Connect with us

Europe

To a new European future

Veni Mouzakiari

Published

on

Globalization as an economic situation worked well in blooming and expanding the trade. Commercial activity featured almost all of the global economic activity, associated countries and political systems, offered shared ideas, images and social habits on people and communities. Globalization based on total capitalist economic models and on cyclical interpretations of economic activity.

There were financial systems in certain countries, which operated with a sense of the need for fiscal discipline, but there were systems, whose culture does not link to timeless economic adherence.

What caused the financial crisis?

In an environment of intense need for profit, intense competition and tight interdependence, the idea of the crisis is a mistake, which practically does not need to be done.

Usually the crises caused by random events, which are critical points when collecting a wide range of economic activity and a high amount of concerns.

Forexamplethe crisis ofLehman Brothers was an economic event of high importance and scalable risk, just because Lehman had created tight interdependence and gathered the global economic interest.

The extroversion of Lehman meant that its international “partners” had absorbed a certain degree of “contamination”, which essentially meant credit for nothing. This appropriation is directly translated into a sequential credit for nothing.

I thus place, here, a starting point of the new political and economic developments on a global scale.

Indebted economies have been since 2008 the global benchmark. The international agenda was economy and external tensions in the Middle East and North Africa. After the US, Europe wondered to what extent has been affected and how intense is the economic problem which is about to be faced. And so begins the intensification of a debate within EU, which has always existed, but from that moment, it became a priority.

While, by that time, the leading European debate included the need of social and territorial cohesion, the politicization through a Constitution, from now on everyone will talk about the economy, the construction of economy, about shielding the economy. The story is known through the examples of the difficulties that Ireland, Portugal and Greece faced after 2010.

The intense political problem concerns the way in which the global political system might have ruled until now.

Some countries have banking problems, other countries have debt crisis problems. All entered the microscope and all the institutional weapons of global governance were used in order to find solutions and to normalize the global economic problems. However, despite the overall picture, each country represents a discrete system, with specific policy needs.

Different efforts have been used by the leardership to address the economic problems in the US and a different approach was attempted in the eurozone.

The US economy cannot be compared to the Portuguese economy or the economy of Greece. The main global competitors are the US economy and the euro area economy. There is a tight antagonism, there is an economic, competitive environment.

The purpose of the eurozone is to resolve and enforce compliance of fiscal aggregates in each member country in order a total additive sum of the eurozone to be equally strong to that of US or China, for example.

Simply, Europe had to fix its members.

The crisis in an EU member state is a small point, but crucial enough to the EU’s overall economic policy.

The decision for the accession of an EU national economy in the eurozone over time was a conscious national decision, as determined by the financial assurance, which have been given by a major player such as Europe. However, nothing is simple when convergence in fixed data is required of more than one player.

The inability to establish a common constitution was indicative of the reluctance to the EU political integration, member states gave expressed.

Possibly the responsibility lies with the policies of the member states in relation to the low degree of their assimilation to a common European idea. As general as this sounds, when people are called to leave an earlier, good or bad attitude and to follow by faith and good will the new rules, sometimes strict enough, the formation of a new ideological framework and the integration of people in this frame are required.

Many people in Europe did not recognize the institutional force of the EU policy as this has being drawed by the Commission and Parliament. They have not understood that the directives and regulations are laws, the violation of which involves legal punishment.

Nothing managed to beat the national policies of member states in Europe from 1950 onwards. And today in the attempt of an economic rationalization, the main political derivatives are populism, extremism and electoral ruin many of the European parties at national level.

Of course this is a general discussion on the party dealignment. However the rise of populism and extremism are not answered by the generalized trend of the lack of political confidence. When the personal, social and economic gains are lost, the political behavior changes determination. And here, it is the crucial political point.

There is two-way political responsibility. Through crises, solutions are promoted. Economic prosperity is the solution for straight deal of populism. It is required a brave position of all member states, which want to be in the eurozone, on the need for a Europe.

How can this be when only the image of Europe is facing a terrible crisis? There is no such a thing as new image to be fixed. It is required a European reason, consistency and tolerance.

It is required, even after so many decades the development of a European standard. Unfortunately, all this cannot be done without the political will for a Constitution, which will unite and promote European ties.

