Differences of approach persist. Encouraging initiatives and declarations about European solidarity with regard to the Greek crisis have reduced tension somewhat, but the differences of approach regarding management of the eurozone, which we discussed in this column yesterday, are real enough and better mutual understanding remains indispensable. The German authorities have talked about excluding countries from the eurozone, which do not respect the rules. Some French figures have blamed Germany for the budget deficits of other countries. A few declarations have been excessive, for example, the one by Guy Verhofstadt, affirming that the German attitude with regard to the Greek crisis did not correspond to the image of “Europe, which should replace war with cooperation and solidarity”. At the same time, Greece has sometimes been presented as a country of systematic tricksters. Yet if everyone is attacking their counterpart's position instead of attempting to understand it, unity will not be possible.
EU's support for Greece is genuine. The attitude taken by the Greek prime minister has been both dignified and firm: he has adopted indispensable internal measures and explained that he does not want direct aid but political support that will enable his country to call on the financial markets in appropriate conditions. The EU has nothing to be ashamed of with regard to support regularly consented to Greece within the framework of its common policies. This aid is substantial and the figures prove it. The weak point is, perhaps, the lack of solidarity to deal with floods of illegal immigrants confronting Greece. This domain is, however, politically very sensitive due to certain populist posturing which asserts that Europe should take the whole of the world's misery upon its shoulders.
The German position is not without its reasons. In an effort to understand the German position, we have to go back to the pre-euro era, the era of devaluations and revaluations of national currencies: sudden meetings in Brussels on Friday evenings following the closing of the markets, heated debates, and humiliation of countries compelled to devalue. At that time, Germany agreed to give up its national currency, despite the scepticism of the public and economic communities. Chancellors Kohl and Schmidt explicitly indicated that they wanted to avoid excessive domination of the deutschmark but in exchange, they demanded stability of the euro.
Germany is demanding that the rules commonly defined be respected and strengthened. It is not alone in wanting this. Would it be necessary to once again reject obligatory coordination of eurozone countries' economic policies, which Jacques Delors called for at the very beginning? Enhancing the Stability Pact has just been defined as indispensable by the president of the Financial Stability Board, Mario Draghi: he wants the rules to be made more binding and extended to the domain of structural reforms. The brilliant economists who called for Greece to leave the euro, as well as the political figures who deplored German rigidity, should not forget the advantages that the euro has brought to countries whose national currencies were weak in the past. The president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, has just pointed out that: they have benefited from very favourable interest rates for their long-term loans and, for Greece, in particular, “financing of the external deficit has been assured by the simple fact that it is in the eurozone”. By distancing itself from the eurozone, the cost of refinancing the debt of this country would massively increase. Mr Trichet added that “leaving one's children and grandchildren to pay for the burden of one's own spending, is a heavy responsibility”. He described the hypothesis of Greece leaving the eurozone as “absurd” and added that “now is not the time to seek out scapegoats but, rather, to correct the fragilities of the financial system”.
What economic coordination means. On the face of it, no country is either right or wrong. The facts speak for themselves: weakness in one country has an impact on the very value of the euro to the detriment of all. It is obvious that in the event of difficulties, solidarity has a role to play in the coordination of economic policies but also implies that each country should rectify its mistakes and make good its shortcomings (including Germany with regard to its fiscal policy). This is what coordination of economic policies means, with each country adjusting its own policy to the advantage of all. The preliminary requisite, however, is that common rules be respected. Obviously, discipline within the financial community and supervision have to progress at the same time, whilst protecting the real economy against speculation and abuse. This is indeed what the EU is trying to do.
(F.R./transl.fl)