Three dominant tendencies. Let me start off with a recommendation to readers - if you don't have much time, don't try and understand all the positions on the Cypriot bank affair. Opinions are so varied and diverging that it is difficult to conduct a comprehensive overview. I am not referring to the opinions of commentators but - especially - to the protagonists themselves. Let me try and summarise the three dominant tendencies by giving some examples.
Russia - a convinced capitalist. Russian Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev's interview in Moscow is particularly harsh - indeed almost insulting - with regard to the attitude of the EU. In his opinion, the confiscation of bank deposits in Cyprus is a decision which is unprecedented. It is reminiscent of similar Soviet measures in the past, and in our century the right of ownership must be respected. Medvedev warns that Russia could claim it is, in fact, confiscation. This Thursday and Friday, Medvedev is meeting the European Commission and he hopes that the events in Cyprus will not influence EU-Russia relations negatively. He recalled that his country is a member of the IMF and that it is easy not to respect international financial rules, but that to then re-establish trust takes years. In reply to journalists who commented to him that the Russian capital in Cyprus largely comes from money laundering, he asked Europe to give him information about this because Russia wants transparency - it's in its interest.
The EU is the only guilty party. The second position attributes all the responsibility to the EU. Let me quote Béatrice Delvaux, the chief editorialist at the daily newspaper Le Soir in Brussels. She wrote: “Those who are at fault are the European authorities that unanimously validated an action plan which torpedoed confidence in the eurozone and in the ability of European leaders to keep their word”. She mentions Commissioner Olli Rehn, who has berated those who do not respect the rules, and the Eurogroup, which brings together 17 finance ministers - what they have done “is already considered as a textbook case, illustrating the way in which financial problems must not be managed”. Ms Delvaux also speaks of the mea culpa of President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy: “We have seen Cyprus build an unsustainable model and we have not reacted”. And she concludes: “The real threat hanging over the future of Europe is not monetary - it's its total lack of governance” (our translation).
Changing the EU. The third position does not attack the EU in itself but certain political tendencies within it. This makes sense because it's an MEP who expresses this opinion - the ecologist Philippe Lamberts. He believes the EU has allowed the development of “a fiscal and banking monster. When banking monsters develop, as long as things are going well we say it's good for the economy (…). For everything that affects the banking sector or taxation, the EU is governed by the principle of each for himself (…). Because of fiscal sovereignty - in other words the unanimity rule in these matters - nothing is done (…). The European Parliament is not competent in this area and there is no resolve from the finance ministers to do anything”. Lamberts acknowledges that decisions have been taken in these matters (regarding bankers' bonuses and that a regulation will enter into force in 2015 on the transparency of banks) - but the European Parliament had to exert a great deal of pressure to get these future rules accepted. As for the Eurogroup's decision on the plan for Cyprus, Mr Lamberts expressed himself clearly: “I don't remember any political act from European leaders showing such irresponsibility. We have touched on the main pillar on which rests the confidence of citizens in the European banking system” (our translation).
Responsibility of the banks. Let me add a few personal remarks. I have the impression that the positions quoted above forget - incomprehensibly - the responsibility of the Cypriot banks themselves. In order to attract deposits - often dubious ones - from Russia and elsewhere, the two main banks paid interest of up to 5% (with other advantages), which is far removed from the way in which serious banks behave. Why would the Cypriot establishments not be responsible for their behaviour? It's almost as if they are the victims. Why should the other EU countries assume the total cost of the behaviour of irresponsible banks? Should Cyprus be given support? Of course. Should small-scale deposits be safeguarded? Yes. But the total backing of the behaviour of the banks does not seem at all justified in my opinion. This is a subject of a more general nature which deserves to be examined in more depth.
(FR/transl.fl)