Phd Candidate at the department of International and European Studies, University of Macedonia. Political consultant

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

The story of Elysees Palace and nuclear deal with Iran

Published

on

The paradoxical Macron game against a nuclear deal with Iran has reduced the credibility of Paris and its role in the international system.

Today, few speak of France as an independent player in the world, since after the end of the presidency, Jacques Chirac, all three current French presidents have become one of the White House actors in Europe. Emanuel Macron, the young and new president of France, also goes on to lead his ancestors. He was the main European politician who agreed to “change the nuclear deal with Iran” at the request of Trump. Macron, Trump and Netanyahu (prime minister of the occupying regime of Jerusalem) promised to meet all their demands for a nuclear deal. Undoubtedly, this French attitude was contrary to their obligations in the international system.

It was for the first time that the French President Emanuel Macron insisted that the nuclear deal could be amended in some parts, including Iran’s missile power and the introduction of new time limits (after 2025). During the meeting between Macron and Trump in New York (2017) and on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, France’s opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran became more and more evident. In the joint project conducted by the White House and the Elysee Palace, the French are tasked with focusing on Iran’s missile power, providing the ground for simultaneous restriction of Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. In other words, Paris’ main goal here was to link Iran’s missile program to the JCPOA and turn the existing equation into a two-variable equation. In their latest position against Iran, the French have accused our country of violating United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. The French authorities have also explicitly stated that the use of ballistic missiles by the Islamic Republic of Iran is unacceptable and that it should be negotiated with Tehran.

Today, after the departure of the United States of America from a nuclear deal with Iran, Macron continues to play its paradoxical game with Iran. He argued last week that a more complete agreement with Iran (including missile and regional concerns) would be inevitable. However, the French President during a meeting with the Russian president has emphasized the adherence to the current nuclear deal!

At a recent meeting between the Russian and French presidents, Putin stated:

“We can not make preserving the Iranian nuclear deal dependent on these three parameters because if we do, it means that we too are withdrawing from the accord because the deal that exists foresees no additional conditions.”

As Reuters reported, a Macron adviser hailed Putin’s comments as a “key” point of convergence between Paris and Moscow as the Trump administration urges its European allies to sever economic ties with Iran.

After talks that ran long over schedule, Macron and Trump entered the news conference looking relaxed and smiling. Macron acknowledged Paris and Moscow disagreed on a range of issues but called for “strong multilateralism”.

Another point is that in this equation, the main difference between the French and the American officials is the “tactic” employed by the White House and the Elysee Palace. Since the presidential campaigns of 2016, the JCPOA was called “the worst deal ever” by Trump and called for “changing” it or “withdraw” from it. However, the French have chosen the policy of “playing with ambiguous words”. The vocabulary used by the French authorities is wider than Americans in this regard: from “commitment to the JCPOA” to “completing the JCPOA”! Therefore, the French game is more complicated than that of the Americans. Many analysts of international affairs believe that France hasn’t played a transparent game considering the nuclear accord. Sometimes it is said that this lack of transparency is due to the French’s confusion over Iran’s nuclear deal, but by looking at the positions of the American and French officials towards the JCPOA, we can clearly see that they are trying to complete the same puzzle in opposition to Iran.

Ultimately, the actions of French President Emmanuel Macron and other officials of the country, in contrast to the nuclear deal, will never be a reminder of the Iranian nation. Obviously, in the event of a complete cancellation of the nuclear deal, there will be no difference between the presidents of the United States and France.

First published in our partner Mehr News Agency

Continue Reading

Europe

US-EU possible soft tactic to contain Iran

Payman Yazdani

Published

on

The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has created a new rounds of speculations about the three European major players’ (the UK, France and Germany) capabilities and abilities to keep the deal alive without the US.

Following the US President’s unilateral move to withdraw from the Iran’s Nuclear Deal, lots of diplomatic and political efforts have been made both by the European and Iranian officials to keep the internationally achieved deal alive.

Islamic Republic of Iran has announced that it will remain in the JCPOA just if the EU can guarantee Iran’s benefits and interests under the JCPOA in the absence of the US, otherwise Teharn will leave the deal, too.

Despite all measures taken and political promises made by the European sides to keep the JCPOA alive, over the past ten days many big EU firms and international companies have announced their decisions to stop their activities and operations in Iran including Total, Eni, Siemens, Airbus and Maersk.

