“Don’t you think they want us to fail?”
That is the question I kept hearing during a brief, intense visit to Athens. My answer was that there is no “they” — that Greece does not, in fact, face a solid bloc of implacable creditors who would rather see default and exit from the euro than let a leftist government succeed, that there is more goodwill on the other side of the table than many Greeks suppose.
However, you can understand why Greeks see things that way. And I came away from the visit fearing that Greece and Europe might suffer a terrible accident, an unnecessary rupture that will cast long shadows over the future.
The story so far: At the end of 2009, Greece faced a crisis driven by two factors: High debt, alongside inflated costs and prices that left the country uncompetitive.
THE BAILOUT
Europe responded with loans that kept the cash flowing, but only on the condition that Greece pursues extremely painful policies. These included spending cuts and tax hikes that, if imposed on the US, would amount to US$3 trillion per year. There were also wage cuts on a scale that is hard to fathom, with average wages down 25 percent from their peak.
These immense sacrifices were supposed to produce recovery. Instead, the destruction of purchasing power deepened the country’s slump, creating Great Depression-level suffering and a huge humanitarian crisis.
On Saturday last week, I visited a shelter for the homeless and was told heartbreaking tales of a healthcare system in collapse: patients turned away from hospitals because they could not pay the 5 euro (US$5.34) entrance fee, sent away without needed medicine because cash-starved clinics had run out, and more.
NIGHTMARE
It has been an endless nightmare, yet Greece’s political establishment, determined to stay within Europe and fearing the consequences of default and exit from the euro, stayed with the program year after year.
Finally, the Greek public could take no more. As creditors demanded yet more austerity — on a scale that might well have pushed the economy down by another 8 percent and driven unemployment to 30 percent — the nation voted in SYRIZA, a genuinely left-wing (as opposed to center-left) coalition, which has vowed to change the nation’s course.
Can a Greek exit from the eurozone be avoided?
Yes, it can. The irony of SYRIZA’s victory is that it came just at the point when a workable compromise should be possible.
ALTERNATIVES
The key point is that exiting the eurozone would be extremely costly and disruptive in Greece, and would pose huge political and financial risks for the rest of Europe. It is therefore something to be avoided if there is a halfway decent alternative.
And there is, or should be.
By late last year, Greece had managed to eke out a small “primary” budget surplus, with tax receipts exceeding spending, excluding interest payments. That is all that creditors can reasonably demand, since you cannot keep squeezing blood from a stone. Meanwhile, all those wage cuts have made Greece competitive on world markets — or would make it competitive if some stability can be restored.
The shape of a deal is therefore clear: basically, a standstill on further austerity, with Greece agreeing to make significant, but not ever-growing, payments to its creditors. Such a deal would set the stage for economic recovery, perhaps slow at the start, but finally offering some hope.
However, that deal does not seem to be coming together. Maybe it is true, as the creditors say, that the new Greek government is hard to deal with. However, what do you expect when parties that have no previous experience in governing take over from a discredited establishment?
CATASTROPHE
More important, the creditors are demanding things — big cuts in pensions and public employment — that a newly elected government of the left simply cannot agree to do, as opposed to reforms like an improvement in tax enforcement that it can.
And the Greeks are all too ready to see these demands as part of an effort either to bring down their government or to make their country into an example of what will happen to other debtor countries if they balk at harsh austerity.
To make things even worse, political uncertainty is hurting tax receipts, probably causing that hard-earned primary surplus to evaporate. The sensible thing, surely, is to show some patience on that front: If and when a deal is reached, uncertainty will subside and the budget should improve again. However, in the pervasive atmosphere of distrust, patience is in short supply.
It does not have to be this way. True, avoiding a full-blown crisis would require that creditors advance a significant amount of cash, albeit cash that would immediately be recycled into debt payments. However, consider the alternative. The last thing Europe needs is for fraying tempers to bring on yet another catastrophe, this one completely gratuitous.
Apart from the first arms sales approval for Taiwan since US President Donald Trump took office, last month also witnessed another milestone for Taiwan-US relations. Trump signed the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act into law on Tuesday. Its passing without objection in the US Senate underscores how bipartisan US support for Taiwan has evolved. The new law would further help normalize exchanges between Taiwanese and US government officials. We have already seen a flurry of visits to Washington earlier this summer, not only with Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), but also delegations led by National Security Council Secretary-General Joseph Wu
When the towers of Wang Fuk Court turned into a seven-building inferno on Wednesday last week, killing 128 people, including a firefighter, Hong Kong officials promised investigations, pledged to review regulations and within hours issued a plan to replace bamboo scaffolding with steel. It sounded decisive. It was not. The gestures are about political optics, not accountability. The tragedy was not caused by bamboo or by outdated laws. Flame-retardant netting is already required. Under Hong Kong’s Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme — which requires buildings more than 30 years old to undergo inspection every decade and compulsory repairs — the framework for
President William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday last week announced a plan to invest an additional NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.8 billion) in military spending to procure advanced defense systems over the next eight years, and outlined two major plans and concrete steps to defend democratic Taiwan in the face of China’s intensifying threat. While Lai’s plans for boosting the country’s national security have been praised by many US lawmakers, former defense officials, academics and the American Institute in Taiwan, the US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan, they were not equally welcomed by all Taiwanese, particularly among the opposition parties. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman
President William Lai’s (賴清德) historic announcement on Wednesday, Nov. 26, of a supplemental defense budget valued in excess of US$40 billion is a testament to the seriousness with which Taiwan is responding to the relentless expansionist ambitions of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the Chinese Communist Party and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Lai is responding to the threat posed to Taiwan sovereignty along with US President Donald Trump’s insistence that American partners in good standing must take on more responsibility for their own defense. The supplemental defense budget will be broken into three main parts. The first and largest piece