David Luban in the New York Review of Books.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Is Anti-Americanism serious in Italy?
Anti-Americanism in Italy is still present, unfortunately. Its roots are the communist movements that were very strong in the 70's and in the 80's. In 1976, the communist party
got the 33% of the votes.
Today, Italy is still partly stuck with its past and display irrational anti-american feelings.
Here's an interesting article on the issue.
got the 33% of the votes.
Today, Italy is still partly stuck with its past and display irrational anti-american feelings.
Here's an interesting article on the issue.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Democrats: Struggle for Power
Here's a briliant article on the NYRB describing the struggle for the democratic leadership in the US.
This is an introduction:
Who will be the Democrats' nominee for president, and how will that choice affect the center of gravity? The three leading contenders—Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama—are making starkly different pitches to voters, based on quite different assumptions about what the party needs to do to break its stalemate. The next year and a half—in which we'll see if the Democrats make a success of their congressional majority and who captures the presidential nomination—will be the most consequential eighteen months the party has faced in some time.
This is an introduction:
Who will be the Democrats' nominee for president, and how will that choice affect the center of gravity? The three leading contenders—Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama—are making starkly different pitches to voters, based on quite different assumptions about what the party needs to do to break its stalemate. The next year and a half—in which we'll see if the Democrats make a success of their congressional majority and who captures the presidential nomination—will be the most consequential eighteen months the party has faced in some time.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Italian Crisis reveils troubled TransAtlantic Relations
It is interesting to see that the Italian Government, whose majority was very thin anyhow, fell on a TransAtlantic issue, ie the American military base in Vicenza.
We need greater clarity on these type of issues. On the Italian side, I think that it is of the outmost importance to abandon any stereotypical adversion to the US. We are on the same side, we share the same values, and we have to keep cooperating as best as we can. It is only a small group of italian 'pseudo post-neo- communist' who think that America is a danger.
There's a lot to do on the American side, however. Bush did everything to create a very unilateralist image of the US. In Europe, and in the rest of the world, this means that many people do not trust America anymore. Its action is often perceived as purely self-interested, as opposed to based on a well balanced view of international relations and politics, not to mention a degree of principle.
We need greater clarity on these type of issues. On the Italian side, I think that it is of the outmost importance to abandon any stereotypical adversion to the US. We are on the same side, we share the same values, and we have to keep cooperating as best as we can. It is only a small group of italian 'pseudo post-neo- communist' who think that America is a danger.
There's a lot to do on the American side, however. Bush did everything to create a very unilateralist image of the US. In Europe, and in the rest of the world, this means that many people do not trust America anymore. Its action is often perceived as purely self-interested, as opposed to based on a well balanced view of international relations and politics, not to mention a degree of principle.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Italian Government falls on American military base in Vicenza
The Italian government went down in Parliament. The issue was an American military base in Vicenza and the parliament had to decide whether to give a green light.
Most of the extreme left wing was opposed to it, and d'Alema, the foreign affair minister, did not manage to convince them to vote in favour of the military base.
As a result, d'Alema has resigned and the government will have to be reshuffled. It is likely that Prodi will form a second government, but d'Alema will not be in it anymore.
Hard times ahead for Prodi who will certainly not be strengthened by this accident.
Most of the extreme left wing was opposed to it, and d'Alema, the foreign affair minister, did not manage to convince them to vote in favour of the military base.
As a result, d'Alema has resigned and the government will have to be reshuffled. It is likely that Prodi will form a second government, but d'Alema will not be in it anymore.
Hard times ahead for Prodi who will certainly not be strengthened by this accident.
North Korea: Past and Future
North Korea is still a ticking bomb. An interesting article on the NYRB examines recent developments and future scenarios.
Here's the interesting conclusion:
Oddly though, what Kim Jong Il would decide if asked to choose between the bomb and a full, normal, nonbelligerent relationship with Washington has never been tested. Very likely, a working relationship with the United States would prove more subversive of the North Korean dictatorship than the efforts to isolate it and punish it have been. It is something that a new administration might try, assuming it is not already too late.
Friday, February 16, 2007
CIA's kidnappings in Italy
Some further judicial frictions between Italy and the US. After the accidents involved in the killing of an italian secret agent (Calipari) in Iraq, Italy is trying again to bring some US CIA agents before the courts. Here's a report
Berlusconi's government is very likely to have turned a blind eye on the practice of rendition. Prodi will not be as lineant.
Berlusconi's government is very likely to have turned a blind eye on the practice of rendition. Prodi will not be as lineant.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Europe copies American Green Card
It will be called Blue Card, but the idea is the same as the Green Card. Highly skilled immigrants will have privileged status. This way, Europe wants to compete with Canada and the USA for the market of brains. For a good report, please see here
It would be all well and good, if Europe really had a competitive private market able to integrate quickly highly skilled people, in particular young ones. But the very problem is that jobs markets in France, Germany, Italy and Spain are quite rigid and biased in favour of more experienced people, rather than young and talented.
This might have changed in the last few years, if you listen to the report of the Economist on European Business. Who are the Champions--in business terms-- the Economist asks. Surprisingly, the competition between China and America is won by... Europe.
The relative health of the German economy, coupled with the efficiency of London, a struggle to improve of Paris, the disappearance of Berlusconi in Italy and the good term of Madrid all contribute to a renewed hope of European Competitiveness.
It would be all well and good, if Europe really had a competitive private market able to integrate quickly highly skilled people, in particular young ones. But the very problem is that jobs markets in France, Germany, Italy and Spain are quite rigid and biased in favour of more experienced people, rather than young and talented.
This might have changed in the last few years, if you listen to the report of the Economist on European Business. Who are the Champions--in business terms-- the Economist asks. Surprisingly, the competition between China and America is won by... Europe.
The relative health of the German economy, coupled with the efficiency of London, a struggle to improve of Paris, the disappearance of Berlusconi in Italy and the good term of Madrid all contribute to a renewed hope of European Competitiveness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
