France under President Jacques Chirac is quickly becoming united Europe's biggest nightmare. It is bad enough Chirac is splitting Europe with the promotion of his so-called "multi-polar" foreign policy. Now France's blatant flaunting of the EU's Stability Pact, which caps deficit spending at 3 percent of GDP, is speeding Europe to an important crossroads that threatens to undermine both European monetary union and the euro itself.
The EU's smaller countries, in particular, are furious with France over its stubborn refusal to play by the EU's deficit-spending rules. They see French defiance as more than just a narrow issue over fiscal numbers.
"It concerns whether the big countries are willing to sacrifice any measure of national sovereignty for the European good," said one influential ECB official. "The Germans at least are trying to rein in their deficits," the official went on. "But the French simply do not care."
The act precipitating the current crisis is France's decision to go ahead with the cut in the personal income tax Chirac promised during his election campaign of last year. The tax cut will put France's fiscal deficit over the 3 percent limit for three years in a row -- at an estimated 4.5 percent of GDP for next year -- because it will not be financed by offsetting cuts in public expenditure.
Of course, some believe an income-tax cut is precisely what the French economy needs. Perhaps. But as attractive as an income-tax cut may look on narrow nationalistic grounds, there is more than just the French national interest to be considered. For if France can get away with its flagrant violation of the Stability Pact rules, others will follow the French lead.
An orgy of deficit spending throughout the euro-zone economy is certain to result, as welfare state pressure groups in individual member states attempt to make up for prior restraint. This will cause many to have second thoughts about European monetary union. After all, who wants a monetary union that bloats the welfare state and is an engine for inflation?
Moreover, once the constraints on deficit spending are off, a major incentive for badly needed structural reform in Europe will be removed. Europe's politicians will be tempted to simply jack up the fiscal deficit to boost domestic incomes rather than undergo politically painful but necessary rationalization. Structural stagflation -- high inflation and low economic growth -- will result.
The EU Commission must act now or face a possible revolt from the smaller countries. Sweden's rejection of the euro already has sounded the alarm.
Hitting the French with a hefty fine -- the penalty provided by the Stability Pact -- is not a good idea. Under its current rules, three big countries (France, Germany, and Italy) could -- and probably would -- block the sanction. Even if the penalty were imposed, the French would not pay.
France's occupation of the Netherlands during the so-called French Period at the turn of the 19th century suggests a better alternative. France then imposed a penalty tax on the province of Zeeland for running a sizeable fiscal deficit. When the Zeelanders refused to pay, the French responded by centralizing what had been until that point a rather de-centralized Dutch fiscal system.
What worked then may work now. Centralization of the public finances of member states, though a radical step, may be the only answer to the problem of recalcitrant countries like France that refuse to play by the budget rules.
The issue of how much of a double standard the EU's smaller countries are willing to accept has been brought to a head by Chirac's blatant flaunting of the Stability Pact rules. By rejecting the euro, Sweden, itself a small country, made it clear that it didn't want to be part of a Europe that discriminated against small countries. What will it take, one wonders, before others among the smaller member countries follow suit?
Melvyn Krauss is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with