“TA NEA” newspaper, April 7 2009
Following London’s G20 summit, the world heaved a sigh of relief - to such an extent that the reversion to old habits just two days later, at NATO’s 60th Summit in Strasbourg, went pretty much unnoticed. The predominant, most widely circulated impression left behind was that through the meeting of the 20 most powerful leaders, mankind seemed to grasp the severity of the financial crisis - but what about the social crisis? - and appeared ready to take action in an organized and collective way. The risk of not reaching an agreement - and thus damaging the international trust in the power of politics while delivering the last blow to global economy - was indeed avoided. But for how long will we settle for the lesser of two evils? Especially in face of such a crisis - deep; multiple; systemic - can salvation equate with the simply obvious? In other words, might we have rushed to celebrate?
Let us try to weigh things without being overtly sentimental or dramatic. There are three, I reckon, major questions. Does the resolution that was drawn up during the London Summit have the dynamic not only to block but also to reverse the way to disaster? Does the states’ as well as the leaders’ political willpower to carry on marching together and in accord with common principles shine - faintly at least - behind the technical details of the afore-mentioned resolution? And above all, is there a plan to shift the political, financial and psychological paradigm, so that this new era everyone considers essential - at least in theory - can originate through the crisis? My first impression is that “London’s answers” are vaguer and less bold than required (since priority was given once again to money injections through the bankrupt system’s own organizations such as the International Monetary Fund to the detriment of “global governance”-type solutions). Big countries, undeterred by the apparent changes in USA’s stance under the leadership of Barack Obama, but also, most unfortunately, the European Union member states appear unable to break loose from nationalistic reflexes and form a notion of “global emergency” (cases in point: the chicken-fights over which countries will be included in the list of “tax havens” - as if their listing was the problem and not their operation - as well as the adherence to national, and hence incompatible, policies of supporting the system’s weak links). Lastly, what seems to emerge is the survival of the currently prevailing model (none dared talk about “other markets”, different commercial transactions and another type of working conditions) rather than the “vision” (I now always put this word in quotes) of a new relation between politics, economy and social demands. The tacit choice of a Right-wing way-out, at a time when everyone acknowledges the superiority of the social-democratic mixture and agrees that the excessive deviation from this model was exactly what led us to the current situation, strikes me as particularly bizarre.
MEPs, meeting in plenary in Strasbourg on 11 March, adopted a report on the European economic recovery plan calling for coordinated national action and
for the European Commission to speed up its contribution to stimulating the economy. However, the heated debate preceding the vote showed deep divisions among deputies, who split along party lines.
The report, written by Portuguese Socialist MEP Elisa Ferreira, caused a fiery exchange between EPP-ED deputy Gunnar Hökmark and Socialist group leader Martin Schulz, with Hökmark exclaiming, "The Socialists have called for lower interest rates at the peak of the economy. Mr Schulz, you should feel thankful that Europe and the ECB didn't listen to you. If they had, the European economy would have been much worse off now". Schulz interpreted the passing of the report, which included provisions on eliminating tax havens, as a shift to the left in European politics. "We can see the social democratisation of the EPP. It's good for the European Parliament if we see a shift to the left."
The report also suggested increasing EU funding for the European Investment Bank, with Ferreira saying ahead of the vote, "The crisis is deeper than we expected, unemployment will be higher and Europe is taking too long to bring the solution to its citizens. The European Parliament is calling on the Commission through these reports to coordinate national actions and interventions and set the necessary budgetary conditions for this to happen".
Other suggestions in the report are the creation of eurobonds, where EU countries would float their debt in common on financial markets. The issue has been dismissed as politically impossible by the Commission. The Socialists have also called on member states to step up their stimulus plans to 1.5% of GDP, rather than the 1% currently being estimated by the Commission.
Socialist MEP Costas Botopoulos ( Greece) added, "Today's debate has shown a distinctive right-wing and Socialist policy towards the crisis. The right-wing policy is pretty simple: the crisis is a bad thing, it will pass and we need to be patient, then we need to take some technical measures. The Socialist position is that we must attack the roots of the crisis, we must radically change the economic paradigm and curb all speculation, which has led us to the financial crisis. This is not a neutral crisis but imposed by specific policies, and mostly by right-wing governments".
The Red Lines “TA NEA” newspaper, March 12 2009 Reaching a quasi-Social Democratic consensus, albeit leaning to the centre-right majority-wise, the European Parliament approved yesterday three Reports on combating the financial crisis. These reports proclaim clearly the Parliament’s commitments to a coordinated European recovery-plan releasing more funds and prioritizing employment, avoiding protectionism as well as discrimination between “old” and “new” member-states, standing in solidarity with the most vulnerable economies (Central and Eastern Europe) via “Eurobond-type” financial instruments, regulating and hence restricting “tax havens”.
“TA NEA” newspaper, February 19 2009
Berlusconi's triumph in Sardinia and the consolidation of his position as “padre padrone” of Italian politics resulted in the resignation of the opposition’s leader and thus in the termination of his broader political plan. Besides underlining - this very moment that everybody is trampling on the defeated - the personal and political integrity of Walter Veltroni, who assumed responsibility and never lowered himself to his political opponent’s level, two are, I reckon, the political conclusions of interest to the European Left: Firstly, “soft consent”, the turn to the Right and the formation of loose coalitions will undoubtedly lead to the defeat of the Left and to the exploitation of the crisis by the Right, despite the fact that it is the Right which is to a large extent responsible for the ongoing crisis.
“Vouli & Eurovouli” magazine, February 2009
Crucial year ahead both for Europe and for politics in general. Europe is walking on a razor’s edge: it is crippled by the financial crisis and institutionally suspended; pretences temporarily saved by the French presidency are again under imminent threat, since the Czech Republic took the wheel and put the gear towards a wholly different direction. Politics is omnipresent – in words as well as in expectations - but it has not yet managed to make the difference anticipated by the citizens, the difference that would do justice to its own raison d'etre. At times, one has the impression that crisis sits somewhere outside the European decision-making institutions. Doing politics is so much saturated with “business as usual” -a suffocating and indecent notion in these times -, that the citizens are further distanced from it. Both for Europe and for all the political parties - primarily for the Socialists - next June’s European Elections constitute a (last?) chance and a (deadly?) danger at the same time: a chance to let people’s sensibilities be expressed (by voting in the elections for the ones who have a positive vision for Europe), to prove the value of politics (through a pre-election campaign rich in substance, devoid of empty rhetoric, geared towards brave yet realistic solutions) as well as the difference between the “Centre Right” and the “Centre Left” world views; but also an eventual danger, should all or some of the afore-mentioned not take place, of Europe appearing like an empty shell washed out by the storm in a place where no one will be willing or able to go.
“Metarithmisi” magazine, February 2009 issue
Any way you want to look at it, this will be a tough year both for Europe and the Socialists. The former needs to urgently find the strength to get out of the quagmire. The latter need to mobilise social forces in order to change today's balance of powers, which is to a large degree responsible for said quagmire. Times are hard for such turnabouts and the forthcoming European elections in June constitute a challenge as well as a trap. Crisis frightens - and fear is every politician's worst advisor. Europe, instead of being the solution - like it could - passes off - when in the service of petty national and political interests - as a problem. For those of us who cherish Europe, and also Koestler, arrival may be, I am afraid, too close to departure.
On our political side, though, there shines a light at the end of this gloomy tunnel. We Socialists have awareness of what is at stake as well as the means to achieve it. We have realised that it not enough for us to be vindicated by events (History, Mr. Fukuyama, is far from being over, to the contrary, it tends to become a platform for constant change) and that we have to “generate” events ourselves, the first of which is to dare speak of a different relationship between politics and finance, of a different perception of power and ultimately, of a different Europe. The Right traditionally threatens to usurp our ideas. Guileful enough, Mr Sarkozy has already spoken before the European Parliament as a confident Keynesian Social-Democrat. Less foxy, but equally addicted to political survival, Mrs Merkel finally gave her assent to a generous “package” of measures (which she dared present as her own) against crisis; meanwhile Obama’s heavy transatlantic shadow is cast over the whole political spectrum allowing (with a little imagination) everyone to feel like his fellow and associate. Faced with the danger of letting politics and our political specificities become a shapeless amalgam (something that traditionally, yet now more than ever before, benefits the Right), we Socialists must deliberately and pluckily convince the public of our different approach and different solutions.
Social Media