EU in the war in Africa? Support, concern and perplexity - this is the triple, and in part contradictory, reaction, that the French decision to engage its armed forces in Mali has raised in the EU. The only official reaction of the Community institutions that I know about is that of the chair of the European Parliament's sub-committee on security and defence, Arnaud Danjean, who described the action taken by France as necessary and legitimate because it is in response to a request from a friendly country and is based on two explicit United Nations resolutions authorising recourse to force. Mr Danjean added: “We just regret that more countries are not participating in this effort, when the process of deployment of a European mission has been enacted for weeks but has yet to materialise”. And he said: “Our European and African partners must also assume their responsibility in the face of the collective challenge to their stability and security.”
Mr Danjean was expressing his personal opinion, and his position clearly bears the mark of his nationality. It is obvious that the French decision raises problems for the EU as a whole and that its repercussions could extend to relations with the countries of the Maghreb. This column will return to that point.
Is Cyprus the first case of an exit from the euro? It has been made very clear - Cyprus could be the first eurozone country to leave the single currency. It only represents 0.15% of the euro countries' GDP, which means that in absolute figures of the aid sought does not seem huge. Yet in the first phase of the negotiations, last June, Cypriot President Dimitris Christofias rejected outright the usual conditions of these operations, especially the privatisations (this was to beexpected of him as a communist), and the negotiations with the EU Troika (European Central Bank, European Commission and IMF) were broken off. They were then resumed and the Cypriot authorities set themselves the objectives of concluding them before the national presidential elections (17 and 24 February). On the Community, side there is much more caution (see EUROPE 10760 and 10762), and all the more so as Christofias will not stand for election again and, at least in theory, his departure could facilitate the negotiations.
However, in reality, beyond the official statements that, of course, try to calm the situation down, the reticence and obstacles grow bigger. The aspects mentioned in particular in the German press are as follows: (1) Cyprus' excessively large financial sector would apparently need about €10 billion just for itself, having been flattened when the property bubble burst and by other developments; (2) the president of the German social democrat party, Sigmar Gabriel, has quoted information according to which the activity of some Cypriot banks resides particularly in complicity with tax fraud; (3) the banks play the role of an offshore centre for Russian investors. The Spiegel, basing its reporting on a German secret services report of which it obtained a copy, has written that supporting the Cypriot banks would mean helping the Russian mafia.
Bailing Cyprus out financially in the volume and modalities apparently needed would swell the country's debt to over 180% of its GDP, which would be unsustainable according to the IMF. That is why the words exit from the eurozone have been pronounced.
American pressure on London. It is understandable that the United States has made its desire known to the British prime minister that the United Kingdom not leave the EU. It is less acceptable that this initiative be taken I highlighting American interests. Nonetheless, it is good in the sense that Phil Gordon, the American deputy secretary of state for European affairs, paying tribute to the global importance of the EU, said: “We want the United Kingdom to have a real influence in it (…) We want a European Union turned towards the outside and for the United Kingdom to be part of it”.
It is almost a warning and it is up to the British authorities to react. Yet the other EU countries are already bemused at the way the UK interprets its presence in the EU - as a member state which asks for the right to choose the aspects of Community construction in which it wants to participate (see this column in the previous edition of EUROPE), not forgetting of course that it does not participate in crucial accomplishments like the single currency, the Schengen area or the treaty on budgetary discipline. Are we now going to entrust it with the role of representative of the United States within the EU as well?
(FR/transl.fl)