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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS