Two days in Paris between friends?

FRANCE-US-POLITICS-DIPLOMACY

Donald Trump, President of the US, responded positively weeks ago to the invitation of the newly elected French president, Emmanuel Macron, to assist at the military parade of the 14 of July. French public opinion, as well as experts, were certainly divided concerning such invitation and the presence of the American president at this national celebration. Politipond argues that such invitation was aligned with France-US interests and US-Europe interests regardless of the domestic turmoils of Donald Trump and his cabinet. Furthermore, this official visit highlighted a complex divide between the perceptions of the US, as an ally, and the perceptions of the US through the representation of his president. This subtlety was lost in translation.

Logics and reasons

Macron’s invitation has divided experts, public opinion and the media. Politico Europe probably published the article with the most telling title, Trump and Macron go from mano a mano to tête-à-tête  referencing the evolving tone of the relationship between the two men. If Macron demonstrated toughness during their first meetings at the NATO and G-7 summits in May, their third meeting on July 13-14 seemed much warmer. The claim is that Macron strategized his interaction with his American homologue in order to foster respect. Candidate and then President Trump have been consistent, as he has continuously demonstrated considerable respect to strongmen such as Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte, and apparently Emmanuel Macron.

Some have compared Macron and Trump as they share some similitudes. Both won outside the party system; Macron created a movement Onward! a year prior the election and managed to undermine the historical supremacy of the right and left by winning the presidential and legislative elections, while Trump running as a republican candidate certainly does not fit within the conventional ideological lines of the party. Both are framed as non-politicians, as having never ran for office. If it is true for Trump, it is not the fully the case for Macron having evolved in the highest political spheres during the Hollande presidency. But the comparison cannot go furthermore. Macron has a certain understanding of politics and the history of the French Fifth Republic as designed and envisioned by Charles de Gaulle in 1958. Macron is carefully crafting a presidential image, under the Jupiterian president aura, through a demonstration of strengthen as he is oftentimes represented surrounded by French military might. If President Sarkozy was seen as the hyperactive president, François Hollande, the ‘normal’ president, Macron is concerned about displaying and embodying French grandeur.

From Paris, especially the Elysée, the message behind this invitation was to commemorate the entry of the US in 1917 in World War one, which plays against the isolationist narrative emanating from the White House. 1917 symbolizes American engagement in the world, while 2017 may illustrate the beginning of a potential American isolationism. The relationship between the two countries is over 200 years old. The French monarchy played an important role in assisting the patriots against the British crown. Benjamin Franklin played a considerable role starting in 1776 in engaging with France, while serving from 1776 to 1778 in a commission in France in charge of getting French support for American independence. France not only recognized American’s independence but as well concluded an alliance with the 13 colonies in 1778. Skipping one century, in 1917 when the Americans joined the war on the European continent, Colonel C. E. Stanton, General John J. Pershing’s aide, famously declared before the tomb of the Marquis Lafayette, ‘Lafayette, we are here!’ This brief historical anecdotes illustrate the deep ties and historical connections between the two countries. The ties go beyond the leader at the time.

Points of Convergence?

The intervention of the two presidents in front of the press lists the series of issues wherein the US and France have shared interests: the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria, counter-terrorism, free and ‘fair’ trade, and the sanctity of national sovereignty. Two additional items were on the agenda of the French president. The first one concerned the COP-21 or Paris agreement entered into force Fall 2016 ratified by 153 nations. President Trump announced early on his presidency that the US would withdraw from the binding deal. European leaders, in particular Chancellor Merkel and President Macron, have been adamant about the necessity to meet the goals set-up in order to address the root causes of climate change.

The second item, an unconfirmed point, may be regarding  potential American support to the initiative of the G5 Sahel bloc – Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad -, planning on launching a new multinational military force led by African powers. France has been militarily involved in the Sahel region since 2013 in order to limit the regional influence of Islamist militant group. This new force will operate in coordination with French troops and MINUSMA, Mali’s struggling U.N. peacekeeping mission. Financially, the European Union has pledged around 50 million euros, while France would contribute around 8 million euros by the end of the year. The US have played a role in providing equipments, information and military support to the French. This military effort aligns with the transatlantic counter-terrorist strategy. However, no comments on this point emerged.

