Three interpretations of Greek action. The numerous contradictory reactions that have followed the initiative by Mr Papandreou to organise a referendum on the decisions made on 27 October can be summarised in three different ways: (1) the Greek prime minister considers that the Greek people will vote in favour and the position of his country will be strengthened within the EU; (2) Papandreou has been so weakened at a national level (even within his government and political party) that it is absolutely imperative that he succeeds in order to reaffirm his authority, accepting the risk of inevitable resignation if he fails; (3) he hopes that if the referendum rejects the plan which he himself supported in Brussels, he will have a weapon with which he will be able to obtain a certain amount of flexibility with regard to what has been decided.
The first interpretation has been defended by Mr Papandreou himself. The third has been interpreted as blackmail by his eurozone colleagues, particularly Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy, who had in practice defined together the essential aspects of the recovery plan. It is pointless highlighting the different indignant responses to the fact that Mr Papandreou had not announced his intentions to his colleagues. The Greek prime minister has also had to revise his referendum project on several crucial aspects.
One alternative: yes or no to the euro. The most important point that has in practice been imposed on Mr Papandreou involves the very nature of his referendum: the Greek people will not be agreeing to or rejecting the contents of the plan established in Brussels by common agreement, but to whether they should belong to the eurozone. This referendum will not be taking place at the beginning of next year either, as Mr Papandreou had planned, but rather on 4 December, in four weeks' time. Mr Sarkozy underlined that if indeed Greece rejects the plan, the commitments to support Greece will no longer be valid. But the real meaning of the popular referendum had in fact been underlined from the outset by Jean-Claude Junker: the essential question is whether Greece will continue to participate in the Eurozone, and the Greek people have to be aware of this. Most members of the European Parliament have responded essentially in the same way, even though they have done so by employing language that is as encouraging and optimistic as possible. Speaking on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, has called for the austerity plan to be accompanied by a Greek reconstruction programme.
Let's not confuse participation in the euro with belonging to the EU. Within public opinion and among a number of political forces, academics and even economists, we can currently witness a certain trend towards overweening sympathy for the situation in Greece and the action taken by the country. This is understandable. Nonetheless, those who point out that we should not forget the contribution made by Greece to European and world civilisation, and who demand that the country be provided with assistance as part of Community solidarity (to a country everyone is indebted to), should also take into account that the response has to be located in Greek participation in the EU. In this context, Greece benefits from European support and advantages that no one at all is questioning. Being part of the EU and a member of the eurozone are two completely different things. A country in the eurozone that does not respect the rules provokes enormous complications despite its own small size; the deviations to the rules that it has committed compromise the very existence of the single currency and this is becoming more and more obvious every day.
Criticism does not mean rejection. Denouncing the deviations and shortcomings, and calling for them to be rectified, does not mean rejecting Greece in any way or abandoning it in its hour of need. Philippe Maystadt, the president of the European Investment Bank (EIB), is currently preparing projects to help stimulate Greek economic recovery. This does not, however, prevent him from declaring that Greece “should never have joined the eurozone because it did not meet the criteria. The European Council was deceived, the information it had was false from the very beginning.” He has pointed out that the shortcomings persist and that no member state has “such a high number of civil servants” without an appropriate public sector register (or official real estate register). Greece furthermore holds the “European record for military spending”. The situation has not got any better. “It is a unique case in Europe” Mr Maystadt has explained (interview in the weekly publication Le Vif on 7 October). But the EIB is nonetheless preparing a project for relaunching investment in Greece.
Jacques Delors has provided harsh criticism of the eurozone recovery plans (this column will be returning to the subject) and has pointed out: “If I had been in the position, I don't know if I would have let Greece join the eurozone”. It has also been pointed out that only one in seven citizens in Greece pays taxes.
However, the latest from Athens shows a more positive attitude on the part of Greece. The die has not yet been cast.
(FR/transl.fl)