Jean-Claude Juncker and Hillary Clinton, united in strategy

My Orchids. Phalaneopsis "No Tax".
Photo ET

Jean-Claude Juncker and Hillary Clinton, united in strategy

On both sides of the Atlantic, Jean-Claude Juncker and Hillary Clinton are subject to similar political pressures, although without any relationship between them. One is the non- elected by popular vote President of the European Commission, the other is the inevitable Crown Princess of the American Presidency, which also virtually suspended universal suffrage, at least in her design of her electoral campaign. Both, however, are haunted by a past that catches up with them. For one, it is LuxLeaks, the case of Luxembourg tax rulings, for the other it is Emailgate, a situation that would put the former Secretary of State in violation of security laws and regulations of the United States.

For Mrs. Clinton, the outlook would be bad if the case of four-star general and former CIA Director David Petraeus were to be applied to her. Petraeus, in a moment of weakness, kept classified information on his home computer for his biographer. The law is clear and the judges were relentless. Petraeus was convicted. A similar result would be fatal to the almost exclusive and un-competitive Clinton candidacy.

FOIA makes the difference

If anything separates the cases Juncker - Clinton, it is the crucial issue of access to information guaranteed by law, information that the two seem to persist in hiding. Clinton indeed faces FOIA, the "Freedom of Information Act", the terrible instrument against the abuse of power. Juncker however does not: there is no such thing to apply to him. He only faces investigators without teeth from the European Parliament. Clearly he does not run Clinton’s risks. Though she can still survive, given the Clintons’ reputation to surprise everyone in extremis by pulling a Houdini. Juncker will survive more easily because he is not yet trapped and encircled.

First of all, there is no great enthusiasm to pursue the case of Juncker’s responsibility in Luxembourg’s tax rulings scheme. The Conservatives of which he is part, hold the reins in the European Parliament, the supervisory body in this case. In that sense, one could actually be surprised that the issue be raised at all. As for Luxembourg, among its innovations in economic development, the tax ruling project is only one of a number of well known policies adopted over the years: RTL the biggest broadcaster in the 30's, bank secrecy in the 60s, reinsurance in 70s, mutual funds industry, international shipping register and the satellite company SES in the 80s, and tax rulings in the 90s. It would have been difficult to ignore these important innovations as Prime Minister.

Most of the time, the cover-up is worse than the crime

As so often in a crisis situation involving a politician, Jean-Claude Juncker may have committed the classical mistake of lying to cover up a well-established fact. Lying is often more devastating than the alleged offense. He has already lower credibility ratings from former career events. So what was his problem to confirm that as a sovereign state, Luxembourg has always sought to exploit niches of sovereignty, as the ones indicated above? If international problem there is, Luxembourg has been under pressure before. The exploitation of the sovereign niches has often created problems with our neighbors. Why pretend in this case to not know or being amnesiac? The question now no longer revolves around the issue of potentially illegitimate tax rulings, but around the question when Juncker became aware of the existence of a one pager missing from a parliamentary report that was intended for him in 1997!

By denying any knowledge of the facts, Juncker actually encourages many investigative reporters who feel a calling to prove otherwise. And from his past career echoes his famous credo as a stigma: "When things get serious, you have to lie." Finally there is also the “he said, and he said”. Jeannot Krecké, former MP and former minister insists that he withheld the sensitive document that he had prepared from publication, but that the document in question was effectively delivered to Juncker, though unofficially. It doesn’t matter, as there is hardly any record keeping. Juncker denies ever having seen this document. Again the circumstances are against him, as in public opinion, Krecké has more credibility for speaking the truth.

Luxembourg awaits its FOIA for fifteen years already!

What does the one-page document written by Krecké, actually contain? This is known only by a small circle of initiates, among them would logically figure Prime Minister Juncker himself, who had commissioned the report. Its content deals with the issue of advance tax rulings and was probably considered too sensitive to be shown publicly. An implicit sign of guilt? But here is why Juncker is luckier than Hillary Clinton: there is no Luxembourg Freedom of Information Act. And I don’t see any European legal body that could be coercive enough to force anyone, Krecké or Juncker, to disclose the contents of the document.

Juncker himself has always expressed his opposition to the draft law 4676/00, that Alex Bodry, MP filed on June 20, 2000. This is the Luxembourg version of the "Freedom of Information Act" for the freedom of access to information. Except for a few outbreaks of short-lived activity after embarrassing reminders in 2011-12, the project has gone to die in the dungeons of Juncker’s last administration. Probably a wise precaution one might say today with regards to Luxleaks.

Luxembourg is well behind the rest of the world or a hundred countries that have FOIA-type legislation in place. Our neighbors do and so do the US, China, the Dominican Republic, Nigeria, Rwanda and Zimbabwe.