An agreement to safeguard. In a number of EU countries, enthusiasm for the draft overall agreement with the USA has gone decidedly chilly. The objections no longer only concern the exclusion of the cultural domain - they are now about the very appropriateness of such an agreement.
This column has reported on other uncertainties, raised in particular by the cost of electricity - given that the boom in the USA in the use of shale gas will enable American industry to obtain electricity at a radically lower price (see EUROPE 10853). My objective was to assert the request that Europe take account of all the aspects - it was certainly not to encourage abandonment of the project! The Euro-American agreement is crucial for avoiding the EU remaining isolated and the Americans abandoning the Atlantic in order to focus their attention on the Pacific Ocean.
Taking the difficulties and obstacles into account, it is crucial to negotiate in good conditions - but not to scupper the project! And let's not forget the urgency of it all - if the negotiations start late, they will not be able to be concluded in time, before the end of next year. Giving up on this project would have disastrous consequences for Europe, which certain people seem to be ignoring.
The real Egyptian issue. Besides the differences of opinion on the controversial functioning of democracy and the agreements with Israel, Egypt realises that the issue on which its survival depends remains that of the water of the Nile - which has always been vital. Ethiopia has decided to build a huge dam on the Blue Nile - the part of the river which, after the confluence with the White Nile, forms that essential river for Egypt, which Herodotus described as the gift of the Nile. In a meeting in Cairo which should have been confidential, the representatives of all the Egyptian political forces believed it was necessary to assert the treaty, dating back to the colonial era, which gives Egypt the option of opposing any project that is damaging to its vital interests - in the event of refusal, there would be no other solution than to destroy the dam, which Ethiopia for its part considers essential because it would make it the top African producer of electricity.
This is the reason why Egypt has in practice left the Arab Spring group of countries, being in fact geographically distanced from the countries of the Maghreb and having concerns and interests of another nature.
The Greek ambiguity becomes complicated. The European Commission and the IMF are forgetting the most important part. The unpleasant controversy on the policy applied over recent years with regard to Greece ignores the responsibilities of Greece itself. The theoretical reasoning of the IMF, asserting that, through different management, the Greek crisis could have been overcome, glosses over the behaviour of the authorities in Athens which continued to employ huge numbers of useless civil servants (while raising their salaries) and not to collect taxes. It was therefore inevitable that the public deficit would swell to levels that can't be supported. The IMF and the Commission are currently in disagreement while glossing over the authorities' behaviour and also the behaviour of the banks which, in order to buy Greek treasury bonds, applied usurious interest rates that could only be justified if their repayment was not guaranteed.
Greece leaving the eurozone and being given all the common policy support of the EU is the only way to save the situation, leaving certain banks the responsibility for and consequences of their piracy. Greece must respect its commitments - especially as regards taxation and public employment. The IMF will remain ever more on the sidelines - its polemic text announces its detachment.
People's disinterest. European public opinion has little or no empathy for the Syrian tragedy. This is how it perceives it - fierce war between Muslims whose differences in belief can only be understood by specialists; - citizens from the same country whose top concern is to demand a maximum of weapons (the most deadly) to crush the power in place or otherwise the rebels; - countries of the EU are in disagreement on whether they should support we don't know who; - Russia which supports the power of al-Assad and gives it very modern weapons; - the European Commission which has to give money that is in short supply to people who want war. To this should be added young Muslims who have obtained the citizenship of an EU country and set off to fight in a conflict that doesn't concern them. Is this partly an unfair description? Maybe, but it corresponds to what a growing number of the EU population feels, confronted by considerable domestic difficulties.
(FR/transl.fl)