The leader of Syriza is trying to change Europe in a moment where scepticism for the EU ideas is rising up, but a lot of people turned against him
by Emanuele Bonini
Alexis Tsipras represents an opportunity. Some people would say he is an hope, perhaps the last hope of Europe, but we can affirm with no doubt the Greek prime minister is an opportunity. He run for a change, and he's coherently asking for a change. The task is challenging, and for such a reason the confrontation can't be soft. If it is true that the current European Commission «is the last chance» for the European ideal, as Jean-Claude Juncker said when he took office, it is also true that Tsipras is a fresh air for the old and conservative European Union. Time for change is now, or it will be never. The entire Europe is at stake, not only Greece. The concept has been continuously repeated over the last months, by the Greek side as by the creditors side. Despite the allegations, Tsipras is acting to reform the Union while the creditors are acting to preserve the actual structure. There are two different ideas of Europe facing each other: the one of preserving the "status quo" and the one of change the rules. Tsipras belongs to the second school of thought. The problem is Tsipras and his minister of Finance, Yanis Varoufakis, made the situation more complicated through a wrong communication strategy and because of political mistakes. Tsipras could win his battle, but now the general environment changed. Of course everything is still possible, but as usually happens when there is a crisis, responsibilities lie in both sides. Let's try to analyse the situation.
An opportunity. Syriza and his leader are potentially a real chance for a change. The European Union in its current configuration is not the EU the citizens need. Europe couldn't address in effective manner the most challenging issues, showed to be totally incapable of dealing with the crisis. Europe is still far from the peoples, and ten years of Josè Manuel Barroso's lead were able only to widen the gap between the top and the base. The right-wing ruling at European level destroyed the social dimension, imposing though reforms in the labour market and unfair welfare system. Austerity was not the proper cure, on the contrary it was a way to create inequality and widening distance between rich people and poor ones. On this basis Tsipras got the power in Greece. Since the beginning he asked for a real change, which is not a simple change of the Greek bail-out programme. In promoting new conditions for Greece, Tsipras asks for a change of Europe and that's the point. Tsipras is more pro-European than Jean-Claude Juncker or Angela Merkel. He has simply another idea of Europe. Tsipras can represent the opportunity to complete what still need to be done. A real political union, a real European solidarity, a European Union closer to the citizens rather than to bankers. Syriza is fighting to shape a different Europe, and has all the right to do it. Is not accepting the creditors' conditions from that will make a change possible. Thus it is necessary to fight, and this is exactly what Tsipras is doing, starting from the financial dimension of the EU. Saying the IMF has not to be involved in the economic issues of the Eurozone, Tsipras is stating that it is time to really complete the Economic and Monetary Union, to have that «genuine EMU» demanded a lot of times during the last decade. He arrived to put all the Eurozone stability at stake in order to ask to change the rules. As a result, Tsipras is now considered the bad guy who tried to overthrow the "ancient regime". But this is not the only thing for which Tsipras can be accused.
Tsipras' mistakes. There are more than a single mistake in the Greek side. The last one is drafting new proposals after having called a referendum. Referendum should be the ultimate option, otherwise there is no credibility neither in the referendum itself nor in the man who called it. The Greek prime minister could of course prepare new proposal, to be put on the the talbe only after the referendum. It wasn't the case. Greece preferred to go beyond the referendum, making a mistake. The referendum could be used against the proposals from the creditors, and Greek electors could easily reject them allowing Tsipras to put on the table the new proposals - really close to those of creditors - in order to have an agreement on the basis of the Greek proposals. Politically he could show Athens was able to resist at the pressure exerted by creditors. As previously sad, Tsipras put all the Eurozone stability at stake in order to ask to change the rules. Nice try, but he created a dangerous precedent that somebody else could re-propose in other moments for other reasons. Furthermore, the idea of holding a referendum could come before the expiration of the financial programme, in order to avoid turbulences on the market and a general sense of panic and frustration. Secondly, it's true that a Euro crisis is not a Greek problem but Varoufakis chose the wrong way to say it. He clearly blackmailed everybody when he said that the cost of non-agreement will be 1.000 billion Euro. Acting in this way Greece perhaps got appeal at home, but shocked the general public opinion turning it against the country. In short, the Greeks gave the impression to ignore the so-called "secret diplomacy" as well as they couldn't manage properly the communication. Another Varoufakis' big mistake was to tape a conversation of meeting of the Eurogroup. This put Greece in isolation, limiting the working space.
Creditors responsibilities. The current political class ruling in Europe is responsible for everything happend before. The president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, acted as prime minister of Luxembourg for more than 5 years. He was responsible for the tax heaven created in his country and he was the president of the Eurogroup when the Euro zone had to rescue Greece. The austerity measures imposed for Greece are well known, thus Juncker cannot be considered as the main defender of equity. The European Commission and the IMF, together with the ECB, acted to protected the banking system. They restructured the Greek banks transferring the private debt to a sovereign dimension. What was a private debt became public debt. A the end of the previous legislation, the European Parliament admitted that the cure imposed to Greece was unfair and unsustainable. Thus the Juncker's Commission decided to issue guidance to encourage structural reforms and investments as well as the communication to make the best use of the flexibility within the existing rules of the Stability and Growth Pact. It was an implicit admission of responsibility, justified as the possibility to do what crisis made impossible before. Looking at the composition of the main players we discover the creditors are first of all people from the EPP, thus conservatives, and secondly the same people who have been ruling since decades. We already mentioned Juncker (prime Minister of Luxembourg from 1995 to 2013, president of the Eurogroup from 2005 to 2013), we didn't mentioned Chrsitine Lagarde (at the head of IMF since 2011, and previously minister of Finance of France from 2007 to 2009), Angela Merkel (chancellor of Germany since 2005) and her minister of Finance Wolfgang Schaeuble (in charge since 2009). They all set the rules actually into force, and it appears clear that they have not interest in change. They fear Tsipras and they are trying to push him down. For the first time in the history of the EU, the European Commission took position in a national referendum, giving clear indications of vote. This is something can bring people to reconsider the European ideal, and at the same time this shows is time for a radical change of Europe.
 |
| Alexis Tsipras |
Alexis Tsipras represents an opportunity. Some people would say he is an hope, perhaps the last hope of Europe, but we can affirm with no doubt the Greek prime minister is an opportunity. He run for a change, and he's coherently asking for a change. The task is challenging, and for such a reason the confrontation can't be soft. If it is true that the current European Commission «is the last chance» for the European ideal, as Jean-Claude Juncker said when he took office, it is also true that Tsipras is a fresh air for the old and conservative European Union. Time for change is now, or it will be never. The entire Europe is at stake, not only Greece. The concept has been continuously repeated over the last months, by the Greek side as by the creditors side. Despite the allegations, Tsipras is acting to reform the Union while the creditors are acting to preserve the actual structure. There are two different ideas of Europe facing each other: the one of preserving the "status quo" and the one of change the rules. Tsipras belongs to the second school of thought. The problem is Tsipras and his minister of Finance, Yanis Varoufakis, made the situation more complicated through a wrong communication strategy and because of political mistakes. Tsipras could win his battle, but now the general environment changed. Of course everything is still possible, but as usually happens when there is a crisis, responsibilities lie in both sides. Let's try to analyse the situation.
An opportunity. Syriza and his leader are potentially a real chance for a change. The European Union in its current configuration is not the EU the citizens need. Europe couldn't address in effective manner the most challenging issues, showed to be totally incapable of dealing with the crisis. Europe is still far from the peoples, and ten years of Josè Manuel Barroso's lead were able only to widen the gap between the top and the base. The right-wing ruling at European level destroyed the social dimension, imposing though reforms in the labour market and unfair welfare system. Austerity was not the proper cure, on the contrary it was a way to create inequality and widening distance between rich people and poor ones. On this basis Tsipras got the power in Greece. Since the beginning he asked for a real change, which is not a simple change of the Greek bail-out programme. In promoting new conditions for Greece, Tsipras asks for a change of Europe and that's the point. Tsipras is more pro-European than Jean-Claude Juncker or Angela Merkel. He has simply another idea of Europe. Tsipras can represent the opportunity to complete what still need to be done. A real political union, a real European solidarity, a European Union closer to the citizens rather than to bankers. Syriza is fighting to shape a different Europe, and has all the right to do it. Is not accepting the creditors' conditions from that will make a change possible. Thus it is necessary to fight, and this is exactly what Tsipras is doing, starting from the financial dimension of the EU. Saying the IMF has not to be involved in the economic issues of the Eurozone, Tsipras is stating that it is time to really complete the Economic and Monetary Union, to have that «genuine EMU» demanded a lot of times during the last decade. He arrived to put all the Eurozone stability at stake in order to ask to change the rules. As a result, Tsipras is now considered the bad guy who tried to overthrow the "ancient regime". But this is not the only thing for which Tsipras can be accused.
Tsipras' mistakes. There are more than a single mistake in the Greek side. The last one is drafting new proposals after having called a referendum. Referendum should be the ultimate option, otherwise there is no credibility neither in the referendum itself nor in the man who called it. The Greek prime minister could of course prepare new proposal, to be put on the the talbe only after the referendum. It wasn't the case. Greece preferred to go beyond the referendum, making a mistake. The referendum could be used against the proposals from the creditors, and Greek electors could easily reject them allowing Tsipras to put on the table the new proposals - really close to those of creditors - in order to have an agreement on the basis of the Greek proposals. Politically he could show Athens was able to resist at the pressure exerted by creditors. As previously sad, Tsipras put all the Eurozone stability at stake in order to ask to change the rules. Nice try, but he created a dangerous precedent that somebody else could re-propose in other moments for other reasons. Furthermore, the idea of holding a referendum could come before the expiration of the financial programme, in order to avoid turbulences on the market and a general sense of panic and frustration. Secondly, it's true that a Euro crisis is not a Greek problem but Varoufakis chose the wrong way to say it. He clearly blackmailed everybody when he said that the cost of non-agreement will be 1.000 billion Euro. Acting in this way Greece perhaps got appeal at home, but shocked the general public opinion turning it against the country. In short, the Greeks gave the impression to ignore the so-called "secret diplomacy" as well as they couldn't manage properly the communication. Another Varoufakis' big mistake was to tape a conversation of meeting of the Eurogroup. This put Greece in isolation, limiting the working space.
Creditors responsibilities. The current political class ruling in Europe is responsible for everything happend before. The president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, acted as prime minister of Luxembourg for more than 5 years. He was responsible for the tax heaven created in his country and he was the president of the Eurogroup when the Euro zone had to rescue Greece. The austerity measures imposed for Greece are well known, thus Juncker cannot be considered as the main defender of equity. The European Commission and the IMF, together with the ECB, acted to protected the banking system. They restructured the Greek banks transferring the private debt to a sovereign dimension. What was a private debt became public debt. A the end of the previous legislation, the European Parliament admitted that the cure imposed to Greece was unfair and unsustainable. Thus the Juncker's Commission decided to issue guidance to encourage structural reforms and investments as well as the communication to make the best use of the flexibility within the existing rules of the Stability and Growth Pact. It was an implicit admission of responsibility, justified as the possibility to do what crisis made impossible before. Looking at the composition of the main players we discover the creditors are first of all people from the EPP, thus conservatives, and secondly the same people who have been ruling since decades. We already mentioned Juncker (prime Minister of Luxembourg from 1995 to 2013, president of the Eurogroup from 2005 to 2013), we didn't mentioned Chrsitine Lagarde (at the head of IMF since 2011, and previously minister of Finance of France from 2007 to 2009), Angela Merkel (chancellor of Germany since 2005) and her minister of Finance Wolfgang Schaeuble (in charge since 2009). They all set the rules actually into force, and it appears clear that they have not interest in change. They fear Tsipras and they are trying to push him down. For the first time in the history of the EU, the European Commission took position in a national referendum, giving clear indications of vote. This is something can bring people to reconsider the European ideal, and at the same time this shows is time for a radical change of Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment