 |
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.