Beyond the 14 of July – Perceptions matter

The Franco-American relationship has not deteriorated, but the French positive perception of the US as embodied by President Trump have collapsed over night. The recent Pew research center’s report on global perceptions illustrates clearly the instant changes of attitudes towards the US at the critical juncture of November 2016, the election of Donald Trump.

Global perceptions-1

The graph tells a compelling story of an immediate decline in the positive views of the US in a period of four months dropping by 15 percentage points (pp). The most damaging decline illustrates the confidence in the US presidency, wherein 74% expressed no confidence in President Trump, as opposed to 23% for President Obama.

Global perceptions2

 

This graph provides a global snapshot of the shifting perceptions between Presidents Obama and Trump. The only two countries with positive perceptions are Israel (+7pp) and Russia (+42pp). The rest of the world tends to share a lack of confidence in the American presidency held by Trump. The most critical are Sweden (-83), the Netherlands (-75pp), Germany (-75pp), South Korea (-71pp), and France (-70pp). Concerning the list of European countries above, President Obama had received strong support and a total admiration by Europeans. And this despite serious crises occurring during his mandate such as the Snowden revelations.

The last graph provides a snapshot over a longer period of time of the level of confidence in Western Europe (UK, Germany, France and Spain) in the American leader in power.Global perceptions3

President Bush never received considerable positive reviews from Europe. But the most damaging moment of his presidency, from European point of view, was the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The UK and Spain joined the coalition of the willing, which was not the case for France and Germany. The confidence in the US grew overnight ensuing the election of President Obama in 2008. The Snowden revelations were the lowest point for President Obama and the EU-US relationship during his two mandates. But the persona of Obama was sufficient in maintaining positive perceptions and confidence in the US in Europe. As the confidence ratings climbed overnight in 2008 by ~+60 pp, they dropped by ~60pp.

Trump or Not, the US Remains Central

As advanced in the report, President Trump is perceived, especially in France and Europe, as arrogant, intolerant and dangerous. The data proves that the US-Franco/Europe relations continues to remain strong despite the occasional disagreements. Regardless of the tenant of the White House, the United States remains the indispensable nation figuring at the heart of world affairs and geopolitics. In the case of Europe, the United States is a major contributor and guarantor of European security, through NATO and parallel transatlantic defense and intelligence ties. President of France positions himself as a pragmatist, as declared during his meeting with Vladimir Putin in June. It is in the interest of both countries to maintain strong political, diplomatic and cultural ties. France has a card to play with at this time considering the fraught relationship between the German and American leaders and the ongoing turmoils in the UK. The key for the French leader is to keep a balance between cooperation and independence.

(Copyright 2017 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).

Deep Transatlantic Commonalities under Attack?

38992692_401

The transatlantic forces at play are under stress. The domestic forces in the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK) and most part of Europe need to be reckoned with. The two players of the special relationship are embroiled in domestic turmoil between the Brexit negotiations and major rebuttal of long-standing policies in the US, which could have considerable impacts on the structure of Euro-Atlantic community.

The situation in France seems to be relatively stable since the election of President Macron and his victory in the ensuing legislative elections mid-June. If President Macron has demonstrated being a savvy political tactician, far from the neophyte status he received, he now needs to revitalize the French economy, reform the labor laws, reinvigorate the European agenda and integration process all under the threat of terrorism. But Macron’s election was framed as a blockade against the growth of populist forces in the Euro-Atlantic community. A return of France on the European and global stage certainly plays in favor of transatlantic relations. Now, the next chapter will certainly be the German elections in September.

So far, this year has been critical for transatlantic relations. A series of issues, from climate change to trade and defense, excluding the current Brexit negotiations, allow the world to reflect on the current challenges and potential ensuing consequences of such radical shift by Washington.

First, climate change is a priority considering global reach and impacts of a degrading environment. The US and its European partners are some of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases requiring them to lead the way in addressing environmental challenges. The 2015 Paris deal, formally known as the COP-21, sets out a global action place by limiting global warming to below 2°C and is the first legally binding climate deal. The agreement came into force on 4 November 2016 with at least 55 countries ratifying it. But on 1 June 2016, President Trump announced that the US would withdrawal from the agreement. In his address in the Rose Garden, he claimed that ‘the Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.” The global reaction and especially from European counterparts was negative and critical. The issue of climate change will be back on the table for upcoming G-20 meeting.

Second, tree-trade has become a dirty word. In the European context, free and regulated trade among the 28 member states has permitted an unprecedented growth first contributing to the growth the 28 national economies. The world led by the US since the end of World War two was very much regulated around the notion that free-trade among states advantaged the US and the world, even though it certainly creates winners and losers. Aside from economic arguments, trade is one element of a state’s foreign policy arsenal, especially for an economic power like the US. The unplugging of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with 12 pacific nations, which never counted China, in the very early days of the Trump administration is playing in favor of Beijing. By this decision, the US is playing in the hands of China. In a recent op-ed, Thomas Friedman wrote that “Beijing is now quietly encouraging everyone in the neighborhood to join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, China’s free-trade competitor to TPP, which, unlike TPP, lacks environmental or labor standards; China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; and its One Belt, One Road development project.” With regards to Europe, the future of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is uncertain.

The last aspect to be highlighted is the question of defense and security. Historically the pillar of this realm at the transatlantic level has been the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Again, the narratives on the campaign trail were that NATO was an ‘obsolete’ organization costing money to American taxpayers to finance the security and defense of free-riding European nations. Such narrative has remained in the US since Trump’s election. President Trump’s address at the NATO Summit in May, which was supposed to confirm his support and clarify his views of the alliance, failed to address the concerns of his European counterparts. The questions of free-riding and underspending by Europeans is not new and have been a frustration for past administrations. For instance, Secretary Gates’ comments in 2011 were deeply critical of the lack of political and financial willingness by his European partners.

These issues are central considering a series of factors. First, historically, the members of the Euro-Atlantic community, have agreed on shared values, institutions and norms making the liberal world order. A rebuttal of the Paris deal, the TPP (free-trade overall) and the defense alliance sends a message to the world that American longstanding commitment to global agreements is not reliable any longer. Second, the short-termism and transactional view of the foreign affairs demonstrate a total lack of overall strategy. The current administration seems to hide this lacuna by hiding behind the word of isolationism, which is not the case. Third, the Europeans, especially the Mercron couple (Merkel-Macron) between Berlin and Paris, ought to continue engaging Washington and pushing ahead long-established agenda and common policies. The responses in the US by major states, cities, universities and the public at large, regarding the withdrawal by the Trump administration from the Paris deal, illustrate deep transatlantic commonalities that need to be protected and deepened regardless of the rhetorics.

(Copyright 2017 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).

 

 

Providing Leadership – Juncker’s Call for ‘Collective Courage’

Photo: Euranet Plus/Flickr
Photo: Euranet Plus/Flickr

The current context in Europe over the migration crisis is not going to stop any time soon (for more contextual and analytical information read previous pieces published by Politipond, here, here, here, here, and take a short survey here). If migrants are not dying at sea, national authorities like the ones in Macedonia, are using force against migrants seeking to cross the country to access Western European countries (see here several pictures showing the situation in Macedonia). The situation is clearly worsening on daily basis.

The French President and his German counterpart are meeting today in order to discuss the migration crisis and the situation in Ukraine. Germany has been the EU Member States, with Sweden, taking the largest share of refugees, but it cannot do it alone any longer. According to the Financial Times, Germany is expected to receive 800,000 asylum seekers this year, which is more than what the entire EU welcomed in 2014. Based on Frontex’s data, in the first eight months of 2015, 340,000 migrants have crossed EU borders, which is already 60,000 more that the overall number for 2014.

If the EU Member States are working, or not, on solving the migration crisis by either welcoming migrants (Germany and Sweden) or trying to chase them away (Hungary and the

Photo: AP
Photo: AP

United Kingdom), the European Union has contributed to solving the issue, but without a clear leadership and strategy. For instance, Frontex has seen its role quickly increasing with more funding of its two naval missions in Italy and Greece, Europol has worked more on assisting national authorities, the EEAS has provided a platform in order to coordinate, and the Commission has been the voice of the EU and brought up some projects. For instance, Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the Commission, brought in June and July some proposals on quotas, redistributions, reform of asylum policy and so forth. His recent op-ed in NewEurope, posted below, offers the leadership that is missing and is highly needed at the European level.

Naturally, EU Member States are working on protecting their interests and national borders, the EU is a central actor in recalling that migratory flux go beyond national borders and the current crisis can only be solved through European cooperation, coordination and solidarity. In short, President Junker is calling for “Collective Courage.” The word courage is more powerful than solidarity for two reasons: first, despite many calls, solidarity has not brought Europeans together; second, courage implies that each European head of state and government (and even each European citizen) will have to make the ‘right’ decision and go against short-termist nationalist rhetorics. This position by Juncker to work on a common European solution reflects in many ways to his original call, once appointed last summer, for a more human and social Europe (read here an analysis soon after his appointment last summer).

Juncker’s op-ed, which should be understood as a call for action, comes at a crucial time and should be read in one piece without further comments. For such reason, Politipond copied it in its entirety below (or it can be read on NewEurope’s website here):

The European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, writes on the challenge of the migration issue. By Jean-Claude Juncker

Europe for me is and always has been a community of values. This is something we should be and yet are too seldom proud of. We have the highest asylum standards in the world. We will never turn people away when they come to us in need of protection. These principles are inscribed in our laws and our Treaties but I am worried that they are increasingly absent from our hearts.

When we talk about migration we are talking about people. People like you or I, except they are not like you or I because they did not have the good fortune to be born in one of the richest and most stable regions of the world. We are talking about people who have had to flee from war in Syria, the ISIS terror in Libya and dictatorship in Eritrea.

And what worries me is to see the resentment, the rejection, the fear directed against these people by some parts of the population. Setting fire to refugee camps, pushing back boats from piers, physical violence inflicted upon asylum seekers or turning a blind eye to poor and helpless people: that is not Europe.

What worries me is to hear politicians from left to right nourishing a populism that brings only anger and not solutions. Hate speech and rash statements that threaten one of our very greatest achievements – the Schengen area and the absence of internal borders: that is not Europe.

Europe is the pensioners in Calais who play music and charge the phones of migrants wanting to call home. Europe is the students in Siegen who open up their campus to accommodate asylum seekers who have no roof over their head. Europe is the baker in Kos who gives away his bread to hungry and weary souls. This is the Europe I want to live in.

Of course, there is no simple, nor single, answer to the challenges posed by migration. And it is no more realistic to think that we could simply open our borders to all our neighbours anymore than it is to think we just cordon ourselves off all distress, fear and misery. But what is clear is that there are no national solutions. No EU Member State can effectively address migration alone. We need a strong, European approach. And we need it now.

That is why in May, the European Commission, under my leadership, presented detailed proposals for a common asylum and refugee policy. We have tripled our presence in the Mediterranean sea, helping to save lives and intercept smugglers. We are assisting Member States the most affected, sending teams from the EU border agency (Frontex), the EU asylum office (EASO) and the EU police network (Europol) to help the often overburdened national authorities identify, register and fingerprint incoming migrants, speed up the processing of asylum seekers and coordinate the return of irregular migrants. We are clamping down on smuggler networks and dismantling their cruel business models. We are showing solidarity with our neighbours like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon by resettling 20,000 refugees from outside of Europe. We are working with third countries of origin and transit to open up legal channels of migration and to conclude readmission agreements to facilitate returns of people who do not have a right to stay in Europe. And we are putting a renewed focus on enforcing the recently adopted EU rules on asylum, from reception conditions, asylum procedures to the obligation to take fingerprints.

In May, we proposed to establish a relocation mechanism to assist Member States by relocating a small portion of the high numbers of people in genuine need of international protection arriving in Italy and Greece. The Commission proposed to relocate 40 000 to other EU Member States – national governments were prepared to accept just over 32 000. We want to go much further, establishing a permanent mechanism that could be automatically triggered in emergency situations – for whichever EU Member State needs it. When we have common external borders, we cannot leave frontline Member States alone. We have to show solidarity in our migration policy.

Some of the measures proposed by the Commission have already found support. All the others now urgently need to be taken up by the EU’s 28 Member States – even those who have until now remained reluctant to do so. The dramatic events of the summer have shown that we urgently need to put this common European asylum and refugee policy into practice.

We do not need another extraordinary summit of heads of state and government. We have had many summits, and we will meet again in November in Malta. What we need is to ensure that all EU Member States adopt the European measures now and implement them on the ground. The Commission already proposed, nine years ago, to have a common EU list of ‘safe countries of origin’, making it possible to fast track asylum procedures for specific nationalities. At the time, Member States rejected the idea as interfering with national prerogatives. And yet it does not make sense that on the one hand, Member States have decided to make Western Balkan countries candidates for EU accession and, on the other, nationals of these countries are applying for asylum in the EU. In September, the Commission will thus submit a common list of safe countries of origin to the Member States.

What we need, and what we are sadly still lacking, is the collective courage to follow through on our commitments – even when they are not easy; even when they are not popular.

Instead what I see is finger pointing – a tired blame game which might win publicity, maybe even votes, but which is not actually solving any problems.

Europe fails when fear prevails. Europe fails when egos prevail.

Europe will succeed if we work together, pragmatically and efficiently.

I hope together we, Member States, Institutions, Agencies, International Organisations, Third Countries, can prove we are equal to the challenge before us. I am convinced we are able.

Europe’s history if nothing else proves that we are a resilient continent, able to unite in face of that which seeks to divide us. This should give us courage for the weeks and months to come.

Juncker’s op-ed was initially published on NewEurope’s website.
(Copyright 2015 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).

Syriza – The Greek Silver Bullet?

Photographer: Yorgos Karahalis /Bloomberg
Photographer: Yorgos Karahalis /Bloomberg

Syriza won the 2015 Greek elections with over 12.5 percentage points on New Democracy. Syriza elections at the head of the Greek government should not be seen as a surprise. It was in fact a continuity of its rise. For instance, in May 2014, the party had already won the majority in Greece, with 26.6%, for the European elections. Ensuing the results, Syriza did not have enough votes in order to fully control the new Greek government. The question was answered when Panos Kammenos, the leader of the coalition partner, Independent Greeks, a right-wing party, decided to join forces with Alexis Tsipras. The Independent Greeks, whom received 13 seats at the Parliament, formed a coalition with Syriza, holding 149 seats (two shy of the majority). Independent Greeks and Syriza share one element in common: desire to renegotiate the terms of the bailouts and ending the austerity measures (See below the distribution of power inside the new Greek Parliament).

Source: BBC News
Source: BBC News

In any case, Alexis Tsipras, will become the next greek prime minister. His mandate is based on ending the austerity measures, while maintaining the flow of European assistance to Greece. M. Tsipras, as Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande, know very well that a Grexit – exit of the Greece from the Eurozone – would be a terrible moment for the Euro and the EU. But one of the core questions is: how much are European partners – Germany, France and the European and international institutions – prepared to compromise with him?

Seeking for Dignity and Political Sovereignty

The current legislative elections in Greece have become more than just an election. By bringing Syriza to power Greek citizens want to change the political direction of their country. For now six years, the greek economy is in recession and the succeeding governments – socialists and conservatives – have all continued the same policy based on austerity measures in order to clean-up Greek finances. However, these measures, attached to the succeeding bailouts, have had terrible consequences on the quality of life in Greece.

For the first time in recent years in Europe, it is not a extreme-right wing party threatening to overtake power, but an extreme-left. These elections raise important question: the future of Greece in the Eurozone; the future of austerity measures implemented by the Troika (Commission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund); and the return of democracy in Greece. After voting, Alexis Tsipras made two pledges: first, “Democracy will return to Greece.” Second, “the choice is clearer than ever. Either the troika comes back and continues its work and its catastrophic politic of austerity, or we are moving towards a difficult and tense renegotiations with our partners in order to re-conquer our dignity.” Tsipras was able to base its campaign on the themes of dignity and national sovereignty. In a report on France Inter, a French journalist was describing the emotions of Greek citizens as they feel proud of having reconquered their political sovereignty, which is not anymore under the helm of the Troika -at least for now-.

However, Wolfango Piccoli, managing director at Teneo Intelligence in London, told Bloomberg Businessweek that “Tsipras will be the celebrated winner, but delivering on voters’ larger-than-life expectations has not become easier after the landslide victory.” The next day will be tough for Greeks and Tsipras. Many questions are now being asked in Greece: who will compose the new government? how will Tsipras be able to renegotiate the terms of the bailout? how will Syriza be able to govern?

The Real Impacts of the Austerity Measures

The case of Greece within the Eurozone diverge from other Eurozone members like Italy, Spain, Portugal or even Ireland. When Greece was on the verge of defaulting in 2008, the main reason was that the political class had cooked the numbers for quite some time. Greece had been for decades under a corrupted political class. Syriza rise to power put an end to the perpetual control of Greek politics by either the Papandreou or the Karamanlis family and their connection to powerful oligarchs. If one recall, it took a long time for the other Eurozone members to decide on saving Greece and then how to implement a plan in order to save Greece and keep it inside the Eurozone. In some way, the members wanted to give a lesson to Greece. It has been now more than five years since the first bailout package was delivered to Greece. The first package included “€110 billion ($150 billion) and was first agreed upon by the euro-zone member states and the IMF in 2010.”

In counterpart to receiving bailout money from the Troika, Greece has had to implement serious structural reform in order to reform the labor market and in liberalizing areas of the product markets. Aside from the reforms, the Greek government had to cut pensions, lay out large amount of public servants, and so forth. Certainly Greece lied and did not follow the guidelines established in the Eurozone once it adopted the Euro in 2001. But the costs of the austerity measures on Greece and the greek society have been terrible. How do the austerity measures translate into daily life? For most of Western citizens, these are two words reflecting government spending cuts in most social policies. Well, for Greece and Greek citizens, austerity measures look like this:

  • on public health
    • left over a million without healthcare (for a country counting 11 million citizens, so 1/10);
    • country’s health budget was slashed by almost 40%;
    • rising infant mortality rates by 43% from 2008 to 2010;
    • soaring levels of HIV infection among drug users;
    • the return of malaria;
    • and a spike in the suicide count;
    • decline of birth rate by 15% (a drop from 118,302 in 2008 to 100,980 in 2012);
  • on the economic life
    • decline of GDP per capita from roughly $30,000 in 2008 to $21,000 in 2014;
    • 1/5 of the country lives under poverty lines;
    • rising unemployment levels at 25.8% in Greece compared to 23.7% in Spain, 13.4% in Italy, 13.1% in Portugal and 10.4% in France;
    • highest youth unemployment rate in Europe with 61.5% in 2013 (see chart below);

chartoftheday_1524_Youth_Unemployment_Still_Unrelenting_in_Europe_b

  • on social life
    • cuts on public education and especially higher education;
    • over 200,000 Greek citizens have left the country since 2009, and a majority of them are going to either Germany or the United Kingdom;
    • a ‘brain drain’ is occurring, which will affect the transition of the country in the decades to come.

In some part of the country, Médecins du monde, an international non-governmental organization, is now providing healthcare. On its website Médecins du monde writes that “the measures destined to save the financial system do not take into consideration the human consequences.” In some ways, considering the numbers above, it is not difficult to understand why Greek citizens picked the Syriza route over the traditional center right/left.

Syriza: A European Experiment?

Will the elections of a radical left party save Greece? Not really. Syriza is far from being a silver bullet. However, it could offer some serious leverage in order to loosen the weight of the austerity measures, re-negotiate the terms of the bailout, and find a long-term plan for Greece. Additionally, Syriza has become for many a political experiment in a Europe in search of a new political and economic life. Syriza does not appear to be a red revolution, but rather a road for more human transition.

Dying in Greece because of poverty is a reality, and is unacceptable on one of the richest continents. Greece is a core EU Member State, it is a Member of the Eurozone. The European Union is a political and social endeavor between a group of states committed to such goal. The force of the austerity measures and the requirements on Greece in order to save the Union back in 2008 may have been a necessity at first considering the degree of interconnection between all world banks. However, the continuity of their effects on Greece should have long been renegotiated. The EU has become a multi-speed Union, composed of a Northern Group and Southern Group (rich and poor) on many important issues: in defense with the CSDP; in democratic and judiciary terms – see at Romania, Bulgaria and Czech Republic -; in economic policies – look at Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy -.

The ECB announced last week the beginning of a massive Quantitative Easing (QE), a program open-ended by nature – at least until the inflation rate of 2% is attained – of a value of €60 billion a month. However, the European QE won’t be enough until the European economic engines are not reformed and become more competitive. In parallel, the European Commission has announced the launch in 2015 of its Juncker Plan, a €315bn investment fund program intended to kick-start the European economy/ies. Both plans, QE and the Juncker Plan, will be necessary, but Member States ought to address their economic, industrial and financial models at home and harmonize them with European regulations and commitments that they agreed to.

Syriza won’t solve Greece’s problems, but it will once and for all bring important issues on the European table. The 2008 financial crisis has had devastating effects on most European citizens. The European welfare states are under-attack; unemployment levels among European youth is too high for any viable future of the EU-28 and the Union; and the rise of political extremes – right and left – endangered democratic foundations. Syriza’s message embodies all these elements. Money won’t solve it all, but politics will. As underscored by Christian Odendahl and Simon Tilford of the Center for European Reform, the three areas of negotiations will be required in Greece: debt relief, austerity, and structural reform. Both side, Greece, and the international institutions and EU Member States, will be bargaining for their side during tense period of negotiations. Both have some nuclear options, as highlighted by Odendahl and Tilford, “the withdrawal of liquidity for Greek banks, which the ECB has said it is considering; and the unilateral default on official loans by Greece.” The bottom is line is keeping Greece in, while loosening government maneuvers.

These elections are for the first time since the 2008 financial crisis illustrating a real popular call for ending austerity measures through neo-keynesian policies (read here a good analysis on the issue), and not anti-globalization and mercantilist policies advocated by extreme-right parties. As Tsipras told Greek citizens a week ago, “Our victory is also a victory of all the people of Europe struggling against austerity, which is destroying our common European future.” Europe will be watching carefully the way Tsipras implements its reforms, while keeping Greece in the Eurozone, keeping the flow of foreign aids, getting private investments, and rebuilding the public sectors to acceptable standards. “Populist parties across Europe” writes Judy Dempsey “are cock-a-hoop over Tsipras’s victory, seeing it as an inspiration for their own political ambitions.” But a failure by Tsipras will be the nail in the coffin for radical lefts and socialist parties around Europe; while a mild- or full- success could change the economic, social, fiscal and monetary debates in the decades to come. Greece is hoping; Europe is monitoring; the World is watching.

(Copyright 2015 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).