Guy Verhofstadt and Tommaso Padoa Schioppa have taken the initiative. Although he believes that the eurozone should be represented as an entity on the IMF board, the director general of the International Monetary Fund, Mr Strauss-Kahn, chose his words carefully: “Personally, I would like the eurozone to put an end to its fragmentation, but maybe it's too early to say”. However, the president of the Liberal Group of the European Parliament (and former Belgian prime minister) and the former board member of the European Central Bank (and former Italian finance minister) believe that it is better not to wait: Europe's representation should be unified.
They expanded on this point in a joint article in the Belgian daily newspaper Le Soir. They state that the current situation is absurd. Today, every country of the EU is represented on the board by a state which is part of this body, but which is not necessarily a country of the Community: in some cases, it is a third country! Under the system they recommend, the EU would speak with a single voice; and it is not, in their opinion, the case that this would weaken the European position; quite the contrary. I recognise Mr Verhofstadt's acerbic style here (our translation): “We must put an end, once and for all, to that old misguided view that the more of us there are seated round the table, the more we count for, when in actual fact it's just another opportunity to argue in public, rather than rallying our forces”.
Here, in essence, is their solution. One of the “colleges” which make up the governing body of the IMF would comprise the countries of the eurozone, thus allowing them to sing from the same hymn sheet, under the chairmanship of the president of the Eurogroup. The United Kingdom and the other countries of the EU which are not members of the eurozone would comprise another “college”, and possibly be joined by countries such as Turkey and Ukraine. The IMF voting procedures would be changed, to remove the United States' right of veto and move to a qualified-majority voting system with a threshold of two thirds and increased voting rights for the emerging countries. The debate is open.
And those who prioritise the nuclear bomb… Just as these remarks are coming out, the ministerial meeting of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan has stepped up its support measures to this country which has been stricken by well-documented natural disasters. I would have considered it quite wrong to publish this previously; solidarity and aid must take priority. I read with great interest the stance taken by Oxfam, indicating that the burden of debt is equivalent to twice the level of international aid to Pakistan and calling for this debt simply to be written off. It is easy to be generous with other people's money. Within these enthusiastic stances, as in others, there is not a single word about the responsibility for and causes of this indebtedness, or raising the issue of the nuclear bomb. Pakistan has this bomb, the manufacture and maintenance of which (particularly for its missiles) are very expensive. This is not just a Pakistani issue. I confess to feeling slightly embarrassed whenever I hear the authorities of a country which prioritises nuclear weapons appealing for international solidarity or for their debt to be written off. Making populations in danger safe is a duty. Supporting regimes which spend a considerable chunk of their resources on armament, and on nuclear armament in particular, is less natural. I believe that this is something that needs to be taken into consideration.
In addition, in their joint press release issued on Thursday, Mrs Clinton and Baroness Ashton called on Pakistan to take immediate and substantial measures to mobilise its own resources to tackle the devastating floods, and Mrs Clinton added that the Pakistani government should also be looking to use its internal resources when the tax payers of Europe, America and other countries are contributing to the efforts (see yesterday's edition of our bulletin). The nuclear weapons issue was not raised. I am raising it.
Pervenche Berès makes a request. A few days ago (EUROPE 10234), this column raised the question: when will the European Parliament take the initiative to call for external relations in the field of energy to be included among the objectives of the common foreign policy currently being developed? Next week in Strasbourg we will have a principle which has not yet had much response; the report by Pervenche Berès, which is on the agenda of the plenary session, calls for this aspect to be taken into account as a strategic issue and for the negotiation of supply contracts to be provided for, with close collaboration between the European Commission, the member states and the sectors in question. The member states and the “sectors in question” are already taking an active interest in this, but each on its own account; in some cases, the Commission is not even informed. The position taken by the EP will represent a first step in the right direction.
(F.R./transl.fl)