You might think that giving people a say in the most crucial decisions affecting their country would be second nature for a union of states that claims democracy as its most sacred founding principle. However, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou’s announcement that Greece would hold a referendum on the EU’s latest shock therapy “rescue” plan was greeted with outrage across the chancelleries of Europe.
Papandreou was summoned to the G20 summit in Cannes last week by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to be “read the riot act” over such reckless ingratitude. The previous week’s dose of new loans, 50 percent voluntary bank debt write-offs and yet more savage cuts and privatizations was supposed to have settled the matter and halted the threat of eurozone contagion — even if the deal’s flakiness had already become painfully clear.
Papandreou’s maneuver was, of course, a last-ditch attempt to save his political skin after months of mass street action over previous helpings of failed austerity that have driven Greek society to the brink. Papandreou abandoned the referendum, and even if one were held, Greeks would certainly be subjected to a barrage of threats and blackmail.
Illustration:Yusha
However, the controversy goes to the heart of Europe’s problem with democracy. It was not just fear of the risks of delay on febrile bond markets that has caused apoplexy, but the danger that Greeks might vote have voted the wrong way. Voting is not how things are done in the EU. And whenever a state does actually consult its people — Denmark and Ireland had a go — they are made to vote again until they get it right.
However, the democratic deficit has now tipped over into a democratic crisis. To protect the banks that lent to Greece and protected its elite from unwelcome tax demands, the country is being systematically stripped of its sovereignty, as EU and IMF officials swarm over its ministries drafting budgets, setting policy deadlines, “advising” on tax and pushing through state selloffs.
No wonder nationalist anger is growing. And all this to deliver a death spiral of spending cuts and tax increases that are sending Greece ever deeper into slump and debt. It makes no sense unless it is understood that it is not the Greek economy that is being rescued, but European and US banks exposed to Greek debt. To protect the rentiers and prevent their own failures from seizing up the European credit system, Greece has undergone the deepest ever fiscal squeeze in a developed state without the possibility of any compensating monetary stimulus or devaluation — because of its euro membership.
As a result, its economy is collapsing and its debt is mushrooming. Papandreou’s referendum proposal at least raised the possibility of an alternative. Without a bailout of the Greek economy, any “orderly” default will be on the creditors’ terms and the country faces decades of stagnation. Under those circumstances, an Argentina-style default and exit from the euro increasingly looks like the better option.
However, Greece is only the extreme end of the eurozone crisis. Portugal and Spain, the other two EU members ruled by fascist dictators until the mid-1970s, have also been reduced by stringent bailout conditions to the status of a protectorate run from Brussels, Frankfurt and Washington — with dire economic and social consequences.
Now the contagion threatens Italy, and Europe’s crisis risks tipping the global economy back into recession. The Greek rescue package has already been recognized as a failure, EU leaders have resorted to lobbying China to back a wider bailout and the International Labour Organization is warning of a worldwide explosion of unemployment and social unrest.
However, as in Britain, the eurozone’s debt and stagnation crisis is not about state profligacy. It is mainly the result of the recession-induced slump in tax revenues triggered by the 2008 crash feeding back into the banks that caused it. Private investment has collapsed, and until eurozone governments start bailing out the real economy, rather than the banks, with public investment for growth, the rescue packages will go on failing.
However, that would require a radical shift in the politics of the core eurozone states, and there is not the slightest sign of it. As a result, the eurozone faces potential breakup and is highly unlikely to survive in its current form. It is not as if the dangers and flaws at the euro’s heart were not clear from the beginning, though, to critics on both left and right.
To tie together 17 countries with widely different levels of development and productivity around a single currency without large-scale tax and spend transfers, and underpin it with a rigidly deflationary central bank without full monetary powers, or any kind of credible democratic control, was always a disaster waiting to happen.
The aftershocks of the 2008 crash have now triggered that disaster. For the euro’s architects, the currency was to be the catalyst for the deeper integration they always regarded as essential for European corporations to grow large enough to compete on a global scale. Now they see the eurozone crisis as a springboard to create the fiscal union and economic government they have long wanted, among a smaller group of countries.
However, the loss of credibility created by the crisis goes beyond the eurozone to the economic ideology that has shaped the whole EU for decades: of deregulation, privatization and the privileging of corporate power, regardless of the modest employment rights introduced to limit social dumping.
That is exactly the model that is now in deep crisis across the Western world. British Conservative euroskeptics are, of course, all in favor of such an unaccountable free-for-all and only balk at the prospect of the pre-eminence of the City of London — whose role has skewed the British economy and deepened the impact of the crash — being undermined by EU meddling.
However, while Merkel raised the specter of war if the eurozone goes down, none of the mainstream political parties across Europe are facing up to the failure of that model or the crisis of democracy it has sparked.
It has been left to the archbishop of Canterbury and the Vatican to demand serious reform of the financial system. However, everywhere the crisis is turning the orthodoxies of the past generation on their head — and it is going to be a different world by the time the debris has cleared.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS