Possible repercussions. Not even a word in this column about the misadventures of Dominique Strauss-Kahn? This is quite normal because, for the time being, all that interests us are the possible repercussions they may have on EU action with regard to the countries in the euro zone experiencing difficulty. According to certain observers, such repercussions should not be ruled out because large-scale involvement of the IMF in supporting euro zone countries has already been the subject of a more or less explicit whispering campaign so that the fall-out from the personal affairs of the director-general, though not influencing commitments already made, could have repercussions for later developments. In the monetary arena, caution is the watchword. A few recent leaks left the impression that they were serving the specific interests of certain financial groups. For example, the suggestion that Greece was going to reintroduce its national currency was put out at the end of the day to encourage speculation before the appropriate authorities had time to issue a denial.
The “an event, a commentary” formula does not characterise the style of this column. News from our publication is enough in itself providing greater clarity and detail than can be found elsewhere. Our publication attempts to take into account the different positions, particularly at Parliament, which reflect the views of the different political tendencies. This column discusses questions of principle, for example, demolishing the arguments by the professional sceptics, who attempt to portray Europe as being in a quagmire, whereas it is, in fact, going through a period of radical and audacious transformation. The pessimists sometimes give the impression that when one of their own personal convictions is not taken up, it is a failure for Europe. I don't want to bore our readers but I will once again repeat the fact that in my opinion future historians will consider the current period as one of very constructive development in Europe's history.
Each country is free to make its own choice. My positive interpretation of the situation in Europe does not mean that I totally support what is being planned for the euro or economic governance. I do not agree that participating in the euro should often be described as something imposed from the outside, irrespective of whether the countries involved are prepared to respect the rules. We have to get rid of this idea of compulsion. Countries that don't want to take part can leave or not join the euro. But if a country joins, it has to abide by the rules. The United Kingdom and Denmark have obtained a derogation and every year Sweden finds a way out and will join once the Swedish people are convinced the time is right. The countries waiting to join have to prove that they meet the necessary conditions. Greece joined without totally meeting these conditions (thanks to technical assistance from a US bank, a past master in these kinds of operations). The country was accepted and subsequently obtained and will continue to obtain support from the other eurozone countries. Nonetheless, derogations cannot be permanent if we want to prevent the edifice from collapsing.
This is where a choice has to be made: if a country rejects euro discipline, it has the right to do so. This is not a punishment because there is no crime. The eurozone is like a club: those wanting to be part of it accept its rules. For many long years, each Community country had its own national currency and monetary instability meant that there were periodic devaluations and re-evaluations. Internationally, a lot of other countries also had to devalue their own currencies. No moral judgements or aspersions are being cast with regard to this attitude but it is incompatible with participating in a single currency whose rules must necessarily be respected by all participants. A single currency also implies uniform economic and social policies everywhere. The eurozone is the only case where there is a single currency common to several different countries but where these policies remain within the national remit. The EU, however, has a number of support mechanisms to help weaker member states. In particular, there is cohesion policy, not to mention specific monetary support mechanisms developed this spring, following considerable wrangling.
In my opinion, it is false and unjust to portray euro rules as being imposed. It is a free choice and the conditions are known in advance. If a country considers that these conditions do not fit its mentality and aspirations, then it has a free choice, nothing is forced. Each should be responsible for its own actions. Tomorrow, this column will return to the specific case of Greece, together with a number of comments made by figures such as Jacques Delors and others. (F.R./transl.fl)