Just couple of days after the US withdraw from the JCPOA, French gas and oil giant Total has announced that due to return of the US sanctions against Iran it has to pull out of Iranian Southern Pars oil field.

Italian oil giant Eni has also decided to abrogate its agreement with Iran to study oil and gas in Iran.

Maersk as the biggest shipping company in the world has announced that due to its vast activities in the US and to avoid possible US punishments, it will stop its activities in Iran.

Considering the limited capabilities and potentialities of the EU to challenge the US hegemony and also the fact that EU governments cannot force private sectors to work with Iran, it is not realistic to expect the EU to save the JCPOA.

As I mentioned in my previous writing, the possibility of job division between the US and EU to contain Iran should not be ignored.

All facts on the ground imply that all EU measures and promises to keep the JCPOA alive will only result in remaining of some small European companies in Iran. Big companies that can invest and transfer technology to Iran will leave Iran to avoid the US possible punishments. This possible soft and indirect US-EU tactic can help the joint goal of the US and EU to contain Iran.

By this tactic, firstly the EU can buy time and contain Iran so that not to leave the JCPOA. Secondly, the EU will pave the way for selling of its products and services in Iran’s market without investment and transferring technology. Thirdly, Iran’s incomes and revenues will be limited which Americans and the Europeans consider it as a good soft and indirect way to increase pressure on Iran to limit Iran’s regional influence and missile capability.

First published in our partner Mehr News Agency

Continue Reading

Europe

Internally weak EU cannot be strong international player

Payman Yazdani

Published

on

Commenting on the EU capabilities to protect its interests against the US unilateralism, Italian political science professor, Dr. Pastori Gianluca believes that an internally weak EU cannot be a strong international player.

The US president’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite the US key European allies’ opposition has raised so many questions about the global weight of the EU.

Despite many promises from EU key states to keep the JCPOA alive without the US, many believe even if the EU decides to do so the block won’t be able to challenge the US President’s decision due to its internal disunity and limitations. The issue was discussed with political science associated professor of Milan Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Dr. Pastori Gianluca.

How can the EU protect the right of its companies working and investing in Iran? Is it feasible?

European companies have always had good economic relations with Iran and these relations have grown even stronger in the last few years. I do not think that this attitude will really change in the coming months. In the past, the US already adopted secondary sanctions against countries investing in Iran (e.g. with the ‘Iran and Libya Sanctions Act’ in 1996), but their impact on the behaviour of foreign investors was quite limited. At that time, even some US companies managed to bypass the sanctions operating through foreign branches. Moreover, US-EU relations are currently quite tense, also due to the US will to introduce tariffs on European export. For this reasons, I think that, while the European governments will take a low profile in face of new US sanctions, on the political level they will keep on supporting their national presence in Iran.

Despite being an economic superpower, the EU is not able to protect its interest against the US unilateralism in recent year. Why?

The main problem is that the EU still faces difficulties in transforming its economic power into political power. Traditionally, the EU has been quite effective in promoting and protecting the economic interests of its members but has been far less effective in the political filed. There are many reasons to explain this state of things. As an economic community, the EU exists since 1957, when the European Economic Community was established, while the political union is far more recent. Moreover, the different member states have different visions of the international system and different interests to pursue. Finally, many of them are very jealous of their own sovereignty in international matters and are not ready to submit this kind of matters to a meaningful coordination or – even more — to subordinate them to a common foreign and defence policy.

The EU officials have talked about independent EU over the recent years. Considering the existing facts and EU potentialities, how feasible is it? What are the obstacles to this end?

The EU is currently facing one of the most difficult phases in its history. Anti-European parties are gaining strength in several member states, while the results of the referendum held in 2016 on the exit of the UK from the Union (‘Brexit’) have shown that integration is a reversible process. In the long term, this is the main problem that the EU has to face to affirm its international role. An internally weak EU cannot be a strong international player. At the same time, the development of a strong international profile can help to re-launch the European project, showing to the member states that the EU can be helpful even in the political field. Worth noting, since 2017, several countries are striving to implement a more effective common security and defence policy, largely due to Donald Trump’s proclaimed will to reduce the US engagement in Europe.

First published in our partner Mehr News Agency

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy