The European Central Bank (ECB) is making its reputation at this time of turmoil and crisis. Barely a month after the rejection of the EU constitution in France and the Netherlands, the EU summit in Brussels ended in a surprisingly acrimonious orgy of national egoisms and no deal. Then the terrorists struck in London. With all this trouble, the ECB is showing itself to be an "anchor of stability" by steadfastly sticking to its mandate of insuring price stability.
Europe suffers from a profound crisis of confidence. Its economy, for example, cannot recover properly because consumers, lacking confidence in the ability of their political leaders to solve the economy's manifold economic problems (budget deficits and pensions, among others), are saving for a rainy day they feel is just around the corner -- and businessmen are reluctant to invest, because they don't trust governments to make the necessary economic reforms.
The public's lack of confidence in the EU's political leadership is totally justified. Instead of actually doing something constructive about Europe's essential problem -- reforming expensive welfare states to ensure global competitiveness -- Europe's political leaders are hiding behind straw-man arguments about "ultra-liberal Anglo-Saxon models," and pressuring the ECB to lower interest rates as if European economic weakness were Frankfurt's fault.
Europe's finance ministers portray the ECB as closed to dialogue. When testifying before the EU parliament's economic and monetary affairs committee, Luxembourg prime minister and Euro-group chairman Jean-Claude Juncker said there should be "open and frank" talks between the euro-group ministers and the ECB -- and French finance minister Dominique de Villepin said the same thing.
According to a knowledgeable ECB source, however, Europe's finance ministers regularly meet in secret with the ECB leadership for a mutual and frank exchange of views on monetary policy and other issues. The dialogue already exists though the public does not know it. Such disingenuousness does little to boost confidence in Europe's political leadership.
The ECB has done all it can for growth by giving Europe a prolonged period of monetary stability at record-low interest rates. Does anyone really believe consumers are holding back on spending -- and businessmen postponing their investments -- in anticipation of that next drop in interest rates? To paraphrase Keynes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
"The last thing Europe needs now is an interest-rate cut," says one influential member of the ECB Governing Council in a candid assessment of the current situation. Capitulating to outside political pressure is no one's definition of an "anchor of stability." The euro would collapse, and the ECB finished as a creditable central bank.
Moreover, ECB chief economist Otmar Issing predicts long-term interest rates would go up -- not down -- as inflationary expectations increased. So cutting interest rates would not only be stupid -- it would be crazy.
But the ECB is not going to cut rates even though, for public-relations reasons of keeping the political wolves at bay, it deceptively hints it might. Don't be fooled by such feints. The ECB is holding fast and, in doing so, demonstrates to Europe's peoples that there is at least one EU institution they can trust.
This is vital. History shows political turmoil often leads to inflation, which only fuels further turmoil. Europeans can bet their last euro the ECB will not let the fledgling common currency be ravaged by inflation because their political leaders, having failed to do their jobs, now fear they might lose them.
Indeed, the courage currently demonstrated by the ECB in sticking to its guns should serve as a model for Europe's future politicians. Once they realize they can't bully the ECB into unwanted and self-destructive interest-rate cuts, EU leaders actually might summon up the will to lead -- which is, after all, what they have been elected to do.
Melvyn Krauss is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with