Making the decisions a reality. More commentary on the summit of the G20? Absolutely not. Agence Europe has already clearly summarised and comprehensively sketched out the results of this summit and commentaries have abounded everywhere. There is little point in my adding another, and so this column will go no further than to make three fundamental, and fairly self-evident, observations: a) the emerging powers, from all continents, took part in this summit on the same level as the traditional economic powers. A new world governance is on its way; b) the split between Europe (which was calling for an in-depth revision of global financial regulation) and the United States (which laid emphasis on budgetary intervention) has been overcome. The principal of radical reforms was retained, and the EU has proven that its anti-crisis action is at the same level as that of the United States, when it comes down to it; c) despite the (logical and predictable) criticism, the reaction of the economic and financial services was overall positive, as evidenced by the increase in the stock markets.
All of the work lies ahead of us, but the outlines have been sketched and it appears that a certain level of confidence is coming back. Tax havens, lack of market transparency, bankers' abuse: nothing will ever be as it was before again. It will be necessary to watch out for the more or less underhand reactions of those set to lose unacceptable privileges conferred upon them by the absence of rules; it is now up to the politicians to make them observe the new rules.
An insipid tradition. I would now like to get back to the raison d'être of this column: the European aspects. A few commentators have not managed to kick the well-established habit of deploring Europe's absence and inefficiency, just on principle. One example is the ineffable Timothy Garton Ash, an omnipresent figure in the British press who is, bizarrely, taken seriously by a number of continental newspapers, and who informed us that there were a lot of Europeans around the table of the G20, but no Europe. You can interpret this assertion in two ways, physically or intellectually, but either way, it is incorrect. Physically, both Mr Barroso (European Commission) and Mr Topolánek (European Council) were both indeed present, with their seat and the indication of the institutions which they represent. The only regrettable absence was that of Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the Eurogroup; but this body does not yet have official status, although it will once the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. Politically and intellectually, the position of the EU was approved by the European Council of 19 March, which laid down in 24 points, with precision and in great detail, measures and guidelines which the EU was anticipating from the G20. This column listed their main elements and stressed their importance and significance in our bulletin 9867 of 24 March, and we invited our readers to take a look at the full text. Clearly, Timothy Garton Ash did not take us up on this invitation, but instead chose to make his usual unfounded comments and anti-European banalities. The text approved by common accord (its official name) by the countries of the EU, and which is reproduced in issue 2516 of our EUROPE/Documents series, constituted the basis of the financial and economic part of the end press release of the G20. This is not hard to check up on, to say nothing of the fact that the G20 was in fact convened in response to a European initiative. The role of the EU has been fundamental.
The Community contribution. The second aspect of the traditional effort to deny or play down Europe's contribution has consisted of minimising Community funding of anti-crisis measures. Five billion euros? Loose change! But a more correct assessment should take account of national efforts. That said, the modest level of the EU budget prevents the Community from doing any more. It is curious to note that it is mainly the Eurosceptics who criticise the low level of Community funding, sometimes ironically, when it is these same people who oppose any increase (institutionally, legislatively or financially) of Europe's competences! They reap what they sow. But in any case, let us not forget that the 5 billion of the Community budget represents genuine funding, not guarantees or commitments to buy back worthless assets. And neither should we neglect the role of the European Investment Bank (EIB), which has just dug deep into its reserves to increase its capital, without requesting any contribution from the budgets of the member states, and which funds well-defined projects which are consistent with the objectives of the Community policies, ensuring their efficiency, not just from an economic point of view, but also from an environmental one. When you hear about the waste, irregularities and abuse which so often goes with national expenditure…
Tomorrow, this column will look at how the EU is already taking concrete action to implement radical reforms in the functioning and supervision of the finance world.
(F.R./transl.fl)