A rather irrational attack on Germany's economic policies by the French minister of economic affairs appeared last week in The Financial Times. Christine Lagarde accused Germany of "squeezing salaries to boost its trade surplus at the expense of euro zone partners," during a time of high budget deficits and sluggish economic recovery across the euro zone.

Here, Ms Lagarde is essentially accusing Germany of protectionism.

The Gaul to complain

In fact, Germany has a hugely successful, high-quality export economy, which is the engine that not only keeps Germany running, but arguably the whole of the EU in these dire times.

Does Ms Lagarde really care so much about the welfare of Greece, Italy, Portugal and other struggling economies in the euro zone to rush to their aid by making such blunt statements? Highly doubtful. This political outburst was arguably one on France's behalf, and France's behalf only.

Fighting off the French ambush, Rainer Brüderle, Germany's minister of economic affairs, said a day later that, "For countries that in the past lived off their entitlements and neglected their competitiveness, to point their finger at others is humanly and politically understandable, but still unfair." And this is putting it mildly. A statement such as that by Ms Lagarde, directed at the country that in the case of a collapse of one of the weaker economies of the euro zone is likely to pick up a large part of the bill is, to say the least, out of place.

A spokesperson for German Chancellor Angela Merkel commented that it is better for Europe to think about a unified growth strategy rather than to oblige some states to artificially hold back to the benefit of the weakest. And rightfully so, for, if that is what Europe is about, we had better stop it right here, right now.

Don't mime the French

What does this dispute really show? First of all, that in times of crisis and hardship in Europe, everyone is on their own. More importantly, though, it shows that we might need to be wary of the French model of economic and monetary policy, which is too focused on public incentives, protectionism and political meddling with money matters.

Seven years into Frenchman Jean-Claude Trichet's reign over the European Central Bank (ECB), the euro is weakening in comparison with the dollar and years of corruption, lies and mismanagement in Greece and other countries threaten to bring down the entire construction of the euro zone.

The ECB is unstable because it is a political instrument along the lines of the French model. If we want to expand it, we need to fix it first. And Poland would be well advised to insist on a radical review of the euro system, something along the lines of the US model, before it even considers joining.

How ironic is it to see the esteemed Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, travel to Paris for a meeting with French President, Nicholas Sarkozy, mere days after an EU agreement was reached on significant emissions reduction targets (see “A new, 'green' gold rush,” posted here on October 29). An agreement which requires above average efforts from Poland and the other new member states and which, as outlined more fully in said blog post, could present major opportunities for true innovation in the energy sector.

But one could ask the question of whether rushing to Paris for a meeting with France’s senior salesman, and returning with one, or even two, nuclear power plants, is really the best way to respond to this call for innovation. Should Poland pour so much tax money into a technology that is 40 years old has meanwhile been surpassed? Should such tax money be used to buy a turnkey product that offers little transfer of knowledge and intellectual property? And, last but not least, how ethical is it to buy a technology from a country which is shamelessly selling out that same technology to the Iran of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Understandably, France’s aging nuclear-energy sector (the country’s first nuclear power plant was completed in 1956 and was then a novelty), which grew beyond proportion due to massive government subsidies to industry giants such as former Framatome and today’s Aveva and EDF, is in dire need of new markets to whom it can sell its sub-par technology, especially in times when many other European countries consider this technology antiquated and are looking into more modern solutions.

The French nuclear industry and the government with which it is so intertwined, have been turning to Northern Africa and the Middle East in their effort to convince new potential buyers. In this context, the set of energy and climate targets concluded at the recent EU Summit turns out to be a rather self-fulfilling prophecy for France, a door opener to provide quick but not necessary future-proof ways for Poland and its neighbors to deliver on their political promises. Mr Tusk’s plan is therefore a rush decision and it is unlikely to be in Poland’s interest in the long-term.

The Polish government must duly consider whether it wants to fund yesterday’s technology, or whether it instead wants to go one step further and invest in building the competence at home that will ensure truly sustainable energy provision.