When the Commission’s press release hit the inboxes on Friday night a couple of weeks ago, with a prologue about the Sunday Times covert operation, it was a long weekend of waiting. In the edition of that Sunday Times was the exposure of Harald Wenig as a Euro-traitor.
From what he have learned from our Commission sources, Wenig visited the Commission’s internal investigation services (IDOC) September 10 to give testimony. Our research tells us that beyond the several codes of ethics that the journalists of the Sunday Times broke in their dress-up, they also broke Belgian law which prohibits individuals from being taped without their knowledge. It is quite possible that the use of these tapes also constitutes a criminal act. In this case we expect that Wenig will exercise full use of his legal rights in due course.
We also expect that the Commission will give Wenig their full support with article 24 of the statute concerning defamation. Europe should indeed protect the best of what they have to offer. Harald Wenig is a man who is perhaps one of the top five people in the world in his field; a man who has made many ene-M-ies along the way. Brussels is a town where everybody talks; and there has been lots of chit-chat about who was behind this sting operation. After all, the journalists had a specific target with a specific request, using specific information (no doubt properly advised by some lobby group to which we pass no criticism for doing their job). As a colleague put it- “It may well be that Mr. Wenig suffers absolutely no negative result professionally, but by god, his reputation has been destroyed.”
The feeling by many of Wenig’s friends in Brussels is that the Sunday Times has taken much of what he has said out of context. From our sources deeply entrenched, we have learned that the information provided by Wenig was indeed semi-public (as Wenig has already stated.) This means that the information had already been made available to member states.
In practice, this means that anybody with the kind of access it took to get to Wenig, already had access to this information. This information apparently had no commercial value either, as the nature of that information was no indicator about whether duties would be imposed and if so, of what magnitude.
Indeed in the position of Wenig it is quite normal for businesses to approach officials for information. In the case of the Chinese, Wenig appears to have been turning down money in the politest possible way. The support for Wenig on a personal level has been “extraordinary” to quote one of his close friends. Officially however, he is “in the machine.” There is only one conclusion to be drawn; Wenig obviously has made powerful enemies in the Commission; and it is by measuring the level of one’s enemies that you measure his/her own level.
If Wenig is guilty, he should face the consequences laid out by the rules. If Wenig is innocent, there needs to be serious thought put into how this Brussels gangster town works.